The original question was to "hear a rational for how non-ionizing radiation can result in chemical bond change". The rational was what was used as a justification for further study in one study, that of course I can't find right now. I guess I should have mentioned that I don't believe this rationalization. Incidentally, the reactions would need to occur at body temperature, not room temperature.
Sure, but research into RF induced biological effects continue. Some of these are statistical studies, where the same experiment (put mice or rats in a box and add RF at cellular frequencies) with minor variations in the hope of producing statistically significant results. Others, are large population studies of cell phone and non-cell phone users over several years in the hope of finding a pattern. Due to the low incidence of cancers, chances are slim for both types of tests. Still they persist despite the lack of success. The best that has been done strikes me as carefully selecting the test subjects or mice/rats, or invalidating results that don't follow the expected result, so that they will produce a large enough cancer incidence to make the research worth publishing.
Notice that none of these tests and statistical studies bother to supply a mechanism by which RF causes cancer. That makes sense because they're not looking for such a missing link. They're trying to determine whether there is a connection, and then ask for more funding to research why RF causes cancer and what mechanism is involved. In my never humble opinion, there's nothing wrong with this approach.
Guilty as charged. My original posting was certainly misleading. My further responses attempted to answer the questions exactly as they were asked. If you think my answers to be misleading, perhaps the questions might also have problems?
Please note that RF is magic and magic can do anything.