With ever-growing indications that 1990s life is inevitably associated with a mass of radiation-emitting technology, it gets harder to convince people that predominant scientific opinion says there is no need to worry about the effects of mobile phones or telecommunication masts.
With hundreds of masts about to appear over Garda stations, it is not surprising that significant public concern extends to rank-and-file gardai.
Up to two years ago, scientists were all but united in the view that such technology was inherently safe; that talk of brains being cooked was being fuelled by the emotive talk of communities suddenly encountering obtrusive masts.
It was accepted that mobile phones, if improperly used - such as allowing aerials to touch heads - might increase health risk. Scientific opinion is a little less certain now.
Lack of regulation and absence of definitive research internationally, coupled with lax planning legislation in Ireland which allows masts to be erected on stations without planning permission, do little to reassure concerns.
New doubts, however, have centred on mobile phones. An Australian study last year found a doubling of lymphomas - cancers of lymphoid tissue - in mice after exposure to the type of radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile phones.
A Washington State University study indicated increased DNA damage to rats exposed to RFmicrowave bands. But in both cases it is likely that the dose received was higher than that experienced by mobile phone users. In any event, the findings cannot be readily applied to humans.
The International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), whose standards Ireland adopts, has repeatedly said there is no proof of adverse effects on humans. It believes "there is no substantive evidence that adverse health effects, including cancer, can occur in people exposed to levels at or below the limits" prescribed by ICNIRP.
The commission is an independent body which advises the World Health Organisation. The WHO has itself commissioned a five-year study with a view to reaching a definitive verdict. In Britain the National Radiological Protection Board has concluded "hand-held radio telephones do not present a health hazard". It nonetheless acknowledged the need for further research.
The Department of Public Enterprise monitors the health risk associated with mobile phones and is trying not to take sides, though community groups like one in Easky, Co Sligo, are not convinced.
Their spokeswoman, Ms Loreli Forrester, said: "Until more research is done, we feel masts should not be located near schools and hospitals or in residential areas."
This, she claims, is in tune with Government guidelines which say that as a last resort they can be permitted near schools, hospitals or in built-up areas. "In Easky, the Garda station was the site of first resort," she said.
Three mothers, on behalf of their children, have applied for an injunction to restrain Esat Digifone from erecting a mast at the station, about 60 metres from the national school. Judgment has been reserved.
The Easky group remains sceptical of research priorities which, Ms Forrester said, have concentrated on "thermal effects". They accept that standards eliminate risk of heating/burning effects when using phones or standing in the vicinity of transmission masts. "But no one is paying any regard to potentially very harmful athermal effects. These include DNA breakdown and lymphomas."
They also believe there are child-specific effects including occurrence of leukaemia and memory loss.
The Departments of Public Enterprise and the Environment are holding a conference on the health effects of mobile phones and masts in March. With the continuing absence of certainty on the risks, it is likely to do little to reassure communities, many of their gardai included.