A 2023 review
This is a complex area of science, however the take-homes aren’t hard to appreciate.
Biological effects of electromagnetic fields on insects: a systematic review and meta-analysis
The most simple take-home is this:
The review shows that biological effects of levels of EMF exposure that are claimed to be “very low”, or “well below international guidelines”, are completely established by extensive effects in the insect population.
These effects are obviously detrimental in terms of vital biological processes (of which reproduction is the most obvious, but there are many others), and quantitatively clearly represent a threat to insect populations affected.
International guidelines are based on thermal effects (related to high power which generally shows itself by producing heat). This way of thinking treats the individual sources according to how close they are in strength to microwave (in the case of microwave frequencies) ovens, and relates the lifeforms potentially affected as being like lumps of tissue that can essentially only be harmed by heat effects. As if they are not organic and dead.
The reality is that all life intricately flows from electrical/chemical interaction between cells, and these interactions are affected, reduced, blocked, interfered with (or occasionally enhanced) by levels of EMF that compared to ‘thermal’ levels - the only thing that regulations recognize -, are miniscule in terms of strength.
The effects on calcium channels are one illustration of the potential/likely/certain harm that can be caused by these EMFs in which the planet is now being covered.
Not only is the harm not being recognized, the EMF exposures are accelerating with no visible control or montioring mechanisms at play.
Even skimming through the top pages of a report like this is enough to show that the basic premise of the approach to regulation is a confidence trick, and that the problems brewing (in this case) are serious for the insect population alone.
This isn’t a campaigning report. There is evidence of pulling of punches in some of the narrative (probably in an effort to avoid being dismissed) and it avoids so-called ‘inflammatory language’, even though it could be justified or even necessary…
Even if the science detail leaves you cold I recommend reading or skimming the introduction which sets the scene effectively.
ED