(360)350-8938 (texts welcome)
Exotichikes@gmail.com

Olympic Peninsula, Wa

Electromagnetic Warfare Training coming to Washington Coast and Rainforests

Electromagnetic Radiation: Coming Soon to the Olympic Peninsula's Most Beautiful Areas?

Electromagnetic Radiation: Coming Soon to the Olympic Peninsula’s Most Beautiful Areas?

Updated 10/18/2014

The rugged, beautiful Washington Coast and the rainforests of the Olympic Peninsula will soon be the site of War Games conducted by the United States Military. In 2015, the United States plans to test and refine our ability to use and maintain electromagnetic weapons in National Forest lands.  Pumping radiation out of towers at 14 locations, including stations on the Quinault, Queets, Hoh rivers and rain forests, the US military is saying that there is little to no risk to humans or large animals in the region.

 

According to an environmental assessment, the purpose of the war games is to train to deny the enemy of:

“all possible frequencies of electromagnetic radiation (i.e. electromagnetic energy) for use in such applications as communication systems, navigation systems and defense related systems and components.”

 

 

The assessment also states that extended exposure to this level of radiation can pose a serious health hazard. The Peninsula Daily News reports,

“The Navy’s environmental assessment, which includes plans for protecting people and large animals, found no significant impact from the $11.5 million warfare training project, planned to be operational on the West End by September 2015.”

 

While I am neither an environmental or military expert, testing any level of radiation in or around  National Wildlife Refuges and National Parks seems like a terrible idea. Maybe it was one too many episodes of the X-Files, but I don’t necessarily trust everything that is spoon fed to us via regular news sources. Luckily, I am not alone.

 

Due to a public outcry on the issue, the Navy, working through the National Forest Service has extended a public comment period through October 25th, 2014. Comments, as well as a plethora of information on the issue can be found HERE.

 

According to the reports linked above, 15 minutes of exposure from the radiation can severely damage the eyes and other sensitive skin. If this level of radiation can cause harm to people over 15 minutes, what exactly will it be doing to the birds and large mammals in the region? What is it going to do to the millions of pounds of slugs, spiders, bees and other small creatures? While many may feel this is needed, maybe it is time to rethink our entire way of life. Instead spending the 11.5 million dollars on this radiation-filled warfare training project, why don’t we take that money and use it on something longer lasting than piece of mind until the next technological advancement?

(The above section is hyperbole and has no scientific basis, it is just me venting my frustrations over a project I 100% disagree with.)

 

If you feel passionate about this issue on either side, please comment often and make your voice heard. This is the last chance we have until the beautiful Olympic Peninsula rain forests and river valleys get used for war games.

 

Before commenting, please read the Environmental Assessment, located HERE

 

COMMENT HERE> https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?Project=42759

 

 

EMAIL THE FOREST SERVICE YOUR COMMENT*:  gtwahl@fs.fed.us 

 

 

 

 

*US Forest Service email address obtained through Peninsula Daily News.

107 Responses so far.

  1. This needs to be done no where ever! Practice with air!!!!

  2. Lee Edgecomb says:

    TAX DOLLARS AT WORK??????????
    We are being taxed to death to kill Nature?
    Our Fruit TREES are dying–east to west coast!!~
    They WANT OUR GUNS?
    Our BORDERS ARE OPEN!!
    They are giving SS away?
    Military, representing– citizens?—
    Congress represents, —-Citizens?—
    Vaccines; poison-for—- Citizens?—
    Chem Trails, chemicals!–Planet–?—
    WARS—FOR,WHOM
    MONEY CONTROLLING ELECTIONS,NEWS,GOVERNMENT, SOCIETY FOR STARTERS…
    citizens must, “awaken……..FEW ARE VOTING”–
    llove

  3. Geoff says:

    Get off my mountain… get away from our animals…get out of our state.. We do not want your protection if you cant protect us… you are killing us…

    • Keith Olson says:

      I can promise to everyone here that Rod IS NOT connected with the Navy, or for that matter, “corporate America”. He is a very good friend of mine; and one whom I greatly respect

      However……………we do not agree on this issue!

      I live here, fourth generation. Probably to the chagrin of many of you on this blog(is that what ya call it?) I have cut trees for a living my entire life.

      This “process” of bringing EMF to the Olympic Peninsula was begun in back rooms and kept in back rooms right up to the time that it was introduced to the public. That raises a red flag for me. Is this “business as usual” for government agencies, such as the USFS, Olympic National Park, EPA, etc.? Yep, it certainly is.

      The science of all this, so far, has baffled me and I am still immersing myself in various articles trying to figure out just what is true and what isn’t!

      But………………trust the USFS or the Navy? I don’t see that happenin’!!!!!!

      Rod’s a fine man.

      I just don’t know which side of science I am on yet, his or Janet ‘s!

  4. Elizabeth Keating says:

    This is absolutely horrible. With all our concerns about environment, and all the woods that are already logged around this park everyday! How dare the military think they can abuse our beautiful park this way. It’s an abomination.

  5. This definitely sounds like a plot straight from the X-files, and more importantly, sounds like a terrible idea. Thanks for passing along this info and where to contact the appropriate parties to voice an opinion.

  6. Ed Smith says:

    You need to spend the money on securing the border, keeping the Ebola infested people out and don’t make this National Gem look like Mt. St. Helen or Hiroshima. What about the helpless wild game. Not on my dime and dollars!

  7. Trish Fears says:

    The link states it is down and may be down for the weekend. To radiate our ecosystem WILL cause damage! How stupid do they think we are.won’t be a world left at the rate we are destroying it. smdh

  8. Sara Childers says:

    What are the Tribes position on this? Have they signed a MOU or a PA. This will effect hunting won’t it? This will affect harvesting plants wont it?

  9. elfpix says:

    While the tribes may not want this at all in their sacred lands, the actual lands are not under their domain, or control They are in the National Park, which, like all national parklands, are being starved of cash by the current Republican-led stalemate in Congress. Please contact both the link above and your congress person about the importance of funding the Nationl Park system so it doesn’t find a deal like this attractive for its budget.

    And while you’re at it, if you live in WA state, please make a special effort to let your representatives and senators know that you regard this as incredibly poorly planned waste of very short funds.

  10. Janet Carter says:

    The link will NOT work. It’s broken in some way. I tried using both through Chrome and Internet Explorer and the comment link is busted OR blocked. Please do investigate this!

    • ExoticHikes says:

      We have heard that the comment system is down through the weekend. It should be up Monday. If not, I’ll try and get a new link or phone number.

  11. Sara Luna says:

    “”“Set up in this direction, the mobile emitters pose no threat to people or animals below the emitters on the ground. Risk to animals or humans would only occur if they put themselves in the direct path of the signal, above the emitter, and within 100 feet of the emitter beam for an extended period of time. As an added measure of safety, the Navy has mandated that crews shut down the emitters if people or animals are within the 100-foot safety zone around these vans when the systems are sending out the skyward signal,” Nakahara said.”” How on earth are they going to inform/stop the animals from staying away from the “beam”?!?
    This is aweful! That mountain range and rain forests are so unique to our coast. No where else will we find an environment like it. Thank you for informing us. I will wait until the site is up, to leave my voice. We need to be the voice for this Washington gem!

  12. Bernice Drake says:

    The links to the page for comments are not working.

    This project is short sighted and will cause extreme harm. Do not make the mistake of thinking that harming animals and plants other than human will not affect us. We truly are all connected and denying it will not make it less the truth.

  13. nicole black says:

    Spread the word and stop this training. Our families and friends ride, camp, hunt and otherwise enjoy the Olympic Peninsula. The Navy has not xemostrated that these war games will not harm us, animals or the enviroment. We better stand on ground and tell Navy No! Not here.

  14. Bill Yake says:

    Both links are (suspiciously) down.

  15. sue says:

    Leave the pristine places alone…better yet, just don’t do it ANYWHERE. Where do you guys get off messing with what natural places we have left. It’s just plain idiocy.

  16. Paul Huppler says:

    Not in the northwest please.do not use radiation weapons please ever

  17. Terry Fischer says:

    We don’t want this in the one rain forest we are blessed with in the United States. These forests are pristine and sacred lands and no place for your war games! I hope everyone will join together to defeat this asinine idea!

  18. Doug lamy says:

    funding for the park and economic health for the olympic peninsula would best be served by funding my hybrid, fast passenger ferry project. people here w/o cars-good for all biz. built on the peninsula for the peninsula. a continuing manufacture. both builder and power system are mil spec.
    we should not be available for dod experiments. we like animals here…even the human kind.

  19. Some dude says:

    No, not gamma rays. Not particle radiation. We’re talking radio waves. Electronic warfare doesn’t involve blasting charged particles or ionizing radiation everywhere. It’s just low-energy electromagnetic radiation. Light with energy low enough that it’s not even visible. If you think that’s dangerous, you need to get the hell out of the city because you’re surrounded by radio waves. The sort used for, you probably guessed it, radios. Cellphones now too. Lots of things use radio frequencies. Which is exactly why they’re doing it where there’s practically nobody, so their interference of radio signals doesn’t interfere with your radios and your cellphones.

    • Janet says:

      Some Dude, what makes you think radio waves such as those that carry cell phone messages are benign? Plenty of research in Europe that says just the contrary. We’ve been trying to get away from cellphone towers, etc. for that reason. The only time I use my phone is when I’m traveling. But it is virtually impossible to avoid it even living in a more rural area such as the Olympic Peninsula sadly. And now this proposal from the DOD. great and who knows what kind of impact on the flora and fauna of the wilderness this kind of testing will leave. We know that the Navy is wanting underwater acoustic testing for somesuch that basically deafens sea mammals such as whales. I do not share your equanimity about “nothing to worry about as it’s just normal low level radio emg…”. In today’s world, I don’t believe squat about what comes out of DOD’s mouthpiece.

      • Some dude says:

        And way more research says that they are. The evidence that certain radio waves can cause cancer is extremely limited. It’s correlation, and in testing, the problems that they would need to cause simply aren’t there. That’s the most important part. Radio waves, in testing, are not shown to have the properties to cause cancer or do any sort of damage. The only reason they’re even mentioned to this day is that we can’t outright prove what actually causes those cancers. There’s more evidence that radio waves don’t cause cancer than sitting anywhere near your monitor does.

        This and what happens in oceans are two entirely different things. Radio waves aren’t seen in biological processes. No animal relies on them, and the vast majority of animals can’t even detect them.

        It’s not about “trusting the government” or whatever. In order for this to seriously be an issue, there would have to be a massive, world-wide conspiracy to hide the effects of radio waves, because it’s not like it’s hard to generate them and run tests.

    • Michael monson says:

      Would you put your head into a microwave oven…? Same thing as the emitters

  20. Robbie says:

    I know we must be ready at all times. But as u say test means just as it said. What about big foot and creatures that live there. ? There food

  21. Rod Farlee says:

    The Navy proposes to transmit similar microwave radio power and frequency to that of any cell phone tower. Except that it will be aimed above the horizon into the sky, not below the horizon down towards people.

    People recieve far more microwave exposure when they use a cell phone, flock to a WiFi “hot spot” or read this using their home wireless network. Radio waves are completely harmless.

    The concern expressed above is groundless. What should concern Forks residents is that their local high school is obviously not providing a high school science education adequate to enable it to compete in the 21st century economy. Which is why job opportunities are few and household incomes are about a third of Seattle or Kirkland. Because any high school physics textbook has the electromagnetic spectrum printed inside its cover, and understanding it is key to knowing radio waves are harmless.

    The only issue posed in this EA is: should USFS allow US Navy to drive and park on its roads, and operate a quiet generator, just like anyone else with an RV or camper? Realize the ground-based radar this simulates is the same that shot down Air Malaysia flight 17 over Ukraine in July, an Iragi Air Force jet recently, and illuminate US pilots when in joint exercises with Taiwan, Korea, Japan or Saudi. It is a real threat, and we owe it to them to train them to survive it.

    Mr. Scott, shame on you for spreading such ignorance.

  22. kt says:

    To add these levels of radiation to this area, is too much, any radiation is too much. Compounded with what is coming this way via Fukushima and who knows what other disaster is next. THE EARTH MOVES…therefore only a matter of time until another nuclear reactor melts down, not to mention ones KNOWINGLY built on a fault as was Fukushima. What are you people trying to do? Annihilate the human race, destroy our ecosystem further than you already have, in our National Forests using our tax dollars? What part of NO don’t you understand? No! Stop! Why don’t all you boys who are so eager to play war do it on Mars? We’ll lend our tax dollars to get you the hell off this planet. It doesn’t belong to you. Wake UP!

    • XBradTC says:

      This is NOT nuclear radiation. It’s electromagnetic radiation. You know, radio waves? Just like the radio waves your wifi router and laptop and cell phone emit?

      • WhyFry says:

        Why did the US Naval Research own research came to the conclusion that low level radiation is NOT SAFE?

        Why did the Freiburger Doctors Appeal, which was signed by over 1000 physicians, morphed into the International Doctors Appeal, with over 36000 signatures in condemnation of low level RF radiation? NOT SAFE!

        Why did the World World Health Organization classified low level radio frequency a 2B Carcinogen in 2011?
        They could have classified low level radiation a non-carcinogen classification 4, but they did not. NOT SAFE!

  23. […] This article was originally published by Exotic Hikes Olympic Peninsula: Electromagnetic Warfare Training coming to Washington Coast and Rainforests | Exotic Hikes Olympic P…. […]

  24. Mary Molnes says:

    PLEASE Do not allow the military into the Olympic mountains for any military training. No to electromagnetic warfare training in the Olympic mountain areas.

  25. Ron says:

    Microwave radiation causes cataracts and damage at the cellular level. It is the same as a microwave oven, just at a lower power level. This proposal is a reckless disaster in the making. Why not do it to the people, flora, and fauna of the park. The navy has been torturing marine life for decades.

  26. Ron says:

    It is true that microwave radiation is not ionizing radiation–the kind that comes from x-rays and radioactive material. But many studies show a correlation between microwave radiation and cell damage and mutation. Cataract pathogenesis is not in dispute. Lots of brain tumors in the side of the head in contact with cell phones. In effect everyone and everything are being slow cooked by cellular towers and radar emissions of microwave radiation.

  27. Rod Farlee says:

    Ron, no, studies show no health effects from cell phone, Bluetooth “hands free” devices, or WiFi “hot spots”, all of which are much more intense microwave sources than Navy radar because they are so much closer (inverse square law). You’re exposed to radar every time you go to the local marina or take a ferry or drive past a police speed trap. Right now, your own body is emitting about 100 watts of higher-energy thermal infrared radiation and 1 milliwatt of microwave radiation, your own natural thermal blackbody radiation. You are literally glowing in invisible “radiation” simply by virtue of being a warm 98.6 F. What you’re now emitting is more than you get from local cell phone towers or Navy radar at a safe distance of a few hundred feet. None of this is a devious X-files conspiracy, it is natural, harmless and is in any high school physics textbook.

    This is “journalism” of the quality of Faux News coverage of climate change: the “controversy” itself is newsworthy, even if it is imaginary.

    • Janet says:

      Rod, I’m afraid your reassurances are not reassuring. I’ve just moved back to the Peninsula from Santa Fe NM which had a large, well informed activist group who worked diligently to inform the city council and the community of the realities of cell phone and cell tower exposure. Part of what constellated the vocal group was AT&T’s intention to install a 4G tower on the grounds of a new grammar school in my neighborhood. I had a good friend who was a health care provider who was one of the point people and who had done very good research not only in this country but throughout European sources on research on health effects of cell/wireless exposure.

      Corporate telecom has billions invested and I’m sorry, much of the research so-called is funded by the telecom industry to make nice and keep people buying smart phones and subscriptions. There is much known and unknown yet and realistic research in this country is not likely given the influence corporate telecommunications has in our governments. There is growing concern….like it or not…that implicates cell usage in brain tumors AND breast cancers for those women not awake enough yet to keep their smart phones in their bras.

      Your minimizing and trivializing what is a reality concern particularly given that fact that the West End of the Peninsula is so pristine and still a reasonably intact ecosystem abundant in flora and fauna, is speaking to your bias, not to science that is being done in many parts of the world…OTHER than the U.S.

    • WhyFry says:

      (“What you’re now emitting is more than you get from local cell phone towers or Navy radar at a safe distance of a few hundred feet.”)

      FALSE!

      I suggest you equip yourself with a quality RF meter and put your bizarre statement to the test. You will be surprised to learn that you are monumentally incorrect!

      I have used several RF meters and have done the tests! The RF measurements tell a totally different story.
      Man, or the natural environment DO NOT emit more low level radiation than a cell tower, WiFi, cellphones, radar etc.

      On the contrary!
      Man made RF radiation from cell towers, WiFi, cellphones, radar etc. is many THOUSANDS TIMES higher than natural background radiation!

      If you have an academic background as you have stated, you owe it to yourself to learn the truth.

      I was not about to comment any further, but your comment sounds like a typical misleading statement of the telecom lobby.

  28. Sydney Barnes says:

    No! This is horrible. No need to pump further toxins into our environment. Once the military can establish a plan that doesn’t cause severe detrimental health concerns for all plant, animal, and human inhabitants; then they can play their games. In the meantime, figure out another source of simulation and practice. There is no need to destroy through preparation, no lasting good impact is coming of it. We need to be more considerate of the repercussions of out actions.

  29. Janet says:

    An editorial correction. I apologize for sloppy syntax but was in a hurry to make an app’t. What I wanted to say was women placing their cell phones in their bras for convenience and safe keeping reflects NOT being awake to the implicit dangers not the least of which is breast cancer. And yes, there is evidence emerging of the health dangers involved by keeping the cell phone on the body. Cell phones and towers and the different permutations of that technology need intense scrutiny by the medical science communities and it’s not happening in this country for the reasons I expressed above.

  30. John says:

    Data from the Centers for Disease Control show that US cancer rates have generally declined or stayed the same between 1999 and 2011. In this same period cell phone ownership in the US went up by ~400%. So…..where is this surge in cancer we should be seeing? It’s not there, which is pretty much what you’d expect considering the radiation in question (from cell phones & towers) is very low in intensity and comes from the non-ionizing range of the spectrum.

    • Janet says:

      Uh John, I’m afraid you are going to have to come up with better “statistics” than that. Please. I don’t even know where to go with that without sounding judgemental or critical. It doesn’t look like you are familiar with how statistical studies are structured and conducted and how epidemiological information data is both gathered and meaningfully interpreted. Conceivably you could have no increase or a decline in the global number of cancers but a significant uptick in the numbers of cancers suspected to be caused by exposures to emg/cell technology. See what I mean? So…..

      Wireless telecommunication technology is a modern wonder and made connectivity and communication possible for millions in the world who would otherwise not have access. It’s all good EXCEPT technology always comes with a price and we’re also looking at the dark face of it with weapons technology and how to use it as such, and protect from it accordingly. Fine. Just go someplace else please military services and do not chance harming one of the few pristine ecosystems left in our country. Nobody is speaking to the ever present law of unintended consequences! And why take the chance for a region that is a treasure that includes all the wild things and the millions who come here to partake of such a place. Wilderness is not just a place to exploit for god’s sake and we’re constantly having to beat back the barbarians at the gates, whether its “resource development” or something horrendous like this wargame testing. Stop and think!!!

  31. daniBelle says:

    Can anyone provide some scientific study links, research reviews etc. on the effects of EMF on plants?

  32. John says:

    Janet, if the radiation associated with cell phones and cell towers actually caused a significant rise in the incidence of cancer as you allege, then a 400% increase in cell phone usage involving ~200 million people would probably be fairly visible in the overall cancer statistics. That’s nothing more than common sense. It’s basically a very large scale experiment in which your hypothesis has been refuted – give 90% of the US population cell phones and see if cancer rate goes up. Guess what, it didn’t. Are you really suggesting that a simultaneous drop in cancer due to other causes has masked the true results? Good grief. Please outline for me your conception of a scientific experiment that would have more validity than the actual results of 300 million Americans using cell phones with no increase in the US cancer rate.

    • Janet says:

      John your analysis of the CDC data makes no sense. Does CDC also indicate what the causes are for the range of cancers that are experienced in our country? CAUSES is the by word here.

      Without THAT information, your “analysis” is meaningless and I’d like to know where you get the number that the entire population of the U.S. owns cell phones.

      The bottom line continues to be that the military want to use a pristine wilderness area that has a robust ecosystem that plays a role in the health and “wealth” of the Olympic Peninsula and actually the Puget Sound generally, to play war games with a technology whose impacts on health short and long term are NOT known and poorly understood. Frankly that’s a crap shoot we can’t afford to play.

    • Bethany says:

      This is sick and sad. Not only will this be a detriment to our natural environment, but it will also open up opportunity for this type of warfare to be used (intentionally or not) to jam our own communication systems. Can you imagine needing help and having no way to communicate with anyone?!

  33. juju says:

    No testing in our rainforests! Not here no need. This is preposterous! Don’t subject innocent people and animals to this deadly experiment. There’s no way this can be safe for anyone or anything.

  34. John says:

    Janet, you’re failing to think clearly here. Cell phone usage in the US has increased dramatically over the past 20 years with no concomitant rise in cancer rates. So not only is there no theoretical basis for suspecting cell phone usage to be carcinogenic (they emit low intensity non-ionizing radiation), neither is there an empirical basis (no rise in cancer rates). You seem to be proposing that cancer due to other causes has dropped enough to conceal all the new cases of cancer supposedly caused by cell phones. You’re grasping at straws.

    Look at 90% of the comments on this page. These people are vehemently opposed to something that they haven’t spent five minutes educating themselves on. Is it really that satisfying to be an activist when you have no idea what you’re talking about? This is a relatively simple issue; at least acquire a fundamental understanding of the relevant facts before taking a stand.

  35. Rod Farlee says:

    Janet, if you believe cell PHONES (a transmitter held one inch from one’s head) are harmful, despite all the research refuting that concern, that’s one thng. To conflate that with concern over cell phone TOWERS (or Navy simulated radar), transmitters that are MILES away, is quite another thing. Because of their distance, the microwaves from these are much weaker than thermal microwaves naturally emitted by your own body, by a hot campfire or woodstove, by the sun, trees, sky, by everything in the environment. This is called blackbody radiation. Microwaves are like infrared (heat) radiation, only a thousand times lower energy (frequency) and longer wavelength. It is perfectly natural and harmless. We are all bathed in it from the very moment of our conception.

    Your body, at 98.6 F, is now emitting about 1 milliwatt of microwaves, and absorbing almost a milliwatt from your own clothes and from the environment, plus some tiny fraction of a microwatt from all artificial sources (cell phone towers, WiFi and wireless, cordless phones, radar for marine, weather and aviation, etc.) The only difference is you are emitting broadband microwave noise, while transmitters use a narrow frequency, so if one listens at just that frequency (with a receiver) one can hear a signal over that noise.

    To imagine that microwaves are “unnatural” is to not understand nature itself, at the level offered in high school physics class.

    • WhyFry says:

      Rod, I must confess, you sound like a industry lobbyist to me.
      Perhaps I am wrong, but your comments sound like they come straight out of the wireless lobby instruction manual.

      I sat across the table from industry lobbyist before and I am familiar with their deliberate attempts to misinform the public.

      People do not emit more RF radiation than wireless devices, your statements are incorrect.
      If you take the time to do testing yourself, like I have done on many occasions, using a high quality RF meter, you will very quickly learn, that your comments alarmingly incorrect and misleading.

      Cell towers, DECT and cell phones, smart meters, RADAR and even baby monitors, emit far higher amounts of radiation than any human being ever will.
      Microwave radiation values of TENS and even HUNDREDS of THOUSAND TIMES higher, than natural background radiation is very common in today’s over irradiated world.

      RF meters DO NOT EVEN REACT when metering a person. On the other hand, cell towers can easily reach microwave radiation levels many thousand times higher, even at a great distances of several miles.

      Non-ionizing radiation was classified a 2B Carcinogen by the World Health Organization(WHO)in 2011.

      The Who advised the public, particularly young adults and children, to “take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure”.

      Dr. Robert Baan of WHO/IARC affirmed: “This 2B Carcinogen classification is not limited to to cellphone radiation, it holds for all types of radiation within the radio-frequency part of the electromagnetic spectrum, including the radiation emitted by base-station antennas, radio/TV towers, RADAR, WiFi, smart meters etc.”

  36. psycho zharin says:

    hope people realize that like 80% or so of the worlds oxygen comes from ore rain forests , which from 1985 to know we have but a meer 30% of left , screw of this one could make our globe uninhabitable or close to it

  37. Janet says:

    If I were cynical, I would suspect that John and Rod are either employees or trolls for Verizon or AT&T, but I’m not…just experienced in the way of how these kinds of lists get hijacked.

    Gentlemen, a friend today…British…is sickened by this proposal. She, too, is a health care professional and VERY cognizant of Europe’s approaches to cell phone usage. Children 12 and under are not permitted cell phones. Research is active in the health impacts of cell phone usage, unlike our country who is captive to corporate interests who aren’t about to upset the cart on billions a year in business within the U.S.

    John it is YOU who is not thinking clearly. 300 million Americans own cell phones. Cancer rates have not risen as of 2003. Therefore cellphones do not cause cancer.

    Interesting logic loop. You’d be laughed out of a science/medical based conference with that presentation.

    All the sneering about the “technical gaffes and ignorance” that concerned citizens are expressing here don’t alter the reality that there are health impacts that the continent across the Pond is investigating. And don’t alter the facts that the the military is going to use a pristine wilderness for technical testing on a technology that is yet to be proven safe…sorry gents but your “reassurances” are hollow given what we know Europe is up to….and there is plenty at stake. If nothing else, if the military is approved to use this region for their weapons testing, the precedent will have been established and, as it goes, they will be back. They are always back for more.

    Done. Hopefully there will be enough of a stink that there will be a pause. I intend to contact Patty Murray’s office and ask what gives here.

    I think we’ve exhausted this thread frankly and, having lived in a community that beat back big oil who intended to frack in Santa Fe County, and despite big oil’s soothing assurances that they had the technology to be oh so safe and all that crapola, I have learned to take with a grain of salt, these vigorous, corporate sponsored defenses of technology that concerned citizens intuitively have enough sense to raise flags of alarm about.

  38. rain forest girl says:

    FYI There is a petition against these Naval war exercises in our National Forest at change.org — Pls sign if you are against this intrusion into our pristine wilderness areas & possible damage to wildlife!!!!

    It’s important. Will you consider signing it too? Here’s the link:

    http://www.change.org/p/us-navy-do-not-put-any-camper-sized-trucks-with-electromagnetic-radiation-equipment-to-conduct-war-exercises-with-military-aircraft-from-15-sites-in-clallam-jefferson-and-grays-harbor-counties?recruiter=165579739&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition

  39. Bethany says:

    Scary…If this level of electronic radiation does not currently and naturally exist in the testing zone you can bet that things will go to heck in a hand basket once testing begins. It may not happen over night, but it will happen. Humans are so intelligent, but it’s pretty idiotic to think you could add an excess source of E.R….er anything really and not screw up the balance of the planet. I don’t believe as a race we have ever successfully done that over a long period of time.

  40. John says:

    Janet, the world needs informed citizens who can think and act intelligently on pressing environmental issues. Unfortunately it seems that so many people within the movement today don’t understand basic science and scientific reasoning, are unable or can’t be bothered to educate themselves, and instead substitute paranoia and hysteria for rationality. You invoke science in your argument and yet you don’t exhibit any understanding of something as simple (and relevant to the issue) as the electromagnetic spectrum. Could you even begin to suggest a mechanism by which the proposal in question would cause environmental harm? I don’t think so, because you’ve already told us everything you know about the issue, which amounts to parroting the hysteria of your equally uninformed friends. Maybe it’s time for you to take a break from raising ‘flags of alarm’ and instead learn a little bit about the actual issue.

  41. todd cory says:

    this fits right in with the chemtrail nonsense… where is that aluminum foil hat… lol

    • John says:

      Don’t forget your lead apron!

    • Janet says:

      Best defense is the attack mode and discrediting people who do not agree with your reasoning. What are your respective educations…and what exactly do or have you both (John and Cory) done with respect to responding to the environmental issues? Since I participated in the activist effort in Santa Fe County to both lobby for AND identify the issues needing to be addressed AND drafted language (as did many residents) on a comprehensive code of regulations on extractive industry activities which emerged in response to the threat of big oil exploration in Santa Fe County, I will tell that it required something more than a…hahaahah tin foil hat. Or do the two of YOU comprehend the environmental issues at stake? Probably not. Of course, at the time that body of regulations that emerged, thanks to citizen activism, governing activities of extractive industries (oil and gas, mining, etc.) was THE most comprehensive code covering every conceivable environmental impact, IN THE COUNTRY at that time. It set the bar and other counties in NM followed…and woke up the west slope of Colorado about fracking dangers among other myriads of issues. You think I can’t begin to grasp science? What do you think had to be addressed in a county extractive industries regulatory code? All of us had to fast track get educated to meet the danger…and we/I did. And that level of activism has been mobilized again in Santa Fe regarding placement of cell phone towers. Dismiss the objections as wooly headed silliness…go for it. It doesn’t change the fact that there is another reality operating and other area in the U.S. are addressing it.

      So that fact that there is a body of knowledge (being developed in Europe) about cell phone impacts on health that doesn’t fit you all’s paradigm, it is dismissed out of hand. The fact that the military has carved out an area of the Olympic Peninsula that they intend to use for testing is generally the opening moves of the eventual dedication of that area for military use…ONLY, isn’t worth addressing in the concerns.

      And I suspect as I said, that you John and Rod… are either employees of telecoms, military personnel or contractors for military projects in which case, there will be every effort to discredit any question of what kind of impact these activities will have on that area AND the Olympic Peninsula in the short and long run.

  42. Rod Farlee says:

    We understand how radiation causes cancer: it breaks a chemical bond in DNA. To do this, the photon has to contain as much energy as a chemical bond. Cosmic rays, gamma rays and X-rays do. But lower energy (from E=Hv, that means lower frequency) radiation does not. For example, infrared radiation does not, and your body is emitting about 100 watts of thermal infrared heat radiation, simply by virtue of being warm.

    Microwave photons are ten thousand times lower energy than infrared. They are woefully, vastly too weak to cause cancer. There is simply no plausible mechanism by which is this even possible. It is outside the realm of the laws of physics. That is the fundamental reason why the entire medical and scientific community is profoundly skeptical of such claims. And it is why the educated public should be, as well.

    Janet, I am no troll for Verizon. I am simply a retired scientist, and your neighbor here on the Peninsula, who is sickened by the irrational fear being fanned here by ignorance. I love Olympic National Park and Forest, and spend most of my free time as a volunteer in them. This has nothing, utterly nothing, to do with loving nature. It has to do with appreciating nature well enough to want to understand it… or not.

    • Janet says:

      Rod I do not have time to do the research round-up, huddle with my friend in Santa Fe who has a boatload of research about the health impacts of wireless technology, etc. right now. However, it deserves attention and I will take the opportunity to do so in the hopefully not so distant future. I’m not in a position to debate the science with you. I am not a scientist. But I do know that there IS research that implicates wireless technology with health effects, some deadly. It all has to do with exposure…how much, how often, the strength involved, etc.

      Please do not blow the concerns off as sickening ignorance. You are impugning scientists and medical researchers who are examining this reality here in the U.S. AND in Europe. There is science that does NOT agree with you or the telecom industry.

      At this point it’s all moot. The other reality IS so how long is the Navy going to stay put in the area so earmarked? Is this a contained, one time study…or are we looking at phase one of an eventual take over of the area for Naval Research purposes? That to me, is even more troubling.

    • Janet says:

      FYI, this is a summary report from the BioInitiative 2012 Report. Needless to say it is not politically “correct” but if you read this report…and go into the actual website, you will find a list of over 500 pages long of research articles for science/medical journals on the health impacts and implications emerging from the amount of EMF exposure that is now available from cell phone, wireless internet, etc.

      Just needing to let you know, Rod et al, these issues are not being articulated by people…well like me who are sickeningly ignorant. They are being articulated by research physicians and scientists both interested AND concerned about the potential and actual implication of the levels of exposure so many of us are experiencing.

      I urge you to go into the actual website http://www.bioinitiative.org and find out for yourselves.

      I am not trying to be a jerk. But this is serious business. Blow it off if you wish, but there are legions of scientists and physicians who are concerned and doing the research to quantify and substantiate suspicions as clinical situations arise.

      Press Releases

      PDF BioInitiative 2012 Report Issues New Warnings on Wireless and EMF
      BioInitiative 2012 Report Issues New Warnings on Wireless and EMF
      University at Albany, Rensselaer, New York / Embargoed until January 7, 2013
      A new report by the BioInitiative Working Group 2012 says that evidence for risks to health has substantially increased since 2007 from electromagnetic fields and wireless technologies (radiofrequency radiation). The Report reviews over 1800 new scientific studies. Cell phone users, parents-to-be, young children and pregnant women are at particular risk.
      There is a consistent pattern of increased risk for glioma (a malignant brain tumor) and acoustic neuroma with use of mobile and cordless phones” says Lennart Hardell, MD at Orebro University, Sweden. “Epidemiological evidence shows that radiofrequency should be classified as a human carcinogen. The existing FCC/IEE and ICNIRP public safety limits and reference levels are not adequate to protect public health.”
      A dozen new studies link cell phone radiation to sperm damage. Even a cell phone in the pocket or on a belt may harm sperm DNA, result in misshapen sperm, and impair fertility in men. Laptop computers with wireless internet connections can damage DNA in sperm.
      Based on strong evidence for vulnerable biology in autism, EMF/RFR can plausibly increase autism risk and symptoms.
      While we aggressively investigate the links between autism disorders and wireless technologies, we should minimize wireless and EMF exposures for people with autism disorders, children of all ages, people planning a baby, and during pregnancy,” says Martha Herbert, MD, PhD.
      Wireless devices such as phones and laptops used by pregnant women may alter brain development of the fetus. This has been linked in both animal and human studies to hyperactivity, learning and behavior problems.
      According to David O. Carpenter, MD, and co-editor of the 2012 Report:
      There is now much more evidence of risks to health affecting billions of people world-wide. The status quo is not acceptable in light of the evidence for harm.“
      This study covers EMF from powerlines, electrical wiring, appliances and hand-held devices; and from wireless technologies (cell and cordless phones, cell towers, ‘smart meters’, WI-FI, wireless laptops, wireless routers, baby monitors, and other electronic devices). Health topics include damage to DNA and genes, effects on memory, learning, behavior, attention, sleep disruption, cancer and neurological diseases like Alzheimer’s disease. New safety standards are urgently needed for protection against EMF and wireless exposures that now appear everywhere in daily life.
      The BioInitiative 2012 Report is available at: http://www.bioinitiative.org.

  43. Joe says:

    This is NOT okay! Some of us actually LIKE the earth we live on!

  44. Rod Farlee says:

    Neighbors, today we have much more accurate short term weather forecasts in the western Olympic Peninsula, thanks to a successful 15-year effort to install a new doppler weather radar covering the Washington coast. It is located on Langley Hill near Copalis Beach. http://www.atmos.washington.edu/cliff/Langleyradar.html

    It transmits FIFTY TIMES the peak pulse microwave power of the proposed Navy radar simulators, and FIVE TIMES the average power. This high power is necessary for it to detect Doppler shifts in the returned signal, giving rainfall rates and wind speeds. It fills a gap, because the Olympic Mountains block Seattle’s Doppler radar. It is very useful and completely harmless.

    Has it damaged the environment in any way? No.

    Is the fear of the much weaker proposed Navy transmitters, having similar power output to hundreds of marine radars in use for decades by cargo and fishing vessels on the Olympic coast, rational? No.

  45. John says:

    Rod, thanks for bringing up the new radar installation. I’ve been wondering about all those three-headed deer I keep seeing around Copalis.

    Janet, you may or may not know that the Bioinitiative Report is produced by a fringe group. There are many thoughtful critical pieces that address it. Here’s a good one that’s long but definitely worth reading:

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/picking-cherries-in-science-the-bio-initiative-report/

    A few excerpts:

    “It was prepared by a group of 29 individuals, most of them scientists who have long held controversial positions on health effects of electromagnetic fields. Two individuals (Carpenter and Sage) wrote the introductory and concluding sections. One of them, Cindy Sage, is not a scientist but a long time activist on the issue who runs a consulting firm on hazards of EMF exposure….The overall impression is that the BIR has been structured to give scientific support to Sage’s activist ideas.”

    “The BIR has long been criticized by health agencies for slant. In its devastating review of the original 2007 version, the Health Council of the Netherlands concluded:

    “In view of the way the BioInitiative report was compiled, the selective use of scientific data and the other shortcomings mentioned above, the Committee concludes that the BioInitiative report is not an objective and balanced reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge. Therefore, the report does not provide any grounds for revising the current views as to the risks of exposure to electromagnetic fields.””

    “It takes only a glance at Verschaeve’s article [link in original text] to realize how far out of line the BIR is with assessments of the issue by mainstream agencies. Of the more than 30 reviews that he considered, all but one did not “consider that there is a demonstrated health risk from RF-exposure from mobile telephones and other wireless communication devices.” The single exception was the BioInitiative report, which Verschaeve judged to be by far the weakest of the group of reports that he considered.”

    “The web page for the latest edition of the Bio-Initiative Report has been completely redesigned. The page is dominated by pictures of natural landscapes: retreating glaciers, wetlands, coral reefs, etc. that have nothing to do with the subject matter of EMF fields. They appear to be trying to associate themselves with legitimate concerns about the environment and climate change. But the analogy with climate change is the exact opposite of the impression they are trying to make. The consensus of the vast majority of climate scientists is that human caused climate change is real. Only a small minority of climate scientists is opposed to this consensus. In the case of EMF and health, the overwhelming majority of scientists see no good evidence for health effects. The BIR represents the views of a small minority.

    The first edition of the BIR was widely quoted by activist groups, but had no significant effect on public policy. The “cautionary” recommendations of the latest 2012 edition of the BIR, which are more than 100 times lower than the previous one, are made without clear scientific justification and at levels that would all but eliminate broadcasting and wireless technology. Perhaps they are hoping to gain more attention with such an extreme position. It will certainly excite the activists but it is unlikely to influence public policy any more than the first edition did.

    Individuals can choose in whom to place their trust. However, governments, including health agencies, have an obligation to use the best available advice about matters of importance to the health of their populations, and the BIR falls short by a huge margin.”

    Hmmm.

    • Janet says:

      I just once again wrote a lengthy reply which, despite accurately reproducing the captcha code, was dumped. It’s happened regularly and now I’m out of time to try once again.

      Safe to say, John, I am not impressed by the ultimate condemnation that this is a “fringe” group that cherry picks, and has an environmental activist associated with it (gasp!) and uses pictures on their website. Really.

      Well I’m grateful for the “fringe” groups…you know, like Rachel Carson, the voice crying in the wilderness and how she was slandered and rebuffed…UNTIL…

      It’s the wild cards that prod science and medicine into action…into NOT accepting the status quo findings on any particular issue…this one about Wireless and EMR pollution generally, is just one more

      Salud everybody…

    • WhyFry says:

      The Bioinitiative Report 2007 & 2011, was a compilation of 2000 peer reviewed science papers. Ironically it also includes research commissioned by no other than the US Military.

      Bottom line, low level radiation is unsafe to ALL life, large or small.

  46. karen says:

    So, wait…you are designing electromagnetic “weapons” for “defense-related” warfare, but “testing” them is unharmful and safe? Then there you have it – no need to test. It is so easy to deny something and spread the word in order to get your way – especially when you add the “knock out their communication” tactic to it (throwing off the scent)…but science proves that radiation – whether it be from the sun or man-made whatever – is potentially deadly (minimum of killing biological cells all the way to human death) given exposure to it

    Even your cell phone comes with a warning label…just because no one wants to think or hear about it doesn’t make it safe.

    I’m a “boots on the ground” bau-biology and feng shui consultant and I’m here to tell you that in the past 20 years of doing my job, I have seen what can only be called clear evidence that there is a connection between RF and EMF exposure and health.

    Check out microwavenews.com if you are just starting your journey into this seedy little world…

  47. Rod Farlee says:

    Every molecule of DNA and protein in our bodies is, at a submicroscopic level, subject to intense electric fields. Not only internal to every molecule, also induced by intimate (hydrogen bonded) contact to polar water molecules. And they are all in constant thermal motion. These molecules wiggle, flip and hop billions of times each second. These electric fields, modulated by thermal motion, produce a broad band of natural thermal infrared and microwave radiation within every cell of our bodies. This is natural and harmless.

    For external electromagnetic radiation to have any biological effect, it has to be more intense than this natural thermal field. This is true inside a microwave oven (it cooks), or if you climb a radar mast and stick your head into the antenna. Its even true to a tiny but measurable extent when you use a call phone, which is a 1 watt microwave transmitter.

    It is not true when you get a few dozen feet away from such intense sources. That sets the FCC standards. Assuming that weak electromagnetic fields can be harmful requires ignoring the laws of physics and invoking some metaphysical or supernatural mechanism.

    There are legitimate areas of scientific debate, which do not break the laws of physics. For example, there is a ~1% uncertainty over whether climate change is real, and ~5% uncertainty over whether burning fossil fuels and clearing forests has contributed to it.

    “Bioinitiative 2012″ report is far outside of this realm. It is utter nonsense. But if anyone believes in it, then one should first focus on the strong things before the weak things. Throw away your cell phone and computer screens, especially fluorescent lights and backlit screens. Then shut off the electric power running through every wall of your house at the main and have Clallam PUD disconnect the power line to your meter. Put on a tin-foil hat. Only then go after weak remote sources, like every marine radar, radio station, and WiFi hot spot in town… and these remote Navy transmitters, I guess! To select only them first reveals how utterly irrational those concerned with EMFs are.

    That this should be a matter of public concern is a sad commentary on the state of basic science education. And on this website.

  48. Janet says:

    Just stop Rod. You can sneer and claim your territory as a science guru, but I do NOT trust government agencies to look out for our best interests. As I spoke to before, I got the big education in that while living in Santa Fe, NM for 10 years with respect to oil and gas exploration, development and operations. There isn’t enough space on this list to share what I learned about how corrupt our governments at every level are with respect to protecting citizens from predatory industries and their technology that is toxic to all living things never mind the soils and water and blahblahblah. Example: Cheney exempted fracking from the Clean Water Act regulatory process. Fracking has happened all over the Rockies in the West and has now moved East. In NM and west slope of Colorado, fracking kills people. It kills livestock. It kills wildlife. The gratuitous insolence and carte blanche of Big oil outfits has meant complete disregard to anything resembling sanity about providing safeguards to ranchers’ livestock, range lands, aquifers, wells, ad nauseum. Ranches and other properties where development takes place lose 80% of their value. Now, Obama has been speaking to the great hope of natural gas as the savior to energy use during these times of climate change. RU CRAZY? The hottest spot with respect to methane contamination of the atmosphere in the U.S. has the bullseye in Farmington, NM…the NW corner of the state. It’s thick with natural gas well pads and children in the region suffer extreme rates of asthma.

    Are you getting my drift, Rod?

    Money rules. Corporate profits call the shots. It’s not rocket science. So if you think that what you understand the EMR/radio frequency radiation, etc. is, and how it effects the human body or not, as the case may be, is the entire story, you are sealed in a comfort zone that simply doesn’t reflect real politique. Wring your hands at the state of science education, but science is not carved in stone and I’m always surprised at how dogmatic “scientists” can be. There are rules you see, and we’ve found them out, says the scientist and this is THE TRUTH. But if science is worth anything, it needs to flex to accommodate the ongoing morphing and evolving that is what our world and all in it, IS. That flexibility is very very hard to come by and science can become another religion. Sometimes it operates like that, and that’s what I’m hearing right now from you.

    In our country, the military-industrial complex is at the top tier probably sharing the throne with Big Oil and For Profit Health Care. Here’s my guess. I’m guessing that the Navy has already put dibseys on that region and that this process we’re arguing about is completely pointless and moot, because the DOD has probably already claimed that area and it’s just a matter of time before the tall chain link fences go up with razor wire at the top. This business of soliciting comments is just a sop and a charade. It’s not lost on me and shouldn’t be lost on any of us, that coastal Washington State is a highly strategic sector and our military already has acknowledged that with the myriads of bases in place. There’s always room for more, and I’m sure this little piece of “heaven” is already gone to access to the public.

    • Rod Farlee says:

      Oh, I am “getting your drift”, Janet. You are enamored of conspiracy theories. And don’t understand that basic laws of physics and biology are indeed “carved in stone”, so assume reality is “flexible”.

      The reason we have NAS Whitby and Bremerton and Joint Base Lewis-McCord is not because Puget Sound is uniquely “strategic”. It is because generations of politicians have assiduously sought their jobs and spending for the local economy. In that regard, you’re right, “money rules”.

      That does not mean your concerns about EMF have any basis in reality. Nor that there is anything new or harmful about a faint whisper of microwaves from distant radar transmitters.

      This EA is not about whether Olympic Military Operations Area will continue to exist, nor does it approve more flights, it is simply about whether these training flights will be more useful. Please remember that 298 innocent people died when Air Malaysia flight 17 was shot down in July by a radar-guided SAM missile, and there are thousands of such SAM batteries scattered all over the world (including Syria and Libya). It is perfectly valid to argue we shouldn’t be there, but this EA is not about that. It is about whether US pilots should be trained to survive being sent there, or to Taiwan or South Korea or Yemen, or anywhere.

      It is about reality. Your concerns are sincere, but are not based in reality. What the Navy proposes has a good justification, and is harmless.

  49. Rod Farlee says:

    Douglas, you could have written an article clearing up popular confusion between ionizing particle radiation and nonionizing radio and microwave radiation, which is harmlessly absorbed as heat. You could have explained that intense heat, such as putting your hand in boiling water or a cat into a microwave oven, is harmful. But that tiny amounts of heat, a trillionth of what we get from the sun even on an overcast rainy Forks day, or from simply standing near anyone else who’s warm and alive, is totally harmless.

    Yes, if you put an egg, or your head, in a microwave oven, it will cook. Also climbing a cell phone tower or onto the roof of a Navy EW truck and standing there long enough would be foolish. Or staring into the sun. So don’t do it. For that matter, any prolonged fever (or for that matter, hot tub) over 104 F is potentially fatal.

    No X-files mystery about any of this. This has nothing to do with “radiation” or our region’s natural beauty. Either you didn’t read the EA, or don’t understand it. “Speaking from your heart” is not journalism. You would have better served your readers by reporting facts and speaking knowledgably, or not at all.

    • Janet says:

      I don’t know the moderator of the List and from Rod’s addressing him, I’m learning that it is Douglas. And to Douglas, I want to thank you for allowing the vigorous give and take about this issue that is about the military doing war gaming on pristine wilderness of the Peninsula as much as it is about the technology involved. That fact of the military selection this area is the real issue here and sadly, it’s pretty certain that there is nothing any of us can do or say that will change that reality.

      I wish all the answers that you’ve offered, Rod, really answered the questions that many people are asking about health impacts in a world where EMR is a fact of life that permeates virtually all of our environments. What hasn’t been spoken to are the uncounted numbers of people in the world who are experiencing symptoms that don’t fit the neat box of established diagnostic categories. I feel safer with so-called fringe groups stirring the pot and not being afraid to try to both ask and answer questions that people suffering clinical conditions that don’t fit anywhere are asking. The odd ones out that don’t fit either the paradigms or diagnostic categories are where science and medicine are advanced. Not that the mainstream likes that very unsettling, messy and annoying process.

      Karen in her posting has made a statement about seeing correlations in her work seeing people with disorders that linked with wireless technology. I rest assured that she is by no means alone…and if a physician is worth their salt, they will be curious and won’t settle for just any ole answer but will use their science AND clinical chops to investigate and research and ask more questions. And WON’T stop asking the questions and will stir the pot to see where it leads.

      There are huge huge differences in us humans. So the tidy criteria by which safety standards are established can be so random and unrelated to the real world of people and individual differences. Rod, doctors are seeing conditions…symptoms, syndromes that don’t fit the DSM and ICD-9 or whatever it is now. You cannot dismiss that reality with a tidy explanation of how the science of this technology works and how the human body works according to the average.

      We can agree to disagree but one thing that I hope along with many others is that there will be researchers who swim upstream and don’t fear the criticisms and dismissiveness…that they’ll just keep at it and build more and more knowledge from data that includes the clinical realities for probably millions.

      Thanks again, Douglas..

      • Rod Farlee says:

        Janet writes “There are huge huge differences in us humans. So the tidy criteria by which safety standards are established can be so random and unrelated to the real world of people and individual differences. Rod, doctors are seeing conditions…symptoms, syndromes that don’t fit the DSM and ICD-9 or whatever it is now. You cannot dismiss that reality with a tidy explanation of how the science of this technology works and how the human body works according to the average.”

        No, all human bodies have the same basic physiology that work the laws of biology and physics. No one can see, sense or be affected by low level EMF. There is an objective reality to the world, and it is governed by laws of nature.

        Yes, stress produces real physiological effects, whether that stress is over real or imaginary things. Janet, Karen, and Douglas, you should all take some responsibility for creating real stress over an imaginary thing.

        I suggest it would be more pruductive to focus your concern on real things… and of those, preferably ones you can change. Not to be flippant, but may I suggest education as one?

        • Janet says:

          Wow. You, sir, are very ignorant of the body/psyche reality and indeed how people REALLY function in the world…and how the body interacts with the world. Humans are not automatons. If they were, it would be ever so much easier to medicate them…to treat them for the host of maladies that afflict humanity. If every human body reacted and interacted with the environment identically, then every single pharmaceutical would interact identically and every dosage could be reliably identical. Why, treating people would be as simple as putting your car in for service. I’m really astounded at your assertion. The body is not a machine and while fundamental cellular processes are identifiable and there is a norm established about what that looks like, those processes are effected by a host of realities. I don’t know what kind of scientist you were obviously, but you are clinging to a belief system that bears no relationship to the human biological experience. whew… It’s clearly very important to you that you believe what you have just stated, but sir, that does not make it real.

  50. John says:

    Pro tip: Highlight and copy the text of your post before posting it. Then when the stupid captcha code fails you can just paste your text back into the comment box and try again.

    Janet, I get the impression you’re just making this up as you go along. You’ve been invoking “science” all along, but now that the source of your info has turned out to be a bunch of fringe-dwellers, suddenly real science is stodgy and dogmatic and needs to “flex” to accommodate….what, people who do crappy science? What this tells me is that you’re really not looking to science to inform your opinions on these matters. You’d like to be a big environmental hero like Rachel Carson, but frankly I think Rachel Carson would throw up in disgust if she could see what little regard so many modern-day “environmentalists” have for actual science.

    You hate Big Oil and yet you and your ilk are the best friends Big Oil ever had because you will oppose EVERYTHING that could possibly reduce the world’s dependency on fossil fuels, except for wind & solar power, which will never add up to sh** or have a prayer of significantly reducing fossil fuel use. Nuclear power is, in all likelihood, the only realistic alternative, and you and your friends will oppose it to the death, and in doing so you’ll basically be doing the opposite of environmental activism. Ironically enough.

    Not to mention the fact that all this crying wolf over innocuous things like this EMF proposal just serve to further discredit environmental activists as a group. I’m not an activist myself. I just don’t have that mentality, but I’ve always been glad that there are people who fight the good fight on important issues (like Rachel Carson did) because I am a direct beneficiary of much of the work they’ve done and the changes they’ve brought about. So it’s actually kind of sad that anymore I tend to equate “environmentalist” with someone who’s ill-informed, borderline hysterical and just in the habit of opposing things, regardless of those things’ merit or lack thereof. So….. if you’re content having the same relationship with science that the climate-change deniers do, then I guess carry on, but don’t delude yourself that you’re a good environmentalist.

    • Janet says:

      Since you don’t know me from Adam’s off ox, John, your personal slurs are projections at best.

      Making it up as I go along. Interesting take.

      I guess you are empowered to confer who is or isn’t a legitimate “environmentalist”.

      Nothing more to say here.

  51. John says:

    Janet, I don’t know you, but I’m sure you’re well-intentioned and most likely a nice enough person. After this little debate, however, I know enough about your attitudes to have no respect for your inclination or ability to deal rationally with environmental issues.

    • Janet says:

      I wish we could continue our conversation in private, John. I feel we’ve exhausted the privilege of using the list for a fundamental philosophical discussion. If there’s a way to do that, I would hope the moderator could facilitate that. Otherwise…thanks for the airtime, Douglas.

    • Janet says:

      You know, John, when I say you don’t know me from Adam’s off ox, I do mean that. You have said you don’t have the mentality to be an environmental activist…I don’t really know what you mean by that…but somehow you do believe that you have the mentality to judge who qualifies to be an environmentalist…whatever that’s supposed to be. I don’t have to justify myself to you…I know what I’ve done in my life and how I have been the active and highly skilled steward of land that I’ve been privileged to live on and own in different regions of the country for over 35 years. Responsible environmental action begins at home for starters. So again, what have you done besides judging and defining exactly what responsible environmental sensibilities and intelligences are? In your world I’m being irrational by disagreeing with you and your catechism of science, but for heaven’s, science is always becoming obsolete. Science is a fabulous tool but a tyrannical master and there isn’t a science theory that hasn’t been blown up or out and necessarily so, because nature, if you will, holds vast mysteries, and theories must evolve to accommodate that reality.

      And. Remember that the environmental stresses that our world is facing IS thanks in no small part TO science. It is 2 edged sword. Funny thing about the Land of Enchantment and the profoundly alive spiritual realms that inhabit it through the many Puebloan and Navajo peoples who have lived there for centuries. It’s also the home of the Atomic Bomb and the hosts of nuclear weapons research across the Rio Grande Valley from Santa Fe in Los Alamos. Your perception that science can be the savior is only half correct. It’s really up to us humans to do the right thing and in my humble opinion, it starts right where you live. To me that’s the good news. Just take care of your own ecology and if everybody did that…well.

      One of the reasons I love the Peninsula IS because there is the thriving culture of tending to the land and soils and the communities that have grown up around all of that. To me it’s ecological living at its best.

      So take what I have to say or leave it. But I am not what you need to think I am. Perhaps it makes you more comfortable to think that way, but it doesn’t make it real.

  52. Blair says:

    Stop this madness!

  53. WhyFry says:

    Low level radiation – NOT SAFE!

    Who came up with this? No other than the US Navy very own research, during decades of extensive scientific studies.

    Whose agrees that low level radiation is not safe? Russia!

    • Janet says:

      This is very intriguing information, WhyFry, and thank you for sharing it. As usual nothing is as it seems in our world, but we all play out our parts in the drama.

      I’m not at all surprised that the Navy would be investigating the health impacts simply because it and the other uniformed services, live and function cheek to jowel with technology we know and can’t even imagine…and the policy makers within the armed services research arms need to know the reality of low level radiation exposure.

      There was a lot of I’ll call it chatter when Ted Kennedy died of the glioblastoma that no one was surprised since the man lived with a cell phone glued to his ear. He was on the job full time and then some.

      Just anecdotal evidence say the industry shills and who wants to give up the wonders of the internet and constant connectivity.

      I appreciate your comments very much Why Fry. More affirming information is always useful.

  54. John says:

    Janet, you’re just digging yourself into a deeper hole. You clearly don’t understand science well enough to even discuss it. As Rod wisely suggested, what you really need is an education. Start here maybe:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

    You can spend your whole life and all your energy being an activist, but if you fight for stupid things because you can’t tell the difference then you probably do more harm than good. Take a lesson from the activists in this film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBMj-96hols

    • Janet says:

      Wikipedia. Now there’s an impeccable source for you. And youtube. Wow. I can see the level at which you operate intellectually and I’m left wondering what your education is. Again, John YOU are digging yourself deeper and deeper into the “hole”. It’s pretty clear you are an armchair something or another. You have no idea what I know or have done or live, OR what my education is, and you are talking again, projections here. You are clueless about what I’m speaking to. And what I’m speaking to clearly puts you on the defensive and I wonder why you have to be so defensive. Looks like we’re done here.

      • Janet says:

        Oh and P.S. Why Fry has brought some powerful information to the List about the research on low level radiation and yes, even the Navy’s involvement in funding research on the health impacts of such. But nary a word of outrage from you or Rod to Why Fry and his/her information. Curious. Why might that be?

    • WhyFry says:

      Be aware that industry paid trolls haunt websites. They spend a great amount of time, misinforming the public with industry bought and paid for science. They do not mind, that the fox is in charge of the hen house.

      Extensive information is readily available from de-classified US military documents, which also contains research from Russia and former East Germany, on the adverse biological effects of low level radiation.

      Dr. Zory R. Glaser, former Navy researcher, NIOSH manager and Executive Secretary Advisor to the US FDA, has saved THOUSANDS of US military research papers, that document biological changes on a cellular level of non-ionizing RF radiation.

      When military air crafts jamming pods lock onto a target, they emit MAXIMUM power to destroy signal/radar/weapons systems.

      So much for pristine wilderness and it’s inhabitants who cannot speak for themselves!
      Looks like humanity is finally loosing it completely!

      Does anyone still wonder, why THIRTY SIX THOUSAND doctors and scientists signed the International Doctors Appeal?

      • Janet says:

        Thanks for the reminder, Why Fry. That’s what keeps coming to mind as the dynamic duo of Rod and John began preaching as the high priests of science on the list. Neither one is capable of stepping out of their roles and the inflation and arrogance of both is the warning sign that there is a role they are either paid to play or are playing out of emotional and psychological necessity. In either case, their posts basically are demeaning to the members of this list who are alarmed and rightfully so that the military is now appropriating this precious region for tests and games and worse, using the technology that’s at question. Thank you for addressing that reality…and for continuing to provide valid and actually disturbing information on the health dangers of EMG technologies. It’s fascinating to me particularly considering the adamant assertions on Rod and John’s parts EVEN in the face of such documentation.

        For me, the big issue remains. First and foremost, the military is going to be using this ecosystem that is pristine and unique for war games tests. We don’t have to go any further than that for red flags and alarm bells. No no no. Do not use this piece of wilderness. But maybe just maybe it makes sense that they want to use the pristine ecosystem to see how it and other whatevers such as the wildlife react to EMG technology. Who the heck really knows but it’s not benign or even neutral news.

        There is a technology that will be employed that is disturbing BUT that is NOT going to be part of the dialogue since 2 “science” guys want desperately to be acknowledged as the experts in all things “science” to deflect from the reality that’s planned. And I’ve been good lightning rod…I enjoy a good debate but these guys embarrass themselves as they keep trying to assert that they are THE scientists here and anyone who questions or offers a dissent is stupid, hysterical, irrational, uneducated…you know, all the “hot” words that serve to demean and shut down dialogue.

        I hope you keep this valuable flow of information on the technology that’s about to be put into play Why Fry. It’s scary stuff and the armed services know it. Why else would they be doing…ahem war games with it? Weapons testing. What else is new.

  55. Rod Farlee says:

    Janet, you’re conflating true and false things.

    True, diagnostic medicine is imprecise. It is as much an art as a science. True, metabolic rates and effective dosages vary among individuals. True, placebo effects are REAL, and can have up to 60% success treating depression and some migraines and other psychologically-based disorders, and 50% success treating things that would naturally heal without any treatment. True, making people feel better can have REAL physical benefits. Prayer is helpful to most people in the world.

    But your conflation of “psyche reality” with “biological science” is nonsense. The advancements in biology and medicine are profound intellectual achievements. That should not be mixed with voodoo or assertions of biological effects from low level EMFs.

    We humans are all irrational. We carry superstition deeply rooted in our limbic system, “out of body” experiences from our parietal lobe, and fantasies induced by drugs, schizophenia, brain trauma… or simply dreams. Our brain part reptilian and imperfectly evolved. We engage in war. We have to strive to overcome all that… or use it for inspiration, tempered by rational thought. In all things, to do better.

    Science is our most reliable guide to distinguishing reality. It is a rational process of testing what is true, from what is false. It works.

    Harm from low-level EMFs from this Navy microwave transmitter? Out of the realm of reality. Flatly impossible. Sorry.

  56. John says:

    Janet, yes, one of us definitely has trouble discerning the quality of our sources. Regarding WhyFry, like they say, if you have to ask…..

    Another Youtube link for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLkBdD-sM8E

    How many times are you going to say goodbye? I think you’re up to about 14.

    • WhyFry says:

      Amazing, how corporate spin has infiltrated peoples lives and renders the masses incapable to use their God given intellect.

      Placebo effects?
      Is this why tomato plans reacted like hit with a sledge hammer when exposed to low level radiation in laboratory experiments?
      Oh yes I forgot, they must have read in a magazine, that low level RF radiation has adverse biological consequences!

      Did the ant’s who also participated in great numbers in laboratory experiments, suffer from the same placebo effects?

      They must have the same magazine subscription as the tomato plants and read the same articles, that non-ionizing radiation is unsafe to ALL life.
      Obviously, the small ant knows much more than we do, because they scrambled away from the low level RF source, carrying the nursery with them, as far away as possible!

      Man on the other hand, chooses to ignore all warnings and expose their very own children relentlessly to radiation sources of all kinds, only because industry tells them, that it is perfectly safe! This is called the ‘Sheeple Effect’!

      (“Science is our most reliable guide to distinguishing reality”)
      Really? Who were those wise scholars of old, who preached that the earth was flat and burned those individuals on the stake, who did not share their opinions?

  57. Rod Farlee says:

    WhyFry wrote “When military air crafts jamming pods lock onto a target, they emit MAXIMUM power to destroy signal/radar/weapons systems.”

    Negative. An aircraft might emit signals and chaff to hopefully interfere, ghost, jam or confuse radar guidance on SAM missiles, but are incapable of damaging or destroying one. The problem is that SAMs are incoming at mach 3+, too fast to hit or evade them. To destroy a radar site, they’d launch a HARM missile.

    In response to “Science is our most reliable guide to distinguishing reality”, WhyFry wrote “Really? Who were those wise scholars of old, who preached that the earth was flat and burned those individuals on the stake, who did not share their opinions?”

    Catholic priests during the Roman Inquisition? And those burnt on the stake, imprisoned or exiled included scientists like Galileo. The key thing that distinguishes science from other philosophical endeavors is that is rests on empirical proof, which tests and discards falsehoods.

    WhyFry “industrial paid troll” and “corporate spin has infiltrated peoples lives and renders the masses incapable to use their God given intellect.”

    “Mr. WhyFry”, I use my real name and I’m in the north Oly Pen phone book. I’m not hiding behind an anonymous screen name. Readers instantly know which is the troll and which is their neighbor. I’m a retired academic and civilian scientist, Forest and Park volunteer, never been in the military or paid by the government, and am not paid by anyone to say anything. All your writing on “conspiracies” appears paranoid… I won’t bother to read or refute any of it except to say: gosh, I hope you’re OK?

    • WhyFry says:

      You do not believe the vast research (thousands of studies) of your own US Military that low level radiation is genotoxic?

      Who do you believe?
      It is disturbing, that some defend the billion dollar wireless industry with such vigor.

      You do not believe the WHO either?
      They could have simply categorized low level radiation a Class 4 (no danger whatsoever)
      Why was RF radiation, regardless of source, classified a 2B CARCINOGEN, back in 2011 by the WHO?

      You do not believe the warnings of The Austrian or the Irish Medical Association either?
      The German or Russia’s Radiation Protection Bureau?

      On Canada’s CBC radio, a radiation researcher and former scientific adviser to the government, said this for millions to hear:
      “Safe radiation is wishful thinking, safe radiation simply does not exist!”
      He also informed: Over 35 years ago, The American Government sent URGENT WARNINGS to allied countries, to REDUCE low level radiation!
      This of course, was well before wireless technology became the billion dollar industry it is today.

      It is typical for supporters of the billion dollar wireless industry, to belittle anyone like Janet, including reputable and highly regarded scientists, who do not share their naive view of the world.

      The Creator made nature and man, not androids and plastic.

      • Janet says:

        Rod says: “Science is our most reliable guide to distinguishing reality. It is a rational process of testing what is true, from what is false. It works.”

        I can see a couple things here. First, it’s clear your discipline is NOT human behavior or mental health or psychology. Your description of how humans are configured is Discovery Channel simplistic and not surprising from someone who has not been exposed in a meaningful way to the depth of understanding AND theories that support the development of the human personality and how we operate psychologically.

        Second, it’s also clear Ron, that you hold science in a regard that I can understand and appreciate since you chose that as your life and became a scientist. But it is NOT a religion or some autonomous force that keeps humanity on a steady keel. Science is a tool. It has evolved over centuries and wondrous advances in medicine and understanding the hosts of phenomena that populate the planet and the cosmos, and tools for advanced standards of living are thanks to its applications. It has also been responsible for horrors unparalleled in human history. Hitler’s scientists created a death machine par excellence and wiped over 6 million people out of existence. And then there’s The Manhattan Project and The Bomb, that changed everything and not for the better and now the U.S. is THE leading arms and weapons systems manufacturer and marketer IN THE WORLD. Thanks to science. In no small way, the climate change crisis is driven by the immense footprint of humanity on the planet AND the science that has made that and all the resource development possible that has advanced humanity’s civilization. Science is neutral. It’s just a tool.

        Science is a double edged sword and HOW it is used is completely dependent on how humans use it…or abuse it…or use it to create smoke and mirrors..or create another leap in knowledge that impacts life in a positive affirming way. Science is not the final arbiter on reality, Rod. Humans are. And how humans use it depends on what kind of human he or she is…how awake or not psychologically to who and how they are, how ethical, how curious, how ambitious, how ruthless for fame or power and on and on.

        Science is NOT the vaccination to prevent irrational behavior or anti-social, or society threatening behavior or war. It’s just a tool and it always comes down to who is using it and how and why.

  58. SuperLuminal Man says:

    *This is one of the most important YouTube interviews you can HEAR.*

    —Dane Wigington of Geoengineeringwatch.org; who lives off-grid deep in the natural forests of NoCal, urgently and cogently addresses the MASSIVE ecocide being perpetrated all over our PLANET. He has observed the glorious and ancient forests that surround his home decline and die with alarming rapidity …

  59. Rod Farlee says:

    There is deep confusion (much deliberately sown) here between high-energy ionizing radiation, which can be harmful, and low-energy non-ionizing radiation, which only produces heat. See the World Health Organization “What is EMF?” http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/

    The first page of this WHO tutorial clearly differentiates these, and in layman’s terms. The second page describes health effects. The fourth page details EMF levels produced by typical home appliances, cell phones, etc. These are all much higher than these Navy transmitters at a distance of 100 feet.

    Ironically, everyone here is exposing themselves to higher levels of EMFs right now (using PCs to read this) than they will ever receive from the Navy. And, apparently, are enjoying it? Keep coming back for more, anyway! grin

    This is just so silly! Tin-foil hats may make you “feel” better, but they can’t make you healthier. And that’s not a matter of “belief”, it is a matter of fact.

  60. stevor says:

    Sure, “little risk” if you’re 100 miles away and “no risk” if you’re on the other side of earth.
    But if you just happen to be out there hiking to “enjoy nature”, what is the risk then? Are the forest service people warned or given protection?

  61. ExoticHikes says:

    As of 8:15PM, October 20th 2014, the comment section on this post is closed.

  62. NickN says:

    To John and rod and all the other pro EMF people on here, i feel that you are terribly misguided, or your heart is filled with mall-intent sponsored by what ever industry you work for. You are wrong. Maybe you are not? Then start doing some more research, dig a little deeper people, this stuff is bad at any dose, why are we making more? Please, i dare you to read some “tinfoil hat” conspiracy’s, even if you don’t agree with them at least have a good read of it, see what other people are saying, and remember that there are 2 sides to every coin. who knows you might at least find it entertaining, but please do read what concerned doctors scientist and citizens have to say, this is a democracy and supposedly we all are entitled to an opinion. I am of the opinion that this testing will have unintended consequences.
    EMF radiation is bad for you at any dose, the more you get the worse the effect, there is no such thing as a little being good for your health. This proposed war game is only going to add more. I feel disheartened how the government ,corporations, industry financed “study’s” and shills tell US the people, that they have decided for us and therefore we have no say. Don’t we have a say?…democracy? nah!

    • WhyFry says:

      The Military is the largest employer in the US and unfortunately there will always be people who do and think as they are told.

      Even though the information is at their fingertips, they refuse to look, afraid that they will be proven wrong.

      E-smog is the greatest threat to us and the environment we live in.

Leave a Reply to nicole black Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>