11/24/2023
Biological effects of electromagnetic fields on insects: a systematic review and meta-analysis https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2023-0072/html
Thill A, Cammaerts MC, Balmori A. Biological effects of electromagnetic fields on insects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Environ Health. 2023 Nov 23. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2023-0072.
Abstract
Worldwide, insects are declining at an alarming rate. Among other causes, the use of pesticides and modern agricultural practices play a major role in this. Cumulative effects of multiple low-dose toxins and the distribution of toxicants in nature have only started to be investigated in a methodical way. Existing research indicates another factor of anthropogenic origin that could have subtle harmful effects: the increasingly frequent use of electromagnetic fields (EMF) from man-made technologies. This systematic review summarizes the results of studies investigating the toxicity of electromagnetic fields in insects. The main objective of this review is to weigh the evidence regarding detrimental effects on insects from the increasing technological infrastructure, with a particular focus on power lines and the cellular network. The next generation of mobile communication technologies, 5G, is being deployed - without having been tested in respect of potential toxic effects. With humanity's quest for pervasiveness of technology, even modest effects of electromagnetic fields on organisms could eventually reach a saturation level that can no longer be ignored. An overview of reported effects and biological mechanisms of exposure to electromagnetic fields, which addresses new findings in cell biology, is included. Biological effects of non-thermal EMF on insects are clearly proven in the laboratory, but only partly in the field, thus the wider ecological implications are still unknown. There is a need for more field studies, but extrapolating from the laboratory, as is common practice in ecotoxicology, already warrants increasing the threat level of environmental EMF impact on insects.
Excerpts
"Looking back at the history of science, it seems that adverse effects have frequently been reported early on, but mostly been ignored – e.g. in the cases of asbestos, lead and ci******es. It has typically taken decades to understand the mechanisms of toxicity and for the official position to shift. The European Environment Agency EEA has produced several reports on this topic under the title “Late lessons from early warnings” [146, 147].
Thirty-six of the fifty-five HF-EMF studies reported in this review used field strengths lower than 6 V/m (∼100 mW/m2), and 31 of these 36 studies (86 %) nevertheless found statistically significant adverse effects, starting at about 2 V/m and peaking around 6 V/m. This is below the regulatory thresholds established by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) (41 V/m, or 61 V/m above 2 GHz), and even below the particularly stringent installation limits only found in a handful of countries [94]. (The installation limit is measured where people can stay for long periods of time, i.e. homes, schools, working places and playgrounds for kids.)
Panagopoulos et al. detected a bioactive window at a distance of 20–30 cm from GSM mobile phones, where the power density equaled 100 mW/m2 (∼6 V/m), and where toxic effects in Drosophila are already observed after a 1-min exposure. These results have been replicated several times [148], [149], [150]. If this is generally true for insects, the limit for toxic effects would be 100 times below the current ICNIRP limit (10 W/m2 or 61 V/m), which protects only against thermal effects (in humans), and possibly 1,000 times lower than current limits for chronic exposure, i.e. 10 mW/m2 or 2 V/m (all comparisons based on power densities, i.e. energy per surface area units) [94]. A recent study found significant effects on gene transcription and chromosomal abnormalities using a WiFi signal at 4.8 mW/m2 or 1.35 V/m in Drosophila exposed for 9 days [145]. These findings of biological effects in insects starting at around 2 V/m imply that existing standards would have to be revised and made more stringent, to include nature protection/wild-life concerns.
Current ambient power densities are generally still below 10 or 100 mW/m2 (i.e. 2 or 6 V/m). A recent study measured values of 0.17–0.53 V/m in the field (0.1–0.8 mW/m2) [101]. Values mainly in the range of 0.5–1 V/m were found around schools in Crete [151]. Nationwide measurements of the National Observatory of electromagnetic fields (NOEF) in Greece found average values higher than 1 V/m in 55 % of sites, and values greater than 2 V/m in 20 % of measurement sites [152]. A recent review lists power densities ranging from 0.23 V/m in Swiss residential areas to 1.85 V/m in an Australian university neighborhood [86]. In urban hot spots (UK), a maximum of 150 mW/m2 (7.5 V/m) and an average of 25 mW/m2 (3.3 V/m) were measured (including WiFi) [153]. The French “Agence nationale des fréquences” (ANFR) found an average of 1.17 V/m at 1,300 5G base stations, and the authors expect a 20 % increase in the next years [154]. In Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, Russia and China, the installation limit is 6 V/m (100 mW/m2) for mobile telephony base stations, whereas Germany, the UK, the USA and many other countries adhere to the much higher ICNIRP limits [94, 155]. The ICNIRP limits have recently been questioned, since they are based on findings from more than 20 years ago, and their assumptions have been proven false [156]. Furthermore, the ICNIRP limits are designed to protect humans and have not been tested as to their adequacy in protecting wildlife and insects [157]."
"According to Thielens, De Borre et al., the EMF power absorbed by insect bodies (for the same emitted power of 1 V/m) increases by up to a hundredfold for a change in frequency from ∼1 GHz (e.g. 4G and low-band 5G) to 10 GHz and higher, e.g. high-band 5G at 26 GHz, hence an increase in negative effects on insects is to be expected, since low-level (non-thermal) effects are still dependent on absorbed power [100], [101], [102]. As power losses become greater due to scattering, reflection, and the lower pe*******on force of higher frequencies, the radiated power of base stations will also have to increase to ensure comfortable wireless connections in homes and vehicles. The 5G expansion is leading to a significant increase in EMF emissions, as suggested by recent measurements [152, 154, 161]. Based on an assessment of the overall study situation on insects, we must warn against a careless deployment of further mobile telephony infrastructure, as harmful effects on insect populations would be likely, especially if interactions with other noxious agents are taken into account (including high-voltage power lines and artificial lighting). This might lead to further declines of already dwindling populations of pollinators, and would thereby entail costs for humanity. It is also possible, and would need further clarification (which could be reached by a few well-planned field studies), that some insect populations are already negatively impacted by the present infrastructure.
The ongoing 5G-deployment should be closely monitored, and toxicological testing for the evaluation of adverse effects should begin immediately, so that protective guidelines can be enacted. Experimental findings should be reported transparently, and granted the political presence necessary to lead to timely response, as there is a tendency for scientific discussion to become polarized into extreme positions, which rarely reflects the truth and causes substantial waste of resources [160]. Toxic effects on insects may occur at radiation levels that are considered safe for humans, particularly in the higher frequency bands. We refer to the so-called precautionary principle, detailed in article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Pollinator conservation requires a stronger and broader application of the precautionary principle as currently practiced [125]. Also, the EU precautionary principle implies that legislative action should already be taken if there is a founded suspicion of negative effects."
Open access paper: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2023-0072/html
--
Related Posts:
Electromagnetic fields threaten wildlife
Effects of Wireless Radiation on Birds and Other Wildlife
Cell Tower Radiation Affects Wildlife: Dept. of Interior Attacks FCC
--
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
Website: https://www.saferemr.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
Twitter:
News about health effects associated with wireless radiation including cell towers & cell phones.
![Connecticut House Bill 5107TitleAn Act Concerning Small Cell Siting And Smart Meter Opt-in.SponsorsRep. David Michel [D]...](https://img4.ngos1.com/832/769/505968258327691.jpg)
