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

Freudenstein F, Wiedemann PM, Brown TW - J Environ Public Health (2015)

Bottom Line: A total of 2454 subjects participated.A linear regression analysis supported this assumption: in a fictional test situation, exposure reduction improved the acceptance of base stations, operationalized as the requested distance of the base station from one's own home.The consequences for risk communication are discussed.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 10178 Berlin, Germany.

ABSTRACT
The presented survey was conducted in six European countries as an online study. A total of 2454 subjects participated. Two main research questions were investigated: firstly, how does the cognitive, moral, and affective framing of radio frequency electromagnetic field (RF EMF) exposure perception influence RF EMF risk perception? Secondly, can the deployment of mobile phone base stations have greater acceptance with RF EMF exposure reduction? The findings with respect to the first question clearly indicated that the cognitive framed exposure perception is the main determinant of RF EMF risk perception. The concomitant sensitivity to exposure strength offers an opportunity to improve the acceptance of base stations by exposure reduction. A linear regression analysis supported this assumption: in a fictional test situation, exposure reduction improved the acceptance of base stations, operationalized as the requested distance of the base station from one's own home. Furthermore, subjects with high RF EMF risk perception were most sensitive to exposure reduction. On average, a 70% exposure reduction reduced the requested distance from about 2000 meters to 1000 meters. The consequences for risk communication are discussed.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Accepted distances of base stations close to one's home in meter with 0% exposure reduction, indicated by numbers of respondents. For respondents with distance <10 000 meters (n = 1627). Question: “roughly at what distance (meters) would you accept a base station close to your home?”
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4502333&req=5

fig2: Accepted distances of base stations close to one's home in meter with 0% exposure reduction, indicated by numbers of respondents. For respondents with distance <10 000 meters (n = 1627). Question: “roughly at what distance (meters) would you accept a base station close to your home?”

Mentions: Firstly, we have a look at the distribution of required distances for the exposure scenario (1), that is, the current exposure level. More than 25% (n = 415) of the participants selected exactly 1 km as the required distance to a base station for the exposure condition with 0% reduction. The next peak below this main effect can be found for distance of 500 meters (see Figure 2). The cumulated percentage of people who feel protected from exposure effects in a distance of up to 1000 meters to the base station amounts to 66% (n = 1072).


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

Freudenstein F, Wiedemann PM, Brown TW - J Environ Public Health (2015)

Accepted distances of base stations close to one's home in meter with 0% exposure reduction, indicated by numbers of respondents. For respondents with distance <10 000 meters (n = 1627). Question: “roughly at what distance (meters) would you accept a base station close to your home?”
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4502333&req=5

fig2: Accepted distances of base stations close to one's home in meter with 0% exposure reduction, indicated by numbers of respondents. For respondents with distance <10 000 meters (n = 1627). Question: “roughly at what distance (meters) would you accept a base station close to your home?”
Mentions: Firstly, we have a look at the distribution of required distances for the exposure scenario (1), that is, the current exposure level. More than 25% (n = 415) of the participants selected exactly 1 km as the required distance to a base station for the exposure condition with 0% reduction. The next peak below this main effect can be found for distance of 500 meters (see Figure 2). The cumulated percentage of people who feel protected from exposure effects in a distance of up to 1000 meters to the base station amounts to 66% (n = 1072).

Bottom Line: A total of 2454 subjects participated.A linear regression analysis supported this assumption: in a fictional test situation, exposure reduction improved the acceptance of base stations, operationalized as the requested distance of the base station from one's own home.The consequences for risk communication are discussed.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 10178 Berlin, Germany.

ABSTRACT
The presented survey was conducted in six European countries as an online study. A total of 2454 subjects participated. Two main research questions were investigated: firstly, how does the cognitive, moral, and affective framing of radio frequency electromagnetic field (RF EMF) exposure perception influence RF EMF risk perception? Secondly, can the deployment of mobile phone base stations have greater acceptance with RF EMF exposure reduction? The findings with respect to the first question clearly indicated that the cognitive framed exposure perception is the main determinant of RF EMF risk perception. The concomitant sensitivity to exposure strength offers an opportunity to improve the acceptance of base stations by exposure reduction. A linear regression analysis supported this assumption: in a fictional test situation, exposure reduction improved the acceptance of base stations, operationalized as the requested distance of the base station from one's own home. Furthermore, subjects with high RF EMF risk perception were most sensitive to exposure reduction. On average, a 70% exposure reduction reduced the requested distance from about 2000 meters to 1000 meters. The consequences for risk communication are discussed.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus