3 ms·

What? The weasel words at the end are good science, not weasel words. They're explicit about what they have and haven't determined. They've done impressive wor

What? The weasel words at the end are good science, not weasel words. They're explicit about what they have and haven't determined. They've done impressive work figuring out why the "ultrasonic" attack would have an audible component. They can now reproduce the tones heard in Cuba using an ultrasonic source, something that didn't make sense before. Responsibly, they never claim that the "ultrasonic attack" is conclusively responsible for the actual harm, although it appears likely.

jessaustin 9y ago
I remember reading about audible sound produced from interference of ultrasound decades ago. As TFA indicates it's just math, which math has certainly been done before now. After reading TFA, I'm not convinced there was an attack, that if an attack occurred it had anything to do with ultrasound, or that if an ultrasound attack occurred it had any of the qualities discussed in TFA. It's interesting to compare this credulous hypothesizing with the article by the same author in the sidebar that is super-skeptical about the pacemaker hacks, which hacks have since been confirmed by FDA.
SiempreViernes 9y ago
The "ultrasonic attack" really deserves a few dozen scare quotes at this point, people with experience of using ultrasound on humans deem it unlikely to actually cause harm in any covert way, and I do trust the medical profession to find pretty robust limits on how dangerous ultrasonic devices are. So given that there is no convincing reason to believe ultrasound has anything to do with it, they've now demonstrated a way to make audible noise as a consequence of interaction between two ultrasonic sources. They chose this particular (obscure) way of getting audible sound from an ultrasound emitter because a journalist sent a video of a sound whose relevance is that it was recorded on Cuba. And the great result is that now you need at least two ultrasound emitters, one of which is a bulky 155 dB emitter just lying around undetected in the homes of American diplomats. I don't see how the explanation of a minor problem with the ultrasound theory is any great advance.

jessaustin 9y ago

I remember reading about audible sound produced from interference of ultrasound decades ago. As TFA indicates it's just math, which math has certainly been done before now. After reading TFA, I'm not convinced there was an attack, that if an attack occurred it had anything to do with ultrasound, or that if an ultrasound attack occurred it had any of the qualities discussed in TFA. It's interesting to compare this credulous hypothesizing with the article by the same author in the sidebar that is super-skeptical about the pacemaker hacks, which hacks have since been confirmed by FDA.

SiempreViernes 9y ago

The "ultrasonic attack" really deserves a few dozen scare quotes at this point, people with experience of using ultrasound on humans deem it unlikely to actually cause harm in any covert way, and I do trust the medical profession to find pretty robust limits on how dangerous ultrasonic devices are. So given that there is no convincing reason to believe ultrasound has anything to do with it, they've now demonstrated a way to make audible noise as a consequence of interaction between two ultrasonic sources. They chose this particular (obscure) way of getting audible sound from an ultrasound emitter because a journalist sent a video of a sound whose relevance is that it was recorded on Cuba. And the great result is that now you need at least two ultrasound emitters, one of which is a bulky 155 dB emitter just lying around undetected in the homes of American diplomats. I don't see how the explanation of a minor problem with the ultrasound theory is any great advance.