Playing with fire – pulsed microwaves

September 27, 2010.


Why pulsed microwave frequencies are more harmful than continuous waves and why we should care.


As I read the documents from Dr. Glaser’s archives, I can’t help but think that we are being “dummified”.  It seems we know less about microwave radiation than was known decades ago.

Standing on the shoulder of giants,” a quote attributed to Sir Isaac Newton, refers to the fact that scientists build on the work of other scientists but this can be done ONLY if information is shared.  If information is not shared, then we run the risk of discovering things de novo at great expense of time and money.  If this information relates to the health of environments or people then we run the risk of delaying action that could protect the environment and save lives.

The document selected for “Pick of the Week” is a case in point.

This document,  Some considerations concerning the use of magnetron generators in microwave biological research, written by Vernon R. Reno at the Department of the Navy, Aerospace Med Research Laboratory clearly shows that the waveform, as well as the type of instrumentation used to both create and measure the waveform are important when considering the biological effects of microwave radiation.   Reno clearly states that “average” power density is an inadequate metric for assessing the effects on animals in experimental studies.  By extension, it should be inadequate for monitoring exposure of human populations as well.

So why do federal authorities continue to rely on average power density as the metric for guidelines?   In Canada exposure to radio frequency radiation is averaged over a 6-minute period and in the U.S. it is averaged over a 30-minute period for public exposure.  Clearly, this is inadequate based on a document written more than 35 years ago!  So why are we still using this metric?


To read more visit . . .

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *