Tracking Devices for Pets: Health Risk Assessment for Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields

2021 · No effect · Low evidence

← Research stream

No effectLow evidencePaper 1025

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2021

Study typereview

Reported directionNo effect

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Tracking Devices for Pets: Health Risk Assessment for Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Judith Klune, Christine Arhant, Ines Windschnurer, Veronika Heizmann, Günther Schauberger. Tracking Devices for Pets: Health Risk Assessment for Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Animals (Basel). 2021 Sep 17;11(9):2721. doi: 10.3390/ani11092721. Abstract Every year, approximately 3% of cats and dogs are lost. In addition to passive methods for identifying pets, radiofrequency tracking devices (TDs) are available. These TDs can track a pet's geographic position, which is transmitted by radio frequencies. The health risk to the animals from continuous exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs) was reviewed. Fourteen out of twenty-one commercially available TDs use 2G, 3G, or 4G mobile networks, and the others work with public frequencies, WLAN, Bluetooth, etc. The exposure of pets to RF-EMFs was assessed, including ambient exposure (radios, TVs, and base stations of mobile networks), exposure from indoor devices (DECT, WLAN, Bluetooth, etc.), and the exposure from TDs. The exposure levels of the three areas were found to be distinctly below the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) reference levels, which assure far-reaching protection from adverse health effects. The highest uncertainty regarding the exposure of pets was related to that caused by indoor RF-emitting devices using WLAN and DECT. This exposure can be limited considerably through a reduction in the exposure time and an increase in the distance between the animal and the RF-emitting device. Even though the total RF-EMF exposure level experienced by pets was found to be below the reference limits, recommendations were derived to reduce potential risks from exposure to TDs and indoor devices. Open access paper: mdpi.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 typereview

Effect directionno_effect

Populationcats and dogs (pets)

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF · continuous exposure (as discussed for pets using tracking devices)

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

The paper reviewed health risk to pets from continuous RF-EMF exposure from tracking devices and other sources. Exposure levels from ambient sources, indoor devices, and tracking devices were reported as distinctly below ICNIRP reference levels. The highest uncertainty in exposure assessment was attributed to indoor RF-emitting devices using WLAN and DECT; the authors recommend reducing exposure time and increasing distance to reduce potential risks.

Outcomes measured

RF-EMF exposure levels relative to ICNIRP reference levels
health risk assessment / potential adverse health effects (as framed by reference levels)
uncertainty in exposure assessment (indoor WLAN/DECT)
risk-reduction recommendations (exposure time and distance)

Limitations

No specific frequencies or SAR values are provided in the abstract.
Uncertainty in exposure assessment is highlighted, especially for indoor WLAN and DECT sources.
The abstract does not report direct health outcome measurements in animals; conclusions are framed relative to ICNIRP reference levels.

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "pet tracking devices; ambient sources (radios, TVs, mobile network base stations); indoor devices (DECT, WLAN, Bluetooth)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "continuous exposure (as discussed for pets using tracking devices)"
  },
  "population": "cats and dogs (pets)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "RF-EMF exposure levels relative to ICNIRP reference levels",
    "health risk assessment / potential adverse health effects (as framed by reference levels)",
    "uncertainty in exposure assessment (indoor WLAN/DECT)",
    "risk-reduction recommendations (exposure time and distance)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "The paper reviewed health risk to pets from continuous RF-EMF exposure from tracking devices and other sources. Exposure levels from ambient sources, indoor devices, and tracking devices were reported as distinctly below ICNIRP reference levels. The highest uncertainty in exposure assessment was attributed to indoor RF-emitting devices using WLAN and DECT; the authors recommend reducing exposure time and increasing distance to reduce potential risks.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "No specific frequencies or SAR values are provided in the abstract.",
    "Uncertainty in exposure assessment is highlighted, especially for indoor WLAN and DECT sources.",
    "The abstract does not report direct health outcome measurements in animals; conclusions are framed relative to ICNIRP reference levels."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "pets",
    "cats",
    "dogs",
    "tracking devices",
    "RF-EMF",
    "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields",
    "2G",
    "3G",
    "4G",
    "WLAN",
    "Wi-Fi",
    "Bluetooth",
    "DECT",
    "ICNIRP",
    "exposure assessment",
    "risk assessment"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.9,
      "reason": "Exposure levels are evaluated against ICNIRP reference levels and used to frame health protection conclusions."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.3390/ani11092721
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library