EcoUNPLUG
Understanding the Impacts of Wireless Radiation on Birds and Wildlife
Wireless technological advancement has outpaced our awareness of its impacts on birds, pollinators, wildlife, and the delicate ecosystems they form.
Biologists are speaking up as growing scientific evidence shows that wireless and cellular exposures are harmful to a broad range of animals and plants.
Negative health effects have been documented in honeybees, migratory birds, turtles, frogs, and other wildlife. As wireless continues to penetrate the planet's parks, forests, nature preserves and wilderness habitats, the damaging impacts become more apparent. Because of the diverse species harmed, wireless may be a contributing factor in the staggering declines seen recently across diverse ecosystems.
"We may be damaging non-human species at ecosystem and biosphere levels across all taxa."
Levitt, Lai and Manville, 2022, on rising background levels of man-made electromagnetic fields (EMF)
The Science on
Wireless Radiation
Biologists Speak Out
.jpg)
Major Scientific Reviews
Effects of Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Fields on Flora and Fauna
This three-part review series examines the effects of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna. Published in the journal Reviews on Environmental
Health in 2021, it included over 1,200 scientific studies and found that, taken together, there is evidence that the planet’s ecosystems are seriously threatened by increasing wireless radiation levels and other man-made electromagnetic fields (EMFs). The authors concluded that current levels can have adverse effects and act in a synergistic manner on bird and wildlife migration, food attainment, mating, reproduction, nest and den building, and even survivorship. "Many species of flora and fauna, because of unique physiologies and habitats, are sensitive to exogenous EMF in ways that surpass human reactivity."
Part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment. (2021)
Part 1 provides background on the exponential increases in EMF levels seen across nearly all environments in recent decades, describes data on wildlife and habitat exposure to EMF, and reviews the biological effects seen across all taxa and frequencies, including orientation and migration, food finding, reproduction, longevity and survivorship. 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. "Biological effects have been seen broadly across all taxa and frequencies at vanishingly low intensities comparable to today's ambient exposures."
Part 2. Impacts: How Species Interact with Natural and Man-made EMF
Part 2 describes the impacts of EMF exposures on species. It includes extensive supplemental tables describing documented harmful effects in animals, even at "vanishingly low intensities." These include intensities that are commonplace today. The tables match rising ambient EMF levels to health effects in the environment. Excerpt: 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.
Part 3. Exposure Standards, Public Policy, Laws, and Future Directions
Part 3 describes the need for a a new vision on how to regulate wireless and other EMF exposures for non-human species at the ecosystem level. Since wireless technologies have become a ubiquitous environmental pollutant, and are biologically active, the authors conclude that more stringent controls are needed. Noting that there are no regulatory standards for the protection of wildlife from wireless radiation, the authors call for new laws to accommodate the ongoing increases in these exposures. 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.
"Biological effects have been seen broadly across all taxa and frequencies at vanishingly low intensities."
Levitt et al., 2021
Insects and Wireless
Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Insects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
In 2023 biologists Thill and colleagues reviewed 185 papers on the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) on insects, and 145 studies on insect magnetic sensing. They observed findings of decreased reproductive capacity, altered behavior, oxidative stress, DNA damage and impaired development among studies of high frequency (HF) range fields. The scientists also looked closely at studies of HF field strengths currently considered safe for humans. Because these levels are allowed under the current regulatory framework, they are ubiquitous in the environment today, meaning that insects are exposed regularly across varied landscapes and ecosystems. The review found that insects were harmed by HF EMFs even at the commonly used strengths within our regulatory thresholds for humans. The human threshold for HF field strength is less than 6 V/m (~100mW/m2), set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The researchers identified 36 studies that used field strengths of less than 6 V/m (~100mW/m2). Significant toxic effects were found in the vast majority: 31 of the 36 studies at field strengths below 6 V/m (~100mW/m2) showed statistically significant effects. This means that damaging effects are seen in insects even at strengths below our current regulatory thresholds for humans. The authors concluded that "Toxic effects on insects may occur at radiation levels that are considered safe for humans, particularly in the higher frequency bands. Pollinator conservation requires a stronger and broader application of the precautionary principle as currently practiced." The review also looked at EMFs in the low frequency (LF) range. Significant effects were found for the low frequency range experiments (n=133) as well, including the following trends: behavioral effects in 29 percent of experiments, metabolic effects in 12 percent, and reproductive effects in 11 percent. Thill, Alain, Cammaerts, Marie-Claire and Balmori, Alfonso. "Biological effects of electromagnetic fields on insects: a systematic review and meta-analysis" Reviews on Environmental Health, vol. 39, no. 4, 2024, pp. 853-869.
"Any existing exposure standards are for humans only; wildlife is unprotected."
Levitt, Lai and Manville, 2022
Low-Level EMF Effects on Wildlife and Plants
This critical overview of scientific research concluded that fauna and flora in all species studied are likely adversely affected by artificial EMF in the non-ionizing spectrum, which includes the frequencies used by all man-made wireless and cellular technologies. This was true even at very low intensities including those allowable under today's regulations for human exposure. Due to differing physiologies and sensitivity levels among non-human species, existing exposure standards for humans are inappropriate for trans-species protection. "Any existing exposure standards are for humans only; wildlife is unprotected." Abstract: There is enough evidence to indicate we may be damaging non-human species at ecosystem and biosphere levels across all taxa from rising background levels of anthropogenic non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) from 0 Hz to 300 GHz. The focus of this Perspective paper is on the unique physiology of non-human species, their extraordinary sensitivity to both natural and anthropogenic EMF, and the likelihood that artificial EMF in the static, extremely low frequency (ELF) and radiofrequency (RF) ranges of the non-ionizing electromagnetic spectrum are capable at very low intensities of adversely affecting both fauna and flora in all species studied. Any existing exposure standards are for humans only; wildlife is unprotected, including within the safety margins of existing guidelines, which are inappropriate for trans-species sensitivities and different non-human physiology. Mechanistic, genotoxic, and potential ecosystem effects are discussed. Key Excerpts: Effects have been seen in all taxa, in various frequencies, intensities, and exposure parameters. To non-human species, these are highly biologically active exposures, often functioning as stressors. This includes non-ionizing EMF in the static, extremely low frequency (ELF; 0–300 Hz) through the radiofrequency (RF) ranges used in all modern technology between 3 kHz and 300 GHz. Long-term chronic low-level EMF exposure guidelines, which do not now exist, should be set accordingly for wildlife; mitigation techniques where possible should be developed; full environmental reviews should be conducted prior to the licensing/buildout of major new technologies like 5G. Levitt BB, Lai HC, Manville AM. Frontiers in Public Health, 25 November 2022. Sec. Radiation and Health.
U.S. Department of Interior Concern on Cell Towers and Birds
Concerns about impacts "from non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation"
In 2014 the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOT) addressed in a letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) its concern that cell tower radiation has had negative impacts on the health of migratory birds and other wildlife. The DOT stated that a "significant issue associated with communication towers involves impacts from non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation emitted by these structures." “Together with the bald and golden eagle,” the DOT letter urged the FCC to “address cumulative impacts on those 241 species for which the incremental impact of tower mortality… is most likely significant.” The DOT described radiation studies on wild nesting birds that found tower emissions had negative effects on migratory birds, including nest and site abandonment, plumage deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship, and death. "Nesting migratory birds and their offspring have apparently been affected by the radiation from cellular phone towers in the 900 and 1800 MHz frequency ranges- 915 MHz is the standard cellular phone frequency used in the United States. However, the electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today. “Radiation studies at cellular communications towers... have documented nest and site abandonment, plumage deterioration, reduced survivorship." The letter also stated that the Department finds some of the proposed procedures to be inconsistent with the Executive Order 13186 on the Protection of Migratory Birds: "The Department, through the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), finds that the proposals lack provisions necessary to conserve migratory bird resources, including eagles. The proposals also do not reflect current information regarding the effects of communication towers to birds. Our comments are intended to further clarify specific issues and address provisions in the proposals." The letter also referenced research by DiCarlo and colleagues showing that even very low levels of man-made wireless radiation could harm embryo development: "Radiation at extremely low levels (0.0001 the level emitted by the average digital cellular telephone) caused heart attacks and the deaths of some chicken embryos subjected to hypoxic conditions in the laboratory while controls subjected to hypoxia were unaffected (DiCarlo et al. 2002).” The Department also described the radiation standards set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as "outdated" and not protective of organisms from the adverse effects of cell tower and cell phone radiation. “The electromagnetic radiation standards used by the FCC continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.”
"Radiation studies at cellular communications towers have documented nest and site abandonment, plumage deterioratin, reduced survivorship." "
See the full DOT letter here: http://1.usa.gov/1jn3CZg.
Bees, Birds, and Mankind:
Effects of Wireless Communication Technologies
Internationally renowned Saarland University bioscientist Ulrich Warnke explains how factors such as pesticides, mites, monocultures, severe winters, and genetically modified seeds fail to explain “the fairly sudden and country-spanning appearance two to three years ago of the dying bees phenomenon."
Excerpts:
-
“Bees and other insects, just as birds, use the Earth’s magnetic field and high frequency electromagnetic energy such as light. They accomplish orientation and navigation by means of free radicals as well as a simultaneously reacting magnetite conglomerate. Technically produced electromagnetic oscillations in the MHz range and magnetic impulses in the low frequency range persistently disturb the natural orientation and navigation mechanisms created by evolution.”
-
"Should the bees simply be too weak or ill, they should also die in or near the hive. But no ill bees were found in research into this phenomenon.”
https://www.bemri.org/publications/wildlife-and-plants/1-birds-bees-and-mankind/file.html
A Scientist's Testimony, 2023: My Life for the Birds & Bats
Retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Senior Wildlife Biologist, Albert Manville, PhD
Presented at the Friends of Merrymeeting Bay’s (FOMB) 26th annual Winter Speaker Series. Dr. Manville describes the ecological importance of birds and bats to the planet, the effects of man-made radiofrequency radiation on bird and bat species, and his scientific research in pursuit of their protection.
Nightcap National Park:
Species Decline and Disappearance Following 4G Expansion
In his report to UNESCO on the Disappearance of Species, Australian botanist Mark Broomhall documents the impact of increased electromagnetic radiation (EMR) resulting from the expansion of 4G telecommunications in the Nightcap National Park, a World Heritage Site. This report refers to cell tower complex positioned in the Mount Nardi area of the park.
The disappearance of large numbers of species from the area is documented over the 15-year period from 2000 to 2015, amid corresponding increases in levels of electromagnetic radiation from the tower complex.
Following deployment of the 4G tower complex, Broomhall documents the exodus of 49 bird species, as well as other wildlife and insect declines.
Excerpt: "...From 70 to 90 percent of the wildlife has become rare or has disappeared from the Nightcap National Park within a 2-3 km radius of the Mt. Nardi tower complex.”
https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Mt-Nardi-Wildlife-Report-to-UNESCO-FINAL.pdf
Legal Challenges:
Protecting Ecosystems from Wireless Radiation
Federal Court Admonishes FCC
over Wildlife and Environment Concerns
In a historic decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found in favor of environmental health groups and petitioners in 2021, ordering the FCC to explain why it ignored scientific evidence showing harm from wireless radiation to the environment and to humans.
In Environmental Health Trust et al. v. FCC, The court held that the FCC demonstrated: a complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation.”
The court also held that the FCC ignored scientists and environmental organizations that had called on the agency to update exposure limits. Finally, the court found that the FCC failed to address multiple issues, including:
-
impacts to wildlife and the environment
-
impacts of long term wireless exposure
-
impacts to children,
-
the testimony of people injured by wireless radiation,
-
impacts to the developing brain and reproduction.
The court ordered the FCC to “(i) provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to retain its testing procedures for determining whether cell phones and other portable electronic devices comply with its guidelines, (ii) address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and other technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its guidelines, and (iii) address the impacts of RF radiation on the environment.”
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
August 13, 2021 in EHTrust et al. v. FCC
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-374936A1.pdf
Cows in Court:
4G Antenna Ordered Deactivated Over Cow Health Concerns
Reported by Le Monde in 2022, a farmer in central-east France said that milk production had dropped by 15-20 percent in the days following the installation of a 4G cellular antenna near his herd of cows. He reported that 40 of his 200 cows had died.
The French court listened. In May 2022, the administrative court of Clermont-Ferrand, in the south-central Haute-Loire area of France, ordered the wireless antenna switched off after hearing evidence of the health deterioration in cows grazing nearby.
The court cited "a significant drop in the quality and quantity of milk produced, a serious disruption in the behavior of the herd and its voluntary denutrition and abnormally high deaths."
Let Citizens Vote Before Erecting Cell Tower
Huntington Beach Park: Ninth Circuit Court Upholds City Requirement That Cellular Carrier Get Voter Approval
What happens when a cellular carrier wants to build a new cell tower near the beach, but the city requires that its citizens first vote on whether to approve the tower?
This is what happened when the City of Huntington Beach, California, informed a cellular carrier that before being leased the rights to city park property for placement of a new cell tower, the company must first obtain approval from the city's voters. This approval requirement had been spelled out decades before within a city charter known as "Measure C."
However, the cellular carrier refused to obtain approval from city voters. The carrier argued that the voter approval requirement was preempted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
The disagreement went to the Ninth Circuit court in Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach.
The court ruled in favor of the City of Huntington Beach, finding that voter approval was, indeed, required prior to constructing a new cell tower on city-owned park property, under the city's Measure C requirement. The court stated that the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
"did not preempt the City of Huntington Beach’s decision
to require... voter approval
before constructing a mobile telephone antenna
on city-owned park property."
In this instance a company interested in constructing a cell tower could not simply override a city's pre-existing requirement for voter approval.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/12/11/10-56877%20web_a.pdf
No Right to Consider Environmental Effects?
A Challenge to 47 U.S. Code § 332
Does the public have the right to raise concerns about the environmental impacts of cell towers? What about when new towers are being proposed for placement near natural habitats, parks, forests, and protected lands? Can local residents oppose cell tower placement to avoid damaging effects on wildlife, birds, and the environment in and near their own communities?
The express exclusion of "environmental effects" as a basis for opposing new cell towers was discussed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in the case Santa Fe Alliance for Public Health and Safety vs. City of Santa Fe.
"The questions presented are as follows:
1. Whether Section 704 violates petitioners’ First Amendment right to petition the government by pursuing claims in court.
2. Whether the term “environmental effects” in Section 704 includes effects on human health."
-Santa Fe Alliance for Public Health and Safety v. City of Santa Fe
Community Blocks Cell Tower Installation
Near Protected Nature Area
Eugene, Oregon: Citizens Oppose Cell Tower Near Amazon Creek
What happens when an application for a new cell tower is submitted, but residents living nearby are not aware of the plans?
When community residents in Eugene, Oregon realized that a 75-foot cell tower was being planned next to a protected nature area known as Amazon Creek, they were concerned.
However, they were even more concerned when their neighbors were unaware of the plans, even though the cell tower would be placed close to their homes.
With help from the local Friends of Amazon Creek organization, the Eugene community spread the word, met with neighbors, and successfully opposed the installation of the cell tower in 2013.
According to local newspapers, residents living within 500 feet of the proposed tower reported that they did not receive the legally required notification. "To our knowledge, no notices were mailed. We did see an 8.5 x 11 inch poster on one utility pole." One nearby resident helped to raise awareness of the planned cell tower by putting fliers under the doormats of 200 of her neighbors' houses.
https://www.electronicsilentspring.com/amazon-creek/
"A complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation"
US Court of Appeals for DC Circuit on FCC ignoring the science, Environmental Health Trust v. FCC 2021