Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna
26 views
Skip to first unread message
news....@gmail.com
Sep 29, 2021, 9:23:09 AM9/29/21
to
(Read to the very bottom, please.)
Please,
find enclosed highly important information - from
Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz - about an amazing publication
in the journal, Reviews on
Environmental Health, which just
published a three-part review that examines
effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields
(EMF), including wireless radiation from cell
towers and EMF from power lines, on flora and
fauna. This 150-page tome (plus supplements) is
written by B. Blake Levitt, Henry Lai, and Albert
Manville, and cites more than 1,200 references.
B. Blake
Levitt, an award-winning journalist
and free-lance journalist for the New
York Times, has specialized in
medical and science writing for
three decades. Since the late
1970's, she has researched the
biological effects of nonionizing
radiation. Henry Lai is a scientist
and bioengineering
Professor Emeritus at the University of
Washington and former Editor-in-Chief of Electromagnetic
Biology and Medicine. Dr. Lai is best
known for his research published in 1995
which concluded that low-level microwave
radiation caused DNA damage in rat brains.
Albert Manville is a retired branch manager
and senior wildlife biologist in the
Division of Migratory Bird Management
at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Dr.
Manville has served as an adjunct professor
and lecturer for more than two decades at
Johns Hopkins University where he has taught
field classes in ecology, conservation
biology, and wildlife management.
---
Effects of
non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on
flora and fauna, part 1.
Rising ambient
EMF levels in the environment
B. Blake Levitt, Henry C. Lai, Albert M. Manville. 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.
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.
Wow, wow, wow!!! This is so amazing, overwhelming, fantastic!!! This is a must-see!
B. Blake Levitt, Henry C. Lai, Albert M. Manville. 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.
Abstract
Ambient levels of electromagnetic fields (EMF) have risen sharply in the last 80 years, creating a novel energetic exposure that previously did not exist. Most recent decades have seen exponential increases in nearly all environments, including rural/remote areas and lower atmospheric regions. Because of unique physiologies, some species of flora and fauna are sensitive to exogenous EMF in ways that may surpass human reactivity. There is limited, but comprehensive, baseline data in the U.S. from the 1980s against which to compare significant new surveys from different countries. This now provides broader and more precise data on potential transient and chronic exposures to wildlife and habitats. Biological effects have been seen broadly across all taxa and frequencies at vanishingly low intensities comparable to today’s ambient exposures. Broad wildlife effects have been seen on orientation and migration, food finding, reproduction, mating, nest and den building, territorial maintenance and defense, and longevity and survivorship. Cyto- and geno-toxic effects have been observed. The above issues are explored in three consecutive parts: Part 1 questions today’s ambient EMF capabilities to adversely affect wildlife, with more urgency regarding 5G technologies. Part 2 explores natural and man-made fields, animal magnetoreception mechanisms, and pertinent studies to all wildlife kingdoms. Part 3 examines current exposure standards, applicable laws, and future directions. 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. Wildlife loss is often unseen and undocumented until tipping points are reached. 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.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34047144/
Ambient levels of electromagnetic fields (EMF) have risen sharply in the last 80 years, creating a novel energetic exposure that previously did not exist. Most recent decades have seen exponential increases in nearly all environments, including rural/remote areas and lower atmospheric regions. Because of unique physiologies, some species of flora and fauna are sensitive to exogenous EMF in ways that may surpass human reactivity. There is limited, but comprehensive, baseline data in the U.S. from the 1980s against which to compare significant new surveys from different countries. This now provides broader and more precise data on potential transient and chronic exposures to wildlife and habitats. Biological effects have been seen broadly across all taxa and frequencies at vanishingly low intensities comparable to today’s ambient exposures. Broad wildlife effects have been seen on orientation and migration, food finding, reproduction, mating, nest and den building, territorial maintenance and defense, and longevity and survivorship. Cyto- and geno-toxic effects have been observed. The above issues are explored in three consecutive parts: Part 1 questions today’s ambient EMF capabilities to adversely affect wildlife, with more urgency regarding 5G technologies. Part 2 explores natural and man-made fields, animal magnetoreception mechanisms, and pertinent studies to all wildlife kingdoms. Part 3 examines current exposure standards, applicable laws, and future directions. 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. Wildlife loss is often unseen and undocumented until tipping points are reached. 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.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34047144/
--
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.
--
Effects
of non-ionizing electromagnetic
fields on flora and fauna, Part
3.
Exposure
standards, public policy, laws,
and future directions
B. Blake Levitt, Henry C. Lai,
Albert M. Manville. Effects of
non-ionizing electromagnetic
fields on flora and fauna, Part 3.
Exposure standards, public policy,
laws, and future directions. Rev
Environ Health. 2021 Sep
27. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2021-0083.
Abstract
Due
to the continuous rising ambient
levels of nonionizing
electromagnetic fields (EMFs)
used in modern
societies—primarily from
wireless technologies—that have
now become a ubiquitous
biologically active
environmental pollutant, a new
vision on how to regulate such
exposures for non-human species
at the ecosystem level is
needed. Government standards
adopted for human exposures are
examined for applicability to
wildlife. Existing environmental
laws, such as the National
Environmental Policy Act and the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act in the
U.S. and others used in Canada
and throughout Europe, should be
strengthened and enforced. New
laws should be written to
accommodate the ever-increasing
EMF exposures. Radiofrequency
radiation exposure standards
that have been adopted by
worldwide agencies and
governments warrant more
stringent controls given the new
and unusual signaling
characteristics used in 5G
technology. No such standards
take wildlife into
consideration. Many species of
flora and fauna, because of
distinctive physiologies, have
been found sensitive to
exogenous EMF in ways that
surpass human reactivity. Such
exposures may now be capable of
affecting endogenous bioelectric
states in some species. Numerous
studies across all frequencies
and taxa indicate that low-level
EMF exposures have numerous
adverse effects, including on
orientation, migration, food
finding, reproduction, mating,
nest and den building,
territorial maintenance,
defense, vitality, longevity,
and survivorship. Cyto- and
geno-toxic effects have long
been observed. 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. Wildlife loss
is often unseen and undocumented
until tipping points are
reached. A robust dialog
regarding technology’s
high-impact role in the nascent
field of electroecology needs to
commence. Long-term chronic
low-level EMF exposure standards
should be set accordingly for
wildlife, including, but not
limited to, the redesign of
wireless devices, as well as
infrastructure, in order to
reduce the rising ambient levels
(explored in Part 1). Possible
environmental approaches are
discussed. This is Part 3 of a
three-part series.
Corresponding author: B.
Blake Levitt, P.O.
Box 2014, New
Preston, CT06777, USA,
E-mail: blake...@cs.com
--
The
above papers rhyme very well with
our own publications, like:
Cammaerts M-C, Johansson O, “Ants can be used as bio-indicators to reveal biological effects of electromagnetic waves from some wireless apparatus”, Electromag Biol Med 2013; early online: 1-7. DOI: 10.3109/15368378.2013.817336
Cammaerts MC, Johansson O, "Effect of man-made electromagnetic fields on common Brassicaceae Lepidium sativum (cress d’Alinois) seed germination: a preliminary replication study", Phyton, International Journal of Experimental Botany 2015; 84: 132-137
Johansson O, "To bee, or not to bee, that is the five “G” question", Newsvoice.se 28/5, 2019
https://newsvoice.se/2019/05/5g-question-olle-johansson/
Favre D, Johansson O, "Does enhanced electromagnetic radiation disturb honeybees’ behaviour? Observations during New Year’s Eve 2019", Internat J Research -GRANTHAALAYAH 2020; 8: 7-14
Against
the above, we are trying hard
to set various projects into
motion, and especially
regarding the NO BEES = NO
FOOD = NO CHILDREN one. So,
please, if you can make a
contribution go to: https://honeywire.org/research
(Always remember that no gift
is too small, we badly need
the economic support if we
should be able to continue our
research work regarding the
adverse health and biological
effects of artificial
electromagnetic fields from
cell phones, satellites, smart
meters, WiFi, baby alarms,
tablets, powerlines, laptops,
and many more installations.)
Wow, wow, wow!!! This is so amazing, overwhelming, fantastic!!! This is a must-see!
How
Whales Change Climate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M18HxXve3CM&t=7sOlle Johansson,
associate professor
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages