Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42244425›Full record

ArticleBioelectromagnetics2026

A Ten-Country Study on Public Perceptions of 5G EMF Emissions: Who Feels Exposed, and Why?

Sarah C Link, James Grellier, Leanne Martin, Marie Eggeling-Böcker, Ferdinand Abacioglu, Carolin Schulz, Nina Vaupotič, Mathew P White, Christoph Boehmert

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioelectromagnetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Sarah C LinkTU Wien, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-5995-4495
James GrellierPublic Health and Sport Sciences, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Penryn, Cornwall, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7458-7479
Leanne MartinPublic Health and Sport Sciences, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Penryn, Cornwall, UK.
Marie Eggeling-BöckerDepartment for Social Sciences, IU International University of Applied Sciences, Erfurt, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9749-7321
Ferdinand AbaciogluDepartment for Social Sciences, IU International University of Applied Sciences, Erfurt, Germany.
Carolin SchulzDepartment for Social Sciences, IU International University of Applied Sciences, Erfurt, Germany.
Nina VaupotičDepartment of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Mathew P WhiteDepartment of Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Christoph BoehmertDepartment for Social Sciences, IU International University of Applied Sciences, Erfurt, Germany.

Funding

European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation programme, Project GOLiAT 101057262European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation programme, Project SEAWave 101057622Innovation (UKRI) under the UK government's Horizon Europe funding guarantee 10040206
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Formal risk assessment considers characteristics such as proximity, dose, and vulnerability. However, public risk perception may also be influenced by other-possibly less relevant-factors such as visibility and novelty. The introduction of 5G and its associated infrastructure and radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) may therefore change perceptions of RF-EMF from mobile communications in general. To explore this, we conducted an online survey in 10 European countries (n = 10,358) using a picture-based approach. Respondents perceived daily RF-EMF exposures as moderate but expected them to increase with 5G. A mobile phone at the ear was generally associated with higher perceived exposure than multiple base stations. Overall, distance to the RF-EMF source most strongly influenced perceived exposure, followed by the number of sources. 5G reception was linked to higher exposure perception than 4G or Wi-Fi reception. These patterns were consistent across most countries. We conclude that when assessing RF-EMF exposure, people rely on heuristics (e.g., more sources imply more exposure) that often guide them correctly. Understanding when and why people feel particularly exposed can help develop more effective communication about true levels of exposure and risk.

Indexed as

Cell PhoneElectromagnetic FieldsEnvironmental ExposurePerceptionPublic OpinionRadio WavesAdultEuropeFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and Questionnaireselectromagnetic fieldsexposure assessmentexposure perceptionhealth risk perceptionmobile communications

Identifiers

PMID42244425
PMCPMC13238347

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.