Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Blake Levitt ◽  
Henry C. Lai ◽  
Albert M. Manville

Abstract Ambient levels of electromagnetic fields (EMF) have risen sharply in the last 80 years, creating a novel energetic exposure that previously did not exist. Most recent decades have seen exponential increases in nearly all environments, including rural/remote areas and lower atmospheric regions. Because of unique physiologies, some species of flora and fauna are sensitive to exogenous EMF in ways that may surpass human reactivity. There is limited, but comprehensive, baseline data in the U.S. from the 1980s against which to compare significant new surveys from different countries. This now provides broader and more precise data on potential transient and chronic exposures to wildlife and habitats. 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. The above issues are explored in three consecutive parts: Part 1 questions today’s ambient EMF capabilities to adversely affect wildlife, with more urgency regarding 5G technologies. Part 2 explores natural and man-made fields, animal magnetoreception mechanisms, and pertinent studies to all wildlife kingdoms. Part 3 examines current exposure standards, applicable laws, and future directions. 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.

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Blake Levitt ◽  
Henry C. Lai ◽  
Albert M. Manville

Abstract Ambient levels of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) have risen sharply in the last five decades to become a ubiquitous, continuous, biologically active environmental pollutant, even in rural and remote areas. Many species of flora and fauna, because of unique physiologies and habitats, are sensitive to exogenous EMF in ways that surpass human reactivity. This can lead to complex endogenous reactions that are highly variable, largely unseen, and a possible contributing factor in species extinctions, sometimes localized. Non-human magnetoreception mechanisms are explored. Numerous studies across all frequencies and taxa indicate that current low-level anthropogenic EMF can have myriad adverse and synergistic effects, including on orientation and migration, food finding, reproduction, mating, nest and den building, territorial maintenance and defense, and on vitality, longevity and survivorship itself. Effects have been observed in mammals such as bats, cervids, cetaceans, and pinnipeds among others, and on birds, insects, amphibians, reptiles, microbes and many species of flora. Cyto- and geno-toxic effects have long been observed in laboratory research on animal models that can be extrapolated to wildlife. Unusual multi-system mechanisms can come into play with non-human species — including in aquatic environments — that rely on the Earth’s natural geomagnetic fields for critical life-sustaining information. Part 2 of this 3-part series includes four online supplement tables of effects seen in animals from both ELF and RFR at vanishingly low intensities. 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 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. 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 — a subject explored in Part 3.


2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (11) ◽  
pp. 422-428
Author(s):  
Jin-Hwa Moon

In today’s world, most children are exposed to various manmade electromagnetic fields (EMFs). EMFs are electromagnetic waves less than 300 GHz. A developing child’s brain is vulnerable to electromagnetic radiation; thus, their caregivers’ concerns about the health effects of EMFs are increasing. EMF exposure is divided into 2 categories: extremely low frequencies (ELFs; 3–3,000 Hz), involving high-voltage transmission lines and in-house wiring; and radiofrequencies (RFs; 30 kHz to 300 GHz), involving mobile phones, smart devices, base stations, WiFi, and 5G technologies. The biological effects of EMFs on humans include stimulation, thermal, and nonthermal, the latter of which is the least known. Among the various health issues related to EMFs, the most important issue is human carcinogenicity. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC’s) evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, ELFs and RFs were evaluated as possible human carcinogens (Group 2B). However, the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) view of EMFs remains undetermined. This article reviews the current knowledge of EMF exposure on humans, specifically children. EMF exposure sources, biological effects, current WHO and IARC opinions on carcinogenicity, and effects of EMF exposures on children will be discussed. As well-controlled EMF experiments in children are nearly impossible, scientific knowledge should be interpreted objectively. Precautionary approaches are recommended for children until the potential health effects of EMF are confirmed.


2000 ◽  
Vol 54 (5) ◽  
pp. 685-688 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Kmecl ◽  
I. Jerman

Radio Science ◽  
1982 ◽  
Vol 17 (5S) ◽  
pp. 149S-157S ◽  
Author(s):  
W. R. Adey ◽  
S. M. Bawin

2011 ◽  
Vol 115 (5) ◽  
pp. 1109-1124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hariharan Shankar ◽  
Paul S. Pagel ◽  
David S. Warner

Ultrasound energy exerts important cellular, genetic, thermal, and mechanical effects. Concern about the safety of ultrasound prompted several agencies to devise regulatory limits on the machine output intensities. The visual display of thermal and mechanical indices during ultrasound imaging provides an aid to limit the output of the machine. Despite many animal studies, no human investigations conducted to date have documented major physiologic consequences of ultrasound exposed during imaging. To date, ultrasound imaging appears to be safe for use in regional anesthesia and pain medicine interventions, and adherence to limiting the output of ultrasound machines as outlined by the Food and Drug Administration may avoid complications in the future. This article reviews ultrasound-related biologic effects, the role of the regulatory agencies in ensuring safety with the use of ultrasound, and the limitations and implications of ultrasound use in humans.


2008 ◽  
Vol 88 (4) ◽  
pp. 209-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiří Kassa ◽  
Miroslav Pecka ◽  
Miloš Tichý ◽  
Jiří Bajgar ◽  
Marie Koupilová ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document