Evaluation procedure of health effects

Evaluation of potential health effects of electromagnetic fields are a time-consuming and complicated procedure which can only be conducted by expert panels (cf. chapter Evaluation). During this procedure all publications of all study types (in vitro, animal experiments and epidemiological studies) on a specific frequency range and particular endpoints are collected and evaluated in terms of their distinct quality (e.g. dosimetry, study design, sample size, statistics), reproducibility of the results and comparability with other studies.

Each of the various study types has its specific advantages and disadvantages which should be considered. The advantage of epidemiological studies and human experimental studies is the direct linkage to humans. However, small sample sizes, an often insufficient retrospective data acquisition and often lack of statistical significance are the disadvantages of these studies. Furthermore it is very difficult to prove the causality of a disease due exposure to electromagnetic fields by epidemiological studies. Therefore experimental in vitro- and animal studies have to be conducted to confirm the observed effects, to uncover mechanisms of action and to test hypotheses. Experimental animal and in-vitro studies provide more reliable results than epidemiological studies due to the possibility of standardized lab techniques with large sample sizes, especially with respect to weak and thereby more difficult verifiable effects. But again, their main disadvantage is the problem of transferring the results to humans. Hence, the results of all study types and the comparison of these results should build the basis to evaluate a consistent effect. Only when the results of each study type (i.e. epidemiological, experimental animal and in-vivo studies) show mainly consistent evidence of the same effect, causality can be concluded. Additionally it should be kept in mind that a biological effect does not inevitably mean an adverse health effect.

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 assessment are presented in the following:

• Boikat U et al. (1996): Vorbeugung beim Wohnungsbau gegen elektromagnetische Felder von Hochspannungsleitungen - Grundlagen der Risikobewertung.
• Bowman JD et al. (2013): Possible health benefits from reducing occupational magnetic fields.
• Dabala D et al. (2013): Risk Assessment and Management of Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure.
• 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
• Filosa L and Lopresto V (2022): Semi-quantitative methodology to assess health and safety risks arising from exposure to electromagnetic fields up to 300 GHz at workplaces according to Italian regulations
• Hocking B et al. (2008): Guidance note: risk management of workers with medical electronic devices and metallic implants in electromagnetic 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 (2012): Improved Classification of Evidence for EMF Health Risks.
• Leitgeb N (2008): Mobile phones: are children at higher risk?
• Leitgeb N et al. (2005): Does "electromagnetic pollution" cause illness? An inquiry among Austrian general practitioners.
• Lolea M and Dzitac S (2018): Aspects Regarding Risk Assessment of Human Body Exposure in Electric and Magnetic Fields.
• 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.
• Petrowicz O (1997): Derzeitiger Stand der Risikodiskussion niederfrequenter elektrischer und magnetischer sowie hochfrequenter elektromagnetischer Feldeinwirkung.
• 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. (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.
• 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 (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. (1999): Risk communication for environmental health hazards.
• Zaryabova V et al. (2007): Needs of communications with general public about the potential risk of electromagnetic fields and methods for achieving this goal.