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.

Published: 26 February 2026
By EMFSA

Class 2B Possible Human Carcinogens

Class 2B Possible Human Carcinogens are substances or exposures identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as possibly carcinogenic to humans. This classification is based on limited or inconclusive evidence in humans, supported by preclinical studies in animals or mechanistic research. Importantly, being classified as possibly carcinogenic indicates hazard, not proven risk at typical environmental exposure levels.

Evidence and Examples of Class 2B Agents

To illustrate the diversity of evidence, consider two notable examples. In November 2025, IARC classified vinclozolin, a pesticide, as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on animal studies showing liver and reproductive effects, including multigenerational impacts. Human data remain limited, but the experimental findings were sufficient to support a Group 2B designation.

Radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields were classified earlier, in 2011, based primarily on limited human epidemiological evidence suggesting a potential association with certain brain tumors, alongside mechanistic data from preclinical studies available at that time. Following this classification, additional research, such as the NTP 2018 animal study, investigated high-dose RF-EMF exposure in both rats and mice and observed small increases in certain tumors in male rats, particularly cardiac schwannomas and some brain gliomas. Although these post-classification studies contribute to ongoing research, they did not influence the original Group 2B designation. Evaluations by the WHO EMF Project and IARC continue to assess new evidence to determine whether future reclassification may be warranted.

At the same time, international review efforts have continued. The WHO EMF Project and IARC are assessing newer evidence to determine whether the existing classification remains appropriate or whether future reassessment may be warranted.

Taken together, these examples show that Class 2B agents represent signals of potential carcinogenicity that warrant further research, regulatory attention, and precautionary measures, while reinforcing that current evidence in humans remains limited or inconclusive.

Regulatory and Precautionary Approaches

Regulatory responses vary depending on the type of agent and the strength of evidence available. In some jurisdictions, vinclozolin has been restricted or phased out following toxicological concerns. By contrast, regulators manage RF-EMF exposure primarily through guidelines and public health recommendations.

It is important to clarify that the World Health Organization does not set exposure limits directly. Instead, independent scientific bodies such as ICNIRP and IEEE develop exposure guidelines, while WHO evaluates the broader health evidence and provides risk assessments to governments.

Understanding Class 2B Possible Human Carcinogens

Overall, Class 2B Possible Human Carcinogens indicate that credible scientific signals exist, yet the evidence is not strong enough to establish causation in humans. As a result, the designation encourages further research, careful monitoring, and proportionate precaution, without implying confirmed human cancer risk.

IARC Classification System

The International Agency for Research on Cancer classification system is defined as follows:

• Group 1 — Carcinogenic to humans
• Group 2A — Probably carcinogenic to humans
• Group 2B — Possibly carcinogenic to humans
• Group 3 — Not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans

More on the topic: : IARC Monographs evaluation of the carcinogenicity of night shift work https://www.emfsa.co.za/research-and-studies/iarc-monographs-evaluation-of-the-carcinogenicity-of-night-shift-work/

References:

1. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). List of Classifications, including Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Last updated 25 February 2026.https://monographs.iarc.who.int/list-of-classifications
2. US Right to Know. One Exposure, Twenty Generations Later: The Damage is Unfolding. 2025. https://usrtk.org/healthwire/one-exposure-twenty-generations-later-the-damage-is-unfolding/
3. World Health Organization. International EMF Project https://www.who.int/initiatives/the-international-emf-project
4. WHO Radiation and health https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-health/radiation-and-health/non-ionizing/wireless
5. ICNIRP. Guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz – 300 GHz). 2020. https://www.icnirp.org/en/publications/article/rf-guidelines-2020.html

* Image adapted from Photo by Milad Fakurian on Unsplash

The post Class 2B Possible Human Carcinogens appeared first on EMFSA.

For Alexander

Alexander,13, has been living with glioblastoma since he was 11. His tumour is now inoperable and pressing against the optic nerve behind his left eye, leaving him clinically blind.

Despite facing challenges no child should ever endure, Alexander continues to think beyond himself — inspiring everyone around him with his courage and generosity.

Read more about his journey https://www.georgeherald.com/Community/Article/We-Care/cancer-fighting-teen-inspires-drive-to-help-others-202512031154

This past Christmas, Alexander chose to bless ten local children who are also undergoing cancer treatment by putting together and gifting them Christmas parcels. His selfless act is a powerful reminder of his strength, empathy, and remarkable character.

Important note: We are not suggesting that Alexander’s glioblastoma was caused by EMF exposure. Sharing his story is solely to support him and his family during this incredibly difficult time.

Follow Alexander’s journey on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61585318710819

For those who are able and willing to help, donation links are available on his page. Every contribution, no matter the size, is deeply appreciated

Planetary Health and Research Highlights

In the December 2025 Newsletter, we also include:

• Stefanopoulou M et al. (2025). Bioelectromagnetics, 46(8), e70038. https://doi.org/10.1002/bem.70038. PMID: 41416407; PMCID: PMC12715659.

• De Boose P, Ribas FO, Bell D, Bouga M, De Borre E, Fröhlich J, et al. (2025) Behaviour and reproduction of Drosophila melanogaster exposed to 3.6 GHz radio-frequency electromagnetic fields. PLoS One 20(12): e0336228. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336228 

• ICNIRP’s 2026 environmental focus

• Solar energy waste challenges

Further reading CBT as a Sensitive Topic https://www.emfsa.co.za/ehs/cbt-as-a-sensitive-topic/

Read the complete EMFSA December 2025 Newsletter https://mailchi.mp/emfsa/emfsa-december-2025-newsletter

The post EMFSA December 2025 Newsletter – Monthly Update appeared first on EMFSA.

RF-EMF and Cancer: Systematic Review Published

Digitally created image used in the EMFSA April 2025 Newsletter, showing a lab setup with a rodent, cell phone, and microscope—representing experimental RF-EMF health impact studies.

A long-awaited, just-published Systematic Review (pre-proof) strengthens support for the 2011 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of RF-EMF as a possible human carcinogen.  The Review concluded that RF EMF exposure increases the incidence of cancer in experimental animals.

Fertility

•RF-EMF and Male Fertility: WHO Priority Topic Update
We review a recent corrigendum to a 2024 study on RF-EMF exposure and male fertility, clarifying and updating key findings.

A Valid Question

“To date, the authors of three systematic reviews (SRs) have issued corrigenda after publication to correct significant errors. How many more significant errors or major problems will be uncovered by the authors or by critical readers of the 12 WHO SRs?” — Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD

• LF-EMF and Pregnancy Risks
New findings suggest that LF-EMF exposure may affect the peri-implantation period, potentially increasing the risk of pregnancy loss. Many women may unknowingly undergo physical therapies involving electromagnetic fields during this critical stage.
(Reference: Franczak et al., 2025)

General

• Policy Changes and Legal Battles
UK: 2017 ECC regulatory changes have unintentionally triggered a surge in mast site litigation. We examine the consequences.

• Emerging Insurance Risks in the 6G Era
With commercial 6G networks projected by 2029–2030, how will new EMF exposures impact insurance markets and risk assessment?

• Research Funding Opportunity: FSM 2025 Call
The Swiss Research Foundation for Electricity and Mobile Communication (FSM) is offering CHF 150,000 in 2025 for research investigating high-frequency electromagnetic fields from new satellite communication technologies.

• Pediatric Thyroid Cancer: New Risk Factors Identified
A new Yale-led study links early-life exposure to fine particle air pollution (PM2.5) and outdoor artificial light at night to increased risk of pediatric thyroid cancer.

Link to the EMFSA April 2025 Newsletter https://mailchi.mp/emfsa/rf-emf-cancer-fertility-6g-insurance

We send our newsletter only once a month. Want to stay updated? Subscribe today! Newsletter – EMFSA

The post EMFSA April 2025 Newsletter appeared first on EMFSA.

Ref. NSUWorks Citation Nicole Korchinsky. 2024. Nutritional Deuterium Depletion and Health: A Scoping Review. Capstone. Nova Southeastern University. Retrieved from NSUWorks, . (10)

Congratulations to Nicole Korchinsky who earned the first Master’s Degree in Deutenomics in the USA with an excellent presentation and answers to questions.
Her thesis is available at https://nsuworks.nova.edu/hpd_com_nutrition/10/
Nicole’s presentation and defense can be heard here
https://sharkmedia.nova.edu/media/Korchinsky+-+Final+Presentation+NUT+6805+Winter+2024/1_rcndlhmd

The post The First USA Master’s Degree in Deutenomics appeared first on EMFSA.

The most important topic in this month’s newsletter:

Colorectal cancer in young people

https://mailchi.mp/emfsa/ehs-emfis-jammers-cancer-mm-waves-smartphones-emi

The post EMFSA March 2023 Newsletter appeared first on EMFSA.

The intentions are good: help save the planet by reducing energy consumption from streetlights. Claims also include the reduction of light pollution.

However, there could be unintended consequences associated with energy saving LED streetlights.

Artificial Light at Night (ALAN), Light Pollution and Circadian Disruption:

In many cases these new LED streetlights are contributing to light pollution, with serious environmental consequences for humans, wildlife, and our climate.

Since 2017 there is general scientific consensus that light has the most significant outcome on altering any biochemistry in life, either positively or negatively.

So-called “white” LEDs emit a portion of their light at wavelengths below 500 nm (blue). These wavelengths are not beneficial to human and environmental health.

The 2022 National WHO EMF Project Report IAC-ZA  mandates that streetlights are modified/adjusted by changing from an energy flux model (white) to a photon flux model (orange/red). UV is included too and flicker. A photon flux model results in significantly lower energy inputs and is much more beneficial to human health.

Mounting evidence indicates that disruption of circadian regulation is associated with a wide variety of adverse health consequences, including increased risk for premature death, cancer, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular dysfunction, immune dysregulation, reproductive problems, mood disorders, and learning deficits. Of particular interest here is obesity and breast cancer.

•In 2019 a working group from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that “shift work that involves circadian disruption is probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A): IARC Monographs Vol 124 group. Carcinogenicity of night shift work: Lancet Oncology; Published 4 July 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30455-3

•2 June 2020 IARC Monographs Volume 124: Night Shift Work https://tinyurl.com/5tk2y76v

 •In 2016, the American Medical Association responded to the growing body of evidence suggesting that intense LEDs are harmful to human health by recommending that communities change streetlights to “minimize and control blue-rich environmental lighting.”

Energy Flux versus Photon Flux model

Video

25:39 Night Sky, Satellites

26:19 Energy Flux versus Photon Flux model

Western Cape Nature residential estate:

Prone to wildfires, drought and high winds on the coast dune line.

Intervention: external building lighting changed to a Photon-flux model.

Outcome:

•Night sky constellations and satellites were significantly more visible.

•Significant increase in wildlife visibility and engagement within the area. 

•Residents went to sleep earlier and there was a decrease of reported health complaints.

•Decrease in property break in attempts at night. 

•Neighboring vegetation growth on the dune increased, and grass lawn resilience to the summer elements, heat and winds significantly increased as illustrated in the images below.

A Human Right:

On the 28th of July 2022 the UN General Assembly adopted a landmark resolution recognizing the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right and calling for greater global efforts to ensure that principle is upheld. 

This resolution updates the Equality Act under the heading of International Binding Treaties, as per the 2022 National WHO EMF Project Report IAC-ZA

This is not progress!

A LED energy saving street light is placed in very close proximity to a residence (without any warning or consultation with the homeowner). 

The light is so bright that it is impossible to spend time outside at night in the garden.

To make matters worse, the light is on all day.

Imagine the frustration- attempts to resolve the matter are ignored;  enquiries to the municipality in regards to the specifications of the light are ignored or sent from pillar to post.

The public is aware that some smart cities incorporate sensors for air quality, pedestrian traffic, monitoring electricity use and more. In addition some streetlights are equipped for telecommunication purposes. Is it a wonder then that conspiracy theories flourish – when there is such a lack of transparency and cooperation?

“Done well, LEDs could save the planet, in the sense of reining in light pollution,” says astronomer John Barentine, also of International Dark-Sky Association. “Done carelessly, it could be devastating.”

References:

2022 National WHO EMF Project Report IAC-ZA

American Medical Association warns of health and safety problems from ‘white’ LED streetlights https://tinyurl.com/bdcs76cz

UN General Assembly Resolution https://tinyurl.com/y9ksmcyz

Thomas Münzel, Omar Hahad, Andreas Daiber, The dark side of nocturnal light pollution. Outdoor light at night increases risk of coronary heart disease, European Heart Journal, Volume 42, Issue 8, 21 February 2021, Pages 831–834, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa866

Miao Cao, Ting Xu, Daqiang Yin, Understanding light pollution: Recent advances on its health threats and regulations, Journal of Environmental Sciences, Volume 127, 2023, Pages 589-602, 1001-0742, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2022.06.020

Bright LEDs could spell the end of dark skies MIT Technology Review https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/17/1057652/outdoor-led-lighting/

Our nights are getting brighter and Earth is paying the price https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/nights-are-getting-brighter-earth-paying-the-price-light-pollution-dark-skies

Shanghai wants to dim light pollution https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202208/05/WS62ec779ea310fd2b29e70776.html

The post Energy Saving LED Street Lights-The Unintended Consequences appeared first on EMFSA.

Link to the report: https://bit.ly/3HkQ4vh

Report chaired and presented by: James C Lech

Committee members 2022: page 43-44 of the report

Timestamps:

0:00 Solutions: Update from Energy-flux Models to Photon-flux Models; NASA Human Research Program

1:42 VW Dieselgate; Cellular Phonegate

2:58 One photon excites one electron explanation

3:42 Poor oxygen in a deuterium enriched room results in an inability to process photons or light correctly from the environment (or internally).

3:56 Blue light: information processed differently

5:00 Broken window theory: improve medical services and facilities

6:40 IV solutions; deutenomics

7:30 Deuterium depleting protocols: cancer; diabetes; auto-immune diseases

8:05 Beach Tennis: Cost effective application of applied medicine 8:54: Surfskating; bringing people together and use nature to heal better

10:05 Breastfeeding- deuterium, milk banks, photonbiomodulation

11:49 Climate Change Model suitable for South African and Sub-Saharan context. Feynman Approach.

13:00 Coal power plants; micro algae; nanobubble generation and carbon sequestration

14:29 Goat and cow milk

15:52 Magnetic Field Drop Zone

18:14 Light, photons drive all biochemistry

19:22 COVID-19 Germ Theory versus Terrain Theory

21:26 Applied science example: cleaning without chemicals

24:12 Deuterium as a GPS marker in nature

25:01 The value of where deuterium is, is already embedded in law

25:34 With biophysics “the answers have changed”

Part 4 https://youtu.be/Iw_RdriINMQ

The post Video: South African National WHO EMF Report 2022 – Debriefing Webinar Part 3 appeared first on EMFSA.

Abstract

The prevalence of artificial lights not only improves the lighting conditions for modern society, but also poses kinds of health threats to human health. Although there are regulations and standards concerning light pollution, few of them are based on the potential contribution of improper lighting to diseases. Therefore, a better understanding of the health threats induced by light pollution may promote risk assessment and better regulation of artificial lights, thereby a healthy lighting environment. This review is based on a careful collection of the latest papers from 2018 to 2022 about the health threats of light pollution, both epidemiologically and experimentally. In addition to summing up the novel associations of light pollution with obesity, mental disorders, cancer, etc., we highlight the toxicological mechanism of light pollution via circadian disruption, since light pollution directly interferes with the natural light-dark cycles, and damages the circadian photoentrainment of organisms. And by reviewing the alternations of clock genes and disturbance of melatonin homeostasis induced by artificial lights, we aim to excavate the profound impacts of light pollution based on accumulating studies, thus providing perspectives for future research and guiding relevant regulations and standards.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1001074222003291

The post Understanding light pollution: recent advances on its health threats and regulations appeared first on EMFSA.

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/EMFSA/posts

Background: https://mailchi.mp/emfsa/ehs-inflammation-depression-autoimmunity-cancer-diabetes

The post EMFSA: Cold Thermogenesis Video appeared first on EMFSA.