Are there safeguards when technology causes physical harm?

When devices driven by powerful EMF (household microwave oven, outdoor high power unidirectional microwave transceivers deployed for point to point wireless communication mainly) are salvaged for components emitting powerful EMF (Magnetron, outdoor beam forming radio transmitter respectively) then placed in an electronic circuit to function as a weapon (expertise in electronic circuit design/fabrication gets one started) and applied for malice a victim in civil society unsuspecting and defenseless. This concern of safeguards being absent would be void if (a) there were life science diagnostic/forensic tests to detect biomarkers expressed post-overexposure to powerful RF, (b) statutes/code pertinent to physical assault/trespass, antitrust, extortion and possibly others delineated improvisation of common sources emitting powerful RF as a method of crime, (c) harassment policy (similar to discrimination types delineated by the Civil Rights Act) statement were published on notice boards that gave notice of penal implications when powerful RF is used for hate/retaliation/mobbing etc. and (d) powerful RF emitters (eg. Magnetron) were designed in such a manner that they get neutralized (ie. bricked) when removed from its original manufacturer's device housing (eg. household microwave oven).

Targeting a victim by placing a re-purposed/improvised powerful RF emitter in an innocuous place at a place of work/recuperation with awareness of the victim being stationary for extended periods of time makes this a compelling type of technology misuse in need of risk mitigation considering (a) RF passes through typical building material with insignificant attenuation*, (b) unlike visible energy form like flame which alerts our sense of caution, most of us are unaware of failing health post-overexposure to powerful RF, (c) integration of advanced signal processing allows a victim to become visible**  in spite of opaque building barriers and (d) a decision-maker in industry or government whose health when held for ransom*** using this method, absent methods to detect/test overexposure to powerful RF, the decision-maker is vulnerable to forsake interests of common good to protect one's own (or kin or pet) health.

Thanks for the opportunity to bring this to your attention.

Viewing in the news today about WikiLeaks reminded me of a previous instance when WikiLeaks made news when I attempted to get input from the Election Law discussion forum. My post to that forum can be viewed at https://department-lists.uci.edu/pipermail/law-election/2019-April/016203.html.

* Stone WC. Electromagnetic Signal Attenuation in Construction Materials. In: NIST Interagency/Internal Report - 6055. 1 Oct 1997.

** Ling H, Ram S. "Detecting Human Activities Through Barriers: Doppler Radar Signals Become Animation". www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080925094719.htm

*** Sir William Stewart. Power Density: Radio frequency Non-Ionizing Radiation. In: Mobile Phones and Health: A report from the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, (The Stewart Report, 2000). https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/62515/cavi_society_attachment.pdf. This report presents the types of negative health in animal/avian models post-overexposure to powerful RF. Modifying the radiated RF power and/or duration of exposure to invoke the same negative health effects in humans is a matter of experimentation.