Deuten Leute die 2B-Wertung der IARC überhaupt richtig? (Forschung)

Gast, Samstag, 27.12.2014, 15:42 (vor 3639 Tagen)

Wie interpretieren Unbeteiligte die 2B-Wertung der IARC zu elektromagnetischen Feldern? Die Autoren einer Studie ziehen ein ernüchterndes Fazit: Sowohl die Wahrscheinlichkeit einer karzinogenen Wirkung von EMF wird mehrheitlich falsch beurteilt als auch die Pressemitteilung, mit der die IARC das Ergebis 2B zu erklären suchte.

Letter to the Editor

Do People Understand IARC’s 2B Categorization of RF Fields From Cell Phones?

Peter M. Wiedemann (1), Franziska U. Boerner (1), and Michael H. Repacholi (2)

(1) Karlsruhe Institute ofTechnology (KIT), Institute for Technology Assessment and
SystemsAnalysis (ITAS), Science Forum EMF, Berlin, Germany
(2) Department of Information Engineering, Electronics and Telecommunications (DIET),
University of Rome "La Sapienza", Roma, Italy

In May 2011, the International Agency on Cancer in Research (IARC) issued an official statement concluding that cell phone usage was “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” There have been considerable doubts that non-experts and experts alike fully understood what IARC’s categorization actually meant, as “possibly carcinogenic” can be interpreted in many ways. The present study is based on an online survey indicating that both the characterization of the probability of carcinogenicity, as well as the description of the risk increase given in the IARC press release, was mostly misunderstood by study participants. Respondents also greatly overestimated the magnitude of the potential risk. Our study results showed that IARC needs to improve their scientific communications.

Volltext der Studie

Tags:
WHO, IARC, Repacholi, Risiko, Klassifizierung, 2B, Wiedemann, Karzinogen