Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment

How government exposure standards relate to wildlife

To develop a sense of the potential relevance of ambient exposures to wildlife, it is necessary to briefly compare standards for human exposure. In the U.S., the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the agency authorized by law to regulate the communications industry and grant licenses for radiation transmission/reception/exposure from communications devices. FCC adopted exposure standards [116], [117], [118] that include both power density for ambient exposures from transmitting sources (generally defined as the rate of energy transmitted in space) and specific absorption rates (SARs) reflecting the dose rate of energy absorbed in tissue – both potentially relevant metrics to species in the wild.

For power density, the U.S. standards are between 0.2 and 1.0 mW/cm² and for SAR between 0.08 and 0.40 W/kg of human tissue. For cell phones, SAR levels require hand-held devices to be at or below 1.6 W/kg averaged over 1.0 g of tissue. For whole body exposures, the limit is 0.08 W/kg. In Canada and throughout most European countries that use the exposure standards created by the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection [119], [120], the SAR limit for hand-held devices is 2.0 W/kg averaged over 10 g of tissue. Whole body exposure limits are 0.08 W/kg. At 100–200 ft (30.5–61 m) distances from a cell phone base station (i.e., an antenna or antenna array), a person or animal moving through the area can be exposed to a power density of 0.001 mW/cm² (i.e., 1.0 μW/cm²). The SAR at such a distance can be 0.001 W/kg (i.e., 1.0 mW/kg) for a standing man.

For the purposes of this paper we will therefore define low-intensity exposure to RFR for power density of 1 μW/cm² or a SAR of 0.001 W/kg.

Many biological effects have been documented at low intensities comparable to what the population — and therefore wildlife — experience within 200–500 ft (61–152 m) of a cell tower [100]. These can include effects seen in in vitro studies of cell cultures and in vivo studies of animals after exposures to low-intensity RFR. Reported effects include: genetic, growth, and reproductive alterations; increases in permeability of the blood brain barrier; stress protein increases; behavioral changes; molecular, cellular, and metabolic alterations; and increases in cancer risk (see Ref. [100], Table 1).

Sensitivity to RFR and the setting of exposure standards for humans are mostly based on research data from rats (another mammalian species). In general, however, it is not valid to apply the same data to species more distant on the evolutionary scale, e.g., birds, insects, and trees. Realistically one should only use the available dosimetric data on each particular species to understand its RFR sensitivity, which is why this paper goes into such detail in Part 2 on EMF studies covering all taxa. However, exposure standards set by the FCC and others do not set limits with nonhuman species in mind.

Unlike field research, in vivo and in vitro laboratory studies are conducted under highly controlled circumstances often with immobilized test animals, typically at near-field, for set durations, at specific frequencies and intensities. Extrapolations from laboratory research to species in the wild are difficult to make regarding uncontrolled far-field exposures, other than for example to seek possible correlations with laboratory-observed DNA, behavioral, or reproductive damage. In the wild, there is more genetic variation and mobility, as well as variables that confound precise data assessment. In addition, there are complex variables like orientation toward the generating source, exposure duration, animal size, species-specific physical characteristics, and genetic variation that also come into play. Assessments for wildlife may vary considerably depending on numerous factors.

It is highly likely that the majority of wildlife species are constantly moving in and out of varying artificial fields. Precise exposure data, however, are difficult to estimate. Nevertheless, there is a growing body of evidence that finds damage to various wildlife species near communication structures, especially where extrapolations to radiation exposure have been made [15, 17, 32, 36, 37, 121–123].

The major question of whether man-made environmental EMF creates biological effects in wildlife species has now become urgent with 5G technologies and potentially more lenient allowances being considered by the major standards-setting committees at FCC and ICNIRP (see Part 3 on government exposure standards and new proposed changes).

Difficulties in assessing ambient exposures

Assessing ambient exposures, both indoors and outdoors, has frustrated researchers and regulators alike regarding how best to capture field exposure data. Should it be through computer simulation or actual field measurements? Variables in environmental assessments can be blindingly complex. Power density and distance from a generating source have traditionally been used as the surrogate for ambient exposures but those metrics can be imperfect given how RFR couples with the environment once transmitted, as well as the necessary factoring in of multiple overlapping sources today. Aside from distance and multiple sources, environmental assessments involve variables such as orientation toward the transmitting source, species, size, physical composition, the presence of metal objects, and topography, to name but a few [100], [155].

RF field strength falls off rapidly with distance from the transmitting source (Maxwell’s inverse square law) but predicting actual exposures based on simple distance from antennas using standardized computer formulas is inadequate. Actual exposures are far more complex in both urban and rural environments to both humans and wildlife.

Contributing to the complexity is the fact that the narrow vertical spread of the beam creates a low RF field at ground level directly and at some distance below the antenna. As a person or wildlife species moves away from or within a particular field, exposures create peaks and valleys in field strength. In addition, scattering and attenuation alter field strength in relation to building placement, architectural composition, the presence of trees, soil type, and topographical features such as mountains and rock formations [166]. Power density levels can be 1–100 times lower inside a building, for instance, depending on construction materials used and antenna gain [155]. Exposures can differ greatly depending on the presence of conductive mediums like water or soil containing mineral salts with sodium, iron, copper, and zinc, among others. Exposures can be twice as high in upper floors of buildings as in lower floors [167], [168]. This would also apply to birds/bats/bees and other insects receiving higher exposures when flying at a lateral plane with transmitting antennas mounted on a tower or atop other structures.

Although distance from a transmitting source has been shown to be an unreliable determinant for accurate exposure measurements due to potential creation of RFR hotspots [155], the metric is nevertheless useful in some general ways. For instance, Rinebold [169] has shown that radiation levels from a tower with 15 non-broadcast radio systems will fall off to natural background levels at a distance of approximately 1,500 ft (457 m). This would be in general agreement with the lessening of symptoms in human populations living near cell towers at a distance greater than 1,000 ft (300 m; [170]). There is, of course, no adequate or reasonable way to restrict wildlife from approaching, defending territories, and/or living near towers, including birds nesting directly on or immediately near them.

Measured levels: (for a table of studies, see Part 1, Supplement 1, “Environmental EMF measurements from around the world”)

Prior to the widespread use of the UMTS network in one of the earliest ambient environmental studies after Tell and Mantiply [151], Hamnerius and Uddmar [191] investigated EMF/RF at 16 different sites in Sweden, both indoors and outdoors in city areas like bus stops. The maximum value observed was 0.3 μW/cm² and was dominated by GSM 900 MHz. An indoor measurement in an office revealed a value of 0.15 μW/cm², 96% of the power density coming from a GSM-900 MHz antenna 328 ft (100 m) away. Measurements in the vicinity of radio and TV transmitters resulted in values up to 0.23 μW/cm².

Frei et al. [157] used dosimeters to examine the total exposure levels of RFR in the Swiss urban population. What they found was startling — nearly a third of the test subjects’ cumulative exposures were from cell tower base stations. Prior to this study, exposure from base stations was thought to be insignificant due to their low emissions and to affect only those living or working in close proximity to such infrastructure. But this study showed that the general population moves in and out of these particular fields with more regularity than previously expected. That assessment would apply to wildlife, too.

In Frei et al.’s [157] sample of 166 volunteers from Basel, Switzerland, study participants wore a dosimeter for one week and also completed an activity diary. Results found a mean weekly exposure to all RFR and/or EMF sources was 0.013 μW/cm². Exposure was mainly from mobile phone base stations (32.0%), mobile phone handsets (29.1%), and domestic digital enhanced cordless telecommunications (DECT) phones (22.7%). Mean values were highest in trains (0.116 μW/cm²), airports (0.074 μW/cm²), and tramways or buses (0.036 μW/cm²) and were higher during the daytime (0.016 μW/cm²) than the nighttime (0.008 μW/cm²).

Another surprising finding of the Frei et al. (157) study implied that at the belt, backpack, or in close vicinity to the body in test subjects, the mean base station contribution corresponded to about 7 min of mobile phone use. In other words, ambient exposure from infrastructure alone was a significant contributor beyond one’s personal choice to use individual devices. Frei et al. estimated that there had been a 10-fold increase in RFR outdoor radiation since mobile phone technology was introduced than when broadcast RFR had been quantified by Tell and Mantiply [151]. That trend has continued to be measured by numerous researchers today.

Joseph et al. [158] tried to make sense of the measured but differing results coming from various countries. Their objectives were to compare exposure levels and contributions from different sources in different European countries, including Belgium, Switzerland, Slovenia, Hungary, and the Netherlands, standardizing with the same personal dosimeter across countries. Results found that levels were of the same magnitude in all countries except the Netherlands, which was higher in all environments. There was no adequate explanation for these Netherland findings. Highest total exposures, like other studies, were in transport vehicles (trains, cars, buses) due to mobile phone handsets (up to 97%). Exposure in offices was higher than in urban homes. For outdoor urban environments, mobile phone base stations and handsets dominated the exposure.

Others have also looked at various ambient exposures relevant to this paper, including domestic pets and animals sheltering in indoor environments. Viel et al. [165] investigated varying exposures according to day of the week, concluding that the highest exposure to residents was on Sundays, primarily due to UMTS upload transmission and domestic DECT phone use. Markakis and Samaras [159] took indoor measurements with dosimeters in 40 different urban and suburban locations throughout Greece from 2010 to 2012 and found that RF from mobile base stations was dominant in workplaces and schools during the day, whereas in home environments dominant exposures at night were from DECT/wireless phones and computer networks. Bolte and Eikelboom [156] posited that body-worn dosimeters may both under- and -over estimate actual exposures depending on how they are worn and that a calibration determination should be made. They found in their study, using 98 subjects wearing dosimeters, that train stations had a high mean power density of 0.0304–0.0354 μW/cm², but that pubs or cafés where more people gathered using mobile phones and laptops in crowded quarters showed even higher exposures with mean exposures of 0.0526 μW/cm². That study was conducted in 2011 when GSM use was prevalent, before smart phones using UMTS proliferated. Similarly, Gryz and Karpowicz [192] measured indoor RFR in the Warsaw, Poland, metro. The major source of exposure was the 900 GSM system. Rowley and Joyner [160] found the mean exposure based on 173,323 measurements in 21 countries worldwide was 0.073 μW/cm² over a decade. Joyner et al. [193] did further assessments in Africa for seven years and found results consistent with the previous 2012 study. Rowley and Joyner [161] further analyzed a database of more than 50 million data points from the Italian fixed radiofrequency field monitoring network between June 2002 and November 2006 and found the mean value for mobile communications band was 0.047 μW/cm². They concluded that the findings of all three studies were consistent irrespective of continent, country, network operator or regulatory RFR exposure limit, leading to confidence that mean environmental levels from cellular mobile communications systems are less than 0.1 μW/cm². However, according to Estenberg and Augustsson [153], the methods of these last studies were not well described.

With the introduction of new communications systems and more mobile phone use, measured background levels, not surprisingly, increased. Urbinello et al. [162], who used dosimeters, found a combined 57.1% increase in total RFR levels in European outdoor areas studied within just one year from 2011 to 2012, representing a significantly altered environment over a very short period. They measured three European cities — Basel, Switzerland; Ghent, and Brussels, Belgium — in various microenvironments that included public transportation hubs (train and bus stations), indoor areas (airports, railways, shopping centers), and outdoor areas (residential, downtown and suburb). The highest RFR radiation occurred in public transportation areas which found combined measurement values from 0.32 (272 μW/m²) to 0.59 V/m (862 μW/m² ). In all outdoor areas combined, values ranged from 0.0128 μW/cm² to 0.0446 μW/cm². The authors found that the strongest increase in outdoor areas was from communications infrastructure rather than from mobile handsets.

Ambient levels in urban areas can be quite site specific as demonstrated by Hardell et al. [154] when they investigated the Stockholm Central Railway Station, Sweden, using the dosimeter EME Spy 200, which scans 20 different radiofrequency bands from 88 to 5,850 MHz, in order to collect RF exposure data. A total of 1,669 data points were recorded with primary exposures found from downlinks. The median value for total exposure was 0.092 μW/cm². The mean total RF radiation level varied between 0.28 and 0.49 μW/cm² for each scanning survey (High mean measurements were obtained for GSM + UMTS 900 downlink varying between 0.17 and 0.21 μW/cm². High levels were also obtained for UMTS 2100 downlink; 0.044–0.16 μW/cm². Also LTE 800 downlink, GSM 1800 downlink, and LTE 2,600 downlink were in the higher range of measurements). Hot spots were also identified, such as close to a wall mounted antenna yielding over 9.55 μW/cm² and exceeding the dosimeter’s detection limit. It should be noted that these are mostly transient exposures to humans moving through the station, although employees there are subjected to extended exposures as well as any urban wildlife in such environments. This work illustrates the high indoor levels experienced today, perhaps affecting pets, and contributing to rising background levels in general beyond a building’s walls. It is also generally indicative of what wildlife would encounter moving near such installations in outdoor areas.

Hardell et al. [155] later investigated outdoor exposures in major areas of Stockholm, Sweden. RF levels were measured during five tours in Stockholm Old Town in April of 2016 using the EME Spy 200 dosimeter with the same 20 predefined frequencies noted above. The results were based on a total of 10,437 samples from which they found the mean total RFR level was 0.4293 µW/cm². Similar to their indoor study, the highest mean levels obtained were for GSM + UMTS 900 downlink and long-term evolution (LTE) 2,600 downlink at 0.16 and 0.13 µW/cm², respectively. The town squares displayed highest total mean levels, with one example at Järntorget Square measured at 2.4 µW/cm² (minimum 0.0257, maximum 17.33 µW/cm²), compared with results in other areas near the Supreme Court that showed the lowest total exposure with a mean level of 0.0404 µW/cm² (minimum 0.002, maximum 0.4088 µW/cm²). Street measurements surrounding the Royal Castle area were lower than the total for Old Town, with a mean of 0.0756 µW/cm² (min 0.00003, max 5.09 µW/cm²).While their results were below the reference level of 1,000 µW/cm² established by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), that high-exposure standard, Hardell et al. [155] said, is less credible since it does not take effects into consideration below thermal thresholds for tissue heating and are “…not based on sound scientific evaluation”. Their highest measured mean level at Järntorget was 0.24% of the ICNIRP level. Numerous studies have found adverse health effects far below ICNIRP or other such guidelines [100].

The Hardell et al. [155] studies were not compatible with Tell and Kavet [147] that found FM bands were still a significant contributor to ambient RFR exposures. Indeed, Hardell et al. [154], [155] found FM orders of magnitude lower than the most current frequencies used for mobile telecommunications from all sources, the highest contributors were download frequencies from base stations at GSM + UMTS 900, UMTS 2, 100, LTE 800, LTE 2,600 and GSM 1,800 bands.

Similarly, in a study in Switzerland, Sagar et al. [194] reported RFR measurements in 51 different outdoor microenvironments in 20 different municipalities while walking with backpack-mounted exposimeters (ExpoM-RF) through five city centers, five central residential areas, five non-central residential areas, 15 rural residential areas, 15 rural centers, and six industrial areas. They too found infrastructure downlink exposures were most relevant in outdoor areas and that exposures increased with urbanity. They also found uplink exposures from cell handsets were only relevant within public transportation areas (trains, buses, trams), and that repeat measurements were highly reproducible within 2–4 months. Their reported mean RF-MF exposure (sum of 15 main frequency bands between 87.5 and 5875 MHz) was 0.53 V/m in industrial zones; 0.47 V/m in city centers; 0.32 V/m in central residential areas; 0.25 V/m non-central residential areas; 0.23 V/m in rural centers and rural residential areas; 0.69 V/m in trams; 0.46 V/m in trains; and 0.39 V/m in buses. The major exposure in all outdoor locations was from cell phone base stations (480% for all outdoor areas regarding power density).

In the most comprehensive review to date, Sagar et al. [148], [149] measured EMF/RFR in 94 matched microenvironments in six countries, including Switzerland, Ethiopia, Nepal, South Africa, Australia and the Los Angeles area of the U.S. They included both urban and rural areas and matched microenvironments in city centers, central residential, non-central residential, rural centers, rural residential, industrial, and tourist and university areas. This was the first study — ironically initiated by European researchers — to reassess one of the original EPA/Tell and Mantiply (1980) sites in the U.S. where they found a 70-fold (i.e., 7,000%) increase in mean ambient levels since that pioneering 1980 baseline data were recorded [152]. Cell infrastructure was the dominant contributor to the increase. Using portable RFR ExpoM-RF and EME Spy 201, walking with backpack-mounted devices at head height at a distance of 7.8–11.8 in (20–30 cm) from the body, or by driving a car with the devices roof mounted at 5.57–5.9 ft (170–180 cm) above the ground, they measured 94 outdoor microenvironments as well as within 18 public transport vehicles throughout the six countries. Measurements were taken for approximately 30 min while walking and about 15–20 min while driving in each microenvironment, with a sampling rate of once every 4 s (ExpoM-RF) and 5 s (EME Spy 201). They found great variability between countries, and regions within countries, with cell phone infrastructure being the major outdoor contributor to background levels today. Broadcast RFR was second. Total mean RFR exposure in various outdoor microenvironments varied between 0.23 V/m in Swiss non-central residential areas and 1.85 V/m in an Australian university area; and in buses in rural Switzerland between 0.32 and 0.86 V/m in an auto rickshaw in urban areas in Nepal respectively. Uplink RFR connections from mobile phone handsets was generally very small, except in Swiss trains and buses and other transport in sample countries.

Exposure in urban areas tended to be higher. Mean total RFR exposure for city centers was 0.48 V/m in Switzerland, 1.21 V/m in Ethiopia, 0.75 V/m in Nepal, 0.85 V/m in South Africa, 1.46 V/m in Australia and 1.24 V/m in the U. S. Corresponding downlink exposure was 0.47 V/m (Switzerland), 0.94 V/m (Ethiopia) 0.70 V/m (Nepal), 0.81 V/m (South Africa), 0.81 V/m (Australia) and 1.22 V/m (U.S.).

Compared to other countries, the U.S. had high exposure levels, ranging from 1.4 mW/m² in a non-central residential area of Los Angeles to 6.8 mW/m² in a less populated area within the center of the city near a freeway. The median total exposure to RFR across all eight outdoor microenvironments in Los Angeles was 3.4 mW/m². Switzerland, which has stricter exposure standards based on precautionary limits, had the lowest measured levels among all countries in the study.

What the above studies show are steady increasing environmental levels of RFR, primarily due to the introduction of mobile telecommunications. All of the above studies were conducted prior to the introduction of 5G which will greatly increase RFR background levels. The above RFR levels now ubiquitous in the environment are capable of affecting wildlife, as we report in Part 2.

Military training over the Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Marine Sanctuary: a case study

One of the more dramatic intentional RFR incursions into pristine government protected forest lands was proposed in 2012 by the U.S. Department of the Navy’s Northwest Training & Testing program [211], [212], [213] to practice electronic war-gaming exercises in airspace over the Olympic National Park (a UNESCO World Heritage Site), Olympic National Forest, and Olympic National Marine Sanctuary — all in or off Washington State. The Marine Sanctuary is the preferred key habitat for 29 species of marine mammals, including migrating gray whales. The National Park and National Forest are key habitats for two migratory bird species listed on the Endangered Species List — the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), a diving seabird that nests in old growth forests, and the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), which thrives only in quiet intact old-growth forest habitats. In fact, the entire Pacific Coast is on the critical Pacific flyway for migratory birds with an estimated one billion birds migrating along the pathway annually [214]. The Olympic National Park is widely seen as among the most beautiful wilderness areas on Earth where temperate rainforest lowlands are topped by majestic glacier peaks. Once designated the “quietest place” in America by the acoustic ecologist Gordon Hempton from the One Square Inch project [215], [216], [217], it is home to several plant and animal species that exist nowhere else on Earth.

The massive Navy project includes training over land, air, and sea as well as underwater, including offshore areas of northern California, Oregon, and Washington, the inland waters of Puget Sound, the San Juan Islands, many portions of the Olympic Peninsula, parts of Canada, and Western Behm Canal in southeast Alaska [218], [219]. The Navy has been conducting similar exercises — though nothing like the magnitude of the current upgrade — in this area for decades because it includes the complex environments that service personnel may encounter [220].

After significant community comment and a lengthy environmental review by experts opposing the proposal, the Navy released its Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) calling for increased training and flights over Olympic National Park [221]. Potential adverse EMF effects from the upgraded exercises should not be underestimated. Manipulation of the electromagnetic spectrum has become a pre-eminent offensive and defensive war feature waged on land, in the air, and on/under the world’s oceans. The Navy’s exercises, conducted under the Northwest Training and Testing [222] program, has not given information (for stated security reasons) on all signaling characteristics, but for the overland activity they will be using frequencies between 4 and 8 GHz at a power output of 90–300 W, 45 min per hour, at thermal and nonthermal intensities, according to personal communications between the Navy and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [223], [224].

While the Navy has operated the Naval Air Station on nearby Whidbey Island since World War II, the proposed upgrades could in time add up to 160 new “Growler” EA-18G supersonic jet warplanes — the loudest aircraft in the sky — to the Northwest Electromagnetic Radiation Warfare program [221, 222, 225]. Training exercises can fly as low as 1,200 feet (366 m) above sea/ground level (AGL) — well within the height of migratory and daily bird-flight movements of numerous avian species ranging from waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds and more [226]. In studies conducted by USDA/APHIS Wildlife Services on movements of Osprey (Pandion haldiaetus) around Langley Air Force Base, Hampton, VA, Osprey frequently reached these altitudes on feeding and territorial forays and migrated at flight heights averaging 1,300 ft (396 m) AGL at speeds of around 35 mph (56 kph) [227].

On land, the exercises include mobile trucks carrying RFR emitters mounted 14 feet high along remote dirt roads that can reach elevated peaks/ridgelines deep within the forest to communicate with warplanes. There are also new fixed cell towers. There are 2,900 allowed exercises over wilderness and some communities, 260 days a year, lasting 8–16 h per day. There are additional training exercises over/under the water using sonar and lasers capable of causing adverse effects to fish and marine animals [228]; also see Part 2 for potential effects to aquatic mammals, fish, and turtles).

Growlers are equipped with extreme high intensity, multi-frequency detectors and radar jamming technology capable of thermal and non-thermal effects to humans and wildlife alike. One exposure estimate during exercises noted that spending more than 15 min in designated areas could result in thermal damage [213]. Mid-air two-way training involves RFR directionally aimed from plane-to-plane, ground-to-air, and air-to-ground. Despite environmental reviews which were limited in scope there is no clear understanding of what this may do to the environment [228].

After a long review process required by the National Environmental Policy Act [229], the Navy released a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and an Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS) [230] but the final findings, which remained the same as in earlier drafts, had been widely criticized as inadequate for its broad findings of “no harm,” grossly under-estimating present and proposed activities, improperly segmenting activities to minimize scrutiny of collective substantial impacts in violation of NEPA which does not allow such segmentation, and ignoring potential noise effects [225, 231–233]. In March 2017, the U.S. EPA requested more information on potential noise effects but mentioned nothing about EMF effects to wildlife or humans. The Navy’s DEIS minimally addressed EMF but repeatedly adhered to parsed language from the Endangered Species Act, noting that electromagnetic devices used during training may affect — but are not likely to adversely affect — the various species reviewed, primarily marine animals and some birds. Their conclusions remained the same in 2020 [234].

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) concurrence [235], [236] was despite former agency career scientists requesting more caution [212]. Extensive attention was paid to the endangered Marbled Murrelet known to nest there, and the Northern Spotted Owl which was said to be shielded from EMF exposures under the forest canopy. Forest canopies, however, are easily penetrated by RFR even though trees are efficient attenuators [237], [238]. U.S. FWS noted that clear line-of sight transmission would limit wildlife exposures; that only birds in flight over the tree canopy could be affected. They found Marbled Murrelets could be intermittently exposed to RFR during flight but that Spotted Owls under forest canopies are not. They then concluded that the effects of brief, intermittent exposures to 4–8 GHz would likely be insignificant to in-flight birds. They discounted physical effects from tissue heating and/or burns [235].

By most measures, the Navy and U.S. FWS conducted poor reviews [233]. Although they did include several bird/wildlife studies [9, 15, 20, 22, 95, 239, 240], they dismissed them for various reasons. Only Bruderer et al. [241], at approximately 9 GHz exposure, was deemed applicable but it found no effects to birds’ flight patterns in the presence of radar. Other uninvestigated research that could have applied included in-field RFR behavioral studies [17], [242]; mortality [134, 243, 244]; reproductive outcomes [16], [18]; and bat insect foraging [36] in the presence of radar. Presence of exogenous RFR could also disturb the sensitive magnetoreception of many species, affecting bird and insect migration patterns.

There continues to be no monitoring for EMF/wildlife effects over the wide on-land/over-sea training areas, despite the fact that the final Navy EIS/OEIS noted sources of in-air electromagnetic exposures from a single ship would operate continuously across a wide range of frequencies from 2 MHz to 14,500 MHz, with maximum average power between 0.25 and 1,280,00 W [234]. A publication from one of the authors of this paper [96] was used to justify program approval based on birds‘ natural avoidance behaviors when physical discomfort is caused, such as thermal heating. The Navy and U.S. FWS conclusions that no long-term or population-level impacts to birds will occur may not be supportable.

Although the military is by law allowed use of public lands for training, this deep incursion into pristine protected public lands in Washington State sets a bad precedent. The Navy’s project is possibly in violation of federal statutes including U.S. Code 475 (LII, 2018), which outlines the purposes for which national forests were established and how they are to be administered. The U.S. Forest Service, nevertheless, granted the Navy a preliminary Special Use Permit. The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) had submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in 2016 to the Navy regarding Growler noise and environmental disruption. After the Navy repeatedly withheld critical FOIA information on the aircraft overflight training, NPCA sued the Navy in mid-2019 for that information’s release. As of this writing, no federal court decision has been reached on the FOIA lawsuit.

In 2020, after the upgraded training exercises commenced, noise levels from the flyovers were found by Kuehne et al. [245] at 110 ± 4 dB re 20 μ Pa rms and 107 ± 5 dB A, to exceed known thresholds of behavioral and physiological impacts for humans, as well as terrestrial birds and mammals. Even underwater sound levels from the aircraft, at 134 ± 3 dB re 1 μ Pa rms, exceeded thresholds known to trigger behavioral changes in fish, seabirds, and marine mammals, including endangered southern resident killer whales (Orcinus orca). Although soundwaves are not strictly considered EMF, their inclusion here illustrates adverse anthropogenic effects due to inadequate regulatory oversight.

The Navy has been allowed to introduce the loudest aircraft in the sky into one of the quietest places in the U.S. with accompanying complex close-range EMF. With the exception of this high-intensity RFR training program in Washington State, most of the studies cited throughout these consecutive papers found ambient exposures were below any international guidelines for humans but well within the range seen to affect flora and fauna.

Military use of millimeter waves

Millimeter waves have been used by the U.S. military since the early 1980s [256], [257]. Millimeter waves are so-called because the wavelengths are smaller (about 1/8th inch or 3.2–5 mm long) than microwaves used in cell phone/WiFi technology at 2.4 GHz (6.3 inch or 12.5 cm). The smaller the wavelength, the higher the energy density per wavelength unit. In this case, with MMW it is about 25 times higher than with cell technology microwaves [258]. This means MMW are capable of resulting in significant damage throughout the biome, including possibly to all flora and fauna present, but not due to wavelength alone. The multiple biological effects from intense energy absorption at very small wavelengths, e.g., in human skin cells or any thin-skinned species, and especially in insects which lack efficient heat dissipation, may cause intense heating with concomitant cellular destruction and organism death. Many of these effects are independent of power density, and therefore not covered by current regulations which are power-density and/or SAR-based. There is, however, a provision in the new ICNIRP standards that makes MMW and 5G subject to dosimetry measurements in power density in the higher frequencies, not SAR (see Part 3).

Millimeter waves have never been used before for civilian telecommunications although the U.S. military has used MMWs at 95 GHz for crowd control and perimeter defense in a skin-heating directed-energy technology called “Active Denial” as part of the U.S. Non-Lethal Weapons Program [259]. The military deployed MMW technology in 2006 in Afghanistan and in the second Iraq war with an Active Denial weapon mounted on Humvees. Named Project Sheriff, it is a Raytheon-designed device in their Silent Guardian Protection System. Biological effects have been researched for decades at the Directed Energy Bioeffects Division, Human Effectiveness Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, TX [260], as well as other military laboratories and programs like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [261]. Unfortunately, most of this tax-payer-funded research is classified even as there is a critical public need-to-know with the 5G buildout, the proliferation of media misinformation, and burgeoning conspiracy theories. Other countries, like Russia and China, have adopted directed energy technologies too.

Active Denial weaponry was originally developed by the military for large roof-mounts on military vehicles but much smaller mobile units have now been deployed in moving aircraft and ground vehicles. Raytheon has developed a smaller version of Silent Guardian for use by non-military law enforcement agencies and other security providers. That system is operated with a joystick plus an aiming screen that can target people over 820 ft (250 m) away. One Los Angeles county jail has installed a unit on their ceiling. Such systems base their response on an intolerable heating sensation in the skin with the accompanying instinctive avoidance behavior. The sensation supposedly stops quickly when the beam is turned off or a person moves out of range. However, several reports note that numbing sensations can last for hours and blistering has occurred [262].

The U.S. military continues to develop its non-lethal weapons program, announcing in 2019 a $30.8 million (U.S. dollars) contract to General Dynamics for research on directed energy systems, bio-mechanisms, human effectiveness analysis, and integration under the U.S. Air Force’s Directed Energy Bio-effects Research (DEBR) program. The aim is to quantify the effects of directed energy weapons using optical, RFR, and MMW radiation, as well as electromagnetic propagation characteristics [263]. It remains to be seen if this information will be declassified or if any will be applied to impacts on wildlife.

Russia has taken a different approach using lower frequencies for 5G, and set up monitors in Moscow to measure/study 2G through 5G effects on citizens under The Izmerov Research Institute of Occupational Health. The Institute will send results to the Ministry of Health and the Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing for the final determination regarding human safety standards [264]. There are no similar epidemiology studies being conducted in the U.S. and it remains to be seen if Russia will release their findings or even the parameters of their research.

Adaptations for civilian telecommunications for 5G in frequencies lower than 95 GHz are theoretically below thermal power intensities [111], [265]. However that does not mean serious concerns are unfounded. Recent updates to the ICNIRP standards propose allowances that will permit exposures to exceed thermal thresholds under certain circumstances (see Part 3). This is a region of the electromagnetic spectrum that has had little attention from the civilian professional groups that set exposure standards, partly because few consumer devices have operated in this frequency range before and devices already using MMW have traditionally had little applicability to high levels of human exposure [111], [265]. All of this is about to change. The new 5G networks also use extremely complex signaling characteristics that are not well studied or understood, including beam steering, massive MIMO (multiple-input, multiple-output) and phased array that have unique biologically active properties.

Some assume minimal and/or reversible risk in humans due to MMW shallow energy penetration, short wavelength, and induced quick fleeing behavior. Damage to wildlife is considered collateral, if considered at all.

Millimeter waves and biological effects

It has been known for over 100 years that MMW are highly biologically active [266], [267], [268]. As noted in Pakhomov et al. [269], coherent oscillations in this frequency range are virtually absent in the natural electromagnetic environment, indicating important potential consequences since living organisms could not have developed adaptive mechanisms to MMW during evolution and development, unlike in other areas of the electromagnetic spectrum. In addition, Golant [270], [271] and Betzkii [272] noted that some specific features of MMW radiation, plus the absence of background MMW external “noise,” may indicate this band is important for communication within and between living cells. In other words, there may be a reason for the absence of MMWs in the background environment, and more importantly, because of that absence, living cells may have developed their own dedicated uses in that area of electromagnetic spectrum.

Betskii et al. [273] also pointed out that MMW radiation is virtually absent from the natural environment due to strong absorption by the atmosphere and the fact that MMW waves are readily absorbed by water vapor. The authors elaborated on the hypothesis that low-intensity MMW may have broad nonspecific effects on biological structures/organisms and that vital cell functions may be governed by coherent electromagnetic EHF waves. Their results included alternating EHF/MMWs used for interaction between adjacent cells, thereby interrelating/controlling intercellular processes in the entire organism. The above authors [269], [270], [271], [272], [273] noted that while these ideas are theoretical, they may plausibly explain the high MMW sensitivity observed in biological subjects.

Chronic long-term, low-level ambient exposures to MMWs are yet to be studied but some extrapolations can be made based on the extensive database that does exist. These higher frequencies may also have unique biological effects to nonhuman species due to size differences, distinctive physiological characteristics, and diverse habitats. Both aqueous environments and the high water content in living organisms may make MMW exposures particularly unique due to the way MMWs propagate though water with virtually no impedance [274], [275], [276], [277], [278], [279]. Also, unlike RFR at lower frequencies, in the EHF/MMW range a small power density can lead to a very high local SAR due to the concentration of energy in a small volume in an exposed organism. Heating may be inevitable [280].

Millimeter wave energy, with the very small wavelengths associated with such high-frequency radiation, couples maximally with human skin tissue. Because of this efficient skin coupling, beneficial/therapeutic effects have been known for decades, especially in former Soviet Union countries, from short-term MMW exposures, while longer exposures have produced potentially adverse effects [258, 269, 281, 282].

In humans, Gandhi and Riazi [257] estimated that 90–95% of incident energy of MMWs can be absorbed in human skin with dry clothing, with or without an air gap. Because of sub-millimeter depths of penetration in skin tissue, superficial SARs as high as 65–357 W/kg are possible. Eyes are of particular concern. MMW frequencies penetrate less than 1/64 of an inch (0.4 mm) — about the thickness of three sheets of paper. Except for adult human eyelids and exposure to infants, MMWs supposedly avoid the skin’s second dermal layer [265].

However, skin tissue contains critical structures like blood and lymphatic vessels, nerve endings, collagen, elastin fibers, and hair follicles, as well as sweat, sebaceous and apocrine glands. MMW effects to skin have been found to be considerable in glandular tissue with multiple cascading effects throughout the human body even without deep penetration [283]. Effects to lipid cells decreased cell membrane water permeability, with partial dehydration of the cell membrane, and cell membrane thickening/rigidity was seen at 52–72 GHz at incident power densities of 0.0035–0.010 mW/cm² [284]. Human sweat ducts in particular may act as coiled helical antennas and propagate MMW energy as a waveguide at these higher frequency exposures causing uniquely higher specific absorption rates [285] not reflected in today’s standards. A significant new look at the 5G standards is clearly called for.

Betskii et al. [273] noted that with MMW exposure, skin presented five mechanistic entry points capable of affecting an entire organism. For example, they noted that because MMWs penetrate human skin to a depth of 300–500 μm and are almost completely absorbed in the epidermis and the top dermis, MMWs are therefore capable of directly influencing central nervous system receptors. These include mechanoreceptors, nociceptors, and free nerve endings; APUD cells such as diffuse neuroendocrine cells, mastocytes, and Merkel cells; and immune cells such as T-lymphocytes. In addition, they noted that MMWs produce direct effects on the microcapillaries and other biologically active cells. These five “entry gates” can determine both therapeutic and/or adverse effects as a novel trigger to basic regulatory systems, involving the complete organism. Depending on the parameters of the MMW stimulus and the functional state of the subject exposed, effects produced can be both nonspecific and specific.

In their review, Betskii and Lebedeva [286] also discussed MMW effects on human and non-human models as dependent on exposure sites and noted such effects were highly frequency sensitive. They also described the complex hypothetical mechanism that stochastic resonance (see Part 2) may play in very sensitive water-containing biological species to very-low intensity EMF (in μm ranges) based on the generation of intrinsic resonance frequencies by water clusters that fall between about 50 and 70 GHz. When biological species are exposed to extremely weak EMF at these frequencies, their water-molecule oscillators lock on to the external signal frequency and amplify the signal by means of synchronized oscillation or regenerative amplification. Since MMWs pass through aqueous media almost without loss but also with high absorption, in the process they are capable of deep penetration involving internal tissue and organ structures. The researchers summarized what is known about effects of MMWs. These included a long list of findings in human and non-human models, e.g., EHF’s strong absorption by water and aqueous solutions of organic and inorganic substances; affects to the immune system; changes in microbial metabolism; stimulation of ATP (adenosine 5′-triphosphate) synthesis in green-leaf cells; increases in crop capacity (e.g., pre-sowing-seed treatment); changes in certain properties of blood capillaries; stimulation of central nervous system receptors; and the induction of bioelectric responses in the cerebral cortex. Biological effects depend on exposure site, power flux density and wavelength in very specific ways. In addition, low-intensity MMWs were detected by 80% of healthy people, but perception was asymmetrical. Peripheral applications were found to affect the spatiotemporal organization of brain biopotentials, resulting in cerebral cortex nonspecific activation reactions. MMW-induced effects are perceived primarily by the somatosensory system with links to almost all regions of the brain. The authors also discussed water and aqueous environments’ unique role on MMW effects, which induce convective motion in the bulk and thin fluid layers and may create compound convective motion in intra- and intercellular fluid. This can result in transmembrane mass transfer and charge transport can become more active. EHF can also increase protein molecule hydration.

In wildlife, especially small thin-membrane amphibians like frogs and salamanders, even at penetration less than 1/64 of an inch (0.4 mm), deep body penetration would result. Effects to wildlife could be significant. In some insect species that would equal deadly whole body resonance exposure [90]. In a recent study, Thielens et al. [287], modeled three insect populations and found that a shift of just 10% of the incident power density to frequencies above 6 GHz would lead to an increase in absorbed power between 3 and 370% in some bee species, possibly leading to behavior, physiology, and morphology changes over time, ultimately affecting their survival. Insects smaller than 1 cm showed peak absorption at frequencies above 6 GHz. In a follow-up study of RFR, Thielens et al. [288] used in-situ exposure measurements near 10 bee hives in Belgium and numerical simulations in honey bee (Apis mellifera) models exposed to plane waves at frequencies from 0.6–120 GHz – frequencies carved out for 5G. They concluded that with an assumed 10% incident power density shift to frequencies higher than 3 GHz, this would lead to an RFR absorption increase in honey bees between 390 and 570% — resulting in possible catastrophic consequences for bee survival.

In birds, hollow feathers have piezoelectric properties that would allow MMWs to penetrate deep within the avian body cavity [26], [27]. 5G’s complex phased MMWs may also be capable of disrupting crucial biological function in other species. In theory this one technology has the ability to disrupt critical ecosystems and the living organisms within them with broad effects throughout their entire food webs. In addition, the top end of these ranges reach infrared (IR) frequencies, some of which are actually visible to other species, especially birds, and could impede their ability to sense natural magnetic fields necessary for migration [91] as well as other crucial aspects of avian life.

There were several early reviews of MMW studies beginning in the 1980s that examined subjects like theoretical modeling and possible interaction mechanisms [289], [290], [291], [292], [293]. Pakhomov et al. [269] also published an extensive review of MMW research, examining over 300 former Soviet Union Block studies, which had focused primarily on therapeutic/clinical applications of MMWs, as well as about 50 studies from other countries that had focused on public health effects. They were looking to close the gap between those very different orientations between countries. Much of the Soviet Block research had never previously been seen by Western scientists and because of the language barrier, as well as differences in test protocols, measurements, and reportage styles, Western scientists often dismissed Russian research as incomplete. The large review included effects from low-intensity exposures (MMWs 10 mW/cm² and less) in everything from molecules, microbes, and cells, to the unique qualities of water, resonance, and MMW therapy. Studies covered dosimetry/spectroscopy issues, as well as cell-free systems, cultured cells, and isolated organs in animals and humans. Pakhomov et al. [269] found effects to cell growth/proliferation, enzyme activity, genetic structures, excitable membrane function, peripheral receptors, and other biological systems. In human and animal models, local MMW therapeutic applications stimulated tissue repair and regeneration, alleviated stress reactions, and facilitated recovery from a wide range of diseases. Former Soviet Block countries claim to treat approximately 50 diseases with MMW. The reviewers reported that many effects could not be readily explained by temperature changes alone.

Some of the animal models with potential significance to wildlife cited in Pakhomov et al. [269] included: yeast: Saccharomyces cerevisiae, [294], [295], [296], [297], [298]; Candida albicans [299]; barley seeds [300]; protozoans Spirostum spp. [301]; blue-green algae Spirulina platensisby [302]; midge Acricotopus lucidus [303]; Escherichia coli [304]; rats [305]; frog/nerve cells [306], [307], [308], [309], [310]; antibiotic resistance to Staphylococcus aureus [311] and others.

Of particular challenge to the popular wisdom that MMWs are “safe” due to superficial skin penetration, is the research on peripheral nerve receptors cited in Pakhomov et al. [269]. Akoev et al. [312] studied MMW effects to the specialized electroreceptor cells called Ampullae of Lorinzini in anesthetized rays and found that the spontaneous firing in the afferent nerve fiber from the cells could be enhanced or inhibited by MMWs at 33–55 GHz continuous wave (CW). The most sensitive receptors increased firing rates at intensities of 1–4 mW/cm², which produced less than a 0.1 °C temperature increase. Higher intensities (10 mW/cm² and up) evoked delayed inhibition of firing, indicating that the response became biphasic. The authors emphasized they were not observing just a MMW bioeffect but rather a specific response to that frequency range by an electro-receptor cell.

Work also cited in Pakhomov et al. [269] regarding similar nerve cells/pathways and MMW-induced arrhythmia included a paper by Chernyakov et al. [307] where they observed induced heart rate changes in anesthetized frogs from MMW irradiation to remote skin areas. This suggested a reflex mechanism possibly involving specific peripheral receptors. Later, Potekhina et al. [313] similarly found that certain frequencies from 53–78 GHz band (CW) effectively changed the natural heart rate variability in anesthetized rats when applied to the upper thoracic vertebrae for 20 min at 10 mW/cm² or less. MMWs at 55 and 73 GHz caused pronounced arrhythmia: the variation coefficient of the regular rhythm (R-R) interval increased 4–5 times while exposure at 61 or 75 GHz had no effect, and other frequencies caused intermediate changes. Skin and whole-body temperatures remained unchanged. Similar frequency dependence was observed in additional experiments with 3 h exposures. However, approximately 25% of experiments were interrupted because of sudden animal death that occurred after 2.5 h of exposure at 51, 61, and 73 GHz. This body of work suggests that the link between superficial cellular effects and whole-organism effects — the least understood aspect of MMWs — may be due to peripheral receptors and afferent nerve signaling, leading to larger systemic reactions from what are assumed to be superficial exposures. This may prove particularly significant in non-human species.

While some of the above cited studies are at a higher power density than most of the focus in this paper, because of the ubiquity of millions of new antennas planned for 5G small cells, near-field exposures to wildlife, even in rural areas, are far more likely than from distant infrastructure.

In 2000, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency declassified and released a compendium of theoretical and experimental papers, primarily from Russia, many already covered in Pakhomov et al. [269] on high frequency MMW and ELF studies. Cited works included a review of 6,000 papers by Kholodov [314] that appeared in Markov and Blank [315] demonstrating EMF interactions with a variety of animal and human biological systems. Effects were seen in the central nervous system with the degree of response dependent on myriad radiation parameters, including frequency, pulse shape and exposure duration. Wide ranging effects were documented from microbiota to mammals. They included: MMW effects on the central and peripheral nervous system [316] with a majority (80%) of human subjects detecting and being cognitively aware of exposures as low as 10 billionths of a W/cm², i.e., 10 nW/cm²; 50 μ/W affected Proteus bacteria [317]; MMW as low as 1 μW/cm² within a very narrow frequency range (51.62 < vs. 51.85 GHz) induced changes in E coli bacteria, indicating a resonance response; and sharp resonances in HF/MMW ranges were seen, indicating that MMW act as a catalyst for intra- and inter-cellular communication. HF/MMW may trigger complex non-linear oscillations capable of affecting fundamental processes in whole living systems [270, 271, 318–324]. See below for more on MMW and nonlinear effects.

There are more updated reviews of the MMW frequency range [273], [325] with the most recent from Simko and Mattson [326] and Alekseev and Ziskin [327].

Simko and Mattson [326] focused on potential 5G safety and nonthermal effects. They investigated works (between 6 and 100 GHz MMW divided into seven ranges) for health impacts, analyzing 94 studies, characterized for type (in vivo, in vitro); biological material (species, cell type, etc.); biological endpoints; exposure parameters (frequency, duration, power density); results; and critical study quality. They found 80% of in vivo studies and 58% of in vitro studies showed effects, with responses affecting all biological endpoints investigated. They also found no consistent relationship between power density, exposure duration, and frequency with exposure effects across the studies investigated although there were consistencies within some groupings for effects that were frequency dependent. They concluded that overall the studies did not provide adequate information to determine meaningful safety assessments, or to answer questions about non-thermal effects, adding there is a need for research on small surface local heating developments (e.g., skin or eyes), and on environmental impacts. They called for significant quality improvement in future study design and implementation. They also noted that no epidemiology studies exist for these frequency ranges — an important observation — and that it is important to investigate effects to wildlife as the depth of MMW penetration in very small organisms can result in potentially significant heating.

Alekseev and Ziskin [327] reviewed MMWs, sub-MMWs and THz ranges with close attention to skin properties/permittivity as well as other physiological endpoints in the early literature. Their focus was primarily on thermal intensities although some nonthermal works are included. They concluded that effects below thermal intensities were negligible.

One U.S. MMW study by Siegel and Pikov [328] at very-low-intensity produced effects far below regulatory standards. The authors noted the growing need to understand MMW mechanisms of interaction with biological systems for both adverse effects and therapeutic uses and said that independent of health impacts of long-term high-dose MMW exposure on whole organisms, that potential subtle effects on specific tissues or organs also exist. Their focus was on quantifying real-time changes in cellular function as energy was applied in a series of experiments. Effects found changes in cell membrane potential and the action potential firing rate of cortical neurons under short (1 min) exposures to continuous-wave 60 GHz radiation at mW/cm² power levels more than 1,000 times below the FCC maximum permissable exposure (MPE). After review of papers on neuronal activity in MMW frequencies at low intensities, Siegel and Pikov [328] examined MMW-induced apoptosis and transient membrane permeability in epithelial cells in vitro, as well as real-time changes in the activity and membrane permeability of individual pyramidal neurons in patch-clamp probed cortical slices. One study, using in vitro cerebral cortex slices from 13-to-16-day-old rat pups, was exposed to MMW 60 GHz (at 7.5, 15, 30, 60, 120 and 185 mW exposures) introduced in random sequences, held fixed for 1 min for three current cycles, then turned off. Bath temperature was constantly monitored with temperature rise between 0.1 to 3 °C. They found changes in firing at power levels of 0.3 μW/cm² and above after four different MMW power levels at approximately 0.1–1 mW/cm². Rise and decay slopes of individual action potentials and membrane resistance were also strongly correlated with MMW power levels indicating opening of membrane ion channels. They concluded that at power levels of approximately 300 nW/cm² and above, a strong inhibition of the action potential firing rate in some neurons existed, as well as an increased firing in others. This indicated possible functional heterogeneity in the studied neuronal population. Further they said that rise in bath temperature could not fully account for such dramatic changes in membrane permeability. These results are believed to be the first positive correlative measurements of real-time changes in neuronal activity with ultra-low-power MMW exposures. They said that although there was a lack of high-accuracy SAR data for each sample, further investigation was warranted as effects recorded were at levels well below recommended MPE’s. Their findings also have therapeutic implications for non-contact stimulation and neurologic function control in suppression of peripheral neuropathic pain and other central neurological disorders.

There are hundreds of MMW studies at high intensities not included in this paper that may also be environmentally relevant to ambient near-field 5G exposures.

5G’s unusual signaling characteristics: phased array, MIMO, Sommerfeld and Brillouin precursors

5G employs unusual signaling characteristics not broadly deployed before now. Phased array (multiple antennas that fire at different rates/times) has been used for decades in military radar and a few other industrial applications. Phased arrays can boost signal strength which in turn helps signals penetrate deeper into buildings. In its adaptation to civilian-based wireless networks, phased array is considered a unique characteristic that has not been well studied as a specific biologically active entity although that was called for over 20 years ago [329], [330]. However, enough research does exist in similar frequencies to raise safety questions. Still, all extrapolations for safety regarding 5G transmission designs have been made from inapplicably different radiation models for continuous (always-on) or pulsed (intermittently on) wave forms using single element or non-phased systems. While phased array is pulsed, it is a system in which the pulses overlap (thus the term “phased”) which constitutes a unique biological exposure since there is no cellular recovery time between exposures. It is therefore in essence always “on.”

Although not everyone agrees this is a unique enough characteristic to warrant further research or different safety considerations from what traditionally have been used [111, 112, 130, 131, 331, 332], there are nevertheless serious concerns regarding phasing because it interacts with living cells in extremely complex ways that have nothing to do with traditional thermal thresholds. The wave form itself is the biologically active component [329], [330], [333], [334], [335], [336], [337], [338].

Phasing is created by multiple antennas and sub-antennas transmitting at simultaneous or slightly different intervals at different frequencies, creating what can become steep wave banks that interact with living cells from many different angles and time sequences. Because of varying impedance factors of radiation moving through air and microsecond differences in transmission rates, each antenna in a multiple radiating element reaches the body — human and non-human alike — at slightly different times, creating multiple overlapping wave fronts. Each wave front strikes from a slightly different location and/or angle, creating a characteristic sequence of layered modulation unlike any other electromagnetic propagation source. Nothing like this exists in nature. Although phased array has been around since the 1940s, it has not heretofore been used for broadband civilian telecommunications infrastructure or in widely used consumer devices until now.

5G is a combination of line-of-sight transmission with simultaneous ground-level side-lobe pulsed phased exposures, involving an incredibly complicated infrastructure with accompanying extensive ambient exposures from what is projected to be millions of new antennas in the U.S. alone. 5G will use phased broadband signals emitted in constant pulsed overlapping waves that gradually rise in frequency, simultaneously transmitted from slightly different locations and angles that build up in a kind of stair-step fashion. As designed, 5G will employ ‘Massive’ MIMO (multiple input, multiple output) compound-element transceivers — over 100 per physical antenna encasement — for simultaneous signal/data sending and receiving. Because the EHF frequency is higher on the electromagnetic spectrum with shorter wavelengths, individual antenna elements are smaller so more elements can be located in the same place. Multiple antenna elements are also necessary for phasing. In time, user devices will also contain EHF MIMO and phased array technology embedded in devices like iPhones, which already contain multiple antennas. 4G LTE technology already uses compound elements and although the two systems will be interdependent in the near future, 5G as designed is substantially different enough that new phones will eventually be needed.

In addition, 5G will employ beam steering technology (of which there are several types) that allow antennas to produce and focus very narrow beams in a specific direction. By concentrating and focusing the signal, the effective radiated power is boosted which means narrow signals can travel farther and more effectively penetrate buildings and other obstacles. Beam steering also allows antennas to direct signals to user devices rather than the 360° radiation patterns of omnidirectional antennas now commonly used in telecommunications infrastructure. Beam steering is accomplished by changing phases and/or switching antenna elements. To plot the best route between signal and user, highly advanced signal processing algorithms are required.

Proponents of 5G are enamored with the network’s brilliant RF engineering and hypothesize that 5G will increase system efficiency, reduce RF interference from other sources, reduce overall ambient exposures because it is a highly directed network, and be faster and more energy efficient. But 5G’s sheer scale will prove some of these projections incorrect and one industry estimate holds that 5G will require 10 times more energy than is used today for telecommunications [340]. Additionally, beam steering does not reduce ambient exposures with systems at such a scale. It does, however, with the densification of infrastructure create a whole new layer of novel RFR exposures.

Any exposure standards in place today being applied to 5G control mostly for near-field exposures. But phasing creates unpredictable far-field biological effects. With phased array transmission, the wave front arrival rate and buildup can increase as it moves away from the radiating source, creating multifaceted wideband dispersion/exposures ([341], see Figures 1 and 2 below), making exposures potentially more complex in far field environments in many different frequency ranges.

Figure 1:

Phased array transmission can create wideband dispersion.

Near normal at the array face, buildup can occur as signal moves away from the generating source. Illustration shows how phased array radar buildup occurs in radar frequencies between 420 and 450 MHz [341]. From National Research Council, 2005. An Assessment of Potential Health Effects from Exposure to PAVE PAWS Low-Level Phased-Array Radiofrequency Energy, p 63. https://doi.org/10.17226/11205. Reproduced with permission from the National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

Figure 2:

MMW bank buildup can also be near instantaneous.

At 500 m: the variation in slopes or rise times encountered through a pulse with many slopes being significantly greater than ±1 V per meter per nanosecond. Used with permission from Richard Albanese. Appeared in, An Assessment of Potential Health Effects from Exposure to PAVE PAWS Low-Level Phased-Array Radiofrequency Energy. National Research Council, 2005 p. 70. https://doi.org/10.17226/11205 [341].

The reason that phasing may have a unique biological impact is because very fast peak radiation pulses generate bursts of energy that can give rise to what are called Sommerfeld and Brillouin precursors in living cells that can in turn penetrate and disperse much deeper than traditional models predict [333–338, 339, 342–347]. Sommerfeld/Brillouin precursors most notably form with ultra wideband exposures as proposed with 5G.

Arnold Sommerfeld’s [348] and Léon Brillouin’s [349] writings on how wave fronts enter and move through ‘lossy’ materials (materials that absorb radiation like soil, water or living tissue) go back at least 100 years but their interest was in energy penetration and movement, not biological effects, and their orientation was on physics, not medicine. Sommerfeld and Brillouin’s work noted that with the movement of a sinusoidal wave through a Lorentz medium, two transients formed. The first — now called the Sommerfeld precursor — travels at the speed of light and oscillates at very high frequencies, while the second — now called the Brillouin precursor — follows the first at slower speed. Oughstun and Sherman [339] established more current mathematical modeling for precursor formation. Both Sommerfeld and Brillouin precursors were observed in a waveguide apparatus by Plesko and Palotz [350]. The Sommerfeld precursor is estimated to have small amplitude in water-based materials like cells and tissue but has not actually been seen in such materials, while Brillouin precursors have been seen in water-based materials. Wide bandwidths in general — like 5G broadband which uses multiple frequencies — have been found to produce more precursors than narrow bandwidths; precursor formation is directly related to bandwidth (or rise time) and dispersion, but not always to electric field slope (V/m/nsec). Once generated, pulses can propagate without much attenuation and are thought to decay slowly only after significant attenuation has occurred in cellular media. That means precursors are long lasting in tissue. Precursors can occur any time during exposure [341].

With precursor formation, the salient factor is the speed at which energy is introduced. A slow introduction into material will not result in precursor formation. Precursors result from an external field being introduced at a rate faster than the motional response times of the medium itself [329], [351]. While typical continuous sinusoidal waves and pulsed exposures do not create wave fronts but are capable of causing thermoregulatory changes and other effects, phased array’s sequence of wave fronts under certain circumstances may be capable of both thermoregulatory changes and electrostrictive perturbations thereby creating an unpredictable nonlinear feedback loop in living systems [329, 333–338, 351]. In other words, with 5G functioning in the EHF ranges with phased array signals, these are no longer simply physics theories. Precursors are capable of overwhelming living cells in highly unpredictable nonlinear patterns, potentially causing structural cellular fatigue and material changes throughout the entire organism.

According to Richard A. Albanese, M.D., (per. comm. 4/5/2021), when leading or trailing edge slopes (rise times) are ±1 V per meter per nanosecond or greater, a precursor will occur. Also when the signal spikes up or down such that the absolute difference between slopes/rise times is ±1 V per meter per nanosecond or greater, a precursor will occur. An example precursor is shown below in Figure 3.

Figure 3:

The above illustration shows a 20 mV precursor arising from a 1 V per meter square sinusoidal wave modulated at ∼8 GHz. Of significance is the slope or rise time measured in volts per meter per nanosecond, not the carrier frequency. The above graph shows that the small amplitude of the carrier wave in tissue and the precursors that form can carry into the medium at a short duration direct-current level. However, if a sequence of these occurs – such as in phased exposures – and if the incident amplitudes are of higher magnitude, a living subject will receive a DC exposure that can depolarize cell membranes. Used with Permission by Richard A. Albanese.

Also note in Figure 3 that the slope/rise time caused by the precursor frequently exceeds ±5 V per meter per nanosecond -- a factor of considerable concern. Of equal concern is that when such exposures are averaged the way that ICNIRP and FCC standards currently are (see Part 3), the slope/rise times theoretically “disappear” but not the actual biologically pertinent exposure itself in ambient field conditions.

With phased arrays, peak wave fronts arrive with time differentials in pico- and nanosecond ranges from multiple angles and distances. When wave fronts are sufficiently sharp, there is evidence that molecular re-radiation can occur as cell membrane potentials change. In other words, cells can function as small internal antennas [333, 339, 352, 353]. Wave fronts are thought to place energy quickly into molecules. When that happens, molecules are shown to re-radiate energy rather than produce heat according to the classic thermoregulatory models, and therefore travel deep into a living organism [339, 344, 347]. Rogers et al. [354] found that short pulses of 5 ns stimulated excised frog muscle contraction, demonstrating that wave fronts can depolarize membrane potentials. D’Ambrosio et al. [355] contrasted continuous waves with GMSK phased signals at 1.7 GHz and found a statistically significant rise in genotoxicity at the same SAR levels with phasing but not continuous waves.

Oughstun and colleagues have published many predictive mathematical and experimental papers on precursors,^[1] especially those occurring in infrared (IR) laser waveforms. Infrared is visible to some species, especially birds, where it is thought to relate to breeding vigor. Although 5G is not yet licensed in IR wavebands, the upper ranges of EHF allocated for 5G are near the IR range with very similar biological effects; other technologies plan to use IR for communications purposes.

Similar observations to those described above regarding unusual propagation characteristics at these significantly higher frequencies have recently been made in studies of THz waves (between 0.3 and 30 THz in the far infrared range) by Yamazaki et al. [356]. They found that despite strong absorption by water molecules, the energy of THz pulses (250 μJ/cm²) transmits at a millimeter thick in aqueous solution, possibly as a shockwave, and demolishes cellular actin filaments. Collapse of actin filaments induced by THz irradiation was also seen in living cells under an aqueous medium. They found that while the viability of the cell was not affected by THz pulses, the potential of THz waves as an invasive method to alter protein structure in the living cells still existed.

While our present paper does not include studies in the THz range, it is briefly mentioned here because technology in the THz range is already deployed in airport scanners and is planned for use in future Li-Fi wireless and some 5G applications [357]. The Yamazaki et al. [356] study in the THz range mentioned above challenges popular assumptions that THz radiation effects are negligible on deep tissues due to strong absorption by water molecules. The researchers found the potential opposite.

Satellites

The use of satellites for two-way broadband communications goes back to the 1960s for military applications, academic/government research, and weather prediction. Widespread adaptations for civilian use only began in the late 1980s and 1990s for radio/TV broadcast and Internet connectivity. Today civilian use has exploded, along with significant concerns.

Satellites cover entire regions, mostly broadcasting back toward Earth in both line-of-sight arrays and wide radiation patterns much like a flashlight’s beam. The farther away the satellite, the broader the beam and higher the power density needed to reach Earth; some satellites transmit at millions of watts of effective radiated power. Satellites have the ability to reach rural and remote areas in ways terrestrial networks cannot, and therefore affect wildlife in ways that may never be detected.

There are already thousands of satellites circulating the Earth today. Like earth-base systems, the radiofrequency bands traditionally used for satellites have become so crowded that engineers are turning to two-way systems using laser frequencies. In 2013, the U.S. NASA Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer used a pulsed laser beam to transmit data over 239,000 mi (384,633 km) between the moon and Earth at a record-breaking download rate of 622 MB/s [358]. The laser frequencies are close to the upper ranges planned for 5G, and are visible to many species which see far broader light spectra than humans.

There are three general categories of satellites based on their height above the Earth’s surface [359]. The first is in low Earth orbit (LEO) at about 111–1,243 mi (180–2,000 km, respectively) above Earth, used for Earth surface observations, military purposes and weather data. Medium Earth orbit (MEO) occurs at about 1,243–22,223 mi (2,000–36,000 km, respectively) used for navigation like GPS and telecommunications. High Earth orbit occurs at an altitude greater than 22,223 mi (36,000 km). High Earth orbits are also called geosynchronous orbits (GEO). Satellites there orbit every 24 h, the same as Earth’s rotational period. GEO’s can be fixed over one spot or circle elliptically. Some are aligned with the Earth’s equator; others not. There are several hundred television, communications and weather satellites in geostationary orbits.

Space above us has now become very crowded. Satellites vary enormously in size, design, and construction according to their purpose. They are used for everything from weather-data gathering, communications (cell/Internet), broadcast radio/TV, scientific research, navigation, emergency rescue, Earth observation and military purposes. Many — though not all — weather and some communications satellites are in high Earth orbit; satellites in a medium Earth orbit include navigation and specialty satellites used to monitor a particular region, while most scientific satellites, including NASA’s Earth Observing System fleet, have a low Earth orbit. A small number of satellites turn their attention (and radiation) toward space for research purposes.

There are many satellite companies, all with different models and configurations depending on their goals. Historically, satellites have relied on C band frequencies between the 4 and 8 GHz portion of the microwave range with the least amount of attenuation through Earth’s atmosphere — best for long distance transmission. But that traditional range has a lower data-carrying capacity than today’s demands, so increasingly the Ku band between 12 and 18 GHz and the Ka band between 26 and 40 GHz are being used. The 60 GHz band has been used by the military for satellite-to-satellite communication. Increasingly satellite systems like Telstar will use a combination: C band for wide area coverage mixed with higher frequency Ku and Ka bands for more focused spot beams, also called high-capacity beams. One apt analogy of this combination likens the human eye to the “wide view” whereas an insect’s eye is a compound structure, like spot beams capable of pointing in different directions.

New complex multifrequency satellite networks are increasing and therefore Earth exposures are too. Large or small, most satellites communicate with earth-based stations at significant power outputs.