Sound Cannons and Their Impact on Populations

1. Introduction: Defining Sound Cannons and the Scope of Their Impact on Populations

A long-range acoustic device (LRAD), also referred to as an acoustic hailing device (AHD) or, colloquially, a sound cannon, represents a specialized type of loudspeaker engineered to generate sound at exceptionally high power levels for the purpose of communication across considerable distances 1. These devices are categorized within the broader spectrum of sonic and ultrasonic weapons, which are defined by their utilization of sound energy to achieve tactical objectives 3. While LRAD technology possesses the inherent capability to produce sound at volumes comparable to those associated with weaponry, its primary application by law enforcement agencies lies in its capacity as a communication tool, particularly for managing large crowds 3. The conceptualization and subsequent development of the acoustic hailing device gained significant traction following the 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole. This event underscored a critical need within the United States Navy for a reliable means of establishing the intent of approaching vessels from a safe distance, thereby allowing sufficient time to implement defensive measures should a vessel fail to respond to warnings 2.

The journey of LRAD systems from their initial military application to their current global presence across commercial, law enforcement, and military sectors underscores a notable evolution 2. Genasys, a prominent manufacturer in this field, reports that its LRAD systems are currently deployed in over 100 countries worldwide 4. However, the widespread adoption and utilization of these high-intensity sound-emitting devices have ignited significant debate and apprehension. Concerns have been raised regarding the potential health risks associated with exposure to such powerful sound levels, the implications for civil liberties, and the overarching ethical considerations inherent in deploying technology capable of inflicting discomfort and potential harm on populations 2. The classification of LRADs as “non-lethal” weapons often accompanies their description, yet this label warrants a critical and thorough evaluation in light of the documented and potential consequences of their use.

2. The Technology Behind Sound Cannons (LRADs): Exploring the Mechanisms of High-Intensity Sound Production and Directionality

The generation of the remarkably high sound intensities characteristic of LRAD systems relies on a sophisticated arrangement of piezoelectric transducers, a departure from the single, rapidly moving diaphragm found in conventional loudspeakers 5. These transducers function as energy converters, transforming electrical impulses into mechanical vibrations that manifest as sound waves. This transformation occurs through the application of an electrical charge, which causes the piezoelectric material within the transducers to rapidly change shape, thereby creating pressure fluctuations in the surrounding air that propagate as sound 5. A key aspect of LRAD technology is the synchronized emission of sound waves from the numerous transducers within the array. These identical waves, when emitted in phase, constructively interfere with each other, resulting in a significant amplification of their amplitudes and the production of exceptionally loud sounds 5. Indeed, LRAD systems are capable of generating sound pressure levels reaching up to 160 decibels (dB) at a distance of one meter from the device 2. To put this into perspective, this level surpasses the generally accepted threshold of pain for human hearing, which is around 120 dB, and even exceeds the sound intensity produced by a jet engine during takeoff or the discharge of a firearm in close proximity 2. The sheer power of these devices underscores the inherent risk of auditory damage if they are not employed with extreme caution and adherence to stringent guidelines.

Beyond the capacity to produce extremely loud sounds, LRAD technology distinguishes itself through its ability to project sound in a highly directional manner 3. Unlike traditional loudspeakers that radiate sound waves in a relatively omnidirectional pattern, LRAD systems focus their acoustic energy into a narrow, controlled beam, akin to the beam of light from a flashlight 6. This directionality serves to minimize the dispersion of sound into surrounding areas, allowing for targeted communication or deterrence. The creation of this focused sound beam is achieved through a combination of factors, including the precise phasing of the sound waves emitted by the individual transducers, the physical dimensions of the device itself, and the interaction of the sound waves with the air through which they propagate 5. Specifically, the outer transducers in the array are intentionally operated slightly out of phase with the inner transducers. This phase difference causes some of the sound waves emanating from the periphery of the device to interact destructively, effectively canceling each other out and narrowing the overall sound beam, thus reducing the audibility of the sound outside the intended projection path 5. Furthermore, the diameter of an LRAD device is typically larger than the wavelengths of the sound it produces. This design characteristic allows the device to generate a wavefront that is more planar than spherical, which inherently limits the degree to which the sound waves spread out as they travel away from the source 5. Additionally, as the high-intensity sound waves from an LRAD interact with the air, they generate additional frequencies through non-linear processes, a phenomenon known as parametric generation. While conventional speaker designs often aim to minimize these parametrically generated waves, LRAD systems harness them to enhance the projection of a wider range of pitches and to augment the overall volume of the sound beam 5. Directional LRAD models typically exhibit a conical sound beam with a radius ranging from 5° to 60° at a frequency of 2 kHz 2. This highly focused projection capability, while advantageous for targeted communication, also concentrates the potentially harmful effects of the intense sound within a defined area, emphasizing the importance of careful aiming and controlled usage.

3. Diverse Applications of Sound Cannons:

Long-range acoustic devices have found utility across a diverse range of sectors, extending beyond their initial military purpose.

In the realm of law enforcement and crowd control, LRADs serve as a tool for managing large gatherings, facilitating clear communication of instructions, and, controversially, dispersing crowds during public events or protests 3. Law enforcement agencies utilize these devices to issue verbal warnings that can cut through the noise of a crowd and to guide individuals away from potentially volatile situations without resorting to physical engagement 3. A notable example of this application occurred in 2005 when the Santa Ana, California SWAT team successfully used an LRAD to disperse gang members from a house, prompting ten suspects to exit the building after a 30-second activation of the device’s tone 3. More recently, LRADs have been deployed in various protests around the world, including during Occupy Wall Street in 2011, the G20 summit in Pittsburgh in 2009, the Ferguson unrest in 2014, and the Dakota Access Pipeline protest in 2016 7. This shift towards using LRADs not just for communication but also as a means of crowd dispersal has sparked considerable debate regarding the potential for their misuse as less-than-lethal weapons, particularly when the device’s high-intensity alert tones are employed.

The initial impetus behind the development of LRAD technology was for military operations, specifically in response to the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 2. The primary objective was to provide a means of long-range communication with approaching vessels to ascertain their intentions and to enforce safe zones around United States military vessels, thus deterring potential threats such as piracy 2. Military organizations utilize LRADs to amplify voices and pre-recorded messages over considerable distances and in noisy environments, enabling personnel to issue instructions and warnings effectively 2. Furthermore, LRADs can be employed as a non-lethal option for crowd dispersal in military contexts or to induce disorientation in potential adversaries 2.

In the realm of emergency management and mass notification, LRADs serve as a valuable tool for broadcasting critical information during times of crisis 2. These devices can disseminate emergency messages, evacuation orders, and warnings across large areas during natural disasters such as bushfires, earthquakes, and tsunamis, with the capability of being heard even within buildings 2. To facilitate rapid response during emergencies, manufacturers offer mobile LRAD systems like the Mobile Range System and 360XT, which are designed for quick deployment in situations where infrastructure may be compromised 9.

Beyond these primary applications, LRAD technology has found niche uses in various other sectors. Airports utilize LRADs for wildlife deterrence, specifically to discourage birds and other animals from congregating on runways, thereby reducing the risk of collisions with aircraft 2. Similarly, they are employed to protect critical infrastructure such as oil and gas platforms from potential security threats 2. LRADs are also used at checkpoints and for border control to communicate with individuals approaching restricted areas 2. The maritime shipping industry utilizes them for communication and security purposes 2. Additionally, LRADs serve as a component in mass notification systems for a variety of applications beyond emergency scenarios 2. This diverse range of applications underscores the versatility of LRAD technology in situations where long-range, clear communication or targeted sound projection is required. However, it also reinforces the need for careful consideration of the potential for harm across all these different contexts.

4. Physiological Effects of Sound Cannon Exposure:

Exposure to the intense sound produced by sound cannons, even for brief durations, can induce a range of adverse physiological effects.

Short-term exposure to high decibel levels, particularly those exceeding 120 dB, can trigger immediate pain in the human auditory system 2. LRADs are capable of generating sound pressure levels of 135 dB or even higher 2. Individuals subjected to such intense sound have reported a constellation of immediate symptoms, including ear pain, prolonged migraines, significant difficulty with hearing, sinus pain, dizziness, facial pressure, a persistent ringing in the ears known as tinnitus, and an increased sensitivity to everyday sounds 6. Furthermore, exposure can lead to feelings of nausea and disorientation 2. Some individuals have described the sensation as a physical vibration coursing through their body, causing pain that extends beyond the auditory organs 16. This array of immediate and intense physiological responses underscores the capacity of LRADs to cause significant discomfort and potential harm even with limited exposure.

The consequences of sound cannon exposure are not limited to immediate discomfort; long-term effects can also manifest, particularly with repeated or high-intensity exposure. Unsafe exposure to LRADs has been linked to both temporary and permanent hearing loss 2. Beyond a general reduction in hearing acuity, individuals may experience persistent tinnitus, distortions in the perception of pitch, a decline in the clarity of speech understanding, and the development of hyperacusis, a condition characterized by an abnormal sensitivity to ordinary environmental sounds 6. Some individuals have reported experiencing long-lasting migraines and balance disturbances following LRAD exposure 6. In one documented case, an individual reported nerve damage in the ear as a direct result of the intense noise pressure generated by an LRAD 12. Notably, LRADs, when operated in their “alert mode,” often emit sound within the frequency range of 2,000 to 3,000 Hz 2. This frequency band coincides with the region where human hearing is most sensitive, making it particularly prone to causing long-term damage to auditory health 2. The potential for these lasting auditory and neurological problems underscores the gravity of the risks associated with the use of sound cannons.

It is crucial to recognize that certain segments of the population exhibit heightened vulnerability to the adverse effects of sound cannon exposure. Children, the elderly, and individuals with pre-existing hearing conditions or injuries face a greater risk of experiencing more severe and enduring harm 6. This differential vulnerability highlights the indiscriminate nature of LRAD technology and raises significant ethical concerns about its deployment in public spaces where these at-risk groups are likely to be present. The uniform application of high-intensity sound may have disproportionately negative consequences for those with already compromised auditory systems or those whose physiological resilience is diminished due to age.

5. Psychological Consequences of Sound Cannon Deployment:

Beyond the direct physiological impacts, the deployment of sound cannons can also elicit significant psychological consequences, both in the immediate aftermath and in the long term.

In the short term, the experience of being subjected to the intensely loud and highly directional sound emitted by an LRAD can be profoundly frightening and disorienting 18. Individuals have reported experiencing immediate panic and anxiety attacks, coupled with an overwhelming urge to escape the source of the sound 19. The sheer intensity of the sound can create a palpable feeling of unease and even induce physical vibrations in the head and chest 21. Furthermore, the deafening nature of the sound can severely impede communication, contributing to feelings of psychological distress and isolation 18. This immediate psychological impact, characterized by fear and a desire to flee, can lead to chaotic and potentially dangerous crowd behavior.

The psychological repercussions of sound cannon exposure can also extend into the long term. Individuals who have been subjected to the misuse of LRADs have reported a persistent fear of attending future protests or public gatherings 6. Studies have established a link between hearing loss, a potential long-term consequence of LRAD exposure, and a range of negative psychological states, including increased irritability, negativity, anger, fatigue, tension, stress, depression, social withdrawal, and a diminished sense of alertness 6. Exposure to intensely loud sounds can also trigger fear responses within the brain’s limbic system, potentially leading to the development of lasting anxiety or a state of heightened vigilance 15. The overall experience of being targeted by a sound cannon can be deeply traumatizing, potentially resulting in long-lasting psychological traumas 23. The intricate connection between auditory processing and emotional regulation underscores the potential for enduring mental health impacts following exposure to these devices.

Historically, sound has been strategically employed in psychological warfare to manipulate emotions and induce stress 20. Examples include the US military’s “Operation Wandering Soul” during the Vietnam War, which involved broadcasting “haunting sounds” to demoralize the Viet Cong 20. Similarly, during the siege at Waco, the FBI utilized high-volume music and various sound effects against the Branch Davidians in an attempt to psychologically pressure them 20. While LRADs are presented as tools for communication or crowd control, the historical precedent of using sound as a means of psychological manipulation raises concerns about the potential for similar, even if unintended, effects when deploying these high-intensity devices. The capacity of sound to influence emotions and induce stress is a well-established phenomenon that warrants careful consideration in the context of sound cannon usage.

6. Health Risks and Safety Considerations:

Understanding the health risks associated with sound cannons requires examining the established thresholds for noise-induced hearing damage and considering the specific capabilities of LRAD devices.

The human ear possesses a finite tolerance for sound intensity. Typically, sound pressure levels exceeding 120 dB are perceived as painful 2. Regulatory bodies like the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recommend that workers should not be exposed to noise levels above 90 dBA (A-weighted decibels) over an eight-hour shift without hearing protection to prevent hearing loss 2. Furthermore, exposure to sounds in the range of 110-120 dB can lead to permanent hearing loss even with short bursts of exposure, and prolonged exposure to levels as low as 75 dB can also be harmful 24. Long-range acoustic devices are capable of producing sound levels reaching up to 162 dB at a distance of one meter, significantly surpassing these established safety thresholds 2. This stark contrast between the capabilities of LRADs and the recognized limits of safe noise exposure clearly indicates a substantial risk of both temporary and permanent hearing damage for individuals exposed to these devices at high volumes and close ranges.

Beyond the well-documented risk of hearing impairment, exposure to sound cannons has been associated with a range of other physical risks. Individuals have reported experiencing migraines, facial pressure, numbness, and inflammation of the sinuses following LRAD deployment 6. There is also the potential for balance problems and other disturbances of the vestibular system, which is responsible for spatial orientation and equilibrium 15. At extremely high sound levels, even brief exposures can result in partial or complete deafness 25. While not directly related to the typical operating frequencies of LRADs, the effects of infrasound (sound frequencies below the human hearing range) have been theorized to include nausea, disorientation, and resonance within internal organs 19. While the direct relevance of infrasound effects to standard LRAD usage may be limited, the broader potential for systemic physiological impacts beyond the auditory system warrants further investigation.

Given the inherent risks associated with sound cannon technology, numerous organizations have issued safety guidelines and recommendations for their use. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) advises against exposure to noise levels exceeding 85 dBA over an eight-hour workday 3. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) has issued warnings regarding the potential for serious hearing loss and other health concerns resulting from exposure to LRADs 3. Recommendations for mitigating these risks include exercising restraint in their use, respecting civil rights during deployment, carefully controlling volume levels, and ensuring that all operators receive thorough and appropriate training 3. The Acoustical Society of America (ASA) has also emphasized the critical need for proper training protocols, the establishment of strict safety guidelines, and the undertaking of further research to fully understand the potential health risks posed by these devices 6. Notably, Audiology Australia has taken a strong stance, opposing the use of LRADs as a method of crowd control due to the significant potential for causing serious and lasting hearing loss and other auditory problems 14. These collective concerns and recommendations from expert organizations underscore the importance of a cautious and well-informed approach to the deployment of sound cannon technology.

7. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Sound Cannons in Crowd Management:

Sound cannons possess a dual functionality, serving both as a communication tool and, controversially, as a means of crowd dispersal. Evaluating their effectiveness requires considering both these aspects.

As a communication tool, LRADs offer a distinct advantage in their ability to broadcast audible voice messages with exceptional clarity over considerable distances and in environments characterized by significant background noise 5. These devices can amplify the human voice by 20 to 30 decibels compared to traditional bullhorns, ensuring that critical instructions and information can be effectively conveyed to large groups of people from a safe standoff distance 3. This capability can be particularly valuable in managing large public gatherings, where clear and intelligible communication is essential for safety and order.

In their capacity as a crowd dispersal tool, LRADs can emit a loud warning tone that approaches or even exceeds the human pain threshold, thereby acting as a deterrent 5. They have been utilized to issue direct orders for crowds to disperse and to clear buildings in tactical situations 5. The 2005 incident involving the Santa Ana SWAT team provides an example of successful crowd dispersal using an LRAD 3. Furthermore, LRADs have been deployed in various protest scenarios with the aim of deterring and dispersing crowds deemed to be engaging in unlawful or disruptive behavior 7. However, the use of painful sound to achieve crowd dispersal raises significant ethical questions, particularly regarding the potential for harm and the blurring of lines between communication and coercion.

Despite their utility in certain situations, the effectiveness of sound cannons in crowd management has limitations and raises concerns. The intensity of sound diminishes with distance, impacting the device’s efficacy at longer ranges 2. The effective range for non-lethal effects is often limited to 50 meters or less 2. If not operated correctly, the sound produced can be muffled and difficult to understand, negating its value as a communication tool 2. A significant concern is the indiscriminate nature of these devices, affecting not only the intended targets but also peaceful protesters, bystanders, and even law enforcement personnel in the vicinity 4. Moreover, simple protective measures like using earplugs or covering the ears can reduce the perceived intensity of the sound by 20 to 30 dB, potentially diminishing its effectiveness as a deterrent 4. Ultimately, serious questions persist within the expert community regarding the overall safety and true efficacy of acoustic weapons in the complex and dynamic context of crowd control 4.

8. Navigating the Legal and Regulatory Framework:

The legal and regulatory landscape surrounding the use of sound cannons on populations is complex and still evolving.

Within the United States, a significant challenge lies in the absence of a single, universally accepted definition of “less-than-lethal weapon,” leading to considerable variation in how law enforcement agencies approach their use 29. Despite this lack of federal uniformity, some police departments have proactively developed their own internal policies and guidelines governing the deployment of LRADs 6. These departmental guidelines often stipulate requirements such as the need for authorized operators who have undergone specific training, the necessity of authorization from an incident commander (typically a senior officer), and the establishment of minimum safe standoff distances between the device and individuals 31. A notable development occurred in New York City, where the Police Department reached a settlement agreement following a lawsuit filed by protesters who alleged hearing damage from LRAD use. As part of this settlement, the NYPD agreed to limit its use of the device’s high-pitched “alert tone,” acknowledging its potential to cause harm 13. On a state level, California has implemented legislation requiring law enforcement agencies to develop a military equipment use policy, which must be approved by the local governing body, for certain types of equipment, including long-range acoustic devices 36. These developments suggest a growing legal and regulatory scrutiny of sound cannon usage, particularly concerning their potential for causing injury to civilians.

On the international stage, the legal framework for acoustic weapons is even less defined. Currently, there is no authoritative definition or specific regulation of “acoustic weapons” or “acoustic devices” within international law, and they are not a subject of dedicated multilateral policy discussions 11. Nevertheless, concerns have been raised about whether the deployment of such devices in law enforcement and military contexts blurs the established boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable modalities of force 11. Drawing parallels to the international prohibition on blinding laser weapons under Protocol IV of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), some legal scholars and human rights advocates have suggested the need for similar international considerations regarding weapons that can cause deafness or other forms of sensory impairment 11. Furthermore, fundamental principles of international human rights law dictate that any use of force by law enforcement agencies must adhere to principles of minimization, targeting, proportionality, and an aim towards de-escalating violence. This includes the careful control and proportionate use of non-lethal incapacitating weapons 37. The indiscriminate use of such weapons is considered a violation of international human rights principles 37. Therefore, while specific international regulations for sound cannons are lacking, existing human rights law provides a framework for evaluating the legality and ethical permissibility of their deployment.

9. Documented Incidents and Case Studies of Sound Cannon Deployment:

The use of sound cannons, particularly LRADs, has been documented in a variety of situations, providing insights into their application and consequences.

In the context of protests and civil disturbances, there have been numerous reported incidents. During the 2009 G20 summit in Pittsburgh, police allegedly deployed sound cannons against protesters 7, leading to a lawsuit by Karen Piper, who claimed to have suffered permanent hearing loss as a result 12. In 2011, an NYPD officer was photographed with an LRAD during an Occupy Wall Street protest 7. LRADs were also reportedly used against protesters during the Ferguson unrest in 2014 7. The NYPD’s use of an LRAD during protests against the death of Eric Garner in 2014 resulted in a significant lawsuit and subsequent settlement due to injuries sustained by protesters 12. The Dakota Access Pipeline protest in 2016 also saw the deployment of sound cannons against demonstrators 7. In 2017, during the Women’s March on Washington D.C., police used an LRAD to help direct crowd flow 38. More recently, during the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, LRAD use was reported in several cities, including Rochester, New York 6. In 2022, at the anti-vaccine mandate protests in Canberra, Australia, an LRAD was used in “loud hailer” mode for voice announcements 2. Most recently, in March 2025, there were allegations of a sonic weapon being used against anti-government protesters in Belgrade 7. These documented incidents underscore the increasing use of sound cannons in response to civil unrest and the growing concerns about their potential to cause harm.

Beyond protests, LRADs have been deployed in other notable incidents. The attack on the USS Cole in 2000 served as the primary catalyst for the development of this technology 2. In 2005, the cruise ship Seabourn Spirit successfully used an LRAD to repel pirates who attacked the vessel 2. Japanese whaling ships have also reportedly used LRADs to deter interfering environmental activists 40. In 2020 and 2021, Greek authorities employed long-range sound cannons as a deterrent against migrants on the Turkish border 7. These diverse incidents illustrate the broad range of applications for sound cannon technology, from military and security operations to more controversial uses in managing civilian populations.

10. Ethical and Human Rights Implications of Sound Cannon Usage:

The deployment of sound cannons, particularly in civilian contexts, carries significant ethical and human rights implications that warrant careful consideration.

The use of LRADs in response to protests raises concerns about the right to peaceful assembly. The potential for these devices to indiscriminately cause pain and deter individuals from participating in demonstrations could be viewed as a violation of this fundamental right 2. International human rights principles emphasize that any use of force by law enforcement must be minimized, targeted, and proportional to the threat, with the aim of de-escalating violence 37. The indiscriminate application of high-intensity sound, which can affect all individuals within its projection path regardless of their behavior, may not align with these principles and could constitute a violation of international human rights standards 37.

The potential for excessive force is another critical concern. In the United States, courts have ruled that the purposeful use of LRADs in a manner capable of causing serious injury to non-violent protesters violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive force 13. Furthermore, there are widespread concerns about the adequacy of training provided to police officers regarding the safe and responsible use of these powerful devices 2. A lack of proper training, coupled with the inherent capacity of LRADs to inflict pain and injury, significantly increases the risk of misuse and the potential for causing serious harm, including permanent hearing loss 4.

The use of sound cannons can also be framed within the broader ethical discussion of “sensory violence.” These devices target the human senses, specifically the auditory system, raising fundamental ethical questions about the acceptability of employing such technologies for law enforcement purposes 11. The international community’s growing aversion to weapons that cause sensory impairment is evidenced by the prohibition of blinding laser weapons 11. The potential for LRADs to cause long-term health impacts, most notably permanent hearing loss, further complicates the ethical justification for their use, particularly when considering the implications of labeling them as “non-lethal” despite their capacity to inflict lasting sensory damage 11.

11. Controversies and Concerns Regarding Sound Cannon Deployment on Civilian Populations:

The deployment of sound cannons on civilian populations is fraught with controversies and concerns.

A primary concern revolves around the potential for misuse and abuse. The ease with which LRADs can be set to exceptionally high decibel levels creates a significant risk that they may be used inappropriately or excessively 14. In some regions, there is a lack of publicly available information regarding the specific guidelines that police forces follow when using these devices, further fueling concerns about transparency and accountability 14. There are also apprehensions that LRADs could be employed as “area denial” devices or as weapons intended to disperse peaceful assemblies, thereby infringing upon the right to protest 31.

Another significant issue is the indiscriminate nature of the technology. LRADs emit sound waves in a focused beam, but anyone positioned within that path, regardless of their actions or intentions, is subjected to the intense auditory stimulus 4. This lack of selectivity means that peaceful protesters, bystanders, and even law enforcement officers operating the device or in close proximity can be affected. Furthermore, vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and individuals with pre-existing health conditions face a heightened risk of experiencing more severe and lasting harm from LRAD exposure 6.

A notable point of contention arises from the discrepancy between manufacturer claims and the real-world use of these devices. Manufacturers often market LRADs primarily as sophisticated communication systems designed for long-range hailing 2. However, in practice, they are frequently deployed as less-lethal weapons for the purpose of crowd control, a use that has generated considerable controversy 2. The “alert” tone, in particular, which is specifically designed to produce a painful sound intended to disperse crowds, has become a major point of contention in legal and ethical debates surrounding the use of sound cannons 2. This divergence between the intended application and the actual deployment of LRADs contributes significantly to the ongoing controversy surrounding their use on civilian populations.

12. Exploring Alternative Crowd Control Methodologies:

Given the concerns surrounding the use of sound cannons, it is crucial to consider alternative approaches to crowd management.

De-escalation techniques represent a proactive approach that emphasizes communication, negotiation, and building rapport between law enforcement and crowds 41. This involves providing clear verbal warnings and opportunities for individuals to comply with instructions before resorting to more forceful measures 41. Utilizing established crowd control formations and physical barriers can also help manage crowd movement and prevent escalation without the need for direct confrontation or aversive stimuli 41.

Physical barriers and containment strategies offer another alternative. These methods involve using stanchions, crowd control barriers, fences, and markings on the ground to direct the flow of people and manage crowd movement 44. The tactic of “kettling,” where police encircle a crowd to contain it within a specific area, can also be employed 42.

Chemical irritants such as tear gas (CS gas) and pepper spray are commonly used to disperse crowds by causing temporary discomfort and irritation to the eyes and respiratory system 41. While these methods are also controversial and carry their own health risks, they represent an alternative to acoustic weapons for crowd dispersal.

Kinetic impact projectiles, including rubber bullets, plastic bullets, and beanbag rounds, are designed to deliver a blunt force impact that creates pain but ideally does not cause serious or permanent injury 41. These projectiles offer a more targeted approach compared to area-based effects like sound cannons or chemical irritants.

Water cannons utilize powerful jets of water to disperse crowds 4. While the force of the water can still cause injury in some circumstances, they are generally considered to carry a lower risk of lasting harm compared to acoustic weapons or kinetic impact projectiles.

Other technologies, such as “The Mosquito,” which emits a high-pitched sound designed to be painful to younger individuals, and the Active Denial System (ADS), which uses millimeter-wave radiation to create a heating sensation on the skin, also exist as alternative crowd control methods 2. However, these technologies have their own unique ethical and practical limitations.

13. Comparative Analysis of Crowd Control Technologies:

14. Recommendations and Conclusion: Towards Responsible Use and Mitigation of Harm

Based on the analysis of sound cannon technology and its effects on populations, the following recommendations are put forth to promote responsible use and mitigate potential harm:

• Stricter Regulation: Implement clear, legally binding regulations at national and potentially international levels defining the appropriate use of LRADs, particularly in civilian contexts. These regulations should specify prohibited uses (e.g., as area denial weapons), mandatory minimum safe distances, maximum permissible decibel levels based on exposure duration, and clear guidelines for authorization and training.
• Ban Alert Tones for Crowd Control: Given the primary function of the “alert tone” is to inflict pain and its documented history of causing injury, its use for crowd control purposes should be prohibited. LRADs should be restricted to voice communication in most civilian scenarios.
• Mandatory Comprehensive Training: Require extensive and ongoing training for all LRAD operators, focusing not only on the technical operation of the device but also on the potential health risks, ethical considerations, and legal implications of its use. Training should emphasize de-escalation tactics and the responsible use of the device as a communication tool.
• Transparency and Accountability: Establish clear protocols for documenting every instance of LRAD deployment, including the reason for use, duration, decibel levels, distance to target, and any reported injuries. Independent oversight mechanisms should be in place to review LRAD usage and ensure accountability for any misuse.
• Prioritize De-escalation and Alternatives: Encourage law enforcement agencies to prioritize de-escalation tactics and explore less harmful alternative crowd control methods whenever possible. Investment in training and resources for these alternatives should be prioritized.
• Further Research: Conduct comprehensive and independent research on the short-term and long-term health effects (both auditory and non-auditory) of LRAD exposure on diverse populations, including vulnerable groups. This research should inform evidence-based guidelines and regulations.
• Public Awareness: Increase public awareness about the potential dangers of LRADs and provide clear guidance on how individuals can protect themselves if exposed to these devices during protests or other events (e.g., using ear protection, seeking shelter behind dense objects).

In conclusion, sound cannons represent a powerful acoustic technology with the capacity for long-range communication. However, their deployment, particularly for the purpose of crowd control, carries significant risks to public health and civil liberties. While LRADs may offer a non-contact method of dispersing crowds, the potential for permanent hearing damage and other adverse health effects, coupled with their indiscriminate nature, raises serious ethical and human rights concerns. Moving forward, a more cautious and rigorously regulated approach to the use of LRADs is essential. Prioritizing communication, de-escalation, and the exploration of less harmful alternatives will be crucial in ensuring the safety and well-being of all populations. The classification of these devices as “non-lethal” warrants critical re-evaluation in light of their potential for causing lasting harm, and the implementation of stricter guidelines is imperative to prevent misuse and protect fundamental rights.

Works cited

1. en.wikipedia.org, accessed March 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-range_acoustic_device#:~:text=A%20long%2Drange%20acoustic%20device,for%20communicating%20at%20a%20distance.
2. Long-range acoustic device – Wikipedia, accessed March 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-range_acoustic_device
3. What Is LRAD and How To Use It Most Effectively – Critical Tech Solutions, accessed March 16, 2025, https://www.criticalts.com/articles/what-is-lrad-and-how-to-use-it/
4. Lethal in Disguise – Acoustic Weapons, accessed March 16, 2025, https://lethalindisguise.org/crowd-control-weapons/acoustic-weapons/
5. How LRAD Works – Science | HowStuffWorks, accessed March 16, 2025, https://science.howstuffworks.com/lrad.htm
6. Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRAD) and Public Safety – Acentech, accessed March 16, 2025, https://www.acentech.com/resources/long-range-acoustic-devices-lrad-and-public-safety/
7. Sonic weapon – Wikipedia, accessed March 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_weapon
8. Defense Use for LRADs – Genasys, accessed March 16, 2025, https://genasys.com/lrad-solutions/defense/
9. LRAD Products | Genasys, accessed March 16, 2025, https://genasys.com/lrad-products/
10. E2020-0173 – LRAD Risk Assessment – DCCEEW, accessed March 16, 2025, https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/env/consultations/5537458c-2e35-443a-970d-c28b8cf9131f/files/e2020-0173-lrad-risk-assessment.pdf
11. Acoustic Weapons | Article 36, accessed March 16, 2025, https://article36.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/acoustic-weapons.pdf
12. Edrei v. Bratton – LRAD Used For Crowd Control – Daigle Law Group, accessed March 16, 2025, https://daiglelawgroup.com/edrei-v-bratton-lrad-used-for-crowd-control/
13. Acoustic weapons: United States – Lethal in Disguise, accessed March 16, 2025, https://lethalindisguise.org/case-studies/united-states-new-york/
14. Hearing Health and the Use of Long- Range Acoustic Devices | Audiology Australia, accessed March 16, 2025, https://audiology.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/AudA-Position-Statement-Hearing-Health-and-the-Use-of-Long-Range-Acoustic-Devices.pdf
15. Science has a solution for sonic weapons caused cancer – OAText, accessed March 16, 2025, https://www.oatext.com/science-has-a-solution-for-sonic-weapons-caused-cancer.php
16. Noise Cannons? Really? REALLY? – The Hearing Review, accessed March 16, 2025, https://hearingreview.com/hearing-products/hearing-aids/ite/noise-cannons-really-really
17. ASHA Issues Warning About Long-Range Acoustic Devices – The Hearing Review, accessed March 16, 2025, https://hearingreview.com/hearing-loss/hearing-loss-prevention/industrial-military/auditory-threshold
18. The #1 Cost Effective Anti Piracy Solution – Ship Universe, accessed March 16, 2025, https://www.shipuniverse.com/the-1-cost-effective-anti-piracy-solution/
19. High-Intensity Acoustics for Military Nonlethal Applications: A Lack of Useful Systems – Oxford Academic, accessed March 16, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/172/2/182/4578046
20. Havana Syndrome & the Creepy History of Sonic Warfare – Spyscape, accessed March 16, 2025, https://spyscape.com/article/sonic-weapons-long-creepy-history
21. Sonic Weapons: How “sound cannons” are used for control – Twenty Thousand Hertz, accessed March 16, 2025, https://www.20k.org/episodes/thedeterrenttone
22. Sonic Warfare: Noise as a Weapon | Hearing Health & Technology Matters, accessed March 16, 2025, https://hearinghealthmatters.org/hearing-international/2023/sonic-warfare-noise-as-a-weapon/
23. Lethal in Disguise – How Crowd-Control Weapons Impact Health and Human Rights, accessed March 16, 2025, https://lethalindisguise.org/
24. Crowd Control: How the ‘Sonic Cannon’ Works | Live Science, accessed March 16, 2025, https://www.livescience.com/7900-crowd-control-sonic-cannon-works.html
25. Acoustic Weapons – A Prospective Assessment – Science & Global Security, accessed March 16, 2025, https://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/sgs09altmann.pdf
26. Review of Audiovestibular Symptoms Following Exposure to Acoustic and Electromagnetic Energy Outside Conventional Human Hearing – PubMed Central, accessed March 16, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7199630/
27. LRAD Case Study – Protest Communications – San Diego, CA – Genasys, accessed March 16, 2025, https://genasys.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/LRAD-Case-Study-Protest-Communications-San-Diego-CA.pdf
28. Acoustic weapons | ACLU, accessed March 16, 2025, https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/acoustic_weapons.pdf
29. Law Enforcement Use of Less-than-Lethal Weapons: Considerations for Congress, accessed March 16, 2025, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R48365.html
30. Law Enforcement Use of Less-than-Lethal Weapons: Considerations for Congress, accessed March 16, 2025, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R48365
31. 1 DEPARTMENTAL GENERAL ORDER I-27: LONG-RANGE ACOUSTICAL DEVICE (LRAD) Effective Date, accessed March 16, 2025, https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/DGO-I-27-as-of-10.10.22.pdf
32. general orders – 580.17 use of the long range acoustic device (lrad) – SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, accessed March 16, 2025, https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/content/dam/portal/police/Transparency/policy/GO/Section-500/GO-58017-Use-of-the-Long-Range-Acoustical-Device-11723.pdf
33. NYPD agrees to limit use of sound cannons | FOX 5 New York, accessed March 16, 2025, https://www.fox5ny.com/news/nypd-agrees-to-limits-on-sound-cannons
34. Acoustic Weapons – LETHAL IN DISGUISE 2, accessed March 16, 2025, https://lethalindisguise.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/LID2-Acoustic-Weapons.pdf
35. Police confirm they used controversial sonic cannons on Parliament protestors – YouTube, accessed March 16, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q0ngnqxZXM
36. AB 2546 – SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY, accessed March 16, 2025, https://spsf.senate.ca.gov/system/files/2024-05/ab-2546-analysis.pdf
37. Health Impacts of Crowd-Control Weapons: Acoustic Weapons – PHR, accessed March 16, 2025, https://phr.org/our-work/resources/health-impacts-of-crowd-control-weapons-acoustic-weapons/
38. Records show D.C. Police used an LRAD sound cannon to “direct crowd flow” during the Women’s March – MuckRock, accessed March 16, 2025, https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/nov/20/dc-lrad/
39. One of the largest protests ever held in Serbia, students accuse the authorities of using illegal device – European Western Balkans, accessed March 16, 2025, https://europeanwesternbalkans.com/2025/03/15/one-of-the-largest-protests-ever-held-in-serbia-students-accuse-the-authorities-of-using-illegal-device/
40. The Sonic Cannon, the Pain Ray and the Irony of the American Revolution | The Indypendent, accessed March 16, 2025, https://indypendent.org/2012/02/the-sonic-cannon-the-pain-ray-and-the-irony-of-the-american-revolution/
41. Police Response to Protests, Riots & Crowd Control Expert Article – Robson Forensic, accessed March 16, 2025, https://www.robsonforensic.com/articles/police-riot-crowd-control-expert-witness
42. kustomsignals.com, accessed March 16, 2025, https://kustomsignals.com/blog/riot-police-and-crowd-control-from-tactics-to-equipment-everything-you-need-to-know#:~:text=Another%20tactic%20used%20for%20crowd,used%20to%20control%20the%20space.
43. Riot Police and Crowd Control: From Tactics To Equipment, Everything You Need To know, accessed March 16, 2025, https://kustomsignals.com/blog/riot-police-and-crowd-control-from-tactics-to-equipment-everything-you-need-to-know
44. Crowd control – Wikipedia, accessed March 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_control
45. Manage Crowds At Events: 9 Game-Changing Steps – Swoogo, accessed March 16, 2025, https://swoogo.events/blog/crowd-management-events/
46. Crowd Control Techniques for Effective Management – fielddrive, accessed March 16, 2025, https://www.fielddrive.com/blog/crowd-control-techniques-event-management
47. Crowd control weapons | Wiki – FreedomGPT, accessed March 16, 2025, https://www.freedomgpt.com/wiki/crowd-control-weapons
48. Non-lethal weapon – Wikipedia, accessed March 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-lethal_weapon
49. Understanding the Impact of Non-Lethal Projectiles: Balancing Safety and Security, accessed March 16, 2025, https://biokinetics.com/understanding-the-impact-of-non-lethal-projectiles-balancing-safety-and-security/
50. Brown Notes and Sound Cannons: Surrender, or We’ll Hit You with Doris Day Again, accessed March 16, 2025, https://www.wildcardsworld.com/brown-notes-and-sound-cannons-surrender-or-well-hit-you-with-doris-day-again/