EMF Risk Perception and Communication - WHO

1 EMFRisk PerceptionandCommunicationProceedingsInt ernational Seminar on EMF Risk Perception and CommunicationOttawa, Ontario, CANADA, 31 August 1 September, 1998 MucWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland1999 WHO/SDE/OEH : EnglishDistr. LimitedPrefaceiiPrefaceiiiEMF Risk Perception and CommunicationPrefaceivPrefacevEMF Risk Perception and CommunicationProceedingsInternational Seminar on EMF Risk Perception and CommunicationOttawa, Ontario, CANADA, 31 August 1 September, 1998 MucWHO/SDE/OEH Health Organization, Geneva, SwitzerlandPrefaceviU World Health Organization 1999 This document is not issued to the general public and all rights are reserved by the World HealthOrganization. The document may not be reviewed, abstracted, quoted, reproduced or translated, in partor in whole, without the prior written permission of WHO.

2 No part of this document may be stored in aretrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means - electronic, mechanical or other without theprior written permission of views expressed in documents by named authors are solely the responsibility of those thanks to the staff at the Radiation Protection Bureau of Health Canada;especially Drs. Elizabeth Nielsen and Art Thansandote. Julie Deschamps at theUniversity of Ottawa and Alice McKinnon at Health Canada provided much neededassistance with the meeting support received from the World Health Organization, Health Canada, IndustryCanada, Faculty of Medicine at the University of Ottawa, Cellular TelephoneIndustry Association, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, , Ontario Hydro and Hydro Qu bec is gratefully of Speakers and ChairpersonsM Andr BeauchampEnviro-Sage Inc.

3 , Montr al, Qu bec, CanadaDr William H BaileyBailey Research Associates, New York, NY, USADr Charon ChessCenter for Environmental Communication , Cook College/Rutgers University, NewBrunswick, NJ, USAMr Michael DolanAssistant Director and General Counsel, EMF Advisory Group, ESAA Ltd.,Melbourne, Victoria, AustraliaProf John D GrahamHarvard Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA,USADr Philip GrayProgrammgruppe Mensch, Umwelt, Technik (MUT), Forsuchungszentrum J lichGmbH, J lich, GermanyMrs Ruth Greey, Ontario Hydro, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaMr Gerry KrukGerry Kruk & Associates Communications Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, CanadaMs Judy LarkinREGESTER LARKIN, London, UKProf William LeissEnvironmental Policy Unit, School of Policy Studies, Queens University, Kingston,Ontario, CanadaDr Tom McManusDepartment of Public Enterprise, Dublin, IrelandPrefaceviiDr Elizabeth NielsenRadiation Protection Bureau, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaDr Chris PortierChief, Computational Biology and Risk Analysis, NIEHS, Research Triangle Park,NC, USADr Michael H Repacholi, Department of Protection of the Human Environment,World Health Organization, Geneva, SwitzerlandDr Dan WartenbergEnvironmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, Pisscataway, NJ, USADr Peter M WiedemannGruppe MUT, Forsuchungszentrum J lich, J lich.

4 GermanyPrefaceviiiForewordThis international seminar entitled EMF risk Perception andcommunication was held at the University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada from 31 August to 1 September 1998. The seminar was sponsored jointly by the WorldHealth Organization (WHO), Health Canada, Industry Canada, the Faculty ofMedicine at the University of Ottawa, the Cellular Telephone Industry Association,the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, BC Hydro, Hydro Quebecand Ontario health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) have ledto concerns among the general public and workers that appear to go well beyondthose that are attributed to well-established risks . It is necessary to understand whythis occurs and to deal with it through an effective communications have the right to access reliable, credible and accurate informationabout any health risks from EMF exposure.

5 However, recent history has shown that, Communication among scientists, governments, industry and the public, has oftenbeen ineffective. There continues to be a divergence of views because of this failureto communicate hazard is a set of circumstances or a situation that could harm a person'shealth, while risk is often defined by scientists as the likelihood (or probability) thatharm will occur from a particular hazard. Living is a risky business. Every activityhas an associated risk. When you awake you may fall down the stairs. Whilecooking breakfast you may be electrocuted. Driving to work can result in a caraccident. People will generally take risks if they perceive that there is someadvantage or benefit. Normally the benefits should outweigh the risks by asignificant margin.

6 However, there is no such thing as a zero people perceive risks can depend on their age, sex and culturalbackground. Many young people are happy to go sky diving. Older people aregenerally not attracted to this activity since they perceive it as too dangerous. Inaddition to balancing costs and benefits, when determining the acceptability of arisk, people may compare it with something usually acceptable in normal life. Thiscan lead to risk being perceived at various levels: negligible, acceptable, tolerable,or nature of the risk can also lead to different perceptions . Surveys havefound that the following pairs of characteristics of a situation generally affect riskperception. The first member of the pair tends to increase and the second, todecrease the magnitude of the perceived vs.

7 Voluntary exposure. This is an important factor in somepersons Perception of the risk from EMF exposures, especially from fixedRF antennae or ELF transmission lines. Mobile telephone users generallyhave a lower Perception of risk from the much more intense RF fieldsemitted by their voluntarily-chosen handsets, while non-users have a higherperception of risk from the relatively low RF levels emitted from mobiletelephone base of personal control vs. Feeling of control over a situation. People donot normally have any say about installation of EMF facilities, such aspower lines or mobile telephone base stations. This can then raise vs. Unfamiliar or exotic. Familiarity with the situation, or afeeling of understanding of the technology, helps reduce risk of risk is increased in a new, unfamiliar, or hard-to-comprehendsituation or technology, such as EMF technology.

8 This Perception can besignificantly increased if there is a feeling that science does not fullyunderstand the situation, as with the current uncertainty in the dataconcerning possible health effects from low-level EMF vs. Not dreaded. Some disease outcomes, such as cancer, severeand lingering pain, disability, or genetic threats to future generations, aremore highly feared. Thus possible small increases in cancer, especially intheir children, from EMF exposure receive significant vs. Fairness. An unfair risk is different from one that isinvoluntary, though that factor may also be considered unfair. Unfairnessmay come from an uneven distribution of risk across the population. Ifpeople are exposed to RF fields from mobile telephone base stations, but donot have a mobile telephone or they are exposed to the electric and magneticfields from a high voltage transmission line which only provides power topeople further along the line, then people consider these situations unfairand are less likely to accept any associated the example of mobile telephone base stations, especially for peoplenot owning a mobile telephone, the EMF emissions have the following factors: They are an involuntary exposure that people feel they do not need.

9 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 healthrisks, and there is the possibility that it could cause a dreaded diseasesuch as cancer. Installation of these base stations, which expose everyone to EMF, onlybenefits people who use mobile telephones, and so it is are the days when scientists could assess a risky situation and thepublic would accept this analysis without question. Unfortunately there has been adecline in respect of expert opinion. Research has shown that effectivecommunications depends on the establishment of trust and credibility of the expert(s) and the sources of and credibility are key to the process of risk are hard to gain and maintain, but are easily lost and, once lost, much harder toregain.

10 While acting in a trustworthy and credible manner is necessary, that alonewill not guarantee that trust will be gained. perceptions , including perceptions ofpast action, are also important. Other factors include empathy and caring,competence and expertise, honesty and openness, and dedication and a democratic society people feel they have a right to know what is proposed andmight affect them directly. They want to have some control and be part of thedecision-making International EMF Project is preparing reports that will providestrategies for understanding the concerns of all parties in the EMF debate and theelements of an effective risk communications programme. This internationalseminar is the second on risk Perception , Communication and management to beheld within this Project and will lead to the following outputs: This proceedings of all presentations;Prefacexi An Environmental Health Monograph providing the basic science ofrisk Perception , Communication and management; and A user-friendly handbook that addresses this issue with respect to of these documents when printed will be available from:International EMF ProjectDepartment of Protection of the Human EnvironmentWorld Health OrganizationCH-1211 Geneva 27, SwitzerlandFax: + 41 22 791 4123 The EditorsFebruary of Speakers and ChairpersonsVIForewordVIIIK eynote PresentationMaking Sense of RiskDr.