Recherches

EFFETS ENVIRONNEMENTAUX DE LA 5G ET DES PETITES CELLULES : OISEAUX, ABEILLES ARBRES ET CLIMAT

Chris 5G, Recherches

Textes traduits avec deepl

Theodora Scarato, directrice exécutive de l’EHT, passe en revue les effets environnementaux de la 5G et de la prolifération des réseaux cellulaires en mettant l’accent sur les arbres, les abeilles et les oiseaux. En outre, elle documente l’augmentation de la consommation d’énergie et les impacts climatiques de la 5G et de l’internet des objets.

Voir la vidéo https://youtu.be/V1THhDzqZD0?si=DaN3u7XJEcWOl81g

Les limites fixées par la FCC n’ont pas été élaborées pour protéger notre flore ou notre faune. Les limites de « sécurité » des rayonnements sans fil pour les arbres, les plantes, les oiseaux et les abeilles n’existent tout simplement pas. Aucune agence américaine ou autorité internationale compétente en matière de science, de biologie ou de sécurité n’est jamais intervenue pour examiner la recherche et fixer des limites de sécurité pour les oiseaux, les abeilles, les arbres et la faune.
Références aux recherches citées dans le webinaire sur les effets environnementaux de la 5G et des radiations
Une étude de Levitt, Lai et Manville (2021) intitulée « Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment », publiée dans Reviews of Environmental Health, a révélé « des augmentations exponentielles dans presque tous les environnements ». « Le résumé indique que « des effets biologiques ont été observés sur l’ensemble des taxons et des fréquences à des intensités extrêmement faibles, comparables aux expositions ambiantes actuelles. De vastes effets sur la faune ont été observés sur l’orientation et la migration, la recherche de nourriture, la reproduction, l’accouplement, la construction de nids et de tanières, le maintien et la défense du territoire, ainsi que la longévité et la survie. Des effets cytotoxiques et génotoxiques ont été observés… Il est temps de reconnaître les CEM ambiants comme une nouvelle forme de pollution et d’élaborer des règles au sein des organismes de réglementation qui désignent l’air comme un « habitat » afin que les CEM puissent être réglementés comme d’autres polluants. La perte d’espèces sauvages passe souvent inaperçue et n’est pas documentée jusqu’à ce que des points de basculement soient atteints. Les normes d’exposition chronique à long terme à de faibles niveaux de CEM, qui n’existent pas actuellement, devraient être fixées en conséquence pour la faune et la flore sauvages.

Ce document, qui fait partie d’une série de trois articles traitant des fréquences sans fil actuellement utilisées ainsi que des signaux complexes qui seront déployés pour la 5G, fait état de « graves préoccupations concernant le phasage, car il interagit avec les cellules vivantes d’une manière extrêmement complexe qui n’a rien à voir avec les seuils thermiques traditionnels ». La forme d’onde elle-même est le composant biologiquement actif » et « La raison pour laquelle le phasage peut avoir un impact biologique unique est que les impulsions de rayonnement de pointe très rapides génèrent des rafales d’énergie qui peuvent donner lieu à ce que l’on appelle des précurseurs de Sommerfeld et de Brillouin dans les cellules vivantes, qui peuvent à leur tour pénétrer et se disperser beaucoup plus profondément que ne le prévoient les modèles traditionnels ». Les précurseurs de Sommerfeld et de Brillouin se forment notamment lors d’expositions à très large bande telles que celles proposées par la 5G ».

Les documents en anglais ci-dessous

Le ministère de l’Intérieur a écrit une lettre en 2014 détaillant plusieurs études publiées montrant les impacts du rayonnement radiofréquence (RFR) sans fil sur les oiseaux. Il a déclaré : « Il y a un niveau croissant de preuves anecdotiques reliant les effets du rayonnement électromagnétique non thermique et non ionisant des tours de communication sur les oiseaux sauvages qui nichent et se perchent et d’autres espèces sauvages…. ». Et « Cependant, les normes de rayonnement électromagnétique utilisées par la Commission fédérale des communications (FCC) continuent d’être basées sur l’échauffement thermique, un critère dépassé depuis près de 30 ans et inapplicable aujourd’hui. « Et « Des études tierces évaluées par des pairs doivent être menées aux États-Unis pour commencer à examiner les effets des rayonnements sur les oiseaux migrateurs et d’autres espèces fiduciaires ».

Albert Manville, ancien biologiste principal de l’US Fish and Wildlife Service, a écrit « A BRIEFING MEMORANDUM : What We Know, Can Infer, and Don’t Yet Know about Impacts from Thermal and Non-thermal Non-ionizing Radiation to Birds and Other Wildlife », publié dans Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Solutions, 2014, sur les impacts des RF sur les oiseaux et les abeilles. L’Inde a réduit ses limites de radiofréquences de 1/10e après qu’un examen de la recherche a montré que la majorité des études avaient des effets néfastes sur la faune, les oiseaux et les abeilles.

En ce qui concerne les abeilles et les pollinisateurs, l’étude « Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz » publiée dans Scientific Reports a révélé que les insectes (y compris l’abeille domestique occidentale) peuvent absorber les fréquences plus élevées qui seront utilisées dans le cadre du déploiement de la 4G/5G, avec des augmentations de puissance absorbée allant jusqu’à 370 %. Les chercheurs mettent en garde : « Cela pourrait entraîner des changements dans le comportement, la physiologie et la morphologie des insectes au fil du temps…. » Des recherches ont également mis en évidence les effets des fréquences sans fil sur les abeilles, notamment l’induction d’une tuyauterie artificielle pour les ouvrières (Favre, 2011), la perturbation des capacités de navigation (Sainudeen, 2011 ; Kimmel et al., 2007), la réduction de la force de la colonie (Harst et al., 2006) et les effets sur la physiologie de l’abeille (2011).

La recherche sur les arbres a montré que les arbres sont endommagés par les radiofréquences. Une étude de terrain menée pendant 9 ans par Waldmann-Selsam, C., et al 2016, a révélé des impacts significatifs sur les arbres situés à proximité d’antennes cellulaires et une étude portant sur 700 arbres a montré que les dommages commençaient sur le côté de l’arbre où les RF étaient les plus élevés. Une étude sur les effets sur les plantes intitulée « Weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phone radiation on plants » a conclu qu' »un nombre important d’études sur les CEM RF des téléphones mobiles montrent des effets physiologiques et/ou morphologiques ». Une étude sur les semis de trembles a révélé que les RF ambiantes dans un environnement du Colorado étaient suffisamment élevées pour provoquer des lésions nécrotiques sur les feuilles, réduire la longueur des tiges et la surface des feuilles, et supprimer la production d’anthocyanes à l’automne (Haggarty 2010).

Un règlement sur les petites cellules qui tente de protéger les arbres
Washington DC : Les petites cellules ne peuvent pas être situées à moins de 15 pieds d’un arbre et les arbres ne peuvent pas être élagués au profit de l’infrastructure des petites cellules. Lignes directrices relatives aux petites cellules (LIEN page 14 sur les arbres)
Les poteaux autonomes ne doivent pas être placés à moins de 15 pieds (15′) d’un espace ouvert de plantation d’arbres. Aucun arbre de rue ne doit être enlevé, ou sa zone racinaire protégée doit être touchée, pour permettre l’installation d’une infrastructure de petites cellules.
Aucun arbre ne doit être élagué pour permettre l’installation ou le fonctionnement de l’infrastructure à petites cellules.
Denver Colorado : (LIEN)Un minimum de 15 à 25 pieds de séparation avec le tronc de l’arbre, de sorte qu’aucune perturbation proposée ne se produise à moins de 5 pieds de la zone critique des racines (ligne d’égouttement) de tout arbre…
Thornton Colorado : (LIEN) Les poteaux ne doivent pas être situés « à moins de 15 pieds ou à l’intérieur de la ligne d’égouttement d’un arbre existant, selon ce qui est le plus élevé, afin de protéger la santé de l’arbre ».
Rapports et livres blancs : 5G, consommation d’énergie et climat

Data Center Forum White Paper, (2020) Environmentally Sustainable 5G Deployment https://www.datacenter-forum.com/datacenter-forum/5g-will-prompt-energy-consumption-to-grow-by-staggering-160-in-10-years

 

German Environment Agency and German Federal Environment Ministry (2020) “Fibre optic video transmission is nearly 50 times more efficient than UMTS”https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/press/pressinformation/video-streaming-data-transmission-technology

 

High Council for the Climate Report (2020) “Controlling the carbon impact of 5G”https://www.hautconseilclimat.fr/publications/maitriser-limpact-carbone-de-la-5g/

 

Huawei (2020) 5G Power: Creating a green grid that slashes costs, emissions & energy use, https://www.huawei.com/us/publications/communicate/89/5g-power-green-grid-slashes-costs-emissions-energy-use

 

Mills, Mark P., National Mining Association / American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (2013), “The Cloud Begins with Coal – Big Data, Big Networks, Big Infrastructure, and Big Power. An overview of the electricity used by the global digital ecosystem.” https://www.tech-pundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Cloud_Begins_With_Coal.pdf

 

National Resources Defense Council, 2014 “Data Center Efficiency Assessment” https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/data-center-efficiency-assessment-IP.pdf

Shehabi et al., Berkeley Laboratory (2016) “United States Data Center Energy Usage Report” https://eta.lbl.gov/publications/united-states-data-center-energy PDF

The Center for Energy Efficient Telecommunications (2013) “The Power of Wireless Cloud: An analysis of the energy consumption of wireless cloud”, https://www.cesc.kth.se/polopoly_fs/1.647732.1600689929!/ceet_white_paper_wireless_cloud_v2%20(1).pdf

The Shift Project (2019) “LEAN ICT: TOWARDS DIGITAL SOBRIETY”: OUR NEW REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF ICT”,   PDF Summary https://theshiftproject.org/en/article/lean-ict-our-new-report/

 

Vertiv 5G (2019) Telco Industry Hopes and Fears FROM ENERGY COSTS TO EDGE COMPUTING TRANSFORMATION  https://www.vertiv.com/globalassets/documents/white-papers/451-research-paper/10648_advisory_bw_vertiv_266274_0.pdf

 

Citations on 5G, Energy Consumption, and Climate

Andrae, A.S.G.; Edler, T.  On Global Electricity Usage of Communication Technology: Trends to 2030Challenges 2015, 6, 117-157. https://doi.org/10.3390/challe6010117

 

Baliga, Jayant, Ayre, Robert, Hinton, Kerry, Tucker, Rodney S. “Energy Consumption in Wired and Wireless Access Networks in IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 70-77, June 2011, doi: 10.1109/MCOM.2011.5783987.

 

Belkhir, Lotfi and Elmeligi, Ahmed. Assessing ICT global emissions footprint: Trends to 2040 & recommendations, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 177, 2018,Pages 448-463, ISSN 0959-6526, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.239.

 

Corcoran, Peter and Andrae, Anders. (2013).Emerging Trends in Electricity Consumption for Consumer ICT,Global Forecasting of ICT footprints, https://aran.library.nuigalway.ie/bitstream/handle/10379/3563/CA_MainArticle14_all-v02.pdf?sequence=4

 

Li, C., Zhang, J., and Letaief, K. B.  Energy Efficiency Analysis of Small Cell Networks,” 2013 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), 2013, pp. 4404-4408, doi: 10.1109/ICC.2013.6655259.

 

Morley, Janine, Widdicks, Kelly, Hazas, Mike. “Digitalisation, energy and data demand: The impact of Internet traffic on overall and peak electricity consumption” Energy Research & Social Science, Volume 38, 2018, Pages 128-137, ISSN 2214-6296, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.01.018.

 

Shehabi, Arman, Walker, Ben , Masanet Eric. (2014) “The energy and greenhouse-gas implications of internet video streaming in the United States” Environmental Research Letters https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/5/054007

 

Sikdar, B. “A study of the environmental impact of wired and wireless local area network access,” in IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 85-92, February 2013, doi: 10.1109/TCE.2013.6490245.

 

Xiaohu Ge, Jing Yang, Gharavi, Hamid. Energy Efficiency Challenges of 5G Small Cell Networks. IEEE Commun Mag. 2017 May;55(5):184-191. doi: 10.1109/MCOM.2017.1600788. Epub 2017 May 12. PMID: 28757670; PMCID: PMC5528873.

Levitt BB, Lai HC, Manville AM. Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment. Rev Environ Health. 2021 May 27. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2021-0026. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34047144.

Levitt BB, Lai HC, Manville AM. 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. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34243228.

Waldmann-Selsam, C., et al. “Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations.”Science of the Total Environment 572 (2016): 554-69.

Breunig, Helmut. “Tree Damage Caused By Mobile Phone Base Stations An Observation Guide.” (2017).

You can also download the Tree Observation Guide at: Competence Initiative for the Protection of Humanity, the Environment and Democracy

S Sivani,  D Sudarsanam, Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem ? A review, Volume 4, Issue 4, Pages 202–216, 2012

Haggerty, Katie. “Adverse Influence of Radio Frequency Background on Trembling Aspen Seedlings.”International Journal of Forestry Research2010.836278 (2010).

Halgamuge, M.N. “Weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phone radiation on plants.”Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, vol. 36, no. 2, 2017, pp. 213-235.

Martin Pall. “Electromagnetic Fields Act Similarly in Plants as in Animals: Probable Activation of Calcium Channels via Their Voltage Sensor”Current Chemical Biology, Volume 10 , Issue 1 , 2016

Shikha Chandel, et al. “Exposure to 2100 MHz electromagnetic field radiations induces reactive oxygen species generation in Allium cepa roots.”Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure 5.4 (2017): 225-229.

Halgamuge MN, Skafidas E, Davis D. A meta-analysis of in vitro exposures to weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phones (1990–2015). Environ Res. 2020;184:109227. doi:10.1016/J.ENVRES.2020.109227

Halgamuge MN, Davis D. Lessons learned from the application of machine learning to studies on plant response to radio-frequency. Environ Res. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2019.108634

Gustavino, B., et al. “Exposure to 915 MHz radiation induces micronuclei in Vicia faba root tips.”Mutagenesis 31.2 (2016): 187-92.

Halgamuge, Malka N., See Kye Yak and Jacob L. Eberhardt. “Reduced growth of soybean seedlings after exposure to weak microwave radiation from GSM 900 mobile phone and base station.” Bioelectromagnetics 36.2 (2015): 87-95.

“Tree Damage from Chronic High Frequency Exposure Mobile Telecommunications, Wi-Fi, Radar, Radio Relay Systems, Terrestrial Radio, TV etc.” by  Dr.  Volker Schorpp Lecture (about 31 MB)

Shepherd et al., Increased aggression and reduced aversive learning in honey bees exposed to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. PLoS One. 2019 Oct 10

Balmori, Alfonso. “Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an emerging threat to wildlife orientation.” Science of The Total Environment 518–519 (2015): 58–60.

Balmori, A. “Electrosmog and species conservation.” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 496, 2014, pp. 314-6.

Cucurachi, C., et al. “A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF).”Environment International, vol. 51, 2013, pp. 116–40.

Kumar, Neelima R., Sonika Sangwan, and Pooja Badotra. “Exposure to cell phone radiations produces biochemical changes in worker honey bees.” Toxicol Int., 18, no. 1, 2011, pp. 70–2.

Favre, Daniel. “Mobile phone induced honeybee worker piping.” Apidologie, vol. 42, 2011, pp. 270-9.

“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), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2009.

“The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment.” Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, resolution 1815, 2011.

Engels, S. et al. “Anthropogenic electromagnetic noise disrupts magnetic compass orientation in a migratory bird.” Nature, vol. 509, 2014, pp. 353–6.

Balmori A. “Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields from Phone Masts on a Population of White Stork (Ciconia ciconia).” Electromagn Biol Med, vol. 24, no. 2, 2005, pp. 109-19.

Balmori, A. “Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles.” Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, vol. 29, no. 1-2, 2010, pp. 31-5.

 

Studies on Health Effects of Wireless 

Adams, Jessica A., Tamara S. Galloway, Debapriya Mondal, Sandro C. Esteves and Fiona Mathews. “Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” Environment International 70 (September 2014): 106-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.04.015.

 

Aldad, Tamir S., Geliang Gan, Xiao-Bing Gao, and Hugh S. Taylor. “Fetal Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure From 800-1900 Mhz-Rated Cellular Telephones Affects Neurodevelopment and Behavior in Mice.” Scientific Reports 2, no. 312 (2012). 10.1038/srep00312.

 

Asl, Jafar Fatahi, Bagher Larijani, Mehrnoosh Zakerkish, Fakher Rahim, Kiarash Shirbandi, and Rasoul Akbari. “The possible global hazard of cell phone radiation on thyroid cells and hormones: a systematic review of evidence.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 26, no. 18 (June 2019): 18017-18031. 10.1007/s11356-019-05096-z.

 

Atasoy, Halil I., Mehmet Y. Gunal, Pinar Atasoy, Serenay Elgun, and Guler Bugdayci. “Immunohistopathologic Demonstration of Deleterious Effects on Growing Rat Testes of Radiofrequency Waves Emitted from Conventional Wi-Fi Devices.” Journal of Pediatric Urology 9, no. 2 (April 2013):  223–229. 10.1016/j.jpurol.2012.02.015.

 

Avendaño, Conrado, Ariela Mata, César A. Sanchez Sarmiento, and Gustavo F. Doncel. “Use of Laptop Computers Connected to Internet through Wi-Fi Decreases Human Sperm Motility and Increases Sperm DNA Fragmentation.” Fertility and Sterility 97, no. 1 (January 2012): 39-45. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.10.012.

 

Bandara, Priyanka, and David O. Carpenter. “Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact.” The Lancet Planetary Health 2,  no. 12 (December 2018): 512-514. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30221-3.

 

Bandara, Priyanka, Damian Wojcik, Don Maisch, Susan Pockett, Julie Mcredden, Murray May, Victor Leach, Steve Weller, Robin Kelly, and Tracy Chandler. “Serious Safety Concerns about 5G Wireless Deployment in Australia and New Zealand.” Radiation Protection In Australasia 37, no. 1 (April 2020): 47-54. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342085409_Serious_Safety_Concerns_about_5G_Wireless_Deployment_in_Australia_and_New_Zealand.

 

Bas, O., E. Odaci, H. Mollaoglu, K. Ucok, and S. Kaplan. “Chronic prenatal exposure to the 900 megahertz electromagnetic field induces pyramidal cell loss in the hippocampus of newborn rats.” Toxicology and Industrial Health 25, no. 6 (July 2009): 377–384. 10.1177/0748233709106442.

 

Belpomme, Dominique, Lennart Hardell, Igor Belyaev, Ernesto Burgio, and David O. Carpenter. “Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective.” Environmental Pollution 242, part A (November 2018):  643-658. 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.019.

 

Byun, Yoon-Hwan, Mina Ha, Ho-Jang Kwon, Yun-Chul Hong, Jong-Han Leem, Joon Sakong, Su Young Kim, et al. “Mobile Phone Use, Blood Lead Levels, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Symptoms in Children: A Longitudinal Study.” PLOS One 8, no. 3 (March 2013). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059742.

 

Cardis, E., B.K. Armstrong, J.D. Bowman, G.G. Giles, M. Hours, D. Krewski, M. McBride, et al. “Risk of Brain Tumours in Relation to Estimated RF Dose from Mobile Phones: Results from Five Interphone Countries.” Occupational and Environmental Medicine 68, no. 9 (June 2011): 631-640. https://oem.bmj.com/content/68/9/631.

 

Carlberg, Michael, and Lennart Hardell. “Comments on the U.S. National Toxicology Program technical reports on toxicology and carcinogenesis study in rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and in mice exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 1,900 MHz.” International Journal of Oncology 54, no. 1 (January 2019): 111-127. 10.3892/ijo.2018.4606.

 

Carlberg, Michael, and Lennart Hardell. “Evaluation of Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and Glioma Risk Using the Bradford Hill Viewpoints from 1965 on Association or Causation.” BioMed Research International 2017 (March 2017). https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9218486.

 

Carlberg, Michael, and Lennart Hardell. “Decreased Survival of Glioma Patients with Astrocytoma Grade IV (Glioblastoma Multiforme) Associated with Long-Term Use of Mobile and Cordless Phones.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 11, no. 10 (October 2014): 10790-10805. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph111010790.

 

Carlberg, Michael, and Lennart Hardell. “Mobile phone and cordless phone use and the risk for glioma–Analysis of pooled case-control studies in Sweden, 1997–2003 and 2007–2009.”

Pathophysiology 22, no. 1 (2014): 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathophys.2014.10.001.

 

Clegg, Frank M., Margaret Sears, Margaret Friesen, Theodora Scarato, Rob Metzinger, Cindy Lee Russell, Alex Stadtner, and Anthony B. Miller. “Building science and radiofrequency Radiation:What makes smart and healthy buildings.” Building and Environment 176 (June 2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106324.

 

Coureau, Gaëlle, Ghislaine Bouvier, Pierre Lebailly, Pascale Fabbro-Peray, Anne Gruber, Karen Leffondre, Jean-Sebastien Guillamo, et al. “Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumours in the CERENAT Case-Control Study.” Occupational and Environmental Medicine 71, no. 7 (July 2014): 514-522. 10.1136/oemed-2013-101754.

 

Falcioni, L., L. Bua, E. Tibaldi, M. Lauriola, L. De Angelis, F. Gnudi, D. Mandrioli, et al. “Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission.” Environmental Research 165 (August 2018): 496-503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.037.

 

Fernández C., A.A. de Salles, M.E. Sears, R.D. Morris, and D.L. Davis. “Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality.” Environmental Research 167 (November 2018): 694-699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.05.013.

 

Foerster Milena, Thielens Arno, Joseph Wout, Eeftens Marloes, and Röösli Martin. “A Prospective Cohort Study of Adolescents’ Memory Performance and Individual Brain Dose of Microwave Radiation from Wireless Communication.” Environmental Health Perspectives 126, no. 7 (July 2018): https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP2427.

 

Halgamuge Malka N., Devra Davis, and Efstratios Skafidas. “A meta-analysis of in vitro exposures to weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phones (1990–2015).” Environmental Research 184 (May 2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109227.

 

IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields: IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans/World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer Volume 102. IARC Publications. https://publications.iarc.fr/126.

 

Kim, Ju Hwan, Da-Hyeon Yu, Yang Hoon Huh, Eun Ho Lee, Hyung-Gun Kim, and Hak Rim Kim. (2017). “Long-Term Exposure to 835 MHz RF-EMF Induces Hyperactivity, Autophagy and Demyelination in the Cortical Neurons of Mice.” Scientific Reports 7 (January 2017). 10.1038/srep41129.

 

Kocaman, Adam, Gamze Altun, Arife Ahsen Kaplan, Ömür Gülsüm Deniz, Kıymet Kübra Yurt, and Süleyman Kaplan. “Genotoxic and carcinogenic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields.” Environmental Research163 (May 2018): 71-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.034.

 

Kostoff, Ronald N., and Clifford G.Y. Lau. “Combined biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields and other agents in the published literature.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80, no. 7 (September 2013): 1331-1349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.12.006.

 

Lai H.Genetic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields, Electromagn Biol Med. 2021 Feb 4:1-10. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2021.1881866. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33539186.

 

Lai H., and N.P. Singh. “Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain cells.” Bioelectromagnetics 16, no. 3 (1995): 207–210. 10.1002/bem.2250160309.

 

Lai H., and N.P. Singh. “Single and double-strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation.” International Journal of Radiation Biology 69, no. 4 (April 1996): 513–521. 10.1080/095530096145814.

 

Lerchl, Alexander, Melanie Klose, Karen Grote, Adalbert F.X. Wilhelm, Oliver Spathmann, Thomas Fiedler, Joachim Streckert, Volkert Hansen, and Markus Clemens. “Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans.” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 459, no. 4 (April 2015): 585-590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.02.151.

 

Leszczynski, Dariusz, Sakari Joenväärä, Jukka Reivinen, and Reetta Kuokka. “Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells: Molecular mechanism for cancer- and blood-brain barrier-related effects.” Differentiation 70, no. 2–3 (May 2002): 120-129. 10.1046/j.1432-0436.2002.700207.x.

 

Luo, J., et al  Genetic susceptibility may modify the association between cell phone use and thyroid cancer: A population-based case-control study in Connecticut, Environmental Research,Volume 182, 2020

 

Miller, Anthony B., L. Lloyd Morgan, Iris Udasin, and Devra Lee Davis. “Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102).” Environmental Research 167 (November 2018): 673-683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.043.

 

Miller, Anthony B., Margaret E. Sears, L. Lloyd Morgan, Devra L. Davis, Lennart Hardell, Mark Oremus, and Colin L. Soskolne. “Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices.” Frontiers in Public Health 7 (August 2019): 223. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00223.

 

Pall, Martin L. “Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects.” Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine 17, no. 8 (August 2013): 958–965. 10.1111/jcmm.12088.

 

Pall, Martin L. “Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health.” Environmental Research 164 (July 2018): 405-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.03.

 

Panagopoulos, Dimitris J., Olle Johansson, and George L. Carlo. “Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity.” Scientific Reports 5 (October 2015). 10.1038/srep14914.

 

Panagopoulos, Dimitris J.,  Olle Johansson, and George L. Carlo. “Real versus Simulated Mobile Phone Exposures in Experimental Studies.” BioMed Research International 2015 (August 2015). 10.1155/2015/607053.

 

Gang Yu, Zhiming Bai, Chao Song, Qing Cheng, Gang Wang, Zeping Tang, Sixing Yang,

Current progress on the effect of mobile phone radiation on sperm quality: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of human and animal studies, Environmental Pollution,

Volume 282, 2021, 116952, ISSN 0269-7491, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116952.

 

Russell, Cindy L. “5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications.” Environmental Research 165 (August 2018): 484-495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.016.

 

Schuermann D, Mevissen M. Manmade Electromagnetic Fields and Oxidative Stress—Biological Effects and Consequences for Health.International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2021; 22(7):3772. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22073772

 

Tang, Jun, Yuan Zhang, Liming Yang, Qianwei Chen, Liang Tan, Shilun Zuo, Hua Feng, Zhi Chen, and Gang Zhu. “Exposure to 900MHz electromagnetic fields activates the mkp-1/ERK pathway and causes blood-brain barrier damage and cognitive impairment in rats.” Brain Research 1601 (March 2015): 92-101. 10.1016/j.brainres.2015.01.019.

 

Volkow, Nora D., Dardo Tomasi, Gene-Jack Wang, Paul Vaska, Joanna S. Fowler, Frank Telang, and Christopher Wong. “Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism.” JAMA 305, no. 8 (February 2011): 808–813. 10.1001/jama.2011.186.

 

West, John G., Nimmi S. Kapoor, Shu-Yuan Liao, June W. Chen, Lisa Bailey, and Robert A. Nagourney. “Multifocal Breast Cancer in Young Women with Prolonged Contact between Their Breasts and Their Cellular Phones.” Case Reports in Medicine 2013 (September 2013). 10.1155/2013/354682.

 

Yakymenko, Igor, Olexandr Tsybulin, Evgeniy Sidorik, Diane Henshel, Olga Kyrylenko, and Sergiy Kyrylenko. “Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation.” Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 35, no. 2 (2016): 186-202. 10.3109/15368378.2015.1043557.

 

Research Studies on Impacts to Wildlife and Trees

Balmori. Alfonso.  Electromagnetic radiation as an emerging driver factor for the decline of insects. Sci Total Environ. Available online 28 January 2021, 144913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.

 

Balmori, Alfonso. “Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an emerging threat to wildlife orientation.” Science of The Total Environment 518–519 (June 2015): 58–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.02.077.

 

Balmori, Alfonso. “Electrosmog and species conservation.” Science of the Total Environment 496 (October 2014): 314-316. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.07.061.

 

Balmori, Alfonso. “Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles.” Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 29, no. 1-2 (June 2010): 31-35. 10.3109/15368371003685363.

 

Balmori, Alfonso. “Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields from Phone Masts on a Population of White Stork (Ciconia ciconia).” Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 24, no. 2 (July 2009): 109-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/15368370500205472.

 

Breunig, Helmut. “Tree Damage Caused By Mobile Phone Base Stations An Observation Guide.” Published March 2017. https://kompetenzinitiative.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2017_Observation_Guide_ENG_FINAL_RED.pdf.

You can also download the Tree Observation Guide at: Competence Initiative for the Protection of Humanity, the Environment and Democracy.

 

Chandel Shikha, Shalinda Kaur, Harminder Pal Singh, Daizy Rani Batish, and Ravinder Kumar Kohli. “Exposure to 2100 MHz electromagnetic field radiations induces reactive oxygen species generation in Allium cepa roots.” Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure 5, no. 4 (December 2017): 225-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmau.2017.09.001.

 

Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. “Resolution 1815 Final Version: The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment.” May 27, 2011. http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17994&.

 

Cucurachi, S., W.L.M. Tamis, M.G. Vijver, W.J.G.M. Peijnenburg, J.F.B. Bolte, and G.R. de Snoo. “A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF).” Environment International 51 (January 2013): 116–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2012.10.009.

 

Division of Migratory Bird Management (DMBM), U.S. Fish & 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.” PDF file, 2009. http://electromagnetichealth.org/pdf/CommTowerResearchNeedsPublicBriefing-2-409.pdf.

 

Engels, Sevenja, Nils-Lasse Schneider, Nele Lefeldt, Christine Maira Hein, Manuela Zapka, Andreas Michalik, Dana Elbers, Achim Kittel, P.J. Hore, and Henrik Mouritsen. “Anthropogenic electromagnetic noise disrupts magnetic compass orientation in a migratory bird.” Nature 509, no. 7500 (2014): 353–356. 10.1038/nature13290.

 

Favre, Daniel. “Mobile phone induced honeybee worker piping.” Apidologie 42 (2011): 270-279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-011-0016-x.

 

Gustavino, Bianca, Giovanni Carboni, Robert Petrillo, Giovanni Paoluzzi, Emanuele Santovetti, and Marco Rizzoni. “Exposure to 915 MHz radiation induces micronuclei in Vicia faba root tips.” Mutagenesis 31, no. 2 (March 2016): 187-192. 10.1093/mutage/gev071.

 

Haggerty, Katie. “Adverse Influence of Radio Frequency Background on Trembling Aspen Seedlings.” International Journal of Forestry Research 2010 (May 2010). https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/836278.

 

Halgamuge, Malka N. “Weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phone radiation on plants.” Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 36, no. 2 (2017): 213-235. 10.1080/15368378.2016.1220389.

 

Halgamuge, Malka N., and Devra Davis. “Lessons learned from the application of machine learning to studies on plant response to radio-frequency.” Environmental Research 178 (November 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108634.

 

Halgamuge, Malka N., See Kye Yak, and Jacob L. Eberhardt. “Reduced growth of soybean seedlings after exposure to weak microwave radiation from GSM 900 mobile phone and base station.”

Bioelectromagnetics 36, no. 2 (January 2015): 87-95. https://doi.org/10.1002/BEM.21890.

 

Kumar, Neelima R., Sonika Sangwan, and Pooja Badotra. “Exposure to cell phone radiations produces biochemical changes in worker honey bees.” Toxicology International 18, no. 1 (2011): 70–72. 10.4103/0971-6580.75869.

 

Pall, Martin L. “Electromagnetic Fields Act Similarly in Plants as in Animals: Probable Activation of Calcium Channels via Their Voltage Sensor.” Current Chemical Biology 10, no. 1 (2016): 74-82. 10.2174/2212796810666160419160433.

 

Schorpp, Volker. “Tree Damage from Chronic High Frequency Exposure Mobile Telecommunications, Wi-Fi, Radar, Radio Relay Systems, Terrestrial Radio, TV etc.” Powerpoint presentation, February 2011. https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/tree-health-radiation-Schorpp-2011-02-18.pdf.

 

Shepherd, Sebastian, Georgina Hollands, Victoria C. Godley, Suleiman M. Sharkh, Chris W. Jackson, and Phillip L. Newland. “Increased aggression and reduced aversive learning in honey bees exposed to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields.” PLOS One (October 2019). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223614.

 

Sivani, S., and  D Sudarsanam. “Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem-a review.” Biology and Medicine 4, no. 4, (2012): 202–216. https://www.biolmedonline.com/Articles/Vol4_4_2012/Vol4_4_202-216_BM-8.pdf.

 

Waldmann-Selsam, Cornelia, Alfonso Balmori-de la Puente, Helmut Breunig, and Alfonso Balmori. “Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations.” Science of the Total Environment572 (December 2016): 554-69. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.045.

 

Advisory Papers on Regulatory Limits

 

Environmental Health Trust. “International Policy Briefing.” PDF file, 2018. https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/International-Policy-Precautionary-Actions-on-Wireless-Radiation.pdf.

 

Gandhi, O.M.P. “Microwave Emissions From Cell Phones Exceed Safety Limits in Europe and the U.S. When Touching the Body.” IEEE Access 7 (2019): 47050-47052. 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2906017.

 

Kelley, Elizabeth, Martin Blank, Henry Lai, Joel M. Moskowitz, and Magda Havas. “International Appeal: Scientists call for protection from non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposure.” European Journal of Oncology20, no. 3 (December 2015): 180-182. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298533689_International_Appeal_Scientists_call_for_protection_from_non-ionizing_electromagnetic_field_exposure.

 

Panagopoulos. Dimitris J., Olle Johansson, and George L. Carlo. “Evaluation of specific absorption rate as a dosimetric quantity for electromagnetic fields bioeffects.” PLOS One 8, no. 6 (June 2013). 10.1371/journal.pone.0062663.

 

Redmayne, Mary. “International policy and advisory response regarding children’s exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF).” Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 35, no. 2 (2016): 10.3109/15368378.2015.1038832.

 

Stam, Rianne. “Comparison of international policies on electromagnetic fields (power frequency and radiofrequency fields).” National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, RIVM. PDF file,  January 2018. https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2018-11/Comparison%20of%20international%20policies%20on%20electromagnetic%20fields%202018.pdf.

 

Letter from the EPA to Environmental Health Trust

 

——— Forwarded message ———

From: Veal, Lee<Veal.Lee@epa.gov>

Date: Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 11:32 AM

Subject: RE: Letter with specific Questions Related to the FDA review and to the EPA, CDC, NIOSH and FDA Jurisdiction on EMFs

To: Theodora Scarato <Theodora.Scarato@ehtrust.org>

Dear Director Scarato;

Thank you for sending us your questions and references regarding radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Up through the mid-1990s, EPA did study non-ionizing radiation. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to establish rules regarding RF exposure, while the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets standards for electronic devices that emit non-ionizing or ionizing radiation. EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters, nor do we have a dedicated subject matter expert in radiofrequency exposure. The EPA defers to other agencies possessing a defined role regarding RF. Although your questions are outside our current area of responsibilities, we have provided a response to each one as you requested.

  1. What is your response to these scientists’ statements regarding the FDA report and the call to retract it?EPA Response: The EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters, has not conducted a review of the FDA report you cited or the scientists’ statements, and therefore has no response to it.
  2. To the FDA- What consultants were hired for the FDA review and report on cell phone radiation?EPA Response: This is not an EPA matter. Please refer this question to the FDA.

 

  1. What U.S. agency has reviewed the research on cell phone radiation and  brain damage? I ask this because the FDA only has looked at selected studies on cancer. If your agency has not,  please simply state you have not.EPA Response: EPA’s last review was in the 1984 document Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation (EPA 600/8-83-026F). The EPA does not currently have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters.
  1. What U.S. agency has reviewed the research on damage to memory by cell phone radiation?   If so, when and send a link to the review.EPA Response: EPA’s last review was in the 1984 document Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation (EPA 600/8-83-026F). The EPA does not currently have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters.
  1. What U.S. agency has reviewed the research on damage to trees from cell phone radiation?   If so, when was it issued and send a link to the review.Note this study showing damage from long term exposure to cell antennas.

    EPA Response: The EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters, and we are not aware of any EPA reviews that have been conducted on this topic. We do not know if any other U.S. agencies have reviewed it.
  1. What U.S. agency has reviewed the research on impacts to birds and bees?   If so, when and send a link to the review. I will note the latest research showing possible impacts to bees from higher frequencies to be used in 5G.EPA Response: The EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters, and we are not aware of any EPA reviews that have been conducted on this topic. We do not know if any other US agencies have reviewed it.
FacebookTwitterShare

L’ANSES va revoir les valeurs limites d’exposition à la baisse

Chris Actualité, Recherches, Sante

Dans un avis du 25 juillet 2023, l’Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail (ANSES), en France, a annoncé que ses experts avaient commencé un important travail en vue de réviser les valeurs limite en matière de radiofréquences, dans le but de proposer une méthode adaptée et de nouvelles valeurs limites d’exposition.

Parmi les points abordés par l’ANSES, il est question de mettre en évidence les effets, qui pourraient s’observer à long terme, notamment sur les enfants, les femmes enceintes, nos organes reproducteurs, la faune et la flore, les animaux et sur la « coexposition » (environnements aux sources d’exposition multiples).

Consultez  Avis ANSES