EMF Risk Perception and Communication

WHO/SDE/OEH 99.01 Original: English Distr. Limited EMF Risk Perception and Communication Proceedings International Seminar on EMF Risk Perception and Communication Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA, 31 August – 1 September, 1998 Editors: M.H. Repacholi A.M. Muc World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland 1999 Preface ii Preface EMF Risk Perception and Communication iii Preface iv Preface EMF Risk Perception and Communication Proceedings International Seminar on EMF Risk Perception and Communication Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA, 31 August – 1 September, 1998 Editors: M.H. Repacholi A.M. Muc WHO/SDE/OEH 99.01 World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland v Preface U World Health Organization 1999 This document is not issued to the general public and all rights are reserved by the World Health Organization. The document may not be reviewed, abstracted, quoted, reproduced or translated, in part or in whole, without the prior written permission of WHO. No part of this document may be stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means - electronic, mechanical or other without the prior written permission of WHO. The views expressed in documents by named authors are solely the responsibility of those authors. vi Preface Acknowledgement Sincere thanks to the staff at the Radiation Protection Bureau of Health Canada; especially Drs. Elizabeth Nielsen and Art Thansandote. Julie Deschamps at the University of Ottawa and Alice McKinnon at Health Canada provided much needed assistance with the meeting organisation. The support received from the World Health Organization, Health Canada, Industry Canada, Faculty of Medicine at the University of Ottawa, Cellular Telephone Industry Association, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, B.C. Hydro, Ontario Hydro and Hydro Québec is gratefully acknowledged. v Preface Panel of Speakers and Chairpersons M André Beauchamp Enviro-Sage Inc., Montréal, Québec, Canada Dr William H Bailey Bailey Research Associates, New York, NY, USA Dr Charon Chess Center for Environmental Communication, Cook College/Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA Mr Michael Dolan Assistant Director and General Counsel, EMF Advisory Group, ESAA Ltd., Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Prof John D Graham Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA Dr Philip Gray Programmgruppe Mensch, Umwelt, Technik (MUT), Forsuchungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Jülich, Germany Mrs Ruth Greey, Ontario Hydro, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Mr Gerry Kruk Gerry Kruk & Associates Communications Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, Canada Ms Judy Larkin REGESTER LARKIN, London, UK Prof William Leiss Environmental Policy Unit, School of Policy Studies, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada Dr Tom McManus Department of Public Enterprise, Dublin, Ireland vi Preface Dr Elizabeth Nielsen Radiation Protection Bureau, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Dr Chris Portier Chief, Computational Biology and Risk Analysis, NIEHS, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA Dr Michael H Repacholi, Department of Protection of the Human Environment, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland Dr Dan Wartenberg Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, Pisscataway, NJ, USA Dr Peter M Wiedemann Gruppe MUT, Forsuchungszentrum Jülich, Jülich, Germany vii Preface Foreword This international seminar entitled “EMF risk perception and communication” was held at the University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada from 31 August to 1 September 1998. The seminar was sponsored jointly by the World Health Organization (WHO), Health Canada, Industry Canada, the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Ottawa, the Cellular Telephone Industry Association, the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, BC Hydro, Hydro Quebec and Ontario Hydro. Possible health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) have led to concerns among the general public and workers that appear to go well beyond those that are attributed to well-established risks. It is necessary to understand why this occurs and to deal with it through an effective communications programme. People have the right to access reliable, credible and accurate information about any health risks from EMF exposure. However, recent history has shown that, communication among scientists, governments, industry and the public, has often been ineffective. There continues to be a divergence of views because of this failure to communicate effectively. A hazard is a set of circumstances or a situation that could harm a person's health, while risk is often defined by scientists as the likelihood (or probability) that harm will occur from a particular hazard. Living is a risky business. Every activity has an associated risk. When you awake you may fall down the stairs. While cooking breakfast you may be electrocuted. Driving to work can result in a car accident. People will generally take risks if they perceive that there is some advantage or benefit. Normally the benefits should outweigh the risks by a significant margin. However, there is no such thing as a zero risk. How people perceive risks can depend on their age, sex and cultural background. Many young people are happy to go sky diving. Older people are generally not attracted to this activity since they perceive it as too dangerous. In addition to balancing costs and benefits, when determining the acceptability of a risk, people may compare it with something usually acceptable in normal life. This can lead to risk being perceived at various levels: negligible, acceptable, tolerable, or unacceptable. viii Preface The nature of the risk can also lead to different perceptions. Surveys have found that the following pairs of characteristics of a situation generally affect risk perception. The first member of the pair tends to increase and the second, to decrease the magnitude of the perceived risk. Involuntary vs. Voluntary exposure. This is an important factor in some persons’ perception of the risk from EMF exposures, especially from fixed RF antennae or ELF transmission lines. Mobile telephone users’ generally have a lower perception of risk from the much more intense RF fields emitted by their voluntarily-chosen handsets, while non-users have a higher perception of risk from the relatively low RF levels emitted from mobile telephone base stations. Lack of personal control vs. Feeling of control over a situation. People do not normally have any say about installation of EMF facilities, such as power lines or mobile telephone base stations. This can then raise their concerns. Familiar vs. Unfamiliar or exotic. Familiarity with the situation, or a feeling of understanding of the technology, helps reduce risk perception. Perception of risk is increased in a new, unfamiliar, or hard-to-comprehend situation or technology, such as EMF technology. This perception can be significantly increased if there is a feeling that science does not fully understand the situation, as with the current uncertainty in the data concerning possible health effects from low-level EMF exposure. Dreaded vs. Not dreaded. Some disease outcomes, such as cancer, severe and lingering pain, disability, or genetic threats to future generations, are more highly feared. Thus possible small increases in cancer, especially in their children, from EMF exposure receive significant attention. Unfairness vs. Fairness. An unfair risk is different from one that is involuntary, though that factor may also be considered unfair. Unfairness may come from an uneven distribution of risk across the population. If people are exposed to RF fields from mobile telephone base stations, but do not have a mobile telephone or they are exposed to the electric and magnetic fields from a high voltage transmission line which only provides power to people further along the line, then people consider these situations unfair and are less likely to accept any associated risk. ix Preface Taking the example of mobile telephone base stations, especially for people not owning a mobile telephone, the EMF emissions have the following factors: • They are an involuntary exposure that people feel they do not need. • There is a lack of control over their installation (especially its location). • The technology is unfamiliar to most people. • Scientists do not have enough information to be precise about health risks, and there is the possibility that it could cause a dreaded disease such as cancer. • Installation of these base stations, which expose everyone to EMF, only benefits people who use mobile telephones, and so it is unfair. Gone are the days when scientists could assess a risky situation and the public would accept this analysis without question. Unfortunately there has been a decline in respect of expert opinion. Research has shown that effective communications depends on the establishment of trust and credibility of the expert (s) and the sources of information. Trust and credibility are key to the process of risk communication. They are hard to gain and maintain, but are easily lost and, once lost, much harder to regain. While acting in a trustworthy and credible manner is necessary, that alone will not guarantee that trust will be gained. Perceptions, including perceptions of past action, are also important. Other factors include empathy and caring, competence and expertise, honesty and openness, and dedication and commitment. In a democratic society people feel they have a right to know what is proposed and might affect them directly. They want to have some control and be part of the decision-making

Load more