Letters for Wednesday, July 28, 2021

A strong ‘no’ to Homeland Defense Radar

What a shame that neither Sen. Hirono nor Rep. Kai Kahele are considering anywhere but Kaua‘i for the Homeland Defense Radar-Hawai‘i. Kaua‘i better wake up. This behemoth is slated for Kaua‘i, not any other island or location.

The 27 acres of our Westside needed for this is nothing compared to the enormous area that will be subjected to the strongest radar we have or will ever have. Radar is not a benign thing just because it is invisible. It’s going to kill birds flying through it, it’s going to cause boat and helicopter tours to avoid it for safety.

Locating the HDR-H on Kaua‘i will give us a huge load of radar dwarfing. what we are already subjected to from the Pacific Missile Range Facility, and it will be 24/7. Do Hirono or Kahele want this on their island of O‘ahu? No. It should not be on, or near, any populated island. If it’s slated for our state, then put it on Kaho‘olawe. Even that’s too close. And no one wants to subject Kaho‘olawe to that. But it’s OK to subject Kaua‘i to it?

Last but not least, locating incoming hypersonic missiles by radar does not mean we have a guarantee of an intercept.

What is our best deterrent? The fact that any nuclear strike will be met with a retaliatory strike. That’s what makes the nuclear nations hold their fire. A monstrous radar not so much.

Truckloads carrying 1 million cubic yards of cement, and rerouting tour boats and helicopter tours aside, this HDR-H is going to blanket us in radar stronger than anything we currently have from PMRF.

It’s not going to guarantee intercepts if it’s built, especially for incoming multiple missiles or missiles with decoys. But it’s going to guarantee that birds flying through it will be killed and humans on Kaua‘i and especially on the Westside will be adversely affected with an additional radar load over and above what we are already getting 24/7 from PMRF.

The HDR-H will be 85 feet tall and delivering radar for thousands of miles.

Pay attention, Kaua‘i. Your political reps do not want it on O‘ahu. They want it here.

Paulo Tambolo, Wailua Homesteads

Ship a car in, ship a car out

Aloha traffic fans;

Perhaps we should take a page from Catalina Island. You ship a car in, you ship a car out.

Applies to everyone. Car dealers, car-rental agencies, individuals, state, county, hotels, everybody!! Inconvenient, you bet. Outrageous, you bet. But, try to get from Kealia to Lihu‘e midday. Inconvenient, you bet. Outrageous, you bet.

Exceptions, you bet. Place a usury fee on all exceptions. Make it hurt. $5,000? This might offset some of the vast registration fees we pay now.

Just a thought.


Dale Winters, Kapa‘a

  1. Kauaidoug July 28, 2021 6:57 am Reply

    I agree. People just bringing more cars is not sustainable! Any car brought over is tons of refuse/junk down the road. People moving here should think twice about bringing a car.

    1. nobody July 29, 2021 8:15 am Reply

      And you keep your car?

    2. Jjjames July 29, 2021 9:46 am Reply

      This HDR was going to be built on Oahu. But the people there stopped it. The “powers that be”, whoever they are, decided to build it on Kauai. “It’ll be accepted there because people there usually have their heads in the sand .. or up somewhere else”.
      You can argue about the health hazards of radar waves all you want but the REAL hazard is that it’ll make our island an even bigger and likely target for North Korea and “others”. IF or WHEN “they” attack, our “defense” system WILL BE the first thing to eliminate.
      We won’t even have time to bend over and kiss our okoles goodbye.
      Even PMRF is a huge threat for Kauai.

  2. mark July 28, 2021 6:59 am Reply

    Yes Kauai say NO to his radar. Wonder about this- Hirono and Kahale- follow the money on this ,,,,, So sad- first the Westside had to deal with GMO toxins and cancer issues now they want to add radar to increase the toxic environment to such a beautiful vulnerable area.
    Also military leaders have said this is already older technology but our legislators are pushing this radar for Kauai.

  3. manawai July 28, 2021 8:22 am Reply

    Mr. Tambolo – Where did you get that tie-dye shirt? Really groovy man!

  4. RevW July 28, 2021 8:53 am Reply

    @ Tambolo. Many of the objections are legit, but some are not.

    I’ve lived in the sweep path of one of the “loudest” AR5s belonging to the USA for decades, plus some time with less intrusive installations.

    1)strongest radar we have or will ever have.
    Neither is true. How would a civilian like you know?
    2)Radar is not a benign thing just because it is invisible.
    All EM radiation is not ‘benign’, and except under special conditions, it’s invisible. Can you see your cell phone’s signal?
    3) It’s going to kill birds flying through it,
    Please provide an example of a radar site with a significant collection of bird deaths in the sweep pattern. It’s never happened with my AR5 example.
    4) it’s going to cause boat and helicopter tours to avoid it for safety.
    Yes: because there is a no fly, no entry buffer around all of these to protect the radar transmissions and the site from interference including signal. Avoiding entry also keeps us from being arrested.
    5) Locating the HDR-H on Kaua‘i will give us a huge load of radar dwarfing.
    This is a myth. If you can provide real world examples,please do so.
    6) humans on Kaua‘i and especially on the Westside will be adversely affected with an additional radar load over and above what we are already getting 24/7 from PMRF.
    No “radar load”. Radar is **directional***. It doesn’t ‘blanket’ nearby locations. Also,what are these documentable “adverse effects” ?

    Here’s an ‘adverse event’ from radar: it can cause vibration – but not usually – in surfaces it bounces off of, causing vibration that ***may be*** audible. The equipment that moves the setup can also make noise which may be audible. You can not hear or see radar, but the surfaces it interacts with may vibrate, which creates noise. That can be thoroughly annoying, but it’s not destructive.

    1. Yes July 28, 2021 3:44 pm Reply

      Glad some people can do simple google searches rather than believing every idiotic idea floating around. Its funny people like Paulo are so afraid of relatively safe sources of emf like radar and cell phones, but probably spend a lot of time out in the sun a very real source of cancerous energy.

  5. RGLadder37 July 28, 2021 1:28 pm Reply

    This is a good strategic point. Farthest end of Hawai’i. Mazie has no choice. She’s got her hands tied down. Got to go with the military.

  6. RGLadder37 July 28, 2021 2:14 pm Reply

    Some on your county council are failures. The state is bringing this up. Military is taking charge. What is best for the island.

    Who brings in more pay or are smarter.

  7. RGLadder37 July 28, 2021 4:57 pm Reply

    The issue is can they ruin the west side and build the PMRF in to a military base and put a radar tracking system there?

    Yes they can.

  8. Paulo July 28, 2021 10:08 pm Reply

    Safety standards for personnel subjected to HIRF and electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure are
    established in Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 6055.11, Protecting Personnel from
    Electromagnetic Fields, and AFI 48-109, Electromagnetic Field Radiation Occupational and
    Environmental Health Program. Additional safety guidelines and standards for non-ionizing EMF
    are outlined in the comprehensive Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
    Standard C95.1, IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio
    Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 0 Hz to 300 GHz, which addresses consideration of potential
    hazards of EMF to all personnel in unrestricted exposure environments, including aircraft pilots.
    This standard is consistent with the maximum permissible exposure limits set in AFI 48-109.
    Respectively, 14 CFR § 23.1308 and Appendix J, 14 CFR § 25.1317 and Appendix L, 14 CFR §
    27.1317 and Appendix D, and § 29.1317 and Appendix E specify the field strengths for internal
    and external radio frequency environments that various airplane and rotorcraft categories must
    be able to withstand for the safe flight and landing in various HIRF environments. The FAA
    Advisory Circular 20/158A, The Certification of Aircraft Electrical and Electronic Systems for
    Operation in the High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Environment, describes a means to show
    compliance with the requirements for protection of the operation of electrical and electronic
    systems on an aircraft when the aircraft is exposed to an external HIRF environment.

    The harmful effects of EMR exposure from radars on birds (and by extension, bats) have been
    analyzed by the U.S. Army, MDA, and other organizations. There are two potential effects that
    EMR may have on organisms: thermal effects and non-thermal effects. One way that EMR
    might affect organisms is through effects caused by heating of tissues (i.e., thermal effects).
    Given certain conditions, EMR can penetrate living tissues and the energy absorbed by them
    may cause the temperature of tissues to increase. This heating of tissues may result in
    behavioral changes (e.g., avoidance of the area) in animals and/or in damage to living tissues.
    The amount of heat absorbed by an organism depends on the electromagnetic frequency, the
    size of the organism relative to the EMR wavelength, the orientation of the organism relative to
    the EMR, the length of time the organism is exposed, and the surface properties and
    conductivity of the organism’s tissues. In general, the depth EMR can penetrate (and potentially
    damage) biological tissues through heating decreases with increasing wavelength frequency of
    EMR. Thus, the higher the frequency, the shallower the penetration and lower the potential
    warming effects for organisms. S-band radio waves with frequencies from 2 to 4 GHz might
    penetrate up to 2.0 centimeters (0.8 inch) into muscle tissue (MDA 2007).
    When being operated in tracking mode, the main beam of a radar unit could damage birds or
    bats if the animal is flying slowly, is close to the radar unit, or is flying along the path of the
    beam. In the rare case that airborne wildlife would be exposed to radiation with sufficient
    intensity, microwave energy would be absorbed by the animal’s tissue and could be harmed
    (MDA 2005).
    Appendix C of the MDA Mobile Sensors EA (MDA 2005) presents a general discussion of radar
    and the health concerns of EMR, and analyzes effects of EMR on migratory and resident bird
    populations. Radar units normally operate in search/surveillance mode, except when tracking a
    target or being calibrated. In search/surveillance mode, the main beam of the radar is not aimed
    at any area in space for more than a small fraction of a second (less than 0.02 second). The
    random nature of the search pattern makes it highly unlikely that any animal could stay in the
    path of the main beam long enough to receive a harmful dose from the radar (MDA 2005). Thus,
    during the testing events, the potential for adverse impacts on birds and bats from the operation
    of the radar system is remote.
    MDA analyzed EMR impacts from all Ballistic Missile Defense Systems (BMDS) radars on birds
    (and by extension, bats) in Appendix N of the Agency’s BMDS Programmatic Environmental
    Impact Statement in 2007 (MDA 2007). This analysis evaluated under what conditions a BMDS
    radar beam could be sufficiently powerful to cause thermal heating (using the no-harm
    reference value of 10 milliwatts per centimeter squared [6-minute average]) or to interfere with
    the navigational ability of migratory birds. The analysis considered the most powerful radar
    operating in the wavebands used by BMDS radars (UHF, L, S, C, and X bands): Position and
    3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
    July 2020 LRDR Performance Testing Final EA 3-29
    Velocity Extraction Phased Array Warning System for UHF, COBRA DANE for L-band, Aegis for
    S-band, MPS-36 for C-band, and SBX for X-band:
    • The analysis conducted by MDA, which was reviewed by both USEPA and USFWS,
    concluded that none of the radars are likely to pose a threat to migrating birds under
    most conditions, such as when operating in surveillance mode with the direction of the
    radar beam changing between pulses. Exceptions would be when birds are flying within
    300 feet of an antenna (X-, C-, and L-band radars) and the radar is using pulse widths
    greater than 1 millisecond.
    • This analysis applied to bird flights perpendicular to or in the direction of stationary
    beams, as well as beams in surveillance mode. Birds would be at greater risk when
    flying parallel to, and within the elevation of, a radar beam, and less at risk when flying
    perpendicular to (across) or at an angle to the radar beam.
    Few field experiments have been performed to determine the potential impacts of EMR on
    wildlife. Aberdeen University researchers observed that bat activity is reduced in the vicinity of a
    Civil ATC radar station, despite the proximity of habitat where bat activity would be expected.
    This observation raised the possibility that EMR from the radar was either causing
    overheating/hyperthermia or interfering with echolocation and producing an aversive behavioral
    response (i.e., avoidance) in foraging bats (Nicholls and Racey 2007).
    The mechanisms of non-thermal effects of EMR are less well understood but have the potential
    to include changes in cellular metabolism, cell growth, and immune response, as well as
    neurological, cardiovascular, reproductive system, and orientation effects.

    Final Environmental Assessment for Long Range Discrimination …
    Radar EMF Maximum Permissible Exposure Levels for Personnel Special Use Airspace reserved for military operations and …

    RE: Multiple warheads and/or decoys.

    RE: Already obsolete.

  9. RGLadder37 July 28, 2021 10:26 pm Reply

    You mean you cannot just point it out in the community who the failures are in the county council?

    Ridiculous. 1st amendment. All the dumb sounding county councilmen.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, send us an email.