Perception of risk from electric and magnetic fields
Stress effects and psychological aspects
Keywords:
Electromagnetic fields, Risk perception, StressAbstract
The present study aimed to investigate the perception of risk in the Brazilian population related to electric and magnetic fields. Six hundred adults were recruited from the surrounding communities. Three hundred of them lived in large cities and an equal number lived in small towns. A short questionnaire was constructed to assess risk perception, trust in government to control risk exposure, level of comfort with exposure to extra-low-frequency electromagnetic fields, measures perceived as necessary to reduce emotional discomfort, and trust in the regulatory agencies. The Lipp Inventory of Stress Symptoms for Adults was applied to assess stress levels. Findings indicate that the majority of the participants in this study did not trust the Government to provide protective measures from exposure to electric and magnetic fields, did not trust the regulatory agencies, felt that there is no adequate risk control and thought about it frequently, and some felt that line installations were being performed in excess and that this should be stopped. Results endorse the need for risk education and indicate that risk perception and feelings should be considered before starting new line installations. Risk communication should incorporate knowledge regarding social cognition since a large proportion of the people were concerned about electric and magnetic fields. Lack of communication can lead to a rejection of necessary transmission line installation, and to unnecessary or exaggerated fear.
Downloads
References
Albuquerque Navarro, M. B. N., & Cardoso, T. A. O. (2005). Percepção de risco e cognição: reflexão sobre a sociedade de risco. Ciências & Cognição, 6(1), 67-72.
Beecher, N., Harrison, E., Goldstein, N., McDaniel, M., Field, P., & Susskind, L. (2005). Risk perception, risk communication, and stakeholder involvement for biosolids management and research. Journal of Environmental Quality, 34(1), 122-128.
Bostrom, A., Morgan, M. G., Adams , J., & Nair, I. (1994). Preferences for exposure control of power-frequency fields among lay opinion leaders. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, 5(4), 295-318.
Davis, S., Mirick, D. K., & Stevens, R. H. (2002). Residential magnetic fields and the risk of breast cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology, 155(5), 446-454.
Everly Jr, G. S. (1989). A clinical guide t the treatment of the human stress response. New York: Plenum Press.
Hakansson, N., Gustavsson, P., Sartre A., & Floderus, B. (2003). Occupational exposure to extremely low frequency magnetic fields and mortality from cardiovascular disease. American Journal of Epidemiology, 158(6), 534-542.
International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2002). Monographs of the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans (Vol. 80). Lyon: IARC.
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. (2008). Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields. Health Physics, 74(4), 494-522.
Lipp, M. E. N. (2000). Inventário de sintomas de stress para adultos de Lipp (ISSL) (3a ed.). São Paulo: Casa do Psicólogo.
Lipp, M. E. N. (2008). A dimensão emocional da qualidade de vida. In A. Ogata & R. Marchi (Eds.), Wellness (pp.51-76). São Paulo: Campus.
Lipp, M. E. N., & Anderson, D. (1999). Cardiovascular reactivity to simulated social stress. Stress Medicine, 15(4), 249-259.
Mattos, I. E., Sauaia, N., & Menezes, P. (2002). Padrão de mortalidade por câncer em trabalhadores eletricitários. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 18(1), 221-233.
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. (1999). NIEHS report on health effects from exposure to power-line frequency electric and magnetic fields. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Institutes of Health.
Petts, J. (1998). Trust and waste management information: Expectation versus observation. Journal of Risk Research, 1(4), 307-320.
Renn, O. (2004). Perception of risk. Toxicology Letters, 149(1- 3), 405-413.
Renn, O., & Rohrmann, B. (Eds.). (2001). Cross-cultural risk perception: A survey of empirical studies (pp.211-233). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Schreier, N. Huss, A., & Röösli, M. (2006). The prevalence of symptoms attributed to electromagnetic field exposure: A cross-sectional representative survey in Switzerland. Sozial-und Präventivmedizin/Social and Preventive Medicine, 51(4), 202-209. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00038-006-5061-2.
Schütz, H., & Wiedemann, P. M. (2008). Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 369-379.
Walls, J., Pidgeon, N., Weyman, A., & Horlick-Jones, T. (2004). Critical trust: Understanding lay perceptions of health and safety risk regulation. Health, Risk and Society, 6(2), 133-150.
Wertheimer, N., & Leeper, E (1979). Electrical wiring configurations and childhood cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology, 109(3), 273-284.
Wiedemann, P. M., & Schütz, H. (2005). The precautionary principle and risk perception: Experimental studies in the EMF area. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(4), 402-405.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Marilda Emmanuel Novaes LIPP, Flavio Eitor BARBIERI, Leonel SANTÁNNA, Ana Paula JUSTO, Ana Carolina CABRAL, Sabrina GALLO, Leeka KHEIFETS
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
