Perception of mobile phone and base station risks.

Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2005 · Unclear · Low evidence

← Research stream

UnclearLow evidencePaper 5160

Study snapshot

PublicationRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2005

Study typecross_sectional

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Perceptions of risks associated with mobile phones, base stations, and other sources of electromagnetic fields (EMF) were examined. Data from a telephone survey conducted in the German- and French-speaking parts of Switzerland are presented (N = 1,015). Participants assessed both risks and benefits associated with nine different sources of EMF. Trust in the authorities regulating these hazards was assessed as well. In addition, participants answered a set of questions related to attitudes toward EMF and toward mobile phone base stations. According to respondents' assessments, high-voltage transmission lines are the most risky source of EMF. Mobile phones and mobile phone base stations received lower risk ratings. Results showed that trust in authorities was positively associated with perceived benefits and negatively associated with perceived risks. People who use their mobile phones frequently perceived lower risks and higher benefits than people who use their mobile phones infrequently. People who believed they lived close to a base station did not significantly differ in their level of risks associated with mobile phone base stations from people who did not believe they lived close to a base station. Regarding risk regulation, a majority of participants were in favor of fixing limiting values based on the worst-case scenario. Correlations suggest that belief in paranormal phenomena is related to level of perceived risks associated with EMF. Furthermore, people who believed that most chemical substances cause cancer also worried more about EMF than people who did not believe that chemical substances are that harmful. Practical implications of the results are discussed.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typecross_sectional

Effect directionunclear

PopulationTelephone survey participants in the German- and French-speaking parts of Switzerland

Sample size1015

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In this Swiss telephone survey (N=1,015), respondents rated high-voltage transmission lines as the most risky EMF source, while mobile phones and mobile phone base stations received lower risk ratings. Trust in authorities was positively associated with perceived benefits and negatively associated with perceived risks; frequent mobile phone users perceived lower risks and higher benefits than infrequent users. Believing one lived close to a base station was not associated with significantly different perceived risks of base stations.

Outcomes measured

Perceived risks of EMF sources (including mobile phones and base stations)
Perceived benefits of EMF sources
Trust in authorities regulating EMF hazards
Attitudes toward EMF and toward mobile phone base stations
Preferences regarding risk regulation (limiting values based on worst-case scenario)
Belief in paranormal phenomena (association with perceived EMF risks)
Beliefs about chemical substances causing cancer (association with EMF worry)

Limitations

Cross-sectional survey design (associations only)
Outcomes are perceptions/attitudes rather than health endpoints
Exposure is based on perceived proximity and self-reported phone use rather than measured EMF levels

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "cross_sectional",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "mobile phone and base station",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Telephone survey participants in the German- and French-speaking parts of Switzerland",
  "sample_size": 1015,
  "outcomes": [
    "Perceived risks of EMF sources (including mobile phones and base stations)",
    "Perceived benefits of EMF sources",
    "Trust in authorities regulating EMF hazards",
    "Attitudes toward EMF and toward mobile phone base stations",
    "Preferences regarding risk regulation (limiting values based on worst-case scenario)",
    "Belief in paranormal phenomena (association with perceived EMF risks)",
    "Beliefs about chemical substances causing cancer (association with EMF worry)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In this Swiss telephone survey (N=1,015), respondents rated high-voltage transmission lines as the most risky EMF source, while mobile phones and mobile phone base stations received lower risk ratings. Trust in authorities was positively associated with perceived benefits and negatively associated with perceived risks; frequent mobile phone users perceived lower risks and higher benefits than infrequent users. Believing one lived close to a base station was not associated with significantly different perceived risks of base stations.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Cross-sectional survey design (associations only)",
    "Outcomes are perceptions/attitudes rather than health endpoints",
    "Exposure is based on perceived proximity and self-reported phone use rather than measured EMF levels"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "risk perception",
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "mobile phones",
    "base stations",
    "trust in authorities",
    "telephone survey",
    "Switzerland",
    "attitudes",
    "risk regulation"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.32,
      "reason": "Assesses trust in authorities regulating EMF hazards and views on limiting values (risk regulation)."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00672.x
PubMed: 16297229

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library