Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Journal of Environmental and Public Health
Volume 2015, Article ID 198272, 9 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/198272
Research Article

Exposure Perception as a Key Indicator of Risk Perception and Acceptance of Sources of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields

1Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 10178 Berlin, Germany
2School of Social Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
3Institute for Communication Systems Research, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UK

Received 31 March 2015; Revised 5 June 2015; Accepted 14 June 2015

Academic Editor: Pam R. Factor-Litvak

Copyright © 2015 Frederik Freudenstein et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. A. Burgess, “Comparing national responses to perceived health risks from mobile phone masts,” Health, Risk and Society, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 175–188, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. Eurobarometer TNS Opinion Social, Eurobarometer 73.3, Electromagnetic Fields, 2010, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_347_en.pdf.
  3. L. Kheifets, J. Swanson, S. Kandel, and T. F. Malloy, “Risk governance for mobile phones, power lines, and other EMF technologies,” Risk Analysis, vol. 30, no. 10, pp. 1481–1494, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. L. Timotijevic and J. Barnett, “Managing the possible health risks of mobile telecommunications: public understandings of precautionary action and advice,” Health, Risk and Society, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 143–164, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. M.-E. Cousin and M. Siegrist, “The public's knowledge of mobile communication and its influence on base station siting preferences,” Health, Risk and Society, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 231–250, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. P. M. Wiedemann and H. Schutz, “Informing the public about information and participation strategies in siting of mobile communication base stations: an experimental study,” Health, Risk & Society, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 517–534, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. M. Tesanovic, E. Conil, A. De Domenico et al., “Wireless networks and EMF—paving the way for low-EMF networks of the future: the LEXNET project,” IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 20–28, 2014. View at Google Scholar
  8. F. Freudenstein, P. M. Wiedemann, and N. Varsier, “Exposure knowledge and risk perception of RF EMF,” Frontiers in Public Health, vol. 2, article 289, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  9. P. Slovic, T. Malmfors, D. Krewski, C. K. Mertz, N. Neil, and S. Bartlett, “Intuitive toxicology. II: expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada,” Risk Analysis, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 661–675, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. N. Kraus, T. Malmfors, and P. Slovic, “Intuitive toxicology: expert and lay judgments of chemical risks,” Risk Analysis, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 215–232, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. J. Haidt and C. Joseph, “Intuitive ethics: how innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues,” Daedalus, vol. 133, no. 4, pp. 55–65, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. M. L. Finucane, A. Alhakami, P. Slovic, and S. M. Johnson, “The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  13. M. Siegrist, C. Keller, and M.-E. Cousin, “Implicit attitudes toward nuclear power and mobile phone base stations: support for the affect heuristic,” Risk Analysis, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 1021–1029, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. E. T. Hall, The Hidden Dimension, Garden City, New York, NY, USA, 1966.
  15. P. M. Wiedemann and F. Claus, “Helfen striktere Grenzwerte, Akzeptanz zu gewinnen?” Energiewirtschaft, vol. 12, pp. 50–53, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  16. P. M. Wiedemann, H. Schuetz, F. Boerner et al., “When precaution creates misunderstandings: the unintended effects of precautionary information on perceived risks, the EMF case,” Risk Analysis, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 1788–1801, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. European Social Survey, ESS Round 6 Source Questionnaire, Centre for Comparative Social Surveys, City University London, London, UK, 2012, http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/.
  18. N. Luhmann, Die Moral der Gesellschaft, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, Germany, 2008.
  19. B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read, and B. Combs, “How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits,” Policy Sciences, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 127–152, 1978. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. S. Blanch, J. Romeu, and A. Cardama, “Near field in the vicinity of wireless base-station antennas: an exposure compliance approach,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 685–692, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. E. Cardis, “Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study,” International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 39, no. 3, Article ID dyq079, pp. 675–694, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus