Do you want the military to apply its let's-win-this-war safety standards to civilian applications of harmful emissions?
Magda Havas' site (here is the correct link for this topic) from the Zory Glaser archives exposes the faulty military assumptions upon which current safety standards for microwave/radiofrequency exposure are based. Her assessment of the article published in 1980 is absolutely chilling. The people making the 1966 U.S. standards had studies from 1926 to 1956 showing non-thermal harm from radiofrequency radiation available to them, yet ignored them all. Their main concern was military dominance, rather than public protection, she writes.
Just because we don't know the mechanisms involved is no excuse to not set safer guidelines, asserts Havas. She writes, "One thing that we seem to have forgotten is that standard setting does not require detailed knowledge about mechinisms or explanations about anonmalistic phenomena. To set a standard one simply needs to know at what level- for whatever reasons - harmful effects appear."
So, if you happened to be wondering how the U.S. exposure standards could be so high and where that absurd idea that there are no non-thermal effects of microwaves came from see Havas' "Pick of the Week #2."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thursday, January 5, 2012
History of Microwave Mania: U.S. Safety Standards for Microwave Radiation based on faulty Military assumptions
Do you want the military to apply its let's-win-this-war safety standards to civilian applications of harmful emissions?
Magda Havas' site (here is the correct link for this topic) from the Zory Glaser archives exposes the faulty military assumptions upon which current safety standards for microwave/radiofrequency exposure are based. Her assessment of the article published in 1980 is absolutely chilling. The people making the 1966 U.S. standards had studies from 1926 to 1956 showing non-thermal harm from radiofrequency radiation available to them, yet ignored them all. Their main concern was military dominance, rather than public protection, she writes.
Just because we don't know the mechanisms involved is no excuse to not set safer guidelines, asserts Havas. She writes, "One thing that we seem to have forgotten is that standard setting does not require detailed knowledge about mechinisms or explanations about anonmalistic phenomena. To set a standard one simply needs to know at what level- for whatever reasons - harmful effects appear."
So, if you happened to be wondering how the U.S. exposure standards could be so high and where that absurd idea that there are no non-thermal effects of microwaves came from see Havas' "Pick of the Week #2."
Magda Havas' site (here is the correct link for this topic) from the Zory Glaser archives exposes the faulty military assumptions upon which current safety standards for microwave/radiofrequency exposure are based. Her assessment of the article published in 1980 is absolutely chilling. The people making the 1966 U.S. standards had studies from 1926 to 1956 showing non-thermal harm from radiofrequency radiation available to them, yet ignored them all. Their main concern was military dominance, rather than public protection, she writes.
Just because we don't know the mechanisms involved is no excuse to not set safer guidelines, asserts Havas. She writes, "One thing that we seem to have forgotten is that standard setting does not require detailed knowledge about mechinisms or explanations about anonmalistic phenomena. To set a standard one simply needs to know at what level- for whatever reasons - harmful effects appear."
So, if you happened to be wondering how the U.S. exposure standards could be so high and where that absurd idea that there are no non-thermal effects of microwaves came from see Havas' "Pick of the Week #2."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment