IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v10y2007i3p307-322.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the Risk Comparison Made by the Public Between EMF and Smoking or Asbestos a Valid One?

Author

Listed:
  • Ken K. Karipidis

Abstract

The possibility of adverse health effects from exposure to extremely low frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields (EMF) has caused considerable controversy in the scientific community and has received great attention in the media and among the general public with many comparing ELF EMF with tobacco smoking and asbestos. Although both smoking and asbestos are now classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as Group 1 or "established" carcinogens, this was not always the case. In this paper the evidence for the carcinogenicity of ELF EMF is compared with that for smoking and asbestos using the Bradford Hill model for establishing causality between exposure and disease. Application of the model shows that present data are insufficient to demonstrate that exposure to ELF EMF poses a definite human health hazard. However, while the bulk of the evidence is weak, there are several epidemiological studies which have reported an association between prolonged exposure to magnetic fields at levels above what is normally encountered and an increased risk in childhood leukaemia. On this basis IARC has classified ELF magnetic fields as a Group 2B or "possible" carcinogen.

Suggested Citation

  • Ken K. Karipidis, 2007. "Is the Risk Comparison Made by the Public Between EMF and Smoking or Asbestos a Valid One?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 307-322, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:10:y:2007:i:3:p:307-322
    DOI: 10.1080/13669870701256340
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669870701256340
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669870701256340?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:10:y:2007:i:3:p:307-322. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.