Content uploaded by Alfonso Balmori
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alfonso Balmori on Feb 09, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Electrosmog and species conservation
Alfonso Balmori
Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Junta de Castilla y León, C/Rigoberto Cortejoso, 14, 47071 Valladolid, Spain
HIGHLIGHTS
•Studies have shown effects in both animals and plants.
•Two thirds of the studies reported ecological effects.
•There is little research in this area and further research is needed.
•The technology must be safe.
•Controls should be introduced to mitigate the possible effects.
abstractarticle info
Article history:
Received 5 May 2014
Received in revised form 14 July 2014
Accepted 16 July 2014
Available online xxxx
Editor: P. Kassomenos
Keywords:
Electrom agnetic radiation
Phone masts
Non thermal effects
Despite the widespread use of wireless telephone networks around the world, authorities and researchers have
paid little attention to the potential harmful effects of mobile phone radiation on wildlife. This paper briefly
reviews the available scientific information on this topic and recommends further studies and specific lines of
research to confirm or refute the experimental results to date. Controls must be introduced and technology
rendered safe for the environment, particularly, threatened species.
© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Since the introduction of wireless telecommunication in the 1990s,
the roll-out of mobile phone networks has led to a massive increase in
environmental exposure to electromagnetic radiation (Levitt and Lai,
2010). The existing standards of public health protection only consider
the effects of short-term thermal exposure; however, biological effects
resulting from electromagnetic radiation might depend on dosage,
including long-term chronic effects, and there is considerable experi-
mental evidence for non-thermal biological effects (Hyland, 2000).
Researchers have also paid little attention to the potential harmful
effects of microwaves from mobile phone mast radiation on wildlife.
In about two thirds of the reviewed studies ecological effects of
RF-EMF were reported, at high as well as at low dosages, linking
the hazards with different modes and extents of exposure (Cucurachi
et al., 2013). Although the species conservation implications are
unclear, current evidence indicates that chronic exposure to electro-
magnetic radiation, at levels that are found in the environment, may
particularly affect the immune, nervous, cardiovascular and reproduc-
tive systems (Balmori, 2009). Animals exposed to radiation emissions
from nearby antennas may suffer changes in the enzyme activities
that disappear when they are moved away from the source (Hässig
et al., 2014), and underlying plausible explanations at the cellular level
have been proposed in the findings (Pall, 2013).
There are now calls for action from government agencies, both in the
U.S. and Europe. In the U.S. the Director of the Office of Environmental
Policy and Compliance of the United States Department of the Interior
sent a letter (Feb, 2014) to the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration in the Department of Commerce which
addressed the Interior Department's concern about the negative impact
of cell tower radiation on the health of migratory birds and other
wildlife. The Interior Department accused the Federal government of
employing outdated radiation standards set by theFederal Communica-
tions Commission (FCC) (United States Department of the Interior,
2014). The European Environment Agency states: «Independent
research into the many unknowns about the biological and ecological
effects of RF are urgently needed, given the global exposure of over
5 billion people and many other species, especially those, like bees
and some birds whose navigation systems are possibly being affected
Science of the Total Environment 496 (2014) 314–316
E-mail addresses: abalmorimartinez@gmail.com,balmaral@jcyl.es.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.07.061
0048-9697/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Science of the Total Environment
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv
by such radiations and effects on breeding of wild birds» (European
Environment Agency, 2013).
The following are some of the potential effects of anthropogenic
electromagnetic radiation on wildlife:
1.1. Effects on behaviour and navigation
Insects and birds are extremely sensitive to electromagnetic fields.
Insects use several senses to forage, detecting visual cues such as colour,
shape, etc., but also floral electric fields can be discriminated by bumble-
bees and this sensory modality may facilitate rapid and dynamic com-
munication between flowers and their pollinators (Clarke et al., 2013).
In an electric field of about 1 V/m, the microwaves may have a disas-
trous impact on a wide range of insects using olfactory and/or visual
memory (i.e., on bees and ants). This experimentally generated electro-
magnetic field had a realistic (and even lower) power intensity than
those usually encountered by living organisms near phone masts
(Cammaerts et al., 2012), and, for this reason, the insects can be used
as bioindicators to reveal biological effects from some wireless appara-
tus (Cammaerts and Johansson, 2013). The audiograms and spectro-
grams revealed that active mobile phone handsets had a dramatic
impact on the behaviour of the bees, namely, by inducing the worker
piping signal (in natural conditions, worker piping either announces
the swarming process of the bee colony or is a signal of a disturbed
bee colony) (Favre, 2011). The migratory birds (Erithacus rubecula)
are also unable to use their magnetic compass in the presence of
urban electromagnetic noise and fully double-blinded tests document
a reproducible effect of anthropogenic electromagnetic noise on birds
(Engels et al., 2014).
1.2. Effects on distribution and habitat loss
A possible effect of long-term exposure to low-intensity electromag-
netic radiation from mobile phone base stations on the number of house
sparrows (Passer domesticus) was studied in Belgium and Spain and
both studies reached the same conclusion: fewer house sparrows
were seen at locations where electric fields were stronger (Everaert
and Bauwens, 2007; Balmori and Hallberg, 2007). In large cities, such
as London, a huge decline in some house sparrow populations has
been found in the last 15–20 years (De Laet and Summers-Smith,
2007), so thepossible relationship between this decrease and the prolif-
eration and increase in electromagnetic radiation as one of several fac-
tors at play should be thoroughly investigated. In a study looking at
factors associated with extirpation of sage-grouse (Centrocercus sp.), of
the five variables most associated with extirpated and occupied ranges,
one was the distance to base stations, and this strong association was an
especially interesting result (Wisdom et al., 2011). Bat activity is also
significantly reduced in habitats exposed to electromagnetic radiation,
which elicit an aversive behavioural response and can be used as a
possible method of discouraging bats from approaching wind turbines
to prevent fatalities (Nicholls and Racey, 2007, 2009).
1.3. Reproduction effects and recruitment reduction
In several research conducted with different animal groups, the
exposure to microwave radiations from mobile phone (GSM) base
stations caused sperm head abnormalities in mammals, and the radia-
tion from a mobile phone decreased the ovarian development in insects,
the amino acid composition changed and the DNA was damaged
(Otitoloju et al., 2010; Lu et al., 2010; Panagopoulos, 2012). However,
other studies have not found effects on the reproductive capacity of
invertebrates exposed to such radiation (Vijver et al., 2013). There are
some scientific views that deny any evidence or possibility of effects
on human reproduction (Lerchl, 2013), which goes against most of
what has been published on this topic (Adams et al., 2014).
In the vicinity of mobile phone base stations, it is possible that micro-
waves are interfering with the reproduction of birds such as storks and
may affect the development and increase the mortality rate of exposed
amphibians (Balmori, 2005, 2010). For instance, in chicken eggs
exposed over the entire incubation period in laboratory, a significantly
higher percentage of embryo mortality was observed (Batellier et al.,
2008), although other studies have shown lack of adverse effects of
this radiation on rat foetuses (Takahashi et al., 2009).
1.4. Adverse influence of radio-frequency background on trees and plants
A very limited number of studies have addressed the effects of elec-
tromagnetic radiation on plants. The findings of these studies indicate
that the effects depend on the plant family, growth stage involved and
the radiation characteristics, among other factors (Jayasanka and
Asaeda, 2013). High-frequency electromagnetic fields alter the chloro-
phyll in black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) seedlings and in duckweeds
(Lemna minor) exposed (Sandu et al., 2005; Jayasanka et al., 2013). In
tomato plants (Lycopersicon esculentum), which were exposed to
low-level (5 V/m) electromagnetic fields for a short period (10 min),
changes were found in the abundance of three specific mRNAs after
exposure, strongly suggesting that they were the direct consequence
of application of radio-frequency fields (Roux et al., 2007). The similar-
ities of the changes to wound responses suggest that this radiation is
perceived by plants asan injurious stimulus and causes them cell stress
in the vicinity of radio-frequency irradiating antennas (Monselise
et al., 2011). On 18 February, 2011, the first symposium on this
topic, ¨The effect of electromagnetic radiation on trees¨, which presented
results showing disturbing effects on trees, was held in the Netherlands
(http://www.boomaantastingen.nl/).
2. Conclusion
At the present time, there are reasonable grounds for believing that
microwave radiation constitutes an environmental and health hazard. It
is necessary to open specific lines of research to confirm or refute the
experimental results cited above, since similar findings were obtained
in studies with cattle (Hässig et al., 2014) and humans (Khurana et al.,
2010; Dode et al., 2011; Gómez-Perretta et al., 2013), although
some governmental reports denied that electromagnetic radiation
has adverse effects on human health (e.g. ARPANSA, 2014).
Electromagnetic radiation is among the potential pollutants with an
ability to affect wildlife adversely. It is therefore a new area of enquiry
deserving of immediate funding and research (Levitt and Lai, 2010).
Despite its remarkable expansion in the last twenty years, the rate
of scientific activity on the effects of phone masts on wildlife has
been very small compared with topics like roads, power lines or
wind turbines. The few studies that have been conducted address
the impact of collisions (Longcore et al., 2012, 2013), but not the
second significant issue associated with phone masts that involves
the effects from non-ionising electromagnetic radiation (United
States Department of the Interior, 2014). Concerning the exposure
to electromagnetic fields, the precautionary principle is needed and
should be applied to protect species from environmental non-
thermal effects (Zinelis, 2010). Controls must be introduced and
technology renderedsafe to the environment, since thisnew ubiquitous
and invisible pollutant could deplete the efforts devoted to species
conservation.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to J.L. Tellería, D.O. Carpenter, R. Carbonell,
S. Wright and two anonymous reviewers for their help and advice.
315A. Balmori / Science of the Total Environment 496 (2014) 314–316
References
Adams JA, Galloway TS, Mondal D, Esteves SC, Mathews F. Effect of mobile telephones on
sperm quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Int 2014;70:106–12.
ARPANSA. Review of radiofrequency health effects research —ScientificLiterature
2000–2012. Technical Report Series No. 164; 2014 [http://www.arpansa.gov.au/
pubs/technicalreports/tr164.pdf (Accessed June 2014)].
Balmori A. Possible effects of electromagnetic fields from phone masts on a population of
white stork (Ciconia ciconia). Electromagn Biol Med 2005;24:109–19.
Balmori A. Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife. Pathophysiology
2009;16:191–9.
Balmori A. Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles: the
city turned into a laboratory. Electromagn Biol Med 2010;29:31–5.
Balmori A, Ha llberg O. Theurbandeclineofthehousesparrow(Passer domesticus): a
possible linkwith electromagnetic radiation. Electromagn Biol Med 2007;26:141–51.
BatellierF, Couty I, Picard D, Brillard JP. Effects of exposing chickeneggs to a cell phone in
“call”position over the entire incubation period. Theriogenology 2008;69:737–45.
Cammaerts MC, Johan sson O. Ants can be used as bio- indicators to reveal biological
effects of electromagnetic waves from some wireless apparatus. Electromagn Biol
Med 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/15368378.2013.817336.
Cammaerts MC, De Doncker P, Patris X, Bellens F, Rachidi Z, Cammaerts D. GSM 900 MHz
radiation inhibits ants' association between food sites and encountered cues.
Electromagn Biol Med 2012;31:151–65.
Clarke D, Whitney H, Sutton G, Robert D. Detection and learning of floral electric fields by
bumblebees. Science 2013;340:66–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1230883.
Cucurachi S, Tamis WLM, Vijver MG, Peijnenburg WJGM, Bolte JFB, de Snoo GR. Areview
of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Environ
Int 2013;51:116–40.
De Laet J, Summers-Smith JD. The status of the urban house sparrow Passer domesticus in
north-western Europe: a review. J Ornithol 2007;148:275–8.
Dode AC, Leao M, Tejo FDA, Gomes AC, Dode DC, Dode MC, et al. Mortality by neoplasia
and cellular telephonebase stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais
state, Brazil. Sci Total Environ 2011;409:3649–65.
Engels S, Schneider NL, Lefeldt N, Hein CM, Zapka M, Michalik A, et al. Anthropogenic
electromagnetic noise disrupts magnetic compass orientation in a migratory bird.
Nature 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature13290.
European Environment Agency. Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution,
innovation. EEA Report No 1/2013; 2013. p. 556 [Available from http://www.eea.eu-
ropa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2 (accesed March 2014)].
Everaert J, Bauwens D. A possible effect of electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone
base stations on the number of breeding house sparrows ( Passer domesticus).
Electromagn Biol Med 2007;26:63–72.
Favre D. Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker piping. Apidologie 2011;42:270–9.
Gómez-Perretta C, NavarroEA, Segura J, Portolés M. Subjective symptoms related to GSM
radiation from mobile phone base stations: a cross-sectional study. BMJOpen 2013;3.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003836.
Hässig M, Wullschleger M, Naegeli HP, Kupper J, Spiess B, Kuster N, et al. Influence of non
ionizing radiation of base stations on the activity of redox proteins in bovines. BMC
Vet Res 2014;10:136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-10-136. [http://www.
biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1746-6148-10-136.pdf].
Hyland GJ. Physics and biology of mobile telephony. Lancet 2000;356:1833–6.
Jayasanka SMDH, Asaeda T. The significance of microwaves in the environment and its
effect on plants. Environ Rev 2013;22:1–9.
Jayasanka SMDH, Takashi A, Kimura Y. Short-duration exposure to radiofrequency electro-
magnetic radiation alters the chlorophyll fluorescence of duckweeds (Lemna minor).
Electromagn Biol Med 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/15368378.2013.844705.
Khurana VG, Hardell L, Everaert J, Bortkiewicz A, Carlberg M, Ahonen M. Epidemiological
evidence for a health risk from mo bile phone base stations. Int J Occup Environ
Health 2010;16:263–7.
Lerchl A. Electromagnetic pollution: another risk factor for infertility, or a red herring?
Asian J Androl 2013;15:201–13.
Levitt BB, Lai H. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by
cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environ Rev 2010;18:369–95.
Longcore T, Rich C, Mineau P, MacDonald B, Bert DG, Sullivan LM, et al. An estimate of
avian mortality at comm unication towers in the United States an d Canada. PLoS
One 2012;7:e34025. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034025.
Longcore T, Rich C, Mineau P, MacDonald B, Bert DG, Sullivan LM, et al. Avian mortality at
communication towers in the United States and Canada: which species, how many,
and where? Biol Conserv 2013;158:410–9.
Lu H, Zhou J, Xiong S, Zhao S. Effects of low-intensity microwave radiation on Tribolium
castaneum physiological and biochemical characteristics and survival. J Insect Physiol
2010;56:1356–61.
Monselise EBI, Levkovitz A, Gottlieb HE, Kost D. Bioassay for assessing cell stress in the
vicinity of radio-frequency irradiating antennas. J Environ Monit 2011;13:1890–6.
Nicholls B, Racey PA. Bats avoid radar installations: could electromagnetic fields deter
bats from colliding with wind turbines? PLoS One 2007;2:e297. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0000297.
Nicholls B, Racey PA. The aversive effect of electromagnetic radiation on foraging bats—a
possible means of discouraging bats from approaching wind turbine s. PLoS One
2009;4:e6246.
Otitoloju AA, Obe IA, Adewale OA, Otubanjo OA, Osunkalu VO. Preliminary study on the
induction of sperm head abnormalities in mice, Mus musculus, exposed to radiofre-
quency radiations from global system for mobile communication base stations. Bull
Environ Contam Toxicol 2010;84:51–4.
Pall ML. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to
produce beneficial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med 2013;17:958–65.
Panagopoulos DJ. Effectof microwave exposureon the ovarian development of Drosophila
melanogaster. Cell Biochem Biophys 2012;63:121–32.
Roux D, Vian A, Girard S, Bonnet P, Paladian F, Davies E, et al. High frequency (900 MHz)
low amplitude (5Vm −1) electromagnetic field: a genuine environmental stimulus
that affects transcription, translation, calcium and energy charge in tomato. Planta
2007;227:883–91.
Sandu DD, Goiceanu IC, Ispas A, Creanga I, Miclaus S,Creanga DE. A preliminary study on
ultra high frequency electromagnetic fields effect on black locust chlorophylls. Acta
Biol Hung 2005;56:109–17.
Takahashi S, Imai N, Nabae K, Wake K, Kawai H, Wang J, et al. Lack of adverse effects of
whole-body exposure to a mobile telecommunication electromagnetic field on the
rat fetus. Radiat Res 2009;173:362–72.
United States Department of the Interior. Letter to the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration in the Department of Commerce; 2014 [Available from
http://1.usa.gov/1jn3CZg (accesed March 2014)].
Vijver MG,Bolte JF, Evans TR, Tamis WL, Peijnenburg WJ, Musters CJM, et al. Investigating
short-term exposure to electromagnetic fields on reproductive capacity of inverte-
brates in the field situation. Electromagn Biol Med 2013;33:21–8.
Wisdom MJ, Meinke CW, Knick ST, Schroeder MA. Factors associated with extirpation of
Sage-Grouse. In: Knick ST, Connelly JW, editors. Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and
conservation of a landscape speciesand its habitats. Studiesin Avian BiologyBerkeley,
CA: University of California Press; 2011. p. 451–72.
Zinelis SA. The precautionary principle: Radiofrequencyexposures frommobile telephones
and base stations. Environ Health Perspect 2010;117:1656–63.
316 A. Balmori / Science of the Total Environment 496 (2014) 314–316