Research and regulation are increasingly intersecting with questions surrounding electromagnetic fields (EMF) and radiofrequency (RF) radiation. What happens when questions about scientific evidence and exposure standards extend into regulation, corporate governance, litigation and financial risk?

The September 2026 EMFSA newsletter considers some of those connections.

EMFSA | 29 September 2026

What is changing in the research and regulatory landscape?

Several recent developments in the United States and France are putting renewed attention on radiofrequency radiation and health, but they are taking different forms.

In the United States, federal agencies are seeking public input on questions ranging from the evidence for potential health effects to exposure levels, research gaps and the scientific basis for existing approaches. The FCC proceeding also raises detailed questions about the quality and interpretation of the evidence, including study design, exposure assessment, dosimetry, confounding and the distinction between association and causation.

What questions are being asked about the evidence? What research gaps have been identified? And how might future research inform regulatory discussions?

In France, ANSES is approaching the subject through a call intended to support new research into radiofrequencies and health.

These developments are examined in greater detail in Electromagnetic Fields and Radiofrequency Radiation: U.S. HHS Seeks Public Input; France Calls for New Research.

What does telecommunications infrastructure mean for corporate risk?

Telecommunications networks operate within complex regulatory and commercial environments. Infrastructure and licensing are only part of the picture.

What happens when market access or regulatory decisions involve government officials or politically connected intermediaries? What controls are needed around third-party payments? How can companies manage risks associated with corporate governance, compliance and anti-bribery obligations?

These questions are particularly relevant to telecommunications companies operating across multiple jurisdictions, where local regulatory requirements may intersect with foreign anti-corruption and anti-bribery laws.

Telecommunications Infrastructure and Corporate Risk examines these issues and the broader compliance environment surrounding telecommunications infrastructure.

Who ultimately bears the financial risk?

A different set of questions arises when EMF/RF issues become the subject of litigation.

If a claim continues for years, who pays the cost of defending it? If a company settles a claim or is ultimately found liable, does its insurance respond? What happens when a policy contains exclusions relating to radiation, signal-transmitting equipment or telecommunications infrastructure?

Insurance coverage and legal liability are not necessarily the same question. The wording of an insurance policy can determine whether particular risks are transferred to an insurer or remain with the company.

These issues are explored in EMF/RF Insurance: Who Is Responsible?, which looks at insurance exclusions, defence costs and the potential allocation of financial risk in EMF/RF-related litigation.

Following the connections

Research, regulation, corporate governance, litigation and insurance may appear to be separate subjects. Yet developments in one area can raise questions in another.

For EMFSA, following these connections is part of examining the wider implications of electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation — while keeping the focus on evidence, documented developments and the questions that remain open.

The September 2026 newsletter brings these three strands together, while the individual articles provide a more detailed examination of each subject.

The post From Research and Regulation to Corporate and Insurance Risk appeared first on EMFSA.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00868-5

Kate Crawford

During the pandemic, technology companies have been pitching their emotion-recognition software for monitoring workers and even children remotely. Take, for example, a system named 4 Little Trees. Developed in Hong Kong, the program claims to assess children’s emotions while they do classwork. It maps facial features to assign each pupil’s emotional state into a category such as happiness, sadness, anger, disgust, surprise and fear. It also gauges ‘motivation’ and forecasts grades. Similar tools have been marketed to provide surveillance for remote workers. By one estimate, the emotion-recognition industry will grow to US$37 billion by 2026.

There is deep scientific disagreement about whether AI can detect emotions. A 2019 review found no reliable evidence for it. “Tech companies may well be asking a question that is fundamentally wrong,” the study concluded (L. F. Barrett et al. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 20, 1–68; 2019).

And there is growing scientific concern about the use and misuse of these technologies. Last year, Rosalind Picard, who co-founded an artificial intelligence (AI) start-up called Affectiva in Boston and heads the Affective Computing Research Group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, said she supports regulation. Scholars have called for mandatory, rigorous auditing of all AI technologies used in hiring, along with public disclosure of the findings. In March, a citizen’s panel convened by the Ada Lovelace Institute in London said that an independent, legal body should oversee development and implementation of biometric technologies (see go.nature.com/3cejmtk). Such oversight is essential to defend against systems driven by what I call the phrenological impulse: drawing faulty assumptions about internal states and capabilities from external appearances, with the aim of extracting more about a person than they choose to reveal.

Countries around the world have regulations to enforce scientific rigour in developing medicines that treat the body. Tools that make claims about our minds should be afforded at least the same protection. For years, scholars have called for federal entities to regulate robotics and facial recognition; that should extend to emotion recognition, too. It is time for national regulatory agencies to guard against unproven applications, especially those targeting children and other vulnerable populations.

Read more at: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00868-5

The post Time to regulate AI that interprets human emotions appeared first on EMFSA.

Hygiene and sanitation->Vol 98, № 11 (2019)->FEATURES OF NATIONAL POLICY IN APPROACHES TO ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD SAFETY OF RADIO FREQUENCIES RADIATION IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES

Abstract

The article contains the analysis of modern approaches to determining the limits of the electromagnetic field of radio frequencies. The international discussion about the safe limits of electromagnetic radiation has been going on for half a century. In the 21st century, the national policy of electromagnetic safety is determined by the socio-economic priorities of countries and national legal principles of evidence of harm to health to a greater extent, than scientific data. There are three main approaches to determining the limits of electromagnetic fields. The Anglo-Saxon approach is based on the principle of passive regulation, i.e. using the recommended values of the permissible level of the electromagnetic field. The Soviet-Russian approach is based on establishing the maximum permissible level of the electromagnetic field, which guarantees no harm to present and future generations. The term of the maximum permissible level is historically associated with the concept of the priority of the nervous system responses to the influence of the electromagnetic factor. The state assumes responsibility for the scientific justification of the limit levels and implements the control functions for their observance, which allows excluding any harm to health. The third approach is based on the precautionary principle, the concept of which was first introduced in German law. It is aimed at preventing harm, in the absence of unambiguous, reliable scientific data and, in fact, it is a socially-oriented approach that takes into account social consensus in the context of the development of new technologies. Respectively, this approach implies strict maximum permissible levels (technically achievable), as well as a system of formal restrictions on placement of the electromagnetic field sources in the “susceptible” territories. Separately from the above approaches, a method of managing the safety of the electromagnetic environment in China has been formed: since 2015, electromagnetism has been fully attributed to environmental factors and is controlled by the Ministry of environmental protection. China has abandoned the hygienic regulation of the anthropogenic electromagnetic field, and the system, for establishing and monitoring the electromagnetic environment indices, combines elements of all three mentioned above approaches.

© 2019 Copyright Hygiene and sanitation.

The post FEATURES OF NATIONAL POLICY IN APPROACHES TO ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD SAFETY OF RADIO FREQUENCIES RADIATION IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES appeared first on EMFSA.