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

Reviews on environmental health · 2021 · Harm · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

HarmInsufficient evidencePaper 1086

Study snapshot

PublicationReviews on environmental health · 2021

Study typereview

Reported directionHarm

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: how species interact with natural and man-made EMF B. Blake Levitt, Henry C. Lai, Albert M Manville. Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: how species interact with natural and man-made EMF. Rev Environ Health. 2021 Jul 8.doi: 10.1515/reveh-2021-0050. Abstract 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. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Conclusion Effects from both natural and man-made EMF over a wide range of frequencies, intensities, wave forms, and signaling characteristics have been observed in all species of animals and plants investigated. The database is now voluminous with in vitro, in vivo, and field studies from which to extrapolate. The majority of studies have found biological effects at both high and low-intensity man-made exposures, many with implications for wildlife health and viability. It is clear that ambient environmental levels are biologically active in all non-human species which can have unique physiological mechanisms that require natural geomagnetic information for their life’s most important activities. Sensitive magnetoreception allows living organisms, including plants, to detect small variations in environmental EMF and react immediately as well as over the long term, but it can also make some organisms exquisitely vulnerable to man-made fields. Anthropogenic EMF may be contributing more than we currently realize to species’ diminishment and extinction. Exposures continue to escalate without understanding EMF as a potential causative and/or co-factorial agent. It is time to recognize ambient EMF as a potential novel stressor to other species, design technology to reduce exposures to as low as reasonably achievable, keep systems wired as much as possible to reduce ambient RFR, and create laws accordingly — a subject explored more thoroughly in Part 3. degruyter.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 directionharm

PopulationFlora and fauna (multiple taxa; non-human species)

Sample sizeNot supplied

Exposurechronic/long-term ambient exposure (discussed)

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 66% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

The authors describe numerous studies across frequencies and taxa reporting biological effects from low-level anthropogenic EMF, including impacts on behavior (e.g., orientation/migration, food finding), reproduction-related endpoints, and survivorship. The review argues that ambient environmental EMF is biologically active for non-human species and raises concerns about ecosystem-level impacts, calling for wildlife-focused exposure standards and regulation.

Outcomes measured

Magnetoreception-related interactions with EMF
Orientation and migration
Food finding
Reproduction and mating
Nest/den building
Territorial maintenance/defense
Vitality, longevity, survivorship
Cyto- and genotoxic effects (laboratory animal models)
Wildlife health/viability; potential contribution to diminishment/extinction

Limitations

Narrative review; methods for study identification/selection are not described in the abstract
Quantitative effect sizes and exposure metrics (frequencies/intensities) are not provided in the abstract
Causal attribution to population-level outcomes (e.g., extinctions) is discussed but not demonstrated in the abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "ambient anthropogenic EMF (natural and man-made; includes ELF and RFR)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "chronic/long-term ambient exposure (discussed)"
  },
  "population": "Flora and fauna (multiple taxa; non-human species)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Magnetoreception-related interactions with EMF",
    "Orientation and migration",
    "Food finding",
    "Reproduction and mating",
    "Nest/den building",
    "Territorial maintenance/defense",
    "Vitality, longevity, survivorship",
    "Cyto- and genotoxic effects (laboratory animal models)",
    "Wildlife health/viability; potential contribution to diminishment/extinction"
  ],
  "main_findings": "The authors describe numerous studies across frequencies and taxa reporting biological effects from low-level anthropogenic EMF, including impacts on behavior (e.g., orientation/migration, food finding), reproduction-related endpoints, and survivorship. The review argues that ambient environmental EMF is biologically active for non-human species and raises concerns about ecosystem-level impacts, calling for wildlife-focused exposure standards and regulation.",
  "effect_direction": "harm",
  "limitations": [
    "Narrative review; methods for study identification/selection are not described in the abstract",
    "Quantitative effect sizes and exposure metrics (frequencies/intensities) are not provided in the abstract",
    "Causal attribution to population-level outcomes (e.g., extinctions) is discussed but not demonstrated in the abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.66,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "non-ionizing electromagnetic fields",
    "EMF pollution",
    "ELF",
    "RFR",
    "magnetoreception",
    "wildlife",
    "flora",
    "fauna",
    "orientation",
    "migration",
    "reproduction",
    "genotoxicity",
    "ecosystem impacts",
    "regulation"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.42,
      "reason": "Discusses ambient EMF as pollution and calls for exposure standards/regulatory action (general guideline context)."
    },
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0,
      "reason": null
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.1515/reveh-2021-0050
PubMed: 34243228

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library