(Provisional draft to be edited and updated)
By Michael W. Fox DSc, PhD, BVetMed, MRCVS
Electropollution from the Earth-shrouding and penetrating cybersphere of telecommunications is a major emerging existential threat and One Health issue of this Anthropocene age. Extensive scientific documentation of this critical concern is appended in this overview with regard to public, wildlife and domestic animal health and well-being. These harmful consequences and their minimization need to be considered by all involved, from providers, users and exposed communities to responsible providers and governmental regulatory agencies national and international.
“Sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation is the emerging health problem of the 21st century. It is imperative that health practitioners, governments, schools and parents learn more about it. The human health stakes are significant. “
- William Rea, MD, Founder & Director of the Environmental Health Center, Dallas and Past President, American Academy of Environmental Medicine.
“The greatest polluting element in the earth’s environment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields.”
- EMF pioneer and Nobel prize nominee Dr. Robert Becker.
“Because of the recent proliferation of radio frequency radiation from cell phones and towers, terrestrial antennas, Wi-Fi and Wi-max systems, broadband internet over power lines, and personal electronic equipment, we may be facing a looming epidemic of morbidity and mortality. In Dirty Electricity, he reveals the steps we must take, personally and as a society, to coexist with this marvelous but dangerous technology.”
- Samuel Milham, MD, MPH, author of Dirty Electricity.
For a well documented report on the human effects of electropollution see Michael Kagelidis’ review article Electrohypersensitivity: What you need to know about the allergy of the 21st century. http://www.home-biology.com/electromagnetic-radiation/emf-radiation-health-effects/electrohypersensitivity. Ronald Kostoff, Ph.D. at Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy issued a 2020 report called, “The Largest Unethical Medical Experiment in Human History” which documents the validity of these concerns. https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/62452
French court orders 4G antenna switch-off over cow health concerns A farmer in central-east France said that milk production had dropped by 15-20% in the days following the antenna installation, and 40 of his 200 cows had died https://www.activistpost.com/2022/05/cell-tower-turned-off-by-court-after-farmer-complained-that-its-radiation-was-damaging-his-cows-health.html
Our planet is a living biosphere (including the atmosphere), what some call the anima mundi or soul of the Earth. It sustains all sentient beings whose bioelectrical fields are attuned to the Earth’s electromagnetic field. The planetary biosphere is being covered by the electronic cybersphere, the realm of information technology and electronic communication, especially the Internet. Helping interconnect and socialize humankind, this is seen by some as the “hominizing” techno-evolution envisioned by Fr Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, SJ, facilitating the genesis of the noosphere. the collectively connected evolutionary matrix of human consciousness. (1).
But the nascent global network of 5 G and other telecommunications and associated mega-energy demands of data storage and services, other forms of non-ionizing radiation (NIR) and electromagnetic fields, (EMFs), are harmful at various frequencies and intensities. They are known to affect neuronal function and DNA, may precipitate techno-devolution and degenerative changes in human psychophysiology, health and behavior. (2) They may also decimate insect and other wildlife species and populations, declining biodiversity affecting ecosystem viability and aggravating the consequences of climate change, detrimental to agriculture and public health and the economy. Electromagnetic fields from powerlines, cell phones, cell towers, satellites and wireless impact the birds, bees, wildlife and our environment. (3).
“As we move to the left of the visible light band in the figure above, we move to lower frequencies. By “frequency” we mean how rapidly these waves move up and down. The lower the frequency, the lower the energy. In these lower frequencies on the left side of the electromagnetic spectrum, we find infrared, microwave, radio waves, and cell phone range radiation. The CDC states “ We don’t know for sure if RF radiation from cell phones can cause health problems years later. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RF radiation as a “possible human carcinogen.”
The Bioinitiative Report 2012 makes the claim that there are significant health risks associated with low frequency non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation “BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)”.
Hundreds of thousands of data storage and streaming centers around the world powered by fossil fuels and the high energy demand of 5G compared to wifi wireless technology are escalating carbon emissions and have become a major contributor to the global Climate Crisis.
According to Physicians for Responsible Technology (4) “A diverse array of animal life relies upon the earth’s magnetic field for navigation, breeding, feeding, migration and survival. Biologists have discovered that wireless electromagnetic radiation disturbs internal magneto-receptors used for navigation, as well as disrupting other complex cellular and biologic processes in mammals, birds, fish, insects, trees, plants, seeds and bacteria with profound impacts on the natural environment. Different species have different interactions with radiofrequency radiation (RFR) and differ in their toxic effect. These effects may not be immediately apparent with a slow decline in the health of wildlife seen over time with cumulative exposure.”
Biologists have noted that wildlife are susceptible to harm from manmade ambient electromagnetic fields. Researchers are now attributing RFR from cellular telecommunications to be a contributing cause of bee “colony collapse disorder”, insect disappearance, the decline in house sparrows in London, as well as the steady deterioration of the worlds bird population with now than 40% of bird species under critical threat. Scientists note a serious lack of radiation monitoring and protocols to study the impacts and call for precaution in the placement of cell towers and further expansion of wireless broadband. In the United States, Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not allow consideration of environmental effects in the placement of cell towers. Telecommunications Act of 1996
The European Commissions Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Emerging Risks (SCHEER) in 2018 issued their emerging risks report. They listed 5G electromagnetic radiation as an emerging risk due to it’s effects on wildlife. They pointed to a recent article “5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. (2018) by Russell CL in Environmental Research. Other important research includes Dr. Martin Pall’s articles 5G: Great Risk for EU and Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health.
Adverse responses from radiofrequency radiation that have been identified include abnormal behavior, developmental abnormalities, diminished reproduction and increased mortality. Birds, bees, turtles, dolphins, salamanders, salmon, amphibians and other animals use the earth’s weak magnetic field and their own internal magneto-receptors to navigate. Birds have feathers that can act as antenna and amplify the negative effects of RF radiation (5). Insects, the base of the food chain, appear particularly susceptible to radiofrequency radiation, especially 5G millimeter wavelengths which are the size of the insect and create a damaging resonance effect.” Several studies confirm these assertions. ( 6,7, 8).
Mammals, like humans, have similar reproductive organs, immune systems and nervous systems, thus are susceptible to molecular and cellular harm from artificial wireless radiofrequency wavelengths. Katie Singer, in her extensively referenced book Electronic Silent Spring, highlights that the Earth’s living systems evolved their own internal and external signaling systems in the presence of the earth’s low electromagnetic environment and thus are vulnerable to the much higher levels of artificial pulsed electromagnetic radiation experienced today. (9)
Combined with habitat loss and pesticides, the demise of insects and insectivores is the new norm of the Anthropocene epoch, the consequences of which will highly detrimental to agricultural productivity, the economy and public health especially with the emergence of resistant species and strains of insect pests and pathogenic vectors of disease.
Already changes in brain function and connectivity are being documented in children with early exposure to cybertechnology, (10) especially addictive computer games, calling for limited daily exposure. People who are electrosensitive to NIR and EMFs are developing often severely incapacitating physical and cognitive difficulties which are generally dismissed by health authorities. Many otherwise healthy adults experience addiction-withdrawal when there are power failures.
GPS/satellite telemetry process (from Argos 2008:11). The GPS receiver stores location data. This data is later transmitted to the Argos satellite, where it can be distributed to users worldwide.
Conspiracy theories concerning the rise of wireless technology such as it being part of a global technocracy controlling human behavior abound. They deflect legitimate questioning and public disclosure of documented environmental and public and animal health risks. So does the more legitimate concern over China’s Huawe telecommunications company involvement in 5G and U.S. cybersecurity These risks need to be weighed against the benefits of having smart phones, meters, cities, WiFi, and telemedicine. The environmental costs, including loss of biodiversity (insects notably), contribution to climate change with escalating energy use, and effects on human behavior, anatomy and physiology are considerable. The World Health Organization in 2011 designated such radiofrequency radiation as a probable carcinogen in the same category as lead and DDT. The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) reported cancers in test animals, (11, 12) some similar to those seen in humans, and the incidence of brain tumors in young people is in the rise. (13).
The NTP studies found that high exposure to RFR used by cell phones was associated with:
• Clear evidence of tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas.
• Some evidence of tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas.
• Some evidence of tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. The tumors were benign, malignant, or complex combined pheochromocytoma.
The use of the Internet via smartphones, lap tops and tablets ( users being warned to keep such devices away from various body parts) for mass entertainment, social media, gaming, pornography, market advertising and purchasing, public surveillance, spreading of disinformation and various cybercrimes and failures of cybersecurity systems are all escalating along with various military applications. 5G telecommunication systems are spreading coupled with the expanding smart/cell phone market.
This is not a neo-Luddite overstatement, but a call for sensibility by all users. Limiting daily use and market and consumer- driven content and trivial narcissistic postings would be a start. It is a boon especially for scientists and others monitoring and sharing data about the environment, endangered species and in telemedicine, disease diagnostics, monitoring and prevention, weather forecasts to support farmers and communities.
But the control, promotion and exploitation of the Internet by vested interests, commercial, political and ideological, are now well embedded. This calls for personal vigilance and disengagement apart from highly selective searches and communications germane to what Teilhard de Chardin envisioned as the common good derived from any technology, all of which come with hidden costs, risks and unforeseen consequences. Artificial intelligence in the foreseeable future for analytical purposes and to fact-check and make all internet entries verifiably truthful may be one appropriate application of data mining and analysis. Then the truth will set us free from the bonds of anthropocentric distortions of perception and conception, opening us to the noosphere as we engage with the sentient empathosphere of informed feeling, inspired by and connected with nature, other animals, plants, through greater understanding by way of science, silent contemplation, meditation, poetry and music which move us to compassionate action and humility.
The collective sensorium of this life community which the biosphere and solar radiation help sustain, creates a unifying connectivity of conscious, sentient life, notably this empathosphere at the emotional level of awareness. (14). It would be a great tragedy if anthropogenic electropollution were to disrupt such life-sustaining connectivity. Researchers have found that sweat ducts in human skin acted as “helical antennas,” the ducts acting as receptors for 5G radiation – allowing them to not only capture the radiation, but to concentrate and amplify it. ( 15, 16, 17). In addition, EMF radiation may cause effects at the cellular level, thereby impacting chromosomes, DNA, proteins and genes and the concentration of radiofrequency radiation from sub-terahertz waves in skin can trigger: a sensation of heat and a “sudden, acute pain response.” reported by electrosensitive individuals.(18, 19, 20).
But healthy and empathic human connectivity will be a pipe dream if electropollution and its harmful effects on us and all living beings so far studied by scientists (see Addendum of additional reference citations) continue to be denied, and what Pope Francis in his encyclical Laudato Si’ calls “tyrannical anthropocentrism.”
With the consequences of anthropogenic climate change challenging future generations of our species and of plants, and animals and the planet’s future, all polluting and life-harming technologies need to be curtailed for the common good and the good of the Commons. The life community will have additional survival and adaptation challenges as the Earth’s radiation-protecting electromagnetic field weakens and polar axis shifts and reversals. (21,22). Our planet may also be moving into a “warmer” region of the cosmos with more intense and different forms of radiation. Anthropogenic forms or radiation may confound those of our own biological evolution and adaptive abilities and that of other sentient life forms. Karam notes that cosmic supernovae and gamma ray bursts “have produced radiation levels that, while not lethal, are genetically significant, and these events may have influenced the course of evolution and the manner in which organisms respond to radiation insult.” (23).
It is assuring to have science affirm what Teilhard de Chardin declared:” How great is the mystery of the first cells which were one day animated by the breath of our souls! How impossible to decipher the welding of successive influences in which we are forever incorporated! In each one of us, through matter, the whole history of the world is in part reflected.” (23). As such composite beings of this biosphere we owe it to others, our ancestors, commensals and symbiotes including those within our own bodies, the reverential respect that is long overdue as we re-define ourselves as a planetary species, co-evolved, co-dependent and aware, giving more to life than we take and avoiding harm when and where ever we can. As the Anishinaabe Chippewa assert: Manaaji’idiwin—respect all beings and things.
The author is grateful for the help of Dr. Nancy Van Dover DVM, OMD, Lic Acup. and Rudy Edalati in the execution of this review.
EMF AND NIR PROTECTION
From a holistic veterinarian colleague who is electrosensitive:
https://takebackyourpower.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/7-Essential-Ways-to-Make-Your-Home-Safe.pdf. The addendum is great too!
I’ve read these suggestions on the link above…good, better, best solutions to reduce radiation in daily life that Josh has sent. There are a few things I’d add and written about below….after you read the above link, these will make sense. (The attachment are some of my own that I haven’t updated for a while. The internet over powerline method works well but may not be good for very sensitive people because it creates some dirty electricity in house wiring.)
I use direct ethernet cords from my modem to my computer, no router in the house at all ($10 for 50’ cord). My cords are not shielded and are fine for me. If you still need to use a router for a short time before you get hardwire converted, you can get a Signal Tamer from lessemf.com ($35) to put it in when using it. It also helps keep radiation w/in small apartments and offices so there isn’t extra spilling over into everyone’s spaces. It will reduce the radiation about 90% and the area it services will be smaller. If you already have a “smart” tv, cover it’s black box w/ several layers of aluminum foil.
Only use ear buds that have air in them, not all wire (that will act as an antenna for the radiation to travel to your brain)
Watch video to change settings and reduce the radiation your phone puts out. Never put it next to your body when turned ON (the fine print on your phone will tell you the same), esp when you first answer it. https://www.brighteon.com/6044665631001 it’s best not to use a phone in a vehicle, the metal captures and amplifies the radiation.
You can use speaker phone w/ the Safe Sleeve cover ($50) closed (as far from your body as possible) to reduce the large amount of radiation from your cell phone but earbuds are also available. Airtubes are better than the ones w/ wires because wires still transmit some EMF/RFs to your brain. By using a Safe Sleeve or Defender Shield you not only reduce your own radiation exposure but also help reduce the electrosmog pollution which is now so high in all public places, I and other EMS people, cannot safely go into them w/o severe symptoms developing. Defender Shield is another proven cell phone shield that works. Both will allow radiation in and out because otherwise the phone wouldn’t work but it will cut down on it while close to you and others while you have the phone turned on. Today I just measured a phone that was supposedly on airplane mode and it was still irradiating a lot. Not sure why. Make sure your laptop is also on airplane mode!
For pregnant women Belly Armor (online) is a good option to protect the fetus. It will not completely block all radiation so if I was pregnant I would never use a cell phone, tablet or laptop anywhere close to my abdomen. ADHD, autism,etc have been associated w/ exposure in the womb and early childhood. Dr. Devra Davis’s Baby Safe Project w/ Yale U. is a good resource.
Meters: I have a Safe and Sound Pro…has the numbers, very accurate, reads only radiofrequencies RF’s (cell phones, Bluetooth, wifi, cell towers, baby monitors, microwave ovens, etc). Well worth the extra compared to the S&S Classic. A Cornet 88T+ would be my 2nd choice, it will also read electro and magnetic fields (EMF’s), pretty accurate for the RF’s.
There is another meter to use to read DE (dirty electricity), I got the Greenwave one because it has a bigger range. These plug into your outlets. It is not recommended to put in Stetzer filters in your outlets unless you have a dirty electricity problem, so measure first and also have a meter to be able to measure magnetic fields afterwards too. Because if your house, like mine and many others, has wiring errors, these filters will increase the magnetic fields along that part of the wiring which are as bad or worse than the dirty electricity for health. If you share a transformer w/ houses that have solar panels then they will be increasing dirty electricity into your house too unfortunately. All inverters (DC/AC) do this. Whole house filters may be the best solution. They cost about $1500. Again measure first to see if it’s a big problem. DE has caused cancer, cardiovascular disease, depression, etc. A friend of mine developed polycythemia vera, a blood cancer, from it…. also EMS Disabled now.
An important thing to remember if you are mitigating/shielding w/ paint, fabric/window film, etc you don’t want to use wireless radiation w/in the area because it will also capture and amplify the radiation w/in it. Like a Faraday cage, or a car. Shielding is best done w/ the help of an expert, at least w/ the use of an accurate meter.
Many don’t know that their symptoms are coming from wireless radiation. If you are sensitive to chemicals, esp chemical fragrances, then you most likely are sensitive to EMF/RFs too. Those most susceptible are children, elderly, the infirm and people w/ medical devices in their bodies…these can be turned off or affected by the microwave radiation. Most medical practitioners don’t know about this toxin or it’s symptoms.
Acupuncture needles act as antenna for the microwave toxin so should not be performed in wireless radiation fields.
Thank you for taking the time to learn about this toxin that has become ubiquitous and allowed to be used at unsafe levels. We must educate and protect ourselves until the government decides to listen to the science and protect public and environmental health.
Users of cell phones, tablets and lap-top computers are advised to keep such devices away from various body parts. Such warnings are predicated by The CDC stating; “We don’t know for sure if RF radiation from cell phones can cause health problems years later. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RF radiation as a “possible human carcinogen.” https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/cell_phones._faq.html
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) from the World Health Organization (WHO) released a statement adding radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (including microwave and millimeter waves) to their list of things which are possibly carcinogenic to humans. IARC (31 May 2011). “IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields As Possibly Carcinogenic To Humans” (PDF). Press Release (Press release). The American Cancer Society’s posting (Microwaves, Radio Waves, and Other Types of Radiofrequency Radiation, May 31, 2016 ( https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure.html).and noting that the International Agency for Research on Cancer has identified RF exposure as a possible carcinogen, emphasizes that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. National Toxicology Program have not yet formally classified RF radiation as to its cancer-causing potential.
These concerns raise the question of the safety for animals wearing radio collar devices, now widely used on various wildlife species for monitoring, research and conservation/management, and increasingly on livestock and companion animals. Global positioning system (GPS) and very high frequency (VHF) radio collar telemetry systems are widely used to provide high spatial and temporal resolution information for detecting wildlife and domestic animal location and movement.
Electronic shock and vibration-generating collars have been associated with cancer in dogs by several owners using such devices in association with electric “Invisible Fences” and to stop their dogs from barking. But further research would be helpful in confirming such associations as documented in the Canine Journal ( https://www.caninejournal.com/community/do-shock-collars-cause-cancer/ Remote electronic training collars have been documented to have adverse welfare consequences to dogs and such stress could play a contributory role in some dogs developing cancer ( See Jonathan J. Cooper, Nina Cracknell, Jessica Hardiman, Hannah Wright, Daniel Mills. The Welfare Consequences and Efficacy of Training Pet Dogs with Remote Electronic Training Collars in Comparison to Reward Based Training. PLoS ONE, 2014; 9 (9): e102722 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102722).See also Steiss, J.E., Schaffer, C., Ahmed, H.A., Voith, V.L., 2007, Elevation of plasma cortisone levels and behaviour in dogs wearing bark control collars. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 106: 96-106
So- called invisible, wireless, electric fences widely used to contain dogs on private property have been anecdotally associated with fear/anxiety syndromes, seizures, lymphoma and other cancers in dogs having frequent exposure to such non-ionizing radiation. More research is called for to determine the veracity of such concerns and in other species where such systems of containment are used. (Electric pulse training aids: more evidence needed, says CAWCVeterinary Record Vol 171, 257. 2012. http://dx.doi. org/10.1136/vr.e6093).
The first veterinarian to highlight problems in animals to my knowledge, was Dr. Allen Schoen, ( www.drschoen.com/2011/09/01/). Not surprisingly he is one of the leaders in veterinary acupuncture and holistic, integrative veterinary practice. He was alerted by the article by Josh Hart (http://stopsmartmeters.org/2011/08/31/and-what-of-the-animals/) about a woman and her dogs, all of whom had adverse reactions after a Smart water meter was installed in her home.
To find out how many cell phone towers and wireless antennae there are within a 2 mile radius of where you live, go to www.antennaesearch.com and you may be in for a big surprise.
About 23% of Americans polled by the Consumer Technology Association said they planned to purchase pet-related technology as a holiday gift, according and the number of pet tech products shipped during the fourth quarter of 2019 was expected to be 60% higher than in the fourth quarter of 2018. Products include automatic food or water dispensers, automatic pet doors, and pet monitoring systems .Las Vegas Review-Journal (tiered subscription model) (12⁄31) A cat litter box on display at a consumer electronics show in las Vegas is equipped with a video camera, connects to voice-enabled assistants and uses artificial intelligence to analyze the cat’s waste for signs of illness. Reported by The Verge (1⁄720).
The more such electronic devices are put into the home environment and monitors put on companion animals’ necks along with remote sensors, training devices and invisible fence shock collars, the more health and behavioral problems I predict: And worse. Equipment failures could put animals at risk. There is no substitute for attentive human care. Electropollution in the home environment is a growing concern, both dogs and humans developing adverse reactions, for instance, to Smart water meters. Microchipping animals for identification is as far as I would go with long-term application of such technology, short-term applications for animal health and wildlife research purposes being carefully monitored by experienced veterinary and other practitioners. I receive many letters from readers of my nationally syndicated newspaper column Animal Doctor in the U.S. concerning the increasing use of immunosuppressant drugs such as Apoquel and Cytopoint, which can have harmful side-effects and often do not help cats and dogs diagnosed with itchy skin “allergies” or so-called atopic dermatitis. This distressing clinical problem is very much on the rise and cannot be attributed solely to food allergens and pollens. As more and more homes are incorporating various wireless technologies, so electropollution, also in surrounding outdoor environments, may be contributing to this rise in “atopic” dermatitis/allergies because some dogs and cats are electrosensitive and show symptoms similar to those in people diagnosed with electrohypersensitivity. According to the World health Organization “Sensitivity to EMF has been given the general name “Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity” or EHS. It comprises nervous system symptoms like headache, fatigue, stress, sleep disturbances, skin symptoms like prickling, burning sensations and rashes, pain and ache in muscles and many other health problems. Whatever its cause, EHS is a real and sometimes a disabling problem for the affected persons. Their EMF exposure is generally several orders of magnitude under the limits of internationally accepted standards.”( WHO International Seminar and Working Group Meeting on EMF Hypersensitivity (Prague, Oct.25-27,2004). New robotic cameras allow owners to monitor their pets from afar, to talk to them and even dispense treats. Nearly $50 million worth of the cameras were sold in 2018, according to Grand View Research. The cameras can ease separation anxiety in both dogs and dog owners. ( The Washington Post , Feb 18th 2020). Radiation from these devices could be contributing to animals’ discomfort and have long-term adverse consequences on their health and the people sharing the same electro-polluted environment.
For wildlife the major problems are higher mortalities and morbidity associated with capture stress and the physical and behavioral problems caused by the neck collars. (The National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior The Natural Resource Program Center, Biological Resource Management Division and The Soundscapes Program Center. A Critique of Wildlife Radio-Tracking and its Use in national parks. A Report to the US National Parks Service by L. David Mech and Shannon M. Barber 2002, http://npshistory.com/publications/wildlife/radio-tracking-2002.pdf)
The ethics and animal welfare implications of such devices are considerable. ( See Unlocking the “Virtual cage” of Wildlife surveillance. By Henry Linger and Tom Lininger https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1339&context=delpf).
The American Cancer Society’s posting (Microwaves, Radio Waves, and Other Types of Radiofrequency Radiation, May 31, 2016 ( https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure.html).and noting that the International Agency for Research on Cancer has identified RF exposure as a possible carcinogen, emphasizes that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. National Toxicology Program have not yet formally classified RF radiation as to its cancer-causing potential.
The International Commission on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a German-based scientific organization that determines the impact of electromagnetic waves on people and the environment, said March 11 2020 that there is no evidence that 5G networks pose a health risk to humans provided safety precautions are adopted.( Italics mine: Ref ICNIRP. Guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). Health Phys 118(00):000–000; 2020. Pre-print. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001210). The guidelines cover many applications such as 5G technologies, WiFi, Bluetooth, mobile phones, and base stations. The previous guidelines were based on adverse health effects that had been shown to be caused by RF EMF exposure. ICNIRP (2020) used the same approach, and indeed there is now a substantial body of literature that has confirmed that RF EMF exposure within the ICNIRP (1998) restrictions does not cause adverse health effects. However, the body of scientific information has not increased greatly in terms of exposures much higher than the ICNIRP (1998) restrictions, particularly in terms of thermal effects, making it difficult to determine thresholds for adverse health effects (i.e. the lowest RF EMF level that will cause an adverse health effect). Given this situation, and given that there is a strong body of literature concerning the effect of heating on health from other sources, ICNIRP (2020) has used this thermal physiology knowledge to supplement that of the RF EMF literature. This new report goes on to state that: Minor changes that have been made to improve the precision of the restrictions have resulted in more-conservative restrictions, but as the differences are small relative to the strongly conservative restrictions themselves, these changes will not make an appreciable difference to health protection against exposure from current RF EMF-emitting devices. However, there are two new restrictions in ICNIRP (2020) that have the potential to further strengthen health protection. The first relates to the development of technologies that utilize EMF frequencies >6 GHz, such as 5G, with new restrictions to better protect against excessive temperature rise in the body. The second relates to brief RF EMF exposures (<6 minutes), to ensure that transient temperature rise is not sufficient to cause pain or adversely affect tissue – although ICNIRP (1998) had a restriction for brief (circa 50 ms) pulsed RF EMF to the head, the present guidelines provide protection for exposure durations up to 6 minutes and over the whole body. ICNIRP is not aware of any situations where exposure compliant with the 1998 guidelines has resulted in transient temperature rises that has adversely affected health, but this new restriction will ensure that new or future technological uses will also not adversely affect health.— – Sub-millisecond pulses of RF EMF can result in audible sound. This occurs due to thermo-elastic tissue expansion resulting from very small (circa 0.00001°C) temperature rises, which is detected by sensory cells in the cochlea via the same processes involved in normal hearing. ICNIRP (1998) set a restriction to avoid the possibility of this auditory phenomenon. However, as this represents a sensory phenomenon, with no evidence that it would adversely affect health, this restriction is not used in the ICNIRP (2020) guidelines.— ICNIRP (2020) has not re-evaluated the ICNIRP (2010) basic restrictions that were designed to protect against nerve stimulation. These occur within the 100 kHz to 10 MHz range, where both nerve stimulation and heating effects can be present. Instead, the ICNIRP (2010) basic restrictions for nerve stimulation have been added to the ICNIRP (2020) basic restrictions for all other potential adverse health effects, to provide a complete set of basic restrictions that covers the entire 100 kHz to 300 GHz EMF frequency range. This report clearly recognizes human risks of this technology calling for protective measures from the non-ionizing radiation involved, notably heating of the body and potential cellular and nerve damage. Thus indirectly it affirms the risks and potential harm to other species ( already well documented) especially insects, birds and other vertebrates yet there is no reference to protecting species other than human in this report. Just as with the use of pesticides decades ago, some risks to humans were recognized and protective “safe use” measures eventually established but without regard for the adverse impacts on other species and ecosystems
Historic Win’: CHD Wins Case Against FCC on Safety Guidelines for 5G and Wireless From https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/chd-wins-case-fcc-safety-guidelines-5g-wireless/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=794a9103-1b18-45ca-8441-001a334a6936
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit court ruled the Federal Communications Commission must provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its current guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit published its decision Aug.13th 2021. The court ruled that the FCC failed to consider the non-cancer evidence regarding adverse health effects of wireless technology when it decided that its1996 radiofrequency emission guidelines protect the public’s health.
Levitt BB, Lai HC, Manville AM. Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment. Rev Environ Health. 2021 May 27. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2021-0026. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34047144.
“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.”
FROM MY “ANIMAL DOCTOR” SYNDICATED NEWSAPER COLUMN, July 2022
DEAR DR.FOX, I recently moved in with my boyfriend, and he was telling me about the different sources of radiation and radon at home and how electromagnetic fields can make you sick in many ways like having headaches, body pain, lethargy, tinnitus (ringing in the ear), nausea, burning sensation, heart arrhythmia, and anxiety. I got terrified! This is why I created this article, “How to Limit Exposure to EMF and Radon at Home”
It’s a complete and easy-to-follow guide to understanding the toxic sources of radiation and also finding out different ways to prevent it in order to make you and your family feel safe in your own home. I think that my article would be a great addition to your Electropollution: Existential Threat to Public Health,Companion Animals and Life on Earth? post, would you like to add our link as a resource? I think this is something your readers may find helpful. Pamela Tatam, Seattle WA
153 peer-viewed studies or articles reporting significant effects from EMF exposures on wildlife.
From https://www.emfresearch.com › emf-wildlife
Dairy cattle have become a significant indicator species of some of the adverse consequences of exposure to various electromagnetic fields, the following references from Cows: a big model for EMF research, somewhere between Vet-Journals and “Nature” by: Maren Fedrowitz: Sep 05, 2014 Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Pharmacy University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Germany. ( published by The Bioelectromagnetics Society)
Magneto-reception in cows and other mammals:
Begall S, Cerveny J, Neef J, Vojtech O, Burda H. Magnetic alignment in grazing and resting cattle and deer. PNAS, 2008, 105:13451-13455
Burda H, Begall S, Cerveny J, Neef J, Nemec P. Extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields disrupt magnetic alignment of ruminants. PNAS, 2009, 106:5708-5713
Hert J, Jelinek L, Pekarek L, Pavlicek A. No alignment of cattle along geomagnetic field lines found. J Comp Physiol A, 2011, 197:677-682
Begall S, Burda H, Cerveny J, Gerter O, Neef-Weisse J, Nemec P. Further support for the alignment of cattle along field lines: reply to Hert et al. J Comp Physiol A, 2011, 197:1127-1133
Cressey D. Magnetic cows are visible from space. Nature News, 2008 http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080825/full/news.2008.1059.html
Cressey D. Return of the B-field bovines. Nature News Blog, 2009 http://blogs.nature.com/news/2009/03/return_of_the_bfield_bovines.html
Cressey D. The mystery of the magnetic cows. Nature News, 2011 http://www.nature.com/news/the-mystery-of-the-magnetic-cows-1.9350
Slaby P, Tomanova K, Vacha M. Cattle on pastures do align along the North-South axis, but the alignment depends on herd density. J Comp Physiol A, 2013, 199:695-701
Cerveny J, Begall S, Koubek P, Novakova P, Burda H. Directional preference max enhance hunting accuracy in foraging foxes. Biol Lett, 2011, 7:355-357
Hart V, Novakova P, Malkemper EP, Begall S, Hanzal V, Jezek M, Kusta T, Nemcova V, Adamkova J, Benediktkova K, Cerveny J, Burda H. Dogs are sensitive to small variations of the Earth´s magnetic field. Frontiers Zoology, 2013, 10:80
Eder SHK, Cadiou H, Muhamad A, McNaughton PA, Kirschvink JL, Winklhofer M. Magnetic characterization of isolated candidate vertebrate magnetoreceptor cells. PNAS, 2012, 109:12022-12027
Effects of ELF electric and magnetic fields in (dairy) cows:
Algers B, Hultgren J. Effects of long-term exposure to a 400 kV, 50 Hz transmission line on estrous and fertility in cows. Prev Vet Med, 1987, 5:21-36
Algers B, Hennichs K. The effect of exposure to 400 kV transmission lines on the fertility of cows. Prev Vet Med, 1985, 3:351-361
Angell RF, Schott MR, Raleigh RJ, Bracken TD. Effects of a high-voltage direct-current transmission line on beef cattle production. Bioelectromagnetics, 1990, 11:273-282
Broucek J, Uhrincat M, Sandor A, Arave CW, Mihina S, Waiblinger S, Hanus A, Kisac P. Effect of low magnetic field on calves during prenatal development. Tierärztl Umschau, 2002, 57:241-248 (German)
Broucek J, Sandor A, Arave CW, Mihina S, Waiblinger S, Uhrincat M, Hanus A, Tancin V, Kisac P. Effect of low magnetic field on dairy cows. Tierärztl Umschau, 2001, 56:364-369 (German)
Stelletta C, De Nardo P, Santin F, Basso G, Michielotto B, Piccione G, Morgante M. Effects of exposure to extremely low frequency electro-magnetic fields on circadian rhythms and distribution of some leukocyte differentiation antigens in dairy cows. Biomed Environ Sci, 2007, 2:164-170
Burchard JF, Nguyen DH, Richard L, Block E. Biological effects of electric and magnetic fields on productivity of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci, 1996, 79:1549-1554
Burchard JF, Nguyen DH, Block E. Effects of electric and magnetic fields on nocturnal melatonin concentrations in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci, 1998, 81:722-727
Burchard JF, Nguyen DH, Richard L, Young SN, Heyes MP, Block E. Effects of electromagnetic fields on the levels of biogenic amine metabolites, quinolinic acid, and beta-endorphin in the cerebrospinal fluid of dairy cows. Neurochem Res, 1998, 23:1527-1531
Burchard JF, Nguyen DH, Block E. Progesterone concentrations during estrous cycle of dairy cows exposed to electric and magnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics, 1998, 19:438-443
Burchard JF, Nguyen DH, Block E. Macro- and trace element concentrations in blood plasma and cerebrospinal fluid of dairy cows exposed to electric and magnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics, 1999, 20:358-364
Rodriguez M, Petitclerc D, Nguyen DH, Block E, Burchard JF. Effect of electric and magnetic fields (60 Hz) on production, and levels of growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor 1, in lactating, pregnant cows subjected to short days. J Dairy Sci, 2002, 85:2843-2849
Burchard JF, Monardes H, Nguyen DH. Effects of 10 kV, 30 µT, 60 Hz electric and magnetic fields on milk production and feed intake in nonpregnant dairy cattle. Bioelectromagnetics, 2003, 24:557-563
Rodriguez M, Petitclerc D, Burchard JF, Nguyen DH, Block E, Downey BR. Responses of the estrous cycle in dairy cows exposed to electric and magnetic fields (60 Hz) during 8-h photoperiods. Anim Reprod Sci, 2003, 77:11-20
Rodriguez M, Petitclerc D, Burchard JF, Nguyen DH, Block E. Blood melatonin and prolactin concentrations in dairy cows exposed to 60 Hz electric and magnetic fields during 8 h photoperiods. Bioelectromagnetics, 2004, 25:508-515
Burchard JF, Nguyen DH, Monardes HG, Petitclerc D. Lack of effect of 10 kV/m 60 Hz electric field exposure on pregnant heifer hormones. Bioelectromagnetics, 2004, 25:308-312
Nguyen DH, Richard L, Burchard JF. Exposure chamber for determining the biological effects of electric and magnetic fields on dairy cows. Bioelectromagnetics, 2005, 26:138-144
Burchard JF, Nguyen DH, Rodriguez M. Plasma concentrations of thyroxine in dairy cows exposed to 60 Hz electric and magnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics, 2006, 27-553-559
Burchard JF, Nguyen DH, Monardes HG. Exposure of pregnant dairy heifer to magnetic fields at 60 Hz and 30 µT. Bioelectromagnetics, 2007, 28:471-476
Effects of stray voltage in cows
Erdreich LS, Alexander DD, Wagner ME, Reinemann D. Meta-analysis of stray voltage on dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci, 2009, 92:5951-5963
Hillman D, Stetzer D, Graham M, Goeke CL, Mathson KE, VanHorn HH, Wilcox CJ. Relationship of electric power quality to milk production of dairy herds – Field study with literature review. Sci Total Environ, 2013, 447:500-514
Effects of radiofrequency fields in cows:
Stärk KD, Krebs T, Altpeter E, Manz B, Griot C, Abelin T. Absence of chronic effect of exposure to short-wave radio broadcast signal on salivary melatonin concentrations in dairy cattle. J Pineal Res, 1997, 22:171-176
Löscher W, Käs G. Behavioral abnormalities in a dairy cow herd near a TV and radio transmitting antenna. Prakt Tierarzt, 1998, 79:437-444 (German)
Löscher W. Survey of effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on production, health and behavior of farm animals. Prakt Tierarzt, 2003, 84:11 (German)
Wenzel C, Wöhr AC, Unshelm J. The effect of electromagnetic transmitters on behaviour of dairy cows. Prakt Tierarzt, 2002, 83:260-26 (German)
Hässig M, Jud F, Naegeli H, Kupper J, Spiess BM. Prevalence of nuclear cataract in Swiss veal calves and its possible association with mobile telephone antenna base stations. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd, 2009, 151:471-478
Hässig M, Wullschleger M, Naegeli HP, Kupper J, Spiess B, Kuster N, Capstick M, Murbach M. Influence of non ionizing radiation of base stations on the activity of redox proteins in bovines. BMC Vet Res, 2014, 10:136