Low-level EMF effects on wildlife and plants: What research tells us about an ecosystem approach

Abstract

There is enough evidence to indicate we may be damaging non-human species at ecosystem and biosphere levels across all taxa from rising background levels of anthropogenic non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) from 0 Hz to 300 GHz. The focus of this Perspective paper is on the unique physiology of non-human species, their extraordinary sensitivity to both natural and anthropogenic EMF, and the likelihood that artificial EMF in the static, extremely low frequency (ELF) and radiofrequency (RF) ranges of the non-ionizing electromagnetic spectrum are capable at very low intensities of adversely affecting both fauna and flora in all species studied. Any existing exposure standards are for humans only; wildlife is unprotected, including within the safety margins of existing guidelines, which are inappropriate for trans-species sensitivities and different non-human physiology. Mechanistic, genotoxic, and potential ecosystem effects are discussed.

Health and environmental effects to wildlife from radio telemetry and tracking devices—state of the science and best management practices

“…Most international exposure guidelines for humans are based on acute short-term high-intensity exposures that are capable of heating tissue in a 6 ft. (1.8 m) adult male. However, the research database, as shown in Levitt et al ( 3 – 6 ) and Lai ( 7 ), verifies effects far below the current guidelines (see Discussion for further information on what human guidelines are based on). Radio-tagging is used today in species that range from ants to leviathans, not a 6 ft. (1.8 m) human model, and radio-tagging devices can entail a 24/7 exposure, depending on equipment and research project needs.…”

“…While, to date, no radiation standards for nonhuman species have been developed, let alone implemented, by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or any international standards setting entity, the concerns continue to escalate, especially as the world’s wildlife continues to decline due to the ongoing sixth massive global species extinction event—the so-called Anthropocene (“Age of Man”) ( 97 – 99 ). What role EMF is playing as a part of this loss of species is of great potential concern, given nonhuman species’ unique physiology that evolved over millennia in a sensitive harmony/relationship with the Earth’s natural geomagnetic fields ( 3 – 6 ) upon which they depend for all life’s activities, and the fact that this is the fastest rising environmental exposure today. It is logical to assume that artificial EMFs are capable of affecting species with distinctive magnetoreception mechanisms and physiologies far more sensitive than humans, given the unusual signaling characteristics, odd wave forms, phased pulsing patterns, concentration of nonionizing radiation frequencies at the Earth’s surface and in lower atmospheric regions for the first time in evolutionary history, and at transmission intensities unlike anything in nature.…”

“…The following section below is in no way intended to endorse radio-tagging/RFID insertion to wildlife in any form; it is merely to recognize the significance of such technologies to researchers in an effort to understand/protect wildlife and to suggest ways to minimize damage to target species from all the various factors explored in this paper. This includes reducing/minimizing EMF exposures which are a biologically active hidden variable in all environmental exposures, capable of affecting all species studied at low intensities ( 3 – 6 ). The authors do not endorse the use of such technology for entertainment purposes or by people ill-trained to use it (although we do recognize the significance of wildlife documentaries’ ability to inspire human awe and support of conservation measures).…”

“…L. Whenever possible, monitor the health and welfare of all marked animals, including any discernible negative effects from EMF which can appear as burns, skin lesions, malaise, malnourishment, behavioral changes, breeding insufficiency, confusion and disorientation ( 3 – 6 , 12 , 19 , 39 , 73 , 75 ).…”

Transcriptome profiling of flax plants exposed to a low-frequency alternating electromagnetic field

“…The influence of anthropogenic electromagnetic fields on animals has been studied for quite a long time, and both beneficial and adverse effects on animals, depending on the frequency, intensity, and duration of exposure, as well as the specific characteristics of the animal and its environment, have been observed ( Levitt et al, 2022 ). The first reports on the magnetosensitivity of plants appeared almost a century ago ( Ssawostin, 1930 ).…”