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

Abstract

It has been suggested that precautionary approaches to managing possible health risks mobile telecommunications (MT) technology may cause or exacerbate public concerns. In contrast, precautionary approaches to managing such risks in the UK have been framed as a way of reducing public concerns. This article presents evidence from a series of focus groups about publics’ understandings of the actions taken and advice given about potential MT health risks by the UK government. Eight focus groups were conducted with members of the public that varied in their age, their awareness and concern about mast siting, and the self-reported level of mobile phone use. From the analyses a complex picture emerged in which publics’ understandings were not primarily framed in terms of precautionary action and advice either provoking concern or providing reassurance. People made sense of precaution by drawing upon a range of evidence from their understandings of costs and benefits of the technology, as well as the institutional context in which MT health risks were managed. For some of those involved in protesting against mast siting, precaution was seen as confirming existing concern. Further systematic exploration of the contexts within which different responses to precaution emerge is thus likely to be instructive.Mobile Telecommunications Health Research Programme

Public responses to precautionary information from the Department of Health (UK) about possible health risks from mobile phones

“…The results of these are generally in line with the view that precautionary advice coheres and intensifies existing concerns by implying that "there is no smoke without fire" [33]. Other work [34,35] also suggests that precautionary advice is unlikely to have the desired effect of reducing concern although a qualitative study of public responses to precaution suggests that this may oversimplify the relationship between precautionary advice and public concerns [2].…”

“…The remaining five, though not coming from the Government, were chosen because they were also in the public domain. They were selected from the newspaper clippings about mobile phone health risks and the transcripts of the focus groups on this topic [2]. Spontaneous responses of "none of these" and "don"t know" were also coded.…”

“…Previous work addressing the first dimension of this issue is suggestive of limited awareness of government communications about possible health risks from mobile phones [1]. On the second point, a recent overview of the sparse literature around public perceptions of precautionary advice suggests that the provision of such advice has largely been linked with the intensification of existing public concerns [2]. The present work builds on the largely qualitative work that has been carried out in this area and reports the results of a survey with a nationally representative sample in the UK that explores awareness of and responses to the Department of Health (DoH) leaflet [3] about the possible health risks of mobile phones.…”

Noninvasive Assessment of Metabolic Effects of Exposure to 900 MHz Electromagnetic Fields on Djungarian Hamsters (Phodopus sungorus)

“…Several research groups have addressed this question, suggesting that precautionary approaches tend to intensify rather than attenuate perceptions of risk (Barnett et al, 2007(Barnett et al, & 2008Schütz, Wiedemann & Clauberg, 2007;Timotijevic & Barnett, 2006;Wiedemann & Schütz, 2005;Wiedemann et al, 2006). Conceptual scientific considerations of precaution from a social perspective can be found in the work of Stilgoe (2007).…”

Scientific advice on the move: the UK mobile phone risk issue as a public experiment

“…Not only are such analyses analytically flawed, in that they fail to engage with the technical or political specificities of issues, but they are also counterproductive for expert practice. Focus group research suggests no clear evidence of increased public concern in response to precautionary advice on EMFs (Timotijevic and Barnett, 2006). However, we should keep hold of the insight that public issues are in part constructed by their governance, rather than being a product either of fixed risk perception or technological essence.…”