The roles of intensity, exposure duration, and modulation on the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation and exposure guidelines. (3rd April 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lai, Henry; Levitt, B. Blake
• Is Part Of: Electromagnetic biology and medicine. Volume 41:Number 2(2022)
• Page Start: 230
• Page End: 255
• Publication Date: 2022-04-03
• Subjects: Radiofrequency radiation (RFR) -- intensity -- duration of exposure -- modulation -- specific absorption rate (SAR) -- biological effects; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; Electromagnetic Fields -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; Radiation, Nonionizing -- Periodicals; 574
• DOI: 10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1536-8378

Abstract

ABSTRACT: In this paper, we review the literature on three important exposure metrics that are inadequately represented in most major radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure guidelines today: intensity, exposure duration, and signal modulation. Exposure intensity produces unpredictable effects as demonstrated by nonlinear effects. This is most likely caused by the biological system's ability to adjust and compensate but could lead to eventual biomic breakdown after prolonged exposure. A review of 112 low-intensity studies reveals that biological effects of RFR could occur at a median specific absorption rate of 0.0165 W/kg. Intensity and exposure duration interact since the dose of energy absorbed is the product of intensity and time. The result is that RFR behaves like a biological "stressor" capable of affecting numerous living systems. In addition to intensity and duration, man-made RFR is generally modulated to allow information to be encrypted. The effects of modulation on biological functions are not well understood. Four types of modulation outcomes are discussed. In addition, it is invalid to make direct comparisons between thermal energy and radiofrequency electromagnetic energy. Research data indicate that electromagnetic energy is more biologically potent in causing effects than thermal changes. The two likely functionthrough different mechanisms. As such, any current RFR exposure guidelines based on acute continuous-wave exposure are inadequate for health protection.