This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Wartenberg, D. Articles by Greenberg, M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Epidemiology, the press and the EMF controversy

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

Michael Greenberg

Department of Urban Studies and Community Health, Rutgers University, PO Box 2101, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903, 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 coverage of this issue in three major, US national newspapers in terms of epidemiological goals, noting strengths and weaknesses of the reporting. 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 investigators' 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 and do provide a wide range of `expert' opinions. We conclude with a set of recommendations to scientists and other sources for responding to press inquiries in a meaningful way.

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 1, No. 4, 383-394 (1992)
DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/1/4/003


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?