[rndphs]

I think though that any biological process using these sorts of energies on the molecular level will be swamped with noise and therefore wouldn't be a useful mechanism. 3GHz is like 0.00001eV. A process with Gibb's free energy change of 10ueV has an equilibrium constant of essentially 1 at room temperature, and so is almost completely reversible.

The reason why we can make things interact with radio waves at all is essentially because electrical conductors provide coherent modes for low energy photons to couple to. Without conductors and their free electron cloud we would have a very hard time building anything to receive or transmit radio in any way that isn't thermal.

It is true that there is some degree of conductivity in cells but without a non-thermal way of coupling between current and molecular processes I don't see how radio waves could affect cells in a non-thermal manner

Edit: I guess nerves have a non-thermal coupling mechanism from low frequency currents to molecular mechanisms, so it must be possible. But the machinery for that has been highly evolved for that specific task, I'm not sure if it follows that such machinery would appear commonly in cell processes.

[Gnarl]

Are single-photon models even useful here? What about aggregate photon effects? The sheer amount of photons hitting you from a cell-tower is enormous. Perhaps an "optical tweezer" type effect could happen?

And for the non-thermal effect discussion, have you considered voltage-gated ion-channels in cell-membranes?

[nuvious]

You're gish galloping. Rather than continue to propose arguments without evidence of actual risk, find a citation that has a salient hypothesis that's tested that shows risk.

We aren't your Google-scholar and you're just promoting FUD by asking into the ether "but couldn't X cause Y". Me typing this message COULD cause a butterfly effect that leads to an earthquake. In any "does X cause Y" scenario you have two answer what the probability is that X causes Y and what's the impact of X does cause Y.

In RFR exposure terms it's what is the probability that RF below ionizing levels cause damage to DNA to promote cancer. The vast majority of the research says no and theoretical mechanisms for harm of RF below ionizing levels has never been proven to anything close to a statistical significance or in ways that are reproducible. Even if you did you'd have to assume impact. The OP study is basically assuming there's some impact and studying the population broadly and observed none.

Low probably, low impact, low or no risk.

Please present evidence that presents a high risk argument that is backed by some research showing an increase of the probability and/or impact or rfr exposure to DNA damage.

Until you do that, you're gish galloping. Please respond to our arguments (or consider if we're right) instead of declaring new ones with no references.