Abstract
Since the late 1970s, there has been considerable debate surrounding the question of whether or not exposures to non-ionizing radiation and electric and magnetic fields (EMF), produced by powerlines and electrical and telecommunications technologies, are harmful to health. Whilst there has been some recent evidence of regulatory fatigue, and attempts to enforce closure, the EMF debate nevertheless still continues. This paper will explore the rôle played by competing images of scientific method in the argumentative strategies used by two of the main protagonists in an Australian public inquiry (held in 1990-91) which investigated the EMF issue: `Inquiry into Community Needs and High Voltage (132kv and above) Transmission Line Development', the so-called Gibbs Inquiry. Apart from documenting some of the epistemologically intricate features of the EMF controversy, the following discussion will also consider the way scientific method discourses can contribute to enhancing the durability of knowledge claims in legal and regulatory settings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.