1 / 18

PERCEPTION OF RISKS FROM ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS: LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE

PERCEPTION OF RISKS FROM ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS: LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE. Paolo Vecchia National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy. PERCEPTION OF RISKS OF EMF.

wynn
Download Presentation

PERCEPTION OF RISKS FROM ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS: LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PERCEPTION OF RISKS FROM ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS: LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE Paolo Vecchia National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy

  2. PERCEPTION 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.

  3. 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)

  4. MATHEMATICAL 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 .P • In 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

  5. SUBJECTIVE 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?

  6. ARE SCIENTIFIC 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

  7. PROVOCATION 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

  8. FURTHER 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?

  9. 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 FACTORS INFLUENCING RISK PERCEPTION

  10. THE 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

  11. DIFFICULTIES 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)

  12. EFFECTS 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.

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

  14. 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

  15. EXTREMELY 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

  16. AVOIDING 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

More Related