MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149452003 · doi:10.1139/a00-004

Biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic energy: A critical review of the reports by the US National Research Council and the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences as they relate to the broad realm of EMF bioeffects

2000· review· en· W2149452003 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Magda Havas

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological Effects
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNon-ionizing radiationTelecommunicationsEnvironmental healthComputer scienceMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our dependence on electricity and our growing dependence on wireless telecommunication technology is causing this planet to be inundated with electromagnetic energy ranging in frequency from less than 60 Hz to greater than 2 GHz. Concerns expressed by the public, who live near power lines, cell phone antennas, or television and radio broadcast towers, have prompted two major reviews: one by the US National Research Council (NRC) and the other by the US National Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS). Both of these documents deal with the biological and health effects primarily in a residential setting of extremely low frequency (ELF) or power frequency (50 and 60 Hz) fields. This paper critically evaluates the NRC and NIEHS documents. This evaluation includes both the content and the process leading to the final reports. It summarizes the information available on human exposure to electric and magnetic fields and identifies key biological markers and potential mechanisms that have been linked to electromagnetic exposure. It examines the conclusions of both documents in terms of the slightly broader realm associated with occupational exposure, non-power frequency fields, EMF hypersensitivity, and response of species other than humans. It presents some of the scientific controversy surrounding the question "Are low frequency electric and magnetic fields harmful?'' and examines the concepts of bias and consistency in data interpretation. This paper also attempts to place the discussions about technologically generated fields (technofields) into a much broader perspective, a perspective that includes naturally occurring geofields and biofields. Key words: leukemia, breast cancer, melatonin, calcium flux, extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields, radio frequency radiation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological EffectsFrench-language works237,207