Similar articles

• Comment on "developing policy in the face of scientific uncertainty: interpreting 0.3 microT or 0.4 microT cutpoints from EMF epidemiologic studies" by Kheifets et al. in Risk Analysis, 25(4), 927-935.

  Kundi M. Kundi M. Risk Anal. 2006 Jun;26(3):579-81; author reply 583-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00778.x. Risk Anal. 2006. PMID: 16834616 No abstract available.
• Developing policy in the face of scientific uncertainty: interpreting 0.3 microT or 0.4 microT cutpoints from EMF epidemiologic studies.

  Kheifets L, Sahl JD, Shimkhada R, Repacholi MH. Kheifets L, et al. Risk Anal. 2005 Aug;25(4):927-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00635.x. Risk Anal. 2005. PMID: 16268940
• Exposure assessment for power frequency electric and magnetic fields (EMF) and its application to epidemiologic studies.

  Bracken TD, Kheifets LI, Sussman SS. Bracken TD, et al. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 1993 Jan-Mar;3(1):1-22. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 1993. PMID: 8518543 Review.
• Do power frequency magnetic fields cause leukemia in children?

  Levallois P. Levallois P. Am J Prev Med. 1995 Jul-Aug;11(4):263-70. Am J Prev Med. 1995. PMID: 7495604 Review.
• IARC evaluation of ELF magnetic fields: public understanding of the 0.4-microT exposure metric.

  Bailey WH, Wagner ME. Bailey WH, et al. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2008 May;18(3):233-5. doi: 10.1038/sj.jes.7500643. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2008. PMID: 18421295 No abstract available.