The Health Impacts of Noise and Radiation Pollution: A Narrative Review of Global Burden, Clinical Evidence, Vulnerable Populations, and Public Health Interventions for Low-, Middle-, and High-Income Countries, 2024–2026.

 The Health Impacts of Noise and Radiation Pollution: A Narrative Review of Global Burden, Clinical Evidence, Vulnerable Populations, and Public Health Interventions for Low-, Middle-, and High-Income Countries, 2024–2026

Authors: Dr. Shekhar and Team, Doctor's Forum For All 🏥⚖️

Co-authors:  Rajesh (MPH) and Dr. Shruti (MPH)

Disclaimer

This article is strictly for educational purposes only. It does not constitute medical advice or a substitute for professional clinical judgment. Readers should consult qualified healthcare providers for specific recommendations. The authors and Doctor's Forum For All 🏥⚖️ disclaim any liability for actions taken based on this content. All data cited are from publicly available sources as of the date of publication. The views expressed are those of the authors alone.

Abstract

Background: Noise and radiation pollution are two of the most pervasive yet under-recognized environmental health hazards of the modern era. Environmental noise affects over 100 million people in Europe alone and contributes to approximately 12,000 premature deaths and the loss of over one million healthy life years annually. Ionizing radiation, radon exposure, and non-ionizing radiofrequency electromagnetic fields present distinct but overlapping public health challenges that remain insufficiently regulated and poorly understood by the general public and many health professionals.

Methods: We conducted a narrative synthesis of WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines, the 2025 BMJ Practice Pointer on noise pollution and health, systematic reviews and meta-analyses on transportation noise and cardiovascular disease, studies on radon-induced lung cancer, WHO-commissioned systematic reviews on radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, and published evidence on radiation protection and public health policy.

Results: Long-term exposure to environmental noise is associated with sleep disturbance, cardiovascular disease including coronary heart disease and heart failure, metabolic dysfunction, cognitive impairment in children, and mental health conditions including depression and anxiety. WHO recommends road traffic noise levels below 53 dB Lden for annoyance and cardiovascular disease prevention and below 45 dB Lnight for sleep disturbance prevention. Radon exposure is the second leading cause of lung cancer globally after tobacco, responsible for approximately 19,000 lung cancer deaths in Europe annually and an estimated 12% of lung cancer cases. The WHO-commissioned systematic reviews on radiofrequency electromagnetic fields found high certainty of association between RF radiation exposure and increased incidence of heart schwannomas and reduced male fertility in experimental animals, while evidence on human cancer risk remains inconclusive. Systematic reviews on solid cancers near nuclear facilities found no statistically significant increase in pooled analyses, though heterogeneity was substantial. WHO has called for strengthened global radiation protection, preparedness, and response.

Conclusion: Noise and radiation pollution represent a dual and often overlooked public health emergency. The evidence base for noise-related cardiovascular and mental health harms is robust and demands urgent regulatory action and clinical awareness. The evidence on radiation health effects, particularly at low doses and for non-ionizing radiation, requires continued research and precautionary public health policy. Health leaders must integrate environmental noise and radiation exposure into chronic disease prevention, primary care assessment, and health system planning. The burden of inaction is measured in preventable deaths, lost healthy life years, and chronic disease.

Keywords: noise pollution, radiation pollution, cardiovascular disease, sleep disturbance, radon, radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, environmental health, public health policy

Introduction

Two invisible pollutants are shaping population health in ways that most health systems are not designed to address. One is heard but rarely measured. The other is neither heard nor felt, yet its effects accumulate silently over decades.

Environmental noise is not merely an annoyance. It is a physiological stressor. The WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region, published in 2018, marked a paradigm shift in how noise is understood and regulated. The guidelines recommended exposure limits far more stringent than previous standards, recognizing that adverse health effects occur at noise levels previously considered safe. The WHO also introduced the concept that a 10% prevalence of high annoyance should be the limit for adverse health effects.

The evidence since 2018 has strengthened, not weakened, the case for action. A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis revisiting the WHO guidelines confirmed the association between transportation noise and heart disease, with epidemiological evidence increasing rapidly. A 2025 BMJ Practice Pointer on the impact of noise pollution on health summarized the clinical implications: long-term exposure to environmental noise is associated with sleep disturbance, cardiovascular disease, and premature death. Estimates suggest that long-term exposure to harmful levels of environmental noise contributes to 48,000 new cases of heart disease and 12,000 premature deaths annually across Europe.

In the UK alone in 2018, about 40% of the population were exposed to road traffic noise, 4.5% to rail noise, and 4.8% to aircraft noise exceeding 50 decibels Lden. These exposures were associated with a loss of approximately 130,000 healthy life years in that single year. Compared with air pollution, noise is a relatively neglected pollutant, less well understood, and insufficiently regulated.

Radiation pollution presents a different profile. Ionizing radiation from natural sources, medical procedures, occupational exposures, and nuclear facilities has well-established cancer risks at high doses. Radon, a naturally occurring radioactive gas that accumulates in homes and buildings, is the second leading cause of lung cancer globally after tobacco use. In Europe, radon exposure accounts for approximately 12% of lung cancer cases and about 19,000 lung cancer deaths every year. The risk is synergistically amplified in smokers, who are ten times more susceptible to radon's effects.

Non-ionizing radiation from wireless technologies, mobile phones, and 5G infrastructure has generated intense public concern and scientific debate. The WHO commissioned 12 systematic reviews and meta-analyses on health effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields between 2023 and 2025. These reviews, published in a special issue of Environment International, examined cancer, reproductive outcomes, cognitive impairment, electromagnetic hypersensitivity, oxidative stress, and heat-related effects. A 2025 paper assessing these reviews concluded that they "provide no assurance of safety," noting that the systematic reviews on cancer and reproductive effects in experimental animals indicated high certainty of association between RF radiation exposure and increased incidences of heart schwannomas and reduced male fertility.

In 2025, the World Health Assembly adopted resolution WHA78.15 on radiation and health, calling for strengthened global protection, preparedness, and response. The resolution addresses both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, recognizing the need to ensure radiation safety in healthcare while strengthening medical imaging capacity, and promoting public education.

The convergence of these two pollution streams raises a fundamental question. If the health impacts of noise and radiation are so well documented, why are they so poorly addressed? The answer lies partly in their invisibility, partly in their ubiquity, and partly in the economic and political interests that resist regulation.

This article examines noise and radiation pollution through four questions. First, what is the scale and nature of the health burden? Second, what does the clinical and epidemiological evidence show? Third, which populations are most vulnerable? Fourth, what are the evidence-based interventions and policy responses?

The article is written for health professionals, public health practitioners, policymakers, and informed readers. It argues that noise and radiation pollution are not niche environmental concerns. They are core public health issues that demand clinical awareness, regulatory action, and health system integration.

Methods and Materials

Study Design: This article is a narrative synthesis of published policy documents, peer-reviewed literature, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical guidance. It is not a systematic review.

Setting and Population: The scope is global, with emphasis on Europe and other high-income regions where evidence is most robust, while acknowledging the growing burden in low- and middle-income countries. Data sources reflect populations of all ages exposed to environmental noise and radiation.

Data Sources: The primary data sources were the WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region (2018) and subsequent updates; the 2025 BMJ Practice Pointer on the impact of noise pollution on health (Razai et al., BMJ 2025;391:e081193); a 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis revisiting the association between transportation noise and heart disease (Minkin et al., Environment International 2025); WHO-commissioned systematic reviews on radiofrequency electromagnetic fields published in Environment International (2023–2025); a 2025 assessment of those WHO reviews (ICBE-EMF, Environmental Health 2025); studies on radon exposure and lung cancer risk; systematic reviews on solid cancers among residents near nuclear facilities; and WHA78.15 (2025) on radiation and health.

Variables and Measurements: Health outcomes were measured using epidemiological effect estimates including hazard ratios, odds ratios, and standardized incidence ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Noise exposure was measured using Lden (day-evening-night average) and Lnight metrics. Radiation exposure was assessed through dose-response models and residential proximity analyses.

Statistical Analysis: No primary statistical analysis was conducted. Published figures and effect sizes are reported as cited.

Ethical Considerations: This article uses only publicly available policy documents, de-identified aggregate data, and published literature. No primary data collection involving human subjects was conducted. Institutional review board approval was not required.

Results

Noise Pollution: The Scale of the Burden

Environmental noise affects over 100 million people in Europe and is estimated to contribute to around 12,000 premature deaths and the loss of over one million healthy life years annually. Estimates from the WHO and the European Environment Agency, based on epidemiological studies, suggest that long-term exposure to harmful levels of environmental noise contributes to 48,000 new cases of heart disease and 12,000 premature deaths each year across Europe. In the UK in 2018, approximately 40% of the population were exposed to road traffic noise exceeding 50 dB Lden, 4.5% to rail noise, and 4.8% to aircraft noise. These exposures were associated with a loss of approximately 130,000 healthy life years in that year alone.

WHO guidelines recommend road traffic noise levels below 53 dB Lden for prevention of annoyance and cardiovascular disease, and below 45 dB Lnight for prevention of sleep disturbance. These limits are considerably more stringent than previous standards, reflecting the recognition that adverse health effects occur at lower exposure levels than previously understood.

Noise and Cardiovascular Disease

The cardiovascular consequences of chronic noise exposure are among the most clinically significant. A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis published in Environment International revisited the association between transportation noise and heart disease reported in the WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines. The review confirmed that the epidemiological evidence on this association has increased rapidly since 2018, strengthening the case for regulatory action.

A 2025 umbrella review of meta-analyses confirmed the important role of noise pollution in cardiovascular disease. The mechanisms are increasingly understood. Noise triggers a stress response involving activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and the sympathetic nervous system, leading to increased blood pressure, heart rate, and inflammatory markers. Over time, these physiological changes contribute to the development and progression of cardiovascular disease.

Road traffic noise has been specifically associated with heart failure in a 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. The relationship between noise and cardiovascular outcomes is dose-dependent, with risk increasing at higher exposure levels.

Noise and Mental Health

The mental health impacts of noise pollution are equally concerning. Evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses shows that aircraft noise is associated with increased risk of anxiety. A noise increase of 10 dB Lden is associated with higher odds of both depression and anxiety. Long-term transportation noise levels result in at least 18 million people being highly noise annoyed and a further 5 million suffering from high sleep disturbances.

Annoyance and sleep disturbance are proposed as key drivers of the broader health impacts of noise. Noise annoyance is not merely a subjective complaint. It is a marker of physiological stress that mediates the relationship between noise exposure and adverse health outcomes. The WHO has identified 10% prevalence of high annoyance as the threshold for adverse health effects, providing a measurable target for public health intervention.

Sleep disturbance is one of the most well-documented effects of noise exposure. Nocturnal noise disrupts sleep architecture, reduces sleep quality, and impairs next-day cognitive function. Chronic sleep disturbance contributes to the development of cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders, and mental health conditions. The WHO recommends maintaining nighttime noise levels below 45 dB Lnight to protect sleep.

Noise and Cognitive Impairment in Children

Children are particularly vulnerable to the cognitive effects of noise exposure. Chronic exposure to aircraft and road traffic noise has been associated with impaired reading comprehension, memory, and attention in school-aged children. These effects are thought to be mediated through sleep disturbance, annoyance, and direct interference with learning processes. The cognitive impacts in children are considered among the most serious consequences of environmental noise exposure, as they affect educational attainment and long-term developmental trajectories.

Noise and Metabolic Effects

Emerging evidence suggests that noise exposure may also contribute to metabolic dysfunction. Chronic noise exposure has been associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes and obesity, potentially through stress-mediated pathways involving cortisol dysregulation, inflammation, and sleep disruption. These metabolic effects are consistent with the broader understanding of noise as a physiological stressor rather than merely an auditory nuisance.

Radiation Pollution: Ionizing Radiation and Radon

Ionizing radiation carries well-established cancer risks at high doses, derived primarily from epidemiological studies of atomic bomb survivors and patients irradiated for therapeutic reasons. The association between radiation and cancer has been found consistently in many different populations exposed at different times and in different countries. Among survivors of the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, excess numbers of leukemia and other cancers have been observed up to 45 years after exposure. Persons exposed early in life have especially high relative risks for many cancers, and radiation-related risk of solid cancers appears to persist throughout life.

At lower doses, the picture is more nuanced. The linear no-threshold (LNT) model, which assumes that any radiation dose carries some cancer risk, remains the foundation of radiation protection policy. However, studies of populations living in high background radiation areas, such as Guarapari in Brazil, have consistently failed to detect the predicted cancer excess. Some cytogenetic and molecular investigations suggest enhanced DNA repair proficiency or lower-than-expected chromosomal damage in chronically exposed residents. These findings have implications for low-dose radiation risk assessment and public health policy.

Radon is the most significant source of ionizing radiation exposure for the general public. It is a naturally occurring radioactive gas that accumulates in homes and buildings, particularly in areas with certain geological characteristics. Radon exposure is the second leading cause of lung cancer globally after tobacco use. International studies have identified radon as responsible for approximately 12% of lung cancer cases in Europe and about 19,000 lung cancer deaths annually. The risk increases by approximately 10–20% for every 100 Bq/m³ increase in indoor radon concentration. The synergistic effect with smoking is substantial: persons who have smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lives are ten times more susceptible to radon's carcinogenic effects.

Radiation Pollution: Nuclear Facilities

Concerns about health effects among communities living near nuclear facilities persist. A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis published in BMC Public Health examined the incidence of solid cancers among residents near nuclear facilities. The meta-analyses included 20,701 breast cancer cases, 5,398 bladder cancer cases, 9,907 thyroid cancer cases, 3,634 central nervous system cancer cases, and 18,033 respiratory system cancer cases. Pooled standardized incidence ratios for all cancer subtypes were statistically insignificant and ranged from 0.99 to 1.04, with substantial heterogeneity among studies (I² range: 64%–96%). The authors concluded that current scientific evidence is insufficient to draw definitive conclusions, and called for further research with refined study designs, particularly regarding radiation exposure and individual-level confounding factors.

Non-Ionizing Radiation: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields

The health effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) from wireless technologies have been the subject of intense scientific investigation. The WHO commissioned 12 systematic reviews and meta-analyses on this topic between 2023 and 2025, published in a special issue of Environment International. These reviews examined cancer, reproductive outcomes, cognitive impairment, electromagnetic hypersensitivity, oxidative stress, and heat-related effects.

A 2025 paper assessing these WHO-commissioned reviews concluded that they "provide no assurance of safety." The paper specifically noted that the systematic reviews on cancer and reproductive effects in experimental animals indicated a high certainty of association between RF radiation exposure and increased incidences of heart schwannomas and reduced male fertility. Furthermore, the health outcomes selected for those reviews were based on a WHO-conducted international survey, which may have excluded outcomes of concern to affected populations.

A 2025 systematic review of the effects of RF-EMF exposure on cancer in laboratory animal studies found evidence of increased cancer risk in some animal models. A separate 2025 systematic review on the impact of RF-EMF on cardiac activity at rest synthesized evidence regarding effects on heart rate and heart rate variability, though findings were mixed.

The evidence on human cancer risk from RF-EMF remains inconclusive but concerning. Some studies suggest that RF exposure could induce DNA damage at levels considered safe by promulgated guidelines and regulatory standards. A 2025 umbrella review on weak RF-EMF and health effects concluded that while some experimental studies suggest low-amplitude RF radiation may influence cellular metabolism, sleep patterns, or even promote cancer, these claims remain controversial due to limited theoretical plausibility.

Vulnerable Populations

The health impacts of noise and radiation are not evenly distributed. Vulnerability is shaped by age, occupation, socioeconomic status, pre-existing health conditions, and geographic location.

Children are particularly vulnerable to noise-related cognitive impairment and to radiation exposure due to their developing bodies and longer lifetime for cancer risk to manifest. Persons exposed to radiation early in life have especially high relative risks for many cancers.

Older adults face elevated cardiovascular risks from noise exposure and are more susceptible to the health effects of sleep disturbance. Shift workers and night workers are disproportionately affected by noise-related sleep disruption and may face compounded risks from circadian disruption.

Outdoor workers, including construction workers, farmers, and transportation workers, face elevated noise exposure and may also face occupational radiation exposure in certain industries. The 2025 scoping review on noise-induced hearing loss in farmworkers highlighted the occupational risks in agricultural settings.

Smokers face dramatically elevated lung cancer risk from radon exposure, with a tenfold increase in susceptibility compared to non-smokers. Populations living in areas with high natural background radiation or near nuclear facilities face chronic low-dose exposure that requires ongoing surveillance and research.

Socioeconomically disadvantaged communities are often exposed to higher levels of both noise and radiation pollution. Road traffic noise, industrial noise, and proximity to nuclear facilities are all more common in lower-income areas, creating environmental justice concerns.

Intervention Effectiveness

The evidence base on interventions to reduce noise-related health harms is growing. At the policy level, noise abatement strategies include traffic management, low-noise road surfaces, sound barriers, building insulation, and land-use planning that separates noise sources from residential areas. The WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines provide the evidence base for setting exposure limits and evaluating the effectiveness of interventions.

At the clinical level, health professionals can play a role in identifying patients whose symptoms may be linked to noise exposure and providing appropriate management. The 2025 BMJ Practice Pointer recommends a multidisciplinary approach at the patient, provider, and policy levels to restore health, restrict exposure, reduce noise at its source, or remodel the receiver's environment as a last resort. Clinicians should consider cardiometabolic risk reduction in patients with chronic noise exposure and assess sleep quality as part of routine care.

For radiation, protective measures include radon testing and mitigation in homes and buildings, occupational radiation protection, medical imaging optimization, and public education about radiation risks and benefits. High radon concentrations can be reduced in existing houses at moderate cost, and low concentrations can usually be achieved at low cost in new buildings. WHO's radiation emergency preparedness and response framework, including the Radiation Emergency Medical Preparedness and Assistance Network (REMAP) and BioDoseNet, supports countries in strengthening national capacities.

Public Health Policy and Regulation

The WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region, published in 2018, represented a paradigm shift in noise regulation. A 2025 evaluation of the uptake and impact of these guidelines is investigating the degree of implementation by relevant stakeholders and is informing the upcoming EU-wide noise health strategy.

The 2025 World Health Assembly resolution WHA78.15 on radiation and health calls for strengthened global protection, preparedness, and response. The resolution addresses both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation and recognizes the need to ensure radiation safety in healthcare while strengthening medical imaging capacity. It calls on Member States to promote public education about radiation risks and to strengthen national capacities for radiation emergency preparedness.

The linear no-threshold model remains the foundation of radiation protection policy, though its scientific basis continues to be scrutinized. A 2025 Winter Workshop hosted by the Korean Association for Radiation Protection examined the LNT model through the lenses of science, policy, and societal debate, reflecting ongoing international discussion about low-dose radiation risk assessment.

Discussion

Key Findings

Three findings stand out.

First, the cardiovascular and mental health impacts of noise pollution are robust and clinically significant. Long-term exposure to environmental noise contributes to 48,000 new cases of heart disease and 12,000 premature deaths annually in Europe. Noise triggers physiological stress responses that lead to hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and metabolic dysfunction. The evidence is strong enough to warrant clinical attention and regulatory action.

Second, radon is an under-recognized but major cause of lung cancer. It is the second leading cause of lung cancer globally after tobacco, responsible for approximately 19,000 lung cancer deaths in Europe annually. The synergistic effect with smoking is substantial. Radon testing and mitigation are cost-effective interventions that are not implemented at the scale required.

Third, the evidence on non-ionizing radiation from wireless technologies is concerning but inconclusive. WHO-commissioned systematic reviews found high certainty of association between RF radiation and heart schwannomas and reduced male fertility in experimental animals. The evidence on human cancer risk remains uncertain. This uncertainty does not justify complacency. It justifies precautionary public health policy and continued research.

Comparison with Prior Literature

These findings align with and extend previous analyses. The WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines (2018) provided the foundational evidence base. The 2025 BMJ Practice Pointer translated that evidence into clinical guidance for health professionals. The 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis in Environment International confirmed that the evidence on transportation noise and heart disease has strengthened since 2018.

The findings on radon are consistent with longstanding evidence from the International Agency for Research on Cancer and national radon programmes. The finding on radon's contribution to lung cancer in Europe (approximately 12% of cases and 19,000 deaths annually) aligns with previous estimates.

The findings on RF-EMF are consistent with the WHO-commissioned systematic reviews and with the concerns raised by the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields. The high certainty of association in animal studies, combined with the inconclusive human evidence, creates a classic precautionary dilemma that public health policy must address.

Limitations

This synthesis has limitations. It is not a systematic review. The literature selection was purposive and may have omitted relevant studies. The evidence on noise-related health outcomes is strongest for cardiovascular disease and sleep disturbance, with less robust evidence for metabolic and cognitive outcomes. The evidence on RF-EMF health effects is limited by the difficulty of conducting long-term human studies and by the heterogeneity of exposure assessment methods. The evidence on health effects near nuclear facilities is inconclusive due to substantial heterogeneity and methodological limitations. The perspectives of communities affected by noise and radiation pollution are underrepresented in the published literature. Finally, the field is evolving rapidly, and new evidence may change the conclusions over time.

Public Health Implications

The implications for policy and practice are substantial.

First, noise pollution must be recognized as a cardiovascular and mental health risk factor. Health professionals should consider noise exposure in the assessment of patients with hypertension, cardiovascular disease, sleep disturbance, and anxiety or depression. Clinical guidelines should incorporate noise exposure assessment into routine cardiovascular risk evaluation.

Second, noise regulation must be strengthened. The WHO guidelines recommend road traffic noise levels below 53 dB Lden and 45 dB Lnight. These limits are not consistently enforced. Governments should adopt and enforce these standards, invest in noise abatement infrastructure, and integrate noise considerations into urban planning and transportation policy.

Third, radon testing and mitigation must be scaled up. Radon testing should be promoted in all areas with potential for elevated indoor radon concentrations. Building codes should require radon-resistant construction in high-risk areas. Mitigation of existing homes should be subsidized for low-income households. Public awareness campaigns should communicate the lung cancer risk of radon, particularly for smokers.

Fourth, radiation protection must be strengthened globally. The WHA78.15 resolution provides the policy framework. Countries should strengthen national capacities for radiation emergency preparedness, optimize medical imaging to minimize unnecessary exposure, and implement occupational radiation protection standards.

Fifth, the precautionary principle should guide RF-EMF policy. Given the high certainty of harm in animal studies and the inconclusive human evidence, governments should implement precautionary measures including public education about reducing unnecessary exposure, continued monitoring of exposure levels, and support for independent research.

Sixth, environmental justice must be central. Noise and radiation exposures disproportionately affect low-income communities and communities of colour. Policy interventions should prioritize these communities and ensure that the benefits of noise abatement and radiation protection reach those most at risk.

Seventh, health system integration is essential. Noise and radiation exposure assessment should be integrated into primary care, occupational health, and chronic disease management. Health professionals need training on the health effects of environmental noise and radiation and on clinical and public health interventions.

Conclusion

Noise and radiation pollution are not marginal environmental concerns. They are core public health issues that affect millions of people and contribute to preventable death and disease.

Environmental noise affects over 100 million people in Europe and contributes to 12,000 premature deaths and the loss of over one million healthy life years annually. It is associated with cardiovascular disease, sleep disturbance, mental health conditions, and cognitive impairment in children. The WHO recommends noise limits that are not consistently enforced. The evidence for clinical and regulatory action is robust.

Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer globally after tobacco, responsible for approximately 12% of lung cancer cases in Europe. It is an under-recognized, preventable cause of death. The tools for testing and mitigation exist and are cost-effective. What is needed is scale.

Non-ionizing radiation from wireless technologies presents a more complex picture. The WHO-commissioned systematic reviews found high certainty of harm in animal studies but inconclusive evidence on human cancer risk. This uncertainty justifies precaution, not complacency. Continued research, monitoring, and public education are essential.

The convergence of these pollution streams points to a broader truth. Environmental health hazards that are invisible, ubiquitous, and economically inconvenient are systematically underaddressed. The health system has a role to play in changing that. Clinicians can assess exposure, provide guidance, and advocate for policy change. Public health practitioners can conduct surveillance, implement interventions, and build the evidence base. Policymakers can set and enforce standards, invest in abatement, and protect vulnerable populations.

The burden of inaction is measured in preventable deaths, lost healthy life years, and chronic disease. The tools to reduce that burden exist. What is needed is the will to use them.

References

1. World Health Organization. Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2018.

2. Razai MS, King E, Majeed A, James P. The impact of noise pollution on health. BMJ. 2025;391:e081193.

3. Minkin M, Woodland L, Williams OA, Hamilton S, Hansell AL, Vienneau D, Gong X, Fenech B. Revisiting the association between transportation noise and heart disease reported in the WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Int. 2025;202:109667.

4. Münzel T, Kuntic M, Daiber A, Sørensen M. Transportation noise and the cardiometabolic risk. Atherosclerosis. 2025;403:119148.

5. Liu M, Chen X, Zheng G, Zhou B, Fang Z, Chen H, Liang X, Hao G. Association between road traffic noise exposure and heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Public Health. 2025;241:107–114.

6. The relationship between noise pollution and cardiovascular diseases: an umbrella review on meta-analyses. Springer. 2025.

7. Hahad O, Kuntic M, et al. Noise and mental health: evidence, mechanisms, and consequences. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology. 2024.

8. Lee GB, et al. Incidence of solid cancers among residents near nuclear facilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2025.

9. Cancer risk due to ingestion of naturally occurring radionuclides through drinking water: A systematic review. Sci Total Environ. 2025;968:178849.

10. IARC. Ionizing radiation and cancer risk. IARC Monographs.

11. World Health Organization. Radiation and health: strengthening global protection, preparedness and response. WHA78.15. Geneva: WHO; 2025.

12. Melnick RL, et al. The WHO-commissioned systematic reviews on health effects of radiofrequency radiation provide no assurance of safety. Environ Health. 2025;24(1).

13. Mevissen M, et al. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review. Environ Int. 2025;199:109482.

14. Karipidis K, et al. The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A systematic review of human observational studies. Environ Int. 2025.

15. Impact of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields on Cardiac Activity at Rest: A Systematic Review of Healthy Human Studies. Bioelectromagnetics. 2025;46(5):e70014.

16. Radon and lung cancer risk. European Code Against Cancer, 5th Edition. IARC.

17. World Health Organization. Radon and health. Geneva: WHO.

18. Coco L, Fried M, Loria O, Vazquez L, Ekonomo K, Sanchez G, Keeney AJ, Beseler CL. Noise-induced hearing loss in farmworkers: a scoping review. Front Public Health. 2025;13:1502489.

19. Uptake and impact of the WHO environmental noise guidelines for the European Region. Burden-EU. 2025.

20. Korean Association for Radiation Protection. 2025 Winter Workshop on the LNT model. J Radiol Prot. 2025.