Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak this evening on a matter about which I am quite passionate and also concerned—the impact of cancer, particularly brain cancer, on individuals and their families. I want to thank Michelle Rowland, the member for Greenway, for seconding this motion when it went before the Selection Committee, and I also thank the members for McPherson, Cowan and Capricornia in advance for speaking on this debate this evening and for their contributions to a balanced and careful discussion of an area of emerging interest and emerging research to which I think we should be paying some considerable attention.

I put on the record here also that Senator Catryna Bilyk will put this matter on the record in the Senate. As a brain cancer survivor herself, and as the chair of the parliamentary friendship group for brain cancer research, Catryna Bilyk is undertaking the very challenging work of being a senator here in this parliament. Catryna's own story is one of full recovery and full participation in the challenging workplace that is part of the life of a parliamentarian. I think her story of full recovery is a story of really significant hope that we need to put on the record in this debate here this evening, because families who have somebody who is diagnosed today or tomorrow or was diagnosed yesterday with brain cancer face an uncertain future, and it is important to know that people do manage to get past the challenge that cancer can provide.

Officially, I put on the record again the exact notice of motion. It is that this House notes five elements, firstly:

… the release by the World Health Organisation's cancer research report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) which says that radio frequency electromagnetic fields generated by mobile phones are 'possibly carcinogenic to humans' and asserts that heavy usage could lead to a possible increased risk of glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer …

Secondly, I want the House to note the warnings of Dr Charlie Teo. He is one of Australia's leading brain surgeons and a former Australian of the Year finalist. He states that 'there is an increasing body of evidence that there is an association between brain tumours and mobile phones'. Thirdly:

… the Australian Government, through the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), welcomes the report and considers that the classification by IARC corresponds to the current ARPANSA advice, including its advice on practical ways in which people can reduce their exposure to the electromagnetic fields produced by wireless telephones …

Fourthly:

… the methods to reduce exposure include:

(a) limiting call time;

(b) preferring the use of land line phones;

(c) using hands free or speaker options;

(d) texting instead of making voice calls; and

(e) using phones in good signal areas which reduce power levels for communication…

The fifth thing is:

… that ARPANSA has also recommended parents encourage their children to use these methods of reducing exposure.

They are the five things that I really want to put on this public record and note on this day in the middle of 2011. My hope in bringing this matter to the House is to continue the public debate which surfaced earlier this year and to share information about the increasing body of evidence that indicates there is a possible link between brain tumours and heavy mobile phone use. In essence, this speech is my way of doing what I can do right now to prevent the risky behaviours that make brain cancer more likely. But there is also an intensely personal reason that I do this. My brother, Sean Patrick O'Neill, was born 41 years ago just three days before St Patrick's Day—I often think that if my mother had not allowed the doctor to induce her he would have been a 17 March St Patrick's Day birth. Sean was diagnosed with stage 2 glioma at the end of last year. In fact, at 10 o'clock, when I was signing the caucus book, my brother was having an MRI and they were finding that brain cancer. When we found out a little bit more information I was with him in the surgery of Dr Charlie Teo. He found out after his surgery that he was fortunate to have a level 2 glioma and that he did not have to have radiotherapy or chemotherapy, which was a great blessing and a great relief to our family. We are close, Sean and I, and when I suggested that I might put this matter before the House he gave me great encouragement to put it on the record. He is all for sharing his story and his experience if it can encourage other people to make choices that will decrease their chance of contracting brain cancer.

Sean and his wife, Jacqui, have already lost a great deal to cancer. They lost their beautiful daughter Lucy to liver cancer in March 2003. They still have four wonderful children, Eilish, Rosie, Jack and Meg, but that family know too intimately the challenges that cancer presents to families to love and care for the ones that they too often lose. Right now Sean and his whole family are learning to live a little differently while Sean gets on with getting better and strives each day to get back to his business and to full health. Sean is working hard on his recovery and every day my family and I are very proud of him, but I am sure he would rather be cancer-free, and we would certainly rather it was that way too.

What is the purpose of my speech here this evening? What do we know right now, and how should we respond? What we know right now is that, courtesy of the World Health Organisation, a body called the International Agency for Research on Cancer Classification of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, the IARC, exists. We have a monograph from that group that is the product of work they undertook earlier this year in Lyon from 24 to 31 May. It involved 31 scientists from 14 countries. They examined and assessed the peer reviewed scientific evidence on mobile phone use in relation to increased risk of cancer. Importantly, at this time when there is so much debate that involves science and scientists are so maligned, I want to put on the record that there is a really significant difference between a matter of opinion and a matter of research. These scientists were looking at research that has been generated and not just created by somebody out of personal interest and a description without any review. It is not as if it is an internet site where somebody can put up something and they can simply make a claim; the evidence that this IARC group looked at was peer reviewed research that had to be published in journals where people's reputations demand that they apply most rigorous scientific standards and expectations. So we have a body of scientific literature on which to draw here. To be clear, they did not actually assess the level of risk associated with particular levels of exposure, but they did note an increasing body of evidence indicating that there is a possible link between glioma and the use of mobile phones.

In response, here in Australia, the government through the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, ARPANSA, will continue to oversight emerging research such as this. What we do know is that there are four levels in the IARC's evaluation of carcinogenic risks. Group 1 includes things such as tobacco smoking and solar radiation. Group 2A relates to the risk of carcinogens from diesel engine exhaust and UVA and UVB. Group 2B includes things which are possibly carcinogenic to humans, such as magnetic fields, gasoline and fibreglass insulation, and it is in this group that the research currently indicates that there is a link between mobile phone use and possible glioma.

Critically, the group in their analysis had shown that in one study there was a 40 per cent increased risk of gliomas amongst the heaviest mobile phone users, which they categorise as people who use their phone for 30 minutes a day over 10 years. I just look at your reaction there, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know that but it is not what we would think of as heavy use. 30 minutes is very common use. I think many Australians put ourselves in the heavy use category all too promptly.

What do we do with this information? My hope is that we can change our use and that we can certainly change it in our children, because that is ARPANSA's recognition of what we might do at this point as a responsible response to the information. So, where possible, use a landline. Use a hands-free or a speaker option. Text instead of making a phone call and use your phone in a good signal area. I commend this motion to the House. (Time expired)

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for that very courageous speech. The question is that the motion be agreed to. I call the member for McPherson.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the motion before the House relating to the cancer research report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer released by the World Health Organisation. I would like to acknowledge the member for Robertson and thank her for sharing with us her personal insight into this issue. I know that I, along with I am sure many other people, would be wishing her brother all the very best for the future. The report has noted that the radio frequency electromagnetic fields generated by mobile phones are possibly carcinogenic to humans. The findings of this report have been assessed by many specialists, including the Cancer Council. Professor Bernard Stewart, the Cancer Council's scientific advisor and international carcinogens expert, reinforced that the findings released by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the IARC, found a possible link between mobile phones and cancer but that that link has not been proven at this stage. I stress the possible link not to devalue or attempt to undermine any of the research but to try and ensure a sensible and meaningful debate on this most important social and health issue for us.

There has been an eight-day meeting of 31 scientists from 14 countries who have reviewed the results of hundreds of studies covering exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. According to Professor Stewart, these findings show limited evidence linking mobile phones to glioma and acoustic neuroma, and inadequate evidence to draw conclusions for any other types of cancer. However, he believes—and I agree with this—that more research needs to be undertaken in this area. The chair of the Cancer Council Australia's Occupational and Environmental Cancer Risk Committee, Terry Slevin, said that mobile phone users should take care, particularly heavy users—and I note that heavy usage is defined as being at least 30 minutes per day, which I agree would certainly include many of the people that I know, including young people, which is of great concern. The general view is that measures should be taken to try and reduce the use of mobile phones, particularly by heavy users.

The expanding use of mobile phones in the 1990s and the increasing rate at which they were used prompted several expert groups to critically review the evidence on health effects of low-level exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. This resulted in the recommendation of research into the possible adverse health effects of mobile phone use. The Interphone study was the largest case-control study of mobile phone use and brain tumours. The study group consisted of 21 scientists and the objective was to see if mobile phone use increased the risk of tumours. The findings of the Interphone study were released in May 2010, and on review of the findings, Dr Christopher Wild, the Director of IARC, said:

An increased risk of brain cancer is not established from the data … However, observations at the highest level of cumulative call time and the changing patterns of mobile phone use since the period … particularly in young people, mean that further investigation of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk is merited.

The Cancer Council observed the Interphone study and found that there was no evidence to suggest normal usage of mobile phones—which is less than 30 minutes a day for a period of 12 months—could cause brain cancer, but the Cancer Council found the Interphone study results were consistent with other research in that area. However, there was a small subset of patients, classified as the heavy users, with glioma and tumours on the same side of the head where they held their mobile phones. At this stage, the debate between whether there will be an increase in the amount of cases in the next 25 years is unknown, and experts like the Cancer Council are suggesting more study needs to be undertaken, particularly in the case of heavy mobile phone users. There are also calls to investigate the impact mobile phone use will have on our children.

As a mother, I have witnessed my own children's use of mobile phones and the use that their friends make of mobile phones. Many children and teenagers carry their own mobile phones, complete with interactive features like games, music, movies and social networking, enticing the younger generation to use them more frequently than those before them. As parents and responsible adults, we need to ensure that excessive use of these mobile devices are kept at reasonable levels while further studies are undertaken to determine possible risks to our children. In the meantime, the Cancer Council also suggests that anyone who is worried about the possible link between radio frequency electromagnetic fields and mobile phones looks at using hands-free devices or texting to reduce the amount of time the phone is held to the ear.

Locally, members of the United Brain Tumour Support Group on the Gold Coast have been putting this practice into place. Founder Peter McLaughlin has said mobile phone use is a concern amongst his members. Mr McLaughlin was diagnosed in 2001 with a brain tumour. He was 27 years old at the time and had been married for only two weeks. Mr McLaughlin has spent years as a support volunteer with the Cancer Connect program run by the Cancer Council. He has been offering peer emotional support and information for people who have been affected by cancer and offers the type of advice that comes from living through the same traumatic experiences. Mr McLaughlin has been there to listen and help patients through a time when family and friends find it difficult to talk about the diagnosis, unaware of what they should say. In 2007, Mr McLaughlin decided to start the United Brain Tumour Support Group on the Gold Coast. It is the only support group of its kind on the Gold Coast offering support to those affected by brain cancer. The members meet every third Wednesday of each month at the Tugun Surf Life Saving Club within the electorate of McPherson. There are around eight to 12 members at any time, ranging from 20 years to 70 years of age, coming along to those meetings. The meetings allow for the discussion of the latest information on brain cancer with advice and support. It has been within these meetings that the issue of the use of mobile phones has been discussed and members talk about ways of reducing the use of their mobile phones.

I would like to recognise the efforts that Mr McLaughlin has gone to in order to provide the only support group on the Gold Coast for those experiencing brain cancer. He is presently organising the third annual fundraiser walk, which will be held on 17 July, to raise month for the United Brain Tumour Support Group and cancer research. The walk will take place on the Gold Coast along the beach between Burleigh Heads and Miami, and Mr McLaughlin hopes that more than 200 people will get involved with the walk this year. All proceeds from the day will go towards funding research into brain cancer and building the support group. Support groups provide an exceptional service to the community, and I hope the United Brain Tumour Support Group continues to operate and provide the much-needed support to those affected by brain cancer.

While research is continuing, we need to remember that there are other, more established cancer risks that we can act on every day. The McPherson electorate is famous for its beautiful beaches and I would hope that, while the public remain concerned over mobile phone use, they also take care with known risks, like UV exposure, to avoid cases of melanoma.

According to the World Health Organisation, many cancers are not detectable for many years after the interactions that led to a tumour. And since mobile phones were not widely used until the early 1990s, studies at present can only assess those cancers that are evident within shorter time frames. In conclusion, given the large number of mobile phone users—currently estimated to be 4.6 billion, which is an extraordinary number—it is important to investigate, understand and monitor any potential public health impact. While the findings of the discussed reports remain inconclusive, there should be further ongoing studies to fully assess potential long-term effects of mobile phone use. In the meantime, as I have already discussed today, there are many ways the public can look at decreasing their use of mobile phones and electromagnetic fields. (Time expired.)

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For a long time we have had suspicions that mobile telephones are a source of health problems for users. With around 4.5 billion users around the world, the results of all studies into the effects of mobile telephones is of ever increasing interest.

On 31 May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer provided the World Health Organisation with a cancer research report. As stated in the motion, the electromagnetic fields created by mobile telephones:

… are 'possibly carcinogenic to humans' and asserts that heavy usage could lead to a possible increased risk of glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer

When you read the results of the report, it is certainly by no means categorical in the links. What it does say is that there is a limited link between mobile telephone users and glioma and acoustic neuroma and an inadequate link between the use of mobile phones and other types of cancer. Limited evidence of carcinogenicity is defined as the observation of:

… a positive association … between exposure … and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered credible, but chance, bias or confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence.

The inadequate link with other types of cancer is defined as:

… available studies are of insufficient quality, consistency or statistical power to permit a conclusion regarding the presence or absence of a causal association—

between exposure and the cancer—

or no data on cancer in humans are available.

Although it is right to say that the report falls well short of being conclusive, it should ring alarm bells for all of us who hold our phones to our ears, but even more so when we think of all the children and young people, who are still developing mentally and physically, with an increasing reliance on mobile telephones. Any research of the internet will reveal the widespread concerns that exist around the world, and it is right that parents in particular should take heed of what this cancer report shows, as well as the practical advice to reduce the risk as put forward by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency.

Members would be aware that there are an increasing number of Australian households that have elected to not even have a landline, instead relying completely on their mobile telephones. They should also take heed of the risk mitigation advice, in particular the limiting of call time; the use of landlines where possible; using the speaker or hands-free option to get that handset away from your head; the use of texting, which at least seems to be an option well supported by many young people, even if that is borne out of financial necessity rather than a fear of radiation; and using phones in the strongest signal areas so that the power output from the phone itself is lower. I certainly advocate such precautions, and it is something that all Australians should take into consideration right now.

I also want to raise briefly the interesting subtext of this issue. We are used to health concerns about mobile telephone relay towers in our suburbs, and there is strong opposition to many of their locations. But what is particularly interesting is the viewpoint that, in putting up more towers, there are better signals and therefore the mobile telephones that we carry around do not have to use as strong a power. Therefore, it would seem that more towers equals reduced electromagnetic radiation from our personal mobile telephones and therefore less radiation and a reduction in potential harm to the individual user. This is an interesting point given the conventional wisdom that these towers are bad, and perhaps that is a very good focus for future research.

As sobering as the International Agency for Research on Cancer's report is, despite its lack of conclusive links, since then there has been another review of scientific studies in the same area. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection's committee on epidemiology wrote in the monthly journal of the US National Institute of Environmental Sciences that studies from several countries have failed to show an increase in brain tumours as many as 20 years after mobile phones were introduced and 10 years after the technology became widespread.

David Spiegelhalter, the University of Cambridge's Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk, said:

This is a really difficult issue to research. Even given the limitations of the evidence, this report is clear that any risk appears to be so small that it is very hard to detect, even in the masses of people now using mobile phones.

Leader of the review and an overseer of a team in the largest epidemiological study to date, known as Interphone, Anthony Swerdlow, a professor of epidemiology, said they had failed to find a definitive link between mobile phone use and certain types of brain tumours.

The reality is therefore that the link between mobile telephone use and cancer is still not definitive. However, over time that evidence may become stronger and there are only benefits to paying attention to risk reduction advice such as that provided by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. It is in all our best interests to pay heed to that and to comply with it.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to join with other members in speaking on the member for Robertson's motion here tonight and commend her for bringing the matter before the parliament. Members could not have missed the media stories earlier this month that reported the conclusions reached by the International Agency for Research on Cancer that radio frequency electromagnetic fields—that is, the ones that power mobile phones—should be classified as 'possibly carcinogenic to humans'.

I know that I was in the Parliament House gym with many other members and senators, with the early morning news on in the background, and everyone stopped to listen just that bit harder to what was being said. And no wonder, when you think of how much all of us here rely on our mobile phones to do our jobs and to organise our lives. It is no different for our constituents who are the owners of Australia's share of the five billion mobile phones in Australia around the world. Any suggestion that mobile phone use could be dangerous to our health was sure to send shockwaves not just through Parliament House but across the country.

This motion is in no way intended to hype up or sensationalise the findings of the IARC but rather to assess exactly what this research means and what our response here in Australia should properly be. The first thing to note is that the evidence about links between mobile phone use and cancer is not conclusive. That was clear to me when I started doing some research for this speech. Every reference to a study supporting a link between mobile phones and cancer was matched by another study rejecting such a link.

There is no doubt, however, that the widespread use of mobile phones means that research into the effects of such long-term exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields has to be ongoing and deserves the attention of national and international health agencies. That is what has happened here. The International Agency for Research on Cancer is a specialised agency within the World Health Organisation. Its mission, among other things, is to coordinate and conduct research on the causes of human cancer and the mechanisms of carcinogenesis.

In this case, a 31-member IARC working group made up of expert scientists from 14 countries deliberated over eight days in May this year, reviewing a large body of peer reviewed research into the effects of radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Those studies were mainly epidemiological studies of glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer which was found to occur more frequently in heavy users of mobile phones. It was following that meeting that the IARC announced their finding that those radio frequency electromagnetic fields could correctly be classified as a 2B carcinogen. In other words, it is possibly carcinogenic to humans. The category has also been described as being used when a causal association is considered credible but when other factors cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence. By contrast, tobacco and solar radiation are in the group 1 classification with proven causal links to cancer in humans. Clearly there needs to be more research in this area to come up with more conclusive evidence one way or another. In the meantime, it makes sense for government and relevant health and scientific agencies to take a precautionary and proactive approach to something that has been identified as a possible risk. That has certainly been the reaction of ARPANSA, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. ARPANSA has said that it will consider the implications of the IARC announcement and the underlying scientific evidence and, if necessary, review the current standards and other means of protecting the public. All Australians would be reassured to know that ARPANSA has indicated an open-minded and proactive approach on this important issue of public safety.

ARPANSA has also been amongst a number of well-respected people and organisations, including the Cancer Council and neurosurgeon Dr Charlie Teo, urging people to take sensible and practical steps to reduce their exposure to the fields powering mobile phones. The advice from the World Health Organisation is that the power and therefore radiofrequency exposure to a user falls off rapidly with increasing distance from the handset. A person using a mobile phone 30 to 40 centimetres away from their body when texting or talking hands-free will have a much lower exposure than someone holding a handset against their head. The simple message from these organisations and from tonight's motion is: why take the risk? We should be doing everything we can to encourage safe and sensible mobile use and, very importantly, encouraging our kids to do the same, by texting, favouring landline use, using hands-free wherever we can and limiting call time, until we have more certainty about the true nature of possible health risks from mobile phones.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.