Worldwide Campaign to stop the Abuse and Torture of Mind Control/DEWs

BBC-The electromagnetic spectrum

The electromagnetic spectrum activity

Infrared, x-rays, visible light... where do they all fit in the electromagnetic spectrum? Find out in this activity.


What is electromagnetic energy?

Electromagnetic energy consists of waves of electric and magnetic energy radiating through space, and travelling at the speed of light. The area where these waves are found is called an electromagnetic field. The main source of electromagnetic energy is the sun, but man-made sources account for large amounts of the electromagnetic radiation in our day-to-day environment. Items such as hairdryers, electrical ovens, fluorescent lights, microwave ovens, stereos, wireless phones and computers produce electromagnetic fields of varying intensities.

2.  How is electromagnetic energy measured?

Electromagnetic energy is measured in units of wavelength and frequency. The wavelength is the distance that a wave travels in one cycle and is measured in metres. The frequency is measured by the number of cycles per second and the unit of measurement is the Hertz (Hz). One cycle per second equals one Hertz. One kilohertz (kHz) is 1,000 Hz; one megahertz (MHz) is one million Hz; one gigahertz is one billion Hz. The frequency of a wave is inversely related to its length - at 50 Hz the wavelengths are 6,000 Km, and at 100 MHz they are 3 metres. Electromagnetic fields are arranged according to their frequencies in an orderly fashion in what is known as the electromagnetic spectrum.

3.  What is radiofrequency radiation?

Radiofrequency (RF) fields are part of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum. The EM spectrum is divided into ionizing and non-ionizing bands based on how the wave interacts with biological tissue.

The non-ionizing portion, usually in the frequency range up to 300 GHz, doesn't affect biological tissue and includes the extremely low frequency (ELF) band, radio waves and microwaves in the radiofrequency communication band, and infrared and visible light. The RF part of the spectrum is usually defined as being between 30 kHz and 300 GHz. RF radiation is mainly used in telecommunications. Mobile phones employ frequencies in the range of 800 MHz to 2GHz. Other uses of RF energy include microwave ovens and medical treatments.

The ionizing portion of the EM spectrum (made up of ultraviolet light, gamma rays and X-rays that have very short wavelengths, very high frequencies, and very high intensities) does affect biological tissue. Mobile phones do not operate in this spectrum. For more on this, see "Primer".

More questions and answers


The Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe

Doc. 12608 . 6 May 2011

The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment

Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs

Rapporteur: Mr Jean HUSS, Luxembourg, Socialist Group


Challenge of Exotic Weapons / Foriegn Affairs / Canada

Enquiries Service
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
125 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, ON, Canada
K1A 0G2

1-800-267-8376 (toll-free in Canada)
613-944-4000 (in the National Capital Region and outside Canada)
613-944-9136 (TTY)

Gerry Duffett
Toronto / Ontario / Canada


Please go to LAST PAGE OF "Replies to this Discussion" to read NEWEST Information

Views: 4040

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The Challenge of Exotic Weapons
Current and Emerging Technologies

Directed Energy Weapons (DEW)

Electromagnetic Pulse Weapons (EMP)

These weapons technologies have been considered the “Holy Grail” of directed energy (DE). The general principle of EMP weapons is to generate one or more very intense pulses of electromagnetic power that penetrate equipment and degrade or destroy electronic circuitry, causing electrical surges, leaving equipment burned out and computer terminals overloaded with the similar result as if there were a lighting strike.14 Electromagnetic pulses have for some time been associated as byproducts of energy produced by detonated high altitude nuclear weapons. Research in past decades has concentrated on producing non-nuclear EMP. Work by specialists like Max Fowler at Los Alamos, developed flux generators, which through continuous development were capable of producing pulses with peak power on the order of terawatts, with a single pulse having as much condensed power as 1000 nuclear reactors. Major programs were developed and sustained decades ago by the former Soviet Union and the United States. Interest in such weapons has also included NATO countries such as the United Kingdom, France and Germany.15 The Chinese are also said to be interested in EMP technology. EMP can be broadly broken down into two categories-those aimed at the environment and those aimed at living systems.16

EMP technology is on the cusp of reality, possibly to be utilized operationally in a future U.S. and coalition war with Iraq in 2003. Testing efforts in the United States are centered in New Mexico at Kirtland Air Force Base.17 One major weapon system that was described recently is known as an “e bomb.” An e bomb uses EMP technology that can be mounted in cruise missiles and is meant to destroy or disrupt command and control functions of adversaries when the missile flies over installations such as bunkers.18 Some critics have questioned the weapon’s reliability when assessing test samples and the mixed record. Another limitation with this technology is fratricide. It has been argued that EM pulses do not discriminate between friend and foe. Therefore, choices on delivery systems focus on missiles to carry the warhead away from friendly forces. Other non-lethal research with EMP has been explored for potential crowd control situations using electromagnetic waves to put human targets to sleep or to heat them up, on the microwave principle.19

The United States Marine Corps has been tasked with the direction of the joint non-lethal technology program headquartered at Quantico, Virginia. One of the latest developments is a weapon specializing in “active denial technology.” It is designed to stop people by firing millimeter-wave electromagnetic energy in a beam that quickly heats up the surface of the victim’s skin, activating pain sensors, with effects similar to touching a hot light bulb. These weapons will initially be mounted on Marine and Army Humvees.20

High Powered Microwave
High Powered Microwave (HPM) is another component of directed energy weapons that utilizes microwave energy. Some of the technological concepts on which EMP weapons are based on technology such as flux compression generators are restricted to frequency bands below 1MHz. Several targets will be difficult to attack with very high power levels at high frequencies and challenges with focusing energy output will cause difficulties for that range of technology. HPM devices overcome these problems because its power output is more tightly focused.21 Devices such as Klystrons, Magnetrons and Vircators are some of the technology bases for HPM. Raytheon, a prime American contractor for this technology has stated that some of the high-powered microwave systems “were on the verge of use today,” with several systems being in the field within three to four years.22

Radio Frequency Weapons
Considered to be another class of weapons, Radio Frequency (RF) weapons are an increasing concern to the point of being the subject of a national intelligence estimate (NIE) by the National Intelligence Council in the United States. This concern is based on the perceived danger of low energy RF weapons directed at unprotected electronics, particularly computer systems. This danger has increasingly changed the focus of security and defence analysts dealing with domestic threats.23 Compounding the risk was the belief that toward the end of the 1990’s, the threat of RF weapons (along with other exotic weapons) was missing from political consideration.24 Since September 11th, the degree to which such risks are being assessed and dealt with in relation to other threats is a critical question that should be examined by national governments. To provide some insight into possible threats to civilian targets, the analysis of one expert is helpful.

According to a former KGB major Victor Sheymov, such low-tech weapons could be “devastating and highly indiscriminate.” He pointed out that a shoebox-sized weapon could be constructed in less than three hours using store-bought electrical components.25 One assessment suggested that the necessary components could be obtained from a local Radio Shack for as little as $800 U.S. A popular scenario depicts a van being used to house the components which would then drive around a selected target such as a government building or private corporation and emit low power pulses, which can pass through concrete walls and disable or burn out electronics and computer equipment.26 Although information warfare is not the central focus of this paper, the possible threat of these types of weapons on societies so dependent on computers and information technology warrants some discussion below.27

Recently, there has been formal recognition in some countries of the vulnerability of national infrastructure to terrorist attacks with non-traditional weapons and targets. For example, initiatives by the Clinton Administration in 1998 to deal with threats to national infrastructure have resulted in the formation of a National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter terrorism.28 Analysts are concerned with the lack of preparedness with civilian infrastructure in comparison to military technology, which ironically in the case of the latter, is also a source for concern because of increasing reliance for civilian off the shelf technology (COST) being used by the military. Projects aimed at “hardening” systems for protection have been advocated. Most of the individuals and groups that are highlighting the dangers are worried about the technology being used by terrorist organizations and more sophisticated or powerful capabilities being obtained by other states. Suggestions for finding national and international methods for non-proliferation have been advocated, with the hope of countries like the United States maintaining its lead in research and development.

Acoustic Weapons
Employing acoustic frequencies from infrasound, audible sound and ultrasound wavelengths could be used in law enforcement and peace support operations with the objective of not creating untenable sound, but rather, to vibrate the targeted people physically. In these particular operations the need to gain control of a violent situation with minimal force may be required. One scenario would be to use acoustic weapons to drive people away from a selected area or to enforce a safety zone between troops or police and potential attackers, with no contamination to the area or cleanup being required.29 Audible sound in the range of 20 to 20 000 hertz can be used to influence behaviour. According to Alexander, “at low frequencies it is possible to cause internal vibrations that generate a number of effects, depending on the frequency and power levels employed.” At the low range, no countermeasure or protection can be taken and care is needed to avoid injury or death.30 Some examples include acoustic bullets of high power; very low frequency emitted from one to two metre antenna dishes. Effects can be categorized as blunt object trauma with effects ranging from injury to death.31 Another familiar concept is the use of a device incorporated into a sound system, known as a “curdler unit,” it produces shrills, shrieking and blatting noise. The objective is to irritate and disperse rioters with a decibel level below the dangerous range to the human ear. Used at night, the curdler unit can produce a voodoo effect used to break up chanting, singing and clapping. The “Squak Box” is a device used by the British Army in Northern Ireland for crowd dispersal. The device emitted two ultrasonic frequencies that became intolerable when mixed in the human ear, often causing giddiness, nausea and fainting.32

Research in the acoustic area has spanned over decades with great attention paid by the superpowers during the Cold War. The former Soviet Union experimented with acoustic weapons in efforts to determine the physiological and psychological effects.33 Current research conducted in the United States by Scientific Applications and Research Associates (SARA) in California, built upon research carried out in Nazi Germany and examined the application of a vortex generator using repetitive detonation. A medium such as propane gas or combination of methane and oxygen is combusted to generate pressure waves greater than 130dB, sufficient to incapacitate anyone in the targeted area.34 Swedish experiments with High Energy Whirls (HEW) have been conducted using similar principles. An attempt to replicate the Swedish experiment, generated ring vortices two feet in diameter traveling the length of a football field at 70 metres per second. Such power potential has raised concerns that the there is the capacity to cause more physical damage to humans than would be acceptable.35 It is argued that acoustic weapons run the risk of being an indiscriminate weapon. The release of high intensity sound could impose the same degree of damage on the noncombatant as the combatant.36 As with all of the above directed energy weapons, the range of effectiveness is from nonlethal to lethal and could be adjusted accordingly. What rules or conventions detail what is acceptable in terms of the design and capability of such technologies, particularly if they have a range of lethality?

There is also the added complexity of research which involves more than one scientific principle or medium and what the impact of such combined technologies would be on non-proliferation, arms control or disarmament treaties already in place. During the Cold War, the Soviets experimented with acoustic systems used in conjunction with chemicals to enhance their affects. It was stated that, “while some of the reported effects were intentionally fatal by initiation of anaphylactic shock in test animals, non-lethal approaches could also be considered.” The same author cites “that it may be feasible to apply sub critical doses of a substance to one or more people, then later induce hypersensitivity with an infrasound device.”37 What should be a greater concern to policy makers is the preoccupation with what is not covered by arms control or disarmament treaties and the attempts to find the loopholes or exploit weaknesses. This rationalization is made in Colonel Alexander’s book and may be reflective of those civilian and military leaders who are advocates of non-lethal technologies, not wary of the unintended consequences caused by their development. With regard to the abovementioned combination of acoustic technology with “chemicals,” Alexander states, “while this technique would surely come under extensive criticism, its application by those not constrained by international treaties makes the possibility worth exploring from a defensive posture.”38 This has often been exactly the type of logic that has been accused of as being a veil for an offensive, lethal program and arms race.

In response to the inclusion of a protocol on lasers in the Geneva Convention in 1995, supporters of non-lethal weapons have endeavored to advocate the use of “eye friendly” lasers. Lasers were the first fielded tactical directed (DE) systems-weapons that shoot photons, not bullets. Use of “red” and “green” lasers as a non-lethal weapon in a humanitarian or peace enforcement mission has received high praise from military ground commanders. The lasers can be used for multiple military purposes, including target detection, target designation, and deterrence. Employment of this technology was in part credited for the highly successful extraction mission of UN forces from Somalia in 1995 with no casualties to any side. For example, lasers were used to deter Somali snipers and mortar crews preparing to engage US Marines conducting the mission.39

Concerns expressed about use of lasers that cause blindness in individuals has been a serious issue internationally for some time. Laser pointers have swept the marketplace globally and are readily accessible. Countries apart from the United States have developed blinding lasers. The Chinese have developed the ZM-87 Portable Laser Disturber that is designed to dazzle and blind up to ranges of 3,000 metres. The serious impediments to controlling non-eye-safe laser technology that is already so widespread, presents challenges to the international community. According to Alexander:

Despite calls for [totally] banning lasers, this is not likely to happen. Their use as range finders and as guidance for precision munitions makes them far too valuable to give up. Both of those attributes were key to [the] success in Desert Storm. Eye-safe laser weapons will provide additional operational capability.40
14 Alexander, 65.

15 Ibid.

16 Rob Green, “Are Electromagnetic Weapons Being Used in Yugoslavia?” 31 March 1999. Yorkshire CND. Online. February 11, 2003. Available:

17 “Come Fry with me.” The Economist. February 20, 2003.

18 Jim Wilson, “E-Bomb.” Popular Mechanics, September 2001.

19 Pasternak, 1.

20 Robert Burns, “Pentagon unveils “non-lethal” weapon.” Associated Press. March 2, 2001.

21 Carlo Kopp, The Electromagnetic Bomb- a Weapon of Electrical Mass Destruction. Online. February 8, 2003. Available:, 6.

22 George Edmonson, “Potent Microwave Weapons’ Impact Could Be Felt In Future Conflicts.” Cox News Service. August 14, 2002. Online. February 10, 2002. Available:

23 Alexander, 216.

24 Opening Statement of Lieutenant General Robert L. Schweitzer, United States Army (Ret) to the Joint Economic Committee of the One Hundred Fifth Congress: From “Economic Espionage, Technology Transfers and National Security,” June 17, 1997, 1.

25 Alexander, 216.

26 Statement of General Schweitzer, 3-4.

27 See: James F. Dunningan, Digital Soldiers: The Evolution of High-Tech Weaponry and Tomorrow’s Brave New Battlefield. New York: St Martin’s Press, 1996

28 Alexander, 215.

29 Ibid, 97.

30 Alexander, 98.

31 “When Killing Just Won’t Do.” Harpers. February 2003,17.

32 Ibid.

33 Alexander, 100.

34 Ibid, 99.

35 Ibid, 100.

36 Unknown author, US Military Non-Lethal Weapons. Submitted by Online February 25, 2003. Available:, 12.

37 Alexander, 102.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid, 60.

40 Ibid, 61.
The Challenge of Exotic Weapons
Exploitation of Loopholes: The future of international treaties.

Scientific and technical advances which have furthered the research and development of exotic weapons of varying types, raise questions as to not only what the dangers are by use of the weapons on human beings, but also how such weapons could change the dynamic of multilateral arms control and disarmament. Two examples of the implications of these weapons advances can be understood by looking primarily at new uses for chemicals and biology.

Chemistry and Biology
The development of some technologies using non-lethal mines, chemical or biological substances for use by law enforcement or the military will upon initial examination, raise concerns and elicit an emotional response. It is necessary to examine new developments and assess the possibility of how the strong support for using nonlethal weapons could complicate or test existing disarmament treaties.

Among the numerous hypothetical scenarios used by John Alexander, one in particular provokes curiosity and possibly concern. The scenario depicts a Russian mafia member bent on releasing a biological agent into the water system of a major U.S. city; unaware he is under surveillance by American counter terrorist forces. Before the terrorist is about to release the agent, he is overcome by command activated “Volcano” mines which deploy polymer fibre nets that have electrical wires running through them. The objective of the technology is to not only ensnare the perpetrator, but to emit shocks which interrupt his neurological functions. Another counter-terrorist team member has an epoxy projector that is fired and grasps or encapsulates the BW container in the terrorist’s hand. Totally disabled and offering no resistance, the terrorist is subdued.41 On the surface, a terrorist attack involving the loss of thousands of innocent lives is averted. The authorities have successfully used non-lethal technologies, including nonlethal land mines.

The mines in the above scenario are apparently not meant to maim or kill. However, does this mean that there is a new definition and acceptance for a weapon that has been traditionally viewed as lethal? How do international disarmament fora deal with separating traditional weapons and weapons systems from their lethal forbearers? Does this not dilute the effectiveness of existing treaties? It is assumed that the Chemical Weapons Convention, Biological Weapons Convention and Landmines Convention are intent on eliminating entire categories of weapons. These questions are raised on the assumption that there are always possible exemptions and loopholes. Exotic weapons, be they acoustic weapons or chemicals used for supposed non-lethal or anti-material applications are raising this dilemma presently.

Vigorous debates were carried out for decades regarding the issue of non-lethal agents and incapacitants, notably riot control agents (RCA’s). Arguments have also been made since the end of the First World War over the issue of whether certain types of lethal weapons, such as poison gas offered more humane methods of warfare or could reduce casualties.42 This is a debate that is reemerging from some sectors of the security and defence community.43 Use of an aerosolized form of the opiate Fentanyl, was used in a Russian Special Forces attack on a Moscow theatre in October 2002.44 This incident has given the use of “non-lethal” agents a high profile, reinforcing the issue of the lethality of weapons categorized as non-lethal. It could also mark a sea change in the norms prohibiting some forms of CW. Some argue that political acceptance of new chemical options is the core issue.45 The new complexity is that:

New materials are constantly being developed for a wide range of purposes. Some have potential military applications. It is unrealistic to believe they will only be employed for peaceful purposes. Possibly, they may save lives when used as weapons, so opponents of chemical weapons assume an illogical position and argue in favour of more killing and brutality.46

The types of uses envisioned for chemicals would be for anti-material attacks. One example would be super acids to degrade tires on armoured vehicles. Development of agents that weaken the strength of polymer bonds (catalytic depolymerization) would utilize agents that are so powerful, that only a small amount is needed to destroy a target.47 It is argued that use of precision munitions would mitigate concerns over safety. Other possibilities are agents that degrade petroleum, be it oil or gasoline. It is argued that these options are not tenable because of the emotional reactions to the notion of a chemical agent. There are indeed numerous concerns here, in that the advocates of these technologies appear to be seeking to exploit the weaknesses of multilateral treaties such as the CWC. Alexander even suggests that one way of delivering aggressive chemicals is to use the “binary system.”48 The mere premise of using a system that was advocated for the U.S. CW agents in the 1980’s arouses some suspicion and concern over what this would do to the collective faith of the international community regarding the already beleaguered CWC, regardless of whether the intention is non-lethal or anti-material.

The same arguments that have been made for developing anti-material chemicals unrestrained or unaffected by provisions of the CWC, are being made for anti-material biological organisms, with the promise by its advocates that the particular “agents” in question would not harm humans. The complaint by experts who see the potential of “non-lethal,” anti-material BW is that the BWC restricts research and development. “Current doctrine even restricts the definition of biological warfare to ‘the use of disease to harm or kill an adversary’s military forces, population, food, or livestock.’”49 Critics of multilateral conventions argue that this does not address the entire breadth of the BW threat. Interest seems to revolve around naturally occurring organisms and not those created by biotechnology. The complexity of dual use organisms is an alarming factor, where for example, the deadly agent ricin is being engineered to fight leukemia because of granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor (GMCSF) has been cross-linked to ricin by protein conjugation.50

Promising research into degrading chemical bonds using fungus like aspergillis to attack plastic polymers is another area where the argument for anti-material biological weapons is being made. Part of the effort to pursue such options is made by bringing attention to research carried out by biochemists to solve environmental challenges involving organisms that may also be a threat to national security. One example of the biological paradox is the research into organisms able to reduce the amount of refuse stored is a possible threat and that “only the intent of the user changes.”51 What other intents might emerge apart from adopting such suggestions for anti-material warfare and possible indiscriminate effects are an important issue that requires careful review in the context of multilateral agreements.

The trend in research could possibly threaten existing treaties. One of the potential areas of research is outlined by Captain James Campbell of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory who states that “the next step may be to develop biomimetic chemical systems that reproduce specific degradative capabilities, but without the requirement for living organisms.” Because there are no living organisms involved in such methods, the agents would not be subject to existing treaties.52 Such scientific and technical trends, if translated into actual policy would be problematic for treaties that took decades to evolve and help eliminate weapons and their use. These threats to multilateral instruments are in addition to ongoing matters of verification, technical and substantive non-compliance that continue to be faced by state parties friendly to the international treaties. The ability of the international community to maintain the robust aspects of the CWC and BWC is constantly being challenged by scientific developments. Proponents of new exotic technologies are not apt to suggest that the treaties adapt to new developments, lest those multilateral instruments interfere with a new program of producing chemical or biological substances that offer promise as anti-material weapons. It might be feared, particularly in the present context of international affairs that some critics advocate their countries exercise the right to withdrawal from the treaties.
41 Alexander, 4-5.

42 Richard M. Price, The Chemical Weapons Taboo. Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1997, 66, 71, 158.

43 Lynn Klotz, Martin Furmanski, Mark Wheelis, “Beware the Sirens Song: Why ‘Non-lethal’ Incapacitating Agents are Lethal. Federation of American Scientists. March 2003. Online. March 6, 2003. Available:

44 The Guardian. “Moscow siege gas ‘may have been opiate.’” October 29, 2002. Online. March 24, 2003. Available:

45 Alexander, 71.

46 Ibid.

47 Ibid, 75.

48 Ibid, 76.

49 Alexander, 116.

50 Ibid, 116.

51 Ibid, 121.

52 Ibid, 122.
From Weapons to Your WiFi

FREE LECTURE at the University of Toronto with BARRIE TROWER
Physicist & Former British Secret Service Microwave Weapon Specialist

During the Cold War, Barrie Trower’s job for the British Secret Service was to debrief spies who were using stealth microwave weapons.

Most notably, the Russians pulsed microwaves at the American Embassy where staff developed leukemia and other sicknesses.

Today, Barrie Trower is shocked to see the proliferation of microwave technologies – WiFi, cell phones, cell towers, and more. THE HISTORY OF MICROWAVES: FROM WEAPONS TO WIFI will give you an understanding of microwave radiation from an insider who now speaks openly to governments, police, and the public.


155 College Street, Room 610
University of Toronto
TUESDAY, AUGUST 24th at 7:30 P.M.

Open Letter from Barrie Trower:

The Communications Industry, because of its usefulness to Government, Finance, Intelligence gathering and Warfare, is really in the position where it is spiralling out of any person’s ability to control it, with regard to advancing technology.

Initially, all systems “pulsed.” However, when it was realised that stealth microwave warfare relies on entrainment of a brain from such pulses (now being used as a domestic instrument) the pulses had to be renamed as “modulations.” The difference between them is infinitesimally small, but the effect is just the same. Only the name has changed. I believe that this explains the dramatic changes in behaviour we are now witnessing - group suicides, disruption in schools, aggression and so on.

Over the years, I have compiled a list of known entrainment responses (followed by long-term potentiation) from these microwaves. It should be appreciated that each person will respond slightly differently, although the same area of brain/temporal/ amygdaloid temporal/parotid/etc., will remain the same.

** It is worth mentioning that a mobile phone with a pulse/modulation frequency of 25 could act directly on visual sight (if being held at head), or heartbeat (if in a chest pocket). A frequency of 25 can disrupt both visual and heart neurotransmitters.

Clearly a susceptible person may have any combination of these. Electrosensitive persons may recognise many of their own symptoms. My work on electrosensitivity and the brain can be found on .

I think the problem is that young Governments and young communications engineers have no knowledge of Cold War warfare and don’t know who to ask; even if they did, the Government would probably be in denial. The situation is a mess, made worse by greed.

If anyone would like clarification of any of the foregoing, or I can help in any way, please let me know.

Barrie Trower

3 Flowers Meadow
Liverton, Devon, TQ12 6UP
01626 821014

Effects of Pulsed Microwave Radiation

Pulses or Modulations per second

Possible Result
1 Heartbeat Rhythm
1-3 Sleep Pattern
3-5 Paranoia/Hallucinations/Amnesia/

Illusions/Drowsiness ‘Absent’ Feeling
6-7 Depression/Suicidal Feelings/Visual

8-11 Cannot Relax/Feeling Unwell/Unhappy
11-13 Anger/Manic Behaviour/Problems with

Movement/Flashes/Loss of Appetite
14-18 Small Seizures/Disturbed Orientation/

Auditory/Visual Hallucinations
18+ Inability to make decisions/Sensory

problems (sight/touch/sound)
24+** Confusion/Flickering/flashing lights/

35+ Mania/Hyperactivity
40+ Anxiety/Sleep disturbance/Reaction

time slowed/Unable to make decisions

TORONTO, Aug 23, 2010 / Canada NewsWire (press release)
On May 18th the industry funded study on the risk of brain tumours was released. Despite its many flaws leading to an underestimation of risk, the evidence still showed a 40% increase in risk of glioma after 10 years use of ½ hour per day.

Do you believe the previous statement? You should ask him to do a live chat, question answer session. Live speakers would stimulate interest in his conferences and draw people to your web site.
Microwave Sickness
[Home Page] [Leukaemia] [Brain Tumours] [Electromagnetic Sensitivity] [Microwave Sickness] [Other Health Effects]

Man-made radiofrequency (RF) radiation was first used in the 20th century by the military in radar and, to a degree, as a weapon. Radar transmitters in peace-time are situated mainly at airports and seaports, and some Ministry of Defence establishments.

Microwaves are used as non-lethal weapons, both in the military and for civil purposes, such as crowd control, though most of these uses are in the realm of official secrets, and are not in our area of expertise.

The major exposure to the general public from pulsed microwaves comes now from mobile phones, the transmitting infrastructure (mobile phone base stations or masts), wireless appliances and 'blue tooth' equipment, wireless computing, and the expanding roll-out of wireless communication.

The technology is novel in human experience and biological effects as a result of exposure to RF were not anticipated when it first began to be used, and are only now beginning to be suspected as information becomes available. What is still uncertain is whether biological reactions occur at once or whether they take some time to develop. The important thing to bear in mind with regard to exposure is not the level compared with the allowed guidelines, but the level compared with what we have been exposed to in human evolutionary terms.

Most early health research work focused on occupational exposure of military personnel and some on the effects of weaponry. The first significant report (Sadcikova) describing occupational 'microwave sickness' appeared in 1974. The symptoms included fatigue, headaches, palpitations, insomnia, skin symptoms, impotence and altered blood pressure. Further occupational research [Forman 1982, Wayne 1984, Graham 1985, Marchiori 1995] added the following symptoms resulting from acute exposure; warming sensations, nausea, neuropathy (numbness, tingling, even paralysis in toes and fingers), stomach cramps, dyasthesia (a crushing sensation) and irritability.

In many cases, medical tests carried out on those people suffering from the symptoms (including blood pictures and biochemistry) showed no significant abnormalities [Graham 1985, Hocking 1988, Schilling 1997]. The symptoms often persisted for several months, even years, after the exposure, and some of the people who had been exposed were never able to regain the level of good health they had experienced beforehand. Some exposures resulted in severe anxiety necessitating short term sedation and even admission to hospital. Psychological problems and emotional instability persisted for up to a year.

Although many of the occupational studies were investigating accidental exposures to higher levels of radiofrequency radiation than were usual, and much higher than the current levels that the general public are allowed to be exposed to, it is interesting (and concerning) to note:

•The similarity of symptoms in these studies, compared to the studies looking at much lower levels of microwave radiation in the environment, such as the sort of levels near mobile phone base stations;
•the difficulty of finding any biological markers that can account for the reported health effects, which adds to the problem of diagnosis;
•the often long-term persistence of the symptoms, including psychological ones;
•the fact that full health is often not recovered after exposure
Roger Santini produced the following graph of symptoms reported by people living within 300 metres of mobile phone base stations [Santini 2002]:

Navarro (2003) and, in a further re-analysis of Navarro's research, Oberfeld (2004) Bortkiewicz (2004) Hutter (2006) and Abdel-Rassoul (2007) all found significant numbers of people reporting very similar collections of symptoms. The effects began in many cases at 0.05 V/m and often, where measured, the higher the exposure, the more the symptoms were reported [Navarro 2003, Oberfeld 2004, Bortkiewicz 2004, Hutter 2006, Abdel-Rassoul 2007].

Here are the graphs that accompanied the German Doctors' letter to Edmund Stoiber, president of the federal state of Bavaria, Germany:

Group 1 - no symptoms
Group 2 - sleep disturbance, tiredness, depressive mood
Group 3 - headaches, restlessness, dazed state, irritability, disturbance of concentration, forgetfulness, learning difficulties, difficulty finding words
Group 4 - frequent infections, sinusitis, lymph node swellings, joint and limb pains, nerve and soft tissue pains, numbness or tingling, allergies
Group 5 - tinnitus, hearing loss, sudden hearing loss, giddiness, impaired balance, visual disturbances, eye inflammation, dry eyes
Group 6 - tachycardia, episodic hypertension, collapse
Group 7 - other symptoms: hormonal disturbances, thyroid disease, night sweats, frequent urge to urinate, weight increase, nausea, loss of appetite, nose bleeds, skin complaints, tumours, diabetes
What is an electromagnetic wave?/b>br />

Electromagnetic waves are created and radiate outwards from a common point when a charged particle is made to oscillate (move rapidly back and forth) within an electric field.

Electromagnetic Spectrum:

See also: Electromagnetic Waves

The fundamental carrier of radio wave energy is the quanta (small packet of energy) known as the photon.

See: What is a Photon?

The photon is a massless subatomic spin-1 particle, package of energy called quanta, that interacts with matter (physical structures made up of mass carrying spin-1/2 particles) in a few very well defined ways. Microwave photons, like light waves, possess momentum and energy but no mass. Because photons are massless energy, they travel throughout space only at the constant speed of light, 300 million meters per second. This is 186,000 miles in a second, or 670 million miles in an hour. Subatomic particles that make up the atomic structure of matter objects are heavier, possessing mass, than the photon. As a result, matter particles move at a speed much slower than light speed.

The Pauli exclusion principle

("... protons and neutrons obey the same principle, while photons do not). ....")

From the book, Facts and Mysteries In Elementary Particle Physics
by Professor of Theoretical Physics
Awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, 1999
"for elucidating the quantum structure of
electroweak interactions in physics".

ISBN: 981-238-148-1

Chapter 1, page 31

Dr. Martinus Veltman writes:

(".... Another quantity that occurs frequently is Planck's constant, denoted by h. It gives the energy of a photon of light for a given wavelength or frequency. The value of this constant is h = 4.135669 x 10^-21 MeV sec. Light or radio waves of a given frequency v is made up of from photons that have the energy E = hv. This extremely simple and important equation, on a par with Einstein's relation E = Mc^2, sets the scale for all quantum phenomena.

As an example consider a mobile phone operating at 1 Ghz = 1000 Mhz (megahertz), that is 1 000 000 000 cycles per second. From the antenna of that phone there is a stream of photons each with an energy of h x 1 000 000 000 = 4.14 x 10^-12 MeV. The photons of red light (frequency of about 370 000 000 Ghz) have an energy of roughly 1.5 eV.")

What Veltman is saying: A transmitter produces an oscillating voltage of a certain amplitude, frequency, and energy. This is sent from the transmitter to the antenna through an appropriate cable. It is not 'electrons' that's radiated out into the environment by the antenna, but photons. The job of the antenna is to match the transmitter signal to the impedance of the surrounding atmosphere in order to maximize photon emission. Packets of photon energy (quanta) are radiated outward into the atmosphere over some distance, based upon an inverse-square law, where these photons are then intercepted by a receiving antenna. The receiving antenna then captures these weak photon energy, quantas, and essentially converts them back into their signal voltage equivalence. It is 'this' signal voltage that the radio receiver 'sees' at its antenna input terminal. Here, this input signal gets processed by the radio and converted back into audio sound information.

Facts and Mysteries
page 77

2.13 Representing Interactions

(".... Let us begin with the photon .... As we all know electron can emit photons: that is how light and radio waves are made. The latter are made by electrons running up and down in an antenna. Thus an electron can emit a photon. Thus we have the transition ....")

Photons are massless, chargeless, spin-1 particles that travel only at the speed of light. They do not possess mass but have intrinsic momentum, as such. Massless spin-1 particles (bosons) do not have the ability to induce a true mechanical "force" or "pressure" upon matter objects (real world physical structures). For something to act upon a physical object with true force, that something has to be composed of matter particles (electrons, protons, and neutrons). Photons are not an intrinsic subatomic particle in the same sense as electrons, protons, and neutrons are; photons act on the individual constituents of the atom, while those constitutes (electrons, protons, and neutrons -- nucleons) orchestrates the workings of the whole atom itself. Matter particles (nucleons) and bosons (photons) are two very different kinds of animals.

For example: Based upon Newtonian 2nd. law of motion: F = Ma

Force equals "mass" times "acceleration" over some distance. If someone tosses a ball against a wall, the force the ball delivers to the wall is: the mass of the ball times the ball's velocity (the rate of change in the ball's speed over some distance) at the moment the ball impacts the wall.

Mechanical Force

Speed of light, c, (and for radio waves) is a constant straight line of trave, at 300 million meters per second.
Radio frequency, fr, = speed of light divided by wavelength, wL, at that frequency.
fr = c / wL
EU Report concerning Electromagnetics including ELF

Directorate General for Research-Directorate A
STOA - Scientific and Technological Options Assessment
Options Brief and Executive Summary
PE nr. 297.574 March 2001

THE PHYSIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF NON-IONISING ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION Diffraction Effects in Directed Energy Beams (many doctors) Highly directed radiation pattern from a THz (Microwave) array antenna Multipole radiation Directed Energy BioEffects Division Ultraviolet Radiation Directed Electron Transport THz Radiation from shocked materials Influence (meteorology) Array Antenna's for Directed Radiaton ofHigh Power Ultrawideband Pulses Dropped shaped antenna radiation Log periodic antenna directed energy A Very High Resolution Optical Transition Radiation Beam The Electromagnetic Spectrum and a Hydrogen Example Putting the Electomagnetic Spectrum to Use
this was linked to the "What is Millimeter Radar".

Reply to Discussion


Latest Activity

nicolerenee901 commented on Xuthal's blog post Silicea Alternative
"Hello. I wanted to know where or from who did you hear of this remedy"
3 hours ago
Gordana Filipovic posted blog posts
4 hours ago
Robin Yan posted a discussion

Having this video, "final account", I am not afraid of anything.

Obviously, by hacking International Bar Association and International Criminal Court, they stop me from launching  international (legal  ) proceedings against "them".To end with this video " final account" : send it, please transfer it . Not only for me.UN ICCPR UN Human Rights UN Human Rights Council Amnesty International International Bar Association International Criminal Court International Court of Justice…See More
6 hours ago
indira ramesh is now friends with Lauren C and Sally Mander
7 hours ago
AleksShamles replied to Zavylon's discussion Gibt es irgendwelche Optionen?
"Sie wissen immer noch nicht, wie Sie eine Menge Geld verdienen können, dann klicken Sie auf den bob casino spielautomaten, es ist ein großartiges Online-Casino, wo Sie eine Menge Geld verdienen können, ich bin sicher, Sie werden…"
8 hours ago
Zavylon posted discussions
8 hours ago
Gretta Fahey posted a blog post

Everything in the world to be the property of the state. You penniless.

EVERYTHING THROUGH OUT THE WORLD WOULD BE THE PROPERTY OF THE STATE WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS THE CROWN CORPORATION. THEY ARE PLANNING TO MAKE US PENNYLESS SLAVES BUT MOST ARE UNDER MIND CONTROL PROGRAMMING TO THE POINT OF APATHY.Viruses are not contageous. The so-called covid-19 vaccine is a slow acting poison. Those who have received it will die within years. Many who believe that they have received the so called covid-19 vaccine have not actually received it because many nurses who are in full…See More
8 hours ago
Profile IconMax Rempel, W.G.J.P Lakshani and Joe thacker joined Peacepink
15 hours ago



© 2021   Created by Soleilmavis.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service