Managing the possible health risks of mobile telecommunications: Public understandings of precautionary action and advice

Health, Risk and Society

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 143-164

  Timotijevic, Lada ^a   Barnett, Julie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SURREY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Focus groups; Mobile telecommunications; Precaution; Public; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AWARENESS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMAN; MALE; MOBILE PHONE; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC OPINION; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIATION HAZARD; RADIATION PROTECTION; RADIOFREQUENCY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; SELF REPORT; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 33744809846     PISSN: 13698575     EISSN: 14698331     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13698570600677324     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. AGNIR. (2003) Health Effects from Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, 14(2), pp. 1-178. Report of an independent Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation. Documents of the NRPB
2. (1999) Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice. London: Sage.
3. Barnett, J. and Breakwell, G. (2003) The Social Amplification of Risk and the Hazard Sequence: The October 1995 OC Pill Scare Health, Risk & Society, 5, pp. 301-313.
4. Bord, R. and O'Connor, R. (1992) Determinants of risk perceptions of a hazardous waste site Risk Analysis, 12, pp. 411-416.
5. Breakwell, G. and Barnett, J.(2001) The Impact of Social Amplification on Risk Communication, Contract Research Report 322/2001. Sudbury: HSE Books.
6. Burgess, A.(2004) Cellular Phones, Public Fears and a Culture Of Precaution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Burningham, K. (2000) Using the language of NIMBY: A topic for research, not an activity for researchers Local Environment, 5, pp. 55-67.
8. Department of Health.(2000a). In Mobile phones and health. Accessed April 2006, available at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/ HealthAndSocialCare
9. Department of Health.(2000b). In Mobile phone base stations and health. London: Department of Health. Accessed April 2006, Hvailable at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/HealthAndSocialCareTopics/ MobilePhones/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4069598&chk=aPE6Vr
10. Department of Health.(2004) Mobile Phones and Health: Government Responses to the Report from the IEGMP. Accessed May 2005, available at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publications/ PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/PublicationsPAmpGBrowsableDocument/fs/ en?CONTENT_ID=4096744&MULTIPAGE_ID=4903699&chk=EM/9E%2B
11. Durodie, B. (2003) The true cost of precautionary chemicals regulation Risk Analysis, 23, pp. 389-428.
12. Foster, K. and Vecchia, P. and Repacholi, M. (2000) Science and the precautionary principle Science, 288, pp. 979-981.
13. Fowler, F. and Mangione, T.(1990) Standardized Survey Interviewing. Thousands Oaks CA: Sage.
14. Furedi, F.(1997) Culture of Fear: Risk-taking and the Morality of Low Expectation. London: Cassell.
15. Goldstein, B. and Carruth, R. (2004) The Precautionary Principle and/or risk assessment in World Trade Organization decisions: A possible role for risk perception Risk Analysis, 24, pp. 491-499.
16. Grove-White, R. and Macnaughton, P. and Mayer, S. and Wynne, B.(1997) Uncertain World: Genetically Modified Organisms, Food and Public Attitudes in Britain. Lancaster: Centre for the Study of Environment Change, University of Lancaster.
17. Horlick-Jones, T. (2005) Informal logics of risk: Contingency and modes of practical reasoning Journal of Risk Research, 8, pp. 253-272.
18. Horlick-Jones, T. and Sime, J. and Pidgeon, N.(2004) Social dynamics of environmental perceptions: Implications for risk communication and practice. In The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. House of Commons.(1999) Select Committee on Science and Technology, Session 1998-99, Third Report, Scientific Advisory System: Mobile Phones and Health. London: HMSO.
20. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology.(February 2000) London: HMSO. Third Report: Science and Society. HL Paper 38
21. Houtkoop-Steenstra, H.(2000) Interaction and the Standardized Survey Interview. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. IEGMP.(2000) Mobile Phones and Health. Didcot: NRPB.
23. Irwin, A.(1995) Citizen Science, a Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.
24. Johnson, B. and Slovic, P. (1995) Explaining uncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial studies of its effect on risk perception and trust Risk Analysis, 15, pp. 485-494.
25. Johnson, B. and Slovic, P. (1998) Lay views on uncertainty in environmental health risk assessment Journal of Risk Research, 1, pp. 261-269.
26. Kasperson, R.(1992) The social amplification of risk - progress in developing an integrative framework. In Social Theories of Risk. (pp. 153-178). Westport CT: Praeger.
27. Kasperson, R. and Renn, O. and Slovic, P. and Brown, H. (1988) The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework Risk Analysis, 8, pp. 177-187.
28. Kheifets, L. and Hester, G. and Banerjee, G. (2000) The precautionary principle and EMF: Implementation and evaluation Journal of Risk Research, 4, pp. 113-125.
29. Kuhn, K. (2000) Message format and audience values: Interactive effects of uncertainty information and environmental attitudes on perceived risk Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, pp. 41-51.
30. McGregor, D. and Slovic, P. and Morgan, G. (1994) Perception of risks from electromagnetic fields: A psychometric evaluation of a risk-communication approach Risk Analysis, 14, pp. 815-828.
31. Morgan, D. (1996) Focus groups Annual Review of Sociology, 22, pp. 129-152.
32. Morgan, D.(1997) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
33. Morgan, M. and Slovic, P. and Nair, I. and Geisler, D. and Macgregor, D. and Fischhoff, B. and (1985) Powerline frequency electric and magnetic fields: A pilot study of risk perception Risk Analysis, 5, pp. 139-149.
34. Morris, J.(2000) Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
35. NRPB.(2004) Mobile Phones and Health, Documents of the NRPB. In (pp. 1-114).No 5
36. Petts, J. and Horlick-Jones, T. and Murdock, G.(2001) Social Amplification of Risk: The Media and the Public. Health and Safety Executive Contract Research Report 329/2001. Sudbury: HSE Books.
37. Philo, G.(1999) Message Received. London: Addison Wesley Longman.
38. Pidgeon, N. and Kasperson, R. and Slovic, P.(2004) The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39. POST.(2004) Handling uncertainty in scientific advice. London: Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. Postnote, June 2004, No. 220
40. Roth, E. and Morgan, M. and Fischhoff, B. and Lave, L. (1990) What do we know about making risk comparisons Risk Analysis, 10, pp. 375-387.
41. Sandman, P.(2004) Because people are concerned: How should public 'outrage' affect application of the precautionary principle. In. Accessed April 2006, available at: http://www.psandman.com/articles/ vodafone.pdf
42. Schwartz, N. (1999) Self-reports. How the questions shape the answers American Psychologist, 54, pp. 93-105.
43. Schwarz, N. and Sudman, S.(1992) Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research. New York: Springer.
44. Select Committee on Science and Technology.(2001) Fourth Report, The Stationary Office, Section 48. Accessed May 2005, available at: http://www.parliament.thestationeryoffice.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/ cmsctech257/25703.htm
45. Stilgoe, J. (2005) Controlling mobile phone risks in the UK: A fragile discourse of compliance Science and Public Policy, 32, pp. 35-64.
46. Stirling, A.(2002) Risk uncertainty and precaution: Some instrumental implications from the social sciences. In Negotiating Change: Perspectives in Environmental Social Science. London: Edward Elgar.
47. Stirling, A.(2004) Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology. In Science Citizenship and Globalization. London: Zed.
48. Sunstein, C. (2003) The paralysing principle Regulation, pp. 32 - 37. Winter 2002-2003
49. The Rio Declaration of Environment and Development.(1992). Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development Rio de Janeiro June3-14 1992. In [pp.]. Sales No. E.93.I.8 and corrigenda
50. Tickner, J.(2003) The role of environmental science in precautionary decision making. In Environmental Science and Preventative Public Policy. London: Island Press.
51. Walls, J. and O'Riordan, T. and Horlick-Jones, T. and Niewöhner, J. (2005) The meta-governance of risk: GM crops and mobile telephones Journal of Risk Research, 8(7 -8), pp. 635-661.
52. Walls, J. and Pidgeon, N. and Weyman, A. and Horlick-Jones, T. (2004) Critical trust: Understanding lay perceptions of health and safety regulation Health, Risk & Society, 6, pp. 133-150.
53. WHO.(2004a) Framework to develop precautionary measures in areas of scientific uncertainty. In. The WHO EMF Project, Radiation and Environmental Health Unit.
54. WHO.(2004b) Accessed May 2005, available at: http://who.int/peh-emf/ meetings/archive/Precaution_Draft_2May.pdf
55. Wiedemann, P. and Schütz, H. (2005) The precautionary principle and risk perception: Experimental studies in the EMF area Environmental Health Perspectives, 113, pp. 402-405.