ReadingElectromagnetic pollution’s effects on wildlife
People have been effortlessly coming up with number of deductions and measures to control the alarming disasters that are sabotaging the Earth's environment to an extent we cannot fathom yet. No one in particular is to be blamed and held responsible because of the condition our surrounding is at the present moment. It is a failure of everyone; altogether. If you may ask "what is environmental pollution", well, the first reaction any environmentalist or scientist would give is the diversity this concept holds. An environment includes such components as physical factors, biological elements, human activities so on and so forth. When we talk about all these diversifications, consciously the pollution aspects that ring a bell are air, water, soil, noise, etc. Perhaps the count goes on thereafter. Needless, to say, because we can see for ourselves already, as to how mother Earth is in a dire need for a curb on innumerable, hazardous pollutants and factors, just to bring it back to a good shape. Our world faces a lot of pollutions, including electromagnetic pollution (or EMF pollution). It is a term given to all the man-made electromagnetic fields (EMFs) of various frequencies, which are somehow harmful to nature and to humankind. There is plenty of scientific evidence to support the idea that some types of electromagnetic radiation are harmful to us and to nature. The electromagnetic spectrum includes several different classes of radiation: low frequency, radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet light, x-rays and gamma rays. Wave frequency is what differentiates one class of radiation from another. When we refer to electromagnetic pollution, we are generally speaking of frequencies below (oscillating slower than) visible light waves. Life has evolved under the influence of two omnipresent forces: gravity and electromagnetism. It should be expected that both play important roles in the functional activities of organisms. Before the 1990’s radiofrequencies were mainly from a few radio and television transmitters, located in remote areas and/or very high places. Since the introduction of wireless telecommunication in the 1990’s the rollout of phone networks has caused a massive increase in electromagnetic pollution in cities and the countryside. Multiple sources of mobile communication result in chronic exposure of a significant part of the wildlife (and man) to microwaves at non-thermal levels. In recent years, wildlife has been chronically exposed to microwaves and RFR (Radiofrequency radiation) signals from various sources, including GSM and UMTS/3G wireless phones and base stations, WLAN (Wireless Local Area Networks), WPAN (Wireless Personal Area Networks such as Bluetooth), and DECT (Digital Enhanced (former European) Cordless Telecommunications) that are erected indiscriminately without studies of environmental impact measuring long-term effects. These exposures are characterized by low intensities, varieties of signals, and long-term durations. The greater portion of this exposure is from mobile telecommunications. Most of the attention on possible biological effects of electromagnetic radiation has been focused on human health. The effects of electromagnetic pollution on wildlife have scarcely been studied. But conducted researches show that electromagnetic radiation can produce effects especially on nervous, cardiovascular, immune and reproductive systems: - Damage to the nervous system by altering electroencephalogram, changes in neural response or changes of them blood–brain barrier. - Disruption of circadian rhythms (sleep–wake) by interfering with the pineal gland and hormonal imbalances. - Changes in heart rate and blood pressure. - Impairment of health and immunity towards pathogens, weakness, exhaustion, deterioration of plumage and growth problems. - Problems in building the nest or impaired fertility, number of eggs, embryonic development, hatching percentage and survival of chickens. - Genetic and developmental problems: problems of locomotion, partial albinism and melanism or promotion of tumors. In the light of current knowledge there is enough evidence of serious effects from this technology to wildlife. For this reason precautionary measures should be developed, alongside environmental impact assessments prior to installation, and a ban on installation of phone masts in protected natural areas and in places where endangered species are present. Surveys should take place to objectively assess the severity of effects. Since all living organisms on earth are exposed to electromagnetic radiation, it is urgent to establish standards of acceptable exposure levels for various frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. Our planet and its environment are much more fragile than past generations ever understood. Only in the last few decades have we come to recognize the problems caused by that lack of comprehension. Our biosphere's delicate balance, upset by humanity's methods of manufacturing, waste disposal and use of resources, must be restored. Having learned enough to start working to correct it, we must now learn even more about the protection of our fragile ecology, so that we may maintain our biosphere in the natural balance it once held on its own http://ru.scribd.com/doc/22073465/EMF-Effects-on-Wild-Life http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-is-environmental-pollution.html http://www.emwatch.com/
|
