Evidence for Effects on Neurology and Behavior - BioInitiative Report

different characteristics of the dependent variable studied. These responses fit the pattern of
general responses to a ‘stressor’. Indeed, it has been proposed that RFR is a ‘stressor’ (e.g., see
http://www.wave-guide.org/library/lai.html). Chronic stress could have dire consequences on the
health of a living organism. However, it is difficult to prove that an entity is a stressor, since the
criteria of stress are not well defined and the caveat of stress is so generalized that it has little
predictive power on an animal's response.
D. From the data available, in general, it is not apparent that pulsed RFR is more potent than
continuous-wave RFR in affecting behavior in animals. Even though different frequencies and
exposure conditions were used in different studies and hardly any dose-response study was carried
out, there is no consistent pattern that the SARs of pulsed RFR reported to cause an effect are lower
than those of continuous-RFR. This is an important consideration on the possible neurological effects
of exposure to RFR during cell phone use, since cell phones emit wave of various <strong>for</strong>ms and
characteristics.
E. Thermal effect cannot be discounted in the effects reported in most of the
neurological/behavioral experiments described above. Even in cases when no significant change
in body or local tissue temperature was detected, thermal effect cannot be excluded. An animal
can maintain its body temperature by actively dissipating the heat load from the radiation.
Activation of thermoregulatory mechanisms can lead to neurochemical, physiological, and
behavioral changes. However, several points raised by some experiments suggest that the answer
is not a simple one. They are: (a) 'Heating controls' do not produce the same effect of RFR; (b)
Window effects are reported; (c) Modulated or pulsed RFR is more effective in causing an effect
or elicits a different effect when compared with continuous-wave radiation of the same
frequency.
F. It is also interesting to point out that in most of the behavioral experiments, effects were observed
after the termination of RFR exposure. In some experiments, tests were made days after exposure.
This suggests a persistent change in the nervous system after exposure to RFR.
G. In many instances, neurological and behavioral effects were observed at a SAR less than 4 W/kg.
This directly contradicts the basic assumption of the IEEE guideline criterion.
H. A question that one might ask is whether different absorption patterns in the brain or body
could elicit different biological responses in an animal. If this is positive, possible outcomes from
the study of bioelectromagnetics research are: (a) a response will be elicited by some exposure
conditions and not by others, and (b) different response patterns are elicited by different
exposure conditions, even though the average dose rates in the conditions are equal. These data
indicate that energy distribution in the body and other properties of the radiation can be
important factors in determining the outcome of the biological effects of RFR.
I. Even though the pattern or duration of RFR exposure is well-defined, the response of the
biological system studied will still be unpredictable if we lack sufficient knowledge of the
response system. In most experiments on the neurological effects of RFR, the underlying
mechanism of the dependent variable was not fully understood. The purpose of most of the
studies was to identify and characterize possible effects of RFR rather than the underlying
11