Biomedical subjects

William Leiss

Publications and source records attributed to William Leiss.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2004

Effective risk communication practice.

Major public controversies over the management of health and environmental risks have been ongoing since the 1970s, starting with chemicals (pesticides and dioxins) and running through risks associated with many other industrial technologies. We can find in those controversies many common features, which cut across differences in both the technologies themselves and the types of risks they engender. This understanding also enables us to propose strategies to organizations to help them better respond to the public's needs (and the public interest) when concerns over risks arise. Effective risk communication practices are among the most important responsibilities for industry and governments in this regard. Since its origins in the late 1980s, risk communication practice has achieved a better understanding both of its goals and of how to achieve them. We are now in a position to specify with some precision what the fundamental requirements of good risk communication are, and they fall into three basic areas: (1) undertaking "science translation," (2) addressing uncertainties, and (3) dealing with the science/policy interface. Within these three areas there are a set of ten specific tasks, representing what may be called the minimum essential content requirements for every effective risk communication effort.

Canada↗

PubMed2003

Risk management and precaution: insights on the cautious use of evidence.

Risk management, done well, should be inherently precautionary. Adopting an appropriate degree of precaution with respect to feared health and environmental hazards is fundamental to risk management. The real problem is in deciding how precautionary to be in the face of inevitable uncertainties, demanding that we understand the equally inevitable false positives and false negatives from screening evidence. We consider a framework for detection and judgment of evidence of well-characterized hazards, using the concepts of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value that are well established for medical diagnosis. Our confidence in predicting the likelihood of a true danger inevitably will be poor for rare hazards because of the predominance of false positives; failing to detect a true danger is less likely because false negatives must be rarer than the danger itself. Because most controversial environmental hazards arise infrequently, this truth poses a dilemma for risk management.

Environmental Health↗

PubMed2003

Health risks of electromagnetic fields. Part I: Evaluation and assessment of electric and magnetic fields.

Exposure to electric and magnetic fields (EMF) emanating from the generation, distribution, and utilization of electricity is widespread. The major debate in recent years has focused on the possibility that exposure to EMF may result in adverse health consequences, including the development of cancer. This article provides a review and evaluation of potential health risks associated with residential and occupational exposure to EMF. In addition to reviewing data from laboratory, epidemiology, and clinical studies, we examine exposure data from field measurement surveys and exposure guidelines that have been established for EMF. Currently, the evidence in support of an association between EMF and childhood cancer is limited, although this issue warrants further investigation. Evidence of an association between EMF exposure and adult cancers, derived largely from occupational settings, is inconsistent, precluding clear conclusions. There is little evidence of an association between EMF and noncancer health effects. Epidemiological studies of EMF and population health are limited by exposure measurement error and the lack of a clear dose/response relationship in studies suggesting possible health risks. Further research is needed to clarify the ambiguous findings from present studies and to determine if EMF exposure poses a health risk.

Animals↗

PubMed2003

Health risks of electromagnetic fields. Part II: Evaluation and assessment of radio frequency radiation.

The increasing use of different radio frequency (RF)-emitting devices in residential and occupational settings has raised concerns about possible health effects of RF energy emitted by such devices. The debate about the potential risks associated with RF fields will persist with the prevalent network-connected wireless products and services targeting the marketplace for all kinds of consumer use. The aim of this article is to provide biomedical researchers with a review and critical evaluation of the current literature on acute and long-term health risks associated with RF radiation (RFR). Issues examined include safety standards for RFR; dosimetry and measurement surveys; and toxicological, epidemiological, and clinical studies of health outcomes that may be associated with RFR. Overall, the existing evidence for a causal relationship between RFR and adverse health effects is limited. Additional research is needed to clarify possible associations between RFR and biological effects noted in some studies. Particular attention should be directed toward long-term, low-level exposure to RFR.

Animals↗

PubMed2003

Health risks of electromagnetic fields. Part III: Risk analysis.

The management of potential health risks from electromagnetic (EM) fields presents both scientific and nonscientific challenges. When the scientific evidence is ambiguous, as is the case with EM fields, expert judgment of this evidence becomes particularly important. This article provides biomedical researchers with a comprehensive assessment of the status of EM health risk based on our two previous articles [Parts I and II, Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, Volume 31, Issue 3]. Ambiguous evidence also necessitates rigorous public debate. This article also discusses effective risk communication approaches that play a key role in the EM risk issue. Because of uncertainty about health risks associated with EMF exposure, the public is more likely to experience difficulty in evaluating the available information and rely more on perceptions than facts when drawing conclusions. Even the most effective risk communication approaches are not likely to clarify all of the subtleties surrounding EM fields as a population health issue. Thus it is essential that all stakeholders involved in this issue participate in developing consensus solutions.

Attitude to Health↗