Potential Risks & Uncertainty: Potential Risks & Uncertainty: Public Public ConcernConcern programmed? programmed?

Peter WiedemannPeter Wiedemann

Research Centre Juelich, GermanyResearch Centre Juelich, Germany

Mobile Communications: Health, Environment and Society

20-21 January 2004 Brussels

MUT

Pro g ra m m g rup p eM e nsc h Um w e lt Te c hnik

OverviewOverview

The Heart of the DebateThe Heart of the Debate Precautionary OptionsPrecautionary Options Risk Perception StudiesRisk Perception Studies Conclusions for Risk CommunicationsConclusions for Risk Communications

“There are (…) important reasons to invoke the Precautionary Principle within a public health policy:

• To be more anticipatory in terms of health and dealing with unknowns,

• To address public concern, which may be more directed at ensuring a potential problem is not ignored, in contrast to scientists who are often reluctant to give credibility to unproven possibilities.”

Luxembourg WHO/EC Workshop, 2003:

The Heart of the Debate

What measures should be implemented

- to reduce potential risks, and- to cope with the public concerns?

Precautionary Options

Precautionary Options

What type of precautionary measures What type of precautionary measures are available?are available? Exposure limitsExposure limits

Precautionary limitsPrecautionary limits Requiring exposures to be no higher than those already Requiring exposures to be no higher than those already

existing in an areaexisting in an area Technical measures (exposure minimization, hand-Technical measures (exposure minimization, hand-

free sets)free sets) Behavior Behavior restrictions (on children’s use of phones)restrictions (on children’s use of phones) Information/CommunicationInformation/Communication

LabelsLabels Access to information (sitefinder)Access to information (sitefinder)

Research Research

Risk PerceptionRisk Perception

What are the effects of risk statements, What are the effects of risk statements, uncertainty and PP measures?uncertainty and PP measures?

• Study I: type of information (new issues)Study I: type of information (new issues)• Study II: uncertainty & PPStudy II: uncertainty & PP

Study IStudy I

Method: SurveyMethod: Survey Objectives: Objectives:

Differentiating among target groupsDifferentiating among target groups Perceived strengths of arguments in the Perceived strengths of arguments in the

debate on cellular phonesdebate on cellular phones Value of new information/new issuesValue of new information/new issues

Impact on risk perception

If the radiation protection board would release a warning message about EMF then my personal appraisal of EMF risks will increase. If a base station will be sited close to my house, my personal appraisal of EMF risks will increase. If the WHO would release a warning message about EMF then my personal appraisal of EMF risks will increase. If one of my friends would attribute her health problems to base stations then my personal appraisal of EMF risks will increase. If I suspect a link between base stations and my personal health status then my personal appraisal of EMF risks will increase. If the media would publish more and more stories about health damages caused by mobile phones technology then my personal appraisal of EMF risks will increase. If my fellow citizens would organize a grass root group against base stations, then my personal appraisal of EMF risks will increase. If my doctors would warn me about the health risks of EMF, then my personal appraisal of EMF risks will increase. If a link would be expected between health of farm animals and EMF exposure, then my personal appraisal of EMF risks will increase.

WarningsWarnings

If the radiation protection board would release a reassuring message about EMF then mypersonal appraisal of EMF risks will decrease.If a base station will be sited far away from my house, my personal appraisal of EMF riskswill decrease.IF the WHO would release a reassuring message about EMF then my personal appraisalof EMF risks will decrease.If none of my friends would attribute her health problems to base stations my personalappraisal of EMF risks would decrease.If I don´t suspect a link between base stations and my personal health status then mypersonal appraisal of EMF risks will decrease.If the media would publish less and less stories about health damages caused by mobilephones technology then my personal appraisal of EMF risks will decrease.

(not applicable)If my doctors would assure me that there is no link between EMF and health risks then mypersonal appraisal of EMF risks will decrease.If no link would be expected between health of farm animals and EMF exposure then mypersonal appraisal of EMF risks will decrease.

Reassuring messagesReassuring messages

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

No AnimalHealth Issues

DecreasingMedia

Coverage

Friends not ill RPBreassures

Doctorreassures

Base Stationfar away

WHOreassures

No PersonalHealth

Problems

unconcerned

concerned

undecided

not a

t all

very

str

ong

ly

Results: Impact of emerging risk-disconfirming issues on risk perceptions

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

AnimalHealth

CitizenInitiative

NewspaperCoverage

Friends ill RPB warns Doctorwarns

Living closeto BaseStation

WHO warns PersonalHealth

Problems

unconcerned

concerned

undecided

not a

t all

very

str

ong

ly

Results:Impact of emerging risk-confirming issues on risk perceptions

Insights of Study I

People favor those arguments that are in line with the People favor those arguments that are in line with the views they already hold on the issue. views they already hold on the issue.

Warning arguments are more influential than Warning arguments are more influential than reassuring arguments.reassuring arguments.

People reveal a confirmation bias. Depending on their People reveal a confirmation bias. Depending on their attitude to EMF risks they undervalue disconfirming attitude to EMF risks they undervalue disconfirming information. This especially true for people who are information. This especially true for people who are afraid of mobile phone technologies.afraid of mobile phone technologies.

Risk Perception Study IIRisk Perception Study II

Method: Experimental studyMethod: Experimental study Objectives:Objectives:

Impact of uncertainty and PP measures on Impact of uncertainty and PP measures on perceived risks of base stationsperceived risks of base stations

Text module A (certainty condition)

A widespread debate about the possible risks related to electrosmog is ongoing.Yet, the International Commission for (Non-Ionising) Radiation Protection points out that current exposure limits protect the public adequately.

Text module B (uncertainty condition)

A widespread debate about the possible risks related to electrosmog is ongoing.Some scientists argue, that substantial uncertainties exist as to whether current protection from electrosmog is sufficient.The International Commission for (Non-Ionising) Radiation Protection points out that current exposure limits protect the public adequately.

Text module 1 (minimization)

Nevertheless the Commission recommends precautionary measures:Exposure from mobile phone emission is to be kept as low as possible.

Text module 2 (out of sensitive areas)

Nevertheless, following a precaution approach, many local communities demand that base stations should not be sited near sensitive locations such as kindergarten, schools or hospitals.

Text module 3 (precautionary limits)

Following a precautionary approach, Switzerland has tightened exposure limits by a factor of ten in areas where people are exposed for long periods of time.

DesignDesign

Baseline

Baseline

Module 1

Module 1

Module 2

Module 2

Module 3

Module 3

Module Module AA

Module Module BB

2

3

4

5

certain Uncertain

Results: Impact of uncertainty and precautionary measures on perceived risk

control group

Minimization of exposure

Ban masts in sensitive

areas

Stricter exposurelimits

(Swiss)

Insights of Study II

Uncertainty has no significant influence of risk Uncertainty has no significant influence of risk perceptionperception

PP measures do amplify risk perception. PP measures do amplify risk perception. Especially, the “sensitive area condition” Especially, the “sensitive area condition” causes concerns.causes concerns.

Conclusions (1)Conclusions (1)

Risk Communication has different impact Risk Communication has different impact on different people.on different people.

Warnings are more powerful than Warnings are more powerful than reassuring messages.reassuring messages.

PP measures might have non-intended PP measures might have non-intended side effects: Instead of increasing trust side effects: Instead of increasing trust they cause suspicions about the limits they cause suspicions about the limits implemented by authorities to protect implemented by authorities to protect health. health.

Conclusions (2)Conclusions (2)

““Prudent Avoidance and other cautionary policies Prudent Avoidance and other cautionary policies regarding EMF exposure have gained popularity regarding EMF exposure have gained popularity among many citizens, who feel that they offer among many citizens, who feel that they offer extra protection against scientifically unproven extra protection against scientifically unproven risks. However, risks. However, such approaches are very such approaches are very problematic in their application.problematic in their application. The chief difficulty The chief difficulty is the lack of clear evidence for hazard from is the lack of clear evidence for hazard from chronic exposure to EMF below recommended chronic exposure to EMF below recommended guidelines, or any understanding of the nature of guidelines, or any understanding of the nature of a hazard should one exist.”a hazard should one exist.” WHO Fact SheetWHO Fact Sheet

Conclusions (3)Conclusions (3)

Prudent Avoidance and other cautionary policies regarding EMF exposure have gained popularity. However, many citizens assume that PP measures indicate that the risks are real. Therefore, precautionary measures need careful communications to avoid such misunderstanding. The chief difficulty is the lack of clear risk communication.

Thanks

P.Wiedemann@fz-juelich.dewww.fz-juelich.de/mut