## 3 Results
### Intuitive Exposure Assessments  
The three risk perception groups were compared with respect to the perceived level of daily RF EMF exposure (on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 \"Not at all\" to \"5 \"To a very high degree\"). The comparison between the groups with various manifestations of risk perception showed means of 3.41 for the not and less concerned group, 3.85 for the not enduringly concerned group and the highest mean for the enduringly concerned group, reaching 4.14. Statistical analysis by a [PERSON]'s ANOVA revealed that the level of exposure perception differed significantly for each of the different groups, ([PERSON]'s F(2, 659.30) = 74.59, \(p<0.001\)). [PERSON] post hoc revealed significant differences between all groups (\(p<0.001\)). Distribution for the frequency of given answers per group is shown in Table 2.  
Differences between the three risk perception groups were explored regarding their intuitive exposure assessments. Four issues were focused on: (1) a dose-response issue saying that any RF  
Figure 1: Distribution tree of the study participants regarding electromagnetic field (EMF) risk perception in terms of concern, thematic and discursive relevance. In each box, the number of included subjects is given.  
EMF exposure, regardless of the amount, causes detrimental health effects; (2) a nature vs. technology issue, where man-made RF EMF is considered more harmful than natural RF EMPs; (3) a location issue, i.e., selecting the location of base stations should take into account the acceptance of the residents; and (4) a fundamentalist exposure belief, saying that the base stations are just scary. A separate [PERSON]'s robust test of equality of means indicated significant differences between the three groups regarding all four issues (issue 1: F(2, 629.44) = 133.48, \(p\) < 0.001; issue 2: F(2, 631.74) = 83.76, \(p\) < 0.001; issue 3: F(2, 682) = 92.61, \(p\) < 0.001; issue 4: F(2, 585.25) = 154.87, \(p\) < 0.001). Games-Howell post hoc tests revealed that the differences between the means of all three risk perception groups for all four issues were statistically significant (results are displayed in Figure 2, means are indicated).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Daily RF EMF Exposure**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Number and \% within Groups**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Not and Lesser** & **Not Enduringly** & **Enduringly** & **Total** \\  & **Concerned** & **Concerned** & **Concerned** & \\ \hline (1) Not at all & 29 (3.1\%) & 2 (0.4\%) & 0 (0.0\%) & 31 (1.8\%) \\ \hline (2) & 155 (16.7\%) & 38 (6.9\%) & 7 (3.1\%) & 200 (11.7\%) \\ \hline (3) & 326 (35.1\%) & 156 (28.5\%) & 45 (19.8\%) & 527 (30.9\%) \\ \hline (4) & 246 (26.5\%) & 197 (35.9\%) & 81 (35.7\%) & 524 (30.8\%) \\ \hline (5) To a very high degree & 173 (18.6\%) & 155 (28.3\%) & 94 (41.4\%) & 422 24.8\%) \\ \hline Total & 929 (100\%) & 548 (100\%) & 227 (100\%) & 1704 (100\%) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Perceived level of daily radio frequency electromagnetic field (RF EMF) exposure per group (on a 5–point Likert scale from 1 “Not at all” to “5 “To a very high degree”) across the different manifestations of risk perception (Question: “Think about your daily life, to which degree do you think you are exposed to electromagnetic fields from electronic devices (such as mobile phones, WiFi router) and base stations?”).  
Figure 2: Beliefs about radio frequency electromagnetic field (RF EMF) exposure (Question: “Please tell us to what extent you agree with the following statements”; on a 5–point Likert scale from 1 = “Not at all” to 5 = “Absolutely”); statements and related means of the responses are indicated in the figure. Error bars indicate 95% CI.