Реплика на статью Los Angeles Times
"The Pentagon's Secret Scream"

Dennis Van Vliet

“Can deafening technology have benign uses, too?”

(Могут ли "оглушающие технологии" иметь и полезное применение?)^[1]

June 2004

Dennis Van Vliet

In a press release posted on the site, American Technology notes that the device can produce a sustained tone of 146 dB SPL at 1 meter from the transducer (emitter), and that the maximum output at 300 yards is a mere 105 dB SPL. The newspaper story emphasized LRAD's potential use as a non-lethal weapon capable of giving the equivalent of an instant migraine to anyone in the beam, whether or not the person's ears were plugged. William Arkin, the writer, focused on the ethical and practical issues of producing and deploying a largely untested device with the potential of inflicting pain, permanent hearing loss, and other yet-unknown damage on humans or other species in the path of the acoustic beam.

Constructive applications envisioned

American Technology focuses more on the system's capabilities for “long-range hailing and warning…clearly in a narrow beam at greater than 500 yards over water and 300 yards over land…, communicating voice instructions, plus reinforcing them and influencing behavior with a highly irritating warning tone.” The manufacturer reports that the system has been evaluated by an independent laboratory and field-tested. The company says that it is safe for operators and for those in the beam, meeting combined noise exposure source levels and durations within the guidelines of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

I looked into this further with blood in my eye, ready to write a blistering commentary about this new technology that, unchained, may create untold havoc and undo much of the work to which we have dedicated our lives. I am still harboring indignation that someone might think it's acceptable to turn loose a soldier with a “non-lethal” device that has the potential for creating discomfort at the least and cochlear damage or worse at the extreme. International standards forbid the use of laser devices intended to permanently blind. Why is it okay to have a “communications and behavior-influencing device” that may cause permanent deafness? It is not okay, and the device should not be used in this manner.

The flip side of LRAD and another technology called Hyper Sonic Sound systems that this company is developing is their potential for new applications for reducing noise pollution and for efficient delivery of acoustic information to a narrow target. I can think of several applications that may be perfect for hearing-impaired persons or for inclusion in hearing aid technology:

• The emitters are quite different from traditional speakers and hearing aid receivers. Possibly hearing aid receiver design could be revolutionized, thereby reducing many of the wax and moisture problems we face with receivers today.
• Applications could be envisioned in which emitters are focused on a specific spot in a room, allowing the user to listen to music or the television at a comfortable amplified level without disturbing others in the room.
• If the beam of the emitter can be focused appropriately, I would guess there is potential for reduced feedback by virtue of the fact that the pathway back to the microphone is effectively increased.

The final word? Most importantly, innovative technology isn't necessarily a good thing, especially when it has the potential to do great harm. Remember the cordless phone a couple of decades ago that put a loud ringer in the earpiece? Users had to remember to push a button to answer the phone and turn off the ringer. Some who didn't suffered permanently injury when they reflexively put the phone to their ear only to have it ring directly into their ear creating acoustic trauma. The design was bad, and the phone should never have come to market. A super-loud warning tone that could blast someone at a close range with levels of up to 146 dB SPL is a similarly bad idea and should not reach either the military or civilian market.

On the other hand, new technology often turns out to have exciting applications very different from what was originally intended. I sincerely hope that the developers of this technology will focus on its potential benefits and applications for hearing-impaired persons rather than on its more sinister potential to cause new hearing impairments.

© 2004 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Ссылка на сайт (html-формат).

Ссылка на pdf-файл.

1. The Hearing Journal 57(6):p 56, June 2004. DOI: 10.1097/01.HJ.0000292459.07127.02
.