Value chain · CLM-1302
Low confidence
The evidence behind this statement is thin, indirect or second-hand. Read it as a lead to check, not as a settled finding.
In plain terms
Months of night-time exposure at about a fifth of the 1978 beam centre made rats eat and drink less, but changed nothing else that was measured. The authors argue that absorbed dose, not frequency, explains the result.
The claim as recorded
Rats exposed to 2450 MHz at 5 mW/cm2 (50 W/m2), 10 hours a night for 16 weeks (about 1000 hours), showed statistically significant decreases in daily food and water intake against shams, but no difference in body mass. Monthly blood chemistry, footpad shock threshold, open-field behaviour and shuttlebox avoidance learning also did not separate the groups consistently. The abstract states that the food-intake effect lines up with the laboratory's 918 MHz dose-response when expressed as SAR (W/kg) rather than incident power density.
Evidence behind this: T3-a one-page abstract with authors redacted; no tables or statistics given.
Scope and limits
ABSTRACT ONLY: NO SAR VALUE, P VALUES OR EFFECT SIZES ARE GIVEN. Eight animals per group; authors redacted; no year. Recomputed: 16 weeks x 7 nights x 10 h = 1,120 h, consistent with "approximately 1000 hours". 5 mW/cm2 = 50 W/m2, about 0.22 of 230 W/m2. Animal data only; no human inference is drawn here.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
PDF p.1: statistically significant "decrements in the exposed rats' daily food and water intake", although "body mass failed to differentiate groups"; blood chemistry, footpad shock threshold, open field and shuttlebox did not differentiate groups consistently; effects plotted against SAR fall on the 918 MHz dose-response curve (paraphrase).
Basis: mW/cm2 incident; hours per night; weeks
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-023 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-1302
CLM-1302, Energy Aperture, as of unknown (not printed).