Heating and ionization are not the only ways in which chemical reactions can be influenced. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4340277/ for an overview (contains both positive and negative results).
Non-ionizing radiation can influence bonds and, as a result, chemical reactions. Bonds can be thought of as "vibrating", for example, and non-ionizing radiation can influence this behavior.
Think of it, then, as a catalyst. Even where it is not directly effecting ionization, it may be accelerating chemical reactions that are adverse to an organism's well being. As an imagined example, what happens when you have a chlorine or other halide group in the vicinity? Perhaps a particular non-ionizing radiation environment increases the probability of their doing damage by chemical reaction.
I've been away from what chemistry I did know for far too long, but even that bit led me to believe the "it's non-ionizing" arguments are, at best, incomplete.
I ended up skimming part of it. Doesn't quite get to what I meant, in terms of a clear explanation.
Chemical reaction rates depend in part upon the structure of the reagents (as well, potentially that of a catalyst).
RF can stimulate, without breaking, the intra-molecular chemical bonds. This in turn can produce alterations in the geometry of the molecule. This can, for example, make the site of a potential bonding (a chemical reaction) more accessible, physically and/or in terms of the field strengths of electromagnetic fields of the bonding point bond and also adjacent bonds capable of influencing the rate of reaction.
I found this harder to (quickly) google up than I expected. I guess my chemistry professors were a bit "ahead of the curve"; the department did have the reputation of being one of the top in the country for its size and the type of institution in which it resided.
Another example of this: Discussing nascent concerns in the biochemical and biology fields that rather than saturated fats, manufactured, partially-hydrogenated fats were starting to look like the real culprits in pathologies such as coronary artery disease. This was in 1985.
About 20 years later, I started reading articles in the popular press about these "bad fats".
Anyway, its been too long for me to remember a specific chemical reaction as an example, but the mechanism and explanation of same seemed pretty clear and evident, way back then.
Not "heat" pushing the whole molecule around. Radiation causing e.g. compressional and flexing vibration in the intra-molecular chemical bonds. Sometimes rotation? Transition between configurations for molecules capable of having more than one; corresponding influence on the time spent in each configuration, as the molecule transitioned between them.
P.S. I'm outside academia, and so I face the ubiquitous "paywall" with respect to most journal content and the like. And I'm NO expert in any of this. But the people who were telling me this, were, to the extent I accurately remember and represent what they said.
But it does cause chemical chsnges. Noble gasses can weakly interact. It does not need to form bonds to influence potential gradients, protein shapes, or other reactions.
Organic chemistry is covalent polar bonds, which don't require ionizing radiation to break. Emag can also effect biochemical processes in ways other than simple bond-breakage[0]. The brain is an electro-chemical system. Persistently nudging the electrons this way instead of that can also have a significant effect[1].
Well, yes and no. If they just wanted to heat things up, they'd throw the reaction over a Bunsen burner or some other appropriate heating element. So while I agree that the reactions are speeding up due to an increase in available energy, I'm hesitant to say it's the same as simply "heating things up".
reply