8,700 Studies Reviewed. 87.0% Found Biological Effects. The Evidence is Clear.
Shield Your Body
Whole Body / General1,838 citations

Choi Y-K, Urnukhsaikhan E, Yoon H-H, Seo Y-K, Cho H, Jeong J-S, Kim S-C, Jung- Keug Park J-K

Bioeffects Seen

Authors not listed · 2017

Share:

Major global health studies still don't track EMF exposure as a risk factor despite mounting evidence.

Plain English Summary

Summary written for general audiences

The Global Burden of Disease Study 2016 analyzed 84 risk factors affecting human health worldwide from 1990 to 2016, including environmental and occupational exposures. The study found that metabolic risks like obesity and high blood pressure now cause the greatest disease burden globally, while environmental risks showed mixed trends. This comprehensive analysis helps identify which health risks deserve the most policy attention and resources.

Why This Matters

While this massive epidemiological study doesn't specifically examine EMF exposure, it provides crucial context for understanding how environmental health risks are prioritized in public policy. The reality is that EMF exposure isn't even included among the 84 risk factors analyzed, despite growing scientific evidence of biological effects. This reflects a troubling pattern where emerging environmental risks like electromagnetic radiation remain invisible to major health surveillance systems until decades after widespread exposure begins. The study's finding that environmental risk modification has played only a small role in health improvements over the past decade suggests we're missing opportunities to address preventable exposures. What this means for you is that EMF health risks likely won't receive proper policy attention until the evidence becomes overwhelming, following the familiar pattern we've seen with tobacco, asbestos, and air pollution.

Exposure Information

Specific exposure levels were not quantified in this study.

Cite This Study
Unknown (2017). Choi Y-K, Urnukhsaikhan E, Yoon H-H, Seo Y-K, Cho H, Jeong J-S, Kim S-C, Jung- Keug Park J-K.
Show BibTeX
@article{choi_y_k_urnukhsaikhan_e_yoon_h_h_seo_y_k_cho_h_jeong_j_s_kim_s_c_jung_keug_park_j_k_ce4322,
  author = {Unknown},
  title = {Choi Y-K, Urnukhsaikhan E, Yoon H-H, Seo Y-K, Cho H, Jeong J-S, Kim S-C, Jung- Keug Park J-K},
  year = {2017},
  doi = {10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32366-8},
  
}
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32366-8PubMed: 28919119

Quick Questions About This Study

Global health surveillance systems typically lag decades behind emerging risks. EMF exposure patterns only became widespread in recent decades, and regulatory agencies haven't yet classified electromagnetic fields as established disease risk factors despite growing scientific evidence of biological effects.
According to this 2016 analysis, metabolic risks like obesity and high blood pressure now cause far greater disease burden than traditional environmental exposures. However, this doesn't account for newer environmental risks like EMF exposure that weren't included in the study's 84 risk factors.
The study shows environmental risk reduction contributed only modestly to health improvements between 2006-2016, suggesting missed opportunities. This pattern indicates that emerging environmental risks like EMF exposure may not receive adequate policy attention until their health impacts become undeniable.
Based on historical patterns with tobacco and asbestos, it typically takes 20-50 years for environmental health risks to be officially recognized and regulated. EMF exposure became widespread only in recent decades, placing us early in this recognition timeline.
The study only included risk-outcome pairs with 'convincing or probable evidence' meeting specific criteria. This conservative approach likely excludes emerging risks like EMF exposure where the evidence is still developing, potentially underestimating total environmental disease burden.