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:

Ambient EMF levels now pollute all environments, causing wildlife effects at intensities comparable to today's background exposures.

Plain English Summary

Summary written for general audiences

This comprehensive review examined how rising electromagnetic field pollution affects wildlife across all species and habitats. The research found biological effects on animal behavior, reproduction, and survival at extremely low intensities comparable to today's ambient EMF levels. The authors conclude that EMF should be regulated as environmental pollution, with wildlife-specific exposure standards.

Why This Matters

This research represents a critical shift in how we must view electromagnetic pollution. While the EMF industry focuses narrowly on heating effects in humans, this comprehensive analysis reveals that wildlife faces far broader impacts at the vanishingly low field strengths now blanketing our planet. The science demonstrates that ambient EMF levels, which have risen exponentially in recent decades, are disrupting fundamental biological processes across all species. What this means for you is that the wireless infrastructure surrounding your home isn't just a potential human health concern. The reality is that we've created an entirely novel form of environmental pollution that affects the entire ecosystem, from the birds that rely on magnetic navigation to the insects that pollinate our food supply.

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-2021-0026PubMed: 34047144

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.