ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2009
The precautionary principle in the context of mobile phone and base station radiofrequency exposures.
Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Next-generation UWB antennas gadgets for human health care using SAR.EURASIP journal on wireless communications and networking · 2021Article
- A Technical Approach to the Evaluation of Radiofrequency Radiation Emissions from Mobile Telephony Base Stations.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2017Article
- Disclosure of individualized research results: a precautionary approach.Accountability in research · 2011Article
- A precautionary public health protection strategy for the possible risk of childhood leukaemia from exposure to power frequency magnetic fields.BMC public health · 2010Article
- The precautionary principle: radiofrequency exposures from mobile telephones and base stations.Environmental health perspectives · 2010Article
- Electromagnetic fields and the precautionary principle.Environmental health perspectives · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNo health hazard has been established from exposure to radiofrequency fields up to the levels recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. However, in response to public concern and the perceived level of scientific uncertainty, there are continuing calls for the application of the precautionary principle to radiofrequency exposures from mobile phones and base stations.
objectiveWe examined the international evolution of calls for precautionary measures in relation to mobile phones and base stations, with particular focus on Australia and the United Kingdom.
resultsThe precautionary principle is difficult to define, and there is no widespread agreement as to how it should be implemented. However, there is a strong argument that precautionary measures should not be implemented in the absence of reliable scientific data and logical reasoning pointing to a possible health hazard. There is also experimental evidence that precautionary advice may increase public concern.
conclusionWe argue that conservative exposure standards, technical features that minimize unnecessary exposures, ongoing research, regular review of standards, and availability of consumer information make mobile communications inherently precautionary. Commonsense measures can be adopted by individuals, governments, and industry to address public concern while ensuring that mobile networks are developed for the benefit of society.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.