Growing risks to public health of widely used technologies
A widely diffused technology (for example wireless or mobile technology), is shown to have significant negative impacts on public health; this is recognised only after exposure of large parts of the population.
Many features of modern life have been sources of worry, including mobile phones and wireless systems; lead additives in petrol or particulates in diesel emissions; water fluoridation; industrialised livestock farming; routine reliance on x-rays; hydrogenated fats; cosmetic surgery and prenatal ultrasound. Impacts vary in terms of expected incidence and severity, however one common feature is that the effects are often latent or multi-causal, leading to delayed reactions and controversy. Incidences of a number of conditions have increased in recent decades that remain unexplained, reasons may relate to some aspects of contemporary lifestyles.
The bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) phenomenon, though fortunately affecting fewer than was feared, demonstrates public health crises taking unexpected forms, and having unexpected causes. This is a remarkable case in that a completely new type of disease agent, the prion, was implicated; this escaped existing systems of detection. Another example, HIV-AIDS, also has lifestyle elements in its take-off.
Key facts
Analysis
This section outlines the projected workforce impacts of the idea.
Impact on sector
workforce supply
workforce demandThe vertical axis represents an increase or decrease in supply or demand from the baseline which is the year 2012.
[4,4,5,5]
Level of confidence in this analysisThe confidence level is based on the confidence of the stakeholder who added this idea in their information.
Low
Low
Impact on staff
workforce supply
workforce demandThe vertical axis represents an increase or decrease in supply or demand from the baseline which is the year 2012.
[4,4,5,5]
Level of confidence in this analysisThe confidence level is based on the confidence of the stakeholder who added this idea in their information.
Low
Low
Comment
Impact on specialities
workforce supply
[4,4,4,4]
workforce demand
[4,4,5,5]
Level of confidence in this analysisThe confidence level is based on the confidence of the stakeholder who added this idea in their information.
Low
Low
Impact on quality of care This is calculated based on the analysis below. An increase receives a score of 1
Overall impact on quality of care: Negatively impacts
| SAFETY |  |
Potential decrease |
| EFFECTIVENESS |  |
No known impact |
| EXPERIENCE | |
No known impact |
Level of confidence in this analysis: Low
Impact on financial outcomesThe scale used to assess the impact on financial outcomes is:
significant cost savings (25%+),
moderate cost savings (5%-25%),
minor costs savings (1%-5%),
minor increase in cost (1%-5%),
moderately increases cost (5%-25%),
significantly increases costs (25%+).
| Employers |  |
moderately increases cost (5%-25%) |
| Training and education providers | |
moderately increases cost (5%-25%) |
| Commissioners | |
moderately increases cost (5%-25%) |
| Government (England) | |
moderately increases cost (5%-25%) |
Geographical variance of impacts
| Increase imbalances |  |
Level of certainty about impactsThe scale used in this question is:
Very likely (90–100% probability),
Likely (66–90% probability),
About as likely as not (33–66% probability),
Unlikely (10–33% probability),
Very unlikely (0–10% probability).
| About as likely as not (33 to 66% probability) |  |
Early signals
This section highlights any warning signals indicating that this idea is unfolding.
Increasing public concerns about effects of new and emerging technologies: concerns underpinned by seemingly contradictory evidence on effects
Forward looking advice
Some of the information in this section is provided by stakeholders and expert groups, and does not necessarily represent the views of the CfWI.
""
"Need recognised for clinically and science based diagnostics of effects May require more specialist consultants"