Letter: Mobile phone threat
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: You report the "Cellphones cancer scare `not proven' " (25 May), and indeed, the published evidence of radiation damage seems to fall short of proof. The National Radiological Protection Board states that the safe emissions level is 10 specific absorption rates. But I have not seen published any scientific evidence to support that. What is the research which has led to the fixing of this figure? How does it prove that this level is safe? And safe from what?
The principle which has regularly been applied in the past is to assume safety until the contrary is proved. The cases of thalidomide and cigarette smoking are lamentable examples.
Once a risk of serious injury has been shown to be reasonably in prospect, surely the burden of proof should be the other way, and we need strong evidence of safety before recommending indiscriminate use to continue. Can the NRPB provide such evidence?
PETER REYNOLDS
Southport, Merseyside
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments