national guidelines for managing the effects of radio frequency transmitters

Radio mast cover.art 13/12/00 11:07 am Page 2

Composite

C M Y CM MY CY CMY K

National guidelines for

managing the effects of

radiofrequency transmitters

Cell Site cover.art 15/12/00 10:28 AM Page 3

Composite

C M Y CM MY CY CMY K

AuthorsMinistry for the Environment, in partnership with the Ministry of Health

Published byThe Ministry for the EnvironmentPO Box 10-362Wellington

December 2000

ME number 377

ISBN 0-478-24009-0

N A T I O N A L G U I D E L I N E S F O R

M A N A G I N G T H E E F F E C T S O F

R A D I O F R E Q U E N C Y T R A N S M I T T E R S

In March 1998 the Government directed theMinistry for the Environment, in partnershipwith the Ministry of Health, to consult withinterested groups and draft national guidelineson managing the health effects ofradiofrequency transmission facilities.

Since the Government’s direction for nationalguidelines, the Environment Court has issuedits ruling on the Shirley Primary School vTelecom Mobile Communications Ltd [1999]NZRMA 66. This decision provides guidanceon many of the contentious issues associatedwith the debate on the siting of radiofrequencytransmission facilities. The Environment andHealth Ministries consider that there is stillvalue in providing national guidance onmanaging the health effects of radiofrequencyfields, in order to:

• increase public understanding of howradiofrequency transmission facilitiesoperate and how international exposurestandards are developed

• provide the Ministry of Health’s adviceon health effects

• encourage a consistent approach byterritorial authorities in managing theeffects of radiofrequency transmissionfacilities

• encourage industry to reduce communityconcern through non-regulatoryapproaches

• ensure people are aware of theimplications of the Environment Courtdecision.

The first part of the guidelines providesinformation on radiofrequency technologyand how scientists determine whether thereare adverse health effects associated withradiofrequency transmitters. During initialconsultation it became apparent that a lackof understanding of these issues is contributingto the public’s concern about where thesefacilities are sited. The information is providedto enable people to consider the issues in aninformed way.

This is followed by advice on health effectsand appropriate exposure levels. The Ministryof Health recommends strict application of theexposure guidelines published in 1998 by theInternational Commission on Non-IonizingRadiation Protection (ICNIRP) which havebeen incorporated in the 1999 New Zealandradiofrequency fields exposure StandardNZS2772.1: 1999. The Ministry of Healthconsiders there are no established adverseeffects from exposures to radiofrequency fieldswhich comply with the ICNIRP guidelinesand the New Zealand Standard.

Even if future research does eventually showthat health effects exist, the risk fromexposures to radiofrequency fields is likely tocontinue to be very small or negligible. Inview of the fact that our understanding of howradiofrequency fields interact with the body isincomplete, and the impossibility of provingany agent completely safe, where possible,low- or no-cost measures should be applied inorder to avoid or reduce exposures. However,this should not be done by arbitrarily imposingexposure limits lower than thoserecommended by the New Zealand Standard.

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

Such measures could include minimisingtransmitter power to that required to achievecoverage objectives, choosing or designingantennas which minimise emissions indirections not required for coverage, and (ifalternative sites are available or if there aredifferent options for mounting antennas on asingle site) selecting the option that results inthe lowest exposures. This approach isconsistent with the advice recently providedin the UK by an independent expert groupand is recognised as a cautious approach bythe World Health Organization.

The middle sections of the guidelines lookat radiofrequency transmissions facilitiesand the Resource Management Act 1991.In summary:

• For radiofrequency fields to be consideredto be a contaminant it would need to bedemonstrated that they change thephysical, chemical and biologicalconditions of air. The air containingradiofrequency fields is indistinguishablefrom the surrounding air and even if therewere some physical change (eg, heating ofthe air), the Ministry for the Environmentconsiders that the changes are sufficientlynegligible in practice to be ignored underthe de minimis principle. The Ministry forthe Environment recommends that theeffects of radiofrequency fields continueto be addressed in district plans only.

• The Environment Court has found thatthere are potential adverse health effectsof low probability from radiofrequencytransmission facilities, but the risk is verysmall (in the nature of, for example, onein a million) and the risk of leukaemia and

other cancers is even smaller. As theRMA is not a no-risk statute, this is anacceptable risk and is not a reason fordeclining a resource consent. The Courthas also found that the New ZealandStandard for radiofrequency should notbe undermined without good reason.

• Advice received by the Ministries sincethat decision, and the findings of reviewspublished subsequently (such as thatundertaken by the UK IndependentExpert Group), do not give grounds tobelieve that the Environment Courtwould now decide otherwise.

• The visual/landscape/amenity effects ofradiofrequency transmission facilities varyaccording to the scale, height and designof the facility and the landscape in whichthey are located. Amenity is an issuewhich varies from community tocommunity, and national guidancehas not therefore been provided.

• The Ministry for the Environmentconsiders that in the absence of newevidence that there is risk fromradiofrequency transmission facilities,the Environment Court would be unlikelyto decline an application on the basis ofpsychological effects such as a fear thatthere is a risk or danger when this is notsupported by the facts. The Ministryrecognises, however, that people’sconcerns do need to be heard andaddressed and recommends consultationwith communities.

The final sections of the guidelines providespecific guidance to the three key partiesinvolved in the issue: territorial authorities,the telecommunications industry, and thecommunity.

Territorial authoritiesIn district plans, it is recommended thatactivities which transmit radiofrequencybe provided for as a permitted activity if theycomply with the maximum exposure levelsfor the general public in NZS 2772.1:1999Radiofrequency fields. To allow for manufac-turing tolerances and uncertainties incalculating exposures, different conditionsare recommended for sites for whichradiofrequency exposures are estimated to bebelow 25 percent of the limit and those whichcomply but exceed 25 percent. This approachenables local authorities to require operatorsto provide independent confirmation of actualexposures to radiofrequency fields when initialmodelling predicts that they will exceed 25percent of the limit. In both instances, tocomply with the rule applicants would berequired to advise the council of the locationof sites. Individual facilities will still need tocomply with the bulk and location and anyother requirements of the district plan.

Telecommunications industryTo reduce community concerns about siting,it is recommended that industry applicants:

• recognise that there is value incommunicating with concerned residents

• recognise that particular skills arenecessary for communicating withconcerned people effectively

• address community concerns where thisinvolves no- or low-cost action.

While the Ministry for the Environment andthe Ministry of Health agree that it is essentialto ensure the credibility of the ICNIRPguidelines and assure people that there will beno health effects if they are complied with,they see no reason why industry could notprovide people with additional assurances bypublicising any commitment to best engineeringpractice. In this way, industry can demonstrateto people that it is actually in the industry’sown interests to minimise exposures.

CommunitiesAdvice is provided to communities on theimplications of recent Environment court caselaw, specifically, the Shirley case, which foundthat a very low probability of potential adversehealth effect was not sufficient for denying aresource consent for siting a mobile basestation transmitter. This case acts as aprecedent and further appeals on healthissues are unlikely to be successful.

The Ministry for the Environment and theMinistry of Health recognise that communityeducation on radiofrequency requires a part-nership between industry, central and localgovernment. In addition to the productionof these guidelines, the two Ministries support:

• the telecommunications industry/community group suggestion that anationwide monitoring programme ofrandomly selected sites be initiated toprovide the public with more informationand an assurance that these facilitiesoperate within international standards

• an extension to the scope of theinteragency committee on extremely lowfrequency fields. This committee wouldprovide an overview of internationalresearch relating to radiofrequency fields.The committee would report to chiefexecutives of the relevant governmentagencies, and their findings would bepublicly released.

Executive summary ................................................................................................................ 2

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 8

1.1 Purpose of these guidelines ..................................................................................................................... 8

1.2 Scope of these guidelines ........................................................................................................................ 8

2 Radiofrequency fields and technology ......................................................................... 10

2.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................ 10

2.2 Radiofrequency fields ............................................................................................................................ 10

2.3 Exposures from radiofrequency transmission facilities ........................................................................ 11

2.3.1 Factors affecting exposures ......................................................................................................... 11

2.3.2 Measuring exposure to radiofrequency fields ............................................................................ 11

2.3.3 Measuring absorption of radiofrequency fields ......................................................................... 12

2.3.4 Exposures from radio transmitters ............................................................................................. 12

2.3.5 Exposures from mobile phone base transmitters ....................................................................... 12

3 Health effects and exposure standards ........................................................................ 16

3.1 Understanding the science ................................................................................................................... 16

3.2 Laboratory studies (experiments) ......................................................................................................... 17

3.2.1 In vitro studies ............................................................................................................................ 17

3.2.2 In vivo studies ............................................................................................................................. 17

3.2.3 Replicability ................................................................................................................................ 18

3.3 Epidemiological studies (observations) ................................................................................................ 18

3.3.1 Exposures .................................................................................................................................... 18

3.3.2 Confounding ............................................................................................................................... 19

3.3.3 Bias .............................................................................................................................................. 19

3.3.4 Multiple comparisons ................................................................................................................. 19

3.3.5 Consistency of results ................................................................................................................. 20

3.3.6 Other considerations .................................................................................................................. 20

3.4 Integrating the data .............................................................................................................................. 21

3.5 Effects on health ................................................................................................................................... 21

3.6 Exposure standards ................................................................................................................................ 22

4 Policy on exposures to radiofrequency fields .............................................................. 25

4.1 The New Zealand Standard .................................................................................................................. 26

4.2 Other measures ...................................................................................................................................... 28

4.3 Continuing review of the research ....................................................................................................... 29

C O N T E N T S

5 Guidance on environmental effects ............................................................................. 30

5.1 Health effects ........................................................................................................................................ 30

5.2 Psychological effects ............................................................................................................................. 30

5.3 Visual/ landscape/ amenity effects ....................................................................................................... 31

5.4 Effects on property values ..................................................................................................................... 32

5.5 Financial viability and availability of alternative sites ....................................................................... 32

5.6 Cultural effects ...................................................................................................................................... 33

5.7 Positive effects ....................................................................................................................................... 34

5.8 Are radiofrequency fields a contaminant? ........................................................................................... 34

6 Guidance for territorial authorities .............................................................................. 36

6.1 District plan provisions ......................................................................................................................... 36

6.1.1 Definitions .................................................................................................................................. 36

6.1.2 Issues, objectives and policies .................................................................................................... 36

6.1.3 Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 38

6.1.4 Rules for radiofrequency transmission ....................................................................................... 39

6.1.5 Information ................................................................................................................................. 42

6.1.6 Advocacy .................................................................................................................................... 42

6.1.7 Cultural effects ........................................................................................................................... 42

6.1.8 Visual amenity effects ................................................................................................................ 43

6.2 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................................ 43

6.3 Good practice for designations ............................................................................................................. 44

6.3.1 Roll-over designations ................................................................................................................ 44

6.3.2 Outline plans .............................................................................................................................. 45

6.4 Operative or proposed plans ................................................................................................................. 46

7 Guidance for the telecommunications industry .......................................................... 47

7.1 Working with territorial authorities .................................................................................................... 47

7.2 Working with the community .............................................................................................................. 47

8 Guidance for the community ........................................................................................ 50

9 Glossary .......................................................................................................................... 53

10 References ...................................................................................................................... 56

Appendix A: Power lines. Differences between fields from power lines

and radio transmitters ................................................................................... 57

Appendix B: Health effects: areas of disagreement ........................................................... 59

B.1 Interpretation of epidemiology ............................................................................................................ 59

B.2 Relation to cancer ................................................................................................................................ 59

B.3 Exposure to amplitude modulated radiofrequency fields .................................................................... 60

B.4 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 60

Appendix C: Health effects: summary of ongoing work ................................................... 61

C.1 WHO international electromagnetic fields project ...........................................................................61

C.2 IARC study on brain tumours in cellphone users .............................................................................. 62

C.3 Australian government research programme ...................................................................................... 62

C.4 Finnish Technology Development Centre programme ..................................................................... 62

C.5 European Community research projects ............................................................................................. 62

Appendix D: IEEE/ANSI, ICNIRP, USSR and New Zealand exposure standards ................ 63

D.1 American standard – ANSI C95.1 ...................................................................................................... 63

D.2 International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) ................................ 64

D.3 USSR standard ..................................................................................................................................... 66

D.4 New Zealand Standard ......................................................................................................................... 67

Appendix E: Health effects: potentially vulnerable populations ....................................... 69

Appendix F: Summary of key Environment Court cases .................................................... 70

F.1 The importance of case law .................................................................................................................. 70

F.2 Introduction to cellsite case law .......................................................................................................... 70

F.3 The leading New Zealand cases ........................................................................................................... 70

F.4 McIntyre and others v Christchurch City Council ............................................................................ 71

F.5 Telecom v Christchurch City Council ................................................................................................ 72

F.6 Shirley Primary School v Telecom Mobile Communications Ltd ..................................................... 72

F.7 The relevance of the New Zealand Standard ...................................................................................... 73

F.8 The precautionary principle or approach ............................................................................................ 74

F.9 Health effects: evidential matters ........................................................................................................ 79

F.10 Other factors in the assessment .......................................................................................................... 84

F.11 Imposing lower conditions: setting a precedent? .............................................................................. 89

Appendix G: Bridging different views of risk and communicating information .............. 91

Appendix H: Further information ....................................................................................... 93

About the Ministry for the Environment ............................................................................ 94

The last ten years have seen rapid growth intechnology using mobile phone and wirelesstechnology. Coupled with changes in theregulatory environment and the growth oftelecommunications globally, the use ofradiofrequency technology is growing rapidly.

The ability to use new technologies is dependenton the ability to build, expand and maintaintransmission networks. While the New Zealandpublic has embraced the services made availableby the new technologies, some communitieshave raised concerns about the effects and safety.In March 1998, in recognition of this concern,Cabinet directed that national guidelineson managing the effects of radiofrequencytransmission facilities be developed inconsultation with interested groups.

1.1 Purpose of these guidelinesThe guidelines presented here offer guidanceto local authorities, the public and applicantson how the effects of radiofrequencytransmission facilities can be appropriatelyaddressed under the Resource ManagementAct 1991 (RMA).

The purpose of the guidelines is to:

• provide public understanding ofradiofrequency technology

• identify actual and potential effects ofradiofrequency fields

• outline how scientific research is used todetermine maximum exposure levels

• identify appropriate resource managementinstruments for providing forradiofrequency transmission facilities

• identify relevant New Zealand case law.

1 I N T R O D U C T I O N

Development of the guidelines has been ajoint Ministry of Health and Ministry for theEnvironment initiative. The process hasincluded extensive consultation withinterested groups, and extensive analysis ofinternational inquiries and research. TheMinistry of Health has provided the guidanceon radiofrequency technology and healtheffects. Guidance on resource managementissues has been provided by the Ministry forthe Environment.

1.2 Scope of these guidelinesThe guidelines address how to manage theeffects of radiofrequency fields. They do notinclude consideration of extremely lowfrequency electric and magnetic fields foundaround power lines and other electricalequipment and wiring. In developing theguidelines it was apparent that there was someconfusion in the general public’s understandingabout the differences between the types offields. An explanation clarifying thedifferences between extremely low frequencyfields and radiofrequency fields is included inAppendix A.

The first two sections of the guidelines outline:

• how radiofrequency technology works

• the factors affecting a person’s exposureto radiofrequency fields

• typical exposure levels associated withvarious types of transmitter

• how scientists evaluate apparentlyconflicting evidence in health effects

• the development of international exposurestandards.

Then the government’s position on healtheffects and international exposure standards isgiven. Advice on other environmental effectsand a detailed summary of recent case law fromthe Environment Court has also been included.

In the final three sections of the guidelines,specific guidance is provided to the three keyparties in the debate:

• The section for territorial authoritiesprovides advice on managing the healtheffects of radiofrequency fields throughdistrict plans. It is intended that this willlead to a consistent approach being takenon health effects.

• The section for the telecommunicationsindustry suggests that non-regulatoryactions are likely to be an important part ofreducing community concern about siting.

• The final section provides advice tocommunities on the implications of recentenvironmental case law and actions whichcould be taken, consistent with thephilosophy of the RMA, to address theirconcerns about radiofrequency fields.

In providing guidance in the final threesections, consideration has been given to theMarch 2000 report of the Scottish Parliamenton the siting of telecommunication facilitiesand the relevant sections of the May 2000 UKIndependent Expert Group report on mobilephones and health that address the siting andlocation of transmission facilities.

Since the 1998 directive for nationalguidelines, the Environment Court has issueda ruling on a radiofrequency mobile phonebase station (cellsite) adjacent to the ShirleyPrimary School in Christchurch. This decision(Shirley Primary School v Telecom MobileCommunications Ltd [1999] NZRMA66)provides guidance on many of the contentiousissues associated with the debate on the sitingof radiofrequency transmission facilities.(A summary of the decision is in Appendix F.)

During consultation it became apparent thatnotwithstanding the decision, there was stilllimited public knowledge and understandingof radiofrequency technology and scientificrisk assessment. There was also concern thatuntil there was clear government advice andinformation on the issue, different localauthorities would continue to manage theperceived health effects differently. Such anapproach, coupled with limited publicknowledge of the resource managementprocesses often inadvertently fuel public fearand distrust of the information provided byapplicants. These guidelines are intendedto address such matters.

FREQ

UEN

CY

(M

Hz)

0

1

10

100

1000

100000

0.01 0.1 1.0 10 1000 100000100 10000

POWER (Watts)

10000

microwave dish

cellphone

vehicle mounted RT

mobile phone base station

FM radio

VHF TV

AM radio

2.1 BackgroundAn increasing amount of moderncommunication uses radio waves, formedfrom radiofrequency electric and magneticfields. This includes AM and FM radio,television, remote-control devices (such asgarage door openers), radio telephones,walkie-talkies, and mobile phones. Unlikefixed wire systems such as conventionalphones, these wireless technologies need nophysical link (eg, a wire or fibre optic cable)between the sending and receiving points.

All these systems need transmitters, fromwhich the radio waves are transmitted to thereceiving equipment. While conventionalradio and TV transmitters are familiar, newertechnology, particularly that needed formobile phones, has given rise to concernin some areas. This section gives a brieftechnical background to radiofrequencytransmission.

Radiofrequency fields are quite different,in their physical nature and in the way theyinteract with the body, from the extremelylow frequency electric and magnetic fieldsfound around power lines and other electricalequipment and wiring. (See Appendix A.Note that these guidelines do not apply toextremely low frequency fields.)

2 R A D I O F R E Q U E N C Y F I E L D S A N D

T E C H N O L O G Y

2.2 Radiofrequency fieldsTransmitters operate at different frequencies,depending on the application. There arenational and international rules and conventionswhich allocate frequencies for different purposes(eg, for TV and radio transmissions, medical andindustrial applications) to ensure that suitablefrequencies are available for each purpose, andthat different users do not interfere with eachother. Figure 1 below, shows the ranges offrequencies and typical transmitter powers usedin different applications. Note that in order topresent the wide range of both frequencies andpowers used, compressed (logarithmic) scaleshave been used.

FM and AM radio and TV transmittersoperate at comparatively high powers (severalkilowatts). Mobile phone base stations(cellsites) and radiotelephones operate atmoderate to low powers. Microwave systemsused for point to point communicationsoperate at low power. As will be discussedlater in this section, the power of a transmitteris only one factor which affects exposures tothe radiofrequency fields it produces.

A transmitter has two main parts: theradiofrequency source itself, which generates theradiofrequency energy to be transmitted, and anantenna from which the radio signals actuallypropagate. (If the antenna is some distance awayfrom the radiofrequency source, the two mayneed to be linked by special cables.)

Simple antennas, such as those used on acordless phone or some mobile radios, transmitfairly equally in all directions. But it is oftenbest to transmit more energy in some directionsthan others. For example, a TV transmittermay use directional antennas. These will aimthe radiofrequency signals towards the TVaudience, rather than wasting signals on areaswhere there are no TVs. The TV station willachieve the same coverage – and use less power– than it would in broadcasting thetransmission equally in all directions.

Figure 1: Frequency and power of different radiofrequency sources

2.3 Exposures from radiofrequencytransmission facilities

2.3.1 Factors affecting exposuresExposure to the radiofrequency fields producedby a source depends on a number of factors.The main ones are outlined below.

Distance: Strength of the fields decreases withincreasing distance from the source, just assounds (also carried by waves) are quieter asyou get farther from the source. Generally,exposures decrease with the inverse square ofthe distance; someone 2 km from a sourcereceives one-quarter the exposure of someoneonly 1 km from the source.

Transmitter power: In any given situation,stronger transmitters produce higherexposures. If transmitter power doubles,exposures around the transmitter also double.

Directionality of antenna: Antennas can bedesigned so that radio signals are directedtowards specific areas. Compared to a non-directional antenna, less signal is wasted (eg,transmitted to locations such as the sky, wherecoverage is not required) and a low powertransmitter can therefore be used. The amountby which the antenna increases the amount ofpower transmitted in a particular direction,compared to the amount which would go inthat direction if a simple antenna were used, isreferred to as the antenna gain.

Height of the antenna above the ground:Increasing the height of an antenna above theground is another means of increasing distancefrom the antenna, and exposures in any givendirection will decrease.

Local terrain: The terrain can cause exposures tovary considerably from what they would be if theground were flat. Many types of transmitter – forexample, for FM radio, TV, mobile phone basestations, microwave communication systems –ideally require a direct line of sight for the signalto be picked up reliably. Trees, buildings orintervening ridgelines markedly reduce exposures.

The technical characteristics (such as thepower and type of antenna) of a transmitterdepend on the type of coverage it is intendedto achieve. For example, a regional TV or FMradio transmitter is designed to transmit totens of kilometres away. Therefore it will besited so that the antennas are sufficiently highabove the ground to have a good line of sightover its broadcast area, and the power andantenna gain are selected so as to provideadequate signal strength over the whole area.Hence such transmitters have their antennasat the top of a high mast or tower, and operateat high power.

Suburban or city mobile phone base stations,on the other hand, generally aim to provideclarity of reception and are normally intended tocover only a small area. Antennas are typicallysituated only 10-20 m above the ground, andoperate at comparatively low power.

2.3.2 Measuring exposure toradiofrequency fields

Exposures to radiofrequency fields are usuallydescribed in terms of power flux density and aremeasured in microwatts per square centimetre(µW/cm2).

Power flux density is related to both theelectric and magnetic field strength, and inmost cases is sufficient to describe exposures toradiofrequency fields. The main exceptionwhich concerns these guidelines is within 100-200 m of AM radio transmitters, where thenormal relationship between power fluxdensity and electric and magnetic fieldstrength does not apply. In such situations,electric and magnetic field strength must beconsidered separately.

2.3.3 Measuring absorption ofradiofrequency fields

Radiofrequency power actually absorbed in thebody is quantified as the specific absorption rate(SAR), measured in watts per kilogram (W/kg).SAR is widely accepted as the fundamentalunit of the “dose” of radiofrequency powerreceived by the body and helps in comparingexposures at different frequencies (or intrying to extrapolate to people the results ofexperiments in which animals are exposedto radiofrequency fields).

In exposure standards, a limit on SAR is oftenspecified as the basic restriction on exposuresto radiofrequency fields. From this, equivalentlimits in terms of the more easily measuredpower flux density (or radiofrequency electricor magnetic field strength) are derived.

The amount of radiofrequency power absorbedin the body depends not only on the powerflux density, but also on the frequency of thesignal. To a radio signal, the body acts like areceiving antenna (albeit a rather poor one).For a given power flux density, the bodyabsorbs more power at frequencies around 100MHz than at higher or lower frequencies.

2.3.4 Exposures from radio transmittersBecause exposures depend on several factors,it is not always obvious what the exposureswill be in any situation. For example, a majorTV or FM radio transmitter is quite powerful,so it might be expected that exposures aroundit would be quite high. But the antennas onsuch transmitters are usually mounted highabove the ground and direct most of the signalaway horizontally, with comparatively littledirected steeply down to the ground aroundthe base of the transmitter. In practice then,exposures are quite low.

In comparison, mobile phones are fairly weaktransmitters, but because they are held right nextto the head, exposures can be relatively high.

Table 1 shows factors affecting exposuresfor different types of transmitter, and typicalexposures that might be expected.

These exposures are what might be expectedoutdoors. Exposures in buildings wouldnormally be much lower, except near windowsfacing the transmitter. For most types oftransmitter, except AM radio, the maximumexposures tend to occur in isolated spots.

There is not yet enough data to say whattypical “ambient” levels in New Zealand are.A 1980 survey of FM radio and VHF TVtransmitters in major US cities found a medianexposure of 0.005 µW/cm2, and 1 percent ofthe population studied (about 400,000 people)was found to be exposed to levels greater than1 µW/cm2. It is expected that New Zealandexposures would be similar to, or somewhat lessthan, these values.

2.3.5 Exposures from mobile phonebase transmitters

As exposures from mobile phone base stationtransmitters have been at the heart of manypeople’s concerns, they are discussed in moredetail here.

Base station antennas normally transmit mostpower horizontally away from the antenna (orjust below the horizontal), with comparativelysmall amounts directed at steep angles towardsthe ground. In Figure 2, the black rectanglerepresents a panel antenna (a type frequentlyused at base stations) mounted on a pole. Therelative exposures in different directions arerepresented by the depth of shading. Thegreatest exposures are directly in front of the

antenna, in the main lobe of the beam. Thereare also two side lobes, one pointing down andone up at the sky. The side lobes result fromthe design features that focus most of thepower into the main lobe. Different antennadesigns may have side lobes of different sizesand shapes.

Figure 3 plots the variation of radiofrequencyexposure with increasing distance from anantenna of the type illustrated above. Thecurve maps the exposure to someone on theground who starts at the base of the antenna’spole and walks away from it.

Table 1: Factors affecting exposures for different types of transmitter, and typical exposures that might be expected

Transmitter type Factors which tend Factors which tend to decrease exposures Typical exposures in public areas ICNIRP/NZSto increase exposures (µW/cm2) exposure limit

FM radio High power Antenna mounted up high (~100 m) towers. Within 500 m of transmitters: 200 µW/cm2

Directional antennas, emissions mostly maximum 1-10horizontal rather than at steep angles towards A few km away: 0.1 – 0.3the ground.Normally in thinly populated areas.

TV High power Antenna mounted up high (~100 m) towers. Within 500 m of transmitters: 200 µW/cm2

Directional antennas, emissions mostly maximum 1-10horizontal rather than at steep angles towards A few km away: 0.1 - 0.3the ground.Normally in thinly populated areas.

AM radio High power Normally in the middle of large open areas. Within 20 m of antenna: 100-1000. 2,200 µW/cm2

Antenna at ground level More than 1 km away: less than 1Cellsite May be within a few m Moderate to low powers. Within 50 m of sites: 450 µW/cm2

of the ground Directional antennas, emissions mostly maximum 1-10, generally less than 2.horizontal rather than at steep angles towards More than 100 m:the ground. less than 1, often less than 0.1Terrain and buildings often block direct line ofsight, and shield signals.

Mobile radio Older equipment uses Moderate to low power. Within 50 m: maximum 1-10 200 µW/cm2

base sites fairly undirectional antennas Tends to be sited on sparsely populated More than 100 m:hilltops, up a mast. less than 1, often less than 0.1

Microwave dishes Low power. Less than 0.05 everywhere, 1,000 µW/cm2

(point to point) Highly directional antennas, transmitting generally less than 0.001focused beam away from the groundor buildings.Antennas mounted on buildings or up towers.

Figure 2: Power transmission from a mobile phone base station antenna

Exposures at the base of the pole are very low.As the person walks further away, theexposure rises, reaching a maximum about 20m from the pole, and then decreases again.This increase in exposure corresponds to thepoint where a side lobe from the antennabeam intersects the ground.

Beyond 30 m, the exposure rises again, reachinga second maximum about 70 m from the pole.Thereafter, the intensity decreases withincreasing distance, approximately followingthe inverse square law mentioned earlier(eg, exposures 200 m from the pole are aquarter of what they are 100 m from the pole).

Tests made under ideal conditions (such asa base station in the middle of a large openfield) show that measured exposures generallyconfirm the predicted values. However, overshort distances (10-20 cm) the measurementsmay vary both above and below thetheoretical values. These variations are due toreflections of the radio signal off the ground,and generally average out over a small area.

Although this example is for a particularantenna type, pole height and transmitterpower, it illustrates the general features ofexposures around such a site.

Exposures in the Wellington suburb ofWadestown, where there are two base stationswithin about 100 m of each other, are mappedin the figure below. It was evident during thissurvey that in places there was an additionalcontribution from the TV and radio trans-mitter on Mt Kaukau.

Between 1996 and 1999, National RadiationLaboratory tested 54 operational mobilephone base station sites. Measurements weremade in places normally accessible to thepublic. The maximum exposures from thesesites, when operating at full power, areplotted in the figure opposite.

Changing technology

Changes anticipated in broadcastingtechnology over the next few years, and theirpossible effects on radiofrequency exposures,will include:

• Increased capacity requirement for existingmobile networks: Mobile phone basestations have limited capacity to handlecalls. When the number of users in a cell(the area covered by a base station(cellsite) exceeds the capacity to handlecalls, the cell must be split into smallermicrocells, each serviced by its own site.Microcells are already operating in somecentral business district areas. Theinfrastructure required is smaller than for

POW

ER F

LUX

DEN

SITY

MIC

RO

WA

TTS

PER

SQ

UA

RE

CEN

TIM

ETR

E (µ

W/c

m2 )

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

3.0

20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 120.0100.0 140.0

DISTANCE FROM POLE (METRES)

2.5

0.0

Figure 3: Exposure received by someone walking away from the base of the pole

Figure 4. Radiofrequency exposures measured in areas around mobile phone basestations in the Wellington suburb of Wadestown. Figures give power fluxdensity in microwatts per square centimetre. (Note that the exposure limitunder NZS2772.1:1999 is 450 µW/cm2.)

µ

a normal base station, and microcellscovering smaller areas normally operateat lower power than the larger sites.However, as the antennas may be closerto the ground than for a normal site(eg, mounted on traffic lights), exposuresto the radiofrequency fields they producemay be comparable. Depending on howthe network has developed, existing sitesmay or may not still be required to provideumbrella coverage over the area served bya number of microsites.

• Advent of PCS (personal communicationsystem) technology: PCS is a developmentof current cellular technology, using higherfrequencies (1800 MHz, rather than900 MHz). It is best suited to areasrequiring a high density of coverage,and in many respects would simplyaugment present mobile phone networks.Some implementations permit additionalfeatures, such as hybrid phones, whichfunction as a cordless phone in the owner’shouse but as a mobile phone elsewhere.

• Satellite technology: Two-waycommunication via satellite is becomingincreasingly common. The land-basedend of the link is a dish antenna, whichmust be aimed carefully at the satellite,and both receives and transmits. Dishantennas are very directional, rather likea searchlight beam, and exposures outsidethe beam are very low. For mostapplications, the beam from the dish mustbe aimed well above the horizontal, andchances of unintentional exposures arelow. These applications are not the sameas one-way services like satellite-based TVtransmitters, whose signals are picked upby dish antennas. Such receivingantennas, like standard TV antennas, areentirely passive devices and do notproduce radiofrequency fields themselves.

• Digital broadcasting: Digital transmissionof some TV channels will start in about2000. A digital channel can achieve thesame coverage as a conventional analoguechannel, but at lower power. Even thoughdigital transmission may lead to anincrease in the total number of TVchannels being transmitted, in the longterm there is likely to be a net decreasein transmitter power. However, as bothanalogue and digital channels will betransmitted during the transition to fulldigital broadcasting, there may be abouta 10 percent increase in total transmitterpower in the medium term.

Despite rapid changes in technology, healthadvice given in these guidelines will remainrelevant. The nature and effects of theradiofrequency fields they are expected toproduce will be the same as those of existingtypes of transmitter.

NU

MB

ER O

F SI

TES

0

5

10

15

20

25

0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 10-12 >148-10 12-14

MAXIMUM POWER FLUX DENSITYMICROWATTS PER SQUARE CENTIMETRE (µW/cm2)

Figure 5: Maximum exposures from mobile phone base sites

3.1 Understanding the scienceConsultation during development of theseguidelines shows that there is limitedunderstanding in the community about howscientists assess whether exposures toradiofrequency fields are likely to causehealth effects or what levels of exposure aregenerally regarded as safe. There was alsoconfusion on how scientific evidence is usedto set acceptable exposure levels whendeveloping public health policy.

This section presents some of the issues thatare taken into account in health effectsassessments and also outlines some of thecomplexities and pitfalls that can arise.Although the focus here is on radiofrequencyfields, these approaches are commonly usedto assess potential health risk.

It is not possible to prove anything absolutelysafe, if “absolutely safe” means “no possibilityof harm to anyone”. No matter how manyscientific studies and observations produceno evidence of health effects associated withan exposure, it will still always be possible toconceive of circumstances where harm mightoccur. For example, this might be because ofunusually high exposures or because of the(theoretical) possibility of the existence ofindividuals who are extraordinarily sensitiveto the exposure.

Much of modern society wants to experiencethe benefits of new technologies, and manyof these entail new exposures for which wecan have no assurance of absolute safety.In the end, society has to decide whetherparticular technologies and their associatedexposures are acceptable. It is not up toscientists alone to make the risk-benefitjudgements. Where scientists can help is insupplying information that can ensure thatsuch judgements are reached with the use ofthe fullest information possible.

3 H E A L T H E F F E C T S A N D E X P O S U R E

S T A N D A R D S

What scientists can offer is evidence of a highlevel of consistency in the results of a widerange of studies of various types showing noevidence of likely health effects. Only rarelydo studies of any one form of exposure produceuniformly reassuring results in a wide range ofdifferent types of test. Often, some tests willshow no evidence of harm, whereas others of adifferent type may suggest that adverse effectsare indeed possible.

It is important that knowledgeable andexperienced people assess all the studies,try to resolve the discrepancies, and – if noresolution of discrepancies can be achieved –use their judgement and experience to decideon how much weight should be given toconflicting results. They should also explainthe reasoning behind their conclusions.

Assessing risks always means assessing ALLthe available evidence, not just the studiesthat appear to show either harmful orbeneficial effects.

All judgements (of risk or otherwise) involvea degree of subjectivity. Experts may reachdifferent conclusions using the same or similardata. While this may look like seriousscientific controversy, the actual disagreementmay be less than it seems. In addition, whenpresented in the media, the differences may beaccentuated, and the public may not get aclear sense of where the consensus scientificopinion lies, or of the nature of the relativestrengths and weaknesses of the datasupporting the different conclusions.

There are three broad categories of scientificstudy which can contribute to resolving thescientific debate over exposure toradiofrequency fields. Two (in vitro and in vivolaboratory studies) are based on experimentalwork and the third (epidemiological study ofhuman beings) is based on systematicobservation of human populations. All threehave value in the assessment of health risk,and all three have their advantages anddisadvantages. Particular advantages anddisadvantages of the three categories of studyare briefly described below.

3.2 Laboratory studies (experiments)

3.2.1 In vitro studiesIn vitro studies (Latin, “in glass”) take placein the laboratory, outside the body of anorganism. Tissue culture studies are anexample. In vitro studies are usually relativelyeasy to carry out and inexpensive. However,they are limited in the range of effects thatthey can demonstrate, and they have theserious disadvantage that they do not take intoaccount the complex and dynamic processesthat occur in complete organisms (including,of course, human beings). Thus, they cannotdemonstrate effects that would occur in wholeorganisms, although they may well suggestwhat effects there might be. Such suggestionsneed to be followed up with studies usingwhole animals or with epidemiological studies.

In vitro studies are probably most useful forsupporting or investigating possiblemechanisms of effects that may be suggestedby in vivo laboratory or epidemiologicalstudies, but in themselves do not providedefinitive evidence of health effects.

3.2.2 In vivo studiesIn vivo (“in a living thing”) studies, alsoconducted in the laboratory, involveexperiments with whole animals, such as ratsor mice. These studies are more complex andexpensive than in vitro studies and their resultsare more appropriate for prediction of effectson humans. Generally, they involve groups ofanimals subjected to different degrees ofexposure to radiofrequency fields, while allother factors are held constant.

A particular advantage of in vivo studies is thatthe degree of radiofrequency field exposure ofthe animals can be controlled and measuredvery precisely. Disadvantages of these studiesare that the animal species (often rats andmice) are frequently different to humans intheir response to exposures. Also, to have apossibility of demonstrating any effects, theexperimental levels of exposure often need tobe much higher than humans would be likelyto be exposed to. This is because the numberof animals that can be included in any onestudy is usually limited to a few hundred.However, millions of humans may be exposed(perhaps at much lower levels). If only a smallpercentage of those millions of humans areactually affected by the exposure, that wouldstill be a large number of people, but this samesmall percentage would be difficult to detectwith any degree of statistical confidence usingonly a few hundred animals. (See also Section3.3.) Thus, to compensate for the relativelysmall number of animals and to increase thechances of detecting any effect, high exposurelevels are used.

Even if effects are detected in such a study,careful consideration must be given to thepossibility that those effects are solely a resultof the high exposures. At the lower exposurelevels to which humans are subject, the body’sprotective mechanisms may prevent any harmfrom occurring. We know, for example, thatall chemicals (including water and oxygen) are

poisonous or otherwise harmful, even fatal,in some circumstances or at some levels ofexposure. However, the levels of thesechemicals to which humans are generallyexposed do not have harmful consequencesfor most people.

A further limitation of in vivo studies is thatthey are rarely useful for investigating thepossibility of interactions (either protective orharmful) between the multiple exposures thathumans are subject to in everyday life.Because of the vast number of differentexposure combination possibilities, it is notfeasible to test all (or even a fraction) of thesein animal studies.

3.2.3 ReplicabilityA key consideration in assessing the resultsof in vitro and in vivo studies is whether theexperimental results are replicable (ie, ableto be repeated), particularly whether theyare replicable in other laboratories by otherinvestigators. Other investigators using exactlythe same material and exactly the samemethods ought to be able to come up withexactly the same results. If they cannot, it islikely that other – unidentified – factors haveaffected the experiment’s results. In that case,the results of the original experiment cannotbe assumed to apply anywhere else.

As with in vitro studies, replicability of in vivoresults is important, including generation ofsimilar results with other animal species andstrains. A result that is obtained for morethan one species and more than one strain of aparticular species is more likely to have widerrelevance, including relevance to humans.

3.3 Epidemiological studies(observations)

These take place outside the laboratory,in the world at large. Occupational andenvironmental epidemiology studies investigatethe relationships between exposures and healthoutcomes in populations of people. They studyhuman health by observing human beings –whereas laboratory studies may involve use ofother animals or of tissues and cells.Epidemiological studies involve levels ofradiofrequency exposures to which humans areactually exposed, and exposure periods whichcan be up to several years.

3.3.1 ExposuresApart from the appropriateness of speciesand radiofrequency exposure levels, thereis another key distinction betweenepidemiological studies of radiofrequencyexposure and laboratory (in vitro or in vivo)studies. Laboratory studies are carried out invery controlled environments, where it ispossible to exactly control the circumstancesof the experiment, including all otherexposures. Usually, only one exposure isallowed to vary at any one time.

On the other hand, environmentalepidemiological studies into health effectsfrom exposures to radiofrequency fields cannotusually control exposures. As well, everyperson is subject to their own individual set ofexposures (physical, chemical, biological andsocial), many of which may not be measurablewith any degree of certainty.

Occupational and environmentalepidemiological studies are observational,because they do not involve control of the realworld circumstances of exposure. Exposurelevels can only be observed and estimated.In an experimental situation, every effort ismade to control and precisely measureexposures but most non-infectious diseases,including cancers, are believed to have morethan just one cause. The risks of many ormost human diseases may be influenced by arange of different exposures or combinationsof such exposures. These exposures, or theircombinations, may be protective or harmful.

3.3.2 ConfoundingIn the real world, exposures are oftenassociated with one another. This leads to theproblem of confounding associated factors withcausal factors. Confounding occurs whenexposures to several factors are associated, andwhen at least some of them are causal factorsfor the disease. Multiple exposures can resultin non-causal exposures appearing to beassociated with the disease, if they arecorrelated with actual causal exposures. Forexample, cigarette smokers have often beenshown to be more likely to be coffee drinkersthan non-smokers. Unless smoking behaviourwere taken into account, coffee drinkingmight appear in epidemiological studies to bea cause of lung cancer and the numerous otherdiseases associated with smoking cigarettes.

For radiofrequency fields, confounding mightarise, for example, if a population around thesite of a radiofrequency transmitter such as atelevision tower were of a different socio-economic group to the comparison population.Since many cancer risks are related to socio-economic factors, then the population aroundthe television tower might appear to have ahigher cancer rate if the socio-economicfactors were not properly taken into accountin the data analysis.

3.3.3 BiasConfounding is one form of bias that mayoccur in an observational study. Many otherforms of bias may occur and can be generallygrouped into categories of selection andinformation biases. Selection bias occurs whenthose people in a study are different to thosenot in a study. For example, if a cluster ofcancers occurs (as will certainly happen fromtime to time, purely by chance) then this candraw attention to itself and create theimpression that “something is happening”,whereas that may not be the case.

The other major form of bias in observationalstudies is information bias. This involvesmisclassification of the degree of exposure ofpeople in the study or misclassification of theirdisease status. Such bias can cause quitemisleading results in epidemiological studies,either by making non-existent effects appearto be happening or by obscuring the presenceof actual effects. All epidemiological studiesneed to be examined for the possibility of biasbefore their results are accepted at face value,and the possibility that bias may exist mustalways be kept in mind.

3.3.4 Multiple comparisonsAnother consideration is whether resultscould be due to chance or random variation inthe population being studied. The effects ofchance are always a possibility when the studypopulation or the number of health events issmall. Statistical tests have been developed toinvestigate the likelihood that chance may bean important factor.

However, when many statistical tests arecarried out, as in the not-uncommon situationwhere a wide range of diseases is beinginvestigated for association with a particularexposure, then it is likely that, just by chance,some of these tests will produce statisticallysignificant results. This is known as theproblem of multiple comparisons. It is also thecase that even highly statistically significantresults may be caused by bias or confounding,and such possibilities need to be thoroughlyinvestigated.

3.3.5 Consistency of resultsBecause unknown biases (particularlyconfounding) may always be affecting theresults of epidemiological studies,epidemiologists have developed a number ofcriteria to assess studies once best efforts havebeen made to minimise the possibility thatchance or bias may influence study results.

One of the most important of these isconsistency of results of differentepidemiological studies carried out withdifferent study populations. Consistency ofepidemiological findings corresponds to thereplication of results of experiments indifferent laboratories. The idea behind theconsistency criterion is that if epidemiologicalstudies are inevitably subject to the possibilityof chance variation and bias, then similarresults obtained by different studies withdifferent populations make such influencesless likely. However, it is still possible for thesame sort of bias to be present in a range ofdifferent studies and consistency of the resultsof several studies does not, of itself, providecomplete assurance that bias is not a factor.

Care must also be exercised in judgingconsistency. For example, it is not enough toconclude that because one form of cancer isincreased in one study and another form ofcancer is increased in another study, that thetwo studies are consistent. All cancer types are

different and will have different causes.Even within one category of cancers, such asleukaemias, there is a lot of variation in types.An increased rate of one type of leukaemiawould not necessarily be consistent with anelevated rate of a different type of leukaemia inanother study. Adult leukaemias may also belikely to have different causes than childhoodleukaemia. In other words, it is not enough toavoid comparing apples and oranges. You mustalso be sure that you are not comparing GrannySmiths with Golden Delicious.

3.3.6 Other considerationsThere are other considerations that need to beat least taken into account when identifyingthe implications of the results of one or moreepidemiology studies:

• Is the time relationship between theexposure and the disease consistent witha possible causal relationship?

• Is there evidence of an exposure-responserelationship between the disease and theexposure, that is does the risk of diseaseincrease with increasing exposure?

• How big is the relative risk – that is, whatis the size of the relationship between theexposure and the disease?

• Is the alleged relationship betweenexposure and the disease biologicallyplausible?

Except for the requirement that a causalexposure must precede appearance of thedisease, none of these is an essentialrequirement for judging that there is a causalassociation.

3.4 Integrating the dataThe overall assessment of likely health riskassociated with an exposure is complex,involving integration and synthesis of allrelevant information into a coherent picture.Overall assessments by different scientists maynot agree completely, or even partially, butdifferences can often be resolved withreasoned discussion. Ultimately, it is thequality of the science which is important,rather than the number of scientistssubscribing to a particular view.

In general, if good epidemiological data exists,it should take precedence over the results oflaboratory studies, particularly if there is aconflict between the two. However, in reachingany judgement about the potential health riskassociated with an exposure, there are a numberof questions that should be asked.

These include:

• Have experimental results been replicatedin different laboratories?

• Are the results of the laboratory andepidemiological studies consistent with eachother? If not, what are possible reasons (eg,differences in dose/exposure, speciesdifferences)? What relative weight shouldbe accorded to the discrepant studies?

• Were the number of subjects (laboratoryanimals or people) in the studiesadequate?

• Could results have arisen by chance, orbecause multiple statistical comparisonswere carried out?

• Are confounding, selection bias orinformation bias possible reasons for theresults of the epidemiology studies?

• Are the results of the epidemiology studiesconsistent?

• Is there evidence that effects are dose/exposure-related?

• Are the time relationships betweenexposure and observed effects consistentwith a likely association?

• Do the results seem biologically plausibleand consistent with the other informationabout the disease?

3.5 Effects on healthThe extensive research literature investigatinghealth effects of radiofrequency fields has beenreviewed many times – for example, by WHO(1993), Woodward et al (1996), ICNIRP(1997, 1998), the British National RadiologicalProtection Board (Saunders et al (1991),Dennis et al (1992), Cridland (1993), Elwood(1999), the Royal Society of Canada (1999),Repacholi (1998), and the UK IndependentExpert Group on Mobile Phones (2000).These reviews have concluded that atfrequencies above about 1 MHz, radiofrequencyenergy is converted to heat inside the body.

In most situations, such as in publiclyaccessible areas around radio transmitters,this heating is negligible compared with heatproduced by the body’s own metabolism,generally less than 0.0005 W/kg comparedwith 1-4 W/kg from metabolism.

At high exposures, where radiofrequency powerabsorbed by the body is similar to or greater thanthat produced by metabolism, the heatingproduces the same symptoms as heat distress, andat very high exposures may eventually damagetissues. At exposures close to the heatingthreshold subtle alterations in the behaviour ofexperimental animals have also been reported.Although such exposure may occur from timeto time in some occupations (for example, wherestaff use powerful radiofrequency generators toweld plastics), it would certainly be unusual andshould normally be prevented by proper healthand safety practices.

These effects are sometimes referred to as“thermal effects”.

At even higher frequencies (above 10 GHz,or 10,000 MHz), exposures to very intenseradiofrequency fields can produce cataractsor skin burns. Such exposures could only beexperienced a few metres directly in front ofpowerful radar sets.

Radiofrequency fields at frequencies belowabout 1 MHz induce electric currents in thebody. At low levels of exposure, these are stillmuch lower than the currents produced by thebody’s own electrical activity (nerve signallingetc), but with higher exposures (such as couldoccur within a few metres of high-power AMtransmitters), these may begin to interferewith nerve activity or cause shocks or burns.

There is a fairly wide consensus that thereis no persuasive evidence of exposures torelatively weak fields causing short or long-term health effects. The 1999 Royal Societyof Canada report, for example, noted severalbiological effects (such as on cell proliferation,calcium efflux and ornithine decarboxylaseactivity) which had been reported at low levelexposures, many of them highly dependent onexposure conditions. However, the reportcommented that “At this time, however,these biological effect are not known to causeadverse health effects in exposed animalsor humans”, and that “Scientific studiesperformed to date suggest that exposure to lowintensity non-thermal radiofrequency fields donot impair the health of humans or animals”.This finding was repeated in the 2000 UKIndependent Expert Group report.

Some scientists disagree with suchconclusions. Areas of disagreement relatedto low levels of exposure and to health effectsother than tissue heating (often called“athermal” or “non-thermal” effects) arediscussed in Appendix B.

A great deal of research has already beencarried out to find out if there are healtheffects caused by low-level exposures.

Nevertheless the Royal Society of Canadareport found that “the existing scientificevidence is incomplete, and inadequate to ruleout the possibility that these non-thermalbiological effects could lead to adverse healtheffects”. Certainly, further work is stillneeded to resolve the areas where there issome disagreement, or areas where the dataavailable is of uncertain significance. Somecurrent and proposed projects are outlinedin Appendix C.

3.6 Exposure standardsThe scientific consensus on the health effectsof radiofrequency fields has been developedover the past thirty years. It is based onreviews of all the relevant research. Suchreviews have also formed the basis fordeveloping exposure standards that will limitexposures to levels which will ensure a safeand healthy living or working environment.

Standards must be based on a review of therelevant research by people who can makea critical assessment of the findings. Theexposure levels which are harmful, or areconsidered likely to be harmful, to humanhealth must be determined. Exposure limitsare set below such levels, and normallyinclude a safety margin. The limits and theirbasis must be clearly set out.

In recent years, several exposure guidelines orstandards have been published internationally,including in the USA and New Zealand.USSR regulations were published in 1984 buthave not been reviewed since then. Theprocedures involved in preparing some of thesestandards are set out in Table 2, opposite.

Table 2: Published standards

Organisation IEEE/ANSI* Standards New Zealand ICNIRP** USSR Ministry of Health

Date 1999 1999† 1998 1984Review committee About 120 international Representatives from government 14 scientists from university Prepared by staff of the A N

scientists, membership open departments, researchers, or government institutes Marzeev Research Instituteto any interested party. industry, trade unions. around the world. for General and Communal

Hygiene, Kiev.Basis of findings Review (following stated Published literature reviews Literature review carried out Unpublished, but appears

procedure) by subcommittees (1993 WHO review) plus other by ICNIRP members and to be consideration ofof original research data. material brought by standing committees. research literature, combined

committee members. with technical andeconomic factors.

Opportunity for Meetings open to anyone to Members representing Australian None. None.public input attend and raise matters for and New Zealand public, draft

discussion. Released for sent out for public comment.public comment.

Review processes Review by other professional Reviewed by parent Worldwide peer review. Reviewed by USSR Ministryorganisations Standards committee. of Health.(eg, Bioelectromagnetics Society)and by ANSI Board.

Safety factor*** 50 50 50 Unknown.Requirements Open ballot by subcommittees 67% of the total membership of Unanimous approval. Approval from USSRfor acceptance and main committee, attempts the committee vote in favour, Ministry of Health.

made to reconcile negative ballots and minimum of 80% of votesfollowed by further vote. At least received are in favour (as some75% of members must vote, 75% members may choose not to vote).positive votes requiredfor acceptance.

* IEEE/ANSI: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers/American National Standards Institute

** ICNIRP: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection†

This Standard was originally developed as a joint project between Standards New Zealand and Standards Australia, but was only adopted as a Standard inNew Zealand. A new committee has been formed in Australia to develop a Standard there.

*** Safety factor is the amount that the public exposure limit is set below the exposure levels which are considered to be harmful.

Brief notes on these Standards are givenbelow, and a more complete discussion of thebackground and processes behind them is inAppendix D.

Many of the recent standards, such as thoseformulated by ICNIRP, ANSI and the NewZealand Standard, are based on the mostsensitive adverse effects that can beestablished. The consensus finding is thatthese occur at an SAR, averaged over thebody, of 4 W/kg. At lower frequencies, whereinduction of currents is considered thelimiting effect, the basis is expressed in termsof current density induced in the body.

This does not mean, however, that laboratoryor epidemiological data suggesting thepossibility of effects at lower (so-called“athermal”) levels have been ignored. Thesedata, like all the rest, have been evaluated ontheir merits but not found sufficientlypersuasive or convincing to form the basisfor limiting exposures.

Although there are differences in detail of thelimits set by these bodies, they do have thesame underlying basis. Limits for the publicare set 50 times lower than the level at whichhealth effects may start to occur. All threestandards are revisions of earlier guidance,but there were no significant changes madeduring the revisions.

EXPO

SUR

E LI

MIT

MIC

RO

WA

TTS

PER

SQ

UA

RE

CEN

TIM

ETR

E (µ

W/c

m2 )

1

10

100

1000

100000

1 10 100 1000 10000

FREQUENCY (MHz)

10000

IEEE/ANSI (1999) ICNIRP (1998) USSR (1994)

Uniquely, the New Zealand Standard alsoincludes a requirement, independent ofcompliance with the exposure limits, for:

minimising, as appropriate, radiofrequencyexposure which is unnecessary or incidentalto the achievement of service objectives or processrequirements, provided that that this can bereadily achieved at modest expense

and

[demonstrating] that installations are planned andoperated in accordance with appropriate industrybest practice.

Table 3: Comparison of eastern and western European standard-setting

Characteristic Eastern European Western

Philosophy Start as low as technologically possible Appraisal of the research literature,and may be relaxed on economic grounds with safety factors.or as more knowledge accumulates.

Exposure/ Single exposure quantity Dosimetry and fundamental limitsdosimetric quantity (eg, electric field strength). based on power absorbed in the

body with limits in terms of electricand magnetic field strengths, andpower flux density.

Assessment Any effect assumed to have potential Reported effects assessed in termsof research health consequences. Much research of possible health consequences,

based on pulsed sources (eg, radar). reproducibility of experimentaldata given high consideration.

Figure 6: Exposure limits as a function of frequency

Although some eastern European standardshave set lower limits than those in morerecent standards, the reasons for this, and theircurrent status are not entirely clear. There areseveral major differences between theapproach to standard-setting followed ineastern European countries and in recentstandards and guidelines from “western”and international bodies:

Exposure limits recommended by the fourbodies considered in this section are plotted inFigure 6 as a function of frequency, between1 MHz and 10 GHz. (Note that the limits inthe New Zealand Standard are the same asthose in the ICNIRP 1998 guidelines.)In order to facilitate comparisons, they haveall been expressed in terms of the power fluxdensity, although it should be noted thatdoing this involves making a fewsimplifications on the detail given in theactual standards documents. Nevertheless,they still allow for a fair comparison.

Reviews of the effects of exposures toradiofrequency fields have concluded thatthere are no clearly established, or evenstrongly suspected, health effects occurringat the low levels of exposure which typicallyoccur in publicly accessible areas aroundradiofrequency transmitters. Some researchhas been interpreted by a few scientists assuggesting that prolonged exposure to lowlevels of radiofrequency fields may causehealth problems, notably cancer. However,these results have to be viewed against otherstudies which show no effect at low levels.

The most recent review of the literature forthe purpose of formulating exposure guidelineshas been undertaken by the InternationalCommission on Non-Ionizing RadiationProtection (ICNIRP) (1998). The ICNIRPguidelines are based on the premise that thereare exposure thresholds below which no effectsoccur, and they incorporate for the public asafety factor of 50 below those thresholds.In establishing their guidelines, ICNIRPacknowledge the need to reconcile a numberof differing expert opinions, but consider thattheir guidelines provide an adequate level ofprotection.

ICNIRP is an independent scientificorganisation responsible for providingguidance and advice on the health hazardsof non-ionising radiation, and is a formallyrecognised non-governmental organisation fornon-ionising radiation for the World HealthOrganization (WHO) and the InternationalLabour Office.

4 P O L I C Y O N E X P O S U R E S T O

R A D I O F R E Q U E N C Y F I E L D S

The Ministry of Health considers that theICNIRP exposure guidelines are founded onan up-to-date review of the literature, and thatthey have widespread support amongst theworld’s scientific and health communities.The conclusions of the ICNIRP review areconsistent with those of a review published bythe Royal Society of Canada, and the ICNIRPexposure guidelines are compatible with the1992 IEEE/ANSI Standard, which wasreaffirmed in 1999. Adoption of the ICNIRPguidelines was recommended as a“precautionary measure” by the UKIndependent Expert Group. There are noverified reports of injury or adverse healtheffects to people from exposures which complywith these guidelines.

Although the Ministry recognises that thereis continuing debate about the possibility ofadverse effects arising from exposures whichdo comply with the ICNIRP guidelines, itdoes seem clear at this stage, even if futureresearch does eventually show that healtheffects exist, that the relative risk fromexposures to radiofrequency fields will bevery small or negligible.

EXPO

SUR

EM

ICR

OW

ATT

S PE

R S

QU

AR

E C

ENTI

MET

RE

(µW

/cm

2 )

1

10

100

1000

10000

1 10 100 1000 10000

FREQUENCY (MHz)

ICNIRP (1998)

Maximum close toAM radio transmitter

Maximum close to mobile phonebase station, FM radio, TV andmobile radio transmitters

4.1 The New Zealand StandardThe ICNIRP guidelines have beenincorporated into the 1999 New ZealandStandard. In addition, the Standard includespractical advice on the implementation of theguidelines (for example, in demonstratingcompliance).

Therefore, as the basis for controlling exposuresto radiofrequency fields, the Ministry of Healthrecommends strict application of the exposurelimits in the New Zealand Standard1 . Therecommendation is based on the following:

• The ICNIRP guidelines are based on an up-to-date and comprehensive evaluation ofthe research literature. The literature wasevaluated by an international body whosemembership encompasses a wide range ofexpertise and experience, and which isformally recognised by the WHO. ICNIRPguidance has remained essentially stableover the ten years since their guidelineswere last published. ICNIRP’s conclusionsand guidelines are consistent with thosefrom other experienced review panels.

• Strict application of the limits is relevantbecause exposures in accessible areas veryclose to some medium-frequency AMtransmitters have been demonstrated to beclose to these limits, and strict applicationis important to avoid overexposures.

• The New Zealand Standard incorporatesguidance from the ICNIRP and alsoincludes additional information to assist inimplementing the ICNIRP guidance andin demonstrating compliance.

• The more conservative standards fromeastern Europe were not consideredappropriate because of the length of timesince they were last reviewed, and the lackof a defined rationale. However, theMinistry is watching with interestinitiatives undertaken by the WHOInternational Electromagnetic Fieldsproject to incorporate key Russian andother eastern European research into itsprogramme.

Typical maximum exposures aroundtransmitters (discussed in Section 2) areplotted against the ICNIRP/NZS guidelinesin the figure below. These are maximumexposures: typical levels in most areas neartransmitters, especially close to all but AMtransmitters, are normally at the low end ofthe range indicated or even lower.

Figure 7: Maximum exposures around transmitters

1Strictly speaking, the Standard, and theICNIRP guidelines on which it is based,specifies fundamental limits (referred to as“basic restrictions”) in terms of radiofrequencypower absorbed in the body. At lowerfrequencies, the basic restrictions are given interms of current density induced in the body.Because of the difficulties in assessing absorbedpower and current density, the Standard alsoprovides reference levels in terms of the moreeasily measured electric and magnetic fieldstrengths, power flux density, limb and contactcurrents. Compliance with the reference levelsgives assurance that the basic restrictions arenot exceeded. If exposures are greater than thereference level, this does not necessarily meanthat the basic restriction is exceeded, but a morecareful analysis is required. In manysituations, the reference levels are effectivelythe exposure limits. For further information onthis point, refer to the Standard.

ICNIRP has deliberately avoided includingthe concept of “prudent avoidance” or the“precautionary principle” into its guidance,because it believes that limits should be basedon scientifically established studies.

Nevertheless, in view of the fact that ourunderstanding of how radiofrequency fieldsinteract with the body is incomplete, and theimpossibility of proving any agent absolutelysafe, the Ministry considers that wherepossible, low-cost or no-cost interventionsshould be voluntarily applied in order to avoidor reduce exposures. This should not be doneby arbitrarily imposing exposure limits lowerthan those recommended by ICNIRP. Rather,if there are different options available whendesigning or siting a radio transmitter, thenthose resulting in the lowest incidentalexposures around the site should be chosen,all other things being equal. These measurescould include:

• minimising transmitter power to thatrequired to achieve coverage objectives

• selecting or designing antennas whichminimise emissions in directions notrequired for coverage

• if alternative sites are available (or thereare different options for mountingantennas on a single site), selecting theoption giving the lowest exposures.

The Ministry considers that these voluntary,simple, no-cost or low-cost measures areappropriate for a number of reasons:

1. Some studies have produced findingswhich some scientists have interpreted assuggesting that there are health effects atlevels below those permitted for the publicin ICNIRP guidelines. There is notwidespread acceptance of this viewpointin the scientific community, and althoughsuch studies were included in the ICNIRPreview, ICNIRP concluded that theliterature on athermal effects was “socomplex, the validity of reported effects sopoorly established and the relevance ofthe effects to human health is souncertain, that it is impossible to use thisbody of information as a basis for settinglimits on human exposure to these fields”.Nevertheless, the existence of such reportssuggests that no- or low-cost action isjustified in order to minimise anypotential effects, until a betterunderstanding can be obtained. TheWHO is currently undertaking a wide-ranging research programme in order toprovide more definitive advice on theseareas of uncertainty.

2. Exposures in publicly accessible areassurrounding many radiofrequency facilitiesare so far below the ICNIRP guidelinelimits that those limits are almostirrelevant. However, because of theimpossibility of proving that these lowlevels are absolutely safe, a considerationof alternative solutions is recommended tominimise unnecessary exposures, all otherthings being equal.

3. There is an important distinction betweenthe use of safety factors in derivingexposure limits (as is done by ICNIRP, forexample) and the requirement to avoid orreduce exposures. Safety factors arecommonly used in deriving exposure limitsfor agents which are believed to have anexposure threshold before effects occur.The safety factor is used to compensatefor limitations in scientific methodology.For example, a safety factor will allow forextrapolating from animal data to humans,uncertainties in determining the exactthreshold, assumptions about (say) heatdissipation in the body, the possibility thatsome people may be more sensitive thanothers, and the generally longer periods ofexposure which occur in environmentalcompared with occupational settings.The safety factor chosen depends on thecompleteness of the data available, andvalues between 10 and 1000 are oftenused. ICNIRP has chosen a value of 50for the public.

4. ICNIRP is confident that the exposurelimits they propose provide an adequatelevel of health protection, and theMinistry of Health agrees with this view.However, ICNIRP acknowledges thatknowledge in some areas is incompleteand further work is required to gain a morecomplete understanding. The requirementto minimise exposures should not be seenas undermining the ICNIRP recommen-dations, nor as justification for settinglower numerical limits than thoseproposed by ICNIRP. Rather, it is arecognition of the assumptions inherentin the formal risk assessment undertakenby ICNIRP and the residual uncertaintiesand gaps in the scientific database.

This Ministry of Health notes that a similarapproach was recommended by the UKIndependent Expert group on Mobile Phones.

4.2 Other measuresThe Ministry is aware that many individualsand community groups have serious concernsabout the possible effects of radiofrequencyfacilities in their neighbourhood. Communityperception of risk is not normally based onlyon an assessment of the type described inSection 3 alone, but includes other factors.

Comparisons with common risks, such as roadtraffic crashes, will generally not convince aperson who believes that they – or theirchildren – are at risk from radiofrequencyfields. Involuntary exposures that someconsider may cause a dreaded disease at someunknown future time, in a way that is notunderstood, and with little hope for a cure,may be particularly alarming. Individualsforced to take involuntary risks may beunwilling to agree to “acceptable risk” criteriaset out by national and international agencies.

Such concerns should not be dismissed asunscientific or irrational, but acknowledgedas being relevant to those individuals andcommunities who are likely to be affected byanother party’s activity, over which they haveno control. Risk communication is animportant element of risk management, andshould form an essential part of territorialauthority and industry strategies to addressradiofrequency issues.

Risk communication is a process not only ofinforming the public of risks and how they areto be managed, but also of taking account ofand acting on their concerns (in this case,where low- or no-cost alternatives areavailable), and involving the public in thedecision-making process.

Risk communication should be a two-wayprocess used by decision-makers and the publicaffected. An effective risk-communicationstrategy will assist the community’sunderstanding of the issues, and decision-makers will be in a better position to makean informed decision.

4.3 Continuing reviewof the research

The Ministry recognises that new research isreported regularly, and that officials need tokeep abreast of new developments in order thatits guidance remains current. Ministry officialsalready monitor the research literature andkeep up to date with progress and recommen-dations of the WHO’s International EMFproject. In addition, the Ministry will extendthe scope of an existing interagency committeewhich monitors research on low frequencymagnetic fields to include radiofrequency fields.This committee is made up of representativesfrom relevant government agencies, publichealth, consumers, industry, local governmentand the scientific community. The committeewill report on any international scientific,policy or technical developments relevant toNew Zealand.

This section provides guidance on:

• the relevance of considering psychologicaleffects, property values, reduced financialviability of a school and alternative sites

• the relevance of cultural effects andpositive effects.

It also summarises the key findings of theEnvironment Court on health effects and outlinesthe Ministry for the Environment’s position onwhether or not radiofrequency fields should betreated as a contaminant. Detailed comment onthe case law on these issues and a brief summaryof the cases mentioned are in Appendix F.

5.1 Health effectsHow scientists determine whether or not thereare adverse health effects from radiofrequencyfields was outlined in Section 3. The Ministryof Health’s position on health effects wasoutlined in Section 4. Their guidance and theneed to acknowledge differing perceptions ofrisk is consistent with the recent RoyalSociety of New Zealand report Radiation andthe New Zealand Community and the May 2000Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phonesreport to the British Government.

To date, the Environment Court has ruledthat there are no established adverse healtheffects arising from exposure to radiofrequencyfields that comply with the New Zealandradiofrequency field exposure standard. It hasalso found that there are potential adversehealth effects of low probability, but the risk isvery small (in the nature of, for example, onein a million) and the risk of leukaemia andother cancers is even smaller. As the RMA isnot a no-risk statute, this is considered to bean acceptable risk and is not a reason fordeclining a resource consent. The Court hasalso found that the New Zealand Standard forradiofrequency fields should not beundermined without good reason. A moredetailed summary of the Environment Courtfindings on health effects is in Appendix F.

5 G U I D A N C E O N E N V I R O N M E N T A L

E F F E C T S

5.2 Psychological effectsThe question has been raised as to howmuch consideration should be given to aindividual’s or community’s belief that thereis risk or danger, whether or not this is basedon fact. Fear generally arises when peopleeither have, misinformation, or inadequateinformation on which to make an informeddecision. However, as outlined in Section 4,assessment of scientific risk to health fromradiofrequency has concluded that there areno adverse effects from radiofrequency fieldswhich comply with the ICNIRP guidelinesand the New Zealand Standard.

This approach has been supported by theCourt’s rejection of arguments thatradiofrequency transmission facilities shouldbe declined on the grounds of psychologicalfear. In Shirley, the Environment Court foundthat, to be given any weight as an effect, “fearhad to be reasonably based on real risk”. Inthe Shirley case the Court found that this wasnot the case.

The technology is not new and the Ministryfor the Environment considers that theEnvironment Court would be unlikely todecline an application on the basis ofpsychological effects, in the absence of anynew evidence that there is risk from suchfacilities. Public consultation, sharing ofinformation and the adoption of low or nocost avoidance options is desirable if trust isto be established with communities and thepotential for fears minimised.

5.3 Visual/ landscape/ amenityeffects

Radiofrequency facilities operate bytransmitting radio signals directly to thereceiver by line-of-sight. Consequently,facilities often need to be elevated or inprominent positions, to prevent the signalfrom being blocked by obstructions such asbuildings or trees. Achieving desired coverageaims can however result in adverse visualeffects and effects on amenity values.

Visual, landscape and amenity effects must beconsidered under the RMA. The definition of“environment” in the RMA includes:

(a) Ecosystems and their constituent parts,including people and communities; and

(b) All natural and physical resources; and

(c) Amenity values; and

(d) The social, economic, aesthetic, and culturalconditions which affect the matters stated inparagraphs (a) to (c) of this definition or whichare affected by those matters:

(emphasis added).

“Amenity values” in the RMA are:

“those natural or physical qualities andcharacteristics of an area that contribute topeople’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aestheticcoherence, and cultural and recreational attributes”

Under section 7(c), persons exercising functionsand powers under the RMA are required to haveparticular regard to the maintenance andenhancement of amenity values.

In some cases involving mobile phone basestations, visual and landscape effects may needto be considered under section 6 of the RMA.Under that section, certain matters of nationalimportance must be recognised and providedfor by decision-makers. For example inMason-Riseborough v Matamata-Piako DistrictCouncil A 143/97 it was held that Mt TeAroha was an “outstanding” natural featureand landscape, and to allow a proposal toestablish and operate a cell site on the lowerslope of Mt Te Aroha would compromisesection 6(b) of the RMA.

Apart from noting these provisions of theRMA, national guidance on the issue ofvisual, landscape and amenity effects is notprovided here for two reasons. First, theseguidelines are intended to deal with managingthe effects of radiofrequency fields, not thestructures themselves. It is not appropriateto single out radio transmitter structures fromother infrastructure that may cause similareffects. Second, the assessment of visual,landscape, and amenity effects is bestundertaken on a case by case basis, at the locallevel in the context of the relevant districtplan. That is, visual, landscape, and amenityeffects should be assessed against the relevantobjectives and policies in the district plan.

However one principle that does have generalapplication to considering the visual/landscapeand amenity effects of cell sites, is thatopposition on visual amenity grounds shouldnot be a cloak for opposition on some othergrounds. The Environment Court has made itclear that concerns about the safety of cellsitesare not appropriate considerations whenassessing effects on visual or amenity values.

In Telecom the Court said (page 32):

…it is clear from the evidence in opposition that tosome extent the fears concerning the adverseeffects on the visual amenity are in part actuatedby the perception that the technology which goeswith the structure is in some way damaging to thehealth and general well-being of people living inthe immediate area. We have made our findingsin respect of the health issue and we think it wouldbe quite wrong to allow in by the back door whathas been rejected by the front door. Care needs tobe taken to ensure that opposition on visualamenity grounds is just that, and not a cloak foropposition on some other grounds.

In Shirley this statement was referred to withapproval. The Court said (page 127):

In relation to visual effects, we accept that subjectivevalue judgements about the safety of cellsites have noplace in the assessment of visual amenity.

In summary, radiofrequency transmissionfacilities can have visual/landscape/amenityeffects and these effects must be considered inaccordance with the provisions of the RMA ona case-by-case basis. National guidance has notbeen given as the effect of each structure willvary according to the local amenity/landscapeof the area in which the proposed facility is.

5.4 Effects on property valuesIn practical terms, many of the things thatcontribute to property value (increase ordiminution of it) are considered under theRMA anyway, in the consideration of visual/landscape/amenity values. Effects on privacy,the dominating visual effect of a building, theproximity of other buildings, or change ofcharacter are all considered as adverse effectson the amenity of neighbouring properties.

Recent case law suggests that where there isevidence that property values may be affectedby a proposed structure, the adverse effects onproperty values should not be considered as aseparate adverse effect over and above effectson amenity. To do so would lead to “double-weighting” of the effects on amenity in caseswhere a reduction in property values wassimply consequent on effects on amenityvalues. (See Appendix F.)

5.5 Financial viability andavailability of alternative sites

The Environment Court has not made a firmruling on whether there is any obligation toconsider alternative sites in all cases involvingradiofrequency transmitters. However there isa duty to consider alternatives in the followingsituations:

• where there is a likelihood of significantadverse effects (clause 1(b) FourthSchedule)

• where the selected site effects a matter ofnational importance (as outlined in Part IIof the RMA) or

• where the activity is non-complying andgranting consent for the activity withinthe zone would reduce public confidencein the administration of the district plan.

These guidelines recommend that applicantsbe encouraged to voluntarily avoid or reduceexposures where they can do so for low or nocost. Where alternative sites are available andthe effects of the structures other than fromradiofrequency exposure are the same, theoption that gives the lowest possible exposureshould be selected.

The issue of whether reduced financialviability of a school was an effect whichshould be considered, was looked at in theShirley case. The Court found that it was notan issue the Court should take into account.

The Court considered the school’s sufferingfinancially or shutting down to be a problemof the school’s own making: “If ShirleyPrimary School has generated an atmosphereof fear and distrust amongst parents, teachersand pupils then it might have to live with theconsequences of that.”

5.6 Cultural effectsThe court has considered how to assessMaori values where a site has spiritual/metaphysical value but no actual physicalvalue can be identified.

In TV3 Network Services Ltd v Waikato DistrictCouncil [1996] NZRMA 193 TV3 NetworkServices appealed to the High Court againstthe Environment Court’s decisions to disallowa resource consent for a television translator tobe constructed on a hill known as Horea onthe Raglan Harbour.

In its decision the Environment Court foundthat, damage to land was minimal ( i.e. lessthan farming) and the land was not know tohave any archaeological remains. The site hasbeen occupied by Maori for several generationsand ground disturbance was regarded asdesecration by the tangata whenua.

The High Court disallowed that appeal andfound that although the proposed translatorwould represent a use of resource whichenabled people to watch television, it wouldfail to provide for social and cultural well-being of tangata whenua of the area.

In this case the overall cultural uniqueness ofHorea was held to be significant. The HighCourt held that the impact of the structureextended beyond its physical presence to theeffect of the structure on the site in itscultural context.

The Court has also considered whenconsultation should occur and who shouldundertake it. Mason-Riseborough v Matamata-Piako District Council [1997] A143/97 involvedan appeal against the granting of a resourceconsent to build a mobile phone base stationon the lower slope of Mt Te Aroha, amountain sacred to local tangata whenua.

In this case, the applicant initiated theconsultation at a late stage and Court foundthat the Council had fallen well short of itsobligations to consult. The result was that theCouncil’s decision to approve the applicationwas overturned.

5.7 Positive effectsIt is legitimate to consider positive effectsunder the RMA, since the definition of“effect” includes positive effects, and thepurpose of the RMA includes enabling “peopleand communities to provide for their social,economic and cultural well being and for theirhealth and safety”.

Positive effects were influential in the Telecomcase. In that case, the Court took a “widerperspective” in deciding whether or not theproposal was adverse to the environment.The Court concluded that the adverse effectswould not be more than minor “whenbalanced against the need for technology andthe conditions which are to be imposed” (page36). In Shirley, the Court also considered thebeneficial effects, including improved mobilephone coverage.

The Ministry for the Environment does notfavour a “balancing” approach in determiningthe existence or extent of adverse effects. TheMinistry for the Environment’s view is thatpositive effects cannot be a reason to allowunacceptable environmental damage. What is“acceptable” and whether the requirements insection 5(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the RMA aremet, will be a matter of judgement in eachcase. This is more akin to the approach takenin the Shirley case.

5.8 Are radiofrequency fieldsa contaminant?

The definition of contaminant in the RMAdoes not include specific reference toradiofrequency fields or electromagneticradiation. The argument has been raised,that the definition of contaminant doeshowever, include energy and heat, and thatradio waves carry energy away from thetransmitter.

“Contaminant” is defined in section 2 of theRMA as follows:

includes any substance (including gases, liquids,solids, and micro-organisms) or energy (excludingnoise), or heat, that either by itself or incombination with the same, similar, or othersubstances, energy, or heat -

a) when discharged into water, changes, or islikely to change the physical, chemical, orbiological condition of water; or

b) when discharged onto or into land or into air,changes or is likely to change the physical,chemical, or biological condition of the land orair onto or into which it is discharged.

The Ministry for the Environment considersthe question is essentially one of, doesradiofrequency cause the air to heat and if itdoes, is this distinguishable from the receivingenvironment?

From a purely scientific viewpoint, absorptionof radiofrequency waves will cause heating.However, even beside a high poweredtransmitter it would be extremely difficult tomeasure any increase in air temperatureattributable to the radio waves. The heatwould definitely be less than the warmthemitted from most other forms of operatingmachinery and would be considerably lessthan the infrared heat of the sun beingreradiated off a building roof.

There is limited case law on “contaminant”.

In Te Runanga o Taumarere v Northland RegionalCouncil [1996] NZRMA 77 it was held that thedischarge of treated sewage into the sea was nota contaminant because it was indistinguishablefrom the receiving waters. The then PlanningTribunal said (pages 84-85):

The witness gave the opinion that the effluentwould be indistinguishable from the receivingwaters when considering chemical, physical,biological, nutrients, metals, trace organics, pH,temperature, and pharmaceuticals; that althoughthe virus loading of the receiving waters is notexactly known, …the concentration of viruses inthe discharge would not be distinguishable from theexisting quality of the water of the bay… .

In discussing the potential for viruses from thesewage treatment plant to infect shellfish andoyster farms, the Court said (page 85):

…we find that the potential of that occurring byviruses from the proposed sewage treatment plantis so remote as not to reach the threshold of lowprobability in the meaning of “effect” given in s 3of the Resource Management Act. We find thatthe effluent reaching the waters of Te Uruti Baywould not be a contaminant as defined by s2(1)of the Act, and would not have actual or potentialeffects of a physical kind.

In the case on the burst Opuha Dam,Canterbury Regional Council v Doug Hood CRN7076006424 & 6426, it was held that the lossof approximately 193,000 m3 of dam materialsinto the Opuha River came within thedefinition of contaminant, even though thewaters were already dirty flood waters. TheJudge drew an inference that the loss of dammaterial changed or was likely to change thephysical condition of the water. There wasalso evidence of a distinct change in colour ofthe water. The High Court upheld this caseon appeal (AP 192/98).

These cases demonstrate that forradiofrequency fields to be considered acontaminant under the RMA, it would needto be demonstrated that they change thephysical, chemical and biological conditionsof air. The Ministry of Health advises thatthere would be no discernible change to theair around a radiofrequency transmitter thatwould distinguish whether it was operating ornot. The air containing radiofrequency fieldsis indistinguishable from the surrounding airand even if there is some physical change(eg, heating of the air), the Ministry for theEnvironment considers that the changes aresufficiently negligible in practice to be ignoredunder the de minimis principle.

From current case law, it is apparent that forany such case to be put, there would need tobe persuasive evidence that radiofrequencyfields do change the receiving environment.We have not been persuaded on the scientificevidence that this is the case and consider thatthe de minimis principle would apply. For thisreason, the Ministry for the Environment doesnot consider that radiofrequency fields are acontaminant. If something is a “contaminant”then the discharge would require a resourceconsent unless expressly allowed in a rule in aregional plan (section 15 RMA). “Discharge”is defined widely and includes to “emit,deposit and allow to escape”. Asradiofrequency fields are not a “contaminant”,the Ministry for the Environment considersthat radiofrequency fields do not requireconsideration in regional plans and should beaddressed in district plans only.

This section of the guidelines providesnational guidance to territorial authoritieson managing the effects of radiofrequencytransmission facilities through district planprovisions. Suggestions on how to encourageresource users to take a low or no costapproach to avoiding or reducing emissionsare also provided.

This advice is based on the conclusions on theeffects of radiofrequency transmissions and therelevant case law in Sections 4 and 5.In summary, the conclusions are:

• there are no established health effectsprovided exposures comply with the limitsin NZS 2772.1:1999 RadiofrequencyFields Part 1: Maximum exposure levels 3kHz – 300 GHz, (which incorporate theICNIRP guidelines)

• if future research does eventually showthat health effects exist, the risk fromexposures to radiofrequency fields is likelyto continue to be very small or negligible

• in view of the impossibility of proving anyagent completely safe, low or no costinterventions should be voluntarilyapplied where possible to avoid or reduceexposures

• cultural effects are site specific

• visual amenity is a local, site-specific issue.

6.1 District plan provisionsThe examples given in this section reflect therule format used in some of the current districtplans. The Ministry for the Environmentrecognises that the format and style of districtplans varies and that the information in thissection on issues, objectives, policies andmethods will need to be tailored to thespecific style of each plan.

6 G U I D A N C E F O R T E R R I T O R I A L

A U T H O R I T I E S

6.1.1 DefinitionsIssues related to radiofrequency transmissionfacilities are usually included in a section ofdistrict plans addressing infrastructure ornetwork utilities (various terms are used).Whichever term is used, it needs to becarefully defined in the definitions section ofthe plan to include radiofrequency operationswhich are clearly network utilities but excludecommon residential-based radiofrequencydevices such as baby monitors, radio-controlled toys and electric door openers.

To ensure a clear and simple definition is used,plans often refer to terms defined inlegislation, such as “network utility operator”(defined in section 166 of the RMA), “publicwork” (Public Works Act 1981), “telecom-munication” and “radiocommunication”(Telecommunications Act 1987).

6.1.2 Issues, objectives and policiesThe RMA establishes that issues, objectivesand policies be used in certain ways so thatmanaging the effects of using a resource canbe carried out in accordance with the purposeand principles of the RMA.

6.1.2.1 Issues

Each district plan outlines the resourcemanagement issues in the district. A territorialauthority needs to decide whether or notprovision for the positive or adverse effects ofinfrastructure, including managing the effectsof radiofrequency fields, is an issue for theircommunities. Most operative plans haveincluded an issue which applies to all networkutilities rather than just to radiofrequencyfacilities. The issues generally recognise theimportant role of network utilities in thecommunity and the need to provide for themin a way that does not compromise theenvironmental quality of the area. In someareas, the regional policy statement may alsogive some direction.

Examples of issues in current resourcemanagement documents include:

Regionally significant physical resources includinginfrastructure are essential for the community’s socialand economic well-being. The location,development and redevelopment of infrastructure isof strategic importance in its effects on the form andgrowth of the region. However, the long-termviability of regionally significant infrastructure andphysical resources can be compromised by theadverse effects, including cumulative effects, of otheractivities. These regionally significant resources canequally give rise to adverse effects includingcumulative effects on the environment, and oncommunities. They can be adversely affected byconflicts if sensitive uses are allowed to develop nearthem or if they are inappropriately located.

(Auckland Regional Policy Statement: July 1999)

The environmental effects of utilities, particularlyvisual effects, in sensitive locations within the City.

(Proposed Christchurch City District Plan:June 1995)

The Plan seeks to create a resource managementapproach that maintains a high environmentalquality of the district while providing for thedevelopment, use, maintenance and upgrading ofnetwork utility services to meet the reasonableneeds of the business and residents of the City.The Plan must also address…the need generallyto identify any potential adverse effects of networkutility services on the environment and to ensurethat these effects are avoided, remedied ormitigated where practical.

(Auckland District Plan Isthmus Section: 1999)

Examples of issues which could be used:

Issue: The timely provision of networkutilities to service the current and futureneeds of the community.

Issue: Adverse effects on health and safetyfrom network utilities.

6.1.2.2 Objectives and policies

Objectives and policies help explain thepurpose of any rules and standards. They alsoguide decision-making when there is adeparture from the rules or where a territorialauthority has retained some decision-makingdiscretion. Objectives need to focus onenvironmental outcomes sought while policiesconsider the effects which need to beaddressed in achieving the objective.The environmental outcomes identifiedduring consultation on the guidelines focusedaround health and safety and visual amenity.

Examples of objectives/policies which couldbe used for health and safety:

Objective: To enable people to benefit fromnetwork utilities while providing for theirhealth and safety.

Policy: Exposures from network utilities willbe within the New Zealand Standard at alltimes. Establishment, operation,maintenance and upgrading of networkutilities should not compromise publichealth and safety.

6.1.3 MethodsSection 32 of the RMA requires territorialauthorities to consider a range of alternativemethods before adopting any rule or othermethod. Visual effects will be specific to thetype of facility and its location. As such therange of options is specific to the local area.To provide for community health and safetya range of possible methods and the reasonsfor and against adopting those methods areavailable. These are summarised in Table 4.

Table 4: A range of possible options for addressing community health and safety associated with radiofrequency transmission

Method Description Reasons For Reasons Against

Do nothing A territorial authority does nothing • No cost. • Does not enable the community to be satisfiedto address the health effects relating that they will be able to benefit from networkto radiofrequency facilities. utilities while providing for their health and safety.

District plan rules Rules in a district plan stating that • Certainty for the community thatradiofrequency facilities must comply radiofrequency facilities are operatedwith the New Zealand Standard. within safe levels.

• Public participation in the process of developing a district plan.• A clear and transparent legal process, as established under the RMA.

Bylaw A bylaw requiring that public • No need for a consent application in relation • Less public involvement in adoption of a byexposures from radiofrequency to radiofrequency effects if a facility complies law than in district plan process.facilities do not exceed a certain with the bylaw. • Not a consistent approach – if it is anlevel (eg, Auckland City Council bylaw). environmental effect, it should be addressed

under the RMA.Public education A public education campaign • No compliance costs for industry. • Costs for local authority with no certainty

conducted by the local authority to • A long-term strategy. that the campaign will be effective.inform the public of the facts about • If sole method used, unlikely to be effectiveradiofrequency facilities and the related in the short-term.public health / safety effects. • TAs may not be seen to be a credible source

of advice on health effects.Advocacy This encourages industry to behave • May be less costly for industry than applying • No certainty for the local authority or for

in a certain way through for resource consent. communities that public safety will be protected.non-regulatory means.

The Ministry for the Environment considersthat territorial authorities are justified in usingrules to implement non-regulatory standards(eg, the voluntary New Zealand Standard) asa method for managing the health effects ofradiofrequency transmission facilities. A rulein a plan provides certainty for the communitythat the health and safety aspects ofradiofrequency transmission facilities will beconsidered by the territorial authority. Thisis also a clear and transparent legal process,as established under the RMA and it allows forcommunity participation in decision-makingwhen the adverse effects are more than minor.

The Ministry of Health has advised thatshould future research show that health effectsexist, the risk is likely to continue to be verysmall or negligible. In view of the fact that ourknowledge of how radiofrequency fieldsinteract with the body is incomplete, and theimpossibility of proving anything totally safe,it recommends that local authoritiesencourage resource users to avoid or reduceexposures through low- or no-costinterventions.

The Ministry for the Environment supportsthis approach as it enables territorialauthorities to address any potential effects andwill assist in reducing community concern.The Ministry considers that non-regulatorymethods, such as advocacy, should be usedto avoid or reduce emissions, rather thanregulatory methods, such as a rule in a plan,as the latter has the potential to involve highcosts for the resource user. There can also behigh costs associated with the processing ofresource consents if there are significant timedelays (eg, holding/opportunity costs) or ifindependent technical advice is sought by thecouncil. A high cost approach would not bejustified on health grounds given that thereare no established effects and the risk ofpotential effects is very small or negligible.

The Ministry for the Environment alsoconsiders that non-regulatory methods(eg, advocacy and education) are likely to beeffective, in the long term, in contributing topublic understanding of the radiofrequencytransmission. For example, a local authoritycould provide their planning or environmentalhealth officers with the information in theseguidelines to distribute to their communities.This will contribute to people in thecommunity having confidence in the way alocal authority is managing radiofrequencytransmission facilities.

6.1.4 Rules for radiofrequencytransmission

The Ministry for the Environment considersthat a rule in a district plan to manage theeffects from radiofrequency transmission(as outlined in Section 4) should achievethe following objectives:

• Enable communities to provide for theirhealth and safety.

• Ensure that the exposure limits of thevoluntary New Zealand Standard arecomplied with at all times.

• Assure the community that the rule hasintegrity while allowing for uncertaintiesin exposure predictions. To provide thecommunity with certainty, NRLrecommends that if initial modellingpredicts that public exposures will exceed25 percent of the reference level, anadditional assessment of actual exposuresradiofrequency fields should beundertaken once a facility is operational.

This recognises that:

- manufacturing tolerances inequipment (transmitters, antenna,feeders) could add up to totaluncertainties of a factor of about two(ie, exposures could be between one-half to twice as much as estimated bysimple calculation).

- reflections of the radio signal off somesurfaces (eg, steel cladding onbuildings) can cause localised increasesand decreases in radiofrequency levelsover what was estimated by calculation.In theory, the increase can be up to afactor of four.

• Require that resource users pay any costsassociated with proving that they are incompliance with the New ZealandStandard once operational.

• Ensure that cumulative effects areconsidered by potential new operators.The New Zealand Standard requiresconsideration of the cumulative effects ofall sources of radiofrequency fields in thevicinity. New operators need to be awareof existing facilities to ensure complianceof the new facility with the Standard.

• Ensure that territorial authorities knowwhere the facilities are for monitoring andinformation purposes.

In the development of these guidelines,various effects based options of how localauthorities could achieve these objectiveswere considered. Fundamental to theconsideration was how to ensure that facilitiescomplied with the New Zealand Standardwhile not imposing undue costs on operatorsthat are not justified by the actual effects ofthe exposures.

The recommended approach is outlined in thefollowing example. As the style of plans vary,the example will probably need to be tailoredto the specific format of each individual plan.Similarly, the section of council andorganisation or body specified for certifyingcompliance with the Standard may vary fromplan to plan.

An activity which emits radiofrequencyfields is a permitted activity provided thefollowing conditions are met:

1. Exposures comply with NZS2772.1:1999 Radiofrequency Fields Part1: Maximum exposure levels 3 kHz – 300GHz (“the New Zealand Standard”)

2. Prior to commencing anyradiofrequency emissions, the followingare sent to and received by the [XXXDepartment of the] Council:

a. written notice of the location of thefacility or proposed facility and

b. a report prepared by a radioengineer/technician or physicalscientist containing a prediction ofwhether the New Zealand Standardwill be complied with.

3. If the report provided to the Councilunder condition 2(b) predicts thatemissions will exceed 25 percent of theexposure limit set for the general publicin the New Zealand Standard, then,within 3 months of radiofrequencyemissions commencing, a report fromNational Radiation Laboratory [or XXX,being an appropriately qualified person/organisation specifically identified inthis rule] certifying compliance with theNew Zealand Standard, based onmeasurements at the site will beprovided to the [XXX Department ofthe] Council.

Key features of the recommended approach:

• Most facilities require a building consentor amendment of an existing buildingconsent and will require notification topart of the council already.

• It ensures that a territorial authority andcommunity know where transmissionfacilities are within a district. This isimportant for community information andif subsequent monitoring of cumulativeeffects is undertaken.

• Estimation of exposures to radiofrequencyfields in accordance with the standardalready requires consideration of thecumulative effects of radiofrequencytransmitters in the vicinity.

• The rule is effects-based

• For a site where exposures are predicted toexceed 25 percent of the public limit, therequirement for an additional reportprovides assurances to the community thatonce operational, the site complies withthe standard.

• The resource user pays the costs associatedwith providing evidence that the facilitycomplies with the New Zealand Standardonce operational.

• The rule does not impose an arbitrarystandard which might compromise theintegrity of NZS2772.1: 1999.

Concern was expressed that it would bedifficult for a council to issue a certificate ofcompliance for a proposal for a future activityif this option is used. Section 139 of theRMA which deals with certificates ofcompliance contemplates that such acertificate can be issued for a proposal for afuture activity. Subsection (6) of section139 states that a certificate of compliance isdeemed to be an appropriate resource consentissued “subject to conditions specified in theplan”. This means that in order to rely on acertificate of compliance the operator wouldneed to comply with the New ZealandStandard and the condition in the plan toprovide a report confirming compliance oncethe site is operational. If the report was notprovided the consent authority would havegrounds for issuing an abatement notice orapplying for an enforcement order whichcould include a requirement to de-activatethe facility immediately.

If a facility did not meet the requirementsof NZS 2772.1:1999, the activity would betreated as a non-complying activity in termsof rules in the plan.

6.1.5 InformationDuring consultation with community groups,it became evident that many people arefearful of radiofrequency transmissionfacilities and mistrustful of both industry andthe science on the effects of radiofrequencyfields. Some people do not understand howthe technology works or how internationalstandards are developed.

The Ministries consider there is a role forterritorial authorities in providing informationto communities about these issues. Theseguidelines should assist to provide some of thisinformation. The Ministry of Health hasproduced a pamphlet on radiofrequency fields.This could be more widely distributed tocommunity members.

6.1.6 AdvocacyThe Ministries consider that there is a role forterritorial authorities in advocating a best-practice approach. This would involveencouraging telecommunications companiesto voluntarily agree to avoid or reduceexposures where they can do so for low or nocost. These measures could include:


• select or design antennas which minimiseemissions in directions not required forcoverage

• if alternative sites are available (or thereare different options for mountingantennas on a single site), select theoption giving the lowest exposures.

These recommendations are consistent withrequirements for the protection of the generalpublic set out in sections 10(d) and 10(e) ofNZS 2772.1:1999.

Local authorities could assist resource usersto adopt a best practice approach by:

• making them aware of sites whichcommunities are likely to be concerned about

• asking whether or not the resource userhas taken steps to minimise exposures andpublicising these if they have.

6.1.7 Cultural effectsIt is important to ascertain whether aparticular activity is considered to haveunacceptable impacts on established waahitapu and other cultural considerations.

Consultation with iwi may be necessary if thefacility is to be located on or adjacent to sacredsites or sites of significance to local hapu.

Territorial authorities and people andcompanies wishing to establish radiofrequencyfacilities are referred to the Ministry for theEnvironment publication Case Law on TangataWhenua Consultation [June 1999] and NgaiTahu: Statutory Acknowledgements – A guideto Local Authorities [1999].

6.1.8 Visual amenity effectsDuring consultation community groupsexpressed concern about the visual/amenityeffects of radiofrequency facilities beingappropriately managed. These guidelines donot provide national guidance on managingvisual effects as they will be different indiverse areas. We consider that localauthorities are best placed to decide how tomanage them.

Many district plans manage visual andamenity effects through height anddimension rules. It will be important forcouncils to let communities know that if theheight and dimension rules are not complieda resource consent will be required so thatthese effects can be properly considered. It isrecommended that such proposals fall into arestricted discretionary activity category.This would enable communities to haveinput into the decision making process aboutthe amenity effects.

Section 5.3 and Appendix F provide adiscussion of the relevance of these types ofeffects. If a council requires further guidanceon avoiding, remedying or mitigating visualor amenity effects it could contact a landscapearchitect for assistance. A number ofinnovative techniques have already been usedto minimise the adverse visual/amenity effectsof radiofrequency transmitters (eg, disguisingthem as palm trees, chimneys, flagpoles orchurch crosses).

6.2 MonitoringWhen society or a community assesseswhether the risk of a particular activity isacceptable, a number of factors will be takeninto consideration. These include:

• knowing who is intending to undertakethe activity and whether they areconsidered trustworthy

• the availability of a reliable independentor verifiable source of information

• the ability to benchmark or test theaccuracy of the information over time

• certainty that prescribed levels andstandards are not being exceeded.

In providing the technical information in theseguidelines it is hoped that local authorities andcommunities will be better able to enter into aninformed discussion on radiofrequency fieldsand the applicable safety standards.

Investigations of options for an interagencycommittee for the ongoing review ofinternational research (eg, the WHO’s EMFstudy) and policy and will be undertaken as partof the wider functions of the two Ministries.

In relation to compliance, the Ministry ofHealth and the Ministry for the Environmentconsider that while it is reasonable to monitorsome sites after they are operational to ensurethat exposures comply with the New ZealandStandard (and the ICNIRP guidelines) it isunnecessary and unreasonable to monitorevery site on a regular basis. To do so wouldbe costly and difficult to justify on the basis ofenvironmental effects or the results of themonitoring that has occurred on some sitesto date.

As territorial authorities generally do not havethe equipment or expertise to undertakeinitial compliance monitoring, it may benecessary for them to commissionindependent and appropriately qualifiedexperts to undertake this monitoring.

Both the Ministry of Health and the Ministryfor the Environment consider that there ismerit in following up an option which receivedsupport from both the industry groups and thecommunity groups during consultation. This isfor an independent body, such as the NationalRadiation Laboratory of the Ministry of Health,to take measurements around a number ofrandomly selected radio communication facilitysites to check whether equipment associatedwith the site complies with district plan rules.This type of monitoring proposal would helpto alleviate community concerns, anddemonstrate a commitment on the part ofcentral government to ensure compliancewith the Standard.

Discussions for a proposal for this type ofmonitoring will be initiated with industry andterritorial authorities following the release ofthese guidelines.

6.3 Good practice for designationsThe siting of radiofrequency facilities inaccordance with the designation processhas been of particular concern for somecommunities. The requiring authoritydesignation process in the RMA is beingreviewed at the time these guidelines arebeing published and this issue forms part ofthe consideration. The following guidance isprovided in the meantime.

The process for obtaining new designations isfairly rigorous and time consuming.Consequently, telecommunication companiestend to use the resource consents process toinstall new radiofrequency facilities, asopposed to issuing new notices of requirementfor a designation.

6.3.1 Roll-over designationsThe issue that has caused greatest concern forcommunities has been the rollover of existingdesignations from transitional plans intoproposed plans. Problems occur whendesignations are very broadly worded or whenrequiring authorities modify their existingdesignations to allow for the installation ofnew transmission facilities.

In some instances, communities are simplynot aware of the potential effects of suchdesignations or modifications. For example,a designation for a telephone exchange in aresidential area under the transitional plancould be modified to permit for a 20-m talltower whose effects would be substantiallydifferent from those of a telephone exchange.

When a requiring authority requests that adesignation be included in a proposed plan,with modifications, territorial authoritiesshould ensure the applicant supplies thenecessary information in accordance withsection 168(3) of the RMA. This includes,inter alia, the reasons why the modification isneeded, the effects that the modification willhave on the environment, the way in whichany adverse effects may be mitigated, theextent to which any alternative sites, routes,and methods have been considered, and astatement of the consultation undertaken.

Territorial authorities must also haveparticular regard to a list of matters undersection 171 when making recommendationsfor modifications to designations. Territorialauthorities must ensure that notice is given todirectly affected landowners of anymodification to a designation.

Finally, territorial authorities should see thepreparation and change of district plans as anopportunity to review the appropriateness ofall existing designations.

6.3.2 Outline plansOutline plans are a good opportunity forterritorial authorities to ensure that requiringauthorities provide adequate detail about thefacilities they intend to construct on theirdesignated land. Requirements for outlineplans are particularly important in instanceswhere the designation is very broad anddoesn’t address effects specific to the proposedactivity. Requiring authorities are required toprovide detail on how adverse effects can beavoided, remedied, and mitigated. Where theproposed facility is likely to result in adversevisual/landscape and amenity effects,territorial authorities should carefully considerany mitigation measures that can be taken.

6.4 Operative or proposed plansWhile developing guidelines, the Ministryfor the Environment considered the utility/infrastructure sections of a selection ofoperative or proposed plans. While somehad no standards relating to potential healtheffects, most had a performance standardrequiring compliance with the New ZealandStandard, NZS6609: 1990. Many plans alsohad some height restrictions. This means thatlarge transmitters are likely to require aresource consent, on the basis of visual effectsor non-compliance with height standards.

Territorial authorities with operative orproposed plans will need to assess the costsand benefits of amending their plans to makethem consistent with these guidelines. Thiswould involve changing their rules. The keybenefits of adopting the rule in theseguidelines is that it recognises that:

• NZ6609: 1990 has recently beensuperseded by NZ2772.1 (which is basedon the ICNIRP guidelines)

• A local authority will need to know wherebroadcast transmitters are located forcommunity relations purposes/themonitoring of cumulative effects andambient levels.

However, plans which require compliancewith NZS6609: 1990 will still be able to usethis standard, even though it has recentlybeen superseded by NZS 2772.1: 1999.People’s health and safety will be able to beprovided for under this standard; it is morerestrictive than ICNIRP for some frequencies.

In addition, predicted exposures are unlikelyto exceed 25 percent of the limit except for afew facilities. Once a facility is operational,a local authority could use the enforcementprovisions of the RMA to require compliancewith the rule in the plan requiring complianceto the New Zealand Standard.

The other issue is that territorial authoritiesmay not know where all the broadcasttransmission facilities are in the district.The Ministries consider that this is importantfor community relations and for anymonitoring of cumulative effects. However,most telecommunications companies have apolicy of applying for compliance certificatesbefore building facilities. Territorialauthorities could record the location offacilities in their district this way.

Even if a local authority decides that therewould be little merit in initiating a variationto their operative plan to make it consistentwith these guidelines, the Ministry considersthat there would be merit in all localauthorities adopting this rule in the nextgeneration of district plans. This would ensurethat a consistent approach was taken throughout the country applying the most up-to datescientific information.

While the Ministries for the Environmentand Health consider that recent EnvironmentCourt case law and guidance in thisdocument will provide clear direction onaddressing siting issues, it also considers thatindustry can also contribute to allayingpeople’s fear of radiofrequency facilities.

7.1 Working with territorialauthorities

The industry needs to recognise thatterritorial authority officers are often underpressure from their communities to provideassurances about the safety of radiofrequencytransmission facilities.

Industry can assist territorial authorities toprovide this by:

• working with territorial authorityofficers to provide effective informationfor people in the district about theeffects of radiofrequency facilities

• continuing to apply for certificates ofcompliance as a matter of course. Thiswill enable territorial authority officersto assure communities that all facilitieswithin the district are in compliancewith the plan

• undertaking that where all other effectsare equal, all facilities will be sited anddesigned to avoid and reduce exposures,and provide evidence (eg, from coveragemaps, transmitter tests) that this hasbeen done

• agreeing to provide information on thelocation of all radiofrequencytransmission facilities within the district.This will assist territorial authorities withtheir risk communication with the public

7 G U I D A N C E F O R T H E

T E L E C O M M U N I C A T I O N S I N D U S T R Y

• considering the implementation of ajoint monitoring project with territorialauthorities, as suggested duringconsultation. The Ministry for theEnvironment and the Ministry of Healthconsider that a nationwide monitoringproject sponsored by industry andterritorial authorities, that focused onselected radiofrequency sites and whichprovided results to the public would domuch to alleviate fears.

7.2 Working with the communityThe Ministry of Health has advised thatpeople will be able to provide for their healthand safety if the exposure limits in the NewZealand Standard are complied with and thateven if future research shows that healtheffects exist, the risk is likely to be very smallor negligible.

However, the Ministries are aware that therewill continue to be people in communitieswho do not trust guidance from scientists,standards committees, the Environment Courtor the government.

There may also be more people with concernsabout radiofrequency facilities than industryassumes. A 1997 survey conducted by theNational Business Review Consultus Pollfound that 66 percent of the population wouldbe “very concerned” or “fairly concerned” if acellphone tower were built in theirneighbourhood.

The Ministries consider that the way in whichindustry communicates with concernedresidents, and whether or not it is prepared toaddress concerns where it can do so for no orlow cost, will have a bearing on people’s levelof concern about radiofrequency facilities. Itdoes not consider that resolving this issue issolely up to territorial authorities.

The Ministry for the Environment and theMinistry of Health consider that industrygroups could contribute to resolution of thedebate on siting issues if they voluntarily tooka number of actions.

1. Recognise there is value in communicatingwith residents

If communities have good quality informationabout how radiofrequency facilities operate,their effects and how these will be managedthey are less likely to be concerned.

During consultation with communityrepresentatives, their experiences ofconsultation with industry groups werediscussed. Some people considered that industrybehaved arrogantly and treated communityrepresentatives as if they were irrational.However, those with good experiences were nolonger as fearful of the effects of radiofrequencyfields as they had been. The representativesconsidered the key elements contributing toeffective communication with concernedresidents were that:

• there is a single contact person who ishonest, trustworthy and who will treatcommunity members with respect

• community concerns be accommodatedwhere possible. For example, the resultsfrom computer modelling could bechecked in reality, only the power neededto achieve coverage objectives would beused, and communities would be able tosee the results from random monitoring.(some communities said they wereprepared to pay for this monitoring.)

Communicating with residents will provide anopportunity to discuss information about howtechnology works, why there is scientificuncertainty, how this can be managed, andthe potential effects from the proposed facility.

Communication will also provide a chance forresidents to articulate their fears, a processwhich will assist industry to work out whichconcerns can be addressed. Effectivecommunication will help in reducingcommunity outrage.

While only affected parties can withhold theirwritten approval in relation to a resourceconsent, any community member can lobbytheir territorial authority/ Member ofParliament/local media about these issues.This may contribute to delays in installingservices and/or create unfavourable publicity.

The Ministries recognise that some industrygroups regularly communicate with residents.The Ministries support such activities andencourage all industries to continue withthis approach.

2. Recognise that particular skills are necessaryfor communicating with concerned people

Industry groups need to think carefully aboutwho liaises with residents, as this will affectwhether or not they are trusted and issues areresolved. It will be important to ensure theperson is experienced in risk communication,listens to people, has integrity and is able tocommunicate information about the proposalin simple language (ie, without being tootechnical or defensive).

It may be beneficial to have a specificcommunity liaison person within theorganisation, to be responsible forcommunicating with residents. The Ministriesrecognise that some industry groups already dothis and support such initiatives.

The guidelines do not provide specificrecommendations on how to communicatewith residents. We recognise that differenttechniques are likely to be appropriate inspecific circumstances and thatcommunications experts are better able toprovide the necessary advice.

3. Address community concerns where thisinvolves low- or no-cost action

During consultation with the community,many people said that they would be lessconcerned about radiofrequency facilities ifindustry minimised exposures to the lowestlevel required to achieve coverage objectives.People felt this would provide them withadditional assurance that they would be safeeven if science had got it wrong.

The Ministry for the Environment and theMinistry of Health agree that it is essential toensure the credibility of the New ZealandStandard and the ICNIRP guidelines andassure people that they will be able to providefor their health and safety if they are compliedwith. As well, the Ministries supportinitiatives by industry to provide people withadditional assurances by publicising anycommitment to best engineering practice (andin this way provide an assurance that it isactually in industry’s business interests tominimise exposures). The Ministries considerthat this in no way undermines the credibilityof international standards and would be a low-or no-cost action, which may addresscommunity concerns.

Best engineering practice might bedemonstrated by the following actions:

1. At the design and feasibility stage –demonstrate that the transmission poweris necessary to achieve the purpose of thefacility and that the public will not haveaccess to the site)

2. In the choice of location from the rangeof potential sites – demonstrate thatconsideration of minimising exposure toradiofrequency emissions in populationareas is made2 , all other things being equal

3. In the choice of technology – wherepossible, antennas which minimiseexposures in areas not required for coverage

4. In the operation of the facility – powerlevels may be able to be adjusted to suitthe circumstances and transmitters maybe able to be switched off for periods and

5. The maintenance of the facility –information provided to the communityabout the maintenance programme.

The Ministries recognise that some industrygroups are committed to engineering bestpractice. However, the public is generallyunaware of such commitments. The Ministriesconsider that there would be merit inpublicising any commitment to engineeringbest practice and demonstrating tocommunities how this is achieved in practice.

4. Publicise successful communitycommunication

At present, this is not happening becausesome industry groups are concerned aboutcreating precedents. The Ministries assumethis is because industry is concerned that costswill escalate if communities all over thecountry expect successful communicationtechniques to be used.

As a result, many people are only aware of thenegative industry action in relation to sitingissues. Negative publicity has increasedmistrust in industry and fear about the healtheffects of cellsites. The Ministries consider itwould be beneficial for industry groups’relationships with communities if successfulcommunication experiences, which addresscommunity issues, were publicised.

2If one site will cost twice as much as anothersite yet minimises exposures to radiofrequencyemissions, industry would not chose this site ina case in which no adverse effects are known.

In Section 4 of these guidelines the Ministryof Health provides guidance on the healtheffects associated with radiofrequency fields.It concludes that there are no establishedhealth effects (either thermal or athermal) ifthe exposure limits in the ICNIRP guidelines,which are incorporated into NZS 2772.1:1999Radiofrequency Fields Part 1: Maximum exposurelevels 3 kHz – 300 GHz, are complied with.Ministry of Health recommends thatexposures to radiofrequency fields in areaswhich are normally accessible to the publicshould comply with the limits set out for thegeneral public in the New Zealand Standard.

The Ministry of Health also recommends thatwhere possible low or no cost interventionsshould be voluntarily applied to avoid or reduceexposures. These measures could include:


• select or design antennas which minimiseemissions in directions not required forcoverage

• if alternative sites are available (or thereare different options for mountingantennas on a single site), select theoption giving the lowest exposures.

8 G U I D A N C E F O R T H E C O M M U N I T Y

Ministry of Health suggests that measures betaken to avoid or reduce exposures should below or no cost because:

1. Compliance with the New ZealandStandard will enable people to providefor their health and safety.

2. Even if future research does discoverhealth effects, the risks to individuals arelikely to continue to be very small ornegligible. This is based on the fact thatthere has already been fifty years ofresearch on this issue. To date there is noclear evidence of adverse health effectsarising from exposures which comply withthe Standard. It is therefore unlikely thatany one study will provide the basis for anew approach. (See Section 3 for a moredetailed explanation of how scientistscome to conclusions about levels of risk).

The Ministry for the Environment supportsthis approach as it enables territorialauthorities to address any potential effects andwill assist in reducing community concern.The Ministry considers that non-regulatorymethods to avoid or reduce exposures, such asadvocacy, should be used rather than rules in aplan, as the latter has the potential to involvehigher costs for the resource user. There canbe high costs for resource users with theprocessing of resource consents if there aretime delays (eg, holding/opportunity costs) orif independent technical advice is sought bythe council. Such costs would not be justifiedgiven that the risk of there being potentialeffects is very low or negligible.

It is important to recognise that the RMAand Environment Court case law placesconstraints on parties continuing to raisethe issue of health effects with territorialauthorities and industry.

The RMA is effects-based legislation.It requires territorial authorities to focus onthe environmental effects of activities ratherthan the activities themselves. The RMA alsohas requirements that all rules must bejustified under Section 32, in terms of theenvironmental effects they seek to address.

The underlying assumption for land useactivities is that any use or developmentshould proceed if there are no adverse effects,or if these effects can be adequately avoided,mitigated or remedied. Territorial authoritieshave no authority to intervene in thedevelopment of radiofrequency transmissionfacilities except in order to addressenvironmental effects.

As territorial authority decisions can beappealed to the Environment Court, aterritorial authority risks having its decisionsoverturned if the decisions are not consistentwith Environment Court precedents. Therecent Shirley decision has given cleardirection on dealing with issues on healtheffects under the RMA. (See Appendix F6 forfurther details.)

During consultation some community memberssuggested that radiofrequency transmissionfacilities should be disallowed until they wereproven 100 percent safe. This question wasconsidered during the Shirley case and the courtconsidered that the RMA is not a no-riskstatute, and provided the ICNIRP guidelines orthe New Zealand Standard were complied with,an acceptable risk was being taken.

Community groups were also keen to see theseguidelines providing advice to territorialauthorities on managing visual/amenityeffects. It is not possible to provide nationalguidance on these issues as, unlike healtheffects, they are likely to be different invarious districts around the country. However,Section 5.3 and Appendix F provide adiscussion of the relevance of these types ofeffects and the issues to be addressed. Section6 also provides some suggestions on whereterritorial authorities can get further adviceon remedying or mitigating adverse visual/amenity effects should they need to.

Many district plans manage visual effectsthrough height and dimension rules. If aproposed activity does not meet theserequirements resource consent will probablybe required and communities will be able tohave input into deciding whether or not theconsent should be granted. If you areconcerned about the potential visual/amenityeffects of a proposed facility contact your localauthority about your district plan’s height anddimension rules.

While the Ministry for the Environment andthe Ministry of Health consider that it is notappropriate to prevent radiofrequencytransmission facilities being developed on thebasis of health effects, they think that thereare actions which central governmentagencies, territorial authorities and industrycan take to address people’s concerns:

• The public needs to be provided withfurther information on how radiofrequencytransmission facilities work, how scientistsevaluate the level of risk associated withradiofrequency fields, why there might bedivergences of opinion in the scientificcommunity and how standards committeesmake decisions about what is safe. Theseguidelines provide information on theseissues. A list of further sources ofinformation is also provided in AppendixH. This includes information on guidanceon RMA processes.

• The public needs to be kept informed ofthe latest scientific research on any healtheffects associated with radiofrequencyfields (in particular, information on theWHO project due to report in 2005). TheMinistry of Health will extend the scopeof the terms of reference of theinteragency committee on extremely lowfrequency fields. This committee willcomprise representatives from relevantgovernment agencies, public health,consumers, industry, local government andthe scientific community. The committeewill report on any international scientific,policy or technical developments that arerelevant to New Zealand.

• Territorial authorities need to ensurethat radiofrequency transmission facilitieswithin their districts comply with theexposure levels specified in the NewZealand Standard. Guidance on howto ensure this is achieved is provided inSection 6.

• The public needs to be provided withinformation on the levels of exposure fromradiofrequency facilities which areoperational (eg, different types of mobilephone base stations, point-to-pointtechnology, television and radio broadcastfacilities). Presently, there is not a goodunderstanding of variations in exposurelevels from existing sites. Duringconsultation, all parties suggested that therewould be merit in undertaking a nationwidemonitoring programme of randomly selectedsites to provide the public with moreassurance that these facilities operate withininternational standards. The Ministriessupport this initiative and considers it woulddo much to allay people’s fears and buildtrust in industry.

• It is important for industry tocommunicate effectively with concernedresidents and address their concerns wherepossible (ie, where it would involve low-or no-cost actions). The Ministries havesuggested that commitment to a bestengineering practice approach maycontribute to this. Such action would notaffect the credibility of the ICNIRPguidelines and is required by theNew Zealand Standard.

ANSI: American National Standards Institute;a US body that accredits organisations to writeindustrial standards – publicly availabledefinitions, requirements, criteria, etc –following rules established by ANSI.

Assessment of Environmental Effects AEE:This is the process of preparing a report thatmust accompany a resource consentapplication. The purpose of the AEE is toprovide the council with information on theeffects that the proposed activity will have onthe environment.

Contaminant: As defined by the RMA, acontaminant: includes any substance (includinggases, liquids, solids and micro-organisms) orenergy (excluding noise) or heat, that either byitself or in combination with the same, similar orother substances, energy or heat. Acontaminant may adversely affect healtheither directly because of its hazardousproperties, or indirectly throughcontamination of the air, water, soil or food.

de minimis principle: de minimis non curat lex“the law does not concern itself with trifles”.

Director-General of Health: The chiefexecutive officer of the Ministry of Health,charged with a number of statutory powers,functions and duties under public health (andother) legislation.

9 G L O S S A R Y

Effects: Includes

• any positive or adverse effect

• any temporary or permanent effect

• any past, present or future effect

• any cumulative effect which arises overtime or in combination with other effects,regardless of the scale, intensity, duration,or frequency of the effect, and including:

- any potential effect of highprobability, and

- any potential effect of low probabilitywhich has a high potential impact.

Epidemiology: The study of the distributionand determinants of health-related states orevents in specified populations.

Exposure-response assessment:A determination of the degree of healtheffects at different doses of a hazard.

Extremely low frequency field: An electricor magnetic field at a frequency between 30Hz and 300 Hz. The most common sourcesof these fields are power lines, electricalappliances and other electrical equipmentcarrying mains electricity, which generallyproduce extremely low frequency fields at afrequency of 50 Hz.

Frequency: The frequency of a wave is therate at which it oscillates. On a radio or TVtuner, the number at which you set the tunerindicates the frequency of the signal. Thefrequency is also correlated with some physicalproperties of the signal: how well it can passthrough obstacles (eg, buildings) and rate atwhich information can be transmitted.To avoid interference, defined ranges offrequencies are allocated to differentapplications: FM radio, AM radio, TV,cellphones, industrial applications, etc.Frequency is measured in hertz . See alsohertz, radiofrequency, and microwave.

GHz: Gigahertz. One billion hertz.

Hazard identification: An assessment of theavailable evidence on the presence and hazardsof matters likely to cause adverse effects.

Hz: Hertz – unit of measurement of frequency;[wave] cycles per second.

ICNIRP: International Commission onNon-Ionizing Radiation Protection, a non-governmental organisation recognised bythe WHO.

IEEE: Institute of Electrical and ElectronicEngineers.

In vitro: Laboratory studies not involvingwhole organisms (eg, tissue culture studies);“in glass”.

In vivo: Laboratory studies involving wholeorganisms (eg, studies on rats or mice); “in life”.

MHz: Megahertz, one million hertz.

Microwave: Radiofrequencies greater than300 MHz.

Monitoring: The performance and analysisof routine measurements, aimed at detectingchanges in the environment, provision ofservices, delivery of outputs, or health status ofpopulations.

Power flux density: The amount ofradiofrequency energy passing through a givenarea in one second. It is measured in watts persquare metre (W/m2) or in microwatts persquare centimetre (µW/cm2), the latter being1/100th of the former. The normalrelationship between power flux density andelectric and magnetic field strength does notapply within 100-200 m of AM transmitters.

Public health: Depending on the context,either (a) the health status of populations (orsections thereof) or, (b) the science and art ofpreventing disease, prolonging life, andpromoting health through organised effortsof society.

Radiofrequency: Any frequency used for radiotransmissions, normally 0.1 MHz to 300,000MHz. Radio signals are composed of linkedelectric and magnetic fields which travel awayfrom the transmitter as an electromagneticwave. The electric and magnetic fields can bereferred to as radiofrequency fields, and theenergy they carry as radiofrequency radiation.

Replicable: In the case of an experiment,if other researchers come up with the sameresults after repeating all the exact details ofthe first experiment, then the experiment issaid to have been successfully replicated.Successful replication is an essentialconsideration when assessing the implicationsof experimental data. In any experimentthere is always the possibility ofmethodological error or the influence ofunknown factors. The most meaningfulresults are those that can be replicated byother investigators in other laboratories. Ifexperimental results cannot be replicated thenthey must be considered unreliable and,possibly, invalid.

Risk: The probability and magnitude ofharmful consequences arising from a hazard.The likelihood of a specified undesired eventoccurring within a specified period or inspecified circumstances. The probability ofharmful consequences arising from a hazard.In quantitative terms, risk can be expressedin values from zero (no possible harm) to one(certainty that harm will occur). In relationto human health effects, risk is usuallyexpressed as the probability (or likelihood)or dying or developing a disease or injury asa result of exposure to a hazard.

Risk communication: The process ofestablishing two-way communication,recognising that people’s feelings andemotions are legitimate, involving peoplein making decisions that directly affect them,informing and advising the community aboutrisks and their impact, and involving thecommunity in plans for managing the risk.

Risk management: A process of settingpriorities based on risk assessment,establishing efficient and consistent riskreduction policies (taking into account publicperception of risk), evaluating the range ofrisk reduction alternatives (including thesocial, economic and cultural implicationof options), identifying cost-effective riskreduction measures, and identifying riskmitigation and contingency measures.

RMA: Resource Management Act 1991:an effects-based statute focusing on sustainableenvironmental management. It is administeredby the Ministry for the Environment andimplemented for the most part by territorialauthorities.

Safety factor: A multiplicative factorincorporated in risk assessments or safetystandards to allow for unpredictable types ofvariation, such as variability from test animalsto humans, random variation within anexperiment, and person-to-person variability.Safety factors are often in the range of 10 to1000. Use of safety factors is not the same thingas minimising unnecessary exposure.

Sampling: In this context, the process oftalking microbiological, chemical, or otherspecimens as part of a public healthprogramme in order to test or monitor qualityor public health risk.

Specific absorption rate (SAR):Fundamental unit of dose of radiofrequencyactually absorbed by a body exposed toradiofrequency fields. Although difficult tomeasure or calculate, it is useful in comparingexposures at different frequencies (or whentrying to extrapolate to people the results ofexperiments on the exposure of animals toradiofrequency fields). The maximum SARin publicly accessible areas around mosttransmitters is about 0.005 W/kg of bodyweight, but generally less than this figure.The body generates 1-4 W/kg heat from itsown metabolism.

Transmitter: In this context, the equipmentused to generate and broadcast radiofrequencyelectromagnetic waves for communicationpurposes. The transmitter power is expressedin watts (W) or in kilowatts (kW = 1000 W).The frequencies of various transmitters areshown in Figure 1, Chapter 2.

WHO: World Health Organization of theUnited Nations.

Cridland, N A.1993. Electromagnetic fieldsand cancer. A review of relevant cellular studies.NRPB report R256. National RadiologicalProtection Board, Chilton, UK.

Dennis J A, Muirhead C R, Ennis J R. 1992.Human health and exposure to electromagneticradiation. NRPB report R241. NationalRadiological Protection Board, Chilton, UK.

Elwood J M. 1999. A critical review ofepidemiologic studies of radiofrequencyexposure and human cancers. EnvironmentalHealth Perspectives 107 Supplement 1, 155-168.

Independent Expert Group on MobilePhones:[Chairman, Sir William Stewart].2000. Mobile Phones and Health. Reportto the United Kingdom Government.[www.iegmp.org.uk]

International Commission on Non-IonizingRadiation Protection. 1997. Non-thermaleffects of RF electromagnetic fields. InProceedings, international seminar on biologicaleffects of non-thermal pulsed and amplitudemodulated RF electromagnetic fields and relatedhealth risks, Munich, Germany, November 20and 21, 1996. ICNIRP 3/97.

International Commission on Non-IonizingRadiation Protection. 1998. Guidelines forlimiting exposure to time-varying electric,magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to300 GHz). Health Physics 74 (4): 494-522.

Repacholi M. 1998. Low-level exposure toradiofrequency electromagnetic fields: healtheffects and research needs. Bioelectromagnetics19, 1-19.

1 0 R E F E R E N C E S

Royal Society of Canada. 1999. A review ofthe potential health risks of radiofrequency fieldsfrom wireless telecommunication devices. Anexpert panel report prepared at the request ofthe Royal Society of Canada for HealthCanada. The Royal Society of Canada,Ontario. [www.rsc.ca]

Royal Society of New Zealand. 1998.Radiation and the New Zealand community:A scientific overview. The Royal Society ofNew Zealand, Bulletin 34.

Saunders R D, Kowalczuk C I, andSienkiewicz Z J, 1991. Biological effects ofexposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic fieldsand radiation: 111. Radiofrequency andmicrowave radiation. NRPB-R240. NationalRadiological Protection Board, Chilton.

Scottish Parliament. 2000.: Transport and theEnvironment Committee Official Report:Planning Procedures for TelecommunicationsDevelopment.

Standards New Zealand. 1999. NZS 2772.1(1999) Radiofrequency fields: Maximumexposure levels – 3 kHz to 300 GHz.Wellington: Standards New Zealand.

WHO, 1993. Electromagnetic fields (300 Hz to300 GHz). Environmental Health Criteria137. World Health Organization, Geneva.

Woodward A, Bates M, Hutt M. 1996.Literature review on the health effects ofradiofrequency radiation. New ZealandMinistry of Health.

The radiofrequency fields from radiotransmitters and ELF (extremely lowfrequency) fields from power lines are oftenconfused with each other. Although thereare some similarities, in that they are bothelectromagnetic in origin, they arefundamentally different in their physicalproperties and in the way they interact withthe body. This is because of the hugedifference in their frequencies. Similarly,although light is also electromagnetic inorigin, its physical properties and interactionswith the body are quite different to both ELFand radiofrequency fields.

Radio transmitters are designed to transmitenergy in the form of a radio wave. The radiowave is composed of linked radiofrequencyelectric and magnetic fields, which bear astrict relationship to each other. (Asdiscussed in Section 2.2.1, the relationshipdoes not hold within 100-200 m of AM radiotransmitters.) If the value of one is known,the other can easily be calculated. The rate atwhich the wave carries energy is described bythe power flux density, which is related to theelectric and magnetic field strengths.

By contrast, the ELF electric and magneticfields found around a power line are quiteunrelated to each other. They do not travelaway from the line as an electromagneticwave, but are ‘bound’ to the line in the sameway that magnetic fields around a bar magnetare fixed around it. The strength of the fieldsis quite unrelated to any energy which is beingradiated away from the power line, and itmakes no sense whatsoever to relate ELF fieldstrengths to an equivalent power flux density.

A P P E N D I X A : P O W E R L I N E S . D I F F E R E N C E S

B E T W E E N F I E L D S F R O M P O W E R

L I N E S A N D R A D I O T R A N S M I T T E R S

The electrical properties of the bodyvary markedly with frequency. The maininteraction of RF fields with the bodyis dielectric absorption – the fields causemolecules in the body to rotate slightly,and this rotational energy is converted toheat. At extremely low frequencies, themain interaction is the induction of electriccurrents. The skin shields the inside of thebody from ELF electric fields, whereas ELFmagnetic fields are the same inside the bodyas outside. RF electric and magnetic fieldscan both penetrate the body, the depth ofpenetration varying with frequency.

Having said that, one theory as to how RFfields whose amplitude is modulated(changed) at ELF frequencies could producebiological effects is that the RF wave “carries”an ELF field into the body, and it is the ELFcomponent that could produce an effect.However, such theories are speculative.

As with radiofrequency fields, it has beensuggested that exposure (particularly over longperiods) to relatively weak ELF fields couldcause adverse health effects. The data havebeen reviewed many times over the pastdecade, most recently by the National Instituteof Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).Their conclusions are presented below:

“The scientific evidence suggesting that ELF-EMFexposures pose any health risk is weak. Thestrongest evidence for health effects comes fromassociations observed in human populations withtwo forms of cancer: childhood leukemia andchronic lymphocytic leukemia in occupationallyexposed adults. While the support from individualstudies is weak, the epidemiological studiesdemonstrate, for some methods of measuringexposure, a fairly consistent pattern of a small,increased risk with increasing exposure that issomewhat weaker for chronic lymphocyticleukemia than for childhood leukemia. In contrast,the mechanistic studies and the animal toxicologyliterature fail to demonstrate any consistentpattern across studies although sporadic findingsof biological effects (including increased cancers inanimals) have been reported. No indication ofincreased leukemias in experimental animals hasbeen observed.

The lack of connection between the human dataand the experimental data (animal andmechanistic) severely complicates the interpretationof these results. The human data are in the “right”species, are tied to “real-life” exposures and showsome consistency that is difficult to ignore. Thisassessment is tempered by the observation thatgiven the weak magnitude of these increased risks,some other factor or common source of error couldexplain these findings. However, no consistentexplanation other than exposure to ELF-EMF hasbeen identified.

Epidemiological studies have serious limitations intheir ability to demonstrate a cause and effectrelationship whereas laboratory studies, by design,can clearly show that cause and effect are possible.Virtually all of the laboratory evidence in animalsand humans and most of the mechanistic workdone in cells fail to support a causal relationshipbetween exposure to ELF-EMF at environmentallevels and changes in biological function or diseasestatus. The lack of consistent, positive findings inanimal or mechanistic studies weakens the beliefthat this association is actually due to ELF-EMF,but it cannot completely discount theepidemiological findings.

The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF exposurecannot be recognized as entirely safe because ofweak scientific evidence that exposure may pose aleukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding isinsufficient to warrant aggressive regulatoryconcern. However, because virtually everyone inthe United States uses electricity and therefore isroutinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive regulatoryaction is warranted such as a continued emphasison educating both the public and the regulatedcommunity on means aimed at reducing exposures.The NIEHS does not believe that other cancers ornon-cancer health outcomes provide sufficientevidence of a risk to currently warrant concern.”

This appendix summarises some of the areas inwhich there has been disagreement about theresults or interpretation of research into thepossible health effects of radiofrequency fields.Such disagreement is a normal, and indeedhealthy, part of any branch of science, andprovides the stimulus for expanding andrefining our knowledge.

B.1 Interpretation of epidemiologyMost reviews of the epidemiological dataconclude that the results are inconsistent andthe studies provide little detail on actualexposures. The study designs provide verylimited opportunity for establishing cause andeffect relationships, and they are limited intheir ability to deal with possible confoundingfactors. There may also be biases in the data.Taken together, the studies do not establish arelationship between exposure toradiofrequency fields and cancer, adversereproductive outcomes, sleep disturbance orpsychological factors in children,chromosomal changes, haematological effects,eye effects, cardiovascular changes, headachesor asthma.

On the other hand, a few authors contendthat the data do give good evidence of suchassociations, and advocate more protectionthan that afforded by current guidelinesand standards.

Many studies have been hypothesis-generatingexercises with no specific research questions.These studies screen a large number ofoutcomes in relation to the exposure toradiofrequency fields. They may produceapparently “significant” results simply becausethey involve a large number of statistical tests(see discussion of the multiple comparisonsissue in Section 3). They may provideimportant clues for further research but cannotprovide strong evidence of cause and effect.

A P P E N D I X B : H E A L T H E F F E C T S :

A R E A S O F D I S A G R E E M E N T

For there to be a change in the consensusopinion, there would have to be futureepidemiological studies demonstrating clear,consistent associations between exposure torelatively weak radiofrequency fields andadverse health effects.

B.2 Relation to cancerIn addition to disagreement over the results ofepidemiological studies, there is disagreementover the significance of results from in vitroand in vivo studies into whetherradiofrequency fields may initiate or promotecancer. The disagreements cover a number ofareas, such as:

• whether radiofrequency fields can causeDNA strand breakage

• significance of research on transgenic micefor human health

• results from lifetime studies of animalsexposed to radiofrequency fields.

A series of experiments has investigatedwhether exposure to radiofrequency fieldsdamages genetic material, either directly orindirectly. Such damage could implicateradiofrequency fields in the induction orpromotion of cancer. While someexperiments suggest that damage does occur,other researchers trying to repeat the same orsimilar work have found no such effects at all.Where effects have been reported, exposureshave been well above those that commonlyoccur in publicly accessible areas near radiotransmitters.

Several researchers have exposed rodentsto radiofrequency fields over their entirelifetimes. There is no clear evidence fromthese studies that there may be anycarcinogenic effects in humans. However,there is uncertainty about the appropriateinterpretation of some results, and the possiblesignificance for human health of research ontransgenic mice (ie, mice which have beengenetically engineered to predispose themto develop lymphoma).

The consensus opinion that radiofrequencyfields, at the levels typically experienced inthe urban environment, are not implicatedin cancer development could be changed byexperimental results demonstrating aconsistent, replicable effect of cancerinduction in experimental animals.

B.3 Exposure to amplitudemodulated radiofrequency fields

A wide range of results have been reported onthe effects of exposing cells or tissue culturesto amplitude-modulated radiofrequency fields.These include movement of calcium ionsacross cell membranes, and changes in enzymeactivity. However, results show no consistentpattern, and there is disagreement over thepossible significance for health if these effectsdo actually occur.

Here too, consistent, replicable results arerequired before such data can be incorporatedinto a health risk assessment.

B.4 ConclusionsThere is ongoing debate about the significanceof studies of athermal effects from exposures toradiofrequency fields at levels below theassumed threshold for harm (based on thermaleffects). Epidemiological studies ofpopulations exposed to radiofrequency fieldshave generally suffered from poor exposuredata, and results have been inconsistent.In vivo and in vitro studies have showninconsistent or unreplicated results on avariety of endpoints. More consistent, andreplicable, results are required before this datacan add significantly to our understanding ofthe health effects of exposures toradiofrequency fields.

Many studies and larger projects investigatingthe potential for radiofrequency fields to causehealth effects are still in progress, and mayresolve the disagreements discussed inAppendix B. The fact that research is stillgoing on should not be interpreted as a signthat the scientific issues are not wellunderstood. Rather, it is in order to refine ourknowledge of the possible health effects, andto be able to better meet some of the concernswhich have been raised.

Some of the main programmes areoutlined below.

C.1 WHO internationalelectromagnetic fields project

In 1996, the World Health Organization(WHO) launched a five-year project (nowextended to ten years) to bring togethercurrent knowledge and resources in order toderive scientifically sound recommendationsfor health risk assessments of static and time-varying electric and magnetic fields (EMF),including radiofrequency fields. Aims of theproject include:

• provision of a coordinated response toconcerns about possible health effects ofexposure to EMF

• reviews of the scientific literature onbiological effects of EMF exposure

• identification of gaps in knowledgeneeding further research to make betterhealth risk assessments

• encouragement of focused, high qualityresearch programmes

• facilitation of the development ofinternationally acceptable standards forEMF exposure

A P P E N D I X C : H E A L T H E F F E C T S :

S U M M A R Y O F O N G O I N G W O R K

• provision of information on themanagement of EMF protectionprogrammes for national and otherauthorities, including monographs onEMF risk perception, communicationand management

• provision of advice to national authoritiesand others on EMF health andenvironmental effects and any protectivemeasures or actions needed.

In areas relevant to these guidelines, theWHO project to date has:

• held a seminar on non-thermal effectsof radiofrequency fields, publishing theproceedings and a summary of theconclusions

• held a seminar on risk perception and riskcommunication, publishing theproceedings

• prepared information sheets on the healtheffects of radiofrequency fields, cellphonesand cellsites, and public perception ofhealth risks

• held a seminar reviewing eastern Europeanresearch and standards, with publicationof a summary article to follow shortly.

The Ministry of Health is participating in theproject through providing a representative tothe meetings of the International AdvisoryCommittee which oversees the project,provides advice and information as requiredto support the project, and funding. Furtherinformation on the project can be find on theproject’s web page:

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/index.htm.

C.2 IARC study on brain tumours incellphone users

The International Agency for Research onCancer (IARC) is coordinating aninternational study of whether mobile phoneuse is associated with increased incidence ofbrain tumours. Research is planned to beginin late 1999 or early 2000, including work tobe carried out in New Zealand and Australia,with results expected in 2003 or 2004.

Although these guidelines do not covermobile phones, this type of research can assistin the preparation of exposure guidelines byincreasing our understanding of howradiofrequency fields interact with the bodyand whether they produce adverse effects.

C.3 Australian government researchprogramme

The Australian government has established afour-year programme of research and publicinformation on health issues associated withmobile phones, cellsites and othercommunications devices and equipment.Research must comply with protocolsdeveloped by the WHO InternationalElectromagnetic Fields project and theEuropean Community, in order for it tomake a worthwhile contribution to theinternational database. Four projects haveso far received funding:

• pilot epidemiological study of mobilephones and brain/salivary gland/auditorynerve tumours (links in with the IARCproject)

• study of the effects of radiofrequency fieldson DNA

• investigation on whether mobile phonesaffect users’ memory, concentration orproblem-solving abilities

• further study on the effects of long-termradiofrequency exposure on transgenic mice.

C.4 Finnish TechnologyDevelopment Centreprogramme

Finland’s government-run TechnologyDevelopment Centre has started a three-yearresearch programme into possible health risksfrom radiofrequency fields. Amongst theprojects are:

• experiments on co-carcinogenic effectsof radiofrequency fields

• a feasibility study for an epidemiologicalstudy on mobile phone use and cancer

• a study on radiofrequency fields fromcellphones and electrosensitivity

• in vitro systems for studying the effects ofradiofrequency fields.

C.5 European Community researchprojects

The European Union is funding studies on thesafety of mobile phones through its FifthFramework Programme for Research andTechnological Development. Five projectswill receive funding, including investigationsof possible genotoxic effects on cells andlaboratory animals, and the IARC study onbrain tumours in cellphone users.

D.1 American standard – ANSI C95.1The American National Standards Institute(ANSI) has undertaken development ofradiofrequency standards since 1960. Their firstradiofrequency exposure standard was publishedin 1966, with revisions appearing in 1974, 1982and 1991. Since 1988, the work has beencoordinated by the Institute of Electrical andElectronics Engineers (IEEE). ANSI requiresthat Standards be revised or reaffirmed every fiveyears, and the Standard was reaffirmed by theIEEE in 1997 and 1999. A further extensivereview is now in progress in order to takeaccount of the most recent research data.

A P P E N D I X D : I E E E / A N S I , I C N I R P , U S S R A N D

N E W Z E A L A N D E X P O S U R E S T A N D A R D S

University research 30%

Nonprofit research 6%

Military research 12%

Govt. research (EPA, FDA etc) 24%

Industry 10%

Industry - consulting 3%

Govt. - administration 4%

Public, independant consultants 11%

The IEEE committee and subcommitteesinclude members from a range of disciplinesand nationalities. Standards are developedthrough an open consensus process by thesubcommittees, whose membership is open toanyone with an interest. IEEE membership isnot required for participation or voting on themain committees or subcommittees. The onlyrestriction is that committee membership mustbe balanced with regard to interest. Anyone isable to attend and contribute to meetings,whether they are committee members or not.Summaries of the interests and affiliations ofthe 125 members of the Safety Levels withRespect to Human Exposure subcommittee atthe time the 1991 Standard was approved aregiven opposite.

Standards development is based on a criticalevaluation and interpretation of the researchliterature. Once a draft is developed there isa postal vote, in which 75 percent of thevotes must be returned. An attempt must bemade to reconcile every negative vote, andevery unreconciled negative vote must becirculated to offer voting members anopportunity to comment, affirm or changetheir vote. If, following this procedure, thereare still 75 percent of the votes in favour, thedraft standard is subject to a further vote bythe main committee following the same rules.At this point, there is coordination withother interested bodies, such as theBioelectromagnetics Society, and finally areview by the IEEE Standards board to ensurethat proper procedures have been followed.Once approved by the IEEE Board, the draftbecomes an IEEE Standard and is forwardedto ANSI.

Physical sciences 33%

Radiology, Pharmacology, Toxicology 3%

Life sciences 43%

Medicine 10%

Safety etc 11%

Figure D.1 Affiliations of IEEE safety levels committee

Figure D.2 Principal disciplines of IEEE safety levels committee

The ANSI Board of Standards Review, whichalso requires evidence of due process,advertises the Standard for public comment,and the standard only becomes an AmericanNational Standard once every comment hasbeen satisfactorily addressed.

The IEEE/ANSI Risk Assessment WorkingGroup concluded that there was a thresholdlevel of radiofrequency power absorption inthe body of 4 W/kg, above which adverseeffects in humans might occur. At lowerfrequencies, there are also restrictions oninduced current flows. Effects reported atlower levels (eg, movement of calcium ionsfrom cells) were considered, but the consensusof the working group was that suchmodulation-specific “window” effects couldnot be related to human health.

In deriving exposure limits for “uncontrolledenvironments” (effectively, environmentswith unrestricted access), the SocietalImplications Working Group recommendeda safety factor of 50, to take into account thepossibility of sensitive subgroups of people,potentially longer durations of exposure,voluntary versus involuntary exposures, thepossibility that “athermal” effects may be apotential health hazard, etc.

Although the basic restriction on exposures isgiven in terms of power absorbed in the body,in practice this is difficult to measure orcalculate, so the Standard gives equivalentvalues in terms of the power flux density, andelectric and magnetic field strengths. Thesehave been plotted, along with the equivalentvalues for the other Standards discussed here,in the first part of this section.

D.2 International Commissionon Non-Ionizing RadiationProtection (ICNIRP)

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)is an independent scientific organisationresponsible for providing guidance and adviceon the health hazards of non-ionisingradiation. It was chartered in 1992, and isbased on the International Non-IonizingRadiation Committee (INIRC) of theInternational Radiation ProtectionAssociation (IRPA).

ICNIRP was established to advance non-ionising radiation protection for the benefit ofpeople and the environment. It is a formallyrecognised non-governmental organisation innon-ionising radiation for the World HealthOrganization and International Labour Office.

Amongst its activities are:

• development of independent, science-based international guidelines on limitsof exposure to non-ionising radiation

• provision of science-based guidance andrecommendations on protection from non-ionising radiation exposure

• establishment of principles of non-ionisingradiation protection for formulatinginternational and national protectionprogrammes

• maintenance of a close liaison andworking relationship with all internationalbodies engaged in non-ionising radiationprotection.

Work is conducted in conjunction withinternational and national health and researchorganisations, as well as universities and otheracademic institutions. The fourteen membersof ICNIRP comprises individual experts (whorepresent neither their countries nor theirinstitutions) covering the disciplines ofmedicine, biology, epidemiology, physics andengineering. As far as possible, there shouldalso be a balance of geographical representation.

In addition, ICNIRP has established fourstanding committees, covering epidemiology,medicine and biology, physics andengineering, and biological aspects of opticalradiation, which draw on additional expertisefrom outside the Commission.

ICNIRP’s predecessor (the INIRC of theIRPA) published exposure guidelines forradiofrequency fields in 1988. An updatedversion was published in 19983. Theguidelines are based on a literature reviewcarried out by ICNIRP members and standingcommittees. This review is sent out to variousinstitutions, agencies and individual scientistsfor comment. ICNIRP is also required tosubmit its recommendations for comment bythe IRPA and the IRPA Associate Societies(such as the Australasian Radiation ProtectionSociety). Although majority voting isaccepted for ICNIRP decisions, it isunderstood that there was unanimousacceptance of the 1998 guidelines.

In establishing their exposure limits, ICNIRPrecognised the need to reconcile a number ofdiffering expert opinions. The validity ofscientific reports had to be considered, andextrapolations made from animal experimentsto effects on humans. They note that:

‘The restrictions in these guidelines were basedon scientific data alone; currently availableknowledge, however, indicates that theserestrictions provide an adequate level of protectionfrom exposure to time-varying EMF (electric,magnetic, and electromagnetic fields).’

Criteria applied in the course of the reviewwere designed to evaluate the credibility of thereported findings, and only established effectswere used as the basis for the proposedexposure guidelines. From this, ICNIRPconcluded that there was a threshold foreffects when the radiofrequency powerabsorbed in the body exceeded about 4 W/kg.They note that there is insufficientinformation to provide a rigorous basis forestablishing safety factors, but taking intoaccount potentially higher sensitivity in somegroups, the possibility of exposure in severeenvironments, and the possible effects ofsignal reflections and differences in absorptionof radiofrequency energy by differentindividuals, they chose a safety factor of 50 indetermining public exposure limits. Thus theyestablish a basic restriction for public exposuresof 0.08 W/kg. At frequencies below 10 MHz,the basic restriction is couched in terms ofcurrent density induced in the body. Becauseof the difficulties in assessing absorbed powerand current density, ICNIRP also providesreference levels in terms of the more easilymeasured electric and magnetic field strengths,power flux density, and limb currents.Compliance with the reference levels givesassurance that the basic restrictions are notexceeded. If exposures are greater than thereference level, this does not necessarily meanthat the basic restriction is also exceeded, buta more careful analysis is required.

3ICNIRP (1998). Guidelines for limitingexposure to time varying electric, magnetic,and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz).Health Physics 74 (4), 494 - 522.

ICNIRP considered that epidemiologicalstudies provided only limited information oncancer risk, and generally lacked quantitativeexposure information. Studies onreproductive outcomes also suffered from poorassessment of exposure and, in many cases,small numbers of subjects, and it wasconsidered difficult to draw conclusions fromthem. Overall, ICNIRP concluded that theliterature on possible athermal effects ofelectromagnetic fields was so complex, thevalidity of reported effects so poorlyestablished, and the relevance to humanhealth so uncertain, that it was impossibleto use that body of information as a basis forsetting exposure limits.

ICNIRP decided not to use the concept of“prudent avoidance”, or a precautionaryapproach, in order not to diverge from theirpractice of founding guidelines onscientifically established studies.

The ICNIRP guidelines have been adoptedin the European Community.

D.3 USSR standardInformation on the philosophy and reasoningbehind eastern European exposure Standards,of which the (former) USSR standard is takenas an example, is not widely available. One ofthe goals of the World Health OrganizationInternational Electromagnetic Fields project(discussed in Appendix C.1) is to improveknowledge of both the philosophy of theseStandards, and the research on which they arebased, and some results from the early stages ofthis work should be available soon.

For environmental (ie, general public)exposures, the Interim health standards andregulations on protecting the general populationfrom the effects of electromagnetic fields generatedby radiotransmitting equipment were developedin the Kiev Institute for General andCommunal Hygiene, and approved andpromulgated by the USSR Chief StatePhysician in 1984. These interim measureswere due for review in 1989, but no reviewappears to have been undertaken.

The philosophy appears to be to set limitswhich are a compromise between setting limitsas low as possible, engineering practicalitiesand the costs of setting limits so low that largeareas would be unusable for public activities.As knowledge about possible health effectsincreases, the limits may be relaxed. Anyevidence of possible effects in people orexperimental animals, for example, perceptionof exposure or a biological effect of unknownsignificance, is assumed to have possiblehealth consequences. Reproducibility of anyeffects reported may not be an importantconsideration. Much of the data arises fromexperiments with pulsed radar sources.

The radiofrequency spectrum is divided upinto bands (for example, 3-30 MHz, 30-300 MHz, with different limits (calledmaximum permissible levels)) applied withineach band. There is no attempt to avoidabrupt transitions at the boundaries, and theboundaries are different for public andoccupational limits. At frequencies up to300 MHz, the limits are specified in terms ofthe electric field strength, and above that aspower flux density.

Radio transmitters should be sited taking intoaccount the transmitter characteristics (power,height and directionality of the antenna etc)and nature and use of surrounding areas sothat exposures in populated areas do notexceed the limits.

The regulations describe Health ProtectionZones (HPZ) and Restricted Construction Zones(RCZ). An HPZ is the area surrounding atransmitter, with the boundary defined bypoints at which radiofrequency levels 2 metresabove the ground do not exceed the exposurelimit. Use of the HPZ is specified in separateregulations. There is a requirement that theHPZ be made as small as possible.

The RCZ is a larger area than the HPZ,within which radiofrequency levels at anyheight above the ground exceed the exposurelimit. Buildings within the RCZ should beconstructed so as to ensure that exposures tooccupants comply with the exposure limits.Other measures to reduce exposures, such asminimising roads and paths, planting trees andshrubs etc, should also be undertaken. Radiotransmitters should have a health certificatecontaining details such as the technicalspecifications, plans of the HPZ and RCZ,and radiofrequency measurement data.

Although not carried over into exposureguidelines for the public, there is anassumption in the USSR occupational limitsthat effects ( at least at frequencies above300 MHz) may be cumulative. The exposurelimit varies in inverse proportion to exposuretime, so that a high exposure for a short timeis taken to be equivalent to a low exposureover a long time.

D.4 New Zealand StandardIn 1990, New Zealand adopted the existingAustralian radiofrequency exposure Standard(published in 1985) as NZS 6609:1990 Part 1Radiofrequency Radiation – Maximum exposurelevels 100 kHz – 300 GHz. This Standard hadinterim status, pending further review.

In 1991 the New Zealand and Australianradiofrequency committees combined, and inMarch 1998 the joint committee released arevised Standard (AS/NZS 2772.1(Int):1998)which also had interim status, and was validfor one year. This was based largely on the1988 International Radiation ProtectionAssociation (IRPA)4 recommendations.The reason for publishing an interim Standardwas to allow further time for committeeconsideration and public input.

The 1998 Interim Standard was reviewed byan enlarged committee, made up ofrepresentatives of sectors of interestnominated by government bodies, industryassociations, community-based and consumerorganisations, trade unions and professional,technical or trade associations. New Zealandrepresentation is detailed in the table below.While committee participation is soughtthrough nominating organisations, StandardsNew Zealand and Standards Australia mayalso co-opt individuals who have expertisein a particular area.

4The IRPA subcommittee which developed theserecommendations went on to become ICNIRP.

New Zealand representation in the reviewcommittee

Adopt Radiation Controls Inc

Broadcast Communications Ltd

Local Government New Zealand

Ministry of Commerce

National Radiation Laboratory(Ministry of Health)

New Zealand Association of RadioTransmitters

New Zealand Institute of Occupationaland Environmental Medicine

Telecom New Zealand

There are two main opportunities for publicinput into the review of a Standard. Firstly,issues can be discussed directly withcommittee members during the preparation ofa draft Standard. Secondly, once thecommittee has prepared a draft Standard, it isreleased for public comment, the commentperiod normally lasting two months. In NewZealand, the release for comment isannounced in Standards magazine, and on theStandards New Zealand web site (http://www.standards.co.nz).

The draft produced by this enlargedcommittee was released for public comment inDecember 1998. Exposure limits were takenfrom the 1998 ICNIRP guidelines, and furthersections added to aid implementation andverification of compliance. There was alsoa clause requiring operators to minimiseexposures to the public.

Requirements for acceptance of StandardsThe aim of a Standards committee is toproduce a Standard that is generally accepted.Following public comment and a committeeconsensus on the content of a Standard,committee members hold a postal vote. If amember casts a negative vote, the committeemust reconsider its position. As far aspossible, the reasons for negative votes shallbe discussed and attempts made to resolvedifferences. No Standard shall be publishedif it is recognised that there is a significantinterest opposed to its publication. (That isnot to say that unjustified views of any partymotivated by self interest should beaccommodated.) However, when there arenegative votes still remaining unresolved, adraft can be published if a minimum of 67percent vote in favour, and a minimum of 80percent of votes received are affirmative.

Although it was understood that there wasfairly widespread acceptance of the reviseddraft, the final joint committee ballot did notreceive the required 80 percent votes in favourfor adoption as a joint Standard.(Representatives of Standards NZ andStandards Australia do not vote.)Considering votes from each countryseparately, there were still insufficient votes infavour from either Australia or New Zealand.

Therefore efforts were made to resolvedifferences. The New Zealand representativesmanaged to make amendments to the Standardwhich, when put to a further ballot of the NewZealand representatives, received sufficientvotes to be adopted. This final version,adopted April 1999, included the ICNIRPlimits, and clarified sections referring toimplementation, verification of compliance,and minimisation of public exposures.

No resolution was reached in Australia, andthe Australian Radiation Protection andNuclear Safety Agency is now coordinating

The possibility that some sections of thepopulation may be more susceptible thanothers to some environmental or physicalinfluence must always be considered in healthand safety guidance. Depending on the agentunder consideration, susceptible or vulnerablegroups may include children, elderly people,the sick, people with particular geneticconditions etc. More stringent protectionmethods may be required to protect suchgroups against harmful effects, compared withhealthy adults.

Some of these groups often congregate in well-defined areas, such as hospitals, schools or resthomes. For others there are no such areas. Forprotection purposes, it must be assumed thatanyone who may be particularly vulnerable orsusceptible could be anywhere that isreasonably accessible to any other member ofthe public. Therefore, exposure limits designedto protect such groups should be applied in anyarea normally accessible to any person.

There is no clear evidence that some sectionsof the public (children, or elderly) may bemore or less susceptible to effects fromexposure to radiofrequency fields than others.Nevertheless, many standards apply anadditional safety factor of five for the public,over and above that applied for occupationalexposures, for several reasons:

• people exposed occupationally should beaware of their exposures and be trained inthe safety precautions that may benecessary to avoid overexposures

• people exposed occupationally are exposedfor a limited part of each day and of eachweek. The public may be exposedcontinuously, and unaware of theirexposures

• people exposed occupationally wouldnormally be in good health, whereas thepublic may be ill and less able to tolerateexposures.

A P P E N D I X E : H E A L T H E F F E C T S :

P O T E N T I A L L Y V U L N E R A B L E

P O P U L A T I O N S

The public is often sensitive about thepossibility of some groups being morevulnerable, or meriting more protection, thanothers, and may consider that efforts should bemade to minimise or avoid exposures in areaswhere these people may congregate.

Where a hazard exists occupationally exposedpeople should be managed using the criteriaset out in the Health and Safety inEmployment Act 1992. This basically requiresemployers (and others) to ensure the safety ofworkers by taking ‘all practical steps’ tocontrol hazards by elimination, isolation,or minimization.

F.1 The importance of case lawThe New Zealand courts, and to some extentcouncils, when making decisions on resourceconsent applications, operate on a precedent-based system.

This means that when the Environment Courtmakes decisions it is required to be consistentwith the decisions of any higher Court, ie theHigh Court, Court of Appeal, and PrivyCouncil (in the United Kingdom). Itendeavours to be consistent with its owndecisions, and the UK House of Lords’ decisionsare also regarded as highly persuasive.

Councils are not bound by their previousdecisions, but they are bound by decisions ofthe Environment Court. Precedent-settingEnvironment Court decisions should befollowed by councils, otherwise there is a riskthat the council’s decision will be successfullyoverturned on appeal.

However, precedent-setting decisions may bedistinguished from a case at hand if the facts areconsidered to be different in a material way.

F.2 Introduction to cellsite case lawVery few cellsite cases have actually proceededto Environment Court hearings. The casesrelating to health issues have generally relatedto cellsite base stations. There are likely to beeven fewer in the future, given the firmness ofthe Environment Court’s decisions inMcIntyre v Christchurch City Council [1996]NZRMA 289 and Shirley Primary School vTelecom Mobile Communications Limited [1999]NZRMA66.

To date, the Environment Court has ruledthat there are no established adverse healtheffects arising from the emission of radio wavesfrom cellular facilities.

A P P E N D I X F : S U M M A R Y O F K E Y E N V I R O N M E N T

C O U R T C A S E S

The Court has found that there are potentialadverse health effects of low probability (inShirley), but only in a very weak sense (and thiswas not a reason for declining resourceconsent). Such potential effects of lowprobability can be taken into account underthe Act, because section 3(f) defines effect asincluding:

Any potential effect of low probability whichhas a high potential impact.

F.3 The leading New Zealand casesThe leading New Zealand cases are McIntyreand others v Christchurch City Council (referredto as McIntyre) and Shirley Primary School vTelecom Mobile Communications Limited(Shirley). In both cases, and in particular inShirley, detailed evidence was presented to theCourt on health, psychological and othereffects. With the benefit of that evidence,and legal argument on both sides of the issues,the decisions in these cases, in particularShirley, have significant importance in theNew Zealand context.

The decision in Telecom v Christchurch CityCouncil is also often cited, but in that casethe Court did not have the benefit of expertsespousing both points of view.

The following discussion outlines the factsof the leading cases, McIntyre and others vChristchurch City Council, Telecom vChristchurch City Council and Shirley PrimarySchool v Telecom Mobile CommunicationsLimited, followed by a discussion on theguidance which those cases, and others,give on the following issues:

• The relevance of the New ZealandStandard (NZS)

• The precautionary approach

• Health effects: evidential matters

• Types of evidence

• Assessment of evidence generally:the judicial function

- Admissibility and reliability ofevidence

- Burden of proof and standard of proof

• Other factors in the assessment

- Psychological effects

- Visual/landscape/amenity effects

- Effects on property values

- Reduced financial viability of schoolsand whether alternative sites areavailable

- Positive effects

• Imposing a condition lower than the NZSand precedent value of decisions.

F.4 McIntyre and others vChristchurch City Council

In McIntyre, Bell South applied for a resourceconsent for a base transceiver station to beerected in Fendalton, Christchurch. Theactivity was a non-complying activity underthe Transitional District Plan.

The Christchurch City Council granted theconsent, subject to conditions.

Residents’ objections concerned harmfulhealth effects from radiofrequency radiation.In particular, they argued it would be an errorof law to decide on the present state ofscientific knowledge that there were noharmful health effects from low-levelradiofrequency exposure levels.

It was also argued that the ResourceManagement Act 1991 (RMA) contains aprecautionary policy and that section 104requires a consent authority to have regard topotential effects of low probability but highimpact, in considering an application.

The Planning Tribunal (now the EnvironmentCourt) considered residents’ objections andheard experts’ opinions as to potential healtheffects, and granted the consent subject toconditions. It was found that there would beno adverse health effects from the low levelsof radiation from the proposed transmitter,not even effects of low probability but highpotential impact. The relevant parts of thedecision are discussed below.

F.5 Telecom v Christchurch CityCouncil

Telecom applied for a resource consent toestablish and operate a cellular network site fromColombo Street in Christchurch, adjacent to theArcher Memorial Home. The activity was non-complying under the Transitional District Plan.

The Christchurch City Council refused theapplication on the grounds of adverse visualeffects. Telecom appealed the Council’sdecision. The case would have been confinedto visual issues, however a Mr Haliday joinedas a party to the appeal, opposing the activityon the grounds of adverse health effects.

The Court granted the consent, subject toconditions including:

That the cell site facility shall at all times beoperated in accordance with the New ZealandStandard for Radio Frequency Levels (NZS6609:1990 or any subsequent amendmentthereof) and the level of radio frequency fields bekept as low as reasonably achievable.

The Court gave a strong indication that it hadhoped McIntyre would have resolved the issueof health hazards from cellsites (page 3):

We question the value of inviting this Court tocontinue to entertain and make findings in respect ofdetailed technical and medical evidence in order todecide in each case whether or not a health hazardexists in relation to these facilities. We would havethought that by now the findings in cases such asMcIntyre and others v the Christchurch CityCouncil Decision 15/96 dated 5/3/96 would havebeen sufficient, in the absence of any fresh evidenceto allay the concerns of residents about possiblehealth hazards emanating from cell sites such as thatproposed in this case. The cost to the communityinvolved in the need to deal repeatedly with theseissues is becoming a matter for concern.

The Court concluded that there were noadverse effects, or if there were, that they wereno more that minor (pages 35–36).

F.6 Shirley Primary School vTelecom MobileCommunications Ltd

This case also involved a decision of theChristchurch City Council. Telecom appliedto the Christchurch City Council for aresource consent to establish, operate andmaintain a cellular base station on land atShirley Road, Christchurch, adjacent to theShirley Primary School. Again, the activitywas non-complying under the TransitionalDistrict Plan.

The Council granted consent subject toconditions. The school appealed the decision,alleging four main adverse effects:

• the risk of adverse health effects from theradiofrequency radiation emitted from thecellsite

• the school’s perception of the risks andrelated psychological adverse effects onpupils and teachers

• adverse visual effects

• reduced financial viability of the school ifpupils were withdrawn.

Telecom also appealed against a conditionimposed by the Council (condition 4)imposing a limit on the power flux densityemitted by the cellsite. Telecom’s appealagainst condition 4 was successful.

This case emphasises a risk assessmentapproach (and this approach is a commonthread throughout the case). The Courtstarted by the premise that no one canguarantee that there is no risk from cell sites(page 97) – a no risk approach is logicallyimpossible. Everybody lives with some riskevery day of their lives. However, the riskmay be so very small that it is acceptable,compared with other risks that parents exposetheir children to daily (page 97).

In addition, the Court emphasised thatradiofrequency radiation is just one form ofradiation that pervades the universe (pages 72and 138).

It was held (at page 121):

(a) that there is very tenuousepidemiological evidence of somepossible adverse health effects (effects onlearning and sleep);

(b) that on our subjective assessment theseeffects are of very low probability; and

(c) that the effects may be of relativelyhigh potential impact (but not of thedevastating impact that cancerswould have).

So there are adverse ‘effects’ within the meaningof section 3(f) but only in a very weak sense.

In conclusion we hold that:

(a) the risk of the schoolchildren or teachers at theschool incurring leukaemia of other cancerfrom radiofrequency radiation emitted by thecellsite is extremely low;

(b) the risk to the pupils of exposure toradiofrequency radiation causing sleepdisorders or learning disabilities is higher butstill very small 5.’

The Court concluded (at page 141):

In the end we are persuaded to the very highstandard that we require, by the evidence ofscientists called by Telecom and by the view ofICNIRP, that the risks to the Shirley PrimarySchool community are very low and are acceptableand accordingly we consider that the Telecomproposal should be allowed to proceed as achievingthe purpose of the Act.

The relevant parts of the decision arediscussed further below.

F.7 The relevance of the NewZealand Standard

In McIntyre, it was not disputed that theactivity complied with the NZS (NZS 6609:1990). However, the residents argued that theStandard was set for known effects, whereastheir concern was for the unknown effects ofradiation below the levels in the Standard(page 294).

The Court stated that compliance with theStandard is not decisive or compulsory.Parties to resource consent proceedings arenot bound to accept that compliance with theStandard would avoid adverse effects on theenvironment. The Court said (page 295):

Because New Zealand standards are not givenparticular status by law, parties must be free toassert that significant adverse effects on theenvironment would occur despite compliance withthe standard. …

The standards are generally accorded respect.So opposition to a resource consent applicationbased on an assertion of significant environmentalharm despite compliance with a relevant NewZealand standard would usually need to besupported by expert opinion to be worthy ofserious consideration.

5Taking a relatively arbitrary figure, just to givean idea of what we mean: very small = 1in a million…

In Shirley the Court considered the two newstandards published in 1998 (AS/NZ S 2772.1(Int.): 1998 Radio Frequency Fields, Part 1and the standard recommended in theICNIRP Guidelines. Those standards wereconsidered under section 104(1)(i) of the Act(page 136). The following points summarisehow the Court viewed these two standards(pages 131-132):

• Although the ANZ standard states thatthere has been no conclusive evidencethat athermal effects from radiofrequencyradiation constitute a health hazard, thisdid not guide the Court becauseconclusive evidence is not required underthe Act.

• The Court was reassured by statementsin the ICNIRP standard that the risk ofhealth effects from low-level exposure isvery low, and that at cellphonefrequencies the ANZ Standard becomesalmost two and a half times lower than theinternational standard in the ICNIRPguidelines.

F.8 The precautionary principleor approach

Although the precautionary principle wasrecognised as a matter to be taken into accountin McIntyre and in Telecom, the Court in Shirleyrejected the need to take into account theprecautionary principle as a separate concern.The reasoning was that the RMA alreadyembodies a precautionary approach.

In McIntyre the residents argued that theResource Management Act 1991 (RMA)is about risk avoidance – ie, it has aprecautionary principle in it.

The Court however made a distinctionbetween the policy of the RMA and a generalprecautionary principle of environmental law.

The policy of the RMA is given effect toby applying the RMA’s provisions in thedecision-making process. These includehaving regard to the factors in section 104(1)when considering an application andsubmissions; and exercising the discretionaryjudgment whether to grant consent, undersection 105 of the RMA.

The general precautionary principle is for theevaluation and ultimate judgment, and theinfluence of the principle in that finalevaluation is a matter for discretion (page 305).The principle can apply, under the Act, topeople and their health as well as the rest of thenatural and physical environment (page 307).The Court also considered that (page 305):

Like all elements that contribute to the ultimatejudgment, the weight to be given to theprecautionary principle would depend on thecircumstances. The circumstances would includethe extent of present scientific knowledge and theimpact of otherwise permitted activities. Howeverwe think that in an appropriate case they wouldalso include the gravity of the effects if, despitepresent uncertainty, they do occur.

These comments would seem to indicate thatthe precautionary principle is to be taken intoaccount under the section 105 evaluation.However at page 307, the Court appeared toaccept that the principle can be a relevantfactor to take into account under section104(1) stating:

On the general precautionary principle, we notethat a consent authority is entitled to have regardto any other matter not listed in s 104(1) which itconsiders relevant and reasonably necessary todetermine the application…

There may be resource consent applications inwhich a consent authority may consider it relevantand reasonably necessary to have regard to theprecautionary principle.

It was noted (at page 315) that the RMAprovides other ways of addressing adverseeffects which become apparent at a later date.The relevant provisions are:

• section 17 (which provides for a generalduty on every persons to avoid, remedyor mitigate adverse effects on theenvironment)

• section 128 (which provides for thecircumstances where resource consentconditions can be reviewed)

• section 319(2) (which provides thatenforcement action can be taken against aperson acting in accordance with a resourceconsent, where the adverse effects inrespect of which the order is sought werenot expressly recognised by the person whogranted the resource consent, and theenforcement action is consideredappropriate having regard to the time thathas elapsed or the change in circumstancessince the grant of the consent).

In summary, the Court in McIntyre indicatedthat the precautionary principle may berelevant under section 104(1) of the RMA.The precautionary principle may also be afactor to be weighed when the decision-makerexercises discretion under section 105 whetheror not to grant consent.

In applying this to the case, the Court said(page 319):

In approaching the exercise of the discretionaryjudgment to grant or refuse resource consent, webear in mind the conclusion we reached earlier inthis decision about the precautionary principle.We have considered the application of that to thecircumstances of this case. We have concluded thatthe low power of the proposed transmissions, thecondition that we would impose limiting the incidentpower flux density to 2 microwatts per squarecentimetre at any dwelling, and the relationshipbetween that limit and the relevant standardsreferred to … all illustrate the application of aprecautionary approach to this proposal.

In Telecom, the Court agreed with theapproach in McIntyre that the precautionaryprinciple is a matter for the ultimatejudgment, and can be taken into account asa matter of discretion (page 11, Telecom).The Court said (page 21):

It would be wrong in principle for the Court to flyin the face of that body of accumulated knowledgemerely because it is not yet possible to demonstratebeyond any doubt that this technology is safe. Nohuman activity can go forward on that basis and itwould be a misuse of our discretion to reject thisapplication by approaching the matter in that way.Our clear obligation is to evaluate the evidence,satisfy ourselves, as far as we are able, that themethodology and factual basis for the viewcurrently held by the scientists carries conviction,and having done that then to take those mattersinto account in considering the overall exercise ofour discretion under s.104.

Following these two cases, there was someconfusion about whether the precautionaryprinciple or approach should be taken intoaccount under section 104, or section 105 ofthe RMA, and how it should be applied.

In Shirley, as in McIntyre, the Court brokedown the decision-making process intocomponents. It said (following comments onthe ”risk assessment” approach at page 100):

The decision-maker has:

(a) under section 104(1):

• to decide what the primary facts 6 are; and

• to evaluate those facts as propositionsabout the future (‘risks’ if adverse effects,‘chances’ if beneficial) – usually thosepropositions are given as the opinionsof experts7; and

(b) to carry out a further evaluation whenundertaking the weighing and balancingexercise required under section 105(1)to decide the ultimate question.

However the Court took a different viewto McIntyre on the precautionary principle.Unlike the Court in McIntyre, the Court inShirley did not think it appropriate to take intoaccount a precautionary principle as a separateconsideration either under section 104 or 105of the RMA.

The Court said (at page 134):

There is some confusion apparent over theapplicability of the precautionary principle. Wehold that the correct position is that the ResourceManagement Act 1991 is precautionary and thusjustifies a precautionary approach. We consider,without deciding, that the precautionary principleis a limited consideration introduced byinternational law. The precautionary principle, asubset of the precautionary approach, derives fromthe Rio Declaration principle 15…

After quoting the Rio Declaration, the Courtcontinued:

It will be seen that the precautionary approachapplies where there is a threat of ‘serious orirreversible damage’ and entails that just because itis not, say, 99 percent certain that the threat willmaterialise, or perhaps that the damage will beirreversible, does not mean that no step should betaken to minimise risk. To paraphrase in thelanguage of section 3 of the Resource ManagementAct 1991 the principle is, if a potential effect is onlyof high (and not very high) probability and highpotential impact that is no reason for failing to takeaction to guard against the effect. The positionfacing us of course is quite different in that thealleged effect is clearly one of low probability and ofunknown potential impact.

The reason we doubt why a wider “precautionaryprinciple” is useful is precisely because aprecautionary approach is inherent in the Act.

…Reference to principles or policies outside theAct which can already be found inside it is simplyconfusing. We think Occam’s razor should applyand reference to the precautionary principle eithereschewed or, if used, should be recognized as arestatement of section 3(f) and the precautionaryapproach. That position is encouraged by the factthat in this case we were also referred to the“prudent avoidance” policy or principle; and tothe ALARA policy… . In our view all of theseare simply ways of expressing concern aboutfuture effects of low probability (so that we do notknow whether they will occur) and high potential(again because we do not know) impact.

6And secondary (inferred) facts

7These two steps come under section 104.In may cases step (b) is the first step if thereis no dispute about primary facts.

In summary, we do not consider it is appropriateto apply the “precautionary principle” or the otherpolicies suggested by witnesses and supported bycounsel, for three reasons. First a precautionaryapproach is already implicit in the Act andemerges in the flexibility of the standard of proofapplied by the Court and (as we shall see) in theweight given to evidence that has only been“proved” to a low standard (probability).Secondly such a “principle” is an unnecessarycomplication in an already complex statutory andfactual matrix. Thirdly, application of theprecautionary principle (or any of the other rulesof thumb) to our decision under section 105(1)would lead to double-counting of the need forcaution. If the appropriate standard of proof is ona sliding scale between the balance of probabilitiesand beyond reasonable doubt, depending on theimpact of the effect, the fact is that the appropriatecaution has been exercised when deciding undersection 104(1)(a) what the effects are to beconsidered under section 105. If the Courtapplies the “precautionary principle” as anothermatter under section 104(1)(i) then the need forcaution will have been considered twice.

This passage has been quoted at lengthbecause there are a number of points whichare made, including that:

• the precautionary principle is a principleintroduced by international law

• it is doubtful whether the precautionaryprinciple is useful in the context of theResource Management Act 1991, whichalready embodies a precautionaryapproach (in section 3(f), in the flexibilityof the standard of proof to be applied, andin the weight given to evidence that hasonly been proved to a low standard)

• it is inappropriate to apply theprecautionary principle to the finalevaluation under section 105, or asanother matter under section 104(1)(i),because this would lead to double-counting of the need for caution

• Application of the precautionaryprinciple, as a principle outside the RMA,is an unnecessary complication.

This issue of the precautionary principle isclosely related to issues as to the burden andstandard of proof to be applied, and the weightto be given to evidence that has only beenproved to a low standard. A discussion onthese matters is set out separately below.

The precautionary principle or approach isone of the key issues on which the Shirleydecision differs from McIntyre and Telecom.

The Ministry for the Environment’s view isthat the Shirley case should be preferred.As was indicated in that case, it is importantto identify what is being considered whenusing the terminology “precautionaryprinciple” or “precautionary approach”.Sometimes the phrases are used to indicatea general principle of caution whereenvironmental matters are concerned. TheCourt in Shirley referred to this as the broader“precautionary approach”. The Ministry forthe Environment agrees with the Court inShirley that this general need for cautionwhere environmental matters are concernedis already embodied in the RMA.

The second use of the terminology is thespecific principle in international treaties andinstruments. This is termed the“precautionary principle”. It is this morespecific principle that the Court appeared tobe discussing in McIntyre.

The Court in Shirley recognised that this“principle” only applies in quite limitedcircumstances, and should not be confusedwith a broader cautious approach which isembodied in the RMA. In the RioDeclaration the precautionary principle isstated as:

Where there are threats of serious or irreversibledamage, lack of full scientific certainty shall notbe used as a reason for postponing cost-effectivemeasures to protect environmental degradation.

Therefore, the principle only applies wherethere are threats of serious or irreversibledamage and a lack of full scientific certainty.The principle may reflect the changingemphasis in international environmental lawfrom establishing liability for damage after theevent to taking action in standards andprocedures for preventing pollution beforethe event (refer D Nolan and M Williams“Electromagnetic radiation emissions and the‘precautionary principle’” [1996] 1 BRMB 215).In New Zealand however, the need forstandards and procedures for preventingpollution has long been recognised.

The case Wratten v Tasman District Council(1988) 4 ELRNZ 148 contains a discussion ofthe precautionary principle in the context ofthe plan development process (as distinct froma resource consent application). The Courtlooked at whether there is a mechanism in theFirst Schedule process allowing theprecautionary principle to be considered(similarly to section 105 as discussed inMcIntyre). It was submitted by counsel thatthe precautionary principle may be applicableto the development of a plan once it isdemonstrated that a potential adverse effectexists, when the consent authority isconsidering whether a provision is “necessary”,in the sense of “expedient or desirable”, undersection 32. Opposing counsel submitted thatsection 32 sets out in detail the process to be

followed and this does not include theprecautionary principle, and there is nogeneral discretion in developing plans (likeunder section 105 in the resource consentprocess).

The Court said (at pages 172-173):

In our opinion the precautionary principle shouldnot be applied where the risk is insignificant orthe issues are evenly balanced. When it may beapplied we consider is where there is a need toprevent serious or irreversible harm to theenvironment in situations of scientificuncertainty. After a very careful analysis of theevidence we are not convinced that serious orirreversible harm to the environment will occuron what is currently known.

Although this case contains obiter commentsthat the precautionary principle could beapplied in the plan development processwhere there is evidence of scientific orirreversible harm, the question is whether sucha principle should be considered as anconsideration extraneous to the RMA, orwhether the decision-maker simply recognisesthat a number of the provisions of the RMAreflect the precautionary principle (and thisrecognition can assist in the interpretation ofthose RMA provisions).

The Ministry for the Environment’s view isthat the more specific precautionary principleis also already contained in the RMA. TheRMA does not require full scientific certaintyin order for preventative measures, such ascontrols in district plans, to be imposed.As the Court recognised in Shirley, under theRMA measures can be imposed where there areactual or potential effects of low probability buthigh potential impact (under section 3(f)).Other provisions in the RMA which embodythe precautionary principle are sections 5(2)(a)(“Sustaining the potential of natural and physicalresources (excluding minerals) to meet thereasonably foreseeable needs of future

generations”) and 5(2)(b) (“Safeguarding thelife-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, andecosystems” – emphasis added).

In addition, although section 32 does notcontain an explicit reference to theprecautionary principle, the Ministry for theEnvironment’s view is that aspects of theprinciple are already implicit in the section,particularly in the requirement to carry out anevaluation of the likely benefits and costs(section 32(1)(b)). Any evaluation of thecosts and benefits of a provision shouldinvolve a consideration of the severity of theadverse effects even where there is a lack offull certainty over whether those effects willeventuate. The Resource ManagementAmendment Bill 1999 would clarify theincorporation of the precautionary principle inthe RMA, by amending section 32 toexplicitly include a requirement that anysection 32 evaluation must “[t]ake into accountthe risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertainor insufficient information about the subjectmatter of the policies, rules or other matters.”

As was noted in the Wratten case (at page169), the Ministry for the Environment’s 1995Environment 2010 Strategy includes theprecautionary principle as a principle thatshould be applied to resource managementpractice where there is limited knowledge orunderstanding about the potential for adverseenvironmental effects or the risk of serious orirreversible environmental damage. Howeverit should be recognised that this principle isnot stated as one that local authorities shouldapply separately when making decisions underthe RMA, rather it is stated as one of theprinciples for guiding the Government’sapproach (refer page 7 of the Strategy).

Although international conventions to whichNew Zealand is a party can be a source ofenvironmental law in New Zealand, thereshould be no need to resort to international lawwhere the matter is already embodied in a NewZealand statute: in this case the RMA. This isparticularly so given the uncertainties with theinterpretation of the principle as expressed atinternational law. In contrast the RMA itselfexpresses exactly how the precautionaryprinciple should be applied in its provisions(including those outlined above).

In summary, the Ministry for the Environmentagrees with the Court in Shirley that theprecautionary principle or approach is alreadyembodied in the RMA, both as a generalprinciple of caution and as a method ofaddressing scientific uncertainty. It shouldnot be applied as a consideration extraneousto the RMA.

F.9 Health effects: evidentialmatters

Evidential matters that arise in these cases areimportant because, on the issue of whetherthere are health effects from low levels ofradio frequency radiation, experts put forwardevidence to support differing views. Asexplained below, often the type of evidencepresented is only hypothesis evidence. TheCourt must decide how to deal with thepossibility that the state of current knowledgeis incomplete (an issue which closely relatedto the “precautionary approach”). These legalissues about how the Court or a council goesabout assessing evidence, become importantin the final outcome of a case.

In addition to the following discussion,the cases (particularly Shirley) should bereferred to for more general comments onwhat should be considered when preparingand evaluating evidence.

Types of evidenceIn Shirley, the Court discussed the differenttypes of evidence that could be presented(pages 73-74).

At the ”hard” end of scientific research are thefollowing types of studies:

• epidemiological studies (epidemiology is thestudy of diseases in the human population)which can include:

- case studies, descriptive studies andprofessional experience;

- cohort or case control studies; and

- randomised trials (experimental studies).

• [b]iological or mechanistic studies, whichcan include:

- in-vitro studies (meaning test-tube orpetri dish studies); or

- in-vivo studies (meaning studies of liveanimals).

The types of studies in this list progressivelyincrease in terms of power to establish causeand effect.

Assessment of evidence generally: thejudicial functionIn McIntyre the Court discussed the functionof the Environment Court (or a council)where there are differences among experts.The Court (at page 296) followed thereasoning from Darroch v Whangarei DistrictCouncil A18/93 where it was said:

The Tribunal does not conduct a scientific inquiryto discover absolute truth, nor is it judgingbetween the expert witnesses, and our findingsshould not be seen in that way.

The Court also upheld the approach takenin Canterbury Regional Council v CanterburyFrozen Meat Company Limited A14/94, 3NZPTD 368 where the Court had stated:

However we need to remember that our functionis not so much to find the condition of the effluentin the sense that scientists might seek afterabsolute truth about a subject. Our function isa judicial one, to make findings based on theevidence before us based on the balance ofprobabilities, and having regard to the gravity ofthe matter, on the question whether the dischargehas been exceeding the limits prescribed by theconditions of the discharge permit.’

The Court in McIntyre later said (at page307), ‘the heart of a finding of fact is that weourselves need to feel persuaded that it is correct.’

Admissibility and reliability of evidenceEvidence presented on health effects is oftenon the weak end of the spectrum (usuallyhypothesis evidence). This attracts argumentsthat the evidence is not admissible, or isunreliable. The Court must assess whether theevidence can be admitted, and, if it can beadmitted, the Court must assess to what extentthe evidence is reliable (and accordingly whatweight should be given to the evidence).These become key issues in the cases.

In McIntyre, Bell South argued that (at page298) there is a threshold to be crossed beforescientific supposition or hypothesis evidencereaches a confidence level where noticeshould be taken of it. This argument followedthe decision in Trans Power New Zealand vRodney District Council 4 NZPTD 35 where itwas said that there needs to be some plausiblegrounds put forward, not mere ”suspicion orinnuendo” (this case related to the allegedeffects of high-power transmission lines).

In McIntyre, the Court considered otherjurisdictions (England, USA, Canada andNew South Wales). It was held (at page 306)that the Tribunal (now the Court) is free toreceive anything in evidence that it considersappropriate, and is not bound by the rules oflaw about evidence that apply to judicialproceedings (section 276 of the RMA).However, in order to make a finding thereneeds to be some evidence of probative valueie. tending logically to show the existence offacts consistent with the finding (page 307).

The Court concluded:

We do not accept that the existence of a seriousscientific hypothesis, or even one that is regarded asdeserving priority for testing, is necessarily sufficientby itself to establish a potential effect, even apotential effect of low probability which has a highpotential impact. Nor do we accept that theTribunal should impose a threshold based oncurrent scientific knowledge before taking notice ofa scientific hypothesis. We hold that like any otherevidence tending to establish a contested fact, thegrounds for the hypothesis have to be exposed totesting… to assist the Tribunal to weigh theevidence and make a finding one way or the other.

Further, at page 314 of the decision,the Court said:

…we have come to our finding on the basis of theevidence before us, and not on the basis of apossibility that further research might (or mightnot) show something that has not already beenshown by previous research. That would be todecide a different question. It would not be todecide whether, on the balance of probabilities,there would be a potential effect of low probabilitybut high potential impact on the environment.It would be to decide whether there is a potential,even of low probability, that there would be aneffect of high potential impact on the environment.We do no understand that to be the question onwhich we have to make a finding.

In Shirley, the Court appeared to follow theMcIntyre approach on whether evidence isadmissible. The Court agreed with thePrimary School that there is no rigorousreliability threshold under the RMA, stating(at pages 107-108):

We hold that in the NZ Environment Court thereare only very low thresholds such as therequirement for experts to qualify themselves assuch; for evidence to be relevant and not to be sowitless or lengthy as to be vexatious. … The issueas to reliability is, under the ResourceManagement Act 1991, much more likely to go tothe weight to be given to evidence, than toadmissibility.

…Before an hypothesis can be considered by anyCourt, there must be a basic minimum of evidenceto support it. But in the case of any hypothesisabout a high impact risk a scintilla of evidence maybe all that needs to be established in the Court’smind to justify the need for rebuttal evidence. …

The Court also listed criteria for measuringthe weight to be given to the specific evidencewhen making findings (at page 108).

Following from earlier comments on differenttypes of evidence, hypothesis-based evidence(as distinct from hard science) was discussed.The Court said (page 109):

To fall within section 3(f) of the Act as a potentialeffect of low probability and high potential impactan effect must not be simply an hypothesis: theremust be some evidence supporting the hypothesis.This evidence may consist of at least one of:

(1) consistent and sound statistical studies of ahuman population; or

(2) general expert acceptance of the hypothesis; or

(3) persuasive animal studies or other bio-mechanistic evidence accompanied by anexplanation as to why there is noepidemiological evidence of established effectsin the real world; or

(4) (possibly) a very persuasive expert opinion.

It is important that the evidence need only fall intoone of the categories before the Court will take itinto account…

The Court went on to discuss these criteria,and gave guidance as to elements of a “sound”statistical (epidemiological) study for legalpurposes (page 110: the criteria are repeatedon page 120 and applied to the facts). It washeld that there were adverse effects within themeaning of section 3(f) but only “in a veryweak sense” (at page 121).

In summary, it can be seen from both the casesthat there is a difference between a hypothesiswhich is supported by some form of evidence(forms were listed in Shirley), and a hypothesiswhich is unsupported, but where it is arguedthat evidence to support the hypothesis maycome to light in the future. The latter isinsufficient.

Burden of proof and standard of proofAlthough the following discussion is a legaldiscussion, it has practical importance in thesecases, because it examines to what extent:

• an objector must show that there areadverse health effects from radiofrequencyradiation

• the applicant has to show that radiofrequencyradiation from cell sites is safe.

Burden of proof

The party who has the burden of proof in a casehas to demonstrate the truth of what they aresaying. In McIntyre, the Court considered thatthere was no legal burden of proof on eitherparty, but there was a burden on the partywho makes an allegation to present evidencetending to support the allegation; that is,there is an evidential burden: (page 306).

In Shirley, the Court went further than this,stating (pages 101, 106) that there is:

• a legal and a persuasive burden resting onan applicant for resource consent; and

• a swinging evidential burden (as evidenceof varying weight develops, the evidentialburden will remain with or will shift towhichever person would fail withoutfurther evidence).

These two approaches differ. The approachin Shirley to the burden of proof is the lessorthodox approach.

Standard of proof

The standard of proof refers to the extent towhich the person bearing the burden of proofmust show something to be true. This issometimes expressed as a probability. In civilcases, the standard of proof is usually thebalance of probabilities. Someone must provesomething beyond a 50 percent probability,whereas in criminal cases the standard isusually “beyond reasonable doubt”, whichis a higher standard.

The decisions in the two cases also differed onthis issue.

The Court in McIntyre took the moreconservative view (following the casesCanterbury Regional Council v CanterburyFrozen Meat Co Ltd A14/94; PeninsulaWatchdog Group Inc v Waikato Regional Counciland Trans Power New Zealand v Rodney DistrictCouncil) that (pages 296-297):

• the standard of proof is generally thebalance of probabilities taking intoaccount the gravity of the matter

• one might wish to have greater confidencethan 51 percent confidence where amatter is grave, but

• the applicant should not be put to thethreshold of having to show a matterbeyond reasonable doubt (which is a muchhigher standard).

The Court recognised that the question ofwhether there are adverse health effects fromradiofrequency radiation is indeed a grave one(page 314), indicating that greater confidencethan a 51 percent probability is required inthese cases.

Residents argued that the balance ofprobabilities test does not apply to section 3(f)of the RMA, because one cannot graft a test ofmore probable than not on to the provision inthat section for an effect of low probability (page304, McIntyre). However the Court appearedto reject that argument (at page 314).

In Telecom, the Court also adopted thestandard of the balance of probabilities havingregard to the gravity of the matter (pages 8-9).

In Shirley, the Court took quite a radicalapproach to the standard of proof, divergingfrom previous Planning Tribunal andEnvironment Court cases on the issue.The Court considered that the concept ofstandard of proof, although relevant toevaluating whether past facts had occurred,was not relevant to evaluating future facts.In evaluating future facts, the approach is oneof assessing risk, rather than ‘fact finding’.Whether a risk exists is a matter of judgment.The Court said (at page 101):

This distinction between evaluation and fact-finding is of crucial importance under the Act.Almost every case under the Act is concernedabout the evaluation of many risks and thusissues as to the standard of proof are even moremisconceived…

Much emphasis was placed on this risk-assessment approach in the judgment.

The Court cited section 5(2)(c) and thedefinition of effect in section 3 of the RMAas supporting this rather novel approach to thestandard of proof. The Court agreed with theMcIntyre decision in that it is not correct tosay that it is impossible to graft a test of moreprobable that not onto section 3. Butalthough it is possible to graft a test of balanceof probabilities onto section 3 “it is notparticularly helpful to do so” (page 105).

In summarising the standard of proof matters,two propositions were expressed in Shirley asfollows (page 106):

There is no one standard of proof, if that phrase isof any use under the Act. The Court must simplyevaluate all the matters to be taken into accountunder section 104 on the evidence before it in arational way, based on the evidence and itsexperience; and giving its reasons for exercising itsjudgment the way it does.

The ultimate issue under section 105(1) is aquestion of evaluation to which the concept of astandard of proof does not apply.

Further, in discussing causation, the Courtsaid that it is not necessary to prove causationon the balance of probabilities in givingevidence of an effect, because under section3(f), effects of low probability can be takeninto account.

However, in the Court’s reasons for rejectingthe precautionary principle as a separateconsideration, it described:

The standard of proof as “on a sliding scalebetween the balance of probabilities and beyondreasonable doubt, depending on the impact ofthe effect…”It is unclear whether thatdescription is back-tracking from earliermore radical comments.

F.10 Other factors in the assessmentThis section discusses other effects that aCourt or a council might take into account,other than physical health effects.

Psychological effectsPrior to the radiofrequency cases, there werecases where fear was raised as an effect to betaken into account (under both the Town andCountry Planning Act 1977 and the RMA).This case authority indicated that fear may beconsidered to be an adverse effect on theenvironment pursuant to sections 104(1)(a)or 105(1)(a) of the RMA.

The main cases in which fear is a factor relateto concerns over discharge of a contaminantor escape of something dangerous: see MeadowMushrooms Ltd v Paparua County Council(1977) 6 NZTPA 327; Duncan v ThamesCoromandel Council (1980) 7 NZTPA 233;,Liquigas v Manukau City Council (1983) 9NZTPA 193; Shell Oil New Zealand v AucklandCity Council [1993] NZRMA 363; Trans Powerv Rodney District Council A85/94; Zdrahal vWellington City Council [1995] NZRMA 289;Ammon v New Plymouth District Council W27/97; Department of Corrections v Dunedin CityCouncil C131/97; Kapiti Coast District Councilv Raika [1997] NZRMA 218.

These cases indicated that fear will be arelevant consideration when the fear is well-founded, based on what a reasonably well-informed member of the community mightthink, and if there is some opportunity toprevent apparent danger – for example, theescape of something considered to be apossible threat. When something is new orwhen the probability of its escape is high,then fear will be greater, but note that thiscase law is not sympathetic to the public’sfear of new technology.

Psychological effects were raised in theTelecom and Shirley cases (in McIntyrepsychological effects were not argued).

In Telecom, Telecom presented evidence thatany fear was unfounded. The Court said(page 12):

It must be considered in terms of s.104 whetherthere are any adverse actual or potential effectson the environment of allowing the activity. If itdecides there are not then the fact that personsliving in the vicinity of it may remain fearful andunpersuaded by the weight of scientific evidencecannot in our view be a relevant matter for theCourt to take into account in the overall exerciseof its discretion. To do so would in effect be toset aside the whole weight of the body of scientificevidence and to substitute for it an apprehensionwhich cannot be shown to have any factual basis.That in our view would be to take into account awholly irrelevant consideration and therefore aninvalid exercise of the discretion inferred uponthe Court.’

In Shirley, the Court reviewed the casesdecided under the TCPA, as well as theCourt’s statements in Telecom. The Courtcriticised the survey evidence on psychologicaleffects presented on behalf of the School (page123). It concluded (at page 125):

In our view if a Council or the Court finds thatthere is an unacceptable risk of adverse physicalhealth effects then it is likely to refuse consentanyway. If the risk is acceptable then the fears ofcertain members of the community or even ofsufficient people to be regarded as a ‘community’would be unlikely to persuade the Council or atleast the Court that the consent should be refused,because the individual’s or the community’s stanceis unreasonable. Thus we do not go quite as faras the Telecom case in saying that fear is not aneffect to be taken into account. We consider it is,but whether it is an effect which should be givenany weight depends on the assessment of the risk.

The Court said further (at page 126):

…whether it is expert evidence or direct evidenceof such fears, we have found that such fears canonly be given weight if they are reasonably basedon real risk.

Visual/landscape/amenity effectsIn Telecom, the Council had declined theconsent at first instance on the grounds ofvisual effects. Evidence was presented fromboth sides, regarding the visual/landscape/amenity effects on the surrounds, taking intoaccount the mitigation proposals put forwardby Telecom. (Telecom proposed planting treesaround the mast.) The Court accepted thatthe scale and height of the mast was necessaryfor the applicant to achieve the purpose (pages31-32). The Court granted the consentsubject to conditions regarding the colour ofthe mast and a planting programme.

The Court said (page 33):

…it is clear from the evidence in opposition that tosome extent the fears concerning the adverseeffects on the visual amenity are in part actuatedby the perception that the technology which goeswith the structure is in some way damaging to thehealth and general wellbeing of people living in theimmediate area. We have made our findings inrespect of the health issue and we think it would bequite wrong to allow in by the back door what hasbeen rejected by the front door. Care needs to betaken to ensure that opposition on visual amenitygrounds is just that, and not a cloak for oppositionon some other grounds.

In Shirley this statement was referred to withapproval. The Court said (page 127):

In relation to visual effects, we accept thatsubjective value judgments about the safetyof cellsites have no place in the assessment ofvisual amenity.

The Court there found that there would be novisual conflict with surrounding development(although that conclusion might be differentif the cellsite were surrounded by houses).

Although these cases provide some guidanceas to the approach to visual/landscape andamenity effects, such effects must generallybe assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Effects on property valuesIn some cases the reduction in the amenityof an area, for example by virtue of a cell-site,may have the effect of reducing propertyvalues in the area. However it is inappropriateto take into account a reduction in propertyvalues as an adverse effect on the environmentseparately from the reduction in the amenityvalues. Recent case law suggests that such areduction in property values is not anenvironmental effect in itself. Propertyvaluation evidence can however illustrate orquantify in monetary terms the adverse effectson amenity.

In Goldfinch v Auckland CC 1996 NZRMA 97the then Planning Tribunal consideredevidence on potential losses in value of theproperties of objectors to a proposal. TheTribunal said (at pages 105 and 106):

The evidence from two registered valuers …quantifies to our satisfaction, in monetary terms,the significance of the adverse effects accruingfrom the proposed building…

In effect, the valuer’s monetary assessmentssupport and reflect the conclusions otherwisereached …that…the adverse effects of the buildingas it stands upon the immediately neighbouringproperties are more than just minor.

Chen v Christchurch City Council C102/97involved an appeal against a decision by theChristchurch City Council (with aCommissioner sitting) to refuse to grant aresource consent for a first floor addition ontoan existing building which would exceed heightlimits. The Court said (at pages 18-19):

… the Commissioner heard some valuationevidence which was not given to us – especiallyevidence as to the reduction in value of Mr andMrs Ireland’s property because of the interferencewith their view. Such evidence needs to becarefully used because it can lead to “double-weighting”. A valuation is simply another expertopinion of the adverse effect (loss) being assessedby the Council or Commissioner (or Court) (seeGoldfinch v Auckland City A66/95), whereas theCommissioner “also” took into account “apotential diminution in value to the Irelandsproperty”. Such a valuation can be used toconfirm the Council’s opinion of the scale of aneffect but not as an additional or separate factor.

Similarly, in Foot v Wellington City CouncilW73/98 the Court, citing the above passagein Chen, said (at page 39):

In respect of the Chen decision, we respectfullyadopt this assessment of the use of valuationevidence. The relevance of the valuation evidence… as to the reduction in value of certain rearproperties is the quantification of the adverse effectson certain amenity values due to the 19 metredevelopment. … The adverse effects have all beenconsidered in detail earlier in the decision, and asstated by His Honour Judge Jackson to placeseparate weight on the valuation evidence in thisrespect would be to “double-weigh” these factors.

That decision involved references againstheight controls in the Proposed WellingtonDistrict Plan for Oriental Bay in Wellington.In addition to evidence as to reduction in thevalue of some properties, there was alsoevidence that the value of other propertieswould increase by virtue of the less restrictiveheight controls in the Proposed Plan. TheCourt said that such evidence is only onesmall part of what was at stake in thereferences. In addition to the interests ofprivate property owners, there were manypublic interests to consider, such as windeffects, urban design issues, and public views.An adequate section 32 analysis under theRMA would involve a consideration of allthese matters. This analysis might involveplacing dollar values on some of the otherintangibles the Oriental Bay provides.

This approach in Foot v Wellington CityCouncil accords with more general principlesregarding the role of economic considerationsin the Resource Management Act. In theHigh Court decision New Zealand Rail vMarlborough District Council [1994] NZRMA70, 88 Greig J stated:

That economic considerations are involved is clearenough. They arise directly out of the purpose ofpromotion of sustainable management. Economicwell-being is a factor in the definition ofsustainable management in s 5 (2). Economicconsiderations are also involved in theconsideration of the efficient use and developmentof natural resources in s 7 (b). They would alsobe likely considerations in regard to actual andpotential effects of allowing an activity under s104 (1). But in any of these considerations it isthe broad aspects of economics rather than thenarrower consideration of financial viability whichinvolves the consideration of the profitability orotherwise of a venture and the means by which itis to be accomplished. Those are matters for theapplicant developer and, as the Tribunalappropriately said, for the boardroom.

In summary:

• property values can be taken into accountas a monetary quantification of effects onamenity values;

• the monetary quantification can assist inthe decision-maker’s evaluation undersection 32 of the Act, which involvesconsideration of a whole range of matters;

• economic effects are only taken intoaccount under the RMA to the extent thatthere are effects on the community at large.

Reduced financial viability of schools andwhether alternative sites are availableA matter which was influential in Shirley wasthe need to protect the school communityfrom harmful health effects. The Court said(at page 141):

In our final balancing of all the factors, we placea very heavy weighting (under section 5(2) RMAon the need to protect the school community fromharmful health effects.’

Similarly, in McIntyre, the need to protectpeople’s homes was considered to be veryimportant. The Court said (at page 315):

It is accepted that the greatest protection should begiven to people’s homes. They may be occupied bypeople, such as children and the elderly, who maybe more vulnerable to radiation effects. They areoccupied for longer periods than other premises, andpeople do not have the same choice as they do aboutwhere they work or shop or take recreation.

The location of the facilities near such placesas schools and homes raises the question ofwhether there is an obligation on an applicantto consider alternative, less “sensitive”locations. This has been discussed in the cases,together with the issue whether the a drop inschool rolls (and reduced financial viabilityof a school) should be taken into account.

In Shirley, the school argued that Telecom wasobliged to consider alternative sites. Telecomargued that it did not have an obligation toconsider alternative sites, but that in any case,the site was realistically the only oneavailable. Although another sort oftechnology (microcells) was available,Telecom argued that that technology wouldnot be suitable from an engineeringperspective (page 132).

The Court was satisfied that (at page 139):

• there was no other available site; and

• although moving to micro cell-sites wouldbe possible, the need to move to that newtechnology had not been demonstrated(because the risk to the school wasassessed as very little, or extremely low).

Therefore, the Court did not need to makea firm ruling on whether there was anyobligation to consider alternative sites.

In Shirley, the school also argued that thefinancial viability of the school would bereduced if the resource consent for the cellsitewas granted and that pupils would bewithdrawn. The Court considered that this wasthe other side of the argument that Telecomshould find an alternative site. The Courtmade the following points (at page 139):

• the school suffering financially or shuttingdown is a problem of the school’s ownmaking (“If SPS has generated anatmosphere of fear and distrust amongstparents, teachers and pupils then it might haveto live with the consequences of that.”)

• the school could fence off and not use anarea within 30m of the cellsite if theythought it necessary.

On this basis, reduced financial viability of theschool was not a matter which the Court tookinto account.

Positive effectsIt is legitimate to consider positive effects underthe RMA since the definition of “effect”includes positive effects, and the purpose of theRMA includes enabling “people and communitiesto provide for their social, economic and culturalwell being and for their health and safety”.

Positive effects were influential in the Telecomcase. In that case, the Court took a “widerperspective” in deciding whether or not theproposal was adverse to the environment. Thecourt concluded that the adverse effects wouldnot be more than minor “when balanced againstthe need for technology and the conditions whichare imposed (pg 36).

In Shirley, the Court also considered thebeneficial effects including improved mobilephone coverage, and stated (at page 127):

The advantage of recalling the benefits is that theyremind us of the wider context of the applicationwhich we should take into account – that is thegeneral exposure of the wider population(including the school community) toradiofrequency radiation from all sources.’

F.11 Imposing lower conditions:setting a precedent?

In McIntyre, the hearing proceeded on thebasis that people would not be exposed toradio frequency radiation from the cell sitetransmissions greater than about 12 µW/cm2.However, on evidence of Bell South’stechnical witness, it was found that residentsand occupants of business premises nearbywould only be exposed to about 1.2 µW/cm2(and, at most, 1.8 µW/cm2).

The McIntyre decision may not have muchprecedent value where the exposure to radiofrequency fields is greater than this amount.The Court said (page 317):

…a decision on a particular resource consentapplication is not an appropriate occasion forsetting a general standard.

…it is sufficient for the purpose of deciding thisappeal for us to set conditions that are specific tothe particular circumstances.

The Court considered that it could eitherimpose a condition restricting theinstallation and incident power flux densityto that described in the evidence, or elseexpressly identify the limits in theconditions. It took the latter, moretransparent, approach, commenting that inthat way anyone can apply for enforcementaction if the limits are exceeded.

The condition imposed (rounding up the1.2 µW/cm2 estimate) was (page 319):

that the incident power flux density of radiofrequency radiation emitted by the facility,measured at any dwellinghouse, is not to exceed2 microwatts per square centimetre.

It was thought that this condition wouldrespond to the ALARA (as low as reasonablyachievable) principle in NZS 6609.

In the Telecom case, Telecom presentedevidence that the site would deliver less that1 µW/cm2 to adjacent premises, but that toimpose a limit lower than the NZS would:

• be to set an arbitrary level which wouldactually contravene the ALARA principle

• send the wrong message to the community(suggesting that there is cause for concernwith higher levels)

• inevitably lead to confusion;

where the necessary safeguards are built intothe standard.

Rather, Telecom suggested that a monitoringprocess should be adopted, with results beingmade available to the public, to both regularlycheck that the emissions are at the levelpresented in the evidence, and raise the levelof public understanding and debate.

The Court agreed with evidence that it iswrong in principle for the Court to setarbitrary limits of radiofrequency emissionsfrom cell sites below those set by the relevantNZS “unless there is compelling evidence given inindividual cases that the public interest requiressuch a course” (page 37). In addition to acondition requiring compliance with the NZS,a monitoring condition was imposed.

In Shirley, the Court took a similar view to theCourt in the Telecom case, and did not followMcIntyre on this issue. Telecom had appealedagainst condition 4 of the resource consentgranted by the Council, which provided for alower limit than the NZS (6 µW/cm2 at 30 mfrom the mast at 2 m above ground level andat the nearest outside wall of a certainresidence). The Council argued that thiscondition was appropriate because:

• it was consistent with the ANZ Standard,which imposed 200 µW/cm2 as amaximum

• there would be no practical problem forTelecom, since it could meet thatcondition

• the Court would not bring the standardinto disrepute if it gave accurate reasonsfor its decision to impose a lesser standard.

These arguments were not accepted. TheCourt gave the following reasons for refusingto impose a level lower than the ANZStandard (pages 143-144):

(1) a precautionary approach is already inherentin the ICNIRP and ANZ Standards:

(a) in the ANZ Standard the level for non-occupational exposure to radiofrequencyradiation is set at 1/50th of the exposurelevel at which thermal effects occur;

(b) ICNIRP imposes a maximum level ofexposure of 0.08 W/kg (which translates to450µW/cm2) at the cellsite’s frequency.

(2) we have not considered condition 4 asnecessary for mitigation of any effects –principally because we consider the effects of(or the risk which is the combination of them)exposure to radiofrequency radiation to be sominor that they do not require mitigation.Thus any argument over the level isessentially irrelevant so long as the ANZStandard is met.

Given that background, and all our findings inthe previous chapter we now find that:

(a) There is no reasonable defect in the ANZStandard’s non-occupational limit of200 µW/cm2 (or SAR equivalent) exceptperhaps that it is too low at the cell sitefrequencies (see the ICNIRP standard whichis equivalent to 450 µW/cm2);

(b) The Council has, in the Telecom case andsince, adopted a policy of not imposing a“condition 4” type of limitation, and we cansee sense in consistency of conditions acrossconsents;

(c) Imposing a limit lower than the ANZStandard would tend to undermine thecredibility of the standards;

(d) Imposing the lower limit of condition 4 wouldsuggest that exposures of more than 6 µW/cm2 do cause adverse health effects;

(e) Any limit such as 6µW/cm2 is arbitrary andarbitrary figures serve no purpose;

(f) The words “SUBJECT TO” in the ANZStandard mean what they say, that is, anylower figures dictated by prudence or cautionare subservient to the ANZ Standard forenforcement purposes; and

(g) This decision may be referred to bycommunities elsewhere in New Zealand, soit may have some precedent value. Thus weshould not undermine the Standards for nogood reason if, as we have found, that the riskof adverse health effects from chronicexposure to athermal radiofrequency radiationat the levels to be emitted from the cellsite isvery low.’

This last point (g) should be noted, because,unlike the McIntyre decision, the Court inShirley contemplates that its decision will havesome precedent value.

Technological progress has always beenassociated with various hazards and potentialrisks, and radiofrequency technology is noexception. Experience has shown that one ofthe reasons for public concern is disregard fordifferences in the way different groups(scientists, government agencies, industryand the public) perceive risks.

Risks can be analysed and described indifferent ways. The differences originateprimarily in the way that different groups assessand describe risks. For example, a scientific ortechnical assessment of risk (as might be usedby scientists, government agencies or industry)involves groups or individuals who bringspecialised knowledge to bear on a risk issue,usually by referring to published scientificliterature and technical terminology. Thisassessment may be couched in terms ofprobability and statistics, comparison withother risks, and averages over largepopulations. It may well contain assumptionsand uncertainties (which themselves may ormay not be acknowledged). Examples of suchassessments are the reviews and standardsdiscussed in Section 4.

The non-specialist public, however, may viewmatters from a different perspective. They maylook at potential harm to individuals, withsome types of harm or disease feared more thanothers. They would expect more certainty inexpert judgements, and less inconsistency inthe scientific data. The view is often that ifsomething cannot be proven safe, then itshould not be allowed. They may also feel thatthe distribution of possible risks and benefitsmay not be equitable, and that the scientificassessment may not have addressed theparticular concerns that they have.

A P P E N D I X G : B R I D G I N G D I F F E R E N T V I E W S O F R I S K

A N D C O M M U N I C A T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N

Different perspectives on risk may also bereflected in the way different people judge theacceptability of risks. Acceptability may alsobe affected by other factors, such as whetherexposures are voluntary or involuntary, whetherthey arise from an unfamiliar or novel source,whether the risks are natural or man-made etc.

Risk communication is the process used totry and bridge these two viewpoints, and todecide how possible effects of physical orchemical agents should be addressed.It should be a two-way process, carried outso that people are informed and guided in theactions that they take, while knowing thatcentral and local government agencies aretaking account of, and acting on, theirconcerns. The process includes:

• informing the public about current andproposed actions

• advising people of environmental andpublic health risk assessments in languageunderstandable by lay people

• understanding and respecting people’sconcerns

• dealing with concerns over which agencieshave control, and identifying how otherconcerns may be managed

• providing opportunities for publicinvolvement in risk management processesand decisions.

The following are good practices for riskcommunication:

Recognise the importance of trustTrust is a key factor for fruitful communication.Establishing trust depends not only on theindividuals responsible for communication, butalso on how the organisation they represent isseen to behave overall. Trust depends on manyfactors, such as perceived competence,objectivity, fairness, consistency and goodwill.In many cases, actions are more important thanwords. Trust is fragile, and once lost can bevery difficult to re-establish.

Accept the public as a legitimate partnerOne of the most effective ways to build trustwith a community is to include them aspartners, and be open in dealings with them.Groups consulted should be representative ofthe affected population, and their membersshould be clear about expected roles in theprocess. Groups and individuals should beable to identify where their contributionsinfluence decision-making, and never bemade to feel that they are mere props todecisions made by others.

It should be made clear from the outset whatinformation can be provided, and what can beachieved without going elsewhere. Nothingshould be promised which cannot be delivered.

Communicate early, often, and in fullThis involves both timing and amount. Riskcommunication processes should start as soonas possible. More information is usually betterthan less, but communication should betempered by the recognition that most peopledo not have the time or expertise to siftthrough extensive technical reports.Nevertheless, making all types of informationavailable to the public shows good faith andso helps build trust.

Deal with uncertainty directlyFailure to identify or acknowledgeuncertainties in risk assessments, or gaps inscientific understanding, may destroy trust.

Simplify language and presentation,not contentUsing simple language to communicateeffectively should not involve eliminatinginformation that may seem overly technical.All technical information can be understoodby lay audiences. They may not understand itin the same manner as experts, but enough tomake informed decisions. On the other hand,only limited amounts of information can beprocessed at once, so presentation of too manydifferent messages, even if in simple language,should be avoided.

Use risk comparisons with cautionRisk comparisons can be used to help peopleunderstand probabilities by seeing how a newrisk may compare to more familiar ones.However, such comparisons should be usedwith caution, and may not be accepted if theother dimensions of the risk (such asvoluntariness, controllability, unfamiliarity)under consideration are not acknowledged.Comparisons with risks seen as irrelevant maybe perceived as trivialising the risk, and thismay destroy trust.

Technical and scientific

Web pages• Dr John Moulder – http://www.mcw.edu/

gcrc/cop/cell-phone-health-FAQ/toc.html

• World Health Organization –http://www.who.int/peh-emf/index.htm

• Bioelectromagnetics Society –www.bioelectromagnetics.org/

• Dr Black –http://www.enviromedix.co.nz/papers

• http://www.nt.chalmers.se/BioEMgroup/research.html

• http://www.microwavenews.com

• http://www.aeci.com/coops/nothark/emf.htm

• Ministry of Health –http://www.moh.govt.nz

Print publications• Microwave News

• Bioelectromagnetics

Independent expert advice• National Radiation Laboratory

(108 Victoria Street)PO Box 25-099ChristchurchTelephone (03) 366-5059

A P P E N D I X H : F U R T H E R I N F O R M A T I O N

Resource Management ActDuring consultation many community membersadvised that they did not understand theResource Management Act 1991 process andneeded guidance on when they could have inputinto the process and how. The Ministry for theEnvironment has recently updated its Guide tothe Resource Management Act. This is availablefrom the publications section of the Ministry forthe Environment and should be of assistance.

Web pages• Ministry for the Environment –

http://www.mfe.govt.nz

Print publications• Ministry for the Environment (1998),

Guide to the Resource Management Act

• Royal Forest and Bird Protection Societyof New Zealand (1993). Handbook ofEnvironmental Law, ed. C Milne, GPPublications Limited

• DAR Williams (1997). Environmental andResource Management Law, 2nd Edition,Butterworths, Wellington

Ministry for the Environment pamphlets• Making submissions on notified

resource consents

• Making resource consent applications

• Making submissions on proposed district andregional plans

• Introduction to the ResourceManagement Act

• Awarding of costs by the Environment Court

Independent expert advice• District or city councils

• The Ministry for the Environment,(Grand Annexe, 84 Boulcott Street)PO Box 10-362WellingtonTelephone (04) 917 7400

Making a difference throughenvironmental leadershipThe Ministry for the Environment ManatüMö Te Taiao advises the Government onpolicies, laws, regulations, and other meansof improving environmental management inNew Zealand. The significant areas of policyfor which the Ministry is responsible are:management of natural resources; sustainableland management; air and water quality;management of hazardous substances, wasteand contaminated sites; protection of theozone layer; and responding to the threat ofclimate change. Advice is also provided onthe environmental implications of otherGovernment policies.

The Ministry monitors the state of the NewZealand environment and the operation ofenvironmental legislation so that it canadvise the Government on action necessaryto protect the environment or improveenvironmental management.

The Ministry carries out many of the statutoryfunctions of the Minister for the Environmentunder the Resource Management Act 1991.It also monitors the work of theEnvironmental Risk Management Authorityon behalf of the Minister.

Besides the Environment Act 1986 underwhich it was set up, the Ministry is responsiblefor administering the Soil Conservation andRivers Control Act 1941, the ResourceManagement Act 1991, the Ozone LayerProtection Act 1996 and the HazardousSubstances and New Organisms Act 1996.

A B O U T T H E M I N I S T R Y

F O R T H E E N V I R O N M E N T

M A N A T Ü M Ö T E T A I A O

Head OfficeGrand Annexe Building84 Boulcott StreetPO Box 10362Wellington, New ZealandPhone (04) 917 7400Fax (04) 917 7523Internet http://www.mfe.govt.nz

Northern Regions Office8-10 Whitaker PlacePO Box 8270AucklandPhone (09) 913 1640Fax (09) 913 1649

South Island OfficeLevel 3, Westpark Towers56 Cashel StreetPO Box 1345ChristchurchPhone (03) 365 4540Fax (03) 353 2750

national guidelines for managing the effects of radio frequency transmitters

Documents