Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations

Radio frequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations

http://media.withtank.com/cf9ae35027/waldmann-selsam_2016_scitotenv572p554-569_rf__trees.pdf

• High frequency nonionizing radiation is becoming increasingly common. • This study found a high level of damage to trees in the vicinity of phone masts. • Deployment has been continued without consideration of environmental or health impact

abstract

In the last two decades, the deployment of phone masts around the world has taken place and, for many years,

there has been a discussion in the scientific community about the possible environmental impact from mobile

phone base stations. Trees have several advantages over animals as experimental subjects and the aim of this

study was to verify whether there is a connection between unusual (generally unilateral) tree damage and radiofrequency

exposure. To achieve this, a detailed long-term (2006–2015) field monitoring study was performed in

the cities of Bamberg and Hallstadt (Germany). During monitoring, observations and photographic recordings of

unusual or unexplainable tree damage were taken, alongside the measurement of electromagnetic radiation. In

2015 measurements of RF-EMF (Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields) were carried out. A polygon spanning

both cities was chosen as the study site, where 144 measurements of the radiofrequency of electromagnetic fields

were taken at a height of 1.5 m in streets and parks at different locations. By interpolation of the 144 measurement

points, we were able to compile an electromagnetic map of the power flux density in Bamberg and Hallstadt.

We selected 60 damaged trees, in addition to 30 randomly selected trees and 30 trees in low radiation

areas (n = 120) in this polygon. The measurements of all trees revealed significant differences between the damaged

side facing a phone mast and the opposite side, as well as differences between the exposed side of damaged

trees and all other groups of trees in both sides. Thus, we found that side differences in measured values of power

flux density corresponded to side differences in damage. The 30 selected trees in low radiation areas (no visualcontact to any phone mast and power flux density under 50 μW/m2

) showed no damage. Statistical analysis demonstrated

that electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone masts is harmful for trees. These results are consistent

with the fact that damage afflicted on trees by mobile phone towers usually start on one side, extending to

the whole tree over time.

1. Introduction For many years, there has been a discussion in the scientific community about whether artificial radiofrequency radiation has harmful effects on living organisms and, more specifically, on the environmental impact from mobile phone base stations (Panagopoulos et al., 2016). Trees have several advantages over animals as experimental subjects: they are continuously exposed to radiation in a constant orientation in the electromagnetic field due to their inability to move (Vian et al., 2016). Additionally, it is possible to easily document changes over time, such as disturbed growth, dying branches, and premature colour change of leaves. Moreover, the damage to trees is objective and cannot be attributed to psychological or psychosomatic factors. Plants are specialized in the interception of electromagnetic radiation (light) but radiofrequency radiation impact on plants, which is becoming common in the environment because of the exponential use of mobile phone technology, has received little attention and his physiological effect has long been considered negligible. Since the mid-twentieth century, several researchers have investigated the effects of electromagnetic radiation on plants, both in the laboratory (Kiepenheuer et al., 1949; Brauer, 1950; Harte, 1950, 1972; Jerman et al., 1998; Lerchl et al., 2000; Sandu et al., 2005; Roux et al., 2006, 2008; Sharma et al., 2009; Tkalec et al., 2005, 2009; Beaubois et al., 2007; Kundu and IEEE, 2013; Pesnya and Romanovsky, 2013; Cammaerts and Johansson, 2015; Grémiaux et al., 2016; Vian et al., 2016), and in nature (field observations) (Bernatzky, 1986; Volkrodt, 1987, 1991; Selga and Selga, 1996; Balodis et al., 1996; Haggerty, 2010). Both kinds of study have frequently found pernicious effects. Around the world, phone masts have been deployed in the last two decades everywhere. Preliminary published studies have indicated deleterious effects of radiofrequency radiation on trees (Balmori, 2004; Van't Wout, 2006; Schorpp, 2011; Waldmann-Selsam, 2007; Waldmann-Selsam and Eger, 2013), cautioning that research on this topic is extremely urgent (Balmori, 2015). However, these early warnings have had no success and deployment has been continued without consideration of environmental impact. In a review of the effects of environmental microwaves on plants (Jayasanka and Asaeda, 2013), it was indicated that effects depend on the plant family and the growth stage, as well as the exposure duration, frequency, and power density. This review concluded that most studies that address the effects of microwaves on animals and plants have documented effects and responses at exposures below limits specified in the electromagnetic radiation exposure guidelines and it is therefore necessary to rethink these guidelines (Jayasanka and Asaeda, 2013). Since 2005, on the occasion of medical examinations of sick residents living near mobile phone base stations, changes in nearby trees (crown, leaves, trunk, branches, growth…) were observed at the same time as clinical symptoms in humans occurred. Since 2006 tree damages in the radiation field of mobile phone base stations were documented (http://kompetenzinitiative.net/KIT/KIT/baeume-in-bamberg/). In the radio shadow of buildings or that one of other trees, the trees stayed healthy. Additionally, unilateral crown damage, beginning on the side facing an antenna, pointed to a possible link between RF-EMF (Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields) and tree damage. We carried out measurements on both sides of unilaterally damaged trees. Most of the trees had been exposed to RF-EMF for at least five years. Each time we found considerable differences between the measured values on the damaged and on the healthy side. The aim of the present study was to verify whether there is a connection between unusual (generally unilateral) tree damage and radiofrequency exposure. 2. Materials and methods The official information of 65 mobile phone sites in the neighbouring cities Bamberg and Hallstadt was extracted from the EMF database (EMF-Datenbank) of the German Federal Network Agency (Bundesnetzagentur, in March 2011 and October 2015). Each site certificate (“Standortbescheinigung”) provides information on the mounting height of antennas, the number and main beam direction of the sector antennas, the number of omnidirectional antennas (ND), the number of other transmitters, as well as the horizontal and vertical safety distances. The current specifications of the transmission facilities are available at: http://emf3.bundesnetzagentur.de/karte/Default.aspx On most of the 65 mobile phone sites several sector antennas emitting RF-EMF with differences in frequency, modulation and other physical characteristics are installed (GSM 900, GSM 1800, UMTS, LTE (4th generation), TETRA). In 2011 there was a total of 483 sector antennas, in 2015 a total of 779 sector antennas. Numerical code, address and UTM 32N coordinates for the 65 Mobile phone (base stations) sites in Bamberg and Hallstadt are shown in Table 1. Between 2006 and 2015 there was observation and documentation of tree damages. There were some preliminary measurements on both sides of unilaterally damaged trees and approximately 700 trees in Bamberg and Hallstadt were visited. The condition of numerous trees has been documented in photographs. The photographs record the state of trees showing damage patterns not attributable to diseases, pests, drought or other environmental factors in order to monitor damage and growth over several years (in 2006, Olympus FE-100 was used; since 2007, Panasonic DMC-FZ50 was used). In 2015 we selected a polygonal study site, with an approximate area of 30 km2 , which includes partial municipalities of Bamberg and Hallstadt (70 km2 ). The study area with the location of the phone masts in the layer of natural areas and municipalities is shown in Fig. 1. In this area, different measurements (see below) were done both for having a radiation map and for knowing which are the incident power densities beside different trees. In spite of the fact that measurements are changing continuously, they do not show significant differences between times (own data, see below). In this polygon, we performed 144 measurements of the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields at a height of 1.5 m at different points in the city. These measurements were taken in streets and parks and allowed the preparation of an electromagnetic map of Bamberg and Hallstadt with their interpolation. The measurements were carried out with an EMF-broadband analyzer HF 59B (27–3300 MHz) and the horizontal-isotrope broadband antenna UBB27_G3, (Gigahertz Solutions). Measurements of the sum peak values of power flux density were in μW/m2 , which can be converted in V/m. In general, a sector antenna covers an angle of 120° and the radiation of the sector antennas is distributed in main and secondary beams, bundled vertically and horizontally. The high-frequency emissions are reflected/diffracted and/or absorbed by buildings and trees. Therefore, C. Waldmann-Selsam et al. / Science of the Total Environment 572 (2016) 554–569 555 due to existing obstacles there is an inhomogeneous radiofrequency field distribution. Buildings and vegetation (trees and foliage) can shield and reduce radiation and thus affect the quality of signal propagation (e.g. Meng and Lee, 2010). Living material is not a perfect dielectric object and interferes with high frequency electromagnetic fields in a way that depends upon several parameters, including the general shape, conductivity, and density of the tissue, and the frequency and amplitude of the electromagnetic radiation (Vian et al., 2016). In the polygon mentioned before we selected 60 trees showing unilateral damage. The selection was limited by the fact that we were able to measure with the telescopic rod only up to a height of 6 m. Many trees (Tilia, Betula, Quercus, Populus, Picea) showing damage above the Table 1 Official information of the 65 mobile phone base stations in Bamberg and Hallstadt. Code number Adress in Bamberg and Hallstadt X Y Code number Adress in Bamberg and Hallstadt X Y 1 Altenburg 634268 5527019 34 Ludwigstr. 25 (Post) 636318 5529177 2 Am Borstig 2 636070 5531636 35 Luitpoldstr. 51 636241 5529232 3 Am Hirschknock 637511 5532267 36 Mainstraße, Ladekai 2 633924 5530319 4 An der Breitenau 2 637253 5530650 37 Mainstraße, Ladekai 3 633816 5530130 5 (An der Breitenau, P&R) ca. 637259 5526912 38 Margaretendamm 28 635341 5529331 6 (Artur-Landgraf-Straße) 635183 5526912 39 Memmelsdorfer Straße (Post) ca. 637769 5531392 7 Breitäckerstr. 9 632965 5529621 40 Memmelsdorfer Str. 208a 637568 5531191 8 Coburger Str. 6a 635877 5529951 41 Memmelsdorfer Str. 208a 634861 5528541 9 Coburger Str. 35 635252 5530468 42 Mußstr. 1 634949 5528827 10 Erlichstr. 47/51 637291 5527903 43 Pödeldorfer Str. 144 637828 5529305 11 Franz-Ludwig-Str. 7 635843 5528490 44 Rheinstr. 16 ca. 632910 5530367 12 Geisfelder Str. 30 637689 5528020 45 Robert-Bosch-Str. 40 637767 5528292 13 Grüner Markt 1 635624 5528370 46 Schildstr. 81 637049 5529049 14 Grüner Markt 23 635640 5528565 47 Schranne 3 635511 5528166 15 Gutenbergstr. 20 638448 5527180 48 Schützenstr. 23 636197 5527961 16 Hainstr. 4 635945 5528229 49 Schwarzenbergstr. 50 636762 5528732 17 Hainstr. 39 636341 5527550 50 Siemensstr. 37-43 638091 5528505 18 Hauptsmoorstr. 26a 638223 5530558 51 Theresienstr. 32 637487 5527866 19 Hauptsmoorwald, Pödeldorfer Straße 639683 5529635 52 Unterer Kaulberg 4 635350 5528084 20 Hauptsmoorwald, Geisfelder Straße 639890 5528022 53 Von-Ketteler-Str. 2 637905 5527553 21 Heiliggrabstr. 15 636054 5529240 54 Wilhelmsplatz 3 636316 5528259 22 Heinrichsdamm 1 635849 5528723 55 Zollnerstr. 181 637772 5530133 23 Heinrichsdamm 33a, P&R 636748 5527529 56 Heganger 18 634327 5530982 24 Hohenlohestr. 7 634794 5526480 57 Biegenhofstr. 13 633963 5531045 25 Kantstr. 33 637161 5530333 58 Seebachstr. 1 634399 5531764 26 Katzenberg 635374 5528266 59 Landsknechtstr. 634800 5531918 27 Kirschäckerstr. 37 636649 5530756 60 Lichtenfelser Str. 634864 5532621 28 (Kloster-Langheim-Str. 8) 637190 5529182 61 Michelinstr. 130 ca. 635629 5532106 29 Kronacher Str. 50 636722 5531496 62 Margaretendamm 634991 5529497 30 Lagerhausstr. 4-6 634850 5529871 63 Mainstr. 36a/Kiliansplatz 634326 5532386 31 Lagerhausstr. 19 634304 5530136 64 Bamberger Straße 635964 5526050 32 (Laurenziplatz 20) 635207 5527404 65 Würzburger Str. 76 635359 5526709 33 Ludwigstr. 2 635207 5529103 Fig. 1. The study area with the location of the phone masts in the layer of natural areas, buildings, and municipalities. 556 C. Waldmann-Selsam et al. / Science of the Total Environment 572 (2016) 554–569 height of 6 m could not be included. The measurements at the trees were done between April and October 2015. Acer platanoides, Carpinus betulus, Tilia sp., Taxus baccata and Thuja occidentalis are widely spread in Bamberg and Hallstadt and can be reached for measurements. Therefore they are the most represented species. The selected 60 trees from the study polygon show damage patterns that are not usually attributable to harmful organisms, such as diseases (fungi, bacteria, viruses) and pests (insects, nematodes) or other environmental factors (water stress, heat, drought, frost, sun, compaction of the soil, air and soil pollutants). The main features of damage from this source are: - Trees are mainly affected on one side (showing side differences and unilateral damage) and can appear in any orientation. The damage only originates on one side. - Damage appears without external indications that the tree is infested with insects, nematodes, fungi, bacteria or viruses. - Damage appears on trees, which have previously grown well. Damage appears on once healthy trees within one or two years after Antennas were put into operation. - Damage increases from the outside to the inner part of the crown over time. - Trees of different species in the same location also show damage. - Damage appears in favourable (gardens, parks) as well as in unfavourable locations. - Trees in the same location, but that are shielded by buildings or other trees, are healthy. For these damaged trees, we used 13 damage codes that may be recognised with the naked eye (for explanations, see Table 2). In order to explain each type of damage visually, a photograph was added for each damage code. Table 2 Tree damage codes. 01 Damage only on one side: The tree shows damage only on one side. The damage can be recognized with the naked eye. 02 Crown transparency (sparse leaves or needles): The number of leaves or needles is reduced. The crown transparency increases from year to year. 03 Brown leaves (start at leaf margins): The leaves begin to turn brown in june. The browning starts at the leaf margins. It looks similar to effects by salt. 04 Colour change of leaves prematurely: Leaves become yellow, red or brown (in the whole) early in the year. 05 Tree leaves fall prematurely: The leaves begin to fall already from june on. 06 Dead branches: Over a period of some years it can be observed how little and big branches die. 07 Tip of the main guide dried. 08 Irregular growth. The growth of deciduous and coniferous trees can be disturbed in different manners. One observation is that trees bend to a side. 09 Not grow in height: Trees often stop to grow in height. The height was not measured. Only the visual impression was valuated. 10 Colour change of needles. Needles can change their colour to yellow, red or brown. 11 Dead parts were trimmed down: When bigger branches die, it becomes necessary to remove these parts for the sake of security of people passing. 12 Damage on different sides: The trees show damages on different sides. 13 No damage: The tree shows the typical habitus of its species. With the naked eye no damage can be seen. C. Waldmann-Selsam et al. / Science of the Total Environment 572 (2016) 554–569 557 Table 3 144 selected points in Bamberg and Hallstadt with their measurements and UTM coordinates. Number Streets and parks in Bamberg and Hallstadt Measurement μW/m² X Y Number Streets and parks in Bamberg and Hallstadt Measurement μW/m² X Y 1 Wassermannpark 2300 637395 5530345 73 Ludwigstraße/Zollnerstraße 50 636228 5529444 2 Memmelsdorfer Str. 209 1830 637581 5531113 74 Landratsamt, Ludwigstraße, Einfahrt 670 636422 5529044 3 Holunderweg 10 638125 5530967 75 Wilhelmsplatz, Mitte 460 636250 5528263 4 Hauptsmoorstraße/Seehofstraße 3600 638039 5530857 76 Amalienstr. 16 16570 636303 5528086 5 Greifffenbergstr. 79 4210 638349 5530855 77 Otttostr. 7a 120 636133 5527878 6 Heimfriedweg 16 870 638393 5530621 78 Schönbornstr. 3 3640 636251 5527696 7 AWO, Innenhof, Parkplatz 3920 638223 5530584 79 Hainspielplatz 1530 636229 5527403 8 Ferdinand-Tietz-Str. 40 2600 637883 5530616 80 P&R Heinrichsdamm, Parkplatz bei Kirschen 3400 636706 5527667 9 Ferdinand-Tietz-Str. 38 80 637889 5530601 81 P&R Heinrichsdamm, südöstlich des Senders, Eichen 1690 636755 5527504 10 Petrinistr. 20 1340 637797 5530514 82 Luisenhain, Höhe Wasserwerk 260 636895 5526482 11 Petrinistr. 32 4700 637891 5530449 83 Kapellenstraße 2120 637050 5528148 12 Zollnerstraße 181 9300 637773 5530102 84 Geisfelder Str. 9, Gärtnerei 740 637410 5528164 13 Wassermannstr. 14 540 637424 5530125 85 Gereuthstr. 8 30 637621 5527424 14 Feldkirchenstraße/Kantstraße 2620 636803 5530069 86 Distelweg, Innenhof 15 637881 5527160 15 Breslaustr. 20 3890 637392 5530431 87 Am Sendelbach BSC 1920 30 637331 5526877 16 Berliner Ring 16920 637188 5530786 88 Am Sendelbach, Kleingartenanlage 10 637542 5526222 17 Rodezstr. 3 3780 637044 5530765 89 Robert-Bosch-Straße 2060 637504 5528200 18 Am Spinnseyer 3 880 637545 5530764 90 Ludwigstraße/Memmelsdorfer Straße 1000 635974 5529708 19 Kirschäckerstr. 24 4290 636655 5530857 91 Coburger Straße, Neubau Studentenwohnheim 3460 635867 5529878 20 Kammermeisterweg 810 636283 5530282 92 Coburger Straße, junge Platane 3400 635835 5529941 21 Eichendorff-Gymnasium, Hof 6340 637194 5529084 93 Gundelsheimer Str. 2 9000 635783 5529680 22 Starkenfeldstraße/Pfarrfeldstraße 3660 637092 5529138 94 Hallstadter Straße 12 635232 5530212 23 Parkplatz auf der Westseite der Polizei 9020 636921 5528970 95 Gerberstraße/Benzstraße 1280 635108 5530546 24 Starkenfeldstraße, Höhe Polizei 1120 636975 5529061 96 Coburger Straße, Einfahrt Fitnesszentrum 2000 635326 5530508 25 Starkenfeldstr. 2 860 637527 5529216 97 Kleintierzuchtanlage 890 635380 5530622 26 Pödeldorfer Str., Haltestelle 2180 636965 5529217 98 Margaretendamm, Eingang ehemaliges Hallenbad 1300 635455 5529178 27 Kindergarten St. Heinrich, Eingang 6450 637712 5529364 99 Margaretendamm/Europabrücke 1890 635200 5529365 28 Pödeldorfer Straße, Haltestelle Wörthstraße 1620 637654 5529433 100 Margartendamm 38, nahe Sendeanlage 5560 635003 5529497 29 Pödeldorfer Str. 142, Nordseite 30 637840 5529437 101 Hafenstraße/Regnitzstraße 7610 634719 5529740 30 Pödeldorfer Str. 142, Südseite 17060 637824 5529410 102 Lagerhausstraße 210 634556 5530102 31 Berliner Ring, Höhe Pödeldorfer Str. 144 4480 637900 5529380 103 Hafenstr. 28, Bayerischer Hafen 3200 634192 5530370 32 Schwimmbad Bambados, Vorgarten mit Bambus 1620 638074 5529315 104 Laubanger 29 160 634202 5530561 33 Schwimmbad Bambados, Parkplatz, Feldahorn 2540 638202 5529346 105 Heganger 1400 634341 5530812 34 Carl-Meinelt-Str. 5360 638043 5529094 106 Emil-Kemmer-Str. 2 5000 633822 5530863 35 Volkspark, FC Eintracht, Ostseite 120 638343 5529065 107 Emil-Kemmer-Str. 14 2500 634342 5531099 36 Michelsberger Garten, Teil Streuobst 5450 634831 5528673 108 Dr. Robert-Pfleger-Straße 60 90 634448 5530978 37 Michelsberger Garten, Terrassengarten, bei Eibe 2500 634988 5528508 109 Friedhof Gaustadt, Haupteingang 13100 632981 5529677 38 Michelsberger Garten, Südostecke, bei Holunder 910 635036 5528455 110 Friedhof Gaustadt, Ahornpaar 1400 632929 5529728 39 Michelsberg, Aussichtsterrasse, oberhalb Weinberg 1260 634924 5528463 111 Herzog-Max-Str. 21 1600 636245 5528071 40 Michelsberg, Aussichtsterrasse, Aussichtspunkt 780 634911 5528537 112 Gaustadter Hauptstr. 116 10 634042 5529457 41 Michelsberg, Nordostecke, bei jungen Linden 390 634874 5528565 113 Landesgartenschaugelände, Hafenerlebnispfad 2000 633789 5529894 42 Storchsgasse/Michelsberg 200 634725 5528415 114 Landesgartenschau, junge Baumgruppe 1270 633949 5529718 43 St. Getreu-Kirche, Südseite 55 634518 5528405 115 Würzburger Str. 340 635283 5527151 44 Villa Remeis, Garten 390 634295 5528203 116 Würzburger Straße/Arthur-Landgraf-Straße 1380 635355 5526862 45 Villa Remeis, Treppe 300 634400 5528237 117 Hohe-Kreuz-Straße/Würzburger Straße, Haltestelle 590 635383 5526733 46 Maienbrunnen 2 3920 634744 5528838 118 Hohe-Kreuz-Straße 10950 635469 5526729 47 Am Leinritt 2140 635071 5528617 119 Am Hahnenweg 6 3420 635332 5526729 48 Abtsberg 27 130 634526 5528935 120 Am Hahnenweg/Viktor-von-Scheffel-Straße 640 635307 5526710 49 Welcome Hotel, Garten 3200 634788 5529012 121 Am Hahnenweg 28 a 145 635028 5526654 50 Mußstraße, eingang Kindergarten 1670 634864 5529011 122 Schlüsselberger Straße 200 634712 5526534 51 Mußstraße/Schlüsselstraße 710 634846 5529034 123 Schlüsselberger Str./Haltestelle Hezilostr., Parkdeck 460 634749 5526549 52 Nebingerhof 2040 635069 5528901 124 Hezilostr. 13 70 634604 5526563 53 Graf-Stauffenberg-Platz 100 635120 5529009 125 Sückleinsweg, junge Hainbuchenhecke 75 634512 5526654 54 Don-Bosdo-Straße, Innenhof 10 635176 5529056 126 Rößleinsweg, oberes Ende 300 634708 5526789 55 Pfeuferstraße/Weide 1100 635222 5528820 127 Große Wiese 1500 634874 5526810 558 C. Waldmann-Selsam et al. / Science of the Total Environment 572 (2016) 554–569 For each selected tree, the types of damage and the Universal Transversal Mercator (UTM) coordinates were recorded. In addition, two measurements were recorded: on the side showing damage and on the side without damage, generally corresponding to opposite sides of each tree. On both sides, the measurements were carried out at a variable height of 1–6 m (depending on the height of the tree), using a telescopic rod, a ladder, and the broadband radiofrequency meter. Most measurements were done in the afternoon or in the evening on different days between April and October 2015. But the measurements on the two sides of each single tree were done one after another immediately on the same day and at the same time. The measurements took about 5 min on each side. When we stood on the ground or on a ladder we measured the peak values. When we used the telescopic rod we measured the peak hold values. Using the telescopic rod and measuring peak hold values it took longer, because the measurements had to be repeated often in cases where RF-EMF emitting cars or passengers disturbed the results. At each single tree the two measurements were done in the height where the damage had appeared. Because the height of the 120 trees differed, it was necessary to do the measurements at different heights. In theory, although measurements are changing continuously there is no evidence about significant changes in power densities of electromagnetic radiation produced by phone masts over time. One study carried over one year in the city of Madrid showed no changes in terms of radiation intensity between the three rounds of measurements Table 3 (continued) Number Streets and parks in Bamberg and Hallstadt Measurement μW/m² X Y Number Streets and parks in Bamberg and Hallstadt Measurement μW/m² X Y 56 Weidendamm/Don-Bosco-Straße 1860 635166 5529195 128 Suidgerstraße 195 634508 5526409 57 Katzenberg/Karolinenstraße 1720 635316 5528239 129 Waizendorfer Straße 280 635317 5525864 58 Vorderer Bach 450 635305 5528141 130 Waizendorfer Straße, Einfahrt Gärtnerei 210 635326 5525582 59 Obere Brücke 8000 635565 5528289 131 Klinikum, Nähe Spielplatz 175 635732 5525672 60 Judenstraße 6 635479 5528040 132 Klinikum Weiher 100 635759 5525520 61 Tourist Information 4920 635674 5528172 133 Buger Straße/Bamberger Straße 2730 635829 5526082 62 Universität, Am Kranen 14, Innenhof 10 635501 5528535 134 Dunantstraße 470 635848 5526176 63 Fleischstraße 10 635703 5528683 135 Buger Straße/Paradiesweg 90 635743 5526286 64 ZOB 600 635882 5528541 136 Buger Straße/Abzweigung Münchner Ring 470 635528 5526499 65 Schönleinsplatz, Ostseite 900 636004 5528300 137 Hallstadt, Markplatz, bei Linde 2000 634582 5532426 66 Friedrichstraße, Parkplatz 165 635984 5528360 138 Hallstadt, Markplatz 21, Innenhof 8 634632 5532488 67 Franz-Ludwig-Straße/Luisenstraße 1720 636158 5528410 139 Hallstadt, Lichtenfelser Str. 12 4000 634659 5532474 68 Franz-Ludwig-Str, Strassenbauamt 90 636246 5528408 140 Hallstadt, Lichtenfelser Str. 8 9000 634720 5532516 69 Heiliggrabstraße, Nähe Sender 4740 636072 5529245 141 Hallstadt, Am Gründleinsbach/Kemmerner Weg 200 634743 5532784 70 Heiliggrabstr. 29, Landesjustizkasse 20 636063 5529399 142 Hallstadt, Valentinstraße/Seebachstraße 2200 634232 5532237 71 Heiliggrabstr. 57, Aussichtspunkt Schiefer Turm 4500 635797 5529410 143 Hallstadt, Johannisstr. 6 5000 634805 5532078 72 Bahnhof, ParkplatzWestseite 1600 636300 5529374 144 Hallstadt, Bamberger Straße/Michael-Bienlein-Straße 1860 634805 5531969 Fig. 2. Location of the 144 measurements points in Bamberg and Hallstadt in the study area. C. Waldmann-Selsam et al. / Science of the Total Environment 572 (2016) 554–569 559 performed in about 200 sampling points (own data). Repeatability analysis checked this. Despite the fact that the increase in sector antennas (observed between 2011 and 2015) would have probably increased the radiation in the environment of the study area, measurements used in this study were mostly done in 2015. In an attempt to link the electromagnetic radiation measured at every tree to specific phone masts, the distances to the three nearest antennas that could be mainly responsible for the radiation measurements at each tree were calculated in meters with Geographical Information System (GIS) programs, following the general approach criteria of proximity. However, it must be taken into account that buildings and vegetation diminish radiation intensity and, in many cases, the nearest phone mast or masts may be obscured by obstacles. In other cases, the phone mast is in direct line of sight from the tree and the radiation can reach the tree directly. Additionally, 30 random points were generated inside the polygonal study area and outside a layer of buildings, downloaded from: http://www.mapcruzin.com/free-germany-arcgis-maps-shapefiles. htm using a Random Points tool of QGIS 2.6.0-Brighton (QGIS Development Team, 2014) allowing create random points inside a specific layer. Therefore the points were randomly situated in specific places in the study area outside buildings but not frequently concur with the location of trees. That is why measurements were taken from the nearest tree for each random point, generating a random tree group. Measurements and damage characteristics were scored in the same way as with 60 damaged trees explained above, measuring the maximum value of radiation corresponding to opposite sides of each tree. In areas of the city with low measurements of electromagnetic radiation (no visual contact to any phone mast and power flux density b50 μW/m2 ), we scored another 30 trees in the same way as with 60 damaged trees and 30 random points. The UTM coordinates and the three nearest phone masts of each tree in these last two groups (random and low radiation trees) were also recorded. To generate electromagnetic maps, we used ArcGis 9.3 (ESRI, 2008) and QGIS 2.6.0-Brighton (QGIS Development Team, 2014). To check possible differences between groups of data and taking into account that there were two measures made in each tree, repeated measures analysis of variance were applied, considering a repeated measures factor (within-subjects) and another between-subjects. The post hoc Bonferroni test was used in all cases to elucidate significant differences. Statistics were performed using STATISTICA 7 program (StatSoft, Inc, 2004). 3. Results The results of radiation measurements obtained at 144 points in Bamberg and Hallstadt at a height of 1.5 m were between 6 μW/m2 (0.047 V/m) and 17,060 μW/m2 (2.53 V/m) (for measurements and UTM coordinates, see Table 3). The measured values are far below the current limit values (41 V/m for GSM system and 61 V/m for UMTS; ICNIRP, 1998). The locations of these points in the study area are shown in Fig. 2. By interpolation of the 144 measurements points (Table 3), we prepared a map of the power flux density in Bamberg and Hallstadt (Fig. 3). This map is theoretical and approximate, since many factors affect the true electromagnetic values. However, the map is useful to provide approximate differences in exposure (electromagnetic pollution) throughout the city. The 60 selected trees showing damage patterns not attributable to diseases, pests or other environmental factors are presented in Table 4. In this Table, we added the tree code number, the scientific name, the UTM coordinates, the measurements (power flux density) on both sides of each tree, and the distances (meters) and code numbers to the three nearest antennas for each tree, which may be mainly responsible for the electromagnetic radiation measured. We also included the orientation of the tree damage and the number of main (nearest) phone mast(s) in direct line of sight, whose lobe of radiation most directly affected each tree. Finally, we included the codes of damage observed in the 60 trees. From all 60 selected trees, one or more phone mast(s) could be seen, with no obstacles between the phone mast and damaged tree. In many cases, one of the three closest antennas caused the main radiation on the tree surface. In ten trees (codes: 4, 7, 9, 10, 15, 26, 27, 31, 35, and 50), another antenna in direct line of sight caused the measured radiofrequency exposure. This was determined using topography and existing buildings (Table 4 and Fig. 3). The 60 damaged trees (with their code number) and the phone masts are overlaid on the electromagnetic map prepared by interpolation of the 144 measurements points (Fig. 3). The likely antenna or Fig. 3. Map showing the 60 damaged trees and phone masts (both with code numbers) over the interpolation electromagnetic map of the 144 measurement points. 560 C. Waldmann-Selsam et al. / Science of the Total Environment 572 (2016) 554–569 antennas causing radiation damage to each tree are also shown (Fig. 3). The measurements at all selected trees revealed significant differences between the damaged side facing a phone mast and the intact (or less damaged) opposite side. On the side facing a phone mast, the measured values were 80–13,000 μW/m2 (0.173–2.213 V/m). On the opposite side the values were 8–720 μW/m2 (0.054–0.52 V/m). Table 4 60 selected trees showing damage patterns not attributable to diseases, drought or other environmental factors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 N° Scientific name X Y Side antenna measurement µW/m² Opposite side measurement µW/m² Number of Phone Mast 1 Distance a 1 Number of Phone Mast 2 Distance a 2 Number of Phone Mast 3 Distance a 3 Direction of damage Number of main phone mast(s) causing the radiation Damage only on one side Sparse leaves or needles (crown transparency) Brown leaves (start at leaf margins) Colour change of leaves prematurely leaves fall prematurely Dead branches (Peak branches dried). Tip of the main guide dried Irregular growth Not grow in eight Color change of needles Dead parts were trimmed down damage on different sides no damage 1 Acer platanoides 636298 5529366 970 130 35 145,6 34 190,1 21 274,6 S, SW 35,34,21 + + + + + + + 2 Acer platanoides 638211 5530518 680 80 18 41,76 55 583,9 40 930,8 N 18 + + + + + + + 3 Acer platanoides 637868 5529371 2100 290 43 77,18 28 703,9 55 768 S 43 + + + + + + + 4 Acer platanoides 635316 5528245 2300 130 26 61,68 52 164,6 47 210,4 E, S 26,52,47, 14 + + + + + + + + 5 Acer platanoides 636677 5527688 3600 290 23 174,1 17 363,2 48 552,2 S 23 + + + + + + + + 6 Acer platanoides 637536 5528219 700 140 45 242,3 12 251 51 356,4 E 45 + + + + + + 7 Acer platanoides 635339 5526919 270 30 6 156,2 65 211 32 502,6 W 1 + + + + + + + 8 Acer platanoides 635876 5528029 80 10 16 211,6 48 328,1 47 389,9 W 47 + + + + 9 Acer platanoides 634819 5526187 160 20 24 294,1 65 751,1 6 811,2 N 24, 1 + + + + + 10 Acer platanoides 634638 5526163 180 55 24 353,3 65 904,4 6 926,3 N 24, 1 + + + + 11 Acer platanoides 635022 5526270 95 20 24 310 65 553,4 6 661,9 NW 24 + + + 12 Acer platanoides 634854 5532596 11800 400 60 26,93 63 568,2 59 680,1 N 60 + + + + + + + 13 Acer platanoides 634455 5532438 9900 620 63 139,1 60 448,1 59 624 W 63 + + + 14 Acer platanoides 634890 5532028 3380 500 59 142,1 58 557,5 60 593,6 SW 59 + + + + + + + + 15 Acer platanoides 634815 5532307 1050 50 60 317,8 59 389,3 63 495,3 SW 58 + + + + + + + + 16 Carpinus betulus 638001 5530928 1210 120 18 431,5 40 506,6 39 518,8 S 18 + + + + + 17 Carpinus betulus 637996 5530945 2520 150 18 448,7 40 493,7 39 501,3 S 18 + + + + + 18 Carpinus betulus 637987 5530959 890 90 18 465,3 40 478,9 39 484,8 S 18 + + + + 19 Carpinus betulus 637984 5530970 670 10 40 471,1 39 473,6 18 476,3 S 18 + + + + 20 Carpinus betulus 636619 5528966 1000 200 33 169,6 49 274,2 34 367,6 SE 49 + + + + + + 21 Carpinus betulus 636068 5529245 430 20 21 14,87 35 173,5 34 259,1 W 21 + + + + + + 22 Carpinus betulus 637138 5530413 4340 110 25 83,24 4 263,4 5 450,6 NE 4 + + + + + + + 23 Carpinus betulus 637664 5530231 990 60 55 145,8 25 513,2 4 586,9 E 55 + + + + + 24 Carpinus betulus 633137 5529754 2700 50 7 217,4 44 653,7 37 776,2 E 37 + + + + + 25 Tilia sp. 636098 5528729 870 150 22 249,1 11 349,5 14 486,5 W 22 + + + + + 26 Tilia sp. 636261 5528398 410 20 54 149,5 16 358,4 11 428 W 14 + + + 27 Tilia sp. 636030 5528283 680 160 16 100,7 11 279 54 287 S 48 + + + + + + 28 Tilia sp. 634972 5528626 660 170 41 139,8 42 202,3 26 539,6 SW 41 + + + + + + + + 29 Tilia sp. 636283 5529365 2450 160 35 139,5 34 191,2 21 260,9 SW 35, 34, 21 + + + + + 30 Tilia sp. 634573 5532422 3800 420 63 249,6 60 352,5 59 552,8 NE 60 + + + + + + 31 Tilia sp. 635319 5526914 380 120 6 136 65 208,9 32 502,6 W 1 + + + + + + 32 Quercus robur 638598 5526911 860 130 15 308 53 944,7 12 1434 NW 15 + + + 33 Quercus rubra 637501 5529207 1340 120 28 312 43 341,4 46 478,8 E 43 + + + + 34 Quercus rubra 637107 5528961 1650 250 46 105,4 28 236,1 49 414,1 SW 49 + + + 35 Aesculus hippocastanum 636092 5528434 400 20 16 252,3 11 255,2 54 284,3 W 14 + + + + + + + 36 Robinia pseudoacacia 638653 5526920 1300 40 15 331,1 53 979,9 12 1463 NW 15 + + + + + Effect codes C. Waldmann-Selsam et al. / Science of the Total Environment 572 (2016) 554–569 561 In the five most represented species (n ≥ 4) among the 60 affected trees, most trees showed damage only on one side: unilateral damage (Damage code 1, Tables 2 and 4). By species and percentages: Acer platanoides (86%), Carpinus betulus (88%), Tilia sp. (100%), Taxus baccata (80%) and Thuja occidentalis (100%). On the seven trees not given code 1, the damage spread over the whole tree, but trees still showed side differences. Most of these trees were characterized with sparse leaves or needles (crown transparency) (Damage code 2, Tables 2 and 4). By species and percentages: Acer platanoides (86%), Carpinus betulus (100%), Taxus baccata (100%) and Thuja occidentalis (100%). In many of the trees with the one-sided damage, the leaves turned prematurely yellow or brown in June – this always began at the leaf margins (Damage code 3, Tables 2 and 4). The species with higher percentages were: Acer platanoides (86%) and Carpinus betulus (100%). In many trees leaves fall prematurely: Acer platanoides (93%), Carpinus betulus (100%) and Tilia sp. (100%) (Damage code 5, Tables 2 and 4). Many trees of the species Acer platanoides (80%), Taxus baccata (80%) and Thuja occidentalis (100%) had dead branches (Peak branches dried) (Damage code 6, Tables 2 and 4). All the trees of the species Taxus baccata (100%) and Thuja occidentalis (100%) exhibited color change of the needles (Damage code 10, Tables 2 and 4). Finally, in all trees of the species Taxus baccata, dead parts were trimmed (Damage code 11, Tables 2 and 4). Some trees stopped growing in height while, in others, the main guide died (see Tables 2 and 4). The 30 randomly selected trees are presented in Table 5 with the tree code number, the scientific name, the UTM coordinates, the measurements (power flux density) on both sides of each tree, the distance (meters) to the three nearest antennas, their code number and the damage codes. Trees in these locations may be in areas with either high or low radiation. Seventeen trees in this group were situated in places with low radiation and showed no signs of damage. The measurements were 8–50 μW/m2 (0.054–0.137 V/m) and showed no difference between the two opposite sides. Thirteen trees stood in the radiation field of one or more phone mast. Six of these had damage only on the side facing a phone mast, and five had damages on other sides. The measurements on the exposed sides were 40–4600 μW/m2 (0.122–1.316 V/m). The 30 trees selected in areas with low radiation (radio shadow of hills, buildings or trees) are presented in Table 6 with the tree code number, scientific name, UTM coordinates, measurements (power flux density) on both sides of each tree, distance (meters) to the three nearest antennas, their code number and the damage codes. All trees selected in low radiation areas showed no damage (code 13). The power flux density values measured were 3–40 μW/m2 (0.033–0.122 V/m) and no significant differences were found between the two opposite sides. The trees in random points and the trees in areas of low radiation are represented In Fig. 4 over the electromagnetic map prepared by interpolation of the 144 measurements points. We performed a Repeated Measures ANOVA analysis in order to include the measurements of the exposed and shielded side of each tree (R1 = within subjects factor) in the three groups of trees (damaged, random, and low radiation), and to avoid pseudoreplication. The comparisons of all factor levels revealed significant differences, including the interaction between factors. A post hoc Bonferroni comparisons test, recommended for different sized groups of samples, revealed significant differences between measurements from the exposed side of damaged trees and all other groups (Table 7). Fig. 5 shows the measurements (mean and standard error) in all groups. In the “Random points” group of trees, we performed another Repeated Measures ANOVA (R1 = within subjects factor) for trees damaged and undamaged within this group (Table 8). The results showed significant differences in both factors, including the interaction, which means that depending on the group of tree (damaged or undamaged), 37 Robinia pseudoacacia 638619 5526874 660 240 15 350,5 53 985,3 12 1476 NW 15 + + + + 38 Sorbus occuparia 634587 5526564 84 8 24 223,4 1 555,7 6 690,2 N 1 + + + + + + + 39 Acer negundo 637722 5529366 3060 310 43 122,3 28 562,9 46 743,9 SE 43 + + + + + + 40 Acer saccharinum 637852 5527078 840 180 53 477,9 15 604,7 51 868,4 E 15 + + + 41 Juglans regia 634841 5528669 4500 590 41 129,6 42 191,4 26 668,2 N, E 42 + + + + + + + 42 Taxus baccata 635767 5528046 300 70 16 255,3 47 282,7 13 354,2 NW 47 + + + + + 43 Taxus baccata 635491 5526727 8970 190 65 133,2 6 359,3 32 734,2 W 65 + + + + + 44 Taxus baccata 634997 5528506 2500 240 41 140,4 42 324,6 26 446,9 N,E,W 41,42 + + + + 45 Taxus baccata 635272 5527980 2700 70 52 130 47 302,8 26 303,6 NE 52 + + + + + 46 Taxus baccata 637586 5529231 1520 190 43 253,1 28 399 46 567 E 43 + + + + 47 Thuja occidentalis 632975 5529719 910 30 7 98,51 44 651,3 37 936,1 S 7 + + + + 48 Thuja occidentalis 636128 5527881 120 10 48 105,6 16 393,2 17 393,6 S 17 + + + + 49 Thuja occidentalis 634900 5532611 13000 520 60 37,36 63 616,5 59 700,2 NW 60 + + + + 50 Thuja occidentalis 634387 5528232 290 50 41 565,8 42 818,5 52 974,3 S 1 + + + + + 51 Picea pungens 638525 5526863 770 90 15 326,2 53 927,6 12 1427 NE 15 + + + + 52 Picea pungens 634328 5531086 3080 310 56 104 57 367,3 58 681,7 W 57 + + + + 53 Picea pungens 633280 5529546 1350 200 7 323,8 37 792,7 44 900,5 W 7 + + + + + 54 Pinus sylvestris 638542 5526861 790 50 15 332,6 53 940,5 12 1439 NE 15 + + + + + 55 Pinus sylvestris 634461 5532462 5300 130 63 154,9 60 433,2 59 641 SW 63 + + + 56 Pseudotsuga menziesii 638560 5526844 1720 60 15 354,2 53 965,2 12 1463 NE 15 + + + + + + 57 Juniperus communis 634664 5526141 160 20 24 363,1 65 897,6 6 929,4 N 24 + + + + 58 Corylus avellana 'Contorta' 634355 5532399 420 80 63 31,78 60 555,3 58 636,5 W 63 + + + + + 59 Corylus avellana 637720 5529249 3880 720 43 121,7 28 534,2 46 700,2 N 43 + + + + + 60 Symphoricarpos albus 636002 5528299 1200 320 16 90,27 11 248,5 54 316,5 E 54 + + + + + Table 4 (continued) 562 C. Waldmann-Selsam et al. / Science of the Total Environment 572 (2016) 554–569 significant or non-significant respectively differences between the measurements of the two sides are seen (Fig. 6). A post hoc Bonferroni comparisons test showed significant differences between the measurements from the exposed side of damaged trees and all other groups in the random points group (Table 8). Of the 120 trees, those with lower mean distance to the three closest antennas have usually higher values of radiation (Fig. 7). However, screening is common in cities due to a large amount of buildings, thus some trees that are close to antennas show lower radiation values than expected. This means that radiation measurements at points close to antennas are variable (high and low) while trees farther from antennas always have low values. A dossier with documentation gathered over the years and the examples of tree damages is presented in: http://kompetenzinitiative. net/KIT/KIT/baeume-in-bamberg/ 4. Discussion In the present study it was useful, that tree damages in the vicinity of phone masts in Bamberg and Hallstadt had been documented starting 2006. We found a high level of damage to trees in the vicinity of phone masts. The damage encountered in these trees is not attributable to harmful organisms, such as diseases, pests or other environmental factors. These would impact upon the entire tree, whereas damage to trees in the present study was only found on parts of the tree and only on one side (unilateral). Therefore, these factors cannot explain the damage documented here. Generally in all trees of this study, damage is higher in areas of high radiation and occurs on the side where the nearest phone mast is located (Table 4 and Fig. 3). Moreover, areas with more antennas have more levels of radiation and damaged trees are found most often in these high electromagnetic polluted areas. These results showed that side differences in damage corresponded to side differences in measured values of power flux density. This paper look at the effects on trees, but also provides information on how electromagnetic radiation is distributed in a city (interpolation map and Fig. 7). In this study deciduous and coniferous trees were examined under the real radiofrequency field conditions around phone masts in Bamberg and Hallstadt. From most phone masts a broad band of frequencies with different modulations and pulse frequencies and fluctuating power densities is emitted (GSM 900, GSM 1800, UMTS, LTE, TETRA). Different signals may have different effects due to their physical parameters (Belyaev, 2010; IARC, 2013). We do not discriminate between these different signals and cannot answer the question which part of the Table 5 Results of the tree measurements at the 30 random points. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 N° Scientific name X Y Side antenna measurement µW/m² Opposite side measurement µW/m² Number of Phone Mast 1 Distance a 1 Number of Phone Mast 2 Distance a 2 Number of Phone Mast 3 Distance a 3 Damage only on one side Sparse leaves or needles (crown transparency) Brown leaves (start at leaf margins) Colour change of leaves prematurely leaves fall prematurely Dead branches (Peak branches dried). Tip of the main guide dried Irregular growth Not grow in eight Color change of needles Dead parts were trimmed down damage on different sides no damage 1 Salix viminalis 634095 5532455 10 10 63 241,1 58 754,9 60 786,7 + 2 Thuja occidentalis 634760 5532680 500 120 60 119,6 63 524,2 59 763 + + + + + 3 Abies alba 634030 5530490 2200 900 36 201,2 37 418,8 31 447,7 + + + + + 4 Acer campestre 634545 5530739 890 320 56 326,5 31 649,4 57 657,5 + + + 5 Acer platanoides 634557 5530005 4600 1100 31 284,9 30 322,2 62 668,1 + + + + + 6 Picea abies 635311 5530644 1900 210 9 185,6 8 894,8 30 900 + + 7 Thuja occidentalis 635635 5529879 10 10 8 252,5 38 621,9 9 702,6 + 8 Acer platanoides 635693 5529848 2600 310 8 210,9 38 625,5 21 707,1 + + + + + 9 Cornus sanguinea 636415 5530248 40 30 27 559,3 8 614,5 25 750,8 + 10 Acer pseudoplatanus 637525 5530896 50 50 5 270,5 40 298,1 4 366,7 + 11 Syringa 638111 5531436 10 10 39 344,8 40 595,7 18 885,1 + 12 Acer platanoides 'Globorum' 637928 5530541 30 30 18 295,5 55 436,8 4 683,7 + 13 Acer platanoides 637159 5529361 20 15 28 181,7 46 330,8 43 671,3 + 14 Quercus rubra 638342 5528994 1480 570 50 549,7 43 600,8 45 907,4 + + + + + 15 Thuja occidentalis 638359 5528569 25 20 50 275,5 45 653,6 12 866,2 + 16 Tilia sp 637412 5527922 460 320 51 93,6 10 122,5 12 293,8 + 17 Quercus robur 637363 5527807 45 33 10 120 51 137,3 12 389,4 + 18 Larix decidua 637804 5527628 4400 3170 53 125,8 51 396,4 12 408,5 + + + + 19 Acer pseudoplatanus 637919 5527135 760 120 53 418,2 15 530,9 51 849,1 + + + + + + 20 Acer negundo 637329 5526888 190 30 23 865,1 53 879,8 51 990,7 + + 21 Quercus robur 637115 5527423 46 26 23 382 10 511,2 51 578,5 + 22 Thuja occidentalis 637315 5526260 40 13 64 1367 23 1390 53 1421 + + 23 Salix matsudana 'Tortuosa' 635403 5525413 15 12 64 848,8 24 1229 65 1297 + 24 Populus tremula 635410 5525828 15 9 64 596,8 65 882,5 24 897 + 25 Salix matsudana 'Tortuosa' 634981 5526161 41 23 24 369,8 65 665,7 6 777,7 + 26 Prunus sp. 634829 5526050 28 21 24 431,4 65 845,7 6 931,9 + 27 Picea pungens 634791 5526809 470 340 24 329 6 405,3 1 563,6 + + + + 28 Cornus sanguinea 635164 5527863 15 15 52 288,9 26 454,4 47 460,7 + 29 Cornus sanguinea 634905 5528779 20 20 42 65,12 41 242 26 695,1 + 30 Acer negundo 634202 5529092 8 8 42 792,6 41 859 62 886,9 + Effect codes C. Waldmann-Selsam et al. / Science of the Total Environment 572 (2016) 554–569 563 radiation has caused the damage. Nevertheless broad bands of frequencies, modulation, pulse frequencies, interferences and other physical characteristics may play an important role, since in some cases, damage already appears at low intensities. This can be a shortcoming of the study. The aim of the present study was to find out whether there is a causal relationship between the unilateral tree damages, which had been observed since 2006, and the RF-EMF emitted from phone masts and a preliminary observation to find out whether various species react differently to RF exposure. The selection of the 60 unilaterally damaged trees was limited by the fact that we could do measurements only up to a height of 6 m. Trees with damages above the height of 6 m could not be included. Many factors can affect the health of trees: Air and soil pollutants, heat, frost, drought, as well as composition, compaction and sealing of the soil, road salts, root injury due to construction work, diseases and pests. Most of these factors do not affect a tree only on one side over a period of N5 years. Industrial air pollutants could eventually cause unilateral damage in direction to an industrial emitter. But the observed unilateral damages appeared in all directions and were not oriented to the incineration plant or other industrial plants. Root injury due to construction work can produce damage on one side of a tree, but 24 of the 60 selected trees were situated in gardens, parks or on the cemetery where they could not be affected by construction damages. From the damaged side there was always visual contact to one or more phone mast (s). In each case measurements of the power flux density on the damaged side which was facing a phone mast and on the opposite side without (or with less) damage were carried out and the difference between the measured values on both sides was significant (Fig. 5), as well as between the exposed side of damaged trees and all other groups. In all 60 trees the gradient of damage corresponded to a gradient of measured values. The attenuation of the RF-EMF within the treetop offers an explanation: a part of the RF-EMF is absorbed by leaves or needles and another part is reflected, scattered and diffracted. In the randomely selected group of 30 trees, 17 trees were situated on places with low radiation. These 17 trees showed no damages, the measured values were below 50 μW/m2 (0.137 V/m) and there was no difference between opposite sides as in the low radiation group. On the other hand, 13 trees grew in the radiation field of one or more phone mast (s). These trees showed unilateral damage or damage on different sides. The measured values at damaged trees showed differences between both sides as in the previous group above. In the group of 30 trees in areas with low radiation (radio shadow of hills, buildings or trees and without visual contact to phone masts) Table 6 Results of the tree measurements in the 30 points with low radiation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Nº Scientific name X Y Side antenna measurement µW/m² Opposite side measurement µW/m² Number of Phone Mast 1 Distance a 1 Number of Phone Mast 2 Distance a 2 Number of Phone Mast 3 Distance a 3 Damage only on one side Sparse leaves or needles (crown transparency) Brown leaves (start at leaf margins) Colour change of leaves prematurely leaves fall prematurely Dead branches (Peak branches dried). Tip of the main guide dried Irregular growth Not grow in eight Color change of needles Dead parts were trimmed down damage on different sides no damage 1 Acer platanoides 636741 5529855 26 20 25 636,3 33 784,1 35 798,8 + 2 Carpinus betulus 634853 5529041 10 8 42 234,5 62 476,4 41 500,1 + 3 Carpinus betulus 638311 5528439 12 10 50 229,7 45 563,5 12 750 + 4 Carpinus betulus 636753 5529880 8 8 25 609,6 33 811,5 28 823,5 + 5 Carpinus betulus 637817 5527130 15 12 53 432,1 15 633 51 806,6 + 6 Carpinus betulus 634931 5526731 15 15 24 286 6 310,3 65 428,6 + 7 Tilia sp. 636500 5529673 8 8 35 511,4 34 528,3 33 570,3 + 8 Tilia sp. 636824 5529794 17 9 25 635,7 28 713,1 33 755,3 + 9 Quercus robur 636455 5526130 9 8 64 497,5 65 1240 17 1425 + 10 Quercus robur 'Fastigiata' 636178 5528932 10 10 34 282,2 35 306,5 21 332 + 11 Aesculus hippocastanum 636828 5529780 10 10 25 645,5 28 699 33 744,2 + 12 Aesculus carnea 636463 5529709 12 12 35 526,1 34 551,4 33 608,6 + 13 Robinia pseudoacacia 635507 5528534 15 15 14 136,6 13 201,5 26 299,2 + 14 Robinia pseudoacacia 634720 5532783 8 8 60 216,7 63 559,3 59 868,7 + 15 Acer campestre 635697 5528689 40 30 14 136,5 22 155,8 11 246,8 + 16 Acer campestre 636486 5526116 6 6 64 526,2 65 1273 23 1437 + 17 Juglans regia 635744 5528667 20 15 22 119 14 145,7 11 202,8 + 18 Platanus hispanica 635496 5528529 17 15 14 148,4 13 204,1 26 289,9 + 19 Prunus avium 637958 5530874 10 8 18 412,4 40 502,6 39 551,4 + 20 Prunus sp. 636079 5528463 10 10 11 237,5 16 269,7 54 312,7 + 21 Taxus baccata 638407 5528502 5 5 50 316 45 673,6 12 864,8 + 22 Taxus baccata 638222 5531032 10 10 18 474 39 578,6 40 673,1 + 23 Thuja occidentalis 636518 5529853 9 9 8 648,4 35 680 34 705 + 24 Thuja occidentalis 635318 5528784 20 15 42 371,5 14 389,4 13 514,8 + 25 Picea pungens 636512 5529735 17 17 35 571,4 34 590,8 33 632 + 26 Juniperus communis 636549 5529756 8 8 35 607,8 34 623,4 33 653,7 + 27 Cornus sanguinea 638167 5529098 8 6 43 397,2 50 597,9 45 899,8 + 28 Sambucus nigra 635529 5525601 5 5 64 625,2 65 1121 24 1146 + 29 Corylus avellana 636422 5526181 5 3 64 476,4 65 1187 17 1371 + 30 Corylus avellana 636625 5529834 6 6 35 714 34 725,2 25 732,3 + Effect codes 564 C. Waldmann-Selsam et al. / Science of the Total Environment 572 (2016) 554–569 there were no unilateral damages. The measured values were below 50 μW/m2 (0.137 V/m) and there was no difference between opposite sides. These results in the three groups point to a connection between unilateral tree damage and RF exposure. In the electromagnetic field of all mobile phone base stations visited numerous tree damages were observed. The damage occurred in temporal relation with the putting into operation of new mobile phone base stations. Woody plants of all species are affected (deciduous and coniferous trees as well as shrubs). In the five most represented species (n ≥ 4) among the 60 damaged trees (Acer platanoides, Carpinus betulus, Tilia sp., Taxus baccata and Thuja occidentalis), most trees showed damage only on one side (Damage code 1, Tables 2 and 4). Most of these trees were characterized with sparse leaves or needles (crown transparency) (Damage code 2, Tables 2 and 4). In many of the trees with the one-sided damage, the leaves turned prematurely yellow or brown in June – this always began at the leaf margins (Damage code 3, Tables 2 and 4). In many trees leaves fall prematurely (Damage code 5, Tables 2 and 4) or had dead branches (Peak branches dried) (Damage code 6, Tables 2 and 4). Some trees stopped growing in height while, in others, the main guide died (see Tables 2 and 4). The differences in susceptibility of different species could be related to radiofrequency energy absorption properties of the trees (e.g., dielectric property). Perhaps this study cannot answer questions about these differences, however it is quite possible that differences are related to the electrical conductivity, related also with the density of the wood (species of fast or slow growth) and particularly with the percentage of water in the tissues. Poplars and aspen that grow near rivers and water bodies in Spain seem to be particularly sensitive to the effects of radiation. But the waves reflection in the water could also influence. The results presented here lead us to conclude that damage found in the selected trees is caused by electromagnetic radiation from phone Fig. 4. Map showing the 30 trees at random points and the 30 trees in areas of low radiation (both with code numbers) over the interpolation electromagnetic map of the 144 measurement points. Phone masts (with code numbers) are also represented. Table 7 Repeated measures ANOVA analysis and Bonferroni post hoc comparisons (p b 0.01 values with *) in the three types of trees (damaged, random, and low radiation). Measurement Side 1/2 correspond to the maximum/minumum value of radiation respectively for the opposite sides of each tree. SS Degr. of MS F p Intercept 62663309 1 62663309 25.81460 0.000001* Type of tree 52931692 2 26465846 10.90280 0.000046* Error 284010086 117 2427437 R1 33197069 1 33197069 18.28694 0.000039* R1*Type of tree 44608664 2 22304332 12.28656 0.000014* Error 212395158 117 1815343 Type of tree R1 {1} {2} {3} {4} {5} {6} 1 Damaged Measurement Side1 0.000000* 0.001829* 0.000001* 0.000000* 0.000000* 2 Damaged Measurement Side2 0.000000* 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 3 Random Measurement Side1 0.001829* 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 4 Random Measurement Side2 0.000001* 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 5 Low radiation Measurement Side1 0.000000* 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 6 Low radiation Measurement Side2 0.000000* 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 C. Waldmann-Selsam et al. / Science of the Total Environment 572 (2016) 554–569 565 masts, as we proposed in previous studies (Balmori, 2004; Waldmann-Selsam, 2007; Waldmann-Selsam and Eger, 2013; Balmori, 2014). Interested parties are able to locate the damaged trees found in this work in Bamberg and Hallstadt with their UTM coordinates. However, trees with code numbers 20, 38 and 48 (Table 4) have been cut down and removed. Research on the effects of radiation from phone masts is advancing rapidly. In February 2011 the first symposium on the effects of electromagnetic radiation on trees took place in Baarn, Netherlands (Schorpp, 2011 - http://www.boomaantastingen.nl/), where similar effects and results to those found in the current paper were presented. Although there are some related experiments that show no effect of long-term exposure (3,5 years), 2450-MHz (continous wave) and power flux densities from 0.007 to 300 W/m2 on crown transparency, height growth and photosynthesis of young spruce and beech trees (Schmutz et al., 1996), this result may not be transferred to modulated 2450-MHz or to other pulsed and modulated frequencies. In addiction, an increasing number of studies have highlighted biological responses and modifications at the molecular and whole plant level after exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields (Vian et al., 2016). Plants can perceive and respond to various kinds of electromagnetic radiation over a wide range of frequencies. Moreover, a low electric field intensity (5 V/m) was sufficient to evoke morphological responses (Grémiaux et al., 2016). Electromagnetic radiation impacts at physiological and ecological levels (Cammaerts and Johansson, 2015), and evokes a multitude of responses in plants. The effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields can also take place at the subcellular level: it can alter the activity of several enzymes, including those of reactive oxygen species (ROS) metabolism, a well-known marker of plant responses to various kinds of environmental factors; it evokes the expression of specific genes previously implicated in plant responses to wounding (gene expression modifications), and modifies the growth of the whole plants (Vian et al., 2016). It could be hypothesized that membrane potential variations in response to electromagnetic radiation exposure may initiate electrical waves of depolarization (AP and/or VP) that could initiate immediate or delayed growth responses (Grémiaux et al., 2016). It has been proposed that electromagnetic fields act similarly in plants and in animals, with the probable activation of calcium channels via their voltage sensor (Pall, 2016). Electromagnetic radiation (1800 MHz) interferes with carbohydrate metabolism and inhibits the growth of Zea mays (Kumar et al., 2015). Furthermore, cell phone electromagnetic radiation inhibits root growth of the mung bean (Vigna radiata) by inducing ROS-generated oxidative stress despite increased activities of antioxidant enzymes (Sharma et al., 2009). Germination rate and embryonic stem length of Triticum aestivum was also affected by cell phone radiation (Hussein and ElMaghraby, 2014). After soybeans were exposed to weak microwave radiation from the GSM 900 mobile phone and base station, growth of Table 8 Repeated measures ANOVA analysis and Bonferroni post hoc comparisons (p b 0.01 values with *) in the random trees group. Measurement Side 1/2 correspond to the maximum/ minumum value of radiation respectively for the opposite sides of each tree. SS Degr. of MS F p Intercept 17829607 1 17829607 16.60985 0.000343* 13 code 16391606 1 16391606 15.27023 0.000538* Error 30056202 28 1073436 R1 3701923 1 3701923 16.73250 0.000329* R1*13 code 3627579 1 3627579 16.39647 0.000368* Error 6194761 28 221241 13 code R1 {1} {2} {3} {4} 1 Undamaged Measurement Side 1 1.000000 0.002129* 0.416303 2 Undamaged Measurement Side 2 1.000000 0.000034* 0.927155 3 Damaged Measurement Side 1 0.002129* 0.000034* 0.000055* 4 Damaged Measurement Side 2 0.416303 0.927155 0.000055* Fig. 6. Differences between measurements in both sides for the damaged and undamaged trees within the random trees group. Measurement side 1/2 correspond to the maximum/ minumum value of radiation respectively for the opposite sides of each tree. The bars represent means ± standard errors. The central point represents the mean and the straight line ± 0.95*SE. Fig. 5. Differences between measurements in both sides for the three different tree groups: damaged, random, and low radiation. Measurement Side 1/2 correspond to the maximum/minumum value of radiation respectively for the opposite sides of each tree. The bars represent means ± standard errors. The central point represents the mean and the straight line ± 0.95*SE. 566 C. Waldmann-Selsam et al. / Science of the Total Environment 572 (2016) 554–569 epicotyl and hypocotyl was reduced, whereas the outgrowth of roots was stimulated. These findings indicate that the observed effects were significantly dependent on field strength as well as amplitude modulation of the applied field (Halgamuge et al., 2015). Phone mast radiation also affects common cress (Lepidium sativum) seed germination (Cammaerts and Johansson, 2015). In Arabidopsis thaliana, the long term exposure to non ionizing radiation causes a reduction in the number of chloroplasts as well as the decrease of stroma thylakoids and the photosynthetic pigments (Stefi et al., 2016). Finally, low-intensity exposure to radiofrequency fields can induce mitotic aberrations in root meristematic cells of Allium cepa; the observed effects were markedly dependent on the frequencies applied as well as on field strength and modulation (Tkalec et al., 2009). In general, polarization from man-made electromagnetic radiation appears to have a greater bioactive effect than natural radiation, and significantly increases the probability for initiation of biological or health effects (Panagopoulos et al., 2015). Tree damages as in Bamberg and Hallstadt were documented by the authors in several countries: Spain (Valladolid, Salamanca, Madrid, Palencia, León), Germany (Munich, Nürnberg, Erlangen, Bayreuth, Neuburg/Donau, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Murnau, Stuttgart, Kassel, Fulda, Göttingen, biosphere reserve Rhön, Tegernsee Valley and in several small towns), Austria (Graz), Belgium (Brussels) and Luxemburg. Each phone mast can harm many trees and each tree can be affected by several phone masts belonging to the same or different base stations. Damaged trees seem to exist around each antenna and the several million phone masts in the world could potentially be damaging the growth and health of millions of trees. This can occur not only in cities, but also in well-preserved forests, and in natural and national parks, where base stations are being installed without the necessary prior environmental impact studies, due to a lack of knowledge of the problem. For this reason, it is essential for an assessment on the environmental impact of any new base station prior to implementation. Additionally, phone masts can cause a drop in timber productivity in plantations of pine, poplar, etc., as well as fruits, nuts, etc. Thus, the industry must be required to pay damages to plantation owners. Similarly, as trees are a common social good, the industry should compensate for damaged and dead trees around the world due to radiation. Further, the money spent by municipalities to repair or replace damaged trees should enter into the computation of costs/benefits of this technology. For installation of any new technology, the burden of proof should be to the industry that requires demonstration of safety prior to deployment. Electromagnetic radiation from telecommunication antennas affected the abundance and composition of wild pollinators in natural habitats and these changes in the composition of pollinator communities associated with electromagnetic smog may have important ecological and economic impacts on the pollination service that could significantly affect the maintenance of wild plant diversity, crop production and human welfare (Lázaro et al., 2016). Evidence for plant damage due to high frequency electromagnetic radiation was not taken into account in determining the current statutory regulations (the limit values). Once the problem becomes evident, the guidelines of radiation emitted by the antennas should be reviewed. Proper risk assessment of electromagnetic radiation should be undertaken to develop management strategies for reducing this pollution in the natural environment (Kumar et al., 2015). Moreover, due to the lack of recognition, certain modern projects with interesting ideas for decreasing environmental pollution could have opposite effects than expected. For example, in the Netherlands, the TreeWiFi project (http://treewifi.org/), which aims to motivate people to use bikes and public transport in order to reduce the [NO2] pollution providing free WiFi when air quality improves, could be favoring electromagnetic pollution with even more harmful effects as it has been demonstrated in this manuscript (see also: http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/ fr/Blog/le-wi-fi-tuerait-les-ar-bres/blog/33569/). In addition, the number of sector antennas has increased in Bamberg and this increase appears to be accelerating: 483 sector antennas in 2011 and 779 sector antennas in 2015. Both radiation and damaged trees represent a loss of quality of life for citizens. This study began after finding that patients who claimed to be affected by phone masts, referred to as radiation, live in areas where affected trees and plants are located. Evidence of radiation damage was even found in potted plants inside patient homes (Waldmann-Selsam and Eger, 2013). Thus, this study is certainly complementary to the study by Eger and Jahn (2010) and other research that has shown effects on the health of people by phone masts located in their vicinity (Santini et al., 2002; Eger et al., 2004; Wolf and Wolf, 2004; Abdel-Rassoul et al., 2007; Khurana et al., 2010; Dode et al., 2011; Gómez-Perretta et al., 2013; Shahbazi-Gahrouei et al., 2014; Belyaev et al., 2015). In the introduction to the International Seminar on “Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on the Living Environment” in 1999 in Ismaning, Germany, organized by WHO, ICNIRP and German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), M. Repacholi, head of the International EMF Project of the WHO, said: “By comparison, influences of these fields on plants, animals, birds and other living organisms have not been properly examined. Given that any adverse impacts on the environment will ultimately affect human life, it is difficult to understand why more work has not been done. There are many questions that need to be raised: …” and “…it seems that research should focus on the long-term, lowlevel EMF exposure for which almost no information is available. Specific topics that need to be addressed include: … EMF influences on agricultural plants and trees” (Matthes et al., 2000). 5. Conclusions In this study we found a high-level damage in trees within the vicinity of phone masts. Preliminary laboratory studies have indicated some deleterious effects of radiofrequency radiation. However, these early warnings have had no success and deployment has been continued without consideration of environmental impact. We observed trees with unilateral damage in the radiation field of phone masts. We excluded the possibility that root injury due to construction work or air pollutants could have caused the unilateral damage. We found out that from the damaged side there was always visual contact to one or more phone mast (s). Statistical analyses demonstrated that the electromagnetic radiation from cellphone towers is harmful to trees. Results show that the measurements in the most affected sides of damaged trees (i.e. those that withstand higher radiation levels) are different to all other groups. These results are consistent with the fact that damage inflicted on Fig. 7. Scatterplot showing the correlation between measurements from each of the 120 trees and the mean distance to the three nearest antennas. Dashed lines represent the 0.95 confidence interval. C. Waldmann-Selsam et al. / Science of the Total Environment 572 (2016) 554–569 567 trees by cellphone towers usually start on one side, extending to the whole tree over time. The occurrence of unilateral damage is the most important fact in our study and an important argument for a causal relationship with RF-EMF, as it supplies evidence for non-thermal RF-EMF effects. This constitutes a danger for trees worldwide. The further deployment of phone masts has to be stopped. Scientific research on trees under the real radiofrequency field conditions must continue. Acknowledgements The work presented here was carried out without any funding. Francisco Cabrero and José Ignacio Aguirre from the Department of Zoology, University Complutense of Madrid suggested the interpolation points on the map of radiation. This paper is dedicated in memoriam to the great Swedish researcher and courageous man, Örjan Hallberg. Authors have not a conflict of interest to declare. References Abdel-Rassoul, G., El-Fateh, O.A., Salem, M.A., Michael, A., Farahat, F., El-Batanouny, M., Salem, E., 2007. Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations. Neurotoxicology 28, 434–440. Balmori, A., 2004. Pueden afectar las microondas pulsadas emitidas por las antenas de telefonía a los árboles y otros vegetales? Ecosistemas 13, 79–87. Balmori, A., 2014. Electrosmog and species conservation. Sci. Total Environ. 496, 314–316. Balmori, A., 2015. Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an emerging threat to wildlife orientation. Sci. Total Environ. 518, 58–60. Balodis, V.G., Brumelis, K., Kalviskis, O., Nikodemus, D., Tjarve, V.Z., 1996. Does the Skrunda Radio Location Station disminish the radial growth of pine trees? Sci. Total Environ. 180, 57–64. Beaubois, E., Girard, S., Lallechere, S., Davies, E., Paladian, F., Bonnet, P., Ledoit, G., Vian, A., 2007. Intercellular communication in plants: evidence for two rapidly transmitted systemic signals generated in response to electromagnetic field stimulation in tomato. Plant Cell Environ. 30, 834–844. Belyaev, I., 2010. Dependence of non-thermal biological effects of microwaves on physical and biological variables: implications for reproducibility and safety standards. In: Giuliani, L., Soffritti, M. (Eds.), European Journal of Oncology - Library Non-thermal effects and mechanisms of interaction between electromagnetic fields and living matterAn ICEMS Monograph vol. 5. RAMAZZINI INSTITUTE, Bologna, Italy (http:// www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL). Belyaev, I., Dean, A., Eger, H., Hubmann, G., Jandrisovits, R., Johansson, O., Moshammer, H., Kern, M., Kundi, M., Lercher, P., Mosgoller, W., Moshammer, H., Muller, K., Oberfeld, G., Ohnsorge, P., Pelzmann, P., Scheingraber, C., Thill, R., 2015. EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Rev. Environ. Health 30, 337–371. Bernatzky, A., 1986. Elektromagnetischer Smog – Feind des Lebens. Der Naturarzt 11, 22–25 (http://www.diewellenbrecher.de/pdf/bernatzky.pdf). Brauer, I., 1950. Experimentelle Untersuchungen über die Wirkung von Meterwellen verschiedener Feldstärke auf das Teilungswachstum der Pflanzen. Chromosoma 3, 483–509 (http://www.springerlink.com/content/kqn177g8g5114787/, letzter Zugriff: 30.5.2013). Cammaerts, M.C., Johansson, O., 2015. Effect of man-made electromagnetic fields on common Brassicaceae Lepidium sativum (cress d'Alinois) seed germination: a preliminary replication study. Fyton 84, 132–137. Dode, A.C., Leão, M.M., de AF Tejo, F., Gomes, A.C., Dode, D.C., Dode, M.C., Caiaffa, W.T., 2011. Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil. Sci. Total Environ. 409, 3649–3665. Eger, H., Uwe, K., Hagen, B., Lucas, P., Vogel, P., Voit, H., 2004. Einfluss der räumlichen Nähe von Mobilfunksendeanlagen auf die Krebsinzidenz. Umwelt Med. Ges. 17, 326–332. Eger, H., Jahn, M., 2010. Specific symptoms and radiation from mobile basis stations in Selbitz, Bavaria, Germany: evidence for a dose-effect relationship (original article in German). Umwelt Med. Ges. 23, 130–139. ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute), 2008. ArcMap 9.3 (Build 1770). ESRI® ArcGIS, 9, 1999–2008. Gómez-Perretta, C., Navarro, E.A., Segura, J., Portolés, M., 2013. Subjective symptoms related to GSM radiation from mobile phone base stations: a cross-sectional study. BMJ open 3 (12), e003836. Grémiaux, A., Girard, S., Guérin, V., Lothier, J., Baluška, F., Davies, E., Bonnet, P., Vian, A., 2016. Low-amplitude, high-frequency electromagnetic field exposure causes delayed and reduced growth in Rosa hybrid. J. Plant Physiol. 190, 44–53. Haggerty, K., 2010. Adverse influence of radio frequency background on trembling aspen seedlings: preliminary observations. Int. J. For. Res. 2010, 836278. Halgamuge, M.N., Yak, S.K., Eberhardt, J.L., 2015. Reduced growth of soybean seedlings after exposure to weak microwave radiation from GSM 900 mobile phone and base station. Bioelectromagnetics 36, 87–95. Harte, C., 1950. Mutationsauslösung durch Ultrakurzwellen. Chromosoma 3, 140–147. Harte, C., 1972. Auslösung von Chromosomenmutationen durch Meterwellen in Pollenmutterzellen von Oenothera. Chromosoma 36, 329–337 (http://www. springerlink.com/content/x32049jrnm4u7858/). Hussein, R.A., El-Maghraby, M.A., 2014. Effect of two brands of cell phone on germination rate and seedling of wheat (Triticum aestivum). J. Environ. Pollut. Human Health 2, 85–90. IARC, 2013. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Nonionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields vol. 102. IARC Press, Lyon, France (http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol102/mono102. pdf). I. C. N. I. R. P., 1998. Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Phys. 74 (4), 494–522. Jayasanka, S.M.D.H., Asaeda, T., 2013. The significance of microwaves in the environment and its effect on plants. Environ. Rev. 22, 220–228. Jerman, I., Berden, M., Ruzic, R., Skarja, M., 1998. Biological effects of TV set electromagnetic fields on the growth of spruce seedlings. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 17, 31–42. Kiepenheuer, K.O., Brauer, I., Harte, C., 1949. Über die Wirkung von Meterwellen auf das Teilungswachstum der Pflanzen. Naturwissenschaften 36, 27. Kundu, A., IEEE, 2013. Specific Absorption Rate evaluation in apple exposed to RF radiation from GSM mobile towers. IEEE Applied Electromagnetics Conference (AEMC). IEEE, pp. 1–2 (ISBN 978-1-4799-3266-5). Khurana, V.G., Hardell, L., Everaert, J., Bortkiewicz, A., Carlberg, M., Ahonen, M., 2010. Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 16, 263–267. Kumar, A., Singh, H.P., Batish, D.R., Kaur, S., Kohli, R.K., 2015. EMF radiations (1800 MHz)- inhibited early seedling growth of maize (Zea mays) involves alterations in starch and sucrose metabolism. Protoplasma 1–7. Lázaro, A., Chroni, A., Tscheulin, T., Devalez, J., Matsoukas, C., Petanidou, T., 2016. Electromagnetic radiation of mobile telecommunication antennas affects the abundance and composition of wild pollinators. J. Insect Conserv. 1–10 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10841-016-9868-8. Lerchl, D., Lerchl, A., Hantsch, P., et al., 2000. Studies on the effects of radio-frequency fields on conifers, Kurzmitteilung auf der Tagung der Bioelectromagnetics Society in München. http://www.boomaantastingen.nl/EMF_and_conifers%5B1%5D.pdf. Matthes, R., Bernhardt, J.H., Repacholi, M.H., 2000. Effects of electromagnetic fields on the living environment. Proceedings International Seminar on Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on the Living Environment – Ismaning, Germany, October 4 and 5, 1999, ICNIRP 10/2000. Meng, Y.S., Lee, Y.H., 2010. Investigations of foliage effect on modern wireless communication systems: a review. Prog. Electromagn. Res. 105, 313–332. Pall, M., 2016. Electromagnetic fields act similarly in plants as in animals: probable activation of calcium channels via their voltage sensor. Curr. Chem. Biol. (http:// benthamscience.com/journals/current-chemical-biology/article/141390/). Panagopoulos, D.J., Johansson, O., Carlo, G.L., 2015. Polarization: a key difference between man-made and natural electromagnetic fields, in regard to biological activity. Sci. Rep. 5, 14914. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep14914. Panagopoulos, D.J., Cammaerts, M.C., Favre, D., Balmori, A., 2016. Comments on environmental impact of radiofrequency fields from mobile phone base stations. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2016.1182107. Pesnya, D.S., Romanovsky, A.V., 2013. Comparison of cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of plutonium-239 alpha particles and mobile phone GSM 900 radiation in the Allium cepa test. Mutat. Res. Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen. 750, 27–33. QGIS Development Team, 2014. Quantum GIS geographic information system version 2.6.0-Brighton [Internet]. http://qgis.osgeo.org. Roux, D., Vian, A., Girard, S., Bonnet, P., Paladian, F., Davies, E., Ledoigt, G., 2006. Electromagnetic fields (900 MHz) evoke consistent molecular responses in tomato plants. Physiol. Plant. 128, 283–288. Roux, D., Vian, A., Girard, S., Bonnet, P., Paladian, F., Davies, E., Ledoigt, G., 2008. High frequency (900 MHz) low amplitude (5 V m − 1) electromagnetic field: a genuine environmental stimulus that affects transcription, translation, calcium and energy charge in tomato. Planta 227, 883–891. Sandu, D.D., Goiceanu, C., Ispas, A., Creanga, I., Miclaus, S., Creanga, D.E., 2005. A preliminary study on ultra high frequency electromagnetic fields effect on black locust chlorophylls. Acta Biol. Hung. 56, 109–117. Santini, R., Santini, P., Danze, J.M., Le Ruz, P., Seigne, M., 2002. Study of the health of people living in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations: I. Influences of distance and sex. Pathol. Biol. 50, 369–373. Schmutz, P., Siegenthaler, J., Stäger, C., Tarjan, D., Bucher, J.B., 1996. Long-term exposure of young spruce and beech trees to 2450 MHz microwave radiation. Sci. Total Environ. 180, 43–48. Schorpp, V., 2011. Tree damage from chronic high frequency exposure. The effect of electromagnetic radiation on trees, First symposium February 18, 2011, Lecture, Baan, Netherlands (http://www.puls-schlag.org/download/Schorpp-2011-02- 18.pdf). Selga, T., Selga, M., 1996. Response of Pinus sylvestris L. needles to electromagnetic fields. Cytological and ultrastructural aspects. Sci. Total Environ. 180, 65–73. Shahbazi-Gahrouei, D., Karbalae, M., Moradi, H.A., Baradaran-Ghahfarokhi, M., 2014. Health effects of living near mobile phone base transceiver station (BTS) antennae: a report from Isfahan, Iran. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 33, 206–210. Sharma, V.P., Singh, H.P., Kohli, R.K., Batish, D.R., 2009. Mobile phone radiation inhibits Vigna radiata (mung bean) root growth by inducing oxidative stress. Sci. Total Environ. 407, 5543–5547. StatSoft, Inc, 2004. STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 7. www.statsoft. com. Stefi, A.L., Margaritis, L.H., Christodoulakis, N.S., 2016. The effect of the non ionizing radiation on cultivated plants of Arabidopsis thaliana (Col.). Flora 223, 114–120. 568 C. Waldmann-Selsam et al. / Science of the Total Environment 572 (2016) 554–569 Tkalec, M., Malarić, K., Pevalek-Kozlina, B., 2005. Influence of 400, 900, and 1900 MHz. electromagnetic fields on Lemna minor growth and peroxidase activity. Bioelectromagnetics 26, 185–193. Tkalec, M., Malarić, K., Pavlica, M., Pevalek-Kozlina, B., Vidaković-Cifrek, Ž., 2009. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on seed germination and root meristematic cells of Allium cepa L. Mutat. Res. Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen. 672, 76–81. Van't Wout, N., 2006. Unkown tree damage. http://www.boomaantastingen.nl. Vian, A., Davies, E., Gendraud, M., Bonnet, P., 2016. Plant responses to high frequency electromagnetic fields. Biomed. Res. Int. 2016, 1830262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/ 1830262. Volkrodt, W., 1987. Wer ist am Waldsterben schuld? Mikrowellensmog der Funk- und Nachrichtensysteme. Raum Zeit 26, 53–62. Volkrodt, W., 1991. Droht den Mikrowellen ein ähnliches Fiasko wie der Atomenergie? Wetter-Boden-Mensch 4, 16–23. Waldmann-selsam, C., 2007. Mikrowellensyndrom – ein neues Krankheitsbild, Vortrag, 6. Rheinland-Pfälzisch-Hessisches Mobilfunksymposium, 14.4.2007, BUND Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz. http://www.bund-rlp.de/publikationen/ tagungsbaende/mobilfunksymposium/6_mobilfunksymposium/. Waldmann-Selsam, C., Eger, H., 2013. Baumschäden im Umkreis von Mobilfunksendeanlagen. Umwelt Med. Ges. 26, 198–208 (http:// kompetenzinitiative.net/KIT/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Tree-damages-inthe-vicinity-of-mobile-phone-base-stations.pdf). Wolf, R., Wolf, D., 2004. Increased incidence of cancer near a cell-phone transmitter station. Int. J. Cancer 1, 123–128.