# NWI EMF + Infrasound Pilot — Anticipated Questions

## Questions Eric Will Likely Ask

---

### 1. "What exactly are you asking SBDC to do?"

**Answer:** "We're asking for a letter of support — not funding. The letter would endorse this pilot as a legitimate economic development initiative for NWI. That endorsement unlocks SBIR Phase I funding ($323,090) and equipment access through Purdue RF Alliance. SBDC incurs no cost."

---

### 2. "Why should SBDC care about this?"

**Answer:** "Three reasons:
1. **Economic development:** This brings federal SBIR money into NWI
2. **Regional positioning:** NWI becomes a leader in occupational health monitoring
3. **Workforce benefit:** 15,000+ workers get baseline exposure data they don't currently have

This is the same logic as Phase I environmental site assessments — establish baseline before problems arise."

---

### 3. "Are you claiming EMF or infrasound causes health problems?"

**Answer:** "No. We're not making any causal claims. We're establishing baseline exposure data. 

The WHO classifies ELF magnetic fields as Group 2B — 'possibly carcinogenic' — which means the evidence is limited and more research is needed. Our pilot provides that research baseline.

Infrasound has documented associations with sleep disturbance, nausea, and dizziness in peer-reviewed literature. But we're measuring exposure levels, not asserting harm."

---

### 4. "Why include infrasound? Isn't that just noise?"

**Answer:** "Infrasound is different from regular noise:
- It's below 20 Hz — often inaudible
- It penetrates walls and standard hearing protection
- It affects the vestibular system, not just hearing
- Sources include pile driving, heavy machinery, rail operations

This corridor has all those sources. We'd be remiss not to include it."

---

### 5. "Which companies are you targeting?"

**Answer:** "We're not targeting any company. This is a corridor-wide baseline study. The major employers — BP, Cleveland-Cliffs, Unilever, Dover Chemical, Cargill — are part of the industrial landscape we're measuring, not targets of investigation.

Think of it as a regional air quality study: you measure the air, you don't target specific facilities."

---

### 6. "What happens if you find high exposure levels?"

**Answer:** "We report the data. That's it. We don't make regulatory complaints, we don't issue press releases, we don't approach employers with demands.

The data becomes a resource for:
- Employers making workplace safety decisions
- Workers understanding their exposure
- Researchers conducting follow-up studies
- Public health officials assessing regional health"

---

### 7. "What's the budget breakdown?"

**Answer:** "SBIR Phase I is capped at $323,090. Approximate allocation:
- **Equipment:** EMF meters, infrasound sensors, data loggers
- **Personnel:** Field technicians, data analysts
- **Laboratory access:** Purdue RF Alliance equipment fees
- **Travel:** Site visits, coordination meetings
- **Indirect costs:** Institutional overhead

We're not asking SBDC for any of this — it all comes from federal SBIR funding."

---

### 8. "What's your timeline?"

**Answer:** 
- **May 2026:** SBDC support letter
- **June 2026:** Purdue RF Alliance equipment access
- **August 2026:** SBIR Phase I submission
- **Q1 2027:** Baseline data collection begins
- **Q3 2027:** Initial dataset published

---

### 9. "Who else is supporting this?"

**Answer:** "We're building a coalition:
- **SBDC:** Support letter (requested)
- **Purdue RF Alliance:** Equipment access (in discussion)
- **CIVS (Purdue Northwest):** Field propagation modeling (potential collaboration)
- **NIEHS/NIH:** SBIR Phase I funding (to be submitted)

Eric, you'd be the first institutional endorsement — which carries weight with other partners."

---

### 10. "What if SBIR doesn't fund it?"

**Answer:** "We revise and resubmit — standard SBIR process. About 15-20% of Phase I applications are funded on first submission. Having SBDC endorsement improves our chances significantly.

Alternative funding paths:
- State-level economic development grants
- Private foundation grants
- Industry partnership (if employers see value)"

---

## Questions Eric Might Hesitate to Ask (But You Should Address)

### "Is this going to make SBDC look bad?"

**Preemptive answer:** "No. SBDC is endorsing baseline data collection — not taking a position on health effects. This is the same as endorsing a Phase I environmental assessment. It's prudent, not controversial."

### "Is this going to alienate major employers?"

**Preemptive answer:** "We're not singling out any employer. This is corridor-wide baseline data. Employers can use the data to inform their own workplace safety decisions. We're a resource, not a regulator."

---

## Red Flags to Avoid

| Don't Say | Do Say |
|-----------|--------|
| "EMF causes cancer" | "WHO classifies ELF fields as Group 2B" |
| "We're investigating Unilever" | "We're measuring the corridor" |
| "Workers are being harmed" | "Workers have no baseline data" |
| "We need SBDC funding" | "We need SBDC endorsement" |
| "This is a health crisis" | "This is a data gap" |

---

*Prepared for SBDC meeting — May 26, 2026*