Newsletter (01 November 2003)

Safety standards

Friends,

Thank you all for your kind words and useful suggestions. Could anybody tell me about the safety standards in the different countries? Figures please? Do they all use the ICNIRP standard? Which countries have specific standards? I know already about Italy and Switzerland.

I need more information about this ASAP. This is really the key issue and we cannot get on, unless we really do something about the present ICNIRP standards.

New arguments?

We have already many studies on non-thermal effects. However, do we have any studies or so called "Anecdotal" reporting from ordinary people, that they feel better when they move to low-EMF areas? What about the health status of the inhabitants in Italy and Switzerland?

Thank you for your help

Sianette Kwee

and

Meeting in the Ministry of Health

Friends,

He told me that he intends to send the following material out to the participants on beforehand: Santini's report - Salford's study on rats' brain - survey from Mossmann et al. from Bioelectromagnetics - The Dutch 3G report from TNO - comments on Salford's work from the University of Uppsala - NRPB's dosimetry report on exposure near antenna - Norwegian report and Swedish report on the same subject. He asked if I have other suggestions.

I do not know all of these papers, but I am sure you do. I am afraid they are biased. Please give me your comments as soon as possible and also if other studies should be included. Maybe I could suggest to include a list of abstracts of all the non-thermal biological studies, e.g. Repacholi's rat studies.

Thank you for your help

Sianette Kwee

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Dawn of the E-Bomb

For the wired world, the allure and the danger of high-power microwave weapons are both very real

By Michael Abrams

In these media-fueled times, when war is a television spectacle and wiping out large numbers of civilians is generally frowned upon, the perfect weapon would literally stop an enemy in his tracks, yet harm neither hide nor hair. Such a weapon might shut down telecommunications networks, disrupt power supplies, and fry an adversary's countless computers and electronic gadgets, yet still leave buildings, bridges, and highways intact. It would strike with precision, in an instant, and leave behind no trace of where it came from.

In fact, it almost certainly is already here, in the form of high-power microwave (HPM) weapons. As their name suggests, HPMs generate an intense "blast" of electromagnetic waves in the microwave frequency band (hundreds of megahertz to tens of gigahertz) that is strong enough to overload electrical circuitry. Most types of matter are transparent to microwaves, but metallic conductors, like those found in metal-oxide semiconductor (MOS), metal-semiconductor, and bipolar devices, strongly absorb them, which in turn heats the material.

Microwave weapons researcher Edl Schamiloglu sits in front of the Pulserad-110A accelerator, which his lab at the University of New Mexico uses to produce single 100-nanosecond pulses of electron beams, each pulse emitting hundreds of megawatts of power.

An HPM weapon can induce currents large enough to melt circuitry. But even less intense bursts can temporarily disrupt electrical equipment or permanently damage ICs, causing them to fail minutes, days, or even weeks later. People caught in the burst of a microwave weapon would, by contrast, be untouched and might not even know they'd been hit. (There is, however, an effort to build a microwave weapon for controlling crowds; a person subjected to it definitely feels pain and is forced to retreat.)

"HPM sources are maturing, and one day, in the very near future, they will help revolutionize how U.S. soldiers fight wars," says Edl Schamiloglu, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque and one of the leading researchers in this burgeoning field.

The fact that we seldom hear about HPM weapons only adds to their exoticism. Last spring, stories leaked to the press suggested that the Pentagon, after decades of research, had finally deployed such a device in Iraq. And when news footage showed a U.S. bomb destroying an Iraqi TV station, many informed onlookers suspected it was an electromagnetic "e-bomb."

"I saw the detonation, and then I saw the burst—which wasn't much. If they took the station out with that blast, I strongly suspect that we used Iraq as a proving ground" for HPMs, says Howard Seguine, an expert on emerging weapons technology with Decisive Analytics Corp., in Arlington, Va.

But while the U.S. military proudly paraded assorted new war-making technology during its conquest of Iraq, from unmanned combat aerial vehicles to a new satellite-based tracking network, it remained tight-lipped about this "mother of all weapons." Asked at a 5 March news briefing to confirm the rumor, General Tommy Franks, head of U.S. forces during the war, would only say, "I can't talk to you about that because I don't know anything about it."

Military secrecy is nothing new, of course. What is known about microwave weapons is that the U.S. military has actively pursued them since the 1940s, when scientists first observed the powerful electromagnetic shock wave that accompanied atmospheric nuclear detonations, suggesting a new class of destructiveness. While much of the work on HPMs remains classified, the Pentagon has also recently sponsored a number of U.S. university laboratories to work out the basic principles of microwave weapons, including reliable and compact nonnuclear ways of generating microwave pulses…

See further under:

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/nov03/1103ebom.html

Informant: kevcross5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HAARP: scientist responds

(excerpt)

I am presently impartial, and inclined to take as I find. My hope is to increase my understanding of things which concern and interest me, from someone who understands those things probably better than me.

I enjoyed science at school and still do, but as a mature student I read PPP so my approach to something like HAARP is as a layman. If I understand your position properly, I take it that at one time your work involved you in applications of HAARP hardware but since leaving the project you have come to a more negative view of it which include an awareness of it's baleful effects. Now you are embarked on a project in the private sector which has hopes of developing some sort of technological fix for some of that. I have bookmarked your website, and though I note there is nothing there at present I gather we might look there for future developments. Do I have that all about right? If so I certainly wish you well with it.

I realise that scientific orthodoxy is presently not inclined to favour aether theories about reality. I wonder what your position might be on that question. My take on it is only the somewhat informed intuition of the layman, but I incline to aether theories, perhaps after the approach of people like Harold Aspden or the Correa's. I am impressed by the weight of evidence for 'free' energy technologies which is out there for instance (I can't help but think, also, that someone else is also, or the true researchers in that area wouldn't be harassed or even dead, the way they are if it was all baloney).

Some people are convinced that some at any rate of these ubiquitous towers are there for the express purpose of doing damage to and controlling people. Lord knows there are enough patents out there proving the know how exists along with the will and intent that has funded the r and d. I see no reason to completely dismiss this idea, history certainly tells us that humanity is likely to be this vicious. So another question arises, were such ends sought (and I am not suggesting that you know one way or the other--though a blown whistle is always pleasant to hear) could this non linear resonant aspect even be a design parameter to encompass these very ends--of brain damage or control. Is that a totally flawed idea or not?

Informant: phil

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arthur Fistenberg

Dear Klaus,

Someone asked in your list about Arthur Fistenberg,

I was just informed that he had an accident and while trying to get better his electrosensitivity became worse because of pollution from army in Mendocino. So now he is homeless now but has a phone-1-707-937-3990

So for the person who asked about him, if you remember.

Best

Iris

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------