Wireless Silent Spring

“All life pulsates in time to the earth, and our artificial fields cause abnormal reactions in all organisms. Magnetic reversals may have produced the “great dyings” of the past by disrupting biocycles so as to cause stress, sterility, birth defects, malignancies, and impaired brain function. Human activities may well have duplicated in three decades what otherwise would have taken five thousand years to develop…”  Robert O. Becker, MD, The Body Electric

 

“Somehow these dangers must be brought into the open so forcefully that the entire population of the world is made aware of them…These energies are too dangerous to be entrusted forever to politicians, military leaders, and their lapdog researchers.”

“The invisible tentacles of civilization, in the form of cell towers, radar installations, and two-way satellite dishes, have made radiation ubiquitous, impossible to escape no matter how far away you go and how much land you buy. And even if you find one of the last hidden sanctuaries, it can be destroyed in an instant, invisibly and without warning.  There is no protection. Quite the opposite- laws have been passed preventing citizens from protecting themselves, or elected officials from doing anything about the radiation. But no one is immune”

Arthur Firstenberg, Author “The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life. Pg 373.

The Scientific Literature Section is organized in sections as follows. A summary of the research precedes the listing of research papers below.

Review Articles

Books

Amphibians

Bacteria

Bats

Bees and Insects

Birds

Cell Towers

Fish

Government  Letters and Papers

Magnetoreception

Mammals

Non-Thermal Effects

Plants and Seeds

Trees

Radiofrequency Radiation: The Decline of Birds, Bees and Wildlife

A diverse array of animal life uses the earth’s magnetic field for navigation for breeding, feeding, migration and survival. Biologists have discovered that wireless electromagnetic radiation disturbs magneto-receptors used for navigation, as well as disrupting other complex cellular and biologic processes in mammals, birds, fish, insects, trees, plants, seeds and bacteria with profound impacts on the natural environment. Different species have different interactions with RF radiation and differ in their toxic effect. Adverse responses include abnormal behavior, developmental abnormalities, diminished reproduction and increased mortality. Birds, bees, turtles, dolphins, salamanders, salmon, amphibians and other animals use the earth’s weak magnetic field and their own magneto-receptors to navigate.  Birds have feathers that can act as antenna and amplify RF radiation. ( citation) Mammals, like humans, have similar reproductive organs, immune systems and nervous systems, thus are susceptible to molecular/cellular harm from artificial Cell radiofrequency wavelengths.

 

Cell Towers Emit Wireless Radiation Over Dozens of Miles of Terrain

 

Stationary cell and radio towers create a wide circle of high power wireless radiation (1500 feet) with a much larger radius (dozens of miles) of lower power radiation, which scientists have found can contribute to environmental disturbances, even at lower exposures.  Multiple towers are now collocated to prevent “discrimination” among carriers.  Firstenberg (2017) in his well researched and referenced book, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life, describes both observations and biological experiments performed, mostly in Europe, in the 1990’s, where radar towers caused not only human symptoms but also affected widespread forest health with loss of birds, thinner growth rings on trees, poor seed germination, loss of duckweed, among other effects. When these towers were removed, not only did local residents symptoms disappear, the forest recovered.  The Skrunda Radio Location Case https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0048969795049134

 

In Colorado, Aspen trees have been on the decline and experiments have pointed to RF from cell towers causing poor growth and smaller leaves. A 4-year experiment by Waldmann-Selsam et al (2016) clearly demonstrated, with accurate RF emission testing, cell tower radiation causing the death of nearby trees over time. He notes, “These results are consistent with the fact that damage afflicted on trees by mobile phone towers usually start on one side, extending to the whole tree over time.”   These are truly alarming findings and serve as a dire warning on further wireless expansion, especially with regards to agricultural rural zones or wildlife areas with sensitive species. Consideration should be given to relocating antennas in residential, school and hospital zones. Biodiversity and the intricate web of life we depend on is at risk.

 

Wildlife Are More Vulnerable to Wireless Radiation

 

Biologists have noted that wildlife appear more susceptible to radiofrequency radiation (RFR), and attribute RFR from cellular communications to be a significant contributing cause of bee “colony collapse disorder”, the decline in house sparrows in London, as well as the steady deterioration of the worlds bird population with now than 40% of bird species under critical threat. They note a serious lack of radiation monitoring and protocols to study the impacts and call for precaution in the placement of cell towers and further expansion of wireless broadband. Fiberoptic cables and landlines are suggested as safer alternatives in both cities and rural areas.

 

 

Bird Migration Disrupted More by Weak Magnetic Fields

 

It is well established that magnetite, a form of iron ore, is found in a wide variety of organisms who use this to sense the earth’s low energy magnetic field as a directional reference. (Cadiou and McNaughton). Magnetite acts as an internal compass of sorts.  Migrating birds, fish, insects and animals connect these magneto-receptors with the earth’s natural geomagnetic forces, to successfully guide them in long and short distance journeys, necessary for feeding and breeding. Modern communications systems with a proliferation of cell towers in cities and rural areas, create a variable blanket of continuous pulsating artificial radiofrequency wave mixtures that can alter local magnetic fields and thus impair migration and orientation of birds in addition to effects on pollinators. In 1998, soon after cell towers were installed in Pennsylvania, pigeon races ended in disaster as up to 90% of birds were disoriented and lost their navigational skills. When Homing Pigeons Don’t Go Home Again. NY Times. Dec 6, 1998.  https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/06/nyregion/when-homing-pigeons-don-t-go-home-again.html

 

 

Independently replicated studies have confirmed this effect. Engles et al (2014)  exposed European robins to the background electromagnetic noise present in unscreened wooden huts at the University of Oldenburg campus, they  found they could not orient using their magnetic compass. If grounded their orientation reappeared but disappeared again if broadband radiofrequencies were generated inside the huts. Engles notes “The disruptive effect of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields is not confined to a narrow frequency band and birds tested far from sources of electromagnetic noise required no screening to orient with their magnetic compass.” Research has also demonstrated abnormalities in reproduction and behavior of birds nesting near cell towers and harm to amphibians.

 

 

Add section on german who studied homing pigeons***

 

Schwarze et al (Bird 2016), note in their paper that weak magnetic fields can have much more powerful influence on bird migration than strong fields.  They state, “Our results indicated that the magnetic compass orientation of European robins could not be disrupted by any of the relatively strong narrow-band electromagnetic fields employed here, but that the weak broadband field very efficiently disrupted their orientation”

 

 

Bees and Insects

 

Bees are a critical pollinator species. Of the 100 crops that provide 90% of the world’s food supply, 71 are pollinated by bees, according to the UN Environmental Program. https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/fridayfact-one-three-spoonfuls-food-depends-bees    Researchers agree that we are in the midst of a pollinator crisis. As bee numbers have plummeted around the world, scientists have been investigating causes. They have found several contributing factors affecting the health and reproduction of bees, including pesticides, global climate change, loss of habitat and air pollution with new research pointing towards microwave radiation as an important and yet unrecognized cause for concern. Bees, as well as birds, contain magnetite magneto-receptors in their abdomen.

 

Bees operate in about a 5 kilometer radius and typically find their way without difficulty.  Sharma et al (2010) looked at bee behavior placing a cell phone near a hive. They found worker bees returned less and less frequently to the beehive after the installation of a mobile phone. There was a significant decline in colony strength and the rate of queen egg laying.

 

 

Electromagnetic microwave radiation has been shown to disrupt bee behavior and may cause worker bees to emit a piping signal to swarm. The bees have also demonstrated aggression after 30 minutes of cell phone exposure. Favre (2017)

 

Belgian entomologist Marie-Claire Cammaerts (2017) has done a number of studies on RFR and found that insects are particularly sensitive. In fact, some methods of insect control use RFR.  She observed thousands of ants with the following observations

  • A flip phone with battery placed under an ant colony produced erratic motion of the ants as if trying to escape. With the battery out, there was normal behavior
  • When the flip phone was turned the ants slowed down within 2 to 3 seconds
  • Exposure of a new ant colony to a “Smart” phone or home “DECT” cordless phone in on position caused erratic motion with a slowing down of motion
  • After being exposed to the “Smart” phone or “DECT” cordless phone for 3 minutes, it took the ants 4 to 5 hours before they appeared normal again.
  • Placing a Wi Fi router about a foot from 2 ant colonies, she exposed them to 30 minutes of radiation. The ants experienced “signs of bad health and, consequently disturbed behavior.” It took the ants 6 to 8 hours to recover normal foraging behavior. Many ants did not survive the experiment.

 

Insects Are the Base of Our Food Chain and Under Threat by 5G Wireless

We continue to increase the number and density of cell towers in cities and rural areas with no regard to adverse effects on pollinators, such as domestic bees. Older generation technology emits RF frequencies between 100 MHz and 6 GHz with wavelengths in inches to feet.  A new 5th generation (5G) of wireless communications is being proposed, adding to the mix millimeter waves (fractions of an inch long) between 6 GHz to over 100 GHz.  These high frequency wavelengths pulse at billions of cycles per second (1GHz=1 billion cycles per second).  Radiofrequency wavelengths, especially those that are modulated (or pulsed) are known to cause much more disruption to organisms, or structures within the organism, if the frequency wavelength is the same size as the organism, organ structure, cell or cell structure. This phenomenon is called resonance. Insects are smaller in size and close to the width of 5G frequencies. Thielen studied this effect on 4 different insects exposed to electromagnetic fields from 2 to 120 GHz.  He found “The insects show a maximum in absorbed radio frequency power at wavelengths that are comparable to their body size…..This could lead to changes in insect behaviour, physiology, and morphology over time due to an increase in body temperatures, from dielectric heating.”   Insects are thus especially susceptible to microwave frequencies. There has been no premarket testing of this 5G technology however a body of research demonstrates harm to insects.

 

Reproductive Effects

Magras and Xenos (1997) performed an in-vivo study looking at prolonged exposure to low intensity radiofrequency radiation. They used 12 pairs of mice, placing them in various areas in an antenna park in a small mountaintop village in Greece near TV and FM broadcast transmitters. The animals lived in this area for 6 months with levels below well below CENELEC and IEEE standards.  6 pairs of animals were used as a control and placed in an environment free from RF radiation, about 10 KM from the town of Chortiatis, where the antennas were located.  He notes” Mice from the BALB/c/f breeding colony obtained from the ‘‘Theageneion Anticancer Institute of Thessaloniki’’ have been used for years in our laboratory for reproduction. Repeated pregnancies with a recovery period of 1 – 4 weeks for over a year, had never affected the fertility of the dams or any morphological parameters of the offspring, a fact that to our knowledge has not been questioned in the available literature.”  Their study showed a progressive reduction in litter size in the exposed female animals to the point of irreversible sterility by the 5th generation. The males exhibited rough hair and emaciation at the end of the study.   http://collectiveactionquebec.com/uploads/8/0/9/7/80976394/exhibit_r-62_magras_mice_study.pdf

Panagopoulos (2007) exposed flies to 2 different digital cell phone frequencies for a few minutes a day for the first 6 days of life and found widespread cell death. He states, “Induced cell death is recorded for the first time, in all types of cells constituting an egg chamber (follicle cells, nurse cells and the oocyte) and in all stages of the early and mid-oogenesis….The exposure conditions were similar to those to which a mobile phone user is exposed…”

The NIEHS National Toxicology Program on Cell Phones and Cancer released their results in 2018 looking at non-thermal effects of cell phone non-ionizing radiation. They showed consistent perinatal effects, including lower pup body weights and lower pup survival. The NTP study  https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/tr595peerdraft.pdf   also noted clear evidence of heart tumors, a statistically significant increase in brain tumors and adrenal gland tumors, as well as DNA damage and cardiomyopathy similar to aging.  An abundance of in vitro studies in animals shows that non-ionizing radiation can damage reproduction by creating a stress response in cells producing damaging reactive oxygen species. https://mdsafetech.org/science/reproductive/

Cataracts in Animals

Several studies indicate that low power non-ionizing microwave radiation contributes to and can cause cataracts. Heat is a well-established mechanism for induction of cataracts as the lens does not have vessels that can dissipate heat. Non-thermal effects however have also been demonstrated in some research, which showed adverse effects on lens transparency, alteration of epithelial cell proliferation and apoptosis, and a stress response in lens epithelial cells. Damage to lens epithelial cells is associated with cataracts. Hassig et al (2009) investigated in Swiss calves the prevalence of nuclear cataract near mobile phone base stations. They found (32 %) of the calves had various degrees of nuclear cataract.  The number of antennas within 100 to 199 meters was associated with oxidative stress and there was an association between oxidative stress and the distance to the nearest mobile phone base station. In a later study, Hassig et al  (Mammals 2012) looked at the incidence of cataracts in newborn calves before and after a mobile phone cell tower was placed and found a 3.5 times higher rate of significant cataract after the mobile phone station was installed.

 

Tagging Wildlife Reduces Reproduction and Survival

Tagging animals for tracking is an important tool to help researchers understand their behavior, habitat selection and migration patterns. Some studies have indicated no harm from these tracking devices, however, other studies show lowered survival rates and reproductive rates. There may be a direct interference in the behavior of the animal due to discomfort as well as direct harm from the continuous pulsing radiofrequency which is located on the body, as a growing body of science demonstrates.  Balmori (2016) warns, “It is paradoxical that, at the same time, field scientists investigating the movements and other aspects of animal biology are providing animals with radio transmitters that emit the same type of radiation, since this may affect the results concerning their orientation and movement.”

 

Dead Zones for Drones: Robotic Bees sold in Walmart: “Smart” or Dumb Pollination?

 

Are we creating dead zones in cities where urban or rural farmers will not be able to grow food or have a vegetable garden?  The tech industry may advise us to use the very technology that is harming ecosystems by using bee drones to pollinate our crops? https://www.newscientist.com/article/2120832-robotic-bee-could-help-pollinate-crops-as-real-bees-decline/

Walmart has already filed a patent for a pollinating robotic bee. http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-robot-bees-farming-patent-2018-3

What about ownership of drones, privacy, security and adverse effects on sensitive native bees and flowers with the use of these drones?  Many questions, no answers but predictable results.

 

Will the situation worsen? Solving the real problems causing the decline seems smarter than always trying to develop a new and potentially more toxic industry to fix it. Patients are given prescriptions to treat chronic diseases of our modern culture, and these can cause can cause side effects that may be worse than the treated disease. Would it not be better, to instead change their lifestyles to promote health and wellness?

 

What are Safe Levels of RF Radiation?

 

Sage, Carpenter, Blank and other scientists note in the Bioinitiative Report that non-thermal bioeffects are clearly established. There is an urgent need for government agencies to adopt a realistic biologically based exposure standard to replace the thermal (SAR) standard, which is far too permissive and not protective of human or environmental health.

 

The Bioinitiative Report reviewed studies looking at the lowest levels of non-thermal, non-ionizing radiofrequency that did not cause harmful biological effects.  Their conclusions, based on peer reviewed research, indicated that there should be a “ scientific benchmark of 0.003 uW/cm2 or three nanowatts per centimeter squared for ‘lowest observed effect level’ for RFR is based on mobile phone base station-level studies.” They also suggest “Applying a ten-fold reduction to compensate for the lack of long-term exposure (to provide a safety buffer for chronic exposure, if needed) or for children as a sensitive subpopulation…”.  This would be a recommended precautionary action exposure level of 0.0003 uW/cm2.  Our current U.S. guidelines follow that of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), whose guideline is 200 uW/cm2 to 1000 uW/cm2 (2 W/m2 to 10 W/m2 ) for RF radiation depending on frequency. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

The conversion is (1W/m2= 100 uW/cm2) http://www.safelivingtechnologies.ca/PDF%27s/Conversion%20Chart%20µW-1.pdf

 

The US Department of Interior Highlights Cell Tower Risks to Wildlife

 

The US Department of Interior sent a letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in the Department of Commerce highlighting the Interior Department’s concern that cell tower radiation has had negative impacts on the health of migratory birds and other wildlife.

  • of Interior to National Telecommunications and Information Administration Regarding Adverse Impact of Cell Tower Radiation on Wildlife.  https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission. 2006. Effects of communication towers on migratory birds. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 03-187, FCC 06-164, Federal Register 71(225): 67510-67518, November 22. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view;jsessionid=nCRdSVrXPXQhlpnr8lbQC3GZQcvNnKhgHnnJWgTLQ2ZCRV3DCsFc!1357496456!-1864380355?id=6518724776
  • S. Fish and Wildlife Service 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) Public Release Briefing April 17, 2009; Discusses Potential Radiation Impacts to Birds and Other Pollinators serving as a review of some of the literature.
  • S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2007) Concerns Over Potential Radiation Impacts of Cellular Communication Towers on Migratory Birds and Other Wildlife, Albert M. Manville, PhD, Senior Wildlife Specialist Gives Congressional Staff Briefing on the Environmental and Human Health Effects of Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, House Capitol 5, Washington DC. This is a powerpoint presentation.

 

By ignoring the emerging science on ecological effects, as we have done, we could have already set the stage for environmental collapse, as breaks in the delicate and interdependent web of life are evident. Over 20 years ago, in 1995, the World Health Organization published a report outlining the degradation of the environment and need for urgent action. With urbanization, invasive species, loss of habitat, loss of the Ozone layer, bio-accumulative toxins, global climate change and now widespread radiofrequency radiation, the environment has not improved and indeed will need more protection in the form of education and local and nationwide policy changes to reduce toxic threats. As we work to save the animals we may also spare ourselves.

 

 

Reviews on Wildlife

Balmori (2015)  notes in his latest review “Current evidence indicates that exposure at levels that are found in the environment (in urban areas and near base stations) may particularly alter the receptor organs to orient in the magnetic field of the earth. These results could have important implications for migratory birds and insects, especially in urban areas, but could also apply to birds and insects in natural and protected areas where there are powerful base station emitters of radiofrequencies. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273121908_Anthropogenic_Radiofrequency_Electromagnetic_Fields_as_an_Emerging_Threat_to_Wildlife_Orientation

 

The Cucurachi Review (2012) of 113 peer-reviewed publications revealed, “In about two thirds of the reviewed studies ecological effects of RF-EMF was reported at high as well as at low dosages. The very low dosages are compatible with real field situations, and could be found under environmental conditions.”  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233974663_A_review_of_the_ecological_effects_of_radiofrequency_electromagnetic_fields_RF-EMF

 

Panagopoulos  (2013) explains in his review of experimental data, how living organisms are in harmony with terrestrial and magnetic fields, which effect their cellular processes and even circadian rhythms.  Interference of this delicate interaction with human wireless technology can adversely affect the health and well-being of ecosystems.

https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=41753f

 

 

The Saravanamuttu Review (2013) found that harm to the environment is demonstrated but there are no long term studies to support safety of this technology. Sivani and Sudarsanam state, “Based on current available literature, it is justified to conclude that RF-EMF radiation exposure can change neurotransmitter functions, blood-brain barrier, morphology, electrophysiology, cellular metabolism, calcium efflux, and gene and protein expression in certain types of cells even at lower intensities.” They note that these studies are important to identify the frequencies, intensities and durations that are safer, enabling the use of wireless technology while ensuring the health and sustainability of the environment.

 

 

A 2013 review paper from the Ministry of Environment and Forests in India found that of the 919 research papers collected on birds, bees, plants, animals and human that 593 showed impacts. One paper was of particular interest.

 

Massachusetts Berry Farm Study: Electromagnetic radiation from wireless telecommunications may contribute to the decline of insect, bird and animal populations.

“In a survey of two berry farms in similar habitats in Western Massachusetts (Doyon, 2008), one with no cell phone towers, there were abundant signs of wildlife, migrating and resident birds, bats, small and large mammals, and insects including bees and the other farm with a cell- phone tower located adjacent to the berry patch, virtually no signs of wildlife, tracks, scat, or feathers were noted. The berries on bushes were uneaten by birds and insects and the berries that fell to the ground were uneaten by animals.”

 Sudarsanam concludes “Meanwhile, one can take the precautionary principle approach and reduce RF-EMF radiation effects of cell phone towers by relocating towers away from densely populated areas, increasing height of towers or changing the direction of the antenna.”

 

The Ministry of Environment and Forest in India ( 2010). Reviewed all available peer reviewed research on the impacts of wireless radiofrequency (RF) on living organisms, including birds and bees. This numbered 919 articles.  Of those, 593 showed adverse impacts. In each category of organism, over 60% of the research indicated harm to that biological species.

 

7.81 Alasdair and Jean Phillips, Animals, Birds, Insects and Plants; A review of the literature on Radiofrequency EMF’s and Health Risks

 

Review Articles Wildlife

 

Books

  • The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life. Arthur Firstenberg . AGB Press. 2017.
  • The Body Electric: Robert O Becker

 

 

Amphibians

  • Mobile Phone Mast Effects on Common Frog (Rana temporaria) Tadpoles: The City Turned into a Laboratory. (2010) Balmori A. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 29: 31–35, 2010. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20560769
  • The incidence of electromagnetic pollution on the amphibian decline: Is this an important piece of the puzzle? (2006) Balmori Martínez A. Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry.  88(2): 287- 299, 2006. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02772240600687200
  • Cleavage planes in frog eggs are altered by strong magnetic fields. (1998) Denegre JM et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) 95:14729–14732, 1998. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC24517/
  • Effects of electromagnetic radiation on tadpole development in the common frog (Rana temporaria L.). (1998) Grefner NM et al. Russian J. Ecol. 29:133–134, 1998.
  • AAA Abnormal limb regeneration in adult newts exposed to a pulsed electromagnetic field. (1998) Landesman RH et al. Teratology 42:137–, 1990.
  • AAA. Abnormal limb regeneration in adult newts exposed to a pulsed electromagnetic field. (1990) Landesman and  Teratology 42:137–, 1990. Abnormal limb regeneration in adult newts exposed to a pulsed electromagnetic field.

Bacteria

  • AAA Resonance effect of millimeter waves in the power range from 10(-19) to 3 x 10(-3) W/cm2 on Escherichia coli cells at different concentrations (1996) Belyaev IY et al. Bioelectromagnetics. 1996;17(4):312-21.
  • AAA Transgenic nematodes as biomonitors of microwave-induced stress. (1998) Daniells C  et al. Mutation Research, 399(1), 55-64, 1998.

 

Bats

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bees and Insects

 

Bee Related articles

 

Birds

 

Birds Related Articles

 

 

 

 

Cell Towers

 

Fish

 

Government Letters and Papers

  • 44 Manville, A.M., II. 2009. Towers, turbines, power lines, and buildings – steps being taken by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to avoid or minimize take of migratory birds at these structures. In C.J. Ralph and T.D. Rich (editors). Proceedings 4th International Partners in Flight Conference, February 2008, McAllen, TX.
  • 45 Manville, A.M. (see USFWS) “Congressional Staff Briefing on the Environmental and Human Health Effects of Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation,” House Capitol 5, Washington, DC, May 10, 2007 Summary: US Fish and Wildlife Service

 

 

Magnetoreception

 

Mammals

  • [Increased occurrence of nuclear cataract in the calf after erection of a mobile phone base station]. (2012) Hassig et al. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 2012 Feb;154(2):82-6.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22287140
  • Extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields disrupt magnetic alignment of ruminant. (2009) Burda H et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science U S A. 2009 April 7; 106(14): 5708–5713.Published online 2009 March 19. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/14/5708
  • Prevalence of nuclear cataract in Swiss veal calves and its possible association with mobile telephone antenna base stations. (2009) Hässig M et al. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 2009 Oct;151(10):471-8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19780007
  • Cognitive impairment in rats after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. (2008) Nittby H et al. Bioelectromagnetics 29: 219-232: 2008. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18044737 Summary: This study showed cognitive impairment in rats after long-term exposure to PM MW radiation. This is study of rats shows that after 2 hours per week for 55 weeks there was impaired memory for objects in exposed as compared to sham animals.
  • Geomagnetic field modulates artificial static magnetic field effect on arterial baroreflex and on microcirculation. (2007) Gimitrov J. Int J Biometeorol. 2007 Mar;51(4):335-44. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16983578
  • Geomagnetic field effect on cardiovascular regulation. (2004) Gimitrov J and Gimitrov A. Bioelectromagnetics. 2004 Feb;25(2):92-101. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14735558
  • Verapamil protective effect on natural and artificial magnetic field cardiovascular impact. (2002) Gmitrov J and Ohkubo C. 2002 Oct;23(7):531-41. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12224057
  • Radiation-Induced Changes in the Prenatal Development of Mice. (1997) Magras I and Xenos T. Bioelectromagnetics 18:455-461, 1997.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9261543
  • Absence of chronic effect of exposure to short-wave radio broadcast signal on salivary melatonin concentrations in dairy cattle. (1997). Stärk KD et al. Journal of Pineal Research, 22(4), 171-6.. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9247202

 

NON- THERMAL, Low Power effects

 

  • AAA Chronic non-thermal exposure of modulated 2450 MHz microwave radiation alters thyroid hormones and behavior of male rats. (2008) Sinha RK. International Journal of Radiation Biology, Vol. 84, No. 6, June 2008, pp. 505 – 513.
  • Microwave Irradiation Affects Gene Expression in G. Ledoigt .(2006) Vian A et al. Plant Signal Behav. 2006 Mar-Apr; 1(2): 67–70. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633881/
  • AAA Transgenic nematodes as biomonitors of microwave-induced stress. (1998) Mutation Research, 399(1), 55-64, 1998.

 

 

 

Plants and Seeds

 

RadioTracking of Animals

 

 

 

Reptiles and amphibians

 

 

 

 

Trees

 

 

 

Related Articles

  • It’s Electric: Biologists Seek to Crack Cell’s Bioelectric Code. (2013) Researchers have found that cells’ bioelectrical communication steers growth and development. It is hoped that if the code can be learned, manipulating cellular signaling could be used to stave off cancer or even regenerate limbs. Scientific America. March 27, 2013.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bioelectric-code/
  • Night-migratory songbirds possess a magnetic compass in both eyes. (2012) Engels S et al. PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e43271.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22984416
  • Potential interactions between diadromous fishes of U.K. conservation importance and the electromagnetic fields and subsea noise from marine renewable energy developments. (2012) Gill AB et al. J Fish Biol. 2012 Jul;81(2):664-95. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22803729
  • Avian magnetite-based magnetoreception: a physiologist’s perspective. (2010). J R Soc Interface. 2010 Apr 6; 7(Suppl 2): S193–S205.Cadiou H and McNaughton P. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2844004/