Powerline Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields: A Pilot Study of Risk Perception

Abstract

The perception of the potential risk arising from human exposure to 50/60 Hz electric and magnetic fields was studied with a quasi‐random sample of 116 well‐educated, opinion leaders using the risk perception framework previously developed by Slovic, Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein. These individuals rated exposure to fields from transmission lines and electric blankets on a variety of scales that have been found useful in characterizing people's risk attitudes and perceptions. These judgments allowed us to conjecture about the likely desire for regulation of these potential hazards and the likely response to a publicized problem (e.g., an accident or ominous research finding) involving these two sources of exposure. Various forms of detailed information about 50/60 Hz fields were supplied to respondents. The provision of information produced modest, but statistically significant, changes in perceptions in the direction of greater concern about the risks. In response to questions of public policy, participants desired modest regulatory control of field exposure from transmission lines and little or no control of field exposure from appliances like electric blankets.

Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies

“…This might well explain the high base rate of perceived risk among public groups when compared to experts 44 . It may also explain the skeptical relationship between risk perception and knowledge, in which information provided may be received as suspiciously persuasive and thus enhances risk aversion 34 . In studies that examine public attitudes more broadly, some have argued that rejection of the 'knowledge deficit' hypothesis is overstated 45 , and that there is a weak but persistent link between knowledge and positive attitudes toward technologies.…”

“…Third, high perceived risk is also attributed to attitudinal variables including those who regard themselves as vulnerable and subject to injustice 26,27 , as wary of science and technology 28,29 , skeptical of political authority or expertise 30,31 and as dose insensitive (that is, they see risk as a function of 'any exposure', however small) 32 . Fourth, risk judgements are highly sensitive to negative information 33,34 . Thus, the stigmatization 23,35 of specific technologies or risks tends to occur when risk management has been badly handled (for example, unrealistic promises of 'no risk' or 'failure to accept responsibility in the face of a risk event' 36 ), when the perceiver's distrust of risk managers and regulatory agencies is high 28,37 , when risk management practices are not transparent, and when a risk event (for example, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), a gas leak or a contamination event) is seen to 'signal' worse events yet to come 38 .…”

Public responses to precautionary information from the Department of Health (UK) about possible health risks from mobile phones

“…Most of the work in this area has focused upon firstly, the impact of uncertainty upon perceptions of risk or the source of the risk communication, and secondly upon factors that affect public responses to uncertainty. The communication of risk can itself cause increased concern [19,20], however it is not necessarily the case that communication of uncertainty produces greater concern than "certain risk" estimates do [21,22,23]. It is unclear in this literature however to what extent people distinguish between risk and uncertainty.…”

Informing and Educating the Public About Risk

“…Merely mentioning possible adverse consequences (no matter how rare) of some product or activity could enhance their perceived likelihood and make them appear more frightening. Anecdotal observation of attempts to inform people about recombinant DNA hazards supports this hypothesis (Rosenburg, 1978) as does a controlled study by Morgan et al (1985). In the latter study people's judgments of the risks from high voltage transmission lines…”

“…Reporters obviously need to be educated in the importance and subtleties of risk stories. Fischhoff (1985) suggests a number of checklists and protocols that a reporter might use as a guide to understanding and clarifying risk issues. One of these,.…”