Mobile phone masts: protesting the scientific evidence

In the UK mobile phone ownership is high, however, there are conspicuous local protests against mobile phone masts. Protesters’ concerns often focus on the claimed ill health effects of mobile phone technology, which are frequently dismissed by industry and scientific experts. This paper provides an in-depth study into the attitudes and beliefs of one local protest. It considers to what extent health issues dominate the group’s concerns and how the campaigners have engaged with scientific knowledge to form their opinion. Surprisingly, mobile phone ownership was high within the protest group. This apparent paradox could be rationalized, however, by considering the location of the group and the ways in which the protesters used their mobile phone. Few believed that the precautionary approach had been fully applied to mobile phones. The campaign can be interpreted as one that questions the presumption that science and technology lead to increased economic performance and quality of life.

[1]  Science(s) which, when and whose? Probing the metanarrative of scientific knowledge in the social construction of nature , 2003 .

[2]  Seth Finegan,et al.  Stats on Tap: Intuitive Web-Based Statistical Mapping at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister , 2003 .

[3]  A. Strauss,et al.  The Discovery of Grounded Theory , 1967 .

[4]  Samantha Jones,et al.  Social constructionism and the environment: through the quagmire , 2002 .

[5]  M. V. Riemsdijk,et al.  Toward A Theory Of Stakeholder Identification And Salience , 2022 .

[6]  Janet. Askew.  Mobile phone masts. Report of an inquiry by the all party mobile group , 2004 .

[7]  Michael Woods,et al.  Conflicting Environmental Visions of the Rural: Windfarm Development in Mid Wales , 2003 .

[8]  Robert U. Ayres,et al.  The digital economy: Where do we stand? , 2004 .

[9]  J. Durant,et al.  The public understanding of science , 1989, Nature.

[10]  Ronald K. Mitchell,et al.  Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of who and What Really Counts , 1997 .

[11]  L. Calman.  Qualitative Research Through Case Studies , 2003 .

[12]  J. Wible.  The Economics of Science: Methodology and Epistemology as if Economics Really Mattered , 1998 .

[13]  Changing science and ensuring our future , 1997 .

[14]  Adam S. Dawe,et al.  Growth and maturation of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans following exposure to weak microwave fields , 2002 .

[15]  B. Crabtree,et al.  The qualitative research interview , 2006, Medical education.

[16]  Brian Wynne,et al.  May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. , 2004 .

[17]  Andrew Lugg,et al.  Farewell to Reason , 1991 .

[18]  J. Graham.  Perspectives on the Precautionary Principle , 2000 .

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

[20]  R. Pardo,et al.  Attitudes toward science among the European public: a methodological analysis , 2002 .

[21]  E. Austin.  Reaching Young Audiences: Developmental Considerations in Designing Health Messages , 1995 .

[22]  J. Gutteling.  Mazur’s Hypothesis on Technology Controversy and Media , 2005 .

[23]  J. Morse.  Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed): Mathew B. Miles and A. Michael Huberman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994. Price: $65.00 hardback, $32.00 paperback. 238 pp , 1996 .

[24]  Walter F. Bodmer,et al.  The Public Understanding of Science , 1986 .

[25]  Jo Campling,et al.  Practical Social Research , 1996 .

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

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

[28]  K. Burningham.  A Noisy Road or Noisy Resident?: A Demonstration of the Utility of Social Constructionism for Analysing Environmental Problems , 1998 .

[29]  L. Frewer.  The public and effective risk communication. , 2003, Toxicology letters.

[30]  Mitchell Ness,et al.  The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty , 2003 .

[31]  M. Rogers,et al.  Scientific and technological uncertainty, the precautionary principle, scenarios and risk management , 2001 .

[32]  N. Allum,et al.  Science in Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes , 2004 .

[33]  Jo Campling,et al.  Practical Social Research: Project Work in the Community , 1996 .

[34]  Ann Buchholtz,et al.  Business & Society Ethics and Stakeholder Management , 2006 .

[35]  R. Tytler,et al.  Public participation in an environmental dispute: Implications for science education , 2001 .

[36]  L. Kheifets,et al.  The precautionary principle and EMF: implementation and evaluation , 2001 .

[37]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  Five charges against the precautionary principle , 2002 .

[38]  Jeremy Hall,et al.  The challenges of innovating for sustainable development , 2003 .

[39]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  European E-commerce Report , 2000 .

[40]  N. Selwyn,et al.  Older adults' use of information and communications technology in everyday life , 2003, Ageing and Society.

[41]  J. Brannen.  Mixing Methods: qualitative and quantitative research , 2017 .

[42]  William Walton,et al.  The Changing Regulation of Mobile-Phone Mast Development in a Devolved United Kingdom , 2002 .

[43]  P. Sandin.  Dimensions of the Precautionary Principle , 1999, Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance.

[44]  M. Clarkson.  A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance , 1995 .

[45]  Steven Miller,et al.  Public understanding of science at the crossroads , 2001 .

[46]  Celia Gahan,et al.  Doing Qualitative Research Using QSR NUD*IST , 1998 .

[47]  Kate Burningham,et al.  Being Constructive: Social Constructionism and the Environment , 1999 .

[48]  R. Freeman.  Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach , 2010 .

[49]  Bruce Bimber.  The Internet and Citizen Communication With Government: Does the Medium Matter? , 1999 .

[50]  G. J. Hyland.  How Exposure to GSM & TETRA Base-station Radiation can Adversely Affect Humans , 2003 .

[51]  Lynn Schofield Clark,et al.  Ethnographic Interviews on the Digital Divide , 2004, New Media Soc..

[52]  Peter H. Sand,et al.  The Precautionary Principle: A European Perspective , 2000 .

[53]  K. Soper.  What Is Nature?: Culture, Politics and the Non-Human , 1995 .

[54]  T. Hellström,et al.  Policy understanding of science, public trust and the BSE-CJD crisis. , 2000, Journal of hazardous materials.

[55]  Adam Burgess,et al.  Cellular Phones, Public Fears, and a Culture of Precaution , 2003 .

[56]  Susan Miles,et al.  Public perception of scientific uncertainty in relation to food hazards , 2003 .

[57]  L. Clarke.  Social Organization and Risk: Some Current Controversies , 1993 .

[58]  The secularization of science and a new deal for science policy , 1997 .

[59]  Guy Cook,et al.  ‘The Scientists Think and the Public Feels’: Expert Perceptions of the Discourse of GM Food , 2004 .

[60]  Q. Balzano,et al.  The influence of the precautionary principle on science-based decision-making: questionable applications to risks of radiofrequency fields , 2002 .