Category Archives: microwave

Current RF study at NIEHS

First and foremost, thank you Angela Flynn for keeping your thumb on the pulse and educating us further with the facts.


Below is the link for the information on the current RF study at NIEHS.

I want to point out a few flaws of the study –

The exposure parameters being used in these studies will place the subjects in RF chambers.  In my non professional opinion, this will tell more about our ambient RF exposure than it will about holding RF devices to our heads, which is what the Reps and aides on the Hill thought the study was about when I met with them earlier this year.

The rats and mice will only have ten hours of exposure a day and this does not reflect the 24/7 exposure that many of us find ourselves experiencing.

The study is using  900 megahertz and 1900 megahertz while WiFi and 4G smart phone systems operate at 2.5 gigahertz and higher.

These flaws will probably lead to the same old criticism from industry – that the study exposures are not comparable to our exposures to RF and therefore any results from the study will not be valid.

From the transcripts available at the above link:

The studies at the National Toxicology Program have in fact started. Our studies are designed specifically to mimic the human exposure scenario. The NTP studies are looking at exposures for 10 hours a day. There’s heavy cell phone users that may approach the 10 hour mark – that may be excessive, but it allows us to fully investigate whether or not there is an effect of cell phone frequency radiation.

Our studies are designed to look at the frequencies that are currenly in use in the United States centering around 900 megahertz and 1900 megahertz, as well as the two modulations that are currently in use in the US, which are CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) and GSM ( Global System for Mobile communications).

There’s been a lot of leg work leading up to the exposure studies. We’ve pulled together some of the world’s experts on radio frequency radiation. We’ve specially designed chambers to expose the animals in. Engineers from NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology , have come in to validate the chambers. So, we have third-party validation of the exposures. Additionally, there was a lot of architectural construction that needed to be done at the lab – these chambers are rather large. And they had to be shipped from where they were constructed and designed in Switzerland to our laboratory in Chicago, Illinois.

We estimate that we should have final results from these studies in 2014. We’ll have some interim data available towards the end of 2010/beginning of 2011. .

~ Angela


1 Comment

Filed under electromagnetic radiation, EMF, microwave, WiFi

Class Action Suit Against CLEAR WI-MAX. Technology Threatens Health of Everyone

Join the Class Action Suit Against CLEAR WI-MAX. Technology Threatens Health of Everyone

Could Dow Chemical set up a plant in downtown Portland? Well, Wi-Max technology is wi fi on steroids that will blast every portlander in our homes whether we subscribe to it or not and this technology is at least 3x’s as harsh as the average cell tower. They must be stopped or the genetic integrity of our children may be at risk. Thousands of studies worldwide (not one ongoing study in the u.s.!!) confirm that this unregulated technology poses a devastating health risk that some scientists predict will overtake tobacco and asbestos combined. Check out Bioinitiative Report and

Where does it begin and where does it end?

If you would like to know more about this, write to and check out the site: We are organizing a class action suit against the company and the Mayor and City Council for allowing this to be set up here.

Wi-fi faces health concerns
Print All Articles Letter to the editor Podcast Listen to this article. Powered by
on 11 December 2003, 22:00
by staff

The mobile telephone industry spent many years – and millions of dollars – fighting charges that wireless handsets could cause brain cancer. Now it looks like the budding wi-fi movement could face its own legal crisis with lawsuits alleging that 802.11 networks can cause similar physical problems.

A few families in the Chicago suburb of Oak Park, Illinois, have filed a class-action lawsuit against Oak Park Elementary School’s District 97. They assert that wireless local-area networks (WLAN) in the school buildings expose their children to potential harm. Their suit points to a “substantial body of evidence that high frequency electro-magnetic radiation poses substantial and serious health risks, particularly to growing children.” The suit does not seek financial damages, but an end to the use of wi-fi in the neighborhood’s schools.

The Wi-Fi Alliance, an industry group with members including Intel, Microsoft, Philips, and IBM, is aware of the suit, and says it will continue to pay attention to developments. “It’s natural when you hear about litigation for people to take notice,” says Alliance chairman Dennis Eaton. “Members are sensitive to the amount of time and effort that might have to be spent defending themselves.”

The small suit could have big ramifications, particularly with wi-fi vendors. Global sales of 802.11 networks reached almost $1.3 billion through the first three quarters of this year, according to market research firm Dell’Oro Group. Tens of millions of people use the technology now, and the company predicts that the number will grow to 707 million by 2008, says Pyramid Research.

Furthermore, as public hotspots invade hotels, airports, and coffee shops, an enormous number of people could claim to be adversely and unknowingly affected by WLANs. That is a key point of the lawsuit. “We have not established a level that can be considered safe or even tolerably safe,” says Ron Baiman, one of the parents who filed the lawsuit. “Our thinking is that it is certainly prudent at this point not to use these in public schools.”

Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE), October 10, 2006


[Rachel’s introduction: The Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE) has been building consensus on the need for precautionary measures to avert harm from electromagnetic radiation. Here is their draft statement.]

We, the undersigned, are members of the CHE-EMF Working Group within the Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE), together with like-minded colleagues from science, medicine and environmental health.

We believe there are legitimate health concerns regarding exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (EMR), which has rapidly become one of the most pervasive environmental exposures in modern life. These concerns are based on the weight of evidence spanning decades of scientific research on radiofrequency (RF) radiation from countries around the world. The radiofrequency radiation sources addressed in this Consensus Statement are those from newer wireless technologies such as cell phones and cordless phones, cell towers/antennas, WI-FI networks, WI-MAX, as well as Broadband Radiofrequency Internet over electrical power lines (BPL).

We recognize that there are significant uncertainties about the long- term health effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation. However, prudent policy requires acting on the best available scientific evidence. Then, based on the Precautionary Principle, which is an overarching guide for decision making when dealing with credible threats of harm and scientific uncertainty, policies to protect public health can be adopted.

As a way of implementing the Precautionary Principle, there should be an ongoing investment in research, as well as funding for a transparent, participatory policy analysis of alternatives, when there is reason to believe that there may be a significant risk from current or proposed technologies. The principle states that “when an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” These precautionary measures may include but are not necessarily limited to making investments in research and policy analysis. We are deeply concerned that there is insufficient non-industry funding support for critical research, given the potential public health consequences of involuntary and chronic exposure to radiofrequency radiation.

The following four examples show how the Precautionary Principle has been implemented.

* Scientists in the United Kingdom recommend that no child under the age of 8 years old use a cell phone. Research evidence shows that children are more vulnerable than adults to harm from other environmental exposures (such as chemicals), and the same may be true of radiofrequency radiation exposures.

* The International Association of Fire Fighters passed a resolution in 2004, calling for a moratorium on new cell phone antennas on fire stations and a study of the health effects of these installations. The Chairman of the Russian National Committee for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP), Yuri Grigoriev, advised that cellular communication is strongly contraindicated for children and teenagers. The Canadian Public Health Officer, David Butler-Jones, advised Canadians to limit their and their children’s use of cell phones until science resolves uncertainties about long-term health effects.

* More research is needed on the health/biological effects, the level of current and future exposure, and the feasibility, cost and exposure implications of these technologies, as well as alternatives and modifications to current technology.

* While research continues, we believe there is sufficient evidence to recommend precautionary measures that people can take to protect their health, and the health of their families, co-workers and communities. We recommend the following measures:

Use a corded phone/land line if possible, which does not involve RF exposure. Emergency use of cell phones is not discouraged but land lines should be used for normal day-to-day communication needs.

If you use a cell phone, use an earpiece/headset or the “speaker phone” setting, which greatly reduces the RF exposure because the phone is not held next to your head and brain. Using text messaging is also a good way to reduce RF exposure.

Be aware that the cell phone radiates to some degree even when in “standby” mode. You can avoid this radiation by either keeping the phone off (using it as an answering machine), or away from your body.

Using a cordless phone outdoors to alert you to an incoming call is handy, but returning inside to use a corded phone/land line to conduct the conversation is advisable.

Before adopting WI-FI wireless networks in workplaces, schools and cities, the extent of exposure and possible health effects should be publicly discussed. Although convenient, WI-FI wireless networks create pervasive, continuous, involuntary exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Preferable alternatives to wireless technology for voice and data transmission, including cable and fiber-optic technologies (that produce no radiofrequency radiation), should be considered, given the uncertainties about health, cost, liability, and inequity of impact.

There needs to be substantial community involvement in decisions about the placement and operation of cell towers (also called antennas or masts). Where possible, siting of these facilities should avoid residential areas and schools, day-care centers, hospitals and other buildings that house populations more vulnerable to the effects of radiation exposure. Periodic information on levels of exposure should be provided to the public. Cell towers produce radiofrequency radiation exposure in communities that is constant and involuntary. While acknowledging that this technology enables voice and data transmission via a cell phone that is important to many people in every community, those who live, work or go to school in the vicinity of wireless facilities will be disproportionately exposed. Not enough research has been done to determine the safety or risk of chronic exposure to low-intensity RF radiation from cell towers and some studies suggest there may be harm.

Broadband Radiofrequency Internet transmitted over electrical power lines (BPL) needs to be thoroughly researched and the findings publicly disclosed and discussed before full deployment of this new technology. Discussion should include comparison of exposures and potential health effects of BPL technology versus cable and fiber optics. BPL technology uses electrical wiring as the vehicle for carrying RF radiation into and throughout all electrified buildings in a community, including every home. Therefore, BPL has the potential to expose entire communities to a new, continuous, involuntary source of RF radiation. The RF signal will be carried on everyone’s home wiring, even in the homes of those who do not wish to subscribe to this new Internet service. People will have no chance to “opt out” or turn off the signal.

In summary, we recommend caution in the further deployment of wireless technologies, and deployment of safer, wired alternatives until further study allows better definition of the risks of wireless.

Signed by:

Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, Member, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, Corte Madera, CA

James B. Beal, EMF Interface Consulting, Wimberley, TX

Martin Blank, PhD, Columbia University, New York, NY

Roger Coghill, Coghill Research Labs, UK

Andy Davidson, HESE-UK, Worthing, UK

Cynthia Drasler, MBA, President, Organic Excellence Chemical Free Products; Host, Chemical Free Living Radio Show, Phoenix, AZ

Nancy Evans, Health Science Consultant, San Francisco, CA

David Fancy, Canadian SWEEP Initiative (Safe Wireless Electric and Electromagnetic Policy), St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada

Marne Glaser, Chicago, IL

Reba Goodman, PhD, Columbia University, New York, NY

Leonore Gordon, Coordinator, New York State Coalition to Regulate Antenna Siting, Brooklyn, NY

Elizabeth A. (“Libby”) Kelley, Executive Director, Council on Wireless Technology Impacts, Novato, CA

Michael Kundi, PhD, Institute of Environmental Health, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Henry Lai, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Michael Lerner, PhD, Commonweal, Bolinas, CA

Samuel Milham, MD, MPH, Indio, CA

Lloyd Morgan, Berkeley, CA

Lisa Nagy, MD, Member, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, and Environmental Health Research Foundation, Vineyard Haven, MA

Elihu Richter, MD, MPH, Hebrew University, Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel

Joan M. Ripple, Treasurer, Council on Wireless Technology Impacts and health and disability researcher, Novato, CA

Jeanne Rizzo, RN, Executive Director, Breast Cancer Fund, San Francisco, CA

Ted Schettler, MD, MPH, Science and Environmental Health Network, Ann Arbor, MI

Cindy Sage, Sage Associates, Santa Barbara, CA Lavinia Gene Weissman, Managing Director, WorkEcology, Jamaica Plain, MA

Patricia Wood, Executive Director, Grassroots Environmental Education, Port Washington, NY

See below for international resolutions urging precaution with wireless technologies.

International Resolutions Advocating a Precautionary Approach to the Use and Expansion of Wireless Technologies

Scientists and public policy researchers across the globe have acknowledged the evidence of potential health effects from radiofrequency radiation and advocated a precautionary approach to the use and expansion of wireless technologies. For example:

October 1998, scientists adopt the Vienna Resolution, which states that “biological effects from low intensity [RFR] exposures are scientifically established.”

June 2000, scientists adopt the Salzburg Resolution, stating “the assessment of biological effects of exposures from base stations in the low-dose range is difficult but indispensable for protection of public health…there is at present evidence of no threshold for adverse health effects.” In other words, there is no threshold for safe exposure.

May 2000, the UK Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones chaired by Sir William Stewart, reports that “a precautionary approach be adopted until more robust scientific information becomes available.” [Read the “Stewart Report” here.]

September 2002, scientists at the International Conference “State of the Research on Electromagnetic Fields Scientific and Legal Issues” held in Catania, Italy, adopt the Catania Resolution, calling for “preventive strategies based on the precautionary principle.”

November 2004, the European Union’s EMF REFLEX Research Project is released [11 Mbyte PDF], showing that mobile phone radiation (radiofrequency radiation) damages DNA in human cells. [Read a commentary by Dr. Lennart Hardell here.]

In January 2005, the UK National Radiation Protection Board issues a warning that no child under age 8 should use a cell phone, citing the growing scientific evidence that exposure to RFR poses a health risk. The report also cautions about the health risks of exposure to cell phone antennas (referred to as “base stations): “…there remain particular concerns in the UK about the impact of base stations on health, including well-being. Despite current evidence which shows that exposures of individuals are likely to be only a small fraction of those from phones, they may impact adversely on well-being.”

In February 2005, the Irish Doctors Environmental Association (IDEA) issues a statement urging that “the strictest possible safety regulations be established for the installation of masts and transmitters, and for the acceptable levels of potential exposure of individuals to electromagnetic radiation.”

In September 2006, the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) releases the Benevento Resolution, which emphasizes that the accumulated evidence points to “adverse health effects from occupational and public exposures to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (EMF) at current exposure levels.” Signed by 31 leading scientists from around the world, this resolution calls for governments to “adopt guidelines for public and occupational EMF exposure that reflect the Precautionary Principle.”

homepage: homepage:

Informant: Martin Weatherall

Leave a comment

Filed under antenna, awareness, children, disease, mast, microwave, mobile

Microwave and oxygen deprivation in your red blood cells

Safe distance from a shielded microwave is 500m according to Russian scientists! I read somewhere on this group Kevin stuartdicks wrote:mobile-man

I was thinking since the introduction of microwaves in the eighties our healths have been going down hill with the introduction of new illnesses. I measured the voltage outside mine when it was cooking, it was 40 v/m up to one foot away. I suppose mobile phones are 1 v/m on average.

So if your standing by your microwave waiting for it to cook then thats 40 minutes on the mobile phone for every minute of cooking time. For some people they might eat microwave meals 4 times a week at 4 minutes each so that could be a possible exposure of 640 minutes a week on the mobile phone. Thats alot of phone calls.

I suppose working people are more likely to use the microwave because of the time factor and becuase we are naturally lazy.

The funny thing is my cat used to sit on top of ours in our family home and every time we would warm desert up his expression would change dramatically.


Leave a comment

Filed under appliances, EMR, microwave

RF emissions from energy efficient fluorescent lighting

RF emissions from energy efficient fluorescent lighting

Conventional tungsten filament lamps are entirely without radio frequency emissions, except in rare fault conditions. However, because they are inefficient, the UK government is promoting use of energy efficient alternatives in support 2-different-lightbulbsof its climate change policy. These include energy efficient fluorescent lamps, which produce high levels of RF interference.

For a fluorescent tube to operate at high frequency an electronic switching ballast is required. A typical operating frequency for an electronic ballast would be in the region of 20kHz to 40kHz. The high frequency ballast is essentially a switching power supply and has the potential for radiofrequency interference in the same way as any switched mode power supply. Dimming is achieved by reducing the power applied to the fluorescent tube. In order to maintain the discharge, the frequency of operation must increase as the light output level is decreased. Thus a typical electronic ballast which operates at around 30kHz for maximum light output will supply the lamp at increasing frequencies up to approximately 100kHz for minimum light output.

Measurements of sample lamps have shown that electronic ballasts can cause an increase in interference in long wave and medium wave bands to portable radio receivers. The minimum distance of a radio receiver to the lighting samples for good reception varied between samples. Of particular interest was the interference to AM services from the dimming ballast. Because the fundamental ballast operating frequency alters as the lamp is dimmed, so interference to individual radio stations depends upon the light output level of the unit. For example at maximum dimming (minimum light output) the second harmonic of the lamp operating frequency fell at the same frequency as BBC Radio 4 Long Wave (198kHz) and so reception of this station at maximum dimming was considerably worse than the reception for other long wave stations.

Moreover, VHF band 2 FM radio reception can be affected by electronic ballasted fluorescent lamps with batten type fittings. Modern lighting technologies and techniques do give rise to significant emissions in the VHF band. In practice these emissions are seen to be limited to an upper frequency of less than 300MHz at present, but since the EMC standard for lighting (CISPR 15) gives no tests above 30MHz, these emissions are effectively uncontrolled by any legislation.


Switching power converters are a frequent source of RF emission problems, and those used in lighting products are no exception. In this case, the problem is compounded because fluorescent lamps are found in large numbers in many buildings and it is hard to find a location far enough away from them; and the price pressure on such products works against best practice in design to minimise emissions. Because of their dimensions, batten-type fittings will radiate effectively at VHF, and efficient switching ballasts will quite cheerfully generate energy at these frequencies. Since (at present) the relevant standards give no protection above 30MHz, the pollution is likely to get worse as more and more energy-efficient but RF-polluting lamps are installed.

References and links

Development of improved test methods for assessing the EMC emissions from luminaires and ancillary devices, York EMC Services, Radiocommunications Agency Project AY4125, March 2002: available from
Microwave-powered light bulbs could stop satellite broadcasts


Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., is complaining that the microwave powered bulbs manufactured by Fusion Lighting Inc., will directly interfere with satellite radio broadcasts. Their year-long battle has seen them engage in debate before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a private testing laboratory in Columbia, MD, and in the near future, it appears, in courtrooms in Texas and Maryland.

Fusion says that it’s now about a year away from commercial sales of the bulbs for use in lighting applications as diverse as gas stations and airport runways. The lights invoke the prospect of highways being lit up at night by hundreds of microwave bulbs which could, claim their opponents, affect the satellite broadcasts assigned to the same frequencies.


Even a small amount of accidental ‘leakage’ from electronic devices can be a problem if it occurs at the same frequency as a satellite downlink, because the signal strength at the satellite receiver is very weak.

When the ‘leaky’ devices are intended (as these are) to be used in their thousands over large geographical areas, two problems arise… firstly, there is a greater chance that one or more of them will be near to a satellite receiver, and secondly the ‘ensemble effect’ of the emissions from a large number of devices can have a stronger effect on a receiver than any of the devices on its own.

References and links

“Bulb manufacturer light up spectrum wars”, Conformity, Vol. 6 No. 10, October 2001, ‘News Breaks’ section.


Filed under awareness, electricity, electrosmog, EMF, microwave

Medical Director of Swiss Clinic Takes Brave Stand on the Hazards of Electromagnetic Pollution

By Camilla Rees for

February 10th, 2009. Dr. Thomas Rau, Medical Director of the world renowned Paracelsus Clinic in Lustmühle, Switzerland says he is convinced ‘electromagnetic loads’ lead to cancer, concentration problems, ADD, tinnitus, migraines, insomnia, arrhythmia, Parkinson’s and even back pain. At Paracelsus (, cancer patients are now routinely educated in electromagnetic field remediation strategies and inspectors from the Geopathological Institute of Switzerland are sent to patients’ homes to assess electromagnetic field exposures.

Of note, Dr. Rau says a strategy to consider for those experiencing ‘electrical sensitivity’ symptoms is to remove the electromagnetic ‘hot spot’ in the head created by the presence of metal fillings. Concern is thus not only for the ‘neurotoxic’ aspect of mercury in fillings, an increasingly understood hazard, but because fillings themselves act as antennas in the presence of electromagnetic fields from cell phones and cell towers, wi-fi networks, portable phones, and other sources of radiofrequency radiation.

Rau says the removal of dental fillings can be an important early step in reducing electrical sensitivity, allowing some people to live in homes they otherwise could not tolerate.

Cultures have shown beneficial bacteria grows more slowly in the presence of electromagnetic fields, says Rau, allowing pathological organisms to dominate. Thus, a strategy with electrically sensitive patients, or with those facing chronic conditions, is the aggressive supplementation with probiotics and other Biological Medicine approaches to balance intestinal flora. Many people with chronic infections likely linked to EMF exposures, such as Lyme Disease, are symptom- free after an aggressive microorganism rebalancing program.

Electrical sensitivity—originally known as radio wave sickness
—is a sometimes debilitating experience created by these and other disregulating effects of electromagnetic fields. Linked to many acute and chronic illness conditions, electrical sensitivity is a serious emerging public health issue globally and a subject in which most doctors have no training.

A Petition to Congress, created by is now circulating on the internet, requesting Congress 1) mandate the FCC lower exposure guidelines to reflect the large body of science showing biological effects at exposures much lower than current standards, 2) repeal Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which rescinded state and local governments right to resist towers on health or environmental grounds, 3) stop the roll out of the Wi-Max network until Congress better understands the potential health consequences, and 4) accommodate citizens unable to function adequately in high EMF environments, including forbidding cell towers on school properties.
Exposing children in schools to radiation, known to impair brain function and learning, Rau describes as “criminal”. He says, “It is unethical to expose children to electromagnetic load in this way. We know that power stations for electromagnetic waves like mobile phones are hurting the brains of children, so to put such stations into schools is really…very, very, very bad. Rau says, the question is, “Does the school, or does the society, really want to have intelligent, well-educated children, or not?” He says, “If you install mobile phone towers, which radiate to the children, their intelligence, their brain capacity, decreases. You will have more ADD children, you will have less function of the brain, which in the long term reflects on the intelligence of the children, of the possibility to really teach children, and in the long term, the more this overcomes society, the more we will have dumb children.”

The reality of the health consequences of electromagnetic radiation eventually will have to be faced, and this will only happen with active pressure on Congress. It is estimated that 3-8% of populations in developed countries experience serious electrohypersensitivity symptoms today, and 35% experience mild symptoms. With increasing electromagnetic field exposures, these numbers, along with the suffering involved for people who are impacted, and the health care costs involved, are bound to go up.

Leave a comment

Filed under cancer, electrohypersensitivity, family, microwave, schools, sensativity

Wireless Networks (Wi-Fi) Consumer Health and Safety Advice

Wireless Networks (Wi-Fi) Consumer Health and Safety Advice

The use of wireless devices by consumers is increasing rapidly, yet there is concern in the scientific community that this technology could have adverse side effects. Download our flyer for the facts and recommended precautions, and follow the links below for more information.microwave-transmission-tower

Download Flyer:  All text in blue is a hot link, takes you directly to the respective link.

A4 Flyer (Web-quality PDF – 228kb)
A4 Flyer (Print-quality PDF wth bleed for printing – 688kb)

More Information:

Wireless Devices, Standards, and Microwave Radiation in the Education Environment – Gary Brown, October 2000.

The BioInitative Report – Council on Wireless Technology

The Collaborative on Health and the Environment

H.E.S.E Project

International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety

Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones

Mast Sanity


EM-Radiation Research Trust

Thank you to EMF Facts Consultancy for providing these empowering facts.

Where can I get more information?  You can copy / paste any URL into your search engine.
Visit the following websites to obtain further information including the reports referred to in this brochure.

Leave a comment

Filed under antenna, cell phone, cell tower, EMF, family, Health, mast, microwave, mobile, schools

EMF used as weapons, 70 years of awareness


Electromagnetic weapons—also known as E-bombs—are designed to release a high-power flash of radio waves or microwaves. Depending on the energy of the electromagnetic pulse, effects can range from the disabling of electronic circuitry to physiological effects in those exposed to the electromagnetic pulse.head-satellite-dish
The pulse released by an electromagnetic weapon lasts for an extremely short time, around 100 picoseconds (one ten-billionth of a second). The absorption of this blast of high energy by anything capable of conducting electricity, including nerves and neurons, overwhelms the recipient.

Research and development into the effects of electromagnetic weapons on human beings and animals was underway in the 1940s. The Japanese spent considerable sums of money on the development of a “Death Ray” between 1940 and 1945. A review of these studies by the United States military concluded that it was possible to develop a weapon that would produce an electromagnetic ray capable of killing humans five to 10 miles away from the source.

Animal studies have demonstrated the lethal nature of electromagnetic radiation. In the studies, wavelengths ranging from 60 centimeters destroyed the lung cells of mice and ground hogs. Wavelengths less than two meters also destroyed brain cells.

Electronic stimulation can have other, nonlethal effects on humans. Secret research conducted in the United States following World War II demonstrated that electronic stimulation of different regions of the brain of test subjects could produce extreme emotions of rage, lust, and fatigue. Another research program, dubbed “Operation Knockout,” operated at the Allan Memorial Institute in Montreal, Canada, with funding from the Central Intelligence Agency. The study’s director, Dr. Ewen Cameron, discovered that electroshock treatments caused amnesia. Memories could be erased, and the subjects reprogrammed. Once these “psychic driving” experiments became public, Cameron—then a pre-eminent psychiatrist, endured harsh public and professional criticism.

In the 1960s, the U.S. Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency (DARPA) studied the health and psychological effects of low energy microwaves for weapons applications. The ability of microwaves to damage the heart, create leaks in blood vessels in the brain, and to produce hallucinations were demonstrated.
Many scientists assume that research into the debilitating effects of electromagnetic radiation has continued up to the present day. However, increasing restrictions on the information obtainable through the U.S. Freedom of Information Act have made verification difficult. A 1993U.S. Air Command and Staff College paper entitled “Non Lethal Technology and Air Power” documented low frequency, “acoustic” and high power microwave weapons that could deter or debilitate humans.

Low frequency electromagnetic waves, also known as acoustic waves, have been commonly used for decades in functions such as ultrasound machines. However, acoustic waves can also cause internal organs of humans to vibrate. The result can be nausea, diarrhea, earache, and mental confusion. The discomfort increases as one gets closer to the source.

Shorter wavelength electromagnetic radiation produces different effects. A common example is microwave radiation, which in a microwave oven can be used to heat up foods and liquids. When directed at humans, a microwave weapon causes atoms to vibrate, which in turn generates heat. At 200 yards away, body temperature increases from the normal 98.6° F to 107° F. At closer range, the temperature increase can be even higher, and is lethal.

Microwave electromagnetic weapons can also stun a victim. This is the result of the stimulation of peripheral nerves. The simultaneous activity of many nerves over-whelms the capacity of the brain to process the incoming information, and can induce unconsciousness.

The biochemical effect of microwave exposure is dependent on the distance from the source, as electromagnetic fields become much weaker as the distance from the source increases.

Experiments with very low frequency electromagnetic radiation have demonstrated that the radiation can induce the brain to release chemicals that induce slumber, or to release a chemical called histamine. In human volunteers, the histamine release produces flu-like symptoms, which dissipate when the radiation stops.

Not all electromagnetic weapons are cloaked in military secrecy. A device called the Pulse Wave Myotron is commercially available. The Myotron emits rapid pulses of electromagnetic radiation. The pulses incapacitate the movement of voluntary muscles by over riding the electrical pulse that normally flows from nerve to nerve within the muscles. Involuntary muscles, such as the heart and muscles that operate the lungs, are unaffected. Thus, a victim is rendered incapable of movement or speech. The effect lasts until the muscles can repolarize; approximately 30 minutes.

1 Comment

Filed under awareness, electromagnetic radiation, EMF, Health, microwave