### MindNet is no longer active.

#### Back to MindNet Index

    ================================================================
         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

    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: .

    To unsubscribe:

    Send message: [unsubscribe mindnet] to: .

    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:

    , 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 / 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  |||||||||||||
    ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||