Nature’s own modulation: Some species sense and respond to subtle electric fields — a contrast to man-made wireless signals.

Image adapted from a photo by James Wainscoat on Unsplash.

• What Kind of Modulation Happens in Nature?
New research reveals that hummingbird flower mites respond to naturally modulated electric fields generated by the wingbeats and movements of hummingbirds. This biologically driven form of electroreception sheds light on how nature produces and responds to modulated signals — and how it compares to artificial modulation used in wireless technologies.

• Can Light at Night During Pregnancy Affect Fetal Development?
Emerging research suggests that circadian rhythm disruption may play a role in autism risk. In our latest article, we explore how maternal light exposure, especially at night, could impact the developing fetal brain.

• CACNA1C Gene
Did you know the CACNA1C gene helps regulate electrical signals in your brain, heart, and muscles? This calcium channel gene plays a vital role in early development and how cells communicate.
Notably, its relevance is gaining attention in EMF research — including a recent study exploring how 5G exposure may affect sleep EEG patterns in individuals with specific CACNA1C genotypes.

• How Do EMFs Interact with Dental Materials?
Recent research raises concerns about how mobile phone radiation and common EMF sources like hair dryers may affect dental implants and restorations. Titanium jaw implants, for example, could influence how radiation is absorbed in the head. Similarly, amalgam fillings might be more vulnerable than we think.

• ELF-EMF and Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs)
Read about a study exploring potential drivers of harmful algal blooms, suggesting that extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMFs) may play a role in bloom initiation. Still, the exact mechanisms behind this link remain unclear and require further investigation.

• In Memory of Meris Michaels
We are saddened by her passing and extend our heartfelt condolences to her loved ones. A tribute by PhoneGate Alert is included in our latest newsletter.

Read the full EMFSA June 2025 Newsletter: https://mailchi.mp/emfsa/modulation-nature

Sign up to receive our monthly newsletter: https://www.emfsa.co.za/newsletter/

The post EMFSA June 2025 Newsletter appeared first on EMFSA.

García-Robledo et al. (2025) showed that hummingbird flower mites detect and respond to modulated electric fields generated by hummingbirds, using electroreception to facilitate rapid host detection and airborne transfer.

Nature’s Version of Modulation

In the case of the hummingbird, the modulation appears to be periodic and mechanical, driven by:

• Wingbeats (which generate cyclic fluctuations in charge and air pressure)
  
• Rapid movement through air (causing triboelectric charging/discharging)
  
• Intermittent contact with flower surfaces and air particles

It’s not digital modulation (like QAM or OFDM used in wireless tech), but it’s still structured, time-varying electric field activity.

Key Differences Between Hummingbird-Generated and Wireless Modulation

While man-made electromagnetic signals are deliberately modulated to carry data, hummingbird-generated electric fields are modulated naturally by movement, wingbeats, and contact with air and surfaces. These natural fields are analog, low-frequency, and often non-polarized — yet organisms like flower mites have evolved to detect them, showing that modulation is a biologically meaningful phenomenon in both nature and technology.

Natural vs. Man-Made Modulation

Here’s how natural modulation from hummingbirds compares to the modulation used in wireless technologies

Why It Matters

It also raises a broader point:

If natural modulation can shape biological behavior, what about the effects of artificial modulation? Could structured, high-frequency signals from modern devices interact with biological systems in unintended ways?

What Kind of Modulation Happens in Nature? It turns out, nature’s version is analog, irregular, and biologically relevant. From flower mites to pollinators, living organisms are tuned not just to electric fields — but to how those fields change over time.

This article includes content and visual support generated with the help of ChatGPT, an AI developed by OpenAI.

Reference

García-Robledo, C., Dierick, D., & Manser, K. (2025). Electric transportation and electroreception in hummingbird flower mites. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(5), e2419214122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2419214122

Further Reading

Wireless Communication Evolution: Modulation Techniques and Health Concerns with Pulse Modulation

The post What Kind of Modulation Happens in Nature? appeared first on EMFSA.

Telecommunications networks use modulation techniques to transmit information wirelessly between mobile devices and cell towers. These modulation strategies have evolved over time to meet the increasing demand for faster and more reliable communication across different generations of cellular networks.

The first generation (1G) of wireless technology was introduced in the 1980s, and used analog frequency modulation for voice calls.

2G networks became commercially available in 1992 and used three common multiple access technologies for accommodating multiple simultaneous users:

•Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA)

•Division Multiple Access (TDMA)

•Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA)

Third and fourth generations of network technologies were introduced in 1998 (3G), 2006 (4G), and in 2011, 4G-Long Term Evolution (LTE).

All 3G systems utilize CDMA/WCDMA technology.

Reference: NTP Technical Report on the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies in Sprague Dawley (Hsd:Sprague Dawley^® SD^®) Rats Exposed to Whole-body Radio Frequency Radiation at a Frequency (900 Mhz) and Modulations (GSM and CDMA) Used by Cell Phones: Technical Report 595 [Internet]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK561723/

Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) is a widely used modulation scheme in 4G communication systems such as Long-Term Evolution (LTE) and LTE Advanced, and it has also become the standard modulation format for 5G New Radio. Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM) is a modern digital modulation technique used in 4G, 5G and Wi-Fi6 networks. 

Many new modulation and multiple access (MA) schemes are being developed for 5G to meet the changing demands of large-scale, heterogeneous traffic and users.

Energy efficiency improvements are imperative for 5G networks, and optimum modulation techniques can be employed to reach the capacity increase in 5G. Satellite communications also employ complex modulation schemes to improve spectral efficiency and minimize nonlinear amplification in the RF power amplifier. *References at the bottom of the post.

Pulse modulation involves transmitting a series of pulses to convey information. Some studies have suggested that this pulsing effect by radiofrequency radiation could have negative health effects on health by interfering with biological processes. 

Does ICNIRP (The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) consider modulation in its research and guidelines on non-ionizing radiation?

According to ICNIRP:

•Its guidelines account for all RF-EMF transmission protocols and modulation schemes, and so in terms of biological or health effects, these factors are not new.  https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPNoteMay2021.pdf

•ICNIRP considers the potential for different types of radiofrequency EMF exposure to adversely affect health, including sinusoidal (e.g., continuous wave) and non-sinusoidal (e.g., pulsed) EMFs, and both acute and chronic exposures.

•ICNIRP considers all potential adverse health effects (including non-thermal effects) and sets restrictions to ensure that none occur, regardless of the mechanism of interaction between the exposure and the body. The lowest exposure levels that can cause adverse health effects are due to thermal mechanisms, and so restrictions have been set based on the thermal effects, as these will protect against any other effects that could occur at higher exposure levels.

https://www.gsma.com/publicpolicy/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/GSMA_International_EMF_Exposure_Guideline_Oct21.pdf

Quote: “The observation of effects does not necessarily mean the finding of a hazard” Allan H. Frey

(Allan H. Frey was the first American to publish on the microwave auditory effect (MAE). Frey’s “Human auditory system response to modulated electromagnetic energy” appeared in the Journal of Applied Physiology in 1961).

IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Technique Feb. 1971:

It was found that carrier frequency, and the relationship of the modulation to the function in its phases are critical in the effect of low power density rf energy on some functions of higher organisms (Frey, 1962, 1963, 19671 Frey and Siefert, 1968). 

For example, perception in the auditory system can be induced with carrier frequencies that penetrate the head but not those that do not penetrate the head, e.g. at 1 GHs but not at 10 GH. 

The auditory system perception cannot be produced unless the carrier is modulated.

The brainstem responses have not been observed with an unmodulated carrier. 

The isolated frog heart cannot be driven to arrhythmia if the rf pulse Impinges upon the heart at the P wave but it can be so driven if the rf pulse Impinges at the occurrence of the R wave.

It was found that there are critical body areas (Frey, 1967).

Peak rather than average power density was determined to be the more Important variable in the study of the effect of modulated low power density rf energy on biological functions (Frey, 1962, 1967).

Reference:  In Press. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Technique Feb. 1971. (Special issue on Biological Effects of Microwaves) https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0716044.pdf

2004: Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Fields: Does Modulation Matter?

Modulation has been a factor in public controversy related to health concerns. Following recommendations of the International EMF Project of the World Health Organization (WHO), a host of recent studies have examined possible biological effects of modulated RF energy similar to that produced by major wireless access technologies (such as GSM, TDMA, CDMA, TETRA), with separate evaluation of effects of each technology.

Coherent Oscillations of Biological Structures In the 1970s and 1980s the noted physicist Fröhlich (now deceased) proposed that RF fields can excite ‘‘coherent oscillations’’ in cell membranes and macromolecules (8). Hyland (9) has cited this work in support of his claims that biological systems can be influenced by the modulation characteristics of microwave signals from mobile phones. However, Adair (10) showed that the damping effects of water surrounding biological structures are far too strong to allow resonances to exist at RFs. Moreover, the energy that can be added to a biological structure by an RF field of reasonable strength is many orders of magnitude below the energy already present in the structure due to random thermal agitation. Supporters of the theory have not rebutted Adair’s objections, and other theories (e.g. 11) that propose sharp frequency effects in biological systems fail for similar reasons.

At least one expert group in the West has issued ‘‘precautionary’’ recommendations related to modulation. In May 2000, the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) advised that ‘‘as a precautionary measure, amplitude modulation around 16 Hz should be avoided if possible, in future developments in signal coding’’ (15). This recommendation was also based on studies related to the calcium efflux effect.

Large body of studies from countries of the former Soviet Union reporting modulation-dependent effects, which have not been reviewed extensively by Western agencies. Notable among these are studies by the group led by Akoev in Pushchino (Russia) that reported modulation-dependent effects in a variety of in vivo and in vitro systems (19–24).

One thing is clear: If modulation is biologically significant (apart from a few special cases such as intense pulses), the entire rationale for RF exposure guidelines would need revision. Present evidence does not indicate that this is the case. While more data will be published that bear on this issue, they will not be coming in quickly and they are unlikely to be definitive. Given public concerns about the safety of wireless communications systems, the issue of ‘‘modulation’’ will not be easily settled.

Reference: Kenneth R. Foster and Michael H. Repacholi “Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Fields: Does Modulation Matter?,” Radiation Research 162(2), 219-225, (1 August 2004). https://doi.org/10.1667/RR3191

The effect of modulation Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy, Lecturer and Biological Safety Officer (retired) Imperial College London.

Living cell membranes are electrically non-linear and have a voltage across them of approximately 70mV. They are pierced by countless ion channels that behave like electrically biased Schottky diodes capable of rectifying and so demodulating any alternating signal (including microwave frequencies) with the demodulated low frequency components appearing between the inside and outside of the cell. This is what does most of the damage and here is why:

The cell membrane is mainly made of a lipid bilayer only about 10nM thick, with proteins such as ion channels “floating” in it. The membrane itself is negatively charged because it has outwardly directed negatively charged phosphate groups and is normally stabilised by divalent positive calcium and magnesium ions that cross-link them. But the demodulated cell-phone signal makes the negative membrane and its protective divalent ions move in opposite directions. This destabilizes the membrane and makes it more likely to perforate and collapse the voltage gradient across it. This, in turn, opens voltage-gated calcium ion channels in the membrane that let huge numbers of calcium ions into the cell down a massive 10,000:1 electrochemical gradient.

In nature, this increase in the internal calcium concentration is taken as an indicator to the cell that its membrane (and by implication, the whole cell) has been damaged and sets in train a series of repair mechanisms, which uses a great deal of metabolic energy. If it succeeds, the cell is repaired, if not, the cell dies, but either way a great deal of energy is used. This may in large part explain the chronic fatigue syndrome that was found in early mobile phone users (Yuppie flu) and is now much more widespread in the community due to our constant exposure to cordless phones, their base stations, WiFi and all the other wireless devices that current ICNIRP guidelines regard as safe.

Quote: “Many experiments do not include pulsing and modulation of the carrier signal.” Kostoff et al., 2020

Citation: Ronald N. Kostoff, Paul Heroux, Michael Aschner, Aristides Tsatsakis, Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions, Toxicology Letters, Volume 323, 2020, Pages 35-40, ISSN 0378-4274,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2020.01.020.

Brillouin precursors

There are concerns among some researchers and activists that the emergence of Brillouin precursors, which are sharp transients caused by the dispersion of broadband electromagnetic pulses in a dielectric, could have potential health impacts in the context of 5G technology. Some studies suggest that these precursors may increase the strength of electromagnetic radiation pulses and cause them to penetrate deeper into the human body than previously thought, potentially leading to health effects such as tissue damage and cancer. However, there is debate among experts over the validity of these concerns, with some arguing that the evidence is inconclusive or that the precursors may not pose a significant risk at the levels at which they are produced in 5G networks.

Are pulsing EMFs more bioactive than CW (continuous wave) EMFs?

•Comparing DNA damage induced by mobile telephony and other types of man-made electromagnetic fields Panagopoulos, 2019

It is important to note that except for the RF/microwave carrier frequency, Extremely Low Frequencies – ELFs (0–3000 Hz) are always present in all telecommunication EMFs in the form of pulsing and modulation.

The “ion forced-oscillation mechanism” for irregular gating of electro-sensitive ion channels on cell membranes which predicts that pulsing EMFs are more bioactive than CW EMFs of the same other parameters, and that the biological activity of any specific type of EMF is inversely proportional to its frequency and proportional to its intensity [[95], [96], [97]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31416578/]

•Human‑made electromagnetic fields: Ion forced‑oscillation and voltage‑gated ion channel dysfunction, oxidative stress and DNA damage (Review)

Panagopoulos et al., 2021

The ELF/ULF EMFs and even more the pulsing RF EMFs with ELF pulsations such as all WC EMFs, are predicted to be the most bioactive.

It has been claimed that the ELF components of complex RF-ELF EMFs of WC need to be ‘demodulated’ in order to be sensed by living organisms (232). ‘Demodulated’ or not, the fact is that the ELF components of modulated/pulsed WC signals can be directly sensed by both ELF meters/spectrum analyzers and living organisms (40,55).

Both DNA damage and alterations in protein synthesis, especially increased levels of stress proteins, are reported to be induced similarly by both ELF and pulsing RF EMFs (237,238). However, the effects of pulsing RF were attributed to the carrier frequency, and it was not considered that perhaps in both cases (ELF and pulsing RF) the ELF components might be responsible for the effects, as suggested now by the present study.

https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/ijo.2021.5272

The Europaem 2016 Table 3 suggests that the recommended radiation maximum levels of Wi-Fi are 1000 times less than for FM. Wi-Fi is pulsed, FM not.

As per ‘Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Fields: Does Modulation Matter?’ from 2004 (referenced earlier on in the post), given public concerns about the safety of wireless communications systems, the issue of ‘modulation’ will not easily be settled, even in 2023

*References

https://www.rfwireless-world.com/Terminology/What-is-modulation.html

https://www.thomasnet.com/articles/automation-electronics/what-is-modulation/

https://www.waveform.com/a/b/guides/modulation-coding-speeds

https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/connectivity/4g-lte-long-term-evolution/ofdm-ofdma-scfdma-modulation.php

https://www.business.com/articles/what-is-802-11-ax-wi-fi/

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8085125

The post Wireless Communication Evolution: Modulation Techniques and Health Concerns with Pulse Modulation appeared first on EMFSA.

Essay

Abstract

New fifth generation (5G) telecommunications systems, now being rolled out globally, have become the subject of a fierce controversy. Some health protection agencies and their scientific advisory committees have concluded that there is no conclusive scientific evidence of harm. Several recent reviews by independent scientists, however, suggest that there is significant uncertainty on this question, with rapidly emerging evidence of potentially harmful biological effects from radio frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposures, at the levels 5G roll-out will entail. This essay identifies four relevant sources of scientific uncertainty and concern: (1) lack of clarity about precisely what technology is included in 5G; (2) a rapidly accumulating body of laboratory studies documenting disruptive in vitro and in vivo effects of RF-EMFs—but one with many gaps in it; (3) an almost total lack (as yet) of high-quality epidemiological studies of adverse human health effects from 5G EMF exposure specifically, but rapidly emerging epidemiological evidence of such effects from past generations of RF-EMF exposure; (4) persistent allegations that some national telecommunications regulatory authorities do not base their RF-EMF safety policies on the latest science, related to unmanaged conflicts of interest. The author, an experienced epidemiologist, concludes that one cannot dismiss the growing health concerns about RF-EMFs, especially in an era when higher population levels of exposure are occurring widely, due to the spatially dense transmitters which 5G systems require. Based on the precautionary principle, the author echoes the calls of others for a moratorium on the further roll-out of 5G systems globally, pending more conclusive research on their safety.

View Full Text

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech-2019-213595

Added by EMFSA, professor John William Frank-background and qualifications:

https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/john-frank(9995d84a-0b8f-4273-b942-2478150e3eb0).html

The post Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: what about the precautionary principle? appeared first on EMFSA.

Eric van Rongen:

“Contrary to many 5G conspiracy theories, phone radiation heats the human body the equivalent of having a cup of hot tea every two hours.”

“The science is really straightforward — there’s simply no solid evidence that anything other than a small amount of body heating may result from exposure to 5G radiofrequency fields.”

Andrew Goldsworthy (Biologist) responds to ICNIRP’s Eric van Rongen’s post featured above:

There are two main mechanisms by which non-ionising radiation such as that from cell-phones can damage living organisms. One is the heating effect and the other is the effect of low-frequency modulation.

1 The heating effect.

We cannot assume that the heating effect is uniformly distributed through living cells. The cells themselves are highly conductive, whereas the cell membranes have a very high resistance. Therefore, for any given current flowing through a tissue, nearly all of the heat will be generated in the cell membranes. Since these membranes constitute only about one thousandth of the total diameter of a typical cell and virtually all of the heat is being generated in them, the ICNIRP Guidelines, which are based on the assumption that cells and tissues are uniformly conductive, are approximately one thousand times too high.

2 The effect of modulation.

Living cell membranes are electrically non-linear and have a voltage across them of approximately 70mV. They are pierced by countless ion channels that behave like electrically biased Schottky diodes capable of rectifying and so demodulating any alternating signal (including microwave frequencies) with the demodulated low frequency components appearing between the inside and outside of the cell. This is what does most of the damage and here is why:

The cell membrane is mainly made of a lipid bilayer only about 10nM thick, with proteins such as ion channels “floating” in it. The membrane itself is negatively charged because it has outwardly directed negatively charged phosphate groups and is normally stabilised by divalent positive calcium and magnesium ions that cross-link them. But the demodulated cell-phone signal makes the negative membrane and its protective divalent ions move in opposite directions. This destabilizes the membrane and makes it more likely to perforate and collapse the voltage gradient across it. This, in turn, opens voltage-gated calcium ion channels in the membrane that let huge numbers of calcium ions into the cell down a massive 10,000:1 electrochemical gradient.

In nature, this increase in the internal calcium concentration is taken as an indicator to the cell that its membrane (and by implication, the whole cell) has been damaged and sets in train a series of repair mechanisms, which uses a great deal of metabolic energy. If it succeeds, the cell is repaired, if not, the cell dies, but either way a great deal of energy is used. This may in large part explain the chronic fatigue syndrome that was found in early mobile phone users (Yuppie flu) and is now much more widespread in the community due to our constant exposure to cordless phones, their base stations, WiFi and all the other wireless devices that current ICNIRP guidelines regard as safe.

Lastly, the relationship between 5G and COVID-19.

We cannot assume that because the 5G radiation is mainly absorbed by the skin that it cannot damage the rest of our bodies. If the energy of the radiation is disproportionately absorbed by the skin, then the damage to the skin and the blood and lymph circulating through it will also be disproportionately large. The effects of 5G on lymphocytes could be particularly damaging. They too will have their energy drained by the calcium influx caused by the radiation, have less to spare to generate their protective antibodies and so make the immune system less efficient. So, I guess you could say that 5G can promote the spread of COVID-19. That said, most other forms of information carrying (i.e.modulated) frequencies may be even more dangerous, particularly WiFi with its extremely low frequency (10Hz) beacon signal being possibly the most dangerous.

Dr Andrew Goldsworthy, Lecturer and Biological Safety Officer (retired) Imperial College London.

The post Andrew Goldsworthy (Biologist) responds to Eric van Rongen’s (ICNIRP) statements about 5G appeared first on EMFSA.

Dave Miles of EMFSA discusses 5G , modulated micro waves, free radicals and introduces the idea of radiation hygiene.

The post Future Perfect: 5G & Modulated Microwaves appeared first on EMFSA.

Volume 781, July–September 2019, Pages 53-62

Dimitris J.Panagopoulos^abc

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2019.03.003

Abstract

The number of studies showing adverse effects on living organisms induced by different types of man-made Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) has increased tremendously. Hundreds of peer reviewed published studies show a variety of effects, the most important being DNA damage which is linked to cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, reproductive declines etc. Those studies that are far more effective in showing effects employ real-life Mobile Telephony (MT) exposures emitted by commercially available mobile phones. The present review – of results published by my group from 2006 until 2016 – compares DNA fragmentation induced by six different EMFs on the same biological system – the oogenesis of Drosophila melanogaster – under identical conditions and procedures. Such a direct comparison between different EMFs – especially those employed in daily life – on the same biological endpoint, is very useful for drawing conclusions on their bioactivity, and novel. It shows that real MT EMFs are far more damaging than 50 Hz alternating magnetic field (MF) – similar or much stronger to those of power lines – or a pulsed electric field (PEF) found before to increase fertility. The MT EMFs were significantly more bioactive even for much shorter exposure durations than the other EMFs. Moreover, they were more damaging than previously tested cytotoxic agents like certain chemicals, starvation, dehydration. Individual parameters of the real MT EMFs like intensity, frequency, exposure duration, polarization, pulsing, modulation, are discussed in terms of their role in bioactivity. The crucial parameter for the intense bioactivity seems to be the extreme variability of the polarized MT signals, mainly due to the large unpredictable intensity changes.

Note added by EMFSA:

Dr. George Carlo: “This new paper by Dr. Panagopoulos clearly describes and documents the mechanistic aspects that underscore why man-made, polarized waveforms can cause so many different types of adverse biological effects. This is key. While focused on genetic outcomes, the impact triggers described in the paper apply across the board to organelles, cells, tissues, organs and organ systems. This is a foundation that will be key to any and all risk assessments as well as derivations of any and all safety standards.“

Last paragraph of conclusion of paper: “The present study further confirms my previous results and conclusions that experiments should employ real-life and not simulated EMFs, and human/animal exposure to microwave telecommunication EMFs should be drastically reduced by prudent use, and establishment of much stringer exposure limits by the responsible health authorities.“

The post Review: Comparing DNA damage induced by mobile telephony and other types of man-made electromagnetic fields appeared first on EMFSA.