Value chain · CLM-1294
Low confidence
The evidence behind this statement is thin, indirect or second-hand. Read it as a lead to check, not as a settled finding.
In plain terms
The fullest of the four papers: caged birds under a pulsed beam above them reacted within seconds at about twice the proposed beam-centre strength and more slowly at lower strengths, pigeons stayed drowsy for half an hour after two minutes, and birds lit from below barely noticed.
The claim as recorded
A 1969 paper in the Journal of Microwave Power reports caged fowl, pigeons and ring-billed gulls exposed in the near field of a horn. Under pulsed 16 GHz at an average 45 mW/cm2, birds became hyperactive and within a few seconds either collapsed to one side ("flanking") or took flight; in twelve birds, time to flank rose as intensity fell from 45 to 5 mW/cm2, and the same response came about twice as late under pulsed 9.29 GHz. With the horn below and 40 mW/cm2 at the birds' underside, four chickens startled at onset and were otherwise unaffected for the 2-minute exposure. Six pigeons at 40 mW/cm2 for 2 minutes panted heavily and stayed drowsy with drooped wings for over 30 minutes; six gulls showed extreme distress after 30 seconds at 40 mW/cm2 and drowsiness after 2 minutes. Under CW X-band at about 60 mW/cm2, four of six chickens flanked after 2 minutes; an infra-red lamp at 100 mW/cm2 for 3 minutes caused no agitation in two. The paper states its results do not imply any interaction at the power levels of industrial and communication uses.
Evidence behind this: T1, a measured laboratory study in a peer-reviewed journal with method, probe calibration and 1-sigma bars on one test; permits "the 1969 paper measured Y under these conditions". Bird numbers are small (2 to 12 per test) and several tests report observations only.
Scope and limits
Pulsed X and Ku band; the only CW microwave test is at about 60 mW/cm2 and its X-band CW source is not among the four generators listed (generator 3 is 3.0 GHz CW); no test at 2.45 GHz or 5.8 GHz. Near field of a horn over a cage: the paper says far-field power relations cannot be used and the bird distorts the field, and intensities were measured in the empty cage. Caged birds, not flying through a beam. Bird numbers 2 to 12 per test; Figure 3 values not read here. Summer laboratory at 70 to 80 F. Generator 2's printed 9.0 W average is a suspected misprint (94 kW x 416 x 2.35 usec is about 92 W, ours). Printed pages 122 and 123 inferred from sequence. The beam-centre comparison in plain rests on CLM-0080 (about 25 mW/cm2; 45/25 is 1.8, ours), not on this page.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
, PDF p.3 (printed 124): generator 1 "16 GHz (Ku-band)", 8400 pps, 0.20 usec, 107 W average; generator 2 "9.29 GHz (X-band)", 416 pps, 2.35 usec. PDF p.4 (125): twelve birds, "starting first with the highest level, viz. 45 mW/cm2" down to "5 mW/cm2". PDF p.6 (127): horn under the cage, 40 mW/cm2, "appeared unaffected for the 2-minute duration of the exposure"; pigeons drowsy "for a period of more than 30 minutes"; gulls "extreme distress after 30 seconds". PDF p.7 (128), conclusion 6: "do not imply per se any possible interaction" at industrial and communication levels.
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-001 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-1294
CLM-1294, Energy Aperture, as of 1969.