The Future of Cities: Can We Achieve Electromagnetic Pollution-Free Environments?

The Future of Cities: Can We Achieve Electromagnetic Pollution-Free Environments?

In 2019, authorities in Brussels, Belgium, decided to suspend the rollout of 5G due to the lack of clear information about the potential health effects stemming from exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) generated by these new technologies (source: The Brussels Times, 2019).
This case reflects a growing global debate: how can we integrate new technologies into urban environments without increasing the risks associated with electromagnetic pollution?

Currently, studies such as the BioInitiative Report 2012 show that there is no safe threshold for exposure to EMFs from artificial sources. The report concludes that even low levels can induce adverse biological responses and harmful health effects. In this context, it becomes essential to rigorously apply the ALARA principle (“As Low As Reasonably Achievable”), which states that all exposure should be kept as low as reasonably possible, taking into account technical, economic, and social factors. This preventive approach is key in highly exposed urban settings.

What Is an Electromagnetic Pollution-Free City?

An EMF pollution-free city does not mean eliminating all wireless technology. Instead, it refers to creating an environment where:

  • Exposure to contaminated electromagnetic fields is minimized to levels compatible with public health.

  • Safer technologies and low-emission infrastructure are prioritized.

  • Management measures, continuous evaluation, and designated protection zones are implemented.

This approach seeks to balance connectivity, efficiency, and the preservation of human and environmental health.

Current Initiatives Toward Safer Urban Environments

Several efforts are already underway internationally to reduce electromagnetic pollution levels in cities. Notable examples include:

1. White Zones in France

In France, so-called “white zones” (zones blanches) have been established in rural and defined areas, where wireless technologies are significantly restricted. These zones are designed to offer refuge for individuals with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS)—a condition recognized for its functional effects, although still controversial in mainstream medicine.

White zones are not a step back in technology but an environmental inclusion strategy that acknowledges the diversity of biological responses to continuous exposure to contaminated EMFs. Their existence has sparked a debate about the right to an electromagnetically healthy environment and the need to guarantee low-exposure areas as part of inclusive urban standards.

This French model is being observed by other European countries as a foundation for future bioelectrical safety policies, especially in regions where wireless network expansion has been rapid and poorly regulated.
(Source: ANSES, 2018)

2. Restrictions on Wireless Infrastructure in Sensitive Areas

In Central Europe and some North American jurisdictions, regulations have been implemented to limit the installation of antennas, transmitters, or microcells near schools, hospitals, daycare centers, and densely populated residential areas.

These policies are not intended to halt network development but to strategically relocate emitters in order to protect the most vulnerable population groups: children in neurodevelopmental stages, immunocompromised patients, pregnant women, and the elderly.

These urban restrictions have also encouraged the creation of low-exposure zones and promoted research on the spatial distribution of EMFs in built environments. Beyond technical coverage, these measures reflect a cultural shift: connectivity is no longer assumed to justify any level of exposure, and a precautionary ethic is beginning to emerge in urban planning.
(Source: BioInitiative Report 2012)

3. Application of Neutralization and Environmental Shielding Technologies

The development of shielding materials and active technologies to correct electromagnetic fields has opened a wide field of research and application, allowing for EMF reduction without sacrificing connectivity. However, these advances have also sparked intense debate over the most effective and safe approach to this issue.

Over the past two decades, the search for solutions has been marked by a proliferation of proposals and conflicting views—many of which seemed ideal at first but were later found to be counterproductive. One such example is the use of high-frequency blocking and shielding materials, which often amplified electropollution, caused more interference in nearby environments, and failed to address the core issue: Artificial Quantum Noise (AQN).

This process has been key to identifying past mistakes and refining the approach. Today, we know that blocking is not the same as protecting, and that the right strategy must go beyond shielding. At NOXTAK, we have embraced this challenge from a different perspective: tackling AQN directly through filtering technologies that reorganize fields instead of interfering with them. This approach not only preserves normal device function but also creates more coherent and biocompatible environments.

Is It Feasible to Build Electromagnetic Pollution-Free Cities?

Completely eliminating EMF pollution in cities may not be feasible in the short term, but drastically reducing exposure is both technically and politically achievable. The following factors can support this shift:

  • Public Awareness: According to a report by the European Commission (SCENIHR, 2015), public concern about EMF exposure varies widely and tends to be higher in countries with a tradition of strict regulations.

  • Technological Innovation: New forms of optical telecommunications (such as LiFi) and improvements in wireless network efficiency offer safer alternatives.

  • Urban Planning: Including EMF exposure standards in urban planning—just like noise or air quality—is a decisive step forward.

Conclusion

The future of cities does not lie in rejecting technology, but in managing it in ways that are compatible with public health and environmental balance. Creating urban environments with low EMF exposure is an urgent and achievable challenge—if governments, tech companies, and citizens work together.

References

  • The Brussels Times. (2019). Brussels halts 5G rollout, citing radiation concerns. Available at: thebrusselstimes.com

  • BioInitiative Working Group. (2012). BioInitiative Report 2012: A Rationale for Biologically-based Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF). Available at: bioinitiative.org

  • ANSES (2018). Hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields: Update of scientific knowledge and recommendations.

  • SCENIHR (2015). Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks: Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields.

Back to Spiro EMF Blog