Limits on the exposure to high-peak-power, short-duration microwave pulses have only recently been adopted. Additional data, however, are needed to understand the effects that may be produced by exposure to high-peak-power pulsed microwaves. Four male rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) were trained on an operant task for food pellet reward to investigate the behavioral effects of very high-peak-power 5.62 GHz microwaves. The operant task required monkeys to pull one plastic lever on a variable interval schedule (VI-25 s) and then respond to color signals and pull a second lever to obtain food. The monkeys were conditioned to perform a color discrimination task using one of three colors displayed by a fiber-optic cable. A red signal was the discriminative stimulus for responding on the first lever. A response on the second lever when a green signal was presented (1 s duration) delivered a food pellet. If a response on the second lever was made in the presence of a white signal, a 30-s timeout occurred. While performing the behavioral task, the monkeys were exposed to microwave pulses produced by either a military radar (FPS-26A) operating at 5.62 GHz or the same radar coupled to a Stanford linear energy doubler (SLED) pulse-forming device (ITT-2972) that enhanced peak power by a factor of nine by adding a high power pulse to the radar pulse. The effects of both types of pulses were compared to sham exposure. Peak field power densities tested were 518, 1270, and 2520 W/cm2 for SLED pulses and 56, 128, and 277 W/cm2 for the radar pulses. The microwave pulses (radar or SLED) were delivered at 100 pps (2.8 microseconds radar pulse duration; approximately 50 ns SLED pulse duration) for 20 min and produced averaged whole-body SARs of 2, 4, or 6 W/kg. Compared to sham exposures, significant alterations of lever responding, reaction time, and earned food pellets occurred during microwave exposure at 4 and 6 W/kg but not at 2 W/kg. There were no differences between radar or SLED pulses in producing behavioral effects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
D’Andrea et al. (1994) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: