Publication related to RSI or an RSI staff member

Health risks of electromagnetic fields. Part III: Risk analysis.

The management of potential health risks from electromagnetic (EM) fields presents both scientific and nonscientific challenges. When the scientific evidence is ambiguous, as is the case with EM fields, expert judgment of this evidence becomes particularly important. This article provides biomedical researchers with a comprehensive assessment of the status of EM health risk based on our two previous articles [Parts I and II, Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, Volume 31, Issue 3]. Ambiguous evidence also necessitates rigorous public debate. This article also discusses effective risk communication approaches that play a key role in the EM risk issue. Because of uncertainty about health risks associated with EMF exposure, the public is more likely to experience difficulty in evaluating the available information and rely more on perceptions than facts when drawing conclusions. Even the most effective risk communication approaches are not likely to clarify all of the subtleties surrounding EM fields as a population health issue. Thus it is essential that all stakeholders involved in this issue participate in developing consensus solutions.

Authors

  • Brodsky, Lynn M, Brodsky LM, McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

  • Habash, Riadh W Y, Habash RW,

  • Leiss, William, Leiss W,

  • Krewski, Daniel, Krewski D,

  • Repacholi, Michael, Repacholi M,

YEAR OF PUBLICATION: 2003
SOURCE: Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2003;31(4):333-54. doi: 10.1615/critrevbiomedeng.v31.i4.20.
JOURNAL TITLE ABBREVIATION: Crit Rev Biomed Eng
JOURNAL TITLE: Critical reviews in biomedical engineering
ISSN: 0278-940X (Print) 0278-940X (Linking)
VOLUME: 31
ISSUE: 4
PAGES: 333-54
PLACE OF PUBLICATION: United States
ABSTRACT:
The management of potential health risks from electromagnetic (EM) fields presents both scientific and nonscientific challenges. When the scientific evidence is ambiguous, as is the case with EM fields, expert judgment of this evidence becomes particularly important. This article provides biomedical researchers with a comprehensive assessment of the status of EM health risk based on our two previous articles [Parts I and II, Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, Volume 31, Issue 3]. Ambiguous evidence also necessitates rigorous public debate. This article also discusses effective risk communication approaches that play a key role in the EM risk issue. Because of uncertainty about health risks associated with EMF exposure, the public is more likely to experience difficulty in evaluating the available information and rely more on perceptions than facts when drawing conclusions. Even the most effective risk communication approaches are not likely to clarify all of the subtleties surrounding EM fields as a population health issue. Thus it is essential that all stakeholders involved in this issue participate in developing consensus solutions.
LANGUAGE: eng
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 2003
DATE COMPLETED: 20040629
DATE REVISED: 20191108
MESH DATE: 2004/06/30 05:00
EDAT: 2004/04/21 05:00
STATUS: MEDLINE
PUBLICATION STATUS: ppublish
OWNER: NLM

Related RSI Experts

Daniel Krewski

Chief Risk Scientist

Dr. Daniel Krewski is Chief Risk Scientist and co-founder of Risk Sciences International (RSI), a firm established in 2006 to bring evidence-based, multidisciplinary expertise to the challenge of understanding, managing, and communicating risk. As RSI’s inaugural CEO and long-time scientific...
Read More about Daniel Krewski

William Leiss


As a Senior Advisor and Associate Expert with Risk Sciences International, Dr. Leiss contributes unparalleled insight into the design, delivery, and evaluation of risk communication strategies for government, regulatory bodies, and civil society. His legacy work in building public trust...
Read More about William Leiss