Potential Risks & Uncertainty: Public Concern programmed?

1. Potential Risks & Uncertainty: Public Concern programmed? Mobile Communications: Health, Environment and Society 20-21 January 2004 Brussels Peter Wiedemann Research Centre Juelich, Germany

2. Overview • The Heart of the Debate • Precautionary Options • Risk Perception Studies • Conclusions for Risk Communications

3. Luxembourg WHO/EC Workshop, 2003: • “There are (…) important reasons to invoke thePrecautionary Principle within a public health policy: • To be more anticipatory in terms of health and dealing with unknowns, • To address public concern, which may be more directed at ensuring a potential problem is not ignored, in contrast to scientists who are often reluctant to give credibility to unproven possibilities.” The Heart of the Debate

4. Precautionary Options • What measures should be implemented • to reduce potential risks, and • to cope with the public concerns?

5. Precautionary Options • What type of precautionary measures are available? • Exposure limits • Precautionary limits • Requiring exposures to be no higher than those already existing in an area • Technical measures (exposure minimization, hand-free sets) • Behavior restrictions (on children’s use of phones) • Information/Communication • Labels • Access to information (sitefinder) • Research

6. Risk Perception • What are the effects of risk statements, uncertainty and PP measures? • Study I: type of information (new issues) • Study II: uncertainty & PP

7. Impacton risk perception Study I • Method: Survey • Objectives: • Differentiating among target groups • Perceived strengths of arguments in the debate on cellular phones • Value of new information/new issues

8. Warnings

9. Reassuring messages

10. Results: Impact of emerging risk-disconfirming issues on risk perceptions

11. Results:Impact of emerging risk-confirming issues on risk perceptions

12. Insights of Study I • People favor those arguments that are in line with the views they already hold on the issue. • Warning arguments are more influential than reassuring arguments. • People reveal a confirmation bias. Depending on their attitude to EMF risks they undervalue disconfirming information. This especially true for people who are afraid of mobile phone technologies.

13. Risk Perception Study II • Method: Experimental study • Objectives: • Impact of uncertainty and PP measures on perceived risks of base stations

14. Text module A (certainty condition) A widespread debate about the possible risks related to electrosmog is ongoing. Yet, the International Commission for (Non-Ionising) Radiation Protection points out that current exposure limits protect the public adequately. Text module B (uncertainty condition) A widespread debate about the possible risks related to electrosmog is ongoing. Some scientists argue, that substantial uncertainties exist as to whether current protection from electrosmog is sufficient. The International Commission for (Non-Ionising) Radiation Protection points out that current exposure limits protect the public adequately.

15. Text module 1 (minimization) Nevertheless the Commission recommends precautionary measures: Exposure from mobile phone emission is to be kept as low as possible. Text module2 (out of sensitive areas) Nevertheless, following a precaution approach, many local communities demand that base stations should not be sited near sensitive locations such as kindergarten, schools or hospitals. Text module 3 (precautionary limits) Following a precautionary approach, Switzerland has tightened exposure limits by a factor of ten in areas where people are exposed for long periods of time.

16. Design

17. Results: Impact of uncertainty and precautionary measures on perceived risk 5 4 3 2 control group Minimization of exposure Ban masts in sensitive areas Stricter exposure limits (Swiss) certain Uncertain

18. Insights of Study II • Uncertainty has no significant influence of risk perception • PP measures do amplify risk perception. Especially, the “sensitive area condition” causes concerns.

19. Conclusions (1) • Risk Communication has different impact on different people. • Warnings are more powerful than reassuring messages. • PP measures might have non-intended side effects: Instead of increasing trust they cause suspicions about the limits implemented by authorities to protect health.

20. Conclusions (2) “Prudent Avoidance and other cautionary policies regarding EMF exposure have gained popularity among many citizens, who feel that they offer extra protection against scientifically unproven risks. However, such approaches are very problematic in their application. The chief difficulty is the lack of clear evidence for hazard from chronic exposure to EMF below recommended guidelines, or any understanding of the nature of a hazard should one exist.” WHO Fact Sheet

21. Conclusions (3) Prudent Avoidance and other cautionary policies regarding EMF exposure have gained popularity. However, many citizens assume that PP measures indicate that the risks are real. Therefore, precautionary measures need careful communications to avoid such misunderstanding. The chief difficulty is the lack of clear risk communication.

22. Thanks P.Wiedemann@fz-juelich.de www.fz-juelich.de/mut