Comparative assessment of the evidence of cancer risk from electromagnetic fields and radiation

Health risks are ever-present and unavoidable in our environment. We are all exposed to them consciously or unconsciously. However, individual behaviour to protect against risk is not only determined by the objective level of a risk; it is also substantially influenced by the subjective perception of its severity. This is why some risk factors which have fairly low significance from a scientific perspective are nonetheless viewed as threatening and may even come to dominate the public debate, while other risk factors which would justify greater vigilance are underestimated.

In order to make an objective contribution to the public debate, the Commission on Radiological Protection was commissioned by the Federal Environment Minister to carry out a clear and transparent comparison of the risks posed by electric and magnetic fields and by electromagnetic waves and radiation for all frequency ranges (from static fields to ionising radiation), based on objective criteria.

For the purpose of differentiating the evidence sufficiently, the SSK introduced three evidence categories back in 2001 (proof/ suspicion/indication). A revision of this classification resulted in an improved evidence differentiation system with only five classes. Evidence (e.g. of a causal connection with cancer) is categorised as follows: "convincing (E3)", "incomplete (E2)", "weak (E1)", "lack of or insufficient evidence (E0)" and "evidence for non-causality (EN)". In addition, three categories were introduced to rank data situations which are inadequate and therefore do not permit any classification of evidence: these categories are "inconsistent (D2)", "unreliable (D1)" and "lack of or insufficient data (D0)".

The revised classification made it possible to assess the evidence of a potential link between the exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiation on the one hand and cancer on the other in a clear and transparent way. The assessment was based on the contribution of different scientific approaches. It had to be determined how much weight should be attached to their findings in the overall assessment. The Commission does not support disproportionate weighting of individual approaches, such as epidemiological findings. From the Commission’s perspective, it is essential to incorporate established sound theoretical knowledge into the assessment. If the overall picture is sufficiently consistent, it is not necessary to require that findings be available from all scientific methods. It was therefore possible to assess electrostatic fields despite a lack of data from biological studies because theoretical knowledge in this field is consistent and convincing.

In sum, the comparison of risks from electric and magnetic fields as well as from electromagnetic waves and radiation shows that in some cases there is a discrepancy between the scientific evidence for cancer risk and the public’s risk perception. Greater risk awareness would be justified for some frequency ranges which have received little attention so far.

Download PDF (german)

Download PDF (english)