The exposure of nonhuman living organisms to mobile communication emissions: A survey to

Risk Analysis · 2024 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 156

Study snapshot

PublicationRisk Analysis · 2024

Study typecross_sectional

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

The exposure of nonhuman living organisms to mobile communication emissions: A survey to establish European stakeholders’ policy option preferences Recuero Virto L, Thielens A, Czerwiński M, Froidevaux J. (2024). The exposure of nonhuman living organisms to mobile communication emissions: A survey to establish European stakeholders’ policy option preferences. Risk Analysis, 1–15. doi: 10.1111/risa.14322. Abstract There is an unprecedented exposure of living organisms to mobile communications radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) emissions. Guidelines on exposure thresholds to limit thermal effects from these emissions are restricted to humans. However, tissue heating can occur in all living organisms that are exposed. In addition, exposure at millimetric frequencies used by 5G may impact surface tissues and organs of plants and small-size species. It is also expected that the addition of 5G to existing networks will intensify radiofrequency absorption by living organisms. A European Parliament report proposed policy options on the effects of RF-EMF exposure of plants, animals, and other living organisms in the context of 5G: funding more research, implementing monitoring networks, accessing more information from operators on antennas and EMF emissions, and developing compliance studies when antennas are installed. However, there is no evidence on the preferences of relevant stakeholders regarding these policy options. This paper reports the findings of a survey of key European stakeholders’ policy option preferences based on the European Parliament's report. It reveals a broad consensus on funding more research on the effects of exposure of plants, animals, and other living organisms to EMFs. It also highlights the need for deliberation concerning the other policy options that could provide solutions for regulatory authorities, central administrations, the private sector, nongovernmental associations and advocates, and academics. Such deliberation would pave the way for effective solutions, focusing on long-term output from funding research, and enabling short-term socially and economically acceptable actions for all parties concerned. Excerpts From a regulatory perspective, current guidelines on exposure thresholds to limit thermal energy from mobile communications emissions developed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) only concern human health (ICNIRP, 1998, 2020; IEEE, 1991, 2019).3 It is worth noting that ICNIRP and IEEE thresholds, developed under the assumptions that biological effects are due to excessive tissue heating and that no effects occur below the threshold, remain controversial (ICBE-EMF, 2022). According to the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), adverse effects have been observed below the threshold, such as nonthermal induction of reactive oxygen species, DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage, and neurological effects (e.g., electromagnetic hypersensitivity).... According to the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), steps taken to protect the environment from ionizing radiation should fall within the concept of optimization, the latter understood as the process of determining the level of protection and safety that makes exposures, and the probability and magnitude of potential exposures, as low as reasonably achievable, economic and societal factors being taken into account. Reference levels were derived by the ICRP to relate the effects of ionizing radiation to doses to nonhuman organisms, but the institution states that these values are not limited and are not intended to be used in that manner. Potential synergies between ICNIRP and ICRP approaches were already subject to discussion in the past for human health, in particular, whether ALARA approaches developed by the ICRP could be meaningfully applied to nonionizing radiation (ICNIRP/WHO/ICRP/IRPA/ILO, 2014). To conclude, humans have so far chosen not to address the effects of RF-EMF on nonhuman organisms even if there is evidence of thermal effects on all living organisms. The controversial debates on RF-EMF effects on human health have probably hampered early attempts to address the effects on nonhuman organisms. Our results show that, for the consulted stakeholders, this topic calls for some action. It is not a matter of hindering progress, but understanding the optimal conditions for technological proliferation, given the current state of knowledge. onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typecross_sectional

Effect directionunclear

PopulationKey European stakeholders (regulatory authorities, central administrations, private sector, nongovernmental associations/advocates, academics)

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

A survey of key European stakeholders found broad consensus in favor of funding more research on the effects of EMF exposure on plants, animals, and other living organisms. The study also indicates a need for further deliberation regarding other proposed policy options (e.g., monitoring networks, more information from operators, and compliance studies when antennas are installed).

Outcomes measured

Stakeholder preferences regarding policy options on RF-EMF exposure effects on nonhuman organisms (plants, animals, other living organisms) in the context of 5G
Consensus/support for funding more research
Perceived need for deliberation on other policy options (monitoring networks, operator information access, compliance studies at antenna installation)

Limitations

No sample size reported in provided abstract/metadata
Survey measures policy preferences rather than biological/health effects
Specific survey methods, sampling frame, and response characteristics not described in provided abstract/metadata

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "cross_sectional",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile communication emissions (including 5G)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Key European stakeholders (regulatory authorities, central administrations, private sector, nongovernmental associations/advocates, academics)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Stakeholder preferences regarding policy options on RF-EMF exposure effects on nonhuman organisms (plants, animals, other living organisms) in the context of 5G",
    "Consensus/support for funding more research",
    "Perceived need for deliberation on other policy options (monitoring networks, operator information access, compliance studies at antenna installation)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "A survey of key European stakeholders found broad consensus in favor of funding more research on the effects of EMF exposure on plants, animals, and other living organisms. The study also indicates a need for further deliberation regarding other proposed policy options (e.g., monitoring networks, more information from operators, and compliance studies when antennas are installed).",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "No sample size reported in provided abstract/metadata",
    "Survey measures policy preferences rather than biological/health effects",
    "Specific survey methods, sampling frame, and response characteristics not described in provided abstract/metadata"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "RF-EMF",
    "mobile communications",
    "5G",
    "millimetric frequencies",
    "nonhuman organisms",
    "plants",
    "animals",
    "policy options",
    "stakeholders",
    "European Parliament",
    "ICNIRP",
    "IEEE",
    "environmental protection"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "5g-policy",
      "weight": 0.9,
      "reason": "Focuses on policy options for RF-EMF exposure of nonhuman organisms in the context of 5G."
    },
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.6,
      "reason": "Discusses ICNIRP/IEEE guidelines and related debates in the regulatory context."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1111/risa.14322
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library