How to deal with dissent among experts. Risk evaluation of EMF in a scientific dialogue

Holger Schütz and Peter M. Wiedemann

Journal of Risk Research, 2005, vol. 8, issue 6, 531-545

Abstract: 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.

Date: 2005
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669870500064283 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:8:y:2005:i:6:p:531-545

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RJRR20

DOI: 10.1080/13669870500064283

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Risk Research is currently edited by Bryan MacGregor

More articles in Journal of Risk Research from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().