Value chain · CLM-1284
In plain terms
In 1981 the US Congress's technology office said there was not enough evidence to judge the health risk of living near a power-satellite receiver for years. It expected little harm outside the site, could not rule out effects inside it, and said this research should come first.
The claim as recorded
OTA's 1981 report judged that the health risks of chronic exposure to low-level SPS microwaves, below 1.0 mW/cm2, "cannot be analyzed with the current data base", and that no assessment for SPS could then be made. It said that if an SPS programme were pursued, microwave bioeffects "should receive top priority". It reports DOE's tentative conclusions for the public and ecosystems outside the rectenna: small reproductive effects; uncertain risks to special populations (people taking medication, children, older and pregnant people) and uncertain effects on behaviour; unlikely immune and blood effects; and no expected cancer, development or growth effects. It notes that the data base behind these conclusions is incomplete. At the rectenna site, for ecosystems and workers, effects on physiology, behaviour, development, reproduction and the thermoregulatory, immune and blood systems might be possible, and birds in flight are often near their thermal limit. DOE's bee, bird and small-animal studies had found no significant effects but were "far from completed". The DOE assessment could not start any study of long-term low-level exposure, and practically none were under way or planned. Nothing was known of effects on a whole ecosystem over SPS time scales of 30 to 100 years, and a dedicated, adequately funded national programme was lacking.
Evidence behind this: T3, a published congressional assessment; it permits "OTA judged Y". The health expectations are DOE's tentative conclusions as reported by OTA. The research list is from a 1980 National Research Council workshop.
Scope and limits
The effect expectations are DOE's tentative conclusions (footnote 59) as reported by OTA, not OTA's own analysis; the DOE review was not checked. Table 43's item to "Repeat selected Russian research at 1 to 500 mW/cm2" is not used, because the draft's scan of the same line is illegible and the unit is unconfirmed. This is a 1981 view and says nothing about later evidence, which QST-023 asks for.
What it assumes
The 1978 reference system at 2.45 GHz; the exposure bands of the report's Table 41.
Where it comes from
PDF p.212 / printed 210: "If an SPS program is pursued, the study of microwave bioeffects should receive top priority." PDF p.214 / printed 212: "less than 1.0 mW/cm2) cannot be analyzed with the current data base"; "no assessment for SPS can be conducted at this time"; "DOE tentatively concluded that effects on the reproductive systems would be small"; special populations "(e.g., people taking medication, children, older and pregnant people, etc.)"; "No cancer, development or growth effects would be expected"; "the data base on low level chronic exposure that supports these conclusions is incomplete"; at the rectenna site effects "might be possible"; birds "often near their thermal limit"; DOE studies "far from completed"; NRC workshop priorities, three kinds of laboratory study. PDF p.215 / printed 213, Table 43: includes "Long-term experiments at power densities< 0.1 mW/cm2". PDF p.216 / printed 214: "Virtually nothing is known about the effects of microwaves on a complete ecosystem", time scale "30 to 100 years". PDF p.218 / printed 216: 13 Federal agencies, "about $15 million per year"; "a clear, dedicated, well managed and adequately funded national program in microwave bioeffects research is currently lacking". PDF p.220 / printed 218: "no studies on long-term exposure to low levels of microwaves could be initiated"; "practically no such studies are underway or planned".
Basis: mW/cm2
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-001 not published in this releaseQST-023 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-1284
CLM-1284, Energy Aperture, as of 1981-08.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-601
- CLM-1283In 1981 the US Congress's technology office worked out that keeping the edge of a receiving site to the Soviet limit would make each site...CLM-1285In 1981 the Soviet limit for workers was a thousand times stricter than the US one, and the US had no public limit at all. Congress's...CLM-1286The 1981 congressional assessment listed who would be exposed to the beam and how strongly. Levels ran from a ten-thousandth of a milliwatt...CLM-1446The 1977-80 US government programme did not decide for or against power satellites. It said questions on technology, environment and cost...