MILITARY MEDICINE, 172, 2:182, 2007
High-Intensity Acoustics for Military Nonlethal Applications:
A Lack of Useful Systems
Guarantor: James R. Jauchem, PhD
Contributors: James R. Jauchem, PhD; Michael C. Cook, PhD
There have been many previous claims of nonlethal acoustic
weapon effects, mostly in the popular rather than the scientific
literature. Anecdotal reports of extraordinary effects can make
meaningful assessment and review of this area very difficult.
Acoustics research has shown that the nonlethal weapon ca-
pabilities of audible sound generators have been grossly over-
stated. Although high-intensity infrasound significantly dis-
rupted animal behavior in some experiments, the generation of
such energy in a volume large enough to be of practical use is
unlikely because of basic physical principles. On the basis of
experimentation completed to date at a number of institutions,
it seems unlikely that high-intensity acoustic energy in the
audible, infrasonic, or low-frequency range can provide a de-
vice suitable for use as a nonlethal weapon.
Introduction
coustic energy includes sound in the audible frequency (20–
A 20,000 Hz) and infrasound (⬍20 Hz) ranges. In popular
press articles, there have been many previous claims of either
the potential usefulness or the actual existence of acoustic
weapons. To avoid conflicting and false expectations, it is essen-
tial that military commanders and policymakers understand the
real capabilities and limitations of nonlethal technologies before
putting them into the hands of troops. Narrow-band, high-in-
tensity, acoustic energy in the audible frequency range and
infrasound have been proposed for use as nonlethal weapons.
Some potential nonlethal weapons proposed for law enforce-
ment agencies may be adapted from military technology.1 One of
the most frequently cited technical needs, according to law en-
forcement officers and other individuals who coordinate agency
responses to terrorist incidents, is “improved nonlethal weapons
to apprehend terrorists.”2
The purposes of this article are to review anecdotal and lab-
oratory reports of acoustic weapon effects and to assess the
potential usefulness of high-intensity acoustic energy in nonle-
thal weapon applications, particularly in relation to psycholog-
ical effects. Potential underwater applications are not discussed
in this article.
In addition to journal articles, books, and book chapters (i.e.,
“publications” as strictly defined by Easterbrook et al.3), items
from the so-called “gray literature”4 (such as abstracts, proceed-
ings of meeting presentations, conference reports, technical re-
ports, patents, and official government documents) were used
for this review. Items were identified from the following electronic
databases: National Library of Medicine PubMed (including Med-
U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Human Effectiveness Directorate, Directed
Energy Bioeffects Division, Brooks City-Base, San Antonio, TX 78235-5147.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not
necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. government.
This manuscript was received for review in January 2006. The revised manuscript
was accepted for publication in July 2006.
Military Medicine, Vol. 172, February 2007
line), Biosis, Embase, Toxicology Literature Online (Toxline Spe-
cial), Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology/Environmental
Teratology Information Center database, Agricola, Inspec, JICST-
EPlus (Japanese Information Center for Science and Technology),
Pascal (Institut de l’Information Scientifique et Technique, Centre
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/172/2/182/4578046 by guest on 29 May 2021
National de la Recherche Scientifique), CAB Abstracts, Chemical
Engineering and Biotech Abstracts, Life Sciences Collection,
SciSearch, National Technical Information Service, Applied Sci-
ence and Technology Abstracts, Academic Search Premier, Master
File Premier, PsychInfo/Psychological Abstracts, Aerospace Data-
base, and Online Computer Library Center FirstSearch (including
General Science Index, Applied Science and Technology Index,
Electronic Collections Online, and ArticleFirst). Accounts from
newspaper articles were not included.
Previous Claims of Acoustic Weapon Effects
Audible Frequencies
A prototype “acoustic blaster” was described as “developed
and tested successfully.”5 Another acoustic weapon prototype
was alleged to produce effects “ranging from minor annoyance to
total incapacitation.”6 Arkin7 suggested that acoustic weapons
were so far advanced that deployment was imminent.
A complex waveform acoustic device was described as a pro-
totype nonlethal weapon.8,9 It was later portrayed as “a viable
crowd deterrent.”10 Van Williams11 listed several acoustic non-
lethal weapons “in advanced test and evaluation stages.” A de-
vice that could cause “emission of an acoustical pulsed periodic
stimulus” that “effectively suppresses determined human oper-
ations” was mentioned by Rynne.12 Lewer and Schofield13 stated
that acoustic weapons developed by Scientific Applications &
Research Associates were at an advanced stage of production.
Rappert and Wright14 noted that acoustic weapons “are thought
to offer unprecedented options” in nonlethal applications.
The United Kingdom has implemented export controls for
“acoustic devices represented by the manufacturers . . . as suit-
able for riot control purposes.”15 More recently, a device nick-
named the “acoustic bazooka,” more formally known as the
directed stick radiator or high-intensity directed acoustics, was
developed to serve as either a voice-hailing signal device16 or
supposedly a nonlethal weapon that makes “people turn as
green as grass” with sickness.17 The original research effort,
however, consisted of equipment development and was not in-
tended to evaluate aversive effects on humans.16 No results of
any such testing have been published, to date, in the scientific
literature. It has been suggested that the device could “have the
capacity to knock people off their feet.”18 A “long-range acoustic
device” has been deployed by the U.S. military in Iraq and by the
New York Police Department.19 The device was intended for use
as a communication device, however.20 Although some news
182
Acoustics for Nonlethal Applications
outlets have referred to recent uses of the long-range acoustic
device (e.g., on a cruise ship on November 7, 200521) as “nonle-
thal weapon” deployment, such systems are still described by
the manufacturer as “designed beneath pain thresholds” and
“not nonlethal weapons.”22 They have been represented else-
where as devices “designed to modify the behavior of personnel
with a high intensity warning tone”23 and to “deliver a shrill 145
dB tone . . . causing headaches and panic.”24
Ben-David25 recently reported that the Israel Ministry of De-
fence developed an acoustic device (dubbed “the shout”) that is
“capable of incapacitating crowds at a range of 100 m without
causing permanent physical damage.” Sound intensity or fre-
quencies were not disclosed, however. Such a system has been
described as the “shophar,” “a nonlethal, high power acoustic
radiator used for riot suppression.”26
In contrast to the enthusiastic descriptions mentioned above,
Moore and Freund27 correctly suggested that any aversive audi-
ble device should be considered “as a tool” to study acoustic
effects “and not a weapon.” Norbut28 also appropriately noted
that such acoustic devices were “still in the experimental phase
of development.” Altmann29,30 noted that many claims by Scien-
tific Applications & Research Associates or others regarding poten-
tial acoustic weapons were not accurate. Chaloner and Ryan31
considered acoustic weapons to be “unacceptable by currently
existing international treaties.” If prototypes of such devices can-
not be developed into effective weapons, however, evaluation and
discussion of the acceptability may be unnecessary.
Infrasound
Infrasound is generally defined as sound below 20 Hz. Anec-
dotal reports of extraordinary acoustic or infrasound weapon
effects can make meaningful assessment and review of this area
very difficult. A scientific journal article by Gavreau32 is often
cited in the popular literature as evidence of an accidental death
attributable to infrasound. Such an event, however, was not
reported in the article. Instead, the effects of infrasound were
described as “certainly unpleasant.” Altmann33 noted that
present-day scientists at the same institute have doubts about
Gavreau’s conclusions, because his experiments have not been
replicated.
In another report, an infrasound weapon device that pro-
duced one ultrasound frequency at 16,000 Hz and a second at
16,002 Hz, which would combine to form a “beat frequency” of 2
Hz, was described. Supposedly, “when the two frequencies mix
in the human ear, they become intolerable,” with people becom-
ing “giddy or nauseous” and, in extreme cases, fainting.34 This
“squawk box”35 (reported to have been built and tested by the
British Army) was portrayed as being highly directional, so that
it could be focused on individuals in a riot. It was later admitted
that this “weapon” was a hoax36 and was simply “disco gear”
mounted on two armored personnel carriers.37 In addition, Rehn
and Riggs,38 after performing a literature search, could find no
data to support the earlier claims of effects.
Observers invited to the Center for Testing of Devices with
Non-Lethal Effects on Humans in Moscow39 reported “a 10-Hz
acoustic generator which would be used to deliver a pulse about
the size of a baseball that could knock you down or more,
depending on how you power it.” It was suggested that the
handheld device could be “kicked up to lethal level.” Adams40
183
and Roush41 mentioned efforts by the U.S. military and other
militaries to build similar devices.
It has often been suggested that infrasound generators could
be powerful enough to trigger nausea or diarrhea.42 Acoustic
systems using infrasound could, in theory, cause a loss of mus-
cle control or unconsciousness.43 Exposure to 16 Hz has been
presumed to “make people feel nauseated and disoriented.”44
Remarkable properties have been attributed to infrasound, in-
cluding the capacity to “debilitate people for hours and even
days,” with “pulsing in their internal organs and blurred vision,
both of which can lead to . . ., in rare cases, death.”45 Thomas46
reported a claim in a Chinese military medical journal47 that an
infrasound weapon had already been developed and tested and
that the device was adjustable, to cause controllable amounts of
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/172/2/182/4578046 by guest on 29 May 2021
disorientation, nausea, vomiting, and incontinence. However,
the details of that work were not reported in the English litera-
ture. Bortz48 mentioned potential use by the Marine Corps of
“low frequency sound waves that can knock a person out but
cause no permanent damage.” Armies are alleged to have al-
ready deployed “devices generating infrasound.”49 Synetics
Corp.50 referred to one specific type of infrasound generator and
noted, “with sufficient energy, the resulting infrasonic waves
can be disabling or lethal.” A statement that “low frequency
infrasound systems were considered for use in Somalia”51 could
give readers the false impression that such weapons actually
exist and are viable options for commanders to use. Military
scenarios have even included the mock employment of infra-
sonic weapons.52
Simple “nuisances” caused by infrasound (without “weap-
onization potential”) were mentioned by Cabal and Roszak.53
Kuralesin54 postulated that “infrasound exposure is associated
with a hypothalamic crisis with sensory/somatovegetative
symptoms.” One system, known as the “infrapulse-generator,”
was assumed to have “strong biologic impact on wellness by
generating resonances in entire organs of the human body.”55
The resonances were “suspected to cause increasing of pulse-
beat frequency and in certain circumstances sudden nausea.”
No details on hypotheses for such effects were provided.
Possible Mechanisms Mediating Effects of Acoustic
Nonlethal Weapon Applications
Audible Frequencies
Potential effects of high-intensity acoustic energy in the au-
dible frequency ranges can be divided into three categories, (1)
aural effects (effects on hearing, including temporary or perma-
nent threshold shifts), (2) extra-aural effects mediated through
hearing and subsequent activation of the sympathetic nervous
system (e.g., increases in heart rate and blood pressure), and (3)
non-hearing-related extra-aural effects (e.g., pain, vertigo, nau-
sea, and vomiting). This review does not address aural effects in
any detail. Permanent damage to hearing would probably not be
acceptable in terms of policy considerations relating to the use
of nonlethal weapons.
Because of the acoustical “mismatch” between air and the
surface of a solid body, only a small percentage of incident
acoustical energy at higher audible frequencies is absorbed.
Below 1000 Hz, however, there is appreciable absorption of
airborne sound by the body. In very intense sound fields, wide-
Military Medicine, Vol. 172, February 2007
184
spread stimulation of somatic mechanicoreceptors can occur.56
At very low frequencies (below 100 Hz), the body responds as a
whole, and oscillations of the limbs, head, and chest may occur.
Moore et al.57 suggested that effects of exposure to acoustic
energy could be expected to range from “disorientation to even
lethality.” Noppen et al.58 speculated that exposure to music
from commercial loud speakers (ranging down to 30 Hz) could
have caused four cases of spontaneous pneumothorax.
Effects of impulsive sound (e.g., from “blast waves”) in ani-
mals and humans were reviewed extensively by Altmann33 and
are not discussed further in this article, with the exception of
one device that was tested at the Air Force Research Laboratory.
Another item, the vortex ring generator,59 is not strictly an
acoustic device but rather is designed to integrate modalities of
concussion, flash, chemicals such as malodors and tear gas,
and marker dyes into a single delivery system. Diversionary
devices such as “flash-bang grenades”60 are also not exclusively
acoustic devices. Therefore, additional details are not provided
in this review.
Infrasound and Low-Frequency Sound
Although by common definition low-frequency sound is in the
audible range, in this article the nonlethal weapon potential of
low-frequency sound and infrasound are jointly considered. On
the basis of animal experimentation, it is known that the atten-
uation of low-frequency sound in some body organs is much less
than that of high-frequency sound.61 Therefore, infrasound and
low-frequency sound may be more likely to be absorbed and to
have some effect on body function.
Some investigators have suggested that infrasound can di-
rectly affect the vestibular system, thereby inducing vertigo and,
potentially, motion sickness (see articles by Harris et al.62 and
Von Gierke and Parker63 for reviews). The mechanism of these
effects could be a change in the activity of the labyrinth and/or
otolith organs.
The idea that low-frequency vibrations may be used to make
people feel ill may be traced back to the observation that some
people feel queasy during earthquakes. Tesla reportedly dupli-
cated the effect with a “vibrating chair.”64 However, those observa-
tions were based on mechanical vibration in solids. The possible
responses to vibration include the degradation of performance and
the production of discomfort.65 Although it has been suggested
that there are parallels between the effects of low-frequency
sound/infrasound and vibration,66,67 mechanical vibration cou-
ples to the body much more efficiently than do airborne sound
waves. Therefore, intense levels of low-frequency noise would
be necessary to achieve the same level of discomfort resulting
from low-frequency vibration applied to the body via mechanical
contact.68
“Body resonance” could be important in correlating the me-
chanical amplification of vibration in various parts of the body
with physiological responses; that is, different parts of the body
are in resonance at varying frequencies.69 For example, Von
Gierke and Parker70 reported that human thoracoabdominal
viscera exhibit resonance at 4 to 6 Hz. Kjellberg and Wikström71
reported that stomach motility in humans is affected by whole-
body vibration (at 3 Hz and 6 Hz), as measured by electrogas-
trography. Changes in physiological function may be directly
attributable to the differential vibratory movement or deforma-
tion of particular body structures. Because sound couples to the
Military Medicine, Vol. 172, February 2007
Acoustics for Nonlethal Applications
body less efficiently than does mechanical vibration (as noted
above), the possible effect of infrasound on body organs with
different resonant frequencies is less clear. It has been hypoth-
esized that body resonances, such as the abdomen at 10 Hz and
the chest wall at 60 Hz, could be stimulated by high-intensity
infrasound.72 Unlike other investigators who suggested detri-
mental effects of infrasound, Arabadzhi73 hypothesized that in-
frasound of moderate intensity at frequencies of 8 to 13 Hz could
promote maintenance of a human’s state of alertness. This has
not been verified.
Previous Studies of Acoustic Effects
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/172/2/182/4578046 by guest on 29 May 2021
Audible Frequencies
Effects of high-intensity audible sound on the vestibular sys-
tem have been demonstrated in animal experiments. For exam-
ple, at frequencies of 500 Hz and 2000 Hz, stimulation of the
vestibular system of guinea pigs was demonstrated at sound
pressure levels of ⱖ142 dB.74 In studies of human subjects,
noise from jet engines (at levels of ⬃140 dB) produced distur-
bances in equilibrium.75
At sound pressure levels as low as 120 dB, resonances in the
nasal cavities or sinuses appear to be related to a heightened
sense of touch in that area of the body.76 Allen et al.77 reported
a tickling sensation in persons in the vicinity of a 165-dB sound
source. Becker et al.78 found that perceived workload was ele-
vated in personnel exposed to intermittent jet engine noise
(maximum of 95 dB).
Experiments were performed at the Air Force Research Lab-
oratory to determine whether narrow-band, high-intensity,
acoustic energy in the audible frequency range could be used as
a nonlethal weapon.79 Four acoustic devices were tested, (1) a
compressed air-driven siren (Scientific Applications & Research
Associates, Inc., Cypress, California), (2) a combustion-driven
siren (the dismounted battle space battlefield laboratory) (Sci-
entific Applications & Research Associates, Inc.), (3) an impul-
sive acoustic device (the sequential arc discharge acoustic gen-
erator) (U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Adelphi, Maryland),
and (4) a complex waveform generator (the Gayl Blaster, U.S.
Army Armament Research, Development & Engineering Center,
Picatinny, New Jersey). The compressed air-driven siren pro-
duces a high degree of airflow to create sound. Although expo-
sure to the device significantly affected the performance of some
rhesus monkeys, the effect was probably attributable to the
substantial airflow, which unavoidably passed directly over the
animals. The effects of the dismounted battle space battlefield
laboratory siren on goal-directed behavior (panel pressing for
food) of goats were both minimal and transient. Exposure to the
sequential arc discharge acoustic generator80 affected operant
behavior of swine but failed to significantly affect performance in
rhesus monkeys. The Gayl Blaster had no effects on behavior
(panel pressing) in goats. In summary, none of the four devices
tested would have obvious utility as a nonlethal weapon.
Audible sound can result in short-term reactions of a “startle
response” nature (e.g., increased heart rate, muscle tension,
and constriction of skin blood vessels). Studies of these effects
were reviewed by Jansen81 and are not addressed in detail here.
In general, levels of ⬎90 dB may be aversive to mammals and
cause startle responses.82
Acoustics for Nonlethal Applications
It is important to note that the effects of audible sound cannot
always be differentiated from those of infrasound.83 Infrasound
may be audible to humans at sufficient intensity, but it is also
easily masked by sound at higher frequencies.84
Infrasound and Low-Frequency Sound
There have been a number of reviews on the effects of infra-
sound and low-frequency sound on humans, including changes
in performance.62,63,66,85,86 Studies generally involved exposures
of short duration, at frequencies above the infrasound frequency
range, at ⬍154 dB. Some studies produced results suggesting
effects on performance, whereas others indicated a lack of ef-
fects. A review by Pawlaczyk-Luszczyńska87 reflects the lack of
studies of infrasound at high intensities in more-recent years.
Most studies of infrasound and low-frequency sound effects
on the human body have involved occupational aspects of
chronic exposures.67,88–90 Studies of potential acute effects of
infrasound were discussed previously.91 Effects discussed in-
cluded slight dizziness, nausea, and feelings of apprehension92;
coughing, choking, and a generalized stress reaction93; ear-
drum94 and skin95 vibration sensations; and annoyance and
fatigue.96 Slarve and Johnson97 found that humans reported a
small amount of chest or abdominal vibrations during exposure
to frequencies between 4 and 25 Hz, with a threshold at 8 Hz of
132 dB.
Borredon98 noted that 7.5-Hz infrasound at 130 dB for 50
minutes had a negligible effect on simple reaction time in men.
Borredon and Nathie99 exposed men to pure tones of infrasound
(again at 130 dB) and found that some subjects exhibited de-
creased performance on some tasks, whereas other subjects
actually exhibited improvements in performance. Kyriakides
and Leventhall100 reported no statistically significant effects on
task performance in subjects exposed to a band of infrasound
extending from 2 Hz to 15 Hz at 115 dB. The authors speculated
that performance on tasks of longer durations could potentially
be affected by infrasound; however, there has been no additional
evidence to support this claim. Moller101 found that the most
conspicuous effects in men and women exposed to frequencies
of 1 to 30 Hz (maximal sound pressure, 125 dB) were a feeling of
annoyance and a sensation of ear pressure. A decrement in
performance was noted during a cue utilization task; however,
there were no effects on eight other tasks (including tests of
logic, short-term memory, and reaction time). Nussbaum and
Reinis102 reported that most individuals tolerated exposure to 8
Hz at 130 dB for 30 minutes with no ill effects. In other studies,
humans exposed to 10 to 15 Hz at 130 to 135 dB for 30 minutes
exhibited no changes in hearing level, vestibular function, or
autonomic nervous functions.103 Faustov et al.104 noted a de-
crease in work capacity after 20 minutes of exposure to infra-
sound.
Landström et al.105 reported that exposure to infrasound at 95
and 110 dB caused drowsiness in human subjects. Ising et al.106
exposed 100 volunteers to infrasound and found no equilibrium
disturbances or nausea but stated that “infrasound acted as a
stressor and probably causes fatigue and a reduction in respi-
ratory rate.” Danielsson and Landström107 noted increased dia-
stolic blood pressure in men exposed for 30 minutes to 16-Hz
infrasound at a level of 95 dB. Nonspecific responses of humans
to infrasound (e.g., a temporary increase in heart rate) have
been reported.108 In a study by Okamoto et al.,109 body sway was
185
observed to be more prominent in humans exposed to infra-
sound of 15 Hz, compared with 10 Hz, but no changes in respi-
ration, blood pressure, pulse rate, and several other measures
were found.
Alker110 described a study performed by Wyle Laboratories in
1993, using human volunteers. The purpose of the study was to
investigate the feasibility of denying access to a bunker through
the use of high-intensity sound. An electromechanical sliding
valve modulated the release of compressed air into a room
5.18 m long, 4.27 m wide, and 3.05 m high. The most effective
frequencies were above the infrasound range (63 Hz and 100
Hz). Alker110 hypothesized that, although more-useful body res-
onances (in terms of an access-denial effect) would occur at
infrasound frequencies, only relatively low-intensity sound
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/172/2/182/4578046 by guest on 29 May 2021
could be achieved in the infrasound range.
Alves-Pereira111 reviewed possible extra-aural pathological
conditions attributable to high-amplitude (⬎90 dB), low-fre-
quency (defined by him as 0–500 Hz, thus including both infra-
sound and some audible frequencies) sound. The author dealt
mainly with the concept of noise-induced vibration and noted
that, although detrimental extra-aural effects have been sus-
pected, inconsistencies between studies did not allow definitive
conclusions. On the basis of experimental data, Huang et al.112
suggested that infrasonic fields may adversely affect mine-
sweeper crews’ psychological health, but implications for non-
lethal weapon effects are unknown.
Investigations with rodents have supplemented the human
studies. For example, Yamamura and Kishi,113 using a test to
measure equilibrium, found that endurance time of rats was
reduced by exposure to 16 Hz at 105 dB after 10 minutes.
Additional studies of rodents are not covered in this review.
In one series of experiments,114 tracking behavior of five adult
male rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) was substantially dis-
rupted by exposure to 10-Hz infrasound at 160 dB. There was
no evidence of any postexposure alterations in tympanometry,
distortion product otoacoustic emissions, or auditory brainstem
evoked potentials.
In another series,115 three micropigs (Sus scrofa) were exposed
to acoustic energy (40 and 80 Hz at 164 and 167 dB, respec-
tively) generated in a progressive wave tube by two Mark VI
acoustic generators (Team Corp., Burlington, Washington).
Large changes in air pressure were necessary to obtain high
sound levels (with obviously high volumes of air flowing directly
across the animals). No gross physiological effects were evident
after 1 to 2 minutes of exposure. Immediately after release from
the test chamber, the subjects showed normal ambulation (i.e.,
no vertigo) and readily consumed both food and water. There
was no evidence of incapacitation induced by the acoustic en-
ergy per se.
Exposure to infrasound of 10 to 20 Hz, in a reverberant
resonant chamber,95 had minimal impact on consummatory
and escape behavior. Rhesus monkeys performing a continu-
ous, compensatory-tracking task were also not substantially
affected.
Assessment of the Practicality of Using
Acoustic Weapons
Infrasound and other acoustic generators represent a com-
pletely new mode of weapons based on novel physical principles
Military Medicine, Vol. 172, February 2007
186
(compared with existing nonlethal weapons). This novel ap-
proach may be part of the attraction for some. In this case,
however, a lack of understanding of the physical principles
could lead to the premature development of “prototype weap-
ons” before testing or even reasonable consideration of such
principles has occurred. Studies mentioned above (e.g., Ref. 79)
have shown that the weapon capabilities of audible sound gen-
erators have been grossly overstated.
Vogel116 reviewed potential psychological effects of high-inten-
sity acoustic energy. He suggested that sound pressure levels
necessary to create annoyance (i.e., 115 dB) could be produced
out to ranges of 1000 feet but such effects would be of negligible
use as a nonlethal weapon.
One may consider useful indoor applications to be more
likely, because energy can be concentrated more easily. On the
basis of the previous work by Von Békésy117 and Von Gierke and
Parker,63 who reported a pain threshold in humans at a level of
140 dB at frequencies of 15 and 20 Hz, respectively, some of the
exposures in our indoor experiments (including those with a
sound pressure of 145 dB at 20 Hz) might have been expected to
cause noticeable effects. Such effects, however, were not seen in
experiments with either pigs or monkeys exposed to this high
sound level.95 This lack of effect is consistent with some of the
earlier work by Mueller and Mayes,118 in which squirrel monkeys
exposed to 2 Hz at 140 dB showed no evidence of discomfort.
Some of those exposures lasted for 6 hours.
A prototype acoustic test chamber, developed to support ex-
periments at infrasonic frequencies,119,120 can produce sound
pressures in excess of 140 dB. The test volume, however, is only
5 m3. Stagg121 developed a portable device capable of producing
⬎150 dB of infrasound (into a test volume of 30 cm3). Although
some experiments used technology that enabled achievement of
sound pressures as high as 165 dB (at 0.5 Hz), those studies
were performed using a small steel chamber. The use of infra-
sound in such small volumes would not appear to be relevant to
hostage rescue scenarios.
Harris and Johnson122 exposed humans to 7 Hz at 142 dB for
15 minutes and found no decrements in performance and no
subjective reports of dizziness or disorientation. The authors
concluded that potential adverse effects of infrasound had been
exaggerated in previous reports. Johnson123 stated, “. . . infra-
sound is an overrated phenomenon as far as some authors
would have you believe. Animals and people do not ‘fall apart’
due to infrasound. The ‘infrasonic death ray’ should at best be
confined to the comics.”
In a review of the technology, the Swedish Defence Material
Administration concluded that the possible danger attributable
to infrasound “has been much over rated.”124 According to Back-
teman et al.,125 the Swedish Board of Occupational Safety and
Health stated that there was no scientific proof of an association
between infrasound and consequences such as nausea and
malaise. Moller101 also suggested that extra-auditory effects of
infrasound “seem to have been exaggerated.” Bunker126 noted
that the alleged effects of infrasound for use as a nonlethal
weapon have been questioned because of contradictory evidence
presented in previous reports. Small127 speculated that forth-
coming technological innovations could result in an effective
acoustic weapon that would not be subject to problems of direc-
tion and attenuation. When discussing the practical limitations
Military Medicine, Vol. 172, February 2007
Acoustics for Nonlethal Applications
of technology, however, Altmann128 suggested that, because of
basic physical principles, the development of a useful weapon
using high-intensity acoustic energy is unlikely. Regarding in-
frasound, Altmann33 noted that “it turns out that infrasound or
prominent in journalistic articles or does not have the alleged
drastic effects on humans.” In another assessment of nonlethal
acoustic technology, no useful extra-aural behavioral effects
were reported.129 “Infrasound auditory devices” were included in
examples of programs that were discontinued after negative
assessments.130
Even if an effect could be obtained in a volume large enough
to be of use in a hostage rescue scenario, a notable limitation of
infrasound acoustics for use as a nonlethal weapon is the re-
quirement for large amplifiers and large-volume speakers.131
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/172/2/182/4578046 by guest on 29 May 2021
This may severely limit the mobility of any proposed weapon.
Swanson132 noted that, even though a small percentage of soci-
ety may be hypersensitive to infrasound, that aspect does not
constitute a basis for development of a nonlethal acoustic
weapon. As Heal133 pointed out, “even the most effective device
will have little value if it cannot be easily and quickly employed.”
The lack of practicality of using acoustic weapons has not
prevented several patents relating to such technology from be-
ing issued.134–136 Some research on potential acoustic nonlethal
weapon prototypes has continued despite the lack of a repeat-
able useful bioeffect.137 Murphy138 pointed out that, without
sufficient attention to bioeffects regarding nonlethal weapon
concepts (including acoustic energy), military services could end
up developing expensive hardware that would be operationally
useless.
Conclusion
On the basis of results of numerous investigators, it seems
unlikely that high-intensity acoustic energy in the audible, in-
frasonic, or low-frequency ranges will provide a device suitable
to be used as a nonlethal weapon.
Acknowledgments
All animal research at the Air Force Research Laboratory mentioned in
this review was performed in accordance with approved protocols under
the Federal Animal Welfare Act (PL 89-544), Department of Defense
Directive 3216, and Air Force Regulation 169-2.
References
1. Fischetti M: Less-than-lethal weapons. Technol Rev 1995; 98: 14 –5.
2. Stambaugh H, Tillery C, Schaenman P: Inventory of State and Local Law En-
forcement Technology Needs to Combat Terrorism. National Institute of Justice
Research in Brief 173384. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Justice, 1999.
3. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR: Publication bias in clinical
research. Lancet 1991; 337: 867–72.
4. Alberani V, De Castro Pietrangeli P, Mazza AM: The use of grey literature in health
sciences: a preliminary survey. Bull Med Library Assoc 1990; 78: 358–63.
5. Sze H, Gilman C, Lyon J, Naff T, Pomeroy S, Shaw R: Non-lethal weapons: an
acoustic blaster demonstration program. Presented at National Defense Indus-
trial Association Non–Lethal Defense III; February 25–26, 1998; Laurel, MD.
6. U.S. Army Research Office: High powered acoustic weapon. In: Advanced Con-
cepts and Technology II. Alexandria, VA, U.S. Army Research Office, 1995.
7. Arkin WM: Acoustic anti-personnel weapons: an inhumane future? Med Confl
Surviv 1997; 14: 314 –26.
8. Anonymous: NSAP funds student thesis research. Nav Postgrad School Res
1998; 8: 26.
Acoustics for Nonlethal Applications
9. Gayl F: High intensity sound as a nonlethal weapon. Mar Corps Gaz 1998; 82:
29 –30.
10. Anonymous: Survivability and force protection. Army Mater Command Sci Tech-
nol News 2000; 5: 1–3.
11. Van Williams T: Filling an Operational Requirement: The Nonlethal Approach.
Newport, RI, Naval War College, 1998.
12. Rynne T: Non-Lethal Devices: Federal Research in Progress: Small Business
Innovation Research 1996. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Commerce,
1996.
13. Lewer N, Schofield S: Non-Lethal Weapons: A Fatal Attraction? London, United
Kingdom, Zed Books, 1997.
14. Rappert B, Wright S: A flexible response? Assessing non-lethal weapons. Tech-
nol Anal Strateg Manage 2000; 12: 477–92.
15. Ministry of Defence: Strategic Export Controls: Annual Report. London, United
Kingdom, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Department of Trade and Indus-
try, 1999.
16. American Technology Corp.: Acoustic Bazooka Proof-of-Concept: Final Report.
Project K02TH082H00. San Diego, CA, American Technology Corp., 2002.
17. Kenyon HS: Cutting-edge sonic equipment offers many military applications.
Signal 2002; 56: 43– 6.
18. Lewer N: Non-lethal weapons: operational and policy developments. Lancet
2003; 362: 20 –1.
19. Davison N, Lewer N: Bradford Non-Lethal Weapons Research Project Research
Report 6. Bradford, United Kingdom, Centre for Conflict Resolution, University
of Bradford, 2004.
20. McQuery C: The Testimony of the Honorable Charles McQuery, Under-Secre-
tary, Directorate of Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transpor-
tation: Hearing on Enhancing Border Security. Washington, DC, U.S. Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 2004.
21. American Technology Corp.: Long range acoustic device. Defense Update, 2005.
Available at http://www.defense-update.com/products/l/LRAD.htm; accessed
October 22, 2005.
22. Pappalardo J: Acoustic systems enter homeland security market. Natl Def 2005;
90: 10.
23. Grimes J: Modeling Sound as a Non-Lethal Weapon in the COMBATXXI
Simulation Model. Naval Postgraduate School, Master’s Thesis, Monterrey,
CA, 2005.
24. Vinokur R: Acoustic noise as a non-lethal weapon source. Sound Vibrat 2004;
38: 19 –24.
25. Ben-David A: New non-lethal weapon shouts a warning to rioters. Jane Def Wkly
2004; 41: 14.
26. State of Israel, Ministry of Industry, Trade, and Labor: EORD has developed and
produced the “SHOPHAR.” Available at http://www.tamas.gov.il/CmsTamat/
ICAProfiles.aspx?id⫽48%20&Ptype⫽0; accessed December 20, 2005.
27. Moore HL Jr, Freund CT: Aversive audible acoustic devices. In: Proceedings of
the National Defense Industrial Association’s Joint Services Small Arms Sym-
posium, Exhibition, and Firing Demonstration. Crane, IN, Naval Surface War-
fare Center, 2000. Available at http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/nld4/moore.pdf.
28. Norbut GW: Non-Lethal Weapons: Force Enabler for the Operational Com-
mander Conducting Peace Operations. Newport, RI, Naval War College, 2001.
29. Altmann J: Acoustic weapons: myths and reality. In: Jane’s Non-Lethal Weap-
ons Conference: Fielding NLW for the New Millennium. London, United King-
dom, Jane’s Publishing, 1999.
30. Altmann J: Non-lethal weapons: the case for independent scientific analysis.
Med Confl Surviv 2001; 17: 234 – 47.
31. Chaloner E, Ryan J: Weapons and the law [letter]. Lancet 1999; 353: 2078.
32. Gavreau V: Infrasound. Sci J 1968; 4: 33–7.
33. Altmann J: Acoustic weapons: a prospective assessment. Sci Glob Secur 2001;
9: 165–234.
34. Anonymous: Army tests new riot weapon. New Sci 1973; 59: 684.
35. Rodwell R: “Squawk box” technology. New Sci 1973; 59: 667– 8.
36. Young R: Exotic audio research. Wire 1997; 157: 1–9. Available at http://
www.thewire.co.uk/archive/interviews/exotic_audio_research.html; accessed
December 21, 2005.
37. Home S: There’s no success like failure. Variant 1996; 2: 18 –9.
38. Rehn KW, Riggs PK: Non-Lethal Swimmer Neutralization Study. Technical doc-
ument 3138. Austin, TX, Applied Research Laboratories, University of Texas,
2002.
39. Anonymous: Russians continue work on sophisticated acoustic weaponry. Def
Electron 1994; 26: 12.
40. Adams J: The Next World War: Computers Are the Weapons and the Front Line
Is Everywhere. New York, NY, Simon & Schuster, 1998.
187
41. Roush W: The soldier as geek. Technol Rev 1998; 101: 95.
42. Horgan J: Bang! You’re alive. Sci Am 1994; 270: 22– 4.
43. Alexander LR, Klare JL: Nonlethal weapons: new tools for peace. Issues Sci
Technol 1995; 12: 67.
44. North Atlantic Treaty Organization: Non-Lethal Weapons. Brussels, Belgium,
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, North Atlantic Assembly, International Sec-
retariat, 1997.
45. Kocher R: Rumbly in the tumbly. Bull At Sci 2003; 59: 9 –10.
46. Thomas TL: Human network attacks. Milit Rev 1999; 79: 23–33.
47. Anonymous: New concept weapons and its medical-related problems [in Chi-
nese]. Beijing Renmin Junyi 1997; 9: 507– 8.
48. Bortz J: New Weapons Provide Alternative for Marines Dealing with Non-com-
batants. Washington, DC, U.S. Marine Corps, 1998.
49. Coupland RM: “Non-lethal” weapons: precipitating a new arms race [editorial].
BMJ 1997; 315: 72.
50. Synetics Corp.: Army SBIR award: parametric difference waves for low frequency
acoustic propagation. 1997. Available at http://hometown.aol.com/ultra21753/
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/172/2/182/4578046 by guest on 29 May 2021
weapon.htm; accessed October 17, 2001.
51. Richardson D: Non-lethal options. Def Secur Rev 1998; 2: 44 –7.
52. Bunker RJ: National security implications of emerging forms of warfare. Pre-
sented at the University of New Hampshire Non-Lethal Technology Innovation
Center’s First Annual Non-Lethal Technology and Academic Research Sympo-
sium; May 3–5, 1999; Quantico, VA.
53. Cabal C, Roszak E: Nuisances caused by infra-sounds [in French]. Arch Mal Prof
1974; 35: 848 –9.
54. Kuralesin NA: Health related and medico-biological aspects of the effects of
infrasound [in Russian]. Noise Vibrat Bull 1997; 5: 221– 6.
55. Deimling L, Backhaus J, Liehmann W, Thiel K-D: Infrapulse generator: an
effective non-lethal weapon. In: Non-Lethal Weapons: New Options Facing the
Future, pp 25-1– 6. Karlsruhe, Germany, DWS Werbeagentur und Verlag, 2001.
56. Stephens RWB, Bate AE: Acoustics and Vibrational Physics. London, United
Kingdom, Edward Arnold Publishers, 1966.
57. Moore HL Jr, Shippell RJ Jr, Koeppel BJ, Freund CT, O’Malley K: Acoustic
characterization of Bunker 1201. Presented at the National Defense Industrial
Association’s 5th Annual Security Technology Symposium and Exhibition,
Group II: Security–Related Research and Methodology; June 14 –17, 1999; Nor-
folk, VA.
58. Noppen M, Verbanck S, Harvey J, et al: Music: a new cause of primary sponta-
neous pneumothorax. Thorax 2004; 59: 722– 4.
59. Lucey G, Jasper L: Vortex Ring Generator. Laurel, MD, National Defense Indus-
trial Association, 1998.
60. Lewis B: NIJ’s less-than-lethal flash-bang round project. Correct Today 2003;
65: 117–9.
61. Peters AJM, Abrams RM, Gerhardt KJ, Longmate JA: Three dimensional sound
and vibration frequency responses of the sheep uterus. J Low Freq Noise Vibrat
1991; 10: 100 –11.
62. Harris CS, Sommer HC, Johnson DL: Review of the effects of infrasound on man.
Aviat Space Environ Med 1976; 47: 430 – 4.
63. Von Gierke HE, Parker DE: Infrasound. In: Handbook of Sensory Physiology,
Vol. V: Auditory System, Part 3: Clinical and Special Topics, pp 355– 624. Edited
by Keidel WD, Neff WD. Berlin, Germany, Springer–Verlag, 1976.
64. Hecht J: Not a sound idea: nonlethal acoustic weapons seem to be doomed. New
Sci 1999; 161: 17.
65. Guignard JC: Vibration. In: A Textbook of Aviation Physiology, Section VI: Noise
and Vibration, pp 813–94. Edited by Gillies JA. Oxford, United Kingdom, Per-
gamon Press, 1965.
66. Broner N: The effects of low frequency noise on people: a review. J Sound Vibrat
1978; 58: 483–500.
67. Landström U: Occupational aspects of infrasound and whole body vibrations.
Arh Hig Rada Toksikol 1983; 34: 287–93.
68. Kryter KD: Physiological, Psychological, and Social Effects of Noise. Report
NASA-RP-1115. Hampton, VA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Langley Research Center, 1984.
69. Dupuis H: Biodynamic behavior of the trunk and the abdomen during whole-
body vibration. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1989; 90(Suppl): 34 – 8.
70. Von Gierke HE, Parker DE: Differences in otolith and abdominal viscera gravi-
ceptor dynamics: implications for motion sickness and perceived body position.
Aviat Space Environ Med 1994; 65: 747–51.
71. Kjellberg A, Wikström BO: Acute effects of whole-body vibration: stabilography
and electrogastrophy. Scand J Work Environ Health 1987; 13: 243– 6.
72. Anonymous: Infrasound [editorial]. Lancet 1973; 2: 1368 –9.
73. Arabadzhi VI: Infrasound and biorhythms of the human brain. Biophysics 1992;
37: 130 –1.
Military Medicine, Vol. 172, February 2007
188
74. Reschke MF: High-Intensity, Audio-Frequency Vestibular Stimulation in the
Guinea Pig. Miami University, Doctoral Dissertation, Oxford, OH, 1971.
75. Dickson EDD, Chadwick DL: Observations on disturbances of equilibrium and
other symptoms induced by jet engine noise. J Laryngol Otol 1951; 65: 154 – 65.
76. Davis H, Parrack HO, Eldredge DH: Hazards of intense sound and ultrasound.
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1949; 58: 732– 8.
77. Allen CH, Frings H, Rudnick I: Some biological effects of intense high frequency
airborne sound. J Acoust Soc Am 1948; 20: 62–5.
78. Becker AB, Warm JS, Dember WN, Hancock PA: Effects of jet engine noise and
performance feedback on perceived workload in a monitoring task. Int J Aviat
Psychol 1995; 5: 49 – 62.
79. Sherry CJ, Cook MC, Brown GC, Jauchem JR, Merritt JH, Murphy MR: An
Assessment of Four Acoustic Devices on Animal Behavior. Technical report
AFRL-HE-BR-TR-2000-0153. Brooks Air Force Base, TX, Air Force Research
Laboratory, 2000.
80. Boesch H, Benwell B, Ellis V: A High-Power Electrically Driven Impulsive Acous-
tic Source for Target Effects Experiments and Area-Denial Applications. Adelphi,
MD, Army Research Laboratory, 2000.
81. Jansen G: Physiological effects of noise. In: Handbook of Acoustical Measure-
ments and Noise Control, Ed 3, pp 25-1–19. Edited by Harris CM. New York, NY,
McGraw Hill, 1991.
82. Manci KM, Gladwin DN, Villella R, Cavendish MG: Effects of Aircraft Noise and
Sonic Booms on Domestic Animals and Wildlife: A Literature Synthesis. Report
NERC-88/29. Fort Collins, CO, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Ecology
Research Center, 1988.
83. Pimonow L: Physical and physiological action of infra and low-frequency sound.
Rev Acoust 1971; 15: 205–12.
84. Johnson DL: Infrasound: Its Sources and Effects on Man. Technical Report
ARML-TR-76-17. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, Aeromedical Research
Laboratory, 1976.
85. Von Gierke HE: Non-auditory effects of ultrasonic, infrasonic, and vibratory
energy on man. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Acoustics and Societal
Problems, pp 91– 4. Harriman, NY, Acoustical Society of America, 1972.
86. Westin JB: Infrasound: a short review of effects on man. Aviat Space Environ
Med 1975; 46: 1135– 40.
87. Pawlaczyk-Luszczyńska M: Infrasound in the occupational and general environ-
ment: a three-element microphone measuring method for locating distant
sources of infrasound. Int J Occup Environ Health 1996; 1: 17–27.
88. Izmerov NF, Suvorov GA, Kuralesin NA, Ovakimov VG: Infrasound: the body’s
effects and hygienic regulation [in Russian]. Vestn Ross Akad Med Nauk 1997;
(7): 39 – 46.
89. Branco NA, Alves-Pereira M: Vibroacoustic disease. Noise Health 2004; 6: 3–20.
90. Feldmann J, Pitten FA: Effects of low frequency noise on man: a case study.
Noise Health 2004; 7: 23– 8.
91. Cook MC, Sherry CJ, Brown GC, Jauchem JR: Lack of Effects on Goal-Directed
Behavior of High-Intensity Infrasound in a Resonant Reverberant Chamber.
Technical report AFRL-HE-BR-TR-2001-0154. Brooks Air Force Base, TX, Air
Force Research Laboratory, 2001.
92. Wever EC, Bray CW: The perception of low tones and the resonance volley
theory. J Psychol 1936; 3: 101.
93. Mohr GC, Cole JN, Guild E, Von Gierke HE: Effects of low frequency and
infrasonic noise on man. Aerosp Med 1965; 36: 817–24.
94. Nixon CW: Human Auditory Response to Intense Infrasound. Technical report
AMRL-TR-74 –2. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, Aeromedical Research
Laboratory, 1974.
95. Cole JN, Mohr GC, Guild E, Von Gierke HE: The Effects of Low Frequency Noise
on Man as Related to the Apollo Space Program. Technical report AMRL-TR-66-
119. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, Aeromedical Research Laboratory,
1966.
96. Edge PM Jr, Mayes WH: Description of Langley Low-Frequency Noise Facility
and Study of Human Response to Noise Frequencies below 50 cps. NASA tech-
nical note NASA-TN-D-3204. Hampton, VA, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Langley Research Center, 1966.
97. Slarve RM, Johnson DL: Human whole-body exposure to infrasound. Aviat
Space Environ Med 1975; 46: 428 –31.
98. Borredon P: Physiological Reaction of Human Subjects Exposed to Infrasound.
Report 3710. Paris, France, Centre de Recherches de Medicine Aeronautique,
1972.
99. Borredon P, Nathie J: The psychological effects observed on a man exposed to an
infrasonic level of 130 dB. Paris, France, International Colloquium on Infra-
sound, 1973.
100. Kyriakides K, Leventhall HG: Some effects of infrasound on task performance.
J Sound Vibrat 1977; 50: 369 – 88.
Military Medicine, Vol. 172, February 2007
Acoustics for Nonlethal Applications
101. Moller H: Physiological and psychological effects of infrasound on humans.
J Low Freq Noise Vibrat 1984; 3: 1–17.
102. Nussbaum DS, Reinis S: Some Individual Differences in Human Response to
Infrasound. Report 282. Toronto, Canada, University of Toronto Institute for
Aerospace Studies, 1985.
103. Taenaka K: A study on the effect of infrasound [in Japanese]. Nippon Jibiinkoka
Gakkai Kaiho 1989; 92: 1399 – 415.
104. Faustov A, Fraiman B, Bosova L: The phase features of man and animal reaction
to infrasound effect. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on Noise
as a Public Health Problem, pp 265– 8. Nice, France, Institut National de Re-
cherche sur les Transports et leur Sécurité, 1993.
105. Landström U, Danielsson A, Lindmark A, Lindqwist M, Liszka L, Söderberg L:
Exposure to Three Different Levels of Infrasound, 95, 100 and 125 dB: Effects on
Man [in Swedish]. Solna, Sweden, Arbetarskyddsstyrelsen, Publikationsservice,
1982.
106. Ising H, Market B, Shenoda F: Effects of Infrasound on Man [in German].
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/172/2/182/4578046 by guest on 29 May 2021
Federal Republic of Germany, VDI-Verlag, 1985.
107. Danielsson Å, Landström U: Blood pressure changes in man during infrasonic
exposure: an experimental study. Acta Med Scand 1985; 217: 531–5.
108. Martinı́k K, Opltová L: Human nonspecific response to sound stimulation. J Hyg
Epidemiol Microbiol Immunol 1986; 30: 139 – 44.
109. Okamoto K, Yoshida A, Inoue J, Takyu H: The influence of infrasound upon
human body [in Japanese]. J UOEH 1986; 8(Suppl): 135– 49.
110. Alker G: Acoustic Weapons: A Feasibility Study. Report DRA/SS(PS)/CR96039/
1.0. Farnborough, United Kingdom, Defence Evaluation and Research Agency,
1996.
111. Alves-Pereira M: Noise-induced extra-aural pathology: a review and commen-
tary. Aviat Space Environ Med 1999; 70(Suppl 3): A7–21.
112. Huang ZQ, Liang ZF, Shi XF, Yu H: The psychological effect of minesweeping
infrasonic field [in Chinese]. Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi
2003; 21: 27–9.
113. Yamamura K, Kishi R: Effects of infrasound on the Rota-rod treadmill perfor-
mance of rats. Eur J Appl Physiol 1980; 45: 81– 6.
114. Sherry CJ, Cook MC, Jauchem JR, Brown GC, Edris RW: The effects of infra-
sound on rhesus monkey performance of a continuous compensatory tracking
task. Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control (in press).
115. Murphy MR, Jauchem JR, Merritt JH, Sherry CJ, Cook MC, Brown GC: Acoustic
bioeffects research for non-lethal applications. In: Non-Lethal Weapons: New
Options Facing the Future, pp 9-1–13. Karlsruhe, Germany, DWS Werbeagen-
tur und Verlag, 2001.
116. Vogel HH: The Applicability of Acoustic Energy as a Battlefield Weapon. Report
for contract DA-18-001-AMC-551(X). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, U.S. Army
Limited War Laboratory, 1964.
117. Von Békésy G: On the hearing threshold and limit of perception of slow, sinu-
soidal changes in air pressure. Ann Phys 1936; 26: 554 – 66.
118. Mueller AW, Mayes WH: Acoustic Exposure Tests of Squirrel Monkeys in the
Langley Low Frequency Noise Facility. NASA Langley Working Paper 412.
Hampton, VA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Re-
search Center, 1967.
119. Boesch HE, Benwell BT, Reiff CG: Design and Test of a Prototype Acoustic
High-Intensity Infrasonic Test Chamber. Army Research Laboratory Technical
Report ARL-TR-2137. Adelphi, MD, Army Research Laboratory, 2000.
120. Boesch HE, Reiff CG, Benwell BT: A prototype infrasonic test chamber (HILF1).
Presented at National Defense Industrial Association Non-Lethal Defense IV;
March 20 –22, 2000; Vienna, VA.
121. Stagg J: A compact infrasound and pressure waveform generator for use with
small cavities. J Med Eng Technol 1980; 4: 186 –9.
122. Harris CS, Johnson DL: Effects of infrasound on cognitive performance. Aviat
Space Environ Med 1978; 49: 582– 6.
123. Johnson DL: Auditory and Physiological Effects of Infrasound. Technical report
ARML-TR-75-33. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, Aeromedical Research
Laboratory, 1975.
124. Defence Material Administration: Infrasound: A Summary of Interesting Arti-
cles. Report FMV:ELEKTRO-A12:142/83. Stockholm, Sweden, Defence Mate-
rial Administration, Radio Department, 1985.
125. Backteman O, Köhler J, Sjöberg L: Infrasound: tutorial and review: part 2. J Low
Freq Noise Vibrat 1983; 2: 176 –210.
126. Bunker RJ: Non-lethal weapons conferences. Milit Rev 2000; 80: 103– 4.
127. Small SC: Small arms and asymmetric threats. Milit Rev 2000; 80: 33– 41.
128. Altmann J: Acoustic Weapons: A Prospective Assessment: Sources, Propagation
and Effects of Strong Sound. Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Peace Studies
Program, 1999.
Acoustics for Nonlethal Applications
129. National Research Council: An Assessment of Non-Lethal Weapons Science and
Technology. Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 2003.
130. Anonymous: Researchers fill gaps for less-than-lethal weapons. Natl Def 2005; 134.
89: 50 –1.
131. Siniscalchi J: Non-Lethal Technologies: Implications for Military Strategy. Oc- 135.
casional paper 3. Maxwell Air Force Base, AL, Center for Strategy and Technol-
ogy, Air War College, Air University, 1998. 136.
132. Swanson DC: Non-lethal acoustic weapons: facts, fiction, and the future. Pre-
sented at the University of New Hampshire Non-Lethal Technology Innovation 137.
Center’s First Annual Non-Lethal Technology and Academic Research Sympo- 138.
sium; May 3–5, 1999; Quantico, VA.
133. Heal CS: What will the “magic bullet” look like? In: Non-Lethal Weapons: New
189
Options Facing the Future, pp 15-1– 8. Karlsruhe, Germany, DWS Werbeagen-
tur und Verlag, 2001.
Drewes W: Sonic weapon system. U.S. patent 4,349,898, September 14,
1982.
Loos HG: Subliminal acoustic manipulation of nervous systems. U.S. patent
6,017,302, January 25, 2000.
Naff JT, Shea JH: Acoustic cannon. U.S. patent 5,973,999, October 26,
1999.
Tiron R: Acoustic-energy research hits sour note. Natl Def 2002; 86: 29, 41.
Murphy MR: Biological effects of non-lethal weapons: issues and solutions.
Presented at National Defense Industrial Association Non-Lethal Defense III;
February 25–26, 1998; Laurel, MD.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/172/2/182/4578046 by guest on 29 May 2021
Military Medicine, Vol. 172, February 2007