Value chain · CLM-1154
In plain terms
In 1978 the literature said the fence-line level was well below anything known to cause disease over the short term, that no study had come anywhere near thirty years of exposure, and that there was no data at all on what happens to a bird that flies through the beam.
The claim as recorded
The 1978 PNL review of "More than a thousand English summaries and two-hundred original (or translated) papers" set the SPS biological question as two: whether about 23 mW/cm2 at the rectenna centre would "produce disruption, debilitation or death of airborne species that may attempt to fly through the beam", on which "Completely lacking are verified experimental data", and whether continuous low densities at and beyond the exclusion boundary would harm "resident flora and fauna, including human beings", on which it found that "thresholds of relatively short-term radiation for morbid biological effects (e.g., cataracts, heart disease, hematological effects, immunological disturbances, and genetic and developmental defects) are well above the maximal power density (1 mW/cm2) that is tentatively projected at and beyond the area of exclusion of the receiving antenna", with the caveat that "No experimental study has ever been performed that even remotely approaches the 30 years or more that SPS would be operative", the data being "mute" on airborne and surface-visiting species and unable to assess "potential for ecological disruption".
Evidence behind this: T3-a DOE-contracted literature review by a national laboratory with named authors, named reviewers and a stated selection method; its findings are statements about the 1978 literature, not measurements.
Scope and limits
A 1978 STATEMENT OF THE LITERATURE, superseded as evidence by the experiments it called for (SRC-537 for bees, 1980) and by the 1980 assessments (SRC-086, SRC-529) that drew on it; its "well above 1 mW/cm2" is about short-term morbid effects and the review itself says the chronic and ecological questions were open. The second document (research needs and study plan) is not held.
What it assumes
The 1978 reference-system numbers (10 x 13 km, 23 and 1 mW/cm2) as the review states them.
Where it comes from
PDF 9 / printed 2: "More than a thousand English summaries and two-hundred original (or translated) papers on the biological effects of microwave radiation were initially reviewed" (normalised). PDF 8 / printed 1: "The expanse of each rectenna (about 10 by 13 kilometers)" (raw); "with fall off to 1 mW/cm2 or less at the periphery of the rectenna" (normalised); "the possibility that 20 or more satellite systems will eventually be operating" (normalised). PDF 6 / printed xi (render read): "Will microwave radiation at a relatively high power density (~23 mW/cm2) near the center of each rectifying antenna produce disruption, debilitation or death of airborne species that may attempt to fly through the beam" (normalised); "Completely lacking are verified experimental data that would indicate" whether "none, some, or all of the airborne species can sustain flight through the beam" (normalised); "Will continuous microwave radiation at relatively low power densities near the periphery of a rectifying antenna and beyond the area of exclusion produce untoward effects on resident flora and fauna, including human beings" (normalised); "thresholds of relatively short-term radiation for morbid biological effects (e.g., cataracts, heart disease, hematological effects, immunological disturbances, and genetic and developmental defects) are well above the maximal power density (1 mW/cm2) that is tentatively projected at and beyond the area of exclusion of the receiving antenna" (normalised); "No experimental study has ever been performed that even remotely approaches the 30 years or more that SPS would be operative" (normalised). PDF 7 / printed xiii: below 1 mW/cm2 "does not result in morbid biological effects, but these data have arisen from studies that do not contain effects of ultra-long-term exposures, and do not permit evaluation of potential for ecological disruption" (normalised); "the data are mute with respect to consequences for airborne species that may fly over the rectenna, or for terrestrial or airborne species that may ascend or descend to the surface of the rectenna, thereby incurring radiation at power densities that could exceed 20 mW/cm2" (normalised). Recomputed: 23 mW/cm2 = 230 W/m2, 1 mW/cm2 = 10 W/m2, the reference-system centre and boundary values (CLM-0071, CLM-0024).
Basis: mW/cm2 at 2.45 GHz CW (1 mW/cm2 = 10 W/m2); years of operation
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-1154
CLM-1154, Energy Aperture, as of 1978-05.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-557
- CLM-1155The 1978 reviewers did the sum for a small bird flying four kilometres through the beam centre and concluded it would probably die of heat...CLM-1156The one worrying result at the fence-line level in 1978 was thinner eggshells in hens kept twelve weeks in a metal cage whose field...CLM-1157The reviewers said most of the older microwave-health literature could not be trusted on how much power the animals actually got, that...