Category Archives: Reports

Biological Diversity at Risk From Wireless Radiation

6 Replies

Biological Diversity at Risk From Wireless Radiation

by Kim Goldberg
December 28, 2017

An international team of conservation scientists and ecologists has listed wireless radiation as one of the top emerging issues that could threaten global biological diversity in coming years.

In its ninth annual “horizon scan” to identify emerging issues affecting biological diversity, the Cambridge Conservation Initiative listed electromagnetic radiation from 5G technology as one of 15 top emerging issues to potentially threaten wildlife. The 15 issues were selected from a list of 117 possible candidates. The Cambridge Conservation Initiative is funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB).

The “2018 Horizon Scan of Emerging Issues for Global Conservation and Biological Diversity” was published in the January 2018 issue of Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol 3, No. 1.

Read the full report here: 2018 Horizon Scan.

“Our aim is to highlight systematically both risks and opportunities to the conservation of biological diversity that are not widely known by conservation scientists and decision makers,” writes lead author William Sutherland. “Horizon scanning can help reduce the degree for conservation biology to be a crisis discipline.”

The entry for Electromagnetic Radiation in the article is printed in its entirety below:

Potential Effects on Wildlife of Increases in Electromagnetic Radiation

Understanding the potential effects of nonionising radiation on wildlife could become more relevant with the expected adoption of new mobile network technology (5G), which could connect 100 billion devices by 2025. During use, mobile telephones and other smart devices generate radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs), a form of nonionising radiation, which may change biological processes such as neurotransmitter functions, cellular metabolism, and gene and protein expression in certain types of cells, even at low intensities [82]. The notion of risk to human health remains controversial, but there is limited evidence of increased tumour risk in animals [83]. 5G uses the largely untapped bandwidth of the millimetre wave-length, between 30 and 300 GHz on the radio spectrum, which uses smaller base stations than current wireless technology. As a result, wireless antennae may be placed densely throughout neighbourhoods on infrastructure such as lamp posts, utility poles, and buildings. This could expose wildlife to more near-field radiation. Although some studies reported negative associations between electromagnetic field strength (radiofrequencies and microwaves: 1 MHz-3 GHz range) and species, for example the density and abundance of house sparrows ( Passer domesticus ) [84,85], these studies have not yielded clear empirical evidence that the observed effects are due to RF-EMFs. The potential effects of RF-EMFs on most taxonomic groups, including migratory birds, bats, and bees, are largely unknown. The evidence to inform the development of exposure guidelines for 5G technology is limited, raising the possibility of unintended biological consequences [86].

REPORT: USAF – RF/Microwave Radiation Biological Effects (1994)

18 Replies

Posted: September 6, 2014
Telecom tower

In 1994, the US Air Force published a 32-page report titled: “Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation Biological Effects and Safety Standards: A Review,” authored by Scott M. Bolen. The supervising agency was Rome Laboratory at Griffiss Air Force Base in New York. 

Read and download the complete 32-page report here: USAF Report 1994 Biological-Effects .

To this day, many if not most governmental agencies and scientists in North America and abroad maintain the position that RF and microwave radiation are only damaging to the human body at power densities high enough to cause a heating effect (a so-called “thermal effect”), like a microwave oven. The position, while completely unsupported by fact, is very convenient for the multi-billion-dollar telecommunications industry (cell phones, WiFi) as well as the military’s own use of these same technologies—technologies whose radiation is, for the most part nonthermal, in nature. 

In fact, the serious bio-toxic consequences of nonthermal RF and microwave radiation have been know for decades by our governments and the military. This 1994 USAF report states on page 2, under the heading of Biological Effects: 

“Nonthermal responses can be less noticeable and are often more difficult to explain than thermal effects. These responses are related to the disturbances in the tissue not caused by heating. Electromagnetic fields can interact with the bioelectric functions of the irradiated human tissue. Research conducted in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe suggests that the human body may be more sensitive to the nonthermal effects of RF/MW radiation.”

And from page 18 of the report:

“Nonthermal disruptions have been observed to occur at power densities that are much lower than are necessary to induce thermal effects. Soviet researchers have attributed alterations in the central nervous system and the cardiovascular system to the nonthermal effect of low level RF/MW radiation exposure.”

And from the report’s Conclusion, also on page 18:

“Experimental evidence has shown that exposure to low intensity radiation can have a profound effect on biological processes. The nonthermal effects of RF/MW radiation exposure are becoming important measures of biological interaction with EM fields… Adherence to the ANSI Standard should provide protection against harmful thermal effects and help to minimize the interaction of EM fields with the biological processes of the human body.”

In other words, this USAF report from 1994 all but states that the ANSI (American National Standards Institute) Standard of the day was insufficient for protecting the public from the nonthermal effects of RF/MW radiation.

At the time this report was written, that Standard for exposure was set at 50,000 mW/m2 (5 mW/cm2 ) for for frequencies between 1,500 MHz to 100,000 MHz. Today, the maximum exposure limit set by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) for RF radiation in the 850-2400 MHz range (smart meters and other wireless devices) is 10,000 mW/m2. However, that level is more than one million times higher than the exposure limits set out in the 2012 BioInitiative Report. The BioInitiative Report caps exposure to RF radiation at 0.006 mW/m2 .

The point being: the “safe” levels for RF/MW exposure that are laid out in this 1994 USAF report, as well as in current “safe” levels stipulated by North American governments (such as Canada’s Safety Code 6 and the FCC in the US) only address thermal effects of RF/MW radiation and have no bearing whatsoever on the far more serious nonthermal effects that unequivocally exist. The public is simply not being protected.

–Kim Goldberg

REPORT: DIA – Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation (1976)

11 Replies

Posted: September 4, 2014

Radio FreqIn March 1976, the US Defense Intelligence Agency published an astounding report titled “Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation (Radiowaves and Microwaves) – Eurasian Communist Countries.” The 34-page report analyzes numerous Soviet and Eastern bloc research studies that demonstrate a wide range of adverse biological effects caused by exposure to radio frequency radiation and microwaves. In its Summary on page vii, the report states:

“If the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavorable effects on industrial output and military functions.” 

The above statement and the entire report quite clearly reveal what the government knew and when it knew it. This also reveals WHY Western governments have subsequently been unwilling to acknowledge the bio-toxic effects of wireless systems or the legitimacy of Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS), and why “safe limits” of exposure have been raised in subsequent years when, in fact, they need to be lowered. 

Read and download the full 34-page report here: DIA Report-1976. 

-Kim Goldberg