1972 U.S. Navy “Glaser Report” — What It Is (and Isn’t)

Snapshot

• TitleBibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (“Effects”) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio‑Frequency Radiation
• AuthorZorach R. Glaser, Ph.D., Naval Medical Research Institute
• DateOctober 1971 (Revised April 1972)
• Scope~2,300 citations summarised from global literature (incl. Soviet/Eastern bloc)
• DocumentOpen the uploaded PDF • DTIC entry: apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0750271.pdf

What It Is vs. What It Isn’t

• It is a bibliography: a catalogue of reported biological “effects” and clinical observations attributed to RF/microwave exposure across many studies (mixed quality, methods, and results).
• It isn’t a U.S. Navy position paper concluding causation or policy. Effects are listed without endorsement because the literature included conflicting reports and many single/weak observations.

The report explicitly states the effects are “listed without comment or endorsement” and that “the literature abounds with conflicting reports,” noting that some entries are single or non‑statistical observations.

Notable Themes in the Bibliography

• Nervous‑system and behavioural findings (fatigue, headaches, sleep disturbance)
• Endocrine and cardiovascular observations
• Ocular effects (incl. historical cataract reports at high exposures)
• Reproductive and developmental findings (animal and human reports)
• Hematologic/immune and cellular/biophysical effects

Presence in the bibliography ≠ proof. The report aggregates reports so researchers could follow up with stronger methods.

Why This Document Keeps Resurfacing

• It shows decades of awareness that biological effects beyond heating were being reported worldwide.
• It is often mischaracterised online as a “secret admission of harm.” In reality, it’s a research starting point, not a verdict.

How It Fits With Today’s Debate

• Independent critics argue many non‑thermal effects listed by Glaser align with more recent studies on oxidative stress, fertility, and neurological outcomes.
• Regulators (e.g., WHO/ICNIRP/FCC) acknowledge the historic literature but maintain that current public limits (largely thermal‑based) adequately protect health; nevertheless, U.S. courts have required the FCC to more fully explain non‑cancer effects (2021 remand).

Reading Glaser today is useful context, but modern policy debates hinge on large, well‑controlled studies and risk assessments since the 1990s.

How to Cite / Share

Formal citation (example):

Glaser, Z.R. (1972). Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (“Effects”) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation. Naval Medical Research Institute. AD0750271.

Direct link: DTIC PDF • Local copy: /mnt/data/5GMilitaryDocument.pdf

FAQs

Did the Navy conclude RF causes disease?

No. The report compiles reported effects from many sources and says explicitly it is not endorsing them. It was intended to guide further research.

Why is Glaser cited by campaigners?

Because it demonstrates long‑standing awareness of biological reports outside the narrow thermal lens, and it aggregates thousands of references for follow‑up.

How should councils treat it?

As historical context. Planning decisions in England typically rely on operators’ ICNIRP compliance declarations, but Glaser can inform broader public‑health discussion and requests for ongoing monitoring.