The HAARP Freedom of Information Act Request DISCLOSURE
This document, once classified, came as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request by the Above Top Secret forum. There is a watermark in the background with a copyright usage link, which has now been removed. To my knowledge, this is the only version of this file currently available on the internet. The importance of this document cannot be overstated.
Information for individuals conducting research into the technology and ethics of organized mind control. The latter is defined as, “covertly applied influences with the intent of producing a non-consensual response”.
Capabilities
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The first step in formulating a coordinated response to electronic mind control is to determine what technological methods have been developed and proven in the field. This is somewhat impeded by secrecy laws involving “national security”. Apart from fringe diatribes, which contain varying levels of conjecture, there are ample references in the open literature. This obviously represents only the tip of the iceberg of a well funded multi-disciplinary program, involving both military and domestic agencies, that has been underway in several major countries since the early 1950′s. The intended outcome is left to your imagination.
Mind and Behavioral Control
The selection of links below illustrates the spectrum of popularly held views on the subject. This is followed by examples of emerging technology. For systems in current wide scale deployment, see the Applicationspage. Please be aware, this is a volatile topic and content may suddenly disappear from the web.
While not originated for mind control per se, the following range of technologies represent a growing ability to target energetic influences with pin-point accuracy. Apart from the stated aim of asset destruction, the emitted energy beam, be it laser or microwave, can be easily modulated with signal patterns known to interfere with physical or psychological functions.
IR beam + HF longitudinal waves. Note Tesla coil on top of the box.
ANGELS do play this HAARP – Global Extinction-Level Event or Geoengineering: Choose your pill
Posted on January 22, 2013
The Arctic Methane Group (AMEG) is a group of scientists/concerned citizens studying the release of methane trapped under our North Pole’s icecap. They claim that not only is methane currently being released, it is poised to explode again as it did in the dinosaurs age:
There are some 1000 Gt to 1400 Gt (10^9 tonnes) of carbon contained in the methane hydrates on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf and 700 Gt of free methane is trapped under the Arctic submarine permafrost (Shakova et al. 2008, 2010). Shakova et al. estimate that between 5% to 10% of the subsea permafrost (methane hydrates) in that region is now punctured allowing methane to escape at a rate of about 0.5 Mt (500,000 tonnes) a year and that up to 50 Gt (10^9 tonnes) could be released abruptly at any time soon. Release of this subsea Arctic methane would increase the worldwide atmospheric methane content about 12 times equivalent to doubling the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere.
Consider practices and regulations that are having, or risk having, a heating effect on the Arctic. A postponement of drilling in the Arctic would be sensible, because of inevitable escape of methane but also because of the risk of blowout with or without oil spill.
Try to maintain or even enhance the current cooling effect from currently emitted sulphate aerosols in the troposphere at mid to high northern latitudes. For example the regulation to ban bunker fuel for ships should be relaxed while encouraging continued use of bunker fuel where the resulting aerosol emissions might be beneficial. Reduction of sulphate aerosol ‘pollution’ will be unpopular with many environment groups, but the priority to cool the Arctic has to be established.
Establish the positive and negative net forcing from contrails, and encourage flight paths of commercial airplanes to reduce positive or increase negative net forcing. The ban on polar flights, lifted recently, should be reintroduced. (Editors Note: Weather and Climate Engineering – William Cotton at the AMS )
Reduce black carbon into Arctic. Make for preparedness to fight tundra fires in Arctic and sub-Arctic.
Find ways to remove black carbon from coal fired power stations, while allowing or compensating for the cooling effect that their aerosol emissions would be producing without the scrubbing out of sulphur compounds.
GEOENGINEERING ACTIONS FOR ENHANCING THE REFLECTION OF SUNLIGHT BACK INTO SPACE AND FOR INCREASING THE THERMAL ENERGY EMITTED INTO SPACE.
Prepare the supply and logistics for spraying aerosol precursor in large quantities, preferably into the lower stratosphere, for deployment by next March or April (not sooner because the risk of ozone depletion). Of course, possible negative impacts have to be considered before large scale deployment, but it is worth being fully prepared for such deployment on the assumption that this technique can be made to work effectively.
Develop and test the deployment of suitably reflective particles, of such materials as TiO2, as alternative or supplement to sulphate aerosol. Prepare for large scale deployment.
Finance the development of, and deployment capability for, marine cloud brightening, with a view to deployment on a large scale in spring 2013 – assuming that is the earliest conceivable time. The main technical problem seems to be with the jets, so experts from major companies in the ink-jet technology field need to be brought in. Boats and land installations need to be kitted out.
Finance the development and deployment capability for cirrus cloud removal, since this is a promising technique. Suitable chemicals need to be identified/confirmed, with stock-piling of these cloud seeding chemicals. Aircraft need to be kitted out to spray these chemicals.
Finance brainstorming sessions for geoengineering, with top scientists and engineers, such as to suggest further measures, improvements to above techniques and the development of other intervention ideas.
Finance the research and trials of all promising techniques for helping to cool the Arctic, including the three geoengineering techniques above. Update Earth System models to deal with the actualities of sea ice retreat, such that the effects of different techniques can be modelled and optimum joint deployment strategies established.
MEASURES TO REDUCE MORE SPECIFIC RISKS FROM ARCTIC WARMING:
Finance the research and trials of promising techniques for dealing with methane, especially the reduction of methane from wetlands draining into the Arctic. Use of diatoms to promote methanotrophs (and healthy conditions for fish) is one such technique.
Finance the research and trials of promising techniques for dealing with surface melt of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) and for reducing the speed of ice mass discharge. The latter is accelerated by warm water at the sea termination of glaciers; therefore consideration should be given to techniques to cool this water.
Consider techniques for reducing Arctic storms and their strength. Techniques should be developed for reducing the frequency and severity of tropical storms, such as to minimise damage, especially to agriculture and low-lying conurbations.
Consider techniques for un-sticking of blocked weather patterns.
Consider techniques for improving surface albedo of sea, lakes, snow and ice by brightening water with bubbles, covering snow and ice with white granules or sheets to prolong albedo, draining pools on ice, forming ice on pools, depositing snow on ice (as fresh snow has a higher albedo) and on land, discouraging growth of plants with low albedo, etc.
Note that a new idea for improving surface albedo has been suggested in a paper to the AGU 2012, supported by AMEG founder member, Peter Wadhams.. His research on iceberg calving has led to ideas for reducing discharge of ice from the GIS.
A word of warning about finance of research, development and field trials: it is important that the results of such activities are independent, unbiased and free from financial interest.
Food security actions
Immediate actions to be initiated:
Overall there is an immediate requirement for all major governments to establish an emergency ‘watchdog’ committee for internal and world food security issues. This committee should have direct access to the leadership of individual nations and include their UN Ambassador. The associated costs, in terms of humanitarian impacts alone, should warrant this move. When the assessed cost of the potentially associated national economic factors are weighed, there should be little disagreement regarding the necessity for establishing this ‘watchdog’ committee.
The US Renewable Fuels Standard (“RFS”), a provision of the US Energy Policy Act of 2005, should be evaluated for a temporary stay. Depending entirely on the US corn harvest, this could transfer between 4 to 5 billion bushels back to the food market. That would reduce upward price pressure in the cereals markets and further assist by suppressing speculation in that area of food commodities.
The European Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC should similarly be reviewed and measures put in place to temporarily divert all relevant crops from the fuel to the food market.
In both cases outlined in points 3 & 4 the emphasis should be on ‘temporary emergency measures’ and should only be applicable to crops that can be diverted to the food chain.
A general directive should be agreed between all nations at the UN to prohibit the sale of OTC derivatives, in any nation, by any ‘seller’, that have any content relative to food commodities. This action will assist in dissuading institutional investors speculating in food commodities.
If the crisis deepens point 4 should be further reinforced by prohibiting futures contracts in food commodities being sold to any entity who will not take actual delivery of the contracted goods. Great care will be necessary with this proposal as it is known that hedge funds, and investment banks, have established warehousing to control certain commodity pricing. Typical examples are the attempted 2010 cornering of the world cocoa market by a UK hedge fund and the current Goldman Sachs control of the US aluminium market.
An alternative international seed bank must be created to provide seeds for subsistence farmers; ones that are devoid of the ‘terminator’ gene. In periods of high crop failure the inability to harvest seeds for the coming year has a crippling impact on subsistence farmers. Note that it is estimated 160,000 Indian farmers alone have committed suicide since 1967 due in part to this situation.
Following the launch of AMEG’s ‘Strategic Plan’ the above actions will be communicated to all world leaders and relevant parties in the form of an ‘Essential Action Plan’ to match the pending circumstances of the change in the world’s weather patterns. For further details, see the website of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group at AMEG.me or contact AMEG Chair John Nissen at: johnnissen2003@gmail.com
UK Government Response to AMEG’s call for Geoengineering | Link
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT BASED ON NON-EXISTING OBSERVATIONS, SAYS AMEG | Link
AMEG, the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, hereby formally complains to the UK government that the observations to which they refer in their statement [1] do not exist. The observations taken directly from the ice and recently from satellite, support a very simple model of sea ice behaviour – that the melting, as reflected by the volume average for particular months, is closely following an exponential trend, towards zero for September 2015.
THE END…. or is it…..
On the subject of methane, geoengineering, and the artic, I would like to add these additional findings. There was a HUGE methane leak in the North Sea just prior to AMEG’s proposals for geoengineering. Also there is the ANGELS proposals, and the Lucy Project involving HAARP.
The ANGELS Proposal, Arctic Natural Gas Extraction Liquefaction & Sales, is a plan to drill under the ice and extract gas/oil. This seems to be related to Project Lucy, which would involve three radars focusing their beams on methane clouds and turning those methane clouds into diamond dust, something formerly left to the science-fiction world of Alchemy. Apparently the methane molecule and a diamond are very similar, and they believe with a 13.56 MHz frequency they can break methane down and turn it into diamond dust, which will reflect sunlight slowing global warming (aka SRM, or Solar Radiation Management). Further, the director of HAARP says they can form noctilucent clouds above the HAARP IRI using three radars, and if their plan works, the heaters at HIPAS, Arecibo, EISCAT (Tromso), and Sura, Russia “could immediately attack the atmospheric methane as well.”
Radio and Laser Frequency and Harmonic Test Ranges for the Lucy and HAARP Experiments and their Application to Atmospheric Methane Destruction | Link
HAARP The main instrument at HAARP Station is the Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI). This is a high power, high-frequency phased array radio transmitter with a set of 180 antennas, disposed in an array of 12×15 units that occupy a rectangle of about 33 acres (13 hectares). The IRI is used to temporarily energize a small portion of the ionosphere. The study of these disturbed volumes yields important information for understanding natural ionospheric processes.”
The main MHZ frequency range (High Frequency Band 3 – 30 MHZ) of the powerful IRI transmitter is slightly different from the 13.56 MHZ needed to break down the methane. However it is very powerful with a 5.1 Giga watt effective radial power at maximum output. The Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI) at HAARP transmits over the range 2.8 MHZ to 10 MHZ slightly less than the 13.56 MHZ used to break down methane but as mentioned previously if the IRI transmitted a 10 MHz carrier waves modulated by a 3.56 MHz signal it will generate an Upper Side Frequency of 13.56 MHz which is the methane destruction frequency (Penguin Dictionary of Physics 2000).
Noctilucent clouds which are common in the Arctic form from water condensing around meteorite dust in the mesosphere above 50 km altitude and are becoming more and more abundant and are being seen at much lower latitudes. The increase in the methane concentration in the stratosphere and its oxidation in the mesosphere is resulting in more water at these high altitudes and an increase in the noctilucent clouds. The noctilucent clouds help reflect the suns heat back into space so if we can break down more methane with the HAARP or Lucy transmitters we should generate more clouds and thus help reverse global warming by:-
a) Getting rid of the high global warming potential methane at low altitudes and in the stratospheric global warming veil.
b) Generating sunshine reflecting noctilucent clouds in increasing amounts in the mesosphere which will reflect the suns energy back into space.
The HAARP facility has discovered what they call Polar Mesosphere Summer Echoes which are elusive phenomena which may be due to a thicker development of noctilucent clouds in the Arctic summer due to the increasing methane build up. These echoes are detected with the IRI transmitter when it is used as a radar with one 28 MHZ radar and two other VHF radars of 49 MHZ and 139 MHZ. If we could transmit 13.56 MHZ on the IRI transmitter and use the other radars and optical cameras to look for reflections from noctilucent clouds formed from the breakdown of methane in a circular zone above the HAARP transmitter we should be able to effectively test the system. There ought to be a buildup of the noctilucent clouds in the area where the HAARP transmissions are focused on the ionosphere. If it works there are 4 other similar facilities in the world (Hipas, Alaska; Arecibo, Puerto Rico, EISCAT, Norway and Sura, Russia) where they could immediately attack the atmospheric methane as well.
Project Lucy Extended Version 4, Arctic News Blog | Link
GEOENGINEERING ARCTIC COSTS
1. R&D and testing (this proposal)
2. Political negotiations (could be covered under existing diplomacy financial budgets)
3. Transport and installation (could be covered under existing military budgets)
4. Energy supply (could be provided by nuclear submarines)
5. Operational cost (could be part of military budgets)Project Lucy is part of a range of geo-engineering efforts to reduce warming in the Arctic. Other methods include:
- Methane capture in the Arctic
- Spraying particles in the atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space
- Pyrolysis of organic waste and carbon burial, to reduce atmospheric CO2 and soot The need to act on methane in the Arctic is such that, most likely, a range of methods will need to be deployed in parallel. Lucy has the potential to be very effective, as it can decompose methane while any resulting nano diamond powder could also reflect sunlight back into space.Project Lucy therefore aims to design, build and test a microwave transmission system targeting low-altitude methane clouds with the aim of breaking the first C-H bond as soon as the methane erupts into the atmosphere from the Arctic Ocean. The transmitters can be mounted on submarines, planes and after 2015 on boats and drilling rigs when the Arctic ice cap has melted (Arctic News, 2012).
Methane is now being expelled into the Arctic atmosphere by the subsea methane hydrates at a fast increasing rate and that this expulsion began in earnest in August 2010 (Figure 1; Arctic atmospheric methane concentrations at ca 7 km altitude – Yurganov 2012; Carana 2011 a,b,c; 2012 a,b; Light 2002 a,b; 2011 a,b,c; 2012 a,b,c; Light and Carana 2011). The methane is rising into the stratosphere and mesosphere where some of it is being oxidised to produce larger quantities of noctilucent clouds between 76 and 85 km altitude. These noctilucent clouds were seen north of Norway but are now occurring at much lower latitudes over Colorado. An early figure from NASA indicates that noctilucent clouds were originally confined to the southern polar regions (Figure 2).
Did you just watch the Jesse Ventura episode “Brain Invaders”? Here are some supporting documents:
The AN/URC-117 Ground Wave Emergency Network | Link
The Ground-Wave Emergency Network (GWEN) is a communications system that the military is in the process of constructing as we speak. It operates in the very-low-frequency (VLF) range, with transmissions between 150 and 175 kHz. This range was selected because its signals travel by means of waves that have a tendency to hug the ground rather than by radiating into the atmosphere. This signal drops off sharply with distance – a single GWEN stations transmits in a 360 circle to a distance of 250 to 300 miles. The entire GWEN system consists of approximately 300 such stations spread across the United States, each with a tower 300-500 feet high. The stations are from 200 to 250 miles apart, so that a signal can go from coast to coast from one station to another. When the system is completed around 1993, the entire civilian population of the United States will be exposed to the GWEN Transmissions. Read Appendix 4 and then re-read this section. Source
The Department of Defense calls it Silent Sound Spread Spectrum (SSSS), and it also goes by the name of S-quad or Squad. In the private sector, the technology goes by the name of Silent Subliminal Presentation System and the technology has also been released to certain corporate vendors who have attached catchy brand names like BrainSpeak Silent Subliminals to their own SSSS-based products. Source
================================================================
MindNet Journal - Vol. 1, No. 61a * [Part 1 of 2 parts]
================================================================
V E R I C O M M / MindNet "Quid veritas est?"
================================================================
The views and opinions expressed below are not necessarily the
views and opinions of VERICOMM, MindNet, or the editors unless
otherwise noted.
Permission is given to reproduce and redistribute, for
non-commercial purposes only, provided this information and the
copy remain intact and unedited.
Editor: Mike Coyle <vericomm@c2.org>
Assistant Editor: Rick Lawler
Research: Darrell Bross
Editor's Note:
I am usually reticent to express my personal opinions about
a paper such as this. It seems, to me, to be better to just let
the information speak for itself and allow the reader to come to
their own opinion about its veracity. However, the following
article about GWEN, obviously written by the government agency
that is responsible for its creation, is such an egregious
example of disinformation, obfuscation, and selective
referencing, that I feel I owe my subscribers a comment and
explanation.
The serious, and adverse health effects associated with exposure
to even low-levels of RFR, which are largely discounted by this
article, are well documented as a result of laboratory
experiments, case history studies, and statistical studies done
by many scientists and doctors. Below you will find a few
excerpts from this article followed by rebuttals that directly
contradict these excerpts.
...stated within:
"A number of so-called "nonthermal" effects have been described
in the scientific literature in connection with RFR exposure of
laboratory animals and animal tissue at levels equal to or less
than 0.4 W/kg (EPA 1986). These effects, involving the cellular,
hematologic, reproductive, nervous systems, and others, are
summarized in a review by Cahill and Elder (1984). The
significance of these effects for public health is not clear,
partly because the mechanisms responsible for them are not
known."
...rebuttal:
"...DARPA at the Institute for Defense Analysis...`certain events
presumed to the threatening to the national interest served as
the basis for ARPA's support for Project Pandora', and funds were
given to Walter Reed [Medical Research Institute] early in 1965
`to evaluate the threat since it appeared to have strong
behavioral and biomedical implications'...`cytogenic and
histological studies of the brain suggested that comparable
energies were damaging tissue'
- _The_Zapping_of_America_ by Paul Brodeur, 1977, pg. 123.
...stated within:
"_Cataracts_. It has been asserted in newspapers and other popular
media that microwaves potentially cause cataracts. Scientific
studies have indicated that microwaves can cause cataracts in
experimental animals, but only if incident continuous-wave power
densities are high..."
...rebuttal:
"...the case received prominent mention in the bureau's [Bureau
of Radiological Health] 1969 annual report to Congress. When
Carpenter described it a the fifth annual symposium of the
International Microwave Power Institute, which was held in
Scheveningen, in the Netherlands, on October 7, 1970, he stated
that it provided a `unique example of bilateral cataracts
resulting from low-level microwave radiation.'"
- _The_Zapping_of_America_ by Paul Brodeur, 1977, pg. 68.
...stated within:
"_Birth Defects_. Birth defects (technically, teratogenesis) and
developmental abnormalities after birth are always of public
concern... Teratogenic studies associated with RFR have used a
variety of animal models. The results indicate that a threshold
of heat induction or temperature increase must be exceeded
before teratogenic effects are produced. For the SARs associated
with human exposure to GWEN RFR, there would be no detectable
heating, so birth defects would be extremely unlikely."
...rebuttal:
"That microwave radiation might have genetic effects had first
been discovered back in 1959 by Dr. John H. Heller...at the New
England Institute for Medical Research, in Ridgefield Conn., who
observed gross chromosomal abnormalities in garlic-root tips that
had been irradiated with microwaves at power levels far below
those necessary to produce heat...in August 1975, members of
Electromagnetic Radiation Management Advisory Council, OTP, &
DoD met to review the findings of research pertaining to the
genetic, hereditary, growth, and developmental effects of
microwave and radio-frequency radiation, they learned that in
eight out of fifteen projects low-level radiation had produced
effects and changes in the test animals or genetic material."
- _The_Zapping_of_America_ by Paul Brodeur, 1977, pg. 90.
...stated within:
"_Endocrine System Effects_. Exposure of animals to RFR has
produced... There do not appear to be any effects clearly
demonstrated to be associated with nonthermogenic stimulation of
the endocrine system or the associated parts of the CNS."
...rebuttal:
"Soviet investigators also turned up a great number of endocrine
responses to radio-frequency radiation, including increased
thyroid activity, slight enlargement of the thyroid gland,
sterility, and decreased lactation in nursing mothers."
- _The_Zapping_of_America_ by Paul Brodeur, 1977, pg. 37.
I could go on and on, but I think you see my point. Please keep
this in mind as you read this document. I have also included
below a few references excerpted from _Cross_Currents_ by Dr.
Robert O. Becker that document the adverse effects of RFR.
Aurell, E., and Tengroth, B. _Acta_Ophthalmologica_ 51
(1973):764. Report that microwaves can produce cataract at
nonthermal levels and can damage the retina itself.
Birge, R., et al. _Journal_of_the_American_Chemical_Society_
109(1987):2090. Report that certain chemicals in the retina
absorb microwaves to a high degree.
Delgado, J.M.R., et al. _Journal_of_Anatomy_ 134 (1982):533.
Reports on developmental defects in chick embryos exposed to
various ELF frequencies.
Garfinkel, I., and Savokhan, B. _Annals_of_the_New_York_Academy_
_of_Sciences_ 381 (1982):I. Report that the incidence of brain
tumors rose between 1940 and 1977.
Heller, J.H., and Teixeira-Pinto, A.A. _Nature_ 183 (1959):905.
First report on the production of chromosomal abnormalities
by fields at 27 MHz.
Liboff, A, _Science_ 223 (1984):818. Report that a wide range
of frequencies in the ELF-VLF range could increase the rate
of DNA synthesis in dividing cells.
================================================================
GROUND WAVE EMERGENCY NETWORK (GWEN)
Document courtesy of Julianne McKinney,
Electronic Surveillance Project.
September 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ground Wave Emergency Network (GWEN)
---
3.11 HEALTH
3.11.1 Definition of Resource
Aspects of the GWEN program that might affect the health of
the general public residing in the vicinity of GWEN facilities or
potentially exposed to GWEN operations are related to exposure to
radio frequency radiation (RFR). All radio transmission antennae
are sources of RFR. The GWEN system would generate RFR from a
299-foot, low-frequency (LF) antenna and an ultrahigh-frequency
(UHF) antenna located at each relay node (RN) station, and from a
UHF antenna located at each input/output (I/O) station.
The oscillation of current and voltage in a transmitting
antenna results in the radiation of an outward-traveling field,
or electromagnetic wave. By encoding information into this wave,
messages can be transmitted to a receiving station in a manner
analogous to AM, FM, and TV broadcasting and reception. The
electromagnetic wave consists of an electric field, the E-field,
and a magnetic field, the H-field. These electromagnetic waves
constitute the RFR.
The region beyond the distance of a few wavelengths of any
transmission is known as the far field. The wavelengths for GWEN
LF transmissions range from 1.7 to 2 kilometers; thus, the far
field refers to the region beyond several kilometers from the RN
stations. The region within a few wavelengths of the
transmitting antenna is referred to as the near field. The
electromagnetic field within this region is more complicated than
in the far field. In addition to the primary propagating wave,
there are nonpropagating fields which tend to dominate the near
field. Because these nonpropagating fields decrease rapidly with
distance, they become insignificant in the far field.
3.11.2 Issues and Concerns
Although RFR is referred to as radiation, it does not cause
ionization and should not be confused with radiation from
radioactive sources. In general, RFR is associated with
electromagnetic waves with frequencies ranging from
approximately 10 kilohertz (kHz) to 300 gigahertz (GHz).
Electromagnetic waves with higher frequencies than radio waves
are, in ascending order of frequency, infrared waves, visible
light, ultraviolet waves, X-rays, and gamma rays.
Electromagnetic waves propagate energy in "packets" called
photons. The energy of a photon is directly proportional to the
frequency of the radiation. When the photon energies equal or
exceed the binding energies of electrons to atoms, the radiation
is capable of ionizing atoms and breaking electron bonds in
biomolecules, thereby disrupting biochemical processes and
causing genetic and other damage in biological organisms.
Ultraviolet waves, X-rays, and gamma rays, are ionizing. However,
the photon energies associated with the highest radio frequencies
are several orders of magnitude lower than the weakest chemical
bonds and they cannot ionize atoms or disrupt chemical bonding.
Thus, RFR is nonionizing and does not create the same effect
as radiation generated by radioactive sources. Its primary effect
in biological organisms is to agitate molecules, that is,
generate heat. At intensities that fall within present exposure
standards, the rate of heat generation is negligible or is within
the thermoregulatory capabilities of mammals and birds.
There have been reports of some cases of accidental
occupational exposure to RFR intensities that exceed present
safety limits. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has found that levels of field intensities in the FM and
TV-broadcast bands exceed present exposure limits at certain
sites that are accessible to the general public. Because of these
few cases, some members of the public may perceive that there is
a high risk associated with RFR regardless of intensity or
frequency. Public concerns are centered on the potential for
effects on humans due to both long- and short-term exposure to
RFR at GWEN frequencies and exposure levels. These concerns may
include the potential for shock hazards, birth defects, and
cancer.
3.11.3 Regulatory Setting
No federal, state, county, or municipal regulations exist for
RFR exposure in the GWEN LF band (150 to 175 kHz). In July 1986,
as part of its charge under federal law to develop RFR protection
guides, the EPA published proposed alternatives for controlling
public exposure to RFR and requested written comments. Other
national and international agencies have published guidelines for
RFR safety.
_American_National_Standards_Institute_ (ANSI) has set safety
levels for human exposure to RFR in the frequency range of 300
kHz to 100 GHz (ANSI, 1982), ANSI concluded that the reliable
evidence of hazardous effects on animals is associated with
whole-body-average specific absorption rates (SAR) above 4
watts/kilogram (W/kg) in animals. Using a safety factor of 10,
the exposure limit was set at 0.4 W/kg. Since SAR is
frequency-dependent in a manner that is species-specific, the
power density limits that correspond to 0.4 W/kg vary with
frequency. At resonant frequencies for humans (see section
3.11.6.2), this value of SAR corresponds to a power density of 1
milliwatt per square centimeter (mw/cm2). This limit on power
density was specified for the frequency range of 30 to 300 MHz
to include all possible resonant conditions for humans. The
limit on power density for frequencies below this range can be
increased inversely as the second power of the frequency while
still maintaining a limit of 0.4 W/kg on the SAR. However,
because there's a potential for shock and burns at high power
densities, the ANSI subcommittee limited the power density to 100
mw/cm2 for frequencies below 3 MHz, extending down to 300 kHz.
Using the assumption of plane waves, this power density limit
corresponds to an E-field intensity of 632 volts per meter (V/m)
and to an H-field intensity of 1.58 amperes per meter (A/m).
While the ANSI standard would limit the SAR value to 0.4 W/kg
averaged over the whole body, it allows a spatial peak (local)
value of 8 W/kg averaged over any one gram of tissue. SARs,
power densities, and squares of field intensities are averaged
over any 6-minute period. The ANSI subcommittee did not provide
any guidance for frequencies below 300 kHz; therefore, ANSI does
not cover the GWEN LF band. The ANSI standard is applicable to
the control of occupational and non-occupational exposures.
_International_Radiation_Protection_Association_ (IRPA)
provides interim guidelines on limits of exposure (IRPA 1984).
While IRPA's occupational limits at resonance are the same as
ANSI's, the limit for the general population is based on a safety
factor of 50 relative to 4 W/kg, or 5 relative to 0.4 W/kg. The
whole-body average SAR is limited to 0.08 W/kg, which
corresponds to a power density of 0.2 mw/cm2 in the range of
human resonant frequencies. The limit on the local SAR for the
general population is reduced to 0.8 W/kg. As with the other
standards, the power density limit rises as the frequency
decreases from resonance. The limit for exposure to the public
in the 100 kHz to 1 MHz frequency range is a power density of 2
mw/cm2, with corresponding limits to E-field and H-field
intensities set at 87 V/m and 0.23 A/m, respectively. These
limits would apply to the GWEN LF transmissions.
_National_Council_on_Radiation_Protection_and_Measurements_
(NCRP 1986) recently recommended RFR limits for the public.
These limits are similar to IRPA's limits for the public in that
they use the same safety factor to limit whole-body average SARs
to 0.08 W/kg and local SARs to 1.6 W/kg. For frequencies below
1.34 MHz, the NCRP limits the power density to 100 mw/cm2, which
is higher than the IRPA limit but the same as the ANSI limit. The
NCRP does not provide guidance for frequencies below 300 kHz;
therefore, their standards do not cover the GWEN LF band.
_EPA_ (1986) has Proposed three alternatives for limiting
public exposure to RFR. Two alternatives are similar to the other
standards: limiting whole-body-average SARs to either 0.4 W/kg or
0.08 W/kg for frequencies above 3 MHz. The third alternative
(EPA option 1) is the most restrictive, as it limits whole-body
average SARs to 0.04 W/kg for frequencies above 3 MHz. Below 3
MHz this option would limit E-field intensity to 87 V/m and
H-field intensity to 0.23 A/m. While this option is more
restrictive than the IRPA standard for frequencies greater than 3
MHz, it is equal to the IRPA standards for lower frequencies. The
EPA proposal does not specify limits on local SAR values, but it
does note that the exposure limit under its option I will
substantially reduce local heating effects of RF body currents
by keeping the local SAR to less than 4 W/kg.
3.11.4 Approach to Analysis
In order to assess possible RFR biological hazards, the
pertinent literature on electric shock, radio frequency (RF)
burns; and bioeffects related to absorbed energy was reviewed.
Findings that might be relevant to GWEN frequencies were
evaluated by comparing the RF intensity levels studied to actual
measured levels at GWEN facilities. The objective of the analysis
was to determine the extent of the zone around an RN's antenna
base that would need to be controlled in order to prevent public
exposure to RFR levels that exceed safety standards.
3.11.5 Data Sources
The present level of knowledge regarding biological effects of
RFR was reviewed in an EPA report by Elder and Cahill (1984) and
a report prepared for the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine
(USAFSAM) by Heynick and Polson (1983). The latter report was
updated and expanded by Heynick (1986) and will be reissued.
Information is also summarized by Polk and Postow (1986), Elder
(1986), and in the EPA announcement of the proposed alternative
guidelines for RFR protection (EPA 1986). Two recent reports
prepared for USAFSAM document possible hazards in the frequency
range of 10 kHz to 3 MHz, which brackets the GWEN LF antenna
frequencies (Gandhi et al. 1985; Guy and Chou 1985).
3.11.6 Existing Conditions
The potential health effects to humans associated with
exposure to RFR can be divided into two major categories:
Electric shock and RF burns resulting from contact between
grounded people and ungrounded objects. Bare feet on wet ground
would provide maximum grounding. Footware (shoes) reduce the
level of grounding and provide some measure of protection. The
analysis below assumes an individual who would be fully
grounded.
A wide range of effects resulting from the energy absorbed by
the body.
3.11.6.1 Electric Shock and RF Burns
Electric shock and RF burns can occur because of voltages
induced by RFR below 3 MHz, and particularly below 200 kHz, in
ungrounded conductive objects, such as vehicles, fencing, metal
roofing, and guy wires. When an individual that is electrically
grounded makes contact with an ungrounded conductive object in
an RF field, currents may then flow through the individual's
body. The amount of current flow depends on how well the
individual is electrically grounded, the impedance between the
ungrounded object and the individual, and the voltage and charge
of the object induced by the RF field.
At low-intensity RF fields, a grounded individual might
experience a tingling or warm feeling in the fingers, hands,
wrists, or ankles when in contact with an ungrounded conductive
object. At higher field intensities, an individual might
experience an electric shock as contact was made with the
ungrounded object. Electric shock can also result when an
ungrounded individual in a high-intensity RF field comes into
contact with a grounded object. If the flow of current is large
enough, it can cause localized heating of body tissue resulting
in an RF burn. RF burns can also be caused by direct contact
with an RF source (e.g., an antenna) or an uninsulated
transmission line. Direct contact with a GWEN antenna is
discussed under system safety.
Two independent groups of researchers have recently studied
the shock hazard from objects in RF fields with frequencies of
10 kHz to 3 MHz (Guy and Chou 1985; Gandhi et al. 1985). The
results were based on actual measurements at RF antennae and
experimental measurements on several hundred subjects. Since the
shock hazard is due to the electric, rather than magnetic,
component of RF fields, thresholds were stated in terms of the
intensity of the E-field. Perception thresholds corresponded to
the mean lowest current (measured in a laboratory experiment) at
which the subjects reported any sensation at all, usually mild
tingling or pricking at frequencies below 100 kHz and faint
warmth at higher frequencies. The pain thresholds corresponded
to the mean lowest current at which the subjects reported a very
uncomfortable sensation and did not want to continue touching the
electrode. Chatterjee et al. (1986) believe that the cause for
sensations at frequencies above 100 kHz is an increased energy
density, or SAR, in the hand or wrist.
For the frequency range of the GWEN LF antenna (150 to 175
kHz), Gandhi et al. (1985) and Chatterjee et al. (1986)
calculated perception thresholds for grounded 10-year-old
children in finger contact with large ungrounded metallic objects.
These thresholds were 65 V/m for a fork-lift truck, 120 V/m for a
van, and 250 V/m for a 50-foot section of fence. Calculated
perception thresholds for electrically grounded adults touching
those objects were about 40 percent higher.
Calculated perception and pain thresholds for persons in
grasping contact were higher than for persons in finger contact.
For example, the perception threshold for a 10-year-old child in
grasping contact with a van was 430 V/m, as opposed to 120 V/m
for finger contact. However, Chatterjee et al. (1986) report
that perception thresholds for a tapping contact with the finger
was about 10 percent lower than for continuous finger contact.
Also, they report that, for frequencies greater than 100 kHz, a
continuous contact at the perception threshold produced a
sensation of pain within 10 to 20 seconds.
In addition to causing perception or pain, the flow of current
through the body could be sufficiently high to produce some
damage to tissues. Gandhi et al. (1985) addressed this by
calculating the E-field required to produce a whole-body-average
SAR of 0.4 W/kg and a local SAR of 8 W/kg of a grounded
individual in grasping contact with a van. These SAR values are
the limits set by ANSI and are a factor of 10 below those that
cause harmful effects. Gandhi et al. determined that, at GWEN
frequencies, an E-field of 300 V/m would be required to produce a
whole-body-average SAR of 0.4 W/kg, and 95 V/m would be required
to produce a local SAR of 8 W/kg in the wrist of a 10-year-old
child; these values would be about 40 percent higher for adults.
Gandhi et al. (1985) also considered the flow of current
through a grounded individual not in contact with a metallic
object or in the vicinity of one. They calculate that at GWEN
frequencies, the E-field required to produce a whole-body average
SAR of 0.4 W/kg would be 9,000 V/m, and the E-field required to
produce a maximum local SAR (in the ankle) of 8 W/kg would be
2,000 V/m.
These calculations of the E-field intensities required to
produce the specific SAR values reported were based on the
assumption that the RFR is continuously emitted. When the RFR is
not continuously emitted, the SAR values will be lower for the
same E-field, or, conversely, the E-field must be higher to
produce the same SAR. This is the case for GWEN, which broadcasts
with a duty cycle of 28 percent. Since SAR is proportional to the
square of the E-field intensity, the continuous E-field values
given by Gandhi et al. may be divided by the square root of 0.28
to yield discontinuous E-field values for application to GWEN.
Therefore, the GWEN E-field required to produce a local SAR of 8
W/kg in the wrist of a child in grasping contact with the van
would be 180 V/m. (This value is well below the perception
threshold for a child in grasping contact.) The GWEN E-field
required to produce a local SAR of 8 W/kg in the ankle of an
adult not in contact with a metallic object would be 3,780 V/m.
The GWEN E-field required to produce the IRPA limit of 0.8 W/kg
for a local SAR would be 1,195 V/m.
[Continued to part 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------
MindNet Journal Archive Filename: [mn161a.txt]
================================================================
To receive the MindNet Journal via email:
Send message: [subscribe mindnet] to: <majordomo@c2.org>.
To unsubscribe:
Send message: [unsubscribe mindnet] to: <majordomo@c2.org>.
Back issues of the MindNet Journal are available at our
FTP Archive site:
[/pub/users/vericomm/mindnet/]
MindNet Journal Publication Index: [mnindex.txt]
Submission of articles for publication within the MindNet
Journal on the subjects of mind control, directed-energy
weapons, non-lethal weapons, ritual abuse, UFO abductions,
bioelectromagnetics, hypnosis, and other related topics
will be accepted with the author's statement of permission
to publish. The editor reserves the right to accept or
reject for publication. The publisher disclaims all
responsibility to return unsolicited matter. Send articles
for submission to:
<mindnet@c2.org>, or VERICOMM BBS 510.891.0303, or VERICOMM,
POB 32314, Oakland, CA 94604-2314 USA.
VERICOMM / MindNet and its agents disclaim any and all
responsibility or liability for any and all claims and/or
guarantees, express or implied, and delivery of products,
merchandise, and/or services offered for sale by
advertisers and/or authors within the MindNet Journal.
The MindNet mailing list is owned and maintained by Mike Coyle,
<vericomm@c2.org>, VERICOMM / MindNet, POB 32314 Oakland, CA
94604-2314 USA.
The MindNet Journal is published by VERICOMM / MindNet in
cooperation with the Freedom Of Thought Foundation, POB 35072,
Tucson, AZ 85740-5072 USA.
================================================================
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||| |||| | | | | | | | | | ||||
||||| || || ||||| ||| | | ||||| || | | | | | | ||||
|||||| ||| ,,,,| || | ||||| || | ||| | ||| ||||
||||||| |||| | ||| | | | | ||| | ||| sm||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||| VERICOMM / MindNet : MindNet@c2.org |||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
================================================================
MindNet Journal - Vol. 1, No. 61b * [Part 2 of 2 parts]
================================================================
V E R I C O M M / MindNet "Quid veritas est?"
================================================================
The views and opinions expressed below are not necessarily the
views and opinions of VERICOMM, MindNet, or the editors unless
otherwise noted.
Permission is given to reproduce and redistribute, for
non-commercial purposes only, provided this information and the
copy remain intact and unedited.
Editor: Mike Coyle <vericomm@c2.org>
Assistant Editor: Rick Lawler
Research: Darrell Bross
================================================================
[Continued from part 1]
3.11.6.2 Effects Due to Absorbed Energy
The other major category of potential health effects is
associated with energy absorbed by the body when exposed to
RFR. Generally, energy absorption is related to frequency. When
frequency is such that the incident wavelength is much smaller
than the size of the exposed subject, there is poor penetration
and energy is deposited largely on the surface of the subject
(Cahill and Elder 1984; Polk and Postow 1986). For humans, that
corresponds to frequencies greater than about 5,000 MHz. When the
incident wavelength and the subject are the same order of
magnitude, resonance occurs and maximum energy is absorbed. The
resonant frequency varies depending on thc size of the human
body and ranges from about 35 MHz for a grounded adult 5 feet 9
inches tall to about 200 MHz for an ungrounded infant. When the
wavelength is much greater than the subject's size, the
absorptive coupling is inefficient and little energy is absorbed.
This occurs in humans at frequencies lower than about 1 MHz, and
includes the GWEN LF frequency (150 to 175 kHz) with wavelengths
about 1,000 times greater than the size of humans. RFR from the
GWEN UHF antennae (/25 to 400 Mhz) falls in a range just above
resonant frequencies (see section 4.11.1.2).
The accepted measure of RF absorption is the SAR, which is
the mass-normalized rate of energy absorption in watts per
kilogram (W/kg). The SAR depends on the dielectric composition
and shape of the subject, its orientation with respect to the RF
field, and the complexity of the radiation, as well as on the
size of the subject relative to the wavelength. The SAR can be
estimated by combining the frequency and power density of the RF
field with the size and dielectric property of the subject
exposed to the field (Cahill and Elder 1984). Such calculations
can be performed for humans exposed to the RFR from GWEN. For an
average man, the _Radio_Frequency_Radiation_Dosimetry_Handbook_
(Durney et al. 1978) indicates that the maximum average SAR at
the GWEN LF band would be approximately 0.0000006 W/kg per
1 mW/cm2, occurring when the long axis of the body was parallel
to the E-field polarization. When the body was perpendicular to
the E-field, the average SAR would decrease by a factor of
approximately 30.
The maximum value of the E-field from the GWEN LF transmitter
outside the 4-foot fence would be 50 V/m (see section 4.11.1.1).
This is equivalent to approximately 0.66 mw/cm2 (assuming a
plane wave). Therefore, the maximum average SAR in a human
standing in an E-field of intensity 50 V/m would be
approximately 0.0000004 W/kg, assuming continuous RF emission.
Since GWEN broadcasts LF transmissions with a 28-percent duty
cycle, the maximum average SAR at the 4-foot fence would be
approximately 0.0000001 W/kg.
The maximum average SAR associated with GWEN UHF exposure can
be calculated in a similar fashion. At the frequency band used
for GWEN UHF transmissions, the maximum average SAR would be
0.1 W/kg per 1 mW/cm2 (Durney et al. 1978). Since the maximum
exposure to GWEN UHF would be 0.001 mW/cm2 for a 40 percent duty
cycle (see section 4.11.1.2), the maximum average SAR at a GWEN
station due to UHF exposure would be 0.0001 W/kg.
A number of so-called "nonthermal" effects have been described
in the scientific literature in connection with RFR exposure of
laboratory animals and animal tissue at levels equal to or less
than 0.4 W/kg (EPA 1986). These effects, involving the cellular,
hematologic, reproductive, nervous systems, and others, are
summarized in a review by Cahill and Elder (1984). The
significance of these effects for public health is not clear,
partly because the mechanisms responsible for them are not known.
Some results are from single studies and have not yet been
verified by duplication (EPA 1986). In some cases, there are
conflicting results as to whether a given effect even occurs. At
this time, it is not yet clear whether low-level nonthermal
effects have an impact on human health. Consequently, the EPA
(1986) concludes that the data are insufficient to assess the
adversity and human health implications of effects observed for
whole-body average SAR below 1 W/kg. However, in light of the SAR
values for humans exposed to RFR from GWEN (less than 0.0000001
W/kg for LF and 0.0001 W/kg for UHF), nonthermal effects are
extremely unlikely.
A degree of uncertainty exists in extrapolating findings on
animals to humans because of differences in species, exposure
frequencies, and internal distribution of absorbed energy
(Heynick and Polson 1983; Heynick 1986). There is very little
information on RF effects in humans and limited data on
responses of animals at frequencies above 10 GHz and below 10
MHz. However, the use of SAR as an index of exposure has allowed
excellent extrapolation of effects across frequencies, and it is
reasonable to assume that would also be applicable for GWEN
frequencies.
The health effects related to exposure to RFR have been the
subject of continuing research for about 30 years, and an
estimated 8,000 papers on RFR bioeffects have been published.
Over the past decade great advances have been made in
correlating the observation of effects (or lack thereof) with
the SAR. Although SAR is associated with energy deposition, and
frequently only with thermalization of the RFR energy in tissue,
it also defines the fields existing within the tissues, and is a
useful measure when discussing both thermal and nonthermal
effects.
Research papers cover a wide range of general topics in the
biological sciences. These include epidemiologic studies of
humans; the possibility of RFR exposure causing cancer or birth
defects, effects on the eye, the nervous system, behavior,
hormone-secreting systems in mammals, and the immune system;
and general biochemical and physiological effects (Heynick and
Polson 1986; Heynick 1986; Polk and Postow 1986). The interested
reader is referred to these publications for more specific
details of representative papers under each biological topic.
The following discussions summarize those reviews.
The discussion of effects due to absorbed energy is in
reference to RFR in general. Most of the studies were at UHF and,
therefore, would be applicable to GWEN UHF exposure. The SAR for
GWEN exposure would be several orders of magnitude below the SARs
associated with any reported effects. Therefore, it would be
very unlikely that these effects would result from GWEN UHF
exposure. Although none of the studies were conducted at LF,
assessment of GWEN LF exposure can be made by comparing the GWEN
SAR with the SARs reported in the studies. Since GWEN LF exposure
would be many orders of magnitude below SARs associated with
reported effects, the possibility that there would be any
effects would be very remote.
_Epidemiologic_Studies_. Although there are relatively few
epidemiologic studies, those that have been performed have
included several hundreds of thousands of individuals. None of
the studies offers clear evidence of detrimental effects
associated with exposure of the general population to RFR.
However, findings of studies performed in the Soviet Union
suggest that occupational exposure to UHF RFR at average power
densities of less than 1 mw/cm2 does result in various
symptoms (which they lump together as "microwave syndrome")
but this is generally not recognized in western medical
practice. The SARs associated with GWEN LF exposure, at
frequencies 1,000 to 10,000 times lower than UHF, would be many
orders of magnitude lower. Thus, even if one accepted the
Soviet findings for UHF frequencies, the likelihood of such
effects at GWEN frequencies and power intensities is remote.
Collectively, the results of the epidemiologic studies do not
provide evidence of the likelihood of any hazard to the general
population from exposure to RFR from GWEN. Exposure to GWEN UHF
would be at power densities of 0.001 mW/cm2 or less (see section
4.11.1.2) which would be two to three orders of magnitude below
the power densities of the observations in the Soviet studies.
_Cancer_. One frequently expressed concern about RFR is that
it may cause mutations or cancer. Several studies regarding the
possible mutagenic effects of RFR have been done on bacteria,
yeast, and fruit flies. These studies failed to demonstrate
mutagenic effects that could be attributed to RFR exposure.
Other studies using mice and rats also have failed to provide
evidence of mutagenic effects. Studies on the general health or
the occurrence of cancer in exposed animals have generally
yielded negative results. Extrapolation of these animal studies
to humans indicates that the SAR associated with human exposure
to GWEN RFR is most unlikely to cause mutagenic effects or to
cause cancer.
_Birth_Defects_. Birth defects (technically, teratogenesis)
and developmental abnormalities after birth are always of public
concern, especially because, in a few cases, specific (non-RFR)
agents have been shown to cause such effects. Birth defects and
developmental abnormalities also occur naturally at a low rate in
most animal species. Teratogenuc studies associated with RFR have
used a variety of animal models. The results indicate that a
threshold of heat induction or temperature increase must be
exceeded before teratogenic effects are produced. For the SARs
associated with human exposure to GWEN RFR, there would be no
detectable heating, so birth defects would be extremely unlikely.
_Cataracts_. It has been asserted in newspapers and other
popular media that microwaves potentially cause cataracts.
Scientific studies have indicated that microwaves can cause
cataracts in experimental animals, but only if incident
continuous-wave power densities are high, approximately 150
mw/cm2 or greater. Under such conditions of frequency and power
density, local SARs in the eye can be so great that significant
temperature rises occur. Such effects also appear to have a
threshold; if a critical temperature is not exceeded within the
eye for a certain duration, no cataracts are formed. Recent
studies also indicate effects on corneal endothelium in the eyes
of monkeys exposed to microwaves, but there is no evidence that
such effects could occur at SARs associated with exposure to
GWEN RFR.
_Nervous_System_Effects_. Several types of studies have been
conducted regarding the effects of RFR on the nervous system of
animals. U.S. scientists consider most effects of RFR on the
nervous system to be indirect results of other physiological
interactions, with the possible exception of alterations of
calcium-ion binding in brain tissue. This phenomenon occurs with
amplitude-modulated waveforms for a wide range of carrier
frequencies from extremely low frequency to UHF. However, there
is no evidence that it occurs at power densities below 0.1
mw/cm2, and even if it did, there is no indication that it is in
any way associated with adverse health effects. Other observed
nervous-system effects have included: alteration of the
permeability of the blood-brain barrier, but consistent data
exist only for local SARs that are sufficient to cause heating;
alterations in and damage to some regions of the brains of
hamsters and rats (but not of squirrel monkeys), but, again,
resulting from thermal processes; and alterations of
electroencephalograms (electrical activity of the brain) in
animals, but only when in-dwelling electrodes were used. The
last effect is the only one that could perhaps apply to the GWEN
system. With modern advances in medical technology, it is
becoming more common (though still rare in terms of absolute
numbers) for patients with certain neurological problems to have
metal electrodes implanted in their brains. Such persons could
be affected by fields within the immediate vicinity of the GWEN
transmitters. However, there are no known reports of anyone
having been affected by RFR as a result of any surgical
implantation to correct neurological problems. All other effects
on the nervous system are unlikely to occur at the SARs
associated with human exposure to GWEN RFR.
_Behavioral_Effects_. Many experimental studies have been
conducted on the effects of RFR on animal behavior. The results
of such studies are considered particularly important in the
Soviet Union, where they are often held to be evidence of direct
effects of RFR on the central nervous system (CNS). U.S.
scientists do not always agree that behavioral effects
necessarily imply direct effects on the CNS. However, as
behavioral effects are very sensitive indicators of biological
function, they receive appropriate attention in both eastern
European and western countries. Representative behavioral
studies (Heynick and Polson 1986; Heynick 1986) include studies
of effects on reflex activity, RFR perception, effects of RFR on
learning and on performance of trained tasks, interactive
effects of RFR and drugs on behavior, and behavioral
thermoregulation. Studies have been conducted on mice, rats,
rabbits, squirrel monkeys, rhesus monkeys, and humans.
Soviet claims of effects at low-power densities (equal to or
less than 0.5 mw/cm2) for long-term exposures have not been
duplicated in similar studies by U.S. researchers. The validity
of the Soviet claims is difficult to assess because of lack of
detail in the reports of the experiments. It is very likely that
behavioral effects could have been seen if in-dwelling
electrodes were used for the animals involved in the Soviet
studies, but it is unknown whether they were.
RFR is capable of producing alterations in a wide variety of
behaviors of various animals. Except for pulsed RFR, average
power densities required to modify behavior are almost all at
levels of approximately 5 mw/cm2 and above, with corresponding
SARs of approximately 1 W/kg and above. Perception of pulsed
RFR (i.e., microwave hearing) is a peak-power phenomenon, not an
average-power one, and can thereby modify behavior.
It is difficult to relate most of the behavioral studies in
animals to humans. All behavioral studies are directly relevant
to the nature of the species being studied, and the conclusions
of a given study do not readily transfer to other species.
Because the SARs needed to cause reported effects are so high,
these studies provide no evidence that exposure to RFR at the
levels that would be emitted outside the fence at GWEN RNs
would likely have adverse effects on human behavior.
_Endocrine_System_Effects_. Exposure of animals to RFR has
produced somewhat inconsistent effects on the hormone-secreting
(endocrine) system of mammals. In general, the effects appear to
be related to either the heat load associated with the RFR or the
stress induced in the animals by the RFR or, possibly, other
experimental circumstances. Some effects also appear to be
related to alteration of the circadian rhythm by RFR. There do
not appear to be any effects clearly demonstrated to be
associated with nonthermogenic stimulation of the endocrine
system or the associated parts of the CNS.
Because the reported effects of RFR on the endocrine systems
of animals are largely ascribable to increased thermal burdens
and stresses engendered by the experimental situation, there is
no evidence that such effects would occur in humans exposed to
the RFR from the GWEN transmitter outside the fence because of
the extremely low SARs involved.
_Immune_System_Effects_. The accumulation of reports to date
indicates that RFR has definite effects on the immune system of
mammals. Most of the reported effects were detected after
exposure at SARs about 4 W/kg and higher; a few have been
detected following exposure at SARs as low as 0.2 W/kg. In some
cases, the effects that were observed at higher power densities
were not found at lower power densities, indicating the
possibility of a threshold power density. In most studies, the
mechanisms for the effects seen were not investigated, and the
various reports are somewhat inconsistent. The situation is
complicated by the complexity of the immune system and the
variety of test procedures used.
The existing evidence indicates that some of the
immune-system effects are probably related to the effect of RFR
on the endocrine system resulting from adaptation to stress.
The mechanisms and significance of such effects are not yet
understood, and individual findings have not been independently
verified. There is currently no evidence that relates RFR
effects on animals' immune systems to effects on the immune
system of humans chronically exposed to the levels of RFR that
would be experienced outside thc fenced area of a GWEN RN. In
addition, because of the extremely small SARs involved, there is
no evidence to suggest that such effects would be hazardous to
human health.
_Biochemical_and_Physiological_Effects_. The literature on
biochemical and physiological effects associated with RFR is
extensive. Many of the reported effects are associated with
other events (e.g., changes in hormonal levels or stress
adaptation), and some do not have clear medical significance.
The thermal basis for most of the reported physiological and
biochemical effects of exposure of intact animals to RFR is
evident. The investigations with nonhuman primates are most
significant with respect to possible hazards of human exposure
to RFR because the anatomies and physiological characteristics
of primates are closest to those of humans. The results with
rhesus monkeys showed that exposure to RFR at frequencies in the
range of 3 to 30 MHz at average-power densities of about 100
mw/cm2 were well within the thermoregulatory capabilities of
this species. Also noteworthy were the negative findings of
blood-chemistry assays performed on rhesus monkeys one to two
years after exposures to such high-power densities. The
thermoregulatory system of squirrel monkeys were also observed
to effectively compensate for RFR exposure.
The investigations involving exposure of intact, smaller
species of mammals to RFR have yielded both positive and
negative results. Some of the positive findings are also clearly
due to the additional thermal burden posed by the RFR. Other
results, showing decreased food intake and lower blood glucose
levels in rats, indicate the existence of a SAR threshold of
about 1 W/kg or higher for such effects.
One physiological concern is whether exposure of humans to
RFR can affect their heart function. In early work on this
subject with excised turtle, frog, and rat hearts, various
investigators reported RFR-induced decreases and/or increases
in heart rate, depending on average power densities. Decreases
in heart rate were reported for the lower range of power
densities used. The lowest SAR at which heart rate decreases were
observed in the isolated turtle heart was 1.5 W/kg. Some recent
work showed no RFR-induced changes in beat rate or contractile
force in isolated atria of rat hearts exposed to 2.45 GHz RFR at
2 or 10 W/kg.
SAR-dependent changes in heart-beat rate in intact animals
were also reported. The results indicate the existence of a
threshold between 4.5 and 6.5 W/kg, many orders of magnitude
higher than could occur outside the fence of a GWEN RN.
Thus, in general, it is very improbable that physiological or
biochemical effects would occur from exposure to RFR from GWEN
transmitters at the levels that would be experienced outside the
fenced area of an RN.
_Conclusion_. Most U.S. experiments with animals that yielded
recognizable and repeatable effects of exposure to RFR were
performed at whole-body average SARs of more than about 1 watt
per kilogram (W/kg). Such effects are thermal, in the sense that
the RFR energy is absorbed by the organism as widely distributed
heat that increases the whole-body temperature, or as internally
localized heat that is biologically significant even when
natural heat-exchange and thermoregulatory mechanisms are
functioning. The existence of threshold incident average power
densities has been experimentally demonstrated for some effects
and postulated for others. Exposure to RFR at average power
densities exceeding the threshold for a specific effect for a
few minutes to a few hours (depending on the value) can cause
irreversible tissue alterations. The heat produced by
indefinitely long or chronic exposures at power densities well
below the threshold is not accumulated because its rate of
production is readily compensated for by either heat-exchange
processes, thermoregulation, or both. Most investigations
involving chronic exposures of mammals yielded either no
effects or reversible, noncumulative behavioral or physiological
effects for average power densities exceeding whole-body SARs
of 1 W/kg. In the few cases in which irreversible adverse
effects of exposure were found, these effects were absent for
whole-body SARs below 1 W/kg. Whole-body SARs resulting from
exposure to RFR at a GWEN RN would be below 0.0000001 W/kg
outside of the 4-foot circular fence.
[END]
----------------------------------------------------------------
MindNet Journal Archive Filename: [mn161b.txt]
================================================================
To receive the MindNet Journal via email:
Send message: [subscribe mindnet] to: <majordomo@c2.org>.
To unsubscribe:
Send message: [unsubscribe mindnet] to: <majordomo@c2.org>.
Back issues of the MindNet Journal are available at our
FTP Archive site:
[/pub/users/vericomm/mindnet/]
MindNet Journal Publication Index: [mnindex.txt]
Submission of articles for publication within the MindNet
Journal on the subjects of mind control, directed-energy
weapons, non-lethal weapons, ritual abuse, UFO abductions,
bioelectromagnetics, hypnosis, and other related topics
will be accepted with the author's statement of permission
to publish. The editor reserves the right to accept or
reject for publication. The publisher disclaims all
responsibility to return unsolicited matter. Send articles
for submission to:
<mindnet@c2.org>, or VERICOMM BBS 510.891.0303, or VERICOMM,
POB 32314, Oakland, CA 94604-2314 USA.
VERICOMM / MindNet and its agents disclaim any and all
responsibility or liability for any and all claims and/or
guarantees, express or implied, and delivery of products,
merchandise, and/or services offered for sale by
advertisers and/or authors within the MindNet Journal.
The MindNet mailing list is owned and maintained by Mike Coyle,
<vericomm@c2.org>, VERICOMM / MindNet, POB 32314 Oakland, CA
94604-2314 USA.
The MindNet Journal is published by VERICOMM / MindNet in
cooperation with the Freedom Of Thought Foundation, POB 35072,
Tucson, AZ 85740-5072 USA.
================================================================
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||| |||| | | | | | | | | | ||||
||||| || || ||||| ||| | | ||||| || | | | | | | ||||
|||||| ||| ,,,,| || | ||||| || | ||| | ||| ||||
||||||| |||| | ||| | | | | ||| | ||| sm||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||| VERICOMM / MindNet : MindNet@c2.org |||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SIDEBAR: Lewis B. Hainsworth of Western Australia first recognized the relationship of brain wave frequencies to naturally circulating rhythmic signals, known as Schumann’s Resonances (SR), in the space between the surface of the earth and the ionosphere. Hainsworth imparted this awareness to Dr. Robert O. Becker, noted electromagnetics pollution expert, and to Harvard neurologists as early as 1975. In 1977, the relationship between brain-wave rhythms and natural earth ELF signals became the basis for Itzhak Bentov’s Stalking the Wild Pendulum(Dutton, 1977). Later research confirmed a relationship to health, well-being, and even ESP or psi phenomena.
Hainsworth sent up a clarion cry against hazardous EM pollution. Dangers pale compared to the global threat of technologies such as HAARP, which send violent pulsations into the earth’s ionosphere, potentially disrupting the entire electromagnetic shield of the earth. Some suggest that the frequency of the basic SR is changing in value, possibly threatening the whole biosphere, human welfare, and our evolutionary future. All biological processes are a function of electromagnetic field interactions, which are the connecting link between the world of form and resonant patterns. EM fields store gestalts or patterns of information. The bridge connecting solar system resonances and brain frequencies resides in our human DNA helix, which evolved in this environment.
INTRODUCTION
The rhythm of life has evolved at an even tempo for epochs. We live in a matrix of oscillating fields; the tiniest fluctuations in one interlocked field carry over perturbation into others. Many times per second, pulses travel completely around the world between our planet’s surface and the ionosphere sending coordinating signals to all organisms. These signals couple us to the global electrostatic field. Named for their discoverer, these Schumann Resonances (SR) provide the orchestrating pulse for life on our planet.
We all march to the cadence of this cosmic drummer — our planetary heartbeat, which sets the tempo for health and well-being. Damaging this planetary pacemaker could spell doom for life as we know it. In the name of progress and defense, this pacemaker is now threatened, while vast amounts of public money are spent on this exploitation. Even more tax funds are allocated to implement the ill-conceived “Star Wars” missile defense, and the energy beam Project HAARP.
“What is clear is that part of the money voted to Bush’s Star Wars plan will be used for research into space-based lasers,” the Independent reported. “These, we are told, will be used to shoot down the missiles fired in anger by ‘rogue states.’ But they will, inevitably, evolve into weapons aimed at America’s enemies from space. U.S. Space Command doesn’t even bother to hide this fact. The most chilling illustration in Vision 2020 is of such a space-based laser firing a beam of energy at the earth.”
“What the Russians are worried about (as they’re trying to explain in badly translated prose from Moscow’s Interfax News Agency) are U.S. plans to begin large-scale scientific experiments using the Alaska-based HAARP in 2003. Ninety Russian deputies signed the appeal against the HAARP program, charging that the experiments “would create weapons capable of breaking radio communication lines and equipment installed on spaceships and rockets, provoke serious accidents in electricity networks and in oil and gas pipelines and have a negative impact on the mental health of people populating entire regions.” (Fitrakis, 2002)
The ionosphere shields us from deadly radiation from the sun and deep space. Holes are now being routinely punched in this insulating blanket by high-frequency radio waves, and may accidentally tear open the fragile cocoon of human and planetary evolution. Dire consequences could be as devastating as the failure of an individual’s pacemaker. First, we will give an overview, then define and describe some terms used here in greater detail deeper in the article.
This environmental rhythm — the fundamental driving system for all life on our small blue planet — is jeopardized by human manipulations of the ionosphere, such as project HAARP. It is dangerous to fool with Mother Nature as the results of ozone depletion and other ecological calamities have shown. It might be easy to see that such survival risks don’t balance alleged benefits, but targeted research on potential problem areas has been virtually non-existent.
Lewis B. Hainsworth was among the first to suggest that human health is linked with geophysical parameters by way of the naturally occurring Schumann ELF (extremely low frequencies). His hypothesis identified naturally occurring features which determine the frequency spectrum of human brain-wave rhythms. He concluded that the frequencies of human brain-waves evolved in response to these signals. If the hypothesis is correct, conditions for evolutionary changes in human brainwave patterns have now been established.
Hypothesis: “The frequencies of naturally occurring electro-magnetic signals, circulating in the electrically resonant cavity bounded by the earth and the ionosphere, have governed or determined the ‘evolution’ or development of the frequencies of operation of the principal human brain-wave signals: In particular, the alpha-rhythm is so placed that it can in no circumstances suffer an extensive interference from naturally occurring signals.”
Al Gore Says the Science of Global Warming is Settled
It’s unacceptable that the UN/IPCC continue to push CO2 as the cause for climate change but refuse to acknowledge the military has been actively engaged in Climate Warming Weapons Technologies for more than twenty 20 years.
TITLE: “Present and Future Plans of Federal Agencies in Weather-Climate Modification”
This set of documents from 1966 reveals a network of government agencies in perpetual and secret collaboration with each other and the military to Modify the Global climate. Created by the elitist National Academy of Sciences – decades of an inter-agency culture of secrecy explains why the issue of covert aerosol Geoengineering is a taboo topic to be degraded to the status of “conspiracy theory” by a matrix of complicit bureaucrats at every opportunity. This is why your local TV “meteorologist” will rarely make a helpful comment about an unusual sky filled with persistent jet trails.
TITLE: “The Evolution of a Weather Modification R&D program Into a Military Weapons System”.A 1986 Critique of the 1966 initiative.
This document appears as an anonymous draft intended as a critique of the US Weather Modification Program that the author characterizes as hijacked into a military weapons system.
Jules Verne wrote about geoengineering the earth’s climate in 1889 in a sequel to “From the Earth to the Moon” called “The Purchase Of The North Pole”. Verne writes that the Baltimore Gun Club purchased large tracts of the Arctic then used the famous canon from the earth-to-the-moon to tilt the Earth’s axis. The goal was to establish a tropical paradise as a profitable tourist attraction at the North Pole while “improving” the entire global climate.
If Verne correctly predicted that man would travel from the earth to the moon, it should be no surprise that he also predicted that a small group of influential men would consider warming the climate for profit.
Verne could have been inspired by Harvard geologist Nathaniel Shaler who proposed diverting warm Atlantic water into the Arctic back in 1877 – a dozen years before Verne’s “fantastic”story was published.
Remember when People Thought Arctic Warming was a Good Idea?
VILLAGE VOICE: “ Hey, remember when climate change was a swell idea? Coconuts were in the offing.”
“Imaginations ran wild, and The Washington Post envisioned Manhattan becoming a tropical paradise” … “People would be gathering oranges off the trees in Central Park, or picking cocoanuts from palms along the Battery, [and] hunting crocodiles off the Statue of Liberty.”
The prospect sounded so splendid to New Yorkers that Senator William Calder (1917-1923) tried to get $100,000 appropriated for a study of the idea. Village Voice
Remember when Scientists Thought Arctic Warming was a Good Idea?
1962 Harry Wexler (March 15, 1911- 1962) was an MIT graduate and PhD in meteorology. Wexler had been researching the link connecting chlorine and bromine compounds to the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layers, but died of a heart attack while on vacation in Woods Hole, Mass. Wexler had already accepted an invitation to deliver a lecture entitled “The Climate of Earth and Its Modifications” at the University of Maryland Space Research and Technology Institute. (Source)
Wexler’s was last in a long line of ambitious proposals to warm the Arctic. Coincidently, his proposals were made at the same time the National Academy of Sciences was working to create a national weather modification program – a direction in which the military had already embarked in 1958.
“Global Warming” initiatives proposed by Wexler:
To increase the global temperature of the Earth by 1.7°C, “by injecting a cloud of ice crystals into the polar atmosphere by detonating 10 H-bombs in the Arctic Ocean – the subject of his 1958 article in Science magazine” (Wexler H., 1958, “Modifying Weather on a Large Scale,” Science, n.s. 128 (Oct. 31, 1958): 1059-1063).
To diminish the global temperature by 1.2°C could be doable, “by launching a ring of dust particles into equatorial orbit, a modification of an earlier Russian proposal to warm the Arctic”.
To destroy the ozone layerand hence increase abruptly the surface temperature of the Earth, by spraying “several hundred thousand tons of chlorine or bromine” with a stratospheric airplane. Fleming, 2007(a), pp. 56-57; Fleming, 2007(b), “note n° viii” p. 9 & p. 5 (source)
The decision to reverse direction from warming the arctic to cooling the arctic was announced in 1963 - the year following Wexler’s death when the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Atmospheric Sciences recommended appointment of a Panel on Weather & Climate Modification. pg 2
Prevailing Circumstances following WWII:
Operation Paperclip (Also called Operation Overcast) succeeded in recruiting scientists from Nazi Germany for employment in the US after WW II and led to the formation of NASA and the ICBM program.
The National Security Act passed in 1947 made possible the rise of the military industrial complex and creation of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA ) to increase opportunities for scientific experiments to be conducted without public knowledge or Congressional oversight.
Post-war advances in science and advanced physics opened up opportunities to develop concepts of advanced thinkers like Nikola Tesla that had been waiting on the shelf for over 50 years.
In 1958, military application of Tesla’s little known methods of electromagnetic manipulation of earth’s atmosphere was already underway. White House advisor on weather modification to President Eisenhower reported the DoD was studying ways to manipulate electrical charges of the earth and sky in order to manipulate the weather for purposes of national defense.
The rise of an informed and educated middle class looked down on proposals that employed nuclear detonations that became regarded as dangerous and arrogant. This is not to say that proposals to mediate the arctic climate were totally abandoned.
2 years of research, 2000+ hours of coding http://climateviewer.com/, and a lot of coffee led to the following startling breakthroughs…. lifting the veil of weather modification, geoengineering, and the industry that makes it all happen.
“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
Nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”
― Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
PLEASE REMIX THIS VIDEO AND INCLUDE THE DETAILS LISTED HERE:
YOUR SUPPORT WILL HELP BRING THE GLOBAL SURVIVAL SYSTEM TO LIFE! Combining all of ClimateViewer 3D with automenta’s GSS, the possibilities are endless!
See the project here: http://climateviewer.com/gss.jpg
