Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.

Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.

Perceptions of Healthcare Workers of Health Risks of Electromagnetic Fields

Article information

Korean J Health Promot. 2015;15(2):39-46
Publication date (electronic) : 2015 December 19
doi : https://doi.org/10.15384/kjhp.2015.15.2.39
Minsu Ock1*, So Yun Lim2*, Hwa Jung Kim,1, Hyun Mi Ryu1, Nari Yi3, Moo-Song Lee1
1Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
2Department of Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
3Vital Statistics Division, Statistics Korea, Daejeon, Korea
Corresponding author：Hwa Jung Kim, MD, PhD Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 138-736, Korea Tel: +82-2-3010-5636, Fax: +82-2-477-2898 E-mail: rsvp@amc.seoul.kr * Equally contributed.
Received 2015 January 07; Accepted 2015 April 03.

Abstract

Background

This study assessed the perceptions of healthcare staff of the health risks of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF).

Methods

In total, 328 healthcare workers (e.g., physicians, nurses, medical students, and paramedics) completed a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire assessed the following: risk perceptions of 17 environmental factors as potential health threats; EMF sources; information for the potential risks of EMF; and thoughts on how to protect the public from potential EMF-related health risks.

Results

Of the included environmental factors, high-tension power lines and mobile phone handsets were ranked as the second and fourth lowest perceived risk, respectively. Approximately 60% of respondents were concerned about the potential health risks of EMF and dissatisfied with the information they received. The main reason for dissatisfaction was insufficient information. The most frequently cited action was that the government should review the available scientific evidence on potential EMF-related health risks.

Conclusions

Having scientific basis through well-designed researches and providing accurate information to the public on the potential health risks of EMF will be important in the future.

Keywords: Electromagnetic fields; High-tension power line; Risk communication
Figure 1.

Risk perception for the 17 environmental factors as potential threats to health.

Figure 2.

Sources of electromagnetic fields.

Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

Concerns and information on potential health risk of electromagnetic fields

Appropriate organization and roles of the government to protect publics from potential health risks related to electromagnetic fields

References

1. Chung EK, Kim KB, Chung KJ, Lee IS, You KH, Park JS. Occupational exposure of semiconductor workers to ELF magnetic fields. J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg 2012;22(1):42–51.
2. Jeon IS. Management strategies for electromagnetic fields in electric power lines. J Kor Electromagn Eng Soc 2003;14(10):1017–23.
3. World Health Organization. Electromagnetic fields and public health: Exposure to extremely low frequency fields, Fact Sheet No. 322 Geneva: World Health Organization; 2007. [Accessed Jan 5, 2015]. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs322/en.
4. IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Non-ionizing radiation, Part 1: Static and extremely low-frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2002.
5. Kwon BC. The daily record of Miryang power-transmission tower event Changwon: Kyungnam Domin Daily News; 2013. [Accessed Jan 5, 2015]. http://www.idomin.com/news/article-View.html?idxno=427239.
6. Hong YS. No more transmission towers on the sky of Dangjin Cheongju: Dongyang Daily news; 2014. [Accessed Jan 5, 2015]. http://www.dynews.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=227219.
7. You MS. The study of health-risk perception: Implications for health services research. Korean journal of health policy and administration 2009;19(3):45–70.
8. Cho YS, Kim YS, Jeon HJ, Kim DK, Lee CM, Hong SC, et al. A case study for application on extremely low frequency-electric and magnetic fields (ELF-EMFs) risk communication program in Korea. J Korean Soc Indoor Environ 2012;9(1):45–52.
9. TNS Opinion & Social. Electromagnetic Fields Report Special Eurobarometer 347, Wave 73.3. Brussels: European Commission;
10. Tseng MC, Lin YP, Hu FC, Cheng TJ. Risks perception of electromagnetic fields in Taiwan: the influence of psychopathology and the degree of sensitivity to electromagnetic fields. Risk Anal 2013;33(11):2002–2012.
11. Min SW. Report of public relations business of electromagnetic fields in 2013 Seoul: The Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers; 2014.
12. Korea Communications Agency. A survey on awareness of health-risk of electromagnetic fields of living environment Naju: KCA Trends & Perspectives; 2013.
13. Ahn YO. Evaluation of safety of extremely low frequency electromagnetic field and development of practical reduction technique (case-control study about childhoold cancer below 16 years) Goyang: Korea Institute of Energy technology and Evaluation and Planning; 2008.
14. Ahn YO. The ecological study on cancer prevalence aspect of surrounding area of 154/345kV power-transmission lines Go-yang: Korea Institute of Energy technology and Evaluation and Planning; 2013.
15. Kim JS, Shin AS, Kim SS, Jung GC, Kim MG, Jung SH. Development of IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) monographs in Korean version. National Cancer Center 2012.
16. Jang SK, Lee SJ, Yoo SW, Cho YS, Lim HS, Lim JH, et al. A survey of the EMF levels in Korea (Ⅱ), EMF levels of subway and electric appliances: Indoor environmental research board, air quality research department Incheon: National Institute of Environmental Research; 2004.
17. Kim HI, Lee EK. Analysis of media reports on the safety of herbal medicines from the viewpoint of risk communication. J Health Tech Assess 2014;2(2):99–104. 2010.

Article information Continued

Copyright © 2015 The Korean Society of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Risk perception for the 17 environmental factors as potential threats to health.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Sources of electromagnetic fields.

Table 1.

Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

Classification Doctor Nurse Medical student Paramedic
N % N % N % N %
Gender
Men 29 55.8 1 1.0 104 78.2 6 16.7
Women 23 44.2 104 99.0 29 21.8 30 83.3
Age, y
20-29 31 59.6 44 41.9 132 99.2 13 37.1
30-39 19 36.5 51 48.6 1 0.8 16 45.7
40- 2 3.8 10 9.5 0 0.0 6 17.1
Education level
High school graduate or below 0 0.0 8 7.6 132 99.2 7 20.0
College graduate or above 52 100.0 97 92.4 1 0.8 28 80.0
High tension power lines from home Within visual field range 4 7.7 13 12.5 8 6.1 3 8.6
Outside visual field range 48 92.3 91 87.5 123 93.9 32 91.4
Self-rated health
Fair or below 27 51.9 79 75.2 52 39.1 31 88.6
Good or very good 25 48.1 26 24.8 81 60.9 4 11.4

Table 2.

Concerns and information on potential health risk of electromagnetic fields

Question Response Doctor Nurse Medical student Paramedic
N % N % N % N %
Have you received any information Yes 49 94.2 104 97.2 133 100.0 35 97.2
about potential health risks linked to electromagnetic fields? No 3 5.8 3 2.8 0 0.0 1 2.8
How concerned are you about the Very concerned 3 6.1 6 5.8 3 2.3 3 8.6
potential health risks of Fairly concerned 22 44.9 73 70.9 52 39.1 30 85.7
electromagnetic fields? Not very concerned 22 44.9 24 23.3 71 53.4 2 5.7
Not at all concerned 1 2.0 0 0.0 6 4.5 0 0.0
Don't know 1 2.0 0 0.0 1 0.8 0 0.0
Generally speaking, how satisfied are Very satisfied 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.8 1 2.9
you with the information you Fairly satisfied 8 17.8 14 14.6 22 18.0 8 23.5
receive about potential health risks linked to electromagnetic fields? Not very satisfied 33 73.3 68 70.8 67 54.9 16 47.1
linked to electromagnetic fields? Not at all satisfied 1 2.2 6 6.3 10 8.2 1 2.9
Don't know 3 6.7 8 8.3 22 18.0 8 23.5
Which of following reasons best Insufficient 13 38.2 41 56.2 44 57.9 11 64.7
explains why you are not satisfied Complicated and difficult 6 17.6 11 15.1 1 1.3 4 23.5
with the information you have Not objective 13 38.2 14 19.2 25 32.9 2 11.8
about the potential health risks linked to electromagnetic fields? Others 2 5.9 7 9.6 6 7.9 0 0.0
From the following, what are the two main ways you received this information about potential health risks linked to electromagnetic fields? Television program 35 47.3 86 51.5 100 45.7 24 46.2
The internet 25 33.8 57 34.1 52 23.7 15 28.8
Discussions with friends and relatives Newspapers 6 8.1 8 4.8 19 8.7 4 7.7
2 2.7 3 1.8 18 8.2 0 0.0
SNS (social network service) 1 1.4 2 1.2 16 7.3 1 1.9
Radio 2 2.7 9 5.4 1 0.5 3 20.0
Others 1 1.4 1 0.6 8 3.7 1 1.9
Magazine 1 1.4 1 0.6 3 1.4 2 3.8
Specialist publications 1 1.4 0 0.0 2 0.9 2 3.8
From the following, what are the two main ways you would prefer to receive information about potential health risks linked to electromagnetic fields? Television program 26 33.3 72 43.4 74 32.2 22 38.6
The internet 23 29.5 52 31.3 41 17.8 20 35.1
Special publications 19 24.4 11 6.6 47 20.4 5 8.8
SNS (social network service) 4 5.1 13 7.8 17 7.4 4 7.0
Newspapers 2 2.6 1 0.6 25 10.9 1 1.8
Others 0 0.0 3 1.8 13 5.7 1 1.8
Radio 2 2.6 7 4.2 4 1.7 1 1.8
Magazine 1 1.3 4 2.4 6 2.6 2 3.5
Discussions with friends and relatives 1 1.3 3 1.8 3 1.3 1 1.8

Table 3.

Appropriate organization and roles of the government to protect publics from potential health risks related to electromagnetic fields

Question Response Doctor Nurse Medical student Paramedic
N % N % N % N %
Which of following groups is most reliable to estimate the potential health risks linked to electromagnetic fields? Medical and pharmacological academics 32 68.1 37 39.8 88 71.5 10 32.3
Research institute (public or private) 8 17.0 28 30.1 14 11.4 13 41.9
Academics (except medical and pharmacological) 5 10.6 8 8.6 13 10.6 3 9.7
Others 0 0.0 6 6.5 6 4.9 2 6.5
Associated government organization 2 4.3 7 7.5 1 0.8 0 0.0
Non-governmental organization 0 0.0 6 6.5 0 0.0 2 6.5
Associated companies 0 0.0 1 1.1 1 0.8 1 3.2
In your opinion, do public bodies act effectively or not to protect you from potential health risks linked to electromagnetic fields? Yes, very effectively 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.8 0 0.0
Yes, fairly effectively 2 3.8 7 6.7 13 9.9 0 0.0
No, not very effectively 26 50.0 58 55.2 73 55.7 15 41.7
No, not at all effectively 19 36.5 35 33.3 23 17.6 16 44.4
Don't know 5 9.6 5 4.8 21 16.0 5 13.9
In your opinion, how could the government organizations intervene to protect you from potential health risks linked to electromagnetic fields? Reviewing the status of scientific evidence 25 48.1 23 22.3 50 38.5 9 25.7
Developing guidance for public health protection 11 21.2 49 47.6 31 23.8 9 25.7
Setting safety standards for products 4 7.7 15 14.6 17 13.1 8 22.9
Informing the public 6 11.5 10 9.7 19 14.6 5 14.3
Others 1 1.9 2 1.9 7 5.4 2 5.8
Financing research Setting safety standards for working conditions 4 1 7.7 1.9 2 2 1.9 1.9 5 1 3.8 0.8 0 2 0.0 5.7