Value chain · CLM-1005
In plain terms
The 1980 assessment explains where the 10 milliwatt limit came from: a heating threshold of 100 divided by a safety factor of ten. It also records that the limit had no enforcement teeth, that a new limit based on absorbed power per kilogram was being discussed, and that there was still no public limit at all.
The claim as recorded
The DOE 1980 summary assessment states that the ANSI 10 mW/cm2 limit originated from whole-body exposure above 100 mW/cm2 producing "a mild to severe increase in thermal load" and "the application of a safety factor of 10 to the lower limit of this power-density range", that the standard "does not contain specific enforcement or punitive provisions", and that in 1980 EPA, NIOSH and ANSI were discussing "a provisional frequency-dependent standard based on an average specific absorption rate (SAR) limit of 0.4 W/kg" while environmental standards for the general population were "still under consideration by the EPA".
Evidence behind this: T3-programme summary assessment (DOE/ER-0069), recounting the basis of a 1974 standard.
Scope and limits
A 1980 summary of a 1974 standard; the ANSI document itself is not held (SRC-087 SUGGESTED, per CLM-0024). The 0.4 W/kg was a proposal under discussion, not an adopted limit.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
p.21 / 11: "The 10-mW/cm2 value originated from (1) the physiological consideration that whole-body exposure of a human to levels above 100 mW/cm2 would produce a mild to severe increase in thermal load, depending on the level, and (2) the application of a safety factor of 10 to the lower limit of this power-density range. The U.S. standard does not contain specific enforcement or punitive provisions for violations." p.22 / 12: "A provisional frequency-dependent standard based on an average specific absorption rate (SAR) limit of 0.4 W/kg in exposed tissue is being discussed ... the question of environmental standards for the general population is still under consideration by the EPA." Render read.
Basis: mW/cm2 averaged over 0.1 hr; W/kg
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-001 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-1005
CLM-1005, Energy Aperture, as of 1980-08.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-086
- CLM-0020The original 1978 design set the beam at 230 watts per square metre in the middle of the receiving site, about one twenty-third of that at...CLM-0024The American standard of the day allowed 100 watts per square metre averaged over six minutes. The US had no separate limit for the public...CLM-0036The 1980 American assessment said people living or working near the receiving site, outside its exclusion boundary, would generally be...CLM-0153A 1980 US government environmental assessment argues, without a formal calculation or test, that an aeroplane's metal body would shield...CLM-1006In 1980, by the US assessment's figures, the Soviet limit for the general public was two thousand times lower than the American 10...CLM-1007The 1980 assessment worked out that a full American deployment would raise the microwave background everywhere in the country to about...CLM-1008The 1980 documents give the beam's strength at the satellite, on failure, and above and below the receiving panels. The summary and the...CLM-1009The 1980 programme tested bees because of pollination. Early results showed no effect at the beam's strength, and one preliminary report...More on the source page.
- Also from SRC-529
- CLM-1006In 1980, by the US assessment's figures, the Soviet limit for the general public was two thousand times lower than the American 10...CLM-1007The 1980 assessment worked out that a full American deployment would raise the microwave background everywhere in the country to about...CLM-1008The 1980 documents give the beam's strength at the satellite, on failure, and above and below the receiving panels. The summary and the...CLM-1009The 1980 programme tested bees because of pollination. Early results showed no effect at the beam's strength, and one preliminary report...CLM-1010In the US Department of Energy's 1980 assessments the only bird numbers were from quail eggs at a fifth of the beam's peak, which hatched...CLM-1011In 1980 the programme used two different rules to translate its low-frequency experiments to the real beam, one for heating and one for the...CLM-1012In the DOE's 1980 summary the Platteville heating tests showed no effect on the navigation and broadcast radio it listed at the beam's...CLM-1013By 1980 the programme had made the upper ionosphere ripple with a heater running at what it reckoned was four to twelve times the beam's...More on the source page.