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

This paper discusses the potential health risks and benefits to tagged wildlife from the use of radio tracking, radio telemetry, and related microchip and data-logger technologies used to study, monitor and track mostly wildlife in their native habitats. Domestic pets, especially canids, are briefly discussed as radio-tagging devices are also used on/in them. Radio tracking uses very high frequency (VHF), ultra-high frequency (UHF), and global positioning system (GPS) technologies, including via satellites where platform terminal transmitters (PTTs) are used, as well as geo-locating capabilities using satellites, radio-frequency identification (RFID) chips, and passive integrated responder (PIT) tags, among others. Such tracking technologies have resulted in cutting-edge findings worldwide that have served to protect and better understand the behaviors of myriad wildlife species. As a result, scientists, field researchers, technicians, fish and wildlife biologists and managers, plus wildlife and other veterinarian specialists, frequently opt for its use without fully understanding the ramifications to target species and their behaviors. These include negative physiological effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF) to which many nonhuman species are exquisitely sensitive, as well as direct placement/use-attachment impacts from radio collars, transmitters, and implants themselves. This paper provides pertinent studies, suggests best management practices, and compares technologies currently available to those considering and/or using such technologies. The primary focus is on the health and environmental risk/benefit decisions that should come into play, including ethical considerations, along with recommendations for more caution in the wildlife and veterinarian communities before such technologies are used in the first place.

Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G.

In the late-1990s, the FCC and ICNIRP adopted radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits to protect the public and workers from adverse effects of RFR. These limits were based on results from behavioral studies conducted in the 1980s involving 40-60-minute exposures in 5 monkeys and 8 rats, and then applying arbitrary safety factors to an apparent threshold specific absorption rate (SAR) of 4 W/kg. The limits were also based on two major assumptions: any biological effects were due to excessive tissue heating and no effects would occur below the putative threshold SAR, as well as twelve assumptions that were not specified by either the FCC or ICNIRP. In this paper, we show how the past 25 years of extensive research on RFR demonstrates that the assumptions underlying the FCC's and ICNIRP's exposure limits are invalid and continue to present a public health harm. Adverse effects observed at exposures below the assumed threshold SAR include non-thermal induction of reactive oxygen species, DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage, and neurological effects, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Also, multiple human studies have found statistically significant associations between RFR exposure and increased brain and thyroid cancer risk. Yet, in 2020, and in light of the body of evidence reviewed in this article, the FCC and ICNIRP reaffirmed the same limits that were established in the 1990s. Consequently, these exposure limits, which are based on false suppositions, do not adequately protect workers, children, hypersensitive individuals, and the general population from short-term or long-term RFR exposures. Thus, urgently needed are health protective exposure limits for humans and the environment. These limits must be based on scientific evidence rather than on erroneous assumptions, especially given the increasing worldwide exposures of people and the environment to RFR, including novel forms of radiation from 5G telecommunications for which there are no adequate health effects studies.

The roles of intensity, exposure duration, and modulation on the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation and exposure guidelines.

In this paper, we review the literature on three important exposure metrics that are inadequately represented in most major radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure guidelines today: intensity, exposure duration, and signal modulation. Exposure intensity produces unpredictable effects as demonstrated by nonlinear effects. This is most likely caused by the biological system's ability to adjust and compensate but could lead to eventual biomic breakdown after prolonged exposure. A review of 112 low-intensity studies reveals that biological effects of RFR could occur at a median specific absorption rate of 0.0165 W/kg. Intensity and exposure duration interact since the dose of energy absorbed is the product of intensity and time. The result is that RFR behaves like a biological "stressor" capable of affecting numerous living systems. In addition to intensity and duration, man-made RFR is generally modulated to allow information to be encrypted. The effects of modulation on biological functions are not well understood. Four types of modulation outcomes are discussed. In addition, it is invalid to make direct comparisons between thermal energy and radiofrequency electromagnetic energy. Research data indicate that electromagnetic energy is more biologically potent in causing effects than thermal changes. The two likely functionthrough different mechanisms. As such, any current RFR exposure guidelines based on acute continuous-wave exposure are inadequate for health protection.

Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions.

Due to the continuous rising ambient levels of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) used in modern societies-primarily from wireless technologies-that have now become a ubiquitous biologically active environmental pollutant, a new vision on how to regulate such exposures for non-human species at the ecosystem level is needed. Government standards adopted for human exposures are examined for applicability to wildlife. Existing environmental laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in the U.S. and others used in Canada and throughout Europe, should be strengthened and enforced. New laws should be written to accommodate the ever-increasing EMF exposures. Radiofrequency radiation exposure standards that have been adopted by worldwide agencies and governments warrant more stringent controls given the new and unusual signaling characteristics used in 5G technology. No such standards take wildlife into consideration. Many species of flora and fauna, because of distinctive physiologies, have been found sensitive to exogenous EMF in ways that surpass human reactivity. Such exposures may now be capable of affecting endogenous bioelectric states in some species. Numerous studies across all frequencies and taxa indicate that low-level EMF exposures have numerous adverse effects, including on orientation, migration, food finding, reproduction, mating, nest and den building, territorial maintenance, defense, vitality, longevity, and survivorship. Cyto- and geno-toxic effects have long been observed. 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. A robust dialog regarding technology's high-impact role in the nascent field of electroecology needs to commence. Long-term chronic low-level EMF exposure standards should be set accordingly for wildlife, including, but not limited to, the redesign of wireless devices, as well as infrastructure, in order to reduce the rising ambient levels (explored in Part 1). Possible environmental approaches are discussed. This is Part 3 of a three-part series.

Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment.

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.

Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: how species interact with natural and man-made EMF.

Ambient levels of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) have risen sharply in the last five decades to become a ubiquitous, continuous, biologically active environmental pollutant, even in rural and remote areas. Many species of flora and fauna, because of unique physiologies and habitats, are sensitive to exogenous EMF in ways that surpass human reactivity. This can lead to complex endogenous reactions that are highly variable, largely unseen, and a possible contributing factor in species extinctions, sometimes localized. Non-human magnetoreception mechanisms are explored. Numerous studies across all frequencies and taxa indicate that current low-level anthropogenic EMF can have myriad adverse and synergistic effects, including on orientation and migration, food finding, reproduction, mating, nest and den building, territorial maintenance and defense, and on vitality, longevity and survivorship itself. Effects have been observed in mammals such as bats, cervids, cetaceans, and pinnipeds among others, and on birds, insects, amphibians, reptiles, microbes and many species of flora. Cyto- and geno-toxic effects have long been observed in laboratory research on animal models that can be extrapolated to wildlife. Unusual multi-system mechanisms can come into play with non-human species - including in aquatic environments - that rely on the Earth's natural geomagnetic fields for critical life-sustaining information. Part 2 of this 3-part series includes four online supplement tables of effects seen in animals from both ELF and RFR at vanishingly low intensities. Taken as a whole, this indicates enough information to raise concerns about ambient exposures to nonionizing radiation at ecosystem levels. Wildlife loss is often unseen and undocumented until tipping points are reached. 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. 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 - a subject explored in Part 3.

Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation from Wi-fi and its effects on human health, in particular children and adolescents. Review.

Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation emitted from Wi-Fi devices is nonionizing radiation. The frequencies used in wireless technology are similar to those applied in mobile telephony. Due to the much lower output power of devices using Wi-Fi compared to mobile phones, the degree of exposure to radiation is also lower. Most of the research on Wi-Fi has been carried out in less favorable or adverse conditions, involving higher power values of devices (peak values instead of average values) and smaller distances of working devices from measuring points. None of the studies conducted so far have indicated that there were the exceedances of the permissible values of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation contained in the Polish and global legal regulations. Similar to the research related to the impact of mobile telephony on human health, the studies conducted until now focusing on exposure to Wi-Fi are considered ambiguous as they do not give a definitive answer on the possible negative (including carcinogenic) effects on human health. Because of the continuous development of wireless networks, there is a need for further research on this topic. Moreover, due to the high popularity of devices using Wi-Fi among children and adolescents, whose period of exposure to electromagnetic radiation is longer compared to adults, it is necessary to continuously observe these populations and subject them to careful analysis.

Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers.

The use of cellular phones is now ubiquitous through most of the adult global population and is increasingly common among even young children in many countries (e.g. Finland, where the market for smart phones is nearly saturated). The basic operation of cellular phone networks demands widespread human exposure to radio-frequency radiation (RFR) with cellular phone base stations providing cellular coverage in most areas. As the data needs of the population increase from the major shift in the source of Internet use from personal computers to smart phones, this coverage is widely predicted to increase. Thus, both the density of base stations and their power output is expected to increase the global human RFR exposure. Although direct causation of negative human health effects from RFR from cellular phone base stations has not been finalized, there is already enough medical and scientific evidence to warrant long-term liability concerns for companies deploying cellular phone towers. In order to protect cell phone tower firms from the ramifications of the failed paths of other industries that have caused unintended human harm (e.g. tobacco) this Current Issue summarizes the peer-reviewed literature on the effects of RFR from cellular phone base stations. Specifically the impacts of siting base stations are closely examined and recommendations are made for companies that deploy them to minimize their potential future liability.

Mobile telephony and its effects on human health

In recent years, there has been a rapid increase in the number of electromagnetic radiation sources such as mobile phones and base stations of mobile telephony. This radiation has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a possible human carcinogen (group 2B). For this reason, many studies have been carried out on the impact of mobile telephony on human health. The largest of the experiments were carried out on animals. Due to the divergent results of many studies, there was no clear answer on the possible carcinogenic effects of this type of radiation on health. Detection of cancer shortly after an exposure is the most difficult task in analyzing the results. Some of the studies require repetition and verification of the results. In the case of negative effects of electromagnetic fields on brain activity, sleep, heart rate, cognitive function and blood pressure, no consistent evidence has been obtained either. In view of the increasing popularity of mobile phones, their location at short distances from the body (mainly the head) and the development of mobile phone technologies (which entails an increase in the number of base stations), further research, especially among young people, is needed. The duration of human exposure to electromagnetic radiation is subject to an increase and only further research can provide an answer on the possible negative effects of mobile phones and base stations.

The Chromosomal DNA Damage in Buccal Mucosa Cells among Schools Children in The Vicinity Of Mobile Base Stations in Selangor

Abstract@#Introduction: The increased use of mobile phones has increased the mobile base stations (MBS) deployment. While understanding of radiation protection is growing among the public, questions regarding early-life exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) from MBS in children are of importance as to whether it will raise the chances of developing chronic diseases during adulthood. Taking into account the sitting location of MBS, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the chromosomal DNA damage in buccal mucosal cells between school children exposed to RFR emitted from base station antennas. Method: This is a comparative cross-sectional study in which two group of school children were sampled i.e. exposed groups are children whose school located near MBS (≤200 meters); unexposed groups are children whose school located distant far from the MBS (>200 meters). Digital RF Analyzer was used to measure RFR at the school surrounding. Buccal mucosa cells from the oral cavity were sampled to examine the level of micronuclei (MN) frequencies. Results: This study found that the densities of the RFR energy differed in range. Although all measurements showed the RFR reading below the acceptable exposure level, there were still significant variations at each location assessed. Statistically, the MN frequency is significantly different when compared to the exposed and non-exposed group. Conclusion: To understand the mechanism of health effects from exposure to low-level RFR emited from MBS, further study should consider environmental factors influencing MBS sitting on RFR emission, as well as examining the health effects into molecular levels.

Effects of mobile phone exposure on biochemical parameters of cord blood: A preliminary study.

The purpose of this study is to investigate foetal impact of radiofrequencies (RFs) emitted from mobile phones in postnatal cord blood. The study carried on 149 pregnant women divided into four groups such as nonusers of mobile phone (n: 37; control group), 2-15 min/d (n: 39; group 1), 15-60 min/d (n: 37; group 2) and participants using mobile phone for more than 60 min/d (n: 36; group 3). Cord blood of the infants was taken in all groups for biochemical analyses immediately after birth. The results of the study showed that the biggest foetal impact was observed in the third study group which was pregnant exposed RFRs (RF radiation) more than 1 h/d (1 hour per day). AST (aspartat aminotransferaz), ALT (alanine aminotransferase), LDH (lactate dehydrogenase), CK (creatine kinase), CK-MB (creatine kinase-miyocardial band), CRP (c-reactive protein), PCT (procalcitonin), TnT (troponin T), uric acid and lactate levels of third group were found higher than the other groups (p < 0.001). However, Mean platelet volume values of third group were found lower than the other groups (p < 0.001). Finally, this is the first human study which was performed on pregnant and infants because there is no previous work in this area. However, the results of this study revealed that long-term RFR exposure of pregnant may result in some biochemical changes in the infants. Therefore, our suggestion to pregnant is to avoid from RFR exposure emitted from mobile phones at least during pregnancy.