Public Understanding of Science

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wartenberg, D.
Right arrow Articles by Greenberg, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 1, No. 4, 383-394 (1992)
DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/1/4/003

Epidemiology, the press and the EMF controversy

Daniel Wartenberg

Department of Environmental and Community Medicine, UMDNJ - Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, 675 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854, USA

Michael Greenberg

Department of Environmental and Community Medicine, UMDNJ - Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, 675 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854, USA

Epidemiological study of the adverse health effects from exposure to electromagnetic fields has become an issue of public concern over the past decade. The public, in general, rely on mass media coverage of epidemiological studies for information regarding the nature, extent and severity of the risks. We review the press coverageof this issue in three major, US national newspapers in terms of epidemiological goals, noting strengths and weaknesses of thereporting. Our principal goal is to determine whether epidemiologists are getting their message across, and how could they do so more effectively. We find that: (1) coverage is sparse; (2) issues are presented in a framework consistent with the primary investigator's interpretation; (3) there is little critical evaluation of the investigator's views; (4) little context is provided of the risks of exposure to EMFs as compared with other environmental hazards; and (5) few recommendations are given for avoiding or remedying exposure. The press do, however, present adequately the uncertainty in our knowledge base on this issue anddo provide a wide range of 'expert' opinions. We conclude with a set of recommendations to scientiests and other sources for responding to press inquiries in a meaningful way.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?