Publications

In the EMF-Portal publications on risk communication, risk perception and risk assessment in the area of electromagnetic fields are categorized according to distinct characteristics. Publications on risk communication are presented in the following:

• Barnett J et al (2008): Precautionary advice about mobile phones: public understandings and intended responses.
• Borraz O (2011): From risk to the government of uncertainty: the case of mobile telephony.
• Bowman JD et al. (2013): Possible health benefits from reducing occupational magnetic fields.
• Büllingen F (2003): "Elektrosmog" durch Mobilfunk?
• Burgess A (2002): Comparing national responses to perceived health risks from mobile phone masts.
• Cain NL et al (2013): What drives opposition to high-voltage transmission lines?
• Causebrook JH (1999): Mobile Phone Network Operators' Actions on RF Safety
• Claassen L et al. (2014): Focal points for improving communications about electromagnetic fields and health: a mental models approach.
• de Jong A et al. (2012): Assumptions in quantitative analyses of health risks of overhead power lines.
• Dhungel A et al. (2014): Risk management policies and practices regarding radio frequency electromagnetic fields: results from a WHO survey.
• European Commission (2007): Electromagnetic Fields
• Farag AS et al. (1999): Development of an electromagnetic fields risk communication plan.
• Florig HK (1992): Containing the costs of the EMF problem.
• Furby L (1988): Public perceptions of electric power transmission lines..
• Hess DJ (2014): Smart meters and public acceptance: comparative analysis and governance implications.
• Hess DJ et al. (2014): Wireless smart meters and public acceptance: the environment, limited choices, and precautionary politics.
• Hocking B et al. (2008): Guidance note: risk management of workers with medical electronic devices and metallic implants in electromagnetic fields.
• Kandel S et al. (2016): Health-Economics Analyses Applied to ELF Electric and Magnetic Fields.
• Kowall B et al. (2010): German wide cross sectional survey on health impacts of electromagnetic fields in the view of general practitioners.
• Kristiansen IS et al. (2009): Radiation from mobile phone systems: Is it perceived as a threat to people's health?
• Leitgeb N (2008): Mobile phones: are children at higher risk?
• Leitgeb N (2012): Improved Classification of Evidence for EMF Health Risks.
• Leitgeb N et al. (2005): Does "electromagnetic pollution" cause illness? An inquiry among Austrian general practitioners.
• Loung VYK et al. (2021): Ensure public health safety, security, quality of service and smooth deployment of 5G infrastructure in Malaysia.
• MacGregor DG et al. (1994): Perception of risks from electromagnetic fields: a psychometric evaluation of a risk-communication approach.
• Maslanyj M et al. (2010): A precautionary public health protection strategy for the possible risk of childhood leukaemia from exposure to power frequency magnetic fields.
• Mazar Madjar H (2021): Science and Politics of Base Station Electromagnetic Field Risks.
• National Radiological Protection Board (2004): In Terms of Risk.
• Petrowicz O (1997): Derzeitiger Stand der Risikodiskussion niederfrequenter elektrischer und magnetischer sowie hochfrequenter elektromagnetischer Feldeinwirkung.
• Porsius JT et al (2015): Symptom reporting after the introduction of a new high-voltage power line: A prospective field study.
• Repacholi MH (2003): WHO's health risk assessment of ELF fields.
• Roberts D (2013): Risk Management of Electrical Hazards: Bridging the Gap in Understanding Hazard Versus Risk.
• Ruddat M et al. (2010): Communication about a communication technology.
• Ruddat M et al. (2007): Abschlussbericht zum Forschungsprojekt "Operationalisierung des Leitbildes 'Risikomündigkeit' unter Berücksichtigung von Lebensstil und Wertorientierung als Grundlage für die Risikokommunikation im Strahlenschutz"
• Schütz H et al. (2005): How to deal with dissent among experts. Risk evaluation of EMF in a scientific dialogue.
• Schweikardt C et al. (2012): Mobile phone health risk policy in Germany: The role of the federal government and the Federal Office for Radiation Protection.
• Schweikardt C et al. (2012): Discourse and policy making on consumer protection in the areas of mobile telecommunication and tanning.
• Siegrist M et al. (2003): Test of a trust and confidence model in the applied context of electromagnetic field (EMF) risks.
• Siegrist M et al. (2006): Implicit attitudes toward nuclear power and mobile phone base stations: support for the affect heuristic.
• Small MJ et al. (2014): When Can Scientific Studies Promote Consensus Among Conflicting Stakeholders?
• Spruijt P et al. (2013): Different Roles and Viewpoints of Scientific Experts in Advising on Environmental Health Risks.
• Spruijt P et al. (2015): Different roles of electromagnetic field experts when giving policy advice: an expert consultation.
• Spruijt P et al. (2018): Expert Views on Their Role as Policy Advisor: Pilot Study for the Cases of Electromagnetic Fields, Particulate Matter, and Antimicrobial Resistance.
• Stilgoe J (2007): The (co-)production of public uncertainty: UK scientific advice on mobile phone health risks.
• Valberg PA (1993): A Public-Health Framework for Addressing a Layperson's Perception of EMF Health Risks.
• van Deventer TE et al. (2005): WHO health risk assessment process for static fields.
• van Dijk HFG et al. (2011): The role of scientific advisory bodies in precaution-based risk governance illustrated with the issue of uncertain health effects of electromagnetic fields.
• WHO (2002): Establishing a Dialogue on Risks from Electromagnetic Fields.
• WHO (2013): Health and environment: communicating the risks.
• Wiedemann PM et al. (2013): Supporting non-experts in judging the credibility of risk assessments (CORA).
• Wiedemann PM et al. (2014): Do people understand IARC's 2B categorization of RF fields from cell phones?
• Wiedemann PM et al. (1999): Risk communication for environmental health hazards.
• Wiedemann PM et al. (2008): Influence of information about specific absorption rate (SAR) upon customers' purchase decisions and safety evaluation of mobile phones.
• Wiedemann PM et al. (2006): The Impacts of Precautionary Measures and the Disclosure of Scientific Uncertainty on EMF Risk Perception and Trust
• Zaryabova V et al. (2007): Needs of communications with general public about the potential risk of electromagnetic fields and methods for achieving this goal