Documents Show Navy's Electromagnetic Warfare Training Would Harm Humans and Wildlife

I sent around the original article several weeks ago. The rousing
reception I received was one comment from a friend who wanted to know
if I could send out a summary, since the article was so long.
Meanwhile, I'm not hearing regarding upcoming hearings.
Carl Jarvis

On 12/15/14, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> Documents Show Navy's Electromagnetic Warfare Training Would Harm Humans
> and
> Wildlife
> Monday, 15 December 2014 10:59 By Dahr Jamail, Truthout | Report
> A shooter signals an EA-18G Growler aboard USS Carl Vinson. (Photo: Matt
> Buck)
> If the US Navy gets its way, it will begin flying Growler supersonic
> warplanes over Olympic National Forest and wilderness areas of the Western
> Olympic Peninsula next September in order to conduct electromagnetic
> warfare
> training exercises.
> As Truthout previously reported, this would entail flying 36 jets down to
> 1,200 feet above ground in some areas, in 2,900 training exercises lasting
> up to 16 hours per day, 260 days per year, with the war-gaming going on
> indefinitely into the future. The Navy's plans also include having 15
> mobile
> units on the ground with towers emitting electromagnetic radiation signals
> for the planes to locate as part of their exercises.
> NAVY PERSONNEL HAVE BEEN MET WITH OUTRAGE, ANGER AND A GROWING CONCERN FROM
> THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE NEGATIVE HEALTH IMPACTS TO HUMANS AND WILDLIFE IN THE
> AREAS WHERE THEIR WAR GAMES ARE PLANNED.
> The Navy appeared to attempt to slide their plans by the public by choosing
> not to advertise public comment periods and meetings in the local media of
> the areas where their war games would be taking place. However, word got
> out
> and the Navy has had to extend public comment periods and hold more public
> meetings.
> Navy personnel have been met with outrage, anger and a growing concern from
> the public about the negative health impacts to humans and wildlife in the
> areas where their war games are planned.
> The Navy's response has been to point people toward their own so-called
> environmental assessment (EA), and claim that "no significant impacts" will
> occur to wildlife or humans from their electromagnetic war games.
> However, Truthout has acquired several documents from the Navy, Air Force
> and even NASA that directly contradict the Navy's claims that their
> exercises pose no threat to wildlife and humans, and spoke with an expert
> on
> the human impact of electromagnetic radiation fields who also refutes the
> Navy's claims.
> Dr. Martin Pall, a professor emeritus of biochemistry and medical sciences
> with Washington State University, has written several peer-reviewed papers
> on the subject of how electromagnetic radiation of various levels impacts
> human beings, as well as given international lectures on the subject.
> THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF EVEN THE NAVY'S LOWEST LEVELS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC
> RADIATION EMISSIONS ARE SHOCKING.
> Pall told Truthout that these claims by the Navy are "untrue," and provided
> reams of evidence, including his own scientific reports, that document, in
> detail, the extremely dangerous impacts of even very low levels of the
> microwave and electromagnetic radiation that the Navy would be emitting
> during their war games.
> Pall's paper, titled "Electromagnetic fields act via activation of
> voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects,"
> outlines the impact of electromagnetic radiation on biological organisms,
> and was given the honor of being posted on the "Global Medical Discovery"
> site as one of the top medical papers of 2013.
> Pall told Truthout that the Navy has not provided "any evidence" to support
> their claims that electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) do not impact wildlife
> and humans deleteriously.
> According to Pall, a NASA study, and more then 1,000 other scientific
> reports and studies, the health impacts of even the Navy's lowest levels of
> electromagnetic radiation emissions are shocking.
> The Doctor's Opinion
> Pall explained that people and agencies that advocate for the current
> safety
> standards around EMF levels claim that we only have to be concerned about
> their thermal/heating effects.
> Pall's aforementioned paper and the 24 studies cited within it show that
> the
> generally accepted EMF safety standards are based on a false assumption:
> "that all you have to worry about is heating."
> The Navy claims that there is "no conclusive evidence" that EMF radiation
> harms humans or wildlife due to "inconsistent data" and "conflicting
> reports" on the subject.
> Pall vehemently disagrees with this position.
> "WE HAVE A SITUATION NOW WHERE MOST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD ARE EXPOSED TO
> MICROWAVE FREQUENCY RADIATION BASED ON SCIENTIFIC STUDIES THAT HAVE NO
> SCIENTIFIC MERIT."
> His analysis of scientific reports and data shows that a great number of
> them show harmful effects at non-thermal levels, when it is viewed
> consistently according to cell types, fields and end points of studies.
> Nevertheless, many of the studies claimed there were "no effects" from EMF
> radiation, simply because the effects were non-thermal, despite the studies
> themselves showing evidence of non-thermal effects.
> "So in the data there is no inconsistency whatsoever. None," according to
> Pall.
> "This has been going on for years, and people have been assured of safety
> based on these things and it is absolute nonsense," he explained. "So we
> have a situation now where most people in the world are exposed to
> microwave
> frequency radiation based on scientific studies that have no scientific
> merit."
> Pall said he sees the entire regulating system as flawed, and there is
> ample
> scientific evidence to back his perspective.
> "We know the claims that you only have to worry about heating effects are
> false; there is no question on that," he said. "All the assurances of
> safety
> are based on that assumption. So this whole thing is of great concern."
> According to Pall, there is ample evidence of biological effects from EMF
> radiation that are "extremely worrisome." These include cellular DNA damage
> that causes cancer and infertility, "and both of these have been repeatedly
> reported to occur with low-level exposures."
> Nevertheless, Pall added, "There are studies that don't report these,
> because they are done under different conditions, and that is not
> surprising."
> "WHAT THE NAVY IS DOING WE HAVE NO IDEA BECAUSE THEY DON'T TELL US . . .
> BUT
> FROM WHAT LITTLE THEY HAVE TOLD US, THEY ARE USING A LOT OF PULSE FIELDS IN
> WAVELENGTHS THAT ARE DAMAGING TO US."
> To make his point, Pall cited an infertility study conducted with rats that
> showed there was less fertility with each generation, "and by the fifth
> generation they were completely infertile."
> Pall was very clear in his assessment of the potential impact of the Navy's
> EMF war-gaming plans, as well as how EMF radiation impacts our daily lives
> -
> from cell phones, to wireless networks, to the myriad other electronic
> devices that are so common today.
> "So what we're doing is exposing ourselves to these fields," he said. "What
> the Navy is doing we have no idea because they don't tell us . . . but from
> what little they have told us, they are using a lot of pulse fields in
> wavelengths that are damaging to us, to biological organisms. They give us
> not one iota of evidence of what biological effects are produced by those
> fields, and don't even tell us what fields they are using. You only find
> empty statements of 'don't worry about these things.'"
> Numerous studies back another of Pall's points, which is that there is
> ample
> evidence that younger people are more susceptible than older people to the
> harmful effects of EMF radiation.
> "This is why childhood leukemia is more common than adult leukemia," Pall
> said.
> Dean Millett, the district ranger for the Pacific district of the Olympic
> National Forest, has issued a draft notice of a decision in which he had
> agreed with the Navy's finding of "no significant impact," which has
> cleared
> the way for a US Forest Service special permit to be issued to the Navy for
> the war games. Millet, however, insists that the decision is his to make,
> but claims that he has not made a final decision yet.
> Millet claims to not be concerned about the impact of the Navy's war-gaming
> on amphibians, as well as other wildlife, including birds.
> "Millet's statements about the Navy's EIS [environmental impact statement]
> being solid, and his not worrying about amphibians, are interesting to me,"
> Pall said when asked about the position of Millet and the Forest Service.
> "Millet has been emailed this evidence, that amphibians are particularly
> sensitive to these fields, and much of the amphibians' decline around the
> world are being attributed to these fields. We also know that migrating
> birds are particularly susceptible. Yet neither Millet nor the Navy has
> given any evidence to the contrary, and that is not science. Science is
> always based on evidence."
> During a recent public information meeting, the Navy told Truthout that
> their Growler jets would not be emitting any EMF radiation, despite the
> fact
> that all the planes they intend to use for their war-gaming will be "fully
> equipped" with all of the electromagnetic warfare weapons available for
> radar jamming, and other operations.
> If what the Navy says is true, and that the only EMF radiation signals
> emitted will be from their 15 mobile ground towers, which they claim to be
> "no worse than a cell phone tower," this will still be extremely hazardous
> to biological organisms in the area, according to Pall.
> "There are close to 1,000 studies on electromagnetic fields that show the
> production of oxidated stress," he said. "So even just using a cell phone
> gives you oxidative stress in your brain by breaking down your blood brain
> barriers that protect you from infections and other things."
> Pall explained that, according to his and numerous other studies, there are
> numerous neuropsychiatric effects caused by this "low-level" EMF radiation,
> including depression.
> "THEY ARE PLANNING ON RUNNING A HUGE EXPERIMENT WITHOUT COLLECTING THE
> DATA,
> SO EVERYONE OUT THERE WILL BE EXPOSED AND BE A PART OF THEIR EXPERIMENT."
> Physical effects include heart arrhythmias and tachycardia, "and these can
> lead to sudden cardiac deaths," Pall said. "Slow heartbeats also occur at
> increasing rates, and these are indirect effects and they are all life
> threatening. There is a lot of literature on cardiac effects on humans, and
> I'm writing a paper on it right now."
> Pall also cited a study that showed that when young rats are exposed to
> low-level EMF radiation, "you end up with middle-aged rats that have
> Alzheimer's disease. Rats don't normally develop Alzheimer's."
> Pall cited one of the philosophers of science whose work determined the
> structure of modern science, Karl Popper, who believed the strongest type
> of
> scientific evidence is that evidence which falsifies a theory.
> "So we have literally thousands of studies that have falsified the heating
> paradigm for microwave fields, each of which individually have falsified
> the
> claim that all you have to worry about is heating," Pall explained. "Now,
> what Popper would say then is, obviously the statement that all you have to
> worry about is heating is a false claim. You only have to falsify it once.
> So the only way you can claim safety is to look at each of those individual
> studies and prove that it has been deeply flawed. The Navy hasn't done
> that,
> nor has the ranger, and they haven't done it because it can't be done."
> Pall is confident in this statement because in order for the Navy and
> Forest
> Service to claim the war-gaming will be safe, they would have to test every
> EMF field, at every level of frequency emission, at every distance, for
> every human and animal, at every age.
> But instead of conducting this kind of thorough research, according to
> Pall,
> "They are planning on running a huge experiment without collecting the
> data,
> so everyone out there will be exposed and be a part of their experiment."
> A 2013 paper published in the journal Reviews on Environmental Health,
> titled "Radiation from wireless technology impacts the blood, the heart and
> the autonomic nervous system," lists a series of 14 different pleas from
> multiple scientists who state the need for much more vigorous action on the
> health effects from microwave EMFs.
> Nevertheless, the Navy and Forest Service maintain their position that
> there
> would be "no significant impact" from the electromagnetic war-gaming,
> despite reams of well-documented scientific evidence to the contrary.
> Thus, Pall believes the burden of proof lies with both the Navy and the
> Forest Service.
> "So the Navy's response is both untrue and illogical," he said. "We know
> all
> these fields have all these effects. So the Navy has to come up with the
> evidence that proves their EMF fields don't cause all these problems. The
> Navy and the ranger [Millet] need to answer these questions. I've seen no
> inconsistencies in the literature at this point, and what they need to do
> as
> scientists, as opposed to propagandists, is to show that each study that
> falsifies their point of view is deeply flawed, and they've not even
> started
> to do that, and there are thousands of studies in the scientific
> literature."
> Other Studies
> In February 2014, Willie Taylor, director of the Office of Environmental
> Policy and Compliance with the US Department of the Interior, sent a letter
> to Eli Veenendall with the US National Telecommunications and Information
> Administration. In it, Taylor lists several concerns about the impact of
> communication towers, as well as towers emitting "electromagnetic
> radiation."
> "The Department recommends revisions to the proposed procedures to better
> reflect the impacts to resources under our jurisdiction from communication
> towers," Taylor writes in the letter. "The placement and operation of
> communication towers, including un-guyed, unlit, monopole or
> lattice-designed structures, impact protected migratory birds in two
> significant ways. The first is by injury, crippling loss, and death from
> collisions with towers and their supporting guy-wire infrastructure, where
> present. The second significant issue associated with communication towers
> involves impacts from non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation emitted by
> them."
> THE NAVY CONSISTENTLY CLAIMS THAT THEIR TOWERS WILL ONLY EMIT AS MUCH
> RADIATION AS CELL TOWERS, YET THIS IS EXACTLY THE LEVEL OF RADIATION CITED
> AS A PROBLEM.
> The letter, of which Truthout acquired a copy, included an attachment that
> stated: "Radiation studies at cellular communication towers were begun
> circa
> 2000 in Europe and continue today on wild nesting birds. Study results have
> documented nest and site abandonment, plumage deterioration, locomotion
> problems, reduced survivorship, and death (e.g., Balmori 2005, Balmori and
> Hallberg 2007, and Everaert and Bauwens 2007)."
> The Navy consistently claims that their towers will only emit as much
> radiation as cell towers, yet this is exactly the level of radiation cited
> in the aforementioned letter as a problem, as well as the levels described
> by Pall, the electromagnetic radiation expert.
> Furthermore, the letter notes that the Federal Communications Commission
> continues to use outdated exposure standards when it comes to radiation
> emitted from cell phone towers.
> "The problem," the letter continues, "appears to focus on very low levels
> of
> non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. For example, in laboratory studies,
> T. Litovitz (personal communication) and DiCarlo et al. (2002) raised
> concerns about impacts of low-level, non-thermal electromagnetic radiation
> from the standard 915 MHz cell phone frequency on domestic chicken embryos
> -
> with some lethal results (Manville 2009, 2013a). Radiation at extremely low
> levels (0.0001 the level emitted by the average digital cellular telephone)
> caused heart attacks and the deaths of some chicken embryos subjected to
> hypoxic conditions in the laboratory while controls subjected to hypoxia
> were unaffected (DiCarlo et al. 2002)."
> The letter concludes:
> Balmori found strong negative correlations between levels of tower-emitted
> microwave radiation and bird breeding, nesting, and roosting in the
> vicinity
> of electromagnetic fields in Spain. He documented nest and site
> abandonment,
> plumage deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship, and death
> in House Sparrows, White Storks, Rock Doves, Magpies, Collared Doves, and
> other species. Though these species had historically been documented to
> roost and nest in these areas, Balmori (2005) did not observe these
> symptoms
> prior to construction and operation of the cellular phone towers.
> Furthermore, a NASA study published in April 1981, titled "Electromagnetic
> Field Interactions with the Human Body: Observed Effects and Theories," was
> clear about the damage that EMF radiation caused to humans. Information for
> the NASA report was collected from over 1,000 written sources that
> "included
> journals, conference proceedings, technical reports, books, abstracts, and
> news items," and "additional sources included in-person meetings, telephone
> interviews, and lecture tapes."
> "Both theories and observations link non-ionizing electromagnetic fields to
> cancer in humans," the report notes. "Man is changing his terrestrial
> electromagnetic environment . . . If he knew the consequences of these
> changes, he might wish to compensate for or enhance them."
> The study "is concerned chiefly with those lower frequencies" of EMF
> radiation, just as are most of the aforementioned studies as well as Pall's
> work, all of which obviously applies to the impact of the Navy's claims
> that
> only their towers would be emitting signals, and not their Growler
> warplanes.
> As for adverse effects from EMF radiation, the report states, "Some result
> in death and persistent disease," with other impacts being "ventricular
> fibrillation and sudden infant death syndrome," "cataracts," "accelerated
> aging," and that electromagnetic fields "may promote cancer" and cause a
> "decrease in sex function."
> AIRCRAFT NOISE, ANOTHER ISSUE RELATED TO THE NAVY'S WAR-GAMING PLANS, HAS
> ALSO BEEN NOTED AS BIOLOGICALLY HARMFUL BY THE NAVY ITSELF.
> The NASA study lists dozens of other human health impacts, and one of the
> tables in the report, titled, "Subjective effects on persons working in
> radio frequency electromagnetic fields," lists symptoms that include
> hypotension, exhausting influence on the central nervous system, decrease
> in
> sensitivity to smell, periodic or extreme headaches, extreme irritability,
> increased fatigability, and intensification of the activity of the thyroid
> gland.
> Further evidence comes from Swiss Re, a group which describes itself as "a
> leading wholesale provider of reinsurance, insurance and other
> insurance-based forms of risk transfer," which released their own risk
> assessment report, within which they listed "emerging risk topics" which
> could impact the insurance industry in the future.
> The report lists "unforeseen consequences of electromagnetic fields" as
> having "high potential impact."
> Aircraft noise, another issue related to the Navy's war-gaming plans, has
> also been noted as biologically harmful by the Navy itself.
> According to the Naval Research Advisory Committee's April 2009 "Report on
> Jet Engine Noise Reduction," jet noise is described as "a problem" and the
> Navy was advised to take "actions to reduce noise in existing and next
> generation tactical jet aircraft engines."
> Noise-Induced Hearing Loss
> For every three decibels over 85, the permissible exposure time before
> hearing damage can occur is cut in half.
> Decibel level Example and Permissible Exposure Time
> 30 Whisper
> 45 Refrigerator humming, rainfall
> 60 Normal conversation
> 85 Heavy city traffic; 8 hours
> 95 Motorcycles; 1 hour
> 105 MP3 player at maximum volume; 7.5 minutes
> 113 Older Navy jets at 1,000 feet; less than 1 minute
> 120 Sirens; less than 30 seconds
> 150 Gun muzzle blast, Growler jets at takeoff. (No noise levels exist
> for Growlers flying in trios at 1,200 feet.) INSTANTANEOUS HEARING LOSS
> Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for
> Occupational Safety and Health
> The report also acknowledges that the US Department of Veterans Affairs was
> spending more than $1 billion annually on hearing loss cases alone, as well
> as the fact that the Navy's jet noise is "a serious health risk," and that
> despite this, "tactical jet noise levels have increased as the velocity and
> airflow from these engines have increased to produce added thrust."
> The executive summary of this report states that the ongoing hearing loss
> issues and efforts toward increasing hearing protection of Navy personnel
> will "Require further development of noise abatement procedures to minimize
> the noise footprint around Naval and Marine Air Stations. And finally, it
> will require more research into the physiological effects of the full
> spectrum of noise - including low frequency pressure levels - on humans."
> As for impact on wildlife, Dr. Robert Beason, a professor of biology at the
> State University of New York at Geneseo, speaking at a workshop titled
> "Avian Mortality at Communications Towers" sponsored by the US Fish and
> Wildlife Service, the Ornithological Council, and the American Bird
> Conservancy, made several statements of concern about the impact of
> microwave signals and other electromagnetic radiation from communication
> towers similar to the towers the Navy plans to use for their warfare
> training.
> "Peter Semm and I have found that a pulsed microwave signal results in
> changes in the rate of spontaneous activity of superficial neurons in the
> avian brain," Beason said. "These responses are occurring in higher centers
> of the brain, not in the lower centers where they could be filtered out."
> He concluded his presentation urging caution, and clearly stating that more
> work needs to be done to safeguard migratory birds in regards to radio and
> electromagnetic radiation emitting towers located where they fly.
> "There are numerous questions related to the features of communication
> towers for which we lack basic knowledge of either the neural or the
> behavioral responses of the birds," Beason said. "Gaining this type of
> information is paramount in determining what features of these towers can
> be
> modified in such a way to decrease their attractiveness to birds to allow
> communication field engineers to design and construct these towers in such
> a
> way to reduce the impact on migratory birds."
> Navy Admits Harmful Biological Effects
> On October 4, 1971, the Naval Medical Research Institute published a
> research report written by Dr. Zorach Glaser, of which Truthout acquired a
> copy. The title of the report is "Bibliography of Reported Biological
> Phenomena ('Effects') and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave
> and Radio-Frequency Radiation."
> Given that the Navy continues to claim that their EMR warfare training
> exercises will have "no significant impact" on humans, it is interesting to
> note that their own research paper's abstract states:
> More than 2,000 references on the biological responses to [microwave and]
> radio frequency and microwave radiation, published up to June 1971, are
> included in the bibliography. (Three supplementary listings bring the
> number
> of citation to more than 2,300.) Particular attention has been paid to the
> effects on man of non-ionizing radiation at these frequencies.
> The Navy's paper lists well over 100 negative biological effects caused by
> microwave and radio frequency radiations, of which here is a partial list
> from their report: corneal damage, tubular degeneration of testicles, brain
> heating, alteration of the diameter of blood vessels, liver enlargement,
> altered sex ratio of births, decreased fertility, sterility, altered fetal
> development, decreased lactation in nursing mothers, altered penal
> function,
> death, cranial nerve disorders, seizures, convulsions, depression,
> insomnia,
> hand tremors, chest pain, thrombosis, alteration in the rate of cellular
> division, anorexia, constipation, altered adrenal cortex activity,
> chromosome aberrations, tumors, altered orientation of animals, birds and
> fish, loss of hair, and sparking between dental fillings.
> Pall found the report notable, and suggested that in order to prove there
> are no biological effects possible from their EMR warfare training, the
> Navy
> would need to provide a specific response to each of the studies cited in
> their own report.
> "What they need to show is that none of the over 2,000 studies that should
> be well known to them are not relevant to their planned tests for the
> Olympic peninsula," Pall said. "Those studies date, of course from before
> late 1971 and there have been many thousands of apparently relevant studies
> published since that time, but perhaps they should start with these studies
> which were important enough to be cited by the Naval Medical Research
> Institute in 1971."
> US Air Force Acknowledges Health Effects
> A June 1994 US Air Force document, titled, "Radiofrequency/Microwave
> Radiation Biological Effects and Safety Standards: A Review," authored by
> Scott Bolen, clearly acknowledges the non-thermal health effects.
> "IT IS KNOWN THAT ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION HAS A BIOLOGICAL EFFECT ON
> HUMAN
> TISSUE."
> The report, signed and vetted by the US Air Force Chief of the Wide Area
> Radar Surveillance Division and the US Air Force Deputy Director of the
> Surveillance and Photonics Department, states in its abstract, "It is known
> that electromagnetic radiation has a biological effect on human tissue."
> The introduction of the report states that "researchers have discovered a
> number of biological dysfunctions that can occur in living organisms" and
> that "exposure of the human body to RF/MW [radio frequency/microwave]
> radiation has many biological implications" that range from "innocuous
> sensation of warmth to serious physiological damage to the eye," and added
> that "there is also evidence that RF/MW radiation can cause cancer."
> The report goes on to acknowledge that RF/MW radiation "is known to have a
> biological effect on animals and humans" and lists biological impacts like
> "damage to major organs, disruption of important biological processes, and
> the potential risk of cancer," among many others which include "mutagenic
> effects," "cardiovascular effects," negative effects on chromosomes, and
> notes that "Soviet investigators claim that exposure to low-level radiation
> can induce serious CNS [central nervous system] dysfunctions."
> Ongoing Concerns
> Olympic Peninsula resident Karen Sullivan worked for the US Fish and
> Wildlife Service for 15 and a half years, in Delaware, Washington, DC, and
> from 1998 through 2006 in Alaska. She worked in the Division of Endangered
> Species, External Affairs, and spent the last seven years as assistant
> regional director for External Affairs, which covered all media and
> congressional interaction and correspondence, plus outreach, publications
> and tribal grants for the Alaska region.
> "HOW CAN NAVY JETS BE ALLOWED TO FLY OVER WILDERNESS AREAS AND DO WHAT THEY
> DO, AND POTENTIALLY DESTROY A WILDERNESS SOUNDSCAPE THAT EXISTS WITHIN A
> WILDERNESS AREA? HOW CAN THAT BE LEGAL?"
> She called the Navy's so-called environmental assessment "bogus" because
> "it
> is old and not of broad enough scope."
> "It's baffling to try to pin down what they [the Navy] are doing on paper,
> but it is nonetheless very obvious what they are doing," she said. "It's
> certainly not in the public interest and certainly takes away from the
> public trust of these lands. How can Navy jets be allowed to fly over
> wilderness areas and do what they do, and potentially destroy a wilderness
> soundscape that exists within a wilderness area? How can that be legal? I
> can't understand."
> Dr. Pete Lauritzen, a professor emeritus of engineering from the University
> of Washington, recently attended a Navy public information scoping session
> in order to find out specifics about the types and intensities of radiation
> that will be used in the Navy's war games, but was frustrated by the Navy's
> lack of forthrightness.
> Nearly 400 people attended the scoping session, most of who expressed their
> concerns by filing official comments to the Navy.
> The US Navy has held several "scoping sessions" where they invited the
> public to provide comments about the war-gaming plans. Each session became
> increasingly crowded, with the vast majority of those providing comment
> being opposed to the Navy's plans. (Photo: Dahr Jamail)
> Former US Fish and Wildlife employee Karen Sullivan who attended a recent
> Navy scoping session (not pictured) told Truthout, "The Navy is behaving in
> a way that makes their sense of entitlement very obvious." (Photo: Dahr
> Jamail)
> Lauritzen was frank about what should be done.
> "My general concern is that the EIS [environmental impact statement] should
> be done by an independent party that is reliable and has a good reputation.
> But the Navy is doing their own EIS, so that means they are withholding
> information and only giving out what they want, and being quite vague on
> specifics," he said.
> Port Townsend Mayor David King, who expressed his concerns with the Navy's
> plans of increasing the number of jets and ensuing noise pollution. (Photo:
> Dahr Jamail)
> David King, the mayor of Port Townsend, a small town on the northeast tip
> of
> the Olympic Peninsula that would be heavily impacted by increased jet noise
> as well as affected economically from the Navy's plans, was also present at
> the Navy's recent scoping meeting in his town to express his concerns.
> "My main concern is that over the last year we've heard much more noise
> impacts than we've heard in prior years," King told Truthout. "And a
> further
> expansion of the Growler fleet seems to me to indicate that that situation
> will only get worse."
> King plans to talk with city officials in other towns and cities that will
> be impacted by the Navy's plans.
> Truthout contacted the Navy and asked if the Navy had conducted studies
> that
> would disprove the more than 1,000 studies and papers that show negative
> impacts on biological organisms resulting from EMF radiation, and if so,
> where could the results be viewed.
> Naval Public Affairs Officer Mike Welding provided the following response:
> The Navy uses the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
> "Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio
> Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," to make its
> determinations. The IEEE standard serves as a consensus standard developed
> by representatives of industry, government agencies, the scientific
> community and the public. Additionally, the Navy has a long history of
> using
> these systems safely and employed them successfully to provide our aviators
> the training they need without incident or adverse effects.
> Welding also provided the "NAS Whidbey Island's Electronic Warfare fact
> sheet," which repeatedly stated that the Navy's war-gaming has "no adverse
> effects to people or the environment," but failed to provide any evidence
> to
> support these claims.
> Welding did not provide any specific response to Truthout's aforementioned
> questions addressing the scientifically proven negative impacts of EMF
> radiation on biological organisms.
> Sullivan, the Olympic Peninsula resident, is frustrated by the Navy's
> ongoing lack of adequate responses to people who are concerned about the
> possible war-gaming, and was frank about what she thought would be required
> to stop the electromagnetic warfare training plans for the Western Olympic
> Peninsula.
> "The Navy is behaving in a way that makes their sense of entitlement very
> obvious," she said. "And I have been told by a congressional staffer that
> this is probably going to have to be settled in court."
> Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
> DAHR JAMAIL
> Dahr Jamail, a Truthout staff reporter, is the author of The Will to
> Resist:
> Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, (Haymarket Books,
> 2009), and Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist
> in Occupied Iraq, (Haymarket Books, 2007). Jamail reported from Iraq for
> more than a year, as well as from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Turkey over
> the
> last ten years, and has won the Martha Gellhorn Award for Investigative
> Journalism, among other awards.
> His fourth book, The Mass Destruction of Iraq: Why It Is Happening, and Who
> Is Responsible, co-written with William Rivers Pitt, is available now on
> Amazon. He lives and works in Washington State.
> RELATED STORIES
> Dahr Jamail | BP: Four Years On, No Restoration in Sight
> By Dahr Jamail, Truthout | Report
> Dahr Jamail | A Nation on the Brink: How US Policies Sealed Iraq's Fate
> By Dahr Jamail, Truthout/TomDispatch | News Analysis
> Dahr Jamail | Navy Plans Electromagnetic War Games Over National Park and
> Forest in Washington State
> By Dahr Jamail, Truthout | Report
> Truthout Interviews Dahr Jamail on Electromagnetic Radiation War Games in
> Washington State
> By Ted Asregadoo, Truthout | Video Interview
> Dahr Jamail | Are Humans Going Extinct?
> By Dahr Jamail, Truthout | Interview
> ________________________________________
> Show Comments
> Hide Comments
> <a href="http://truthout.disqus.com/?url=ref">View the discussion
> thread.</a>
> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
> Documents Show Navy's Electromagnetic Warfare Training Would Harm Humans
> and
> Wildlife
> Monday, 15 December 2014 10:59 By Dahr Jamail, Truthout | Report
> . font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
> reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
> reference not valid.
> . A shooter signals an EA-18G Growler aboard USS Carl Vinson. (Photo:
> Matt Buck)
> . If the US Navy gets its way, it will begin flying Growler supersonic
> warplanes over Olympic National Forest and wilderness areas of the Western
> Olympic Peninsula next September in order to conduct electromagnetic
> warfare
> training exercises.
> As Truthout previously reported, this would entail flying 36 jets down to
> 1,200 feet above ground in some areas, in 2,900 training exercises lasting
> up to 16 hours per day, 260 days per year, with the war-gaming going on
> indefinitely into the future. The Navy's plans also include having 15
> mobile
> units on the ground with towers emitting electromagnetic radiation signals
> for the planes to locate as part of their exercises.
> Navy personnel have been met with outrage, anger and a growing concern from
> the public about the negative health impacts to humans and wildlife in the
> areas where their war games are planned.
> The Navy appeared to attempt to slide their plans by the public by choosing
> not to advertise public comment periods and meetings in the local media of
> the areas where their war games would be taking place. However, word got
> out
> and the Navy has had to extend public comment periods and hold more public
> meetings.
> Navy personnel have been met with outrage, anger and a growing concern from
> the public about the negative health impacts to humans and wildlife in the
> areas where their war games are planned.
> The Navy's response has been to point people toward their own so-called
> environmental assessment (EA), and claim that "no significant impacts" will
> occur to wildlife or humans from their electromagnetic war games.
> However, Truthout has acquired several documents from the Navy, Air Force
> and even NASA that directly contradict the Navy's claims that their
> exercises pose no threat to wildlife and humans, and spoke with an expert
> on
> the human impact of electromagnetic radiation fields who also refutes the
> Navy's claims.
> Dr. Martin Pall, a professor emeritus of biochemistry and medical sciences
> with Washington State University, has written several peer-reviewed papers
> on the subject of how electromagnetic radiation of various levels impacts
> human beings, as well as given international lectures on the subject.
> The health impacts of even the Navy's lowest levels of electromagnetic
> radiation emissions are shocking.
> Pall told Truthout that these claims by the Navy are "untrue," and provided
> reams of evidence, including his own scientific reports, that document, in
> detail, the extremely dangerous impacts of even very low levels of the
> microwave and electromagnetic radiation that the Navy would be emitting
> during their war games.
> Pall's paper, titled "Electromagnetic fields act via activation of
> voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects,"
> outlines the impact of electromagnetic radiation on biological organisms,
> and was given the honor of being posted on the "Global Medical Discovery"
> site as one of the top medical papers of 2013.
> Pall told Truthout that the Navy has not provided "any evidence" to support
> their claims that electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) do not impact wildlife
> and humans deleteriously.
> According to Pall, a NASA study, and more then 1,000 other scientific
> reports and studies, the health impacts of even the Navy's lowest levels of
> electromagnetic radiation emissions are shocking.
> The Doctor's Opinion
> Pall explained that people and agencies that advocate for the current
> safety
> standards around EMF levels claim that we only have to be concerned about
> their thermal/heating effects.
> Pall's aforementioned paper and the 24 studies cited within it show that
> the
> generally accepted EMF safety standards are based on a false assumption:
> "that all you have to worry about is heating."
> The Navy claims that there is "no conclusive evidence" that EMF radiation
> harms humans or wildlife due to "inconsistent data" and "conflicting
> reports" on the subject.
> Pall vehemently disagrees with this position.
> "We have a situation now where most people in the world are exposed to
> microwave frequency radiation based on scientific studies that have no
> scientific merit."
> His analysis of scientific reports and data shows that a great number of
> them show harmful effects at non-thermal levels, when it is viewed
> consistently according to cell types, fields and end points of studies.
> Nevertheless, many of the studies claimed there were "no effects" from EMF
> radiation, simply because the effects were non-thermal, despite the studies
> themselves showing evidence of non-thermal effects.
> "So in the data there is no inconsistency whatsoever. None," according to
> Pall.
> "This has been going on for years, and people have been assured of safety
> based on these things and it is absolute nonsense," he explained. "So we
> have a situation now where most people in the world are exposed to
> microwave
> frequency radiation based on scientific studies that have no scientific
> merit."
> Pall said he sees the entire regulating system as flawed, and there is
> ample
> scientific evidence to back his perspective.
> "We know the claims that you only have to worry about heating effects are
> false; there is no question on that," he said. "All the assurances of
> safety
> are based on that assumption. So this whole thing is of great concern."
> According to Pall, there is ample evidence of biological effects from EMF
> radiation that are "extremely worrisome." These include cellular DNA damage
> that causes cancer and infertility, "and both of these have been repeatedly
> reported to occur with low-level exposures."
> Nevertheless, Pall added, "There are studies that don't report these,
> because they are done under different conditions, and that is not
> surprising."
> "What the Navy is doing we have no idea because they don't tell us . . .
> but
> from what little they have told us, they are using a lot of pulse fields in
> wavelengths that are damaging to us."
> To make his point, Pall cited an infertility study conducted with rats that
> showed there was less fertility with each generation, "and by the fifth
> generation they were completely infertile."
> Pall was very clear in his assessment of the potential impact of the Navy's
> EMF war-gaming plans, as well as how EMF radiation impacts our daily lives
> -
> from cell phones, to wireless networks, to the myriad other electronic
> devices that are so common today.
> "So what we're doing is exposing ourselves to these fields," he said. "What
> the Navy is doing we have no idea because they don't tell us . . . but from
> what little they have told us, they are using a lot of pulse fields in
> wavelengths that are damaging to us, to biological organisms. They give us
> not one iota of evidence of what biological effects are produced by those
> fields, and don't even tell us what fields they are using. You only find
> empty statements of 'don't worry about these things.'"
> Numerous studies back another of Pall's points, which is that there is
> ample
> evidence that younger people are more susceptible than older people to the
> harmful effects of EMF radiation.
> "This is why childhood leukemia is more common than adult leukemia," Pall
> said.
> Dean Millett, the district ranger for the Pacific district of the Olympic
> National Forest, has issued a draft notice of a decision in which he had
> agreed with the Navy's finding of "no significant impact," which has
> cleared
> the way for a US Forest Service special permit to be issued to the Navy for
> the war games. Millet, however, insists that the decision is his to make,
> but claims that he has not made a final decision yet.
> Millet claims to not be concerned about the impact of the Navy's war-gaming
> on amphibians, as well as other wildlife, including birds.
> "Millet's statements about the Navy's EIS [environmental impact statement]
> being solid, and his not worrying about amphibians, are interesting to me,"
> Pall said when asked about the position of Millet and the Forest Service.
> "Millet has been emailed this evidence, that amphibians are particularly
> sensitive to these fields, and much of the amphibians' decline around the
> world are being attributed to these fields. We also know that migrating
> birds are particularly susceptible. Yet neither Millet nor the Navy has
> given any evidence to the contrary, and that is not science. Science is
> always based on evidence."
> During a recent public information meeting, the Navy told Truthout that
> their Growler jets would not be emitting any EMF radiation, despite the
> fact
> that all the planes they intend to use for their war-gaming will be "fully
> equipped" with all of the electromagnetic warfare weapons available for
> radar jamming, and other operations.
> If what the Navy says is true, and that the only EMF radiation signals
> emitted will be from their 15 mobile ground towers, which they claim to be
> "no worse than a cell phone tower," this will still be extremely hazardous
> to biological organisms in the area, according to Pall.
> "There are close to 1,000 studies on electromagnetic fields that show the
> production of oxidated stress," he said. "So even just using a cell phone
> gives you oxidative stress in your brain by breaking down your blood brain
> barriers that protect you from infections and other things."
> Pall explained that, according to his and numerous other studies, there are
> numerous neuropsychiatric effects caused by this "low-level" EMF radiation,
> including depression.
> "They are planning on running a huge experiment without collecting the
> data,
> so everyone out there will be exposed and be a part of their experiment."
> Physical effects include heart arrhythmias and tachycardia, "and these can
> lead to sudden cardiac deaths," Pall said. "Slow heartbeats also occur at
> increasing rates, and these are indirect effects and they are all life
> threatening. There is a lot of literature on cardiac effects on humans, and
> I'm writing a paper on it right now."
> Pall also cited a study that showed that when young rats are exposed to
> low-level EMF radiation, "you end up with middle-aged rats that have
> Alzheimer's disease. Rats don't normally develop Alzheimer's."
> Pall cited one of the philosophers of science whose work determined the
> structure of modern science, Karl Popper, who believed the strongest type
> of
> scientific evidence is that evidence which falsifies a theory.
> "So we have literally thousands of studies that have falsified the heating
> paradigm for microwave fields, each of which individually have falsified
> the
> claim that all you have to worry about is heating," Pall explained. "Now,
> what Popper would say then is, obviously the statement that all you have to
> worry about is heating is a false claim. You only have to falsify it once.
> So the only way you can claim safety is to look at each of those individual
> studies and prove that it has been deeply flawed. The Navy hasn't done
> that,
> nor has the ranger, and they haven't done it because it can't be done."
> Pall is confident in this statement because in order for the Navy and
> Forest
> Service to claim the war-gaming will be safe, they would have to test every
> EMF field, at every level of frequency emission, at every distance, for
> every human and animal, at every age.
> But instead of conducting this kind of thorough research, according to
> Pall,
> "They are planning on running a huge experiment without collecting the
> data,
> so everyone out there will be exposed and be a part of their experiment."
> A 2013 paper published in the journal Reviews on Environmental Health,
> titled "Radiation from wireless technology impacts the blood, the heart and
> the autonomic nervous system," lists a series of 14 different pleas from
> multiple scientists who state the need for much more vigorous action on the
> health effects from microwave EMFs.
> Nevertheless, the Navy and Forest Service maintain their position that
> there
> would be "no significant impact" from the electromagnetic war-gaming,
> despite reams of well-documented scientific evidence to the contrary.
> Thus, Pall believes the burden of proof lies with both the Navy and the
> Forest Service.
> "So the Navy's response is both untrue and illogical," he said. "We know
> all
> these fields have all these effects. So the Navy has to come up with the
> evidence that proves their EMF fields don't cause all these problems. The
> Navy and the ranger [Millet] need to answer these questions. I've seen no
> inconsistencies in the literature at this point, and what they need to do
> as
> scientists, as opposed to propagandists, is to show that each study that
> falsifies their point of view is deeply flawed, and they've not even
> started
> to do that, and there are thousands of studies in the scientific
> literature."
> Other Studies
> In February 2014, Willie Taylor, director of the Office of Environmental
> Policy and Compliance with the US Department of the Interior, sent a letter
> to Eli Veenendall with the US National Telecommunications and Information
> Administration. In it, Taylor lists several concerns about the impact of
> communication towers, as well as towers emitting "electromagnetic
> radiation."
> "The Department recommends revisions to the proposed procedures to better
> reflect the impacts to resources under our jurisdiction from communication
> towers," Taylor writes in the letter. "The placement and operation of
> communication towers, including un-guyed, unlit, monopole or
> lattice-designed structures, impact protected migratory birds in two
> significant ways. The first is by injury, crippling loss, and death from
> collisions with towers and their supporting guy-wire infrastructure, where
> present. The second significant issue associated with communication towers
> involves impacts from non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation emitted by
> them."
> The Navy consistently claims that their towers will only emit as much
> radiation as cell towers, yet this is exactly the level of radiation cited
> as a problem.
> The letter, of which Truthout acquired a copy, included an attachment that
> stated: "Radiation studies at cellular communication towers were begun
> circa
> 2000 in Europe and continue today on wild nesting birds. Study results have
> documented nest and site abandonment, plumage deterioration, locomotion
> problems, reduced survivorship, and death (e.g., Balmori 2005, Balmori and
> Hallberg 2007, and Everaert and Bauwens 2007)."
> The Navy consistently claims that their towers will only emit as much
> radiation as cell towers, yet this is exactly the level of radiation cited
> in the aforementioned letter as a problem, as well as the levels described
> by Pall, the electromagnetic radiation expert.
> Furthermore, the letter notes that the Federal Communications Commission
> continues to use outdated exposure standards when it comes to radiation
> emitted from cell phone towers.
> "The problem," the letter continues, "appears to focus on very low levels
> of
> non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. For example, in laboratory studies,
> T. Litovitz (personal communication) and DiCarlo et al. (2002) raised
> concerns about impacts of low-level, non-thermal electromagnetic radiation
> from the standard 915 MHz cell phone frequency on domestic chicken embryos
> -
> with some lethal results (Manville 2009, 2013a). Radiation at extremely low
> levels (0.0001 the level emitted by the average digital cellular telephone)
> caused heart attacks and the deaths of some chicken embryos subjected to
> hypoxic conditions in the laboratory while controls subjected to hypoxia
> were unaffected (DiCarlo et al. 2002)."
> The letter concludes:
> Balmori found strong negative correlations between levels of tower-emitted
> microwave radiation and bird breeding, nesting, and roosting in the
> vicinity
> of electromagnetic fields in Spain. He documented nest and site
> abandonment,
> plumage deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship, and death
> in House Sparrows, White Storks, Rock Doves, Magpies, Collared Doves, and
> other species. Though these species had historically been documented to
> roost and nest in these areas, Balmori (2005) did not observe these
> symptoms
> prior to construction and operation of the cellular phone towers.
> Furthermore, a NASA study published in April 1981, titled "Electromagnetic
> Field Interactions with the Human Body: Observed Effects and Theories," was
> clear about the damage that EMF radiation caused to humans. Information for
> the NASA report was collected from over 1,000 written sources that
> "included
> journals, conference proceedings, technical reports, books, abstracts, and
> news items," and "additional sources included in-person meetings, telephone
> interviews, and lecture tapes."
> "Both theories and observations link non-ionizing electromagnetic fields to
> cancer in humans," the report notes. "Man is changing his terrestrial
> electromagnetic environment . . . If he knew the consequences of these
> changes, he might wish to compensate for or enhance them."
> The study "is concerned chiefly with those lower frequencies" of EMF
> radiation, just as are most of the aforementioned studies as well as Pall's
> work, all of which obviously applies to the impact of the Navy's claims
> that
> only their towers would be emitting signals, and not their Growler
> warplanes.
> As for adverse effects from EMF radiation, the report states, "Some result
> in death and persistent disease," with other impacts being "ventricular
> fibrillation and sudden infant death syndrome," "cataracts," "accelerated
> aging," and that electromagnetic fields "may promote cancer" and cause a
> "decrease in sex function."
> Aircraft noise, another issue related to the Navy's war-gaming plans, has
> also been noted as biologically harmful by the Navy itself.
> The NASA study lists dozens of other human health impacts, and one of the
> tables in the report, titled, "Subjective effects on persons working in
> radio frequency electromagnetic fields," lists symptoms that include
> hypotension, exhausting influence on the central nervous system, decrease
> in
> sensitivity to smell, periodic or extreme headaches, extreme irritability,
> increased fatigability, and intensification of the activity of the thyroid
> gland.
> Further evidence comes from Swiss Re, a group which describes itself as "a
> leading wholesale provider of reinsurance, insurance and other
> insurance-based forms of risk transfer," which released their own risk
> assessment report, within which they listed "emerging risk topics" which
> could impact the insurance industry in the future.
> The report lists "unforeseen consequences of electromagnetic fields" as
> having "high potential impact."
> Aircraft noise, another issue related to the Navy's war-gaming plans, has
> also been noted as biologically harmful by the Navy itself.
> According to the Naval Research Advisory Committee's April 2009 "Report on
> Jet Engine Noise Reduction," jet noise is described as "a problem" and the
> Navy was advised to take "actions to reduce noise in existing and next
> generation tactical jet aircraft engines."
> Noise-Induced Hearing Loss
> For every three decibels over 85, the permissible exposure time before
> hearing damage can occur is cut in half.
> Decibel level Example and Permissible Exposure Time
> 30 Whisper
> 45 Refrigerator humming, rainfall
> 60 Normal conversation
> 85 Heavy city traffic; 8 hours
> 95 Motorcycles; 1 hour
> 105 MP3 player at maximum volume; 7.5 minutes
> 113 Older Navy jets at 1,000 feet; less than 1 minute
> 120 Sirens; less than 30 seconds
> 150 Gun muzzle blast, Growler jets at takeoff. (No noise levels exist
> for Growlers flying in trios at 1,200 feet.) INSTANTANEOUS HEARING LOSS
> Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for
> Occupational Safety and Health
> The report also acknowledges that the US Department of Veterans Affairs was
> spending more than $1 billion annually on hearing loss cases alone, as well
> as the fact that the Navy's jet noise is "a serious health risk," and that
> despite this, "tactical jet noise levels have increased as the velocity and
> airflow from these engines have increased to produce added thrust."
> The executive summary of this report states that the ongoing hearing loss
> issues and efforts toward increasing hearing protection of Navy personnel
> will "Require further development of noise abatement procedures to minimize
> the noise footprint around Naval and Marine Air Stations. And finally, it
> will require more research into the physiological effects of the full
> spectrum of noise - including low frequency pressure levels - on humans."
> As for impact on wildlife, Dr. Robert Beason, a professor of biology at the
> State University of New York at Geneseo, speaking at a workshop titled
> "Avian Mortality at Communications Towers" sponsored by the US Fish and
> Wildlife Service, the Ornithological Council, and the American Bird
> Conservancy, made several statements of concern about the impact of
> microwave signals and other electromagnetic radiation from communication
> towers similar to the towers the Navy plans to use for their warfare
> training.
> "Peter Semm and I have found that a pulsed microwave signal results in
> changes in the rate of spontaneous activity of superficial neurons in the
> avian brain," Beason said. "These responses are occurring in higher centers
> of the brain, not in the lower centers where they could be filtered out."
> He concluded his presentation urging caution, and clearly stating that more
> work needs to be done to safeguard migratory birds in regards to radio and
> electromagnetic radiation emitting towers located where they fly.
> "There are numerous questions related to the features of communication
> towers for which we lack basic knowledge of either the neural or the
> behavioral responses of the birds," Beason said. "Gaining this type of
> information is paramount in determining what features of these towers can
> be
> modified in such a way to decrease their attractiveness to birds to allow
> communication field engineers to design and construct these towers in such
> a
> way to reduce the impact on migratory birds."
> Navy Admits Harmful Biological Effects
> On October 4, 1971, the Naval Medical Research Institute published a
> research report written by Dr. Zorach Glaser, of which Truthout acquired a
> copy. The title of the report is "Bibliography of Reported Biological
> Phenomena ('Effects') and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave
> and Radio-Frequency Radiation."
> Given that the Navy continues to claim that their EMR warfare training
> exercises will have "no significant impact" on humans, it is interesting to
> note that their own research paper's abstract states:
> More than 2,000 references on the biological responses to [microwave and]
> radio frequency and microwave radiation, published up to June 1971, are
> included in the bibliography. (Three supplementary listings bring the
> number
> of citation to more than 2,300.) Particular attention has been paid to the
> effects on man of non-ionizing radiation at these frequencies.
> The Navy's paper lists well over 100 negative biological effects caused by
> microwave and radio frequency radiations, of which here is a partial list
> from their report: corneal damage, tubular degeneration of testicles, brain
> heating, alteration of the diameter of blood vessels, liver enlargement,
> altered sex ratio of births, decreased fertility, sterility, altered fetal
> development, decreased lactation in nursing mothers, altered penal
> function,
> death, cranial nerve disorders, seizures, convulsions, depression,
> insomnia,
> hand tremors, chest pain, thrombosis, alteration in the rate of cellular
> division, anorexia, constipation, altered adrenal cortex activity,
> chromosome aberrations, tumors, altered orientation of animals, birds and
> fish, loss of hair, and sparking between dental fillings.
> Pall found the report notable, and suggested that in order to prove there
> are no biological effects possible from their EMR warfare training, the
> Navy
> would need to provide a specific response to each of the studies cited in
> their own report.
> "What they need to show is that none of the over 2,000 studies that should
> be well known to them are not relevant to their planned tests for the
> Olympic peninsula," Pall said. "Those studies date, of course from before
> late 1971 and there have been many thousands of apparently relevant studies
> published since that time, but perhaps they should start with these studies
> which were important enough to be cited by the Naval Medical Research
> Institute in 1971."
> US Air Force Acknowledges Health Effects
> A June 1994 US Air Force document, titled, "Radiofrequency/Microwave
> Radiation Biological Effects and Safety Standards: A Review," authored by
> Scott Bolen, clearly acknowledges the non-thermal health effects.
> "It is known that electromagnetic radiation has a biological effect on
> human
> tissue."
> The report, signed and vetted by the US Air Force Chief of the Wide Area
> Radar Surveillance Division and the US Air Force Deputy Director of the
> Surveillance and Photonics Department, states in its abstract, "It is known
> that electromagnetic radiation has a biological effect on human tissue."
> The introduction of the report states that "researchers have discovered a
> number of biological dysfunctions that can occur in living organisms" and
> that "exposure of the human body to RF/MW [radio frequency/microwave]
> radiation has many biological implications" that range from "innocuous
> sensation of warmth to serious physiological damage to the eye," and added
> that "there is also evidence that RF/MW radiation can cause cancer."
> The report goes on to acknowledge that RF/MW radiation "is known to have a
> biological effect on animals and humans" and lists biological impacts like
> "damage to major organs, disruption of important biological processes, and
> the potential risk of cancer," among many others which include "mutagenic
> effects," "cardiovascular effects," negative effects on chromosomes, and
> notes that "Soviet investigators claim that exposure to low-level radiation
> can induce serious CNS [central nervous system] dysfunctions."
> Ongoing Concerns
> Olympic Peninsula resident Karen Sullivan worked for the US Fish and
> Wildlife Service for 15 and a half years, in Delaware, Washington, DC, and
> from 1998 through 2006 in Alaska. She worked in the Division of Endangered
> Species, External Affairs, and spent the last seven years as assistant
> regional director for External Affairs, which covered all media and
> congressional interaction and correspondence, plus outreach, publications
> and tribal grants for the Alaska region.
> "How can Navy jets be allowed to fly over wilderness areas and do what they
> do, and potentially destroy a wilderness soundscape that exists within a
> wilderness area? How can that be legal?"
> She called the Navy's so-called environmental assessment "bogus" because
> "it
> is old and not of broad enough scope."
> "It's baffling to try to pin down what they [the Navy] are doing on paper,
> but it is nonetheless very obvious what they are doing," she said. "It's
> certainly not in the public interest and certainly takes away from the
> public trust of these lands. How can Navy jets be allowed to fly over
> wilderness areas and do what they do, and potentially destroy a wilderness
> soundscape that exists within a wilderness area? How can that be legal? I
> can't understand."
> Dr. Pete Lauritzen, a professor emeritus of engineering from the University
> of Washington, recently attended a Navy public information scoping session
> in order to find out specifics about the types and intensities of radiation
> that will be used in the Navy's war games, but was frustrated by the Navy's
> lack of forthrightness.
> Nearly 400 people attended the scoping session, most of who expressed their
> concerns by filing official comments to the Navy.
> The US Navy has held several "scoping sessions" where they invited the
> public to provide comments about the war-gaming plans. Each session became
> increasingly crowded, with the vast majority of those providing comment
> being opposed to the Navy's plans. (Photo: Dahr Jamail)
> Former US Fish and Wildlife employee Karen Sullivan who attended a recent
> Navy scoping session (not pictured) told Truthout, "The Navy is behaving in
> a way that makes their sense of entitlement very obvious." (Photo: Dahr
> Jamail)
> Lauritzen was frank about what should be done.
> "My general concern is that the EIS [environmental impact statement] should
> be done by an independent party that is reliable and has a good reputation.
> But the Navy is doing their own EIS, so that means they are withholding
> information and only giving out what they want, and being quite vague on
> specifics," he said.
> Port Townsend Mayor David King, who expressed his concerns with the Navy's
> plans of increasing the number of jets and ensuing noise pollution. (Photo:
> Dahr Jamail)
> David King, the mayor of Port Townsend, a small town on the northeast tip
> of
> the Olympic Peninsula that would be heavily impacted by increased jet noise
> as well as affected economically from the Navy's plans, was also present at
> the Navy's recent scoping meeting in his town to express his concerns.
> "My main concern is that over the last year we've heard much more noise
> impacts than we've heard in prior years," King told Truthout. "And a
> further
> expansion of the Growler fleet seems to me to indicate that that situation
> will only get worse."
> King plans to talk with city officials in other towns and cities that will
> be impacted by the Navy's plans.
> Truthout contacted the Navy and asked if the Navy had conducted studies
> that
> would disprove the more than 1,000 studies and papers that show negative
> impacts on biological organisms resulting from EMF radiation, and if so,
> where could the results be viewed.
> Naval Public Affairs Officer Mike Welding provided the following response:
> The Navy uses the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
> "Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio
> Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," to make its
> determinations. The IEEE standard serves as a consensus standard developed
> by representatives of industry, government agencies, the scientific
> community and the public. Additionally, the Navy has a long history of
> using
> these systems safely and employed them successfully to provide our aviators
> the training they need without incident or adverse effects.
> Welding also provided the "NAS Whidbey Island's Electronic Warfare fact
> sheet," which repeatedly stated that the Navy's war-gaming has "no adverse
> effects to people or the environment," but failed to provide any evidence
> to
> support these claims.
> Welding did not provide any specific response to Truthout's aforementioned
> questions addressing the scientifically proven negative impacts of EMF
> radiation on biological organisms.
> Sullivan, the Olympic Peninsula resident, is frustrated by the Navy's
> ongoing lack of adequate responses to people who are concerned about the
> possible war-gaming, and was frank about what she thought would be required
> to stop the electromagnetic warfare training plans for the Western Olympic
> Peninsula.
> "The Navy is behaving in a way that makes their sense of entitlement very
> obvious," she said. "And I have been told by a congressional staffer that
> this is probably going to have to be settled in court."
> Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
> Dahr Jamail
> Dahr Jamail, a Truthout staff reporter, is the author of The Will to
> Resist:
> Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, (Haymarket Books,
> 2009), and Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist
> in Occupied Iraq, (Haymarket Books, 2007). Jamail reported from Iraq for
> more than a year, as well as from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Turkey over
> the
> last ten years, and has won the Martha Gellhorn Award for Investigative
> Journalism, among other awards.
> His fourth book, The Mass Destruction of Iraq: Why It Is Happening, and Who
> Is Responsible, co-written with William Rivers Pitt, is available now on
> Amazon. He lives and works in Washington State.
> Related Stories
> Dahr Jamail | BP: Four Years On, No Restoration in Sight
> By Dahr Jamail, Truthout | ReportDahr Jamail | A Nation on the Brink: How
> US
> Policies Sealed Iraq's Fate
> By Dahr Jamail, Truthout/TomDispatch | News AnalysisDahr Jamail | Navy
> Plans
> Electromagnetic War Games Over National Park and Forest in Washington State
>
> By Dahr Jamail, Truthout | ReportTruthout Interviews Dahr Jamail on
> Electromagnetic Radiation War Games in Washington State
> By Ted Asregadoo, Truthout | Video InterviewDahr Jamail | Are Humans Going
> Extinct?
> By Dahr Jamail, Truthout | Interview
>
> Show Comments
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>