Linder S H
University of Texas-Houston.
J Health Polit Policy Law. 1994 Spring;19(1):165-90. doi: 10.1215/03616878-19-1-165.
There is a notable lack of scientific consensus on whether electric and magnetic fields (EMF) constitute a health risk in need of systematic control. Even those who see EMF as a public problem, share few assumptions about the type of problem it represents, whether serious risks to health are involved, or about the collective action it warrants. In the absence of conclusive scientific evidence, the interpretations of various social and political institutions have moved into the foreground, each bringing a different perspective to the issue and a unique way of accommodating the ambiguity surrounding the question of health effects. The result is a confusing mixture of warnings and reassurances, of calls for more study, or for immediate action, that distinguishes the EMF issue from other, better-defined environmental risks. While much of the discussion of EMF has focused on the synthesis and assessment of experimental and epidemiologic research on health effects, this paper explores the diversity of institutional interpretations to shed some light on the social and political responses to the issue and how these might shape its future in public policy. The paper concentrates on the selected norms and practices of three institutions, centrally involved yet differing in their interpretations: the scientific community, the legal system, and public bureaucracy. The disparities that form among the interpretations of institutions faced with ambiguous evidence and ill-formed problem definitions can lead to tensions and a search for alternative means of resolving contested meanings.
关于电场和磁场（EMF）是否构成需要系统控制的健康风险，目前科学界尚未达成显著共识。即使是那些将电磁场视为公共问题的人，对于它所代表的问题类型、是否涉及严重健康风险，或者它所需要的集体行动，也几乎没有共同的假设。在缺乏确凿科学证据的情况下，各种社会和政治机构的解读成为了焦点，每个机构都为这个问题带来了不同的视角，以及处理围绕健康影响问题的模糊性的独特方式。结果是警告和安慰、要求更多研究或立即行动的混乱混合，这使得电磁场问题有别于其他定义更明确的环境风险。虽然关于电磁场的大部分讨论都集中在对健康影响的实验和流行病学研究的综合与评估上，但本文探讨了机构解读的多样性，以揭示社会和政治对该问题的反应，以及这些反应如何在公共政策中塑造其未来。本文重点关注三个机构的特定规范和实践，这三个机构都深度参与其中，但解读方式不同：科学界、法律系统和公共官僚机构。面对模糊证据和定义不明确的问题，各机构解读之间形成的差异可能会导致紧张局势，并促使人们寻找解决有争议含义的替代方法。
