How to deal with dissent among experts. Risk evaluation of EMF in a scientific dialogue
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12596948 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Holger Schütz (0000-0002-8410-1575, Forschungszentrum Jülich, corresponding author), Peter M Wiedemann (Forschungszentrum Jülich) |
| Year | 2005 |
| Volume | 8 |
| Issue | 6 |
| Pages | 531-545 |
| Publication date | 2005-09-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Risk Research (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1366-9877 • E-ISSN: 1466-4461 |
| Publisher | Routledge (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/13669870500064283 |
| OpenAlex | W2067083183 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 6 |
| References cited | 4 |
This article describes the results of a scientific discourse which aimed at exploring the reasons for differences in expert health risk assessment of radio frequency electromagnetic fields of mobile telephony. It starts with describing the structure of the discourse. Then, the reasons for the conflicting risk assessments are discussed. Differences are due to the selection and evaluation of relevant scientific studies by applying different scientific quality standards, to the methods used for generating a research synthesis and an overall risk evaluation. Consensus could be achieved regarding the selection of and the quality requirements for the scientific studies used for risk assessment as well as their significance for risk evaluation. However, dissent remained about the synthesis of scientific evidence into an overall risk evaluation and about the relevance of the precautionary principle for risk evaluation and its implications for the risk assessment framework. Based on the analysis of these problems, a transparent, consistent and rational procedure for risk assessment is suggested to facilitate a risk characterization which better meets the demands of policy making and the public for an appropriate risk evaluation
Business · Dissent · Epistemology · Political science · Risk analysis (engineering · Risk communication · Sociology · Advanced Energy Technologies and Civil Engineering Innovations · Computer Science · Electromagnetic Fields and Biological Effects · Law · Philosophy · Psychology · Transportation Systems and Safety
New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? How scientists' standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames
The framing of risk and implications for policy and governance
Mobile phone health risk policy in Germany
Local E-Governance and the Risk of Territorial Fracture
A Tale of Two Food Risks
Risk perception of mobile communication
| Unique citing works | 6 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0.3 |
| Citation span | 2006 - 2011 (6) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 6 |