Microwave Weapons Are Suspect in Ills of U.S. Embassy Workers
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Now, I'm all for exciting stories but this one keeps being resurrected without evidence I'd find compelling (namely lesions on MRI, quantifiable deficits in function, or signs and symptoms that prove neural damage). Indeed all the features of this particular syndrome appear better explained by functional, rather than structural, disease.
Of course the possiblility of acoustic or electromagnetic weapons being used exists until proven otherwise, but in light of what is known, it seems unlikely to me.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/14/cuban-acoustic...
Declaration of interests: I've worked with Prof. Stone.
Americans live under constant propaganda from their own government, deployed by their own mainstream newspapers and TV media. Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' is an eye opening look into the continuous war/regime change drum that's beating inside the USA.
This is just more the same, NY Times writing anti-Cuban articles as propaganda, with no evidence to back up their nonsense claims.
Neither do the US. Ask Bernie Sanders.
Sanders entered the race polling at 2%, campaigned like hell, got close to winning, and had a material impact on the party's policy trajectory. And he did this despite taking deliberate steps throughout his career to make it harder for himself to take power within a political party -- for example, by not joining the party until he declared his intent to run for its leadership, by not doing much to work with anyone in the party on legislation or fundraising, and generally by keeping a low national profile before deciding to run.
Debbie Whatshername emailed saying she was in the tank for Clinton? Yes, duh. Party elders and professional leadership are permitted to have an opinion about who they want to win, If you show up at a club you've been trash-talking for years and expect to take it over, you can't reasonably be mad when the people who have been running it for years have their
The idea that the elections aren't free is also undermined by the scattershot way in which Sanders supporters defend institutional design choices. For example, Sanders performed better in states with caucuses than primaries. Caucuses are less democratic, because they induce low turnout because of the high barrier to participation. But Sanders' campaign and his supporters like caucuses. Sanders performed worse in states that did not allow independents to participate in the Democratic party. But Sanders' campaign and his supporters view this rule as an offensive affront to democracy. The common element is not the institutional design ex ante, it's the ex post impact of that design on Sanders' chances.
None of the arguments Sanders made about getting a bum rap are evidence of institutional dysfunction. There is no country on earth that has institutions that don't have these characteristics. Many very healthy democracies have internal party leadership conventions that look much like U.S. nominations pre-1968 (only party elders vote, byzantine favor trading to get the nomination) let alone what they look like today, which are much more open and democratic. America has made more progress reforming its primary elections and generally elicits broader participation in them than almost any country.
But set aside all this and it's is not even a good case study. If your position is that the system is rigged so that outsider candidates don't win, how do you explain Clinton losing to game theory in the early stages of 2008? How do you explain Trump winning in 2016? Primaries result in outsider candidates winning. This has been one of the main challenges for political scientists, who want to seriously study institutional design. Before 2016, the canonical text on primaries was "The Party Decides" -- that party elites, through endorsement, cross-fundraising, ballot access, and the "invisible primary" decide the outcome of elections. No one is reading "The Party Decides" in 2018 because, well, you see the hell we live in.
Disclaimer: I live in America but can't vote here, and I would have voted for Sanders, not Clinton, in the primary. It's not because I'm a neoliberal shill, it's because your post reminded me of a first-year student I taught once who argued that the U.S. isn't a democracy because "Monsanto, maaaaan".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion
More restraint was exercised after Soviet support for the Castro government solidified, but regime change by unconventional means was not abandoned as a policy even then.
US has a gun control problem so I can see why the rest of the world would like to change it.
Edit: Just to clarify, it is just an analogy to say that I disapprove of countries interfering domestic issues. I don't intend to go into flamewars on either issues.
"I don't care who does the electing, as long as I get to do the nominating"
So far I'm with you. But so what? You seem to be implying that if a country's political system is non-democratic, then third parties are justified in intervening.
I would have thought that the whole concept of national sovereignty implied precisely the opposite: that each nation can decide for itself what system of political representation is best suited to its particular history and culture.
«In a mid-western university town of over 50,000 population, a strange case of "gas poisoning" occurred on a Wednesday morning early in March, 1972. Approximately thirty-five female workers at the University's data processing center were exposed to a mysterious gas "from an unknown source" that caused dizziness, vomiting, nausea, and fainting among a number of the employees. So severe were the symptoms that 10 of the workers were taken to the University's Medical Center for emergency treatment; all of the employees at the Data Center were evacuated.
The Center was temporarily closed allowing for a group of environmental specialists to examine the building. During the remainder of that day and into the night, samples of the air obtained from the building were tested. Extensive blood and urine tests of affected workers were conducted in order to locate traces of the noxious "gas." Although traces of the substance could not 'be found, several workers again became ill upon returning to work Thursday morning. The Data Center was closed and evacuated for the second time. Additional environmental ;and physiological tests were conducted; still no physical reason for the episode could be located.
When the Center resumed operation on Friday a group of specialists from the University met with the workers to explain that they thought an "atmospheric inversion" was the cause of their symptoms. This explanation was calculated to reduce the high level of anxiety that had surrounded the activities of the two previous days; the explanation seemed to meet its objective. The incident was "closed" as far as both the workers and the scientists were concerned despite the fact that traditional biomedical explanations had failed to explain the events.»
See more at https://sci-hub.tw/10.2307/2136925
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/12/cuba-mass-hyst...
But that doesn't make it neccesarily true, see my other comment here, in context with the comment I responded to there:
What you describe is a temporary disturbance highly susceptible to (and terminated by) the power of suggestion, no? It sounds like what the diplomats experienced is different in both respects.
"A score in the bottom 5% would typically mean there is a problem. But Shura pointed out that the diplomats were found to be “impaired” if they scored in the bottom 40% in any one of the tests. In their letter, the doctors said it was “inappropriate” to conclude that any of the patients were impaired. "
The response articles calling for a 5th percentile measure to diagnose impairment are in a sense statistically appropriate - you’d like to see very significant impairment to diagnose it from a single measure - but not sensitive - they will miss a lot of true cases of mild impairment. For example, that threshold would miss virtually all cases of concussion, chemobrain, cognitive impairment in MS, etc.
If someone were trying to sour US-Cuban relations, then it would make sense that only Americans in Cuba were targeted.
It seems highly unlikely that 21 diplomats with the same symptoms (plus those in China) were afflicted with an innocuous medical condition. None of the doctors who wrote letters of dissent physically examined the patients. Though the specific nature of the cause may be up for debate, I highly doubt there was no adversary here.
That said, I feel it would be irresponsible to deny the possibility of a collective delusion. Particularly in an environment where folks are in constant close contact and under a feeling of stress. In my opinion, it's less than highly unlikely.
Mass delusion has also been one of the leading hypothesis from the very first story on this phenomenon. Being aware of the concept would tend to dispel it, which apparently did not happen.
I'm sure those with more information have considered that possibility. The ongoing investigation leads me to believe they are not quite as sure of it as the HN crowd is. Maybe some of the cases appeared independently?
I’m not sure that’s a thing unique to dictatorships at all.
> For all helmets, we noticed a 30 db __amplification__ at 2.6 Ghz and a 20 db amplification at 1.2 Ghz, regardless of the position of the antenna on the cranium. In addition, all helmets exhibited a marked 20 db attenuation at around 1.5 Ghz, with no significant attenuation beyond 10 db anywhere else.
Full electromagnetic shielding of the entire building perhaps? Like those at the NSA headquarter. It should give you a heavy attenuation on the microwave frequency.
BTW, why don't the intelligence agencies install a software-defined radio in suspected US embassies to log the entire microwave spectrum? It will definitely yield something.
You'd also want a controlled test source so you'd know if the attacker had burned it out.
They didn’t even try produce effective results.
One that induces EM/RF hearing, and one that induces tissue damage.
In my limited experience with RF (from ham radio, which includes microwave work though I haven't done any personally) it's very easy to block radio signals even inadvertently, let alone when you really put your mind to it.
They say that some experts in somewhat related field now agree that the previous speculations based on non-evidence might be somewhat plausible. You’re going to need some military grade tin foil hat for that.
I’m certain it can, at least if it’s large enough to cover eyes and ears and thick enough to muffle sounds.
>"We have seen this before when the Soviets irradiated the U.S. Embassy in Moscow in the days of the Cold War," he said.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180829115456.h...
Now my Western friends, try spending some time to think why they did so.
It was their desire to make the West to believe that is a "West vs East" conflict, not "the West vs them personally."
All Soviet leaders were quite paranoid when it came to assassination fears, and the West going after right/left hand person.
"After the fall of the USSR, the president (Boris Yeltsin) had a private guard of 18,000 personnel. Far more government leaders were guarded than they were during the USSR."
Quotes above from "From the KGB to the FSB" by Eugene Michalevich
If you are interested, there is a biography by Victor Medvedev (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Medvedev) about his time guarding various leaders of the USSR. If the book is to be believed, security was very light.
Light compared to what? Numerically, yes. It was making no sense to have more than a regiment of them in a country where the total number of 3 letter agencies staff was comparable to standing army. But the level of paranoia was not light whatsoever.
Yeltsin on the other hand had to live under a constant threat of armed uprising by the same three letter agencies. The internal threat had an entirely different nature.
"Yeltsin on the other hand had to live under a constant threat of armed uprising by the same three letter agencies. The internal threat had an entirely different nature."
Shouldn't have disbanded Vympel because they refused to storm the white house and risk a ton of casualties. Yeltsin was a drunk, useless coward.
Oh, and he also re-organized the KGB/MVD/FSB 3+ times.
So which is it?
IEEE Spectrum did a series of articles on this; I thought the mostly likely explanation was ultrasound jammers and intermodulation distortion. Aka defective gear; which is why the same thing seems to have happened in China as well as Cuba.
with a recording of sounds recorded at the embassy and their attempts to reproduce it. To me the microwave theory seems a better fit.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/devices/finally-a-l...
If Russia had just wanted to play with their new toy while victimizing people with no local sympathy, they could have hit e.g. guest workers in Dubai and Western expats in Thailand. Actually they have lots of isolated communities in Siberia they could have observed more easily while staying out of the news completely.
Even if the "what", "where", and "when" ends up conforming to current "journalistic" speculation in these cases, the "how", "why", and "who" will probably never be really known. It's fine to be suspicious when Russian media are blaming USA, because they are "rivals". In the reversed case, why wouldn't one retain that suspicion?
https://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/devices/finally-a-l...
The active denial system was sold as a better water cannon to disperse protests, since it burns the skin over T-Shirts.
Haha, I've never heard this phrase, but I have the same sense about the distinction to be made.
While it’s plausible, it would take a big effort to affect this many people. The peak power densities, as described in the paper, would be tens of W/cm^2; e.g. radar transmitters and big antennas.
To direct this power, you’d have to track someone with a high gain antenna, and once you are non line of sight, it would attenuate greatly. That, or you’d have to place covert equipment in close proximity, in many locations.
It would also be very easy to detect with basic test equipment, as the desired peak power levels are huge.
Maybe there could be some organ resonance effect with mmWaves, such as bones in the ear, but that is sketchy too.
Here is the link from the article:
https://braincontrolhedge.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/audito...
Ive used this technique to get a greater sense of the memory performance.
The RADAR tick is EE folklore, from your brain expanding a few microns at the pulse rate. As I said, takes a huge power density to do this.
Cataracts are an issue with long term exposure. I guess we’ll know in the near future if this group of people has a higher incidence of cataracts.
Man, I wish I has the foresight at 18 to study EE instead of going for CS.
Pocket spectrum analyzers can be had for cheap these days.
In 'Auditory Response to Pulsed Radiofrequency Energy - Elder (2003)'
URL: http://www.beperkdestraling.org/images/stories/Wetenschap/Ti... Auditory_Response_to_Pulsed_radiofrequency_energy.pdf
Two salient points crop up:
1) 'The fundamental frequency of RF induced sounds is independent of the frequency of the radiowaves but dependent upon head dimensions.'
2) 'RF hearing has been reported at frequencies ranging from 2.4 to 10 000 MHz (see Table 1). Although Ingalls [1967] mentioned 10 000 MHz as an effective frequency, other investigators found that lower frequencies (8900 and 9500 MHz) at very high exposure levels did not induce RF sounds
In Table 2 the experimental frequency range appears to have been 900MHz to 3GHz so C-band at 4 – 8 GHz (7.5 – 3.75 cm) may have be a too short a wavelength to elicit the effect. - but ham radio operators should be worried :-)
Auditory_Response_to_Pulsed_radiofrequency_energy.pdf
to the address
http://www.beperkdestraling.org/images/stories/Wetenschap/Ti...
Edit: Link seems to work. :)
Like laptops, cellphones not working. Sparks from coke cans. Chocolate bars melting in pockets. I'd think the fire risk would be too great to attempt this in an uncontrolled public space.
The peak power is massive, but it doesn’t last long, so the energy is weak. To get the equivalent peak power, you’d have to put 10k phones against your head.
If you put your head in a 1 kW microwave oven, and pulse modulated the magnetron, your could maybe get the effect. It would make an entertaining YouTube video.
Sound like an Infinite Jest footnote.
>There is a microwave hearing effect that occurs at very low power densities and a skull vibration effect that occurs when very high energies are applied to the head. There is some confusion in the literature because the vibration effect has often been referred to as a microwave hearing effect, but it is not the same phenomena.
And, quoting from a different page:
>In fact, Frey and Hackett said the microwave hearing effect does not occur with millimeter waves (which range from 3 to 300 GHz).
>
>"On the other hand, if your millimeter waves have enough energy density, are powerful enough, there are other phenomena where you could cause sort of a concussion kind of effect which could conceivably be heard by bone conduction. It would transfer through skin to bone and bone into the inner ear," Frey said. He said it might be possible to modulate such energy to create the perception of some intelligible sounds. "But off hand, I can't tell you what kind of power levels you might need to do that," he said. Hackett dismissed the idea of transmitting intelligible sounds to the head with MMWs as pure speculation.
Note how the mythbusters episode where they 'busted' that myth seems like an (unintentional) sham:
They used a 9.4 GHz radar dish (courtesy of the DoD) with ultra short impulses spread out over long periods. That fits NEITHER of the above.
Someone, on, OF FUCKING COURSE, /r/conspiracy, quite a while ago, pointed out something related:
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/77v6t1/reddit_d...
Which points out that the boxspring mattresses used in many Hotels might strongly amplify the ability to induce tissue damage, which would explain this part:
"The blaring, grinding noise jolted the American diplomat from his bed in a Havana hotel. He moved just a few feet, and there was silence. He climbed back into bed. Inexplicably, the agonizing sound hit him again. It was as if he’d walked through some invisible wall cutting straight through his room."
From https://www.apnews.com/697536f065e6470eaa5ccfc35061e7ce
Of course, back then, almost everyone dismissed this. Or did they? (Insert dramatic music here)
Here, some more quotes from Allan H. Frey, via http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32648/...:
>For example, after my colleagues and I published in 1975 that exposure to very weak microwave radiation opens the regulatory interface known as the blood brain barrier (bbb), a critical protection for the brain, the Brooks AFB group selected a contractor to supposedly replicate our experiment. For 2 years, this contractor presented data at scientific conferences stating that microwave radiation had no effect on the bbb. After much pressure from the scientific community, he finally revealed that he had not, in fact, replicated our work. We had injected dye into the femoral vein of lab rats after exposure to microwaves and observed the dye in the brain within 5 minutes. The Brooks contractor had stuck a needle into the animals’ bellies and sprayed the dye onto their intestines. Thus it is no surprise that when he looked at the brain 5 minutes later, he did not see any dye; the dye had yet to make it into the circulatory system.
Some more points:
https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.... From 1975 presumably what Frey refers to in the above paragraph, entitled "NEURAL FUNCTION AND BEHAVIOR: DEFINING THE RELATIONSHIP"
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368378209040347 here, a review from 1982, very much related to the previous quote, entitled "Microwaves and the Blood-Brain Barrier: A Review"
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3109/15368378309040355 and here is a letter correcting that review, sort of. Unfortunately, this letter never got cited in the scientific literature, while the above review did.
For more bibliographical information, one might also wish to examine this email by Allen L. Barker from 2002:
https://archive.fo/V3r0Y (THEORETICALLY also available here, but the domain behind this, http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu/, is unreachable from large parts of the internet from what I can tell: http://www.bio.net/mm/neur-sci/2002-May/048366.html)
Of course, EVERYTHING surrounding this (but NOT the subject matter ITSELF) involves a hell of a lot of: * conspiracy theory * fringe science (aka protoscience) * pseudoscience
levels of insanity, as you can likely tell from some of the above. This makes it extremely hard to filter through any of this. The EU did a large report on RF safety a while ago:
https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/scientific_co...
If you check it, Frey's papers on this remain oddly absent from it.
Oh and... We could likely find a lot more existing discussion on this, but unfortunately, the emf-bio archives got expunged from ftp://iubio.bio.indiana.edu/usenet/bionet/emf-bio without explanation. If anyone at the University of Indiana wants to go digging into backup tapes, I'd appreciate it.
Indeed, it would. A lot of clever people have discussed the issue of disinfo & FUD, you might wish to:
* Watch this talk from FOSDEM '14 by Poul-Henning Kamp [Contextually, one important tidbit to keep in mind while watching it: At the time phk gave the talk, the heartbleed vulnerability in OpenSSL wasn't yet known!]:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwcl17Q0bpk
* and, perhaps, read these two blog posts, but tread carefully with those two, as, unlike the above video, the below edges MOST dangerously close to basket case conspiracy theory territory - arguably, it doesn't get there, but I can definitely say that if one slips while looking into the below, one'll immediately end up in basket case territory:
https://squamuglia.wordpress.com/2017/04/16/67/
https://squamuglia.wordpress.com/2017/04/22/yes-kids-cookie-...
However, having said this & pointed out all of the above, before going down any of the above lanes, keep something else in mind:
1. Take a look at when some of these links got first published online. Multi-decade gap vs. original date of publication. Something unfortunately still the norm for a lot of old(er) scientific/academic literature.
2. Most of Frey's original papers from the 60s are still behind a HARD paywall. Again, unfortunately still the norm for a lot of old(er) scientific/academic literature.
3. The whole classified Radar tech research aspect of it (This whole avenue of research got started out when radar techs in the 60s started complaining about headaches when working in front of big damn radar dishes!)
I read a few years ago about electric fields of very high dV/dt being used to temporarily open cell walls. The patients blood was transfused through the apparatus. This was used to enhance chemotherapy, and provided some benefit.
Do you expect that evidence to be forthcoming in any eventuality?
Does that mean that this topic should never be discussed?
Nice try