The discovery that tens‑of‑volts‑per‑metre anthropogenic electric fields (E‑fields) suppress honey‑bee foraging (Mallinson et al., 2025) has immediate ecological implications, yet its significance extends far beyond pollinator ecology. This paper places the new findings in a multiscale framework, arguing that the same physical cues exploited—or disrupted—at the landscape scale govern charge‑dependent interactions inside human blood and cells. We (i) summarise the experimental design and results of Mallinson et al.; (ii) compare the reported E‑field envelope (22–66 V m⁻¹) with field strengths that modulate red‑blood‑cell zeta‑potential and mitochondrial membrane potential; (iii) develop a conceptual model in which environmental polarity cues and intracellular voltage gradients are manifestations of a single bioelectric continuum; and (iv) outline a research agenda bridging ecology, biophysics, and public‑health engineering.
Introduction
The Hermetic maxim quod est superius est sicut quod inferius (“that which is above is like that which is below”) anticipates a modern principle of field coherence: life interprets and generates electrical patterns across scales, from the ionosphere to the inner mitochondrial membrane. Whereas quantum biology focuses on external quanta (photons) energising biochemical reactions, bioelectric health interrogates the intrinsic voltage architecture that governs cell function and evolution. The recent iScience paper by Mallinson et al. provides an empirical bridge between the two realms, demonstrating that external fields at ecologically realistic amplitudes perturb pollinator behaviour—an effect heralding analogous disruptions in human bioenergetics.
Summary of Mallinson et al. 2025
Experimental Design
- Species & Sites Apis mellifera foraging on Nepeta grandiflora in two urban meadows, Bristol, UK (July–September 2023).
- Stimuli Electrodes 50 mm from blossoms delivered (a) 50 Hz, 5 Vpp AC; (b) +5 V DC; (c) –5 V DC. Resultant local field strength: 22–66 V m⁻¹ at 70 mm from the source (laboratory calibration, Fig. 5).
- Outcome Bee landings recorded over 120 min; paired control flower held at floating potential.
Key Results
| Treatment | Δ Landings vs. Control | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| 50 Hz AC | –71 % | p = 0.0084, d = 2.74 |
| +5 V DC | –53 % | p = 0.0084, d = 2.62 |
| –5 V DC | 0 % | n.s. |
| Temporal dynamics—AC fields caused a 94 % suppression in the first 10 min, partially recovering to ~70 % suppression over two hours (Fig. 4) |
Environmental Context
Horizontal/vertical transects under 275 kV lines in rural England showed that fields ≤50 V m⁻¹ persist up to 100 m horizontally and 2 m vertically (Fig. 1)—precisely overlapping the experimental envelope.
Linking Landscape Fields to Intracellular Voltages
Red‑Blood‑Cell Zeta Potential
A recent duplex‑ultrasound case series demonstrated that a 5‑min exposure to an active 4‑G handset (~1 W kg⁻¹ SAR) induces rouleaux formation—a collapse of the RBC surface charge from –15 mV toward neutrality. The spatial gradient at the skin–phone interface is on the same order (10–100 V m⁻¹) as the bee‑flower stimulus.
Mitochondrial Membrane Potential (ΔΨm)
Mitochondria sustain –180 mV across ~20 nm (≈9 × 10⁶ V m⁻¹). Sub‑thermal RF/ELF exposures that impose external gradients of 10–50 V m⁻¹ can depolarise ΔΨm by 10–20 % within hours, triggering ROS bursts and metabolic re‑programming.
Polarity Cues and Charge Language
- External: floral surfaces are naturally negative relative to positively charged bees; a positive or oscillating field masquerades as a “spent” flower.
- Internal: cell surfaces are negative in physiological saline; depolarisation diminishes electro‑repulsion and alters protein conformation. Hypothesis: Anthropogenic fields substitute false polarity cues at both scales, biasing behavioural or bioenergetic decision rules.
4 The Bioelectric Continuum Model
We propose a three‑tier continuum (Table 1) in which the same physical quantity—voltage gradient—mediates navigation, metabolism, and ecological fitness.
| Scale | Natural Gradient | Anthropogenic Perturbation | Biological Consequence |
| Landscape (10⁰–10² m) | Earth–atmosphere PG (100–300 V m⁻¹) | 50 Hz/±DC, 20–70 V m⁻¹ | Pollination failure |
| Tissue (10⁻⁴–10⁻² m) | RBC zeta (–15 mV across µm) | Near‑field RF, ~10 V m⁻¹ | Hyper‑viscosity, hypoxia |
| Organelle (10⁻⁸ m) | ΔΨm (–180 mV across 20 nm) | ELF/RF, 10–50 V m⁻¹ effective | ROS, metabolic shift |
Implications for Ecology, Medicine, and Engineering
- Pollination Services Sub‑thermal E‑field pollution joins pesticides and habitat loss as a modifiable driver of crop insecurity.
- Clinical Biomarkers RBC rouleaux and ΔΨm imaging could serve as in vivo dosimeters for chronic field exposure.
- Infrastructure Design Li‑Fi back‑haul, buried HV lines, and charge‑balancing corona rings align ecological stewardship with EMF hygiene.
- Regulatory Paradigm Current SAR‑ and kV‑based standards overlook information‑level bioeffects; thresholds should integrate voltage‑gradient metrics across scales.
Conclusion
Mallinson et al. (2025) demonstrate that weak, ubiquitous electric fields are ecological stressors, capable of deterring bees from flowers. The same amplitude fields modulate zeta potential and mitochondrial voltage in humans, underscoring a bioelectric unity that transcends organism and scale. Recognising this continuum is prerequisite to safeguarding both agricultural ecosystems and human health in an increasingly electrified world.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks [Name], RF Safe Research Group, for discussions on ceLLM theory and bioelectric engineering.
References
Mallinson, V.J., Woodburn, F.A., & O’Reilly, L.J. (2025). PIIS2589004225008119. iScience, 112550.
