| Name | Research Interest Score | Citations | h-index | Articles |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daniel Favre | 254.5 | 394 | 9 | 25 |
Bees enter the room at the House of Literature in Oslo
This is episode two of ‘European Scientists Gather to Discuss Electromagnetic Fields, Insects, and the Global Insect Decline’.
In the first episode (Rohde, 2025a), we were given an overview of the seminar held on 18 October 2025, including the rationale behind it, and were introduced to the Norwegian scientists Else Nordhagen and Einar Flydal, who organised the seminar. They transitioned into researching the biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs), after leaving the research unit at the Norwegian mobile company Telenor.
We will now take a look Daniel Favre’s presentation at the seminar. Now it’s time to talk about insects, more specifically honeybees, and how they may react to electropollution.
Favre is both a beekeeper and a scientist who, in recent years, has been publishing independent research on how domesticated honeybees react to mobile phone radiation.
Daniel Favre’s research profile
Table: Overview of Daniel Favre’s publications in his ResearchGate profile (as of November 2025)
Before studying honeybees, Favre was involved as a researcher in the field of virology. His first article is from 1993, about the Semliki Forest virus (Favre et al., 1993).
Find Daniel Favre’s full research profile at ResearchGate.net 2.
Backdrop for Favre’s first honeybee study: Real world experiences and statistics
Favre introduced us to the world of honeybees and beekeeping, through a presentation with an overview of three of his scientific papers on honeybees (domesticated bees) and the following exposure setups:
- Exposure to mobile phone radiation (using real cellphones) (Favre, 2011)
- Exposure to mobile phone radiation (using a novel exposure setup removing the phone and any heat it could cause) (Favre, 2017)
- Shielding of bees from mobile phone radiation (in a Faraday cage) (Favre & Johansson, 2025)
Favre’s presentation was rather stimulating, with an intriguing story and even an audio recording of bees under distress that added an extra dimension to the lecture.
In such circumstances, persuasion can easily arise from fascination rather than logic and rationality, and one should be careful not to be carried away, if it is knowledge one is seeking.
Let’s keep in mind that single studies rarely can be used alone to draw strong conclusions, and note that I will not make a complete critical assessment of Favre’s experiments and methods.
Let’s see what Favre presented, and add some thoughts and ideas that appeared in the wake of his presentation.
Some of Favre’s own story also came to light. As a beekeeper, he experienced a 40% loss of bees in 2008. This amazed him.
The year 2008 was also when he started the experimental work, that led to his first research paper (Favre, 2011) on the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on bees.
Favre explained that, over the period of 17 years since he did his first study on EMF effects in bees in 2008, he received practically no funding. Still he has carried on, which I believe shows dedication and a real, burning interest for science and the topic at hand.
It seemed to me that it was Favre’s experience with bee loss in 2008, that triggered him to conduct his first study that would expose bees to electromagnetic fields (mobile phone radiation).
During the presentation, he also showed some statistics from a 2007 study that I understood influenced him to take a closer look at electromagnetic fields. The statistics, depicted in the photo below, said that the the most important reported cause of honeybee loss (by 43 % of respondents in that survey) was that the bees just simply disappeared.
I understood that Favre saw the statistics about bees disappearing, in connection with the theories that exist about bees using a magnetic sense to orientate.
Study 1: The first bee experiment (2008, published in 2011)
Daniel Favre’s first experiment, conducted in 2008, involved exposure to real mobile phones, and demonstrated that active phones elicited the “piping effect” in honeybees, but not in the control group that did not receive cellphone radiation (Favre, 2011).
An image of the experimental design, from the seminar, is shown below.
An audio recording of the “piping effect” was also presented to the audience.
In the video clip below, recorded at the seminar, we first hear the normal tune of the honeybees, before the phones are activated. After activation of the mobile phones the piping sound started after around 30-45 minutes, according to Favre.
Video Player is loading.
Video: Daniel Favre presenting an audio clip demonstrating the honeybee “piping” effect in Oslo October 2025. Before the phones are activated we hear normal buzzing; then the phones are activated, and the piping sound appears after about 30–45 minutes. Video and editing by Mads Rohde, licensed under CC BY 4.0.
Favre noted that five different piping (whistling) signals exist in bees, and that they are a sign of distressed bees.
When Favre published the study, it was met with one particular critique, according to Favre: the effect could be due to the heat generated by the phones, rather than the radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation the phones emitted during communication.
So he told the audience. And I can point out that a similar critique is sometimes raised against human studies on cellphone radiation and sperm quality where real phones are used: The phone’s battery can create heat that, in theory, can invalidate the study if not accounted for, since heat also is known to affect semen quality (ARPANSA, n.d.; Chu et al., 2023).
Study 2: ‘You need to take into account that cellphone batteries create heat!’
I sensed that Favre found it implausible that the heat from a mobile phone could create the observed behavioural effects in bees. Nevertheless, as a good scientist would do, Favre conducted a second study (Favre, 2017) to account for such an effect of heat from the cell phone battery.
He did so, with, as far as I can tell, a rather advanced – or even ingenious – exposure setup, which I have looked up in his paper after the presentation.
An advanced exposure setup
Here is a short, technical description along with a figure, from the article itself (Favre, 2017), showing the exposure setup:
It consisted in locally collecting and amplifying the ambient RF-EMF and in focusing this amplified signal on individual hives, with well established, commercially available techniques (Figure 1a & 1b) and using intensities approved by international regulations [6].
The important thing to note about the exposure setup, is that Favre this time did not use phones, but that his new setup still made sure that the bees received radiation with similar characteristics as bees could experience in the real world, since he just amplified the mobile signal of nearby cell phone towers.
You see, why did Favre use cellphones in the first place, in his initial 2008/2011 study? Why did he not just use some kind of signal generator, that would also allow him to control the exact exposure levels in terms of the intensity, or strength, of the radiation?
I can’t recall that Favre explained this during his presentations, but it is well known within the field, that real world signals differ from clean electromagnetic waves that carry no data (information) except for the wave itself.
Real-world exposure has information coded into the waves - the waves are modulated and pulsed. The waves are also polarized. And those specific characteristics may be what causes the most important biological effects (Panagopoulos et al., 2025).
With this new exposure setup, taking the phones with their batteries out of the equation, the effect from the first study remained. The bees started “piping”.
A note about the 2017 paper
Favre’s second study has been published as a methodological paper.
After I took a closer look at it, I see that its data, analysis methods, and result, are not well described.
The methodology the paper is about, is the the exposure setup, and it seems well described. I believe that it is mainly therein the study has value: The novel exposure setup can be used by other scientists to try to conduct experiments with, possibly state of the art, “real world” exposure setups.
Regardless of the validity of the results of Studies 1 and 2, the demonstration of the piping effect provided the audience with a clearer picture of how bees may be affected by environmental electromagnetic pollution.
Study 3: Bees in cages. Not a good idea?
It was captivating to hear the hum of the bees as they were exposed to radiofrequency radiation (RF-EMF), but perhaps not entirely surprising that a study reported potentially concerning effects. I, and many others, have previously encountered studies indicating negative effects in bees and insects.
It was then, instead, Favre’s third paper, that to me stood out as the most surprising and interesting.
In the third paper, Favre drew the conclusion that shielding bees from EMFs had a negative effect (Favre & Johansson, 2025).
It can be seen from Favre’s 2017 paper that he initially had hypothesized that shielding the bees from EMFs could be used as proof of EMF’s negative effects. The paper stated that ‘[e]xperiments are under way to test this hypothesis’ (Favre, 2017).
If protection against EMFs would be found to be beneficial for the bees, then that would also prove that EMF exposure must be detrimental.
However, this did not turn out as expected. During the experiments, the shielding was ineffective or even produced more detrimental effects. Then Favre came up with a new hypothesis: that something important was lost when the bees were shielded.
In his presentation, he was very clear in his belief about what was lost. He stated that he had found proof that it was the Schumann resonance. Why? Because when he introduced the frequencies of the Schumann resonances into the EMF-shielded hive, using a Schumann generator, that reversed the negative effects previously observed in the EMF-shielded hive.
In short, the Schumann resonance is a signal first described, or predicted, by Winfried Otto Schumann in 1952: Electromagnetic waves due to lightning are trapped in the cavity between the Earth and the ionosphere (about 50 to 1000 km above Earth’s surface). The frequency is extremely low, and travels long distances without attenuation. Lightning strikes all over the Earth, all the time, so Schumann resonances are constantly propagating and reaching every being on Earth.
For more information about Schumann resonances, see for instance Wikipedia or Grokipedia. (Fun fact: I actually contributed to the first ever edit to the Grokipedia article about the Schumann resonances. The change is visible in Grokipedia’s edit history for the article).
Since Schumann resonances have existed throughout the history of life on Earth, life may have evolved in tune with them. If so, we may need them for optimal functioning. At least, that’s the theory, on which Favre based his experiment with Schumann resonances in bees.
Click to expand: About the Schumann resonance signals generated in Favre and Johansson’s experiment
Here is a description from the study by Favre & Johansson (2025).
Devices like signal generators or electromagnetic wave oscillators can produce a stable 7.83 Hz electromagnetic field within the Faraday cage. These devices can mimic the natural frequency of the Earth’s Schumann resonance, ensuring that animals in the cage experience a similar electromagnetic environment. These devices capable of modulating electromagnetic pulses at frequencies aligned with the Schumann resonance can thus provide a biologically relevant substitute. One should be cautious, since such artificial generators must precisely replicate the Schumann resonance in terms of frequency, intensity, and wave patterns to be effective. Indeed, deviations can lead to suboptimal or unintended effects Patsnap (2024).
In the study they used the following Schumann generator:
The Schumann generator (model CF-FM783-BA from the manufacturer Shairann, China) that was employed throughout these experiments has a size (7 x 5.5 x 1 cm) that is well suited for an easy introduction in the hive from it’s front entrance. According to the manufacturer specifications, the charging current of the Schumann generator is 250 mA, the product can be fully charged in about 6 hours, and the working current is approximately 7 mA, so that it can be used for about 200 hours when fully charged. The Schumann wave that is emitted is, according to the manufacturer, 7.83 Hz.
And they measured that the device actually produced such frequencies:
Since it was absolutely crucial to confirm that the emitted electromagnetic wave was indeed at 7.83 Hz, the Schumann generator was analyzed using an ELF-receptor specifically designed for the analysis of the extremely low frequencies (ELF) of the electromagnetic waves.
Click to expand: A note about the 2025 paper, and my assessment
The journal the study was published in
The study, about a shielding effect in bees (Favre & Johansson, 2025), has been published in International Journal of Research – GRANTHAALAYAH.
I note that this journal would not add publication points in the Norwegian academic system (it is not listed in Kanalregisteret). The study has also not been indexed by Semantic Scholar yet, but that could just reflect a delay in indexing processes in Semantic Scholar, since the study was published earlier this year (April, 2025).
Together, this does, however, make the standard of the journal uncertain.
The uncertainty regarding the journal’s quality standards does not make the study worthless, but anyone who reads the study should read it perhaps even more critically than usual.
My assessment of the 2025 paper
Admirable effort, but with important limitations
The study has been assessed by EMF:data (Diagnose-Funk, 2025), for those who are interested in reading their evaluation.
I’ve also taken a brief look at the study myself. Here is my quick assessment.
In my view, Favre’s 2025 study is an admirable scientific effort. It’s likely that this is the first such study ever made.
But it’s clear that it is not a perfect study. In particular, I see few details and objective measures about the outcome/survival of the bees. The study simply states that the Schumann frequency “allowed the survival of the colonies until mid-June 2024” (my emphasis), with no further results presented.
The lack of any real results, is an important caveat.
The value of the study
While Favre’s 2017 study in my view added value with a novel exposure setup, I believe this 2025 study adds value with the novel interventions in the design: The combination of the Faraday cage and the Schumann resonance.
As such, the study can be an inspiration for other scientists to try to improve upon.
In the meantime, beekeepers would best be cautious and take all uncertainties into consideration if they consider to try to shield their beehives from anthropogenic EMFs.
A quasi-experimental design
Even if the intervention in the design is interesting, I should also point out that the design itself is quasi-experimental, meaning that the researchers introduced specific interventions — the Faraday cage and the Schumann resonance — but did not randomly assign hives to experimental and control groups.
Why is the design quasi-experimental? There were two periods of observation during the study. I’ll describe them both.
Period 1: From 2013 to 2022, they reportedly first observed an ’overall population decline’. During that 10-year period, they needed to introduce various counter-measures to ensure the survival of the hive, such as ‘the introduction of a mated queen from reputable suppliers’, but these measures were ineffective. They state that even with the counter-measures, ‘the long-term colony survival, stability, and productivity was never obtained in a Faraday-shielded hive’.
Period 2: In a second study period over two years (2022-2024), they observed the hive when the Schumann generators had been introduced.
From the results of the second period they state that it ‘allowed the survival of the colonies until mid-June 2024’.
But, due to the design, which is not a perfect experiment, there are various other factors besides the intervention that could have affected the results.
Additionally, as noted earlier, no detailed measurement methods or results are provided in the paper, which questions the objectivity of the statements, and makes it hard to evaluate or try to replicate the findings.
Interesting study, but should not be used to draw strong conclusions
That said, in my view, it is still a very interesting study, as long as one keeps these caveats in mind and does not draw strong conclusions from it.
What about infrared radiation?
Favre seemed pretty certain that the detrimental effect they observed when shielding bees in a Faraday cage was caused by blocking the Schumann resonance. Although far from a top-tier study, his and Johansson’s study is compelling since they were able to reintroduce the Schumann resonance and reportedly reverse the effect.
However, another factor that has recently been discussed more widely in scientific circles is the possible beneficial effects of light, and the infrared radiation of light, on human health at least.
This has also grabbed my attention. During Favre’s presentation, I thus started wondering whether the Faraday cages could also have shielded the bees from infrared radiation and what impact that could have had on their health.
During a break, I questioned Favre’s strong conclusion about the Schumann frequency, and asked him why he could be so certain that it was the lack of the Schumann resonance that produced negative effects. I asked him:
Don’t you also block infrared radiation?
Favre seemed curious about the question. He said it could be possible to measure and test in a future study.
If Faraday cages are detrimental to bees and such effects cannot be fully mitigated by introducing the Schumann frequency, then something else must be going on.
Until I see more substantial evidence or hear some convincing arguments that I must be wrong, I believe it is possible that a lack of infrared radiation, could have contributed to the negative effects in bees. Even if the metal used for the Faraday cages the study is perforated, it is likely to block some of the Sun’s infrared radiation.
Further background on the question about infrared radiation
Why did I ask about the possible impact of infrared radiation?
First, I should mention that I know very little about the biology and physiology of bees, and I have not examined many RF-EMF studies on bees and insects in much detail.
I asked because a recent article in Scientific Reports (Nature Portfolio) showed that sunlight can penetrate many materials and biological tissues (Jeffery et al., 2025). The researchers were even able to measure infrared wavelengths emerging on the other side of the human body after exposing the thorax to sunlight.
It is not entirely new knowledge that longer wavelengths of light can penetrate the body by a few centimetres (Seheult, 2024; Zimmerman & Reiter, 2019). However, the recent study in Scientific Reports has made it much clearer that penetration is deep, since the researchers were able to measure light pass through the body.
So, in humans, these longer wavelengths reach all cells and organs.
The point is that sunlight is likely to have positive effects that extend beyond the production of vitamin D and the skin. Through evolution, biology is not wasteful. If infrared radiation could be utilised, it would be. This general rule often holds true, since taking advantage of the environment can provide an edge in terms of survival and mating.
Of course, when it comes to environmental pollution, life does not always adapt by taking advantage of the environmental stimulus that an environmental pollutant may provide. However, when it comes to the sun, the figure below (ScienceDirect, n.d.) shows that the sun’s maximum intensity is in the visible part of the spectrum, which may explain why life evolved to be particularly sensitive to this part of the spectrum. If the sun produced more of other frequencies, life might have evolved to respond more strongly to those instead.
The figure above also illustrates a long tail of infrared radiation that sunlight is made up of, but that is invisible to the human eye.
In light of these theories, it is interesting to consider whether Favre’s Faraday cage blocked the infrared component of sunlight more effectively than bee hives normally do.
Could bees, like humans, rely on the infrared component of sunlight for normal functioning?
Historical roots of research on EMFs and bees
I think it is worth mentioning that Favre reminded the audience that research into the effects of electropollution or anthropogenic EMFs on bees, is not new. He showed a report that traced the history back to at least 1976.
For those interested in a deep dive, the full literature on electromagnetism and bees should provide more than enough to explore.
Urban beekeepers exist - how is it possible for bees to survive in cities? (A question from the audience)
During the event panel debate, an attender in the audience noted that urban beekeepers actually do exist. This seems somewhat peculiar given that radiation is supposedly harmful to bees.
How can bees even exist in cities, where radiation levels are ubiquitous and high?
In response to this question, Favre seemed to acknowledge the point made, but he also informed the audience that beekeeping is an art that depends on various factors. He added that urban beekeepers should be able to counteract some of the negative effects of electromagnetic fields with various measures.
Another layer of complexity is the broader ecology of the bees. Einar Flydal noted that the latest reports have found that the population of wild bees is actually increasing in Norway, and that it is also known that wild bees can be threatened by honey bees.
What are the implications of all these possible associations? It is certainly complex. I would have loved to hear a more in-depth discussion with experienced beekeepers and experts in EMF exposure to see if they could shed more light on the apparent paradox of urban beekeeping. Is there even a real paradox here? While experiments such as those conducted by Daniel Favre are useful, Alain Thill’s presentation later in the event, stressed that there is a lack of data and robust observational science with real-world exposure conditions when it comes to insects and electromagnetic fields. I know that urbanization, and insect’s loss of land to humans, is often cited as a main reason for insect decline. But where humans occupy land, electropollution is usually also introduced or increase in intensity, so these two factors (“loss of land” and electropollution) can be confounded.
Without such data and scientific research, it is likely that people’s beliefs about reality can be strongly influenced by their own experience. People may see bees in cities and notice the abundance of mobile phone masts and other wireless transmitters and receivers. In such a situation, it is only natural that some may wonder how harmful EMFs can really be.
The next episode
At the House of Literature in Oslo, we would soon take a bird’s eye view and look at the research on insects and EMFs through the lens of “review and meta-analysis” methodology with Alain Thill. This methodology could provide more answers regarding the state of the science on insects and electromagnetic fields – while Favre’s presentation had been a close-up on a few specific studies.
But first, we would take an even closer look at the machinery of nature. We would get a presentation of some astonishing science on the electromagnetic nature of insects by Sam J. England. I will cover his presentation in an upcoming blog post (Rohde, 2025b). For any science geek out there who loves mechanistic and basic science, or anyone who just likes to try to understand the world around us, England’s presentation would certainly hit the right note. England has studied in detail natural static electricity in insects, mainly to better understand how insects utilize such fields to survive and reproduce — irrespective of any electropollution.
Edit history of this article:
Published first time 28 November 2025. Edited a few paragraphs and improved the flow of text, later the same day, 28 November 2025.
Edited 30 November 2025: Error identified in Semantic Scholar data. Semantic Scholar data removed from article. In an earlier version I said that Favre had published studies on the vestibular system, but that was wrong.
References
ARPANSA. (n.d.). Study falls short on showing Wi-Fi affects male fertility | ARPANSA. Retrieved November 22, 2025, from https://www.arpansa.gov.au/study-falls-short-showing-wi-fi-affects-male-fertility
Chu, K. Y., Khodamoradi, K., Blachman-Braun, R., Dullea, A., Bidhan, J., Campbell, K., Zizzo, J., Israeli, J., Kim, M., Petrella, F., Ibrahim, E., & Ramasamy, R. (2023). Effect of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation Emitted by Modern Cellphones on Sperm Motility and Viability: An In Vitro Study. European Urology Focus, 9(1), 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2022.11.004
Diagnose-Funk. (2025, April 30). EMF:data assessment of HONEYBEES’ BEHAVIOUR IN A FARADAY-SHIELDED HIVE : MANDATORY SCHUMANN RESONANCE FOR COLONY SURVIVAL. EMF:data. https://www.emfdata.org/en/studies/detail?id=899
Favre, D. (2011). Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker piping. Apidologie, 42(3), 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-011-0016-x
Favre, D. (2017). Disturbing honeybees’ behavior with electromagnetic waves: A methodology. J. Behav, 2(2), 2017. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel-Favre-2/publication/350054184_Journal_of_Behavior_Cite_this_article_Favre_D_2017_Disturbing_Honeybees'_Behavior_with_Electromagnetic_Waves_a_Methodology/links/604e3f1da6fdcccfee813023/Journal-of-Behavior-Cite-this-article-Favre-D-2017-Disturbing-Honeybees-Behavior-with-Electromagnetic-Waves-a-Methodology.pdf
Favre, D., & Johansson, O. (2025). HONEYBEES’BEHAVIOUR IN A FARADAY-SHIELDED HIVE: MANDATORY SCHUMANN RESONANCE FOR COLONY SURVIVAL. https://diagnose-funk.ch/images/aktuelles/mandatory_schumann_frequency-Daniel_Favre-2025.pdf
Favre, D., Studer, E., Nishimura, T., Weitz, M., & Michel, M. R. (1993). Semliki Forest virus capsid protein expressed by a baculovirus recombinant. Archives of Virology, 132(3–4), 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01309541
Jeffery, G., Fosbury, R., Barrett, E., Hogg, C., Carmona, M. R., & Powner, M. B. (2025). Longer wavelengths in sunlight pass through the human body and have a systemic impact which improves vision. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 24435. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-09785-3
Panagopoulos, D. J., Yakymenko, I., De Iuliis, G. N., & Chrousos, G. P. (2025). A comprehensive mechanism of biological and health effects of anthropogenic extremely low frequency and wireless communication electromagnetic fields. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1585441. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1585441
Rohde, M. (2025a). European Scientists Gather to Discuss Electromagnetic Fields, Insects, and the Global Insect Decline: Episode I, Flydal & Nordhagen. EpiWaves Blog. https://madsrohde.com/posts/en/emf-seminar-oslo-2025-episode-1/
Rohde, M. (2025b). European Scientists Gather to Discuss Electromagnetic Fields, Insects, and the Global Insect Decline: Episode III, Sam J. England [Upcoming blog post]. EpiWaves Blog. https://madsrohde.com/posts/en/emf-seminar-oslo-2025-episode-3/
ScienceDirect. (n.d.). Solar Irradiance - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics. Retrieved November 20, 2025, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/solar-irradiance
Seheult, R. (interviewee). (Director). (2024, May 25). Energize Naturally: Infrared Light Benefits Explained [Video recording]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy8G5TKxiLY
Zimmerman, S., & Reiter, R. J. (2019). Melatonin and the optics of the human body. Melatonin Research, 2(1), 138–160. http://sininenankka.dy.fi/~sami/kielletyt_uutiset/melatonin_and_the_optics_of_human_body.pdf
Footnotes
Image from the Internet.↩︎
In the first post in this series (Rohde, 2025a), I used data from Semantic Scholar to list researcher’s publications. The Semantic Scholar data is, however, at the time being corrupt for Daniel Favre. It seems to link articles from two or more different Daniel Favres.↩︎
Photo by Mads Rohde, 2025. Licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.↩︎
Citation
BibTeX citation:
@online{rohde2025,
author = {Rohde, Mads},
title = {European {Scientists} {Gather} to {Discuss} {Electromagnetic}
{Fields,} {Insects,} and the {Global} {Insect} {Decline:} {Episode}
{II,} {Daniel} {Favre}},
date = {2025-11-28},
url = {https://madsrohde.com/posts/en/emf-seminar-oslo-2025-episode-2/},
langid = {en}
}
For attribution, please cite this work as:
Rohde, M. (2025, November 28). European Scientists Gather to Discuss
Electromagnetic Fields, Insects, and the Global Insect Decline: Episode
II, Daniel Favre. EpiWaves Blog. https://madsrohde.com/posts/en/emf-seminar-oslo-2025-episode-2/