Talk:Microwave auditory effect

message: PLEASE CHANGE Electronic warfare SECTION FROM
"an MAE system they called MEDUSA"
TO
a Military Aerospace Electronics system they called MEDUSA 
THANK YOU 49.197.59.191 (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it not referring to the subject of this article, "Microwave auditory effect"? The acronym should be expanded in any case, as it would be clearer. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Nope. The source says it's microwave auditory effect. I also don't see any mention of it being deployed from the sky. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 16:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2020 

message: A recent edit to the article mentioned the report by the NASEM, citing the NYTimes, which took the report pretty seriously. Another editor reverted their addition, suggesting that the report was too low-key to be taken as seriously as the Times took it. I disagree with this assessment, not having read the report, only the Times article, which states:
"Though couched in careful, scientific language, the new report reveals strong evidence that the incidents were the result of a malicious attack. It attributes the illnesses to “directed” and “pulsed” — rather than “continuous” — energy, implying that the victims’ exposure was targeted and not the result of more common sources of microwave energy, such as, for example, a cellphone."
It also said the committee found the immediate symptoms that patients reported — including strange sensations of pain, pressure and sound that often appeared to emanate from a particular direction, or occurred in a specific spot in a room — were more consistent with a directed “attack” of radiofrequency energy."
Is the Times not considered a WP:RS on the subject of the report? I would like to reinstate User:Steve hoge's edit, linked above. What think ye?--Quisqualis (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The report hasn't been released yet, see WP:TOOSOON -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also worth pointing out that even the NYT reporters say that the report cannot rule out other causes. To me, that intimates that the interpretation the NYT puts on the report may not be the wikipedia interpretation, and we should not be writing based on the NYT as yet. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 19:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The NYTimes attributed the facts of the article as "according to a copy of the report obtained by The New York Times."  At the time I searched the NASEM site for the report and couldn't find it, and inferred that it might not ever be publicly available, and that the Times article could be the best we'd get. However, in fact it was WP:TOOSOON: the report HAS now been released at https://www.nap.edu/read/25889/chapter/1 so the reference to the NYTimes article may be completely superfluous and this entry might better point directly to the NASEM report. Steve hoge (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just downloaded the article as well. Agree sourcing to the report will be ideal.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 

message: How is auditory effect defined in EU legislative?
    • 1998 ICNIRP guidelines, page 14: "People with normal hearing can perceive pulse-modulated fields with frequencies between about 200 MHz and 6.5 GHz. The auditory sensation has been variously described as a buzzing, clicking, or popping sound, depending on the modulation characteristics of the field." https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf
    • Non-binding guide to good practice for implementing Directive 2013/35/EU, page 87: "The first indication of exposure to high frequency fields may be the sensation of warmth. However, this may not always be the case and feeling warm is not a reliable warning signal. It is also possible to 'hear' pulsed fields between 300kHz to 6Ghz, so clicking, buzzing or hissing noises may be heard by exposed workers."
http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=14741&langId=en&usg=AOvVaw2pm_f1PoHltXjnkj3uqgc3 Petenka (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you have questions about this topic, this isn't the place for that. Try WP:RD, or, you know, an actual lawyer? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  22:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2021 

message: I'm taking issue with this quote from Kenneth Foster, as it does not accurately reflect the power levels needed:
"Experts, such as Kenneth Foster, a University of Pennsylvania bioengineering professor who published research on the microwave auditory effect in 1974, have discounted the effectiveness of the proposed device. Foster said that because of human biophysics, the device 'would kill you well before you were bothered by the noise'. According to former professor at the University of Washington Bill Guy, 'There’s a misunderstanding by the public and even some scientists about this auditory effect,' and 'there couldn’t possibly be a hazard from the sound, because the heat would get you first'."
These figures are from James Lin's recently released "Auditory Effects of Microwave Radiation":
"The auditory effect RF energy thresholds were observed at 16 +/- 4 millijoules per pulse. The auditory threshold of RF pulse widths greater than 200 microseconds occurred at an average peak power level as low as 20W for surface coils."
16 millijoules per pulse, even with longer pulse bursts, does not make the RF/microwave source into some kind of heat ray. These pulses are high peak power, but the pulse lengths are so short that there's low average power. For someone with published research on the subject, Kenneth Foster does not seem to know that the RF energy threshold above would not cause a perceptible dielectric heating sensation.
Also consider the following quote from Don Justesen's "Behavioral and psychological effects of microwave radiation":
"the radiofrequency hearing effect depends on an energy dose three orders of magnitude below the threshold of detectable warming"
References:
RrabEkim (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I see Foster's opinions in the cited IEEE article are specifically discussing audio/heating effects of an MAE system called MEDUSA, and they are properly attributed to him rather than stated in WP's voice. Finding generalized sources in order to refute someone's attributed opinion would be WP:OR. You'd need a source specifically discussing the MEDUSA system that contradicts or offers an opinion differing from Foster. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose what I'm suggesting is that Foster should not be quoted at all. Proper attribution really has nothing to do with the fact that his quotes are stating things that don't align with the established thresholds, and are misleading. The same generalized energy density thresholds apply to the MEDUSA system, just like they apply to any system based on the microwave auditory effect. Unless Foster is saying they specifically designed the MEDUSA to also cause intentional heating, somewhat like the Active Denial System? When what Foster is saying about the heating effect from the microwave auditory effect is not accurate at all, he should not be used as a primary source for that section of the article. RrabEkim (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reread the source . There are apparently 3 experts quoted, Foster, Bill Guy, and James Lin. Maybe you should correspond with IEEE to discuss your problems with their article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electronic warfare section, Kenneth Foster quotes 

message: I read this information about microwave hearing written by "like an echo in the forest" and it is not written from a neutral point of view in my opinion. 
Sincerely
 wtkqb Wtkqb (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2021 

message: Lol
Yet it's mentioned as some crazy conspiracy theory 
I can show you the patent as it sits in the patent database. 
Not on some conspiracy website,  the Google patent database 75.138.186.215 (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but it’s not following you around beaming thoughts into your head because you’re so special and important that the government will spend billions of dollars to make you sound crazy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

text: The existence of a patent isn't proof of working technology.  Or that the person filing the patent is necessarily sane, and not abusing the patent process for the purposes of satire.  AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  V2K is/was an experimental transducer system for military pilot comms that literally has to be mounted in the helmet within millimeters of the skull to have any efficiency. The conspiracy theory is (a) that it can somehow work at miles-long distances, and (b) that governments are using it to victimize ordinary people. And BTW, I noticed [this] exists. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  This isn't true of the microwave audio effect, why would it be true of v2k? It works really well on the high-end at WiFi router frequencies, I know how far my router reaches, and my router is way less powerful at -30dBm to -60dBm, and anything below 2.4 would just travel further 2601:18C:4200:3E0:84B0:2196:6BB2:8AA7 (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

text: They literally had people understanding words from the microwave auditory effect in the early 1970s.  That said, the only sources I trust are academic papers on the Microwave Auditory Effect, and there are plenty 2601:18C:4200:3E0:84B0:2196:6BB2:8AA7 (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voice to skull technology is a very real thing 

message: The United States Air Force has a patent on Microwave Auditory Effect or Radio Frequency Hearing Effect number 6470214. 2607:FB91:8CAB:4CBF:84F7:9399:1DB8:66EE (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2023 

message: The United States Air Force had a patent on Microwave Auditory Effect or Radio Frequency Hearing Effect from 1996 to 2016 number 6470214 named "Method and device for implementing the radio frequency hearing effect". 2607:FB91:8CAB:4CBF:84F7:9399:1DB8:66EE (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2023 (2) 

message: One of the protestors in the image is holding a sign mentioning Havana Syndrome and the text below the image says it's from 2009, however, according to the Wikipedia page on Havana Syndrome, the incidents only goes as far back as 2016 meaning the image could not have been from 2009.
So remove the date or replace it with the correct one, or explain if I'm wrong. FriedFrenchGuy (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be correct. The upload page on Commons  gives the 2009 date too. Very odd. And I don't think it is really appropriate to use a photo with identifiable individuals anyway, given that we state that they are promoting conspiracy theories associated with mental illness. I've removed the photo entirely for now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2023