FCC  and ICNIRP limits were not developed to protect our flora or fauna. Wireless radiation “safety” limits for trees, plants, birds and bees simply do not exist. No US agency nor international authority with expertise in science, biology or safety has ever acted to review research and set safety limits for birds, bees, trees and wildlife.

The European Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks states “The lack of clear evidence to inform the development of exposure guidelines to 5G technology leaves open the possibility of unintended biological consequences.”

Several literature reviews warn that non-ionizing EMFs are an “emerging threat” to wildlife (Balmori 2015, Curachi 2013, Sivani 2012) .

The US Department of Interior wrote a letter in  2014 detailing several published studies showing impacts of wireless radiofrequency radiation (RFR)  to birds stated that, “There is a growing level of anecdotal evidence linking effects of non-thermal, non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation from communication towers on nesting and roosting wild birds and other wildlife…. And  “However, the electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today. “

Waldmann-Selsam, C., et al. “Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations.” Science of the Total Environment 572 (2016): 554-69.

Breunig, Helmut. “Tree Damage Caused By Mobile Phone Base Stations An Observation Guide.” (2017). 

You can also download the Tree Observation Guide at: Competence Initiative for the Protection of Humanity, the Environment and Democracy

S Sivani,  D Sudarsanam, Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem ? A review, Volume 4, Issue 4, Pages 202–216, 2012

Haggerty, Katie. “Adverse Influence of Radio Frequency Background on Trembling Aspen Seedlings.” International Journal of Forestry Research2010.836278 (2010).

Halgamuge, M.N. “Weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phone radiation on plants.” Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, vol. 36, no. 2, 2017, pp. 213-235.

Martin Pall. “Electromagnetic Fields Act Similarly in Plants as in Animals: Probable Activation of Calcium Channels via Their Voltage Sensor”Current Chemical Biology, Volume 10 , Issue 1 , 2016

Shikha Chandel, et al. “Exposure to 2100 MHz electromagnetic field radiations induces reactive oxygen species generation in Allium cepa roots.”Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure 5.4 (2017): 225-229.

Halgamuge MN, Skafidas E, Davis D. A meta-analysis of in vitro exposures to weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phones (1990–2015). Environ Res. 2020;184:109227. doi:10.1016/J.ENVRES.2020.109227

Halgamuge MN, Davis D. Lessons learned from the application of machine learning to studies on plant response to radio-frequency. Environ Res. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2019.108634

Gustavino, B., et al. “Exposure to 915 MHz radiation induces micronuclei in Vicia faba root tips.” Mutagenesis 31.2 (2016): 187-92.

Halgamuge, Malka N., See Kye Yak and Jacob L. Eberhardt. “Reduced growth of soybean seedlings after exposure to weak microwave radiation from GSM 900 mobile phone and base station.” Bioelectromagnetics 36.2 (2015): 87-95.

Tree Damage from Chronic High Frequency Exposure Mobile Telecommunications, Wi-Fi, Radar, Radio Relay Systems, Terrestrial Radio, TV etc.” by  Dr.  Volker Schorpp Lecture (about 31 MB)

Shepherd et al., Increased aggression and reduced aversive learning in honey bees exposed to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. PLoS One. 2019 Oct 10

Balmori, Alfonso. “Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an emerging threat to wildlife orientation.” Science of The Total Environment 518–519 (2015): 58–60.

 Balmori, A. “Electrosmog and species conservation.” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 496, 2014, pp. 314-6.

Cucurachi, C., et al. “A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF).” Environment International, vol. 51, 2013, pp. 116–40.

Kumar, Neelima R., Sonika Sangwan, and Pooja Badotra. “Exposure to cell phone radiations produces biochemical changes in worker honey bees.” Toxicol Int., 18, no. 1, 2011, pp. 70–2.

Favre, Daniel. “Mobile phone induced honeybee worker piping.” Apidologie, vol. 42, 2011, pp. 270-9.

“Briefing Paper on the Need for Research into the Cumulative Impacts of Communication Towers on Migratory Birds and Other Wildlife in the United States.” Division of Migratory Bird Management (DMBM), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2009.

“The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment.” Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, resolution 1815, 2011.

Engels, S. et al. “Anthropogenic electromagnetic noise disrupts magnetic compass orientation in a migratory bird.” Nature, vol. 509, 2014, pp. 353–6.

Balmori A. “Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields from Phone Masts on a Population of White Stork (Ciconia ciconia).” Electromagn Biol Med, vol. 24, no. 2, 2005, pp. 109-19.

Balmori, A. “Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles.” Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, vol. 29, no. 1-2, 2010, pp. 31-5.



Share Source: Environmental Health Trust