Cell Phones and Health Concerns: Impact of Knowledge and Voluntary Precautionary Recommendations

Risk Analysis

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 301-311

  Cousin, Marie Eve ^a   Siegrist, Michael ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Health concerns; Mobile communication; Risk communication; Risk perception; Voluntary precautionary recommendations

Indexed keywords

BEFORE AND AFTER; BEHAVIORAL CHANGES; CELL PHONE; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES; HEALTH CONCERNS; INFORMED DECISION; MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS; POTENTIAL EFFECTS; RISK COMMUNICATION; SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTY; VOLUNTARY PRECAUTIONARY RECOMMENDATIONS;

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; COMMUNICATION; HEALTH; MOBILE PHONES; MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS; RISK ANALYSIS; RISK PERCEPTION; TELECOMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT; TELEPHONE; TELEPHONE SETS;

HEALTH RISKS;

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; HEALTH RISK; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE; PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK PERCEPTION; SAMPLING; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; VOLUNTARY APPROACH;

ARTICLE; ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD; MOBILE PHONE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNCERTAINTY;

CELLULAR PHONE; ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 79951547373     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01498.x     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Kriebel D, Tickner J, Epstein P, Lemons J, Levins R, Loechler EL, Quinn M, Rudel R, Schettler T, Stoto M. The precautionary principle in environmental science. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2001; 109:871-876.
2. ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection). Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Physics 1998; 74:494-522.
3. Del Pozo C, Papameletiou D. European Information System on Electromagnetic Fields Exposure and Health Impacts. Country Report on EMF and Health: Sources, Regulation, and Risk Communication Approaches. Ispra Joint Research Centre, European Commission, 2005. Available at:, Accessed on July 29, 2010.
4. Foster KR, Vecchia P, Repacholi MH. Science and the precautionary principle. Science, 2000; 288:979-981.
5. Ahlbom A, Green A, Kheifets L, Savitz D, Swerdlow A. Epidemiology of health effects of radiofrequency exposure. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2004; 112:1741-1754.
6. Valberg PA, van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH. Workgroup report: Base stations and wireless networks: Radiofrequency (RF) exposures and health consequences. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2007; 115:416-424.
7. IEGMP (Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones). Mobile Phones and Health. Chilton National Radiological Protection Board, 2000. Available at:, Accessed on January 21, 2009.
8. Wiedemann PM, Schütz H. The precautionary principle and risk perception: Experimental studies in the EMF area. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2005; 113:402-405.
9. Barnett J, Timotijevic L, Shepherd R, Senior V. Public responses to precautionary information from the Department of Health (UK) about possible health risks from mobile phones. Health Policy, 2007; 82:240-250.
10. WHO (World Health Organization). Establishing a Dialogue on Risks from Electromagnetic Fields. Geneva Radiation and Environmental Health Department of Protection of the Human Environment World Health Organization, 2002. Available at:, Accessed on January 21, 2009.
11. Schütz H, Wiedemann PM. How to deal with dissent among experts. Risk evaluation of EMF in a scientific dialogue. Journal of Risk Research, 2005; 8:531-545.
12. Litmanen T, Tuikkanen A. Global sense of risk: Media reporting on scientific studies and potential risks of mobile phones. Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology, 2008; 40:71-90.
13. Bronfman NC, Cifuentes LA. Risk perception in a developing country: The case of Chile. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23:1271-1285.
14. Siegrist M, Earle TC, Gutscher H, Keller C. Perception of mobile phone and base station risks. Risk Analysis, 2005; 25:1253-1264.
15. EC (European Commission). Electromagnetic Fields. Special Eurobarometer 272a/Wave 66.2-TNS Opinion and Social. Brussels European Commission, 2007. Available at:, Accessed on January 21, 2009.
16. Hutter HP, Moshammer H, Wallner P, Kundi M. Public perception of risk concerning celltowers and mobile phones. Soz Praventiv Med, 2004; 49:62-66.
17. Burgess A. Comparing national responses to perceived health risks from mobile phone masts. Health Risk & Society, 2002; 4:175-188.
18. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23:961-972.
19. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich GT. Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 2000; 20:713-719.
20. Siegrist M, Earle TC, Gutscher H. Test of a trust and confidence model in the applied context of electromagnetic field (EMF) risks. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23:705-716.
21. EC (European Commission). The Europeans and Modern Biotechnology: Eurobarometer 46.1. Brussels European Commission, 1997. Available at:, Accessed on January 21, 2009.
22. Sjöberg L, Drottz-Sjöberg BM. Knowledge and risk perception among nuclear power plant employees. Risk Analysis, 1991; 11:607-618.
23. Kennedy CJ, Probart CK, Dorman SM. The relationship between radon knowledge, concern, and behavior, and health values, health locus of control and preventive health behaviors. Health Education & Behavior, 1991; 18:319-329.
24. MacGregor DG, Slovic P, Morgan MG. Perception of risks from electromagnetic fields: A psychometric evaluation of a risk-communication approach. Risk Analysis, 1994; 14:815-828.
25. Morgan MG, Slovic P, Nair I, Geisler D, MacGregor D, Fischhoff B, Lincoln D, Florig K. Powerline frequency electric and magnetic fields: A pilot study of risk perception. Risk Analysis, 1985; 5:139-149.
26. Johnson BB. Advancing understanding of knowledge's role in lay risk perception. Risk, 1993; 3:189-212.
27. Yaguchi H, Nobutomo K, Shingu K, Miyakoshi J. Attitudes of undergraduate students to electromagnetic fields. International Medicine Journal, 2000; 7:265-272.
28. Cousin ME, Siegrist M. Public's knowledge of mobile communication and its influence on base station siting preferences. Health Risk Society, 2010; 12:231-250.
29. Burgess A. Cellular Phones, Public Fears and a Culture of Precaution. Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 2004.
30. Wiedemann PM, Thalmann AT, Grutsch MA, Schütz H. The impacts of precautionary measures and the disclosure of scientific uncertainty on EMF risk perception and trust. Journal of Risk Research, 2006; 9:361-372.
31. Timotijevic L, Barnett J. Managing the possible health risks of mobile telecommunications: Public understandings of precautionary action and advice. Health Risk Society, 2006; 8:143-164.
32. BUWAL (Federal Office for the Environment). Elektrosmog in der Umwelt [in German]. Bern BUWAL, 2005. Available at:, Accessed on January 21, 2009.
33. Leventhal H, Singer R, Jones S. Effects of fear and specificity of recommendation upon attitudes and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965; 2:20-29.
34. Witte K, Meyer G, Martell D. Effective Health Risk Messages. A Step-by-Step Guide. Thousand Oaks Sage, 2001.
35. Brashers DE. Communication and uncertainty. Journal of Communication, 2001; 51:477-497.
36. Siegrist M, Earle TC, Gutscher H. Trust in Cooperative Risk Management. Uncertainty and Scepticism in the Public Mind. London Earthscan, 2007.
37. White MP, Eiser JR, Harris PR, Pahl S. Who reaps the benefits, who bears the risks? Comparative optimism, comparative utility, and regulatory preferences for mobile phone technology. Risk Analysis, 2007; 27:741-753.