Talk:High-energy radio-frequency weapons

message: I read the "What Wikipedia is not" bit and I couldn't see quite what in that page you feel applies to the HERF page.  Does anyone care to elaborate?
I agree. The HERF article may be a little short for a Wikipedia article, but in terms of its content I cannot see any reason for this entry to be expunged from the encyclopedia.
I removed the unencyclopedic warning from this page.  It was added by an unregistered user, and since I'm the third on this talk page to vote for keeping this article, I acted in that direction.
Note:  Future editors to this talk page please sign your comments by following it with four tildes.
Alexlockhart 05:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

message: I can't tell from the article text why it would belong to the mind control category. Shall I remove it? --The Extremist [User, Talk] 15:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When used against a living target, a HERF weapon can make them feel hot and queasy. I suppose the ability to make someone suddenly feel queasy from a distance is somewhat like mind control, but it's a stretch. Plus, the article doesn't even describe that scenario. 205.175.225.22 (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mind Control? 

message: One source is a blog, the other is a news article that contradicts what was written. According to the article existing HERFs are being tested against biological targets as non lethal crowd control, but the wiki entry makes no mention of this and says they are used against electronics (which they theoretically can and in some tests have been).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.146.9 (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is bullshit! --91.49.239.160 (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Should be deleted=

message: I believe that this article entirely misunderstands the acronym HERF.  Corrected, this would be a very useful article.
I believe that HERF is one of several U.S. Navy acronyms concerning safety measures required by the considerable electromagnetic flux produced by the often extremely powerful weapon, sensor, and communication systems aboard warships and warplanes and is not a specific reference to radio frequency weapons.
The most authoritative source to support my contention is http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/acquisition/RFR/default.htm, which gives a good explanation of HERO, HERP, and HERF.  This site also agrees with my (now-dimming) memories of these safety programs from my considerable time in the U.S. Navy.  I remember HERO being the highest-profile of the three.  (These programs have become less visible to the Fleet sailor over time.  I suspect that this has a lot to do with the relative decline in use of high frequency (HF) communications over time.  From the prespective of the shipboard observer, emitted HF energy is nearly uniformly distributed throughout the ship as the entireity of most combatants is within the nearfield of a shipboard HF emitter.  Higher-frequency emissions are more localized to their emitters and thus are less of shipwide concern.)
Here are some related acronyms and references.
*HERO - Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordnance http://www.nablc.navy.mil/safety/explosivessafety.htm
*HERF - Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Fuel http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/acquisition/RFR/default.htm
*HERP - Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Personnel http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/acquisition/RFR/default.htm
*E3 - Electromagnetic Environmental Effects http://www.dau.mil/pubs/pm/pmpdf00/luccm-j.pdf
What does the community think about a complete rewrite to reflect the U.S. Navy usage?
--23:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Worthwhile, but entirely incorrect article