Electrosmog in the car – a topic that concerns many

Electric vehicles have been at the center of the EMF discussion for years. ADAC has now published new measurement data, which suggests that magnetic field exposure lies well below the ICNIRP reference values (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection). However, a closer look reveals: These results do not answer all relevant questions.
As a manufacturer of high-precision EMF measurement technology and long-standing market leader in high- and low-frequency measurement, we do not want to create alarmism – but rather
critically question whether the current assessment approaches are sufficient to realistically reflect real-world exposure inside a vehicle.

Here you can find the report by ADAC (General German Automobile Club) →

Here you can find the study by the BfS (Federal Office for Radiation Protection – Germany) →

1. Are today’s ICNIRP reference values still up to date?

The ADAC assessment is based on ICNIRP 1998 and ICNIRP 2010 – reference models that are exclusively grounded in the avoidance of thermal effects.
What these models do not take into account:

• biological effects below thermal thresholds
• combination of different EMF sources
• long-term exposures
  
• in-vehicle effects (Faraday cage → reflection of fields)
  
• sensitive population groups
  
• non-thermal interactions
  

Which means:
The official reference values are not necessarily a measure of actual safety, but rather of thermal safety.
It is therefore legitimate to openly question whether these criteria are still adequate in 2025.

2. Real overall exposure instead of isolated sources

The BfS (Federal Office for Radiation Protection) and many standards typically look at only a single source: for example the motor, the high-voltage cable, or a charging device.
In modern vehicles, however, a complex electromagnetic mix is created, for example by:

• electric drives and recuperation
• high current flow during acceleration
• onboard electronics, displays, inverters
  
• mobile phones used by multiple passengers
• hotspot use, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi
• DAB+, radio, antenna amplifiers
  
• external mobile communication transmitters and radar
  
• ...

ADAC measurements primarily reflect the vehicle itself – but not the everyday use inside the car.
A realistic picture would require:

• simultaneous HF and NF detection
• long-term data instead of short snapshots
• measurements during heavy acceleration, recuperation, traffic jams, etc.
  
• evaluation of in-vehicle field reflections
• multi-device scenarios (two to four smartphones in a car are completely normal today)

As long as these aspects are missing, the assessment remains incomplete – not wrong, but limited.

3. Key criticism from the BfS: The standard ignores the highest field peaks (< 200 ms)

Perhaps the most important point comes from the official BfS evaluation documents themselves:
The highest exposure indices in vehicles are caused by extremely short, transient magnetic field peaks – very rapid load changes during acceleration or recuperation. Yet these peaks are not detected by the measurement standard EN IEC 62764-1 (EN IEC = European Norm - International Electrotechnical Commission).
The BfS states:

“The highest exposure indices were caused by transient events […] The EN IEC 62764-1 standard does not record events shorter than 200 ms.”

It further states:

“The standard therefore cannot be considered sufficient for a comprehensive radiological safety assessment, since according to ICNIRP 1998 and 2010 even short-term peak values must be taken into account.”

What does this mean for the assessment?

• The highest peaks that occur in reality are not recorded.
• This means no complete exposure assessment can be carried out.
• Even though ICNIRP itself emphasizes that short-term field peaks can be biologically relevant.
  
• This results in a potential systematic underestimation of actual exposure.

This is not a problem of the vehicles – but of the measurement standard, which is based on outdated assumptions.

4. What does this mean for consumers?

We are not claiming that electric vehicles are “dangerous”.
Nor are we claiming that ADAC’s data is unusable.
But we do conclude the following:

• The reference value philosophy needs modernization.
• The real exposure inside a vehicle is more complex than currently measured.
• The most important field component (peaks < 200 ms) is completely ignored.
  
• Isolated source measurements are insufficient for assessing the overall situation.

For a reliable assessment, we need:

• simultaneous HF & NF measurement
• long-term recording
  
• peak detection without the 200 ms limit
  
• measurements in real driving scenarios
  
• consideration of in-vehicle exposure
  

Such measurement methods are already used in professional environments – and Gigahertz Solutions has been developing devices since 1997 that can reveal this complexity.

5. Conclusion: Remain open-minded, but attentive

The ADAC study is valuable – but it is a first step, not the final word.
Better standards, modern assessment models, and measurement methods that truly capture real-world vehicle exposure are needed.
Until then:
Inform, measure, understand – and take precautions where they are sensible and possible.
We will continue to contribute constructively as a measurement technology manufacturer and support developments that lead to greater transparency and better measurement standards.