IFRAN Stage 4 (Pavlov Institute, 2018): Reduced Magnetic Field Disrupts Rat Behavior; Aires Defender Pro Normalizes Effects in HT and LT Lines

This site has limited support for your browser. We recommend switching to Edge, Chrome, Safari, or Firefox.

FREE Bored Panda childrens book with Orders $250+ Limited Time Only!

IFRAN Stage 4 (Pavlov Institute, 2018): Reduced Magnetic Field Disrupts Rat Behavior; Aires Defender Pro Normalizes Effects in HT and LT Lines

By Pavlov Institute of Physiology, RAS

IFRAN Stage 4 (2018): Reduced Magnetic Field Alters Rat Behavior in Both HT & LT Lines; Aires Defender Pro Normalizes Effects

Stage 4 of the Pavlov Institute RAS multi-year program. Using two rat lines with contrasting CNS excitability (HT and LT), this stage quantified how Earth’s magnetic field reduction, Wi-Fi router EMR, and Aires Defender Pro resonators affect open-field behavioral parameters during a 12-hour nocturnal exposure.

Animal studyHT & LT rat linesOpen field testReduced magnetic field (LMF)Wi-Fi 2.4 GHzAires Defender Pro12-hour exposurePavlov Institute RAS, 2018
40×
Magnetic field reduction in LMF chamber
48→ 1.2μT
Earth field to shielded field
12 hours
Nocturnal exposure (10PM–10AM)
2
Rat lines: HT (low) & LT (high excitability)

Stage 4 Research Questions

Building on Stages 1–3 (which established DNA/chromosome damage and memory impairment from Wi-Fi EMR), Stage 4 shifted focus to behavioral neuroscience with two innovations:

  1. Two genetic rat lines: HT (Vysoko Porogovy / high escape threshold — low excitability) and LT (Nizko Porogovy / low escape threshold — high excitability). These lines differ in hereditary CNS excitability, enabling comparison of behavioral sensitivity profiles.
  2. Reduced magnetic field (LMF) conditions: A precision magnetic shielding chamber reduced the Earth’s geomagnetic field from 48 μT to 1.2 μT (a 40-fold reduction), enabling separate assessment of “no EMF” effects vs. Wi-Fi EMR effects.

Experimental Setup

Shielding chamber (LMF): Cylinder (60 cm diameter, 140 cm long), cardboard frame covered with layers of AMAG-172 amorphous soft magnetic material. Field inside: 1.2 μT (confirmed by Fluxmaster magnetometer). Simulation chamber (WLMF): Identical cylindrical form, black polyethylene covering, no shielding — field inside: ~48 μT (full Earth’s field). Critically, magnetometer measurements confirmed there was no significant difference between LMF and WLMF chambers when the router was turned on (ANOVA F-test = 0.36, P = 0.704) — confirming the router’s EMR was purely electromagnetic (not magnetic field) in this configuration.

Experimental Groups (9 per rat line)

Naive Control
Vivarium only; no chamber, no router, no resonators
LMF
Shielding chamber; no router
LMF+Router
Shielding chamber + Wi-Fi router (2.4 GHz)
LMF+Router+Resonators
Shielding + router + Aires Defender Pro (6 resonators, one per cage edge)
WLMF
Simulation chamber (full magnetic field); no router
WLMF+Router
Simulation + Wi-Fi router
WLMF+Router+Resonators
Simulation + router + Aires Defender Pro resonators

Exposure: 12 hours per session (10:00 PM to 10:00 AM). Open field behavioral assessment conducted 1 hour after exposure ended.

Open Field Behavioral Parameters

9 parameters measured per animal over a 5-minute observation window: latency to first movement, horizontal motor activity (squares crossed), vertical motor activity (rearing responses), emotionality (defecation boluses), grooming, freezing, turns left, turns right, and spinning.

Key Findings

Genetic line baseline differences (LT vs. HT): LT rats (high excitability) showed significantly more vertical locomotion (rearing) and fewer freezing acts than HT rats in the naive control condition. This confirms the validity of the genetic line model: the two lines display fundamentally different behavioral strategies in open-field conditions, providing distinct baselines for detecting EMF effects.
Chamber exposure effects: Confinement in either the LMF or WLMF chamber for 12 hours altered behavior compared to naive controls in both rat lines, but differently by line: HT rats showed fewer freezing acts and more turning; LT rats showed shorter latency to first movement, reduced emotionality, and more grooming. This indicates that the “chamber effect” (regardless of magnetic field or EMR) is a significant confounder, producing its own behavioral signature distinct from EMR-specific effects. This finding underscores the importance of matching chamber controls in experimental design.
Wi-Fi router effects (within chambers): Router EMR further altered behavioral parameters in both line/chamber combinations, with the specific profile depending on genetic line excitability. The LT line (higher baseline excitability) showed different response magnitudes than the HT line, confirming that individual sensitivity to EMR is partly genetically determined.
Aires Defender Pro resonators: In both LMF+Router+Resonators and WLMF+Router+Resonators groups, behavioral parameters were normalized toward naive control levels compared to the router-only groups. The resonator effect was observed across multiple behavioral parameters in both rat lines, though the specific profile differed by genetic excitability level.

The Natural Magnetic Field Finding

Stage 4 confirmed the observation first noted in Stage 3: reducing the Earth’s natural background magnetic field (via LMF shielding) itself produces behavioral changes — even without any artificial EMR source. This has significant implications: it suggests that the biological system is calibrated to the Earth’s electromagnetic background, and that both increasing and decreasing this background produces measurable disruption. Aires resonators, which transform rather than simply block EMF, showed superior outcomes compared to pure shielding, consistent with this interpretation.

Institution: Pavlov Institute of Physiology, RAS + Aires Foundation  |  Stage: 4  |  Rat lines: HT & LT (high/low excitability)  |  Year: 2018

← Animal models cluster  |  ← All research