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.
That linked research is discussing the effects of high energy (between 0 and 1000W, with written analyses of the 150W and 300W conditions) 2.45GHz radiation on the catalyzing properties of specific chemical reactions (CuO-Cu-ZSM-5, BaMnO3, and BaFeO3 catalysts with NO). I certainly was presuming that your vague memories from a standard class you took decades ago were about the common, statistical changes in molecular geometry as a function of heat, and it is possible that your class was discussing the bleeding edge of chemical synthesis at the time ("Since the use of MWs for synthesis reactions first appeared in 1986"). Regardless, the obvious test would be to measure the specific chemical effects on DNA under specific low energy microwave frequencies.
But I've read a lot of comments, over the years, to the effect that non-ionizing radiation simply can't be a factor, because it doesn't remove electrons and break chemical bonds.
And my own, very limited but -- for me, at least, elucidating -- educational experience has been that that is not the case. Non-ionizing radiation can affect chemical reactions.
So, if cell phone radiation is not risk factor in cancer, the argument needs to go further than, "It's non-ionizing."
Your mention of the energy level / quantity of the non-ionizing radiation involved in the link I managed to find, I find to be a pertinent difference.
Anyway, sorry for any annoyance.
P.S. I upvoted your response, by the way. I appreciate it, and I didn't mean to come across as confrontational, if I did.
While I am highly skeptical of RF radiation as a significant cause of cancer, I sympathize with your attitude.
Quite disingenious is the ionizing vs non-ionizing radiation dichotomy. I guess this is historically rooted in the cancerous effects of gammma photons.
Consider the following dilemma: is visible red light ionizing radiation?
If not: how can the non-ionizing red light trigger chemical reactions? or are the cones that sense red light strictly thermal sensors (i.e. bolometers)?
If yes: perhaps we should ban all visible light :)
I prefer this example because
* it is not a hypothetical radiation influence, i.e. most of us can see a red strawberry, in a sense this is a benign photo-chemical reaction, even though red light is typically not classified as 'ionizing', nobody denies cones can sense red light.
* beccause it illustrates that 'ionizing-ness' is not only dependent upon the characteristics of the radiation, but also on the characteristics of the subjected reagents/cellular structures/... which would be a monumental task to verify the harmlessness for all used radio frequencies and all subject reagents/cellullar structures/...
That said, we have bigger problems with other carcinogenous things/behaviours/... so I think the antenna scares are relatively unfounded, although we should keep an open mind for when a more serious effect is ever reported, after all we are using parts of the spectrum that I suspect were virtually completely absent as potential evolution pressures in the past.
