Wildlife Biologists and Radiation Experts Call For Worldwide Action on Wildlife And Wireless Radiation
The journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters published their recommendations for a research agenda as well as implementing measures to reduce ambient exposures in wildlife habitat, especially nesting and foraging areas.
December 13, 2023
Wildlife biologists and wireless radiation experts are calling for a research agenda and protective actions to address wildlife exposures to wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation in a new article “Addressing Wildlife Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields: Time for Action published in Environmental Science & Technology Letters.
The article highlights the ”unprecedented wildlife exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields” which has” the potential to exert a wide range of biological effects on wildlife, ranging from reduction in bat feeding activity and the alteration of life history characteristics in insects to morphological abnormalities in plants.”
The researchers highlight how ICNIRP limits (similar to U.S. FCC limits) are exclusively for humans, not wildlife and “are likely to be inadequate in protecting wildlife from RF-induced biological effects because the relationships among RF-EMF exposure, dosage, and outcome are expected to be species-specific; i.e., an RF-EMF exposure that exerts no biological effect in one species could have an effect in another species.”
They call for a common worldwide research agenda that would prioritize research on wildlife RF exposure and for an independent international organization to address this issue.
“We also urge the international community to mandate an independent international organization such as the United Nations Environmental Programme or the International Union for Conservation of Nature to address wildlife exposure to RF-EMFs.”
Pending further evidence they “strongly recommend the implementation of complementary measures aimed at reducing wildlife exposure to RF-EMF, particularly for species of major
conservation concern.”
Recommended measures to mitigate exposure include:
- Strategic spatial planning such as aiming the emissions from mobile phone masts away from areas of wildlife conservation significance (i.e. optimal foraging and nesting sites.
- Emission limitation strategies particularly for mobile phone masts (cell towers) that create exposure in these sensitive areas.
- Technical adjustments such as optimizing antenna orientation and installation height and implementing shielding etc, with testing for effectiveness first.
The researchers also recommend a systematic monitoring of wildlife exposure to RF-EMF.
Authors of the article:
- Jérémy S. P. Froidevaux – University of Stirling, Biological and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Natural Sciences, United Kingdom; Centre d’Ecologie et des Sciences de la Conservation, Concarneau/Paris, France; University of Bristol, School of Biological Sciences, Life Sciences Building, United Kingdom
- Laura Recuero Virto – Research Center, Léonard de Vinci Pôle Universitaire,Paris, France; La Défense & Economics Department, École polytechnique, France
- Marek Czerwiński – Department of Grassland and Natural Landscape Sciences, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Poland
- Arno Thielens – Advanced Science and Research Center, Graduate Center of the City University of New York, New York, United States
- Kirsty J. Park – University of Stirling, Biological and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Stirling, United Kingdom
Citation
Jérémy S. P. Froidevaux, Laura Recuero Virto, Marek Czerwiński, Arno Thielens, and Kirsty J. Park Addressing Wildlife Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields: Time for Action Environmental Science & Technology Letters
“The U.S. government must act. We developed the website Wireless and Wildlife wirelessandwildlife.org in recognition of the urgent need to protect wildlife from the growing environmental wireless RF exposures, “ stated Theodora Scarato Executive Director of Environmental Health Trust who pointed to the federal court judgment in Environmental Health Trust et al v. the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which mandated the U.S. FCC address the issue of environmental effects which the Court found it had “completely ignored” its its decision not to update its 1996 wireless radiation guidelines.
Environmental Health Trust has started a letter writing campaign to Congress calling for the development of policies that protect wildlife.
Scientific evidence increasingly shows that wireless radiation can damage plants and wildlife, including insects on which all agriculture depends. Rapid build-outs of wireless networks with their expanding frequencies can be expected to increase impacts on wildlife and plants proportionally. There is no national regulation of ambient wireless radiation that takes into account this growing exposure to the world in which we live. Instead, limits are set to avoid interference with other electromagnetic devices, not including humans and their habitat. A 2021 review of non ionizing radiation impacts to flora and fauna found a broad range of impacts in all species studied including impacts to orientation, reproduction, mating, nesting, DNA and survivorship and concluded that:
Wildlife loss is often unseen and undocumented until tipping points are reached. A robust dialog regarding technology’s high-impact role in the nascent field of electroecology needs to commence.
A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the biological effects to insects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields was published in the journal Reviews on Environmental Health by Alain Thill, Marie-Claire Cammaerts and Alfonso Balmori and found the “vast majority of studies found effects, generally harmful ones” with toxic effects such as impacts to reproduction and immune health occurring at legally allowed exposure levels.
Based on an assessment of the overall study situation on insects, we must warn against a careless deployment of further mobile telephony infrastructure, as harmful effects on insect populations would be likely, especially if interactions with other noxious agents are taken into account (including high-voltage power lines and artificial lighting). This might lead to further declines of already dwindling populations of pollinators, and would thereby entail costs for humanity.
