Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:41:28.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mobile Phones and Service Stations: Rumour, Risk and Precaution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Adam Burgess
Adam Burgess*
Affiliation:
University of Kent, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The apparent erosion of public trust has become a defining feature of our age (Fukuyama, 1996; Sztompka, 2000). Collapse of trust in the political process is the subject of intellectual concern and reaction (Warren, 1999; Bentley, 2005). Another important focus for analysis and response to mistrust is science and technology risk management. Sociology is at the forefront of problematizing science and technology risk management, proposing a renegotiation of the relationship between science, citizens and policy (Irwin, 1995; Irwin and Wynne, 1996; Wynne, 2000; Stilgoe, Wilsdon and Wynne, 2005). Science is admonished in the now influential sociological critique for failing to communicate the uncertainty that is central to their endeavours, instead continuing to insist upon a ‘top-down’ process of science communication. Science is presented as having unreflectively brought about a scientific and technological revolution without regard for the consequences that the resulting ‘risk society’ is now struggling to come to terms with (Beck, 1992, 1995). An influential review of specific examples of 20th-century scientific and technological innovations argues the ‘late lessons’ that can be drawn are the failure to heed ‘early warnings’ that could have been detected about potentially damaging impacts (Harremoës et al., 2002). A new, precautionary approach is urged - one that can avoid the mistakes of the past.

Type
Articles
Information
Diogenes , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , February 2007 , pp. 125 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © ICPHS 2007

References

Atkinson, H. (2001) ‘Internet Hosts Rumours and Hoaxes Galore’, Health News 7(5): 5–9.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. (ed.) (1995) Resistance to New Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards A New Modernity. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Beck, U. (1995) Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Bentley, T. (2005) Everyday Democracy: Why We Get the Politicians We Deserve. London: Demos.Google Scholar
Best, J. (ed.) (1995) Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Problems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Best, J. and Horiuchi, G. (1985) ‘The Razor Blade in the Apple: The Social Construction of Urban Legends’, Social Problems 32(5): 488–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Better Regulation Taskforce (2004) ‘Better Routes to Redress’, London: Better Regulation Taskforce. Available at: http://www.brtf.gov.uk/docs/pdf/betterroutes.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bordia, P. and DiFonzo, N. (2002) ‘When Social Psychology Became Less Social: Prasad and the History of Rumour Research’, Asian Journal of Social Psychology 5: 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brauner, C. (1996) Electrosmog: A Phantom Risk. Zurich: Swiss Reinsurance.Google Scholar
Brown, T. (2002) ‘The Social Costs of a Compensation Culture’, in Compensation Crazy: Do We Blame and Claim too Much?, pp. 35–53. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
Brunvand, J. H. (1999) ‘Introduction’, The Skeptical Enquirer 29 (May/June): 1–3.Google Scholar
Inquiry, BSE (2000) The Report. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Burgess, A. (2004) Cellular Phones, Public Fears and a Culture of Precaution. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Byers, S. (2001) ‘Science People Can Trust’, Science and Public Policy (April): 10–12.Google Scholar
Cameron, K. (1993) ‘Mobile Phone Sparks New Call for Ban’, South China Morning Post, 6 July.Google Scholar
Carlo, G. and Schram, M. (2001) Mobile Phones: Invisible Hazards in a Wireless Age. New York: Carroll and Graf.Google Scholar
Coates, R. (2003) ‘Review of Alleged Mobile Phone Incidents - The Fact, the Fiction and the Perception of Risk’, in Technical Seminar Proceedings, Institute of Petroleum, pp. 42–49.Google Scholar
Davis, M. (2002) Refueling Fires: No Hoax. The%20Car%20Connection.com, available at http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=5413Google Scholar
DiFonzo, N. and Bordia, P. (2000) ‘How Top PR Professionals Handle Hearsay: Corporate Rumors, Their Effects and Strategies to Manage Them’, Public Relations Review 26(2): 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiFonzo, N. and Bordia, P. (2002) ‘Corporate Rumor Activity, Belief and Accuracy’, Public Relations Review 28: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, P. (2002) ‘Crime Legends in a New Medium: Fact, Fiction and Loss of Authority’, Theoretical Criminology 6(2): 189–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, P. (2003) No Way of Knowing: Crime, Urban Legend and the Internet. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Donovan, P. (2007) ‘How Idle is Talk? One hundred years of Rumour Research’ (originally presented at the 2002 conference of the Society for the Study of Social Problems, Chicago), Diogenes 54(1): 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EFAA (1999) Mobile Phone Usage at Petroleum Stations. Menlo Park, CA: Exponent Failure Analysis Associates. ESD and Electrostatics Journal, available at http://www.esdjournal.com/index.htmGoogle Scholar
Fine, G. A. and Turner, P. A. (2001) Whispers on the Color Line: Rumor and Race in America. Berkeley: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, M. (2004) MMR and Autism. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, J., Slovic, P. and Kunreuther, H. (2001) Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Foster, K. R., Bernstein, D. E. and Huber, P. (eds) (1999) Phantom Risk: Scientific Inference and the Law. New York: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fukuyama, F. (1996) Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, I. and Kass, G. (2001) ‘A Question of Principle’, Science and Public Policy (April): 14–17.Google Scholar
Grazioli, S. and Carrell, R. C. (2002) ‘Exploding Phones and Dangerous Bananas: Perceived Precision and Believability of Deceptive Messages Found on the Internet’, Paper delivered at Eighth Americas Conference on Information Systems.Google Scholar
Grazioli, S. and Jarvenpaa, S. (2000) ‘Perils of Internet Fraud’, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 30(4): 395–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harremoës, P., et al. (2002) The Precautionary Principle in the 20th Century: Late Lessons from Early Warnings. London: Earthscan/European Environmental Agency.Google Scholar
Petel, Hela Lacors (2004) Petrol Filling Stations - Dispensing Control Measures. Health & Safety Executive/Local Authorities Enforcement Liaison Committee (HELA), November.Google Scholar
Horton, R. (2004) MMR: Science and Fiction - Exploring a Vaccination Crisis. London: Granta.Google Scholar
House of Lords (2000) Science and Society. Select Committee on Science and Technology 3rd Report. London: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Howells, G. (1993) Comparative Product Liability. London: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
Huber, P. (1990) Galileo’s Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Huber, P. and Litan, R. (eds) (1991) The Liability Maze: The Impact of Liability Law on Safety and Innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
IEGMP (Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones) (2000) Mobile Phones and Health. Didcot: NRPB.Google Scholar
Spectrum, IEEE (2004) Mobile Phones Pose No Petrol Station Hazard. Available at http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/contents/index.html.Google Scholar
Institute of Petroleum (2003) Technical Seminar Proceedings: Can Mobile Phone Communications Ignite Petroleum Vapour? London: Institute of Petroleum.Google Scholar
Irwin, A. (1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. New York and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kassirer, J. P. and Angell, M. (1995) ‘The Internet and the Journal’, New England Journal of Medicine 333(16): 1077–1080.Google Scholar
Kirkwood, S. (2004) ‘The Customer View Will Always Beat Science’, in HERA (Human and Environmental Risk Assessment), Talking about Chemicals with Consumers; Stakeholders Workshop Proceedings, pp. 14–15. Brussels: HERA.Google Scholar
Koenig, F. (1985) Rumour in the Marketplace: The Social Psychology of Commercial Hearsay. Dover, MA: Auburn House.Google Scholar
Lissy, K., et al. (2000) ‘Cellular Phones and Driving: Weighing the Risks and Benefits’, Risk in Perspective 8(6): 1–6.Google Scholar
MacGregor, D., Slovic, P. and Morgan, G. M. (1994) ‘Perception of Risks from Electromagnetic Fields: A Psychometric Evaluation of a Risk Communication Approach’, Risk Analysis 14(5): 815–828.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mikkelson, B. (2002) Fuelish Pleasures: Is Using a Mobile Phone at a Petrol Station Dangerous? Urban Legends Reference Pages. Available at: www.snopes2.com/autos/hazards/petrolvapour.htmGoogle Scholar
Morgan, G. M., et al. (1985) ‘Powerline Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields: A Pilot Study of Risk Perception’, Risk Analysis 5: 139–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neubauer, H. (1999) The Rumour: A Cultural History. Christian Braun, NY: Free Association.Google Scholar
Nolen, S. (1999) ‘Urban Legend on Internet. A Headache for Poison Center, Procter & Gamble’, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 214(9): 1304–1312.Google ScholarPubMed
O’ Riordan, T. and Cameron, J. (eds) (1994) Interpreting the Precautionary Principle. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Pieterman, R. (2001) ‘Culture in the Risk Society’, Zeitschrift fur Rechtssoziologie 22(2): 145–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raffensperger, C. and Tickner, J. (eds) (1999) Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Shibutani, T. (1966) Improvised News: A Sociological Study of Rumour. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Silva, J. (2005) ‘Conn. Senator Considers bill to ban cell-phone use at petrol stations’, RCR Wireless News. 9 March. Available at: http://www.rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=21761Google Scholar
Spector, M. and Kitsuse, J. L. (1987) Constructing Social Problems. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
Stilgoe, J., Wilsdon, J. and Wynne, B. (2005) The Public Value of Science. London: Demos.Google Scholar
Sztompka, P. (2000) Trust: A Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
The [Singapore] Straits Times (1997) ‘Switch off That Mobile Phone When at the Pump’, 16 April.Google Scholar
Thomas, L. (1997) ‘Use of Handphones Could Pose Risk at Petrol Stations’, The [Singapore] Straits Times, 10 January.Google Scholar
UK Road Transport Research Laboratory (2002) The Mobile Phone Report. London: RTRL.Google Scholar
University of Oklahoma (2001) Investigation of the Potential for Wireless Phones to Cause Explosions at Petrol Stations. Oklahoma: Wireless EMC Center.Google Scholar
Viscusi, W. K. (1988) ‘Product Liability Litigation with Risk Aversion’, Journal of Legal Studies 17: 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vodafone, (2004) The Answers in Your Back Pocket: Mobile Phones, Masts and Health. London: Vodafone Group.Google Scholar
Warren, M. (ed.) (1999) Democracy and Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiedemann, P. and Schütz, H. (2005) ‘The Precautionary Principle and Risk Perception: Experimental Studies in the EMF Area’, Environmental Health Perspectives 113(4): 402–405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, N. and Nerlich, B. (2004) ‘The Function of Rumour During the Foot and Mouth Outbreak in the UK’, Paper presented at the British Sociological Association Risk Conference, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (2000) ‘Retrieving a Human Agenda for Science’, RSA Journal 2(4): 3–8.Google Scholar