Korean Journal of Health Promotion

Ock, Lim, Kim, Ryu, Yi, and Lee: Perceptions of Healthcare Workers of Health Risks of Electromagnetic Fields

Original Article

Published online: December 19, 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15384/kjhp.2015.15.2.39

Perceptions of Healthcare Workers of Health Risks of Electromagnetic Fields

Minsu Ock^1*, So Yun Lim^2*, Hwa Jung Kim¹, 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 January 07, 2015 Accepted April 03, 2015

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.

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.

Key words: 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.

Table 1.

Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

Classification	Doctor		Nurse		Medical student		Paramedic
Classification	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
Question	Response	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
	Discussions with friends and relatives Newspapers	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
Question	Response	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

REFERENCES

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.
[Article]

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.
[Article] [PubMed]

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..