Microwave and Electromagnetic waves

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/21c_pre_2011/radi...

Replies

Soleilmavis March 27, 2009 at 6:02am

The Challenge of Exotic Weapons
http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-armes/isrop-prisi/research-rech...
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.

Lasers
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: http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/news/articles/kosovo/elmag.htm

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: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/kopp/apjemp.html, 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: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020814-hpm.htm

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 MCCLOSL@towers.com. Online February 25, 2003. Available: http://ourworld.cs.com/soundweapon, 12.

37 Alexander, 102.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid, 60.

40 Ibid, 61.
Soleilmavis March 27, 2009 at 6:04am

The Challenge of Exotic Weapons
http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-armes/isrop-prisi/research-rech...
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.

Chemistry
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.

Biology
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: http://www.fas.org/bwc/papers/sirens_song.htm

44 The Guardian. “Moscow siege gas ‘may have been opiate.’” October 29, 2002. Online. March 24, 2003. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/chechnya/Story

45 Alexander, 71.

46 Ibid.

47 Ibid, 75.

48 Ibid, 76.

49 Alexander, 116.

50 Ibid, 116.

51 Ibid, 121.

52 Ibid, 122.
Soleilmavis August 26, 2010 at 9:12am

HISTORY OF MICROWAVES
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.

EVENT LOCATION
HEALTH SCIENCES BLDG AUDITORIUM

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 www.mastsanity.org .

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

Distortion/Confusion
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/

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

time slowed/Unable to make decisions
.......................................................................
URL http://www.freedomfchs.com/barrietrowerlecture.pdf (PDF)
VIDEO: BARRIE TROWER https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhbRaOTi1KM

TORONTO, Aug 23, 2010 / Canada NewsWire (press release) http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/August2010/23/c4280.html
iNews880.com
http://www.inews880.com/Channels/Reg/CyberCorner/Story.aspx?id=1268131
Soleilmavis September 6, 2010 at 3:39pm

http://www.naturalmatters.net/article.asp?article=2965&cat=247
===========================================================
Microwave Sickness
[Home Page] [Leukaemia] [Brain Tumours] [Electromagnetic Sensitivity] [Microwave Sickness] [Other Health Effects]

Background
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.

Symptoms
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
Soleilmavis December 6, 2010 at 12:34pm

CIA technician arrested on theft charges
By Bill Gertz
5:00 a.m., Tuesday, March 2, 2010
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/ex-staffer-held-in-...
A CIA technical-support official has been arrested on charges of selling more than $60,000 worth of pilfered agency electronic gear.

Todd Brandon Fehrmann, a communications-technology specialist with the agency, was arrested Friday morning at his office in Virginia and charged in a criminal complaint with stealing government equipment and selling it to a Massachusetts-based electronics equipment broker.

The FBI complaint unsealed Friday stated that Mr. Fehrmann worked for an unidentified U.S. government agency. However, U.S. officials and Mr. Fehrmann confirmed he was a CIA employee.

"This agency takes very seriously any allegation of misconduct, period," CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said, who added that he was not discussing any particular case. He declined further comment.

Reached by phone at his home in Reston, Va., Mr. Fehrmann declined to comment on the arrest, but said he is no longer employed with the CIA. Mr. Fehrmann's attorney, Paul Kemp, also declined to comment.

According to the affidavit, Mr. Fehrmann arranged the sale of several handheld spectrum analyzers — high-technology devices with military applications that can measure and check cell-phone signals and equipment — to a company called Bizi International Inc.

The buyer became suspicious after noticing that two analyzers were new and contacted the manufacturer, Anritsu, and learned they were sold recently to the CIA. The discovery triggered a CIA inspector general investigation of Mr. Fehrmann last month, which led to an FBI probe.

"This appears to have been detected internally rather quickly — just as it should have been — and the cooperation with law enforcement was good," said a U.S. official familiar with the case.

The CIA equipment seized by the FBI in the case included 10 Anritsu analyzers, one Rhode & Schwartz analyzer and a Fluke electronic testing device. The affidavit stated that the value of half the equipment is $60,000 and that the investigation was continuing.

Mr. Fehrmann is scheduled to appear in U.S. District Court in Alexandria on Thursday.

According to the affidavit, Mr. Fehrmann, who analyzed and bought communications gear, identified himself to the purchaser in a telephone conversation as a self-employed independent government contractor who in the past worked on "rebuilding telecommunication infrastructure in Iraq." According to the affidavit, he said he was not going back to Iraq and needed to sell surplus equipment.

Mr. Fehrmann told The Times it was "not correct" that he was involved in telecommunications projects in Iraq. He said he did not work in Iraq.

Communications experts say spectrum analyzers have a variety of security uses. They can be used for checking the security of intelligence communications or for countering or tracking those who plant and trigger improvised explosive devices, which commonly use cell phones as part of the triggering device.

Anritsu, manufacturer of two types of analyzers taken from the CIA, stated on its Web page that the analyzers have several uses, including measuring cell phone base-station signals, mapping signal strength to determine where to place antennas, base stations and signal repeaters
Soleilmavis December 7, 2010 at 7:30am

Reply by Jay Sinn on October 4, 2010 at 2:46pm
I've experienced electronic hypersensitivity. It feels like a sunburn but with cold elements. I've had this so bad I could feel an RF pest device from 6 feet on the eyes. This condition also affects the digestion as well as causing a distinct lack of energy. I suspect this severly ages the body. There is usually a headache, problems with cognition and vision.

The best way to dectect this is with an AM transister radio set to 530. This will detect everything from a leaky microwave, to the waveform found in CFL lightbulbs. The CRT has a simular harmonic. A television will have a harmonic assosiated with EMF. I've detected a differently pitched harmonic in coaxial cable, telephone lines and light fixtures. For some reason the waveform sound is lighter at the outlets. Circuit breakers register loudly with EMF.

Soleilmavis said:
Are EMFs Hazardous to Our Health?

Can electromagnetic fields (EMF) from power lines, home wiring, airport and military radar, substations, transformers, computers and appliances cause brain tumors, leukemia, birth defects, miscarriages, chronic
fatigue, headaches, cataracts, heart problems, stress. nausea, chest pain, forgetfulness, cancer and other health problems?
Numerous studies have produced contradictory results, yet some experts are convinced that the threat is real.

Dr. David Carpenter, Dean at the School of Public Health, State University of New York believes it is likely that up to 30% of all childhood cancers come from exposure to EMFs. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) warns "There is reason for concern" and advises prudent avoidance".
http://www.mercola.com/article/emf/emf_dangers.htm
Soleilmavis December 7, 2010 at 7:31am

Reply by Jay Sinn on October 4, 2010 at 3:20pm
I've remembered some more about this EMF. The World Health Organisation recognizes this but the US is on the fence concerning the adverse affects of EMF, electromagnetic hypersensitivity can be detected with about six blood tests. The blood brain barrier could be compromised with enough exposure.

If you google "dirty electricity" you can find more specific information about this.

One other thing I've remembered: our coax cable was checked by our ISP and the tech found a voltage of 38 volts, enough to burn an outside box and melt the insulation of what seemed to be a ground wire. The FCC allows for up to 40 volts in coax, but I recall that from memory.

I'm unable to work because of this and probably a few other reasons.
Soleilmavis December 7, 2010 at 7:33am

Reply by LIM SC on October 4, 2010 at 3:50pm
Hi all,
Probably you may have already been aware about this. But I just like to post it for sharing.

Brain wave tables (EEG) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography

Detection of unknown sources of ELF (extra low frequency) and its impact on human body and brain plus chemtrail conspiracy : http://www.carnicom.com/elf9.htm

Human moods changes according to different frequency range of brain wave :
http://journal.borderlands.com/1999/effects-of-6-10-hz-elf-on-brain...
Soleilmavis December 7, 2010 at 7:34am

Reply by goscott on October 4, 2010 at 4:17pm
FM will detect a PEP Weapon, it saved my life! The Perps were firing into my home like CRAZY!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/03/us_plasma_weapon/

REV 18

Jay Sinn said:
I've experienced electronic hypersensitivity. It feels like a sunburn but with cold elements. I've had this so bad I could feel an RF pest device from 6 feet on the eyes. This condition also affects the digestion as well as causing a distinct lack of energy. I suspect this severly ages the body. There is usually a headache, problems with cognition and vision.

The best way to dectect this is with an AM transister radio set to 530. This will detect everything from a leaky microwave, to the waveform found in CFL lightbulbs. The CRT has a simular harmonic. A television will have a harmonic assosiated with EMF. I've detected a differently pitched harmonic in coaxial cable, telephone lines and light fixtures. For some reason the waveform sound is lighter at the outlets. Circuit breakers register loudly with EMF.

Soleilmavis said:
Are EMFs Hazardous to Our Health?

Can electromagnetic fields (EMF) from power lines, home wiring, airport and military radar, substations, transformers, computers and appliances cause brain tumors, leukemia, birth defects, miscarriages, chronic
fatigue, headaches, cataracts, heart problems, stress. nausea, chest pain, forgetfulness, cancer and other health problems?
Numerous studies have produced contradictory results, yet some experts are convinced that the threat is real.

Dr. David Carpenter, Dean at the School of Public Health, State University of New York believes it is likely that up to 30% of all childhood cancers come from exposure to EMFs. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) warns "There is reason for concern" and advises prudent avoidance".
http://www.mercola.com/article/emf/emf_dangers.htm
Soleilmavis December 7, 2010 at 7:35am

Reply by goscott on October 5, 2010 at 1:40am
Seems to work on any radio station, just have to have the radio on. I'm 100% sure that when the Perps fire though your windows, that the Nano-Bullets hit the radio and cause a "popping sound" this is how you can detect it this way.

I can also mention regarding this PEP weapon, if you put an empty paper cup on a surface like a table near a window, that the paper cup will move when it is hit.

This PEP weapon is an SOB! It can be fired dozens a time an hour, and when your skin gets hit if feels like microscopic particles of sand, and just about 1/4 of a bee sting.....the problem is when you get hit in your eyes, it goes directly to your brain.........
https://peacepink.ning.com/photo/sf-protest-101409?context=user

Jay Sinn said:
So I used the radio again and found that the CRT makes a woodpecker like sound, when it is off but plugged in. When I turn it on this precussive effect disappears. Odd.

How do you use the FM for PEP dectection exactly.

Thanks for posting that.

of 4

Forum

Microwave and Electromagnetic waves

The electromagnetic spectrum activity

Replies

Note: this page contains paid content.