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.
There are no policies or laws to protect nature even though wildlife is impacted at today’s cell tower emission levels.
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 in plants and animals have been documented at extremely low radiation exposure levels – some less than 10 mW/m2. Health Canada’s limits for humans 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.
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 and Climate Change Canada Report, 2020
Canadian Environmental Protection Act (1999): Considerations of electromagnetic fields (radiation) and biota
by Kim Fernie, Ph.D., Research Scientist. Environment & Climate Change Canada. 2020
Final paragraph in Dr. Fernie’s report, in “Overall conclusions and recommendations”: Across Canada, increased urban development and an increased reliance on new technologies is likely increasing EMF exposure of wildlife through additional power lines, telecommunications networks, and new technologies (e.g., 4G, 5G). 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, in conjunction with other, widely recognized environmental stressors that can affect wildlife, e.g., habitat destruction, climate change, chemical pollutants, heavy metals, among others. The potential of increasing EMF exposure as a contributing or confounding factor to adverse changes in wildlife, in conjunction with recognized environmental stressors, should be considered.
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.