Health-Economics Analyses Applied to ELF Electric and Magnetic Fields.

Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2016 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 4883

Study snapshot

PublicationRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2016

Study typereview

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields (ELF EMFs) are a common exposure for modern populations. The prevailing public-health protection paradigm is that quantitative exposure limits are based on the established acute effects, whereas the possible chronic effects are considered too uncertain for quantitative limits, but might justify precautionary measures. The choice of precautionary measures can be informed by a health-economics analysis (HEA). We consider four such analyses of precautionary measures that have been conducted at a national or state level in California, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Israel. We describe the context of each analysis, examine how they deal with some of the more significant issues that arise, and present a comparison of the input parameters and assumptions used. The four HEAs are methodologically similar. The most significant qualitative choices that have to be made are what dose-response relationship to assume, what allowance if any to make for uncertainty, and, for a CBA only, what diseases to consider, and all four analyses made similar choices. These analyses suggest that, on the assumptions made, there are some low-cost measures, such as rephasing, that can be applied to transmission in some circumstances and that can be justifiable in cost-benefit terms, but that higher cost measures, such as undergrounding, become unjustifiable. Of the four HEAs, those in the United Kingdom and Israel were influential in determining the country's EMF policy. In California and Netherlands, the HEA may well have informed the debate, but the policy chosen did not stem directly from the HEA.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typereview

Effect directionunclear

PopulationModern populations (general exposure context)

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureELF

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

The paper reviews four national/state-level health-economics analyses (California, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Israel) of precautionary measures for ELF electric and magnetic fields and compares their assumptions and parameters. Under the assumptions used in these analyses, some low-cost measures (e.g., rephasing) may be justifiable in cost-benefit terms in some circumstances, whereas higher-cost measures (e.g., undergrounding) become unjustifiable. The HEAs in the United Kingdom and Israel were influential in national EMF policy; in California and the Netherlands they may have informed debate but did not directly determine policy.

Outcomes measured

Health-economics analysis (HEA) of precautionary measures
Cost-benefit justification of mitigation measures
Policy influence of HEA on EMF policy

Limitations

Review is based on four existing HEAs and their assumptions; results depend on qualitative choices such as assumed dose-response relationship and treatment of uncertainty.
No quantitative exposure metrics (e.g., field strengths, frequencies) are provided in the abstract.
Health outcomes/diseases considered in the CBAs are not specified in the abstract.

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "ELF",
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Modern populations (general exposure context)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Health-economics analysis (HEA) of precautionary measures",
    "Cost-benefit justification of mitigation measures",
    "Policy influence of HEA on EMF policy"
  ],
  "main_findings": "The paper reviews four national/state-level health-economics analyses (California, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Israel) of precautionary measures for ELF electric and magnetic fields and compares their assumptions and parameters. Under the assumptions used in these analyses, some low-cost measures (e.g., rephasing) may be justifiable in cost-benefit terms in some circumstances, whereas higher-cost measures (e.g., undergrounding) become unjustifiable. The HEAs in the United Kingdom and Israel were influential in national EMF policy; in California and the Netherlands they may have informed debate but did not directly determine policy.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Review is based on four existing HEAs and their assumptions; results depend on qualitative choices such as assumed dose-response relationship and treatment of uncertainty.",
    "No quantitative exposure metrics (e.g., field strengths, frequencies) are provided in the abstract.",
    "Health outcomes/diseases considered in the CBAs are not specified in the abstract."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "extremely low frequency",
    "ELF",
    "electric fields",
    "magnetic fields",
    "health economics analysis",
    "cost-benefit analysis",
    "precautionary measures",
    "rephasing",
    "undergrounding",
    "EMF policy",
    "exposure limits"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.32,
      "reason": "Discusses exposure limits paradigm and precautionary measures in public-health protection context for ELF EMFs."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1111/risa.12551
PubMed: 26800316

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library