Why care…
…about the effects of wireless radiation on birds, bees & trees?
Despite numerous studies showing harmful effects from wireless radiation, insects, birds and other airborne species that live in close proximity to cell tower antennas are unprotected because RF regulations do not apply to wildlife.
Trees, plants and bacteria have also been found to be impacted by RF exposure, yet they are also ignored by Canada’s regulations. RF-EMR from modern technologies is not addressed as a risk to the environment under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), or other national laws and there are no plans to do so.1
Effects have also been observed at ambient and low-intensity levels of exposure, such as from Wi-Fi and cell towers (base stations).
The dramatic worldwide decline of populations of birds, insects and other biota makes this an urgent issue. According to scientists who specialize in this field, exposure to wireless radiation at ambient levels may well be a co-factor, along with pesticides, habitat loss and climate change.
Increasing numbers of structures with multiple cellular network antennas (specifically designed to emit RF-EMR) are being installed across Canada, in urban, rural and wilderness areas. These antennas will support the operation of hundreds of thousands additional smaller antennas (e.g., 4G, 5G) being mounted on non-tower structures (e.g., street furniture, buildings, lamp-posts and other utility poles). At the same time, tens of thousands more telecommunications satellites are being launched to emit RF‑EMR.
Review C4ST presentation to MP Scarpaleggia, Chair of the ENVI committee
There are no policies or laws to protect nature even though wildlife is impacted at today’s cell tower emission levels.
Need for protective legislation in Canada
Although there is ample evidence of harm to a large variety of species of plants, animals and other non-human species to cell tower radiation at low levels, there are no federal protective laws or regulations. Human guidelines are not protective.
Environment Canada states “It is conceivable that the RF-EMFs from power lines, telecommunication networks and technologies, may become or already are an environmental stressor to exposed wildlife”
Canadian Environmental Protection Act (1999): Considerations of electromagnetic fields (radiation) and biota
by Kim Fernie, Ph.D., Research Scientist. Environment & Climate Change Canada. 2020
Environment and Climate Change Canada has not allocated any funding or staff time to conduct research in this area even though the federal government brings in billions of dollars with auctions of radiofrequency spectrum.
Plants and animals and other non-human species are adversely affected at wireless radiation (non-ionizing electromagnetic fields) levels found near cell towers and other wireless radiation emitting devices and equipment.
Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M. (2022). Low-level EMF effects on wildlife and plants: What research tells us about an ecosystem approach. Frontiers in Public Health, 10.
Balmori, A. (2021). Electromagnetic radiation as an emerging driver factor for the decline of insects. Science of The Total Environment, 767, 144913.
Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M. (2021a). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment. Reviews on Environmental Health.
Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M. (2021b). 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.
Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M. (2021c). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions. Reviews on Environmental Health.
Birds get lost
European Robin
- Ambient EMF affected behaviour
- “The weak broadband field very efficiently disrupted their magnetic compass”
Engels, S., Schneider, N.-L., Lefeldt, N., Hein, C. M., Zapka, M., Michalik, A., … Mouritsen, H. (2014). Anthropogenic electromagnetic noise disrupts magnetic compass orientation in a migratory bird. Nature, 509 (7500), 353–356.
Schwarze, S., Schneider, N.-L., Reichl, T., Dreyer, D., Lefeldt, N., Engels, S., … 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, 55.
Ecological Field Study: Cell Towers and Pollinators
“…these changes…associated with electromagnetic smog may have important ecological and economic impacts on the pollination service that could significantly affect the maintenance of wild plant diversity, crop production and human welfare.”
Literature Review Requested by the European Parliament
Environmental impacts of 5G
A literature review of effects of radio-frequency electromagnetic field exposure of non-human vertebrates, invertebrates and plants.
Results
Dielectric heating due to RF-EMF exposure of biological tissue is shown in all categories. …which in turn has biological effects such as a thermoregulatory response.
This implies that there is always a level of RF-EMF power density that will cause biological effects, referred to as thermal effects.
Decoupling effects caused by elevated temperatures and the presence of RF-EMFs within biological tissue are major issues in this field of study.
Thielens, A. (2021). Environmental Impacts of 5G. A literature review of effects of radio-frequency electromagnetic field exposure of non-human vertebrates, invertebrates and plants. Prepared at the Request of the Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) and Managed by the Scientific Foresight Unit, within the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS) of the Secretariat of the European Parliament, 149.
Examples of biological effects on biota of wireless radiation
Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields/radiation – RF-EMF/EMR exposures at common ambient levels (modified from Figure 2).
Biological effects on plants and animals have been documented at extremely low radiation exposure levels – some less than 10 mW/m2. Limits for humans are begin at about 2,000 mW/m2. The current limits for human exposure (Safety Code 6) are clearly not adequate protection for wildlife including pollinators. Commonly measured levels in close vicinity to cell tower and other EMR emitting antennas are often 10mW/m2 and higher.
Reference Material
- Whitepaper authored by Prevent Cancer Now and Canadians for Safe Technology: Protect Birds and Bees, Include anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation in CEPA: preventcancernow.ca/submissions/protect-birds-bees-and-trees-include-anthropogenic-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-radiation-in-canadian-environmental-protection-act-cepa-amendments
- Environmental Health Trust Fact sheets – www.wildlifeandwireless.org/resources/#visual-resources
- A landmark research review by U.S experts of over 1,200 studies on the effects of non ionizing radiation to wildlife entitled “Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna” published in Reviews on Environmental Health found adverse effects at even very low intensities including impacts to orientation and migration, reproduction, mating, nest, den building and survivorship. (Levitt et al., 2021a, Levitt et al., 2021b, Levitt et al., 2021c).
- “A review of the ecological effects of RF-EMF” published in Environment International reviewed found RF had a significant effect on birds, insects, other vertebrates, other organisms, and plants in 70% of the studies reviewed with development and reproduction in birds and insects the most strongly affected. (Cucurachi 2013)
- The research review “Electromagnetic radiation as an emerging driver factor for the decline of insects” published in Science of the Total Environment found “sufficient evidence” of effects including impacts to flight, foraging and feeding, short-term memory and mortality. (Balmori 2021)
- Thielens, A. (2021). Environmental Impacts of 5G. A literature review of effects of radio-frequency electromagnetic field exposure of non-human vertebrates, invertebrates and plants. Prepared at the Request of the Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) and Managed by the Scientific Foresight Unit, within the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS) of the Secretariat of the European Parliament, 149. doi.org/10.2861/318352
- Friesen, M., & Havas, M. (2020). Effects of Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Pollution on Invertebrates, Including Pollinators such as Honey Bees: What We Know, What We don’t Know, and What We Need to Know. In Working Landscapes. Proceedings of the 12th Prairie Conservation and Endangered Species Conference, Danyluk (ed.). February 2019, Winnipeg, Manitoba. (pp. 127–138). Critical Wildlife Habitat Program, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Retrieved from prairiecesc.ca/media/45404/final-2019-pcesc-proceedings.pdf
- Kumar, S., Singh, V. K., Nath, P., & Joshi, P. C. (2020). An overview of anthropogenic electromagnetic radiations as risk to pollinators and pollination. Journal of Applied and Natural Science, 12(4), 675–681. doi.org/10.31018/jans.v12i4.2420
- Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Energy in the Frequency Range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz: Safety Code 6 [Health Canada, 2015] www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/health-risks-safety/limits-human-exposure-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-energy-range-3-300.html
- Lupi, D., Palamara Mesiano, M., Adani, A., et al. (2021). Combined Effects of Pesticides and Electromagnetic-Fields on Honeybees: Multi-Stress Exposure. Insects, 12(8), 716. doi.org/10.3390/insects12080716. Extract: “The overall results clearly indicate that the multi-stress conditions were able to induce biochemical, physiological and behavioral alterations which severely threatened bee colony survival.”
- Boga, A, Emre M., Sertdemir,Y., Akillioglu K., Binokay,S., & Demirhan, O. (2015).The Effect of 900 and 1800 MHz GSM-like Radiofrequency Irradiation and Nicotine Sulfate Administration on the Embryonic Development of Xenopus Laevis. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 113: 378–90. doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2014.12.020
- Kostoff, R.N., & Lau C.G.Y.(2013) Combined biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields and other agents in the published literature. Technological Forecasting and Social Change;80(7):1331–49,
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040162512003216 - Kostoff, R. N. & Lau, C.G.Y. (2017). Modified Health Effects of Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation Combined with Other Agents Reported in the Biomedical Literature. In Microwave Effects on DNA and Proteins, edited by Chris D. Geddes, 97– 157. Cham: Springer International Publishing, doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50289-2_4
Footnotes
- The Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, then Minister of ECC, stated in response to C4ST’s Environmental Petition No. 456 to the Auditor General of Canada that ECC:
“ … is not conducting research and monitoring activities on the potential impact of radiofrequency/microwave radiation exposure to biota to inform Health Canada or other regulatory organizations”.
“… does not receive notifications or invitations, and is not usually engaged in review of biological and ecosystem impacts of millimetre wavelength radiofrequency radiation”.
“ … is not examining energy and resources implications to sustainability and climate change from the use of various alternative technologies for telecommunications”.
Read PDF ↩︎