Next Article in Journal
Artificial Intelligence, Energy Consumption Intensity, and Supply Chain Resilience in China’s ICT Manufacturing Industry
Previous Article in Journal
Climate-Adaptive Irrigation Management in Venetian Reclamation Consortia (Italy)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 22
10.3390/su172210252
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Transition Pathways Towards Electromagnetic Sustainability in the Built and Lived Environment

by
Riadh Habash
1,* and
George Y. Baho
2
1
School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada
2
Construction Management, Global Banking School, London UB6 0HE, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(22), 10252; https://doi.org/10.3390/su172210252 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 26 October 2025 / Revised: 11 November 2025 / Accepted: 14 November 2025 / Published: 16 November 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Electromagnetic (EM) fields, as one of the basic forms of energy in the built and lived environment (BLE), present an environmental health challenge, yet they often remain an overlooked concern, particularly with the development of information and communication technologies (ICT) and energy systems. Although these fields are essential for the contemporary infrastructure, society needs to engage in a thorough discussion regarding their potential impact on health. In light of this, a commitment should be made to design and manage technologies and infrastructure that strive to lower EM pollution, while ensuring optimal functionality. Achieving this goal requires viable urban planning and sustainability strategies. The motivation of this study is to examine various instances to foster a deeper understanding of the EM in the BLE. It explores significant sources of exposure and major safety guidelines. A literature review and EM field audits in three locations within two cities in Canada and the UK have been provided to understand the trends and serve as a comparative sample. Key transition pathways towards EM sustainability have been proposed, including the establishment of observatory systems in urban locations, hygiene practices, risk governance, and an interplay between sustainability and technology.

1. Introduction

According to the United Nations’ 2019 report on Worldwide Urbanization Prospects, over 4.3 billion people currently live in urban areas, and it is projected that by 2050, 68% of the worldwide population will reside in cities [1]. These urban spaces consume more than two-thirds of the world’s energy and are responsible for over 60% of total CO2 emissions [2]. Sustainable ecological integrity and public health within cityscapes have faced significant challenges due to urbanism. It represents a field dedicated to research, study, and practice intended at advancing health and well-being for all inhabitants, while simultaneously respecting the environment’s limitations. This method is essential for realizing the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SD) and for advancing toward a world where every person, everywhere, can live a healthy and satisfying lifetime [3]. These challenges demand a highly collaborative effort, integrating the fields of energy systems, ICT, and urban planning with various study domains, namely, geography, architecture, engineering, health, economics, and sociology [4].
EM sustainability involves living in harmony with the EM urban spaces we create and inhabit [5]. It is crucial for developing an environmentally responsible urban environment. This often-overlooked phenomenon integrates sustainable stewardship into health and safety approaches, addressing EM environmental ecosystem pollution by minimizing exposure, reducing electronic waste, promoting responsible technological innovation, and fostering community engagement. In this regard, it is crucial to understand and address the important synergy between sustainable urbanism and public well-being. These approaches aim to preserve and boost the quality of life for individuals and communities, both now and in the future.
The BLE encompasses the interactions between human-made structures and the lived experiences of individuals, including cities, neighbourhoods, buildings, and infrastructure [6]. It also considers the social and environmental factors that impact health and well-being. These components are essential in shaping living conditions and enhancing the quality of life for both individuals and communities. As the BLE continues to expand rapidly, it becomes increasingly influenced by a pervasive and often invisible array of human-made EM fields, which are essential for key technologies related to electrification, communication, and digitalization [7]. As a result, different types of these fields now spread throughout urban populations, exposing people to their effects often without their knowledge or agreement [8]. As technology continues to advance, these influences are likely to grow, creating significant societal impacts due to rising concerns about potential long-term health issues and diseases.
In the BLE, energy grids, ICTs, and transportation systems are becoming fundamental to urban life, and their synergistic integration contributes to EM pollution [5]. Living sustainably today requires recognizing the often-overlooked environmental impacts. As a result, cities must proactively address citizens’ concerns about their health and well-being by adopting a thoughtful approach to EM urban ecology and energy management. This could involve establishing low-EM zones in sensitive areas like schools or hospitals and promoting technologies that decrease indoor exposure [9]. Such a shift should align with improved hygiene practices [10] and urban governance to boost living comfort. Currently, inconsistent research findings suggest that a further indoor pollutant is the ongoing and extreme exposure to EM fields in the BLE [11,12].
The research question guiding this study focuses on the development and implementation of an integrated framework for urban planning and technological deployment that effectively helps mitigate the hidden EM field in the BLE, enhances human well-being, and promotes environmental health. This study contributes to the ongoing discourse by providing insights and recommendations related to the comprehensive EM ecosystem. It aims to deepen the understanding of this emerging environmental pollutant by exploring significant sources of exposure, safety standard guidelines, findings from a literature review, and EM field measurements conducted in selected urban areas of Ottawa (Canada) and London (UK). Furthermore, four key sustainability pathways pertinent to EM sustainability are proposed. Research in this area has been scarce and could be utilized to raise awareness and inspire regulatory, industry, and ecological consideration towards maintaining a sustainable, healthy BLE.

2. EM Sources in the ELB

EM fields are areas of invisible energy linked with electric and magnetic forces, capable of carrying energy. They cover a broad spectrum of frequencies, from extremely low frequency (ELF), often called power-frequency fields associated with electrical supplies and loads, to low, medium, high, and RF, which are mainly associated with wireless communication systems. These fields can be described as both waves and particles, a phenomenon known as wave-particle duality. EM fields can be described in terms of wave properties such as wavelength, frequency, and amplitude, which help explain diffraction and interference. The particle is called a photon, which carries energy along a straight-line path through space. When interacting with matter, the EM radiation can behave as photons, each carrying a specific amount of energy. The photon (quantum) energy of an EM wave is given by E = hf, where h is Planck’s constant and f is the frequency of the photon released [13]. Hence, the energy of a photon in the RF frequency range varies from about 4.1 × 10−6 eV at 1 GHz to 1.2 × 10−3 eV at 300 GHz.
When examining the EM frequency spectrum, it is crucial to differentiate between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation has a higher frequency and enough energy to ionize atoms and molecules, effectively removing electrons, breaking chemical bonds, and causing DNA damage and mutations when it interacts with biological materials. This kind of radiation includes X and gamma rays, which are used in diagnostic and therapeutic applications. Therefore, it is essential to reduce exposure to sources such as radioactive materials. Non-ionizing radiation, referred to as EM pollution in this study, encompasses ELF and RF fields, as well as visible, infrared, and UV light.
EM sources in the BLE can be classified based on their operating frequencies and the specific contexts in which they occur. Extremely low frequency (ELF) and intermediate frequency (IF) fields, generated by the flow of current in power lines and electrical circuits, have long been a focal point of study. These fields are produced by alternating current (AC) at 50 or 60 Hz, originating from power infrastructure, building wiring, and various electrical appliances. In the environment, two primary types of ELF fields can be identified: electric fields, measured in volts per meter (V/m), and magnetic field strength, quantified in amperes per meter (A/m) [7]. Another unit for magnetic field strength, specifically for magnetic flux density, is milligauss (mG) or microtesla (µT) (1 µT = 10 mG).
RF fields, often referred to as microwaves, encompass a wide range of frequencies, from 300 MHz to 300 GHz. These fields are primarily linked to wireless communication and broadcasting. Current wireless technologies, including mobile phones, Wi-Fi routers, tablets, and laptops, typically operate within a frequency range of several MHz to several GHz. However, with the emergence of 5G networks, there is an increasing utilization of the millimetre wave (MMW) segment of the EM frequency spectrum, which can reach frequencies in the tens of GHz. This transition has sparked renewed interest in examining the potential health effects associated with MMW wireless communication [7]. The heightened exposure to RF fields may stem not only from the elevated frequencies associated with 5G technology but also from the cumulative effects of diverse RF signals, particularly in densely populated urban environments. As higher frequencies are approached, understanding variations in individual exposure to RF fields has emerged as a significant topic of discussion. Figure 1 illustrates the EM frequency spectrum and common sources of ELF and RF fields in the BLE.

3. EM Health Safety

The EM in the BLE is becoming increasingly complex, and the potential health risks have attracted widespread consideration. The World Health Organization (WHO) notes that the public health impacts of various types of radiation, ranked by severity, are UV radiation, radon, X-rays, and finally, non-ionizing EM fields. In contrast, public concerns often focus mainly on EM fields. This difference arises from the common difficulty in understanding the difference between highly energetic ionizing radiation and the much less energetic non-ionizing radiation [14].

3.1. Health Concerns

Environmental non-ionizing EM fields are often suggested as potentially detrimental to human health; however, the complex scientific discussion surrounding health effects has not achieved agreement on a causal relationship related to different health issues. Furthermore, there is no well-recognized scientific consensus regarding these health concerns. The WHO [15] advises prevention because most EM fields are invisible and inescapable, but it also cautions about the potential consequences of “anxiety related to the presence of new technologies”. The viewpoint, as mentioned earlier, is a major factor in the continuous health dispute involving EM fields.
EM effects can be thermal, which are obvious if EM field levels are high and non-thermal, such as reproductive health issues and electrohypersensitivity (EHS), which are often dismissed by health authorities, who claim that EHS is a psychological, anxiety-induced reaction [16] related to perceived risk from chronic exposure. Moreover, building occupants occasionally report feelings of minor or acute discomfort, commonly referred to as sick building syndrome (SBS). The causes of SBS can be man-made or natural, including air pollution, biological and chemical contamination, inadequate lighting, ventilation, and psychological factors. Symptoms associated with SBS may include asthma, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, EHS, as well as sleep and behavioural illnesses, among others [17,18].
The potential impact of EM pollution on human health remains inadequately explored in the existing literature. Ongoing debates about the health implications of EM fields are fueled by differing opinions on potential risks, the reliability of scientific research, and a notable lack of consensus regarding the safety of low-level exposure. While some scientific organizations assert that current evidence does not support claims of health effects from low-level exposure, other studies suggest potential risks. This divergence in findings has led to calls for more stringent regulations and further research. Chou [14] addressed the controversy surrounding EM safety, emphasizing that standards should be both protective and realistic to apply.

3.2. Safety Standards

There are three categories of safety standards for EM fields. The first category comprises exposure standards, which are divided into two tiers: one for the public and another for occupational exposure. The IEEE C95.1-2019 standard distinguishes between individuals in unrestricted environments and those allowed in restricted environments. The second category pertains to assessment standards for compliance with exposure sources, which can be determined through either measurements or calculations. The third category, known as interference standards, is focused on medical devices [14], which is outside the scope of this study.
While developing exposure standards, including regulations, recommendations, and guidelines, expert committees identify measurable EM field levels that restrict human exposure to levels deemed safe for health. Over the years, numerous international institutions and organizations have established safety exposure limits for EM fields. Notable among these are the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) [19], the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) [20], Health Canada’s Safety Code 6, and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). In the UK, both the Office of Communications (Ofcom) and the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) adhere to the ICNIRP guidelines regarding EM exposure limits. While existing standards serve as crucial minimum benchmarks to prevent severe health issues, an important question arises as to whether these standards are adequate for safeguarding the long-term health of individuals, particularly considering prolonged, low-level exposure.
Finally, the assessment standards are mainly established by both the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and the IEEE ICES TC34 and are available as dual logo standards [14].

3.3. Building Biology Institute + Sustainability (IBN)

According to Winfried Schneider, Director of the IBN (buildingbiology.com), building biology investigates the links between humans and their constructed environments. The objective is to create living and working spaces that are healthy, natural, sustainable, and visually appealing. In this field, structures and interiors are often called a “third skin,” emphasizing the deep connection between people and their built surroundings [21].
The IBN guidelines are rooted in the precautionary principle, explicitly tailored for sleeping areas that pose long-term risks and represent a particularly sensitive period for regeneration. These guidelines draw upon the expertise and insights of the building biology community, emphasizing practicality and achievability [19]. Through a professional approach, building biology testing methods effectively identify, minimize, and mitigate environmental risk factors within an individual’s control. The objective of this standard is to identify, locate, and assess potential sources of risk by comprehensively examining all relevant subcategories. It aims to utilize efficient diagnostic tools, combined with analytical expertise, to create indoor living spaces that reduce EM exposure and are as natural as possible [22]. Electric fields exceeding 50 V/m and magnetic flux density surpassing 5 mG are classified as extreme anomalies. For RF fields, the key measurement is power density (µW/m2). A power density below 1 indicates no cause for concern, while values between 1 and 10 µW/m2 suggest a minor concern. Densities from 10 to 1000 represent a significant concern, and those exceeding 1000 indicate an extreme level of concern [23].

3.4. Regulatory Dilemma

The key distinction among the three standards lies in their focus. Both IEEE C95.1 and ICNIRP levels primarily aim to prevent short-term, acute thermal effects, based on established scientific consensus. In contrast, the IBN levels are guided by the precautionary principle, which considers potential long-term, non-thermal biological effects and advocates for maintaining exposure levels As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). Consequently, IBN imposes significantly stricter exposure limits. Table 1 presents the EM exposure limits for the public as defined by the three distinct standards. While adherence to these standards is typically voluntary, they serve as a guideline for manufacturers to develop products suitable for their intended environments. In contrast, local regulatory limits, which mainly draw from these standards, consist of mandatory rules and legal obligations enforced by national or regional organizations.

4. EM Fields in the BLE

The BLE’s EM fields encompass the whole EM energy present in an urban location, including both natural and human-made sources. Recognizing this environment is critical due to its potential impacts on human health and infrastructure services.

4.1. Literature Background

Extensive reviews on EM fields in the BLE have already been undertaken. Jalilian et al. [24] reviewed the literature to update a previous assessment of public everyday RF exposure in Europe, encompassing publications up to 2015. The review extracted quantitative data regarding public exposure in various indoor, outdoor, and transport environments. Mean RF exposure levels in homes, schools, and offices ranged from 0.04 to 0.76 V/m. In outdoor settings, mean exposure values varied from 0.07 to 1.27 V/m, with downlink signals from mobile phone base stations identified as the primary contributor. It was observed that RF levels generally increased with greater urban density. Additionally, levels of EM field exposure in public transport modes ranged from 0.14 to 0.69 V/m, while the highest measurements, peaking at 1.97 V/m, were recorded in public transport stations.
Tang et al. [25] conducted an EM field observation study in Xiamen Island. The results show that the electric field intensity in Xiamen Island ranged from 0.32 V/m to 1.70 V/m, while the magnetic fields ranged from 0.11 μT to 0.50 μT. Where more electric power facilities are present on the island, the EM fields are higher. In a pilot study [26], magnetic signatures collected from various urban spaces, specifically Berkeley and Brooklyn, were analyzed and compared. The authors identified significant differences in the magnetic signatures between the two locations. Notably, they observed a stark contrast in magnetic activity between daytime and nighttime. While Berkeley experiences nearly negligible magnetic field activity at night, Brooklyn maintains a level of magnetic activity even during nighttime hours.
Tomitsch et al. [27] stated results from spot measurement surveys at the bedside covering electrostatic, ELF, and RF fields. Measurements were taken in 226 households throughout Lower Austria. In addition, the effects of simple reduction measures were assessed. All measurements were well below ICNIRP guideline levels. Richman et al. [28] presented the results of 29 EM field audits in single-family residential dwellings located within an urban neighbourhood in Toronto (Canada). The results show the low-cost reduction strategy was effective, on average, reducing exposure by 80% for high-intensity EM metrics. Machova and Kraus [29] surveyed EM fields in various places of a typical residential unit of an apartment building in České Budějovice (Czechia), with the connection of conventional electrical appliances. EM levels were low at most of the locations except those close to computers and microwave ovens. Ramos et al. [30] analyzed the signals of various wireless communications systems in 10 locations at a public health Spanish research center, in Madrid, in an outdoor environment. Field levels did not surpass the ICNIRP reference levels, which remain considerably low. Loizeao et al. [31] conducted an evaluation of ambient RF levels and their temporal variations across various microenvironments in Switzerland, comparing data from 2014 and 2021, in 49 outdoor locations and public transport settings. The results indicated that there was no significant change in RF levels, even though an 18-fold increase in mobile data transmission during that time. Similarly, in a study in Greece in 2023, Manassas et al. [32] indicate that RF fields did not clearly decrease or increase but rather vary over time.
In terms of environmental hygiene, Jamiesson [33] proposed that implementing enhanced measures, such as optimizing humidity levels, can significantly reduce the buildup of inappropriate electric charges. This reduction could subsequently lower the risk of adverse health effects, infections, and diminished performance associated with the inhalation and deposition of contaminants. Furthermore, these strategies may help safeguard medical devices and electronic equipment from damage, ensuring the integrity of their data. Thus, it is essential to incorporate these practices more broadly into clinical practice guidelines, as well as into water, sanitation, and hygiene programs.

4.2. Cases of EM Field Audits

EM fields were monitored using the TRIFIELD and GQ EMF-390 EM meters, which can detect electric (V/m), magnetic (mG), and RF (mW/m2) fields. The level of EM fields depends on several factors, including the structure, environment, topology, and existing situation of the space. Thus, the three sites selected for EM field audits are only instances for awareness to support the study’s goal.
The initial set of measurements was taken in a residential bedroom in Ottawa. The electric fields around the head were relatively high but lower in the opposite area. The RF field levels near the bed corner close to the Wi-Fi extender were high. Magnetic field levels were almost the same across the bed area. Removing electric devices from the bedroom resulted in more than a 50% decrease in electric fields and over a sixfold reduction in RF fields (from about 8 to 48 mW/m2). Moving the bed one metre away from the right wall caused about a fourfold decrease in electric fields. Figure 2 displays measurement values for electric, magnetic, and RF fields in the bedroom.
Second, magnetic field measurements were gathered for several light rail transit (LRT) stations in Ottawa, including the University of Ottawa station. The measurements were taken at the back of the platform, the yellow line near the rail tracks, along the longitudinal and transverse lines, and at cabin joints. Considering the University station, the level of magnetic fields at the back of the platform was 5 and 12 mG at the yellow edge line. Figure 3 shows the magnetic field levels at the longitudinal plane, where fields are the highest at joints between cabins and the transverse plane, where fields are the highest at the walls of cabins. The magnetic field levels were compared with typical exposure levels of LRT systems in various countries. The results are comparable to systems in Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and France.
The third set of magnetic field measurements was taken in an indoor environment at one of the university hospitals in Bedfordshire, UK. Measurements were recorded across various indoor hospital building settings. Different building materials have been used in the hospital’s construction, including bricks, concrete, glass, timber, and drywall, primarily for load-bearing and partition walls. The strength of the magnetic field has been measured to determine if the level of fields absorbed by the occupant (patient) is high. As the field intensities fluctuated significantly during the measurements, the peak average value was noted at various times and locations. Furthermore, readings were recorded over a 5-s duration to enhance representation, as listed in Table 2. The magnetic field intensities are significantly higher inside the computed tomography (CT) scanner box compared to other environments. The higher number and variety of medical imaging devices in the CT scanner and ultrasound areas contribute to the increased field intensity. Nonetheless, these values remain well below occupational safety thresholds. According to Mannan et al. [34], hospitals and healthcare facilities require many machines to operate, and examining such BLE may result in higher EM field intensities.

5. Transition Pathways to EM Sustainability

Various pathways and interventions underscore the need to explore how BLE can lead a change to accelerate transitions toward EM sustainability. In this context, the participation of multiple stakeholders, both locally and globally, is essential. This includes academia, the public and private sectors, as well as political and community leaders.

5.1. Pathway 1: Observatory and Mapping Systems

Before constructing a building on a site, it is essential to conduct a visual inspection of potential EM sources. A basic meter can be employed to measure the strength and locations of these fields. If any sources are identified, the building should be positioned to maximize distance from them, or suitable shielding, filtering, and grounding techniques may be considered.
Analyzing ambient EM footprints could provide valuable insights into the overall field levels in living areas, potentially serving as a mapping system for an early warning to identify hotspots. Crucially, developing a robust observational network to map EM fields throughout entire regions will be essential for this purpose. Selected sites close to potential EM sources, schools, nurseries, etc., can be in collaboration with city services. Data from various sensors should be available online in real-time to the citizens through an observatory website. Although this initiative may require substantial resources, it will act as a proactive and transparent response to public concerns.
In a pilot project, the Korea Communications Agency (KCA) developed an “IoT-based, unmanned remote EM measurement and management system” designed for the real-time monitoring of EM fields. The KCA has made its EM measurement data available through its safety map and has deployed a patrol car to promptly address any EM-related issues. Starting with daycare centers and kindergartens, the KCA is now expanding its service area to include airports and subway stations. Looking ahead, the agency plans to implement this service across all living environments, encompassing residential areas and offices [35].
In France, so-called “white zones” (zones blanches) have been set up in rural and designated areas, where wireless technologies are heavily restricted. These zones aim to provide refuge for individuals with EHS—a condition acknowledged for its functional effects, though still debated within mainstream medicine [36].
Mapping exposure to EM fields is becoming increasingly vital for ensuring compliance with safety standards, facilitating the rollout of advanced wireless networks, and addressing public health concerns [37]. The ability to predict EM fields is crucial for monitoring exposure from mobile networks. This can be achieved by employing deep learning networks alongside publicly available databases to create the training dataset. Utilizing advanced computer vision models can help address the challenges of large-scale EM mapping. Models like ExposeNet [38], DeepLab [39], and EfficientNet [40] are capable of effectively detecting and delineating EM sources. This functionality is particularly important, where sources can range from small, localized devices to large infrastructure elements, each with distinctive EM characteristics.

5.2. Pathway 2: Design and Practices for EM Hygiene

The quest for effective EM hygienic solutions has seen a notable increase in proposals aimed at reducing, avoiding, or eliminating specific fields or characteristics. By incorporating these strategies into the design of electrical installations, it is possible to achieve lower exposure levels, which can significantly minimize potential interference and associated health impacts. A key approach to minimizing magnetic field levels involves reducing the current flowing through conductors. In certain situations, low-voltage power distribution systems utilize conductors that carry exceptionally high currents, often exceeding 2000 A, especially near transformer and main switchboard locations, along corridors, and within vertical ducts [41]. To tackle this issue, several strategies can be employed, such as increasing system voltage, reshaping conductors, relocating sources, and implementing magnetic field shielding.
In the design or renovation of new buildings, it is essential to give special consideration to transformers and distribution panels during the initial phase [7]. Areas immediately adjacent to these transformers should be designated as storage areas rather than living or working spaces. To further mitigate magnetic field levels, special shielding can be installed around the panel using planar metallic sheets or materials with high magnetic permeability, such as Mumetal [41,42]. Additionally, in-floor electrical heating, which involves embedding electrical wiring in concrete floors, raises concerns, particularly in spaces where occupants spend considerable time each day. It is advisable to avoid positioning frequently used areas, such as offices and bedrooms, near locations with higher EM fields [20]. This includes placing electrical appliances and entertainment systems on the opposite side of shared walls.
An RF survey is essential for collecting data at a site designated for new construction. This process plays a critical role in site analysis, allowing for the evaluation of RF field coverage, identification of potential obstructions, and establishment of reliable link connectivity with wireless communication towers. To minimize RF exposure, it is recommended that new developments be situated in areas with low RF exposure. This may require a predictive design approach, followed by thorough testing and documentation. The proposed site should be assessed using high-quality equipment to measure ambient field levels, identify potential sources of interference, and ensure compliance with local regulatory limits for EM exposure [43]. Additionally, securing a construction permit should necessitate an environmental assessment of the project’s EM impact.
EM functional materials are currently driving a wave of innovation in green anti-EM field buildings. Notably, the performance of EM interference shielding in buildings has dramatically improved, rising from 5 dB to about 65 dB—representing a significant leap in capability [44]. To further enhance building design and support the development of new constructions, two cutting-edge structures can be employed: frequency-selective surfaces, including walls, windows, and facades, as well as intelligent metasurfaces. Frequency-selective surfaces are composed of printed metallic shapes that can be incorporated into insulated windows or function as standalone panels. These surfaces perform as filters for RF signals, allowing certain frequency bands to pass while blocking others. For example, they can enable cellular frequencies to penetrate while preventing Wi-Fi frequencies. Meanwhile, metasurfaces can precisely and responsively manipulate RF waves based on external control signals [45,46]. These materials can be designed to serve as Faraday cages, reflecting waves while also having the ability to switch between blocking and permitting their transmission [47].
The advancement of shielding materials and active technologies aimed at correcting EM fields has opened a broad spectrum of research and practical applications, enabling reduction without compromising connectivity [41]. Nevertheless, these developments have also ignited considerable debate regarding the most effective, cost-efficient, and safest approaches to take.

5.3. Pathway 3: Risk Governance

Risk governance involves the social, legal, and institutional decision-making processes that identify and respond to risks facing society [48]. The challenge associated with the EM in the BLE involves navigating the limitations of weak and uncertain scientific evidence, which nonetheless generates significant public concern. This calls for a thorough assessment of the environmental, social, and economic impacts of various policies and practices. It underscores the need to prioritize long-term health and well-being for all individuals, including future generations. Striking this balance requires addressing immediate health needs while also safeguarding the environment and fostering equitable resource distribution.
In a risk management model, design is considered an “ethical factor” as it empowers users to define their ethical choices. The concept of ethical design within the realm of emerging technologies shares similarities with “anticipatory ethics,” a form of anticipatory governance that aids designers and stakeholders in articulating the ethical implications of technology. This approach may encompass various methods that integrate ethical analysis with foresight exploration to assess the future ethical impacts of emerging technologies [49]. Anticipatory ethics involves early predictions of the consequences of future applications, typically during the initial stages of technology development. This concept should become integral to designing for value in emerging technologies, ultimately contributing to the creation of better health-responsible policies.
As society delves deeper into the benefits and risks linked to emerging EM technologies, it is crucial to prioritize transparency and ethical responsibility. The mechanisms that uphold the ethical agenda for EM must be pertinent to an ecosystem that encompasses both humans and the changing physical environment [7]. This process prompts important questions about the extent to which these EM technologies should be integrated and whether favouring one could potentially undermine the other. For instance, should technological improvements be pursued at the expense of basic liberties such as safety? We might argue that the lens of design for values can help address these questions [50]. However, before delving into values, it is necessary to concentrate on an approach that seeks to incentivize ethically acceptable behaviour in the design for EM safety.
Precaution-based risk governance is a topic of ongoing debate in responsible management, underscoring the importance of taking preventive measures, particularly in the face of considerable uncertainty [51]. Prudent avoidance, for example, has become an attractive strategy, effectively minimizing exposure to perceived risks while keeping costs low. It would be prudent to avoid making significant changes to power infrastructure or ICTs until scientific evidence suggests a health risk. By taking a cautious approach, management may undertake a range of reasonable actions that account for both research findings and community concerns [20].
The precautionary principle is a comprehensive ethical framework that originated in the 1970s, designed to tackle complex and uncertain risks that current scientific and policy frameworks may not adequately address [52]. This principle is often invoked in situations characterized by significant scientific uncertainty, necessitating the implementation of protective measures to mitigate serious risks without postponing action for further research to clarify potential outcomes [53]. However, for the precautionary principle to be applicable, a connection must be established between EM exposure and a potential harm, even though determining the appropriate threshold of confidence can be challenging, considering the scientific uncertainty [54].
Another preventive approach, which might be a key in highly exposed LBE, is the ALARA principle. It states that EM exposure should be kept as low as possible, considering social, technical, and economic issues [55].

5.4. Pathway 4: Interplay Between EM Sustainability and Technologies

The BLE’s ongoing development requires a shift towards sustainable infrastructure, energy use, waste management, and pollutant reduction [56]. This entails transitioning from a compliance-centric approach to one that seamlessly integrates sustainability with health, emphasizing how EM technology must evolve to meet emerging challenges. Such a transition necessitates a comprehensive innovation strategy encompassing urban environmental governance, smart energy systems, ICT infrastructure, and enhanced building standards, all while ensuring minimal initial costs during the design phase and maintaining performance. Key examples include new spaces for jurisdictions and socio-technical transformation, the development of low-embodied energy semiconductors, and the implementation of advanced energy management techniques. This can decrease reliance on grid electricity, enhance energy efficiency, and minimize battery waste, which is essential in reducing pollution in general.
Additional cutting-edge research should likely focus on developing innovative low-embodied energy materials, reducing emissions, improving shielding efficiency, and understanding how buildings perform when occupied. Such research plays a vital role in ensuring a safe and responsible implementation of technologies, striking a balance between their benefits and the necessity to protect the environment. This ultimately leads to better operational energy efficiency and safety regulations. Achieving this goal requires collaboration through joint interdisciplinary research initiatives that examine long-term effects and establish a comprehensive real-world data platform, adhering to sustainability principles. Additionally, integrating this platform with artificial intelligence (AI) is crucial for making informed decisions and gaining insights that individual measures may not accomplish on their own.
Integrating the EM urban environment into regulatory and industry initiatives represents a significant advancement in addressing this often-overlooked aspect of energy efficiency standards for devices and equipment, as well as protection guidelines. Providing economic incentives and subsidies for manufacturers and consumers to embrace sustainable technologies and practices, and raising awareness about EM exposure, have the potential to impartially influence regulations and policy changes that warrant proactive measures to address the identified risks and promote healthier communities. This pivotal step underscores the crucial role of innovation in broadening the boundaries of what is possible. It calls upon policymakers, scientists, families, and communities to reassess the role of technology and its potential hazardous consequences.

6. Concluding Remarks

The tension surrounding the relationship between technology and health in the context of EM fields arises from a conflict between the substantial societal and economic benefits offered by EM-dependent technologies and the ongoing public health concerns regarding potential long-term risks associated with low-level exposure. It is essential to address this tension and engage with critics who argue that an emphasis on EM sustainability and the pursuit of negligible pollution may stifle technological innovation, hinder economic growth, and lead to unnecessary regulations. This issue deserves thorough discussion. Ultimately, society values both the technological advancements facilitated by EM fields and public safety. The tension persists because the full spectrum of potential health impacts from widespread low-level exposure has not yet been deemed scientifically “confirmed” enough by all regulatory organizations to warrant significant restrictions on existing technologies.
Over the years, notable strides have been made in unifying scientific understanding and integrating diverse technologies, largely due to the increasing prominence of BLE and initiatives aimed at enhancing human performance on a global scale. Nonetheless, the environmental repercussions of EM pollution are frequently overlooked. Rather than taking a stance of blanket approval or rejection of technology, policymakers should concentrate on managing sustainable practices that simultaneously foster both sustainability and public health. Ultimately, incorporating converging technologies into educational curricula at all levels is vital for training professionals to embrace such inclusive approaches.
The importance of this study lies in its transdisciplinary approach and its holistic scope, encompassing both transition developments and smooth technological innovations. The study has only begun to explore this complex issue by providing additional information on the topic and examining various scenarios for potential change and transformation. It highlights the importance of these scenarios and places them within the broader context of EM sustainability. On a macro level, the scenarios highlight key transition pathways for achieving genuine sustainability. At a micro level, future developments will undoubtedly focus on examining policies and practices essential to improving energy performance and reducing EM pollution. In this regard, cities should adopt a framework that incorporates innovative approaches to energy efficiency and environmental certifications for buildings. This framework would provide a highly adaptable assessment tool capable of meeting the diverse requirements across different jurisdictions. Furthermore, it is crucial to keep citizens fully informed and engaged regarding assessments and practices in a transparent manner.
Achieving life-affirming BLE characterized by low EM fields presents a significant challenge; however, it is an attainable goal that hinges on the collaboration of policymakers, industry leaders, and citizens. Together, they can establish a pragmatic roadmap for resilient solutions. By balancing simplicity and complexity of sustainable transition pathways, the overall effectiveness can be considerably enhanced. Moreover, it is essential to perceive EM sustainability as a continuous process rather than a fixed destination, as the pursuit of “EM balanced BLE” can indeed be a realistic aspiration. Prioritizing transition pathways reflects a genuine commitment to sustainability, altering the focus from merely knowledge-based approaches to workable plans.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.H. and G.Y.B.; methodology, R.H. and G.Y.B.; formal analysis, R.H. and G.Y.B.; investigation, R.H. and G.Y.B.; resources, R.H. and G.Y.B.; data curation, R.H. and G.Y.B.; writing—original draft preparation, R.H.; writing—review and editing, R.H. and G.Y.B.; visualization, R.H. and G.Y.B.; supervision, R.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Andreas Beaulieu, Durga Sai Ram Villa, Ryan Berthelot, David Lomboni, and Michael Spracklin for their assistance in conducting some measurements.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. UN. World Urbanization Prospects 2018: Highlights; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  2. The Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment, World Green Building Council. 2022. Available online: https://worldgbc.org/thecommitment/ (accessed on 15 October 2025).
  3. Wanyenze, R.K.; Alfvén, T.; Ndejjo, R.; Ndejjo, R.; Viberg, N.; Båge, K.; Batte, C.; Helldén, D.; Lindgren, H.; Mayega, R.W.; et al. Sustainable health—A call to action. BMC Glob. Public Health 2023, 1, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Anand, A.; Deb, C. The potential of remote sensing and GIS in urban building energy modelling. Energy Built Environ. 2024, 5, 957–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sustainability Directory, Electromagnetic Sustainability. 2025. Available online: https://lifestyle.sustainability-directory.com/term/electromagnetic-sustainability/ (accessed on 15 November 2025).
  6. Living Atlas of Quality. Two Years in: Quality in Canada’s Built Environment Research Demonstrates the Importance of Incorporating Lived Experience. Quality in Canada’s Built Environment. Available online: https://livingatlasofquality.ca/two-years-in-quality-in-canadas-built-environment-research-demonstrates-the-importance-of-incorporating-lived-experience/ (accessed on 15 November 2025).
  7. Habash, R. Sustainability and Health in Intelligent Buildings, 1st ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  8. Zon, J. Bioelectromagnetics and ethics. Some moral issues related to electromagnetic pollution of the environment. Ethos 2025, 7, 135–150. [Google Scholar]
  9. Habash, R.; Hasan, M.M. Architecting sustainability performances and enablers for grid-interactive efficient buildings. Build. Eng. 2024, 2, 1301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jamieson, I.A. Grounding (earthing) as related to electromagnetic hygiene: An integrative review. Biomed. J. 2023, 46, 30–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Maisch, D.; Podd, J.; Rapley, B. Electromagnetic fields in the built environment–design for minimal radiation exposure. BDP Environment Design Guide. R. Aust. Inst. Archit. 2006, 6, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  12. Calvente, I.; Núñez, M.I. Is the sustainability of exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation possible? Med. Clínica 2024, 162, 387–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Stuchly, M.A. Interaction of radiofrequency and microwave radiation with living systems: A review of mechanisms. Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 1979, 16, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Chou, C.-K. Controversy in electromagnetic safety. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. WHO. Healthy Environments for Healthier Populations: Why Do They Matter, and What Can We Do? World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-CED-PHE-DO-19.01 (accessed on 22 August 2025).
  16. de Vocht, F.; Röösli, M. Electrohypersensitivity: What is belief and what is known? Front. Public Health 1603, 13, 1603692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hensinger, P.; Budzinski, B.I. Why electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is a biologically expected reaction to harmful radiation? Umwelt. Medizing. Ges. 2024, 37, 2. [Google Scholar]
  18. Genuis, S.J.; Lipp, C.T. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: Fact or fiction? Sci. Total Environ. 2002, 414, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. IEEE Standard C95.1-2019; IEEE Approved Draft Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields, 0 Hz to 300 GHz. IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
  20. ICNIRP. General approach to protection against non-ionizing radiation. Health Phys. 2002, 82, 540–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Habash, R. Bioelectromagnetics: Health Effects and Biomedical Applications; CRC Taylor and Francis: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  22. IBN. Building Biology Evaluation Guidelines for Sleeping Areas, Supplement to the Standard of Building Biology Testing Methods SBM. 2015. Available online: https://buildingbiology.com/site/wp-content/uploads/richtwerte-2015-englisch.pdf (accessed on 18 September 2025).
  23. Maes, B. Standard of Building Biology Testing Methods; Technical Report SBM-2008; Institute of Building Biology + Sustainability IBN: Rosenheim, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  24. Jalilian, H.; Eeftens, M.; Ziaei, M.; Röösli, M. Public exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in everyday microenvironments: An updated systematic review for Europe. Environ. Res. 2019, 176, 108517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Tang, C.; Yang, C.; Cai, R.S.; Ye, H.; Duan, L.; Zhang, Z.; Shi, Z.; Lin, K.; Song, J.; Huang, X.; et al. Analysis of the relationship between electromagnetic radiation characteristics and urban functions in highly populated urban areas. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 645, 535–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dumont, V.; Bowen, T.A.; Roglans, R.; Dobler, G.; Sharma, M.S.; Karpf, A.; Bale, S.D.; Wickenbroke, A.; Shevun, E.; Kornack, T.; et al. Do cities have a unique magnetic pulse? J. Appl. Phys. 2022, 131, 204902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tomitsch, J.; Dechant, E.; Frank, W. Survey of electromagnetic field exposure in bedrooms of residences in lower Austria. Bioelectromagnetics 2010, 31, 200–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Richman, R.; Munroe, A.J.; Siddiqui, Y. A pilot neighbourhood study towards establishing a benchmark for reducing electromagnetic field levels within single-family residential dwellings. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 466–467, 625–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Machova, P.; Kraus, M. Survey of exposure to electromagnetic field in a standard housing unit. AIP Conf. Proc. 2022, 2574, 110003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ramos, V.; Suárez, S.D.; Marina, P.; Febles, V.M.; Rabassa, L.E.; Hernández, J.A. Survey of RF electromagnetic field exposure in a public health research environment. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility–EMC Europe, Krakow, Poland, 4–8 September 2023; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Loizeau, N.; Zahner, M.; Schindler, J.; Stephan, C.; Fröhlich, J.; Gugler, M.; Ziegler, T.; Röösli, M. Comparison of ambient radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) levels in outdoor areas and public transport in Switzerland in 2014 and 2021. Environ. Res. 2023, 237, 116921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Manassas, A.; Apostolidis, C.; Iakovidis, S.; Babas, D.; Samaras, T. A study of the long term changes in the electromagnetic environment using data from continuous monitoring sensors in Greece. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 13784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jamieson, I.A.; Bell, J.N.B.; Holdstock, P. The role of excess charge mitigation in electromagnetic hygiene: An Integrative review. Biomed. J. 2024, 48, 100801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mannan, M.; Weldu, Y.W.; Al-Ghamdi, S.G. Health impact of energy use in buildings: Radiation propagation assessment in indoor environment. Energy Rep. 2024, 6, 915–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. OPSI. IoT-Based Management and Monitoring System for 5G Electromagnetic Fields. 2021. Available online: https://oecd-opsi.org/innovations/iot-based-management-and-monitoring-system-for-5g-electromagnetic-fields/ (accessed on 14 October 2025).
  36. SPIRO. The Future of Cities: Can We Achieve Electromagnetic Pollution-Free Environments. 2025. Available online: https://spiroemf.com/blogs/news/the-future-of-cities-can-we-achieve-electromagnetic-pollution-free-environments?srsltid=AfmBOore6LTY8mfRvPXewvgya-dMTpEb8CrQJOAesOI5Wdr8gcXUZTkb (accessed on 13 October 2025).
  37. Kiouvrekis, Y.; Panagiotakopoulos, T. Electromagnetic field distribution mapping: A taxonomy and comprehensive review of computational and machine learning methods. Computers 2025, 14, 373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, Y.; Wang, S.; Wiart, J. ExposNet: A deep learning framework for EMF exposure prediction in complex urban environments. arxiv 2025, arXiv:2503.02966. [Google Scholar]
  39. Song, Z.; Zou, S.; Zhou, W.; Huang, Y.; Shao, L.; Yuan, J.; Gou, X.; Jin, W.; Wang, Z.; Chen, X.; et al. Clinically applicable histopathological diagnosis system for gastric cancer detection using deep learning. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 4294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Kabir, H.; Wu, J.; Dahal, S.; Joo, T.; Garg, N. Automated estimation of cementitious sorptivity via computer vision. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 9935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Burnett, J.; Yaping, P.D. Mitigation of extremely low frequency magnetic fields from electrical installations in high-rise buildings. Build. Environ. 2002, 37, 769–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Salinas, E.; Atalaya, J.; Hamnerius, Y.; Solano, C.J.; Gonzales, D.; Contreras, C.; Leon, C.; Sumari, M.; Dimitriou, S.; Rezinkina, M. A new technique for reducing extremely low frequency magnetic field emissions affecting large building structures. Environmentalist 2007, 27, 571–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Clegg, F.M.; Sears, M.; Friesen, M.; Scarato, T.; Metzinger, R.; Russell, C.; Stadtner, A.; Miller, A.B. Building science and radiofrequency radiation: What makes smart and healthy buildings. Build. Environ. 2020, 176, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cao, M.-Q.; Liu, T.-T.; Zhu, Y.-H.; Shu, J.-C.; Cao, M.-S. Developing electromagnetic functional materials for green building. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 45, 103496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Savic, S. Designing for connectivity: Rethinking the interaction with the built environment and wireless communication infrastructure. Interact. Des. Archit. 2017, 32, 48–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Yannopapas, V.; Paspalakis, E.; Vitanov, N.V. Electromagnetically induced transparency and slow light in an array of metallic nanoparticles. Phys. Rev. 2009, B80, 035104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lee, S.H.; Choi, M.; Kim, T.-T.; Lee, S.; Liu, M.; Yin, X.; Choi, H.K.; Lee, S.S.; Choi, C.-G.; Choi, S.-Y.; et al. Switching terahertz waves with gate-controlled active graphene metamaterials. Nat. Mater. 2012, 11, 936–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kheifets, L.; Swanson, J.; Kandel, S.; Malloy, T.F. Risk governance for mobile phones, power lines, and other EMF technologies. Risk Anal. 2010, 30, 1481–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Brey, P. Ethics of emerging technology. In The Ethics of Technology: Methods and Approaches; Hansson, S.O., Ed.; Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD, USA, 2017; pp. 175–191. [Google Scholar]
  50. ter Meulen, R.H.J. The ethical basis of the precautionary principle in health care decision making. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2005, 207, 663–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kriebel, D.; Tickner, J.; Epstein, P.; Lemons, J.; Levins, R.; Loechler, E.L.; Quinn, M.; Rudel, R.; Schettler, T.; Stoto, M. The Precautionary principle in environmental science. Environ. Health Perspect. 2001, 109, 871–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Aven, T.A. A risk and safety science perspective on the precautionary principle. Safety Sci. 2023, 165, 106211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Balzano, Q.; Sheppard, A.R. The influence of the precautionary principle on science-based decision-making: Questionable applications to risks of radiofrequency fields. J. Risk Res. 2003, 5, 351–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Jamieson, D.; Watenberg, D. The precautionary principle and electric and magnetic fields. Am. J. Public. Health 2001, 91, 1355–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hendee, W.R.; Edwards, F.M. ALARA and an integrated approach to radiation protection. Semin. Nucl. Med. 1986, 16, 142–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Balsalobre-Lorente, D.; Radulescu, M. Smart technologies for urban energy systems. J. Urban. Tech. 2025, 32, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 10252 g001
Figure 1. EM frequency spectrum and common sources of ELF and RF fields in the BLE.
Figure 1. EM frequency spectrum and common sources of ELF and RF fields in the BLE.
Sustainability 17 10252 g001
Sustainability 17 10252 g002
Figure 2. EM field measurements in a typical residential bedroom.
Figure 2. EM field measurements in a typical residential bedroom.
Sustainability 17 10252 g002
Sustainability 17 10252 g003
Figure 3. Magnetic flux densities in an LRT cabin. (a) Longitudinal plane. (b) Transverse plane.
Figure 3. Magnetic flux densities in an LRT cabin. (a) Longitudinal plane. (b) Transverse plane.
Sustainability 17 10252 g003
Table 1. EM exposure limits for the public as established by three standards.
Table 1. EM exposure limits for the public as established by three standards.
StandardMaximum Permissible EM Exposure
IEEEC95.1ELF904 µT (head and torso)
RF10 W/m2, 2–100 GHz, averaging time: 30 min
ICNIRPELF100 µT (50 Hz), 200 µT (60 Hz) (magnetic field reference level)
RF10 W/m2, 2–100 GHz, averaging time: 30 min
IBNELFConcern
NoneSlightSevereExtreme
<0.020 µT0.020–0.1 µT0.1–0.5 µT>0.5 µT
RFConcern
NoneSlightSevereExtreme
<1 µW/m21–10 µW/m210–1000 µW/m2>1000 µW/m2
1 µT = 10 mG.
Table 2. Magnetic flux densities in the surveyed hospital building.
Table 2. Magnetic flux densities in the surveyed hospital building.
Indoor SpaceMagnetic Field (mG)
Maternity lift0.8
Maternity reception1.2
Maternity internet hub1.1
Outside the computed tomography (CT) scanner room1.6
Liquid bearing X-ray tube insulated box (CT scanner)44.3
Eaton three-phase double conversion unit (CT scanner)12.8
Entrance to the ultrasound department11.6
Next to (off) portable X-ray machine0.0
Outside the empty X-ray room0.9
Outside the electrical room11
Idle X-ray machine1.2
Accident and Emergency Department1.4
Theatre Internet substation1
Electrical substation room1.2
Coffee shop1.1
1 µT = 10 mG
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Habash, R.; Baho, G.Y. Transition Pathways Towards Electromagnetic Sustainability in the Built and Lived Environment. Sustainability 2025, 17, 10252. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172210252

AMA Style

Habash R, Baho GY. Transition Pathways Towards Electromagnetic Sustainability in the Built and Lived Environment. Sustainability. 2025; 17(22):10252. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172210252

Chicago/Turabian Style

Habash, Riadh, and George Y. Baho. 2025. "Transition Pathways Towards Electromagnetic Sustainability in the Built and Lived Environment" Sustainability 17, no. 22: 10252. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172210252

APA Style

Habash, R., & Baho, G. Y. (2025). Transition Pathways Towards Electromagnetic Sustainability in the Built and Lived Environment. Sustainability, 17(22), 10252. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172210252

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop