by Marvin Ramírez
Marvin Ramírez
FROM THE EDITOR: Given the latest tsunamis, earthquakes and hurricanes that have stricken several nations in the world, leaving many deaths and destruction, there are beliefs – based on scientific analysis – that those events might have been man-made. El Reportero found the following article, which due to its length it will be published in seven parts. The is the sixth part.
In order to better read and follow up the complete story, we suggest you read part one, two and three in older editions in our website. You may access older editions at: https://elreporterosf.com/editions/?q=epublish/1.
— The FEIS and other Department of Defense documents indicate that interference problems would be too great to allow it to be located near other military facilities in Alaska. What kind of monster is it that they can’t even locate it near existing military bases?
Even the National Telecommunications and I n f o r m a t i o n A d – m i n i s t r a t i o n ( N T I A ) has reservations about HAARP transmissions.
They would only permit one of the test sites (Mineral Wells, Texas) to operate and so far have declined to extend all the requested frequency/power privileges necessary for the Alaska site. The enormous lobbying power of the military may overwhelm reason and force the NTIA to go along with the HAARP request. After all, Gakona is a “virtually uninhabited” area of the world. Electromagnetic radiation has drawn increasinginterest in the form of health impact studies and research worldwide. The HAARP project will generate massive amounts of intentional and some unintentional radiation.
The HAARP environmental impact statements deny possible biological effects on humans, citing obsolete IEEE standards that basically say if the radiation isn’t causing you to feelheat, it does not harm you. The preponderance of current studies indicate there can by promotion of cancer growth, disorientation, and other negative physical effects from low level, nonheating electromagnetic radiation. Why have our government agencies given their affirmation to something so clearly controversial?
After searching for answers to HAARP questions for the past year and a half, what has surfaced are very few answers and many more questions. How dangerous is HAARP (some physicists fear severe planetary consequences)? Commenting on HAARP in the April, 1994 issue of Physics and Society, C. L. Herzenberg says “…this technology does present issues thatneed to be publicly addressed by the technical community”. Can HAARP change the ionosphere and weather patterns?? Can HAARP disrupt worldwide communications?? Can HAARP damage or destroy wildlife?? Will HAARP radiation change the migration habits of animals that come near it?? Can HAARP cause cancer?? Can the ionospheric effects of HAARP be controlled??
Why has the project been kept low profile and secretive, by the sponsors and the contractor (an ARCO subsidiary)? IT WILL CONTINUE ON THE NEXT EDITION.
