Skip to main content

Table 2 Means and standard deviations of risk perception and feelings towards EMF in general and different sources per group

From: Perception of health risks of electromagnetic fields by MRI radiographers and airport security officers compared to the general Dutch working population: a cross sectional analysis

   Risk perception (5-point scale: "very harmless"-"very dangerous") Negative feeling (5-point scale: "no"-"very much") Positive feeling (5-point scale: "no"-"very much")
(m(sd)) Working pop. Security officers MRI radiogr. Working pop. Security officers MRI radiogr. Working pop. Security officers MRI radiogr.
EMF in general 3.03 (0.8) 3.03 (0.7) 2.7 (0.7) 2.82,3 (1.0) 2.33 (1.1) 1.8 (0.9) 3.22,3 (1.1) 2.1 (0.9) 2.82 (0.9)
Domestic sources Microwave oven 2.33 (1.1) 2.81,3 (1.1) 2.1 (0.9) 2.0 (1.0) 2.31,3 (1.1) 1.9 (0.9) 3.5 (1.1) 3.6 (1.1) 3.7 (0.9)
  Mobile phone 2.63 (1.1) 2.91,3 (1.2) 2.3 (0.9) 2.0 (1.0) 2.31,3 (1.2) 1.9 (0.9) 3.8 (1.0) 3.9 (1.0) 3.9 (0.8)
  DECT 2.33 (1.0) 2.53 (1.1) 2.1 (0.9) 1.9 (1.0) 2.11,3 (1.0) 1.8 (0.9) 3.6 (1.1) 3.5 (1.1) 3.81,2 (0.9)
Occupational
sources
MRI 2.83 (1.1) 2.93 (1.1) 2.5 (0.9) 2.3 (1.2) 2.43 (1.2) 2.1 (1.0) 3.6 (1.2) 3.4 (1.2) 4.21,2 (0.9)
  Metal detector 2.33 (1.0) 2.81,3 (1.1) 2.0 (0.9) 2.0 (1.0) 2.51,3 (1.2) 1.8 (0.9) 3.1 (1.1) 3.51 (1.1) 3.3 (1.0)
Environmental
sources
Power lines 3.0 (1.3) 3.41,3 (1.2) 2.8 (1.1) 2.6 (1.3) 2.91 (1.4) 2.7 (1.3) 3.0 (1.2) 2.8 (1.1) 3.1 (1.2)
  GSM base station 3.03 (1.2) 3.23 (1.2) 2.7 (1.0) 2.4 (1.3) 2.6 (1.3) 2.4 (1.2) 3.0 (1.1) 3.0 (1.2) 3.1 (1.1)
  UMTS base station 3.13 (1.2) 3.23 (1.2) 2.8 (1.1) 2.5 (1.3) 2.7 (1.3) 2.5 (1.2) 2.9 (1.1) 2.9 (1.2) 3.0 (1.1)
  1. 1 p < .05, significantly higher (ANOVA) than the working population, 2 p < .05, significantly higher (ANOVA) than the security officers, 3 p < .05, significantly higher (ANOVA) than the MRI radiographers. With Bonferroni correction.