Value chain · CLM-1157
In plain terms
The reviewers said most of the older microwave-health literature could not be trusted on how much power the animals actually got, that pulsed beams do more than steady ones at the same average, and that nobody had ever tried to assess an ecosystem.
The claim as recorded
The 1978 PNL review judged the microwave-bioeffects literature it drew on: power density "numbers reported in the literature prior to the 1970s are frankly suspect" because "measurements of absorbed energy (dosimetry) were virtually alien to the microwave laboratory until the 1970s"; "Much of the experimental literature on biological effects of microwave radiation is based on poorly engineered exposure facilities, inadequate" environmental control, "poor dosimetry or no dosimetry, improper methodology, and instrumentation ill-suited for collection of biological data during radiation"; "No longer acceptable, however, are experiments in which measures of power density have not been validated against dosimetric measures"; "At any given averaged power density, pulsed radiation is more likely to result in effects, at least in the animal with an intact and functioning nervous system"; and "Ecological assessment of microwave radiation has never been attempted and, in virtue of the tremendous complexities inherent in multibiotic systems, will pose the most difficult and time-consuming challenge in the evaluation of SPS impact".
Evidence behind this: T3-the reviewers' judgement of their own field's methods, stated as guidelines for reading the literature and as requirements for the SPS programme.
Scope and limits
A 1978 JUDGEMENT ABOUT THE LITERATURE TO THAT DATE; the register's later sources (ICNIRP 2020's basic restrictions in SAR, CLM-1169) are the dosimetric practice the review asked for. The pulsed-versus-CW statement bears on SRC-270's pulsed demonstrations (CLM-1123) only as a reminder that peak and average are different exposures.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
PDF 10 / printed 3: power density "numbers reported in the literature prior to the 1970s are frankly suspect" (normalised); "measurements of absorbed energy (dosimetry) were virtually alien to the microwave laboratory until the 1970s" (normalised); "At any given averaged power density, pulsed radiation is more likely to result in effects, at least in the animal with an intact and functioning nervous system" (normalised). PDF 38 / printed 31: "Ecological assessment of microwave radiation has never been attempted and, in virtue of the tremendous complexities inherent in multibiotic systems, will pose the most difficult and time-consuming challenge in the evaluation of SPS impact" (normalised). PDF 44 / printed 37 (render read): "Much of the experimental literature on biological effects of microwave radiation is based on poorly engineered exposure facilities, inadequate" (normalised) environmental control, "poor dosimetry or no dosimetry, improper methodology, and instrumentation ill-suited for collection of biological data during radiation" (normalised). PDF 45 / printed 38: "No longer acceptable, however, are experiments in which measures of power density have not been validated against dosimetric measures" (normalised).
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-1157
CLM-1157, 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-1154In 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...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...