Evidence for Effects on Neurology and Behavior - BioInitiative Report

1989a,b; Iggo et al., 1992; Scheich et al., 1986]. Apparently, receptors sensitive to low-level
electric fields exist in the snout and bill of these animals, respectively. Electrophysiological
recordings from the platypus show that receptors in the bill can be sensitive to a static or
sinusoidally changing (12-300 Hz) electric field of 4-20 mV/cm, and cells in the cerebral cortex
can respond to a threshold field of 300 V/cm. Moreover, behavioral experiments showed that
the platypus can detect electric fields as small as 50 V/cm. In the echidna snout, receptors can
respond to fields of 1.8-73 mV/cm. These neural mechanisms enable the animals to detect
muscular movements of their prey, termites and shrimps. It would be interesting to understand
the transduction mechanism in the electroreceptors in these animals. However, it remains to be
seen whether RFR can generate a static or ELF field in tissue and that a similar electroreceptor
mechanism exists in other mammals.
Another possible explanation suggested <strong>for</strong> the neurological effects of RFR is stress. This
hypothesis has been proposed by Justesen et al. [1973] and Lu et al. [1980] and based on high
intensity of exposure. We have also proposed recently that low-level RFR may be a 'stressor'
[Lai et al., 1987a]. Our speculation is based on the similarity of the neurological effects of
known stressors (e.g., body-restraint, extreme ambient temperature) and those of RFR (see Table
1 in Lai et al., 1987a). Our recent experiments suggesting that low-level RFR activates both
endogenous opioids and corticotropin-releasing factor in the brain further support this hypothesis.
Both neurochemicals are known to play important roles in an animal's responses to stressors
[Amir et al., 1980; Fisher, 1989]. 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.
In conclusion, I believe the questions on the biological effects of RFR and the
discrepancies in research results in the literature can be resolved by (a) a careful and thorough
examination of the effects of the different radiation parameters, and (b) a better understanding of
the underlying mechanisms involved in the responses studied. With these considerations, it is
very unlikely that the neurological effects of RFR can be accounted <strong>for</strong> by a single unifying
neural mechanism.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author's research was supported by a grant from the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (ES-03712). I thank Mrs. Monserrat Carino, Dr. Chung-Kwang
Chou, and Dr. Akira Horita <strong>for</strong> reviewing the manuscript, and especially Mrs. Dorothy Pratt <strong>for</strong>
her patience and endurance in typing and editing the manuscript numerous times.
REFERENCES
Adair, E.R., 1983, "Microwaves and Thermoregulation," Academic Press, New York, NY.
Adey, W.R., 1988, The cellular microenvironment and signalling through cell membrane, in: "Electromagnetic
fields and Neurobehavioral Functions," M.E. O'Connor and R.H. Lovely, eds., Prog Clin Biol Res 257:265-
288.
Adey, W.R., Bawin, S.M. and Lawrence, A.F., 1982, <strong>Effects</strong> of weak amplitude-modulated microwave fields on
calcium efflux from awake cat cerebral cortex, Bioelectromagnetics 3:295-307.
66