The DDT paradigm and electromagnetic fields: policy and scientific uncertainty
Article Abstract:
The policy considerations in regulating electromagnetic fields (EMF) are more complex than those that preceded the 1972 DDT ban. Public opinion, in conjunction with accumulated scientific evidence and the availability of other pesticides, led to the DDT ban. However, EMFs generally are not seen as dangerous by the public, and the scientific evidence connecting EMFs to cancer is inconclusive. Although studies suggest possible risks associated with occupational EMF exposure, more research is needed to prove a causal link. Public policy on EMF could reasonably be based on prudent avoidance of risks and proactive risk reduction, supported by a rising public awareness.
Publication Name: Journal of Products and Toxics Liability
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0967-2680
Year: 1995
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
At the dawn of a new day or the brink of more confusion - will the U.S. Supreme Court answer the call to establish workable standards for the admissibility of novel scientific evidence?
Article Abstract:
The US Supreme Court should resolve the conflicting standards applied by state and federal courts in determining whether scientific evidence that is not generally accepted in the scientific community can be admitted as proof of disease causation in products liability and toxic torts cases. The Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. case, where the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals rejected reanalyses of epidemiological studies as proof of a link between Bendectin and birth defects, will allow the US Supreme Court to choose whether relevancy and reliability standards under the Federal Rules of Evidence or general acceptance standards should control.
Publication Name: Journal of Products and Toxics Liability
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0967-2680
Year: 1993
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
The admissibility of expert testimony and the toxic tort
Article Abstract:
The US Supreme Court may not resolve conflicting scientific evidence admissibility standards in toxic tort cases when it hears Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., a case where scientific evidence proving disease causation was rejected because it was not generally accepted by the scientific community as required by the Kelly-Frye standard. Should Kelly-Frye standard be retained, continuing conflict can be remedied by adopting a federal evidentiary rule that admits all relevant, reliable and non-prejudicial scientific evidence, or by allowing ad hoc, case by case admissibility standards.
Publication Name: Journal of Products and Toxics Liability
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0967-2680
Year: 1993
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: The Milk River: deferred water policy transitions in an international waterway. The evolution of an international water resources management regime in the Mekong River Basin
- Abstracts: The First Amendment and compulsory funding of student government political resolutions at state universities. Price fixing among elite colleges and universities
- Abstracts: Competing in the shadowy gray: protecting domestic trademark holders from gray marketeers under the Lanham Act
- Abstracts: Fishing for markets: regulation and ocean fishing. Purer politics, greasier pigs and other wonders of campaign reform
- Abstracts: The future of Superfund; after the Rio Summit, domestic policy won't be the same. Superfund in limbo: debate over changing law creates uncertainty in current cases