microwaves and behavior€¦ · yet wonder from lakhovsky's perspective why the human central...

V ictor Frankenstein surgically fathered the fa-mous fictional monster, but the fiend was con-

ceptually mothered if not physically spawned byelectricity in the form of lightning from theheavens. Perhaps unwittingly, perhaps intuitively,author Mary Shelley (1831) touched a deep truthin the maternal metaphor: Life did originate fromelectrical discharges into the primeval fog. Indeed,life continues to preserve in all of its earthly formsfrom the most primitive cell to the most complexorganism an elemental dependence on electricalphenomena. Understandably, the curiosity of thescientist about the electrobiological goings-on ofthe earth's flora and fauna is shared by the layman.A large popular literature is accumulating and em-braces experiments and anecdotes that range fromthe ostensibly respectable to the seemingly bizarre.Recently published texts by Tompkins and Bird(1973) and by Burr (1972, 1973) are not onlyexemplars of the literature but are rich sources ofreference materials. One reads, for example, thatplants have nervous systems that yield differingelectrical signals on "stimulation" by kind ormalevolent thoughts of human beings (Backster,1968). One also reads that many Soviet scientistsare giving credence and careful study to ESP andrelated phenomena, not in defiance of Marxiandictates of materialism but quite in keeping withthem. The Soviets are championing earlier theo-retical notions of Georges Lakhovsky (1934) tothe effect that each plant or animal cell is an oscilla-tory system capable of transmitting and receivinghigh-frequency electromagnetic energy over a dis-tance. While affirming that electrical events areintimately involved in cellular activity, one mustyet wonder from Lakhovsky's perspective why thehuman central nervous system with its tens ofbillions of neurons and glial cells does not drown inits own electrical noise. This apparent physical

Microwavesand Behavior

DON R. JUSTESEN

Laboratories ofExperimental Neuropsychology,

Veterans Administration Hospital,Kansas City, Missouri

This article is based on materials presented in a seminar tothe faculties of Psychology and Engineering at the Uni-versity of Utah (Salt Lake City, Utah) on August 21, 1974.The author's research program is supported by theVeterans Administration and by U.S. Public Health ServiceGrant FD00650. Acknowledged in the preparation of themanuscript are E. L. Wike and C. L. Sheridan, for a criti-cal reading; Kay Wahl, for artwork; and Lynn Bruetschand Virginia Florez, for typing. I also thank JohnOsepchuk of the Raytheon Corporation for his searchingcriticism of the manuscript; our opinions differ, his adviceis appreciated.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Don R. Justesen,Laboratories of Experimental Neuropsychology, VeteransAdministration Hospital, Kansas City, Missouri 64128. Theauthor is also at the Department of Psychiatry, KansasUniversity Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas 66103.

complication notwithstanding, the layman's interestin electrobiology is well attested by the substantialvolume of the popular literature; but the strangeand often conflicting claims that appear are equallyan attest to a related truth: Science is sorely lack-ing in an understanding of basic electrobiologicalmechanisms. Moreover, the absence of a satis-factory theory of the role of intrinsic electricalevents in uni- or multicellular organisms puts aheavy epistemological burden on those who wouldexplain how an organism reacts to electromagneticfields of extrinsic origin. With the possible excep-tion of mammalian photoreception, which is betterunderstood anyway as a quantum mechanical pro-cess than one involving electromagnetic waveactivity, there are few basic data on the biologicalresponse to exogenous electromagnetic fields. Thehard data that do exist—those vindicated by in-dependent experimental confirmations—are withoutexception correlative or descriptive. Many of thefindings are of interest to the psychologist, how-ever, not only because behavior has often been theend point of successful electrobiological experimen-tation, but also because psychologists have playedimportant roles in these researches, particularly inthe development of methodology and instrumenta-tion.

In this essay, I summarize some contributions byexperimental psychologists to the biological studyof radio-frequency electromagnetic fields, especiallythe "microwaves." But first the reader should beacquainted with a few fundamentals of wave theoryand provided with a synopsis of pertinent historical

|0-e |0-6

I I I I

WAVELENGTH IN CENTIMETERS

Blhz) (3Ghzl (3Mhl)IO'

2 10° I0a I04(3Kh;l (3lu> 0-C

I06 I06 10'° 10"

Gamma rays Ultraviolet Infroi

SPECTRUM OF ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY

Figure 1. Components of the electromagneticspectrum. Frequencies in cycles per second (hertz,Hz) are shown in parentheses. (Abbreviations:D-C, direct current or zero Hz; G, giga- = 109;K, kilo- = 10s; M, mega- = 106; and t, tera- =1012.)

developments. The reader who disdains technicaldiscussions may wish to skip the next few para-graphs, but will probably be rewarded by a betterunderstanding of the materials that follow if heor she opts to read them.

Electromagnetic Wave Theory

The microwave portion of the electromagneticspectrum includes the emanations of radars, tele-vision, and short-wave radio.. The microwavesrange in frequency from a few to several thousandsof megahertz (MHz). In terms of respective in•vacua wavelengths, the microwaves range from afew meters to about a millimeter. The relation ofthe microwaves to the other components of theelectromagnetic spectrum is shown in Figure 1.My review of data stops short of the radiations ofthe infrared spectrum and of the solar and cosmicradiations that lie beyond, but I am not drawingan altogether arbitrary line. While absorption ofelectromagnetic energy of any wavelength translatesto and results in an increase of kinetic energy inthe biological target, the photon energies of radio-frequency radiations are vanishingly small. Notso of radiations of higher frequency. The ineluct-able product of the multiplication of frequency byPlanck's universal constant, photon energy, becomesa potent biological factor at higher frequencies.Correlated with the magnitude of photon energyis the probability that a radiation will ionize theatoms of the absorbing target. The displacementof electrons from atoms, the crux of ionization,creates additional electrical charges within andamong molecules thereby posing distinct biomolecu-lar hazards—distinct, that is, from the heating ofbody tissues that results from a moderate increaseof kinetic energy. Stated another way, at densitiesthat are low in terms of available kinetic energy,X- and gamma-radiations are like cool but deadlybullets compared to the benign ripples that bathethe organism on exposure to commensurate densi-ties of microwaves and other radio-frequencyenergy. On the other hand, exposure to highdensities of radio-frequency energy is hazardousand can result in excessive heating. Witness thepotato that bakes to bursting in a microwave ovenin less than four minutes!

A major factor that distinguishes the biologicalresponse to radiation by microwaves as opposed toradiation by infrared and ultraviolet energies isthat the latter are absorbed or scattered near the

392 • MARCH 1975 • AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST

surface of a target. Unscattered microwave energypenetrates much more deeply. If 1,000-MHzmicrowave energy is incident on the head of a hu-man being, a significant portion of the energy willpenetrate the skull and be captured by tissues ofthe brain. One of the hazards of microwave energyis that the warning sensations of warmth so readilyproduced by infrared energy through stimulationof surface receptors may not occur to exposuresto fairly high densities of microwave energy untilthermal damage has resulted.

The mechanism of microwave heating of bio-logical materials is fairly well understood andderives from two electrophysical properties ofwater. First, the molecule of water is polarized;it carries a charge that differs over its surface. Theresult is an electrical dipole, a molecule that re-orients when an external electrical field is impressedon it, even as bits of paper are attracted to orrepelled by an electrostatically charged rod.Water's second property is a high molecular vis-cosity, or what is technically termed a lengthyrelaxation time. If its relaxation time is short, apolarized molecule can reorient itself with easein an oscillating electrical field. Molecules of waterare unable to orient and reorient completely in arapidly oscillating electrical field, and so their highviscosity results in "molecular friction"; much ofthe microwave energy incident on a biological targetcan therefore be "lost" or dissipated as heat.

The amount of radio-frequency energy absorbedby a target is a positive function of the target'selectrical conductivity, a negative function of itsdielectric constant, and to complicate matters, boththe conductive and dielectric character of biologicalmaterials are frequency- and temperature-depen-dent. The wave conformation of radiated radio-frequency energy is also a variable that controlsabsorption; the electric field is at right angles tothe magnetic field, and both are at right angles tothe line of propagation of the electromagnetic wave.Energy will couple to a biological target either fromthe electric or from the magnetic field, but theamount coupled will change as functions both ofthe relative wavelength and of the relative geome-try of the target with respect to the vectors of theelectric and magnetic fields (see Figure 2).

The quantity of kinetic energy in a propagatingelectromagnetic field is reckoned by Poynting'svector and is technically termed "power flux den-sity." This density is the quantity of energy thatflows in time through a measured plane of space.

The quantity of energy is determined by thedensitometer and is scaled in terms of watts persquare meter (W/m2) or watts per square centi-meter (W/cm2). A rough rule of thumb forestimating absorption of radio-frequency energycan be applied to the case in which the physicaldimensions of a biological target are large withrespect to the wavelength of the radio-frequencyenergy that is incident on it: Approximately halfof the energy is absorbed and the remainder isscattered. Another rule of thumb applies whenthe physical dimensions of a target are muchsmaller than the wavelength of the incident energy:The target becomes electrically translucent or trans-parent and little or no energy is absorbed. As thephysical dimensions of a biological target approachthe wavelength of a radio-frequency radiation, anextremely complex scattering function occurs, asuccession of valleys and peaks, and either verylittle or a great deal of energy is absorbed. Maxi-mum absorption occurs at and defines resonanceand may exceed the nominal amount of energy thatis incident on the target. At resonance the effec-tive electrical capture surface presented by a"lossy" target of low electrical conductivity may

?-''',"/t ^

f\

t tE

'/|

i /E N

/\

Figure 2. Idealized schematic representation ofradiation of a biological target in the open or freefield, the traditional method of exposing animals tomicrowaves. (In practice, the inside surfaces ofa laboratory are covered with energy-absorbingmaterial that prevents reflection of energy to thetarget. The animal is shown in restraint—neces-sary, unless the subject is anesthetized, becausechanges of body geometry will alter the capture-surface exposed to radiations. The H and the E,respectively, refer to the magnetic and electricvectors of a.plane wave, transverse field; the flowvector [or line of propagation] is depicted byarrows that point to the animal.)

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST • MARCH 1975 • 393

be greater than its physical capture surface areaby an order of magnitude (Anne, Saito, Solati, &Schwan, 1961),

Brief Scientific and Political History ofRadio-Frequency Stitdies

The history of behavioral and biological experi-mentation on radio-frequency energy is a spottychronicle that began in the 18th century whenLuigi Galvani observed that the isolated leg of afrog would twitch upon brief activation of a remotespark-gap transmitter (see Presman, 1970, p. 3).Much later, a few years before the turn of the 19thcentury, Jacques d'Arsonval (1893) radiated intactmammals with radio-frequency energy and recordedboth physiological and gross behavioral reactions.d'Arsonval's observation of elevated temperaturesin his radiated animals marked the beginning ofdiathermy, the medical term for heating of tissuesby radio-frequency energy. Nearly half a centurypassed before the first semblance of concerted in-vestigative activity began—this for the greaterpart in the Soviet Union, where a number of in-vestigators, many of Pavlovian persuasion, beganto probe for behavioral and biological effects ofexposure to radio-frequency fields. The researchesby Soviet and other Eastern European investigatorsthrough 1966 have been well summarized andsynthesized by Presman (1970), the distinguishedSoviet biophysicist.

The interpretive thrust of the eastern Europeans'studies of animals and of case histories of humanbeings employed near industrial or military sourcesof radio-frequency energy is that chronic exposureto microwave radiations results in a neurasthenicsyndrome. Headache, fatigue, weakness, dizziness,moodiness, and nocturnal insomnia are typicallyreported symptoms (cf. Marha, 1970; Tolgskaya &Gordon, 1973).

Concerted biological investigations of radio-fre-quency energy first got underway in the UnitedStates during the middle 1950s, largely through theaegis of the Department of Defense. This jointeffort by scientists, who were supported by all threemilitary services, faltered and died in the early1960s for want of sustained funding (cf. Susskind,1970). The impetus for a renaissance of researchactivity in the United States occurred in the late1960s because of political events in the SovietUnion. The interpretation of biological data fromthe so-called Tri-Service studies (see, e.g., Peyton,

1961) had been at variance with the Soviet's in-terpretation—American rats and dogs apparentlydid not develop the neurasthenic syndrome, evenafter intense radiation by microwaves in the labora-tory. Many American servicemen and technicianswho worked in proximity to radar and other radio-frequency devices were examined by physicians,but to my knowledge reliable evidence of the syn-drome was never reported in the United States.Indeed, the clear implication of the majority ofthe experimental and case data reported by U.S.investigators has been negative for all but simpleheating effects. What triggered a renewed out-pouring of support for research on microwaves,once again spearheaded by the Department of De-fense, was described by Jack Anderson (1972) inhis syndicated column in the Washington Post.Reading like the scenario of a novel by Ian Flem-ing, the column related how the U.S. Embassy inMoscow had been bugged clandestinely for severalyears by the Soviets, who had presented Ambassa-dor Averell Harriman in 1945 with a handsomelycarved Great Seal of the United States. An elec-tronic bug was in the seal, and the seal was in aroom where privy conversations among U.S. officialswere supposed to take place. These conversationswere actually overheard by the Soviets over thenext seven years; however, a check by U.S. securityexperts in 1952 revealed the bug and subsequentlybrought forth additional experts who made periodicinspections for presence of other electronic eaves-dropping devices. During one such sweep in Mos-cow in the early 1960s, it was discovered that theSoviets were directing beams of microwave energyat the U.S. Embassy.

American intelligence agents were understandablycurious, but they did not want their Soviet counter-parts to know that the microwave bombardmenthad been detected. Enter the Advanced ResearchProjects Agency (ARPA), an arm of the ExecutiveOffice that specializes in getting fast answers tofar-out questions that may bear on national secu-rity. Agents for ARPA contacted Joseph C. Sharp,former director of research in experimental psy-chology at the Walter Reed Army Institute ofResearch, and an electronic engineer, Mark Grove,who began to put together at Walter Reed whatis now one of the best equipped laboratories in theUnited States for studying biopsychological effectsof microwave radiations. Additional behavioral,engineering, and medical scientists throughout theUnited States were also brought into the investiga-


tive effort through1 research contracts. By theearly 1970s, ARPA's support of microwave researchhad largely faded, ostensibly because of the enact-ment of the Mansfield Amendment. The fiscal slackhas since been picked up by the three military ser-vices, by the Bureau of Radiological Health of theFood and Drug Administration, and by the Envi-ronmental Protection Agency. In spite of much in-vestigative activity supported by these agencies andthe recent convening of several international sym-posia on microwaves (see, e.g., Cleary, 1970;Czerski, 1974; Tyler, 1975), the Soviet's motives inradiating the U.S. Embassy have never been clari-fied. One speculation is that the Russians were do-ing it to "bug" the United States, not in the senseof surreptitious surveillance, but to frustrate theU.S. military's curiosity. Jack Anderson suggestedthat the Soviets may have been trying to induce theneurasthenic syndrome in American embassy offi-cials.1 I discount this possibility. But it shouldbe noted that Soviet officials voiced suspicions thatminions of Bobby Fischer may have bombardedBoris Spassky with microwaves, thereby causingthe latter to lose his championship in their famouschess match (Wade, 1972). Recently reportedinvestigations by Soviet scientists (see Czerski,1974) have convinced me of the sincerity of theirbelief in the neurasthenic syndrome, but the basesfor the differing convictions of Soviet and U.S.scientists about the syndrome and other allegedhazards of low-density microwave radiation are yetto be resolved.

Impact by Psychologists

One of the American pioneers of microwave researchis Allan Frey (see, e.g., Frey, 1961, 1965; Frey &Messenger, 1973), a free-lance biophysicist andengineering psychologist. Frey's major accomplish-ment was discovery or at least confirmation anddissemination of one of the more intriguing datathat link microwaves and behavior. Human beingscan "hear" microwave energy. The averaged den-sities of energy necessary for perception of thehisses, clicks, and pops that seem to occur inside

the head are quite small, at least an order of magni-tude below the current permissible limit in theUnited States for continuous exposure to micro-waves, which is 10 mW/cm2.

To "hear" microwave energy, it must first bemodulated so that it impinges upon the "listener"as a pulse or a series of pulses of high amplitude.At first spurned by most microwave investigatorsin the United States, the radio-frequency hearing,or Frey effect, was repeatedly dismissed as an arti-fact until behavioral sensitivity to low densities ofmicrowave energy was demonstrated in rats in anexquisitely controlled study by Nancy King (seeKing, Justesen, Si Clarke, 1971). Shortly aftercompletion of the study and its informal dissemina-tion via the invisible college, the skeptics began toappear in appropriately equipped microwave labora-tories in the United States with requests fo "listento the microwaves." A majority was able to "hear"the pulsed microwave energy, thereby belatedlyconfirming the claims made by Frey for nearly adecade.2

Recent work reported by Foster and Finch(1974) suggests that the Frey effect may be athermohydraulic phenomenon. The authors sus-pended a microphone in a container of water thatwas radiated by pulsed microwaves at low-averageddensities of energy. The microphone deliveredsignals to an amplifier, the audio output of whichwas not unlike that "heard" by directly radiatedhuman subjects. Since water changes density asits temperature is altered, the minuscule thermaliza-tions produced in it upon absorption of the pulsedmicrowaves were sufficient to initiate small butdetectable changes of hydraulic pressure.

Sonic transduction of pulsed microwaves at low-averaged densities has been demonstrated by Sharp,Grove, and Gandhi (1974) in materials lacking in

1 Jack Anderson mentioned that the subject of the micro-wave bombardment of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow wason the agenda when President Lyndon Johnson met SovietPremier Aleksei Kosygin at the Glassboro Summit Meetingin June 1967. One informant told Anderson that Johnsonpersonally requested Kosygin to order a halt to the radia-tion of the Embassy.

2 There is irony here worthy of parenthetical comment.Consider that subspecies of human being, the experimentalpsychologist, who distrusts introspective data so thoroughlythat a proposition based on them is considered highlysuspect until corroborating data are observed in loweranimals. The irony in the present case is that the demon-stration of behavioral sensitivity to microwaves by a dumbanimal does not imply that the animal is having an audi-tory "experience." I was dubious about the Frey effectuntil I saw rats react to low densities of pulsed radiation;this conversion occurred despite my being one of thesizable minority that cannot hear microwaves under directradiation. The other side of the coin of paradox is ex-emplified by a colleague, a confirmed cynic, who, whilebeing irradiated in my presence, said, "Well, I can hear thegoddam microwaves, but I still don't believe it!"


water, for example, in carbon-impregnated plasticand in crumpled sheets of aluminum foil. Evensubjects who cannot hear microwaves when directlyradiated by them can readily perceive clickingsounds when a piece of energy-absorbing materialis interposed between the head and a radiator ofpulsed microwave energy. Oddly enough, the massof the interposed material does not seem to be toocritical; I successively used smaller and smallerpieces of material as sonic transducers until it wasnecessary to impale tiny pieces on a toothpick,yet the clicking sounds induced in the material bymicrowave pulses were clearly audible to me.

The demonstration of sonic transduction of mi-crowave energy by materials lacking in waterlessens the likelihood that a thermohydraulic prin-ciple is operating in human perception of theenergy. Nonetheless, some form of thermoacoustictransduction probably underlies perception. If so,it is clear that simple heating as such is not asufficient basis for the Frey effect; the requirementfor pulsing of radiations appears to implicate athermodynamic principle. Frey and Messenger(1973) demonstrated and Guy, Chou, Lin, andChristensen (1975) confirmed that a microwavepulse with a slow rise time is ineffective in produc-ing an auditory response; only if the rise time isshort, resulting in effect in a square wave withrespect to the leading edge of the envelope ofradiated radio-frequency energy, does the auditoryresponse occur. Thus, the rate of change (the firstderivative) of the wave form of the pulse is acritical factor in perception. Given a thermody-namic interpretation, it would follow that informa-tion can be encoded in the energy and "communi-cated" to the "listener." Communication has infact been demonstrated. A. Guy (Note 1), askilled telegrapher, arranged for his father, a re-tired railroad' telegrapher, to operate a key, eachclosure and opening of which resulted in radiationof a pulse of microwave energy. By directing theradiations at his own head, complex messages viathe Continental Morse Code were readily receivedby Guy. Sharp and Grove (Note 2) found thatappropriate modulation of microwave energy canresult in direct "wireless" and "receiverless" com-munication of speech. They recorded by voice ontape each of the single-syllable words for digits be-tween 1 and 10. The electrical sine-wave analo'gs ofeach word were then processed so that each time asine wave crossed zero reference in the negative di-rection, a brief pulse of microwave energy was trig-

gered. By radiating themselves with these "voice-modulated" microwaves, Sharp and Grove werereadily able to hear, identify, and distinguishamong the 9 words. The sounds heard were notunlike those emitted by persons with artificiallarynxes. Communication of more complex wordsand of sentences was not attempted because theaveraged densities of energy required to transmitlonger messages would approach the current 10mW/cm2 limit of safe exposure. The capability ofcommunicating directly with a human being by"receiverless radio" has obvious potentialities bothwithin and without the clinic. But the hotly de-bated and unresolved question of how much micro-wave radiation a human being can safely be ex-posed to will probably forestall applications withinthe near future.

The U.S. limit of 10 mW/cm2 is actually anorder of magnitude below the density that manyinvestigators believe to be near the threshold forthermal hazards (Schwan, 1970). There are twocamps of investigators in the United States, how-ever, who believe that the limit is not sufficientlystringent. In the first camp of conservatives arethose who accept the Soviet's belief that there arehazardous effects unrelated to heating from chronicexposures to fields of low density (< 1 mW/cm2);some agree with Milton Zaret (1974), a New Yorkophthalmologist, who holds that severely debilitat-ing subcapsular lesions of the eyes may developyears, even decades, after exposure to weak micro-wave fields. Others tend to reject the notion thatweak microwave fields produce this anomalous cata-ract, because of lack of substantiating evidence fromthe clinic or the laboratory (Appleton & Hirsch,1975). But these conservatives are possessed of avague unease simply because the Soviet's limit ofcontinuous permissible exposure is three orders ofmagnitude below that of the United States.3

The other camp of conservatives tends to rejectthe possibility of hazardous nonthermal effects,

3 The Soviet's exposure limit of 10 /tW/cm2 is three ordersof magnitude below the exposure limit in the United States,but a different, that is, emission, limit holds for microwaveovens purchased for use in the American kitchen. In theUnited States at the present time, a newly purchased micro-wave oven may not emit radiation at a density greaterthan 5 mW/cm2 as measured at a distance of S cm fromthe oven's surface. A user who stands 1 m from an oventhat emits energy at the maximum permissible quantitywould probably be exposed to a density of only a fewmicrowatts per square centimeter—this is because electro-magnetic energy when radiated from a point source attenu-ates markedly as it propagates through space.


but holds that there are thermal hazards even inmicrowave fields of low-measured density. To un-derstand the qualms of these conservatives, thereader needs be informed that the data used toestablish the current U.S. limit were for the greaterpart gathered under highly controlled conditionsin the laboratory with simulated biological targets(see Anne et al., 1961). Hollow glass spheres con-taining mixtures of fluids that duplicated the netelectrical characteristics of the contents of thehuman head were radiated in what is technicallytermed the "free field," that is, under conditionsin which no reflected energy illuminates the target,only that radiated by the source. Under actualconditions where microwave radiations at fairlyhigh densities are encountered by human beings,for example, aboard ships, in or about aircraft, ornear ground-based radars, there are nearly alwaysreflective surfaces that could reflect additional en-ergy on a biological target. Unfortunately, addi-tional concentrations of reflected energy may not bedetected by densitometers because of their highdirectional sensitivity. A radio-frequency field thatmeasures low in density may actually containsignificant levels of energy. Such was the findingin a collaborative investigative venture by theengineer Arthur Guy and psychologist SusanKorbel.

Guy and Korbel (Note 3) radiated models ofrats in a 500-MHz microwave field that, as care-fully measured by several densitometers, appearedto have an incident density near 1 mW/cm2.Activity levels of radiated rats had earlier beenfound to differ reliably from levels of controlsafter exposures at this low density (cf. Korbel,1970; Korbel-Eakin & Thompson, 1965). Guyand Korbel were aware that the exposures hadtaken place in an electrically shielded enclosure.Since the shielding created the possibility of un-detected reflections and concentrations of energywithin the enclosure, thermographic studies wereperformed on radiated models. Extremely highconcentrations of thermalized energy were found,some of sufficient density that they would resultin focal burns in the heads and extremities of liveanimals. The hot spots observed in the modelswould be less severe in a live animal because ofpartial thermal equilibration by the circulatorysystem; of major interest is that the total amountof energy absorbed by the models was often muchhigher than what would be predicted from the mea-sured density of the microwave field. Guy and

Korbel's data are a clear vindication of suspicionsby other investigators that the exclusive use offield density as the independent variable in bio-logical studies of microwave irradiation is anegregious shortcoming (cf. Johnson & Guy, 1972;Justesen & King, 1970).

In 1967, Nancy King and I sought to resolvethe problem of accurate scaling and dosing ofmicrowave energy in laboratory studies by twomeans. The first was to use the multimode cavity,now widely in domestic use as the "microwaveoven," as the medium for exposing experimentalsubjects. The quantity of microwave energy ab-sorbed by an animal in such a cavity can be closelymetered and controlled (Justesen, Pendleton, &Porter, 1961; Justesen & Pendleton, Note 4).Justesen, Levinson, Clarke, and King (1971) trans-formed the cavity (a Tappan microwave oven)

• -Oven door

^Photooperondum

Figure 3. Plexiglas conditioning chamber lo-cated in a multimode cavity. (Microwave energyenters the cavity from the wave guide and is mixedby a slowly rotating mode stirrer so that it im-pinges on the animal in the chamber from allangles. A photodetector of the licking response, aliquid feeder, and a special grid for presentingelectrical shocks to the feet provide for operantand/or respondent conditioning of an animal duringradiation. A steady stream of cooled air flowsfrom an air duct into the cavity and the chamberand out of small holes in the door of the cavity.Temperature in the chamber is monitored via anelectrically shielded thermistor.)

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST • MARCH 1975 • 39.7

into an operaht and respondent conditioning cham-ber that permits radiation during behavioral test-ing. The achievement of controllable energy dosingof animals in behavioral experiments was somethingof a challenge because we had to design and in-corporate a special response-detection and payoffsystem for operant conditioning that would notinteract with the microwave fields inside thecavity's conditioning chamber (King, Justesen, &Simpson, 1970). A similar challenge, that of pro-viding a noninteractive source of aversive electricalstimulation for Pavlovian conditioning, was met bythe design and incorporation of a faradic shockingdevice (Justesen, King, & Clarke, 1971).

We sought to cope with the energy-scaling prob-lem by using calorimetric dosimetry; whereas thedensitometer measures energy in proximity to atarget, the calorimetric technique provides esti-mates of the amount of energy actually absorbedby a biological target (cf. Justesen & King, 1970;Justesen, Levinson, Clarke, & King, 1971; Justesen,Levinson, & Justesen, 1974). Taking our lead fromthe ionizing radiobiologists, we proposed a con-vention based on absorbed energy per gram unitof mass. Because of the high-photon energies ofX- and gamma-rays, the rad—the standard unitof absorbed dose of ionizing radiation—is couchedin relatively minuscule terms of only 100 ergs pergram. For the microwaves with their low-photonenergies, we proposed that 107 ergs or one joule per

TWIN-WELL CALORIMETER

INSIDE WELL COVERIPOLVST.]

THERMOCOUPLE JUNCTIONS

WELL INSULATORIPOLVST.I

ALUMINUM WELL /

OUTSIDE COVER |POLVST.|

COPPER JACKET COVER

WRAP-AROUND HEATER WIREIMAGNANINI OF cu JACKET

OUTSIDE INSULATOR[POLYST.I

Figure 4. Schematic diagram of a twin-welldifference-calorimeter developed at the BattelleLaboratories. (Highly precise measurements aremade of the quantity of microwave energy absorbedby models or bodies of radiated animals. A refer-ence or nonirradiated target is placed in one well,a radiated target in the other well; the differencein thermal loading is then detected by sensitivethermocouples.)

gram (J/g) serve as the dosing unit of total ab-sorbed energy. Since the joule per second is thetime-complexed quantity of energy that defines thewatt, we also proposed that the watt per gram(W/g) serve as the basic unit of rate of dosing.

To estimate the amount of energy absorbed byan animal in a microwave field, we employ simplethermometry, the measurement of elevation oftemperature (A<) in phantom models by precisionelectronic thermometers. In the multimode cavity,the Ate of cylindrical models of water can providean estimate within 10% of the energy actuallyabsorbed by small animals of equivalent mass(Phillips, Hunt, & King, 1975). The quantity ofenergy in watts is readily calculated from the Aisand is then divided by the animal's weight ingrams to yield the rate of dosing. A 300-g ratunder pulsed 2,450-MHz radiations has a dosing-rate threshold of perception near .5 mW/g (Kinget a!., 1971). To place this value in a meaningfulperspective, one can compare it to the rat's ambientrate of energy production through metabolism,which is near 10 mW/g in a standard environment.A 60-sec exposure of a 300-g animal that is absorb-ing microwave energy at a rate of .5 mW/g wouldmaximally increase its averaged body temperatureby .01° C.*

The calorimetric dosing method is a substantialimprovement for experimental purposes over thetraditional scaling technique in which the measureddensity of energy as incident upon an animal isused directly as the independent variable or elseto estimate (via rough rules of thumb) the deposi-tion of energy in the animal. , Where errors ofmeasurement greater than an order of magnitudeare possible and, indeed, probable, with the tradi-tional, densitometric methods of scaling, thecalorimetric technique reduced the error to lessthan 10%. A psychologist, E. Hunt of the Battelle

*The maximal rise of temperature is stipulated for theanesthetized animal. The awake, physiologically intactanimal that is experimentally naive to radiation at detect-able densities may exhibit an elevation of body temperaturethat is greater than that solely attributable to heating bymicrowaves. Apparently, the emotional activation inducedby novel (or noxious) stimulation is associated with meta-bolic activation, and thus concomitant endogenous heating,which adds to the total thermal loading of a radiated ani-mal (Justesen, Note 5). Unless there is a compensatoryrise in rate of heat dissipation, an emotionally stressedanimal may succumb from hyperthermia during radiationtreatments that are not mortal for an habituated, unstressed,or anesthetized animal (Justesen, Levinson, Clarke, & King,1971; Justesen et al., 1974).


Laboratories, took the lead in squeezing the lasteliminable error from the determination of energy.dosing. Hunt and his colleagues (see, e.g., Hunt,King, & Phillips, 197S; Phillips et al., 1975) de-veloped a special twin-well calorimeter (Figure 4)into which suitable models or carcasses of a controland an irradiated animal are placed immediatelyafter microwave treatments. Differential calorime-try is then used to measure the amount of energyabsorbed by the radiated target, either in the multi-mode cavity or in the free field. When quantitiesof absorbed energy at high dosing levels were sub-sequently equilibrated for live animals in the cavityand in the free field, Hunt and his colleagues ob-served that death rates were much higher fromexposures in the free field. One would expect thisdifference because the animal in the cavity is ab-sorbing energy that is incident from all angles whilethe animal in the free field is illuminated unidirec-tionally (calling to mind the discomfiture of thenaked child in a cold room as he stands in frontof an overheated potbelly stove).

The comparisons by Hunt and his colleaguesinvolved mice and rats in restraint under irradia-tion by moderate to high densities of microwaveenergy. The bodily restraint, which is used in thefree field to maintain constancy of energy dosing,can interact as a stressor with microwave-inducedhyperthermia to increase morbidity and mortality(cf. Justesen, Levinson, Clarke, & King, 1971;Justesen et al., 1974). Comparisons of cavity andfree-field exposures of restrained subjects at lowerdensities of energy would be desirable on twogrounds: first, if the energy incident upon an ani-mal in the free field is not too intense, the gradientof temperature between exposed and unexposedareas of the body will be reduced by convectivedispersion of heat by the blood stream; and second,the study of operant and respondent behaviors canbest be realized in animals undebilitated by ex-cessive heating. The appropriate comparison ofbehaviors of subjects under low to moderate densi-ties of microwave energy has been undertaken byLin, who trained rats to accept restraint in a bodyholder (Lin, Guy, & Caldwell, Note 6). Slightmovement of the head of a restrained subject waspossible, and it was this movement that Lin usedas an operant response. During pretraining, arestrained animal was reinforced with a food pelleteach time its head interrupted a photoelectric beamuntil responding during short daily sessions hadstabilized. Then Lin et al. irradiated the animals

with 918-MHz microwaves in the free field, firstat low densities and then at successively increaseddensities until the head-moving operant extin-guished. The absorbed-energy dosing rate at thethreshold of extinction was near 8 mW/g, a valuethat agrees closely with that reported for com-parable measures on rats exposed in the multimodecavity by Justesen and King (1970) and by Huntet al. (197S). One may surmise, at least tenta-tively, that the behavioral and biological responseto exposures in the cavity and in free field are morelikely to be comparable at low densities of radiationand increasingly divergent at increasingly higherdensities. One may also surmise that free-fieldexposures to microwave energy, insofar as theyproduce unevenness of heating in an experimentalanimal, are much more likely to be thermally stress-ing in the psychological sense. The quintessentialcharacteristic of psychologically adequate stimula-tion is change either temporally or spatially. Inthe absence of change, or in the stead of changethat occurs too slowly, even intense energy may notbe behaviorally stimulating. Scripture (1899, p.300) recounted how a frog never so much astwitched, as the water in which it was immersedwas slowly brought from body temperature to theboiling point. King (1969) recounted a similarexperience with rats long inured of exposures inthe multimode cavity to mildly thermalizing radia-tion.. During radiation treatments the animalsbecame immobile and appeared to go to sleep. Ithought her animals were displaying the neur-asthenic syndrome until she measured their bodytemperatures and found they were suffering fromsomething akin to heat prostration!

Epilogue

Focused as it was on methodology and instrumenta-tion, this article has skirted much information thatrelates psychology and psychologists to the bio-logical study of electromagnetic fields. Amongthe omissions is the special concern for behavioralvariables manifested by most basic and medicalscientists currently working "in the microwavefield." Much of this concern is actually homageto the reliability with which behavioral effects havebeen demonstrated and duplicated in the radio-biological laboratory. Behavior has become amajor "handle" or end point in attempts of scien-tists to get a purchase on the biophysical andphysiological events that occur in the radiated


organism. What these scientists have discoveredis that the central nervous system is a biologicalamplifier whose output as manifested in behaviorprovides a highly sensitive litmus of reactivity toelectromagnetic energy. This sensitivity, par-ticularly the demonstration of the Frey effect, willinevitably give rise to the question, Are there sub-stantive implications here for paranormal phe-nomena, especially from the vantage of the Sovietscientist for whom ESP means "electrosensory"(not extrasensory) perception? I am not preparedto answer beyond this caveat: Under optimal ex-perimental conditions, the quantity of microwaveenergy that is necessary for direct transfer of in-formation to a human being is many orders ofmagnitude greater, say, than the photic or acousticenergy associated with a threshold response tovisual or auditory stimulation. Perhaps there areelectromagnetic receptor systems in us as yet un-discovered with sensitivities comparable to or evengreater than that of the visual and auditory sys-

tems. This possibility, however, is bankrupt of

operational meaning without a corollary demon-

stration of specific electromagnetic radiation by

the human organism. Without a transmitter, a

receiver is useless. Except for an incoherent flux

of infrared energies that are broadcast from our

bodies as the residue of metabolism, there are no

known electromagnetic emissions of sufficient en-

ergy to warrant more than the most guarded of

speculations. Not at all a cynic, but very much

the skeptic, I conclude:

ElectroMagnetic receivers we are,A light-wave we can see;As E-M emitters our wave fronts are weak,Hardly enough for ESP.

REFERENCE NOTES

1. Guy, A. W. Personal communication, October IS, 1973.2. Sharp, J. C., & Grove, M. Personal communication,

September 28, 1973.3. Guy, A. W., & Korbel, S. F. Dosimetry studies on a

VHP cavity exposure chamber for rodents. Paper pre-sented at the International Microwave Power Institute'sSymposium on Microwaves, Ottawa, Canada, May 1972.

4. Justesen, D. R., & Pendleton, R. B. Radiopyrogenesis inanimal activity and learning. Paper presented at themeeting of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Associa-tion, Sante Fe, New Mexico, May 1958.

5. Justesen, D. R. The evoked thermal response (ETR):Rediscovery of the marked correlation between tempera-ment and temperature. Paper presented at the meetingof the Psychonomic Society, Boston, Massachusetts,November 1974.

6. Lin, J. C., Guy, A. W., & Caldwell, L. R. Behavioralchanges of rats exposed to microwave radiation. Paperpresented at the IEEE International Microwave Sym-posium, Atlanta, Georgia, June 1974.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. Washington Merry-Go-Round: "Brainwash"attempt by Russians? Washington Post, May 10, 1972,p. B-1S.

Anne, A., Saito, M., Salati, 0. M., & Schwan, H. P. Rela-tive microwave absorption cross sections of biologicalsignificance. In M. F. Peyton (Ed.), Biological effectsof microwave radiation. New York: Plenum Press, 1961.

Appleton, B., & Hirsch, S. Experimental microwavecataractogenesis. Annals of the New York Academy ofSciences, 1975, 247, 125-134.

Backster, C. Evidence of a primary perception in plantlife. International Journal of Parapsychology, 1968, 10,329-348.

Burr, H. S. Blueprint for immortality: The electric patternsof life. London: Spearman, 1972.

Burr, H. S. The fields of life. New York: BallantineBooks, 1973.

Cleary, S. F. (Ed.). Biological effects and health implica-tions of microwave radiation—Symposium proceedings(U.S. Public Health Service Publication No. BRH/DBE-2). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, 1970.

Czerski, P. (Ed.). Biologic effects and health hazards ofmicrowave radiation. Warsaw: Polish Medical Publishers,1974.

d'Arsonval, A. Production des courants de haute frequenceet de grande intensite, leurs effects physiologiques.Compte Rendu Societe Biologie (Paris), 1893, 45, 122.

Foster, K. R., & Finch, E. D. Microwave hearing: Evi-dence for thermoacoustic auditory stimulation by pulsedmicrowaves. Science, 1974,185, 256-258.

Frey, A. H. Auditory system response to radio frequencyenergy. . Aerospace Medicine, 1961, 32, 1140-1142.

Frey, A. H. Behavioral biophysics. Psychological Bulletin,1965, 63, 322-337.

Frey, A. H., & Messenger, R., Jr. Human perception ofillumination with pulsed ultrahigh frequency electro-magnetic energy. Science, 1973,181, 356-358.

Guy, A. W.,' Chou, C. K., Lin, J. C., & Christensen, D.Microwave induced acoustic effects in mammalian audi-tory systems and physical materials. Annals of the NewYork Academy of Sciences, 1975, 247, 194-218.

Hunt, E. L., King, N. W., & Phillips, R. D. Behavioraleffects of pulsed microwave irradiation. Annals of theNew York Academy of Sciences, 1975, 247, 440-453.

Johnson, C. C., & Guy, A. W. Non-ionizing electromagneticwave effects in biological materials and systems. Pro-ceedings of the IEEE, 1972, 60, 692-718.

Justesen, D. R., & King, N. W. Behavioral effects of low-level microwave irradiation in the closed space situation.In S. F. Cleary (Ed.), Biological effects and health im-plications of microwave radiation—Symposium proceed-ings (U.S. Public Health Service Publication No. BRH/DBE 70-2). Washington, B.C.: U.S. Government Print-ing Office, 1970.

Justesen, D. R., King, N. W., & Clarke, R. L. Unavoidablegridshock without scrambling circuitry from a faradicsource of low-radio-frequency current. Behavior ResearchMethods and Instrumentation, 1971, 3, 131-135.

Justesen, D. R., Levinson, D. M., Clarke, R. L., & King,N. W. A microwave oven for behavioural and biologicalresearch: Electrical and structural modifications, calori-


metric dosimetry, and functional evaluation. Journal ofMicrowave Power, 1971, 6, 237-258.

Justesen, D. R., Levinson, D. M., & Justesen, L. R.Psychogenic stressors are potent medicators of the thermalresponse to microwave radiation. In P. Czerski (Ed.),Biologic effects and health hazards of microwave radia-tion. Warsaw: Polish Medical Publishers, 1974.

Justesen, D. R., Pendleton, R. B., & Porter, P. B. Effectsof hyperthermia on activity and learning, PsychologicalReports, 1961, 9, 99-102.

King, N. W. The effects of low-level microwave irradiationupon reflexive, operant, and discriminative behaviors ofthe rat. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofKansas, 1969.

King, N. W., Justesen, D. R., & Clarke, R. L. Behavioralsensitivity to microwave radiation. Science, 1971, 172,398-401.

King, N. W., Justesen, D. R., & Simpson, A. D. Thephoto-lickerandum: A device for detecting the lickingresponse, with capability for near-instantaneous pro-gramming of 'variable quantum reinforcement. BehaviorResearch Methods and Instrumentation, 1970, 2, 125-129.

Korbel, S. F. Behavioral effects of low intensity UHFradiation. In S. F. Cleary (Ed.), Biological effects andhealth implications of microwave radiation—Symposiumproceedings (U.S. Public Health Service Publication No.BRH/DBE-2). Washington, D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 1970.

Korbel-Eakin, S., & Thompson, W. D. Behavioral effectsof stimulation by UHF fields. Psychological Reports,1965, 17, 595-602.

Lakhovsky, G. La cabale; Histoire d'une decouverte(L'oscillation cellulaire). Paris: Doin, 1934.

Marha, K. Maximum admissible values of HF and VHPelectromagnetic radiation at work places in Czechoslo-vakia. In S. Cleary (Ed.), Biological effects and healthimplications of microwave radiation—Symposium pro-ceedings (U.S. Public Health Service Publication No.BRH/DBE 70-2). Washington, B.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 1970.

Peyton, M. F. (Ed.). Biological effects of microwaveradiation. New York: Plenum Press, 1961.

Phillips, R. D., Hunt, E. L., & King, N. W. Field mea-surements, absorbed dose, and biological dosimetry ofmicrowaves. Annals of the New York Academy ofSciences, 1975, 247, in press.

Presman, A. S. Electromagnetic fields and life. New York:Plenum Press, 1970.

Schwan, H. P. Interaction of microwave and radio fre-quency radiation with biological systems. In S. F.Cleary (Ed.), Biological effects and health implicationsof microwave radiation—Symposium proceedings (U.S.Public Health Service Publication No. BRH/DBE 70-2).Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.

Scripture, E. W. The new- psychology. New York:Scribner's, 1899.

Sharp, J. C., Grove, H. M., & Gandhi, O. P. Generationof acoustic signals by pulsed microwave energy. IEEETransactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, 1974,22, 583-584.

Shelley, M. W. Frankenstein (or, the modern Prometheus).London: Colburn & Bentley, 1831.

Susskind, C. Discussion: Future needs in research on thebiological effects of microwave and R. F. radiation. InS. Cleary (Ed.), Biological effects and health implicationsof microwave radiation—Symposium proceedings (U.S.Public Health Service Publication No. BRH/DBE 70-2).Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.

Tolgskaya, M. S., & Gordon, Z. V. Pathological effects ofradio waves. New York: Plenum Press, 1973.

Tompkins, P., & Bird, C. The secret life of plants. NewYork: Harper & Row, 1973.

Tyler, P. E. (Ed.). Biological effects of nonionizingradiation. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,1975, 247, in press.

Wade, N. Fischer-Spassky charges: What did the Russianshave in mind? Science, 1972, 177, 778.

Zaret, M. M. Selected cases of microwave cataract inman associated with concomitant annotated pathologies.In P. Czerski (Ed.), Biologic effects and health hazardsof microwave radiation. Warsaw: Polish Medical Pub-lishers, 1974.


microwaves and behavior€¦ · yet wonder from lakhovsky's perspective why the human central...

Documents