Chapter Twenty-six
SOFT SELL, THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - STATEMENT

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and its public hearings were completed long ago. There is no independent monitoring of the HAARP project or of the related University experiments. With the completion of the EIS process, the hurdle of "oversight" is over for the HAARP players, and nobody is looking over their shoulders. They now work without significant public scrutiny.

This type of project, is very different from projects which are monitored continually by independent inspectors with differing program goals than military and university scientists. The ionosphere belongs to the world. The immediate area belongs to Americans/Alaskans, who should be monitoring HAARP independently of its personnel.

The authors of this book believe that the HAARP activity should be monitored by a panel of multidisciplinary scientists, without conflicts of interest, who continually review the work under the oversight of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Moreover, laws should be passed to put enforcement teeth into the monitoring. This could be done by giving the oversight committee the power to freeze all state appropriations to the University if the project presents significant dangers not disclosed by the military or University.

This could halt the project if the University were otherwise unwilling to follow the recommendations of the oversight committee. In addition, as long as the local power generating company was controlled and operated as a member-owned cooperative with an elected Board of Directors, they could literally unplug HAARP if it eventually connects to the regional power grid. This could temporarily stop the project while the federal government argues in the courts about its power demand requirements.

The only real way to stop this project, and others like it though, is through international pressure. These military projects should have some international watchdog component, considering the fact that these programs could negatively impact other countries who are not declared enemies of the United States. What are the safeguards for any country tampering with atmospheric systems which we all rely on for life?

The environmental review process is supposed to explore all risks and impacts in a given project. It was the omission of significant international community review which led to disputes over thermonuclear testing, dumping waste into the open seas and other inter-national environmental problems. It is arrogant, and inexcusable, for any country to think they can create upper atmospheric energy litter without full disclosure and consent from the other countries which may, pay the price for these programs in the end.

While there may be some good effects from this technology, the negative possibilities are immense. Understanding the planet cannot occur by dissecting the ionosphere, yet another part of our living system. Environmental Impact Statements are supposed to be comprehensive and disclose all risks. These documents, and hearings, are not just some compliance hurdle to be jumped over by the military, the University and their contractors in their single minded pursuit of their program mission.

These are rules intended to inform the public and protect the environment from very real hazards. What are the environmental risks which were inadequately disclosed or explored in the public documents on the project?

The Navy, Air Force and University have not adequately defined the following risks, nor provided opportunities for public testimony after-ward:

1. Issues missing in the EIS include the possible impacts on the upper atmosphere. The military and the University should describe the amplification effects which occur in the ionosphere when Very Low Frequency radiation (VLF) impacts the magnetosphere creating a "charged particle rain" (as described in the Navy's research conducted by Lockheed and Stanford and referred to elsewhere in this book).
    

2. The issue of non-ionizing radiation has not been disclosed even though the Navy has cataloged and reviewed more than 1,000 research papers from around the world on this subject. The risks of this kind of systems' outputs have been explored by the Army, Navy, Air Force, CIA and others, and yet their research has not been mentioned at all in any of the HAARP records. Other records from these organizations are discussed elsewhere in this book, and will serve to dramatize the substantial risks and potential problems of the electromagnetic radiations being emitted from this system.
    

3. The Navy conducted international research, modeled after the work of Yale physiologist Jose MR. Delgado, M.D., which clearly showed that Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) energy waves cause significant increases in genetic mutation and alteration in animal embryos. This research may be extrapolated to infer the same kind of effects on human embryos.

    

   The use of ELF in the earth-penetrating tomography has been acknowledged by John Heckscher, HAARP Program Manager, although nowhere does he or anyone associated with the project discuss this research. The potential impact on animal life and people is never disclosed in the EIS. In fact, it is avoided, except for a couple of lines where the HAARP planners say there is no effect. When challenged on the issue, they say that the energy is being beamed up and not down, leaving out entirely the earth-penetrating tomography applications. It is likely that when challenged on this point they will say, as the government has in the past, that the energy level is small and not harmful.

    

   They have said it is about the same as that which naturally occurs in the earth. Even if this were true, research has shown that energy at l/50th of the Earth's natural strength - when pulsed in the right waveform, at the right frequency - will cause harmful physiological and psychological effects. The military is not disclosing their own research in this very important area.
    

4. Another one of HAARP's tricks, described by the military (see previous chapter) is moving the ionosphere in such a way as to allow satellites to operate in the space previously occupied by that section of the ionosphere. What does this do? It makes a hole so that all living things under that hole are irradiated, instead of being naturally shielded from them.

    

   The ionosphere is our natural umbrella which lets the good parts of the electromagnetic spectrum in and filters out the bad. Making holes without describing these risks is a gross miscarriage of responsibility by our university professors and defenders of peace - people that Americans, and all citizens of the world, should be able to trust.
    

5. The Eastlund patents also discuss molecular manipulation and weather manipulation. These applications are forbidden by international agreements, and are avoided in the HAARP documents. They are clearly described in the Eastlund patents and are alluded to in other govern-mental records.

These are the most glaring risks which require further clarification by our government. It is important that these and other possible risks be assessed independently through a process more complete than the normal Environmental Impact Statement. The ionosphere is not any country's national asset; it is an international asset and should not be tampered with unless all countries take part in the decisions which might otherwise result in our mutual demise.

 Are we so arrogant as a country to believe that we are the gods of the upper atmosphere and the keepers of the keys to possibly life and death on Earth?
 

Back to Contents