Electromagnetic radiation as an emerging driver factor for the decline of insects
Alfonso Balmori. Electromagnetic radiation as an emerging driver factor for the decline of insects. Sci Total Environ. 767:144913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144913.
Highlights
• Biodiversity of insects is threatened worldwide
• This reductions is mainly attributed to agricultural practice and pesticide use
• There is sufficient evidence on the damage caused by electromagnetic radiation
• Electromagnetic radiation may be a complementary driver in this decline
• The precautionary principle should be applied before any new deployment (e.g. 5G)
Abstract
The biodiversity of insects is threatened worldwide. Numerous studies have reported the serious decline in insects that has occurred in recent decades. The same is happening with the important group of pollinators, with an essential utility for pollination of crops. Loss of
insect diversity and abundance is expected to provoke cascading effects
on food webs and ecosystem services. Many authors point out that
reductions in insect abundance must be attributed mainly to agricultural
practices and pesticide use. On the other hand, evidence for the
effects of non-thermal microwave radiation on insects
has been known for at least 50 years. The review carried out in this
study shows that electromagnetic radiation should be considered
seriously as a complementary driver for the dramatic decline in insects,
acting in synergy with agricultural intensification, pesticides,
invasive species and climate change. The extent that anthropogenic
electromagnetic radiation represents a significant threat to insect
pollinators is unresolved and plausible. For these reasons, and taking
into account the benefits they provide to nature and humankind, the
precautionary principle should be applied before any new deployment
(such 5G) is considered.
Excerpt
The precautionary principle and the importance of seriously considering EMR as a factor of insect decline
Despite the strong scientific evidence of the negative impacts of electromagnetic radiation on insects,
a recent study funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and
Innovation Programme (EKLIPSE) stated that our current knowledge
concerning the impact of anthropogenic RF-EMR on
pollinators (and other invertebrates) is inconclusive (Vanbergen et
al., 2019). Thus, the extent to which anthropogenic EMR represents a
significant threat to insect pollinators is unresolved. For these
reasons, and taking into account the benefits they provide to nature and
humankind, the precautionary principle of the European Union (Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle, 2000) should be applied.
The potential effects of RF-EMFs on most taxonomic groups, including migratory birds, bats and insects, are largely unknown, and the potential effects on wildlife could become more relevant with the expected adoption of new mobile network technology (5G), raising the possibility of
unintended biological consequences (Sutherland et al., 2018). Thus,
before any new deployment (such 5G) is considered, its effects should be
clearly assessed, at least while conclusions are drawn and these
existing uncertainties are overcome, according to the official document
‘Late Lessons of EarlyWarnings’ (European Environment Agency, 2013).
A letter by the United States Department of the Interior sent to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in the Department of Commerce warns about the scarcity of studies carried out on the impacts from non-ionising EMR emitted by communication towers (United States Department of the Interior, 2014). The precise potential effects of
increases in EMR on wildlife, which are not yet well recognised by the
global conservation community, have been identified as an important
emerging issue for global conservation and biological diversity
(Sutherland et al., 2018). Thus, aswe have explained in this review, EMR
should be seriously considered as a complementary driver for the
dramatic decline in insects in recent studies, acting in synergy with agricultural intensification, pesticides, invasive species and climate change.
--
Review. The influence of bioactive mobile telephony radiation at the level of a plant community – Possible mechanisms and indicators of the effects
Czerwiński M, Januszkiewicz L, Vian A, Lázaro.A. Review. The influence of bioactive mobile telephony radiation at the level of a plant community – Possible mechanisms and indicators of the effects. Ecological Indicators. 108, January 2020, 105683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105683.
Highlights
• There are various indicators of microwave radiation impact on herbaceous vegetation.
• The best indicators are some parameters of vegetation canopy or individual plants.
Aug 1, 2019 (Updated Nov 1, 2019)
Highlights
• There are various indicators of microwave radiation impact on herbaceous vegetation.
• The best indicators are some parameters of vegetation canopy or individual plants.
• Specific plant functional groups may be indicators of long-term community processes.
• Other organisms interacting with plants, e.g. pollinators, should also be cons idered.
• The selection of indicators depends on the propagation of radiation in the canopy.
Abstract
Environmental exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs) from mobile telephony has rapidly increased in the last two decades and this trend is expected to continue. The effects of this exposure at plant community level are unknown and difficult to assess in a scientifically appropriate manner. Such an assessment can be scientifically adequate if a studied plant community is completely new and control-impact radiation treatment is used.
In this review we aimed to predict ecological effects and identify indicators of the impact of bioactive RF-EMFs at the mobile telephony frequency range on plant communities. We considered the scenario where a plant community was exposed to radiation generated by a base transmitting station antenna mounted on a nearby mast. This plant community can be represented by mesic meadow, ruderal or arable weed community, or other herbaceous, moderately productive vegetation type. We concentrated primarily on radiation effects that can be recorded for a year since the exposure started. To predict them we used physical theories of radiowave propagation in vegetation and the knowledge on plants physiological responses to RF-EMF. Our indicators can be used for the detection of the impact of RF-EMFs on vegetation in a control-impact experiment.
The identified indicators can be classified into the following groups: (1) canopy parameters; (2) plant characteristics to be measured in the field or laboratory in a number of individuals that represent the populations of selected species; (3) community weighted means/medians (CWMs) of plant traits and strategies; (4) the abundance of other organisms that interact with plants and can influence their fitness or population size. The group of canopy parameters includes mean height, vertical vegetation structure and dry weight of above-ground standing phytomass. Plant characteristics requiring biometric sampling in the field are plant height, the number of fruits and seeds, as well as seed viability. The group of plant traits that are calculated as CWMs covers seed releasing height, seed dispersal mode, SLA, leaf orientation, month of germination and flowering, Ellenberg’s light indicator value, and the proportion of individuals in the classes of competitors and stress tolerators according to Grime's CSR strategy scheme. The group of “non-plant” indicators includes primarily the frequency of flower visits by beetles, wasps, hoverflies, and bees that have their nests over ground. To detect ecological responses that occur for the first year since a herbaceous community has been exposed to potentially bioactive RF-EMF, the first two indicators groups should be used.
Abstract
Environmental exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs) from mobile telephony has rapidly increased in the last two decades and this trend is expected to continue. The effects of this exposure at plant community level are unknown and difficult to assess in a scientifically appropriate manner. Such an assessment can be scientifically adequate if a studied plant community is completely new and control-impact radiation treatment is used.
In this review we aimed to predict ecological effects and identify indicators of the impact of bioactive RF-EMFs at the mobile telephony frequency range on plant communities. We considered the scenario where a plant community was exposed to radiation generated by a base transmitting station antenna mounted on a nearby mast. This plant community can be represented by mesic meadow, ruderal or arable weed community, or other herbaceous, moderately productive vegetation type. We concentrated primarily on radiation effects that can be recorded for a year since the exposure started. To predict them we used physical theories of radiowave propagation in vegetation and the knowledge on plants physiological responses to RF-EMF. Our indicators can be used for the detection of the impact of RF-EMFs on vegetation in a control-impact experiment.
The identified indicators can be classified into the following groups: (1) canopy parameters; (2) plant characteristics to be measured in the field or laboratory in a number of individuals that represent the populations of selected species; (3) community weighted means/medians (CWMs) of plant traits and strategies; (4) the abundance of other organisms that interact with plants and can influence their fitness or population size. The group of canopy parameters includes mean height, vertical vegetation structure and dry weight of above-ground standing phytomass. Plant characteristics requiring biometric sampling in the field are plant height, the number of fruits and seeds, as well as seed viability. The group of plant traits that are calculated as CWMs covers seed releasing height, seed dispersal mode, SLA, leaf orientation, month of germination and flowering, Ellenberg’s light indicator value, and the proportion of individuals in the classes of competitors and stress tolerators according to Grime's CSR strategy scheme. The group of “non-plant” indicators includes primarily the frequency of flower visits by beetles, wasps, hoverflies, and bees that have their nests over ground. To detect ecological responses that occur for the first year since a herbaceous community has been exposed to potentially bioactive RF-EMF, the first two indicators groups should be used.
Aug 1, 2019 (Updated Nov 1, 2019)
Selected Studies that Reported Adverse Effects of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposure
on Plants, Animals and Insects
Excerpted from a letter to the United Nations Environmental Programme
written by the
Advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal, June 25, 2019
EMF exposure studies have found ...
in plants reduced growth, increased infection and
physiological and morphological changes (Balodis et
al. 1996, Haggerty 2010, Waldmann-Selsam et al. 2016, Havas and Symington 2016,
Vian et al. 2016, Halgamuge 2017);
in birds, aggressive behavior, impaired reproduction and interference
with migration (Southern 1975, Larkin and Sutherland
1977, Balmori 2004, Balmori and Hallberg 2007, Everaert and Bauwens 2007,
Fernie et al. 2010, Engels et al. 2015, Wiltschko et al. 2015);
in livestock, especially
dairy cows, reduced productivity, impaired reproduction, and
sudden death (Burchard et al. 1996, Loscher and Kas
1998, Hillman et al. 2013, Stetzer et al. 2016);
in rodents, increased cancer risk in three long-term studies (Chou et al 1992, NTP 2018, Falcioni et al.
2019);
in amphibians (Balmori 2006, Balmori 2010) and insects (Cucurachi et al. 2013), deformities and population decline; and
in honey
bees, aggressive behavior, reduced learning, reduced productivity, swarming
and abandoning hives (Harst et al. 2006, Pattezhy 2009,
Warnke 2009, Favre 2011, Kumar et al. 2011, Sahib 2011, Shepherd et al. 2019).
References
Balmori
A. 2004. Effects of electromagnetic fields of phone masts on a population of
white storks (Ciconia ciconia). Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 24:
109–119.
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.
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):31–35.
Balmori
A and O Hallberg. 2007. The urban decline of the house sparrow (Passer
domesticus): A possible link with electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic
Biology and Medicine 26 (2): 141–151.
Balodis
V, G Briimelis, K Kalviskis, et al. 1996. Does the Skrunda Radio Location Station
diminish the radial growth of pine trees? The Science of the Total Environment
180: 57-64.
Burchard
JF, DH Nguyen DH, and M Rodriguez. 2006. Plasma concentrations of thyroxine in
dairy cows exposed to 60 Hz electric and magnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics
27 (7): 553–559.
Chou
C-K, A Guy, LL Kunz, RB Johnson, JJ Crowley and J. H. Krupp. 1992. Long-term, low-level
microwave irradiation of rats. Bioelectromagnetics 13:469–496. See
Cucurachi
S, WLM Tamis et al. 2013. A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency
electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF), Environment International 51:116–140.
Engels
S, N-L Schneider, N Lefeldt, et al. 2015. Anthropogenic electromagnetic noise
disrupts magnetic compass orientation in a migratory bird. Nature 509: 353.
Everaert
J and 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 (1): 63–72.
Falcioni
L, L Bua, E Tibaldi, et al. 2019. Report of final results regarding brain and
heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural
death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base
station environmental emission. Environmental Research 165:496–503. See
Favre
D. 2011. Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker piping. Apidologie 42 (3): 270–
279.
Ferni
KJ, NJ Leonard and DM Bird. 2010. Behavior of free-ranging and captive American
kestrels under electromagnetic fields. J. Tox. and Environ. Health Part A Vol
59 (8).
Haggerty
K. 2010. Adverse influence of radio frequency background on Trembling Aspen seedlings:
Preliminary observations. International Journal of Forestry Research 2010, 7
pages.
Halgamuge
MN. 2016. Review: Weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phone
radiation on plants. Electromagn Biol Med. 2017;36(2):213-235.
Harst
W, J Kuhn, and H Stever. 2006. Can electromagnetic exposure cause a change in
behaviour? Studying possible non-thermal influences on honey bees–An approach
within the framework of Educational Informatics. Acta Systematica – IIAS Intern. J. 6: 1–6.
Havas M and MS Symington. 2016. Effects of Wi-Fi radiation on
germination and growth of garden cress (Lepidium sativum), broccoli (Brassica
oleracea), red clover (Trifolium pratense) and pea (Pisum sativum) seedlings: A
partial replication study. Current Chemical Biology 10 (1): 65–73.
Hillman D, D Stetzer, M Graham, CL Goeke, et al. 2013.
Relationship of electric power quality to milk production of dairy herds –
Field study with literature review. Science of the Total Environment 447:
500–514.
Kumar NR, S Sangwan and P Badotra. 2011. Exposure to cell
phone radiations produces biochemical changes in worker honey bees. Toxicol
Int. 18 (1): 70–72.
Larkin RP and PJ Sutherland. 1977. Migrating birds respond to
Project Seafarer's electromagnetic field. Science. 195 (4280): 777–9.
Löscher W, and G Käs. 1998. Extraordinary behavior disorders
in cows in proximity to transmission stations. Translated from German language.
Der Praktische Tierarz 79 (5): 4377 444.
NTP 2018. NTP Technical Report on the Toxicology and
Carcinogenesis Studies in Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD Rats exposed to Whole-body
Radio Frequency Radiation at a Frequency (900 MHz) and Modulations (GSM and
CDMA) used by Cell Phones. National Toxicology Program, National Institutes of
Health, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
384 pp. See
Pattazhy S. 2009. Mobile phone towers a threat to honey bees:
Study. The Times of India, August 2009. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/Science/Mobile-phonetowers-a-threatto-honeybees-Study/articleshow/4955867.cms.
Shepherd S, Hollands G, Godley VC, Sharkh SM, Jackson CW, Newland PL. Increased aggression and reduced aversive learning in honey bees exposed to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. PLoS One. 2019 Oct 10;14(10):e0223614. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223614.
Southern WE. 1975. Orientation of gull chicks exposed to project Sanguine's electromagnetic field. Science. 189 (4197): 143–145.
Stetzer
D, AM Leavitt, CL Goeke, and M Havas. 2016. Monitoring and remediation of
on-farm and off-farm ground current measured as step potential on a Wisconsin
dairy farm: A case study. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 35 (4): 321–336.
Vian,
A, E Davies, M Gendraud and P Bonnet. 2016. Plant responses to high frequency electromagnetic
fields, BioMed research International Vol. 2015 Article ID 1830262, 13 pp.
Waldmann-Selsam,
A Balmori-de la Puente, H Breunig and A Balmori. 2016. Radiofrequency radiation
injures trees around mobile phone base stations. Science of the Total
Environment 572: 13 554–569.
Warnke
U. 2009. Bees, birds and mankind. Destroying nature by ‘electrosmog’ effects of
wireless communication technologies, A brochure series by the Competence
Initiative for the Protection of Humanity, Environment and Democracy, 47 pp.
Wiltschko R,
P Thalau, D Gehring, C Niessner, T Ritz and W. Wiltschko. 2015.
Magnetoreception in birds: the effect of radio-frequency fields. J R Soc
Interface 12(103).
--
Increased aggression and reduced aversive learning in honey bees exposed to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields
Shepherd S, Hollands G, Godley VC, Sharkh SM, Jackson CW, Newland PL. Increased aggression and reduced aversive learning in honey bees exposed to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. PLoS One. 2019 Oct 10;14(10):e0223614. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223614.
Abstract
Honey bees, Apis mellifera, are a globally significant pollinator species and are currently in decline, with losses attributed to an array of interacting environmental stressors. Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF EMFs) are a lesser-known abiotic environmental factor that are emitted from a variety of anthropogenic sources, including power lines, and have recently been shown to have a significant impact on the cognitive abilities and behaviour of honey bees. Here we have investigated the effects of field-realistic levels of ELF EMFs on aversive learning and aggression levels, which are critical factors for bees to maintain colony strength. Bees were exposed for 17 h to 100 μT or 1000 μT ELF EMFs, or a sham control. A sting extension response (SER) assay was conducted to determine the effects of ELF EMFs on aversive learning, while an intruder assay was conducted to determine the effects of ELF EMFs on aggression levels. Exposure to both 100 μT and 1000 μT ELF EMF reduced aversive learning performance by over 20%. Exposure to 100 μT ELF EMFs also increased aggression scores by 60%, in response to intruder bees from foreign hives. These results indicate that short-term exposure to ELF EMFs, at levels that could be encountered in bee hives placed under power lines, reduced aversive learning and increased aggression levels. These behavioural changes could have wider ecological implications in terms of the ability of bees to interact with, and respond appropriately to, threats and negative environmental stimuli.
Open access paper: https://journals.plos.org/
Increased aggression and reduced aversive learning in honey bees exposed to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields
Shepherd S, Hollands G, Godley VC, Sharkh SM, Jackson CW, Newland PL. Increased aggression and reduced aversive learning in honey bees exposed to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. PLoS One. 2019 Oct 10;14(10):e0223614. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223614.
Abstract
Honey bees, Apis mellifera, are a globally significant pollinator species and are currently in decline, with losses attributed to an array of interacting environmental stressors. Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF EMFs) are a lesser-known abiotic environmental factor that are emitted from a variety of anthropogenic sources, including power lines, and have recently been shown to have a significant impact on the cognitive abilities and behaviour of honey bees. Here we have investigated the effects of field-realistic levels of ELF EMFs on aversive learning and aggression levels, which are critical factors for bees to maintain colony strength. Bees were exposed for 17 h to 100 μT or 1000 μT ELF EMFs, or a sham control. A sting extension response (SER) assay was conducted to determine the effects of ELF EMFs on aversive learning, while an intruder assay was conducted to determine the effects of ELF EMFs on aggression levels. Exposure to both 100 μT and 1000 μT ELF EMF reduced aversive learning performance by over 20%. Exposure to 100 μT ELF EMFs also increased aggression scores by 60%, in response to intruder bees from foreign hives. These results indicate that short-term exposure to ELF EMFs, at levels that could be encountered in bee hives placed under power lines, reduced aversive learning and increased aggression levels. These behavioural changes could have wider ecological implications in terms of the ability of bees to interact with, and respond appropriately to, threats and negative environmental stimuli.
Open access paper: https://journals.plos.org/
--
April 17, 2019
Letter to the National Park Service from the Environmental Health Trust
This thirteen page letter to the National Park Service from the Environmental Health Trust, dated April 10, 2019, summarizes the scientific basis for major health and environmental concerns about a proposal to install wireless telecom facilities in Grand Teton National Park.
The letter summarizes research on harm to the environment and wildlife from wireless radiation exposure. Furthermore, it addresses the following topics: (1) research on harm to humans; (2) rapid increase in wireless radiation exposure; (3) inadequacy of the Federal Communications Commission's exposure limits to protect humans; (4) greater susceptibility of children; (5) recent appeals from hundreds of experts to reduce exposure limits; and (6) other cell tower safety hazards.
This well-documented letter (81 references) can be downloaded from the following link:
This well-documented letter (81 references) can be downloaded from the following link:
--
July 18, 2016
A Briefing Memo by Dr. Albert Manville
Albert M. Manville, II, Ph.D. A Briefing Memorandum: What We
Know, Can Infer, and Don’t Yet Know about Impacts from Thermal and Non-thermal
Non-ionizing Radiation to Birds and Other Wildlife — for Public Release. July
14, 2016.
In this memo, Dr. Manville reviews the scientific
literature that examines the impacts on wildlife from exposure to radio
frequency radiation.
He observes that although the FCC has standards to protect
humans from the heating (i.e., thermal) effects of wireless radiation exposure from cellular and broadcast towers,
no standards exist to protect wildlife from thermal or non-thermal effects:
“The radiation effects on
wildlife need to be addressed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Commerce, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and other governmental entities.”
Dr. Manville concludes with the following statement:
“In summary, we need to better
understand … how to address these growing and poorly understood radiation
impacts to migratory birds, bees, bats, and myriad other wildlife. At present,
given industry and agency intransigence … massive amounts of money being spent
to prevent addressing impacts from non-thermal radiation — not unlike the
battles over tobacco and smoking — and a lack of significant, dedicated and
reliable funding to advance independent field studies, … we are left with few
options. Currently, other than to proceed using the precautionary approach and
keep emissions as low as reasonably achievable, we are at loggerheads in
advancing meaningful guidelines, policies and regulations that address
non-thermal effects....”
Dr. Manville recommends that the U.S. adopt the following recommendations because federally-protected
wildlife species are currently in danger from RFR exposure:
“We desperately need to conduct
field research on thermal and non-thermal radiation impacts to wild migratory
birds and other wildlife here in North America, similar to studies conducted in
Europe….”
“Studies need to be designed to
better tease out and understand causality of thermal and non-thermal impacts
from radiation on migratory birds…. efforts need to be made to begin developing
exposure guidelines for migratory birds and other wildlife …”
“To minimize deleterious radiation
exposures, these guidelines should include use of avoidance measures such as those developed
by the electric utility industry for bird collision and electrocution avoidance
…”
“Studies need to be conducted on
the use of “faux” branches (i.e., metal arms that mimic pine or fir branches)
on cell and/or FM towers intended to disguise the towers as trees, but provide
nesting and roosting opportunities for migratory birds including Bald Eagles,
which will almost certainly be impacted both by thermal and non-thermal
radiation effects.”
“Agencies tasked with the
protection, management, and research on migratory birds and other wildlife …
need to develop radiation policies that avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds and other trust wildlife species.”
“As Levitt and Lai (2010)
concluded, we do not actually need to know whether RFR effects are thermal or
non-thermal to set exposure guidelines. Most scientists consider non-thermal
effects as well established, even though the implications are not fully understood.”
“Given the rapidly growing
database of peer-reviewed, published scientific studies (e.g., http://www.saferemr.com, School
of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley), it is time that FCC
considers thermal and non-thermal effects from EMR in their tower permitting,
and incorporates changes into their rulemaking regarding ‘effects of
communication towers on migratory birds.’”
Dr. Albert Manville II is an adjunct faculty member at Johns
Hopkins University. He served as a senior wildlife biologist with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service from 1997 to 2014. He chaired the Communication Tower Working
Group, partnering with the communications industry, federal and state agencies,
researchers, and non-profit organizations. He testified more than 40 times
before Congress and other governmental bodies and published more 170 papers.
For more information, see http://advanced.jhu.edu/about-us/faculty/albert-manville/.
Dr. Manville’s memo is available at http://bit.ly/Manvillewildlife.
Also see:
Cell Tower Radiation Affects Wildlife: Dept. of Interior Attacks FCC
Cell Tower Health Effects
