Electropollution: Existential Threat to Public Health,Companion Animals and Life on Earth?

(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).

From _https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/nonionizingradiation.html__

“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[8] “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.”

Increased Radiofrequency Radiation and The Decline of Birds, Bees and Wildlife

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.

Wildlife Are More Vulnerable to Wireless Radiation

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.


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.

Go to https://emfempowerment.com to find how you can get involved in Creating EMF-Safe Sanctuaries: Innovative Solutions for EMF-Free Workspaces.


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.[3] 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) (1231) 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 (1720).

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)

But the non-ionizing radiation associated with collars and implants for radio tracking involves very high frequency (VHF), ultra-high frequency (UHF), and global positioning system (GPS) technologies, including via satellites where platform terminal transmitters (PTTs) are used, as well as geo-locating capabilities using satellites, radio-frequency identification (RFID) chips, and passive integrated responder (PIT) tags, among others. This can be harmful to a variety of species as documented in the review by Manville Albert M., Levitt B. Blake, Lai Henry C. (2024) Health and environmental effects to wildlife from radio telemetry and tracking devices—state of the science and best management practices. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, vol 11, 2024. URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2024.1283709 DOI=10.3389/fvets.2024.1283709

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


  1. Teilhard de Chardin, P. Man’s Place in Nature. New York. Harper and Row 1966.
  2. U.N. Environment Programme Urged to Protect Nature and Humankind from Electromagnetic Fields (EMF)4G/5G antenna densification is escalating health risks - a global crisis. https://www.emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal New York, NY, July 22, 2019. The Advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal, representing 248 scientists from 42 nations, have resubmitted The Appeal to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) requesting the UNEP reassess the potential biological impacts of next generation 4G and 5G telecommunication technologies to plants, animals and humans.
  3. For documentation visit https://ehtrust.org/science/bees-butterflies-wildlife-research-electromagnetic-fields-environment/
  4. Physicians for Safe Technology. https://mdsafetech.org/environmental-and-wildlife-effects/
  5. Bigu-del-Blanco J, Romero-Sierra C. The properties of bird feathers as converse piezoelectric transducers and as receptors of microwave radiation. I. Bird feathers as converse piezoelectric transducers. Biotelemetry. 1975;2(6):341-53.
  6. Cucurachia, S. et al Review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Environment International, 51: 2013, 116-140.
  7. Fernie KJ, Reynolds SJ. The effects of electromagnetic fields from power lines on avian reproductive biology and physiology: a review. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2005 Mar-Apr;8(2):127-40.
  8. Thielens, A., Bell, D., Mortimore, D.B. et al. Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz. Sci Rep 8, 3924 (2018) doi:10.1038/s41598
  9. Singer, K. Electronic Silent Spring: Facing the Dangers and Creating Safe Limits. Portal Books, 2016
  10. Hutton, J.S. et al Associations Between Screen-Based Media Use and Brain White Matter Integrity in Preschool-Aged Children. JAMA Pediatr. Published online November 4, 2019. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3869
  11. National Toxicology Program. U.S. Department of health and Human Services https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html
  12. Smith-Roe, S.L. et al. Evaluation of the genotoxicity of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in male and female rats and mice following subchronic exposure. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2019 Oct 21. doi: 10.1002/em.22343. ].
  13. Miller, A.B. et al Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102) Environmental Research Volume 167, November 2018, Pages 673-683
  14. Fox, M.W. Animals and Nature First. Chapter 9. Animal Communion and the Empathosphere. Create Space Books, 2011
  15. Hayut I et al. The Helical Structure of Sweat Ducts: Their Influence on the Electromagnetic Reflection Spectrum of the Skin. IEEE Trans Terahertz Sci Technol, 2013; 3(2):207-215
  16. Feldman Y, Puzenko A, Ben Ishai P, Caduff A, Davidovich I, Sakran F, Agranat AJ. The electromagnetic response of human skin in the millimetre and submillimetre wave range. Phys Med Biol, 2009; 54(11):3341–3363
  17. Tripathi SR, Miyata E, Ben Ishai P, Kawase K. Morphology of human sweat ducts observed by optical coherence tomography and their frequency of resonance in the terahertz frequency region. Sci Rep, 2015; 5:9071
  18. Kato Y, Johansson O. Reported functional impairments of electrohypersensitive Japanese: A questionnaire survey. Pathophysiology, 2012; 19(2):95–100
  19. McCarty DE, Carrubba S, Chesson AL, Frilot C, Gonzalez-Toledo E, Marino AA. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: evidence for a novel neurological syndrome. Int J Neurosci, 2011; 121(12):670–676
  20. World Health Organization. Electrohypersensitivity Fact Sheet http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs296/en
  21. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/world-magnetic-model-2020-released
  22. Channell, J.E.T. et al The Role of Geomagnetic Field Intensity in Late Quaternary Evolution of Humans and Large Mammals Review of Geophysics, 29 May 2019 https://doi.org/10.1029/2018RG000629
  23. Karam, P.A., Gamma and neutrino radiation dose from gamma ray bursts and nearby supernovae. Health Phys. 2002 Apr;82(4):491-9
  24. Teilhard de Chardin, .P. The Divine Milieu: An Essay on the Interior Life. New York: Harper & Row, 1965 p. 59-60.


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;37(1):81-122. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2021-0026. PMID: 34047144.

Levitt, B. Blake, Lai, Henry C. and Manville, Albert M.. “Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions” Reviews on Environmental Health, vol. 37, no. 4, 2022, pp. 531-558. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0083

Erica Rosenberg (2022) Environmental Procedures at the FCC: A Case Study in Corporate Capture, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 64:5-6, 17-27, DOI: 10.108000139157.2022.2131190

Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam, Alfonso Balmori-de la Puente, Helmut Breunig, Alfonso Balmori, Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations, Science of The Total Environment Volume 572, 2016, Pages 554-569, ISSN 0048-9697, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.045.


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.”


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

  1. Algers B, Hennichs K (1983). Biological effects of electromagnetic fields on vertebrates. Areview.Vet Res Commun; 6(4):265-79 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6359665
  2. Altmann, G. and Warnke, U. (1976), Der Stoffwechsel von Bienen (Apis mellifica L.) im 50-Hz-Hochspannungsfeld. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie, 80: 267–271.doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0418.1976.tb03324.xhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1976.tb03324.x/abstract
  3. Balmori A. (2009a). Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife. Pathophysiology 16. 191–199.http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/Balmori+2009.pdf
  4. Balmori A. (2009b) The incidence of electromagnetic pollution on wild mammals: A new “poison” with a slow effect on nature? The Environmentalist . 30 (1), pg. 90-97. http://www.springerlink.com/content/e03764404274q481/
  5. Balmori A. (2010). Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles: the city turned into a laboratory. Electromagn Biol Med. 29(1-2):31-5.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20560769
  6. Balmori, A (2010). The incidence of electromagnetic pollution on wild mammals: A new “poison” with a slow effect on nature? The Environmentalist. 30(1): 90-97. DOI:10.1007/s10669-009-9248-y http://www.springerlink.com/content/e03764404274q481/
  7. Balmori, A and Ö. Hallberg, (2007) The urban decline of the house sparrow (Passer domesticus):a possible link with electromagnetic radiation. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 26 141–151.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17613041
  8. Balmori, A. (2005) Possible effects of electromagnetic fields from phone masts on a population of white stork (Ciconia ciconia), Electromagn. Biol. Med. 24 109–119.www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/effects_of_emf_on_white_stork.pdf .
  9. Balmori, A. (2006) The incidence of electromagnetic pollution on the amphibian decline: Is this an important piece of the puzzle? Toxicological Environmental Chemistry 88(2): 287-299 http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/gtec/2006/00000088/00000002/art00010;jsessionid=45daaaisp3s1s.alexandra
  10. Balode, S. (1996). Assessment of radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation by the micronucleus test in bovine peripheral erythrocytes. Sci. Total. Environm. 180: 81-85. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8717319
  11. Bastide M, Youbicier-Simo BJ, Lebecq JC, Giaimis J. (2001). Toxicologic study of electromagnetic radiation emitted by television and video display screens and cellular telephones on chickens and mice. Indoor Built Environ 10:291–8.http://ibe.sagepub.com/content/10/5/291.abstract
  12. Batellier F, I. Couty, D. Picard, J.P. Brillard (2008). Effects of exposing chicken eggs to a cell phone in ‘‘call’’ position over the entire incubation period. Theriogenology 69: 737–745 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18255134
  13. Beason, RC and P. Semm (2002). Responses of neurons to an amplitude modulated microwave stimulus Neuroscience Letters 333: 175–178.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12429376
  14. Becker RO (1984). Electromagnetic Controls Over Biological Growth Processes. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 3(1-2). 105-118.http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15368378409035962
  15. Begall S, Cerveny J, Neef J, Vojtech O, Burda H. (2008). Magnetic alignment in grazing and resting cattle and deer. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(36):13451-5.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18725629
  16. Berman, E. L., Chacon, D., House, B., Koch, A., Koch, W. E., et al.(1990). Development of chicken embryos in a pulsed magnetic field. Bioelectromagnetics 11:169–187. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2242052
  17. Bernabò N, E. Tettamanti, V. Russo, A. Martelli, M. Turriani, M. Mattoli, B. Barboni (2010). Theriogenology. 73(9):1293-1305 http://www.theriojournal.com/article/S0093-691X(10)00047-6/abstract
  18. Bigu J. (1973) National Research Centre of Canada. Extract from Ltr-CS-113 “Interaction of electromagnetic fields and living systems with special reference to birds.”http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16724328
  19. Bigu-del-Blanco and Romero-Sierra (1975) The properties of bird feathers as converse piezoelectric transducers and as receptors of microwave radiation. I. Bird feathers as converse piezoelectric transducers Biotelemetry 2:341-353.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1235241?dopt=AbstractPlus
  20. Bigu-del-Blanco and Romero-Sierra (1975). The properties of bird feathers as converse piezoelectric transducers and as receptors of microwave radiation. II. Bird feathers as dielectric receptors of microwave radiation. Biotelemetry 2:354-634 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1242004?dopt=AbstractPlus
  21. Bindokas VP, Gauger JR, Greenberg B. (1988). Mechanism of biological effects observed in honey bees (Apis mellifera, L.) hived under extra-high-voltage transmission lines: implications derived from bee exposure to simulated intense electric fields and shocks. Bioelectromagnetics. 9(3):285-301. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3178903?dopt=Abstract
  22. Blackman CF, House DE, Benane SG, Joines WT, Spiegel RJ. (1988). Effect of ambient levels of power-line-frequency electric fields on a developing vertebrate. Bioelectromagnetics ;9(2):129–140http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3377861
  23. Briefing Paper on the Need for Research into the Cumulative Impacts of Communication Towers on Migratory Birds and Other Wildlife in the United Stateshttp://www.healthandenvironment.org/wg_emf_news/6144
  24. Bruder B,. Boldt A. (1994). Homing pigeons under radio influence. Naturewissenschaften 81(7):316–17. http://www.springerlink.com/content/0028-1042/81/7/
  25. Bryan TE, Gildersleeve RP. (1988). Effects of nonionizing radiation on birds. Comp Biochem Physiol A Comp Physiol. 89(4):511-30. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2899470
  26. Burchard, J. F., H. Monardes, and D. H. Nguyen. (2003). Effect of 10kV, 30 μT, 60 Hz Electric and Magnetic Fields on Milk Production and Feed Intake in Nonpregnant Dairy Cattle. Bioelectromagnetics 24:557-563. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14603475
  27. Burchard, J. F., Nguyen, D. H. and Rodriguez, R. (2006). Plasma concentrations of thyroxine in dairy cows exposed to 60 Hz electric and magnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics 27: 553–559http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9771588
  28. Burda H, S Begall, J Cervený, J Neef, and P Nemec (2009) Extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields disrupt magnetic alignment of ruminants. PNAS. 106(14): 5708– 5713. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2667019/
  29. Cammaerts MC, Debeir O, Cammaerts R. (2011). Changes in Paramecium caudatum (Protozoa)near a switched-on GSM telephone. Electromagn Biol Med. 30(1):57-66. http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368378.2011.566778
  30. Cammaerts MC, P De Doncker, X Patris, F Bellens, Z Rachidi, D Cammaerts (2012). GSM900 MHz radiation inhibits ants’ association between food sites and encountered cues. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. Posted online on January 23, 2012. (doi:10.310915368378.2011.624661) http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368378.2011.624661
  31. Clark MW, Gildersleeve RP, Thaxton JP, Parkhurst CR, McRee DI. (1987). Leukocyte numbers in hemorrhaged Japanese quail after microwave irradiation in ovo. Comp Biochem Physiol AComp Physiol. 87(4):923-32. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2887391
  32. Colin ME, D. Richard, S. Chauzy (1991). Measurement of Electric Charges Carried by Bees: Evidence of Biological Variations. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 10(1-2): 17–32. http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368379109031397
  33. Corbet, SA, J Beament, and D Eisikowitch (1982). Are electrostatic forces involved in pollen transfer? Plant, Cell, and Environ. 5: 125-129. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-3040.ep11571488/abstract
  34. Cramer , G. (2007). HAARP Transmissions May Accidentally be Jamming Bees Homing Ability http://www.hyperstealth.com/haarp/index.htm
  35. Daniells, C., Duce, I., Thomas, D., Sewell, P., Tattersall, J., & de Pomerai, D. (1998).Transgenic nematodes as biomonitors of microwave-induced stress. Mutation Research,399(1), 55-64. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9635489
  36. Delgado JMR (1985). Biological Effects of Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 4(1): 75–92 http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368378509040362
  37. Doherty and Grubb, (1996). Effects of high-voltage power lines on birds breeding within the power lines electromagnetic fields. Sialia 18:129–134 http://audubon-omaha.org/bbbox/nabs/pdtg1.htm
  38. Dongre S.D. and R.G.Verma (2009). Effect Of Cell Phone Radiation On Gauriya Sparrows Passer Domesticus. International Research Journal Vol. II, Issue -7http://ssmrae.com/admin/images/ddf68afa10cc9d1545ce7a5f0460bddf.pdf
  39. Durfee WK, Polk C, Smith LT,Yates VJ. (1975). Extremely Low Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields in Domestic Birds. University of Rhode Island, Technical Report, Phase I(Continuous Wave), March 1, 1975.
  40. Edwards, D. K. (1961). Influence of electrical field on pupation and oviposition in Nepytia phantasmaria stkr. (Lepidoptera, Geometridae). Nature 191, 976-993. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v191/n4792/abs/191976a0.html
  41. Eskov EK.(2006). [Destabilization of the cardiac function of an insect by a low-frequency electric field]. Biofizika. 51(1):153-5. [Article in Russian].http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16521566
  42. Eskov EK., Sapozhnikov AM (1976). [Mechanisms of generation and perception of electric fields by honey bees.] Biophysik 21(6): 1097-1102. [Article in Russian]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1009204
  43. Everaert, J. & D. Bauwens, (2007) A possible effect of electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone base stations on the number of breeding House Sparrows (Passer domesticus), Electromagn. Biol. Med. 26 63–72. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17454083 Full text: http://www.ct.gov/csc/lib/csc/pendingproceeds/docket_409/inlandwetland/409-iw_exh69-79.pdf#page=17(p 40-49).
  44. Farrell, J. M., Litovitz, T. L., Penafiel, M., Montrose, C.J., Doinov, P., Barber, M., Brown, K.M., and Litovitz, T. A. (1997). The effect of pulsed and sinusoidal magnetic fields on the morphology of developing chick embryos. Bioelectromagnetics 18:431–438. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9261540
  45. Favre, D. (2011). Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker piping. Apidologie. http://www.springerlink.com/content/bx23551862212177/fulltext.pdf
  46. Fernie KJ, Reynolds SJ. (2005). The effects of electromagnetic fields from power lines on avian reproductive biology and physiology: a review. Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 8(2):127-40. http://www.ierp.bham.ac.uk/documents/pub_Fernie_and_Reynolds_2005.pdf
  47. Fernie, K.J, D.M. Bird, R.D. Dawson, P.C. Lague, (2000) Effects of electromagnetic fields on the reproductive success of American kestrels, Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 73 60–65. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10685907
  48. Fernie, K.J. & D.M. Bird, (1999) Effects of electromagnetic fields on body mass and food-intake of American kestrels,
  49. Condor 101 616–621. http://www.avaate.org/IMG/pdf/fernie_cernicalos.pdf
  50. Fernie, K.J. & D.M. Bird, (2001) Evidence of oxidative stress in American kestrels exposed to electromagnetic fields, Environ. Res. A 86 198–207. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11437466
  51. Fernie, K.J., D M Bird, and D Petitclerc. (1999). Effects of electromagnetic fields on photophasic circulating melatonin levels in American kestrels. Environ Health Perspect.107(11): 901–904. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1566687/
  52. Fernie, K.J., N.J. Leonard, D.M. Bird. (2000). Behavior of free-ranging and captive American kestrels under electromagnetic fields, J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, Part A 59. 597–603. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10839495
  53. Friend AW, E. D. Finch and H. P. Schwan. (1975). Low frequency electric field in ducedchanges in the shape and motility of amoebas. Science, 187: 357-359. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1111109
  54. Gabar, A.A. (2010). Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation. PhD Thesis. Agricultural University of Athens. http://dspace.aua.gr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10329/817/Gabr_A.pdf?sequence=1
  55. Galvin MJ, McRee DI, Hall CA, Thaxton JP, Parkhurst CR. (1981). Humoral and cell-mediated immune function in adult Japanese Quail following exposure to 2.45-GHz microwave radiation during embryogeny. Bioelectromagnetics. 2(3):269-78. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7306223
  56. Gildersleeve RP, Bryan TE, Galvin MJ, McRee DI, Thaxton JP. (1988). Serum enzymes in hemorrhaged Japanese quail after microwave irradiation during embryogeny. Comp Biochem Physiol A Comp Physiol. 89(4):531-4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2899471
  57. Gildersleeve RP, MJGalvin, DI McRee, JP Thaxton (1986). Response of Japanese quail to hemorrhagic stress after exposure to microwave radiation during embryogeny. Comp Biochem Physiol A Comp Physiol. 85(4): 679-687. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=2879671
  58. Gildersleeve RP, Satterlee DG, McRee DI, Bryan TE, Parkhurst CR. (1988). Plasma corticosterone in hemorrhaged Japanese quail after microwave irradiation in ovo. Comp Biochem Physiol A Comp Physiol. 89(3):415-24.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2896572
  59. Gonet, B., Kosik-Bogacka, D.I., Kuźna-Grygiel, W. (2009). Effects of extremely low-frequency magnetic fields on the oviposition of Drosophila melanogaster over three generations. Bioelectromagnetics. 30(8):687-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19630039
  60. Goodman, E.M., Greenbaum, B., and Marron, M.T. (1976). Effects of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields on Physarum polycephalum. Radiat. Res. 66:531. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3574457?uid=3738776&uid=2&uid=4&sid=47698820671907
  61. Graue, L.C. (1975). Orientation of homing pigeons (Columbia livia) exposed to electromagnetic fields at Project Sanguine’s Wisconsin test facility. In Compilation of Navy Sponsored ELF Biomedical and Ecological Research Reports, vol. I. Bethesda, Md: Naval Research and Development Command.
  62. Greenberg B, J. C. Kunich, V. P. Binokas. (1978). Effect of High Voltage Transmission on Honeybees, paper presented at 18th Annual Life Sciences Symposium, Richland, Wn.,October 16-18,1978.
  63. Greenberg, B., Bindokas, V. P., and Gaujer, J. R. (1981). Biological effects of a 760 kVtransmission line: Exposures and thresholds in honeybee colonies. Bioelectromagnetics 2:315 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.2250020404/abstract
  64. Grefner, N. M., Yakovleva, T. L., Boreysha, I. K. (1998). Effects of electromagnetic radiation on tadpole development in the common frog (Rana temporaria L.). Russian J. Ecol. 29:133– 134.
  65. Grigor’ev Iu G. (2003). Biological effects of mobile phone electromagnetic field on chick embryo (risk assessment using the mortality rate). Radiats Biol Radioecol 43:541–3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14658287 [Article in Russian]
  66. Hamann, H.-J., Schmidt, K.-H., and Wiltschko, W. (1998). Mögliche Wirkungen elektrischer und magnetischer Felder auf die Brutbiologie von Vögeln am Beispiel einer Population vonhöhlenbrütenden Singvögeln an einer Stromtrasse. Z. Vogelk. Natursch. Hessen VogelUmwelt 9:215–246.
  67. Hamrick PE, McRee DI, Thaxton P, Parkhurst CR. (1977). Humoral immunity of Japanese quail subjected to microwave radiation during embryogeny. Health Phys. 33(1):23-33. [Noabstract] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/893100
  68. Harst W., Kuhn J., Stever H.. (2006). Can electromagnetic exposure cause a change in behaviour? Studying possible non-thermal influences on honey bees- An approach within the frame work of Educational Informatics. Acta Systematica – IIAS Intern. J. 6:1–6. http://www.bemri.org/publications/cat_view/2-publications/5-biological-effects-of-non-ionizing-radiation/17-wildlife.html
  69. Hässig M, Jud F, Spiess B. (2012). [Increased occurence of nuclear cataract in the calf after erection of a mobile phone base station]. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 154(2):82-6. [Article inGerman] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22287140
  70. Hässig, M. Jud, F. Naegeli, H. Kupper, J. Spiess, B M. (2009). Prevalence of nuclear cataract in Swiss veal calves and its possible association with mobile telephone antenna base stations. Schweizer Archiv für Tierheilkunde. 151.10.471 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19780007
  71. Hillman, D., Charles Goeke, and Richard Moser. (2004). Electric and magnetic fields (EMFs)affect milk production and behavior of cows: Results using shielded-neutral isolation transformer. 12th Int. Conf. On Production Diseases in Farm Animals, Mich. State Univ.,College of Veterinary Medicine, July 2004, East Lansing, MI 48824. (Video-DVDavailable).
  72. Hillman, D., D Stetzer, M Graham, CL. Goeke, K E. Mathson, EE, H H. VanHorn, C J. Wilcox,(2003). Relationship of Electric Power Quality to Milk Production of Dairy Herds. Presentation Paper No.033116, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, InternationalMeeting, July 27-30, 2003, Las Vegas, NV, USA. www.pq.goeke.net
  73. Hjeresen, D. L., Miller, M. C., Kaune, K. T. and Phillips, R. D. (1982). A behavioral response of swine to a 60 Hz electric field.
  74. Bioelectromagnetics 3, 443-451. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.2250030407/abstract
  75. Hultgren, J. (1990a). Small electric currents affecting farm animals and man: A review with special reference to stray voltage. I. Electrical properties of the body and the problem of stray voltage. Veterinary Research Communications, 14:287-298. ©Kluwer Pub., Netherlands. http://www.springerlink.com/content/x848210574v142m7/
  76. Hultgren, J. 1990b. Small electric currents affecting farm animals and man: A review with special reference to stray voltage. II. Physiological effects and the concept of stress. Veterinary Research Communications, 14:299-308. ©Kluwer Academic Publishers – Netherlands http://www.springerlink.com/content/x848210574v142m7/
  77. Hynek Burda, S Begall, J Cervený, J Neef, and P Nemec (2009) Extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields disrupt magnetic alignment of ruminants. PNAS. 106(14):5708-13 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19299504
  78. Ingole IV and , S. K. Ghosh (2006). Exposure to radio frequency radiation emitted by cell phone and mortality in chick embryos (Gallus domesticus). Biomedical Research 17(3): 205-210 http://www.indmedica.com/journals.php? journalid=12&issueid=112&articleid=1530&action=article
  79. Janac B Selaković V, Rauš S, Radenović L, Zrnić M, Prolić Z. (2012) Temporal patterns of extremely low frequency magnetic field-induced motor behaviour changes in Mongolian gerbils of different age, Int J Radiat Biol. 2012 Jan 6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22221164
  80. Kimmel S, Kuhn J, Harst W, Stever H (2007). Electromagnetic Radiation: Influences on Honeybees (Apis mellifera) (IIAS – Inter Symp Conference, Baden-Baden 2007) http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/papers/kimmel_iaas_2007.pdf
  81. Kirk, J. H., N.D. Reese, and P C. Bartlett. (1984). Stray Voltage on Michigan Dairy Farms. J.American Veterinary Assoc. 185(4): 426-428 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6469841
  82. Kirschvink JL, S. Padmanabha, CK Boyce, J. Oglesby (1997). Measurement of the threshold sensitivity of honeybees to weak, extremely low-frequency magnetic fields. The Journal of Experimental Biology 200:1363–68 http://jeb.biologists.org/content/200/9/1363.full.pdf+html
  83. Klimovitsky VYa, Loginov VA, Zagorskaya EA, Weissleder H, Drescher J, Hecht K. (1992). The evaluation of biological efficiency of electromagnetic fields generated by implanted radiotelemetric transmitters used in space research on animals. Physiologist. 35(1Suppl):S248-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Hecht%2C%20K.%20emf
  84. Korall, H., Leucht, T., & Martin, H. (1988). Bursts of magnetic fields induce jumps of misdirection in bees by a mechanism of magnetic resonance. Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, 162(3), 279284.doi: 10.1007/BF00606116. http://www.springerlink.com/content/v6406173767q7445/
  85. Krueger WF, A. J. Giarola, J. W. Bradley, and A. Shrekenhamer (1975). Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Fecundity in the Chicken, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 247: 391 .http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1054241
  86. Krylov, V.V. (2010). Effects of electromagnetic fields on parthenogenic eggs of Daphnia magna Straus. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 73(1): 62-66. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=19362370
  87. Kumar N. R., Sangwan S., Badotra P. (2011). Exposure to cell phone radiations produces biochemical changes in worker honey bees. Toxicol. Int.. 18:70–72. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3052591/
  88. Larkin RP and PJ Sutherland (1977) Migrating birds respond to Project Seafarer’s electromagnetic field. Science 25 February 1977: 195(4280): 777-9. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/195/4280/777.2.abstract
  89. Lefcourt, Alan M., and R. M. Akers. 1981. Endocrine Response of Cows Subjected to Controlled Voltages During Milking. J. Dairy Sci. 65:2125-2130. 88. 88. Levengood, WC (1969). A new teratogenic agent applied to amphibian embryos. J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol. 21:23– http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5765792
  90. Levin, M. (2003). Bioelectromagnetics in morphogenesis. Bioelectromagnetics 24:295–315. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12820288
  91. Löscher, W. and Käs, G. (1998). Conspicuous behavioural abnormalities in a dairy cow herd near a TV and Radio transmitting antenna. Practical Veterinary surgeon, 29: 5, 437-444 www.croww.org/study-effects.pdf
  92. Magras, I.N and T.D. Xenos, (1997) RF-induced changes in the prenatal development of mice, Bioelectromagnetics 18. 455–461. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9261543
  93. Marks TA., CC Rathke, WO English. (1995). Controversies in Toxicology—Stray voltage and development, reproductive and other toxicology problems in dogs, cats and cows: A discussion. Vet Human Toxicol 37(2):163-172.
  94. Marks, T.A., C.C. Ratke and W.O. English. (1995). Stray voltage and developmental, reproductive and other toxicology problems in dogs, cats and cows: a discussion. Vet. Hum.Toxicol, 37: 163-172. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7631499
  95. Marks, T.A., C.C. Ratke and W.O. English. (1995). Stray voltage and developmental ,reproductive and other toxicology problems in dogs, cats and cows: a discussion. Vet. Hum.Toxicol, 37: 163-172. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7631499
  96. Marsh, G. (1968). The effect of 60-cycle AC current on the regeneration axis of Dugesia. J. Exp. Zool. 169:65. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jez.1401690109/abstract
  97. Maw, MG. (1962). Behaviour of insects in electrostatic fields. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Manitoba. 18,30-36.
  98. McKinley G. M. and D.R. Charles (1930). Certain biological effects of high frequency fields, Science, 71: 490.
  99. McKinley, G. M. (1930). Some biological effects of high frequency electrostatic fields’, Proc. Penn. Acad. Sci 46.
  100. Meral I, Mert H, Mert N, Deger Y, Yoruk I, Yetkin A, Keskin S. (2007). Effects of 900-MHzelectromagnetic field emitted from cellular phone on brain oxidative stress and some vitamin levels of guinea pigs. Brain Res.1169:120-4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17674954
  101. Neurath, P. W. (1968). High gradient magnetic field inhibits embryonic development of frogs. Nature 219: 1358
  102. Newland PL, E Hunt, SM Sharkh, N Hama, M Takahata, CW Jackson (2008). Static electric field detection and behavioural avoidance in cockroaches. J Exp Biol 211, 3682-3690. http://jeb.biologists.org/content/211/23/3682.full
  103. Nicholls B, Racey PA. (2007). Bats avoid radar installations: Could electromagnetic fields deter bats from colliding with wind turbines? PloS ONE. 2(3):e297. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17372629
  104. Nicholls B, Racey PA. (2009). The aversive effect of electromagnetic radiation on foraging bats: a possible means of discouraging bats from approaching wind turbines. PLoS One. 16;4(7):e6246
  105. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2705803/?tool=pubmed
  106. Nittby H, Moghadam MK, Sun W, Malmgren L, Eberhardt J, Persson BR, Salford LG.(2011). Analgetic effects of non-thermal GSM-1900 radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in the land snail Helix pomatia. Int J Radiat Biol. 2011 Dec 20. [Epub ahead of print] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22124250
  107. Olsen, R.G., (1997). Insect teratogenesis in a standing-wave irradiation system. RadioScience 12: 199-207. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1977/RS012i06Sp00199.shtml
  108. Orlov, V. M. (1990). Invertebrates and high voltage power lines Electromagnetic Biologyand Medicine 9(2): 121-131 http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368379009119800
  109. Orlov, V. M. and Babenko, A. S. (1988). Effect of the electric field of high voltage transmission lines on land invertebrates. Sov. J. Ecol. 18,267 -274
  110. Panagopoulos D.J., Karabarbounis A., and Margaritis L.H., (2004). Effect of GSM 900-MHz Mobile Phone Radiation on the Reproductive Capacity of Drosophila melanogaster, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 23(1), 29-43. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17045516
  111. Perumpral, J. V., Earp, U. F. and Stanley, J. M. (1978). Effects of electrostatic fields on locational preference of house flies and flight activities of cabbage loopers. Environ. Entomol. 7, 482-486. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/esa/envent/1978/00000007/00000003/art00032
  112. Prolić Z, R Jovanović, G Konjević, B Janać (2003). Behavioral Differences of the Insect Morimus funereus (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) Exposed to an Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Field. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 22(1): 63–73.http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1081/JBC-120020358
  113. Prolić, Z., Jovanović, Z. (1986) [Influence of magnetic field on the rate of development of honey bee preadult stage]. Periodicum biologorum, Zagreb, 88: 187-188
  114. Rejt L, Mazgajski T, Kubacki R, Kieliszek J, Sobiczewska E, Szmigielski S. (2007).Influence of radar radiation on breeding biology of tits (Parus sp.). Electromagn Biol Med .26(3):235-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17886009
  115. Rochalska M (2009). [The influence of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna]. Medycyna pracy 60(1):43-50 [Article in Polish] http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/19603696
  116. Rochalska M (2007). [The effect of electromagnetic fields on living organisms: plants, birds and animals]. Medycyna pracy 58(1):37-48 [Article in Polish] http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/17571627
  117. Rochalska M.(2007). [The effect of electromagnetic fields on living organisms: plants, birds and animals]. Med Pr. 58(1):37-48. [Article in Polish] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17571627
  118. Rodriguez, M., D. Petitclerc, J.F. Burchard, D.H. Nguyen, E. Block and B.R. Downey(2003). Responses of the estrous cycle in dairy cows exposed to electric and magnetic fields(60 Hz) during 8-h photoperiods. Anim. Reprod. Sci., 15: 11-20. http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/anirep/article/S0378-4320(02)00273-7/abstract
  119. Sainudeen Sahib S. (2011). Impact of mobile phones on the density of honeybees. Journal of public administration and policy research 3(4) pp. 131-117. http://www.academicjournals.org/jhf/PDF/pdf2011/April/Sainudeen%20sahib.pdf
  120. Sainudeen Sahib.S (2010). Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) Clashes with Honey Bees. International Journal of Environmental Sciences. 1(5). 897-900. http://ipublishing.co.in/jesvol1no12010/EIJES2044.pdf
  121. Salama N, Kishimoto T, Kanayama HO, Kagawa S. (2010). Effects of exposure to a mobile phone on sexual behavior in adult male rabbit: an observational study, Int J Impot Res .22(2):12733 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19940851
  122. Savić T, Janać B, Todorović D, Prolić Z. (2011). The embryonic and post-embryonicdevelopment in two Drosophila species exposed to the static magnetic field of 60 mT. Electromagn Biol Med. 30(2):108-14. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21591895
  123. Semm P.(1983) Neurobiological investigation of the magnetic sensitivity of the pineal gland in rodents and pigeons. Comp Biochem Physiol A 76:683–689 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0300962983901299
  124. Severini, M and Bosco,L. (2010). Delayed maturation of Xenopus laevis (Daudin) tadpoles exposed to a weak ELF magnetic field: sensitivity to small variations of magnetic flux density. Eur. J. Oncol. Library. 5: 247-60. http://www.emf-portal.de/viewer.php?l=g&aid=18903
  125. Sharma V.P. and N.R. Kumar (2010). Changes in Honeybee Behaviour and Biology Under the Influence of Cellphone Radiations. Current Science 98 (10). 1376-78. http://www.bemri.org/publications/doc_view/286-changes-in-honeybee-behaviour-and- biology-under-the-influence-of-cellphone-radiations.raw?tmpl=component
  126. Sheiman I. M., Kreshchenko N. D. (2009). [Influence of weak electromagnetic field on different forms of behavior in grain beetle, Tenebrio molitor] [Article in Russian]. Zh Vyssh Nerv Deiat Im I P Pavlova. Jul-Aug; 59(4):488-94. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19795812
  127. Shutenko, O. I., et al. (1981). Effects of super-high electromagnetic fields on animals of different ages. Gigiyena i Sanitariya, no. 10:35-38, JPRS 84 221: 85-90.
  128. Southern W. (1975). Orientation of Gull Chicks Exposed to Project Sanguine’s Electromagnetic Field, Science, 189: 143. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/189/4197/143.short
  129. Stärk, K. D., Krebs, T., Altpeter, E., Manz, B., Griot, C., & Abelin, T. (1997). Absence of chronic effect of exposure to short-wave radio broadcast signal on salivary melatonin concentrations in dairy cattle. Journal of Pineal Research, 22(4), 171-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9247202
  130. Summers-Smith, J.D. (2003). The decline of the house sparrow: a review. Brit. Birds 96439–446. http://www.ndoc.org.uk/articles/passerine1.htm
  131. Tanner J.A. (1969) National Research centre of Canada Extract from LTR-CS-18. “Effects of microwave radiation on Parakeets in Flight”
  132. Tanner J.A., C. Romero-Sierra (1982). The Effects of Chronic Exposure to Very Low Intensity Microwave Radiation on Domestic Fowl. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 1(2): 195–205. http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368378209040336
  133. Tanner JA, C. Romero-Sierra and S.J. Davie (1969) The Effects of Microwaves on Birds: Preliminary Experiments. JMPEE 4(2): 122-28. http://www.jmpee.org/JMPEE_PDFs/04-2_bl/JMPEE-Vol4-Pg122-Tanner.pdf
  134. Tanner JA, Romero-Siena C. and Davie, SJ. (1969). The effects of microwave on birds: preliminary experiments. Journal of Microwave Power. 4(2): 122. (Cited in McRee 1972).
  135. Tanner JA. (1966). Effect of microwave radiation on birds. Nature. 7; 210(5036):636. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5964569
  136. Tanner, J.A. & DR. Sierra, romero (1973) Dept of Anatomy, Queen University, Kingston Canada Extract from LTR- Cs-89. “Bird Feathers as Dialectic Receptors of Microwave Radiation.”
  137. Temuryants NA, Demtsun NA (2010). Seasonal differences in the regeneration of planarians under conditions of long-term electromagnetic shielding. Biophysics 55(4): 628-632, http://www.springerlink.com/content/h34v2v174357v524/
  138. Ubeda, A., J Leal, M A Trillo, M A Jimenez, and J M Delgado. (1983). Pulse shape of magnetic fields influences chick embryogenesis. Anat. 137(Pt 3): 513–536. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1171845/pdf/janat00207-0069.pdf
  139. Úbeda, A; M.A. Trillo, L. Chacón, M.J. Blanco, J. Leal (1994). Chick embryo development can be irreversibly altered by early exposure to weak extremely-low-frequency magnetic fields, Bioelectromagnetics 15 (1994) 385–398. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7802707
  140. Walker MM and M.E. Bitterman (1989). Honeybees Can Be Trained to Respond to Very Small Changes in Geomagnetic Field Intensity. J. Exp. Biology 145, 489-494 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1851986/
  141. Warnke . U. (1976). Effects of electric charges on honeybees Effects of electric charges on honey bees . Bee World 57(2):50-56. http://bemri.org/publications/biological-effects-of-non-ionizing-radiation.html
  142. Warnke . U. (2007). Birds, Bees and Mankind. The Competence Initiative for the Humanity, Environment and Democracy. Brochure 1. http://www.bemri.org/publications/cat_view/2-publications/5-biological-effects-of-non-ionizing-radiation/17-wildlife.html
  143. Wasserman et al. (1984) The effects of microwave radiation on avian dominance behavior Bioelectromagnetics 5:331-339 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6487384?dopt=Abstract
  144. Watson DB (1988). The bouncing of Drosophila melanogaster in power frequency electric fields New Zealand Entomologist 11(1): 21–24 http://www.ento.org.nz/nzentomologist/free_issues/NZEnto11_1_1988/Volume%2011-21-24.pdf
  145. Weisbrot D, Lin H, Ye L, Blank M, Goodman R. (2003). Effects of mobile phone radiation on reproduction and development in Drosophila melanogaster. J Cell Biochem. 1;89(1):48-55 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12682907
  146. Wellenstein, G. (1973). The influence of high tension lines on honey bee colonies. Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Entomoligie, 74, 86-94
  147. Williams, T.C. (1976). A radar investigation of the effects of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields on free flying migrant birds. In Compilation of Navy Sponsored ELF Biomedical and Ecological Research Reports, vol. 3. Bethesda, Md.: Naval Research andDevelopment Command.
  148. Windle BC. (1895). The Effects of Electricity and Magnetism on Development. J Anat Physiol. 29(Pt 3): 346–351 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1328408/
  149. Youbicier-Simo, B. J, Boudard, F., Cabaner, C., and Bastide, M. (1997). Biological effects of continuous exposure of embryos and young chickens to electromagnetic fields emitted by video display units. Bioelectromagnetics 18:514–523. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1521-186X(1997)18:7%3C514::AID-BEM7%3E3.0.CO;2-5/abstract
  150. Zareen N, Khan MY. (2008). Effect of mobile phone induced electromagnetic fields on the development of chick embryo. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 18(8):528-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18798598
  151. Zareen N, MYKhan, LA Minhas (2009). Dose Related Shifts In The Developmental Progress Of Chick Embryos Exposed To Mobile Phone Induced Electromagnetic Fields. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 21(1): 130-34. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20364761; http://ayubmed.edu.pk/JAMC/PAST/21- 1/Zareen.pdf
  152. Stindl R, Stindl W Jr. (2010) Vanishing honey bees: Is the dying of adult worker bees a consequence of short telomeres and premature aging?, Med Hypotheses. 75(4):387-90.
  153. van Engelsdorp D, Hayes J Jr, Underwood RM, Pettis J. (2008) A survey of honey bee colony losses in the U.S., fall 2007 to spring 2008. PLoS One. 3(12):e4071.
  154. Bacandritsos N, Granato A, Budge G, Papanastasiou I, Roinioti E, Caldon M, Falcaro C,Gallina A, Mutinelli F. (2010) Sudden deaths and colony population decline in Greek honey bee colonies. J Invertebr Pathol. Sep 23 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20804765
  155. Erickson, EH (1975). Surface electric potentials on worker honeybees leaving and entering the hive. J. Apic. Res. 14: 141-147.

Also see: http://www.bemri.org/publications/cat_view/2-publications/5-biological-effects-of-non-ionizing-radiation/17-wildlife.html

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