Radiation: Once Again Ballyhooed As Safe

Wolf Richter's picture

Wolf Richter   www.testosteronepit.com

It's always the same thing: for decades they tell us that there is no problem with radiation from x-ray equipment or other sources because the doses are so minuscule and so infrequent that it would be like.... Then they come up with some hoary example, such as "a 42-minute walk outside," an example I will get back to in a moment. Decades later, after millions of gullible or option-less people have been exposed to it on a regular basis, a new study comes out linking that very type of radiation and those very doses to some nasty disease.

It happened again—with Dental x-rays and risk of meningioma, a study published today in the American Cancer Society's online journal Cancer. Meningioma is the most common tumor in the brain and central nervous system, representing 33.8% of all brain tumors in the US adult population. The tumor is “associated with neurologic complications” that may include memory loss, hearing loss, vision problems, seizures, and weakness in arms and legs. According to the study, "The primary environmental risk factor consistently identified for meningioma is exposure to ionizing radiation."

It has been known for a long time that high levels of ionizing radiation—such as exposure to nuclear bombs or certain types of cancer treatments—multiply the risk of getting meningioma by six to ten times. But little research has been done on the lower doses that the general public is exposed to. Now the first large-scale study determined that the very dental x-rays ballyhooed for decades as safe are not: yearly bitewing x-rays double the risk of meningioma, and yearly panorex examinations produce five times the risk. Now they tell us!

It's a growing problem. Other medical imaging procedures that use ionizing radiation have sextupled since the early 1980s, and their doses of radiation are usually much higher. A conundrum of weighing risks and benefits, if there are even any discernible benefits.... Because there is now another source of exposure to ionizing radiation. It’s new, and it too has been ballyhooed as safe—this time by the TSA: backscatter x-ray scanners at airport security checkpoints.

The scientific community acknowledges that backscatter x-rays cause cancer, though they argue over the risks, which are between small and tiny. With backscatter x-rays, the energy is concentrated on the skin and the tissue directly under it, rather than being absorbed by the entire body. Thus, concentrations are much higher on the surface of the body. The TSA says that’s no big deal, that during a 42-minute walk outside, you're exposed to as much radiation. The doses are so minuscule, it says, that they pose no health hazard. Like dental x-rays. So, no problem.

But they were banned in the EU. The European Commission, in its press release about new rules concerning security scanners at European airports, included this illuminating paragraph:

In order not to risk jeopardising citizens' health and safety, only security scanners which do not use x-ray technology are added to the list of authorised methods for passenger screening at EU airports. All other technologies, such as that used for mobiles phones and others, can be used provided that they comply with EU security standards.

Ionizing radiation from backscatter x-ray scanners has been shown to damage DNA and cause cancer. From there, it’s just statistics. Put a number on this small to tiny risk and multiply it by many billions—the number of people that pass through these scanners over many years. The product will be the number of people who will get cancer from these scanners. That number will still be small. But it represents real people who will get real cancer.

Yet, unlike dental x-rays, there is an alternative technology: millimeter-wave scanners, which rely on radio waves. Both technologies have limits: turbans, casts, prosthetics, etc. But one causes cancer, the other doesn’t. Those are the risks. The benefits: they’re doubtlessly effective at nailing people who're trying to smuggle their favorite craft brew on board. And they’re supposed to catch terrorists but haven't had a chance to do that yet.

After this morose and possibly ineluctable radiation conundrum that has been veiled in propaganda and obfuscation from day one though the truth tends to seep out eventually, if too late, it’s time for ... more morose news. Beer, this time. But with a happier end. Because there is an astonishing winner that deserves a big cheers! Read.... The Beer War on American Soil.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
UrbanBard's picture

Be reasonable, it is the dosage which makes the poison. Anything taken in excesse can kill you. Drinking five gallons of water in a few hours can do it.

Panic can kill you, too.


Does radiation kill? Sure, but the evidence is murky. You would think that residents of Leadville, Colorado, which has the highest radiation in the US due to high altitude and the metallic composition of the soils, would have more deaths from cancer than Palm Beach, Florida at sea level and a low background radiation. But, Leadvilles’ rate is about half of Palm Beach's.


The other problem is that there are people trying to confuse and frighten us for political reasons. Hence, they use measurements which do not provide a good assessment of risk. Anyone who uses Becquerels per Kg, for items which you do not consume, is probably trying to propagandize. This is a large number for normal background radiation. How does an ordinary person determine the risks? Does the author give us Sievert readings of exposure? Usually not. The exposure depends on the type of radiation. Sometimes a high Becquerel count has a low Sievert number because the radiation is not very penetrating.


The point is that the author must prove harm. If he doesn't then we should take his warning with a grain of salt.


Take Fukushima, for instance. The readings I have see, which haven’t been recent, showed high Sievert readings only within several miles of the plant. In excess of 10 Km, the readings would require decades to get a radiation dosage which increases your death from cancer. Beyond 20 Km to 40 Km, the radiation is low enough that people older than 65 could live there without lowering their life span.


Natural processes tends to collect radioactive elements, so they must be collected and disposed. The short half life elements released by the meltdown are decaying rapidly. There should be no more radioactive Iodine and Xenon being produced. Cesium will be around for 150 years.


Precautions must be taken, but the Japanese people can live with the consequences, since the casualties will be in the hundreds. Tens of thousands died in the Tsunami. Many more will die as Japan’s economy declines over the next five years. It is all about having a proper perspective.

Not Too Important's picture

Or die with the consequences of extinction levels of radiation.

What did Bain say? We might "luck through this"?

tamboo's picture

suppressed nuclear waste neutralisation technology!!!

Nuclear Waste Recycling
Ron Real's picture

I would certainly suggest that the study be read, in detail, to understand the assumptions and method. These post facto studies done on a statistical basis are notoriously unreliable. Most headlines "news" about radiation is crap, about as reliable as the headlines news on the economy or the (British directed) American foreign policy of the the last 45 years, especially.

The better work in radiation demonstrates a "hormesis" effect; that is, low doses of radioactivity promotes good health.There are a number of reasons why this makes sense, if you can think scientifically. One of the most interesting, is the increased level of plant and bacteria growth while in orbit in the Space stations, It seems that certain frequencies of radiation promote cell division.

(BTW, radio waves are radiation, electromagnetic radiation. Just as are X-rays. There is also particle radiation, often called "ionizing" radiation, that is generated by nuclear reactions, although nuclear reactions also generate electromagnetic radiation.)

engineertheeconomy's picture


TSA gropee's picture

New breed of spider that likes nuclear cooling ponds? Savannah River facility. Curious to say the least.



Fukushima Sam's picture

Well, they like them until they catch on fire.

hardcleareye's picture

Ziggy played guitar, jammin' good with Weird and Gilly,
The spiders from Mars, he played it left hand
But made it too far
Became the special man, then we were Ziggy's band

q99x2's picture

Banksters, Politicians and military elite--The Terrorists--have declared a soft kill war on American citizens.

I know 4 people with thyroid cancer and I don't know that many people.

I'm in the LA area.

Not Too Important's picture

The question is, did they acquire the thyroid cancer after 3/11/11?

Not that I doubt you. We're about 4-6 months behind the health problems being exposed in Japan. It's hit the infants hard, and the young children are next. It kills the kids first. Teens and adults are next.

Start working your bucket list. We're next.

Thank you, GE, for the end of human existence. How you must hate G-d.

Reptil's picture

this guy is pissed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noKe7WJ1gCE

twitter - bombing Obama's account? that's the 2012 revolution?

oh well...... it's something :-S

Eastern Turkey, Budapest (Hungary again), Portugal, France




Not Too Important's picture

The ruling aristocracy is doing everything they can to hide this crisis. Not everyone who has lost their families to rad cancer, with no clean food or water, is going to take a Buddhist approach to this.

I wouldn't want to be the one managing this crisis. Trying to protect the people that killed off the human race, their own families included.

ddtuttle's picture

Radiation has never been "safe".  But it is extremely useful when managed by adults.  Having idiot Luddites raging again all forms of technology from fracking to cell phones to dental x-rays dones't help anybody.  We are way past the point where we can manage 7 billion people on the planet with amish technology.

rwe2late's picture

ddtuttle, if I were to elaborate on your arguments, then:

“Having idiot Luddites“ (damn those tree-huggers and animal rights activists)

“raging again all forms of technology” (we "adults" only rage against “amish” technology)

“from fracking to cell phones to dental x-rays dones't help anybody.” (not to mention lead in gasoline, ddt on vegetables, and depleted uranium in our weapons)

Our technology has been geared to making profits for big business and deadlier weapons for our military. Isn’t that what America is all about? Factory farms and feedlots need anti-Luddite antibiotics to be profitable. There is no other way. Monoculture agribusiness needs anti-Amish pesticides. There is no other way. To keep America safe, we need drones to assassinate, supercomputers for surveillance, and x-ray weaponry to search and control crowds, to "manage the 7 billion". There is no other way.

You are either with our technology or against us.

“We are way past the point where we" are idiots.

USA ! USA ! USA ! (sorry, I got a little carried away)

Reptil's picture

Extremely Useful? You mean POLLONIUM IN THE SUSHI?

I continue to REFUSE the idea that human technology got stuck in say.. 1958 and that we've not been able to invent anything new. Frankly it's ridiculous.

Freddie's picture

Radioactivity is already showing up in California grapes.  Can I have a MOX Plutonium Cabernet 2012?

Vlad Tepid's picture

Can you cite a link so I can read up on this?  A Google seach turned up nothing forme.

Vlad Tepid's picture

OK.  Absolutely nothing there about radiation detected in grapes but thanks.

dwdollar's picture

You're joking right?

Those "adults" are averaging a major nuclear meltdown every 20 years now. I'm sure they fully understand the dangers of radiation. /sarc

non_anon's picture

I thought there was a reason I liked PBR

the grateful unemployed's picture

the long term health benefits associated with good dental health are probably far greater than the risk from the xray.

rwe2late's picture

the grateful

Your statement is a quite misleading oversimplification.

The logical questions revolve around the loss or gain of overall (including dental) health

by having (if any, how often) dental x-rays.

the grateful unemployed's picture

i was suggesting good dental health can prevent heart disease and other problems, since a good dentist also screens for oral cancers. teeth sit in the sinus pocket, which is a source of discomfort and infection. many brain tumors begin in this area. strep, which is a common infection, can cause heart trouble.

pockets of inflammation under the teeth can go unnoticed for years. my dentist almost never does a root canal. the xray is of course one way to tell if this is necessary. those pockets between your teeth are hotspots for bacteria, which is why you must clear the plaque, which causes inflammation. a human mouth has more germs than a dog's mouth, but of course dogs need this care too, and any vet will tell you, that you will extend your pets life with good dental care, and regular cleaning. since new xray technology uses far less radiation than previous, and children really need fewer xrays, its not a serious issue.


dwdollar's picture

I don't buy the necessity for dental xrays every 6 months (or a year for that matter). The cavities are above the gums.

Fix It Again Timmy's picture

It's 11:59:59 PM, do you know where your spent fuel rods are hanging out?


Thunder_Downunder's picture

Taking health advice from the US government is like taking financial advice from the Vampire Squid. Conflicted, untruthful, and ultimately a bad idea.


Backscatter Xrays are safe.... as safe as depleted uranium rounds, which are perfectly illegal and "were not used" by the US in Golf War 1... but just happened to appear there afterwards...


And Golf War syndrome, was just PTSD if it was anything at all... mostly just people being neurotic we're lead to beleive... despite the fact that sufferers had DNA damage associated with prolonged radiation exposure, and were mostly those personnel associated with munitions handling and gunnery....


Yeah, you can trust big brother... gonna do wonders for tourism...



williambanzai7's picture

Isn't there a proposal to require everyone to sign a general release at the age of four?

Westcoastliberal's picture

Considering what's spewing forth from Fukushima, I'd say that 42 minute walk is more like a month in the sun at this point, especially along the Pacific U.S. coast.  Of course in Japan you're glowing in 42 minutes.  We'll be hearing the term "nuclear refugee" in the MSM before long.

Stax Edwards's picture

Dis: Long Ballyhoo, looking to exercise options on Tuna

Jack D. Ripper's picture

It always amuses me when people worry about airport security scanner radiation (0.01 mrem), but are totally unconcerned about cosmic ray radiation exposure during the flight itself (typically 2-5 mrem for a cross country flight, can be much higher during solar flares).

Typical dental X-ray dose is 2-3 mrem, chest X-ray 6-8 mrem, CT scan 100-1000 mrem.

I'm not particularly worried about airplane or dental X-ray radiation, but I would resist having a CT scan unless absolutely necessary.

It should also be noted that most meningiomas are benign, only a small percentage are malignant. Also, many meningiomas are asymptomatic, producing no symptoms throughout a person's life. Therefore, one wonders whether it might simply be that people receiving more dental X-rays might just be getting more medical examinations in general, and so would be more likely to become aware of their asymptomatic meningiomas.

widget's picture

You're right. The problem is a lack of concern. Let's protest until the Sun agrees switching to millimeter wave technology. Alternative solutions may include:

1) Wrapping airplanes in lead plates.

2) Use 1 years worth of vacation for every one-way crossing the pacific/atlantic by boat.

i-dog's picture

In my own direct knowledge, most [if not all] malignant cancers are viral in origin.

i-dog's picture

Awwww ... junked by a bone smith!.... LOL.

Stuck on Zero's picture

Same old scary prather but without the hard facts.  Look up "hormesis."  Hundreds of scientific studies have been merged to show a consistent picture of some benefit to low doses of radiation. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis.  The theory is that annual doses below 1-2 REM confer a protective effect against cancers because the cellular damage induces production of phagocytes to attack damaged DNA. In the process of detection and repair latent cancerous cells are detected and eliminated.  Don't forget that local specific doses can exceed 1 - 2 REM.  Radiation in  excess of 10 REM annually is likely to be more damaging than helpful.  Use your head, don't panic.  If you are receiving x-rays take a hefty dose of antioxidants.

Not Too Important's picture

Is this thread about dental x-rays and airplane flights, or an ELE wiping out all humanity in our lifetime?

Sorry, I get confused.

Decay is Constant's picture

The rate of exposure is also important. places in India and Brazil have high background rates of up to 5 Rem per year, but no increase in cancer.

Get three maps.
1. The distribution of cancers in the US from the American Cancer Society.
2. The distribution of background radiation and
3. The distribution of Radon in the US.

The latter two can be found at the USGS website. Look, compare, and draw your own conclusions about background radiation and cancer incidence.

Debt-Is-Not-Money's picture

That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger!

slewie the pi rat's picture

Yet, unlike dental x-rays, there is an alternative technology: millimeter-wave scanners, which rely on radio waves.


did one last week at SBA , it was painLESs and not much different than leaving the PEN for the shearing board to be SHORN



12ToothAssassin's picture

SBA? Stop in for a brew next time, Im just down the street.

geekgrrl's picture

Yea, it's all safe. No problem, nothing to see here.  /s

Slightly OT, but I came across an extremely fascinating article today. Turns out the Japanese have been running a secret nuclear weapons program since the 1940's, and various presidents have allowed massive transfers of nuclear technologies and materials to Japan. This is a bombshell of an article, a must read for anyone who wants to understand Japan's true motives.

United States Circumvented Laws To Help Japan Accumulate Tons of Plutonium

Not Too Important's picture

Not OT at all.

Of course, with the negotiations with Iran starting, this news just sent the entire US foreign policy down the shitter.

I'm sure our government has a good backup plan, now that not only did we screw up the entire planet's global economy, we've been lying about nuclear proliferation for decades. Hillary'll fix this.

JOYFUL's picture

Actually your comment is more on topic and certainly more newsworthy than any of the vapid scribblings of the post's author, in this newsless filler puff piece.

The efforts of Jim Stone to alert us to Japan's longstanding nuclear ambitions (and the consequences of their running afoul of the world's largest rogue nuclear terrorist state) have been almost completely suppressed. Seems not only were the Japanese secretly stockpiling fissionable material, but their willingness to supply it to the Iranians provoked the [man-made] catastrophe of Fukushima via the stuntex installed by israeli "security" company Magna BSP http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/fukushima1.html

But we can't mention such conspiracy theories here can we? After all, this is the special preserve of 'George Washington' and his stock in trade nuclear industry is to blame schtick...

and now that we are treated to sidekick Ritcher joining in with a nothing filler, stories about greenhouses, and a sudden complete absence of timely updates about Iran, Syria, and the impending collision of the Zato adventurist campaign with reality, one is forced to ask if we are in fact witnessing an end to the long run of ZH as the premier place of journalistic integrity and  insight> ...yet another stealth takeover\takedown of "alternative media" truth tellers by the usual suspects?

          3-11 was Japan's 9-11....end the media blackout!


i-dog's picture

Damn you, Joyful ... Another burrow through the warren to explore!

Re: Iran ... I'm wondering if that is not just a convenient part of hiding the financial can kicking at appropriate junctures? (Must.keep.Europe.afloat.until.US.is.sunk). Lots of talk from time to time, but no actions....

Element's picture

Try this i-dog, I've pre-prepared a basic refutation of much of this Jim Stone '3-11' crapola:




Every earthquake has a TOTAL ENERGY RELEASE for that seismic event, that is expressed as it's 'MAGNITUDE'.  This magnitude is the measure of energy expended.

It is NOT a measure of the relative or expected intensity of ground movements and their radii of propagation, as I will make clear.

This TOTAL ENERGY RELEASE occurs over the course of the TOTAL TIME of the wave propagation and ground movements during the event.

This does not occur instantaneously! It is energy released over time which dictates intensity of waves and movement and destruction levels observed and experienced.

In fact, in many moderate-sized earthquakes the total energy release that occurs typically takes place over 15 to 45 seconds. The shorter the period, for any given magnitude, the more intense will be the ground movements experienced by that level of energy release, per unit time.

In the case of the great Japanese earthquake of March 11 2011, the quake's TOTAL ENERGY RELEASE was expended over about six minutes, or about 360 seconds!


And hence it will predictably have from first principles, a proportionally lower observed ground movement intensity and damage level.

 That's simple enough to anyone to grasp.

The effective result is this;  a Magnitude 9.0 where the total energy released occurs over 360 seconds, turns out to be about 24 times smaller in its IMPLIED transient GROUND MOVEMENT, than a Magnitude 9.0 quake, where the energy is released in just 15 seconds.

In other words; no two magnitude 9.0 earthquakes are ever the same, or are expressed with the same damage radii, or intensity of ground movements with radial distance from the hypocentre, or the epicentre.

The longer quake time means the ground movements, both felt and observed, and the cumulative damage, will be noticeably less, and less intense, and will suggest a much lower earthquake intensity was felt, than the total energy released might falsely lead you to expect or predict.

It also means that you can approximately calculate the expected ground movement characteristics, when you compared it to the comparable energy released by a 15 second quake.

By this I mean, let's divide the seconds up this way;

360 / 15 = 24

So if we take 1/24th the energy spread over 15 seconds, we have averaged the energy release of a 15 second slice of the Japanese earthquake. And then we can determine the average intensity of a comparable intensity 15 second quake, and typical ground movement we could expect from such a smaller energy shorter quake.

In other words; given the total energy is being spread out over 360 seconds, what would this quake's ground movements approximate to, and feel like, and what sort of damage levels could we expect, if it were just a 15 second quake of an equivalent 1/24th smaller magnitude?

When you spreadsheet it out, it comes out that the effective ground movement experienced would be like experiencing a 15 second 6.25 magnitude quake ... except this 6.25 quake just keeps going on and on, for 360 seconds, instead of jsut 15 seconds.

And this energy over time or release distribution is why so little damage was observed in the buildings -- from a TRUE 9.0 ENERGY MAGNITUDE EARTHQUAKE.

 Which is what it really was, there is no question of this, as a measure of its total expended energy.  In other words, the absolute magitude of energy released does not predict the ground movement, nor visa-versa.  They are actually not closely correlated, except if TIME of energy expendature is taken into account.

So it was a true Mag 9.0, but it felt like a Mag 6.25 ... except it never stopped after 15 seconds, like such smaller quakes often do (and keep in mind, we are talking about a 6.25 at the hypocentre, not in Tokyo or Sendai) ... instead it ran on for over six minutes (and there were peaks and troughs of ground movement within that, of course, as many videos of the event also revealed).

Consequently, the radii of maximum shaking and building damage effects was isolated (i.e. not unlive that of a 6.25 or maybe a 7.0 at peak energy release shaking), and the damage remained fairly close to the hypocentre.

In other words, almost all of the sharpest ground movements and shaking and vertical displacement occurred OFF-SHORE!  Very little of it occurred on the land (even though we know a 1500km radius area felt moderate to strong shaking on land ... this was still nothing to what occurred under the water within 50 kms of the rupture zone)

Hence a phenomenal series of Tsunamis resulted, hitting buildings that were only superficially damaged.

Lay-people do not realise this fact, but it should be noted that earthquake shock waves DO NOT PROPOGATE SYMMETRICALLY. 

They are ASYMMETRIC in propagation pattern, of energy release, and subsequent asymmetric ground movement.  Thus any expectation of equivalent damage levels from a given hypocentre, is thoroughly unrealistic, and definitely will not be the case in practice (such linear models, expectations or predictions are pure bullshit).

Also, it is likewise absurd to suggest that all buildings within 1,000 km of a Magnitude 9.0 should be flattened, or conversely, that any building >1,001 km radial distance should therefore be standing. 

That is a ludicrously naive and ignorant presumption.

for argument's sake; even if we ignore the role of time in modulating energy release, Earthquake shock waves are still moderated, channelled, reflected, amplified and attenuated via geophysical and structural boundaries, within the earth itself. 

These 'boundaries' (high-z or low-z), of physical discrete difference, in the ability to transmit seismic waves (seismic waves are in reality ACOUSTIC WAVES, so a quake is simply sound waves propagating within the earth) may be in the form of crustal plate boundaries (which are certainly prevalent in this area), fault zones (which are EXTREMELY prevalent within this area) and boundaries between different ages and physical characteristics of rock units, i.e. igneous solid plutons, sedimentary strata, deformed metamorphics, dry or else wet rocks, magmatic chambers, discontinuous jointed crustal rock, mantle rock below this, etc.

Which are all present within this region, in very great profusion.

Thus seismic waves are always being altered and shaped, as they propagate radially, from ANY earthquake, regardless of magnitude or time.  Thus the more 'sharp' the physical boundaries of difference, the greater the deformation, reflection, refraction etc., that will occur in the propagated seismic acoustic wave fronts from the rupture zone(s). 

So a rock unit with the right character of propagation difference, at its boundary interface, can literally reflect back a significant portion of the seismic energy imparted to it, into another direction altogether.  Just like a sound wave from a firework that echoes off a tall concrete building, creating a double report in one direction but almost no echo sound in another direction. 

It's made asymmetric, and it is altering the wave front's energy propagation pattern.

The very same things occur inside Earth's crust. Seismologists know this occurs.  The general public virtually all don't realise this occurs.

In other words, the seismic (acoustic) waves, just as with the Tsunami's water wave, is being altered and channelled by the crustal and topographic environment into which it propagated.

Thus you NEVER get a uniform radial dispersal of the energy, especially where the crust is asymmetrically distributed, as it most certainly is, within the close proximity of this quake rupture region, to the Japanese marginal deep-ocean 'trench' fracture zone, and incised turbidite canyons leading out onto the northern western Pacific abyssal plain.

i.e. this geological terrain setting is strongly asymmetric to begin with.

So it is clear from this quake's duration and consequently lower and geographically restricted intensity, that the vast bulk of energy released was expended in moving the seafloor, very violently indeed, thus causing the disturbed oceanic water to slosh up on to the land with spectacular force.

That is where the excess energy release went.

Finally and crucially, a giant nuclear weapon will produce an almost instantaneous (1 to 2 seconds) of energy release as a discrete seismic transient event.
The energy would NOT be released over 6 fucking minutes!  It would not start off slowly and progressively build up, as it was observed to do.

There is no instantaneous large initiating transient within the seismic record of this event, that would be expected from any such nuclear munition detonation.

Thus this quake was definitely not due to any nuclear weapon triggering mechanism.

Anyone saying it was a nuclear weapon related or induced event therefore must be discounted.
Personally I'm fully satisfied this was a natural event, and that it has had entirely predictable consequences which are not that surprising to me, and are fully consistent with natural events recorded in rocks of geological active-margins all around the Pacific basin, of events that routinely occurred in pre-historical but geologically recent times.

Hence I conclude that any suggestion that the events in Japan were some sort of grand globalist scheme, are complete hogwash, and the result of a very poor grasp of natural geological processes.

The suggestion that such quakes are due to HARRP I find particularly ignorant and far-fetched.  HARRP is a High Frequency band radio transmitter and receiver.  Such an array is not much different from an over-the-horizon-radar-array, in principle and in operation.  These are active sensor systems. Active sensors are not generally used as energy weapons. 

However AESA and MESA active solid state radars are increasingly being developed as potentially network-configurable cooperative beam-focusing energy weapons. These do NOT use HF waves.

I am not aware of any use of HF radio waves (such as HARRP emits and receives) being used for a purpose other than remote sensing.  For one thing HF radio wave energy is notoriously difficult to direct into tight propagation or reception beam shape.  And because the wavelength itself (lets say 150 meters long) is so long that it is very difficult to focus on a small target like an aircraft or missile.

E = hF


E = Energy
h = Plank Constant (or the 'quanta' or 'packet' of energy propagated in any light wave)
f = frequency (of the light wave, which is of course the direct inverse of its wavelength)

Thus if h is constant (which it is) and wavelength is effectively regulating the 'intensity' of the energy packet size and its 'impact', then a very long HF radio EM spectrum wavelength, is also an extremely inefficient way to deliver a high intensity energy packet (h) in a light beam.

Radio waves are in fact 'light', just a very long-wavelength non-visible spectrum of light.

Which is another way of saying that HF radio will result in a beam with very low energy intensity.  It can't impart much of a hit to even a large object, like a ship, and it won't affect small objects like a fighter jet at all. 

In fact over the horizon HF radars such as JORN are capable of detecting the kilometres-long wake-turbulence of a supersonic F-22A, but can not see the stealthy jet itself, because the jet is much smaller than the light wavelength being emitted and received by the radar.  Same wake turbulence allies to missiles.  But a large ship can actually be 'seen' by such a wavelength, because the ship is even longer than a 1/2 wavelength of the EM HF spectrum waves. 

This is why short wavelength EM, like ultraviolet, x-ray and gamma-ray class beam weapons, if they exist outside of research, would be physically intense and very devastating in a line-of-sight application.

The only conceivable way I can see HARRP working as an energy weapon at a distance is via sympathetic resonance, but that requires physical cavities to be present that are the same size of some harmonic multiple, inn order for such a cavity to resonate the EM waves.

Such structural cavities do not exist deep within the Earth's crust, as they would be obvious in seismic survey transects.

Plus the EM waves would have to be GROUND PENETRATING WAVELENGTHS, and the wavelengths involved in HARRP, and other HF band ionospheric propagation antenna apparatus, are not using ground penetrating wavelengths.

Hence, it can be fairly safely concluded that HARRP has no physical mechanism for projecting and electrically coupling with resonant cavity energy, within macro-scale subterranean cavities (that we know don't exist).

Thus HARRP, nor any similar low-energy beam 'weapon', could not generate an earthquake, via any known physical mechanism.

There is no physically identifiable coupling or transmission mechanism. 

HF just bounces and reflects off the ionosphere, the water, and the land.

And this is what makes HF so useful as a long-range over the horizon radar--it doesn't significantly project into the earth, nor get absorbed by the surface of the Earth by much.

So how could it cause a tectonic earthquake, or a volcanic eruption?

The now widespread suggestion that HARRP is capable of such things is profoundly ignorant, indulges completely baseless supposition, and is unsupported by a century of observations, experiments and daily use of high energy HF radio spectrum arrays.



{NOTE: I do not pretend to understand the full military research focus and applications of HARRP.  But I'm quite sure HARRP conspiracy theorists don't know this either, and are just talking out of their arses about a lot of spooky drivel, for which they have zero testable actual evidence.  I would rather settle for accepting my own ignorance, than to accept a patent baseless delusion.  At least I'd stand a better than average chance of being found correct in retrospect.}



I hope that helped i-dog.

I'm confident Jim Stone is a deluded nut.  There are enough real conspiracies around that warrant our attention and time without people making up dopey stories at every turning, that simply sap our time and energy and distract us.  There seems to be people who actively seek to concoct and propagate false conspiracies toward that sort of end, to diffuse any real investigation and uncovering of the actual conspiracies in or midst, which we know do exist.

Not Too Important's picture

The explosions were caused by hydrogen gas buildup inside the reactors. Dry Spent Fuel Pools just catch on fire.

The melted cores, when they reach the water tables, cause the formation of hydrogen gas. TEPCO is presently injecting nitrogen to prevent further explosions.

Disclaimer: The above situations are well documented in nuclear reactor literature. Nothing too 9/11.


HAARP seems to be a continuation of research conducted by Aum Shinrikyo back in the mid '90's. Might be some Tesla engineering going on there, too.

Now, why the US would intentionally destroy an entire NPP complex, knowing full well it would kill off life as we know it, including themselves, is beyond me. Creating 9/11 as a false flag makes perfect sense (from a psychopathic/political point of view), but not a self-inflicted ELE.

Element's picture

Eh? ... early 1990s ...

Japanese cults ... ???

HAARP was being built from 1993 and existed as an R&D program and project proposal long before this.  I remember reading about proposals for funding of HAARP in the mid and late 1980s.

Why even assert the US is following some Japanese cult?

Why is it not possible that HARRP is designed to test the effects of ionospheric heating on communications and sensor performance, etc.?

If a high-yield nuke is exploded in the ionosphere, guess what, it immediately energises and heats it, creating an immediate massive signal to noise issue (as well as an EMP electron pulse).

Is it so difficult to accept that the US and Russia and other major powers wanted to get a good idea of what to expect from such a detonation heating the ionosphere, in order to design suitable systems that could have a chance of overcoming the noise, at various emission frequencies?

Why does HAARP have to be passed-off as a fanciful uber-weapon monstrosity, rather than an elaborate high power HF radio transceiver and antenna array, for testing the performance of such comms, sensors and things like missile tracking and interception interference in the event of a concerted and sustained EMP strike?

Among many other interesting things it can help humans understand?

Not to mention that I've never seen a shred of actual evidence to suggest this HAARP HF array has any function as an electronic weapon.

All I ever see is a pile of silly speculation by people who are technically and scientifically backwards and uninformed or ill-informed (at best), as well as displaying signs of an incapacity for cohesive use of logic.

Instead they simply ASSUME that HAARP is a sinister weapon system as a starting point, and write and speil from that entirely unsubstantiated and speculative point of origin.

And naturally, it's all downhill from there.


Which is of course a barking and bullshit method of organising one's thoughts.  And that's exactly what you get every time a link is provided to some HAARP page, or UTube video.