Can sound or silence be used to kill?

WE ARE DEALING WITH “ILLEGAL Pure tone” radiating on the Global not so Smart Grid.  There is no such thing as a legal pure tone.  It is a man made noxious air pollutant.  We are hearing the pure tones caused by the RFI on power lines.  Read below how devastating and dehabilitating this is to those who are hearing this crap. There is absolutely no defense against the constant assault.  The utilities and government know this is happening right now…24/7-365 days a week.  We are in touch with those nationwide who complain of how these pure tones have destroyed their quality of living.  THIS MUST STOP!!!  WE NEED YOUR HELP TO BRING THIS TO A COURT OF LAW. CONTACT US:


{In the 1970s, a U.S. research program called Disperse looked for sounds that would be immediately horrible for anyone. They did not find any meaningful sound that was universally repellent, as sound is culturally biased. The most efficient would in fact be a pure tone like a blasting alarm.}

Washington Post/Health and Science

July 1, 2013

Can sound or silence be used to kill?

U.S. forces are said to have blasted Van Halen music at Manuel Noriega before the ousted Panamanian leader surrendered to them in 1990. In “Zero Dark Thirty” and the Showtime series “Homeland,” death metal is used to coerce confessions. But can sound or silence be used not just to annoy but also to kill?

French journalist Juliette Volcler investigates the idea in her new book, “Extremely Loud: Sound as a Weapon.” In a phone interview, she discussed the science of using sound as a weapon. Here is an edited transcript of her comments.

Can sound really kill?

Sonic weapons are nonlethal weapons. They do not intend to kill and sometimes do not even intend to harm, but they intend to stop people — to neutralize them before they act.

Sound is not a practical way to kill someone. You can make a loud sound, but it gets lost in the air. If you can have a loud sound and put it exactly where you want it to be, then it becomes dangerous.

How does that work?

The human ear naturally amplifies oral data and the frequency range used by the human voice. It is not a coincidence that the LRAD — “long-range acoustic device,” a crowd-control device — projects frequencies belonging to that range.

Acoustic grenades can go roughly from 120 decibels to 190 decibels. German researcher Jurgen Altmann showed that a blast of 210 decibels or more affects the inner organs — the lungs — and could cause internal injury that could lead to death. A blast will impact the body, and would do so very violently.

What about psychologicaleffects?

Sounds have meaning. There was research about the psychological effects of sound — sounds like dogs squealing, babies crying, rabbits being killed. Horrid sounds that scare you.

In the 1970s, a U.S. research program called Disperse looked for sounds that would be immediately horrible for anyone. They did not find any meaningful sound that was universally repellent, as sound is culturally biased. The most efficient would in fact be a pure tone like a blasting alarm.

Full article at:

They have known about microwave radiation harm for decades

They have known about microwave radiation harm for decades

EMR Issues EMF Politics & Research Analyses
An essay by EMRStop written for general publication.

It starts around about the time of the cold war, set in the context of America versus the Russians. Russia has long known, officially recognised, and created protective standards for its people around the fact that electromagnetic radiation (EMR, and especially in the form of microwaves) can cause harm to biological life, at levels way below the levels required to heat living tissue. In the 1950’s they recognised the numerous cases of sickness that were directly produced due to people’s exposure to what is typically called “non-ionising” radiation (which is a misnomer as non-thermal levels of RF spectrum radiation have been shown to be capable of ionisation). Soviet Russia even banned microwave ovens in 1976.

The American military industrial complex (MIC) and technological supporting industries have long tried to cast doubt upon and slander the Russian research as quaint and innacurate since the times of “McCarthyism”, but the USA MIC has been caught out in that it produces publications, through no less than the National Academy of Sciences, which clearly admits that microwave radiation, of non-thermal levels, can be used as a weapon (for example, read the bioinitiative report, Indeed the US has long engaged in covert experimentation upon the effects of microwave and other RF on biological systems for military and law enforcement purposes. Meanwhile, Russia used non-thermal microwave weapons against the US’s own consulate and made the US diplomats very sick–there are records of this available, including the one entitled “The Moscow Embassy Incident”, found here: .

The condescension that the American Government, ANSI, IEEE, the FCC and so on have always had towards the Russian standards hides a fact that they would rather kept hidden: the demonstrated scientific knowledge that microwave (and other RF) radiation at levels far below those that cause heating in the body, can nonetheless cause damage to the body. The vested interests that control the technology have failed to acknowledge anything that is not a thermal effect. This process has meant flooding the journals with industry sponsored, skewed research to give the impression that the area is one of uncertainty and lack of knowledge, where more research is always needed. And it means keeping out the legitimate (and most often independent) research that finds effects on living tissue from non-thermal microwave.

To explain a little more about thermal effects: These are the same results as those produced by a microwave oven when it is cooking food, and there is no possibility of making a controversy about the fact that this level of microwaves can destroy living tissue–after all, look what it does to your food. Most government standards for microwave exposure are built around thermal effects–and thermal effects only. The WHO’s ICNIRP standards for EMR exposure are the same. Effects get more easy to obscure, though, at non-thermal levels–you don’t usually have sudden loss of mobility, paralysis, death, etc. (which is what a microwave oven would do to you if active without the door on), but you do tend to get cancer, allergies, autism and other ASDs, cardiac events, blood brain barrier permeation, sleep disruption, and a whole host of other side effects that take longer to manifest, and are easier to hide. But just like with tobacco and asbestos, making it easier to hide doesn’t mean that it is not there.

science of mobile phone cancer skewed by industryAnd industry has made a big effort to skew the science. So that every paper that is published showing an association between non-thermal levels is diluted by more than two papers sponsored by industry that show that there is no effect. Professor Henry Lai from The University of Washington has illustrated that 70% of research, industry sponsored, shows only a 30% effect of non-thermal levels of radiation; but 30% of independent research shows 70% effect on living systems, by non-thermal levels of microwave.

The consequence of this brute force consensus–a consensus that is keeping science pegged at “thermal effects alone cause harm to living tissue”–is that it means unimpeded ‘business-as-usual’ for the microwave (and other RF) polluters in the military, in telecommunications, and for myriad device manufacturers. The military doesn’t want to care about its personnel getting toasted whilst serving on the deck of an aircraft carrier, in the very close proximity to numerous sources of radar. “National Security” is more important than individual military personnel’s lives. The telcos don’t want you to know about the tens of thousands of microwatts per metre (uW/m2) that you put next to your head every time you talk on your phone, and to piece together the knowledge that there are places in the world such as Salzburg, that have guidelines for RF exposure that are thousands of times below this (Salzburg is 10uW/m2 for outdoor exposure to antenna signals; and 1uW/m2 for indoor exposure levels. Other German building biologist standards are even lower (see for e.g.)). Telcos don’t want you to know that SAR levels that are supposed to protect us are a bit of a scam, as they are based upon modelling of radiation penetration to a rather massive man, that bears virtually zero resemblance to the many women and child users of microwave phones. That’s why they are fighting tooth and nail against any politician that might want to enforce a more transparent level of SAR marking on mobile phones, as recently threatened to happen in California (but appears to be squashed now by the exit of the politician). Telcos also don’t want you to know about the thousands of uw/m2 that they may be pushing into your child whilst they attend that school which is right next to that telco antenna tower.

The setting of “protective” exposure standards around thermal only limits means that telcos (and their lapdogs of government and institution) can point to the standards whenever emissions from cellphone towers are considered, and show that the emissions are only a small fraction of the permissible “safety” standards. This has the deliberate effect of lulling people into a false sense of security about the emissions from cellphone towers. However the incidences of cancer clusters and people with EHS (electrohypersensitivity), appearing where the masts are all around the globe, tells a different story about just how benign these emissions are. Read Sarah Benson ( ) or view Full Signal ( ) for more about cancer clusters.

Looking at the Australian situation, there is an interesting and telling story to be told. The country’s premier scientific research organisation, the CSIRO, long had deep reservations about the safety of microwave and other EMF, had created protective guidelines that included a precautionary approach to non-thermal radiation, and had published numerous works to this effect. The Standards Australia group set with the task of determining the standard could not come to a consensus, given the industry stacked presence and the influence of people such as Chairman Michael Repacholi, who has a long history of involvement in the WHO and countries standard settings and who mostly refuses to acknowledge the existence of non-thermal effects of EMR. The pro-industry elements were set against the CSIRO and union and community representatives–the latter who wanted to make tighter standards for exposure or at least spell out the limited nature of the thermal only standards that were being developed. With the failure of this group to reach an accord, the country’s radiation protection authority ARPANSA set up a puppet commitee that was dominated by a council, all controlled by the CEO, to ensure that industry had free play for its whims. The CSIRO research laboratory that had done so much good work on the dangers of non-thermal radiation was shut down, and the responsibility moved over to the nation’s NHMRC (national health and medical research council) where the whole issue was quickly given into the control of a party with significant industry ties. This one example of how to put a cat into the bag. Surely though, this cat will eventually claw its way out.

Already we are seeing the start of an epidemic of brain cancer in users of mobile phones. It seems as if, from the cases of both the UK (visit ) and the USA (visit, that these numbers are being suppressed, for obvious reasons. Profits before people, people. The latency of brain cancer appearing–which can be ten, twenty or more years–and the fact that we are already seeing such data in the industry’s own science, let alone in the suppressed information, is cause for extreme alarm at the potential health crisis that we are creating here. Ironically the public health bill could easily dwarf the profits made by telecommunications carriers and mobile phone manufacturers now, even if we include the billions money that governments have made from selling spectrum to the telcos. So even in economic terms, completely oblivious to the human cost in terms of decimated lives and families, we have an equation that does not make sense for society to partake in.

What we need now is a sense of perspective that takes the above into account, and reconsiders our addiction to technology and modern convenience. If we do not, we are going to see some very negative consequences, and they are not too far away.

Further reading and websites

International EMF Alliance


Powerwatch UK

Magda Havas


Moscow Embassy Incident

Olle Johansson
Seletun Resolution