Olympic NP- Electro Magnetic Warfare Range

Perhaps you know, but it's very possible that you may not. The plans by the navy to tarnish the park but turning it into a high-speed jet trafficking electromagnetic warfeild is underway and has been largely covert. This is a BIG deal for reasons that are obvious and go without saying, no need to rant.

Below is a link to a petition for stopping the madness. I encourage everyone to get onboard with this.

www.change.org/p/undersecretary-robert-b...&utm_medium=copylink

Not this pile of FUD again.

"The real story here is the fact that kill teams in training will be conducting covert operations in and around residential communities and on public lands without our knowledge," she said.

Sullivan believes the general public needs to be concerned about the Navy's actions, along with the ongoing domestic military expansion as a whole, because they both present "an unprecedented and unlawful taking of public and private space for military activity." She points out that there is no plausible justification for the Navy's incursion into urban areas.

"The Navy has millions of acres of Defense Department land to train in," Sullivan said. "Now they're using and closing portions of our national forests. Why do they need to invade our neighborhoods, too?"

She also sees another threat from the Navy's exercises in state parks and private lands: the normalization of military activity "in our lives and in places where it has historically never been."

Like Gallant, Sullivan is not opposed to the military conducting trainings, in itself. She objects to the training happening in places where people live, work and recreate, and without the informed consent of the public.

"We object to the shell game that has passed for public process," Sullivan said. "We object to the Navy's apparent contempt for the laws of the land, and to the fact that the military is steadily moving off the millions of acres of land the public has given it for training, in order to practice warfare among us, the very citizens it is supposed to protect."

Learn more at:

www.truth-out.org/news/item/34367-exclus...n-domestic-war-games

truthoutdocs.cloudaccess.net/documents/1...FINAL_19AUG15-MP.pdf

truthoutdocs.cloudaccess.net/documents/1...FINAL_19AUG15-MP.pdf

I saw some military jets traveling east over Blue mtn on friday. First a pair of them and then one on its own a little later. Most of the commercial planes were headed North.

I tried to research as much as I could when news of this first came out a few months ago. From what I gathered:

- 10% increase in existing military air traffic over the peninsula
- temporary closure of logging roads no hiker would ever travel on anyway
- mobile microwave transmitter towers emitting no more radiation than a cell tower

It really didn't seem like as big a deal as the hysterics would suggest.

I tried to research as much as I could when news of this first came out a few months ago. From what I gathered:

- 10% increase in existing military air traffic over the peninsula
- temporary closure of logging roads no hiker would ever travel on anyway
- mobile microwave transmitter towers emitting no more radiation than a cell tower

It really didn't seem like as big a deal as the hysterics would suggest.

This is a BIG deal and the concerns are hardly hysterics especially to human and other inhabitants living under deafening Growler traffic overhead!!

This is a quote from the November 18 2014 letter the National Park Service wrote in response to the Navy's proposed Electronic Warefare Range:

Regarding Olympic NP specifically-Under Chapter 2, Section 2.7.1.1, it states that, "The Navy would increase the tempo of  air combat maneuver training from 160 events per year to 550 events per year due to the introduction of locally based EA-18G aircraft." This is an increase of 244%. Under Section 2.7.1.4 "Electronic Warfare," it states that, "Under Alternative 1 (the preferred alternative), the Navy proposes an increase in Electronic Warfare training from 2,900 events per year to 5,000 events per year with the proposed increase of additional electronic threat emitters in the Study Area." This is an increase of 72.4%. While the emitter sites identified in the Pacific Northwest Electronic Warefare Range/EA are not within the boundary of ONP, the military overflights are within the Olympic MOA which includes a portion of the non-coastal and nearly all of the coastal Congressionally-designated wilderness within ONP. ONP already receives complaints from visitors of very low flying military aircraft buzzing peaks and valleys wthin the wilderness area, outside of Olympic MOA.

Doctor Martin L Pall Phd Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Science, WA State University summs up the Navy's EA this way:

"In summary, then, regarding human, animal or plant effects of the EMFs it plans to use for electronic warfare: 1. The Navy today is at least 2000 times less knowledgeable than the Navy was 44 years ago in 1971; the Navy today is also at least 10,000 times less knowledgeable today than it should be. 2. The Navy provides not a single experimental study on biological effects of the EMFs it plans to use in the Olympic Peninsula. It provides, therefore not an iota of biological evidence to support any of its claims. 3. It provides not even a single citation to the scientific literature to support its claims. 4. The Navy claims are based entirely on the position that only thermal effects need be considered, a position that the Navy knew to be false 44 years ago and a position contradicted by many thousands of published scientific studies. That position is also contradicted by widespread scientific opinion expressed continuously over the past 44 years. 5. Low-intensity microwave frequency EMFs have been shown to produce the following effects in humans and other mammals via non-thermal mechanisms: Oxidative stress; genotoxicity including single and double strand breaks in cellular DNA as well as 8-hydroxyguanine residues in cellular DNA; these are thought, in turn to cause cancer when they occur in the somatic cells of the body; these are thought to also cause germ line mutations when they occur in germ cells, producing in turn deleterious mutations in future generations; male and female infertility; massive damage to the nervous system which in the brain produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects – such widespread neuropsychiatric effects were known to the Navy as shown in its 1971 report; breakdown of the blood brain barrier; cardiac effects including tachycardia and also bradycardia associated with arrhythmias and arrhythmias are known to often lead to sudden cardiac death – such cardiac effects were already known to the Navy as shown by its 1971 report; melatonin depletion and insomnia. The Navy provides not one iota of evidence to show that each of these effects will not be caused by the electronic warfare EMFs in the civilian population of the Olympic Peninsula. It is also of great concern that similar effects may well occur in the pilots of the F18 planes involved. 6. It can be seen from 5 above, that low intensity EMFs attack each of the 4 things we most value as individuals and as a species: Our health, our brain function, the integrity of our genomes and our ability to produce healthy offspring. The EIS provides not one iota of evidence that these 4 things will not be produced in civilians of the Olympic Peninsula and in the F18 pilots by the electronic warfare EMFs." Read the entire letter here:

westcoastactionalliance.org/wp-content/u...Elect_MartinPall.pdf

More comment letters from the public, Sierra Club, Seattle Audubon, to the Navy's proposed Electronic Warfare Range can be found here:
westcoastactionalliance.org/documents/comment-letters

The USFS Olympic region has received close to 4000 comments regarding their plans to approve a permit to allow the Navy to use local roads to place electronic emitters.

Read some of those comments here:

cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//ReadingRoom?Project=42759

1. The Navy today is at least 2000 times less knowledgeable than the Navy was 44 years ago in 1971; the Navy today is also at least 10,000 times less knowledgeable today than it should be

That statement seems very odd. Doesn't sound like something a reputable scientist would say.




The claims you cite are in contradiction to the navy claims. Do you have a link to the document where those claims were made by the navy?

The current information I can find here:

www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnrnw/om/envir...iew-information.html

says the following:

The number, duration, and frequency of aircraft flights in the operating area are only projected to increase by 10%, which equates to an average increase of one flight per day. These are not low altitude flights, and most go unnoticed as our crews train in these areas today. As the number and duration of flights are not expected to increase significantly, and the typical flight profile is not planned to change, there is no expected change in aircraft noise.

and:

The Navy has no intention of flying at low altitudes or at speeds above the sound barrier. The mission requires the aircraft to be able to directly observe the emitters, typically flying at altitudes of 10,000 feet or greater. Low altitude flight does not support the training. Supersonic flight above the United States is tightly controlled by the FAA plus, when our planes conduct this training, they do not fly supersonic.

And regarding the mobile emitters:

The intensity or power level from the mobile emitter equipment can be varied from
100 to 300 watts. It is expected that normal power output during training activities will be at the
lower end of this range and about 100 watts, as high output is not needed or desired for this type
of signal. For comparison, many of us use 60-100 watt light bulbs at home. In another
comparison, many commercial radio stations in the Puget Sound area have antenna power output
of 100,000 watts or more.

and:

Though there will not be any harm to humans or animals from this equipment and
training, the Navy has added protective measures to even further reduce any potential for humans
or animals to be near the equipment when in operation. The emitters, which are at least 14 feet
above the ground, put out narrowly-focused, directional electronic signals that will be pointed
skyward toward the Pacific Ocean. Set up in this direction, the mobile emitters pose no threat to
people or animals below the emitters on the ground. Risk to animals or humans would only occur
if they put themselves in the direct path of the signal, above the emitter, and close to the source
of the signal for an extended period of time. Additionally, the Navy has implemented a 100-foot
safety zone around the vehicles and mandated that crews shut down the emitters if people or
animals are within that safety zone when the vehicles are in operation. This will make it so that
there is virtually no chance that anyone will come near the vehicles while in operation without
the operators knowing it.
The Navy will follow the rules and procedures set forth by the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) C95.1a-2010, “IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to
Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz,” as amended
16 March 2010. Additionally, the Navy, as well as the other armed services, have decades of
experience successfully operating similar fixed and mobile emitters at a variety of locations
across the nation. There is a long history of these systems being safely employed to provide our
aviators the training they need without incident or adverse effects.

That statement seems very odd. Doesn't sound like something a reputable scientist would say.

Dr. Martin L Pall PHD is Prof. Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Wa State University.

The growler overflights to and from the NWTT encompass much of the Olympic Peninsula are often performed below 10,000 ft.  My family and many others have seen them flying as low or lower than 500 feet.  It is common to hear and see them soaring above the ridgetops of Klahanne, Hurricane, Deer Park etc. ONP is a Designated Wilderness, A UNESCO (whc.unesco.org) World Heritage site and Biosphere Reserve. It seems like the Navy could find less sensitive areas to fly, Mountain Home Idaho. Yakima Firing Range.

Please show me where in the Environmental Assessment the Navy addresses the amount of Electronic Radiation that is emitted FROM a Growler on a training flight?


The claims you cite are in contradiction to the navy claims. Do you have a link to the document where those claims were made by the navy?

Yes. The Navy's own Environmental Assessment pg. 34 Table 2.2-1  Total MEWTS Operations in the Olympic MOAS www.navfac.navy.mil/content/dam/navfac/N...September%202014.pdf

If you think that the Navy is the only source of credible information regarding the impacts of Electromagnetic Radiation on Human Health and the Environment then you have no need to look any further than their Environmental Assessment. 

"What’s happening:

Updated November 2015: First, some numbers: 260 days per year, 8-16 hours per day, up to 153 of the loudest jets on the planet, capable of 150 decibels, burning 1304 gallons per hour and producing more carbon dioxide in one hour of flying than the average Washington citizen produces in a year or a car produces in 29,000 miles of driving—flying right over Washington’s spectacular and famously quiet Olympic Peninsula. This is a major change to the way things once were.

The US Navy plans to permanently use and periodically close large swathes of the Olympic National Forest, along with airspace over it and the Olympic National Park as well as the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, for electromagnetic warfare testing and training. They are also ramping up their use of explosives and sonar and training activities in the waters surrounding the Olympic Peninsula. Their stated goal is to turn the western portion of the Olympic Peninsula and surrounding waters into an Electromagnetic Warfare Range. This means electronic warfare will be practiced over our homes, public lands and waters, and massive sonar and explosive activity will occur in the rich waters surrounding Washington’s Olympic Peninsula, in perpetuity.

The Navy’s Northwest Training Range extends from the innermost reaches of Puget Sound to the outer coast of Washington, and south to the Lost Coast region of California in northern Mendocino County. It goes out 250 nautical miles from the coast. Just the ocean part encompasses an area larger than the State of California. A lawsuit resulted in some concessions by the Navy to respect biologically sensitive areas in Hawaii and Southern California until 2018, but no such concessions apply in the Pacific Northwest." Quotes courtesy of Westcoast Action Alliance

For those that are new to this issue please go to:  westcoastactionalliance.org/overview/whats-happening

The growler overflights to and from the NWTT encompass much of the Olympic Peninsula are often performed below 10,000 ft. My family and many others have seen them flying as low or lower than 500 feet. It is common to hear and see them soaring above the ridgetops of Klahanne, Hurricane, Deer Park etc. ONP is a Designated Wilderness, A UNESCO (whc.unesco.org) World Heritage site and Biosphere Reserve. It seems like the Navy could find less sensitive areas to fly, Mountain Home Idaho. Yakima Firing Range.

The Navy claims that none of these additional flights would be below 10,000ft (not that growlers don't fly lower, just that the electronic warfare training requires flights to be above 10000ft).

Thanks for the link to the navy document, I'll look through it.

As for Dr Martin Pall, he's certainly very-well quoted on EMF conspiracy sites, but I can't find any published scientific papers by him. I've found some youtube videos where he claims electromagnetic radiation causes all illnesses, basically. Not saying it's untrue, but AFAIK there aren't any conclusive scientific studies for these kinds of things.

The Navy claims that none of these additional flights would be below 10,000ft (not that growlers don't fly lower, just that the electronic warfare training requires flights to be above 10000ft).

My point is that even if the training flights are done above 10,000 ft. The routes to and from the actual training ranges are well below 10,000. feet. The reality is that the jets are flying anywhere they want, anytime they want, at any elevation they want.

Thanks for the link to the navy document, I'll look through it.

As for Dr. Martin Pall, he's certainly very-well quoted on EMF conspiracy sites, but I can't find any published scientific papers by him. I've found some youtube videos where he claims electromagnetic radiation causes all illnesses, basically. Not saying it's untrue, but AFAIK there aren't any conclusive scientific studies for these kinds of things.

Contact:
Martin L. Pall, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences
Washington State University
(1*) 503-232-3883
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Main web site: www.thetenthparadigm.org
German web site: www.martinpall.info/

Dr. Pall is quoted profusely in this Dec. 2014 article Dahr Jamail wrote for Truthout:

www.truth-out.org/news/item/28009-docume...-humans-and-wildlife

You don't have to be anti Navy to be Anti Growler. There are many retired Navy pilots that don't want to see or hear Growlers flying over the Park!

My main concern is the degredation of a pristine wilderness area from Growler activity. The simple fact is that Olympic National Park or North Cascades National Park, are not appropriate places to conduct Electronic Warfare Training or create a new Military Range where one did not exist. This is likely my final post on this issue. I hope this discussion will inspire some of the lurkers here to delve deeper into the surface!

As an old EM3 I am predispositioned to ignore any non engineering officers playing around overhead so I have appreciated the additional info on the issue.

Yes. The Navy's own Environmental Assessment pg. 34 Table 2.2-1  Total MEWTS Operations in the Olympic MOAS www.navfac.navy.mil/content/dam/navfac/N...September%202014.pdf

So this doesn't make any mention of the increase in air traffic associated with the proposed changes. It just lists the hours that the mobile emitters would be in use.

Regarding Olympic NP specifically-Under Chapter 2, Section 2.7.1.1, it states that, "The Navy would increase the tempo of  air combat maneuver training from 160 events per year to 550 events per year due to the introduction of locally based EA-18G aircraft." This is an increase of 244%. Under Section 2.7.1.4 "Electronic Warfare," it states that, "Under Alternative 1 (the preferred alternative), the Navy proposes an increase in Electronic Warfare training from 2,900 events per year to 5,000 events per year with the proposed increase of additional electronic threat emitters in the Study Area." This is an increase of 72.4%

I don't see these numbers anywhere in the document linked above (and there is no section number 2.7.1.1). At any rate, wherever those numbers come from (do you have a link to another navy document that describes them?), they don't necessarily correlate to an equivalent increase in air traffic (just an increase in EM warfare training events).

The thing that would worry me most is an increase in noise. And the only claims I can find from the Navy state that there would be a 10% increase in air traffic and no increase in perceived noise.

The transmitters involved here are weak, far away, and produce non-ionizing radiation.

There is absolutely no threat, no noticeable change, that could ever be attributed to the EM radiation produced in these tests.

Noise might increase if more jets flight more often.

The Navy's statements, from what I've read and discerned, are weak at best.

Similar to stopping coal trains, and methanol plants from being constructed; I'm interested in a stop to all of this environmental-exploitation and on-going rationalizing of our natural resources. These ignorant, age-old, EGOcentric behaviors need to cease.

Thanks for those who have signed and posted. Here are a few more links that may be redundant to what's been posted on this thread... Nonetheless...

Peace


www.truth-out.org/news/item/34367-exclus...n-domestic-war-games


files.ctctcdn.com/f1c93a4d401/9c40fd14-f...d4a-52786f64f390.pdf

So this doesn't make any mention of the increase in air traffic associated with the proposed changes. It just lists the hours that the mobile emitters would be in use.

I don't see these numbers anywhere in the document linked above (and there is no section number 2.7.1.1). At any rate, wherever those numbers come from (do you have a link to another navy document that describes them?), they don't necessarily correlate to an equivalent increase in air traffic (just an increase in EM warfare training events).

The thing that would worry me most is an increase in noise. And the only claims I can find from the Navy state that there would be a 10% increase in air traffic and no increase in perceived noise.

An increase in EM warfare training events means that there will be a direct increase in air traffic.  The signals that are being emitted are for the Growlers to pick up. Section 2.7.1.1 is in the January 2014 DRAFT EIS available on the Navy's own web site.

How can you have an increase in air traffic and no increase in perceived noise. The Navy would have you to believe that this whole Peninsula is so vast and unpopulated that there is nobody around to perceive the increase in noise.

The new missions could be at a high enough altitude that you do not hear them.

An increase in EM warfare training events means that there will be a direct increase in air traffic.  The signals that are being emitted are for the Growlers to pick up. Section 2.7.1.1 is in the January 2014 DRAFT EIS available on the Navy's own web site.

To be clear, I said it doesn't correlate to an equivalent increase in air traffic. You claimed (or insinuated) a 72% increase in EM training events meant a 72% increase in military air traffic. That's incorrect, because most military traffic is not EM training.

You can throw numbers around like that to scare or cleverly deceive people, but it's disingenuous.

Thus, while there may be a 72% increase (or whatever) in EM training events, that can still be consistent with the 10% increase in air traffic that the Navy is claiming.

The Navy would have you to believe that this whole Peninsula is so vast and unpopulated that there is nobody around to perceive the increase in noise.

An the navy wouldn't really be wrong in that:

Jefferson County               17 people per sq mi
Grays Harbor County         37 people per sq mi
Clallam County                 42 people per sq mi
Mason County                  63 people per sq mi
King County                    983 people per sq mi
Manhattan County NY   71,672 people per sq mi

To be clear, I said it doesn't correlate to an equivalent increase in air traffic. You claimed (or insinuated) a 72% increase in EM training events meant a 72% increase in military air traffic. That's incorrect, because most military traffic is not EM training.

You can throw numbers around like that to scare or cleverly deceive people, but it's disingenuous.

Thus, while there may be a 72% increase (or whatever) in EM training events, that can still be consistent with the 10% increase in air traffic that the Navy is claiming.

Those figures are quoted from the National Parks Service in their letter to the Navy. I am not making them up. I am making them available for you to see. 

Yes, this is scary stuff and I am afraid.  I don't want to see precious public lands sacrificed for the mlitary war games, or electromagnetic warfare.   Look at the documents. There is nothing clever, deceiving or disingenuous about the truth.   

This isn't the only place in the world where military expansionism is occuring.

In a January 8 2015 article by Carol Miller Connecting the Dots: US Military Expansionism – at Home and Around the World she writes, "The Pentagon has transformed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) into a sham and a shame. NEPA never protects any “environment,” it just tells the public, at great cost, how the Pentagon and its contractors intend to despoil."

lajicarita.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/conn...nd-around-the-world/

”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.”  Ben Franklin

...

”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.”  Ben Franklin

You should at least get the quote right:

Benjamin Franklin wrote: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

You should at least get the quote right:

Thanks Randy. I am duly chastened. 

The latest from Westcoast Action Alliance

"On Sunday, May 1, official resolutions opposing the Navy's plans and highlighting their lack of regard for public health and the environment were passed (most of them unanimously) at Democratic County Conventions in Jefferson, Clallam, and San Juan Counties. Click on the county names to read the draft versions as submitted. The Clallam County resolution calls for the Navy to abandon its plans for an electronic warfare range over our communities and public lands; the Jefferson County resolution calls for a complete EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) on the electronic warfare range and a chance for authentic participation by the public, and the far more detailed resolution from San Juan County lays out a set of actions that must be taken in order to preserve public health and environmental and economic integrity. 

Does public opposition get results? Yes.
1.) The Army has withdrawn its request to use the North Cascades for combat helicopter landings due to public opposition. Senator Patty Murray helped on that one, so now it's time to ask for her help with the Navy encroachment.
2.)  The Forest Service has pushed back the permit for the mobile emitters on Olympic National Forest roads by 21 months, for the same reason. Latest news is the "objection period" for letters from the public will start in June, in preparation for their September decision announcement.
3.)  As of May 3, 2016, the Navy still hasn't signed its final Record of Decision on the ocean-based part of its activities described in its October 2015 EIS, called Northwest Training and Testing, because the Endangered Species Biological Opinion by the Fish and Wildlife Service is still not complete. The USFWS is keenly aware of public concerns, and this 7-month delay is unprecedented.
4.)  The Navy also pushed back their Draft EIS on Growler jets to autumn, for reasons that are unclear.
5.)  News media are picking up on military encroachment on public lands, waters and in skies over our communities, and on the ethical lapses leading to wrongdoing. Our media page is frequently updated with stories.

List of ways the public is getting results:
Presentations to various local commissions, health boards and Tribes: Several
Public presentations in various locations: at least 15
Social media sites: at least 8
Numbers of opposition groups formed: At least 20
Letters to editors of local papers: Too many to be counted
Written public comments to Forest Service: 4,000
Written public comments accepted by Forest Service: 3,300
Written public comments accepted by Navy for official record: 1054
Written and oral public comments not accepted by Navy: At least 1,000
Form letters of objection to Navy: 9,700
Petitions objecting to proposed Navy activities: At least 5
Numbers of petition signatures: At least 150,000.
County resolutions passed: at least 4 (including two in 24th Legislative District)
Number of news articles/op-eds in 2014: 5
     (including L.A. Times piece on this topic flying under the public radar)
Number of news articles/op-eds in March-April 2015: 38
Number of news articles/op-eds in March-April 2016: 59

Opposing unfair decisions by our government still works. All those letters to editors you've been writing, all the letters to politicians at national and local levels, all that sharing of posts on social media, plus comments on what few public documents we are allowed to comment on, and calls to officials when Navy jets fly too low, are helping to increase public momentum."