Thanks, scanned for what I could use. Infrasound paper copied, will look at when I am awake. I would like to have found something on the interefernce of infrasound sources underwater to dolphins. Here's the reason. In 2003-04 and recent expansion in 2008 a pipeline was installed from Missippi to Tampa FL, in the GULF. In the last couple years the internet HUMMERS have increased complaints from Tampa and the FL east cost where this line goes. Considering how bad the HUM is here, and what it did to our coyotes and my pet, it is very plausible that the line running thru the gulf is radiating ILFN and screwing up the dolphins for all these recent beachings along that coast.
BTW, pipelines run/in most of the counties where the caves are for bats in the the NE USA. The original caves where the bat die off started 3-4 years ago have two large lines within 1.5 miles. And both of them are now causing HUM in CT and MA and HUM measureable for at least 25 miles away from them. . On Apr 17, 2:40 am, dboots <[email protected]> wrote: > Steve Would appreciate it. I would think that Sandia's > "Electromagnetic Test Report" > perhaps we might gleam some additional info from it But I am also > still wondering if anyone took time to FOIA the report that first > report that this thread indicates was released by Sandia in it's > entirety > cause you would of thought it would of come up at the top of a search > engine but instead it did not. > > The > first, the "Electromagnetic Test Report, Electromagnetic > Investigation of the > Taos Hum, Test Report, dated September 27, 1994," was released in > its entirety. > > On Apr 12, 5:48 pm, Steve K <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I'll try to use a bit of networking to get to this. > > > On Apr 10, 8:46 pm, dboots <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > John Thanks for posting these reference links It would seem that > > > the group doesn't have a file category on the home page so unsure if > > > link exists > > > Any link(s) to that one report "Electromagnetic Investigation of > > > the Taos Hum" that was released by Sandia in it's entirety???? Didn't > > > anyone acquire that report by an FOIA???? I tried a google search > > > but nothing > > > seemed to pop up of a link to a pdf of the report I even tried > > > Sandia's Electromagnetic page but ended up with a server error when I > > > tried to search on that site > > > > Albuquerque Operations reported to Mr. Long on June 29, 1995 that > > > Sandia National Laboratory had provided one responsive record for each > > > category. The first, the "Electromagnetic Test Report, Electromagnetic > > > Investigation of the Taos Hum, Test Report, dated September 27, 1994," > > > was released in its entirety. > > > > On Apr 7, 11:09 pm, John Dawes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Here is the U.S. Department of Energy web page referring to the FOI > > > > application of Greg Longhttp://www.oha.doe.gov/cases/foia/vfa0060.htm > > > > > I have also found a letter dated November 22 1995 written by Sherry > > > > Robinson, Public Affairs Department University of New Mexico which > > > > states that a report by Taos Hum investigators Joe Mullins and Jim > > > > Kelly will be published in the Acoustical Society Newsletter, however, > > > > I have been unable to find this > > > > > On Apr 6, 12:05 pm, John Dawes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I am sorry there is little that I can add to this. Some time ago I > > > > > asked some American friends if they could find the results of part two > > > > > of the Taos Investigation, They contacted the University of New Mexico > > > > > and were informed that no information on the final investigation was > > > > > available, funding had been withdrawn and the investigation was now > > > > > closed. > > > > > I also contacted the UK government pointing out the similarity between > > > > > Hum sufferers in the USA and the UK asking if it would be possible for > > > > > an exchange of information, I received no answer to this. > > > > > I believe something important was discovered during the investigation > > > > > but it will be difficult to find out exactly what this was. > > > > > > On Apr 6, 10:27 am, dboots <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Is their any place on the web we can find this document that is > > > > > > copied and pasted here??? Did Greg Long give up after these > > > > > > denial's back in 1995? Has anyone else attempted to get the > > > > > > document > > > > > > released using FOIA??? > > > > > > > Not all FOIA's appeal's go to this length in explaining exactly > > > > > > what the denial reasoning behind it is based on Thanks for posting > > > > > > this, but is their a web link > > > > > > to this document ??? > > > > > > > On Apr 5, 1:37 am, John Dawes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Greg Long, Case No. VFA-0060, August 15, 1995 > > > > > > > > Case No. VFA-0060, 25 DOE ¶ 80,129 > > > > > > > August 15, 1995 > > > > > > > DECISION AND ORDER > > > > > > > OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY > > > > > > > Appeal > > > > > > > Name of Petitioner:Greg Long > > > > > > > Date of Filing:July 14, 1995 > > > > > > > Case Number: VFA-0060 > > > > > > > On July 14, 1995, Greg Long of Philomath, Oregon filed an Appeal > > > > > > > from a > > > > > > > determination issued on June 29, 1995 by the Albuquerque > > > > > > > Operations > > > > > > > Office > > > > > > > (Albuquerque Operations) of the Department of Energy (DOE). That > > > > > > > determination > > > > > > > denied in part Mr. Long's request for information submitted > > > > > > > pursuant > > > > > > > to the > > > > > > > Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as > > > > > > > implemented by > > > > > > > the DOE > > > > > > > in 10 C.F.R. Part 1004. This Appeal, if granted, would require > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > DOE to > > > > > > > release the withheld information. > > > > > > > The FOIA requires that agency records which are held by federal > > > > > > > agencies, and > > > > > > > which have not been made public in an authorized fashion by a > > > > > > > covered branch > > > > > > > of the federal government, generally be released to the public > > > > > > > upon > > > > > > > request. 5 > > > > > > > U.S.C. § 552(a)(3). In addition to this requirement, the FOIA > > > > > > > lists > > > > > > > nine > > > > > > > exemptions that set forth the types of information which may be > > > > > > > withheld at > > > > > > > the discretion of the agency. 5 U.S.C. § 5552(b)(1)-(b)(9). See > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > 10 C.F.R. > > > > > > > § 1004. 10(b)(1)-(b)(9). The DOE regulations further provide > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > documents > > > > > > > which may be exempt from mandatory disclosure will nonetheless > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > released to > > > > > > > the public if the DOE determines that disclosure is not > > > > > > > contrary to > > > > > > > federal > > > > > > > law and is in the public interest. 10 C.F.R. § 1004.1. > > > > > > > I. Background > > > > > > > In a letter dated March 23, 1995, Mr. Long filed a FOIA request > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > Albuquerque Operations seeking two related categories of > > > > > > > information. The > > > > > > > first category concerns the investigation of a mysterious and > > > > > > > unexplained > > > > > > > "hum" reported by many people in and around Taos, New Mexico. In > > > > > > > particular, > > > > > > > Mr. Long noted that Sandia National Laboratory had been > > > > > > > involved in > > > > > > > exploring > > > > > > > this phenomenon starting in > > > > > > > 1991. The second category asks for documents in which Sandia > > > > > > > personnel > > > > > > > explored similar "hums" elsewhere in New Mexico. > > > > > > > Albuquerque Operations reported to Mr. Long on June 29, 1995 > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > Sandia > > > > > > > National Laboratory had provided one responsive record for each > > > > > > > category. The > > > > > > > first, the "Electromagnetic Test Report, Electromagnetic > > > > > > > Investigation of the > > > > > > > Taos Hum, Test Report, dated September 27, 1994," was released > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > its > > > > > > > entirety. The second document, a draft report on "other possible > > > > > > > sources of > > > > > > > the Taos 'Hum.'" was withheld in its entirety. Albuquerque > > > > > > > Operations > > > > > > > explained that the report was never finalized because funding > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > the project > > > > > > > had been terminated. Accordingly, Albuquerque Operations > > > > > > > withheld > > > > > > > the document > > > > > > > under the deliberative process privilege of Exemption 5 of the > > > > > > > FOIA > > > > > > > on the > > > > > > > grounds that the document contained preliminary opinions and > > > > > > > findings which > > > > > > > were never finalized. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5); 10 C.F.R. § > > > > > > > 1004.10(b) > > > > > > > (5). > > > > > > > Albuquerque Operations did provide Mr. Long with findings done > > > > > > > by a > > > > > > > team at > > > > > > > the University of New Mexico who were working in conjunction > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > the Sandia > > > > > > > National Laboratory team. Mr. Long has appealed the withholding > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > the draft > > > > > > > report. > > > > > > > II. Analysis > > > > > > > Exemption 5 of the FOIA exempts from mandatory disclosure > > > > > > > documents > > > > > > > which are > > > > > > > "[i]nter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > not be > > > > > > > available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > agency." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5); 10 C.F.R. § 1004.10(b)(5). The > > > > > > > Supreme Court > > > > > > > has held that this section exempts "those documents, and only > > > > > > > those > > > > > > > documents, > > > > > > > normally privileged in the civil discovery context." National > > > > > > > Labor > > > > > > > Relations > > > > > > > Bd. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 149 (1975). Among > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > privileges > > > > > > > is the "executive" or "deliberative process" privilege. This is > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > privilege > > > > > > > that Albuquerque Operations relied upon in withholding > > > > > > > information > > > > > > > in this > > > > > > > case under Exemption 5. > > > > > > > The "executive" privilege shields from mandatory disclosure > > > > > > > documents, > > > > > > > advisory in nature, which are created during agency > > > > > > > consideration of > > > > > > > proposed > > > > > > > action, and which are part of the decision-making process. > > > > > > > Coastal > > > > > > > States Gas > > > > > > > Corp. v. Department of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 866 (D.C. Cir. > > > > > > > 1980). > > > > > > > Thus, > > > > > > > application of the privilege "under (b)(5) depends not only on > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > intrinsic > > > > > > > character of the document itself, but also on the role it > > > > > > > played in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > administrative process." Lead Industries Assoc., Inc. v. > > > > > > > Occupational Safety > > > > > > > and Health Admin., 610 F.2d 70, 80 (2d Cir. 1979) (Lead > > > > > > > Industries). > > > > > > > As a > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hum Sufferers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hum-sufferers?hl=en.
