Select Page

Study Finds Wireless Radiation Affects Wildlife 

Jan 23, 2022

Study Finds Wireless Radiation Affects Wildlife 

Landmark review concludes regulations are urgently needed to protect flora and fauna 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 13, 2021— New research by U.S. experts calls for updated laws to protect wildlife from wireless radiation. The Environmental Health Trust recently won a victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit with a favorable ruling.  In its ruling, the court ordered the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to explain why it ignored scientific evidence including studies finding harm to trees and wildlife from wireless radiation. 

 

The recently published three-part research review, “Affects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna” in the journal “Reviews on Environmental Health,” points out that the FCC has long ignored studies on the harmful impact of wireless on wildlife. The 150 page study of over 1,200 peer reviewed studies finds that birds, insects and animals are uniquely sensitive to wireless radiation. It identifies low-level wireless as a pollutant and warns against escalating radiation levels with 5G technologies. The researchers highlight the FCC’s failure to protect the environment. 

 

The research was conducted by U.S. experts:

  • Blake Levitt—medical/science journalist and author of several books on electromagnetic radiation- lead author. 
  • Albert Manville, Ph.D.–retired senior wildlife biologist, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, senior lecturer and adjunct professor, Krieger School of Arts and  Sciences, Advanced Academic Programs, Johns Hopkins University, (17 years) 
  • Henry Lai, PhD–University of Washington professor emeritus and former Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine editor-in-chief 

 

“We’ve known for a while now, through a number of scientific studies, that cellular radiation is harmful to wildlife as well as people,” said Devra Davis, Ph.D. Davis is a highly respected epidemiologist and toxicologist who has led multiple successful public health issues including the removal of smoking on planes. Davis has testified many times before congress and is part of a team that was awarded the Nobel Prize for work on climate change. She is also the founder of the Environmental Health Trust. “For instance, in addition to research demonstrating impact on humans and wildlife, studies have found cell tower radiation can damage trees and impact honeybees as well as other insects,” Davis explained. 

 

In the series of  papers on wildlife,  the researchers first documented how the sharp rise in wireless radiation and other electromagnetic fields (EMF) from new technologies has created environmental exposures that 80 years ago did not exist. “Part 1: Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment,” was published in May, 2021 and concludes that  “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.”

 

A subsequent study released in July, “Part 2 impacts: how species interact with natural and man-made EMF,” reviewed the studies. It notes that “many species of flora and fauna, because of unique physiologies and habitats, are sensitive to exogenous EMF in ways that surpass human reactivity.” It pointed out that mammals such as bats; deer; marine animals that are whale, dolphin or porpoise; seals, walruses among others all demonstrated effects from low-level anthropogenic EMF. It also noted that effects have been observed in birds, insects, amphibians, reptiles, microbes and many species of flora.

 

Part two of the study concludes that, “Taken as a whole, this indicates enough information to raise concerns about ambient exposures to nonionizing radiation at ecosystem levels. Wildlife loss is often unseen and undocumented until tipping points are reached. It’s 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.”

 

Part three of the study, “Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions,” notes that, “Consequently FCC regulates and issues rule-makings in an environmental vacuum, other than minimal comments provided by the Food and Drug Administration (U.S. FDA) which advises on devices like cell phones over which it has authority. FCC is now seen as an agency that is captured by the industries it is supposed to regulate and because of cutbacks at key advisory agencies like EPA, FCC lacks the wider expertise upon which it relies to conduct thorough assessments regarding exposure to safety.”

 

The report identifies a serious lack of federal accountability as there are no safety standards  or regulations to protect wildlife.   Current regulations in place are only for humans and when cell towers are measured, they only consider the radiation levels on the ground for safety, but not up in the air near the cell tower antennas where birds perch. 

 

The studies point out that the FCC regulations are woefully out of date and do not protect public health, wildlife or the environment. 

 

 

In the Environmental Health Trust lawsuit, the court held that FCC failed to respond to “record evidence that exposure to radiofrequency radiation at levels below the FCC’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer.” The court also said that the agency demonstrated “a complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation.” The court found the FCC ignored numerous organizations, scientists, medical doctors who called on them to update its 1996 human exposure limits for wireless radiation. The court found the FCC failed to address these issues:

 

  • impacts of long-term wireless exposure
  • impacts to children,
  • the testimony of people injured by wireless radiation, 
  • impacts to wildlife and the environment,
  • impacts to the developing brain and reproduction.

 

The landmark case centers around the FCC’s decision not to update its 1996 exposure limits for wireless radiation from cell phones, cell towers and wireless devices. EHT experts have long argued that the FCC’s outdated limits place Americans everywhere at risk, especially in the era of 5G. 

 

“With 5G coming to neighborhoods across the country, the levels of wireless radiation will significantly increase,” Davis added. “We do not have the luxury of time to continue to debate this issue with the wireless industry. Adults, children, pets, wildlife and our environment are all vulnerable.”

 

For more information on the Environmental Health Trust, go to www.ehtrust.org. 

 

# # #

 

About Environmental Health Trust 

Founded in 2007, Environmental Health Trust, a 501(c)3 nonprofit, is a think tank that promotes a healthier environment through research, education and policy. EHT conducts cutting edge research on environmental health hazards and works with communities, health, education professionals and policymakers to understand and mitigate these hazards. Currently, EHT works with scientists, policymakers, teachers, parents and students to promote awareness on how to practice safe technology. 

 

The Environmental Health Trust has worked on the issue of wireless radiation for over a decade submitting thousands of pages of evidence to the FCC in the years leading up to the court’s decision. EHT scientists testified in 2009 Senate hearings and 2008 congressional hearing on cell phone radiation- the last ever held. EHT scientists have continued to publish studies on the health effects of non -ionizing electromagnetic radiation and organized numerous national and international scientific conferences on the issue. EHT’s scientific publications have been submitted to the FCC record as critical evidence. Visit  www.ehtrust.org for more information.