Instrumente der Risikokommunikation

Das EMF-Portal ist ein wichtiges Instrument der Risikokommunikation bei elektromagnetischen Feldern. Hier werden wissenschaftliche Studien mit den bibliografischen Angaben und Zusammenfassungen wissenschaftlicher Forschungsergebnisse auf Englisch und Deutsch kostenfrei zur Verfügung gestellt. Weitere Hilfen zum Verständnis bieten das interdisziplinäre Glossar mit mehr als 2900 erläuterten Fachausdrücken, die umfangreiche Feldquellen-Datenbank mit detaillierten Expositions-Angaben, grafische Übersichten zu bestimmten Themen wie z.B. experimentelle und epidemiologische Studien zu Mobilfunk und zu Kindern und Jungtieren sowie die Grundlagen zum Verständnis des Themenkomplexes.

Im EMF-Portal werden Studien zur Risikokommunikation, Risikowahrnehmung und Risikobewertung im Bereich elektromagnetischer Felder nach bestimmten Merkmalen kategorisiert. Im Folgenden sind die Publikationen zur Risikokommunikation aufgeführt:

• 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.
• Brzozek C, Karipidis K (2023): Community engagement programs on radiation and health: addressing public concerns.
• 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.
• GSM Association (GSMA), Mobile & Wireless Forum (MWF) (2023): Risk Communication Guide for Mobile Phones and Base Stations: Practical guidance and support on good risk communications practice for the mobile industry.
• 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 (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.
• 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.
• Pei J and Cheng L (2024): Representations of 5G in the Chinese and British press: a corpus-assisted critical discourse analysis.
• Petrowicz O (1997): Derzeitiger Stand der Risikodiskussion niederfrequenter elektrischer und magnetischer sowie hochfrequenter elektromagnetischer Feldeinwirkung.
• Pölzl-Viol C (2022): Besonderheiten der Risiko- und Krisenkommunikation im Strahlenschutz und radiologischen Notfallschutz
• Pölzl C (2011): EMF recommendations specific for children?
• 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. (2006): Implicit attitudes toward nuclear power and mobile phone base stations: support for the affect heuristic.
• Siegrist M et al. (2003): Test of a trust and confidence model in the applied context of electromagnetic field (EMF) risks.
• Small MJ et al. (2014): When Can Scientific Studies Promote Consensus Among Conflicting Stakeholders?
• 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.
• Spruijt P et al. (2015): Different roles of electromagnetic field experts when giving policy advice: an expert consultation.
• Spruijt P et al. (2013): Different Roles and Viewpoints of Scientific Experts in Advising on Environmental Health Risks.
• 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.
• WHO (2002): Establishing a Dialogue on Risks from Electromagnetic Fields.
• Wiedemann PM et al. (2024): How to improve IARC's RF-EMF cancer hazard communication.
• Wiedemann PM et al. (2014): Do people understand IARC's 2B categorization of RF fields from cell phones?
• Wiedemann PM et al. (2013): Supporting non-experts in judging the credibility of risk assessments (CORA).
• 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.
• Wiedemann PM et al. (1999): Risk communication for environmental health hazards.
• Yamaguchi-Sekino S et al. (2024): Effects of website-based risk communication of radio-frequency electromagnetic fields on general public.
• Zaryabova V et al. (2007): Needs of communications with general public about the potential risk of electromagnetic fields and methods for achieving this goal.