THE FREY EFFECT
news.omega
hear microwave frequency sources. This is something that is very
familiar to me since my EHS problems started. I could hear the radio-
frequency hum when being close to the airport or anywhere close to a
mast or Wi-Fi. Apart from the clinical symptoms described in the
context of the Microwave Syndrome, the Frey Effect is another evidence
that adds up to the ethically forbidden interactions of microwaves
with human cells. The definition of health provided by the World
Health Organization prohibits this type of interaction with human
beings: "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being
and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity". In more recent
years, this statement has been modified to include the ability to lead
a "socially and economically productive life", which I cannot do
because I lost my profession to microwaves. Why doesn't Emily Perkins
van Deventer say a word about the Frey Effect? Why does Maria Neira
remain in the most funeral silence? Isn't Chiyoji Ohkubo supposed to
know about the Frey Effect, being as he is, a key figure in an inter-
national institution like the World Health Organization? Should we
speak of "directors" or accomplices of the cell phone industry?
Does it pay to have Repacholi removed only to be replaced by another
physicist or by an engineer? When are we victims going to start
the legal attack on all those who are responsible of our disease?
Carlos Sosa
P.S.: I have copied and pasted the following text from this web page:
http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/mindcontrol/Frey_paper.htm
<http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/mindcontrol/Frey_paper.htm>
1962 Journal of Applied Physiology 17(4) pages 689-692.
ALLAN H. FREY
General Electric Advanced Electronics Center
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
Frey, Allan H., Human Auditory system response to modulated electromag-
netic energy. J. Appl. Physiol. 17(4): 689-692. 1962.
Note: The intent of this paper is to bring a new phenomena to the
attention of physiologists. Using extremely low average power
densities of
electromagnetic energy, the perception of sounds was induced in normal
and
deaf humans. The effect was induced several hundred feet from the
antenna
the instant the transmitter was turned on, and is a function of carrier
frequency and modulation. Attempts were made to match the sounds
induced
by electromagnetic energy and acoustic energy. The closest match
occurred
when the acoustic amplifier was driven by the rf transmitter's
modulator.
Peak power density is a critical factor and, with acoustic noise of
approximately 80 db, a peak power density of approximately 275 mw / rf
is
needed to induce the perception at carrier frequencies 125 mc and 1,310
mc. The average power density can be at rf as low as 400 _u_w/cm2. The
evidence for the various positive sites of the electromagnetic energy
sensor are discussed and locations peripheral to the cochlea are ruled
out.
Received for publication 29 September 1961.
A significant amount of research has been conducted with the effects of
radio-frequency (rf) energy on organisms (electro- magnetic energy
between
1 kc and ** Gc). Typically, this work has been concerned with
determining
damage resulting from body temperature increase. The average power
densities used have been on the order of 0.1-t w/cm2 used over many
minutes to several hours.
In contrast, using average power densities measured in microwatts per
square centimeter, we have found that ****r effects which are
transient,
can be induced with rf energy. Further, these effects occur the instant
the transmitter is turned on. With appropriate modulation, the
perception of different sounds can be induced in physically deaf, as
well
as normal, in human subjects at a distance of inches up to thousands of
feet from the transmitter. With somewhat different transmission
parameters, you can induce the perception of severe buffeting of the
head,
without such apparent vestibular symptoms as dizziness or nausea.
Changing
transmitter parameters down, one can induce a "pins-and-needles"
sensation.
Experimental work with these phenomena may yield information on
auditory
system functioning and, more generally, in the nervous system function.
For example, this energy could possibly be used as a tool to explore
nervous system coding, possibly using Neider and Neff's procedures (1),
and for stimulating the nervous system without the damage caused by
electrodes.
Since most of our data have been obtained of the "rf sound" and only
the
visual system has previously been shown to respond to electromagnetic
energy, this paper will be concerned only with the auditory effects
data.
As a further restriction, only data from human subjects will be
reported,
since only this data can be discussed meaningfully at the present time.
The long series of studies we performed to ascertain that we were
dealing
with a biological significant phenomena (rather than broadcasts from
sources such as loose fillings in the teeth) are summarized in another
paper (2), which also reports on the measuring instruments used in this
work.
The intent of this paper is to bring this new phenomenon to the
attention
of physiologists. The data reported are intended to suggest numerous
lines
of experimentation and indicate necessary experimental controls. Since
we
are dealing with a significant phenomenon, we decided to explore the
effects of a wide range of transmitter parameters to build up the body
of
knowledge which would allow us to generate hypotheses and determine
what
experimental controls would be necessary. Thus, the numbers given are
conservative; they should not be considered precise, since the
transmitters were never located in ideal laboratory environments.
Within
the limits of our measurements, the orientation of the subject in the
rf
field was of little consequence.
Most of the transmitters used to date in the experimentation have been
pulse modulated with no information placed on the signal. The rf sound
has
been described as being a buzz, clicking, hiss, or knocking, depending
on
several transmitter parameters, i.e., pulse width and pulse-repetition
rate (PRF). The apparent source of these sounds is localized by the
subjects as being within, or immediately behind the head. The sound
always
seems to come from within or immediately behind the head no matter how
the
subjects twists or rotates in the rf field.
Our early experimentation, preformed using transmitters with very short
square pulses and high pulse-repetition rates, seemed to indicate that
we
were dealing with harmonics of the PRF. However, our later work has
indicated that this is not the case; rather, the rf sound appears to be
incidental modulation envelope on each pulse, as shown in Fig 1. Some
difficulty was experienced when the subjects tried to match the rf
sound
to ordinary audio. They reported that it was not possible to
satisfactorily match the rf sound to a sine wave or to white noise. An
audio amplifier was connected to a variable bypass filter and pulsed by
the transmitter pulsing mechanism. The subjects, when allowed to
control
the filter, reported a fairly satisfactory match. The subjects were
fairly
well satisfied with all frequencies below 5-kc audio were eliminated
and
the high- frequency audio was extended as much as possible. There was,
however, always a demand for more high-frequency components. Since our
tweeter has a rather good high-frequency response, it is possible that
we
have shown an analogue of visual phenomenon in which people see farther
into the ultraviolet range when the lenses is eliminated from the eye.
In
other words, this may be a demonstration that the mechanical
transmission system of the ossicles cannot respond to as high a
frequency
as the rest of the auditory system. Since the rf bypasses the ossicle
(a
bone in the inner ear ed.) system and the audio given the subject for
matching does not, this may explain the dissatisfaction of our
subjects in
the matching.
FIG. 1. Oscilloscope representation of transmitter output over time
(pulse-modulated).
TRANSMITTER ELECTRONIC NOISE
|--(INCIDENTAL MODULATION)
|
\/
:.:.:.: :.:.:.:
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
--- --------------- -----------
ON OFF ON OFF
FIG. 2. Audiogram of deaf subject (otosclerosis) who had a "normal"
rf sound threshold.
-10|----|----|----|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
0|----|----|----|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--| A = RIGHT BONE
| | A | | | | | | | | |
|----|----B----A--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--| B = LEFT BONE | | | B | A | |
| | | | |
LOSS(db) 20|----|----|----B--B--AB-B--B--B--AB-|--| C = LEFT AIR
| | | | | | | A | | | |
|----|----|----|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--| D = RIGHT AIR | | | | | | | |
| | | C
40|----|----|----|--|--|--|--|--|--|--C--|
| | C C C | | | | | C | |
|----C----|----D--|--C--C--C--|--D--D--D | | D | D | | D | | | |
60|----D----|----|--|--D--|--|--|--|--|--|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|----|----|----|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--| | | | | | | | | | | | |
80|----|----|----|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|----|----|----|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--| | | | | | | | | | | | |
100|----|----|----|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|
125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000
FREQUENCY (cps)
TABLE 1. Transmitter parameters
Trans- Frequency, Wave- Pulse Width, Pulses Sec. Duty Cy.
mitter mc length, cm _u_sec
A 1,310 22.9 6 244 .0015
B 2,982 10.4 1 400 .0004
C 425 70.6 125 27 .0038
D 425 70.6 250 27 .007
E 425 70.6 500 27 .014
F 425 70.6 1000 27 .028
G 425 70.6 2000 27 .056
H 8,900 3.4 2.5 400 .001
FIG. 3. Attenuation of ambient sound with Flent antinoise stopples
(collated from Zwislocki (3) and Von Gierke (4).
|----|---|--|--|-|-|-|||----|---|--|-||| | | | | | | | ||| | | | |||
|----|---|--|--|-|-|-|||----|---|--|-||| A = FLENTS | | | | | | | |||
| | | |||
10|----|---|--|--|-|-|-|||----|---|--|-||| B = THEORETICAL LIMIT
| | | | | | | ||| | | | ||| OF ATTENUATION BY
FUNCTION(db) |----|---|--|--|-|-|-|||----|---|--|-||| EAR PROTECTORS
A | | | | | | ||| | | | |||
|----A---|--|--|-|-|-|||----|---|--|-||| B | A A A | A AAA A| | | |||
|----B---B--|--|-A-|-|||----A---|--|-||| | | | | B | | ||| | A | | |||
30|----|---|--|--|-|-|-B||----|---A--|-A||
| | | | | | | ||| | | A |A|
|----|---|--|--|-|-|-|||B---|---|--|-||A | | | | | | | ||| B | | | |||
|----|---|--|--|-|-|-|||----|---|--|-||B | | | | | | | ||| B | | B||
|----|---|--|--|-|-|-|||----|---|-B|-||| | | | | | | | ||| | B | | |||
50|----|---|--|--|-|-|-|||----|---|--|-|||
| | | | | | | ||| | | | |||
|----|---|--|--|-|-|-|||----|---|--|-||| | | | | | | | ||| | | | |||
|----|---|--|--|-|-|-|||----|---|--|-||| 100 1000 10000
FREQUENCY
TABLE 2. Threshold for perception of rf sound (ambient noise level 70-
90 db).Peak
Avg Peak Peak Magnetic
Power Power Electric Field
Trans- Frequency, Duty Cy. Density, Density Field amp.
mitter mc mw, cm2 mw, cm2 v cm turns, m
A 1,310 .0015 0.4 267 14 4
B 2,982 .0004 2.1 5,250 63 17
C 425 .0038 1.0 263 15 4
D 425 .007 1.9 271 14 4
E 425 .014 3.2 229 13 3
F 425 .028 7.1 254 14 4
FIG. 4. Threshold energy as a function of frequency of electromagnetic
energy (ambient noise level 70-90 db).
10000|---------|-------------|--------------|
|---------|-------------|--------------| PEAK
|---------|-------------|--------------|
POWER |---------|-------------|-------------*|
DENSITY |---------|-------------|------------*-| (mw/cm2) | | | * |
|---------|-------------|---------*----| | | | * |
|---------|-------------|------*-------| | | | * |
| | | * |
| | | * |
1000|---------|-------------*--------------|
|---------|-----------*-|--------------|
|---------|---------*---|--------------| | | * | |
|---------|-----*-------|--------------| | * * * * * * * | |
|---------|-------------|--------------| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
100|---------|-------------|--------------|
200 1000 2000 3000
FREQUENCY (mc)
FIG. 5. Microwave power distribution in a forehead model neglecting
resonance effects and considering only first reflections (from Nieset
et
al. (5), modified).
| REFLECTED ABSORBED
1.5|--- FREQUENCIES FREQUENCIES
| * *
| * * * = 10% OF INCIDENT
CENTIMETERS |Cortical * POWER
|Tissue *
| * @ = 20% OF INCIDENT
1.0|--- * POWER
| *
| * *
|Bone
| * *
|
0.5|--- * @ @ @ *
|Muscle * @ @
|Fat @ @ *
|Skin @ @ @
0|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|---
0 100 1000 10000 100000
FREQUENCY (mc)
FIG. 6. Area most sensitive to electromagnetic energy (shaded
portion).
* * * * * *
* *
* *
* * :::::: *
* * ::::::::: *
* O * :::::::: *
* * * *
* * *
* * *
*** ** *
* * *
* * * * *
* *
* *
* * * * * * * * *
At one time in our experimentation with deaf subjects there seemed to
be a
clear relationship between the ability to hear audio above 5 kc and the
ability to hear rf sounds. If a subject could hear above 5 kc, either
by
bone or air conduction, then he could hear the rf sounds. For example,
the
threshold of the subject whose audio gram appears in Fig. 2 was the
same
average power density as our normal subjects. Recently, however, we
have
found people with a notch around 5 kc who do not perceive the rf sounds
generated by at least one of our transmitters.
THRESHOLDS
As shown in Table 1, we have used a fairly wide range of transmitter
parameters. We are currently experimenting with transmitters that
radiate
energy at frequencies below 425 mc, and are using different types of
modulation, e.g., pulse-repetition rates as low as 3 and 4/sec. In the
experimentation reported in this section, the ordinary noise level was
70-90 db (measured with a General Radio Co. model 1551-B sound level
meter.) In order to minimize the rf energy used in the experimentation,
subjects wore Flent antinoise ear stoppers whenever measurements were
made. The ordinary noise attenuation of the Flents is indicated in
Fig. 3.
Although the rf sounds can be heard without the use of Flents, even
though
they have an ambient noise level of 90 db, it appears that the ambient
noise to some extent "masked" the rf sound.
Table 2 gives the thresholds for the perception of the sounds. It shows
fairly clearly that the critical factor in the perception of the rf
sound
is the peak power density, rather than the average power density. The
relatively high value for transmitter B was expected and will be
discussed
below. Transmitter G has been omitted from the table since the 20-
mw/cm2
reading for it can be considered only approximate. The
field-strength-measuring instruments used in that experiment did not
read
high enough to give an accurate reading. The energy from transmitter H
was
not perceived, even when the peak power density was as high as 25
w/cm2.
When the threshold energy is plotted as a function of the rf energy
(Fig.
4), a curve is obtained which is suggestive of the curve of
penetration of
rf energy into the head. Figure 5 shows the calculated penetration, by
frequency of rf energy, into the head. Our data indicate that the
calculated penetration curve may well be accurate at the higher
frequencies but the penetration at the lower frequencies may be greater
than that calculated on this model.
As previously noted, the thresholds were obtained in a high ambient
noise
environment. This is an unusual situation as compared to obtaining
thresholds of regular audio sound. One recent experimentation leads us
to
believe that, if the ambient noise level were not so high, these
threshold
fields strengths would be much lower. Since one purpose of this paper
is
to suggest experiments, it might be appropriate to theories as to what
the
rf sound threshold might be if we assumed that the subject is in an
anechoic chamber. It is also assumed that there is no transducer
noise.
Given: As a threshold for the rf sound, a peak power density of 275
mw/cm2
determined in an ambient noise environment of 80 db. Earplugs attenuate
the ambient noise 30 db.
If: 1 mw/cm2 is set equal to o db, then 275 mw/cm2 is equal to 24 db.
Then: We can reduce the rf energy 50 db to -26 db as we reduce the
noise
level energy from 50 db to o db. We found that -26 db rf energy is
approximately 3 _u_w/cm2.
Thus: If an anechoic room, rf sound could theoretically be induced by a
peak power density of 3 _u_w/cm2 measured in free space. Since only
10% of
this energy is likely to penetrate the skull, the human auditory system
and a table radio may be one order of magnitude apart in sensitivity
to rf
energy.
RF DETECTOR IN AUDITORY SYSTEM
One possibility that seems to have been ruled out in our
experimentation
is that of a capacitor-type effect with the tympanic membrane and oval
window acting as plates of a capacitor. It would seem possible that
these
membranes, acting as plates of a capacitor, could be set in motion by
rf
energy. There are, however, three points of evidence against this
possibility. First, when one rotates a capacitor in an rf field, a
rather
marked change occurs in the capacitor as a function of its orientation
in
the field. When our subjects rotate or change the positions of their
heads
in the field, the loudness of the rf sound does not change appreciably.
Second, the distance between these membranes is rather small, compared
with the wavelengths used. As a third point, we found that one of our
subjects who has otosclerosis xheard the rf sound.
Another possible location for the detecting mechanism is in the
cochlea.
We have explored this possibility with nerve-deaf people, but the
results
are inconclusive due to factors such as tinnitus. We are currently
exploring this possibility with animal preparations.
The third likely place for the detection mechanism is the brain. Burr
and
Mauro (6) presented evidence that indicates that there is an
electrostatic
field about neurons. Morrow and Sepiel (7) presented evidence that
indicates the existence of a magnetic field about neurons. Becker
(personal communication) has done some work indicating that there is
longitudinal flow of charged carriers in neurons. Thus, it is
reasonable
to suspect that possibly the electromagnetic field could interact with
neuron fields. As yet, evidence of this possibility is inconclusive.
The
strongest point against it is that we have not found visual effects
although we have searched for them. On the other hand, we have obtained
other nonauditory effects and have found that the sensitive area for
detecting rf sounds is a region over the temporal lobe of the brain.
One
can shield, with a 2-in.2 piece of fly screen, a portion of the
stippled
area shown in Fig. 6 and completely cut off the rf sound.
Another possibility should also be considered. There is no good reason
to
assume that there is only one detector site. On the contrary, the work
of
Jones et al. (8), in which they placed electrodes in the ear and
electrically stimulated the subject, is sufficiently relevant to
suggest
the possibility of more than one detector site. Also, several
sensations
have been elicited with properly modulated electromagnetic energy. It
is
doubtful that all of these can be attributed to one detector.
As mentioned earlier, the purpose of this paper is to focus the
attention
of physiologists on an unusual area and stimulate additional work on
which
interpretations can be based. Interpretations have been deliberately
omitted from this paper since additional data are needed before a clear
picture can emerge. It is hoped that the additional exploration will
also
result in an increase in our knowledge of nervous system functions.
REFERENCES:
1.Neider, P.C. and W.D. Neff. Science 133: 1010, 1961. 2.Frey, A.H.
Aero
Space Med. 32: 1140, 1961. 3.Zwislocki, J. Noise Control 4:42, 1958.
4.Von
Gierke, H. Noise Control 2:37, 1956. 5.Nifset, R., Pinneo R. Baus J.
Fleming, & R. McAfee. Ann. Rept. USAF Rome Air
Development Command, TR-61-65, 1961.
6.Burr, H., & J. Seipel, J. Wash Acad. Sci. 21: 455, 1949. 7.Morrow,
R., &
J. Seipel. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 30: 1, 1969. 8.Jones, R.C., S.S.
Stevens, &
M.H. Laurie. J. Acoust. Sci. Am. 12: 281, 1940.
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___