Starting Position
One of the essential problems of the current scientific debate on possible risk potentials of EMF below the legal limit values for mobile telephones is the different assessment of existing scientific studies where some studies appaer to speak for but others against the existence of such risks.
T-Mobil addressed this issue in 2000 and asked four different scientific institutions for their comments:

• What are the 100 most important studies on the assessment of health protection in connection with mobile telephones?
• Which studies point out a risk?
• What is the conclusion drawn after a critical appraisal of the studies with respect to the currently valid limit values?

The expert opinions were established by the Ecolog-Institut, Hannover, by Prof. Glaser, HU Berlin, by the Öko-Institut Darmstadt and by Prof. Silny, RWTH Aachen. These studies are now available.
These expert opinions display the following common features and differences:

• None of the expert opinions arrives at the conclusion that there is scientific evidence for risks below the currently valid limit values.
• Differences are found, however, with respect to the assessment of the extent to which reliable findings are available.
• The expert opinions also differ with respect to whether and to what extent precautionary measures for health protection are considered necessary.

Goal
The project is intended to set a scientific discourse among the experts and with other scientists in motion. It is to be made transparent what consensus and what dissent exist between the expert opinions available and why. A further goal is to clarify how the precautionary principle in the field of mobile telephones is to be understood: on what scientific basis are precautionary measures to be taken?
The scientists involved should be encouraged to lay their argumentation open. This means that they should point out the scientific evidence which they consider essential for their risk assessment and critically weigh all pros and cons.

Procedure
MUT will take on the moderation of the dialogue during the project. MUT will initially compile a catalogue of questions on the basis of the expert opinions available, which is intended to illustrate the background, assumptions and assessment criteria of the expert opinions:

• What are the experts' basic assumptions?
• On what studies do the experts proceed? What is the common intersection?
• What criteria were used in selecting the studies?
• What central terms (e.g. evidence, indication, suspicion) are used? How are these defined?
• How are the different research approaches (investigations on cells, animal studies, epidemiological studies and experimental examinations in humans) to be weighted?

In a first step, a common frame of questions is to be agreed upon, defining the biological effects and health impacts to be considered.
Furthermore, it will be clarified what studies can and cannot be used for risk assessment.
Each expert should then name those studies for the different effects and impacts which -from his perspective - represent the basis for risk assessment. These studies will be critically discussed with respect to approach, methodology and result. Main points of discussion will emerge, e.g. how reliable is a particular method such as the EEG. Another example of such a central point of discussion could be whether epidemiological investigations from other areas, e.g. on the impacts of radar on health, may be used for the assessment of mobile telephones.
Additional scientists will be called upon to discuss such central questions. The aim is to always engage only those experts who do not represent a particular faction in the scientific debate on the risk potentials of EMF but who exhibit high scientific expertise with respect to the question involved.
Finally, consequences will be derived:

• What demands should be made on the selection of studies, their quality assessment and the drawing of a scientific overall picture?
• Are new limit values required or do the present limits provide adequate health protection?
• What scientific evidence must be available to justify precautionary measures?

Contact:
Dr Peter Wiedemann
Programmgruppe Mensch, Umwelt, Technik
Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH
D-52425 Jülich
Telephone: +49/2461-614806
Fax: +49/2461-612950
E-mail: mut@fz-juelich.de