The Effects of Radio Frequency on Trees, Animals and the Environment – Part 1: Plants, Animals & Insects

Since June 1, 2011, when the WHO (World Health Organization) classified mobile communications in List 2B as “possibly carcinogenic”, the discussion about the risks of radiation has been ongoing. Electromagnetic waves are now at the same level of associated risk as petrol vapors, chloroform and the plant toxin DDT, and the tissue heating effects only no longer apply. This two-part series of articles investigates the effect of radio frequency such as cell phones, WiFi, cellular communications, radar etc. on trees, animals, insects and the environment. We give an overview of numerous scientific studies, advocating on behalf of those living organisms that can’t do this for themselves.

Part 1 explains the differences between natural and artificial radiation and shows the effect on trees, animals and insects.

Part 2 deals with the effect on water cycles, the climate, etc., but also asks existential questions such as:

  • what we have to account for in the future; and
  • how we should deal with it in an increasingly connected world.

Radiation is not just radiation

It is generally assumed that microwave radiation – such as that used by cell phones, radar, cell phones, Wifi or microwave ovens – also occurs in nature and is therefore “natural” and harmless. Well, although microwave radiation occurs in nature, it differs fundamentally from the radio technology that has been used for over 100 years, and is now widely used. One is natural and the other is artificial, man-made radiation, having a completely different effect.

Natural and artificial radiation

In order to understand the big difference, the risks and the never-ending public discussion, it is important to remember that our body, like all life, has adapted to natural radiation and energy fields down to the cellular level. As an example, we can include the earth’s magnetic field and various types of electricity that occur in nature such as sferics or atmospherics. These are pulsed electromagnetic waves of natural origin (AIS) which are scientifically divided into:

  • Weather sferics (e.g. lightning, hurricanes)
  • geophysical sferics (e.g. energy discharges during earthquakes) or
  • Schumann resonances (standing energy waves between the earth’s surface and the ionosphere)

These were discovered at the beginning of the 20th century as the cause of crackling and popping in radios and in the 70s / 80s or afterwards, and also for their effects on people. (Florian M. König, Christian B. König: Forschungsprojekt Sferics: Bio-effects on humans, journal for geobiology, special issue 3/2014).

Sferics vs. Technics

Life adapted to these a long time before the invention of mobile communications. Sferics can even be made acoustically audible or measured and analysed with appropriate devices or special antennas (ferrite rod antennas). It is what we perceive as crackling or background noise on the radio or what is discharged as concentrated energy during earthquakes (ground sferics) and the clash of cold and warm fronts in violent storms. Animals, insects or even sensitive people react  with sensitivity to the weather, which is why they often flee from such events.

A question now arises: what is the fundamental difference between a natural microwave, as radiated by the sun, and an artificial one, as it was invented by humans, used for heating up food in the microwave oven or for making phone calls?

Direct current and alternating current

From a purely visual point of view, viewed as energy or radio waves, both natural and technical waves would be identical. The big difference is that the natural microwave radiation emitted by the sun, which influences photosynthesis, plant growth and countless processes in our cells, is based on direct current fields. In comparison, man-made mobile communications are based on alternating current fields.

Although the energy waves themselves look identical, which is why even radio technicians cannot perceive a big difference, they are actually like day and night.

Sine Wave Physics

Fig. 1: Sine waves / physics

The big differences between natural and artificial energy fields

The direct current fields of nature tend to build up more and more slowly and do not have a constant (artificial) polarity reversal from plus to minus. Man-made fields, in comparison, are sharply pulsed radio based on alternating current fields. In contrast to man-made radio, the energy contained in natural direct current fields flows naturally and without interruption from plus to minus. At the same time, it allows energy to flow back in an eternal cycle.

This is the so-called implosion principle and the eternal cycle of nature, which completely opposes the explosion principle of humans, as we also find it with internal combustion engines. In the direct current fields of nature there is no waste or heat loss, compared to what we can measure it in thermal power stations, nuclear power stations, right up to power lines. Cars, for instance, are actually “landscape heaters”, as they release most of the energy into the environment through combustion or heating (explosion). Illustrative examples of the implosion principle are photosynthesis in plants or geomagnetism, both of which do not produce any waste or heating and in which energy flows constantly. It happens continuously and without loss of energy.

Sunset and electricity pylons

Fig. 2: Sunset and electricity pylons

The (harmonious) strength lies in rest

Natural direct current fields are therefore more powerful, calm, non-thermal by nature and have a cooling effect, as they do not heat the plants. They can’t bring anything to a boil, which is the case of microwave ovens. That’s why natural DC fields are completely useless for a microwave oven, orr for the military, who even use artificial microwaves as weapons.

Soft and loud sounds

In terms of sound format, the soft, naturally occurring direct current fields are more like the sound of a delicate harp, while artificial mobile radio corresponds to the booming boxes of “Heavy Metal”, which drowns out the delicate, natural fields. The natural fields, imposed upon those loud, aggressive frequencies then begin to “vibrate” differently than the “radio of nature”, genetically adapted and “programmed” by nature.

The internationally known Saarbrücken biophysicist Ulrich Warnke put it in a scientific essay in 2001 as follows:


Technical communication radio – such as mobile radio, radio, television and satellite communication – is only possible because the power density of the technical high-frequency spectrum used far exceeds that of natural radiation. The natural radiation on the earth’s surface is in the range from 300 megahertz (MHz) to 300 gigahertz (GHz) approximately at 0.001 microwatts per square meter: the typical technical radiation level in cities today (from 2001! Author’s note) is around 10,000 microwatts per square meter. – that is, ten million times as much. And the applicable German limit values ​​even allow values ​​of up to 4.5 million microwatts for the D-Netz, up to 9 million microwatts per square meter for the E-Netz, and up to 9.8 million microwatts per square meter for UMTS.

Dr. rer. rer. Nat. Ulrich Warnke: Planned to death – bird migration & mobile radio, newspaper no. 70/3. Quarter 2011, p. 28

Since the natural fields are in the range of 0.001 microwatts, but technical radio exceeds this value a million times over, we have a major problem. It can be traced back to the cellular level:

Cell communication & technical radio waves do not get along!

According to scientific findings, cell communication in all life is based on ultra-weak light pulses, as was proven by the German physicist Albert Popp over 20 years ago. However, the artificial waves based on alternating current (cell phone) with their increased frequencies disrupt the natural order of the cells and throw them into chaos.

Chaos in the cells causes cell damage, which can lead to various diseases. What has been proven by countless studies and which I have already shown in my previous contributions.  The REFLEX study, for instance, is now recognised in court.

In this context, it seems obvious that with growing network expansion and continuous increases in performance, there will be an increasing increase in psychological, physical and chronic ailments in humans and in all forms of life. Statistics from health and accident insurance companies have been proving this for the past few decades. However, they are still unclear about the causes or warnings about the underestimated long-term consequences of mobile communications. These, according to scientific experts, are confirmed in growing chronic disease statistics, but neither denied nor given the necessary attention.

Paracelsius and Petkau

The public discourse about the “safe limit values” of an actually unnatural technology is based on the idea of ​​Paracelsius that the dose alone makes the poison. It is therefore assumed that one can cope with the problem with artificial radio if one keeps the limit values ​​at appropriate tolerable levels. Similar to salt, which kills in large quantities but is tasty in small quantities.

This, according to many concerned researchers, is the big mistake of reasoning, since technical radio waves do not occur in nature at all. This is also why non-thermal measurements lead to health-critical results even at a billionth of the officially permissible limit values.

For this reason, the law of Paracelsius, that the dose alone constitutes the “poison”, should not apply to cell phone limit values. We should rather follow the Petkau’s law, which was discovered a few decades ago, saying: a weak dose over a long period of time is more harmful than a heavy dose over a short period of time.

The reason for this is that with strong microwave exposure, the immune system reacts with defense (panic, flight, etc.), while weak (non-natural) microwaves produce the dreaded, harmful long-term consequences (cancer, cardiac arrhythmias, blood clots, infertility, etc.). Some of the well-known researchers have come to the same conclusion:


DNA strand breaks already occur at one fortieth of the limit value. UMTS signals are therefore almost ten times more effective (more damaging) than GSM signals.

Prof. Dr. Franz Adlkofer (head of the EU-funded REFLEX study from 2000-2004)

Other differences

From a technical point of view, alternating current does not have a continuous harmonic energy source like sunbeams, since technical radio is constantly (artificially) reversed or bent and thus the polarities of plus and minus constantly change.


Mobile communications have so-called digitally low-frequency pulsed waves, and the following happens: there is a sharp pulse, then there is a pause, there is another sharp pulse, then there is another pause, i.e. the signal switches 217 times per second in and out. Pulsed means that the signal is always switched on and off. A mobile radio transmission channel (from 1999, today’s are much more powerful / Note ML) can serve up to eight mobile phones by sending pulsed transmissions, […]… and this mobile radio base station switches this signal on and off 217 to 1,736 times per second… The Mobile radio works at a frequency of 900 MHz, i.e. 900 million oscillations per second and 1.8 GHz (1.8 trillion oscillations per second) […]

Siegfried Zwerenz: The Fraud with Limit Values, The Journal of Natural Science, No. 5/2000, p. 51

An energy wave running in the opposite direction, as in natural fields, does not exist with artificial radio waves, since a harmonious return flow of energy does not take place with the constant pulsed and interrupted change of polarities. Therefore, in the interior of a Technics wave, there cannot be any harmony information as in a Sferics wave, or this information cannot be released into the environment.

Depolarized Molecules

Natural microwaves, such as those from the sun, therefore don’t depolarise body cells, as is the case with today’s ubiquitous mobile communications. Nature, as we now know, works on the pulsed direct current principle, while normal alternating current with an output of 50 Hertz already shakes the molecules back and forth 50 times a second.

It is therefore impossible to generate food in the microwave with direct current, as it does not generate frictional heat (heat) like in the case of alternating current.

A pioneer among cellular researchers and critics, Dr. Hans U. Hertl, has warned of the harmful dangers of technically generated microwaves since the 1980s:


Depolarized cells are the beginning of a cancer process or a cancer syndrome that includes most of today’s diseases: circulatory disorders, heart attacks, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, tuberculosis, rheumatism, osteoarthritis, AIDS, BSE, etc.

Seiler, Benjamin: “Difficult survival in the global microwave oven”, Zeitenschrift No. 44/2004, p. 50

A technical horror scenario disguised as technical progress?

In conclusion, let us imagine what chaos would break out everywhere in nature if we constantly reverse the polarity (heat) of the natural, cooling, direct current-based earth magnetic field thousands or millions of times per second, like food in a microwave oven, upsetting the order within the cells.

We’d say that would be unnatural.  Yet, we have been doing it since the invention of radar, radio technology, with the HAARP systems used by the military and the increasingly widespread mobile communications and devices such as cell phones, Wifi routers, DECT telephones, with radio-networked production systems, smart cars, smart homes, and even a simple phone call. Obviously, we still do not know what we are doing or what it is causing, and we reject any objections with contradicting studies. Now, let’s take a closer look at the effects on plants, animals and insects that are fairly definitive:

1. Tree damage and high frequency

Trees are a very good indicator of the effects of high frequency. Because they are exposed to radiation 24 hours a day and once a cellular antenna is switched on, they cannot flee like birds or insects and build their nests or put down their roots elsewhere.

Unnatürlich verkrüppelte Bäume in Sendernähe durch Hochfrequenzen

Fig. 3: Unnaturally crippled trees in the vicinity of the transmitter due to cell phone bombardment, also in comparison to normal natural damage such as snow breakage (source: with the kind permission of D. Sc. Florian M. König, Bad Wörishofen)

Photo documentation as disputed evidence

Photographic documentation is generally considered to be a strong indicator for research. In astronomy, we observe stars, photograph them and use these observations to make calculations. The police or insurance companies use photos as evidence. However, from the mobile phone advocates’ point of view, other “rules” apply to mobile communications. In this case, photos are not considered evidence, but are disputed. What Dr. Schorpp, a graduate engineer – who carried out intensive studies on the effects on trees, and meticulously searched for the causes of the strikingly frequent occurrence of tree damage in the vicinity of cell phone masts – soon found out.

It is unfortunate that critical studies are vehemently denied by supporters and network operators even in public statements then as now.

How trees respond to cellular communications

Trees don’t lead these discussions. They just react. Their reactions in the area of ​​the side facing the transmitter (and the radiation) remain the same then as now:

  • First, the trees form what are known as harmful poles: the leaves wither,
  • Then the treetops light up,
  • Next, there is a strange, one-sided death, while some parts of the tree are still in full green and other parts of the tree are already bare and dry or dead.
  • Until the tree dies completely after one last rearing up and has to be felled.

Cause with a high probability cellular network

Extensive studies such as those by Dr. Schorpp and Dr. Waldmann-Selsam could not identify pest infestation, heat, lack of water or lack of nutrients as the cause of the striking frequency of sick trees in the vicinity of the transmitter. The trees not in the radiation field of the radio link or those shielded by house walls were spared the damage. (see fig. 4)

Bizarre tree damage that is difficult to explain scientifically

Fig. 4: Bizarre, scientifically difficult to explain tree damage in the area of ​​a cell phone system with Schadpol and Grün. Source:

Quote for the picture/Dr. Schorpp:

Such spatially bizarre damage structures are a weighty indicator of a causal relationship between tree damage and chronic high-frequency exposure. Experienced specialists in tree diseases (without knowledge of HF radiation) have “difficulty in explaining” this novel appearance. With the knowledge of the RF radiation propagation (or with the knowledge of the spatial distribution of the RF vector field), such damage can be plausibly explained, and it can also be explained why such damage patterns only occur in built-up areas.

Further studies

A joint study on 60 unilaterally damaged trees in Bamberg and Hallstadt by the Spanish biologist Alfonso Balmori de la Puente, the forestry graduate Helmut Breunig and the doctor Dr. Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam from 2016, which was published under the title: “High-frequency fields damage trees in the vicinity of cell phone base stations”.

Measurements of the radiation doses on the damaged side of the trees resulted in an average power density of around 2,000 microwatts / square centimeter. The radiation exposure outside the field of vision to cell phone towers was lower. Different soil properties or locations such as gardens, seals, green strips and proximity to water played no role in the damage to the trees. After careful study, the researchers concluded:

The assumption that the type of damage to tree tops described here is caused by cell phone radiation proves to be justified because such damage occurs at polluted locations in the field of view of cell phone transmitters, but does not occur in the absence of radio pollution outside the field of view of transmitters. The further expansion of the mobile network must therefore be halted.

Studies on cellular communications and crops

Effect of mobile radio transmitters on agricultural plant species

Alain Vian (Vian et al. 2016) also evaluated 60 studies in an overview that examined the effect of mobile radio transmitters on the most common agricultural plant species such as radish, tomatoes, tobacco, beans, lentils, maize, roses and hibiscus, which included a power of 450 megahertz to 2.4 gigahertz were irradiated.

The result painted a frightening picture, because it came to

  • numerous impairments in the metabolism of cells,
  • frequent abnormal cell division,
  • six times more genetic damage,
  • an inhibition of the germination of seeds in half of all cases,
  • reduced growth,
  • reduced height and weight of plants and fruits between 16-60 percent compared to non-irradiated plants.

Effect of cell phone transmitters on trees and seedlings

This is also borne out by simple farmers like Rolf Grimm, who observe the decay of trees on their properties after a new transmitter system has been put into operation, and document them with the camera. (Angelika Fischer: Earth in Need, Trees under High Frequency “, Raum & Zeit, 3rd volume, No. 5, 2010, p. 47)

Such results naturally raise the legitimate question of the extent to which mobile communications are contributing to the problem of feeding a growing world population through agricultural losses, while politicians want to advance the 5G network expansion, especially in rural areas. But let’s look at more studies:

Research projects of the Universities of Wuppertal and Karlsruhe from 1999 and 2000 also confirm (Angelika Fischer: Earth in Need, Trees under High Frequency “, Raum & Zeit, 3rd volume, No. 5, 2010, p. 47) the negative effect of high frequency exposure on annual seedlings of three conifer species. They registered a significant increase in damage and dead plants under the influence of cell phone radiation.

In further studies (Lerchel et al. 2000), seedlings of conifers, dwarf pines (Pinius Pumila), the great silver fir (Abies grandis) or the silver fir (Abbis alba) were examined by exposing them to cell phone radiation for 222 days. It was found that three times as many plant seedlings died in the dwarf pine and large coastal fir groups and twice as many plant seedlings died in the silver fir group compared to non-irradiated control groups.

We should perhaps be aware at this point that we are talking about findings that were made over 20 years ago, which show the tremendous imbalance in public reporting.

High frequency in the wild

In the wild, tree damage occurs in the vicinity of cell phone masts in both coniferous, deciduous, fruit trees or bushes, which is why no specific tree species can be excluded. Trying to remove (cut down) the damaged trees as quickly as possible could be probably called the destruction of evidence in criminology:

Conifers under spatially limited radio frequency bombardment

Fig. 5: Conifers under spatially limited high-frequency bombardment. The trees not affected by radio remain green. Source:

Quote for the picture//Dr. Schorpp:

After the spruce grew over the protective deciduous trees, their tips came into an RF radiation field and a sharply defined path of damaged young trees was formed, which was then cleared.

Reasons for the tree damage

Researchers like Dr. Schorpp say that the many branches, twigs, needles and leaves of the trees act like antennas for radiation, which is absorbed and released into the ground. They absorb an unnatural amount of artificially pulsed radiation under mobile phone exposure, which messes up their metabolism and cell division, causes chaos and damages the trees. Mobile communications disrupt your water cycle, nutrient transport or even water absorption, which is why trees right next to water sources can literally dry up, as photos show. But let’s take a look at another example:

How a national park died from cellular communications

A critical reader naturally asks themselves whether all this is perhaps just a coincidence and caused by pest infestation, water shortage, diseases or climate stress, as is generally explained by network operators and supporters or politicians.

A visible example that it does not just affect individual trees or groups of trees is an interview with retired British microwave specialist Dr. According to Barry Trower, seen in the former national park in Australia’s NARDI mountain range:

Quote by Dr. Barry Trower:

Now if you start microwaving trees, which you do, you weaken their resistance to bacterial and viral infections and destroy the photosynthetic mechanism by which they make food. A good example of this is a place of special scientific interest in Australia known as the Nardi (N-a-r-d-i) Mountain Range.

It was designated as a special nature reserve and should be preserved as a nature reserve. Industry came and went with their transmitters – Zoonk Zoonk Zoonk – and put transmitters because they like to put them on mountains. And now – I know this because I’ve seen them – there are a hundred and thirty-five publications describing how the Nardi Range in Australia is now dead. The trees are dead. The ground is dead. Everything that could move has run away. Anything that couldn’t get away is dead, and it’s basically a desert. And if they don’t take the transmitters off and take them away – which they won’t do – then it will just keep getting worse […]

Clearing trees for 5G?

In addition to the topic of “tree damage due to high frequency”, there is, however, another aspect that has had a negative impact on trees since the introduction of the 5G network and compared to the previous versions 1G − 4G.

This has less to do with frequencies, but is more of a mechanical-machine nature. Research in this regard brings to light that numerous healthy, large trees, and even avenues of trees are being felled under the guise of protection (risk of wind break) in Italy, England, Germany and the EU for the much-praised 5G expansion. It is because trees form a natural barrier against radio reception.

After all, neither the manufacturers nor the users of remote-controlled (“self-driving”) cars would like to have the embarrassing experience of standing in a dead zone in the future, right?

Whether this “clean technology”, which causes fewer emissions but more radio emissions and felled trees, is really that “progressive”, should now be the subject of public controversy. Especially since trees are known to filter carbon dioxide.

This controversial topic is far from over when it comes to the effect on trees.

2. The effect of radio frequency on animals

Research on laboratory animals

You have already learned about the Salford study by Prof. Dr. med. Leif Salford (Salford et. Al. 2002) of the University of Lund in Sweden. In over 1,000 series of experiments on three groups of eight rats each, the effect of cell phones (GSM standard) on organic tissue was tested. The result showed with a certainty of 99.8 percent that the blood-brain barrier of the test animals opened after only two hours of constant irradiation, allowing toxins from the bloodstream to get into the brain and cause brain damage. The damage was irreversible and the results were confirmed in further studies.

Quote from Prof. Salford:

The findings can be easily transferred to humans. We cannot rule out that a few decades of daily cell phone use will have a negative impact on an entire generation in middle age.

The NTP study (National Toxicology Program of the USA) also gained notoriety beyond the country’s borders when the results of lifelong cell phone exposure of 360 rats were announced. (Wyde et al. 2018)

Similarly, a study was carried out with 2,000 rats by the Ramazzini Institute (Falcioni et al. 2018), where the experimental animals were irradiated for two years. Both studies adhered to the official requirements of the permissible limit values ​​and created situations to which we humans are also exposed: In both series of experiments, a clear increase in malignant tumors was found in the irradiated animals.

Australian scientists, on the other hand, irradiated 100 mice with cell phone radiation in double-blind experiments. The irradiated control group developed cancer 2.4 times more often than the non-irradiated control group.

This could be further elaborated and traced back to 1997 and beyond. A Greek experiment on mice (Magras and Xenos 1997) revealed that the test animals were already at 1/30 of the German limit values ​​at that time (then still the D-Netz with 900 megahertz / author’s note) and would become completely sterile within three generations.

Radio radiation and farm animals

These animal experiments already show a disease-causing effect. But what about farm animals, such as chickens, pigs, cattle etc. that are more or less involuntarily exposed to cell phone radiation without any scientific intention?

Prof. Dr. Dr. Anras Varga from the Hygiene Institute at the University of Heidelberg made the following comments as early as 1991, after a series of tests on chicken eggs exposed to mobile phone radiation in incubators:


We irradiated chicken eggs in an incubator with microwaves below our current German limit values ​​and killed every embryo without exception. Not a single chick hatched, none survived the rays. Without exception, animals hatched from the control group that was not irradiated. Electromagnetic fields have to be evaluated much more seriously than before.

The frightening experience that no more chicks hatch from chicken eggs was also made by a farmer in rural France after an antenna was built near her farm and put into operation with the not yet so powerful 2G networks. She shared this in front of the camera in a film interview.

In another case, after a cell phone antenna was installed on the roof of a Swiss cattle breeding farm, there was a 3.5-fold increase in eye diseases / cataracts in farm animals compared to before. (Hässig et al. 2009)

And a German farm (Buchner et al. 2014) had problems with pig breeding after installing a mobile phone antenna, as the number of litters fell significantly after installation (infertility). At the same time, the number of deformities rose. Connections with infections etc. could not be determined, which is why the causes were attributed to electromagnetic fields and the harmful radiation of the cell phone antenna.

Farmer documents the consequences on his pig farm

The farmer Josef Hopper observed and even documented this with measurements and photo material in his pig breeding business from 2002-2010. In May 2009, a 40.5 meter high cell phone tower was put into operation 300 meters from his property in Ruhrsdorf, Passau district. (See Fig. 6)

Statistik Anomalien bei Ferkeln durch Hochfrequenzen

Fig. 6: Noticeable and abrupt accumulation of anomalies in piglets already in the first six months after a cellular antenna was put into operation at a distance of approx. 300 meters from J. Hopper’s farm. Source:

After commissioning, not only did the power densities increase from 0.0 to 0.5 microwatts per square meter (he had lived almost in a dead zone before) to up to 1,200 microwatts by May 2009. This corresponds to a 2,000 fold increase, with the number of deformities and miscarriages jumping in the first six months to 1.2 percent. In addition, the number of piglet births fell from the original 24.45 piglets per sow to 21.1 piglets per sow within a short time. It led to severe financial losses.

The farmer did not have the money to carry out the necessary scientific research. And he was not listened to by politicians. Which reveals to us the harmful effects of mobile communications on meat production, but also the silence of politics.

Risks to other farm animals

The situation is similar for cows and other farm animals that are exposed to electrosmog or cell phone radiation:

At the end of 1997, a mobile phone antenna was installed next to Friedrich Stengel’s farm in Öttingen / Bavaria. He noticed that the swallows and migratory birds had stayed away in 1998. And his cows had suffered numerous physical damage by November 2010:

  • 25 cows died of immunodeficiency,
  • there were 75 premature deaths or stillbirths in the third to fourth month
  • and in addition, the official veterinarian found catastrophic blood counts (similar to cancer patients with radiation therapy).

He could not find a natural cause for the damage, which is why he concluded that it was only due to the increased radiation exposure from the radio antenna. Nobody felt responsible for the damage of around 70,000 euros. The authorities, such as the Bavarian Ministry of the Environment, did not hear him out.

An article by Susanne Meier from March 23, 2014 in “Schweizer Bauer” with the telling title “E-smog affects cows” describes something similar.

3. Birds and high frequency

But now we come to the birds. It is common knowledge that birds, especially migratory birds, use the earth’s magnetic field to orientate themselves during their flights over thousands of kilometers. In all birds, but also in whales and insects such as bees, ants, snails and even bacteria, there is an ability to orientate oneself with the help of an internal compass. The reason for this is a crystalline metallic structure called magnetite in the brain tissue, which is also found in the human brain. The concentration of magnetite in tissue of birds, fish, whales, and bees is greater, when compared to human tissue. (Walker et al. 1992)

In pigeons, for instance, half of the brain’s skullcap contains metallic tissue that is permanently magnetic, while the other half contains very little material that is permanently magnetic (with magnetite deposits). The magnetite-containing tissue of the pigeons is also permeated with nerve cells that signal changes in orientation emanating from the magnetite crystals. In addition, pigeons have additional guidance. There are three magnetite-containing bodies in the upper beak area, each with a neuron ending.

The zoological institute at the University of Frankfurt / Main Universität Frankfurt/Main (Bayrischer Rundfunk: TV program Planet Wissen. 18.09.2007. München) found out that pigeons, thanks to the three-channel system in their beak, combined with the magnetic component in their brain tissue, are very capable of forming a spatial image of the surrounding magnetic field in order to orientate themselves precisely during flight.

High frequency influences and disrupts the navigation system

Birds also perceive energies through the feathers of their wings. For example, chicks flee within seconds when exposed to a high-powered microwave field. (Tanner 1966) It was also observed that flocks of migratory birds split up in the formation in front of a transformer station of a power plant, flying around it like an invisible obstacle in order to reunite behind it. (Wassermann et al. 1984) The phenomenon also occurs when surfaces of water reflect electromagnetic waves.

Cranes also break up their formation via cell phone masts and in the increasingly dense forest of transmission masts. Flocks of birds lose their orientation and fly to completely different places, because the artificially generated high frequencies superimpose the natural magnetic field that the animals need for orientation. This is why, according to recent reports, the carrier pigeons, which have been used for centuries to transmit messages, suddenly no longer find their way home.

But that is perhaps not the most tragic thing:

Radiofrequency Death and Infertility?

In the media and social networks, there is an increasing number of reports that whales are stranded on coasts and perish there or that entire flocks of birds suddenly fall dead from the sky during the 5G network expansion and test runs, without any conclusive explanation. At the same time, we are expanding the transmission tower network, the radio density, constantly new, powerful 5G transmitters or HAARP systems that (should) communicate with nuclear submarines or scan the earth’s mantle for mineral resources, conduct “weather research” and so much more. We even send thousands of satellites into Earth orbit as the “crown of our technical creations”.

We do this without asking ourselves whether there could be a connection between the increasingly dramatic decline in biodiversity and the global expansion of networks and the conversion to ever more powerful networks such as 5G, and the ongoing extinction of species. There is actually good evidence that microwaves have a strong influence on this:

What are the specific consequences of cell phone systems?

An article in Zeitenschrift reports (Ursula Seiler: If the cell phone beeps too often, the bird will soon stop beeping. Zeitenschrift No. 70/2011, p. 32) that after the installation and commissioning of new mobile radio transmission systems:

  • Birds and bats run away / leave their nests,
  • Pigeons no longer breed or just let the young birds starve to death,
  • 50 percent of the pigeons can no longer find their way home in price races,
  • the pigeon breeding business is declining by up to 50 percent and malformations are increasing in young animals,
  • House sparrows and other birds “go crazy” with electromagnetic cell phone radiation,
  • Birds that hunt insects, such as swallows, lose their sensory orientation and miss prey,

or find less food at all, as mosquitoes fall dead to the ground at 0.2 volts per meter,

  • very low frequencies of 900-1,800 megahertz damage the skullcap of chicks and eggshells,
  • The sparrows that originally appeared in large numbers in London were already threatened with extinction in 2011. And the population in Hamburg declined by 80 percent during this time.

What is interesting is that the birds like to return to their breeding grounds when the transmitters are switched off or their exposure is greatly reduced.

Further reports show that breeding birds in the vicinity of transmission systems have no breeding success (sterility of the eggs – we remember the laboratory experiment with the chicks). While those birds that nest farther away from transmitting antennas successfully hatch young.

(Video Recommendation Youtube: Animals and Plants under radiation stress / Tiere und Pflanzen im Strahlungsstress 23.02.2021 (14 Min.))

4. Technical radio radiation and amphibians / reptiles

Researchers produced similarly frightening results on the effects of mobile communications on amphibians such as frogs and reptiles. Overall, not that much research has been done on this, but the following may be enough to make the picture clearer, for those interested:

In the first experiment (Balmori 2010), frogs were shielded from radiation with a Faraday cage before a cell phone mast was built, while other ponds were not shielded. After commissioning the antenna system with frequencies of 1.8 to 3.5 volts per meter (on average 1/20 to 1/30 of the permissible German limit value). Around 90 percent of the larvae died in the unprotected ponds and coordination was impaired and mobility.

While in the screened ponds the mortality rate was around 4.2 percent and coordination and mobility were also normal.

Another study (Mina et al. 2016) examined the immune response of the wandering salamander (Podarcis erhardii) to radio waves. After only eight weeks of exposure to a DECT telephone, the immune system was severely weakened, as the immune response was 45 percent less than under normal conditions.

5. Radio frequency fields & the effect on insects

A bee pollinating

Fig. 7: A bee pollinating

Since the Krefeld study, about which I also report in my book 5G Cellular Networks, the public has once again been alarmed and is starting to think about the loss of 75 percent of the insect mass, even from protected landscape areas. This resulted in the German insect aid project “Save the Bees” within a short period of time, which fortunately was implemented very quickly, as both popular initiatives and politics saw sense in the protection of biodiversity. It was and is still unclear what the real causes are, since pesticides or new, highly toxic substances used in agriculture are known not to be sprayed in nature reserves.

On the other hand, numerous studies have shown the harmful effects of microwave radiation on insects and bees for a long time. So that there is an urgent need to look more closely at them.

What scientists know about the influence of radio frequency on insects

The two Russian scientists Eskow and Sapozhnokov found out as early as 1974 that bees produce electromagnetic signals of 180–250 Hertz during their communication dances. In other words, a frequency at which the GSM mobile radio also operates at around 217 Hertz. And hungry bees respond to these frequencies by raising their antennae.

Honey production

In 2006 the Austrian Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management wrote to the then National Councilor Dr. Andreas Khol found that bees produce less honey in strong electromagnetic fields (e.g. under power lines) and tend to have an increased mortality (measure of mortality for a certain disease), as scientific studies have shown.


In spring 2007, a pilot study by the University of Koblenz-Landau under Professor Hermann Stever caused a stir. The researchers exposed colonies of bees to the effects of “harmless, commercially available” cordless DECT base stations with an output of 1,880-1,900 megahertz, 250 megawatts EIRP, pulsed at 100 hertz and a range of 50 meters in continuous operation. For the purpose of the study, individual bees were marked and released 800 meters away from the hive. The experiment clearly showed that the number of returning bees from the non-irradiated colonies was greater than that from the irradiated hives. (Harst et al. 2006)


In India, researchers observed something similar when they irradiated bee colonies with their mobile phone for 15 minutes a day for two months. Here, too, fewer bees returned, resulting in a poorer food supply, fewer offspring and ultimately smaller bee colonies. (Sharma and Kumar 2010) In a follow-up study, the researchers looked for the causes of the shrinking bee colonies under mobile phone fire and found changes in the bees’ blood count, such as an increase in fats, carbohydrates, glucose, cholesterol, proteins – which indicated that the Bees suffered from extreme stress. (Kumar 2011)

Death of the brood

Other studies found that 44 percent of queen bees exposed to cell phones during the developmental phase died during the pupation phase. (Odemer and Odemer 2019)

Bee colony die-off

And as early as August 2009, the Indian university lecturer and biologist Dr. Seinudeen Pattazhy (Benjamin Seiler: Bees die-off: chatter or eat! Zeitenschrift No. 64/2009, p. 13) shared his results, according to which technical microwave rays are clearly responsible for the collapse of the bee colonies. (DNA, August 31, 2009) As he did so, he placed a switched-on mobile phone near the beehive and observed that each time the entire beehive perished within five to ten days. Because the bees were massively disturbed in their orientation by the radio waves and could not find their way back to the hive, which is why the brood, males and queen ultimately died.

How beekeepers experience the situation

Beekeeping survey

Professor em. Dr. Ferdinand Ruzicka, who also published many articles in specialist beekeeping journals such as “Der Bienenvater”, also reported on strong swarming and aggressive behavior or inexplicable collapse of the bee colonies after a radio transmitter was set up near his hives. Some of the bees even spread out in winter and then froze to death in the snow. Then he started a survey in the bee magazine “Der Bienenvater”, to find out whether other beekeepers who kept bees within 300 meters of mobile radio transmitters were also experiencing the same. He received 20 responses, of which 25 percent reported an increased tendency to swarm, 38 percent reported increased aggressiveness. And 63 percent reported an inexplicable coalescence. (Sandra Wyss: Rotten cell phone beams will our bees soon be emitting? Journal No. 55/3. Quarter 2007, p. 55)

Swiss beekeeper

From May 2007 to May 2008, the Swiss beekeeper, Peter Loepfe and his colleagues (Benjamin Seiler: Bees die-off: chatter or eat! Journal No. 64/2009, p. 14) ran a field test to determine whether microwave radiation, such as that emitted by cell phones or transmission towers, was actually harmful and is responsible for the collapse of the bee colonies. In Großhöchstetten, which was irradiated by 17 cell phone masts, they set up colonies of bees at a distance of 200 meters from the transmitter mast, which worked with 1.5 volts per meter and UMTS and GSM frequencies of 900, 1,800 and 2,100 megahertz.

According to Peter Loepfe’s statements before the start of the experiment, all twelve bee colonies set up for test purposes were healthy, strong and had large supplies for the winter, and would have brought in a good honey yield. After only two months under radio radiation, however, the supplies were exhausted. And the beekeeper had to constantly feed them, as honeybees hardly found their way back into the hive. The offspring remained smaller and two colonies even died despite constant care by the beekeeper.

At the same time, its non-irradiated colonies multiplied strongly, remained healthy, strong and brought in a good honey yield. After he brought the severely weakened colonies back into unpolluted areas free from e-smog and radio radiation, they recovered and, according to the beekeeper, developed normally.

Ants and other insects are also affected

The disturbed behavior does not only affect bees. But also ants and all flying insects that are exposed to artificial radiation.

Scientists exposed the saber-thorn knot ant (Myrmica sabuleti) to technical cell phone radiation. And observed that irradiated ants could no longer remember what they learned (what they normally stored for several days) or were severely restricted in their olfactory and perceptual behavior.

In a follow-up study it was found that they could only orientate themselves over short distances by means of their sense of smell, and therefore could not often find their way home via markings. As a result, the colonies collapsed after a week of irradiation as fewer and fewer ants brought food home. (Cammaerts et al. 2012 and Cammaerts et al. 2013)

In fruit flies irradiated by cell phones, it was found that the ovaries become significantly smaller, which indicates DNA damage and the death of cells in the egg chambers. (Panagopoulos 2012)

Now the critic can of course say that it is a matter of coincidences or individual effects, possibly limited to a few insect species. In Greece, however, a larger field trial (Lazarote et al. 2016) investigated how the overall insect population in so-called “pollinators” such as wild bees, wasps, bumblebees, butterflies, beetles, fruit flies and other flies developed under mobile phone fire.

The results showed that the closer you got to the transmitter masts (50-400 meters). The population of all flying insects became smaller and smaller. As a result, they recognized major negative ecological and economic consequences for plant preservation and human well-being, triggered by artificially pulsed electromagnetic fields.

Overall, it has been scientifically very well researched for many years and has documented a very harmful effect of mobile communications in all areas of life, from plants to animals, amphibians, insects and even microbes. Which is why we should justifiably be very critical and comprehensively informed about the 5G network expansion.


Watch out for Part 2





  • König, Florian M .; König, Christian B .: Research project Sferics: biological effects on humans, journal for geobiology, special issue 3/2014
  • Fischer, Angelika: Earth in need, trees under high frequency. Raum & Zeit, Volume 3, No. 5, 2010, p. 47
  • Seiler, Benjamin: Bees die-off: chatter or eat! Journal No. 64/2009, p. 13f
  • Seiler, Benjamin: “Difficult survival in the global microwave oven”, Zeitenschrift No. 44/2004, p. 50
  • Seiler, Ursula: If the cell phone beeps too often, the bird will soon stop beeping. Journal No. 70/2011, p. 32
  • Warnke, Dr. rer. rer. Nat. Ulrich: Planned to death – bird migration & mobile communications, newspaper no. 70/3. Quarter 2011, p. 28
  • Wyss, Sandra: Will cell phone rays be broadcasting soon by our bees? Journal No. 55/3. Quarter 2007, p. 55
  • Zwerenz, Siegfried: The Fraud with Limit Values, The Journal of Natural Science, No. 5/2000, p. 51


Waveguard – certified protection products against electrosmog

Take your EMF protection into your own hands.  We develop exclusive products for you both for on the go and for at home or in the office. Our Qi technology is integrated in all Qi devices.

Benefits of Qi technology:

  • modern technology such as Wifi, mobile network & Bluetooth can be used with ease
  • German technology & production
  • no electricity needed
  • easy use
  • free regeneration
  • around 2,500 customers worldwide trust Waveguard with their EMF protection every year

Do you have any questions about your personal EMF protection? We are here to help you.

Did you like our article? Head to the Waveguard blog to read the latest updates on the subject of electrosmog.

emf protection for your home
Free: Checklist for EMF protection in your home
Electrosmog can often trigger health related problems, such as sleep problems and lack of energy. What you’ll discover:
  • What is electrosmog and why it is so harmful to health;
  • How to mitigate EMF exposure;
  • Easy and effective protective measures to promote wellbeing of every member of your family.


Note: The article reflects the opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the point of view of Waveguard GmbH.

Share on facebook
Share on Facebook
Share on twitter
Share on Twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on Linkdin
Share on pinterest
Share on Pinterest
Maik Lindner

Maik Lindner

Maik Lindner, geb. 1968, beschäftigt sich seit 25 Jahren mit alternativen Entwicklungen und Tendenzen in Gesellschaft, Technik, Zukunft und Leben. Oder erforscht philosophische Gedanken zum Menschsein und seinen Potentialen. Er lebt im Großraum München, arbeitet im sozialen Bereich und schreibt Bücher zu verschiedenen Themen. Mehr Informationen unter:

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *