Public perceptions of electromagnetic fields and environmental health risks

Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are invisible fields of energy generated when electricity flows through wires or a device. Radiofrequency EMFs (RF EMFs) are a specific type of EMF generated by telecommunications masts and devices. There is no scientific evidence that RF EMFs lead to negative health outcomes, particularly at the levels observed in public spaces in Ireland, but previous surveys suggest that substantial minorities of the public may hold concerns about exposure. This study employs methods from behavioural science to measure perceptions of risk from EMFs among the general public. To contextualise perceived risk, we also record perceptions of other environmental hazards with known health consequences (e.g., carbon monoxide, particulate matter). \n \nA nationally representative sample of 800 adults took part in an online survey in September 2023. The study produced the following findings: \n \nVery few people (2.7%) mentioned EMFs when asked in a free text question about environmental hazards they are aware of. The most commonly generated hazards were outdoor air quality (59.7%), risks from cars and traffic (29.5%) and weather hazards (e.g., UV radiation; 22.8%). Other hazards with known health consequences were generated less frequently, including water contaminants (16.4%), radon gas (4.6%), noise (4.1%) and indoor air quality (3.7%). \nResponses to rating scales, informed by the psychology of risk perception, implied moderate levels of concern about EMFs. When asked about the perceived probability of exposure to harmful levels of EMFs, the consequences of exposure and general worry about them, the average response was close to the midpoint of seven-point rating scales. However, a fictitious risk included in the survey showed a closely similar response pattern. Thus, the results imply that, for unfamiliar risks, survey respondents may apply a precautionary principle in their answers, which biases responses towards the midpoint of scales. The exception to this response pattern was a question about how often individuals think or talk about an individual hazard, which generated very low levels of daily relevance for EMFs (2 out of 7). \nRating scales for other environmental risks revealed that the perceived risk from carbon monoxide and water contaminants (lead, E. coli) was greater than for microplastics, nitrous oxide and particulate matter. The pattern suggests low levels of familiarity with specific air pollutants in particular. \nAt the end of the survey, participants completed a short quiz about EMF exposure and reported on any mitigation action they take to reduce their exposure. Despite low levels of concern about EMFs, responses to the quiz displayed a bias towards assumptions of harm. Many participants (40%) wrongly assumed telecommunication masts to be a greater source of EMF exposure than mobile phones. The majority also incorrectly reported that technology such as 5G has substantially increased RF EMF exposure in public spaces (65%), that the level of exposure in urban areas is above suggested limits (60%) and that RF EMFs can damage human cells (58%). \nRespondents who held misconceptions about RF EMFs were more likely to perceive higher risk and to take day-to-day action to mitigate exposure (12.7% of those with above-average scores for a misconception index compared to 7.1% of those below). However, very few people reported taking day-to-day action to reduce their exposure to telecommunication masts (1.7%). Those who did take action mostly reported limiting the use of mobile phones or altering their placement. \nThe findings have implications for communications about environmental hazards. Public concern about RF EMFs appears (appropriately) low. There nevertheless remains a possible risk that misconceptions about health effects could be exploited. To avoid drawing unnecessary attention to a relatively benign hazard, it may be worthwhile ensuring that accurate scientific information on the effects of RF EMFs is readily accessible. The findings also point to environmental hazards that may warrant greater communication priorities, such as radon and noise pollution. The results further show the benefit of using principles from behavioural science to inform how policy-relevant concepts are measured.