Are you an animal lover? Or a lover of plants? Part 2

December 13, 2025

Last week we saw that plants and animals – including our pets, birds, fish and insects – detect and respond to the natural electromagnetic fields of the Earth and that this is critical for their ability to survive and thrive.

But today our flora and fauna are exposed to man-made electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and increasingly wireless radiofrequency radiation (RFR) as well and, since the advent of satellite communications, there’s virtually no habitat left on Earth that’s free of this these exposures.

In their new paper, author B. Blake Levitt and team point out how man-made radiation is harming our plants and animals and how international standards aren’t addressing the problem. They also point out ways the problem can be addressed.

Here are their suggestions.

Airspace as habitat

Levitt says, ‘[i]t is time to recognize nonionizing EMF as a biologically active form of air pollution … and develop rules at the pertinent regulatory agencies to designate “airspace as habitat” so EMF can be regulated like other pollutants. Defining airspace as habitat would provide a legal foundation to assess cumulative EMF impacts as well as mitigate exposures.’

Enforce laws/policy

Another recommendation is to implement appropriate legislation. ‘There are numerous effective laws in the U.S. and in other countries that could protect many species of wildlife if we apply them to EMF like other pollutants.’

Enforcing policies can help address the problem:

  • Require base station compliance testing to include RF levels at different heights.

     

  • Include RF emissions and methods of mitigation in Environmental Impact Statements.

     

  • Require satellite systems to address effects on humans, wildlife and the atmosphere.

     

  • Distance wildlife habitats from antennas – Levitt suggests a minimum of 1,500 feet (457 m) between the two.

     

  • Establish low- to no-EMF zones.

     

  • Remove existing infrastructure that is a risk to wildlife and restrict the installation of future infrastructure. ‘5G and 6G’s use of higher-frequency sub-millimeter/millimeter waves that pose heightened risks to sensitive taxa, especially insects, should be prohibited in ecologically sensitive areas.’ Insects are food supplies for everything else.’

     

  • Mitigate exposure levels from equipment. For example, ‘maximizing the distance between wildlife and EMF sources with barriers, re-design of transmission radial plots away from sensitive habitats, and powerline placement on pylons to reduce magnetic fields near corridors can all help mitigate effects to wildlife.’

     

  • Recognise the harm that radio tracking does to wildlife and pets, reduce unnecessary use and make scientists and vets aware of these risks. (See: Manville, Levitt, and Lai., https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2024.1283709/f

     

  • Apply the principle of As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) to minimise exposure wherever possible.

     

  • Design new technologies to accommodate the safety of wildlife.

     

Federal agencies

Levitt recommends that federal government agencies, including standards-setting agencies, should recognise the impact of electromagnetic fields on wildlife. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should define airspace as habitat, launch a dedicated research program, ensuring that research conducted is independent of industry.

Further, these agencies should make sure new technologies are tested before deployment.

New exposure guidelines

‘It is essential that science-based non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposure limits be developed specifically to protect wildlife, including continuous, chronic, low-intensity exposures,’ Levitt says. These guidelines should provide for reduction of exposures at critical periods of time, such as when animals are migrating or mating.

That’s made harder by the fact that there’s no easy, single-fix exposure level. ‘No one exposure limit can encompass protection for all flora and fauna given the variables, vast physical differences, and environments. What may protect one species may prove detrimental to another. It will be years before we have a general framework of frequency-dependent whole-body and-organ specific resonance factors per species.’

Levitt believes that we need to be taking action like this now.

‘As the current 6th major extinction epoch proceeds, inaction is no longer a defensible response. The unchecked proliferation of electromagnetic fields is compounding the already severe threats facing wildlife. If we effectively reduce ambient EMF exposures, it might give imperiled species continuing chances to recuperate and reverse population declines’ Levitt says.

‘A government-wide response is urgently needed, one that recognizes EMF as an air pollutant and treats airspace as habitat through the new discipline of air ecology (or aeroecology). Protecting this dimension of habitat is as critical as safeguarding land and water.’


Levitt BB, Lai HC, Manville AM II and Scarato T (2025) Flora and fauna: how nonhuman species interact with natural and man-made EMF at ecosystem levels and public policy recommendations. Front. Public Health 13:1693873. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1693873

If you’re concerned about this issue, here’s a suggestion

Why not download the study from the links above and give them to your local vet, environment group and/or animal shelter?

And how about forwarding this email to your animal-loving friends?

To reproduce this article for your network, please include the following text: Article reproduced with permission from EMR Australia, www.emraustralia.com.au

Looking for the perfect Christmas gift?

Why not give the gift of safety this Christmas?

Check out the great range of products and services we have to protect your body, your home and your family.

You can see them here.

Back to Blog