Wireless Health Effects to Wildlife And Their Habitats: The Need For Serious Consideration And Immediate Action
Dr. Albert Manville II Ph.D.
Vimeo Link, PDF of powerpoint slides
“Hello, my name is Al Manville. I’m a certified wildlife biologist. My topic today is radio frequency radiation effects on wildlife and their habitats—the need for serious consideration and immediate action.”
Dr. Albert M. Manville II, PhD, is retired from 17 years in the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service where he served as their national lead on causes of bird mortality from cell towers, including impacts from radiation, collision, and electrocution. In this presentation, he describes the need to address wireless health effects for both humans and wildlife.
Dr. Manville co-authored a three-part research review in the journal Reviews on Environmental Health entitled “Effects of Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Fields on Flora and Fauna.” Drawing from more than 1,200 studies, the review found adverse effects in every species studied, even at low exposure levels.
Wireless Radiation Levels Are Increasing
According to Dr. Manville, “ambient levels of non-ionizing EMFs have risen sharply over the past 80 years… growing exponentially, creating a novel chronic energetic exposure for wildlife and humans which previously did not exist.”
These invisible exposures are not benign. Contrary to outdated assumptions, even very low intensities can be biologically disruptive. As he explains, “Very low intensities of radiation, barely above natural background levels, can and are causing biological effects.”
The massive rollout of 5G and wireless infrastructure has dramatically increased background non-ionizing wireless RF radiation levels. For migratory birds, pollinators, and countless other species, this creates new survival challenges at a time when biodiversity is already under threat.
Direct Evidence of Wireless Health Effects
Dr. Manville summarizes decades of research on wireless health effects:
“These can include things like DNA strand breaks, cancers and benign growth, metabolic changes, animal disorientation including during migration, fertility problems, behavioral abnormalities, impacts to food finding, reproduction, mating, nest and den building, territorial maintenance and defense, and longevity and survivorship.”
These are not isolated findings. He stresses that such wireless health effects have been “exhibited in laboratory test animals, domestic livestock, and in wildlife.”
Landmark Review of Wireless Effects to Wildlife
Dr. Manville co-authored a three-part research review which found adverse effects in every species studied, even at low exposure levels.
Among the wireless effects to wildlife documented:
- Disorientation during migration
- Reduced fertility and reproductive success
- Impaired nest and den building
- Survival challenges and shortened lifespan
- Ecosystem-level disruptions in wilderness areas and national parks
As he notes, “Virtually all terrestrial plants and animals—and some marine organisms—are inadvertently impacted by exposure from EMF including from electrosmog.”
Outdated Regulations Leave Wildlife Unprotected
Despite mounting scientific evidence of impacts at non-heating levels, government regulations remain dangerously out of date.
The U.S. Department of the Interior stated in a 2014 letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration:
“…the electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today… “ and “…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.”
Manville states, “we have no EMF exposure standards for wildlife, including long-term chronic low-level EMF exposure guidelines.”
He calls for EMF to be treated as a new form of air pollution, urging agencies like the EPA, FCC, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and USDA to “designate air as habitat so EMF can be regulated like other pollutants.”
Solutions: What Needs to Change
To reduce the wireless risks, Dr. Manville recommends adopting the ALARA principle (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) in setting exposure guidelines. He also calls for a government-wide response rooted in aeroecology, the concept of treating air as habitat.
“The public needs to speak up and challenge the status quo,” he urges. “This can involve voting for politicians who commit to making positive change, making sure that these commitments are honored. This will require a massive public and government-wide engagement if changes are to occur. If we don’t try, the alternatives could be pretty grim.”
By recognizing EMF as pollution and updating regulations, society can address both wireless health effects and the wireless effects to wildlife before damage becomes irreversible.
Suggestions for Change
We need a government-wide response that treats EMF as air pollution, addressing air as habitat (aeroecology).
We need radiation exposure guidelines for wildlife, including long-term, chronic, low-level exposures.
We need wider application of the ALARA principle.
The public must speak up and challenge the status quo.
Political engagement is essential: vote for leaders who commit to making positive change and ensure those commitments are honored.
“Without action, the alternatives could be grim. The “radiation genie” has long been released from the bottle — making change is challenging, but essential.”
About Dr. Albert M. Manville II
Albert M. Manville II, PhD. is a wildlife biologist, Senior Lecturer and Adjunct Professor at Johns Hopkins University, retired from 17 years in the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service where he served as their national lead on anthropocentric causes of bird mortality from structures, including impacts from radiation, collision, and electrocution.
He chaired the Communication Tower Working Group, a wind turbine working group, and a waterbird bycatch working group, and co-chaired the Interagency Seabird Working Group. He represented the Service on the Wildlife Workgroup of the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative, on the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC), and was a technical scientific advisor to the Wind Energy Federal Advisory Committee, among numerous other groups.
Dr. Manville has testified over forty times before Congress and related bodies; published more than 175 professional papers; and his most recent peer-reviewed publications include a three-part review paper on EMF impacts to flora and fauna.
Scientific References
Levitt BB, Lai HC and Manville AM II (2022) Low-level EMF effects on wildlife and plants: What research tells us about an ecosystem approach. Front. Public Health 10:1000840. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1000840
Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M. (2021a). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment. Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(1), 81–122.
Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M. (2021b). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: How species interact with natural and man-made EMF. Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(3), 327–406.
Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M. (2021c). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions. Reviews on Environmental Health.
Manville AM II, Levitt BB and Lai HC (2024) Health and environmental effects to wildlife from radio telemetry and tracking devices—state of the science and best management practices. Front. Vet. Sci. 11:1283709.