Examination of Witnesses (Questions 671-679)
MR BERNHARD
JANSEN AND
MR JOSÉ
RAMON BIOSCA
DE SAGASTUY
11 MAY 2006
Q671 Chairman: First of
all, can I thank you very, very much indeed, Mr Jansen and Mr
Biosca, for agreeing to see us this morning for us to take formal
evidence from you for our inquiry. If I can just set the scene.
Our inquiry is a broader inquiry looking at the way in which the
Government uses scientific advice to inform policy and assess
risk. Within that broad inquiry we are looking at a number of
case studies, one of which is this particular Directive, the 2004
Directive, which is looking basically at the use of limits on
electromagnetic fields with particular reference to MRI scanners,
which is where our concern is. Given the limited time, as a Committee
we are anxious to ask you as many questions as we can. Can I please
assure you that we are interested only in looking at the process
and we are not accusing you of any skulduggery or anything else
as far as Europe is concerned, though one of my colleagues is
particularly supportive of the European project and you will find
out who he is along the way. Could I start off by asking you,
Mr Jansen, what or who were the driving forces behind this Directive?
What was wrong that needed fixing?
Mr Jansen: Thank
you for coming here and addressing us on these matters. Let me
say by way of introduction that I have been in charge of these
matters since 2001. The Commission's proposal, however, goes back
to 1993. It is important to know that there has been a debate
on this Directive for longer than ten years, which is quite some
time. I participated in the last run-up to the decision-making
but not when the original proposal was made, so it is always a
little bit difficult to reconstruct what has happened. My colleague,
Mr Biosca, has been dealing with these matters for longer than
I. I think he started in 1997, if I am right, although he may
have to correct me. He knows more than I do but, again, he was
not here in 1992 when this all started. Perhaps it is interesting
for you to realise how long a period of debate on European legislation
may last. In fact, in the original proposal the Commission had
combined what we call the physical agents, meaning noise, vibration,
electromagnetic fields and optical radiation. All four aspects
today have been covered by European Directives. The last one on
optical radiation was approved and published in the Official
Journal about a fortnight ago. This is an extended process,
all the elements have been considered and what we can say is when
the proposal was made in 1992 it was felt that the coverage of
physical agents, perhaps with the exception of noise which had
already been covered at that time, was variable in different Member
States. One of the concerns which is important for us is the protection
of workers, of course, but also trying to get a level playing
field for the industry so that competition will not take place
on the basis of who is the most unconscientious about the risks
which workers are exposed to. In a member country where there
is no legislation—there are a few on electromagnetic fields—there
may be ways in which the industry can work which would not be
possible in those Member States where there is such legislation.
Q672 Chairman: I can understand
in 1993 when everything was basically lumped together within the
same area there was a need to differentiate between different
levels of risk with different areas, but once you started looking
at electromagnetic fields, what were the perceived benefits of
this Directive, because we cannot find any? What is it trying
to do?
Mr Jansen: We are
really surprised that you say that.
Q673 Chairman: Why?
Mr Jansen: Because
there is scientific evidence which is based on international findings
by an organisation which is called the International Commission
on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection—ICNIRP—which
is a Geneva-based institution working with the World Health Organisation
which has published large books, parts of which we have brought
here, in which these risks are described in detail. They have
carried out experiments on dead bodies to show that electromagnetic
fields influence—
Q674 Chairman: They are
at huge levels of exposure in the ICNIRP guidelines and the research
which they presented and the World Health Organisation presented.
Our Health and Safety Executive in the UK could find absolutely
no benefits from this Directive at all.
Mr Jansen: We have
a report from the UK authorities here.
Mr Biosca de Sagastuy:
Your comment is very surprising when the UK authorities supported
the Directive in Council. How about the report of the National
Radiological Protection Board of the UK on proposals for limiting
exposure to electromagnetic fields? You said—
Q675 Chairman: But they
are the guidelines, Mr Biosca, they were not hard and fast rules.
Mr Biosca de Sagastuy:
That was a proposal for setting limits to exposure and it covered
the public and workers as well. You stated that you do not see
any benefits but maybe you should go and visit a steel mill where
they have induction furnaces—
Q676 Chairman: I am talking
specifically about MRI scanners.
Mr Biosca de Sagastuy:
I am talking about electromagnetic fields. The Directive does
not focus on magnetic resonance imaging only.
Q677 Dr Tuner: We are
concerned about the impact on MRI.
Mr Biosca de Sagastuy:
We are not talking about magnetic resonance imaging.
Q678 Chairman: I would
not disagree with you in terms of steel mills because the level
of exposure can be absolutely massive, but in terms of MRI scanners,
which is what we are particularly interested in, there does not
seem to be any evidence from the medical community or any evidence
from research which has come to the Commission which says that
working with MRI scanners in a hospital setting doing invasive
procedures is harmful, and yet all this will be removed.
Mr Biosca de Sagastuy:
That is not the opinion of the scientific experts worldwide. There
are limitations even by the Food and Drugs Administration in the
USA on the use of magnetic resonance scanners on patients and
on medical personnel. People are concerned about exposures coming
from magnetic resonance scanners. The medical community might
have a different opinion but they are not the experts in this
field. They could be experts in medical issues but not on magnetic
exposure. To draw a parallel: a long time ago the medical community
did not want any restriction on the use of X-rays until it became
very apparent that they were having cancers. They reacted at that
time against limiting exposure to X-rays and now the same thing
is happening. Nevertheless, the Commission had a meeting with
the European Radiological Association in order to hear their concerns
about it and they claimed that in positioning the patient and
accompanying a sedated, very young patient in the machine they
would get exposures that go over the limit values. We checked
that with ICNIRP and the answer we got was, "No. In no circumstances
do medical personnel with currently installed magnetic resonance
equipment in hospitals, which goes up to three teslas, get exposures
over the limit values".
Q679 Chairman: They will
not get them?
Mr Biosca de Sagastuy:
That is what they are saying. However, they acknowledge that there
are machines which are used for testing, experimental machines,
up to seven teslas. One is going to be installed in Norfolk, I
think. They recognise that these machines could give exposures
which go much beyond the limit values and they say that does not
mean they are safe to use. In fact, we have checked with American
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) because in
America there are two magnetic resonance machines up to eight
teslas. They said the restrictions on using these machines are
so great they could never be commercially available. They gave
us an example. They are doing experiments with volunteers and
in order to walk the room with the patient—it is a room
like this—they had to spend 20 minutes because if you move
fast within the magnetic field you get induced currents in the
body and you have disturbances in the brain because there is a
migration of calcium ions in the neurons and you become really,
really sick and you can fall. You have to walk very, very slowly
to the cell. The problem with that is that life saving equipment
has to be readily available beside the machine because if a volunteer,
in this case, has a coronary problem he might have fibrillation
of the heart.
| 
