Do people understand IARC's 2B categorization of RF fields from cell phones?

Bioelectromagnetics

Volumn 35, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 373-378

  Wiedemann, Peter M ^a   Boerner, Franziska U ^a   Repacholi, Michael H ^b  

^a KARLSRUHE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

^b SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

Author keywords

Health risk; IARC; Mobile phones; Risk assessment; Risk communication

Indexed keywords

CELLULAR TELEPHONES; HEALTH RISKS; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; PUBLIC RELATIONS;

CARCINOGENICS; CELL PHONE; CELL PHONE USAGES; IARC; ONLINE SURVEYS; POTENTIAL RISKS; PRESS RELEASE; RF FIELDS; RISK COMMUNICATION; RISKS ASSESSMENTS;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; MOBILE PHONE; NEOPLASMS, RADIATION-INDUCED; RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION; RISK ASSESSMENT;

CELL PHONES; DATA COLLECTION; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES; NEOPLASMS, RADIATION-INDUCED; RADIO WAVES; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84903128650     PISSN: 01978462     EISSN: 1521186X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bem.21851     Document Type: Letter

References (24)

1. Ahlbom A, Feychting M, Green A, Kheifets L, Savitz D, Swerdlow A. 2009. Epidemiologic evidence on mobile phones and tumor risk: A review. Epidemiology 20:1-14.
2. Akerlof GA, Shiller RJ. 2009. Animal spirits: How human psychology drives the economy, and why it matters for global capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3. Baan R, Grosse Y, Lauby-Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, Bouvard V, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Guha N, Islami F, Galichet L, Straif K, WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. 2011. Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Lancet Oncol 12:624-626.
4. Bergenstrom A, Sherr L. 2003. The effect of order of presentation of verbal probability expressions on numerical estimates in a medical context. Psychol Health Med 8:391-398.
5. Berry DC, Raynor DK, Knapp P, Bersellini E. 2003. Patients' understanding of risk associated with medication use: Impact of European Commission guidelines and other risk scales. Drug Safety 26:1-11.
6. Beyth-Marom R. 1982. How probable is probable? A numerical translation of verbal probability expression. J Forecast 1:257-269.
7. Bruine de Bruin W, Bostrom A. 2013. Assessing what to address in science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:14033-14039.
8. Budescu DV, Broomell S, Por HH. 2009. Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Psychol Sci 20:299-308.
9. Budescu DV, Wallsten TS. 1985. Consistency in interpretation of probabilistic phrases. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 36:391-405.
10. Fraukje EF, Mevissen RM, Meertens RA, Ruiter RA, Schaalma HP. 2010. Testing implicit assumptions and explicit recommendations: The effects of probability information on risk perception. J Health Commun 15:578-589.
11. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. 2007. Helping doctors and patients to make sense of health statistics. Psychol Sci Public Interest 8:53-96.
12. Gigerenzer G, Hertwig R, Van Den Broek E, Fasolo B, Katsikopoulos KV. 2005. A 30% chance of rain tomorrow": How does the public understand probabilistic weather forecasts? Risk Anal 25:623-629.
13. Hamm RM. 1991. Selection of verbal probabilities: A solution for some problems of verbal probability expression. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 45:1-18.
14. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. 2009. Epidemiological evidence for an association between use of wireless phones and tumor diseases. Pathophysiology 16:113-122.
15. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2005. Guidance notes for lead authors of the IPCC fourth assessment report on addressing uncertainties [Internet]. Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available from: https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/.../uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf. Accessed October 17, 2013.
16. International Agency for Research on Cancer. 2006. IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks in humans [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. Available from: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/CurrentPreamble.pdf. Accessed October 16, 2013.
17. International Agency for Research on Cancer. 2011. IARC classifies radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans [press release]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. Available from: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2013.
18. International Agency for Research on Cancer. 2013. Non-ionizing radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. Available from: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol102/mono102.pdf. Accessed October 14, 2013.
19. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU). 2011. Measuring the information society 2012. Geneva, Switzerland: International Communication Union. Available from: http://www.itc.int/ict/publications/idi/index.html. Accessed December 12, 2013.
20. INTERPHONE Study Group. 2010. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: Results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. Int J Epidemiol 39:675-694.
21. Leitgeb N. 2012. Improved classification of evidence for EMF health risks. Health Phys 103:195-199.
22. Lichtenstein S, Newman JR. 1967. Empirical scaling of common verbal phrases associated with numerical probabilities. Psychon Sci 9:563-564.
23. Visschers VH, Meertens RM, Passchier WW, de Vries NN. 2009. Probability information in risk communication: A review of the research literature. Risk Anal 29:267-287.
24. Wilson TD. 2011. Redirect: The surprising new science of psychological change. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.