Section 11
Why so much government disinformation on EMR bioeffects?

According to Moreno‘s "longtime friend and former neighbor of mine in Washington” and former Naval intelligence officer, the East/West Cold War EMR and mind control weapons debate was probably disinformation.

Moreno explained on page 86-87:

During the 1960s and 1970s, various government agencies paid for parapsychological studies, including DARPA, the National Institutes of Health, the Navy, and the CIA. At the same time, the Soviets invested in similar research, perhaps even more heavily, often under the heading of "psychotronics." Parapsychologist might not posit an explanatory theory, but the proponents of psychotronics contend that minds can interact based on psychic energy and also that electronic devices can influence psychic energy.

 

There’s is an attempt to subsume psychic phenomena under natural processes. The idea is that lower-frequency beams such as microwave radiation, which are at the other end of the energy spectrum from X-rays, can affect brain cells and thereby alter psychological states.

 

The low-frequency bombardment of the U.S. embassy in Moscow by the KGB in the late 1970s seemed evidence that the Soviets were serious at least about exploring the possibilities of low-frequency weapons, trying perhaps to cause psychological problems among diplomatic personnel. A technical debate then ensued about whether it was possible for such energies to cross the blood-brain barrier, a protective wall formed by the vessels that carry blood to the brain.

Although this question has never been conclusively settled, psychotronics still has its advocates, a minority of whom contend that illicit experiments involving electromagnetic fields are being conducted by intelligence agencies.

 

But the heyday of enthusiasm for such possibilities in the intelligence community seems to have passed over twenty years ago, when a retired Pentagon analyst and Army officer named Thomas E. Bearden attributed various event like Legionnaires disease, UFOs, and mutilated cattle in the Midwest to Soviet psychotronic experiments, according to journalist Ronald McRae. But the apocalyptic weapons the Soviet Union was said to be prepared to release did not save the empire, and no such weapons of mass destruction were found during or after the cold war.

On the face of it all, this activity around psyops looks like evidence of serious interest on the part of both cold war superpowers. But [John] Wilhelm "a longtime friend and former neighbor of mine in Washington," former Naval intelligence officer "through the Cuban Missile Crisis," Time Magazine science correspondent and author of The Search for Superman] isn't so sure.

 

This is a very murky area," he told me. "Even after years of looking at it, I can't be sure that all this wasn't for disinformation." In other words, although true believers get excited about this government activity-surely it means something if top security officials are committing money to studies-it could all have been to throw the other side off the trail and make them waste time and resources.

 

It may be significant the CIA closed the remote viewing program in 1995, with a report that concluded the results were disappointing. Would the program have been shut down if the Soviet Union were still in business? And what would an answer to that question mean?

This is Moreno's weakest argument. In approximately five paragraph, Moreno dismissed over fifty years of EMR weapons development. As explained above, it is doubtful that this is all just disinformation by the Russian and the U.S. governments. Moreno failed to mention key information such as the following.

The 1984 BBC TV documentary, Opening Pandora's Box:

The Soviets started bombarding the American Embassy in Moscow with a directional microwave beam with a mix of frequencies ranging from 2.5-4.1 GHz (gigahertz) in 1953 and the US government funded Project Pandora to find out why. Project Pandora was "a top secret multimillion dollar program."

 

Top scientific experts were consulted by the American Government "about the meaning of microwaving" of the Moscow Embassy. "Five presidents kept it secret." President Johnson complained to the Soviet Premier Kosygin who claimed that he was unaware of the signal and would be sure that it was turned off.

Officially the Soviets did not admit that they were microwaving the Embassy. But the bombardment of the Moscow Embassy continued. It began in 1953 and in 1975 the signals changed with lower power signals.

A May 22, 1988 AP article The Zapping of an Embassy: 35 Years Later, The Mystery Lingers by Barton Reppert reported:

"In 1976 Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger tells a news conference that "this issue is a matter of great delicacy which has many ramifications." He declined to go into detail... . In 1988, microwave signals in the 5-11 GHz range continue to be detected at the Moscow embassy ...the State department reported."

Moreno mixed remote viewing, psychotronics, electromagnetic radiation (EMR) bioeffects and brain signaling research, parapsychology and the Russian bombardment of the US embassy with microwaves from the 1950s through the 1980s, into one category. He compares this category with a known conspiracy theorist, i.e. retired Pentagon analyst and Army officer named Thomas E. Bearden whose facts and information are known to be questionable. Then Moreno concluded there doesn't seem to be a threat of mind control weapons.

Moreno compared the above information with Thomas Bearden's conspiracy theories, making Moreno's argument superficial, incomplete and disingenuous. Moreno dismissed all of this documentation with the very publicly discredited CIA remote viewing program which was closed down in 1995. Moreno concluded it is probably all disinformation. This is flawed and superficial reasoning upon which to make the conclusion that Moreno unequivocally makes: there are no current secret government mind control programs to worry about.

Moreno argued that EMR weapons have never been used and the former Soviet Union did not use any terrible weapons of mass destruction. But it is common knowledge in the disarmament and arms control community that deploying powerful new weapons creates all kinds of new problems, such as proliferation, or the possibility of the same weapon ending up in the hands of our enemies.

An article in the Washington Post October 6, 2005 William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security, Microwaves, Lasers, Retired Generals For Sale explained:

... Highly controversial directed energy weapons have been pushed for almost two decades as the next silver bullet. It's been two decades because along the way, they have run into complications, some having to do with the technology itself -- aim and controllable effects, compact power sources, military ruggedness -- but mostly their problem has been moral principles. Military leaders have been concerned about legality. Commanders have been hesitant or skeptical about new technologies with uncertain effects.

... All during the 1990's, money flowed into continued development of directed energy weapons, but frankly not much happened. Everyone talked about an E-bomb being used in Iraq in 2003, but once again for a variety of technical and ethical reasons, and because the real world intervened, the silver bullets remained on laboratory benches or in the world of "black" super-secret contracts, waiting for an opportunity... .

... The introduction of a completely new weapon -- particularly one that could cause excruciating pain, blindness, and hearing loss -- requires the most deliberate process, and the unintended consequences -- humanitarian, public relations, the possibility of the same weapon ending up in the hands of our enemies -- needs to be carefully weighed. The United States may indeed have within technological reach the ability to disperse rioters with a beam and not a bullet, and it might be able to cripple a modern society with the push of a button, but then again, so too does the United States possess the technology to turn Baghdad into a radiating ruin.

In his 2005 book, Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World, Arkin wrote of the persisting evidence of national security’s authoritative unrestricted position in the U.S. government today, a power that has trumped all U.S. laws. Arkin also warned,

“ [There are] ...capabilities being developed to go beyond nuclear weapons in cyber-warfare and directed-energy weaponry to nullify enemy weapons- perfectly logical on the one hand, but potentially destabilizing if Russia or some other nuclear power ever perceived that they were part of a "first strike" program.”

This national security argument will effectively keep EMR mind control weapons classified.

It can be argued that the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989 and would not have used it's weapons against anyone, as Moreno suggested. EMR mind control weapons have been compared to the atomic bomb and the atomic bomb has not been used since the initial bombings in Japan. This is in part because of a principle of war called ‘proportionality’; that only the weapons necessary to complete the military task are used, i.e. no overkill.

Moreno wrote that Russian mind control weapons were 'highly disputed' and technical capabilities of the weapons were not known. The history of EMR weapons development supports an alternative viewpoint that advanced EMR mind control weapons may exist. The weapons are known to be heavily classified throughout the Cold War and now into the post Cold War. Moreno's omission is serious and the public is misled with Moreno's false sense of security.

Back to Contents

Section 12
A global EMR arms race: U.S. with Russia, China and India catching up

The post Cold War classified EMR arms race emerged with the monumental break up of the Soviet Union and is spreading to China and India while new U.S. military policy and doctrine includes EMR weapons and warfare. Below is a brief summary of V.N. Lopatin's dedicated ten years of Russian legislative work on banning EMR mind control weapons.

Like Becker, the former Russian duma member, Lopatin warned the public about new and powerful EMR weapons. For over ten years, Lopatin has been prominent and influential in the Russian government. He has taken this cause to the UN. Lopatin has a law degree and is currently the director of a large private firm in Moscow.

Lopatin’s 1999 book Psychotronic Weapons and the Security of Russia is available at the UC Berkeley library and included an outline of the threat of psychotronic weapons and war and the importance of public relations concerning this global threat. Psychotronic weapons include EMR weapons which target the brain and nervous system. Lopatin wrote of the proposed Russian federal law 'Informational-psychological safety' concerning the protection and defense of rights and lawful interests of citizens and society.

There have been very few advocates such as Lopatin who advocate for control of the new weapons. There are very few unclassified sources of information on Russian EMR mind control weapons. The scarcity of reliable information and heavy classification for over fifty years are further indications that EMR mind control weapons are a substantial national security issue.

Mr. Lopatin, is mentioned in two unclassified government documents received under a freedom of information act request. A Moscow Russian Public Television program on October 6, 1995 entitled Man and Law, Scientists Discuss Mind Control Technology included an interview of Lopatin:

State Duma expert Yuriy Lopatin calling for legislation banning illegal development and sale of mind-control devices.

... A State Duma expert, Yuriy Lopatin says: "Psychotronic Technology is spreading illegally. A law banning the illegal development, production, retailing, and spreading of psychotronic devices which influence the minds and behavior of citizens is badly needed."

 

He goes on to say:

"The use of the mass media for psychological experiments should be banned and all the state-ordered research in human genetic experiments should be strictly registered."

This was approved by Georgiy Georgiyevich Rogozin, first Deputy Head of the Presidential Security Service.

The following Russian article excerpt discussed Lopatin's ten year work to ban EMR mind control weapons. February 11, 2000, Segodnya, The Riders of the "Psychotropic" Apocalypse by Andrei Soldatov:

... The Russian deputies intend to discuss the draft law on information security in the country. This decision arose from the fact that the US allegedly created alot of devices, which can destroy information systems in Russia and influence the population.

According to Segodnya, currently the Duma is actively discussing the draft law on the information-psychological security submitted by Vladimir Lopatin. It is possible that the fruit of ten years of work (the works on the draft law began in 1990) will be discussed in the first reading in April.

... Such laws have never been discussed in any country. But this fact does not embarrass the deputies because they discovered that the enemy, which threatens Russia in this sphere, is dreadful and powerful. Secret methods of information-psychological influence can not only harm a person's health, but also lead to "the loss of people's freedom on the unconscious level, the loss of capability of political, cultural and other self-identification, manipulations with social consciousness" and even "the destruction of a common informational and spiritual integrity of the Russian Federation".

Finally, Lopatin’s legislation was signed into law. As reported in January 29, 2005, Los Angeles Times, Giving Until It Hurts, by Kim Murphy:

... In 2001, President Vladimir V. Putin signed into law a bill making it illegal to employ "electromagnetic, infrasound ... radiators" and other weapons of "psychotronic influence" with intent to cause harm. An official note attached to the bill said Russian scientists were trying to create "effective methods of influence of humans at a distance.

An excerpt from Military Review, September-October 1999, Human Network Attacks by Mr. Timothy L. Thomas, is posted on the FMSO website at http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/. This is one of many articles by Thomas in which he reported that major nations are developing classified EMR weapons.

One article detailed the alleged U.S. and Russian mind control victims. Mr. Timothy L. Thomas is a military analyst at the US Army, Department of Defense, Foreign Military Studies Office, (FMSO), Fort Leavenworth, Kansas:

China and Russia, in addition to studying hardware technology, data processing equipment, computer networks and 'system of systems' developments, have focused [on] 'new-concept weapons,' such as infrasound weapons, lasers, microwave and particle-beam weapons and incoherent light sources... The Chinese military apparently believes these devices will be used in future war since its doctors are investigating treatment for injuries caused by special types of high-tech or new-concept weapons.

In the past half century the potential for working on the consciousness, psyche or morale of a person, society or the composition of an armed force has grown dramatically. One of the main reasons is the considerable success achieved by many countries in their systematic research in the areas of psychology, psychotronics, parapsychology, other new psychophysical phenomenon, bioenergy, biology and psy-choenergy in the fields of security and defense.

... In fact, the information-psychological factor is so important to the Russian military that it considers the information-psychological operation as an independent form of military activity.

Thomas no longer writes about mind control weapons or victims but discussed Lopatin, his book and background in Russian information warfare in the 2004 book, Information Operations: Warfare and the Hard Reality of Soft Power: A textbook produced in conjunction with the [US] Joint Forces Staff College and the National Security Agency. Thomas and Lopatin continue to be quoted and are respected experts on this issue.

The book was described by the publisher as:

“Conceived as a textbook by instructors at the Joint Command, Control, and Information Warfare School of the U.S. Joint Forces Staff College and involving IO experts from several countries, this book fills an important gap in the literature by analyzing under one cover the military, technological, and psychological aspects of information operations.“

The book described Thomas:

Tim Thomas, Foreign Military Studies Office, Ft. Leavenworth, KS. LTC Thomas, US Army (Ret.) is a regular guest speaker for the JFSC JIWSOC and JIWOC sessions as well as a nationally recognized expert on Russia and Chinese IW doctrine. He was the featured speaker at the latest Information Warfare Convention 2000 in Washington, D.C. and contributed mostly to the Russian IW section.

China's EMR weapons and information war plans
Mary C. FitzGerald is a research fellow at Hudson Institute and author of a chapter in the book entitled, China‘s New Great Leap Forward, High Technology and Military Power in the Next Half Century, Hudson Institute, 2005.

In the chapter entitled China’s Evolving Military Juggernaut, FitzGerald wrote about the prominence of electromagnetism to future warfare:

Page 36-7

According to General Xiong Guangkai, deputy chief of the PLA General Staff, The “revolution in military affairs” was first translated into Chinese as the “military revolution.” With a deepening understanding of the matter and specifically considering China’s realities, however, “We thought that it would be more precise to translate this term into Chinese as “military changes” These “military changes” including the following:

... Battlespace is multidimensional. With the widespread application of science and technology in the military field, the battlespace is expanding from the traditional three dimensions of land, sea and sky to the five dimensions of land, sea, sky, space and electromagnetism.

Page 45

As cerebiology, biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, electromagnetism, and related integrated applied technologies develop, the confrontation between two enemies may develop into a direct confrontation that deeply penetrates the mental activities of both sides.

In the November 7, 2005, Defense News, Facing China’s Quiet Juggernaut, Mary C. FitzGerald described the U.S./China EMR arms race:

Early this year, Chinese Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan called on the People's Liberation Army (PLA) to harness cutting-edge military technologies, to enhance strategic and basic research, and to make breakthroughs in key technologies in a bid to "leap forward in the armaments development drive."

 

Comrade Cao also was announcing to the world that China's economy had advanced sufficiently in technological sophistication to ensure that it could focus on 21st-century weaponry. We are now on notice, as Russian military officials have warned, that China's ultimate objective is to achieve global military-economic dominance by 2050. This must be reflected in the current U.S. Quadrennial Defense Review... .

Besides modernizing its conventional armed forces, today's China focuses on three military priorities: Aerospace, Nuclear weapons, "New-concept weapons" such as laser, electromagnetic, plasma, climatic, genetic and biotechnological. The central principle driving the modernization of national defense is reliance on science and technology to strengthen the armed forces.

 

The ultimate objective of this particular revolution in military affairs, say the Chinese, is to build a capacity to win the future "information war"- which can only be won by achieving space dominance. The core of ongoing Chinese military reforms thus consists in developing those specific symmetrical and asymmetrical systems designed to neutralize today's U.S. technological superiority in the space-information continuum.

India is developing EMR weapons
The Hyderabad edition of the daily newspaper Deccan Chronicle dated January 7, 2006, page 5 reported details of Dr. M. S. Rao’s keynote address at the Forensic Science Forum as part of the 93rd Indian Science Congress. The article was entitled Tools to Trick Bomber’s Minds. Dr. Rao is Chief Forensic Scientist, Directorate of Forensic Science, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. He spoke of government interest and funding of EMR mind control tools for fighting terrorism.

Dr. Rao stated,

“This technique of using electromagnetic radiation can control the mind of the suicide bomber and make him to leave his target place silently without making any effort to explode the bomb at the given area.”

Mr. Rao added, “We don’t have this technique available right now. We have to adopt the technology.”

India’s top forensic scientist also discussed,

“target oriented low frequency portable electromagnetic radiation tools, which could remotely be used by criminal on a person’s body parts and create havoc in respect of brain damage, heartache, kidney failure, liver damage.”

U.S. military policy and doctrine; control of the Earth's electromagnetic spectrum and "Controlled Effects"
Here are two examples of current and near future U.S. pentagon policy and funding on EMR and information warfare, (the categories where mind control weapons are usually listed under).. This illustrates the prominence that EMR weapons are predicted to have in future U.S. and major nation’s weapons arsenals.

November 23, 2006 Sunday Herald, America's War on the Web by Neil Mackay:

... In 2006, we are just about to enter such a world. This is the age of information warfare, and details of how this new military doctrine will affect everyone on the planet are contained in a report, entitled The Information Operations Roadmap, commissioned and approved by US secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld and seen by the Sunday Herald.

The Pentagon has already signed off $383 million to force through the document's recommendations by 2009. Military and intelligence sources in the US talk of "a revolution in the concept of warfare". The report orders three new developments in America's approach to warfare:

... Thirdly, the US wants to take control of the Earth's electromagnetic spectrum, allowing US war planners to dominate mobile phones, PDAs, the web, radio, TV and other forms of modern communication.

That could see entire countries denied access to telecommunications at the flick of a switch by America. Freedom of speech advocates are horrified at this new doctrine, but military planners and members of the intelligence community embrace the idea as a necessary development in modern combat.

... Next, the Pentagon focuses on electronic warfare, saying it must be elevated to the heart of US military war planning. It will "provide maximum control of the electromagnetic spectrum, denying, degrading, disrupting or destroying the full spectrum of communications equipment it is increasingly important that our forces dominate the electromagnetic spectrum with attack capabilities". Put simply, this means US forces having the power to knock out any or all forms of telecommunications on the planet.

... After electronic warfare, the US war planners turn their attention to psychological operations:

"Military forces must be better prepared to use psyops in support of military operations."

The State Department, which carries out US diplomatic functions, is known to be worried that the rise of such operations could undermine American diplomacy if uncovered by foreign states.

The second example is a 2004 U.S. Air Force doctrine entitled Controlled Effects, Scientists Explore the Future of Controlled Effects. Notable is the description of remote targeting of “Controlled Personnel Effects” using EMR technologies anywhere in the world via satellite in the near future. The full document is cited in section 5.

Back to Contents

Section 13
Cold War/post Cold War weaponeers culture:
how the government cover story is so successfully carried out

Moreno saw no reason to discuss the significant role of the Cold War scientific culture in allowing and perpetuating past illegal national security experiments. His book is meant to be an introduction and brief overview and this probably accounts for Moreno's failure to explore the science culture surrounding brain research and national defense.

At least the problem should be mentioned in light of past serious misconduct. Pulitzer prize-winning reporter Eileen Welsome testified before a 1994 congressional hearing, Radiation Testing on Humans about the difficulties she encountered with the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in uncovering her story on eighteen Americans injected with plutonium between 1945 and 1947 in radiation experiments.

Her news accounts led to the public exposure of radiation experiments in the early 1990s. In her 1999 book, Plutonium Files, America’s Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War, Welsome described that the 1995 Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, (ACHRE) “conclusions were weak and fail to come to terms with many of the controversial studies.” Welsome explained that the Cold War culture surrounding radiation experiments is largely overlooked or ignored.

Also, unknown to the public, systematic tactics were used to successfully carry out the government cover story of only heating effects and no proven bioeffects from EMR. The very same utilitarian culture described by Welsome is present in the Cold War and post Cold War EMR scientific culture and is documented in detail in the next section.

The methodical and systematic tactics are hard to believe but well documented and were very successful in promoting the atomic bomb, preventing costly lawsuits from radiation exposure and questionably, protecting national security. Welsome’s description provided a key explanation for how the U.S. government’s national security science policy is actually carried out.

Welsome wrote:

Many scientists couldn’t accept the idea that they or their peers had committed any wrongs. They maintained their belief that the ends they had pursued justified the means they used, expressed little or no remorse for the experimental subjects, and continued to bash ... the media for blowing the controversy out of proportion... . A few of the experiments increased scientific understanding and led to new diagnostic tools, while others were of questionable scientific value ...

 

[There was a] pervasive deception that the doctors, scientists, and military officials routinely engaged in even before the first bomb had been detonated. General Leslie Groves [head of the Manhattan Project to build the first atomic bomb] lied egregiously when he testified to Congress in 1945 about radiation effects of the bomb.

“A pleasant way to die,” he said-fully aware of ... [what happened to the Japanese victims and in a fatal laboratory accident.] Stafford Warren [director of the Manhattan Project’s Medical Section] downplayed the fatalities and lingering deaths in Japan... . During the war, the bomb makers believed that lawsuits would jeopardize the secrecy of the project.

After the war they worried that lawsuits would jeopardize the continued development of nuclear weapons ... The weaponeers recognized that they would have to allay the public’s fear of atomic weapons in order to keep the [US plutonium] production plants operating ... This meant an aggressive propaganda campaign about the “friendly atom” and the suppression of all potentially negative stories about health hazard related to atomic energy ...

AEC officials routinely suppressed information about environmental contamination caused by weapons plants ... The fact is, the Manhattan Project veterans and their protégés controlled virtually all the information. They sat on the boards that set radiation standards, consulted at meetings where further human experimentation was discussed, investigated nuclear accidents, and served as expert witnesses in radiation injury cases.

There are indications that the Cold War scientific culture is continuing in the new weapons programs which are described as a similar secretive and powerful scientific culture. In a September, 21, 2005 Washington Post article Commandos in the Streets?, William Arkin described extreme secrecy surrounding secret weapons and possible illegal acts:

Further, Granite Shadow posits domestic military operations, including intelligence collection and surveillance, unique rules of engagement regarding the use of lethal force, the use of experimental non-lethal weapons, and federal and military control of incident locations that are highly controversial and might border on the illegal.

 

Both plans seem to live behind a veil of extraordinary secrecy because military forces operating under them have already been given a series of ''special authorities'' by the President and the secretary of defense. These special authorities include, presumably, military roles in civilian law enforcement and abrogation of State's powers in a declared or perceived emergency.

A September 29, 2005, New York Times article by Douglas Jehl, Republicans See Signs That Pentagon Is Evading Oversight, reported a lack of legislative and executive oversight and accountability for secret weapons programs:

Republican members of Congress say there are signs that the Defense Department may be carrying out new intelligence activities through programs intended to escape oversight from Congress and the new director of national intelligence... . The lawmakers said they believed that some intelligence activities, involving possible propaganda efforts and highly technological initiatives, might be masked as so-called special access programs, the details of which are highly classified.

 

The report said the committee believed that "individual services may have intelligence or intelligence-related programs such as science and technology projects or information operations programs related to defense intelligence that are embedded in other service budget line items, precluding sufficient visibility for program oversight." "Information operations" is a military term used to describe activities including electronic warfare, psychological operations and counterpropaganda initiatives.

The October 6, 2005, Washington Post article, National and Homeland Security Microwaves, Lasers, Retired Generals For Sale by William Arkin described the top defense corporations, the highest military leaders, Pentagon officials and advisors, all of whom work closely to oversee new weapons developments. They set the policies, make the major decisions and control all of the information.

The pattern of an old boys network, power, the influence of money and conflict of interest are apparent:

Friend's tell me that this week's Association of the United States Army (AUSA) Annual Meeting & Exposition at the Washington Convention Center was all that an orgy of self-congratulation can be. Contractors galore, beltway bandits, luncheons, awards, howitzers, all topped off with a speech by Dick Cheney.

... This week, for example, one of my favorite directed energy patrons -- retired General Ron Fogleman -- received appointments at two corporations, as a "senior advisor" to the Galen Capital Group, LLC; and as a member of the board of advisors of Novastar Resources.

The former chief of staff of the Air Force is a military-industrial legend, head of his own consulting company Durango Aerospace Inc. with a client list that includes Boeing, FMC, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and RSL Electronics.

A quick check on the web shows that Fogleman also serves on the boards of no fewer than 14 corporations: AAR Corp, Alliant Techsystems, IDC, Mesa Air Group, MITRE Corporation, Rolls-Royce North America, Thales-Raytheon Systems, First National Bank of Durango, International Airline Service Group, ICN Pharmaceuticals, DERCO Aerospace, EAST Inc., World Airway, and North American Airlines.

 

He is also Senior Vice President of something called Projects International, a DC consultancy and is or was a partner in Laird and Company, LLC. And he is a member of Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, on the NASA Advisory Council, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory Advisory Board, chairs the Falcon Foundation and the Airlift/Tanker Association. This guy is busy!

Fogleman gave up the job as the most powerful man in the Air Force on principle when he could no longer serve Secretary of Defense William Cohen. Since leaving, however, he has dispensed so much wisdom one wonders how much principle could be left.

One of Fogleman's first jobs upon leaving the Air Force was to chair the 1998 Directed Energy Applications for Tactical Airborne Combat study (known as "DE ATAC") which identified 65 concepts, particularly microwave weapons, selecting 20 for further analysis. The laboratory then awarded short-term concept development contracts for the five most promising to Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Coherent Technologies, and Sanders.

 

All during the 1990's, money flowed into continued development of directed energy weapons, but frankly not much happened. Everyone talked about an E-bomb being used in Iraq in 2003, but once again for a variety of technical and ethical reasons, and because the real world intervened, the silver bullets remained on laboratory benches or in the world of "black" super-secret contracts, waiting for an opportunity.

And with the quagmire in Iraq, that opportunity came. So it just a coincidence that Fogleman's company Alliant Techsystems was awarded a contract earlier this year to develop the Scorpion II high powered microwave weapon "capable of defeating improvised explosive devices (IEDs) currently threatening U.S. and allied troops in Iraq."

 

Maybe Fogleman had nothing to do with the directed energy work already flowing to Boeing and Raytheon... .

Back to Contents

Section 14
Scientific con game II:

EMR bioeffects scientific evidence but no theory and no mention that the theory could be classified

The public rarely has access to a balanced argument on the EMR bioeffects controversy. EMR bioeffects scientific uncertainty still exists after fifty years of the remarkable development of EMR technologies and industries, beginning with military radar in the 1940s and continuing with the cell phone and power line EMR industry today.

EMR scientific uncertainty can be shown to be a result of industry and government inactions and policy. Simply put, the U.S. military want to keep EMR weapons secret and the EMR industry want to fight off lawsuits over any possible EMR health effects.

During the Cold War era, the government's cover story was there are ‘no scientifically proven EMR bioeffects so there are no EMR weapons.' The public relations message of the cell phone and power line industry, i.e. the EMR industry was that there are ‘no proven EMR bioeffects effects so there is no EMR public health risk.’ Both have been exceptionally successful.

Largely unknown to the public, methodical and systematic tactics were used to carry out these public relations campaigns. The same methodical and systemic tactics were employed by the tobacco companies and also as Welsome described, by the atomic bomb weaponeers.

By examining the tobacco company documents today, the misleading scientific tactics of the tobacco company executives and the atomic bomb scientists can be clearly seen. Utilitarian decisions were made in order to continue to sell cigarettes and make profits in spite of known health effects from smoking. Government documents on atomic radiation health effects today unequivocally illustrated that top scientists and government officials intentionally made decisions based on questionable national security goals in spite of known health consequences from exposure to radiation.

The question becomes whether as a democracy, we want to allow this pattern continue in the name of national security. The evidence is clear that the systematic and misleading government scientific tactics are continuing today. The denials from some experts that there are no health risks from EMR and there are no EMR weapons to worry about, have completely overpowered any counterargument.

There is also a new post Cold War, patronizing and paternalistic campaign by some top scientists to stop ‘bad’ or fringe science and to save government money on needless EMR bioeffects research based on the claim that health effects have not been conclusively demonstrated. This campaign is extremely disingenuous, dishonest and unconscionable, given the known EMR bioeffects history which these scientists fail to mention.

The counterargument and evidence today is undeniable but top scientists still deny vigorously and some use personal attacks rather than arguing on the scientific merits. This is science at its worst.

It will be up to the public to recognize these misleading scientific tactics and the overwhelmingly powerful scientific culture. Top scientists such as the atomic weaponeers lied egregiously about radiation exposure health effects. Any trust in public and government officials has been lost and ought to be continuously questioned.

In the case of EMR weaponeers, exposure of any ongoing unethical behaviors and the weak rationalization that this behavior is necessary for national security does not hold up in a democracy. Certainly, cigarette company executives and scientists who conducted the nonconsensual radiation experiments have not been judged harshly enough for the large numbers whose health was affected.

There seems to be an unintended outcome of the new public campaign to close down the EMR bioeffects research effort based on the premise that EMR bioeffects or health effects have not been conclusively demonstrated. The research will for the most part be conducted as classified research, as it has since the 1960s. As a result, the public will continue to be unaware of the very classified EMR mind control weapons and the possible EMR health effects from the cell phone and power line exposure.

There is so much at stake for the cell phone industry, the power line industry and for the public. Because the EMR bioeffects weapons research has been heavily classified since the 1960s and there is no detailed publicly known EMR mind control weapons theory and probably never will be, the EMR bioeffects controversy for cell phones and power lines is important to understand.

Note that EMR weapons research is almost completely ignored in the EMR public health debate, even though the weapons research has greatly increased the scientific uncertainty surrounding EMR bioeffects research. The U.S. government and the EMR industry’s suppression and control of EMR research can be documented, understood and challenged.

Scientific evidence of EMR bioeffects but no scientific theory
The 2004 book, Bioelectromagnetic Medicine edited by Dr. Paul J. Rosch and Dr. Marko S. Markov illustrated that the growing evidence and interest in nonthermal bioeffects of EMR is continuing.

Dr. Rosch wrote the following excerpt on the few trailblazers in the field of bioelectromagnetic medicine, including Dr. Ross Adey and Dr. Robert O. Becker.

In the decade to come, it is safe to predict, bioelectromagnetics will assume a therapeutic importance equal to, or greater than, that of pharmacology and surgery today. With proper interdisciplinary effort, significant inroads can be made in controlling the ravages of cancer, some forms of heart disease, arthritis, hormonal disorders, and neurological scrounges such as Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord injury, and multiple sclerosis. This prediction is not pie-in-the-sky. Pilot studies and biological mechanisms already described in primordial terms, form a rational basis for such a statement- J. Andrew L. Bassett, 1992

Andy Bassett was one of the early advocates of the use of electromagnetic fields for uniting fractures that refused to heal. Unfortunately, he died before he could see that his prophecy would come true well ahead of schedule. In many respects this book is a tribute to him and other pioneers such as Bob Becker, Abe Liboff, Bjorn Nordenstrom, and Ross Adey who recognized the vast potential of bioelectromagnetic medicine and have helped to put it on a solid scientific footing.

The International Encyclopedia of Neuroscience, Third Edition; B. Smith and G. Adelman, editors, Elsevier, New York featured a 2003 paper by W. Ross Adey entitled Electromagnetic fields, the Modulation of Brain Tissue Function-a Possible Paradigm Shift in Biology.

The article described one of the very few general theories for EMR bioeffects:

Although far from a consensus on mechanisms mediating these low-level EMF sensitivities, appropriate models are based in nonequilibrium thermodynamics, with nonlinear electrodynamics as an integral feature. Heating models, based in equilibrium thermodynamics, fail to explain a wide spectrum of observed nonthermal EMF bioeffects in central nervous tissue.

 

The finding suggest a biological organization based in physical processes at the atomic level, beyond the realm of chemical reactions between biomolecules. Much of this signaling within and between cells may be mediated by free radicals of the oxygen and nitrogen species. Emergent concepts of tissue thresholds to EMF sensitivities address ensemble or domain functions of populations of cells, cooperatively “whispering together” in intercellular communication, and organized hierarchically at atomic and molecular levels.

The 1987 book, Electromagnetic Fields by B. Blake Levitt, who wrote for the New York Times stated on page 387:

The nonionizing band of the electromagnetic spectrum will probably turn out to be far more significant than anyone heretofore imagined. There is a distinct possibility, for instance, that entrainment phenomenon, resonance relationships, and other reactions to nonionizing electromagnetic fields will prove to be a critical but hidden, variable in all scientific research ...

Louis Slesin is the editor of the trade publication, Microwave News, one of the few sources for EMR bioeffects research. His website, www.microwavenews.com described his work:

For more than 25 years, Microwave News has been reporting on the potential health and environmental impacts of electromagnetic fields and radiation. We are widely recognized as a fair and objective source of information on this controversial subject... .

Microwave News is independent and is not aligned with any industry or government agency. Our income used to come from subscriptions and sales of our publications and from advertising. Today, in addition to ads on our Web site, we depend on contributions from our readers.

Microwave News covers the entire nonionizing electromagnetic spectrum, with special emphasis on mobile phones and power lines, as well as radar and broadcast towers... .
 

Microwave News is...

“Meticulously researched and thoroughly documented.”
-Time Magazine

“Influential and Pioneering.”
-The New Yorker

“The most authoritative journal on ELF fields and health.”
-Fortune

“Widely read and influential.”
-ABC News 20/20

“The world's most authoritative source on EMF health risks.”
-Washington Journalism Review

“Influential.”
-The Hartford Courant

“Your best source on this topic.”
-The Village Voice

“Research is moving so fast in this field that newsletters are the only way to keep up. Microwave News and VDT News, both edited by Louis Slesin, are widely acclaimed by all sides as the best sources of reliable and current information.”
-Whole Earth Catalog

In Slesin's article entitled, The Science and Politics of the EMF Puzzle; The Missing Pieces in the Frontline Story, he made this important point.

“In the absence of detailed studies on breast cancer, Alzheimer's disease and depression, among other common health problems, no one knows how great the EMF health risk really is.“

He argued:

“The significance of the epidemiological studies is not that they point to a cancer epidemic. But they raise the question: If EMFs can cause even a small change in cancer rates, what other biological effects could they have?”

A February 1985 Omni magazine article Mind Fields by Kathleen McAuliffe included an interview of science historian Nicholas Steneck who summarized the scientific uncertainty surrounding EMR bioeffects research:

Science historian Nicholas Steneck published the [1984] book, The Microwave Debate. Steneck acknowledges that two thirds of all support for research on biological effects of microwaves and radio waves comes from the military, “which cannot be viewed as a disinterested party when it comes to making decisions about development versus health. Groups with a vested interest in the use of electromagnetic technologies are proving to be a formidable force in shaping public health policies... . basic research in this area has barely crept forward, with investigators under constant fire for challenging accepted ideas.

 

According to psychobiologist Rochell Medici, who stood at the vanguard of brain EMF studies in the early seventies,

“It is as though scientists had retreated from doing challenging, frontier studies because such research engendered too much controversy or elicited too much criticism.”

The upshot of all this: We now lack a scientific framework needed to make sense of the diverse range of EMF health effects being reported in ever-increasing numbers.”

In the February 1985 Omni magazine article, Becker explained the scientific uncertainty of EMR bioeffects research at the international scientific level:

Dr. Becker, an outspoken critic of the government’s position on EMF health risks, takes another view.

“... the truth of the matter is that this country simply chose to overlook hazards in this area. Take a glance at the Russian literature, and you’ll find literally thousands of reports of harmful effects at exposure levels the United States government assures us are safe.”

Becker is referring to one of the most bizarre contrasts in the history of modern science. The Russians and the Americans have radically different standards regarding acceptable levels of EMF emissions. The Russian safety standard is 1,000 times below the U.S. standard. Given the lack of data in the West about the effects of low-intensity radiation, you would think these grave assertions might at least trigger some worries. Yet once again the reports were greeted as the extravagant claims of a careless school of science... .

“Sure, it’s easy to pick flaws in individual studies. Because there’s been practically no funding for epidemiological investigations, the researcher that did them have invariably been operating on a shoestring. Still if you look across the world literature, I think any rational individual would have to conclude that we’ve got one hell of a problem.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) sponsored an international conference, Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health - Fundamental and Applied Research. Russian scientists offered steps towards reaching a global agreement on EMF standards including,

“To recognize officially the presence of a non-thermal mechanism of biological action of EMF RF at low intensities of less than 1 millW/cm².”

A February 2003 report by Vladimir N. Binhi, theoretical physicist and head of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow, entitled Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health, explained the lack of a scientific theory for EMR bioeffects:

... non-thermal effects are real... . there is no recognized physical theory for those effects that could help to establish right electromagnetic safety standards... . The U.S. standards and those proposed by WHO are 100 times more lenient, depending on frequency range, than Russian standards, which are based on the observed biological effects of chronic EM exposures.

The February 1985 Omni magazine article quoted Slesin on the lack of EMR funding:

“Every study that has been done to date has been blunted by lack of sufficient funds to do it properly or by the inability to get all the data on a specific population.” he says. “I think it is extraordinary that the government has never funded a major epidemiological study. This is a major, serious omission.”

A 1990 Time magazine article quoted Slesin on the continued lack of scientific studies of EMR bioeffects research:

In his opinion, the studies linking higher incidences of cancer to low-frequency electromagnetic fields raise questions about the whole electromagnetic spectrum, including radiation from such ubiquitous sources as broadcast antennas walkie-talkies and cellular telephones. But despite all the warning signs, there has been almost no research on the effects of long-term, low level exposure. “the U.S. has gone to extraordinary lengths not to study this problem,” says Slesin. “It’s as if we’re terrified of what we might find out.”

Slesin concluded that the EMF scientific uncertainty is a result of industry and government inactions and policy. Slesin explained, in the Microwave News article, The Science and Politics of the EMF Puzzle; The Missing Pieces in the Frontline Story. This article analyzed Jon Palfreman’s television program Frontline, Currents of Fear. 

Slesin wrote,

“As Julie Larm, one of the mothers on the show, wrote to Palfreman on behalf of Omaha Parents for the Prevention of Cancer after the June 13 [1995] PBS broadcast, "May God help you if you're wrong."

 

The reason the EMF problem has attracted so much attention is not because of pressure from the scientific community. It is the public that has propelled EMFs into the limelight. The Omaha housewives whose children have cancer want answers, as was shown on Frontline. Palfreman portrayed them as naÔfs [misspelled in original] who have been brainwashed by Paul Brodeur

 

[Brodeur wrote the 1977 book Zapping of America: Microwaves, Their Deadly Risk and Cover-Up about the dangers of microwave radiation from radar, television, telephone, satellite communications and other sources of EMR. Brodeur was a New Yorker staff writer.]

 

This is unfair because they have legitimate concerns and because they are victims of the scientific uncertainty that is a result, in large measure, of years of industry and government foot-dragging.

A bully pulpit and a top scientist
Robert Park was the first spokesman for the office of public affairs of the American Physical Society (APS) in Washington DC. He has written opinion columns for the New York Times and is a chairman of the Department of Physics at the University of Maryland. Park wrote the 2000 book Voodoo Science which included two chapters on the EMR bioeffects controversy.

Park was asked by Washington Post to review the 1989 book Currents of Death, a book about the dangers of EMR from power lines, computer monitors, radar stations and other sources of EMR by New Yorker staff writer, Paul Brodeur. As Slesin explains in his October 27, 2006 News and notes, Park's motives are not clear but it is clear that Park has presented a distorted scientific argument on EMR bioeffects for years:

October 27

. . .The American press may be ignoring the cell phone-sperm story, but not so physicist Robert Park. That slayer of voodoo science wants it dead and buried.

 

[Disclosure: We have had vehement disagreements with Park over the years, especially when back in 2001, he called Microwave News a "fear merchant" based on little more than his own self-deceptions.]

 

In the latest edition of his weekly e-mail, What's New, Park tries to apply the coup de grâce to what's left of the story:

"There is not a chance that the reported sperm counts among heavy cell phone users... has anything to do with cell phone radiation," he declares.

Park leaves no room for any uncertainty - it's simply an impossible finding. Once again, we are struck by the ease with which Park dismisses data that do not fit his mental constructs. For Park, theory, at least his theory, always trumps experience. We were taught that scientists had an open mind and would be moved by data. Clearly, that's not always the case.

On page 148 of his book, Park discredited past EMR bioeffects research with an ad hominum attack. Park discounted the empirical scientific method of research even though this is a well accepted method of scientific research and is often used to scientifically investigate the cause of a cancer cluster or reported health effects. Park made the erroneous statement that the microwaving of the U.S. embassy was for the purpose of activating electronic eavesdropping devices.

In a 1988 AP article entitled The Zapping of an Embassy: 35 Years Later, The Mystery Lingers Barton Reppert stated:

“Thirty-five years after security officers first noticed that the Soviets were bombarding the U.S. embassy in Moscow with microwave radiation, the U.S. government still has not determined conclusively - or is unwilling to reveal - the purpose behind the beams.“

The AP article extensively detailed the complex history and controversy surrounding the issue and one can conclude it is very doubtful that Park’s conclusion is the whole story. A subsequent Westlaw database search turned up similar conclusions. When asked in an email for a citation for his statement, Park did not reply.

Meanwhile, the New Yorker published "Microwaves-II’ in which Brodeur focused on the strange situation at the American embassy on Tchiakovsky Street in Moscow. For reasons that were a mystery at the time, the Soviets had been beaming microwave radiation at the embassy for more than a decade. It is now known that the microwaves supplied the tiny amount of power needed to operate electronic eavesdropping devices that had been concealed in the building during its construction.

 

Brodeur, however, suspected that the microwaves were meant to addle the brains of embassy workers or induce depression. What shocked him was that the government had not warned employees of the health hazard. He noted that Ambassador Walter Stoessel had developed some ... serious blood ailment, and two former ambassadors had died of cancer. To Brodeur it seem the microwaves must be to blame. People were exposed to microwaves and they got sick- it was belief engine at work.

A May 29, 2000, Dallas Morning News article provided an example of the misleading scientific tactic of basing a conclusion on a certainty that does not exist. Entitled, Debunkers Shouldn't Toss Out Real Science With the Voodoo, by Tom Siegfried, the article was a review of Park's book, Voodoo Science.

Park also employed the scientific tactic of omission of contrary evidence. Siegfried explained how the noted physicist Robert Park used both tactics to promote the position that “nonthermal bioeffects of EMR have not been proven, only heating effects have been scientifically proven.”

Siegfried cited Nature magazine research for clear proof of EMR bioeffects not caused by heating.

... In recent decades, defenders of science have coined various labels for "research" that transgresses science's standards. There's junk science, pseudoscience, pathological science and fraudulent science - all of them packaging nonsense in scientific-sounding rhetoric (sometimes sincerely, sometimes deliberately misleading). Physicist Robert Park lumps all these categories together in a new book titled Voodoo Science (published by Oxford University Press).

Dr. Park, the American Physical Society's Washington watchdog, laments the antiscientific sentiment in society today... .

Still, sometimes there's a thin line between defending science and suppressing it. When Dr. Park dismisses concerns over health effects from electric power lines, he is probably right - the evidence shows that the risk from power lines (and magnetic fields from appliances) has almost certainly been greatly exaggerated. Exhaustive expert analyses of a lot of research studies have found no basis for supposing that power lines cause cancer.

In debunking the alarmists, Dr. Park phrases his concerns carefully. Nevertheless some readers might conclude that the research was unnecessary, since physicists could calculate at the outset that electric and magnetic fields were too weak to cause harm.

Now, it is one thing to reject claims of perpetual motion. The second law of thermodynamics is established beyond reasonable doubt. If a loophole arises, it won't be in somebody's garage. But it's something else to infer that physics knows all the ways that magnetism can affect life.

True, a physicist might prove that a magnetic field is too weak to rupture a DNA molecule. But a quiet whisper in your ear does not produce enough energy to damage your DNA, either. Yet a whisper can make your heart beat faster and stimulate hormone secretions that can alter chemical reactions inside your cells. It's not possible to say with rock-solid certainty that magnetic fields could not influence cellular biochemistry in an adverse way. It takes real research to find out whether such effects exist and whether they are dangerous.

In any event, scientists need to remember that an unquestioned assumption can undermine otherwise sound conclusions. For example, most experts dismiss the danger of microwaves from cell phones. Phone makers say that such microwave radiation is too weak to heat up brain tissue, presumably the source of any harm."

Yet last week in the journal Nature, British scientists reported an intriguing experiment with roundworms exposed to several hours of similar microwaves. Sure enough, the temperature of the worms did not rise. But the worms did produce higher levels of proteins that respond to stress. In other words, something about the microwaves triggered the worms' cellular defense system."

Another article questioned Park for not maintaining a scientifically sound argument. The article is the April 2, 2002 Ripsaw News, Volume 4; Issue 14, Gonzo Science; Anatomy of an Electromagnetic Anomaly by Anonymous.

This article provided a summary the fifty plus years of the EMR bioeffects controversy and the rarely heard counterargument to Park.

Robert Park's book Voodoo Science purports to debunk various brands of "junk science." Park identifies journalist Paul Brodeur as a champion of the "junk" or "voodoo" science idea that significant health risks are associated with electromagnetic radiation. It's curious that Park chooses to focus on Brodeur rather than two-time Nobel laureate Dr. Robert Becker. Becker's career is an awesome feat of pioneering research, and an uphill struggle against scientific and governmental stonewalling and bureaucracy.

 

Unlike Brodeur, Becker's scientific credentials are as big as a house. Park doesn't even mention this giant in the debate, preferring to make his case that Brodeur has a kind of crusading journalist's tendency to create mountainous controversies out of factual molehills. Had Park engaged Becker's work, he would have had to argue his case wholly on its scientific merits, instead of playing what amounts to a shell game.

The idea that electromagnetic radiation can cause harm is anathema to the status quo. The U.S. military has played the leading role in keeping the lid on this modern heresy. Since the 1940s, the military has generated reams and reams of research and documents that all state unequivocally that electromagnetic radiation is by and large harmless. And not just harmless, but actually having no biological effects whatsoever.

The exception is a certain threshold at which one type of electromagnetic radiation (microwaves) causes body tissues to heat up faster than the body can dissipate this heat. But all other electromagnetic radiation, which is below this thermal level, has been officially regarded as harmless.

 

To thank we have the more than 50 years of military research that Park defers to. However, there is also 50 years of science that shows electromagnetic radiation does indeed have biological effects below the thermal level. This flew in the face of theory in the 1940s, and according to Park it still flies in the face of theory.

The first studies to show non-thermal biological effects of microwaves were done in 1948 at the State University of Iowa, by A.W. Richardson (no relation). Richardson and his colleagues showed that high and low-power microwaves cause cataracts with no heating of the eye. Since microwaves can create bio-effects without heating, the door is wide open for other kinds of electromagnetic radiation to affect the body... .

An international bully pulpit and a top scientist
Another top EMR science advisor violated the rules of scientific impartiality and conflict of interests. The November 13, 2006 Microwave News, News and Comment, reported:

... Just months after leaving his post as the head of the EMF project at the World Health Organization (WHO), Mike Repacholi is now in business as an industry consultant.

The Connecticut Light and Power Co. (CL&P), a subsidiary of Northeast Utilities, and the United Illuminating Co. (UI) have hired Repacholi to help steer the Connecticut Siting Council away from a strict EMF exposure standard. The two utilities commissioned Repacholi to prepare detailed comments to support a 100 mG level proposed by Peter Valberg of the Gradient Corp. and to rebut the state Department of Public Health (DPH), which is seeking a much tougher approach.

Repacholi's filing has been criticized for citing, and at times misrepresenting, as-yet unreleased WHO reports for the benefit of his corporate clients. Some see this as a continuation of his activities at the WHO, where Repacholi was often accused of favoring the mobile phone and electric utility industries at the expense of public health.

Nonthermal bioeffects EMR research should be cut back
In the March 1, 2006 Policy Studies Organization Volume 23; Issue 2 The Rise and Fall of Power Line EMFs: the Anatomy of a Magnetic Controversy.( Electromagnetic Fields) Jon Palfreman, reported on his analysis of recent trends in global policy on EMR health effects.

Jon Palfreman, PhD, is a television science journalist who has produced over 40 BBC and PBS one-hour documentaries. He is the author of two books, and an adjunct professor at Tufts University, Boston University, and Suffolk University. He is a 2006 Nieman Fellow in Journalism at Harvard University. Palfreman wrote favorably about the director of WHO's EMF project, Repacholi but failed to mention his substantial financial gains from industry connections.

Palfreman argued that nonthermal bioeffects EMR research should be cut back.

... The controversy has grown to include not only epidemiologists, biologists, journalists, EMF activists, the utilities, and personal injury lawyers, but also electrical engineers and physicists--who feel that their expertise in electromagnetism entitles them to participate--and policymakers and social scientists who have debated the applicability of the precautionary principle to this dispute. There's a lot at stake.

 

Some 2 million miles of power lines cross America, carrying electric power from power stations to substations and from substations to people's homes. If there is a danger, it is pervasive and expensive to mitigate. After all this science and deliberation--culminating in numerous consensus reports--what has been learned?

... In November 2002, Mike Repacholi, head of the World Health Organization's EMF Project refused to recommend any action under precautionary principle and warned local health officials from seeking to lower the existing 100[micro]T limit. A WHO publication (WHO, 2002, p. 57) Establishing a Dialogue on Risks From Electromagnetic Fields, made the following revealing statement:

"If the scientific community concludes that there is no risk from EMF exposure ...then the appropriate response to public concern should be a public education program."

If, on the other hand, it continues,

"regulatory authorities react to public pressure by introducing precautionary limits in addition to the already existing science-based limits, they should be aware that this undermines the credibility of the science and the exposure limits."

So it would seem that there is a definite move to curtail nonthermal bioeffects research and as a result, the research would be conducted for the most part as classified research, as it has since the 1960s. And the public would continue to be unaware of the issues.

Distorting and controlling the public debate
The Microwave News article, The Science and Politics of the EMF Puzzle; The Missing Pieces in the Frontline Story analyzed Jon Palfreman’s television program Frontline, Currents of Fear.

The irony is astonishing. On the very day that a committee of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) completed its 800-page draft report asking regulatory agencies to pay "serious attention" to EMFs, public television station WGBH aired a one-hour show across the country comparing EMFs to cold fusion. While the NCRP committee called for "a national commitment to further research," the June 13 [1995] Frontline, “Currents of Fear," asked whether it was time to close down the research effort.

The scientific inaccuracies in Palfreman’s program were serious. Palfreman presented the American Physical Society’s (APS), official position on EMR bioeffects, APS spokesman Park and his cited expert, physicist professor Adair. Numerous EMR studies show bioeffects other than heating and were not cited in Palfreman‘s program.

The program did not show the many physicists who have pointed out the fallacies in the APS statements. The Frontline program presented the APS position that EMFs are not a health concern to the public. The APS position was based on misleading inferences as Slesin illustrated below.

No public criticism from the bioelectromagnetic scientific community
Slesin explained why there has been no outcry over the Frontline program or the EMR bioeffects controversy by those in the bioelectromagnetic scientific community:

EMF research is an underfunded backwater of the scientific community. Before the congressionally mandated $65 million RAPID program got under way last year, most of the available research funds came from the electric utility industry through EPRI and from the DOE, an agency not known for putting radiation safety ahead of its other program objectives. EPRI and the DOE do not look kindly on those who publicly highlight possible health risks.

This is the grubby side of science, where many researchers are as interested in securing contracts and grants —even if it means making compromises along the way— as they are in doing the actual scientific work.

Controlling/slanting scientific results

In the article, the Frontline Story, Slesin described an example of top scientists distorting scientific facts. A department of defense JASON report was not clearly explained and a public APS conclusory statement was misleading.

Slesin explained:

Biophysical Mechanisms of Interaction

... . Whether an experiment shows an EMF effect in humans, animals or cells becomes moot if it is possible to show that such interactions are theoretically impossible: Yale University physicists Drs. Robert Adair and William Bennett believe this, and, it appears, so does Palfreman. To use the metaphor conjured up by Adair on Frontline, worrying about EMF health effects is akin to being concerned that a cat will damage a tree by breathing on it during a howling wind storm.

Given the recent statement by the American Physical Society (APS) that EMFs are of no concern —also cited by Palfreman on the show— one might conclude that all physicists agree with Adair and Bennett. But that would be a mistake.

There are many physicists working in the field of bioelectromagnetics. As Dr. Bill Kaune, a consultant based in Richland, WA, who has a doctorate in physics, put it: "We physicists who do research on EMFs have long been aware of the signal-to-noise problem, but, regardless of our concerns, experiments seem to show that EMFs affect living tissues. I don't see how one can justify flatly discounting the work of a large number of epidemiologists and laboratory biologists solely on the basis of signal-to-noise calculations on highly simplified models of living tissues."

A couple of years ago, Adair had the opportunity to make his case to the JASONs, a high-level group of physicists, whose advice is routinely sought by the Department of Defense. In his report on behalf of the JASONs, Dr. Steven Koonin of Cal-tech concluded: "The essential point to take away...is that a cellular-level coupling of magnetic fields to biological systems is physically plausible and does not violate any physical principles."

Koonin was a member of the APS council that approved the statement, and may well believe that "no plausible biophysical mechanisms" have been identified. But this does not mean, as Adair and Bennett (and Palfreman) contend, that such interactions are impossible.

... So, the animal, cellular and human studies all point to real risks. And physics does not put them out of the realm of possibility. To be sure, these risks have not been conclusively proven—but neither have they been convincingly dismissed.

As the NCRP committee concluded in its draft report: "[F]indings are sufficiently consistent and form a sufficiently coherent picture to suggest plausible connections between ELF EMF exposures and disruption of normal biological processes, in ways meriting detailed examination of potential implications in human health."

Industry/government control of EMR research funding
In Slesin's July 31, 2006 News and Comment posted on entitled “Radiation Research” and the Cult of Negative Results” Slesin provided documentation of industry and government control of EMR research funding resulting in an overwhelming number of "no EMR bioeffects health risk" results.

The article also described an example of industry/government paid EMR experts who slanted scientific studies. EMR experts testified in EMR health effects court cases although contrary to most EMR court cases, in the case below under appeal, the arbitrator ruled in favor of the sick plaintiff:

... Many of the negative EMF studies that have been published in Radiation Research were paid for by industry and the U.S. Air Force, both of which seek to control EMF research (often by stopping it) and to show that microwaves are essentially harmless except at high exposure levels. Promoting no-effect studies has long been part of their strategy to keep a lid on the microwave-health controversy.

Radiation Research is a scientific journal whose primary focus is on ionizing radiation, with only a minority of papers devoted to the non-ionizing side of the electromagnetic spectrum. Its June issue, however, features five papers, all of which claim to show that EMFs of one type or another have no biological effects... .

They are on a mission, they say, to allay "widespread concern" over power lines and cell phones by giving a voice to those who, despite great effort, could not substantiate previously reported findings of "deleterious health effects."

The editorial tacitly concedes that Radiation Research only rarely publishes papers showing any type of EMF effects by failing to cite a single example from its own pages. At the same time, it fails to mention that other journals, for instance Mutation Research and Bioelectromagnetics, have had no trouble finding high-quality papers with "positive" results —that is, those that do show biological effects.

... Another important fact goes undisclosed in the editorial: One of its authors, John Moulder, a professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, has a lucrative consulting practice on EMFs and health. Over the years, Moulder has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars disputing the existence of adverse EMF health effects, even those accepted by most other members of the EMF community.

To explore the potential biases at work, Microwave News investigated a subset of health studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. We selected papers on microwave-induced genotoxicity; that is, microwave effects on DNA, the genetic blueprint inside every living cell. With the generous help of Henry Lai of the University of Washington, Seattle, we identified 85 radiofrequency (RF)/microwave-genotox papers published since 1990. Of these, 43 found some type of biological effect and 42 did not. (You can download a complete list of references and abstracts.)

Lai is an interested party to this controversy. Together with N.P. Singh, Lai made RF/microwave genotoxicity a major concern when, in the mid-1990's, they were the first to report that microwaves could lead to DNA single- and double-strand breaks. As you can see in Table 1, Lai is the lead author of four of the 43 "effect" or positive studies... .

There is just about an even split between effect and no-effect papers. But look what happens when we superimpose the funding source for each study (where available): Those sponsored by industry are in red and those sponsored by the U.S. Air Force are in purple in Table 2. (Papers with no declared funding source are in green.)

A clear —and disconcerting— pattern emerges: 32 of the 35 studies that were paid for by the mobile phone industry and the U.S. Air Force show no effect. They make up more than 75% of all the negative studies. You don't need to be a statistician to infer that money, more often than not, secures the desired scientific result....
 

John Moulder: Industry Consultant

We suspect that much of Radiation Research's bias against EMF effects can be attributed to John Moulder, who came on as an editor in 1991 and was promoted to senior editor in 2000. For this whole time —during which the microwave–genotox controversy became more and more contentious— Moulder has been a consultant to the power, electronics and communications industries, as well as for anyone, it seems, who disputes the existence of EMF-induced adverse health effects. For years he posted his skeptical views on the health impacts of cell phones, base stations and power lines on his Web site, and these serve as lures for potential like-minded clients.

Last year, for example, Moulder testified against the family of Richard Beissinger, a professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) in Chicago who died of a brain tumor in 2003. His widow and five children were seeking worker's compensation for what they believed was an EMF-induced cancer. Beissinger taught and worked in rooms near electrical transformers. His magnetic field exposures are uncertain, but very high, ranging from 10 mG (1 µT) to 820 mG, and at times probably more than 1 G.At a hearing held in 2005, Moulder stated under oath that, in his opinion, "power-frequency magnetic fields do not cause any kind of brain cancer under any exposure, intensity and duration" [our emphasis].

Moulder was no doubt aware that the California EMF program had previously concluded that magnetic fields are a likely cause of adult brain cancer. And that many years earlier, a team coordinated by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) had reported that, taken together, epidemiological studies of workers exposed to magnetic fields pointed to a statistically significant elevated risk of brain cancer.

While electric utility industry operatives may have conceded that there may well be a link between long-term exposure to magnetic fields and brain cancer, that did not deter Moulder. He made $10,000-$12,000 trying to deprive the Beissinger family of a small pension. On May 23, at about the same time that the "negative effects" editorial appeared in Radiation Research, an arbitrator rejected Moulder's argument and ruled in favor of Beissinger's family. The decision is under appeal.

In the course of his testimony, Moulder acknowledged that he had earned approximately $300,000 in litigation-related fees, on power-frequency EMFs. This probably represents a fraction of Moulder's earnings, since litigation services represents only one part of his consulting practice. For instance, in 2001 Moulder testified at a hearing on behalf of the Minnesota Power Co. and Wisconsin Public Service Corp., which had applied to build a new transmission line. In that testimony, Moulder revealed that he would be paid about $35,000 for this case alone.

Nor is Moulder's consulting limited to power-frequency EMFs. In 1999, he prepared a report for the U.K. Federation of Electronic Industry (now called Intellect), which was submitted to the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, better known as the Stewart panel. And the following year he wrote a report for the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association, which was submitted to the Australian Senate. He has not disclosed how much money he was paid for these opinions, but in March 2001, Moulder told an Australian senate committee that, on average, 8-10% of his income was from the telecommunications industry alone.

Those Reporting Positive Results Attacked

Back in 2001 after Moulder had moved up to senior editor, he recruited Vijayalaxmi of the University of Texas in San Antonio to join the Radiation Research editorial board. A couple of years earlier they, together with some colleagues from Washington University and the U.S. Air Force, had published a review paper that dismissed any possible connection between cell phones and cancer. This too was published in Radiation Research.

As shown in Table 2, Vijayalaxmi is the lead author on seven of the microwave-genotox papers. All were funded by the U.S. Air Force, Motorola or a combination of the two.

... Radiation Research has become a repository for negative papers and thus an important part of the industry and military strategy to neutralize those who dare to challenge the no-effects dogma. Their work had been made much easier with John Moulder on the inside to ease industry papers into print.

The official scientific argument for ‘no proven EMR bioeffects’
In the 2000 book Voodoo Science by Robert Park, the American Physical Society, (APS) public spokesman and physics professor, Park defended his long held viewpoint that EMR only has effects from heating and any claimed bioeffects have not be proven, therefore EMR is not a health risk. It would seem difficult to refute a top scientist such as Park. For the most part, mainstream press does not challenge his position.

Park’s book presented his questionable scientific arguments against any possible bioeffects of EMR except from heating. This is important to understand because Park was also one of the top experts, including six Nobel laureates who signed an amicus brief around 1996 which said there was no EMF-cancer link. On page 168, Park wrote,

"The Covalt decision (California Supreme Court ruled against the Covalts) effectively ended EMF litigation in California and dampened the enthusiasm for such cases nationwide."

It is no coincidence that Park is repeating the very entrenched position on EMR bioeffects; that there are only proven heating effects from EMR and any other bioeffects have not been proven. At the least, this does not excuse the omission of new scientific studies or the equally valid alternative position in Park's analysis and conclusion.

For example, Dr. Adey was an outspoken advocate. At a 1987 congressional hearing he testified about the lack of research on nonthermal bioeffects. Dr. Adey put the blame on military and corporate interests. As reported in Microwave News, May, 2004, http://www.microwavenews.com/may_04.html#may20:

Ross Adey died on May 20th at the age of 82 after a long battle against a series of bronchial infections. Adey, a medical doctor, was a towering figure in the EMF community, who was equally at ease talking about the most recent papers in the biological and medical literature or dissecting the arcane engineering details of an experimental setup. He is perhaps best known for discovering, with Suzanne Baldwin, the first non-thermal effect of electromagnetic radiation during the 1970s: They showed how ELF-modulated RF signals can lead to the release of calcium ions from cells.

Many other top scientists publicly defend the EMR bioeffects official position and this is a clear example of how powerful and organized the government's bully scientific pulpit is and also the national security weaponeers culture.

For example, David Jones, producer of 1984 BBC documentary, Opening Pandora's Box, asked Dr. Koslov, director of Project Pandora:

"In terms of science there seems to be two possibilities, one is that behavior and health are affected by EMR and the second is the creation of a new genre of weapons and that its conceivable that it is a totally black area of research. Dr. Koslov replied that back in 1965, there was alot of conjecture and hypothesis about that. That's why it led to Project Pandora. Since then, I don't think there is very much possibility, that there is, at this point in time, there doesn't seem to be.

Dr. Sam Koslov, ... continued,

"[We] thought about it, don't get me wrong, ... but nothing was found, it doesn't look like [there is]...militarily at this time, there is no EMR weapons potential. There is nothing to the biological effects claim. There is an amount of power problem."

David Jones asked Dr. Koslov why he thought that the Soviets were microwaving the Embassy. Dr. Koslov replied that,

"I would rather not discuss it [because] it would get into security areas."

Park and most top scientists fail to mention the fact that there is a long history of very classified EMR bioeffects research.

First, Park argued the widely repeated official stance that the only known scientific mechanism for how EMR works biologically is by heating only. Park actually supplied the physics explanation for heating effects of EMR in his book as if this was enough to dispel the empirical evidence of EMR bioeffects.

Only heating effects of EMR have been proven, according to Park as he explained on page 144:

"The biological effects of microwaves had been studied for thirty years and were the subject of hundreds of papers in the open literature... . the same facts that had reassured Ellie Adair [Yale University physics professor]", i.e. that microwaves are harmless.

Secondly, Park explained that microwaves don't cause DNA breaks so microwaves could not be a cause of cancer. On page 149, Park explained that Bob Adair published his work in the Physical Review.

"He relied on well-established principles to show that there was no known mechanism that could account for reports of health effects from low levels of microwave radiation.”

Park is arguing that any possible unknown mechanisms to account for health effects of EMF just don’t count or are voodoo science.

But as reported in the 2006 Microwave News Radiation Research article, Henry Lai of the University of Washington, Seattle, scientific studies do show DNA breaks from exposure to EMR.

"Together with N.P. Singh, Lai made RF/microwave genotoxicity a major concern when, in the mid-1990's, they were the first to report that microwaves could lead to DNA single- and double-strand breaks."

Park ignored this evidence and explained his theory of why EMR can't cause DNA breaks on page 147-8:

The effect of all known cancer-inducing agents-ionizing radiation such as ultraviolet or X-rays, chemical carcinogens such as tobacco smoke, and certain viruses- is to damage DNA. The damage consists of broken or altered chemical bonds, creating a mutant strand of DNA. Microwave photons can cause chemical bonds to stretch and bend but cannot come even close to severing the bonds.

 

One of the great triumphs of quantum mechanics was the discovery that electromagnetic radiation interacts with matter only in discrete bundles of energy called photons. The energy of a photon is expressed mathematically as the product of a universal constant, called the Planck constant, multiplied by the frequency. Photons that have enough energy to break chemical bonds are called ionizing radiation.

 

Whether electromagnetic is ionizing is independent of the intensity, or number, of photons; it depends only on the energy of the individual photons. ...The lowest energy photons capable of directly breaking chemical bonds are in the near-ultraviolet region of the spectrum, just beyond the region of visible light. These photons are about a million times more energetic than the microwave photons . .

EMR weaponeers scientific culture
Welsome, who wrote Plutonium Files provided a description of the systematic methods employed by the atomic bomb weaponeers. Her description can be applied to the science culture surrounding EMR research as follows. The EMR research and weaponeers scientific culture is an old boys network of top scientists, experts and advisors and military officials who control the EMR information, propaganda and EMR research.

They believe the ends justify the means in the case of protecting national security by developing powerful new EMR weapons comparable to the atomic bomb. Park, the APS spokesman and Garwin, the top JASON physicist continue to publicly push the EMR heating effects only argument in spite of ample scientific evidence to the contrary. This public bully pulpit has been extremely effective in promoting the propaganda of no EMR health effects, rather than a balanced debate.

Mike Repacholi, head of the World Health Organization's EMF Project broke the standard rules of conflict of interest and sat on power line industry boards at the same time.

The government and military boards of advisors on EMR standards and health effects have waged an aggressive propaganda campaign about the “no EMR health effects” government policy and the suppression of all potentially negative stories about health hazards related to EMR. Slesin described numerous examples above.

Government officials routinely suppress information about possible EMR health effects. The fact is, EMR experts have controlled virtually all the information on EMR bioeffects in the name of national security. Slesin explained how the USAF clearly supports 'no effects' (no EMR bioeffects are found) research over 'effects' (EMR bioeffects results are reported) research.

They sat on the boards that set EMR health standards, consulted at meetings, and served as expert witnesses in EMR cases. Park was also one of the world class experts, including 6 Nobel laureates who signed an amicus brief around 1996 which said there was no EMF-cancer link. On page 168, Park wrote,

"The Covalt decision (California Supreme Court ruled against the Covalts) effectively ended EMF litigation in California and dampened the enthusiasm for such cases nationwide. "

Park’s book presented the basic arguments against any possible bioeffects of EMR except from heating and is therefore important to understand. Possible health effects from EMR have been denied and suppressed.

Lies and half truths by top EMR scientists are common place, in order to avoid lawsuits and to perpetuate the hard line scientific policy and government cover story of only heating effects from EMR. John Moulder routinely testifies in court for huge consulting fees. Slesin explained that "Moulder has been a consultant to the power, electronics and communications industries, as well as for anyone, it seems, who disputes the existence of EMF-induced adverse health effects.

For years he posted his skeptical views on the health impacts of cell phones, base stations and power lines on his Web site, and these serve as lures for potential like-minded clients." Slesin's article, Cult of Negative Results described Moulder's recent and very lucrative courtroom and industry consulting work.

Withholding and distorting facts and scientific evidence about EMR in the name of national security is commonplace among top EMR scientific officials. In his 1990 book, Crosscurrents, The Perils of Electropollution, Dr. Robert Becker explained how and why the U.S. government suppressed and controlled nonthermal bioeffects research beginning with the development of radar in the 1940s:

The military organism was designed on the 10 mW standard and, once in place, it had to be defended against the possibility of nonthermal bioeffects. The recognition and validation of these effects would mean the collapse of the total organism and the death of C3I, (for command, control, communications, and intelligence)... evidence for nonthermal effects was viewed as a threat to national security.

Control over the scientific establishment was maintained by allocating research funds in such a way as to ensure that only 'approved' projects -- that is projects that would not challenge the thermal-effect standard -- would be undertaken... . In some instances, scientists were told that nonthermal effects did occur, but that national security objectives required that they be exceptionally well established before they became public knowledge.

All of these reports shared certain characteristics. Scientific data indicating nonthermal bioeffects were either ignored or subjected to extensive and destructive review... . while a statement such as 'There is no evidence for any effects of pulsed magnetic fields on humans' would have been literally true, it would have ignored the many reports of such effects on laboratory animals and the fact that no actual tests had been conducted on humans.

Scientists who persisted in publicly raising the issue of harmful effects from any portion of the electromagnetic spectrum were discredited, and their research grants were taken away. Deployment of powerful and exotic electromagnetic systems continues, with little, if any, consideration given to the potential impact of these systems on the health and safety of the public.

A more current but similar example of withholding and distorting facts and scientific evidence about EMR in the name of national security by top EMR scientific officials was described above in Slesin's article the Frontline Story. The article recounted a Department of Defense JASON report that was not clearly explained in the misleading conclusion of the APS statement.

In conclusion, this is the more balanced but rarely heard argument on the EMR bioeffects controversy. Thanks to Welsome’s description of a Cold War science culture and the handful of distinguished critics like Arkin, Becker, Brodeur, Adey, Steneck, Slesin and a few others who spoke out, the mechanics of how the U.S. government carried out the nonthermal bioeffects cover story, suppressed court cases and influenced, even controlled public policy on health effects of EMR for questionable national security goals can now be clearly understood.

In particular, the scientific bias of the cell phone and power line industry and the U.S. government can be documented, understood and challenged.

Back to Contents