THz-BRIDGE Workshop Capri, September 29 - October 2, 2002 Istituto Superiore di Sanità National Institute of Health PERCEPTION OF RISKS FROM ELECTROMAGNETIC

THz-BRIDGE Workshop Capri, September 29 - October 2, 2002

Istituto Superiore di Sanità National Institute of Health

PERCEPTION OF RISKS FROM PERCEPTION OF RISKS FROM

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS:ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS:

LESSONS FOR THE FUTURELESSONS FOR THE FUTURE

Paolo VecchiaNational Institute of Health, Rome, Italy



PERCEPTION OF RISKS OF EMFPERCEPTION OF RISKS OF EMF

The Commission adopted a programme of Community action on pollution-related diseases which takes account of the fact that health risks, including those associated with electromagnetic fields, are often perceived by the public very differently from what is established by scientific evidence.

Council of the European Union, Recommendation 12 July 1999.





WHAT IS “RISCHIO”, “RISQUE”, “RIESGO”?WHAT IS “RISCHIO”, “RISQUE”, “RIESGO”?

The pure possiblity for a negative event to occur(English: hazard)

Some mathematical combination of the impact of a possible negative effect and the probability of its occurrence(English: risk)



MATHEMATICAL DEFINITION OF RISKMATHEMATICAL DEFINITION OF RISK

It is generally assumed (explicitly or implicitly) that risk is the product of the possible detriment times the probability, i.e.:

R = D .PIn the case of health risks (rather than accidents), also the “credibility” of a hazard to actually exist (e.g. the IARC classification) should be taken into account:

R = D .P .C



SUBJECTIVE EFFECTS AND RISK PERCEPTIONSUBJECTIVE EFFECTS AND RISK PERCEPTION

Subjective effects of electromagnetic fields have been reported both within workers and the general public.

The following questions arise: Effects are real or due to suggestion? In the case they are real, they are due to:

Exposure (hypersensitivity)? Psychosomatic mechanisms? Other factors?



ARE ARE SCIENTIFICSCIENTIFIC ANSWERS POSSIBLE? ANSWERS POSSIBLE?

Yes

Reported disturbances, are, at least partially, due

to suggestion or psychosomatic effects.

Scientific bases: Provocation tests Controlled statistical studies Effects in the absence of exposure



PROVOCATION TESTSPROVOCATION TESTS

“Hypersensitive” subjects are exposed to a source that may be on/off with no awareness.

High correlation between guess and

symptoms

No correlation between guess and status

of the source



FURTHER QUESTIONSFURTHER QUESTIONS

To what extent are these pseudo-effects due to a distorted risk perception?

What causes distortion?

What is the role of (bad) risk communication?



FACTORS INFLUENCING RISK PERCEPTIONFACTORS INFLUENCING RISK PERCEPTION

• Catastrophic potential• Familiarity with the agent• Understanding of mechanisms• Uncertainty of knowledge• Controllability of risk• Voluntarity of exposure• Effects on children• Effects on future generations• Indentificability of victims

• Relevance of effects• Trust in institutions• Attention of media• Previous accidents• Equity of risks and benefits• Clarity of benefits• Irreversibility of effects• Personal involvement• Scientific evidence• Human or natural origin



THE ROLE OF INFORMATIONTHE ROLE OF INFORMATION

Distorted information: Doll Report

Partial information: Laterality effect of mobile phones Animal studies on RF fields

Missing information (good news is no news): Epidemiological studies on mobile phones



DIFFICULTIES OF SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATIONDIFFICULTIES OF SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION

The public requires communication of scientific

findings to be timely and understandable

Simplification conflicts with rigour (science

can never say “safe”)

Transparency conflicts with quality assurance

(peer review)



EFFECTS OF RISK PERCEPTIONEFFECTS OF RISK PERCEPTION

A distorted risk perception has both social and health implications:

Anxiety and psychosomatic disturbances are an objective health detriment.

A priori attribution of real effects to EMF exposure may prevent investigation of true causes.

Social tension is also a health damage.



RISK PERCEPTION AND WORRYRISK PERCEPTION AND WORRY

Less worried More worried

No symptoms 50% 31%

At least one symptom 50% 69%

McMahan S., Meyer J. (1995). Symptom prevalence and worry about high voltage transmission lines. Environ. Reas. 70: 114-118.





WHICH LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE?WHICH LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE?

New technologies are likely to face problems of

risk perception due to:

Lack of familiarity with the agent

Lack of understanding of mechanisms

Uncertainty of knowledge



EXTREMELY HIGH FREQUENCY EMFEXTREMELY HIGH FREQUENCY EMF

Technologies based on EHF EMFs are a frontier.

They are new to engineers, biologists, and health

scientists, and this can create fear of the

unknown

They are likely to spread out before their

consequences are fully understood and that can

create uncertainty



AVOIDING DISTORSION OF RISK PERCEPTIONAVOIDING DISTORSION OF RISK PERCEPTION

Promote specific research on biological

and health effects

Ensure correct transfer of scientific data

Establish an effective dialogue between the

scientific community and the public

Documents

THz-BRIDGE Workshop Capri, September 29 - October 2, 2002 Istituto Superiore di Sanità National Institute of Health PERCEPTION OF RISKS FROM ELECTROMAGNETIC