ANGELS DON‘T PLAY THIS HAARP Advances in Tesla Technology

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 international
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