C How much am I exposed? Exploring public perceptions of EMF exposure from mobile communication technology and 5G B32 FB01 Sarah Link1, Marie Eggeling1, Ferdinand Abacioglu1, Christoph Böhmert1 1IU International University of Applied Sciences A B D E1 E2 F1 F2 G H I1 I2 RESULTS: Base Station Siting Initially, most participants (n=32) chose a location outside the village (locations 1, 3, 5, 6) A relative majority of participants (n=16) selected location 3 on the factory building Arguments for the initial choice: Distance from the reference point (n=13) Aesthetic aspects (n=12) Reception (n=8) Radiation only played a role in the choice of location for three participants After informing participants that for regular MP users individual exposure increases with increasing distance to a BS, about half (n=8) of those initially choosing a remote site (locations 5/6) changed to a location closer to the reference point. “I would then perhaps change to location 3. Well, [...] I didn't know that the transmission power would be correspondingly higher.” (male, 42, city) RESEARCH AIMS 1st Aim: Investigate in which situations lay people feel particularly exposed to EMFs emitted by MC/5G. 2nd Aim: Learn about people’s preferences for the siting of 5G emitting base stations, and about the reasons for these preferences. RESULTS: Exposure Perception Situations in which BSs were central were associated by 20 participants with a higher personal exposure than the mobile phone (MP) situations As reasons for their assessment participants referred to the BS as “abstract”, “the common enemy”, “hostile” or “ugly”. The MP, on the contrary, was perceived as “kind”, “familiar” or “something one enjoys”. A higher number of BS antennas was associated with a higher exposure For MPs 10 participants associated a higher number of distant devices with a higher exposure level than one close device The closer the mobile device is to sensitive body parts (head, reproductive organs), the higher the situation tended to be ranked 23 participants ranked at least one of the situations (phone call, phone in pocket) prior to an other MP situation For BS EP, participants tended to rank the 5G prior to the 4G situation (n=21) No relevant difference between Wi-fi, 4G, and 5G situations regarding MP EP Lay People’s Exposure Perception Quantity Data transfer Antenna vs. Phone Proximity to particular body parts Distance Duration Visibility Location Network type Change 4G 5G METHODS Structure: 35 individual interviews + 6 focus groups Sample: 18f/17m, mean age: 39y (range 18-67y) Variables assessed: sociodemographic variables, exposure perception (EP), base station (BS) siting preferences, further variables (see handout) Interactive tasks: Ranking task: Participants had to rank situations (see fig. 2) according to their EP Base station siting task: Participants had to select a BS site in a fictious scenario (see fig. 3) CONCLUSION Exposure to EMF is a subordinate factor influencing site selection and negative attitudes towards BS No evidence that 5G is evaluated / perceived significantly different than previous MC standards CONTACT Sarah Link, sarah.link@iu.org DISCUSSION Siting preferences are influenced by many factors EP depends on a variety of factors similar to other EMF sources (e. g., power lines) Dimensions and EP EP is higher for BS than for MP Proximity and quantity play a rather important role Network type seems to be irrelevant for MP EP Limitations: No complete variation of dimensions within the situations Difficult to attribute EP / results of the ranking task to a single criterion (such as 5G reception) Site selection partly in the interest of multiple stakeholders (not only related to reference point) Findings will be used to implement a quantitative online survey in multiple European countries Figure 1: Dimensions possibly affecting exposure perception Figure 2: Exposure situations used in the ranking task Figure 3: Results of the