A need to provide explanations for observed biological effects of radiofrequency exposure. (3rd July 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chou, C-K.
• Is Part Of: Electromagnetic biology and medicine. Volume 34:Number 3(2015:Jul.)
• Page Start: 175
• Page End: 179
• Publication Date: 2015-07-03
• Subjects: Artifacts -- dosimetry -- exposure systems -- mechanism -- non-thermal effects -- thermal effects; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; Electromagnetic Fields -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; Radiation, Nonionizing -- Periodicals; 574
• DOI: 10.3109/15368378.2015.1076439
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1536-8378

Abstract

Abstract: Although there is scientific consensus that radiofrequency (RF) exposure at high intensity can cause thermal effects, including well-established adverse health effects, there is still considerable controversy on whether low-intensity RF exposure can cause biological effects, especially adverse health effects. The objective of this paper is to describe several reported "non-thermal" effects that were later shown to be due to a weak thermal effect or an experimental artifact by properly conducted and thorough follow-on scientific research. First, the multiple factors that can cause different RF energy absorption in biological tissues are reviewed and second, several examples of experimental artifacts in published papers are described to demonstrate the importance of paying attention to dosimetry and temperature control. For example, isolated nerve response studies show that when temperature of the RF-exposed tissues is controlled, effects disappeared. During RF exposure, conductive electrodes routinely used in physiological studies have been shown to cause field intensification at the tips or contacts of the electrodes with biological tissue; thus, the RF exposure at the site of measurement could be much higher than the incident field. In some in vitro studies, a lack of temperature uniformity in RF-exposed cell cultures and rate of heating explain changes originally reported to be due to low-level RF exposure. In other studies, detailed dosimetry studies have identified artifacts that explain the reasons why so-called "non-thermal" effects were mistakenly reported. Researchers should look for explanations for their own findings, and not expect others to figure out what was the reason for their observed effects.