Affiliation:
1. National Association of Science Writers , Berkeley , CA , USA
2. Department of Bioengineering , University of Washington , Seattle , WA , USA
3. Advanced Academic Programs, Krieger School of Arts and Sciences , Environmental Sciences and Policy , Johns Hopkins University , Washington DC Campus , USA
Abstract
Abstract
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.
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Pollution,Health (social science)
Reference379 articles.
1. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC 2002. Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, non-ionizing radiation, part 1, static and extremely low-frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2002, vol 80:338 p.
2. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC 2012. Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, non-ionizing radiation, non-ionizing radiation, part 2: radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2012, vol 102:419 p.
3. Balmori, A. The effects of microwave radiation on wildlife, preliminary results; 2003. Available from: http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/beebe_hill/balmori_wildlife_study.pdf.
4. Balmori, A. Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife. Pathophysiology 2009;16:191–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.007.
5. Balmori, A. The incidence of electromagnetic pollution on wild mammals: a new “poison” with a slow effect on nature? Environmentalist 2010;30:90–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-009-9248-y.
Cited by
24 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献