Other components, if detected, are not mentioned. There exists, I am told, a confidential report of the whole investigation. Bottreau assured me personally that there was no trace of ionizing radiation.

Berteaud and coworkers (19) also mapped the intensity distribution of these radiations in a plane perpendicular to the axis of the apparatus. Then, using as targets mice infected with T. equiperdum, they were able to demonstrate a simple relationship between the rate of decrease of parasitemia in these animals and the relative intensity of the UHF component. However, in separate experiments they found that fatalities among infected mice were not decreased when the animals were exposed to an unmodulated 9.4-GHz field of comparable intensity. They concluded that the UHF field generated by Priore's machine is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the observed biological effects.

The results of Berteaud et al leave us with some unanswered questions. If their analysis of the field was complete, the biological activity must rest jointly on the UHF component and the magnetic field. How critical are the exact value of the many parameters involved and the relationship between them for the manifestation of biological activity? Is it possible that the methods available to Berteaud and coworkers were incapable of furnishing a complete analysis?

One can only speculate. It has struck me that in all the papers describing the biological effects of this radiation, there is nowhere any mention of any search for the the correct operating conditions of the machine. Apparently the machine, if it works at all, always produces results, and one must remember that two different models have been built and found to be effective. The one quantity that is regularly mentioned is the is the magnetic field strength, 620 G in the first model and 1240 G in the second. The patent document seems to suggest that there is great flexibility in the mode of operation. It is moreover almost inconceivable that Priore could have had any genuine theoretical basis upon which to favor one particular set of patterns over another in relation to biological changes that are themselves of intractable complexity and totally unpredictable. One is bound to suspect that the mix is anything but critical, and that if the reported biological effects are genuine they might very well be brought about by much simpler means. It is of some interest that extremely sharp frequency selectivity has been claimed in recent biological experiments with monochromatic microwaves, in contrast to the sort of flap response surmised in the present context. The need for fine tuning could of course be obviated in a machine designed for sturdiness and broad applicability by arranging for it to generate “white” energy with respect to the several decisive characteristics, including modulation frequencies and perhaps their derivatives, or alternatively to generate an output which varies rapidly in real time, systematically or randomly, over a sufficiently wide range of values. The biological effects of such