We’re pleased to share the Safer Screentime e-learning course, developed by colleagues in Finland and the United States. It provides practical training on the safer use of wireless technology in homes, workplaces, schools and other public buildings.

Share the Safer Screentime e-learning programme with families, schools and organisations.

Safer Screentime provides practical education about wireless technology and its use in everyday settings.

About Safer Screentime

Safer Screentime aims to provide people with information that can help them make informed decisions about technology use and ways of reducing unnecessary exposure to wireless radiation. Its educational resources are intended for a broad audience, including adults, parents, teachers, children and industry professionals.

The course helps people use wireless technology more thoughtfully in everyday settings. It combines information about technology use with practical measures that people can incorporate into their daily routines.

The organisation also promotes greater awareness of wireless technology in schools and workplaces, encouraging teachers, parents, employees and technology professionals to consider exposure and practical ways of reducing unnecessary wireless use when making decisions about technology and working environments.

Corporate Responsibility Program

As part of its Corporate Responsibility Program, participating companies can donate a free course licence to the school of their choice. The programme helps schools promote safer technology practices among children and staff.

Safer Screentime describes itself as an independent, science-based, non-partisan organisation that champions children’s health and well-being.

The course covers:

• Ergonomic practices for healthier device habits
• Practical tips for using different mobile and wireless devices more safely
• Energy-saving measures to reduce unnecessary energy consumption

Cost: Approximately US$15

Duration: Approximately 1 hour

Certificate: Certificate of completion included

Enrol here

Related:

Wireless Health & Environmental Safety August 2026 – EMFSA

The post Safer Screentime Course appeared first on EMFSA.

New Developments in Radiofrequency Radiation: HHS, FCC and ANSES

On September 17, 2026, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking evidence and information on electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency (RF) radiation and wireless radiation exposure, particularly in relation to human health. The RFI is intended to help HHS evaluate the state of the science, compare U.S. and international safety standards and regulatory approaches, identify research gaps and inform future research and policy.

EMFSA | 20 September 2026

The RFI invites contributions from researchers, clinicians, public-health professionals, industry, advocacy groups and members of the public.

The Federal Register will publish the notice on September 21, 2026.

Comments must be submitted within 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

What is HHS asking?

The questions cover a wide range of issues, including reported health effects, exposure standards and risk assessment, methods for measuring real-world exposure, potentially sensitive populations, cumulative exposure from existing and emerging wireless technologies, and priorities for future research.

• What does the evidence show? HHS seeks evidence on potential adverse health effects associated with RF exposure. This includes exposure below current federal exposure limits. HHS also seeks evidence on possible environmental effects. The RFI asks how technologies such as 5G, 6G, Wi-Fi, satellite communications, IoT, wearables, smart homes and wireless medical devices may contribute to cumulative exposure.
• How to assess exposure? The RFI asks how researchers can characterise individual and population exposure and better reflect real-world conditions. It also asks which technical and exposure-related information manufacturers and other relevant parties should disclose to consumers, residents, workers, schools, healthcare providers and local governments.
• Are current standards and risk-assessment methods adequate? HHS asks respondents to identify relevant national and international exposure standards and to consider whether scientific, technical or regulatory changes could improve exposure assessment and regulation. It specifically raises characteristics such as frequency, power density, SAR, electric- and magnetic-field strength, modulation, pulse characteristics, duty cycle, beamforming, simultaneous exposure to multiple frequencies, duration, distance, proximity to the body and cumulative exposure.
• Should researchers consider particular populations separately? The RFI asks whether exposure assessment or risk evaluation should differ for children, pregnant women, older adults, people with implanted medical devices, workers with elevated occupational exposure and people with pre-existing medical conditions.
• What should be studied next? HHS asks respondents to identify the highest-priority research gaps and how federal agencies, including the FDA, NIH and CDC, could improve coordination of RF/EMF research.

The RFI also invites individuals and families to share experiences they believe may be associated with RF/EMF exposure, including the source, duration and timing of exposure, reported effects, changes in exposure, and any supporting documentation.

HHS separately invites clinicians, researchers and public-health practitioners to describe observations that could help identify patterns for further study. 

More information about the HHS RFI 

HHS press release: HHS Seeks Public Input on Electromagnetic Fields and Wireless Radiation

Federal Register notice (PDF): Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure

FCC context 

The HHS RFI does not specifically name the FCC in its questions about federal research coordination. The FCC, however, has separately opened a proceeding on RF-exposure issues related to the D.C. Circuit’s 2021 remand.

1. 2019: The FCC decided to retain its existing RF exposure limits rather than initiate a rulemaking to modify them.
2. 2021: The D.C. Circuit remanded the matter to the FCC, finding that the agency had not adequately explained its conclusions concerning several non-cancer health and environmental issues.
3. May 2026: petitioners filed a petition seeking to compel the FCC and FDA to comply with the 2021 remand.
4. August 26, 2026: the court ordered the FCC to respond to the petition, giving it 30 days to address the issues raised concerning compliance with the remand.
5. September 17, 2026: the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking comment on the RF exposure issues subject to the D.C. Circuit remand: FCC Public Notice DA 26-997 — RF Exposure Issues Subject to D.C. Circuit Remand

What does the FCC want commenters to examine?

• whether studies are methodologically rigorous and directly relevant to the issues remanded by the court;
• whether findings have been replicated;
• whether studies provide longitudinal evidence of non-cancer health effects or environmental effects;
• whether epidemiological studies account for widespread and long-term cellphone use;
• whether proposed biological mechanisms or markers actually demonstrate adverse health effects;
• whether studies distinguish correlation from causation;
• whether literature reviews assess the weight of scientific evidence;
• whether researchers use properly calibrated instruments, accepted exposure-assessment methods and adequate dosimetry;
• whether studies establish dose-response relationships and substantiate adverse health effects in humans at exposure levels below FCC limits;
• whether studies adequately address confounding, controls, blinding, sample size and representativeness; and
• whether laboratory or animal findings can reasonably be related to real-world U.S. exposures and human health.

The HHS RFI and the FCC proceeding address different aspects of the ongoing U.S. discussion of RF exposure and health. France’s ANSES has also launched a separate initiative, focused specifically on funding new research.

ANSES 2026 Research Programme: Radiofrequencies and Health — Call for Proposals

Extract only — see the full call for proposals in the PDF below.

• Deadline for submitting letters of intent: 1 October 2026 at noon. 
• Deadline for submitting complete applications: 11 March 2027 at noon.

Who can apply: All research teams, including international partners.
Requirement: One French academic partner

Two research calls are planned for 2027:

“Radiofrequencies and health”, and a second call covering a wide range of environmental and occupational health topics, excluding radiofrequencies.

ANSES places strong emphasis on methodological quality, particularly because the research may contribute to future expert assessments. The agency also prioritises research that policymakers could apply relatively quickly.

Scope of the Radiofrequency Research Call

The call focuses on the effects of radiofrequencies in the range from 8.3 kHz to 300 GHz.

For projects on electromagnetic hypersensitivity, researchers may consider a broader frequency range extending to lower frequencies. The call permits this broader range where it may help researchers understand the phenomenon.
The effects of electromagnetic fields can be studied for these fields alone or in combination with a cofactor.

Besides signals associated with current exposure, the call invites researchers to study new sources of exposure and associated signals. These include connected objects, 5G and satellite technologies, wireless energy transfer, and the various modulations used for mobile communication.

ANNEX 1: Research Questions

• Research on mechanisms of action of radiofrequencies at the molecular and cellular levels
• Research into the physiological or health effects of radiofrequencies
• Electromagnetic hypersensitivity / idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields
• Characterisation of exposure

Source: National Research Programme for Environmental and Occupational Health “Radiofrequencies and Health” 2026 Call for Proposals — ANSES
https://www.anses.fr/sites/default/files/GB-Texte_APREST_2026-RF.pdf

Neither the HHS RFI nor the ANSES research call represents a finding that current RF exposure standards are inadequate or that wireless technologies have been shown to cause specific health effects. They do, however, demonstrate that questions concerning RF exposure, health, exposure assessment and emerging wireless technologies remain active areas of government-supported evidence gathering and research. 

Related EMFSA Newsletter

For additional background and recent developments, see our Wireless Health & Environmental Safety August 2026 – EMFSA newsletter.

AI Assistance

AI tools were used in the preparation of this article for language editing, formatting, editorial assistance and research-support tasks. The author provided the subject matter, source material and editorial direction, and reviewed the information and factual claims. The final article was reviewed and approved by the author, who remains responsible for its accuracy, interpretation and presentation.

Image: Generated with Lumo AI (Proton). 

The post Electromagnetic Fields and Radiofrequency Radiation: U.S. HHS Seeks Public Input; France Calls for New Research appeared first on EMFSA.

Living very close to major high-voltage transmission lines is something we would investigate carefully before purchasing a property.

EMFSA | 14 September 2026

In this article, we look at:

• the type of EMF produced by high-voltage transmission lines;
• what the research tells us about possible health effects;
• new evidence concerning dementia;
• induced voltages, RF phenomena and audible noise;
• factors that could change exposure in the future; and
• practical property issues such as servitudes and resale considerations.

For a prospective homeowner, these issues raise several practical questions. What are the electromagnetic-field levels at the property? What does current research tell us about potential health effects? Could exposure change over time? And what other factors, such as transmission servitudes or future changes to the electricity network, could affect the property?

What type of EMF are we concerned about?

From an electromagnetic-field perspective, one of the principal considerations associated with high-voltage transmission lines is extremely low-frequency (ELF) magnetic fields, typically at the electricity supply frequency of 50 Hz in South Africa.

The electrical current flowing through the conductors produces the magnetic field. Unlike the electric field, which buildings and other structures can substantially affect, magnetic fields at these frequencies can pass through most common building materials with relatively little attenuation.

The strength of the magnetic field generally decreases as distance from the conductors increases. However, distance alone does not tell us what the exposure will be inside a particular property.

Current flowing through the transmission line varies according to electricity demand and other factors. Consequently, magnetic-field levels can vary over time. The configuration and height of the conductors, the number of circuits, the loading of the line and the position of the property relative to the conductors can all influence the resulting field.

Why 50 Hz?

South Africa’s electricity supply system operates at a nominal frequency of 50 Hz. Eskom states that its generators synchronise with the National Grid at 50 Hz and that its transmission network operates at several voltage levels, including 132 kV, 275 kV, 400 kV and 765 kV.[1]

This is why the electromagnetic-field assessment of a property close to a high-voltage transmission line focuses particularly on 50 Hz extremely low-frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields.

The 50 Hz refers to the frequency of the alternating current: the electrical waveform completes approximately 50 cycles per second. It does not indicate the voltage of the transmission line.

The alternating current produces the associated magnetic field, while the voltage between the conductors and ground produces an electric field. The strength of these fields at a particular property depends on a number of factors, including the line voltage, current, conductor configuration, height and geometry of the transmission line, and the property’s distance and position relative to the conductors.

What about induced voltages and radio-frequency interference?

A property close to a high-voltage transmission line can also experience electromagnetic coupling to nearby conductive structures. This is different from simply measuring the 50 Hz magnetic field in the environment.

A changing magnetic field can induce voltages and currents in nearby conductive circuits, while the electric field surrounding an energized transmission line can capacitively couple to isolated or poorly grounded metal structures. Depending on the geometry and electrical configuration, this can affect conductive structures such as fences, cables, pipes and other metal installations. Both inductive and capacitive coupling are well-established engineering phenomena.[2]

Electric fences: one example, particularly from an electrical-safety perspective

Research has specifically examined capacitive and inductive coupling between high-voltage power lines and electric-fence wires. In one recent study, the authors calculated induced voltages under a range of power-line and fence configurations and found that, for typical fence placements, the induced voltages were less than 15 V. They also recommended temporarily grounding fence lines during installation work.[3]

Large metal structures, including metal roofing

Large metal structures should not automatically be assumed to be electrically isolated from their surroundings. Whether a particular structure develops a measurable induced voltage depends on its geometry, proximity to the transmission line, grounding and bonding arrangements, and the electrical characteristics of the surrounding system.

Radio-frequency interference

High-voltage transmission lines and associated equipment can also produce radio-frequency interference (RFI). Corona discharge and other electrical phenomena associated with high-voltage equipment can generate electromagnetic interference over a range of radio frequencies.[4]

This is not the same as saying that a transmission line functions as a radio-frequency transmitter. RFI refers to unintended electromagnetic energy that can interfere with radio communications or electronic equipment. In some transmission systems, however, utilities also deliberately use radio-frequency signals on power conductors for communication, protection or control. These are known as power-line carrier systems.

These RF phenomena are distinct from the 50 Hz fields produced by the fundamental power-frequency current and voltage. They should therefore not be confused with the ordinary 50 Hz electric and magnetic fields associated with electricity transmission.

Different measurements answer different questions. A 50 Hz magnetic-field measurement does not, for example, determine whether an isolated metal structure has an induced voltage, nor does it characterise radio-frequency interference.

Consequently, where a property is immediately adjacent to a major transmission corridor, an assessment may need to consider more than simply the 50 Hz magnetic field. Depending on the site, it may be appropriate to investigate 50 Hz electric and magnetic fields, induced voltages on significant conductive structures, grounding and bonding arrangements, and, where there is a specific reason to do so, radio-frequency interference or other RF phenomena associated with the transmission infrastructure.

What does health research tell us?

The principal longstanding epidemiological concern regarding ELF magnetic fields has been childhood leukaemia.

Some epidemiological studies have reported an association between childhood leukaemia and long-term residential exposure to ELF magnetic fields in the region of approximately 0.3–0.4 µT and above.[5] However, this should not be interpreted as a proven biological threshold at which childhood leukaemia begins to occur.

It is also important to distinguish between studies that estimate exposure using distance from power lines and those that directly measure or model magnetic-field exposure. Distance is an imperfect proxy for magnetic-field exposure because field strength depends on factors such as line configuration and current loading. Some studies have reported associations with proximity that are not clearly explained by ELF magnetic-field exposure alone.[5]

The evidence has not established a causal relationship. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified ELF magnetic fields as Group 2B, “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based principally on the limited epidemiological evidence concerning childhood leukaemia.[6]

This classification does not mean that ELF magnetic fields have been demonstrated to cause childhood leukaemia. It reflects the level of evidence available to IARC at the time of its evaluation. IARC’s 2002 evaluation specifically concluded that there was limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of ELF magnetic fields in relation to childhood leukaemia, while evidence for other cancers was inadequate.[6]

New research: dementia mortality and high-voltage power lines

There is now another area of research worth following.

A very large nationwide Swiss cohort study published in 2026 investigated long-term residential exposure to magnetic fields from high-voltage power lines and mortality from several neurodegenerative diseases.[7]

The researchers followed 3,555,064 adults between 2001 and 2018, contributing approximately 55.4 million person-years of observation. They modelled long-term ELF magnetic-field exposure from high-voltage power lines using proximity-based exposure models and updated the models over several time periods.[7]

The researchers reported an association between estimated long-term exposure to magnetic fields from high-voltage power lines and mortality from Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias. They did not find corresponding associations for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Parkinson’s disease or multiple sclerosis.[7]

This is an interesting finding because of the size and duration of the study. However, it is important not to overinterpret the result.

The study was observational. An observational association does not establish that exposure to the magnetic field caused the disease.

The authors concluded that causal inference remains limited, including because an established biological mechanism has not been demonstrated.[7]

The appropriate conclusion is therefore that the study adds new epidemiological evidence that warrants further investigation, rather than demonstrating that living near a high-voltage power line causes dementia.

What does the broader evidence show?

A 2026 scoping review examined human and experimental research relating specifically to ELF-EMF exposure from high-voltage transmission lines and substations.[8]

The review mapped 51 primary empirical studies published between 1979 and 2025. It illustrates how broad and heterogeneous the research is. Different studies have examined different health outcomes, exposure levels, populations and methodologies.

This is important because the question is not simply whether any study has reported an association. The strength and consistency of the evidence, the quality of exposure assessment, possible confounding factors, biological plausibility and the ability of other researchers to reproduce findings all matter when assessing whether an association represents a causal relationship.

The review identified childhood leukaemia as the most frequently studied outcome, while evidence concerning neurodegenerative diseases was much more limited. The authors described the evidence concerning Alzheimer’s disease as suggestive but noted that evidence for other neurodegenerative outcomes remained insufficient.[8] Because this was a scoping review, the authors did not formally assess the quality or risk of bias of individual studies; the review was intended to map the available research rather than determine the strength or reliability of the reported associations.

Why actual measurement matters

For an individual property, we would not rely simply on the distance from the nearest pylon or transmission line.

A property that appears relatively close to a transmission line may have lower magnetic-field levels than expected, while another property at a greater distance may have higher levels depending on the configuration and loading of the line.

We would therefore recommend measuring the 50 Hz magnetic fields at the actual property, particularly in bedrooms and other areas where people spend substantial amounts of time.

A single measurement, however, provides only a snapshot.

Because the current flowing through a transmission line varies, magnetic-field levels can also vary during the day and over longer periods. Where the result is important to a purchasing decision, measurements at different times or longer-term monitoring may provide a more representative picture of the exposure.

It is also important to recognise that a magnetic-field measurement cannot, by itself, determine induced voltages on nearby conductive structures or characterise RF interference. Those questions require appropriate measurements or engineering assessment.

At present, the evidence does not establish that ELF magnetic-field exposure from high-voltage transmission lines causes dementia or other neurodegenerative diseases.

The same caution applies to the longstanding childhood-leukaemia findings: the epidemiological association remains an important unresolved issue, but causation has not been established.

Building Biology Guidelines

In our property assessments, we may also interpret measurements in relation to the Building Biology Guidelines, which provide precautionary reference levels intended for living and sleeping environments.

These values are generally considerably more precautionary than regulatory or public-exposure reference levels.

It is important to understand what this means — and what it does not mean.

Exceeding a Building Biology reference value does not establish that a health effect will occur, nor does it demonstrate that a property is unsafe. These are precautionary reference values rather than scientifically established disease thresholds.

Their purpose is to provide a more precautionary framework for evaluating exposure in environments where people live and sleep.

We have measured properties and areas where 50 Hz magnetic-field levels exceeded the Building Biology reference values. This is one reason we prefer to assess the actual exposure at a property, rather than making assumptions based solely on distance from a transmission line.

Could the exposure change in the future?

There is another consideration that is sometimes overlooked when purchasing a property close to a major transmission corridor.

The present magnetic-field level is not necessarily the level that will exist throughout the lifetime of the property.

Transmission lines can operate at different loading levels depending on electricity demand and network conditions. Transmission infrastructure may also be upgraded, reinforced or modified.

Because magnetic-field strength is related to the current flowing through the conductors, increased loading can result in higher magnetic-field levels.

For this reason, where appropriate, we would recommend finding out whether there are any known or proposed changes affecting the particular transmission corridor, such as:

• upgrading or uprating of the line;
• reconductoring;
• additional circuits;
• changes to transmission capacity; or
• other planned infrastructure developments.

When purchasing a property, it may be worthwhile obtaining information directly from the relevant electricity transmission authority rather than assuming that the present configuration will remain unchanged indefinitely.

Audible noise from transmission lines

There is also a practical consideration that is separate from the health evidence concerning ELF magnetic fields: audible noise from the transmission line.

High-voltage transmission lines can produce audible noise as a result of corona discharge around the conductors. Depending on the characteristics of the line and the conditions, this may be perceived as a low-frequency hum, crackling, hissing or similar sounds. Corona discharge is an important source of audible noise from high-voltage overhead transmission lines.

The level of audible noise can be affected by factors including conductor design, conductor surface condition, electric-field intensity at the conductor surface and weather conditions. Noise can be more pronounced under particular wet-weather conditions and, depending on the line and environment, may also be significant under dry conditions.

This is not simply a theoretical consideration in the South African context. A 2026 CIGRE publication specifically examining South Africa’s 765 kV transmission network discusses audible-noise performance in relation to conductor design, corona activity, altitude and wet and dry weather conditions.[9]

For a prospective purchaser, this is another reason why a property should ideally not be assessed only during one short site visit under favourable weather conditions. If a transmission line is very close to the property, it may be useful to visit the site under different weather conditions and, where appropriate, consider an acoustic assessment.

It is important to distinguish this established physical phenomenon from the separate corona-ion hypothesis sometimes discussed in relation to possible health effects. The fact that corona discharge can produce audible noise does not, in itself, demonstrate that corona ions cause adverse health effects.

Corona ions: another proposed concern

The corona phenomenon also gives rise to another, quite different question: whether corona ions could have health effects.

High-voltage transmission lines can produce corona ions, particularly under certain weather conditions.

A hypothesis has been proposed that these ions could interact with airborne pollutants and potentially influence health. Research has investigated this possibility, including in relation to childhood cancer.[10]

However, epidemiological research has not provided evidence supporting the corona-ion hypothesis as an explanation for the observed childhood leukaemia pattern near high-voltage power lines. In a 2014 study, Swanson et al. found that their corona-ion exposure model explained the observed pattern less well than straightforward distance from power lines. The authors concluded that their findings did not support the hypothesis, although they noted that the study did not definitively disprove it.[10]

The corona-ion hypothesis therefore remains unestablished and should not be presented as a demonstrated health effect.

We would not treat the corona-ion hypothesis in the same way as the more extensively studied question of ELF magnetic-field exposure.

Property value and resale considerations

There is also a non-health consideration.

Properties immediately adjacent to major transmission lines may have a smaller pool of prospective buyers. In some circumstances this can affect market value or the time required to sell a property.

However, this varies considerably according to location, property type, visual impact, buyer preferences and the local property market.

We would therefore not recommend assuming a particular percentage reduction in property value simply because a property is near a transmission line.

If this is an important consideration, an independent property valuer can assess comparable properties and local sales data.

Check the transmission servitude

Investigate the transmission servitude carefully before purchasing.

A servitude gives the holder specified rights over another person’s land for a particular purpose. Eskom’s documentation explains that a servitude is registered in the Deeds Office against the property’s title and gives Eskom specified rights in relation to the electricity infrastructure.[11]

The estate agent may be able to provide information, but we would recommend having the conveyancer verify the position and conditions of the registered servitude against the title deed and the relevant servitude documentation. The precise legal effect of a servitude depends on the registered instrument and the circumstances of the property.

For a prospective purchaser, it is particularly important to establish the servitude registration number and obtain the underlying servitude deed so that the applicable restrictions can be checked before purchasing.[12]

Among other things, the purchaser should establish whether existing or proposed buildings, extensions, pools, garages, trees or other structures could fall within the servitude area or interfere with the electricity utility’s rights of access, operation and maintenance.

This is a legal and property matter rather than an EMF health assessment, but it can be extremely important when purchasing land affected by a major transmission corridor.

Eskom restructuring and transmission servitudes

Eskom has undergone structural unbundling of its transmission business. The National Transmission Company South Africa (NTCSA) was established as a separate Eskom subsidiary, and the transmission division, including its assets and associated obligations, was transferred to NTCSA.[13]

This restructuring does not mean that an existing registered transmission servitude over private property simply falls away. The Deeds Registries Act requires the Registrar to register servitudes and record any modification or extinction of a registered servitude.[14]

The practical implication for a prospective property purchaser is therefore not to assume that a servitude is no longer relevant because the transmission business has moved from Eskom to NTCSA. The registered servitude remains an important property and land-use consideration, while the entity currently responsible for the relevant transmission infrastructure should be confirmed as part of the purchaser’s due diligence.

What should a prospective purchaser do?

Living near a high-voltage transmission line does not automatically mean that a property is unsafe, and scientific evidence does not support drawing such a conclusion simply from proximity.

At the same time, we should not dismiss proximity as irrelevant. For a prospective purchaser, the important question is not simply how close the property is to a transmission line, but what the combination of measured exposure, scientific evidence and property-specific factors means in practice.

We would consider four separate questions:

1. What is the actual 50 Hz magnetic-field exposure at the property?

Measurements should ideally include bedrooms and other areas where occupants spend substantial amounts of time, with consideration given to variation over time.

2. Could conditions change in the future?

The present loading and configuration of the transmission line may not necessarily remain unchanged throughout the lifetime of the property.

3. Are there property and legal considerations?

The potential effect on resale, as well as the precise requirements and restrictions associated with any registered transmission servitude, should be investigated independently.

4. How should the scientific evidence be interpreted?

The epidemiological evidence concerning childhood leukaemia remains unresolved. The new 2026 Swiss study provides an important additional finding concerning dementia mortality, but it is an association from an observational study and does not establish causation.

The practical approach, therefore, is to measure rather than assume, assess the evidence rather than overstate it, and consider future and property-specific factors rather than relying on distance alone.

The presence of a transmission line warrants investigation, but it does not by itself establish either safety or danger.

References

1. Eskom. Roles of Voltage and Frequency in the Transmission of Electricity, Rev. 9. Eskom documentation concerning the 50 Hz National Grid and transmission voltage levels. Eskom publication

2. CIGRE. (2020). Guidelines for safe work on cable systems under induced voltages or currents. Technical Brochure 801, WG B1.44. Electra, No. 310. Guidance concerning inductive, capacitive and conductive coupling. CIGRE/Electra guidance

3. Panescu D, Loud J, Kroll MW. (2025). Electric Security Fences for Power Substations: Electrical Safety of Induced Potentials. Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2025, 1–7. DOI: 10.1109/EMBC58623.2025.11253592. PMID: 41335819. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41335819/

4. IEC/CISPR. (2017). CISPR TR 18-1:2017 — Radio interference characteristics of overhead power lines and high-voltage equipment – Part 1: Description of phenomena. International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC publication https://webstore.iec.ch/en/publication/28769

5. ARPANSA. Proximity to overhead power lines and childhood leukaemia. Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. https://www.arpansa.gov.au/proximity-overhead-power-lines-and-childhood-leukaemia

6. IARC. (2002). Non-ionizing Radiation, Part 1: Static and Extremely Low-frequency (ELF) Electric and Magnetic Fields. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 80. International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC publication

7. Sandoval-Diez N, Loizeau N, Huss A, Röösli M, Vienneau D. (2026). Long-term residential magnetic field exposure and neurodegenerative disease mortality: An 18-year nationwide cohort study in Switzerland. Environment International, 208, 110145. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2026.110145. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412026001030?via%3Dihub

8. Todorović P, et al. (2026). Health Effects of Extremely Low-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure From High-Voltage Power Lines and Substations: A Scoping Review of Primary Empirical Research. IEEE Access, 14, 38447–38459. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2026.3671962.

Full text: Author version (open access)

9. Khan R, Burger A, Singh R. (2026). Addressing audible noise challenges in the integration of the 6 × IEC 315 conductor on South Africa’s 765 kV transmission network. CIGRE Session Materials, Ref. B2_10727_2026. CIGRE publication

10. Swanson J, Bunch KJ, Vincent TJ, Murphy MFG. (2014). Childhood cancer and exposure to corona ions from power lines: an epidemiological test. Journal of Radiological Protection, 34(4), 873–889. DOI: 10.1088/0952-4746/34/4/873. PMID: 25356811. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0952-4746/34/4/873

11. Eskom. Access to Farms. Eskom Transmission, Unique Identifier 41-340, Revision 1. Documentation concerning access to land over which Eskom holds servitudes. Eskom defines a servitude as the right to use another person’s land for a specified purpose and states that the right is registered in the Deeds Office and attached to the property’s title deed. Eskom servitude documentation

12. Uys G. (2016). Eskom power lines and you – Part 1. Farmer’s Weekly, 19 August 2016. Practical information concerning Eskom power-line servitudes and checking the registered servitude and underlying deed before purchasing property. Farmer’s Weekly article

13. Eskom Holdings SOC Limited. (2024). Further announcement in respect of the transfer of the transmission division. https://www.eskom.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/20240426_Eskom_further_announcement_re_NTCSA_transaction.pdf

14. South Africa. (1937). Deeds Registries Act 47 of 1937, Section 3(1)(o), as amended. SAFLII — Deeds Registries Act https://www.saflii.org/za/legis/consol_act/dra1937172/index.html

*Photo by Andrey Metelev on Unsplash 

AI disclosure

AI tools were used in the preparation of this article for language editing, formatting, editorial assistance and limited research-support tasks. Sources and factual claims were reviewed by the author, and the final article was reviewed and approved by the author. The author remains responsible for the accuracy, interpretation and presentation of the information.

The post Living Near High-Voltage Power Lines: What Does the New Research Tell Us? appeared first on EMFSA.

Wireless Health & Environmental Safety continues to be an important focus of our work at EMFSA. Our August 2026 edition highlights practical resources and significant new developments in environmental and health research, including a major French research call that specifically includes electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), alongside new research on nuclear power and cancer, military aviation and cancer, surveillance-related anxiety, and directed energy weapons. 

Published by EMFSA | 31st August 2026

Safer Screentime Course

Our Finnish and US colleagues have developed the Safer Screentime e-learning course — practical training on safer use of wireless technology in homes, workplaces, schools and other public buildings.

The course covers:

• Ergonomic practices for healthier device habits
• Practical tips for using different mobile and wireless devices more safely
• Energy-saving measures to reduce unnecessary energy consumption

Cost: ~ US$15

Duration: Approximately 1 hour

Certificate: Certificate of completion included

Nuclear Power Plants

Nuclear energy is surging—but should potential health impacts be watched more closely?

Two US studies found positive associations between proximity to nuclear power plants and cancer. Another study, using measured ambient radiation, found no statistically significant association.

So, are the findings contradictory?

How much do measurement methods matter when assessing radiation exposure risks? What do the latest peer-reviewed studies from 2025–2026 actually tell us about the epidemiological evidence?

ANSES 2026 Research Call on Radiofrequencies and Health

The French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES) has launched a 2026 research programme specifically addressing radiofrequencies and health—with one area dedicated to Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity / Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance.

• Why does a dedicated research call matter for those experiencing Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity / Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance?
• What questions should researchers prioritize when studying the physiological effects of wireless radiation?
• How might findings from this research contribute to future expert assessments and policy decisions?
• What does the inclusion of Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity / Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance as a distinct research area signal about current scientific understanding?

Military Aviators, Cancer and Non-Ionizing Radiation

A new study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine—the Aviator Cancer Examination Study (ACES)—is examining whether military aviation exposures may be associated with cancer among U.S. veterans who served as fixed-wing aircrew from 1990 onward. Earlier Department of Defense research found higher incidence of several cancers, including melanoma, thyroid and prostate cancers.

Non-ionizing radiation is one of the exposure considerations relevant to this investigation.

• What role does non-ionizing radiation play in understanding cancer risks among military aircrew?
• How will the ACES study characterize exposures related to frequencies and electromagnetic fields?
• What do earlier findings on higher cancer incidence among military aviators tell us about potential occupational hazards?
• Why is radiofrequency and radar exposure an important factor to track in ongoing investigations?

Feared Surveillance: Paranoia or a Reality?

A recent article published by MDLinx examines how concerns about surveillance—including the use of Flock cameras—may contribute to anxiety and hypervigilance, and argues that clinicians should not automatically dismiss such concerns as paranoia.

Read the full article: https://www.mdlinx.com/article/flock-cameras-are-fueling-surveillance-anxiety-and-complicating-psychiatric-care/7EThzSKy0OJIlY6ZnFhzbm

Directed Energy Weapons and Military Health: What Does the Evidence Show?

A new scoping review examines the medical challenges associated with directed energy weapons (DEWs) in military settings. The review looks at limited published evidence on injuries from high-energy lasers and high-power microwave systems, including burns, eye injuries, and damage to deeper tissues that may not be immediately visible.

Reference: McNairn J, Blaskovits F, St Onge M, Coleby J, Khan A, Dhillon P. Unveiling the spectrum: Understanding directed energy weapon injuries and military health care implications. J Mil Veteran Fam Health. 2026;12(2):89–100. Published 27 March 2026.

Open access: https://utppublishing.com/doi/10.3138/jmvfh-2025-0041

• What medical challenges arise for military health care providers dealing with directed energy weapon injuries?
• How might clinical guidance evolve as directed energy technologies become more widespread in military settings?
• What does the current evidence suggest about potential injuries—and what gaps remain in our understanding?
• How do researchers balance publicly available information with the limitations of accessing classified military data?

Each of these topics has more to unpack—read the full versions in our August 2026 newsletter.

We greatly appreciate your interest in the work we share and, equally, the comments, questions and insights you contribute.

Electromagnetic Fields South Africa (EMFSA)
www.emfsa.co.za

Contact us at https://www.emfsa.co.za/contact/

The post Wireless Health & Environmental Safety August 2026 – EMFSA appeared first on EMFSA.

Published by EMFSA | 26th August 2026

The relationship between nuclear power plants and cancer remains an important question in environmental health research. 

Historical nuclear incidents continue to shape public concern, while research into possible health effects associated with low-level radiation exposure around nuclear facilities faces substantial methodological challenges, including long latency periods for some cancers, exposure misclassification, confounding, ecological-study limitations and limited statistical power to detect associations for less common cancers.  

Continued health surveillance around nuclear facilities remains important, particularly as interest in nuclear energy grows. This post examines three recent peer-reviewed studies investigating cancer outcomes in relation to nuclear power facilities, focusing on their study designs, findings and limitations.

Three Studies at a Glance

Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant, China

Researchers measured external ambient radiation around Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant and examined cancer mortality in Haiyan County. The study found no statistically significant association between nuclear plant operation, environmental radiation levels and cancer mortality within its study framework.

National US Study

Researchers examined cancer mortality across US counties from 2000–2018 using geographic proximity to multiple nuclear power plants as a proxy for exposure. The study reported positive associations between proximity and cancer mortality, particularly among older adults.

Massachusetts Study

Researchers examined cancer incidence across Massachusetts ZIP codes from 2000–2018, again using geographic proximity to nuclear facilities as a proxy for exposure. The study reported positive associations between proximity and cancer incidence, particularly among older adults.

The key distinction: The Qinshan study measured external ambient radiation, whereas the two US studies used geographic proximity as an exposure proxy. 

Living closer to a nuclear power plant does not necessarily mean receiving a higher radiation dose.

Study 1: Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant, China

Study Design

The researchers conducted an ecological and descriptive study of external ambient radiation around Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant (QNPP) Phase I from 2010–2023. They compared the period before the Phase I project’s service extension (2010–2021) with the post-extension period (2022–2023).

They also examined cancer mortality among residents of Haiyan County from 2012–2022.

The study used data from 30 ambient radiation monitoring stations and included age-specific dose and risk calculations based on population-derived occupancy factors.

Authors’ Conclusion

The authors found no statistically significant association between the service-extension period and cancer mortality trends, while reported ambient radiation remained at background levels. 

Importantly, the authors frame this as an absence of a detectable association within the study’s framework, rather than definitive evidence that nuclear plant operation cannot have biological effects. They recommend continued long-term monitoring.

Key Limitations

• Ecological design: The analysis was conducted at the population level and cannot establish a causal relationship between radiation exposure and individual cancer outcomes.
• External exposure only: Internal exposure pathways, including ingestion or inhalation of radionuclides, were not assessed.
• Limited statistical power: The relatively small number of deaths from some specific cancers, particularly leukemia and thyroid cancer, limits the study’s ability to detect modest associations.
• Short post-extension follow-up: The 2022–2023 period is much shorter than the latency period associated with many radiation-related cancers.

What This Study Adds

The study provides data spanning the period before and after the Phase I project’s service extension and adds to the relatively limited epidemiological literature examining low-dose radiation around operating nuclear facilities. It also provides baseline data for future monitoring and comparative studies.

The researchers reported that ambient radiation remained at background levels, while estimated annual effective doses and excess risks remained below applicable standard limits. 

Source: Li Y, Cao Y, Zhang X, et al. External ambient radiation exposure and cancer mortality trends around Qinshan nuclear power plant phase I: long-term study before and after service extension. Frontiers in Public Health. 2026;14:1780605. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2026.1780605. Full article

Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).

Two US Studies: A Different Approach

The two recent US studies examined cancer outcomes in relation to geographic proximity to nuclear power plants rather than measuring environmental radiation directly.

This difference is important.

The Qinshan researchers used physical monitoring stations to measure external ambient radiation around a specific facility. By contrast, the US studies estimated proximity using the distance between population locations and nuclear facilities.

Because individual radiation doses were not available in these datasets, proximity provided a practical way to investigate whether cancer patterns varied geographically in relation to nuclear facilities.

A proximity measure is therefore an indirect exposure proxy, not a measurement of individual radiation dose. Actual radiation exposure can depend on factors such as radioactive releases, environmental transport, meteorological conditions, exposure pathways and individual behaviour. Because the US studies did not measure radiation releases or individual radiation doses, they cannot establish that differences in proximity corresponded to differences in actual radiation exposure.

The US studies also differed from Qinshan in scale. The national study examined cancer mortality across US counties, while the Massachusetts study examined cancer incidence at the finer ZIP-code level.

These differences mean the studies should not simply be viewed as contradictory. They investigated different populations and outcomes and used fundamentally different approaches to exposure assessment.

Study 2: National US Cancer Mortality Study

Study Design

The researchers conducted an observational ecological study examining the relationship between long-term proximity to nuclear power plants and cancer mortality across US counties from 2000–2018.

Cancer mortality was analyzed across six adult age groups, separately for males and females.

Proximity estimation used a continuous inverse-distance-weighted metric. It incorporated operational nuclear power plants within 200 km of each county centre. 

A 10-year average proximity measure was used to characterize longer-term proximity to nuclear power plants, reflecting the study’s consideration of long-term exposure patterns.

The analysis adjusted for a range of county-level socioeconomic, demographic, behavioral, environmental and healthcare factors.

Authors’ Conclusion

The authors reported that counties closer to operational nuclear power plants had higher cancer mortality rates.

Figure 4 showed the highest model-estimated relative risks at the shortest equivalent plant distances. 

The authors describe these findings as a spatial association rather than proof of causation and call for further research into potential exposure pathways, cancer latency and cancer-specific risks.

Key Limitations

• County-level exposure and residential mobility: Proximity was calculated using county centres and therefore cannot capture where individuals actually lived within a county. The study also did not incorporate individual residential histories, so proximity estimates may not reflect where people lived throughout the study period, potentially leading to exposure misclassification.
• Proximity is only a proxy: The study did not measure individual radiation doses or establish that people living closer to plants received greater radiation exposure.
• Aggregate cancer outcome: The primary outcome was mortality from all malignant cancers combined rather than cancer-specific mortality.
• Residual confounding: Although the analysis adjusted for numerous county-level factors, ecological studies cannot account for every individual-level factor that may influence cancer risk.

What This Study Adds

The study provides national-scale data over 19 years and uses a continuous proximity metric rather than a simple near/far classification. It also incorporates proximity to multiple nuclear power plants and uses a 10-year average measure to examine longer-term proximity patterns.

The observed associations provide a basis for further investigation into potential exposure pathways, cancer-specific risks and latency.

An Author Correction to this article was published on 13 April 2026, and the article has been updated accordingly.

Source: Alwadi Y, Alahmad B, Vieira CLZ, et al. National analysis of cancer mortality and proximity to nuclear power plants in the United States. Nature Communications. 2026;17:1560. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-026-69285-4. Full article

Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).

Study 3: Cancer Incidence in Massachusetts

Study Design

The researchers examined cancer incidence across Massachusetts ZIP codes from 2000–2018 using data from the Massachusetts Cancer Registry.

They used two analytical approaches: longitudinal generalized estimating equation (GEE) Poisson regression for all cancers combined and cross-sectional log-linear Poisson regression for site-specific cancers.

Proximity was estimated using a cumulative inverse-distance-weighted metric incorporating seven nuclear facilities within 120 km.

The analysis incorporated demographic, socioeconomic, environmental and healthcare covariates, including PM2.5, and was stratified by sex and four age groups: 45–54, 55–64, 65–74 and 75+.

Authors’ Conclusion

The authors reported positive associations between residential proximity to nuclear power plants and cancer incidence in Massachusetts, particularly among older adults.

They reported significant positive associations for all cancers combined among people aged 55 and older in both sexes. Relative risks declined with increasing distance and became negligible beyond approximately 25 km.

The authors also reported associations involving several specific cancer types, including lung, prostate, breast, colorectal, bladder, melanoma, leukemia, thyroid, uterine, kidney, laryngeal, pancreatic, oral and esophageal cancers, as well as Hodgkin lymphoma.

The researchers estimated that 20,618 cancer cases could be attributable to proximity under their model assumptions, including 10,815 among females and 9,803 among males. Estimated attributable fractions reached up to 6.3% among females aged 75+.

These attributable estimates require an important qualification: they are model-derived estimates based on the assumption that the observed associations are causal. They should not be interpreted as numbers of cancer cases proven to have been caused by nuclear power plant exposure.

Key Limitations

• Ecological design: ZIP codes provide finer spatial resolution than counties, but the analysis still cannot determine individual exposure. This creates the potential for ecological fallacy: associations observed at the ZIP-code level cannot necessarily be assumed to apply to individuals.
• Proximity as an exposure proxy: The study did not measure individual radiation doses.
• Residential mobility: The study did not incorporate individual residential histories, so ZIP-code proximity may not accurately represent where individuals lived throughout the study period, potentially leading to exposure misclassification.
• Residual confounding: Adjustment for numerous demographic, socioeconomic, environmental and healthcare variables cannot eliminate the possibility that unmeasured factors influenced the results.
• Cancer-specific interpretation: Different cancers have different latency periods and radiation sensitivities, complicating interpretation of both pooled and site-specific associations.
• Childhood cancers: Sparse data prevented meaningful analysis of pediatric outcomes.
• Occupational exposure: The ecological design could not distinguish residents with occupational exposure at nuclear facilities from the broader residential population.

What This Study Adds

The Massachusetts study provides finer geographic resolution than the national US analysis and examines cancer incidence rather than mortality, capturing newly diagnosed cancers regardless of subsequent survival.

It also uses a continuous inverse-distance-weighted proximity metric and includes sensitivity analyses using alternative distance thresholds and temporal averaging windows.

The broadly similar associations reported in this study and the national analysis are noteworthy and merit further investigation.

Source: Alwadi Y, Evans JS, Schwartz J, Vieira CLZ, Christiani DC, Coull BA, Koutrakis P. Residential proximity to nuclear power plants and cancer incidence in Massachusetts, USA (2000–2018). Environmental Health. 2025 Dec 18;24(1):92. DOI: 10.1186/s12940-025-01248-6. PMID: 41408632; PMCID: PMC12713251. PubMed

© The Author(s) 2025. Open Access — licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).

The Two US Studies: Related but Not Independent Replications

The Massachusetts cancer-incidence study and the national cancer-mortality study are closely connected. Both share lead author Yazan Alwadi and colleagues from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and examine the same broad 2000–2018 period.

They nevertheless examine different populations and outcomes.

The Massachusetts study uses ZIP-code-level cancer incidence and seven nearby nuclear facilities. The national study examines cancer mortality across US counties, providing much broader geographic coverage but at a coarser spatial resolution.

The studies are therefore complementary, but they should not be regarded as independent replications. They share authorship, study period and a similar proximity-based exposure framework.

Their broadly similar associations are noteworthy and merit further investigation, but they do not resolve the central question of causation.

What Can We Conclude From These Studies?

Taken together, these studies illustrate why determining whether nuclear power plants contribute to cancer risk remains scientifically challenging.

The Qinshan study used measured external ambient radiation around a single nuclear facility and found no statistically significant association with cancer mortality within its study framework. However, its relatively small population, limited number of cancer deaths and short post-extension follow-up constrain what can be concluded about rare cancers and long-latency effects.

The two US studies examined much larger populations and reported positive associations between geographic proximity to nuclear facilities and cancer mortality or incidence. Their larger datasets provide greater statistical power to detect associations, but their proximity measures did not establish individual radiation exposure. 

Even within the US studies that reported statistically significant overall associations, some age groups had confidence intervals that included 1.0, indicating that the evidence was not equally strong across all demographic strata. This reinforces why the overall findings should be interpreted cautiously. 

This distinction is critical.

An association between geographic proximity and cancer does not, by itself, demonstrate that radiation from a nuclear power plant caused the cancer.

People living near nuclear facilities may differ from people living farther away in ways that are difficult to fully capture in ecological studies. At the same time, proximity may not accurately represent an individual’s actual radiation exposure.

The evidence therefore does not provide a simple yes-or-no answer.

The Qinshan study does not establish that nuclear power plant operation cannot be associated with cancer risk. Conversely, the US studies do not establish that proximity to nuclear power plants causes cancer.

What they do provide are different pieces of epidemiological evidence: one study based on measured external ambient radiation around a single facility, and two large US studies based on geographic proximity as an exposure proxy.

What Would Strengthen the Evidence?

Research that could substantially strengthen the evidence would involve independent studies with larger populations, individual residential histories, cancer-specific analyses, measured or modelled radiation doses, assessment of relevant exposure pathways and appropriate consideration of cancer latency.

Such research would help determine whether the geographic associations reported in the US studies correspond to differences in actual radiation exposure—and whether those differences could plausibly explain the observed cancer patterns.

For now, the most defensible conclusion is that the studies identify associations that warrant further investigation, but they do not establish that radiation from nuclear power plants caused the observed cancers.

* Illustration by Design Nation on Unsplash 

The post Nuclear Power Plants and Cancer appeared first on EMFSA.

EMFSA 14th August 2026

This article presents our interpretation of the Jalilian et al. study published in Environmental Research (2026). We aim to summarise the findings accurately while highlighting important methodological caveats that may not be immediately apparent from reading the original paper.

What Was Measured?

The Swiss Study on 5G Adolescent RF Exposure—led by Jalilian et al.—measured personal RF-EMF exposure in 143 Swiss adolescents (mean age 13.5 years) during approximately 72-hour periods between June 2023 and January 2025.

Participants carried an ExpoM-RF4 exposimeter measuring 35 frequency bands from 80 MHz–6 GHz, including mobile-network signals, Wi-Fi/Bluetooth, broadcast and DECT.

Key Findings

Main exposure levels:

• 24-hour mean exposure: 0.09 mW/m²
• Peak exposure time: Afternoon (0.12 mW/m²)
• Lowest exposure time: Night (0.06 mW/m²)

Source contributions to total exposure:

• Wi-Fi/Bluetooth: 35% (largest contributor)
• Broadcast (FM/DAB): 31%
• Mobile uplink: 19%
• Mobile downlink: 10%
• TDD bands (used as an indicator of 5G-related exposure): 4%
• DECT: 0.7%

Average exposure by environment:

• Transport systems: 0.47 mW/m² (highest)
• Outdoor: 0.27 mW/m²
• School: 0.08 mW/m²
• Home: 0.07 mW/m² (lowest)

What Does This Tell Us About 5G?

According to the authors, despite widespread 5G deployment in Switzerland (~99% population coverage by 2025), overall personal exposure among adolescents remains similar to pre-5G levels.

The TDD bands used by the authors as an indicator of 5G-related exposure averaged only 0.003 mW/m².

But there’s an important caveat. The authors explicitly acknowledge that the study cannot provide a causal estimate of the independent effect of 5G deployment. In short, this study shows exposure levels after 5G rollout, not what 5G caused.

Why Was Transport Exposure Highest?

Transport systems showed the highest average RF-EMF exposure at 0.47 mW/m², compared with 0.08 mW/m² at school and 0.07 mW/m² at home.

Several factors may help explain the higher measurements:

• Mobile-network activity: Uplink, downlink and TDD exposure were substantially higher in transport.
• Network characteristics: The authors suggest that differences between environments may reflect network density and infrastructure.
• User activity: Greater mobile-phone use and the presence of multiple active devices may contribute to higher uplink exposure.
• Train environments: Mean exposure in trains reached up to 0.89 mW/m², the highest value reported for a specific transport setting.

The authors suggest that network characteristics and user behaviour may both contribute to the elevated transport exposure. However, as discussed in the Important Limitations section below, the measurements cannot determine precisely how much originated from passengers’ phones versus network infrastructure. 

Important Limitations

Near-body exposure may be underestimated

The exposimeter does not capture total RF-EMF exposure from all sources. The authors explain that personal exposimeters have reduced ability to measure signals from sources very close to the body, particularly the participant’s own mobile phone and other wireless personal devices. Consequently, the measurements primarily characterise environmental RF-EMF exposure rather than total exposure from all sources. Exposure from devices operating close to the body is therefore likely to be underestimated.

5G-user classification did not confirm actual 5G use

The study classified participants as potential 5G-users if they had both a 5G-compatible smartphone and an active 5G subscription. This classification identified eligibility to use 5G, but did not confirm that a participant’s own phone actually connected to or transmitted on a 5G network during the measurement period.

Participants’ own smartphones were not reported as restricted

The researchers provided a separate Android smartphone for the electronic diary and kept that device in flight mode. However, the paper does not report that they required participants to switch off, disable, or otherwise restrict their own smartphones or other personal wireless devices during the measurement period. This distinction matters because the exposimeter may underestimate exposure from devices operating close to the body, including participants’ own phones.

Additional methodological considerations:

• The study applied corrections for charging effects, crosstalk and an anomalously high Wi-Fi measurement. Charging-effect correction reduced mean FM exposure by approximately 82% and DAB exposure by 61%. The correction reduced overall mean Wi-Fi exposure by approximately 45%, largely because one participant had an unusually high Wi-Fi measurement.
• A single ExpoM-RF4 measurement has an uncertainty of ±34.1%; averaging multiple measurements reduces this uncertainty.
• Only 143 participants from German-speaking Switzerland
• The study used TDD bands as an indicator of 5G-related exposure, but this approach does not capture all possible 5G exposure.

Does This Establish Safety?

No. This is an exposure-characterisation study, not a health-effects study. It was not designed to determine whether RF-EMF causes disease or to establish a biological threshold. The authors note that measured levels fell below current ICNIRP guideline values, but the study was not designed to draw conclusions about health risks. “Below guideline limits” should not be rewritten as proof that there is no health risk.

A separate 2026 Swiss study examined ambient RF-EMF exposure during the 5G rollout. It found that overall median RF-EMF levels remained broadly stable or increased only slightly between 2021/22 and 2023/24, while median TDD exposure, associated with 5G, increased from virtually zero to 0.04 V/m.

Reference: Loizeau, N., Haas, D., Zahner, M. et al. Spatiotemporal trends of ambient radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) during the 5G rollout in Switzerland. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-026-00909-z

These findings provide useful context for interpreting the present study:although overall ambient RF-EMF levels did not substantially increase, TDD exposure related to 5G did increase. This reinforces the importance of distinguishing between overall RF-EMF exposure and exposure specifically associated with 5G.

Bottom Line

The data from this useful and reasonably well-designed exposure-monitoring study support its central finding: environmental RF-EMF exposure among these adolescents was broadly comparable with earlier pre-5G HERMES measurements. But it cannot establish that 5G has not increased RF exposure generally, cannot quantify total individual RF exposure, and cannot demonstrate that the measured exposure levels are biologically or medically harmless.

The dominance of WiFi/BT and uplink signals highlights the contribution of personal device use to overall measured RF-EMF exposure.

Reference: Jalilian H, Jaki Waibl V, Wipf I, et al. Personal radio frequency electromagnetic field exposure among Swiss adolescents in the 5G era. Environmental Research, 2026, 304: 124775. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2026.124775 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2026.124775

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

*Edited Unsplash photograph (original by Lesli Whitecotton on Unsplash). Faces intentionally obscured to protect subject privacy. Used for illustrative purposes only; the individuals depicted are not study participants in the Jalilian et al. (2026) study.

The post Swiss Study on 5G Adolescent RF Exposure appeared first on EMFSA.

The EMFSA Environmental Health Update: July 2026 brings together research, regulation, and reporting across electromagnetic fields, climate, and public health. From electrical safety hazards facing children to Italian court rulings on the precautionary principle, this edition covers a wide range of topics relevant to environmental health in South Africa and beyond.

Published by EMFSA | 1st August 2026

Children and Electrical Safety

Our lead story examines electrical hazards facing children that extend far beyond wall sockets. From button batteries in greeting cards to lithium-ion fires in e-scooters, the risks span everyday products, wearable tech, and viral social media trends. This article synthesizes recent medical case reports, regulatory updates, and safety guidance — from water safety to e-bikes, LED illumination, and social media challenges.

Mobile Network Exposure Follows Human Activity

A new study tracking RF-EMF exposure across ten European countries found that mobile network radiation rises and falls in lockstep with human activity. Nighttime levels dropped by up to 48% compared to daytime peaks. Over 17 months of continuous monitoring, researchers documented predictable daily cycles and modest weekend dips. It’s a reminder that a quick spot measurement can miss the bigger picture. [Read a breakdown of the study.]

Heat, Climate, and Technology

This month’s newsletter explores three interconnected climate stories.

• First: heat domes in the U.S. Midwest are creating atmospheric conditions causing radio, TV, and microwave signals to travel hundreds of miles farther than usual — disrupting communications across the region. 
• Second: data centres contribute to localized “data heat islands” with significant environmental impact, warming land around them by up to 16°F. 
• Third: extreme heat events are triggering new liability trends in insurance, with engineers potentially facing professional liability claims where infrastructure design proves inadequate.

Nature, Tranquillity, and Public Health

Two studies reinforce the importance of considering not only environmental hazards but also the health benefits of restorative environments. A review in Noise & Health proposes tranquillity should be regarded as an environmental determinant of health. Another experimental study found that both restored forest and birdsong promote psychological well-being. These findings have particular relevance for South Africa, where access to safe, well-maintained green spaces remains limited in many townships and underserved communities.

The Precautionary Principle in Consumer Law

Italy’s Supreme Court (Court of Cassation) issued a new ruling on manufacturer responsibilities. Manufacturers may now have a duty to warn consumers when scientific uncertainty surrounds potential risks.

The decision shifts focus from proven harm to informed consumer choice. Companies must provide sufficient information even when risks remain unproven.

Importantly, the ruling does not establish that mobile phone RF exposure causes disease. However, it acknowledges that scientific uncertainty does not remove the need for precautionary information where potential risk cannot be excluded.

 Prefer the full newsletter format? Read the complete July 2026 edition here https://mailchi.mp/emfsa/emfsa-july-2026-newsletter

• Credit for the image used in the post above: Zetong Li on Unsplash

The post EMFSA Environmental Health Update: July 2026 appeared first on EMFSA.

Children and toys are a natural combination, and mandatory safety standards and regulations are intended to reduce the risk of injury from electric toys and other electrical products for children. However, it is still important for parents and caregivers to understand potential hazards and supervise children appropriately.

Published by EMFSA | 30th July 2026

Electrical Safety

Electrical toys and products powered by batteries or connected to mains electricity might introduce additional hazards that parents and caregivers should understand. These include: 

• Electric shock
• Burns
• Fire
• Short circuits

Water and Electricity

Explain to children that water and electricity don’t mix.

• Don’t allow children to play with electrical toys near water
• Never let children touch buttons, switches, or plugs with wet hands
• Never immerse battery-powered toys unless the manufacturer specifically states they are waterproof. (1)

Electrical Installations

• Electricity pylons, transformer houses, substations and railway electrical infrastructure can present serious hazards. Children should not play near these structures.
• High-voltage and overhead power lines: Adults and children should avoid flying helium balloons and kites near overhead power lines.

Fatal Electrocution of a Child During Kite Flying: A Case Report

A 2026 case report described the fatal electrocution of a child during kite flying after the kite string came into contact with an overhead power line. The case illustrates the potentially fatal consequences of flying kites close to electrical infrastructure.  (2)

Drones

• Remote-controlled drone: Remote-controlled drones should be operated in accordance with applicable aviation regulations and kept well away from overhead power lines and substations. (3, 4)
• Electric fences: Electric fences typically deliver brief high-voltage, low-current pulses and are designed not to be life-threatening under normal operating conditions. Nevertheless, children should never be left unattended near them. (4)

Batteries and Magnets

Take extra care with toys that contain small batteries (button or lithium coin cells) and small magnets, especially high-powered (rare-earth) magnets. These can become loose and pose a serious hazard to young children. Young children may swallow batteries or magnets, or insert them into their nose or ears. Swallowing powerful magnets can cause serious internal injuries. (5)

Button Batteries

Button batteries are a medical emergency if swallowed or inserted into the nose or ear. They can cause serious tissue injury within a short period of time. 

Button batteries can be found in small remotes, car key fobs, mini remotes that control MP3 speakers, calculators, bathroom scales, reading lights, flameless candles, talking and singing books, singing greeting cards, watches, thermometers, hearing aids, flashing jewelry, ornaments, games and toys. (6)

In 2022, the U.S. government enacted Reese’s Law to improve child safety regarding button batteries. (7)

Battery Safety Tips

• Keep spare and used button batteries out of children’s reach.
• Ensure battery compartments are secure and cannot be easily opened by children.
• Stop using toys with damaged batteries or battery compartments.
• Use only the charger recommended by the manufacturer.
• Replace damaged rechargeable batteries promptly.

Lithium-ion Batteries

In 2025, a medical journal documented the case of a young boy who was burned when a portable lithium-ion charger caught fire in his pocket while he was using his phone. The experience had an impact beyond his physical injuries. The family subsequently changed the way they approached battery safety, and both the child and his parents went on to share their experience to help raise awareness of the potential risks. (8)

E-bike and Electric Scooters/bicycles (e-scooters/bikes)

The Canadian Paediatric Society advises that children younger than 16 years should not operate or ride as passengers on e-bikes or e-scooters. The Society states that e-scooters and e-bikes are not toys and were not designed for children.  (9)

Riding Toward Danger: A Scoping Review of Burns Associated With Personal Mobility Devices, Including Electric Bikes (E-Bikes) and Electric Scooters (E-Scooters)

Burns associated with lithium-ion batteries in personal mobility devices, including e-bikes and e-scooters, are an emerging safety concern. The review highlights the importance of safety education, compliance with applicable regulations and careful use of personal mobility devices, including products involving battery modifications or DIY conversion kits. (10)

Electric Scooter Battery Detonation: A Case Series And Review Of Literature

Lithium-ion battery failures can result in intense fires and thermal runaway, which can spread rapidly. 

Thermal runaway can result from several failure mechanisms and is not limited to batteries that are actively charging. (11)

Injuries Associated With Electrical Flash Burns in Children Caused by E-bike Batteries

A published report describes electrical flash-burn injuries in children associated with e-bike batteries and highlights the importance of recognising this type of injury and providing appropriate safety information to families. (12)

Hoverboards and Self-balancing Boards 

The batteries in these devices can present a serious fire risk if used, charged or sourced incorrectly. Counterfeit and substandard battery chargers can also pose serious safety hazards. (13) 

Heated Clothing

Full-Thickness Burn Resulting From an E-Sock: A Case Report

A published case report described a full-thickness burn associated with a lithium-ion battery-powered heated sock. The case highlights the need for caution when using battery-powered heated clothing and the importance of following manufacturer safety instructions. (14)

Laser Toys

A published case series has reported retinal injuries following childhood exposure to laser products marketed as toys, highlighting a potential public-safety concern. (15)

LED Toys

Some children’s toys—including cuddly toys, dolls, drawing tablets, toy trucks, spinning tops and illuminated board games—contain LEDs. Children’s eyes do not yet filter blue light as effectively as adults’ eyes, allowing more blue light to reach the retina. Some LEDs emit a high proportion of blue light, and ANSES has expressed concern that current toy eye-safety standards may not adequately protect children. 

Excessive close-range exposure to high-blue-light-emitting LEDs may pose a risk of retinal photochemical injury and may also affect circadian rhythms and sleep, particularly when used in the evening. (16)

Social Media Toy Challenges

Severe pediatric burn injuries following a social media trend involving a microwaved toy: A case report and warning

A 2026 case report described significant facial burns in a 10-year-old girl following an online activity involving a microwaved frozen stress ball. The authors highlighted the case as an example of the potential for social-media trends to expose children to serious injury risks. (17)

Additional Resources: 

Toy safety regulations 2026: Key updates for the EU, UK, US, and China https://www.eurofins.com/en/consumer-product-testing/softlines-hardlines/news-articles/toy-safety-regulations-2026-key-updates-for-the-eu-uk-us-and-china

References

[1] ESFI. Electrical Gifts for Children. https://www.esfi.org/electrical-gifts-for-children/

[2] Vadysinghe AN, Seneviratne P, Ekanayake KB, Ekanayake NK, Wickramasinghe CU, Sanjaya B. Fatal Electrocution of a Child During Kite Flying: A Case Report. Arch Med Sadowej Kryminol. 2026 May 28;76(1):76-81. doi:10.4467/16891716AMSIK.26.007.23583. PMID: 42325150. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42325150/

[3] National Grid UK. Drone Safety. https://customer.nationalgrid.co.uk/advice-and-guidance/staying-safe/drone-safety

[4] VDE. Children and Electricity. https://www.vde.com/topics-en/consumer-protection/children-and-electricity

[5] Montreal Children’s Hospital. Toy Safety. Trauma Injury Prevention. https://montrealchildrenshospital.ca/trauma-injury-prevention/toy-safety/

[6] UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospitals. The Dangers of Children Swallowing Button Batteries. https://www.ucsfbenioffchildrens.org/education/the-dangers-of-children-swallowing-button-batteries

[7] Steelman SH, Carpenter C, Jordan KS. Button Battery Ingestion: A Tiny Object with the Potential for a Catastrophic Outcome. Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal. 2025;47(2):122–128. doi:10.1097/TME.0000000000000565. Copyright © 2025 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

[8] van de Warenburg MS, Riesmeijer SA, Hummelink S, Ulrich DJO, Vehmeijer-Heeman MLA W. Burn by Battery, the Dangers of Portable Devices – A Case Report. Burns Open. 2025;9(Supplement C):100388. doi:10.1016/j.burnso.2024.100388. Open Access under CC BY 4.0 License

[9] Canadian Paediatric Society. Electric Scooters and Bikes: Not Safe for Kids. Caring for Kids. Safety and Injury Prevention. https://caringforkids.cps.ca/handouts/safety-and-injury-prevention/electric-scooters-and-bikes

[10] Warner-Levy J, Herieka M, Sheikh Z. Riding Toward Danger: A Scoping Review of Burns Associated With Personal Mobility Devices, Including Electric Bikes (E-Bikes) and Electric Scooters (E-Scooters). Journal of Burn Care & Research. 2024 Sep 6;45(5):1154-1159. doi:10.1093/jbcr/irae115. PMID: 38878005. Open Access under CC BY 4.0 License. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11379144/

[11] Hsieh MKH, Lai MC, Sim HSN, Lim X, Fok SFD, Joethy J, Kong TY, Lim GJS. Electric Scooter Battery Detonation: A Case Series and Review of Literature. Annals of Burns and Fire Disasters. 2021 Sep 30;34(3):264-276. PMID: 34744543. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8534310/

[12] Zhao X, Shen Y. Injuries Associated With Electrical Flash Burns in Children Caused by E-bike Batteries. Journal of Burn Care & Research. 2023;44(2):347–352. doi:10.1093/jbcr/irac072. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Burn Association

[13] Electrical Safety First. Hoverboards and Self-Balancing Boards. https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/safety-advice/products-and-appliances/transport/hoverboards-and-self-balancing-boards/

[14] Greenberg K, Chang KM, Supple MD, Goverman J. Full-thickness Burn Resulting From an E-Sock: A Case Report. Wounds. 2024;36(10):327-330. doi:10.25270/wnds/24024. Copyright © 2024 HMP Global. All Rights Reserved.

[15] Ophthalmology Times. Laser ‘Toys’ Can Cause Ocular Damage in Children. https://www.ophthalmologytimes.com/view/laser-toys-can-cause-ocular-damage-children

[16] ANSES. LEDs in Toys: ANSES Calls for a Revision of the “Eye Safety” Section of the European Standard. https://www.anses.fr/en/content/leds-toys-anses-calls-revision-eye-safety-section-european-standard#

[17] Bonner R, Munro KJ. Severe Pediatric Burn Injuries Following a Social Media Trend Involving a Microwaved Toy: A Case Report and Warning. JPRAS Open. 2026 Mar 26;50:84-90. doi:10.1016/j.jpra.2026.02.017. PMID: 42099753. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13147427/

• Image credit: Generated with Lumo by Proton

The post Children and Toys appeared first on EMFSA.

Mobile network exposure measurements across 10 European countries revealed significant daily variation in RF-EMF exposure levels, with nighttime values decreasing by up to 48.4%, reflecting daily patterns in mobile network activity.

Published by EMFSA | 19th July 2026

Research Reveals Daily Patterns

This finding comes from a pilot study deploying 20 sensors across four frequency bands (806, 942, 1842 and 3625 MHz). These bands were selected because they were used by mobile operators in all participating countries and span technologies from 2G through 5G.

The study, published in Science of the Total Environment in July 2026, documents that environmental RF-EMF levels are far from constant, rising and falling in predictable daily cycles that are consistent with changes in mobile network traffic associated with human activity.

Reference

Han Van Bladel, Adriana Fernandes Veludo, Nicolas Loizeau, Martin Röösli, Milena Maule, Zsuzsanna Vecsei, Orsolya Molnár, Tanja Vrijkotte, Kinga Polanska, Piotr Politański, Paweł Mamrot, Shanshan Wang, Joe Wiart, James Grellier, Anastasiia Kovalenko, Paige M. Hulls, Frank De Vocht, Nina Vaupotiĉ, Mònica Guxens, Wout Joseph, Temporal 2G–5G RF-EMF exposure assessment in ten European countries during one year, Science of The Total Environment, Volume 1047, 2026, 182037, ISSN 0048-9697

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2026.182037

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969726007023)

License: CC BY 4.0 (Open Access)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2026.182037

Read the full paper free at ScienceDirect under CC BY 4.0 license.

This summary was prepared from an open access publication licensed under  Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). You may freely  share and adapt this material with proper attribution to the original  authors and journal. For full technical details, figures, and data tables, please consult the original peer-reviewed article.

What the Researchers Did

• Countries Monitored: 10 European nations (Austria, Belgium, France, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom)
• Sensors Deployed: 20 installed, 1 failed (France — RF013 all N/A)
• Duration: ~17 months (1 July 2024 to 31 December 2025)
• Data Points: 1 measurement per second per sensor per frequency band

Key Findings

1. Clear Daily Patterns

All frequency bands showed consistent daily cycles tied to human activity. The observed temporal patterns are consistent with changes in network traffic associated with daily human activity, including lower overnight mobile network traffic and increasing exposure levels as daytime activity resumes.

• Notably, the highest day-night contrasts occurred in the 806 MHz and 1842 MHz bands, where nighttime values decreased by 35.1% and 48.4% respectively compared to daytime values.
• Daily minima consistently occurred around 04:00 across all four frequency bands. Smaller day-night contrasts were observed for 942 MHz (11.9%) and 3625 MHz (12.1%).

2. Small Weekend Effects

• Levels were generally lower on weekends, although the effect was much weaker than the daily cycle.
• The most pronounced weekday–weekend contrast was 16.6% for the 1842 MHz band.

3. High-Frequency Band Variability

Higher-frequency bands showed greater temporal variability. The 3625 MHz band showed:

• The highest measured electric field strengths among the monitored bands.
• Broad temporal variability (median R-factor of 0.45; note: 1842 MHz had a similar median R-factor of 0.43)
• Peak measurements up to 10.2 V/m

The researchers observed no monotonic long-term increase or decrease over the study period.

What are some of the factors that influence human exposure to RF radiation?

• Network traffic demand
• Base station (BS) configuration
• Propagation conditions
• Building characteristics
• The geometric relationships between the user, the device, and the base station
• User behaviours

Importantly, the authors state that assessing RF exposure among the general population requires measurement strategies that capture both spatial variability (differences across locations) and long-term temporal dynamics (changes over time).

Important Limitations

Readers should note several constraints in this study:

• Limited sensors per country: Only 2 sensors per nation—not nationally representative.
• Data loss: One sensor (France) experienced complete failure and was excluded from analysis.
• Geographic scope: European countries only; no data from Africa, the Americas, Asia, or lower-income nations.
• Frequency coverage: Only 4 bands monitored; many countries use additional frequencies simultaneously (e.g., 2100 MHz, 2600 MHz); therefore, these four bands do not represent total RF-EMF exposure.
• Uniaxial sensors: The sensors use uniaxial antennas, which provide valuable relative and temporal data but lead to an underestimation of absolute E-field values.
• Environment type: Home, office and outdoor environments showed some visual differences, but these differences were not statistically significant within this dataset. The authors recommend further investigation.
• Confidential data: The underlying raw dataset and precise deployment information were not made publicly available, limiting independent reanalysis.

Why These Findings Are Relevant

The following section is an editorial commentary by EMFSA and represents our interpretation of the study’s significance. It does not represent findings or statements from the original authors. The observations below are editorial interpretations and hypotheses rather than conclusions established by the study.

General Public

• In the European countries included in the study, mobile network exposure varies predictably throughout the day.
• Levels generally decrease overnight and, to a lesser extent, during weekends.
• Many factors influence human exposure to RF radiation.

Regulators and Policymakers

• Continuous monitoring networks are technically feasible at scale.
• Short-term spot measurements miss important temporal dynamics.
• Future assessments should track both spatial and temporal variations.
• This pilot study supports further evaluation and development of long-term fixed RF-EMF monitoring networks.

Researchers

• Provides a methodological foundation for future larger-scale, multi-country RF-EMF monitoring studies.
• Provides baseline data for epidemiological health research.
• Proposes next-gen sensors with modular design to expand frequency coverage beyond 4 bands.
• Highlights need for open data policies in environmental monitoring.

Global Context

While the physics of radio-wave propagation are universal, observed exposure patterns may differ because of network deployment, spectrum allocation, population behaviour and regulatory environments. This study was conducted exclusively in Europe with modern infrastructure. How might results differ in other contexts?

• Rural deployment patterns and lower network densities could produce different temporal exposure profiles.
• Different network architectures and deployment strategies could influence temporal exposure patterns. 
• Different regulatory frameworks and enforcement vary worldwide.

This gap highlights why global diversity in environmental monitoring matters.

Related: Legal Accountability of a Guideline versus a Standard

*Photo by Charlie Fitzgerald on Unsplash

The post Mobile Network Exposure Rises and Falls With Human Activity appeared first on EMFSA.

EMFSA June 2026 EMF Research Report Topics

• The South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) and why it matters for South Africa.

• An article “5G Specters: Three Disclosures from the Otherworld” by Brett Mommersteeg and Nona Schulte-Römer Reference: Mommersteeg, B., & Schulte-Römer, N. (2025). 5G Specters: Three Disclosures from the Otherworld. Social Analysis, 69(4), 23–48. 
  https://doi.org/10.3167/sa.2025.690402
  

• A recent study investigating  radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure across New York City. Reference: Arno Thielens, Salvatore Davi, Sassama Hema, Ricardo Toledo-Crow, Urban radio-frequency electromagnetic field exposure in New York City, Environmental Research, Volume 306, Part 1, 2026, 125040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2026.125040

• Data Centres

United States

Maine 

Maine would have been the first US state to introduce a moratorium on the construction of large data centres but the bill was vetoed by the governor.

New York

On 4 June 2026, the New York Legislature passed the Responsible Data Center Development Act (A11560/S10642). Will it become law? 

South Africa

What are the approval processes for data centres in South Africa?

• Fertility

Multiple modern environmental exposures—including RF-EMF and circadian-light disruption—deserve continued investigation as potential influences on reproductive health. 

Ovulation, sperm quality, endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, pregnancy outcomes, and developmental programming:

In the Circadian-Light-Hygiene hypothesis, the authors propose that daily light exposure is a fundamental regulator of reproductive health.

Reference: Gubin, D.; Stefani, O.; Cornelissen, G.; Touitou, Y. The Circadian-Light-Hygiene Hypothesis: A Potential Modulator of Fertility and Birthrate Trends. Biology 2026, 15, 1023. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology15131023

EMFSA June 2026 EMF Research Report link https://mailchi.mp/emfsa/emfsa-june-2026-newsletter

The post EMFSA June 2026 EMF Research Report appeared first on EMFSA.