Are more and more Irish brains being "cooked" by mobile-phone madness or is it unlikely they'll cause any harm other than mounting bills and high blood pressure of trying to get through to Eircell's or Esat Digifone's customer services?
No wonder the lines are busy. Eircell now has 410,000 subscribers. As many as 60,000 Ready to Go mobiles were sold before Christmas - some 25,000 of them as presents, activated on Christmas Day. The only facts I could elicit from Esat Digifone after some 20 exasperated minutes was a taped apology for keeping me holding so long, a brief exchange with a real human followed by a disconnected line.
Globally the use of mobile phones has mushroomed from 11 million in 1990 to 50 million at the start of 1995 to an expected 350 million by 2000.
So are mobile phones bad for your health? Last year an Australian study headed by Dr Michael Repacholi, a biophysicist, showed a doubling of lymphomas - cancers of lymphoid tissue - in mice, after they were exposed to the type of radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields emitted by digital mobile phones. Meanwhile, a similar study by Dr Henry Lai at Washington State University indicated increased DNA damage to rats exposed to RF electromagnetic fields.
Researchers have deduced from findings like these that similar damage in humans could cause diseases such as Alzheimer's, Huntington's and Parkinson's, accelerate the growth of brain tumours, cause memory loss, headaches and decrease male fertility.
Dr Tom McManus, chief technical adviser in the Department of Public Enterprise, monitors developments on the health risks of mobile phones. He says these Australian and US studies were carried out by reputable scientists and that when they report something they do so in good faith.
But while Dr McManus is not taking sides in the debate - "We're trying to get to the bottom of this" - he notes that the breed of mice used in the Australian research "all get cancer". They only live for two years normally and "most would be dead of cancer in 18 months". Moreover, the mice were exposed to an electromagnetic field equivalent to a human using a mobile phone for eight hours a day. Dr McManus also points out that normally in experiments with mice, the cages must be cleaned out every day, but in the Australian research they were cleaned only once a week. Pathogens - anything that causes a fever - and ammonia in the faeces and urine could have become heated and distorted the outcome.
He says this may not explain the increase in lymphomas "but it's a confounder that has to be checked". He believes a second "confounder" is the set-up or equipment used in Dr Repacholi's study.
Authorities on design of microwave systems have questioned whether there was an even electromagnetic field. In other words, some of the mice could have been exposed to more radiation than others. There could have been radiation "hotspots" from the antenna with the mice just inches away akin to a kind of Russian roulette: "Some [mice] may have been exposed way above the recommended exposure levels." But he concedes if a redesigned study which took account of hotspots and pathogens confirmed the findings, health authorities around the world would have to revise their safety standards for mobile phones.
As for Dr Lai's study, Dr McManus says the question of the uniformity of the fields arises there too and the fields used were "much, much stronger" than would normally be the case with mobile phones. He adds that if you turn it high enough, "you'll start to cook someone".
Another expert in the field, Dr Camelia Gabrielle of the Imperial College in London, told The Irish Times that the outcomes from the Australian and Washington studies were "not conclusive with respect to the health consequences for humans".
She says there are "several steps before extrapolating from mice to humans" - especially given that these mice were genetically designed to get cancer - and that extrapolation is always complex. While scientists retain an open mind, "based on the evidence to date, there is no need to worry".
Prof Philip Walton of the Department of Applied Physics at UCG says that as of 1996 there was no evidence of cancer increase in a US study (which began in 1993) of 250,000 mobile-telephone users. But he accepts there could be a latency period. He admits to being generally sceptical about mobile phones being bad for your health: "I'd be sceptical but we can't say for certain yet. But we can never say that anything is absolutely safe."
The International Commission on NonIonising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) said in April 1996 in a review of research literature that "the scientific evidence indicates that exposure to RF fields is not mutagenic and is therefore unlikely to act as an initiator of carcinogenesis". Likewise an EU expert group in November 1996 concluded: "There is no evidence of any health risk emerging from mobile phones but the results of present research are inadequate to draw firm conclusions on this issue. Further research is therefore required."
A major conference on the health effects of mobile phones and masts, jointly sponsored by the Departments of Public Enterprise, the Environment and Local Government, and Health, will be held on March 6th at Dublin Castle Further information available from Mary Bruton, at the Institute of Public Administration, 01-6686233 or by email at mbruton@ipa.ie.