Improving lay understanding of exposure to electromagnetic fields; the effect of information on perception of and responses to risk

References

• Ahlbom, A., J. Bridges, R. de Seze, L. Hillert, J. Juutilainen, M. O. Mattsson, G. Neubauer, J. Schüz, M. Simko, and K. Bromen. 2008. “Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) on Human Health – Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR).” Toxicology 246: 248–250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnett, J., L. Timotijevic, M. Vassallo, and R. Shepherd. 2008. “Precautionary Advice about Mobile Phones: Public Understandings and Intended Responses.” Journal of Risk Research 11: 525–540.10.1080/13669870802086430
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauvin, B., D. Hermand, and E. Mullet. 2007. “Risk Perception and Personality Facets.” Risk Analysis 27: 171–185.10.1111/risk.2007.27.issue-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claassen L., A. Bostrom, and D. R. M. Timmermans. 2014. “Focal Points for Improving Communications about Electromagnetic Fields and Health: A Mental Models Approach.” Journal of Risk Research. Advance online publication, 1–24. doi:10.1080/13669877.2014.961519.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cousin, M.-E., S. Dohle, and M. Siegrist. 2011. “The Impact of Specific Information Provision on Base Station Siting Preferences.” Journal of Risk Research 14: 703–715.10.1080/13669877.2011.553732
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cousin, M.-E., and M. Siegrist. 2008. “Laypeople’s Health Concerns and Health Beliefs in Regard to Risk Perception of Mobile Communication.” Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 14: 1235–1249.10.1080/10807030802494550
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cousin, M.-E., and M. Siegrist. 2010a. “Risk Perception of Mobile Communication: A Mental Models Approach.” Journal of Risk Research 13: 599–620.10.1080/13669870903236751
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cousin, M.-E., and M. Siegrist. 2010b. “The Public’s Knowledge of Mobile Communication and Its Influence on Base Station Preferences.” Health, Risk and Society 12: 232–250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cousin, M.-E., and M. Siegrist. 2011. “Cell Phones and Health Concerns: Impact of Knowledge and Voluntary Precautionary Recommendations.” Risk Analysis 31: 301–311.10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01498.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Dijk, H. F. G., E. van Rongen, G. Eggermont, E. Lebret, W. E. Bijker, and D. R. M. Timmermans. 2011. “The Role of Scientific Advisory Bodies in Precaution-based Risk Governance Illustrated with the Issue of Uncertain Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.” Journal of Risk Research 14: 451–466.10.1080/13669877.2011.553729
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Dongen, D., L. Claassen, T. Smid, and D. R. M. Timmermans. 2013. “People’s Responses to Risks of Electromagnetic Fields and Trust in Government Policy: The Role of Perceived Risk, Benefits and Control.” Journal of Risk Research 16: 945–957.10.1080/13669877.2012.761270
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EU. 2000. Communication on the Precautionary Principle. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2010. Electromagnetic Fields. Special Eurobarometer 347. Brussels: TNS Opinion & Social Network. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_347_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Fischhoff, B., N. T. Brewer, and J. S. Downs, eds. 2011. Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence Based Users Guide. Silver Spring, MD: Food and Drug Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RiskCommunication.
   Google Scholar
• Frewer, L. 2004. “The Public and Effective Risk Communication.” Toxicology Letters 149: 391–397.10.1016/j.toxlet.2003.12.049
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gee, D. 2009. “Late Lessons from Early Warnings: Towards Realism and Precaution with EMF?” Pathophysiology 16: 217–231.10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.004
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ICNIRP. 2003. Exposure to Static and Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, Biological Effects and Health Consequences (0–100 KHz) – Review of the Scientific Evidence and Health Consequences. Munich: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.
   Google Scholar
• ICNIRP. 2009. Exposure to High Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, Biological Effects and Health Consequences (100 KHz–300 GHz) – Review of the Scientific Evidence and Health Consequences. Munich: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.
   Google Scholar
• MacGregor, D. G., P. Slovic, and M. G. Morgan. 1994. “Perception of Risks from Electromagnetic Fields: A Psychometric Evaluation of a Risk-communication Approach.” Risk Analysis 14: 815–828.10.1111/risk.1994.14.issue-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan M. G., B. Fischhoff, A. Bostrom, and C. J. Atman 2002. Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, M. G., K. Florig, I. Nair, C. Cortes, K. Marsh, and K. Pavlovsky. 1990. “Lay Understanding of Low Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields.” Bioelectromagnetics 11: 313–335.10.1002/(ISSN)1521-186X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, M. G., P. Slovic, I. Nair, D. Geisler, D. MacGregor, B. Fischhoff, D. Lincoln, and K. Florig. 1985. “Power Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields: A Pilot Study of Risk Perception.” Risk Analyses 5: 139–149.10.1111/risk.1985.5.issue-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poortinga, W., P. Cox, and N. Pidgeon. 2008. “The Perceived Health Risks of Indoor Radon Gas and Overhead Power Lines: A Comparative Multilevel Approach.” Risk Analysis 28: 235–248.10.1111/risk.2008.28.issue-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Read, D., and G. Morgan. 1998. “The Efficacy of Different Methods for Informing the Public about Range Dependency of Magnetic Fields from High Voltage Power Lines.” Risk Analysis 18: 603–610.10.1111/risk.1998.18.issue-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Repacholi, M. 2010. “Science and Precautionary Measures in EMF Policy. Electromagnetic Phenomena and Health – A Continuing Controversy?” IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 10: 012001. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/10/1/012001.
   Google Scholar
• Röösli, M., P. Frei, E. Mohler, and K. Hug. 2010. “Systematic Review on the Health Effects of Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields from Mobile Phone Base Stations.” Bull World Health Organ 88: 878–896.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Interphone Study Group. 2010. “Brain Tumour Risk in Relation to Mobile Telephone Use: Results of the INTERPHONE International Case-Control Study.” International Journal of Epidemiology 39: 675–694.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiedemann, P. M., and H. Schütz. 2005. “The Precautionary Principle and Risk Perception: Experimental Studies in the EMF Area.” Environmental Health Perspectives 113: 402–405.10.1289/ehp.7538
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiedemann, P. M., A. T. Thalmann, M. A. Grutsch, and H. Schutz. 2006. “The Impacts of Precautionary Measures and the Disclosure of Scientific Uncertainty on EMF Risk Perception and Trust.” Journal of Risk Research 9: 361–372.10.1080/13669870600802111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. 2013. About Electromagnetic Fields. WHO.int. Accessed July 24, 2013. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/
   Google Scholar