CONCLUSION: "Experimental evidence has shown that exposure to low intensity radiation can have a profound effect on biological processes. The nonthermal effects of RF/MW radiation exposure are becoming important measures of biological interaction with EM fields. Modern RF/MW radiation protection guides have sought to account for the effects of low level radiation exposure."
  • 15
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    15
    Shares
by Kim Goldberg | see original article
us-air-force-report-rf-microwave-radiation-exposure
CONCLUSION: “Experimental evidence has shown that exposure to low intensity radiation can have a profound effect on biological processes. The nonthermal effects of RF/MW radiation exposure are becoming important measures of biological interaction with EM fields. Modern RF/MW radiation protection guides have sought to account for the effects of low level radiation exposure.”

In 1994, the US Air Force published a 32-page report titled: “Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation Biological Effects and Safety Standards: A Review,” authored by Scott M. Bolen. The supervising agency was Rome Laboratory at Griffiss Air Force Base in New York.

us-air-force-report-rf-microwave-radiation-exposure-tnRead and download the complete 32-page report here:
USAF Report 1994 Biological-Effects (pdf)

In 1994, the US Air Force published a 32-page report titled: “Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation Biological Effects and Safety Standards: A Review,” authored by Scott M. Bolen. The supervising agency was Rome Laboratory at Griffiss Air Force Base in New York.To this day, many if not most governmental agencies and scientists in North America and abroad maintain the position that RF and microwave radiation are only damaging to the human body at power densities high enough to cause a heating effect (a so-called “thermal effect”), like a microwave oven. The position, while completely unsupported by fact, is very convenient for the multi-billion-dollar telecommunications industry (cell phones, WiFi) as well as the military’s own use of these same technologies—technologies whose radiation is, for the most part nonthermal, in nature.

In fact, the serious bio-toxic consequences of nonthermal RF and microwave radiation have been know for decades by our governments and the military. This 1994 USAF report states on page 2, under the heading of Biological Effects:

“Nonthermal responses can be less noticeable and are often more difficult to explain than thermal effects. These responses are related to the disturbances in the tissue not caused by heating. Electromagnetic fields can interact with the bioelectric functions of the irradiated human tissue. Research conducted in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe suggests that the human body may be more sensitive to the nonthermal effects of RF/MW radiation.”

And from page 18 of the report:

“Nonthermal disruptions have been observed to occur at power densities that are much lower than are necessary to induce thermal effects. Soviet researchers have attributed alterations in the central nervous system and the cardiovascular system to the nonthermal effect of low level RF/MW radiation exposure.”

And from the report’s Conclusion, also on page 18:

“Experimental evidence has shown that exposure to low intensity radiation can have a profound effect on biological processes. The nonthermal effects of RF/MW radiation exposure are becoming important measures of biological interaction with EM field. Modern RF/MW radiation protection guides have sought to account for the effects of low level radiation exposure. Adherence to the ANSI Standard should provide protection against harmful thermal effects and help to minimize the interaction of EM fields with the biological processes of the human body.”

In other words, this USAF report from 1994 all but states that the ANSI (American National Standards Institute) Standard of the day was insufficient for protecting the public from the nonthermal effects of RF/MW radiation.

At the time this report was written, that Standard for exposure was set at 50,000 mW/m2 (5 mW/cm2 ) for for frequencies between 1,500 MHz to 100,000 MHz. Today, the maximum exposure limit set by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) for RF radiation in the 850-2400 MHz range (smart meters and other wireless devices) is 10,000 mW/m2However, that level is more than one million times higher than the exposure limits set out in the 2012 BioInitiative Report. The BioInitiative Report caps exposure to RF radiation at 0.006 mW/m2 .

The point being: the “safe” levels for RF/MW exposure that are laid out in this 1994 USAF report, as well as in current “safe” levels stipulated by North American governments (such as Canada’s Safety Code 6 and the FCC in the US) only address thermal effects of RF/MW radiation and have no bearing whatsoever on the far more serious nonthermal effects that unequivocally exist. The public is simply not being protected.

Josh del Sol Beaulieu

Josh del Sol Beaulieu is the creator of Take Back Your Power, a documentary about 'smart' meters which won the AwareGuide Transformational Film of the Year, the Indie Fest Annual Humanitarian Award, and a Leo Award for Best Feature Length Documentary. Josh is passionate about safe technology, human rights, consciousness, decentralized energy, and being a dad.

View all posts

7 comments

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

  • A U.S. 1971 report was a kind of precursor to this, and notes electro-sensitivity from the 1932 literature! See “Overloading of Towns and Cities with Radio Transmitters (Cellular Transmitter): a hazard for the human health and a disturbance of eco-ethics” by Karl Hecht, Elena N. Savoley.
    The U.S. continues to lag other countries in protecting the population and natural world from manmade chronic bio-damaging radiofrequency radiation.

  • Hopefully they will come to their senses soon,especially in light of Prof Hardell’s latest research and the crooked tumor numbers in Denmark/Sweden.To ignore that is going to be a bit difficult,even for the telecom industry.

  • Patients at times reported not sleeping well and not being well after the compulsory placement of a Smartmeter with Victoria, Australia.

    I knew just enough about electronic driven radiation to know how to block it. As an experiment, I tried putting good old lead flashing (the lead sheeting that used to be spread on old roofs, around chimneys and attics over tile borders to stop the rain running in) as a backing (ie in between two sheets of fibreboard or plywood sheeting between the wall and the smart meter BEFORE it was installed.

    The rolls of lead sheeting can be bought from larger roofing/building supply companies. Best to wear gloves when handling and cutting it to slightly larger than the smartmeter box size.

    Signs of health problems certainly improved for those who seemed to have been previously affected by other smart meters elsewhere that did not have this radiation insulation installed.

    • lead is not the best blocking material for rf, is it? it blocks ionizing radiation like xrays. beware of this and do yr own research. aluminum and copper reflect rf. tree matter and cement may absorb and deflect some, as does earth and water. never heard that lead was a good blocker of rf or absorber! do yr own research. (try less emf, etc.)