Pick of the Week #12: Why Pulsed Microwave Frequencies are More Harmful.

September 27, 2010.  Why pulsed microwave frequencies are more harmful than continuous waves and why we should care.

As I read the documents from Dr. Glaser’s archives, I can’t help but think that we are being “dummified”.  It seems we know less about microwave radiation than was known decades ago.

Standing on the shoulder of giants,” a quote attributed to Sir Isaac Newton, refers to the fact that scientists build on the work of other scientists but this can be done ONLY if information is shared.  If information is not shared, then we run the risk of discovering things de novo at great expense of time and money.  If this information relates to the health of environments or people then we run the risk of delaying action that could protect the environment and save lives.

The document selected for “Pick of the Week” is a case in point.

This document,  Some considerations concerning the use of magnetron generators in microwave biological research, written by Vernon R. Reno at the Department of the Navy, Aerospace Med Research Laboratory clearly shows that the waveform, as well as the type of instrumentation used to both create and measure the waveform are important when considering the biological effects of microwave radiation.   Reno clearly states that “average” power density is an inadequate metric for assessing the effects on animals in experimental studies.  By extension, it should be inadequate for monitoring exposure of human populations as well.

So why do federal authorities continue to rely on average power density as the metric for guidelines?   In Canada exposure to radio frequency radiation is averaged over a 6-minute period and in the U.S. it is averaged over a 30-minute period for public exposure.  Clearly, this is inadequate based on a document written more than 35 years ago!  So why are we still using this metric?

Have government scientists become dummified?  Are they unaware of this literature?  While this might be the excuse in Canada, I’m quoting from a U.S. military document so the U.S. government at least should be aware of this and related research.

The literature from the Eastern European countries including the former Soviet Union repeatedly report that pulsed radio frequency radiation is more harmful than continuous wave radiation at the same carrier frequencies. This may be due to the pulse carrying information to the cells and thus disrupting internal communication as suggested by Dr. Ross Adey when he said that “cells whisper to each other” using electrochemical signals.  Or it may be due to a higher “maximum” exposure, which occurs with pulsed radiation that is underestimated when “averaging” is used.  Either way, there is little dispute that pulsed frequencies are more harmful and, as a result, some countries have more stringent guidelines for pulsed than for CW frequencies.  In the former Czechoslovakia, for microwave radiation (frequencies between 300 MHz to 300 GHz) the guideline is 2.5 microW/cm2 for continuous wave and 1 microW/cm2 for pulsed frequencies.

So why should we care?  Because WiFi and digital cordless phones CONSTANTLY pulse the 2.4 frequency that is used to carry the wireless digital data – even when not is use. Measuring exposures can be much higher than indicated by an “average” value and, as such, our exposure to this technology may be under estimated.

Watch this video below to hear the pulsed microwaves from the WiFi base station and the DECT phone base station.

Did you like this? Share it:

Zory's Archives

From Zory's Archive

Featured Video

Featured eMagazines


Rewire Me Magazine

Featured Book


Dirty Electricity