|
Dear Ingrid
Are
you an animal lover? Or a lover of plants?
Part
2
Last
week we saw that plants and animals – including our pets, birds,
fish and insects – detect and respond to the natural
electromagnetic fields of the Earth and that this is critical for
their ability to survive and thrive.
But
today our flora and fauna are exposed to man-made electromagnetic
fields (EMFs) and increasingly wireless radiofrequency radiation
(RFR)
as
well and, since the advent of satellite communications, there’s
virtually no habitat left on Earth that’s free of this these
exposures.
In
their new paper, author B. Blake Levitt and team point out how
man-made
radiation
is harming our plants and animals and how international standards
aren’t addressing the problem. They also point out ways the problem
can be addressed.
Here
are their suggestions.
Airspace
as habitat
Levitt
says, ‘[i]t is time to recognize nonionizing EMF as a biologically
active form of air pollution … and develop rules at the pertinent
regulatory agencies to designate “airspace as habitat” so EMF can
be regulated like other pollutants. Defining airspace as habitat
would provide a legal foundation to assess cumulative EMF impacts as
well as mitigate exposures.’
Enforce
laws/policy
Another
recommendation is to implement appropriate legislation. ‘There are
numerous effective laws in the U.S. and in other countries that could
protect many species of wildlife if we apply them to EMF like other
pollutants.’
Enforcing
policies can help address the problem:
-
Require
base station compliance testing to include RF levels at different
heights.
-
Include
RF emissions and methods of mitigation in Environmental Impact
Statements.
-
Require
satellite systems to address effects on humans, wildlife and the
atmosphere.
-
Distance
wildlife habitats from antennas – Levitt suggests a minimum of
1,500 feet (457 m) between the two.
-
Establish
low- to no-EMF zones.
-
Remove
existing infrastructure that is a risk to wildlife and restrict the
installation of future infrastructure. ‘5G and 6G’s use of
higher-frequency sub-millimeter/millimeter waves that pose
heightened risks to sensitive taxa, especially insects, should be
prohibited in ecologically sensitive areas.’
Insects are food supplies for everything else.’
-
Mitigate
exposure levels from equipment. For example, ‘maximizing the
distance between wildlife and EMF sources with barriers, re-design
of transmission radial plots away from sensitive habitats, and
powerline placement on pylons to reduce magnetic fields near
corridors can all help mitigate effects to wildlife.’
-
Recognise
the harm that radio tracking does to wildlife and pets, reduce
unnecessary use and make scientists and vets aware of these risks.
(See: Manville, Levitt, and Lai.,
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2024.1283709/full
)
-
Apply
the principle of As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) to minimise
exposure wherever possible.
-
Design
new technologies to accommodate the safety of wildlife.
Federal
agencies
Levitt
recommends that federal government agencies, including
standards-setting agencies, should recognise the impact of
electromagnetic fields on wildlife. For example, the U.S.
Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) should define airspace as habitat, launch a
dedicated research program, ensuring that research conducted is
independent of industry.
Further,
these agencies should make sure new technologies are tested before
deployment.
New
exposure guidelines
‘It
is essential that science-based non-ionizing electromagnetic field
exposure limits be developed specifically to protect wildlife,
including continuous, chronic, low-intensity exposures,’ Levitt
says. These guidelines should provide for reduction of exposures at
critical periods of time, such as when animals are migrating or
mating.
That’s
made harder by the fact that there’s no easy, single-fix exposure
level. ‘No one exposure limit can encompass protection for all
flora and fauna given the variables, vast physical differences, and
environments. What may protect one species may prove detrimental to
another. It will be years before we have a general framework of
frequency-dependent whole-body and-organ specific resonance factors
per species.’
Levitt
believes that we need to be taking action like this now.
‘As
the current 6th major extinction epoch proceeds, inaction is no
longer a defensible response. The unchecked proliferation of
electromagnetic fields is compounding the already severe threats
facing wildlife. If we effectively reduce ambient EMF exposures, it
might give imperiled species continuing chances to recuperate and
reverse population declines’ Levitt says.
‘A
government-wide response is urgently needed, one that recognizes EMF
as an air pollutant and treats airspace as habitat through the new
discipline of air ecology (or aeroecology). Protecting this dimension
of habitat is as critical as safeguarding land and water.’
Levitt
BB, Lai HC, Manville AM II and Scarato T (2025) Flora and fauna: how
nonhuman species interact with natural and man-made EMF at ecosystem
levels and public policy recommendations. Front. Public Health
13:1693873. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1693873
If
you’re concerned about this issue, here’s a suggestion
Why
not download the study from the links above and give them to your
local vet, environment group and/or animal shelter?
And
how about forwarding this email to your animal-loving friends?
To
reproduce this article
for your network,
please include the following text: Article reproduced with permission
from EMR Australia, www.emraustralia.com.au
|
