Health Risks of Electromagnetic Fields. Part III: Risk Analysis

Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 333-354

  Brodsky, Lynn M ^b   Habash, Riadh W Y ^a   Leiss, William ^c   Krewski, Daniel ^a   Repacholi, Michael ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^b Senior Medical Advisors Bureau   (Canada)

^c QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Electric and magnetic fields; Radio frequency radiation; Risk communication; Risk management; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

ELECTROMAGNETISM; HEALTH RISKS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

RISK COMMUNICATION; STAKEHOLDERS;

BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING;

BIOMEDICINE; CONSENSUS; ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD; EVALUATION; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; POPULATION RISK; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR;

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COMMUNICATION; ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; HEALTH PHYSICS; HUMANS; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC OPINION; RADIATION INJURIES; RADIATION PROTECTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SAFETY MANAGEMENT;

EID: 1842554853     PISSN: 0278940X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1615/CritRevBiomedEng.v31.i4.20     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. American Association of Engineering Societies (AAES). Statement on risk analysis: the process and its application. Technol J Franklin Inst 1996; 333(A):95-106.
2. Bailey WH. Principles of risk assessment with application to current EMF risk communication issues. Proc Int Semin on EMF Risk Perception and Communication. Ottawa, Canada, 1998.
3. Balzano Q, Sheppard AR. The influence of the precautionary principle on science-based decision-making: questionable applications to risks of radiofrequency fields. J Risk Res 2003; 5:351-369.
4. Beauchamp A. Public debate on electric and magnetic fields and health in Quebec. Proc Int Semin on EMF Risk Perception and Communication. Ottawa, Canada, 1998.
5. Bradbury JA. The policy implications of differing concepts of risk. Science Technol Human Values 1989; 14:380-389.
6. Byus CV, Glickman BW, Krewski D, Lotz WG, Mandeville R, McBride ML, Prato FS, Weaver DF. A review of the potential health risks of radiofrequency fields from wireless telecommunication devices. Royal Society of Canada. Ottawa, Canada, 1999.
7. Chess C. Public participation: guiding practice with research. Proc Int Semin on EMF Risk Perception and Communication. Ottawa, Canada, 1998.
8. Dolan M, Nuttal K, Flanagan P, Melik G. The application of prudent avoidance in EMF risk management. Proc Int Semin on EMF Risk Perception and Communication. Ottawa, Canada, 1998.
9. EPA. Proposed guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Federal Register 61:17960-18011, 1996.
10. Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S, Slovic P, Derby SL, Keeney R. Acceptable Risk, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
11. Foster KR, Vecchia P, Repacholi MH. Science and the precautionary principle. Science 2000; 288:979-981.
12. Graham JD. Making sense of risk: an agenda for congress. Proc Int Semin on EMF Risk Perception and Communication. Ottawa, Canada, 1998.
13. Gray P. Improving EMF risk communication and management: the need for analysis and deliberation. Proc Int Semin on EMF Risk Perception and Communication. Ottawa, Canada, 1998.
14. Habash RWY. Electromagnetic Fields and Radiation: Human Bioeffects and Safety, New York: Marcel Dekker, 2001.
15. Habash RWY. Electromagnetics-the uncertain health. IEEE Potentials 2003a; 22: 23-26.
16. Habash RWY. Foreseeable health risk of electric and magnetic field residential exposure. Energy Environ 2003b; 14:473-487.
17. Head G. Collected assays in risk management. Malvern, Insurance Institute of America, PA, 1986.
18. IARC. Working group on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Volume 55: Solar and ultraviolet radiation. Views of the IARC Working Group meeting in Lyon, France, February 11-18, 1992. United Kingdom: International Agency for Research on Cancer. Distributed by the Secretariat of the World Health Organization (WHO), 1992.
19. Krewski D, Hogan V, Birkwood P, McDowell I, Losos J. An integrated framework for risk management and population health, Draft 17, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, Canada, 2003.
20. Kruk G. Risk communication and the management of EMF risks. Proc Int Semin on EMF Risk Perception and Communication. Ottawa, Canada, 1998.
21. Larkin J. Evaluating response options. Proc Int Semin on EMF Risk Perception and Communication. Ottawa, Canada, 1998.
22. Leiss W, Paoli G. The Internet as a public information resource, with a case study on a Canadian Controversy about radio-frequency fields. Proc Int Semin on EMF Risk Perception and Communication. Ottawa, Canada, 1998.
23. Love BR, Straja SR, Moghissi AA. Manual for stakeholder participation. Institute for Regulatory Science, Columbia, MD, 2002.
24. McManus T. Elements of a prudent avoidance policy. Proc Int Semin on EMF Risk Perception and Communication. Ottawa, Canada, 1998.
25. Moghissi AA, Straja SR, Love BR. The role of scientific consensus organizations in the development of standards. Health Phys 2003; 84:533-537.
26. NIEHS. Assessment of health effects from exposure to power line frequency electric and magnetic fields. Portier, C., Wolfe, M., eds. Research Triangle Park, NC; National Institute of Environmental Health Services, NIH Publication No. 98-3981: 50, 1998.
27. NIEHS. Report on health effects from exposure to power-line frequency electric and magnetic fields. NIH Publication No. 99-4493. Research Triangle Park, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, USA, 1999.
28. NRC. A study of the isolation system for geologic disposal of radioactive wastes. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1983.
29. NRC. Possible health effects of exposure to residential electric and magnetic fields. National Research Council (NRC). National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1997.
30. NRC. Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. National Research Committee on Risk Characterization. National Research Council (NRC). National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1996.
31. Portier C, Wolfe M. Assessment of health effects from exposure to power line frequency electric and magnetic fields. Proc Int Semin on EMF Risk Perception and Communication. Ottawa, Canada, 1998.
32. Presidential/Congressional Commission on risk assessment and risk management. Framework for environment health risk management. Final Report 1. Washington, DC, 1997.
33. Repacholi MH, Cardis E. Criteria for EMF health risk assessment. Radiat Protectn Dosimetry 1997; 72:305-312.
34. Repacholi MH, Greenebaum B. Interaction of static and extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields with living systems: health effects and research needs. Bioelectromagnetics 1999; 20:133-160.
35. Repacholi MH, Muc AM. ed. EMF risk perception and communication. Proc Int Semin on EMF Risk Perception and Communication. Ottawa, Canada, 1999.
36. Watenberg D. How dangerous is it really? Some approaches for inferring risk. Proc Int Semin on EMF Risk Perception and Communication. Ottawa, Canada, 1998.
37. WHO. Electromagnetic field and public health: cautionary policies. World Health Organization Report, Geneva, Switzerland, 2000.
38. WHO. WHO handbook on establishing a dialogue on risks from electromagnetic fields. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2002.
39. Wiedemann PM. EMF risk communication: themes, challenges and potential remedies. Proc Int Semin on EMF Risk Perception and Communication. Ottawa, Canada, 1998.
40. Woodely RW. The politics of EMF: ban activists viewpoint. Proc Int Semin on EMF Risk Perception and Communication. Ottawa, Canada, 1998.