The dangers to people (especially pregnant women and children) of Wi-Fi and the electromagnetic radiation emitted from cell phones and various“smart”devices are quickly becoming a non-debate to anyone who has investigated thereams of studies available.
However, there is also mounting evidence that these dangers extend to wildlife as cell towers are becoming more prevalent, deeper into previously non-explored areas.
This potential threat to wildlife appears to be such that it has sparked an attack by theDepartment of the Interioragainst the FCC for what they claim are outdated standards.
The Director of the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance of the United States Department of the Interior sent a letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in the Department of Commerce which addresses the Interior Department’s concern that cell tower radiation has had negative impacts on the health of migratory birds and other wildlife.
The Interior Department accused the Federal government of employing outdated radiation standards set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a federal agency with no expertise in health. The standards are no longer applicable because they control only for overheating and do not protect organisms from the adverse effects of exposure to the low-intensity radiation produced by cell phones and cell towers. (Source)
As you’ll read below, the FCC’s current criteria is 30 years out of date.
The idea of “energy pollution” is gaining increased awareness. Our modern world literally bathes usin in radio frequencies from power lines and transformers,smart-meters, appliances, fluorescent lights, electrical devices, and of course computers and cell phones. This “hidden” pollution has been tested on animals, which serve as a benchmark for potential effects on humans. Researchers have discovered, for example, that “pregnant rats exposed to microwave radiation from cellular phones had fetuses whose brains showed signs of harm, as measured by enhanced oxidative stress and altered levels of neurotransmitters.” (Source)
But in terms of sensitivity (not to mention the physical interaction with the towers), birds might be a much better indicator of the overall environmental impact. In the letter offered by the Department of the Interior to the FCC, they note the following information as evidence of why we should be concerned.
The placement and operation of communication towers, including un-guyed, unlit, monopole or lattice-designed structures, impact protected migratorybirds in two significant ways. The first is by injury, crippling loss, and death from collisions with towers and their supporting guy-wire infrastructure, where present. The second significant issue associated with communication towers involves impacts from non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation emitted by them.
The second significant issue associated with communication towers involves impacts from nonionizing electromagnetic radiation emitted by these structures. Radiation studies at cellular communication towers were begun circa 2000 in Europe and continue today on wild nesting birds. Study results have documented nest and site abandonment, plumage deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship, and death (e.g., Balmori 2005, Balmori and Hallberg 2007, and Everaert and Bauwens 2007). Nesting migratory birds and their offspring have apparently been affected by the radiation from cellular phone towers in the 900 and 1800 MHz frequency ranges- 915 MHz is the standard cellular phone frequency used in the United States. However, the electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly30 years out of date and inapplicable today.This is primarily due to the lower levels of radiation output from microwave-powered communication devices such as cellular telephones and other sources of point-to-point communications; levels typically lower than from microwave ovens. The problem, however, appears to focus on very low levels of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. For example, in laboratory studies, T. Litovitz (personal communication) and DiCarlo et al. (2002) raised concerns about impacts of low-level, non-thermal electromagnetic radiation from the standard 915 MHz cell phone frequency on domestic chicken embryos- with some lethal results (Manville 2009, 2013a). Radiation at extremely low levels (0.0001 the level emitted by the average digital cellular telephone) caused heart attacks and the deaths of some chicken embryos subjected to hypoxic conditions in the laboratory while controls subjected to hypoxia were unaffected (DiCarlo et al. 2002).To date, no independent, third-party field studies have been conducted in North America on impacts of tower electromagnetic radiation on migratory birds.With the European field and U.S. laboratory evidence already available, independent, third-party peer-reviewed studies need to be conducted in the U.S. to begin examining the effects from radiation on migratory birds and other trust species.” (emphasis added)
The DOI letter concludes with their own 19 source list of research that backs up their concerns. It remains to be seen if, or how, the FCC will respond to this information.
Whether or not one is ultimately concerned with the fate of birds, this just further illustrates how technology gets rolled out without proper long-term studies and considerations being offered. It is such short-term thinking that has resulted in the prevalence ofsmart metersand genetically modified organisms (GMO). We, as activists, are now placed in the difficult position of trying to undo massive industries with ever-growing resources. In this case, however, it’s a pretty good indication of how potentially harmful cell tower radiation is when one government agency openly attacks another and issues a reminder about their proper responsibilities for health and the environment.
In lieu of bringing government agencies and reckless corporate entities fully to heel, we would do well to study how we can protect our own bodies at least from the effects of living in an electromagnetic soup.
While some look to holistic methods, there are some interesting high-tech solutions to help thwart the high-tech invasion. Dylan Charles recently featured some positive developments from Tesla’s Innovational Technologies in Australia.
These products are based on the original scientific genius ofNikola Tesla, the man who invented modern electric power systems in the early 20th century. After realizing the harm which EMF from high-voltage AC electric power lines and other electromagnetic radiation causes to human health, he developed a method to alter the atomic structure of titanium so that it becomes a transceiver of a very fine, bio-friendly energy known as “photon” or “tachyon” energy.”
EMF neutralizingproducts include: phone tags, personal pendants, travel plates, computer plates, house plates, and car plates. Each type of plate is unique in its circumference, diameter, thickness, and is typically made from one of the Earth’s natural elements. Personal items are touted to significantly boost vitality and strengthen the immune system.
More about Tesla’s titanium products made by Tesla’s Innovational Technologies can be foundhere. (Source)
If you have your own research or sources about solutions to the expanding threat of electromagnetic radiation, please leave your thoughts in the comment section.
Full Department of Interior letter and report is availablehere.
April 9, 2014 @ 2:29 pm Paul W.
I’ve been aware of Tesla’s Inovational Technologies’ products for some time, now, but haven’t bought any, yet.
I may have to give one of their units a try, though, because I find myself presently in a great deal of EMF’s at home, both with cell towers and smart meters.
Other reputed aids to counter EMF’s are orgonite devices, shieldite and other gemstones such as black tourmaline, aegirine and obsidian.
For the home, itself, you can put aluminum foil on your walls or aluminum screening. There is anti-EMF paint you can use, underneath your regular wall paint, and EMF-protective fabric, as well. These two later options are quite expensive.