FCC and ICNIRP limits were not developed to protect our flora or fauna. Wireless radiation “safety” limits for trees, plants, birds and bees simply do not exist. No US agency nor international authority with expertise in science, biology or safety has ever acted to review research and set safety limits for birds, bees, trees and wildlife.
It is a major gap in accountability.
The FCC project that the 5G needs over 800,000 “small” cell tower sites in the US alone. These new “small” cell towers (taller street lights and utility poles) will substantially increase the ambient environmental levels of radiofrequency radiation. Birds do perch on cell antennas. Bats, bees and pollinators will be flying directly through the radiation plumes from these new cell antennas. Tree leaves and limbs will receive high exposures from near direct contact to cell antennas in neighborhoods with heavy foliage.
No agency has ever set limits to ensure safety for wildlife or trees. The FCC limits (outdated) we have are for humans. Furthermore at this time there is no US ir international environmental agency with a funded mandate to ensure bees, trees birds and wildlife are protected in regards to cell tower networks.
It is not that the laws we have are inadequate… it is that we literally have no laws and no agency with oversight when it comes to impacts to our flora and fauna- the environment.
A 2021 review (Balmori 2021) found “sufficient evidence on the damage caused by electromagnetic radiation” to insects to state that “electromagnetic radiation should be considered seriously as a complementary driver for the dramatic decline in insects, acting in synergy with agricultural intensification, pesticides, invasive species and climate change.” The paper concludes that “the precautionary principle should be applied before any new deployment (such 5G) is considered.”
A 2021 research review by Levitt, Lai and Manville (2021) entitled “Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment” published in Reviews of Environmental Health found “exponential increases in nearly all environments. ” The abstract states “biological effects have been seen broadly across all taxa and frequencies at vanishingly low intensities comparable to today’s ambient exposures. Broad wildlife effects have been seen on orientation and migration, food finding, reproduction, mating, nest and den building, territorial maintenance and defense, and longevity and survivorship. Cyto- and geno-toxic effects have been observed… It is time to recognize ambient EMF as a novel form of pollution and develop rules at regulatory agencies that designate air as ‘habitat’ so EMF can be regulated like other pollutants. Wildlife loss is often unseen and undocumented until tipping points are reached. Long-term chronic low-level EMF exposure standards, which do not now exist, should be set accordingly for wildlife, and environmental laws should be strictly enforced.”
This 2021 paper is one of a three part series that addresses wireless frequencies now in use as well as the complex signals that will be deployed for 5G stating “serious concerns regarding phasing because it interacts with living cells in extremely complex ways that have nothing to do with traditional thermal thresholds. The wave form itself is the biologically active component” and “The reason that phasing may have a unique biological impact is because very fast peak radiation pulses generate bursts of energy that can give rise to what are called Sommerfeld and Brillouin precursors in living cells that can in turn penetrate and disperse much deeper than traditional models predict. Som- merfeld/Brillouin precursors most notably form with ultra wideband exposures as proposed with 5G.”
The second publication by the scientists entitled, “Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: how species interact with natural and man-made EMF” includes four online supplement tables of effects seen in animals from both ELF and RFR at “vanishingly low intensities.”
A 2020 report of the “biological effects of electromagnetic fields on insects” by high voltage, mobile communications and WLAN came to the conclusion that, in addition to pesticides and the loss of habitats, mobile communications radiation also has negative effects on insects and is therefore another factor in weakening the insect world. Read “Biological effects of electromagnetic fields on insects” by Alain Thill
Several literature reviews warn that non-ionizing EMFs are an “emerging threat” to wildlife (Balmori 2015, Curachi 2013, Sivani 2012) and impacts to pollinators are documented in published studies (Favre 2011, Kumar et.al., 2011, Lazaro et al., 2016). Field research has found years of exposure to cell tower radiation damages trees (Waldmann-Selsam, C., et al. 2016, Helmut 2016, Haggerty 2010) and plants (Halgamuge 2017, Pall 2016, Halgamuge and Davis 2019). Radiofrequency radiation has been found to affect the magnetic sense of invertebrates (including insects) (Tomanová and Vácha, 2016; Vácha et al., 2009) birds (Engels et al., 2014) and mammals (Malkemper et al., 2015). Furthermore research shows bees and pollinators could suffer serious impacts from the higher frequencies to be used in 5G as the higher frequencies resonate with their bodies resulting in up to 370% higher absorbed power.
Currently there is no U.S. Government-funded research program into the non-thermal biological effects of RF emissions to the environment. The EPA, which formerly conducted such research, lost all of its research funding in 1996, and has done nothing since. In July 2020 the Director of the Radiation Protection Division of the EPA Lee Ann B. Veal wrote Theodora Scarato Executive Director of EHT that the EPA had no funded mandate to regarding wireless radiofrequency matters and that they are not aware of any developed safety limits or research reviews related to impacts of wireless on birds bees and the environment. Read the letter. The EPA stated their last research review was their 1984 Report. The FCC confirmed in a USTTI webinar October 15, 2020 that their limits were for humans only.
A Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from September 8, 2000. It clarifies how decades ago, when FCC limits were set, the EPA was defunded from properly reviewing the science on harm from electromagnetic fields.
“The Court’s reliance on the EPA was technically correct but substantively naive. What the Court did not realize was that Congress terminated funding for radiation research by EPA in 1996, and no staff has been available at EPA to conduct such research for the past five years.”
The real answer, of course, is for Congress to appropriate funds for a comprehensive and continuing EPA-supervised study of non-thermal biological effects at different emission levels — that is why the outcome of this case is so important.
“Currently there is no U.S. Government-funded research program into the non-thermal biological effects of RF emissions. EPA, which formerly conducted such research, lost all of its research funding in 1996, and has done nothing since. So long as telecommunications companies only have to comply with “““thermal effects” standards and can otherwise put up towers pretty much wherever they want, the industry will obviously do all it can to prevent more research into biological effects. Right now, the federal government’s approach is: let’s permit the cell phone companies to put up the towers, and we’ll worry about human health problems later.”
“This is a perfect example of lack of accountability. Citizens should be allowed to decide whether inaction by their own elected Congressional delegations is the result of large campaign contributions and intense lobbying from the telecommunications industry.”
Thus when companies state that proposed antennas are FCC compliant, this has no applicability to protections for bees, trees or the environment. As the scientific literature amply demonstrates, findings demonstrate the pressing need for a heavily-funded federal environmental- oriented research program and compliance with NEPA that considers impacts to wildlife from the increased radiofrequency radiation.
Some Research Studies To Know
Lázaro, A. Chroni, T. Tscheulin, J. Devalez, C. Matsoukas, & T. Petanidou. (2016). Electromagnetic radiation of mobile telecommunication antennas affects the abundance and composition of wild pollinators. Journal of Insect Conservation, 20(2), 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-016-9868-8
Adelaja, O. J., Ande, A. T., Abdulraheem, G. D., Oluwakorode, I. A., Oladipo, O. A., & Oluwajobi, A. O. (2021). Distribution, diversity and abundance of some insects around a telecommunication mast in Ilorin, Kwara State, Nigeria. Bulletin of the National Research Centre, 45(1), 222.
Balmori, A. (2006). The incidence of electromagnetic pollution on the amphibian decline: Is this an important piece of the puzzle? Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry, 88(2), 287–299.
Balmori A. (2010). Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles: the city turned into a laboratory. Electromagn Biol Med. Jun;29 (1-2): 31-5.
Balmori, A. (2015). Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an emerging threat to wildlife orientation. Science of The Total Environment, 518–519, 58–60.
Balmori A. (2014). Electrosmog and species conservation. Science of The Total Environment, 496:314-316
Balmori A. (2022). Corneal opacity in Northern Bald Ibises (Geronticus eremita) equipped with radio transmitters. Electromagnetic Biol Med.174-176.
Balmori A. (2021) Electromagnetic radiation as an emerging driver factor for the decline of insects. Science of the Total Environment. 767: 144913
Borre, E. D., Joseph, W., Aminzadeh, R., Müller, P., Boone, M. N., Josipovic, I., Hashemizadeh, S., Kuster, N., Kühn, S., & Thielens, A. (2021). Radio-frequency exposure of the yellow fever mosquito (A. aegypti) from 2 to 240 GHz. PLOS Computational Biology, 17(10), e1009460.
Cucurachi, S., Tamis, W. L. M., Vijver, M. G., Peijnenburg, W. J. G. M., Bolte, J. F. B., & de Snoo, G. R. (2013). A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Environment International, 51, 116–140.
Favre, D. (2011). Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker piping. Apidologie, 42(3), 270–279.
Fedele, G., Edwards, M. D., Bhutani, S., Hares, J. M., Murbach, M., Green, E. W., Dissel, S., Hastings, M. H., Rosato, E., & Kyriacou, C. P. (2014). Genetic analysis of circadian responses to low frequency electromagnetic fields in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Genetics, 10(12), e1004804.
Fernie, K. J., & Reynolds, S. J. (2005). The effects of electromagnetic fields from power lines on avian reproductive biology and physiology: A review. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Part B, Critical Reviews, 8(2), 127–140.
Halgamuge, M. N. (2017). Review: Weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phone radiation on plants. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 36(2), 213–235.
Halgamuge, M. N., Yak, S. K., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2015). Reduced growth of soybean seedlings after exposure to weak microwave radiation from GSM 900 mobile phone and base station. Bioelectromagnetics, 36(2), 87–95.
Haggerty, K. (2010). Adverse Influence of Radio Frequency Background on Trembling Aspen Seedlings: Preliminary Observations. International Journal of Forestry Research, 836278.
Hutchison, Z. L., Gill, A. B., Sigray, P., He, H., & King, J. W. (2020). Anthropogenic electromagnetic fields (EMF) influence the behaviour of bottom-dwelling marine species. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 4219.
Kaur, S., Vian, A., Chandel, S., Singh, D. H., Batish, D., & Kohli, R. (2021). Sensitivity of plants to high frequency electromagnetic radiation: Cellular mechanisms and morphological changes. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 20.
Lee, K.-S., Choi, J.-S., Hong, S.-Y., Son, T.-H., & Yu, K. (2008). Mobile phone electromagnetic radiation activates MAPK signaling and regulates viability in Drosophila. Bioelectromagnetics, 29(5), 371–379.
Levitt BB, Lai HC and Manville AM II (2022) Low-level EMF effects on wildlife and plants: What research tells us about an ecosystem approach. Front. Public Health 10:1000840. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1000840
Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M. (2021). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions. Reviews on Environmental Health.
Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M. (2022a). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment. Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(1), 81–122.
Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M. (2022b). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: How species interact with natural and man-made EMF. Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(3), 327–406.
Li, S.-S., Zhang, Z.-Y., Yang, C.-J., Lian, H.-Y., & Cai, P. (2013). Gene expression and reproductive abilities of male Drosophila melanogaster subjected to ELF-EMF exposure. Mutation Research. Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis, 758(1–2), 95–103.
Lopatina, N. G., Zachepilo, T. G., Kamyshev, N. G., Dyuzhikova, N. A., & Serov, I. N. (2019). Effect of Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation on Behavior of the Honeybee, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Entomological Review, 99(1), 24–29.
Lupi, D., Palamara Mesiano, M., Adani, A., Benocci, R., Giacchini, R., Parenti, P., Zambon, G., Lavazza, A., Boniotti, M. B., Bassi, S., Colombo, M., & Tremolada, P. (2021a). Combined Effects of Pesticides and Electromagnetic-Fields on Honeybees: Multi-Stress Exposure. Insects, 12(8), 716.
Manta, A. K., Papadopoulou, D., Polyzos, A. P., Fragopoulou, A. F., Skouroliakou, A. S., Thanos, D., Stravopodis, D. J., & Margaritis, L. H. (2017). Mobile-phone radiation-induced perturbation of gene-expression profiling, redox equilibrium and sporadic-apoptosis control in the ovary of Drosophila melanogaster. Fly, 11(2), 75–95.
Mahmoud EA and Gabarty A (2021) “Impact of Electromagnetic Radiation on Honey Stomach Ultrastructure and the Body Chemical Element Composition of Apis mellifera,” African Entomology 29(1), 32-41, (23 March).
Migdał, P., Berbeć, E., Bieńkowski, P., Plotnik, M., Murawska, A., & Latarowski, K. (2022b). Exposure to Magnetic Fields Changes the Behavioral Pattern in Honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) under Laboratory Conditions. Animals: An Open Access Journal from MDPI, 12(7), 855.
Odemer, R., & Odemer, F. (2019). Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMF) on honey bee queen development and mating success. Science of The Total Environment, 661, 553–562.
Santhosh Kumar, S. (2018). Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) in Honey BeesCaused by EMF Radiation. Bioinformation, 14(9), 421–424.
Schwarze, S., Schneider, N.-L., Reichl, T., Dreyer, D., Lefeldt, N., Engels, S., Baker, N., Hore, P. J., & Mouritsen, H. (2016). Weak Broadband Electromagnetic Fields are More Disruptive to Magnetic Compass Orientation in a Night-Migratory Songbird (Erithacus rubecula) than Strong Narrow-Band Fields. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 10.
Scott, K., Harsanyi, P., Easton, B. A. A., Piper, A. J. R., Rochas, C. M. V., & Lyndon, A. R. (2021). Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) from Submarine Power Cables Can Trigger Strength-Dependent Behavioural and Physiological Responses in Edible Crab, Cancer pagurus (L.). Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 9(7), Article 7.
Soran, M.-L., Stan, M., Niinemets, Ü., & Copolovici, L. (2014). Influence of microwave frequency electromagnetic radiation on terpene emission and content in aromatic plants. Journal of Plant Physiology, 171(15), 1436–1443.
Stefi, A. L., Margaritis, L. H., & Christodoulakis, N. S. (2016). The effect of the non ionizing radiation on cultivated plants of Arabidopsis thaliana (Col.). Flora, 223, 114–120.
Thielens, A., Bell, D., Mortimore, D. B., Greco, M. K., Martens, L., & Joseph, W. (2018). Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 3924.
Thielens A, Greco MK, Verloock L, Martens L, Joseph W. Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure of Western Honey Bees. Scientific Reports. 2020 Jan 16;10(1):461.
Tonelli, B. A., Youngflesh, C., & Tingley, M. W. (2023). Geomagnetic disturbance associated with increased vagrancy in migratory landbirds. Scientific Reports, 13(1), Article 1.
Waldmann-Selsam, C., Balmori-de la Puente, A., Breunig, H., & Balmori, A. (2016). Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. Science of The Total Environment, 572, 554–569.
Wang, Y., Jiang, Z., Zhang, L., Zhang, Z., Liao, Y., & Cai, P. (2022b). 3.5-GHz radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation promotes the development of Drosophila melanogaster. Environmental Pollution (Barking, Essex: 1987), 294, 118646.
Wang, Y., Zhang, H., Zhang, Z., Sun, B., Tang, C., Zhang, L., Jiang, Z., Ding, B., Liao, Y., & Cai, P. (2021). Simulated mobile communication frequencies (3.5 GHz) emitted by a signal generator affects the sleep of Drosophila melanogaster. Environmental Pollution (Barking, Essex: 1987), 283, 117087.
Wiltschko, R., Thalau, P., Gehring, D., Nießner, C., Ritz, T., & Wiltschko, W. (2015). Magnetoreception in birds: The effect of radio-frequency fields. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 12(103), 20141103.
Zhong, Z., Wang, X., Yin, X., Tian, J., & Komatsu, S. (2021). Morphophysiological and Proteomic Responses on Plants of Irradiation with Electromagnetic Waves. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22(22), Article 22.
