Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15811829›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2005

The precautionary principle and risk perception: experimental studies in the EMF area.

Peter M Wiedemann, Holger Schütz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Uncertainty communication, trust and health promotion.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Evaluation of Risk Perception of Smoking after the Implementation of California's Tobacco 21 Law.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  14. Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2021
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Peter M WiedemannResearch Centre Jülich, Programme Group MUT (Humans, Environment, Technology), Jülich, Germany. p.wiedemann@fz-juelich.de
Holger Schütz

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Possible adverse health effects due to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from cellular phones and base stations present a major public health issue across Europe. Because scientists cannot exclude that EMFs may cause health problems, the application of the precautionary principle is debated heavily. By considering precautionary measures, political decision makers hope to cope with public fears about EMFs. We present results from two experimental studies that indicate that precautionary measures may trigger concerns, amplify EMF-related risk perceptions, and lower trust in public health protection. Such impacts, questioning common expectations, should be considered in decisions about precautionary measures.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeRiskAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCommunity ParticipationElectromagnetic FieldsEnvironmental ExposureFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPerceptionUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID15811829
PMCPMC1278478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.