ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF EMF RISKS

Fact Sheet N184
Reviewed May 1998

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF EMF RISKSTechnological progress in the broadest sense of the word has always been associated withvarious hazards and risks, both perceived and real. The industrial, commercial andhousehold application of electromagnetic fields (EMF) is no exception.
Throughout the world, the general public is concerned that exposure to EMF from such
sources as high voltage power lines, radars, mobile telephones and their base stationscould lead to adverse health consequences, especially in children. As a result, theconstruction of new power lines and mobile telephone networks has met withconsiderable opposition in some countries.
In response to these public concerns shared by many governments, the World HealthOrganization (WHO) has established the International EMF Project to evaluate thebiological effects and assess possible health risks from EMF exposure. Over 40 countries
and 6 international organizations are currently involved in the Project.
Recent history has shown that lack of knowledge about health consequences oftechnological advances may not be the sole reason for social opposition to innovations.
Disregard for differences in risk perception that are not adequately reflected incommunications among scientists, governments, industry and the public, is also to blame.
It is for this reason that risk perception and risk communication in relation to EMF arealso covered by the International EMF Project.
Health Hazard and Risk: In trying to understand people's perception of risk, it isimportant to distinguish between a health hazard and a health risk. A hazard can be anobject or a set of circumstances that can potentially harm a person's health. Risk is thelikelihood (or probability) that a person will be harmed by a particular hazard.
Every activity you can think of has an associated risk. Travelling may result ina car accident, or a plane or train crash. Staying at home may not protect you
from an earthquake. Living in general is associated with many risks. There isno such thing as a zero risk.
A car is a potential health hazard. Driving a car is a risk. The higher thespeed, the more risky is the driving.
The same is true for EMF-emitting sources. Under certain circumstances,
EMF can be potentially hazardous, and the risk to a person's health depends
on the level of exposure.
Perception of risk: A number of factors influence a person's decision to take a riskor reject it. People usually perceive risks as negligible, acceptable, tolerable, orunacceptable, and compare them with the benefits, which should outweigh the risk
by a significant margin. These perceptions can depend on people's age, sex, culturaland educational backgrounds.
Many young people, for example, find the risk of sky diving as acceptable.
Many older people do not since they perceive it as too dangerous and,

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF EMF RISKS

therefore, unacceptable.
The nature of the risk can lead to different perceptions. Surveys have found that thefollowing pairs of characteristics of a situation generally affect risk perception. The
first member of the pair tends to increase while the second one decreases themagnitude of the perceived risk:
Involuntary vs. voluntary exposure. This is an important factor in risk
perception, especially for EMF-emitting sources. People who do not use mobiletelephones perceive the risk as high from the relatively low radio-frequency(RF) fields emitted from mobile telephone base stations. However, mobile
telephone users generally perceive as low the risk from the much more intense
RF fields from their voluntarily-chosen handsets.
Lack of personal control vs. feeling of control over a situation. If people do nothave any say about installation of power lines and mobile telephone basestations, especially near their homes, schools or play areas, they tend toperceive the risk from such EMF facilities as being high.
Familiar vs. unfamiliar. Familiarity with the situation, or a feeling ofunderstanding of the technology, helps reduce the level of the perceived risk.
The perceived risk increases when the situation or technology, such as theEMF technology, is new, unfamiliar, or hard-to-comprehend. Perception
about the level of risk can be significantly increased if there is an incomplete
scientific understanding about potential health effects from a particularsituation or technology.
Dread vs. not dreaded. Some diseases and health conditions, such as cancer,
severe and lingering pain and disability, are more feared than others. Thus,
even a small possibility of cancer, especially in children, from EMF exposure
receives significant public attention.
Unfairness vs. fairness. If people are exposed to RF fields from mobiletelephone base stations, but do not have a mobile telephone, or if they areexposed to the electric and magnetic fields from a high voltage transmission
line that does not provide power to their community, they consider it unfair
and are less likely to accept any associated risk.
In the case of people who do not own a mobile telephone, for example, exposure toRF fields from mobile telephone base stations may be perceived as a high risk forthe following reasons:People are faced with an involuntary exposure to RF fields;
It is unfair because the installation of these base stations exposes the wholecommunity to RF fields while only the few mobile telephone users benefit;
There is a lack of control over expansion of such networks into communities;
Mobile telephone technology is unfamiliar and incomprehensible to mostpeople;
There is insufficient scientific information to precisely assess health risks; andThere is a likelihood that this technology could cause a dreaded disease such ascancer.
Communities feel they have a right to know what is proposed and planned with respect
to the construction of EMF facilities that might affect their health. They want to havesome control and be part of the decision-making process.
Unless an effective system of public information and communications among scientists,
governments, the industry and the public is established, new EMF technologies will be
mistrusted and feared.
The development of EMF technologies should be matched by appropriate andcoordinated research into their potential consequences for health. This is one of themost important objectives of the International EMF Project established by WHO.
http://www.who.int/docstore/peh-emf/publications/facts_press/efact/efs184.html[2011/04/26 16:07:19]

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF EMF RISKS_________________________________________________________________________For further information, please contact the Office of Press and Public Relations,WHO, Geneva. Telephone (41 22) 791 2599. Fax (41 22) 791 4858. Email:info@who.int
All WHO Press Releases, Fact Sheets and Features, as well as specific informationon this subject can be obtained on Internet on the WHO home page
http://www.who.int© WHO/OMS, 1998 |Concept