Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks

Perceptions of risks associated with mobile phones, base stations, and other sources of electromagnetic fields (EMF) were examined. Data from a telephone survey conducted in the German- and French-speaking parts of Switzerland are presented (N = 1,015). Participants assessed both risks and benefits associated with nine different sources of EMF. Trust in the authorities regulating these hazards was assessed as well. In addition, participants answered a set of questions related to attitudes toward EMF and toward mobile phone base stations. According to respondents' assessments, high-voltage transmission lines are the most risky source of EMF. Mobile phones and mobile phone base stations received lower risk ratings. Results showed that trust in authorities was positively associated with perceived benefits and negatively associated with perceived risks. People who use their mobile phones frequently perceived lower risks and higher benefits than people who use their mobile phones infrequently. People who believed they lived close to a base station did not significantly differ in their level of risks associated with mobile phone base stations from people who did not believe they lived close to a base station. Regarding risk regulation, a majority of participants were in favor of fixing limiting values based on the worst-case scenario. Correlations suggest that belief in paranormal phenomena is related to level of perceived risks associated with EMF. Furthermore, people who believed that most chemical substances cause cancer also worried more about EMF than people who did not believe that chemical substances are that harmful. Practical implications of the results are discussed.

[1]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[2]  Melissa L. Finucane,et al.  Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[3]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Perception of gene technology, and food risks: results of a survey in Switzerland , 2003 .

[4]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Attitudes toward technology and risk: Going beyond what is immediately given , 2002 .

[5]  P. Slovic,et al.  A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[6]  Kenneth J Rothman,et al.  Epidemiological evidence on health risks of cellular telephones , 2000, The Lancet.

[7]  T. Earle,et al.  Thinking Aloud about Trust: A Protocol Analysis of Trust in Risk Management , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[8]  Wouter Poortinga,et al.  Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[9]  Christoph Schierz,et al.  Project NEMESIS: Perception of a 50 Hz electric and magnetic field at low intensities (laboratory experiment) , 2002, Bioelectromagnetics.

[10]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Risk Perception and New Age Beliefs , 2002, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[11]  Lennart Sj Risk Perception and New Age Beliefs , 2002 .

[12]  G. Hyland Physics and biology of mobile telephony , 2000, The Lancet.

[13]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Intuitive Toxicology. II. Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks in Canada , 1995 .

[14]  C Marris,et al.  Exploring the “Psychometric Paradigm”: Comparisons Between Aggregate and Individual Analyses , 1997, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[15]  N. Bronfman,et al.  Risk Perception in a Developing Country: The Case of Chile , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[16]  P. Slovic Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

[17]  K. Jones Trust as an Affective Attitude , 1996, Ethics.

[18]  Maria Blettner,et al.  Biological effects on human health due to radiofrequency/microwave exposure: a synopsis of cohort studies , 2003, Radiation and environmental biophysics.

[19]  E Cardis,et al.  Review of the epidemiologic literature on EMF and Health. , 2001, Environmental health perspectives.

[20]  P Slovic,et al.  Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of Nuclear Waste , 1991, Science.

[21]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  A New Look at the Psychometric Paradigm of Perception of Hazards , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[22]  Paul Slovic,et al.  The affect heuristic , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[23]  R. Gregory,et al.  Public perceptions of electric power transmission lines , 1988 .

[24]  Stephen M. Johnson,et al.  The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits , 2000 .

[25]  M R Greenberg,et al.  Gender differences in risk perception: effects differ in stressed vs. non-stressed environments. , 1995, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[26]  M. Siegrist The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[27]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[28]  Norbert Leitgeb,et al.  Electrosensibility and electromagnetic hypersensitivity. , 2003, Bioelectromagnetics.

[29]  Donna Riley,et al.  The Use of Mental Models in Chemical Risk Protection: Developing a Generic Workplace Methodology , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[30]  Detlof von Winterfeldt,et al.  The Effects of Electromagnetic Fields from Transmission Lines on Public Fears and Property Values , 1996 .

[31]  Michael Ruddat,et al.  Wie akzeptabel ist der Mobilfunk , 2002 .

[32]  B. Johnson Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach , 2002 .

[33]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[34]  Mathew P White,et al.  Risk Perceptions of Mobile Phone Use While Driving , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[35]  Holger Schütz,et al.  The Social Amplification of Risk: Understanding amplification of complex risk issues: the risk story model applied to the EMF case , 2003 .

[36]  D G MacGregor,et al.  Perception of Risks from Electromagnetic Fields: A Psychometric Evaluation of a Risk-Communication Approach , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[37]  Lennart Sjo º Berg,et al.  Attitudes toward technology and risk: Going beyond what is immediately given 1 , 2002 .

[38]  M. G. Morgan,et al.  Lay understanding of low-frequency electric and magnetic fields. , 1990, Bioelectromagnetics.

[39]  P Slovic,et al.  Powerline frequency electric and magnetic fields: a pilot study of risk perception. , 1985, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[40]  Russell J. Dalton The Social Transformation of Trust in Government , 2005 .

[41]  Robert Kavet,et al.  Childhood leukemia: electric and magnetic fields as possible risk factors. , 2003, Environmental health perspectives.

[42]  Charles J. Brody,et al.  Differences by Sex in Support for Nuclear Power , 1984 .