Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions

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

Abstract Due to the continuous rising ambient levels of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) used in modern societies—primarily from wireless technologies—that have now become a ubiquitous biologically active environmental pollutant, a new vision on how to regulate such exposures for non-human species at the ecosystem level is needed. Government standards adopted for human exposures are examined for applicability to wildlife. Existing environmental laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in the U.S. and others used in Canada and throughout Europe, should be strengthened and enforced. New laws should be written to accommodate the ever-increasing EMF exposures. Radiofrequency radiation exposure standards that have been adopted by worldwide agencies and governments warrant more stringent controls given the new and unusual signaling characteristics used in 5G technology. No such standards take wildlife into consideration. Many species of flora and fauna, because of distinctive physiologies, have been found sensitive to exogenous EMF in ways that surpass human reactivity. Such exposures may now be capable of affecting endogenous bioelectric states in some species. Numerous studies across all frequencies and taxa indicate that low-level EMF exposures have numerous adverse effects, including on orientation, migration, food finding, reproduction, mating, nest and den building, territorial maintenance, defense, vitality, longevity, and survivorship. Cyto- and geno-toxic effects have long 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. A robust dialog regarding technology’s high-impact role in the nascent field of electroecology needs to commence. Long-term chronic low-level EMF exposure standards should be set accordingly for wildlife, including, but not limited to, the redesign of wireless devices, as well as infrastructure, in order to reduce the rising ambient levels (explored in Part 1). Possible environmental approaches are discussed. This is Part 3 of a three-part series.

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.


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian E. Washbum

Hawks and owls can negatively impact a variety of human interests, including important natural resources, livestock and game bird production, human health and safety, and companion animals. Conflicts between raptors and people generally are localized and often site-specific. However, the economic and social impacts to the individuals involved can be severe. Despite the problems they may cause, hawks and owls provide important benefits and environmental services. Raptors are popular with birdwatchers and much of the general public. They also hunt and kill large numbers of rodents, reducing crop damage and other problems. Hawks and owls are classified into four main groups, namely accipiters, buteos, falcons, and owls. All hawks and owls in the United States are federally pro-tected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC, 703−711). Hawks and owls typically are protected under state wildlife laws or local ordinances, as well. These laws strictly prohibit the capture, killing, or possession of hawks or owls (or their parts) without a special permit (e.g., Feder-al Depredation Permit), issued by the USFWS. State-issued wildlife damage or depredation permits also may be required.


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

2005 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 142-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Bachmann ◽  
J. Kalda ◽  
J. Lass ◽  
V. Tuulik ◽  
M. Säkki ◽  
...  

Heart Rhythm ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 809-817 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lilei Yu ◽  
John W. Dyer ◽  
Benjamin J. Scherlag ◽  
Stavros Stavrakis ◽  
Yong Sha ◽  
...  

1986 ◽  
Vol 172 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maimon M. Cohen ◽  
Anna Kunska ◽  
Jacqueline A. Astemborski ◽  
Duncan McCulloch

1999 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 181-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
J S Kruszewska

Isolation of some biologically important proteins from natural sources was found to be too expensive or scarcely possible (human proteins). The problem could be solved by expression of heterologous genes. Many biologically active proteins have been successfully expressed in filamentous fungi, some of them, however, at a low level. Thus, improvement of this technique appears to be a very important task. The process comprises several steps. Some of them, such as efficient transformation, vector construction, processing of signal sequences, post-translational modifications and secretion of the expressed proteins, have been intensively investigated. This review presents obstacles and problems encountered in expression of heterologous genes and discusses strategies of development in this area.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document