## 4 Discussion
This particular group had higher estimates of RF EMF exposure regarding both the use of mobile phones, and living in the vicinity of base stations. They regarded EMF exposure as a moral issue, as well as a situation that elicits negative feelings. Moreover, it is surprising that the group of enduringly concerned subjects was sensitive to exposure reduction. The acceptance of base stations in their own neighborhood depended on the amount of RF EMF exposure reduction. Compared to the not and less concerned group, the not enduringly concerned/enduringly concerned group had a higher response to exposure reduction; however, the requested mean distance for accepting a base station still by far exceeded the distances deemed safe by the exposure guidelines. For instance, a 70% exposure reduction, compared to the current levels, reduces the average requested distance in the enduringly concerned group from 2897 m to 1674 m. Regarding the overall exposure, it has to be pointed out that the belief of being less exposed to RF EMFs when base stations are far away, albeit common among the lay population [27; 28], is likely to be erroneous under most circumstances, for those people that own and use a mobile phone. As [PERSON] [29] has shown empirically, a better understanding of the distance-exposure relationship leads to lower risk perceptions and increases the acceptance of public EMF sources in people's neighborhoods. Future research could usefully investigate whether this is equally observable among enduringly concerned and not enduringly concerned people. The findings clearly support the notion that risk perception studies should take into account the issue of extrapolation from questionnaire situations to everyday life. As a first step towards this aim, our conceptualization of risk perception studies as a three-component approach appears to be promising. To focus on concerns alone leaves risk perception studies incomplete; one deals more adequately with risk perception when the decisive role of thematic and discursive relevance is taken into account. Finally, some limitations of our findings should be taken into account. First, we only considered personal risks. Risk to other persons cannot be commented on here. A second issue refers to categorization into the risk perception groups. There were no natural cutoff points between levels of concern, levels of thematic relevance, and levels of discursive relevance. Therefore, our results may vary according to the chosen cutting points. Another related issue is a potential effect of the order of questions relating to the three aforementioned aspects of risk perception. Currently, we have no knowledge concerning this. Further research is needed to fill this knowledge gap. A further problem that deserves clarification refers to the operationalization of the endurance of risk perception. Here, the related question was \"How often in your daily life do you think about the topic \"potential health effects of electromagnetic fields?\". This is open to considerable interpretation, and future studies could usefully explore the relevance of concerns in daily life using more definite frames of reference, such as by providing specific time spans, or measuring concern longitudinally.