[PDF]

Statement of Dr. John M. Osepchuk* before the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (June 17, 1977) PDF Free Download

1 / 36
0 views•36 pages

Statement of Dr. John M. Osepchuk* before the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (June 17, 1977) PDF Free Download

Statement of Dr. John M. Osepchuk* before the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (June 17, 1977) PDF free Download. Think more deeply and widely.

~-----
--
-----
--
•
HE
INSTITUTE
OF
ELECTRICAL
AND
ELECTRONICS
ENGINEERS, INC.
TECHNICAL
ACTIVITIES
BOARD
COMMITTEE
ON
MAN
AND
RADIATION
,,,
Please
reply to:
Statement
of
Dr.
John
M.
Osepchuk·,-
before
the
United
States
·
Senate
Committee
on
Commerce,
Science,
and
Transportation
{June
1
7,
1977)
I
Mr.
Chairman
and
members
of
the
Committee,
on
behalf
of
the
COMAR
Committee
of
the
IEEE,
I
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
of
appearing
before
you
today
to
testify
on
the
need
for
a
realistic
perspective
in
assessing
the
hazards
of
non-ionizing
radiation.
The
Committee
on
Man
and
Radiation
(COMAR)
was
established
in
1972by
the
Institute
of
Electrical
and
Electronic
Engineers
(IEEE)
which
is
the
leading
professional
society
in
electrical
engineering
with
about
160,000
members
worldwide.
The
primary
purpose
of
COMAR
is
to
present
factual
information
on
the
biological
effects
of
non-ionizing
electromagnetic
radiation
to
the
general
public,
including
_legislators.
Even
in
1972
there
w
1
s
much
false
or
misleading
information
on
this
subject
in
the
mass
media.
There-
fore
COMAR
was
charged
in
particular
with
the
task
of
rebutting
this
misin-
formation
by
appropriate
means.
The
present
membership
of
COMAR
consists
of
fourteen
scientists
and
engineers
involved
in
various
ways
with
development
and
application
of
bioeffect
research
data
or
safety
standards
for
man
relative
to
non-ionizing
radiation.
Included
as
members
are
two
representatives
of
the
medical
and
life
sciences.
In
addition,
the
ccf!nmittee
is
in
close
contact
with
the
entire
research
community
on
bioeffects
of
non-ionizing
electromagnetic
radiation.
The
Committee
roster
is
included
as
Appendix
A.
The
statements
and
material
presented
by
COMAR
generally
represent
the
consensus
of
the
committee
although
individual
efforts
are
encouraged
when
necessary
for
more
timely
and
effective
results.
Since
1972
COMAR
has
found
a
continuing
need
for
its
function
as
a
source
of
factual
information
to
the
general
public
because
the
mass-media
coverage
of
this
subject
has
continued
to
exhibit
serious
misinformation
and
flagrant
embellishments
of
the
truth
that
tend
to
highly
exaggerate
the
degree
and
nature
of
hazards
of
non-ionizing
radiation.
It
should
be
recognized
that
a
failure
of
responsible
groups
and
individuals
to
rebut
this
false
picture
could
lead
to
serious
harm
in
our
society
including:
,:,Raytheon
Research
Division,
28
Seyon
St.,
Waltham,
MA
021-;i
-------
1
7
i.
a.
deprivation
or
delay
of
beneficial
applications
of
electromagnetic
technology
-
whether
civilian
communications
devices
or
new
cancer
therapy
devices;
b.
unnecessary
fears
of
citizens
and
consumers
of
electricity
in
general
and
electronic
products
specifically.
c.
depressed
activity
in
technical
industries
with
loss
of
employ-
ment
on
all
levels;
d.
additional
costs
to
consumers
reflecting
costs
of
dealing
with
unnecessarily
complicated
and
overly
conservative
government
regulations;
e.
additional
costs
to
citizens
resulting
from
ill-based
litigations
stimulated
by
irrational
fears;
f.
additional
costs
to
citizens
of
increased
governmental
activity
of
an
unproductive
nature.
The
dangers
we
speak
about
here
are
not
imagined.
Examples
in
each
category
can
be
ctted.
A
particularly
poignant
example
is
worth
citing.
In
1974 a
woman
upon
becoming
pregnant
became
so
fearful
of
possible
birth
defects
because
of
some
previous
microwave
diathermy
applied
to
the
back
·
that
she
contemplated
abortion
as
a
solution.
She
was
dissuaded
from
this
action
after
receiving
factual
information
from
medical
and
physical
scientists
that
dispelled
her
association
of
microwave
"radiation"
as
a
source
of
birth
defects
akin
to
nuclear
radiation
which
she
had
gathered
from
the
mass
media.
This
example
is
probably
not
an
isolated
case
in
our
technological
society.
Recently
a
study
in
Science
2
reported
on
unnecessary
abortions
that
were
triggered
by
scare
stories
based
on
premature
results
associated
with
possible
hazards
of
some
spray
adhesives
that
were
later
found
to
be
invalid.
A
real
danger
is
that
our
societal
frame
of
mind
could
drift
into
a
Luddite-l~ke
anti-technology
posture
despite
our
sophistication.
In 1973
testimony
before
the
Senate
I
complained
about
the
reliability
of
information
in
the
field
of
non-ionizing
radiation
and
said
that
"some
of
this
published
information
will
someday
be
ranked
with
Wilhelm
Reich's
'Orgone
box'
in
a
list
of
RF
fantasies".
Despite
much
good
research
since
then,
there
continues
to
be
generated
much
misinformation
in
the
category
of
"RF
fantasies".
COMAR
has
attempted
to
rebut
this
information
and
inject
realistic
perspec-
tive.
(The
activities
of
COMAR
have
reflected
considerable
effort
on
the
part
of
past
chairman
H.
Mark
Grove
and
present
chairman,
Dr.
H.
Allen
Ecker.)
To
achieve
such
a
perspective
a
minimum
of
understanding
of
tech-
nical
concepts
is
a
necessary
ingredient.
COMAR
has
attempted
to
inject
these
concepts
into
public
discussions
and
I
will
now
review
them.
In
Fig.
1
we
show
the
electromagnetic
spectrum
and
some
of
the
principal
uses
and
band
designations.
The
spectrum
of
non-ionizing
radiation
is
essentially
bounded
on
one
side
by
60
Hz,
the
frequency
of
household
electricity,
and
on
the
other
side
by
optical
frequencies
corresponding
to
infrared
and
visible
light.
In
the
wide
spectrum
between
these
limits
lie
2
..
most
of
the
communication
uses
(including
broadcasting,
CB
radio
and
radar)
and
the
non-communication
uses,
or
power
applications,
which
utilize
certain
restricted
ISM
bands
(Industrial,
Scientific,
and
Medical).
The
principal
ISM
bands
are
denoted
by
black
bars.
Roughly
speaking,
the
so-called
microwave
frequency
range
lies
centered
between
the
low
and
high
ends
of
the
non-ionizing
spectrum.
Although
the
"microwave"
designation
is
often
somewhat
arb_itrar_ily
defined,
there
is
a
rational
definition
which
relates
meaningfully
to
b1olog1cal
exposure
hazards.
It
can
be
shown
that
for
any
size
object
with
electrical
properties
similar
to
biological
tissue,
there
is
a
frequency
range
roughly
centered
where
free-space
wavelength
is
of
the
order
of
the
body
dimensions
for
which
penetration
of
electromagnetic
field
is
greatest,
maximum
total
absorption
occurs
and
peak
internal
absorption
with
likely
"hot
spots
II
occu11. At
very
low
frequencies
the
body
acts
like
a
conductor
and
shunts
out
the:
electric
field.
At
very
high
frequencies
the
radiation
behaves
optically
and
is
absorbed
near
the
surface
of
the
body.
The
existence
of
such
a
frequency
range
with
unique
properties
of
maximum
penetration
is
schematically
depicted
in
Fig.
2.
This
broad
frequency
range
is
denoted
the
microwave
range
and
corresponds
to
the
technical
basis
of
alternative
definitions
where
the
size
of
apparatus
or
objects
of
interest
determines
where
"microwave"
properties
occur.
For
most
biological
and
other
objects
of
interest
to
man,
including
man
himself
and
other
animals,
the
microwave
range
is
meaning-
fully
assigned
to
10 MHz
to
100
GHz,
the
frequency
range
covered
by
the
ANSI
C95.
1
exposure
standard.
4
Crudely
speaking,
we
can
state
that
there
is
a
resonant
frequency
(or
range
of
resonant
frequencies)
for
each
object
that
varies
with
size
and
shape.
This
principle
was
recognized
years
ago
by
the
inventor
of
the
microwave
oven,
Percy
Spencer,
when
he
stated
5
that
optimum
deep
heating
of
food
occurred
when
the
wavelength
of
the
radiation
is
of
the
order
of
the
food
size.
One
can
expect
therefore,
that
maximum
deep
heating
for
a fruit.fly,
occurs
over
10 GHz -
hamburger
at~
2.
45
GHz -
turkey
at~
915 MHz -
and
man
at~
100
MHz.
In
fact,
recent
technical
studies
have
yielded
a
more
quantitative
picture
,of
the
nature
of
the
electromagnetic
resonance
of
the
human
body.
In
Fig.
3
we
show
theoretical
data
for
a
human
compared
to
experimental
verification
using
scaled
phantom
models,
taken
from
the
work
of
O.
P.
Gandhi.
6
For
the
polarization
indicated
a
significant
absorption
peak
is
predicted
for
the
frequency
range
of
30:..300 MHz
depending
on
body
size,
at
which
frequency
local
internal
hot
spots
are
most
likely.·
Similar
work
at
the
University
of
Utah
has
resulted
in
a
"Dosimetry
Handbook"
7
which
suggests
frequency
dependence
of
absorption·
in
man
and
animals
based
on
simple
theoretical
models.
The
two
examples
in
Fig.
4
show
curves
for
man
and
a
small
rat,
respectively.
Again,
even
though
there
is
some
question
on
the
accuracy
of
them,
the
gross
features
of
body
absorption
ar~
c~ear
and
confirm
_Percy
Spencer's
understanding
of
microwave
heating
prmc1ples.
Frequencies
above
1 GHz
are
most
effective
in
deep
heating
of
a
mouse
or
a
hamburger
but
the
most
effective
frequencies
for
heating
the
whole
of
man
are
at
the
VHF
range
-
those
of
FM
and
TV
broadcasting.
3
I
L_
(..
In
fact,
the
microwave-oven
frequenc
8
of
2.
45
GHz,
although_
use~
for
years
in
diathermy,
has
been
determined
in
recent
_ye_ars
to
be
mf~r1or
to.
t.rnF
frequencies
for
effective
diathermy
because
of
limited
penetration
at
2.
45
GHz.
This
description
of
how
absorption
of
electromagnetic
energy
varies
with
body
size,
shape
and
frequency
is
important
in
assessing
the
relative
hazards
of
different
frequencies
and
especially
important
because
it
clearly
indicates
the
need
for
some
scaling
process
in
relating
the
results
of
animal
•
experiments
to
man.
Now
we
turn
to
a
review
of
existing
safety
standards
-
both
exposure
and
emission
-
so
that
a
valid
interpretation
of
these
standards
can
be
made
in
assessmg
risk
in
real-world
situations
which
COMAR
has
dealt
with.
An
exposure
standard
applies
to
people
-
iti
specifies
the
maximum
exposure
(whole
body)
that
personnel
should
subject
themselves
to.
An
emission
standard
applies
to
equipment
and
.specifies
the
maximum
permitted
level
of
leakage
radiation
at
specified
points,
usually
close
to
the
equipment.
The
two
types
of
standards
should
not
be
confused
because
they
are
different
concepts
and
not
directly
comparable.
Exposure
is
described
by
incident
or
ambient
average
power
density
and
the
continuous
duration
of
such
exposure
to
such
power
density.
In
Fig.
5
are
shown
the
principal
U.S.
exposure
standards
and
the
USSR
exposure
standard
for
microwaves.
Both
U.S.
and
USSR
standards
are
relaxed
below
a
"microwave"
range
of
frequency.
The
U.S.
standard
protects
against
thermal
damage
with
a
safety
factor
of
at
least
ten.
This
is
plausible
since
millions
of
microwave
diathermy
treatments,
partial
body,
have
been
given
to
patients
over
the
last
twenty-five
years
with
exposures
indicated
in
Fig.
5
without
deleterious
effect.9
The
Soviet
microwave
exposure
standard
also
depicted
in
Fig.
5
shows
a
great
difference
to
U.S.
exposure
standards
for
long
duration,
i.e.,
a
1000
to
1
ratio
in
permissible
power
density.
A
detailed
review
shows,
however,
that
the
overall
differences
are-
not
as
great
as
at
first
sight.
First
of
all,
the
Soviet
standard
is
intended
to
protect
against
reversible
functional
distur~ances
believed
to
occur
for
chronic
exposure
to
levels
above
1
mW/
cm
whereas
the
U.S.
standard
protects
against
possibly
irreversible
tissue
damage.
Secondly,
the
Soviet
and
U.S.
exposure
standards
come
closer
to
agreement
for
short
exposure
duration.
Thirdly,
the
Soviets
i~ply
the
use
of
a
safety
factor
greater
than
ten,
viz:
In
one
book;lO
a~er
pointing
out
that
functional
disturbances
occur
at
levels
above
1
mW/
cm
and
exposure
times
longer
than
one
hour
it
is
stated
(pp.
200-201
of
NASA
translation),
"On
th
2
basis
of
this
figure,
one-tenth
of
the
radiant
intensity,
i.e.,
0.1
mW/
cm
,
was
recommended
as
the
safe
level
for
exposure
throughout
tJ;ie
working
day
(rounded
off
to
10
hours).
For
a
,
tenfold
hygienic
safety
margin,
arrived
at
in
view
of
the
varying
ages,
~ndividual
sensitivities,
etc.
, a
still
lower
(by a
factor
of
10)
intensity,
1.
e.,
0.
01
mW/
cm
2 (10
µW/
cm
2)
has.
been
recommended
as
the
maximum
permissible
level".
4
In a
more
recent
Soviet
book
11
on
page
31
7 it
is
stated:
"The
data
from
biophysical
and
medical
investigations
which
a~e
now
availabl~
make
_it
possible
to
conclude
t~at
th_e
~rincipal
pathol?g1cal
_chang~s
arise
durmg
2
continuous
prolonged
.1rrad1at10n
by
a
field
with
an
mtens1ty
1.
.••
10
mW/
cm
or
more.....
Accordingly,
exposure
to
a
field
with
an
intensity
of
about
a few
or
even
tens
of
microwatts
per
square
centimeter
cannot
be
regarded
as
in
any
way
dangerous".
One
clear
lesson
to
be
drawn
from
this
review
is
that
the
exposure
limit
in
a
safety
standard
is
not
a
boundary
between
hazard
and
safety,
the
more
so
the
greater
the
safety
factor
employed.
Furthermore,
the
Soviets
agree
that
there
are
real
thresholds
for
damage
and
no
truly
cumulative
effect
such
is
postulated
with
ionizing
radiation.
There
is
no
evidence
even
in
the
Soviet
view
that
truly
long-term
exposure
durations
of
many
days
of
ambient
levels
of
a few
microwatts/
cm2
is
in
any
way
harmful.
Such
ambient
levels
can
exist
in
modern
society
due
to
many
sources,
with
broadcasting
a
prime
source.
When
we
review
existing
emission
standards
we
find a
high
degree
of
conservatism
such
that
they
are
compatible
with
any
e1osure
standards
in
the
world.
The
principal
emission
standard
in
the
U.
•
is
that
applicable
to
microwave
ovens.12
It
has
been
known3
for
years
that
there
is
a
high
degree
of
safety
associated
with
this
standard
such
that
a
committee
of
the
American
Medical
Association
correctly
associated
13 a
safety
factor
of
10,000
by
comparison
with
damage
thresholds
accepted
by
U.S.
scientists.
The
conservatism
of
the
U.S.
microwave
oven
emission
standard
stems
from
the
fact
that
it
specifies
the
power
density
level
close
to
the
oven
and
not
in
a
person
operating
the
oven.
Because
the
power
density
drops
off
roughly
as
the
inverse
square
of
distance
from
a
source
,levels
of
likely
expo-
sure
are
far
lower
than
the
emission
values.
In
Fig.
6
we
depict
this
inverse-square
decrease
of
power
density
with
distance.
The
U.S.
microwave
oven
emission
standard
specifies
a
maximum
of
1
mW1/
cm2
at
5
cm
(2
inches}
from
the
oven's
external
surface
when
new
and
5
mW
cm2
thereafter.
These
emission
levels
correspond
to
the
order
of
one
watt
radiated
and
we
can
see
from
Fig.
6
that
exposure
levels
below
Soviet
limits
for
20
minutes,
2
hours
and
8
hours
are
quickly
reached
a few
feet
from
the
oven.
Studies14
of
likely
operator
locations
have
shown
that
even
if
the
oven
leaked
at
its
regulatory
limit
of
5
mW/
cm
2
at
5
cm,
that
likely
exposure
levels
are
well
below
USSR
exposure
limits.
This
result
is
depicted
in
Fig.
5.
The
fact
that
most
ovens
leak
far
below
this
limit
(e.g.,
0.1
mW/
cm2)
means
that
likely
exposure
near
ovens
meeting
HEW
regulations
is
trivial.
Some
people
such
as
Consumers
Uni_on
15
have
confused
emission
and
exposure
and
assumed
that
microwave
ovens
are
not
compatible
with
USSR
exposure
standards.
Since
1969,
however,
evidence
has
accumulated
that
health
authorities
in
Eastern
Europe
find
the
U.S.
oven
emission
standard
is
fully
compatible
with
their
exposure
standard.
This
evidence
began
in
1969
when
Dr.
K.
Marha
described
16
an
emission
standard
for
oven
workers
in
Czechoslovakia
essentially
compatible
with
the
U.S.
emission
standard.
In
recent
years
Dr.
P.
Czerski
of
Poland,
one
of
the
leading
researchers
in
Eastern
Europe,
has
stated
this
equivalence
on
many
occasions.
For
5
(.
example,
in
1974,
Dr.
Czerski
said":
17
"equipment
performance
standards
in
the
U.S.
A.
•
••
for
microwave
ovens
and
the
U.S.
S.
R.
personnel
exposure
standards
do
conform
exactly
and
we
would
be
only
too
happy
to
import
any
such
ovens
into
Poland".
This
conclusion
is
repeated
in a
recent
book
18
co-authored
by
Dr.
Czerski.
Lastly,
it
has
been
learned
by
personal
communication
19
with
Soviet
scientists
that
microwave
ovens
will
be
manufactured
in
the
USSR
and
that
an
emission
standard
has
been
recommended
by
a
technical
com-
mittee
of
the
Ministry
of
Public
Health.
This
standard
specifies
a
maximum
emission
limit
of
10 µW /
cm2,
measured
50
cm
in
front
of
the
door
of
the
oven.
By
invoking
the
inverse-square
law
one
can
see
that
this
is
equivalent
to
the
U.S.
limit
of
1
mW/
cm2
at
5
cm.
This
equivalence
is
accepted
by
t~e
Soviet
scientists.
The
ov~rall
conclusion
to
be
drawn
from
this
review
of
mi~rowave
oven
emission
standards
is
that
the
U.S.
emission
standard
is
accepted
world-wide.
Thus,
even
though
there
is
certainly
current
valid
debate
over
exposure
standards
this
debate
does
not
affect
whatsoever
the
question
of
microwave
oven
safety.
·
The
U.S.
oven
emission
standard
is
considered
adequate
by
the
·responsible
scientists
in
all
countries
including
those
of
Eastern
Europe.
·
Having
fixed
in
our
minds
some
of
the
basic
principles
about
micro-
wave
exposure
and
safety
standards,
let
us
review
some
of
COMAR
I
s
activities
in
recent
yea,rs,
to
show
how
much
of
the
public
controversy
about
"microwaves"
is
irrational
and
can
be
dispelled
by
a
knowledge
of
basic
facts
on
the
subject.
During
its
five-year
existence
COMAR
has
found
many
situations
where
misinformation
was
prominent
in
public
discussions
about
hazards
of
non-ionizing
radiation
and
in
which
COMAR
has
attempted
to
inject
factual
information
and
a
realistic
perspective.
In 1973
Consumer's
Union
questioned
the
adequacy
of
the
HEW
oven
emission
standard
and
called
for
"zero
leakage".
COMAR
responded
with
letters
to
Consumer's
Union
and
Senator
Tunney
and
issued
a
press
release.
It
was
pointed
out
that
CU
had
confused
exposure
and
emission
standards
and
that
their
goal
of
"zero
leakage"
was
unnecessary,
impractical
and
irrelevant
in
view
of
greater
and
more
continuous
exposure
of
the
general
population
to
finite
levels
of
non-ionizing
radiation.
Objectives
similar
to
those
of
CU
seemed
to
underly
the
opposition
of
the
Environmental
Commission
and
individual
citizens
of
Mahwah,
New
Jersey
to
a
proposed
microwave
relay
tower.
COMAR
pointed
out
that
ground
levels
of
radiation
from
the
tower
would
be
several
orders
of
mag-
.
nitude
below
even
the
USSR
exposure
standard,
that
thousands
of
such
towers
already
exist
without
any
evidence
of
radiation
hazard,
and
that
the
fears
of
"microwaves"
at
any
level
were
irrational.
After
a
lengthy
delay
of
two
years
and
several
hearings
the
New
Jersey
State
Utilities
Board
finally
approved
construction
ofthe
tower.·
6
J
In
the
last
t~o
years
considerable
publicity
and
speculation
has
occurred·
in
the
news
media
concerning
the
microwave
irradiation
of
the
u.
S.
Embassy
in
Moscow.
COMAR
has
requested
the
U.S.
State
Department
to
officially
release
sufficient
technical
details
on
the
radiation
to
perm~t
convincing
assessment
by
professional
groups
of
the
degree
of
hazard,
1f
any.
Unfortunately,
the
State
Department
has
declined
to
do
this
t?eyond
confirming
that
the
maximum
radiation
level
is
of
the
order
of
1
µW/
cm
2
except
for
a
brief
period
in
1976
when
it
reached
18
µ
W /
cm
2•
These
levels
apparently
are
confined
to
certain
areas
of
the
building
and
over
most
of
the
building
the
levels
are
unmeasurable
with
conventional
hazard
survey
instruments.
Such
radiation
levels
are
far
below
hazard
levels
implied
in
the
viewpoints
underlying
either
U.S.
or
USSR
exposure
standards.
and
are
comparable
to
ambient
levels
that
exist
from
broadcasting
sources
in
modern
society.20
Thus
there
appears
no
basis
for
the
fearful
specu-
lations
in
the
press
and
the
official
denial
by
the
State
Department
of
a
relation
of
the
radiation
to
personnel
health
problems
appears
valid.
COMAR
believes,
however,
that
a
more
forthright
description
of
the
radiation
by
the
State
Department
would
serve
to
produce
a
more
satisfying
rebuttal
of
the
speculative
fears.
COMAR
has
supported
HEW,
the
medical
profession,
and
industry
in
opposing
a
series
of
proposals
in
individual
cities
and
states
for
required
warning
signs
around
microwave
ovens·
aimed
to
protect
pacemaker
wearers
against
potential
interference.
COMAR
has
helped
to
point
out
that
the
potential
for
interference
is
a
pacemaker
susceptibility
problem
rather
than
a
radiation
hazard,
is
essentially
nil
for
modern
microwave
ovens,
is
less
for
microwave
ovens
than
many
other
legitimate
radiation
sources,
is
considered
an
insignificant
clinical
problem
by
the
medical
profession,
and
is
to
be
under
effective
control
by
pacemaker
susceptibility
standards
expected
to
be
promulgated
by
FDA
under
the
1976
Medical
Service
Safety
Act.
In
most
cases
the
proponents
of
such
regulations
have
dropped
their
efforts
after
a
full
factual
discussion
has
been
presented.
COMAR
has
commented
to
the
Bureau
of
Radiological
Health
and
the
Technical
Electronic
Products
Radiation
Safety
Standards
Committee
(advisory
to
the
HEW
Secretary)
·on
various
proposed
standards.
In
particular,
it
has
opposed
the
requirement
of
warning
labels
on
microwave
ovens.
The
requirement
was
promulgated
but
with
the
possibility
of
exemption
provided.
COMAR
in
the
last
two
years
has
opposed
a
proposed
emission
standard
on
microwave
diathermy
applicators
because
it
is
overly
conservatice,
would
cause
the
one
U.S.
manufacturer
of
such
diathermy
to
cease
production
of
such
devices
and
would
discourage
extension
of
such
diathermy
to
new
objectives
such
as
cancer
therapy.
COMAR
supported
the
medical
users
of
such
equipment
who
felt
a
better
control
basis
is
the
effective
employment
of
exposure
standards
under
occupational
controls.
It
is
incongruous
that
BRH
appears
concerned
over
the
potential
deleterious
effects
of
low-level
exposures
in
this
situation
where
a
twenty-five
year
ricord
of
safe
therapy
to
the
patie_nt_
o~practitioners
has
b~en
confirmed
and
a
different
branch
of
HEW
proh1b1ts
the
sale
of
such
diathermy
unless
the
power
level
is
high
enough
to
produce
significant
heating
-the
only
validated
basis
of
therapeutic
effects.
This
controversy
should
remind
one
that
if
important
low-level
"non-thermal"
effects
did
exist,
they
surely
would
be
exploited
by
the
medical
profession
and
present
industry
with
a
new
market.
7
COMAR
members
have
provided
inform~tion
to
a
radio
broadcaster
whose
transmitter
was
alleged
to
be
a
potential
"radiation"
hazard
by
an
abutter
who
planned
to
develop
the
land
near
the
transmitter.
This
was
an
example
of
extension
of
"microwave"
fears
to
frequencies
well
below
t~e
resonances
of
the
human
body
and
for
which
existing
standards
are
believed
conservative.
It
is
also
another
example
where
potential
interference
with
home
electronics
is
associated
with
"radiation"
hazard.
COMAR
has
responded
to
many
articles
in
the
press
and
programs
in
the
broadcast
media
which
have
distorted
.the
nature
of
non-ionizing
radiation
hazards.
Most
recently
COMAR
has
responded
to
the
articles
22
by
Paul
BrodP.ur
on
"microwaves",
by
letter
and-by
issuing
for
public
rele~se
a
detailed
critique
and
rebuttal
of
Brodeur.
The
latter
had
implied
that
the
military,
government,
industry
and
the
scientific
community
were
engaged
in
covering
up
serious
potential
hazards
of
non-ionizing
rapiation
and
that
serious
potential
hazards
to
the
general
population
existed
from
such
radiation.
COMAR found
Brodeur'
s
thesis
unfounded
and
the
publica-
tion
of
his
articles
a
disservice
to
the
general
public.
COMAR
has
consistently
supported
an
effective
program
of
research
on
the
bioe'ffects
of
non-ionizing
radiation
and
has
sought
to
inject
professional
society
influence
into
the
planning
and
review
of
such
research.
Because
COMAR
believes
a
healthy
arrangement
should
include
non-government
as
well
as
government
personnel
in
research
review
panels,
COMAR
with
the
support
of
the
President
of
the
IEEE,
wrote
the
Secretary
of
the
Department
of
HEW
in
1974
protesting
plans
to
abolish
a
research
review
panel
con-
taining
some
non-government
scientists.
COMAR,
it
must
be
repeated,
strongly
supports
programs
of
research
on
bioeffects
of
non-ionizing
radiation
-
but
not
for
the
wrong
reasons
which
are
suggested
in
the
press.
There
is
no
crisis
-
no
imminent
health
hazard
from
low-level
NIR.
It v.o
uld
be
very
sad
if
the
great
nation
of
the
United
States
felt
that
research
in
this
field
is
justified
only
if
there
is
a
public
health
crisis
or
even
problem.
Because
electromagnetic
technology
pervades
modern
society
in
a
host
of
ways
it
should
be
self-evident.
by
the
spirit
and
ideals
of
science
that
potential
side-effects
and
interaction
with
biological
organisms
should
be
investigated.
Potential
payoff
to
society
may
not
be
predictable
if
it
is
truly
good
science
but
one
can
speculate
at
least
that
such
research
will
a.
permit
more
accurate
safety
standards
with
a
more
exact
knowledge'
of
safety
factor
as
a
function.
of
frequency,
exposure
duration
and
many
other
variables,
b.
permit
the
development
of
new
medical
applications
such
as
the
use
of
hyperthermia
in
cancer
therapy,23
.
c.
seek
out
potential
biological
applications
-
e.g.
,
insect
or
weed
control
with
less
pollution,
.
d.
create
useful
spin-off
knowledge
of
use
to
the
industrial
heating
and
microwave
oven
businesses.
Problems
of
interaction
of
radiation
with
8
. l
'·
>
animals
and
the
heating
of
foodstuffs
and
other
materials
are
closely
analogous.
In
reviewingthe,status
of
today's
research
in
the
U.S.,
COMAR
finds,
however,
that
there
are
several
aspects
that
suggest
possible
improvements
in
the
planning,
execution
and
reporting
of
this
research.
1.
In
Fig.
7
we
show
a
rough
picture
of
the
distribution
in
the
spectrum
of
research
on
bioeffe
cts
of
non-ionizing
radiation
in
1975.
This
refers
to
the
number
of
projects
in
each
spectrum
segment
which
are
reported
in
the
annual
report2
4
for
1976
from
the
Office
of
Telecommunica-
tions
Policy
on
this
subject.
The
secondary
peak
of
activity
at
very
low
frequencies
reflect
the
special
concerns
over
Project
Seafarer.
Other-
wise·,
the
research
is
concentrated
in
the
conventional
"microwave"
region
of
1
to
10
GHz.
This
is
somewhat
explained
by
the
fact
that
most
research
is
done
with
small
animals,
particularly
rats
and
mice,
for
which
experi-
ments
around
body
resonant
frequencies
are
quite
convenient
in
this
frequency
range
where
inexpensive
power
sources
exist
and
e?(posure
chambers
can
be
of
convenient
size.
Since
the
primary
interest
is
in
potential
hazards
for
man
this
research
should
be
broadened
to
more
clearly
indicate
how
results
are
extrapolated
to
man.
At
present,
strictly
speaking,
most
research
results
relate
only
to
small
animals.
I
One
meaningful
action
would
be
to
extend
the
research
with
small
animals
over
a
broad
frequency
range,
at
least
a
decade,
to
verify
the
frequency
depend'ence
of
effects
which
is
expected
to
peak
at
some
resonant
frequency
range~
Secondly,
more
specific
research
on
both
physical
and
biological
aspects
of
"scaling"
from
animals
to
man
should
be
performed.
Besides
theoretical
work
this
may
involve
experimental
work
with
phantoms
of
varying
size
over
broad
frequency
ranges,
and
more
direct
exposure
studies
with
larger
animals.
It
is
to
be
noted
that
for
man
that
the
expected
reso-
nance
regime
is
in
the
VHF
part
of
the
spectrum
with
a
rapid
decrease
of
absorption
for
frequencies
below
20 MHz
and
a
transition
to
surface
heating
at
frequencies
much
higher
than
the
VHF
range.
2.
It
is
recognized
that
good
research
effort
in
this
field
requires
truly
interdisciplinary
cooperative
effort.
There
exists
good
research
teams
of
this
type
at
various
universities
and
government
research
labor-
atories.
Still
the
field
is
still
dominated
by
engineers.
Perhaps
this
is
natural
because
most
of
the
meaningful
and
more
easily
understood
aspects
of
the
problem
are
physical
in
nature.
Practically
all
of
the
seminars
and
symposia,
as
well
as
journal
publication
in
this
fteld,
are
conducted
with
the
cooperation
of
engineering
societies.
It
would
be
desirable
if
there
were
more
involvement
by
the
professional
·
societies
of
the
life
sciences
and
the
medical
profession.'
It
is
understand-
,
able
that
the
medical
societies
are
little
involved
since
there
is
essentially
no
or
l~tt~e
confirmed
evidence
of
injuries
to
humans.
from
radiation
exposure
to
RF/
microwave
energy
despite
the
25-year
interest
in
this
subject
as
a
9
research
area.
Nevertheless,
if
the
potential
hazards
are
to
be
seriously
considered,
it
would
be
productive
if
the
professional
societies
in
the
lif~
and
medical
sciences
participate
more
specifically
in
support
of
symposia,
journal
publication
and
peer
review
and
assessment
of
ongoing
research.
An
effort
in
this
direction
is
being
conducted
by
the
Microwave
Theory
and
Techniques
Society
of
the
IEEE
and
the
International
Microwave
Power
Institute.
These
organizations
hope
to
hold
a
special
meeting
of
repre-
sentatives
from
various
professional
societies
during
jointly
sponsored
symposia
activities
in
June
1978
in
Ottawa,
Canada.
3.
More
effort
be
assigned
to
replication
of
research
yielding
controversial
results.
Often
such
research
is
not
followed
up
by
even
the
original
investigator.~
and
remains
a
reference
in
the
literature.
If
the
research
is
felt
to
be
valid,
it
certainly
should
be
refined
and
extended
to
other
animal
species,
frequencies,
etc.
On
the
other
hand,
if
it
is
felt
to
be
invalid,
research
to
replicate
the
experiment
will
be
a
most
convincing
way
of
correcting
the
validity
of
what
is
in
the
published
literature.
4.
More
research
on
bioeffects
above
30 GHz
should
be
done.
Recent
Soviet
res~arch,25
and
sophisticated
physical
theory26
suggest
frequency-specific
and
possibly
athermal
mechanisms
of
interaction
with
biological
macro-molecules.
This
region
of
the
spectrum
has
essentially
no
practical
use
at
the
moment.
On
the
other
hand,
this
situation
offers
society
an
ideal
opportunity
to
explore
potential
bioeffects
before
extensive
use
of
this
part
of
the
spectrum
becomes
a
reality.
Furthermore,
it
is
possible
that
bioeffect
research
above
30 GHz
may
uncover
beneficial
applications
and
help
stimulate
commercial
and
medical
uses.
5. It
is
already
known
23
that
there
is
a
potential
beneficial
use
of
microwave
heating
in
cancer
therapy.
The
problems
of
microwave
heating,
both
physical
arul
biological,
are
not
trivial.
This
is
recognized
in
one
NSF
Workshop
27
for
example.
Similar
physical
problems
exist
in
indus-
trial
heating,
microwave
ovens
and
medical
applications.
Because
of
potentially
great
societal
and
economic
benefit,
research
on
the
beneficial
applications
of
microwave
heating
should
be
increased.
This
should
involve
all
aspects
of
the
research
process·
and
not
just
clinical
studies
with
existing
apparatus.
Provision
for
possibly
more
optimum
equipment
involving
new
frequencies
and
new
techniques
should
be
made
through
more
basic
and
exploratory
research
and
a
broader
frequency
allocation
policy
for
ISM
applications.
Such
a
policy
has
been
proposed
by
various
groups
including
the
International
Microwave
Power
Institute28
in
efforts
to
influence
the
World
Administrative
Radio
Conference
which
will
be
held
in
1979
and
will
determine
international
agreements
on
frequency
allocation
likely
to
hold
till
the
year
2000.
Lastly,
we
believe
that
there
is
a
real
need
for
public
education
on
this
subject
-
or
more
broadly,
the
nature
of
electrical
or
electromagnetic
energy
and
its
hazards.
There
has
historically
been
frequent
eruptions
of
irrational
attitudes
to
electricity
beginning
with
the
fear
of
the
electric
lamp
29 a
century
ago.
In
the
first
half
of
this
century
there
occurred
a
10
_,,
great
amount
of
research
on
lower
~requency
diathermy_
(below 100 MHz)
which
led
to
many
claims
of
dramatic
non-thermal
medical
uses
and
applications
based
on
a
variety
of
speculative
mechanisms.
This
lid
to
industrial
and
medical
exploitation
which
was
later
condemned
3
0'
3
by
the
medical
profession.
By
World
War
II
the
latter
concluded
that
"the
.
burden
of
proof
still
lies
on
those
who
claim
any
biologic
actions
of
these
currents
other
than
heat".
30
By
contrast,
when
microwave
diathermy
as
a
therapeutic
heating
agent
was
introduced
in
1950
it
was
considered
well
researched
before
clinical
use.
3l
Since
World
War
II
with
the
introduction
of
the
higher
microwave
frequencies
into
practical
use,
there
have
developed
various
legendary
and
almost
fabled
beliefs
about
microwaves,
often
associated
with
ESP
or
other
pseudo-scientific
subjects.
A
review32
of
these
beliefs
and
how
t~ey
appear
in
the
contemporary
scene
has
been
made
by
Dr.
Don
Justesen,
a
member
of
this
committee.
It'
is
attached
as
Appendix
B.
It
is
apparent
that
there
is
a
need
for
better
public
education
on
the
nature
of
electromagnetic
energy,
its
benefits
and
potential
hazards
even
among
sophisticated
elements
of
our
society.
Topics
that
need'
to
be
clarified
include:
a.
the
fact
that
electromagnetic
energy
associated
with
the
spectrum
from
ordinary
electricity
to
visible
light
is
non-ionizing
and
is
not
equivalent
to
the
"radiation"
associated
with
x-ray~
or
nuclear
systems
which
display
potential
for
cumulative
and
more
insidious
effects;
b.
the
fact
that
non-ionizing
electromagnetic
energy
has
been
in
use
in
many
areas
of
modern
society
for
many
years
without
validation
of
serious
human
injury
due
to
radiation
effects;
c.
a
better
understanding
of
what
modern
bioeffect
research
is
doing
and
what
it
means
-
for
example,
that
effects,
like
sensation,
do
not
neces-
-
sarily
imply
hazard.
The
common
experience
of
static
shock
after
walking
on
a
rug
is
an
example
of
significant
localized
elecrrical
energy;
·
d.
the
beneficial
uses
of
electromagnetic
energy
ranging
from
house-
hold
electricity,
broadcasting
to
medical
applications;
e.
the
fact
that
sufficient
understanding
of
the
effects
of
electro-
magnetic
energy
to
protect
against
known
thermal
hazards
has
been
available
for
years.
The
key
papers
of
Mumford33,
a
member
of
this
committee,
and
Kalant
34
in
the
early
sixties
provided
an
authentic
engineering
and
medical
assessment
of
potential
hazards.
Since
then
the
works
of
leading
researchers
like
Schwan,35
Michaelson
36
and
Guy37
have
improved
and
extended
this
understanding
toward
a
more
exact
quantitative
formulation.
Nevertheless,
the
conclusion
of
Kalant
appears
as
valid
today
as
it
was
earlier
-
namely
-
"practical
protection
of
human
beings
against
damage
due
to
excessive
micro-
wave
energy
appears
to
require
chiefly
the
application
of
common
sense
and
sound
engineering
directed
against
known
dangers,
rather
than
a
search
for
new
and
as
yet
unrecognized
dangers".
11
• I
It
is
helpful
at
this
point
to
quote
a
principal
conclusion
from
the
paper
by
Justesen
(Appendix
B),
viz:
"The
assumption
of
hazardous
nonthermal
effects
at
low
densities
of
radiation,
which
are
suspected
by
some
but
are
as
yet
unsubstantiated
by
anyone,
is
a
fabrication
from
the
whole-cloth
of
fear.
This
fear,
which
feeds
on
the
absence
of
verified
or
verifiable
evidence,
is
hampering
basic
studies
and
may
thereby
restrict
medical
'development
and
application
of
radio-frequency
radiations".
It
is
the
aim
of
COMAR
to
help
achieve
rational
perspective
in
our
society
with
regard
to
potential
hazard
of
non-ionizing
radiation.
It
would
be
very
desirable
if
efforts
toward
public
education
could
be
expanded
and
improved.
It
should
be
possible
for
government
agencies
(e.g.
,
NSF
or
the
National
Academies)
to
sponsor
and
supervise
the
production
of
effective
educational
material,
not
only
for
the
printed
media,
but
also
radio
and
television.
12
15.
16.
1 7.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Consumers
Union,
"Microwave
Oven
is
not
Recommended,
11
Consumer
Reports
Magazine
(April,
1973).
K.
Marha,
"Maximum
Admissable
Values
of
HF
and
UHF
Electro-
magnetic
Radiation
at
Work
Places
in
Czechoslovakia,"
Proceedings
of
the
Symposium
on
"Biological
Effects
and
Health
Implications
of
Microwaves,"
HEW
Document
BRH/
DBE
70. 2
(1970),
p.
194.
S.
Michaelson
et
al.
,
editors,
Fundamental
and
Ailied
As,ects
of
Nonionizing.Radiation,
p.
432,
Plenum
Press,.
Y.
(19
5).
S.
Baranski
and
P.
Czerski,
Biological
Effects
of
Microwaves,
p.
183
and
p.
186,
Dowden,
Hutchinson,
and
ffoss,
Inc.
,
Stroudsburg,
Pa.
(1977).
Personal
Communication
of
Author
with
Dr.
J.
D.
Dumansky
and
Dr.
Los
at
the
1977
IMPI
Symposium
on
Microwave
Power,
Minneapolis,
Minn.
(May
27,
1977).
'
Office
of
Telecommunications
Policy,
Report
on
"Program
for
Control
of
Electromagnetic
Pollution
of
the
Environment:
The
Assessment
of
Biological
Hazards
of
Non-Ionizing
Electromagnetic
Radiation,!'
(March,
1973);
also
selected
reports
from
EPA
in
recent
years.
Report
to
the
Senate
Committee
on
Government
Operations
by
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States,
Stronger
Measures
Needed
to
Insure
that
Medical
Diatherm
Devices
are
Safe
and
Effective,
U.
ccounting
R
-76-
ept.
2,
6.
Paul
Brodeur,
"Microwaves,"
New
Yorker
Magazine,
(Dec.
13,20,
1976).
Proceedin
s
of
the
International
S m
osium
on
Cancer
Thera
ypert
erm1c
an
a 1at10n, o
ege
o a
10
ogy
Office
of
Telecommunications
Policy,
Fourth
Report
on
"Program
for
Control
.••••
Radiation,"
(June
1976).
.
·
Summary
of
Papers
on
Biological
Effects
of
Millimeter
Waves,
Soviet
Physics
Usp
•
..!.§_,
No.
4,
pp.
568-579
(Jan-Feb.
1974).
H.
Frl:Jhlich,
"Evidence
for
Bose
Condensation-Like
Excitation
of
Coherent
Modes
in
Biological
Systems,"
Physics
Letters
51A,
No.
1,
pp.
21-22
(Jan.
2
7,
1975).
-
National
Science
Foundation,
Workshop
on
Future
Directions
of
Electromagnetics
of
Continuous
Media
{Dec.
1972).
"IMF!
Position
Paper
on
Frequency
Allocation
Matters,
11
Int.
Microwave
Power
Institute,
Edmonton,
Alberta,
Canada
(1976).
See
for
example
J.
of
Microwave
Power
11
(1),
March,
1976;
also
Ref.
1 ,
page
7. -
Editorial,
"Microwave
Diathermy
- A
double
Progress;
11
Arch.
Phys.
Med.
(Jan.
,
1950).
W.
Bierman,
The
Medical
A
lications
of
the
Short-Wave
Current,
Williams
and
il
ms
a
timore
;
page
D.
R.
Justesen,
"Diathermy
Versus
the
Microwaves
and
Other
Radio-
Fr~quency
Radiations:
A
Rose
by
Another
Name
is
a
Cabbage,"
Radio
Science,
Vol.
g,
No. 3
(May-June
1977) (in
press).
14
33.
w.
W.
Mumford,
"Some
Technical
Aspects
of
Microwave
Radiation
Hazards,"
Proc.
IRE
49,
pp.
427-447
(Feb.
1961).
'
-
34.
H.
Kalant,
"Physiological
Hazards
of
Microwave
Radiation;
A
Survey
of
Published
Literature,"
Canad.
Med.
Assoc.
J.
81,
pp.
575-582,
(Oct.
1,
1959).
-
35.
H.
P •.
Schwan,
"Interaction
of
Microwave
and
Radio
Frequency
Radiation
with
Biological
Systems,"
IEEE
Trans.
MTT-19,
pp.
146-152
(Feb.
1971).
3 6. S. M.
Michaelson,
"Human
Exposure
to
Nonionizing
Radiant
Energy
-
Potential
Hazards
and
Safety
Standards,
11
Proc.
IEEE
60,
pp.
389-421
(April,
·1972). · - .
37.
C.
C.
Johnson
and
A.
W.
Guy,
"Nonionizing
Electromagnetic
Wave
Effects
in
Biological
Materials
and
Systems,"
Proc.
IEEE
1
60,
·
pp.
6~2-718
(June
1972).
-
15
Frequency
(Hertz)
10
3
10
6
10
9
10
12
10
15
,o•e
I I
I
Infra
I
,x-Roys
AC
Power
red
I
Visible
I
-.-
I
I •
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.10'
0
3.107 3.10
4
30
3.10-
2
3.10-
5
3.10-e
Wavelength
(cm)
Figure
1
The
Electromagnetic
Spectrum
10-
8
6
UI
...
5
-
c·
::,
> 4
.....
~
....
....
3
....
.0
...
~
-
-0
2
(II
.0
...
0
0)
.0
~
....
QI
:,
0
1
0..
o.
Figure
3
0
T
~
..
:..
2a
1
-flbl-
.
k
E~
orientation
-
Ei;/
k
H
lit
orientatiof
if¢
ka
"'0.75-1.
Frequency
(arbitrary
units)
Typical
RF
Absorption
Curves
for
Animals
and
Bodies
of
Prolate.Spheroidal
Shape.
(Reproduced
from
reference
6.)
~
\.·
PBN-74-95
0
--10
Q)
0
(.)
(I)
>I.
~
0
~
-
-20
.Q
~
0
-
>I.
-
-
.Q
0
-30
Q.
0
(.)
C
0
-
0
~
-
-40
Cl>
C
Q)
Q.
J..-Microwaves
---I
I
I
-50
I
1
10
3
10
8
10
9 10
12
Frequency (Hz)
-'---
.
Figure
2
Sketch
of
Penetration
Capability
as
a
Function
of
Frequency
-
0
-
-:no
::::0
N
rTJ
D
C
t"TJ
z
("")
-<
-
~
I.
N..,_
......
0
IA
-
0
..
AVERAGE
SPECIPIC
ABSORBED
POWER
CW/KGJ
10-
3
10-
2,
10-
1
10°
..........
~
I"-
~
........
~
.
..
r---.
r--......
......
r--,__
r--,....
......
........
,_
-r--
r---.
~
""r--......_
........
-........
.........
r......
..........
i-.........
i-.....
r--......
..........
_
.
'i--.
....
---
----
......
.......
\.
.......
,
..
......_
'
m
I
';:,;:
~
' ,
'
/
'
\
/
--
\ .
' j
,'
<>
\
..
.t,:,
,
..
'
•'"
'
J
.·
,
.·
I
.
•
. . .
_,
I i,'
/ '
~
,
' j
•
.,
!1
•
'•
i
I I
I
I
•
. j
~
.
'
I
.
I
.
.
.
Figure
4 (a)
Average
specific
absorbed
power
in
a
prolate
spheroidal
model
of
an.
average
man,
for
the
three
standard
polarizations.
a=
0.875
m,
.
V =
0.07
m3.
Incident
power
density
is
1
mW/cm2.
(Reproduced
from
reference
7.)
10-5
-
a -
~r----..
~
.....
...
'
-
~
:::r:
N....,.
-•
"'
-
0
..
Figure
4 (b)
AVERAGE
SPECIPIC
ABSORBED
POWER
CW/KG)
1 0-t 1 0 -3 1 0-2
-1
0
-l
r"'
~
"-
~
r-,....
......
.......
'-
~~
'
"'
....._
..
I'....
"---
.......
I>..
~
i~
~
~
"'
'
.......
~
"
'
~
...
r,..._
r-.'
...
~
...
'
,~
"
...
,
...
I'
....
~
-
.......
~
....
.......
~
~
~
·r=:::::::
~
--
r--,...
,._
.._
i-.
,._
....
~
:I:
7'
r,
Average
specific
absorbed
power
in
a
prolate
spheroidal
model
of
a
small
mouse,
for
the
three
standard
polarizations.
a =
0.
027
m,
V =
1.5
x
10-5
m3.
Incident
power
density
is
1
mW/cm2.
(Repro-
duced
from
reference
7
.)
·
10°
..
)
.
-·
N
E
~
~
E
-
>-
....
C/1
C
Cl>
'O
..
Cl>
~
0
Q.
Cl)
CJI
0
...
Cl)
e;
Q)
....
::,
~
CL
)(
Cl)
E
'::,
E
,c
0
~
.. ..
..
..
..
PBN-
73-241
old
S bond )
limited
or a
of
exposur
IO
O
1----•=--+--____;~f---3oooltlr\WM\H~H\\---+-----t------t
'
10
I
----------
USSR
0.1
0.01
-r-------
+-Exposure
limits for
0.001 typical
oven
op ration
10-
4
,0-8~~.--~-----l.---__,,.
___
.....__,.1._
_
___JL,__...I-L--...J
.
!I
Sec.
•'.
I
I
Hr.:
· 8 Hrs.
I
I
Day
0.01
0.1
I O I
00
I O O 0
E
><posure
time
(minutes)
Figure
5
Principal
Exposure
Standards
and
Comparison
to
Maximum
·
Probable
Exposure
near
Microwave
Ovens,
Diathermy
Ex-
posur.e, and
Pain
and
Sensation
Thresholds.
--
C\I
E
0
'
3
E
>
-
"iii
C:
Q)
-0
...
Q)
3
0
1000
100 \ \
10
0.1
a.
0.01
Q)
OI
0
...
Q)
~
0.001
-5
10
0
PBN- 73-1133
----ANSI
LIMIT-----
100 watts
10
watts
2 4 6 8
10
12
14
Distance from source (feet)
Figure
6
Dependence
of
Leakage
Power
Density
on
Distances
from
a
Small
Leakage
Source.
(%)
Distribution
of
Re~earch
Effort
in
EM
R
ELF
VLF
L F
MF
HF
VHF
UHF
...
40
30
20
10
PBN'.976-696
Spectrum
SHF
EHF
M
..,
Microwave
OTP
Designations
0
L--.aGI..--L----l~---+-----l!:...___J-----&L-+-....&aL-L--
......
--4----la.:.I-----L.-JIC..._-+-
_____
..J......_....J
0 3 k
Hz
300
k
Hz
30
M
Hz
3 G
Hz
300
G
Hz
30
k
Hz
3 M
Hz
300
M
Hz
.
30
G
Hz
Frequency
Figure
7
Rough
Depiction
of
Spectral
Distribution
of
Research
on
Bioeffects
in
the
U.S.
during
1975.
APPENDIX
A
IEEE
COMMITTEE
ON
MAN AND RADIATION
Name
and
Affiliation
H.
Allen
Ecker
(Chairman)
Scientific-Atlanta,
Inc.
Fred
L.
Cain
Georgia
Institute
of
Technology
James
W.
Frazer
Brooks
Air
Force
Base
Carl
L.
Frederick,
Sr.
Consultant
(Silver
Spring,
Md. )
H.
Mark
Grove
Consultant
(Kettering,
Ohio)
Arthur
W. Guy
University
of
Washington
Don
R.
Justesen
U.
S.
Veterans
Administration
Hospital
James
T.
Mcilwain,
MD
Brown
University
John
C.
Mitchell
Brooks
Air
Force
Base
William
W.
Mumford
ERMAC
Member
(Morris
Plains,
NJ)
John
M.
Os
epchuk
Raytheon
Company
Robert
Plonsey
Case-Western
Reserve
University
Peter
Polson
Stanford
Research
Institute
W.
A.
G.
Voss
The
University
of
Alberta
Ex-Officia
Leo
Young
IEEE
Director
-
Div.
IV
(1970-74)
Harold
S.
Goldberg
.
IEEE
Director
R.
M.
Emberson
IEEE
Headquarters
Joan
T.
Breslin
IEEE
Headquarters
William
J.
Spencer
IEEE
TAB
OpCom
Richard
W.
Damon
Director,
Division
IV
COMAR
Division
Director
~
''
J
j
\,,...>
4'
' J
IIIJ7
7765,radio.agu,june77,just
esen,283,pjc. 3-IOn
APPENDIX
B
t
Diathermy
nrsus
the
microwaves
and
other
;adio-frequency
radiations:
A
rose
by
another
name
is
a.
cabbage
1 . . • .
Don
R.
Justesen 2
Laboratories
of
Elperimenta/ Neuropsychology, US Veterans Administration Hospital, Kansas City, Missouri
64128
(Received
January
13, 1977.)
There are
symptoms
of
schizophrenia
in the
body
scientific with
respect
to
the
mixed
but
fervent
attitudes
of
its
constituents
toward
the potential perils
of
exposure
to
microwaves
and
other
radio-frequency radiations. Th~ Rose:
exposure
of
human
beings
to
fields
of
high power
densitr
is common.
therapeutic.
and
viewed with sanguinity in some
sectors.
The
Cabbage:
in
othe_r
sectors
the suspicion 1hat even
weak
fields arc
present
raises the
pejorative
finger
of
anguish
and
alarm.
The
ruado11.
is
elll.plored in
terms
of
historical. geographical.
personal.
impersonal.
and
_nominal
manifnt.ations. Sub\C.quenl di\Cussion or
both
simple and complex thermal
errects
or
radio-frequency
u.!,.ahon
i,
f0ll<>""ed-
b)·
\CHral
coridu\ions.
Amot.~.thcm
arc:
OJ
Focal
or
general
thermal
insult
fro•m
simple heating or
tiHues
c~n in principal result from
exposure
to fields
as
low
as
or
even
lo"'·cr in density than I mW
/cm
1.
alth9ui,:h the practical likelihood
of
damage
at this
density
is
remo.lc.
(2)
Consensual resolution as to the
c\istcnce
and nature
of
weak-field
hazards.
thermal
and nonthcrmal. will only be reached when
dosimetry-the
measurement
of
absorbed
energy-is
adoplcd as a rule
of
procedure
in the l.:iboratory. (3)
The
assumption
of
hazardous
nonthermal
cffccts at low densities
of
radiation, which
arc
suspected
by some
but
arc
as
yet
unsubstantiated
by
anyone,
is
a fabrication from the whole-cloth
of
fear.
This
fear,
which
feeds
on
the
absence
of
verified
or
verifiable
evidence,
is
hampering basic studies
and
may
thereby
restrict
medical
development
and
application
of
radio-frequency radiations. ·
§~
(TobepublishedinRadioScierice,
Vol.
12,
No.
3
(May-June,
1977)
. i
<r-' I
t:_~.:L,I
\
'l
J
°11
·-'
--,--•-. -·
llOD
"''
llllll
1111)).
-
--
.....
,.,,
...
-
GIO
""
JIIJ
.,,
..
.,,,.
..
,
..
""
""
'.IOI
..
,...J
..
,.
"''
IIJ~
1111
....
.,,,
.,,.
..
,,
1111
..
,.
'""'
,w,
-~,
.......
~-
IW"
....
-~,
....
..
.,
...
,
..
,
···•
·••'-
..
....
....
,
...
....
..
,.
,-:.
,
..
,
7765.
r:,Jio
.agu.junc
77
.jusl
C\Cn.~8l.pjc.
l-1081
I am honored not only
to
sound a biological
keynote but also
10
comment on the recent marriage
or
biology and radio science within the organiza-
tional structure or
USNC/URSI.
No shotgun mar-
riage this but a carefolly contemplated union with
the Union that was brought about through the efforts
of
many individuals, as detailed in a companion
paper (John.son,
1977)
in this issue. Speaking for
the engineers, biologists, and physicians who are
studying biological effects
of
radio-frequency elec-
tromagnetic radiations.
I
can attest the need for
a
home and a haven wherewithin
10
organize,
articulate, and disseminate the products
of
our
endeavors.
We
have grown travel-weary and foot-
sore during the past decade in attempts annually
lo attend a dozen different meetings
of
differing
proressional societies.
We
have long desired a
printed forum for
our
researches since few of
us
have ready access lo
all
of
the
many journals that
carry our published works. There is every reason
to believe that URSI will come to be the major
medium through which
our
eclectic assembly
of
scientists can congregate and communicate.
To
all
of
the engineers and radio scientists
of
the Union
who may wonder with some trepidation about the
impact of the 'blood and gore' of biology on the
spotless edifice of URSI, let
me
say that
we
shall
try to justify your welcomed offer
of
haven by
deporting ourselves hygienically and well.
I
should like lo explore several facels
of
a paradox
that
is
becoming increasingly manifest to those
of
us
who labor at the intersection of microwaves
and
medicine. By way
of
illustrating the paradox.
I
shall
visit a bit
of
semantic violence
on
Gertrude
Stein's
celebrated tautology: the microwave rose is a rose
is
a cabbage. But if the rose
10
a nose is a fragrant
boon, the malodorous cabbage
is
a
bane. Resolution
of this seeming contradiction is not forthcoming,
moreover, when one cuts through the trappings
of
metaphor and considers the opinions
of
the mi-
crowave
ex
perts.
Expert-and
not-so-expert-opinion
ranges
the
spectrum from an unflinching insistancc that expo-
sure to
all
but thermally poisonous fields is without
adverse consequence, through several shades
of
agnosticism, to the frightening view that immersion
in even the weakest electromagnetic field portends
psychic and physical harm.
The
proponents
of
the
view
that weak fields arc harmful arc a mixed lot .
Some are sensationalists. Some arc scientifically
naive. But others arc scientists of sincerity who
arc quite aware that man and his forebears have
evolved as recipients
of
natural electromagnetic
radiations
of
cosmic, solar, and tcrrcstial origin •
Theirs is the belief that the augmentation
of
natural
by man-made fields may be the cubit that tilts and
topples the balance
of
nature. A possible parall .. 1
is
that
of
thermal pollution of streams and rivers.
Electrical generators that use water io cool thermo-
nuclear reactors may elevate downstream tempera-
tures by one
or
two degrees: the relatively minuscule
-
--
-
...
,.
.....
-
-
111'!1
""1·
1111)
""'
,,,,
11111
.,,,
""'
1111
..
..
,
di•
..
,
....
..
,
,..
..,
....
-
-
.,.,
-
...
,
....
""
-
--
....
-
II,_
,.
..
INII
7765
,radio,agu ,june77 ,just
csen,283.pjc, 3-1082
thermal change from. say.
283
to
28S
K.
can res
uh
in wholesale changes in the local cc9logy [Enl'iron-
mtntal
Protection Agency, 1972). I hasten to point
out,
however, that the parallel is not complete .
While man has increased the level
of
radio-
frequency electromagnetic radiation many orders
of
magnitude above the natural background,
_evi-
dence of functionally correlated changes in the flora
and the fauna is wanting. Alterations in the popu-
lations of algae and fish
art
reliably observed in
the warming of their waters
but
the existence of
pollution by radio-frequency energy is
at
best
an
unsubstantiated suspicion.
By
way
of
anticipating my
conclusion-and
10
arm you with that ennobling skepticism that is the
midwife
of
all true
science-I
wish
to
offer
an
explanation for the strongly held if highly divergent
views
with respect
to
the
existence/
nonexistence
of
electromagnetic pollution. Simply
put,
the intelli-
gent human being when faced with uncertainty about
a
potentially pressing problem often tends to polar-
ize and then to theologize his views. What emerges
is
a
kind
of
evangelical faith that is based neither
upon evidence nor against it but on its absence.
The
result is an arena populated by believers,
agnostics and
atheists-but
even
the agnostics are
devout. Stated more formally: Fer.·tncy
of
belief
in
somt
potential
ill
is in~·usely related to the amount
of
evidence that confirms or negatts its existtnce.
I shall return later
to
this
canon
of fervency after
documenting the paradox
of
the microwave rose
that smells like a cabbage.
In
my documentations
I shall
be
referring not only to the microwaves
but
also
to
the longer wavelengths
of
electro-
magnetic energy that in combination comprise the
radio-frequency spectrum.
C , •
\..J
I
I
i.,.,
'11
1.
)
lUOD
IOOI
~
R)l,.
--
-
m,
.
<:111
IDOi
-
.,,
..
JOI
I•
~
1m
JOI)
'°"
JJU
IOI
..
!011
,OIi
!019
.,~
t>!f
ll!2
O!J
rr.,
lO!J
~~
,OJ),
'03'
IUIS
.,,.
,0)1'
,OJI
JOlt
-
...
,
IOl2
...
,
.....
'°''
-
IOI?-
....
-
,0,0
""
'11)
""
.
,~,-
.,,.
··~
,.,,:
...
,
....
·~·
7765
.radio.agu
.junei7
.just
esen.pjc-kjh,144, 3-lrtl91
The
historic~/ paradox. The paradox
or
rose and
cabbage, exists in many forms
bu~
none is. so
compelling
as
that· portrayed in recent me~1cal
history. During the latter hair
or
the last
century,
Frank/inisarion-electrical
s_timulation
of
pauents
. at a mix of
rrequencies-was
introduced
anJ
used
to
trcai
neurastl1enia.
a
curious cluster or symptoms
that variously includes
headache.
ins_omnia at night.
sleepiness in the daytime. le~hargy, muscul~r
weakness. impotence, and what
in
modern
Amen-
can parlance is sometimes labelled
"the
blahs._"
An engraving (Figure I) 'that was reproduced
in
a 19th century medical journal is captioned [Stein,
1974):
Franklinisation or slalic electricity is 1hcrap~utically indi-
cated
for
neurasthenia.
migraine
and
hysteria.
The
p3tient.
placed on an insulating podium, immedia~ely !eels. once
the
apparatus
bc!ins
to
function. a
!.ensauon
compara~lc
to that of a gauze veil lightly brushing against his
lace.
A sudden discharge rcsulting•in a spark that lends a
cenain
pallor
10
the tegumenls may
be
caused
by
holding a me,tal!ic
ball near
to
the patient. In the case
ol
the muscles. quote
energetic
tremors
and
conlractions
in
proportion
10
the
length
of
the sparks
can
be observed.
Paradoxically, the one-time 19th
century
cure for
neurasthenia is now being advanced as its cause.
Especially
in
the Soviet sector
or
eastern
Europe.
radio-frequency radiations that
extend
from the
extremely low frequencies (
ELF)
through the
mi•
crowavcs arc being blamed for induction of the
neurasthenic syndro_me [cf.
1\-farha,
19i0, with
Tolgsl.:aya
and Gordon, 1973). .
The
geograpl1ical
paradox. Closely related to the
historical is the geographical
paradox.
To
judge by
exposure standards, microwave radiations
arc
much
more dangerous
in
eastern Europe,. where a limit
of
10
JJ,W
/cm
2
prevails, than in western Europe
and the USA. where
the
limits arc usually a thou-
sand-fold higher. Correlated
but
inversely so with
these differing limits is the much higher incidence
in
reports
of
neurasthenic disorders .among eastern
Europeans. Whether the higher incidence is a rc-
nection or failures to adhere to exposure
standards,
or greater susceptibility
to
radi'ation by inhabitants
of
eastern Europe,
of
more sensitive medical mea-
sures
or
more candid medical reporting.
or or
a
geopolitically inspired
mass
hysteria, is impossible
or
reckoning at the present time. Some
suprort
for the last mentioned possibility
comes
from
Japan.
which has· the. highest
per
capita
ownership
of
·microwave
ovens
on this beleaguered planet. After
the April
1973
issue
of
Consumer
Ro?poru
received
coverage in the Japanese
press-which
issued fea-
tured a condemnation
or
all microwave
ovens
be-
cause
of
their failu·rc
to
emit zero-levels
or
radia-
lio~-therc
was a flurry
or
citizens
who
reported
to
clinics with complaints
of
·radiation-related
symptoms.
The
proximity
of
Hiroshima and Na-
gasaki, with their horrifying
remnants
or
atomic
radiation,
could
certainly
sensitize
some
members
or a population to respond hysterically
to
the
rhrtal
or
any kind
of
radiation.
In
homage
to
the hallowed
doctrine
of
science that all empirical propositions
""
....
,
...
-
,OIi),
""'
,m.
JO)J
111,
""'
1116-
1)1'/,
'"'
)11)9
--
1111
m
ml,.
IOM
,,u
-
..,
....
-
""'
...
,
"'2
IJIJ
-
...
,
.,..,
""
""'
--
.....
JIGI
1102
IIQJ
,.~
"""
.....
""'
....
....
1111
1111
"ll•
JIii
..
,.
7765 ,radio.agu,ju
nc
77
.just
csen,pjc-kjh,
144,
3-lrtl92
arc not only suspect but possible,
one
must
concede
that the evidence for hysteria may alternately be
taken as evidence that some sick people in
Japan
simply did not know the
source
of
ttjeir
symptoms
until they were enlightened by writers for the
Consumers Union. ·
It would be unfair and invalid
to
present
the
eastern European countries as a
stereotype.
Not
all encounters with radio-frequency radiations
arc
viewed by their inhabitants with alarm.
Two
Polish
engineers
[see
Bem
and Trzaska, 1977]
have
re•
counted how a pair
of
sparrows invaded a govern•
mcnt-imposed, 10-kilometer radius
or
restriction to
build a nest next to the .coaxial feed-point
of
a
megawatt radio transmitting anienna.
Across
sever-
al months
or
time, during which the birds mated,
nested, tended their eggs and
then
their fledgling
offspring, the while in electromagnetic fields of
extremely high density, the engineers from a vantage
of
sarcty conducted impromptu ethological studies.
No
ominous signs
or
deviant behavior, not even
evidence of a low-grade avian neurasthenia were
observed. Near
summer's
end
when the fledglings
had completed flight training, the neophyte family
or sparrows took to wind and headed south ·toward
warmer climes. The engineers concluded, perhaps
a bit tongue-in<heek.
that
what the birds did not
know had not hurt them.
Tht
personal paradox.
In
the
abstract,
I stated
that
there arc symptoms
of
schizophrenia in the
body scientific. Mori: specifically, there
arc
individ-
ual scientists who hold a rose in
one
hand
and
a cabbage in the other. I am not rererring
to
the
ambivalence
of
a few
scientist<hameleons
who
readily change their colors in pandering to a particu-
lar audience but
of
individuals whose minds and
attitudes are truly split on the question
of
microwave
hazards. Proressor
Arthur
quy
recently told
me
of
actions by a committee on human studies that
dramatically illustrates the
paradox.
Before the
committee were two
requests:
one,
a clinical pro•
. posal to expose a patient continuously for 20 min
to
a microwave field the averaged
power
density
of
which would be 200 mW
/cm:;
the
other.
an
experimental proposal
to
expose
:for
one
or
two
minutes at a
time-
a ,·olunteering scientist
to
a field
200 times
less
intense. The former
request
was
approved; the latter, denied!
~
.,,
,,,,
~<-<---,,
10111
lllll
IDOi
lllll
..,..
"""
-
11>1
...
""
III0-
1111
IIIJ
111•
IIIS.
Ill~
1117
1111
.,,
..
llll
Ir.I•
11!2,
ll?J.
.,,.
Cl:O
.,,.
·111,
till
Gil
Clk
IIIS
1116
IIJT
DII
.,.
-
...
,
...
,
-
...
,
...
....
.....
~·-
.,.!
.,.,
-~
..
.,.,.
....
...
,.
-
....
...
,
•-.:
,..,
7765,radio.agu,june77
.just
esen,2113,pjc,
3-1101
A moral is imbc:dded in the personal -paradox,
what many of us have came
lo
expect
in this
cerebrally softening Age of Aquarius: We are often
willing to risk clinical application
of
e:1;otic
ngents
but
we more often will not
countenance
lesser risk
for the
sake
of
gaining a scientific understanding
of
their
modus
operandi.
Illustrative of the relative ease
of
applying
mi-
crowave energy
in
the clinic is a
recent
report in
the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology
by
Daels
[1973], a Belgian gynecologist.
Over
a period
of
time, Dacls radiated
the
abdomens
of
1,000 women
during labor with 1450-MHz microwaves.
The
radi-
ations were sufficiently intense
to
warm the
mother's
skin; also, through placental circulation
of
heated maternal blood, the fetal temper1ture was
increased by more than one Celsius degree. Com-
parisons
of
ease of· delivery, of time in labor, of
quantities used
of
a narcotic analgesic, and
of
healthiness
of
newborn infants
were
made with
another t ,000 women who delivered under conven•
tional conditions.
The
radiation-assisted delivery
was superior on all
counts
(Table I, Figure 2).
Dael's
data
are definitely a bouquet
of
roses but
as
yet
unanswered
arc
two
questions. First, since
sham-radiation was not used in the control treat•
menl, how much, if
any,
of the greater ease of
delivery is adducible
to
placebo
effect?
And second,
what are the latent effects, if any,
of
the radiation
on the progeny? Depth of penetration into biological
materials
of
12-cm microwaves is
not
great and
only a small amount
of
radio-frequency energy in
all likelihood reached the fetuses,
but
those who
believe in perils
of
weak fields will still ponder
the possibility
of
adverse consequences.
One
hopes
that Dacls will perform follow-up
studies;
his is
a unique opportunity
to
help dispel
or
confirm the
possibility of dangers
of
microwave irradiation
of
the human fetus .
Tht
impersonal parado.'r. On occasion, it is the
experiment, not the experimenter, that carries a
mixed bouquet of roses
and
cabbages. Work report•
ed
by
Prausnitz and Siisskind (1962) is a case in
point.
The
investigators
conducted
a long-term
study
of
male mice, 200
of
which were irradiated
with 3-cm microwaves
for
·4_5
minutes a
day,
five
days a
week,
for a maximum
of
59
weeks
at
an
incident power density
of
100
mW
/cm
1.
Sham-irra•
diated controls numbered
100.
Highly teliablc cvi•
dence
of
radiation-induced testicular damage was
observed. There was also suggestive evidence that
the thousand-plus radiation treatments,
each
of
which produced an averaged rise
of
body
tempera•
ture
of
3.3".C, resulted in lcucosis, a neoplasm
of
white blood cells.
Contra,ting
with these cabbage•
category findings is anc,ther that
can
only
be
classed
as
a coming up of roses. The authors found that
"longevity
of
the mice [
was]
not ad\'ersely affect•
ed"
by the radiation; indeed,
my
analysis
of
their
data (Figure 3}reveals that the radiated mice, 64%
of which were living when half the controls had
1111
1111
1111
1111
-
-
-
,.,,
...
-
1111
1111•
1111
Ill)
,.,.
.,,,
Ill~
.,.,
1111
1111
-
1121•
-·
11111
-
~
Ir.I
a:,
a
.....
11•
IDU•
,111
1111
Ilk
DJS,
.,.
llff
.,.
IIJt
-
..
,
IIIQ,
-
-
·..,
-
...,_
-
-
-
IISI
11ft
..,..
..,,
-
-
...
-
..
..
IDOi
..,
-
...,
-
7765.radio.agu.junc77 .just
cscn,pjc-l.:jh,144. 3-1102
expired, lived reliably longer (x
2 -
5.4;
at I
d/,
P<
.02).
Related findings
were
obtained in my laboratory
[see
Rhtin. 1972]
by
two
medical
studenu.
Shel~on
Prcskorn and William
Edwards,
who
were
a1templ•
ing
to learn whether four brief
but
intense.
in
rllero
exposures and
36
postnatal e.,posures
to
'.!-t50-MHz
microwaves would shorten life-span
or
mice.
All
of
their fetally
and
postnally radiated
or
sham-
radiated
mice were injected dµring
the
16th·
day
postpartum
with a homogenate· of a lymphoreticu-
lar-ccll sarcoma.
The
rationale ror the injection
was
to
induce a rapidly growing malignancy
that
would
shorten the life-spans
of
control mice
to
about
three
months.
The
expectation was that radiated mice
would have an
even
shorter
life-span.
The
experi-
ment was a failure
in
the sense
that.
even
after
three months had
passed,
fetally irradiated mice
had a low incidence
of
..
takes"-only
3
of
2-t
mice
had developed a
tumor
as compared with
11
of
24
mice that received sham-radiation
as
fetuses
(Figure 4). The longevity study was
aborted
to
permit histological examinations of the mice. While
the
postnatal
treatments
had liule
effect
on
rates
of tumor induction, there
was
histological
evidence
that these
treatments
retarded growth
of
tumors;
indeed, in a few
cases,
tumors underwent virtually
complete regression. In a follow-up study [Prtskorn
ti
al
.•
1977), measures
of
longevity revealed
that
fetally irradiated mice, whether or not tumors
were
later induced.
Ii
ved longer
on
the average than
controls. The longevity
data
on the animals without
tumors are comparable
to
those
or Prausnitz
and
Susskind (cf. Figures 3
and
S).
The
nominal parado;i:.
Shakespeare's
famous
metaphor,
..
A rose
by
another
name would smell
as
sweet,"
is belied
by
the pervasive
tendency
of
human beings
to
be
led
by
labels. A
"pre-owned"
automobile is
superior
to
a used
car.
Statesmen
are better than politicians. A sanitary technician
is nobler than a
trash
hauler. Several
months
ago,
in sifting through
the
biomedical literature
on
radio-
frequency energy I
was
struck by a polarity
of
labelling. In almost
every
instance
of
a
report
of
beneficial
effects,
application of microwaves
and
other radio-frequency
energy
was referred
to
as
diathermy.
Conversely,
where
ill
effects
were
sus•
pected,
they were attributed
to
radiation. In a
night
of
fancy, recalling
the
ancients
who
believed in
the magical properties
of
names.
I began
to
wonder
if the perils
of
exposure
to
electromagnetic energy
inight
be
caused
by
the name
•·radiation":
if
so.
all hazards could be eliminated by the simple
expe-
dient
of
outlawing use
of
the term. A second
sobering thought. still in the realm
of
fancy.
focused
on
the horrors
that
would
be
visited
upon
mankind
if
some subversive group
were
to
turn
the
tables
and relabel a
host
of
common
encounters:
Baskin1
in
lhe
1un
would be
Bakina under
1olar
r:idiations:
$poonin1 under the moon would be
Spoilina under
11,nar
rclkctiOftl
of
IIOlar
radia1iona:
Ruchina
for
the stars
would
be
·
lletchina
under
co.mic
·nodia1ion1.
-
l0llO
m,
m:,
....
mo
CHO
""
C)IJ
1111
.,,.
.,,,.,
.,,
..
""
011
.,,.
0,0
.,,,
.,,.
C))O
IIJI
IOlJ·
""
.,,.
Clll
C))6,
1m.
IIJI
..,.
-
""
"'1
,..,
....
"''
-
""
"""
-
.,,.
"'"
.,,~
11'4
.,,,.
....
""
'"'
.....
.....
...
,
n6~.radio.agu,june
77
.ju,1
<'<n,:81.pjc, 3-1111.
Such simple acts
as
flipping a light switch, turning
an
ignition key, lighting a
gas
jet, grilling a steak,
taking a hot shower, retiring under
an
ekctric
blanket-each
of these would bathe the individual
in
an
additional
flux
of electromagn.:li.c radiations,
with the threat of atrophy and malaise for all.
Enough, now, of fancy and fantasy. What are
the hard data, the solid facts; upon which to
make
an
enlightened appraisal of the biological ris~s of
exposure to radio-frequency radiations? There
is
a
scientific conserisus that lengthy exposures to
fields.of
high
flux
density,
100
mW/
cm'
and more,
arc
thermally dangerous. There
is
an
increasing
prevalence of expert belief,
if
not
an
outright
consensus, that lengthy exposures to fields between
I and
JOO
mW/cm2 may
be
thermally dangerous
depending
on
a host of environmental, electrical,
and
systemic factors. To illustrate
by
a hypothetical
and highly unlikely "worst
case'':
If
an individual
in
severely
compromis-ed
health with
an
elevated
body temperature of 4
l°C
(-
I06°F)
were introduced
to.an environment of comparable temperature.
100%
relative humidity and no air
currents-and
if
he
were
exposed to a field of I-mW
/cm'
density and ·
of a frequency
and
polarity promoting maximum
resonance-he
would
expire within minutes. His
·death would
be'
hasten·ed. moreover,
if
there
were
ghost-moding
.of
radio-frequency energy within
his
skull or
if
there were other factors conspiring
for
concentrations of thermalized
energy-
"hot
spots"
-in
critical structures of the central nervous
system. Too, given the adverse environment I have
described,
t~e
individual would probably die
in
a
short time even without' the exposure to radio-
frequency radiation. While. Nature often makes
quantum jumps. she
seld-0m
draws sharp lines so
I, perhaps,
shoull
qualify
my
arbitrary limits of
100
and I
mW
/cm
2.
A
nude man set loose
in
the
frozen climes of the Arctic tundra
in
a driving
wind
would quickly
expire,
unless
he
were gifted with
placement
in
a
IOO-mW
/cm·2 field.
On
the other
hand, the worst case for peril
in
principle could
go below 1
mW
/cm
2.
Whatever the lowest time:intensity numbers that
spell danger might be, the scientist-cum-evangelist
will
lash out
with
a pejorative· tongue and argue.
quite correctly. that
niy
"worst
case"
is
a
scenario
in
which excessive heating
is
entertained
as
the
sole source of. peril.· He will go on to argue that
there are nonthermal hazards.
In
support of his
argument,
he
will
not define "nonthermal" or
specify nont~ermal mechanisms of peril, he
wiU
not specify conditions under which a thermal mech-
anism can
be
excluded but
he
will
say that there
arc many gaps
in
scientific knowledge. particulJrly
about the molecular and macro-molecular working!
of the central nervous·
syste"m
(minor premise:
Tht
brain
is
a
mystery). Further. since the brain's
workings are not
fully
understood,
it
is
impossible
to know what
is
going
9il
when this organ intercepts
.an electromagnetic
field
(major premise:
Tht
brain-
-
.,.,
.....
/061
.,.,
.....
""'
1111
G7J
l)7J
111'14
.,,,
.,,.
1177
li'I
""
-
1111
..
,
.....
,,..
-
.,.,.
1192
1191
""'
"''
-
""
.-
....
-
""'
110!
IIOZ
HO~
110,
""'
""'
....
11111
1111
1111·
•112
7765,radio.ag11.j1111e77.j11st
es~n,283,pjc,
J-1112
field interaction
is.
a
mystery). Therefore (and
it
is
this line of reasoning that fully
1
1
unfurls the colors
of the scientist-cum-evangelist), nontliermal ha:-
ards not only cannot
be
ruled
out but
m11st
be gil'en
serious consideration.
Even
the freshman student of logic
will
recognize
the
conclusion of the argument as a
nonseq11itur;
ignorance of a subject-matter carries
no
warrant
for
any proposition or theory. It simply does not
follow that lack of neurological knowledge opens
the evidential door to nonthermal
insult-or
shuts
the door on thermal mechanisms of insult.
•. I
Those
of
us
who classify ourselves
as
agnostics
(j
I)
on the liklihood of nonthermal hazards are to some
u.u.,:
U
extent to blame for the slipshod reasoning. For
the sake of establishing safe limits of exposure,.
we
subscribed for many years ·to the thesis that
power densities of radiation below 1
mW
/cm
2 are
not thermalizing.
By
such a fiat
we
dismissed the
good sense of science, which dictates that
even
the weakest radiation
will
heat. however slightly.
the body that absorbs it.
In
·effect
we
made prag-
matic concessions to nonreality
by
saying
two
things:
(a)
if predicted rises of a body's temperature
from
an
absorbed radiation are smaller than our
thermometers can measure. then the radiation
is
non
thermal; and
(b)
when
we
do
observe for thermal
effects,
we
settle for the average temperature,
ignore resonance, and dismiss the occurrence of
nonlinear heating of tissues (hotspots).
The
folly
of the fiat
was
first revealed
in
an empirical study
by Guy and Korbel [
1972]
who found that exposure
of
simulated rats to a continuous-wave microwave
field with a carefully measured power density just
below I
mW
/cm
2 resulted
in
hotspots the peak
temperatures of which were sometimes more than
three orders of magnitude above predicted average
values. More recently, Gandhi
(1974, 1975)
has
confirmed and extended theoretically what Schwan
~
J
and his stud~nts [see Anne ct al.,
1961]
demon-
(/».:
_.JtA,_
strated much earlier: the functions that relate inci-
dent energy to absorbed energy are shot-through
with nonlinearities.
In
short. the power density of.
incident energy
is
often poorly correlated with the
quantity of energy that
is
being absorbed by the·
biological target.
I -
111111
111111
111111
11111)
-
,00,.
....
1007
...
-
1110
1111
IIIJ
1111
111
..
IIIS-
1116
1117
1111
1111
1131
Cl
,a::.
,o:J
Ill:
..
11:,.
11:..
,,_.,
11:S-
».'t
.,,.
IOU•
a,)2.
lllJ
-
.,,,
II~
-·
IIJa,
11)9.
)OIO
...
,
IIIJ
INJ .
.....
-
....
...,
....
-
-
..,,.
11'2
..
,
-
"''
'"'
..
,.
.....
·-
...
,
776.5.radio.agu,june77 ,just -
esen,283,pjc,
3-1121
For more than a decade it has been my conviction
that sole· reliance on measures of incident energy
by an investigator
is
the principal barrier to resolu-
tion of the thermal/nonthermal controversy
[C'f
•
Justesen and King. 19i0. with Justesen et al
.•
1971,
and Justesen, 191Sa]. Even as reliable therapeutic
quantitation of ionizing radiations was not realized
in the clinic until the concept
of
energy dosing was
introduced. the biological scientists are unlikely to
make much headway with the nonionizing radiations
until comparable measures
of
absorbed energy are
widely used and accepted.
The
number
of
investiga-
tors
of
biological effects
of
radio-frequency radia-
tion who employ dosimetric measures is on the
increase
[cf
.•
for example. Johnson
and
Guy, 1972;
Guy, 1974; Ho and Guy, 1975; Phillips et al., 1975)
but there are many who resist such measures.
Resistance to dosimetry in many instances can
be
blamed on
habit-on
the traditional reliance
on
densitometry. In a few cases, however, the argu-
ment is made that acceptance of dosimetry, which
is
predicated primarily on thermometry. thermog-
raphy. and other calorimetric measures. would
signify the investigator's acceptance
of
simple heat•
ing as the basis of any observed biological effect
of radio-frequency radiation. Definitely a
nonseq11i-
1ur,
this line
of
thinking
is
fallacious because use
of
a particular tool or method cannot commit the
user to a theoretical position. The radiologist ad-
ministers a given number
of
calorimetrically cali-
brated Rads
of
X irradiation to a patient but not
for some commensurate heating
effect-which,
quite to the contrary, he is careful
to
minimize
through use
of
filtration. Rather. having com pen•
sated for his filtration factor, he simply takes
advantage
of
the correlation between kinetic
("heating")
and photon
("ionizing")
energies.
Similarly, the use
of
a calorimetric dosimetry in
biological studies
of
radio-frequency radiation
takes
advantage of the correlation between the streni;th
of
the electromagnetic fields in a biological body
and the resulting thermal product. Instead
of
reject-
ing calorimetric techniques, the investigator
who
wishes to demonstrate effects that are not borne
of
simple heating should embrace them. One
of
the more forceful arguments that a biological
effect
is not based on simple heating would be the demon•
stration that its threshold
or
magnitude is uncorre-
lated with averaged quantities
or
rates
of
incorpo•
ration
of
radio-frequency energy. An
effect
that
is dependent, say. on peak densities
of
energy would
(or could be made to) exhibit zero-order correlations
with averaged values
of
absorbed
energy.
I hope
at
this juncture that I have clearly commu-
nicated two views: one, that systematic institution
of
dosimetry....:.measures
of
absorbed
energy-in
the laboratory should considerably advance
our
understanding of _ biological
effects
of
radio- •
frequency radiation. whatever their basis; and
two,
that low-level effects are not necessarily
of
a
nonthermal orii;in. Implicit in what I have said is
-
-
.,.,
.....
-
-
'"'
,m.
""
""
1111
""·
.,,..
'"'
11111,
..
,
,.,.
...
......
·-'
...
...
....
,,.
...
,.
.....
....
...
,
....
•IPfT-
-.-
...
....
1111
IIIJ
776S,radio.agu.june77 .just
esen,283.pjc, 3-1122
another
view that has been
1
voiced before
by
'many
scientists, and disregarded: by others.
To
demon-
strate a biological effect
o~
radio-frequency radia-
tion is not perforce to demonstrate a peril.
The
criteria of a hazard arc inclusive of
but
extend
beyond the definition
of
"effect."
However.
one
should not minimize the difficulty
of
distinguishing
benign effect from hazardous effect; the distinction
may be esptcially difficult in the clinic where
destruction of a tumor by diathermy would certainly
be
hazardous for the malignancy and for
the
healthy
tissues in which it is imbedded but would be
of
significant benefit to the patient.
Differing only slightly in semantics
but
of
enor-
mous importance is another distinction, that be-
tween the class
of
thermal effects and
the
subclass
of
effects based
on
simplt heating. Excessive
(simple) heating
of
a biological body,
either
focally
or
as a whole, would appear to be the basis
of
the confirmed instances
of
biologic damage
by
radio-frequency radiations. There
are.
to
be
sure,
potenti;il nonthermal effects borne, e.g ..
of
electro-
striction and field forces [
cf
.•
for example,
Scl1wan
and
S/1tr,
1969,
and
Lin,
1976] that may hold peril,
but evidence in support
of
damage is lacking. There
is also a well-confirmed thermal effect
not
borne
of
simple heating that has recently received much
investigative attention. Originally described
by
Whitt [
1963]
and
more recently confirmed
by
Foster
and Finch [1974) is the phenomenon
of
thermoelas-
tic
upansion.
This complex heating
errect
occurs
when a pulse
of
radiation
of
high peak
density
and
sharp attack is absorbed by some medium.
The
sudden but minuscule thermalization of
the
absorb-
ing
materials-the
averaged rise
of
Celsius temper-
ature may be less than a millionth
of
a
de1:ree-be-
cause
of
the thermally-dependent densitie;
of
solids
and
liquids, launches
a
pressure wave.
It
is
now
believed by many scientists that the thermoelastic
wave
of
pressure is the basis
of
the RF-hearing
or
Frey-eHect. the perception
of
a clicking
or
""' -popping sound by a human subject whose head
intercepts a pulse
of
microwave radiation [ cf. Frty,
1965, with
Justtstn,
197Sb, and Guy.el al., 1975] •
....
....
.....
~
....
~
.
._
r~
.
t.,::-.
t~·
'.;i
,,
,.
-~
.
,,.
r
.
776S
.radio.agu ,june
77
.just
, esen,::!SJ,pjc, J.J
131
~fl!
11D
DII
on
,IX)6
""'
I009
.,,o
.,,,
012·
mu
,.,.
.,,,.
.,,i.
.,,.
.,,
..
10:1
m:,
.,_.,
.,,,
OIZ
OlJ
.,,.
.,,,.
.,,.
.,,,
Jlll
.,,..
....
.,.,_
...
,
-.
...
,
Possibly linked to thermoelastic· expansion is
another biological
effect.
an increase in the penetra-
bility or the blood-brain-barrier system
of
rats,
which was first reported by
Sutton and Nunnally
[
1973]
and later confirmed
by
Frey
et
al.
(
1975]
and
Oscar and
Ha1<·kins
[
1975].' Sutton
a.nd
Nun-
nally did not measure the incident power density
of
their continuous-wave ::!450-~IHz field but did
measure brain temperatures. A 25-min exposure that
led to an elevation to 42°C produced a reliable
penetration
of
the barrier.
The
studies by Frey
et
al.
and by Oscar and Hawkins revealed that pulsed
microwaves at low averaged densities near 200
µ
W
/cm:
are more effective than unmodulated
fields in promoting alterations of the
brain's
perme-
ability .
Since the Frey-effect and the alteration or brain-
barrier permeability are. produced by fields
of
rela-
tively low averaged density, grounds certainly exist
for entertaining suspicions bf a weak-field hazard.
But neither demonstration
r,.'i:
the light
of
present
knowledge can be taken as
proof
of
peril. Undoubt-
edly you shall
hear
otherwise: the sensationalists,
the scientifically na'ive, and the scientist-cum-
evangelist whom I have referred to earlier will find
a press that
is
eager to print allegations
or
even
assertions lo the effect that
'mysterious
pressure-
waves from electromagnetic fields are scrambling
our
brains and laying us bare
to
all manner
of
insult.•
During the years I have
spent
in
the microwave
laboratory, many colleagues ha've ask.ed me
whether
I have fears and
concerns
for the
0
iiving beirigs that
arc exposed lo microwaves and
other·
radio-
frequency radiations.
Concerns
I do
have,
although
most of them arc not the sort that makes for ready
copy
in
the National Inquirer
or
·Jack
Anderson's
column in the Washington Post.
One
concern,
already alluded to, is for the balance
of
'reason,
which to me seems more
under
threat
than the
balance
of
nature. The
assessment
of
benffits
and
risks
in
a humane society must be
undertaken
but
when suspicions
of
risk unqualified
by
verified
evidence
are
hejtped on the scales, a vicivus cycling
- ' can be set
in
motion.
Fear
promotes/suspicions.
which may discourage
or
even
preveflt analytical
study, which may result
in
more fearj;~d suspicion.
Suffice it to say that basic
studies/of
the hllman ,
response
to
radio-frequency
radi/tions
have been
aborted and prevented in
th~·
past
and
are
now
.being avoided, not
becausegr
demons\.rated risks
but
out
of
fear-fear
oefe
very
unknowns
that
?'ight be uncov~red
~J"?icious
~nq~iry.
·'!11e
irony
1s
that t~e
~x•~J!:C
?f
a
pen!-ats
discovery,
charac1enza11on.,,and means or·be,ng brought under_
control-w.o,u1d likely be hidden
under
the same
layerings,,o( ~Jspicion and fear. '
....
,
-
....
.,,.
OIi
.a,J
.,,.
.,,,.
.,,,
.,,.
.,,.
..
, A
corollary concern relates
to
clinical application
of
radio-frequency radiation.
It
is reasonable
to
assume that a dearth
o(
basic
data
and
a plenitude
of
mordant suspicions will limit the physician in
his therapeutic use
of
radiation.
To
the
extent
that
,,
/
//
'
,
,
n65
,radio,agu ,june
77
,just
esen,283,pjc, 3-1132
....
he
is
limited. clinical arid experimental medicine
.,., may be losing their best bet for unravelir.g one
..,.
o(
the oldest
of
medical mysteries, the role played
1111
by fever in disease. By what means oth.:r
th111
.... radio?Jrequency radiation could
one
"program"
a
...,
fever
of
controllable duration
and
intensity in the
1010
experimental animal
or
in the
patient?
I
I
I
L
all
lllll
00
lllll
-
...,.
-
..,,.
......
.~
.,,.
....
.,,,.
....
.,.,
.,,.
.,,,
.,,.
....
ll!J
IIJI•
r,n
.,,,
.
..,,.
....
""
WWl
"'I
-
...
,
-
""
...
....
....
...
,
...
,
....
....
.,,
....
....
....
..
,
·-~
...
....
...
-
..
,
....
.....
7765 .a1uradiosci .•
ju1te1t11
.:m.jcm
3-tm:l
II'//
I alluded earlier
to
the demonstration by Sutton
and Nunnally that fever as induced·by microwave
irradiation
or
the brain can increase the permeability
of
the blood-brain barrier.
It
is plausible
to
conjec-
ture that the barrier also falls during the course
of
"natural"
fever. Nature, who designed the bar-
rier, apparently to provide for a normally immuno-
logically privileged brain, would
appear
to ha\·e
created a portal that opens with an elevation of
cerebral temperature. A hyperthermal
portal_
would
permit normally excluded antibodies
and
other
de-
fensive materials
to
enter the brain
where;conceiv-
ably, they may lock in
combat
with infectious
or
other
malignant agents. If
Nature
has designed
such
a portal, she certainly on occasion could use
the
assistance
of
the physician whose twofold tool
of
diathermy-and-antibiotics might reverse the course
of
a potentially fatal infection
of
the
brain.
The
provocative findings cited earlier of
enhanced
lon-
gevity and
of
regression
of
tumors in mice
after
induction of fever by microwave radiation certainly
lend credance
to
the
view that the febrile state
has survival value both clinically and in the natural
scheme.
My speculation about
the
potential curative
powers
of
microwave fever is
tenuous
but
it high-
lights
my
greatest concern,
one
to
which I pray
this distinguished readership will give thoughtful
consideration
in
its future deliberations
and
inves-
tigations: Will the medical potential
of
the radio-
frequency radiations be fairly and fully assessed
and realized,
or
will the microwave rose wither
in the shadow
of
the cabbage?
A.cl<no,.·ltdgmtnll. The opinions presented herein
arc
not
intended
as
uprcnions
or
olficial views or the
US
Veterans
Administration or
or
the Federal Food and Oru1 Administration.
both
or
which support the author's pro1ram
of
research.
REFERENCES
Anne, A
..
M.
Saito,
0.
M.
Salati, and H.
P.
Schwan
(1961),
Relative microwave absorption
crou
sections of biolo;ic.al
sianificance. in Biological Efftcls
of
Micro•·a•·• Radiarion.
edited by
M.
F. Peyton. pp. 15J-176. Plenum. New York. ·
Bem.
0.
J .. and H.
Tnaska
(1977),
The insouciant sparrows
or
Constantinov:
A
cue
study of electroma11netic etholo1y •
in Biolorical
Efl,cr,
a/
Elt<1romo1ntric
Wa,·H.
edited by
C. Johnson and
M.
Shore.
US
Government Printin1 orric1,
Washin1ton.
DC
(in
pren)
.
Oaels. J:
(1973),
Microwave hcatin1
or
the uterine wall durin1
parturition, Obsr,r, Gyntcol
..
42,
1(>.
19
•
Environmental Prorection A1ency (1972). Water quality criteria.
SN
21U02.
pp.
a,
1-171, US Government Printin1
Of
rice,
Washin111on,
DC
•
Foster,
K.
R
..
and
E.
D.
Finch
(19741,
Microwave he3rin1:
Evidence for thermoacoustic auditory stimulation
by
pulsed
microwaves. Scitnct.
/BJ.
256-258 .
Frey.
A.
H.
(196"· Behavioral biophysics, Psycho/.
Bull
..
6J
.
322-JJ7 •
Frey,
A.
H.,
S.
R.
Feld,
and
B.
Frey (1975), Neural runction
and
behavior:
Ddinin1
the relationship,
Ann.
N,w
Yori
A.cad
.
Sci
.•
1,1, 4l3-431 .
Gandhi,
0.
P.
(197'), Polarization and frequency
dfecu
on
"'hole
animal
absorption
or
RF
ener1y,
Pr«.
IEEE.
62,
1171-1175
•
Gandhi. O.
P.
0975).
Condi1ion1
or
stron1es1 elec1roma1nctic
pa,. .
.,
deposition in man and animals,
IEEE
Trans.
Mit'row.·o•·~
Tll,o., Ttclt .. MTT-D.
1021-10:?9
.
Guy.
A.
W.
11974).
Quantitation
or
induced electromasnetic
field patterns in tissue and associated bioloaic effects. in
-
l011
111'2
11171
,.,,
-
-
.,,,
-
-
-
..
,
re
..
,
-
IDlJ
-
..,.
...
-
-
1111
""2
-11
7765
.a1uradiosci.,justesen
,283,jcm
3-11!1:Ji/.,
_
.
.
//
..,
Biolo1ic
Eff,cu
and Htallh Ha:ard,
of
Micro••a•·t Radialion.
edited by
P.
Czerski, pp. 203-216. Polish Medical Publishers,
Warsaw,
Poland. ·
Guy.
A.
W .. and
S.
F. Korbel
(19721.
Dosimetry studies on
a UHF cavity
uposure
chamber lor rodents. ,n
Proc.
lnl.
Microwavt
Syonp
.. pp.
180,-193,
International Microwave
Power
Institute, Edmonton. Alberta. Canada.
Guy,
A.
W.,
C. K. Chou, J.
c_.
Lin. and
D.
Christensen 09751,
0.
Microwave
induced acousuc errects ,n
mamal,an
aud,to~
1
y11em1
and physical ma1crial1, AM.
Ntw
Yonc Acad. Sci
••
2,1.
19-1-218.
Ho. H.
s
..
and A.
W.
Guy
(19751,
Dcvelopm~nt
or
dosimetry
for RF and microwave radiation.
2.
Calculauons
of
absorbed
dose distributions in two sizes
of
muscle-equivalent spheres,
Htolrll
Ploys
..
29.
317-324. • . . . .
Johnson, C.
C.
(1977).
The role
of
radio science
1n
invest1pun1
electromaanetic biolopcal hazards, Radio Sci
.•
12,
this issue.
Johnson. C. C
.•
and
A.
W.
Guy
(19721.
Nonionizin1 electro-
ma;netic wave effects in biolo1ical materials
and
systems,
Proc.
IEEE.
60.
692-711. ·
IOOO
-
an
Oll
Ol'i
.,,
...
.,,,
·
IOI:!
1011
1014
'IOU
1110
lll7
1011
.,,
..
"'"'
.,,,
'IO!l
llU
10:,
ll!J
10::0
1)7'.
.,,..
,0:0
10)0
.'Q)l.
.,n
m»
.,,..
.,,,
__
.,,.
1))1
10,
..
.,,,
....
,..,
I04l
,
.
.,
-
,
.
.,
1046
...
,
1041
.,..
10,0
lOJI
llll
JQJJ
.,,.
.,,,
.,,.
1111
.,,.
.,,.
...,
...
,
~
...,
.
....
...
...
,
...
-
"""
""
m:
7765.ai;u.rad, 1ci.,;,a)· -june 7
7.jusie,en.jcm-kjh.1+1.
3-lrl51
Jusiesen.
D.
R. (197~al.
To•,ard
a
pre,crip1ivo grammar
for
the
radiobioh,gy
or
non-ionising
r.u.1iJlil1ns:
Quanliriei.
ddini•
1ion1 and unils
of
ab101bed oloc1romagn,1ic
encrn,
J . .\fj.
cro~a,·t
Po1t·tr,
10.
J-IJ_j,6.
·foslesen,
D.
R.
119,5b). ~licrn-.·av<s and ~ehavior.
Amtr.
P,yrho/.,
.10.
391
-.:01.
Jusresen:
D.
R
.•
and
:,:
. W. King (19701. Biol,,gi.al tffec11
of
low-level
micro...,·ave
in.1di.11ion
in
the
dO'.lo(d
space
silUJtion.
·,
in Biological
Efferi,
and
H;a11h
/mplira1ion,
of
.lf,rro•·a,·t
Radiation-SJ·mposium
Prnt'ttdin~s.
t:S
Public Htaltlt Str-
•·iet Pub/.
:-.:o.
BRH/D8£
70-2,
pp. l!-1-179. US
Gu,ernment
Prin1ing
Office.
Washinslon.
DC.'
Jus1escn. D. R .•
D.
~I.
Levinson.
R.
L.
Clarke.
and
S.
W.
King
11971
).
A
micro1,1,:a\'e
oven
for l"ehavior31 and biological
research:
Elcc1ric:il and structural moJ1rications. c.lJorimetric
dosimetry,
and (unctional
evaluation.
J.
,\licro..,.·ai·t Po.,.,t,.
6.
237-258.
Lin. J.
C.
(19761. ~licrov,ave
audilor~
ellccl-A
comparison
of
some
possible 1ramJuc1ion mechJ.nisms.
J.
,\ficro-...·an
Po•·tr.
II.
n-81.
Marha.
K.
( 1970). Maximum admissible •·alues
of
HF
and
\"HF
clectromagneric radiation
tll
work
pla.:es in Czechoslo,:akia,
in Biological EJ/teu
and
Htulth /mpiirations of
.\:ioo
....
·art
radiation-Symposium
Procttdings.
l'S
Public Htcfr~
Stn:ict
Pub/.
No
..
BRH/D8£
70-!. pp. ISS-191.
US
Go,:ernmcnl
Prin1ing
Olricc.
Washing10n.
DC.
Oscar.
K. J
.•
and
T.
D.
Hawkins
(19751. Elec11omagno1ic
radialion
ellecu
on
1he
blood•brain-barrior
or
rals.
raper
presen1ed al
lhe
Annual
US:-IC/URSI
~feeling. WashinftOn,
.
DC.
Philips,
R.
D
.•
E. L. Hun1.
and
N.
W. King (19i5). Field
·
measuremcnls.
absorbed
Jose.
anJ
t-iologicaJ
dosimetry
of
mic/~waves.
Ann
.• ,,,.,,..
Yorlc
Acad.
Sci .. :47,
..a99.~09.
Prausnilz, S
.•
and
C.
Siisskind ( 1962),
Effecls
of
chrunic
mi•
'
crowavc
irradiation on mice.
IRE
Trans. Biomtd.
Eng
.•
; PG.11£4, I0-1-108.
..
Preskorn.
S
.•
W.
Edwards.
and
D. R.
Juslesen
119771.
Tumor
growth
and IOngcvity
in
mice
artcr
fetal
irr:idiation
~Y
~.i,0-
• ).!Hz
microwaves.
submineJ
10
J.
Su~.
011col.
Rhein.
R.
f¼
..
(1972). ~licrowaves inhibil
lumor
induction,
US
Mtdidnt.
March I. 3. 23.
Schwan.
H. P
.•
and
L.
D.
Sher
( 1969), Electrostatic field-induced
forces
and.thoir
biological implicalions, in Ditlutrophort1ic
and
Eltctrophort1ic Dtpo,i1ion. edi1ed by
H.
A.
Pohl
and
W.
F.
Pickard, pp. 107-126. Elec1rochemical Socie1y,
New
York.
Stein.
P. ( 1974), .\ftdiral Engra,·ingr
of
tht
19th Ctntury,
pp
.
S5-S6.
Universe Books. :-low
York.
Sunon.
C.H
.. and
R.
L.
Nunnally ( 1973). Exoi;enous
pero•ida,e
,.ac1ivi1y in
1he
seleclively h)·perthermic rat
brain.
Proc.
Ftd.
..
Amtr.
Soc.
E,p.
Biol
..
J1.
859.
Tolgskaya.
),f,
S
.•
and
z.
V.
Gordon
I
1973). Pathologira/ Ef{tclS
of
Radio
Wo,·u.
Plenum.
Sew
York.
While.
R.
M. (1963). Genera1ion
of
ell11ic
Wa>·es
by
lran,ient
surface
heating.
J.
Appl. Phys
••
]4.
3559-3567.
'Ba1ed
on
an
addre"
a11he
plenary
session
or
1h•
19,l
mooling
or
Commissions I-VI and
VIII
or
1he
t;S
Nalional
Commill,.
of lhe ln1crn:i1i~nal Union
of
R.1dio
ScicncC.
v.hich
~·;n
con"en~d
Oclober
W-~3
on
1he
Bouldor
campus
or
the
Uni•eni1y
of
Colorado.
1
Al,o
wilh lhe Deparlmenl
or
Ps)chia1ry.
lhe
Universi1y
or
Kansas
School
of ~ledicino,
Kansas
Cily.
Kansas.
Fig.
I. Reproduction
or a
v-ood<UI
cn~rawing rhat
v.•3\
~ri1;in.illy
reproduced
in
a
191h
Ccn1ury modical
journal.
Tht
appar,1u,
is
I
hand-driven
gcncralor
of
clrctro•Hol1ic
cnersy,
Rhulrin1
fiolds-al
•
mi•
of
irequencih
~au
..
of
a
sparl·E•P-"ere
capitci1iwcly
couplcJ
lo
I
palienl
w1rh
1hc
aim
Of
controlling
symplom,
or
neur;a\thenia. migrainou1
hcaJachc.
and
h)·~tcr, ...
The
original
capliun
j,
given
in
lhc
rcu.
c
RcproJuceJ
hom
S1tin [
1974
J
"llh
perm1>\IOn.)
.,
,lJ:
IJ71
IQ;'f
117J
'""
10n
.,,.
-
as.
Dl6
lll'J,
"""'
.....
.,..,
"'"
""'
.,,,
-
""'
""
.,,,
""'
.,,.
)IIIJ
)101
u~
110)
,,
..
)/OJ
,,
..
1107
,,
...
,,
..
)110
)111
JII?
)IIJ
1114
HIS
,.,.
JIil
llll
,.,,
JIN
Jl!I
II?!
)I!)
11?•
ll!J
II~
11!1
11:11
II~
lllO
.
,,.
HJ?
HU
n6S.agu.rad.sci.may•june7
7.jusmen.jcm•kjh.144.
3•lr152
TABLE
I. Time
in
IJhur of
!000
women
during
latenl
and
ac1i,o
pha!r-Ci
of
Ilic !irsl sl~ge
of
labor. Brief
tlrosure
of
the
abdomen
to 1450-MHz
microwa\'CS during
conlractions
was
maJe
of
IO00
women.
399
of
whom -.·ere
primipara
(delivering
fim-bom);
and 601. muhipara(delivering
lheirsecond
or
later
baby).
Conlrol
deliveries withoul radiation
also
numbered
IOOO
wilh
respective
number,
of
primiparous
and
muhiparous
binhs
~pp~o•i~ating
tho••
or
the
radia1ed
women.
A
reliable
reduction
,n
t,me
of
labor
was
associated
with
lhc microv.·ave trea1ment
as
was
the
ma1ernal dosage of
a
narcotic analgesic.
mcperidine.
(Repro-
duced from Dat/J ( 1973] wilh
permission.)
Fig. '!. Apgar
scores.
which
measure
the
healthiness
of
a
new-
born
on
a
I (worsl) 1hrnu~h
10
fb,s1) scale.
are
shown
for
olhpring
of
1000
con1rol mo1hers
and
1000
mothers
whose
abdomens
were radialed with microv.·a.ves for a period
of
40
to
60
sec during
a
contraction.
The
number
of
microwave
1re•1men1s
or
individual
molhers
ranged from
10
10
60. Th•
number
of
infants from radia1od mo1hers in 1he hi~hest Ap~ar
calegory
of
10
is
apprmimalely
3.5 1imes
1ha1
of
control
infants.
The
hithly
reliable
dilrerence
reflec1ing healthier infanls
from
radia1ed mothers is
presumably
a reflec1ion
of
shoner
limes
of
.dolivery and lesser ma1ernal
demand
for a
narcotic
agent
(Redrawn. with
permission.
from Dat/J
(1973].)
Fig.
].
Survival
data
on
100 mice
1ha1
were sham-radia1od
and
200
mice lhal were radia1od
once
daily for
fS
min.
five
days
1
week
across
59weeks
b)'
3-cm
microwaves
of
sufficienl
density
(
100
mV.'
/cm'>
lo
increase
body
1empera1ure by
more
lhan
3'C.
Jn·spile
or
a
higher incidence of
testicular
damage
and
of
cancer
of
1he
-.hi1e blood
cell•.
radia1ed mice lived loneer
on
lhe
av<rage
than
conlrols. (Redrawn.
wi1h·
permission.
from Prausnit: and
Suukind
[1962].)
Fi;.
•.
Resuhs
of
a raclorial
sludy
of
48 mice in -.·hich
an
equ.al
number
of
mice in
each
of
four
eroups
v.·as
re1ally
sham-irradia1ed
or
irradia1ed for 20 min
on
1he I
llh
1hrough
141h
days
of
ges1a1ion by
2450-MHi
microwaves
al
a
dose•rale
or
O
or
35
mW
/g.
After
1he
161h
day
posl part
um,
during
which
all 48 mice were admini,1ered
an
agenl
thal
induces
growth
or
a rapidly growing malignant 1umor. a series
of
36 c:onsecu1ive
daily
uposures
lo
radialion
or
sham-radialion
followtd.
!Key:
F • fe1al.
PN
=
posl nalal,
S =
sham•r•dia1ion.
R
=
radiation).
Hachurrd
areas
between
adjacent
bars
indicale
the
mean
number
of
mice
1ha1
developed a 1umor
from
each
of
1he
two
re1ally
1ham•irradia1ed groups
(ID
reader's
lofl)
and
from
oach
of
the
two
fe1ally radialed aroups
(lo
readers
righl).
The
respectivo
mun
pcrconlagos
or
tumor
induction.
46t;f
and
13%. suggest
lhilt
inlr.aulerinc
rxposure
to
mic:rov.·ave radia1ion may
enhance
dtvelopmen1
of
immunological compe1ency.
Post
nalal radia1ion
had
linlt
dire!
on
me
of
1umor induc1ion [ cf.
Rhtin.
1972,
-~
wilh
Prtslom
ti
al. (1977).
Fi;.
S.
Dala on survi,·al
of
mice
1ha1
"erefelally
sham-irraJialed
or
irr•dialtd
four 1ime,
during
fe>la11on
10
or
JS
mW
/f
for
!0
min
on
lho
I
llh
lhroueh
141h
d•rl.
The
dala
al
lhe
poinl
in
lime
of
SO'ic
mon:alily
of
controls
compc1re
clo)cly
with lhosc·
of
Prausni1z
and
Sii,skind
tFigure
31
[from
Prt,4orn
ti
al .•
1977) .
100~-----------,100
• 0
g
i o e
80
20
Q
g
0
•.
o
• =
100
CONTROL
MICE
o=200
RADIATED
MICE
•
0.
X
1
FcYOring
Augmented
Survival
by
Radiated
Mice
=
5.4, at 1
df.
Pc .02
•
•
80
60
40
20
O
·O
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
12
13
140
~~
MONTHS
~~~-
0
(!3;.~~-~
•1~-,l;,11--
-----:-==--=-,-_-
__
__
-
....
...
,
',,,
',
50~
NON-TUMOROUS
MICE
-
Fe
tally
Radiated
I
n=.t5
l
-
Sham
Radiated
Controls
inaJ6l
6
12 18
2,
Time
in
Months
30 36
--
------~------------~
Ill
w
600
<
~400
w
z·
0
d200
z
(-
0
-t~
(/J
<
•
CONTROLS
~RADIATED
Px,
<10·•
632
546
810
CFW
MICE
N=l2/GROUP
SHAM
OR
35
mW/g
AT
20
MIN/DAY
~
0
w
05
~-
; --------1
P<.03
u.
0
e,
zo
FS
.~
FS
PMS
;;
PNR
I
10
FETAL
CONTROL
FETALLY
RADIAT·
GROUPS
ED
GROUPS
10
[~--
:_:~1Jtf
{'1~~~Ji;,i]i
~:
~~'.--,--
(
a~-
c
C
--,~~
-S.
·;,'.
>&·
•
S-
.:
t ]
E
I
l
•.
..
.
-
.
..
AVERAGE
DURATION
AVERAGE
DOSE
GROUP
n
of
FIRST
STAGE
(min)
of
SEDATION•
LATENT
ACTIVE
TOTAL
REQUIRED
(mg)
PHASE
PHASE
·
MICROWAVE
TREATMENT
PRIMIPARA
399
310 175 485 125
MULTIPARA
601
190 68 258
100
CONTROLS
385 '401
PRIM
I
PARA
192 593
192
MULTIPARA
615 225 76
301
161
*Meperidine
.,