8,700 Studies Reviewed. 87.0% Found Biological Effects. The Evidence is Clear.
Shield Your Body
Whole Body / General

Citizen resistance, however, is most often based on health concerns regarding the safety of RFR exposures to those who live near the infrastructure

Bioeffects Seen

Authors not listed · 1996

Share:

Public opposition to RFR infrastructure is substantially motivated by health safety concerns rather than other factors.

Plain English Summary

Summary written for general audiences

This 1996 review examines citizen opposition to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) infrastructure, noting that such resistance is primarily driven by health and safety concerns among people living near these installations. The study focuses on understanding the basis of public concern rather than presenting experimental findings on RFR health effects.

Why This Matters

This review addresses the social and public health perception dimensions of RFR exposure rather than direct biological or epidemiological evidence. The 1996 timeframe reflects early concerns about cellular and wireless infrastructure expansion that would accelerate substantially in subsequent decades.

Exposure Information

Specific exposure levels were not quantified in this study.

Cite This Study
Unknown (1996). Citizen resistance, however, is most often based on health concerns regarding the safety of RFR exposures to those who live near the infrastructure.
Show BibTeX
@article{citizen_resistance_however_is_most_often_based_on_health_concerns_regarding_the_safety_of_rfr_exposures_to_those_who_live_near_the_infrastructure_ce4805,
  author = {Unknown},
  title = {Citizen resistance, however, is most often based on health concerns regarding the safety of RFR exposures to those who live near the infrastructure},
  year = {1996},
  doi = {10.1515/reveh-2021-0026},
  
}
DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2021-0026

Quick Questions About This Study

Electromagnetic field levels have risen sharply over the last 80 years, with exponential increases in recent decades affecting nearly all environments, including previously untouched rural and remote areas, creating entirely novel energetic exposures.
Yes, because of unique physiologies, some species of flora and fauna are sensitive to electromagnetic fields in ways that may surpass human reactivity, making them vulnerable to lower exposure levels.
EMF exposure affects orientation and migration, food finding, reproduction, mating, nest and den building, territorial maintenance and defense, plus longevity and survivorship across all animal species studied.
The research argues yes, recommending that regulatory agencies designate air as 'habitat' so electromagnetic fields can be regulated like other pollutants, with long-term chronic low-level exposure standards for wildlife protection.
No, current exposure standards don't include long-term chronic low-level EMF protections for wildlife, despite biological effects being observed at vanishingly low intensities comparable to today's ambient background levels.