The origins of U.S. safety standards for microwave radiation.

Science (New York, N.Y.) · 1980 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream
UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 6043

The article analyzes scientific research and values that influenced policy decisions leading to adoption of the 1966 U.S. standard for microwave radiation exposure. It suggests standard setting should remain distinct from basic scientific research and that ad…

Study snapshot

PublicationScience (New York, N.Y.) · 1980
Study typepolicy
Reported directionUnclear
Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

An analysis is made of the scientific research and values influencing the policy decisions that led to the adoption of the 1966 U.S. standard for exposure to microwave radiation. This analysis is used as a tool for understanding the problems faced by those who set standards. An effort is made to unravel the complex motivations that lay behind the adoption of the microwave standard. Based on the past record, it is suggested that standard setting remain distinct from basic scientific research and that adversary procedures be used only as a last resort in seeking consensus over a proposed standard.

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 typepolicy
Effect directionunclear
PopulationNot supplied
Sample sizeNot supplied
Exposuremicrowave
Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

The article analyzes scientific research and values that influenced policy decisions leading to adoption of the 1966 U.S. standard for microwave radiation exposure. It suggests standard setting should remain distinct from basic scientific research and that adversary procedures be used only as a last resort when seeking consensus on a proposed standard.

Outcomes measured

  • U.S. safety standard adoption (1966)
  • Policy decision-making for microwave radiation exposure limits
  • Standard-setting process and motivations

Limitations

  • No specific exposure metrics (frequency, SAR, duration) are provided in the abstract
  • No health outcomes or quantitative effects are reported in the abstract
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "policy",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "microwave",
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "U.S. safety standard adoption (1966)",
    "Policy decision-making for microwave radiation exposure limits",
    "Standard-setting process and motivations"
  ],
  "main_findings": "The article analyzes scientific research and values that influenced policy decisions leading to adoption of the 1966 U.S. standard for microwave radiation exposure. It suggests standard setting should remain distinct from basic scientific research and that adversary procedures be used only as a last resort when seeking consensus on a proposed standard.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "No specific exposure metrics (frequency, SAR, duration) are provided in the abstract",
    "No health outcomes or quantitative effects are reported in the abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "microwave radiation",
    "exposure standards",
    "safety standards",
    "U.S. policy",
    "standard setting",
    "1966 standard",
    "science-policy interface"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.32,
      "reason": "Discusses origins and process of setting microwave radiation exposure standards (relevant to international/national guideline-setting context)."
    }
  ]
}
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: 10.1126/science.6990492
PubMed: 6990492

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library