Responding to claims made about TETRA

Responding to claims made about TETRA

TIG has published this information paper in response to various claims about TETRA technology made in a paper circulated to MPs in May 2004 by representatives of Protect Sussex from TETRA. The paper may be found at www.tetrawatch.net/papers/mps_hoc240504.pdf. Note that this is a pdf file (Portable Document Format) and you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader® to download it. If you do not have this installed on your computer, please click the Adobe Reader® icon below for a free download.

1 TETRA is untested

TETRA is by no means untried or untested. The TETRA standard has been developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute over the past decade and TETRA technology has been deployed around the world since 1997, for example by the Jersey Police, Austrian Power, Hong Kong Police, at the Greenwich Millennium Dome and at the Athens Olympics. We understand that there are currently over 500 TETRA contracts in countries all around the world. Further information on these contracts can be found at www.tetramou.com.

2 TETRA has poor functionality and is not the best available technology

TETRA technology offers a number of substantial benefits and is designed to use radio spectrum efficiently, and to deal with high density, high performance operations. The features include very high levels of reliability, resilience and security, digital call quality and clarity, the ability to transmit data and pictures, comprehensive end to end encryption including the control signalling, off network direct mode local communications including one to one, one to many and group communications. Graceful managed fallback, so essential to many customers, is also offered. Whilst customers choose TETRA because of the functionality available, most request a progressive rollout of functionality to enable them to manage the associated changes to business practice. While there are clearly alternative technologies available, TETRA technology is based on an open standard and is a multi-vendor technology which means there is competitive procurement, genuine price competition and long term industry investment.

3 There is overwhelming evidence of the biological impact of ELF EMF worldwide

While there have been some claims that there is evidence for, or plausible mechanisms for biological effects, expert bodies and most respected scientists working in this field agree that there is no evidence which points to adverse health effects from radio frequency emissions operating within the limits set by international safety guidelines.

4 Safety guidelines relate only to heating

The current ICNIRP guidelines are based on established thermal effects of radio frequency energy. In the safety standards-setting process all possible effects have been reviewed and the weight of scientific evidence shows that there are no other plausible interaction mechanisms of radio frequency energy with biological material. Therefore it has been concluded that there is no need to revise the current standards.

Concerns about potential biological effects of pulsed RF at or around 16Hz arose from some unreplicated research on calcium efflux from dead chick brain dating back to the 1970s. Several attempts have been made to replicate these studies, the latest by Dr Tattersall at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, with no demonstrable effect on calcium efflux. Several reports have reviewed the scientific literature on calcium efflux and concluded that, notwithstanding unresolved research questions, calcium effects from exposure to low level amplitude modulated RF fields are not established and cannot be used as a basis for setting exposure standards.

5 NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines are out of line with other countries

The ICNIRP guidelines formed the basis of the 1999 EU recommendation and have been endorsed both by the WHO and the UK Stewart Inquiry. Many countries around the world use ICNIRP, which is the pre-eminent guidance for EMF exposure, and further information is available on the WHO web site. It is also worth noting that emissions from TETRA transmitters are tiny fractions of the levels permitted by the ICNIRP guidelines - typically hundredths or thousandths.

6 TETRA needs a mast every 5 miles in rural areas and 1.5 in towns, whereas Tetrapol covers the whole of France with 150 masts

The number of transmitters required depends on the level of radio coverage specified by the customer for specific locations, the capacity required, the topography of the terrain, and the density and location of buildings, trees, sides of valleys and so on. In the UK for example, radio coverage for the Airwave network is required contractually over all metalled roads, but many police forces have requested hand-held coverage, a significantly higher level of radio coverage, in specified areas such as town centres. As a result, proportionately more sites are required in urban areas to provide satisfactory coverage, particularly where there is a high density of steel framed buildings. To give specific examples, in parts of Wales some transmitters are positioned 15 – 20km apart, but others less than 5km apart; in London distances between transmitters vary from around 4 -6km in the suburbs down to less than a kilometre in the City and West End. As this shows, generalisations can be very misleading.

General comparisons with the numbers of transmitters in France are not very meaningful - for example the customer for the particular service cited may have network coverage only on main auto routes, and the topography and density of centres of population are different. However we understand that the overall number of Tetrapol masts in France far exceeds 150. It is also the case that there are many police users in France have only direct mode (also known as off network) access.

7 NRPB, Blakemore and Challis are believed, by the bulk of people, to be unreliable scientists and mouthpieces of the mobile industry

Professors Blakemore and Challis were both members of the Stewart Inquiry, the recommendations of which are often quoted by those who oppose the use of TETRA. Both are independent-minded and eminent scientists, and we believe they are well-respected by the majority of people. They are prepared to engage in a constructive discussion with industry but could not reasonably be described as ‘industry mouthpieces’. The NRPB is advised by AGNIR, a body comprising eminent scientists including Professor Anthony Swerdlow and Professor David Coggon. Organisations such as the NRPB are scrupulously independent and have international reputations as highly respected authorities in this field. It would clearly not being their interests to put their reputations at risk by basing their views on selective evidence.

8 Only 14 police forces, not 35 as claimed are fully equipped with Airwave

40 police forces had reached 'ready for service' status with O2 Airwave by the beginning of September 2004. Most forces are introducing the service progressively, as there are training and business practice changes for them to manage. As well as these police forces, the Airwave system is used by the British Transport Police, National Crime Squad, Highways Agency, MOD Police, Royal Military Police, Army, 2 ambulance trusts and 2 fire and rescue services. In total there were 70,089 users of the Airwave service as of 16 August 2004 and the number continues to grow.

9 Madrid does not use TETRA

There are three levels of policing in Spain – national, regional, and local. In Madrid, the local and regional police do both use the Madrid Municipality TETRA System, although the national police force does not. Motorola, which supplies the TETRA-based system used in Madrid has been told by its customer that it was successfully used by both the local ambulance and police organisations in the aftermath of the Madrid bombing, and that they are very happy with it. Senor Javier Quiroga Operations Director of Madrid Municipality Medical Services has spoken at a number of conferences about their positive experiences of TETRA in the aftermath of the Madrid bombing.

10 TETRA is only deployed for emergency services in Finland and Denmark, not as claimed in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Holland, Norway

TETRA is already deployed in many countries. For example, national TETRA networks for the police services are complete in Iceland and Finland and are nearing completion in Austria, Holland, Belgium and Hong Kong. Contracts are signed or under discussion in Paris, Sweden, Beijing, Dublin, and regions of Spain, Portugal and Italy. Belgium, Germany and Holland have a cross border project for emergency services users. For more up to date information on TETRA contracts refer to www.tetramou.com.

11 The public is being told it must match its TV receiving equipment to O2's requirements

Specific bands of radio spectrum are allocated to particular applications and this is managed in the UK by the regulator OfCom. Airwave operates within its allocated frequency band. There are occasions when, in areas with a weak TV signal, there can be interference. This usually happens where there is a weak TV signal using a frequency close to that used by TETRA, a TETRA transmitter less than 500m away and use of wideband signal amplifiers on domestic TV aerials. These amplifiers ‘suck in’ all frequencies in the range, and cannot distinguish between them, often boosting the TETRA signal to the detriment of the TV signal. The problem is solved by adding filters or using modern more sensitive amplifiers. It is the TV owner’s responsibility to do this; Ofcom advice is that it is the responsibility of the owner of a receiving device to ensure it is fit for purpose. This is obviously a source of considerable frustration to those experiencing interference, but the TETRA network operator is doing nothing wrong. More information can be found on the Ofcom web site, at: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/advice.

12 TETRA interferes with pacemakers, hospital kit, sensitive electronics and car immobilisers

Nearly all electronic devices are susceptible to electromagnetic interference (EMI). When a potential problem is identified, it can usually be managed or remedied.

Laboratory and clinical tests have found that digital wireless phones might interfere under certain conditions with some pacemakers and hearing aids. Often, there are steps users can take to minimize or prevent interference, such as keeping an operating phone six inches (15cm) from an implanted pacemaker or adopting other measures to accommodate the use of hearing aids. Users should follow the advice provided by the manufacturers of medical equipment.

TETRA radios have a transmit inhibit function, unlike some other professional radio communications systems. The radios can be prevented from transmitting, but still receive communications to the user. This feature is particularly useful in medical environments.

In principle, the use of radios in hospitals can be allowed outside sensitive areas such as operating theatres. A relaxation in the rules on use of radios and mobile phones in UK hospitals by staff and members of the public is currently under review.

13 The EU precautionary principle boils down to 'if it's not safe don't do it'. Onus is on the supplier to prove safety

The precautionary principle is a political term for decisions on preventive action when the scientific evidence is not clear enough for a detailed risk assessment. The EU precautionary principle is founded on the concept of proportionality; decisions must be proportional to the chosen level of protection, and benefits as well as risks of a technology must be assessed. Precautions taken must be non-discriminatory in their application, consistent with measures already taken, based on potential costs and benefits, subject to review and capable of assigning responsibility for producing the scientific evidence necessary for more comprehensive risk assessment. This is not quite the same as saying 'if it's not safe, don't do it'. The onus is not on suppliers to prove that something is safe - science can never prove incontrovertibly that something is safe, only that there is an absence of evidence that something is unsafe. Most things we buy do not come with a guarantee of safety, but rather with confirmation that they comply with regulations and meet prescribed standards. The onus on suppliers is to comply with all relevant health and safety regulations, standards and legislation.

14 TETRA transmission is 24/7 unlike mobile phone networks

All mobile phone networks are available 24/7 and the transmitters used by those networks will be actively polling for users within their cells and maintaining communications channels with other parts of the network. So, like TETRA transmitters, mobile phone transmitters will be emitting RF 24/7.

15 TETRA masts pulse aggressively

We are aware that the TETRA wave form shows some discontinuity, caused by the modulation used to enable sharing of timeslots. Nevertheless, as AGNIR makes clear, TETRA transmitters do not pulse. The AGNIR report published earlier this year referred back to and reaffirmed a report prepared in 2001 which said that "it is notable that the signals from TETRA base stations are not pulsed whereas those from mobile terminals and repeaters are. Although areas of uncertainty remain about the biological effects of low level RF in general, including modulated signals, current evidence suggests that it is unlikely that the special features of the signal from TETRA terminals and repeaters pose a hazard to health". In any event, it is worth noting that there is no evidence to suggest that pulsing causes adverse health effects and we freely acknowledge that TETRA radios and vehicle terminals do pulse.

16 Pulsed transmissions from masts are several magnitudes stronger than brainwaves

TETRA transmitters do not pulse and they operate at low power. Radio frequency emissions decay rapidly with distance from the transmitter and TETRA transmitters operate very well within the ICNIRP safety guidelines. The comparison with the strength of brainwaves, where signals are conveyed through neurological pathways within the brain itself, is not meaningful.

ends