Technology risk without safeguards
Hello, I believe the below described method of causing intentional (1) damage to equipment in data centers and (2) physical injury to a person at the workplace is on-topic for the NANOG community, if not, I look forward to your feedback. As a software developer who has subscribed to the NANOG mailing list for a number of years, I post this note relying on intellectual honesty that I have had the opportunity to observe since 1996-97. The below described technology risk is applicable to computing/communication equipment rendered vulnerable by Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (jamming an electronic device) and the risk of health sabotage affecting people (jamming a human) managing the Internet infrastructure enabled by intentional application of powerful radiofrequency fields (RF) emitted by re-purposed components salvaged from a kitchen heating appliance (Magnetron) or from an outdoor high gain/power Line of sight transceiver (unidirectional microwave radio) which has a harm causing range up to 25 meters (estimated using a Spectral Power Density calculator like www.hintlink.com/power_density.htm). This risk from mis-application of powerful RF is from human operated or IoT apparatus** with an avenue of approch from (a) subterrain placement aided by a compact/mini directional horizontal drilling machine (eg. principle of placing a stent in the heart) and/or (b) strategic placement in an obscure over-surface location to maximize negative impact on the target of opportunity. With building materials or ground offer insufficient* protection to block the passage of powerful RF and the absence of diagnostic/forensic tests to detect biomarkers expressed post-overexposure to harmful RF (combination of RF frequency, Spectral Power Density/Specific Absorption Rate incident on a person and duration of exposure), intentional damage to electronic equipment and people is at present unrestricted. The purpose of bringing this method of exploting technology to your attention is with an interest to build the momentum for ushering in the much needed safeguards in this context. Thanks. Suresh https://competitionunlimited.wordpress.com. * Stone WC. Electromagnetic Signal Attenuation in Construction Materials. In: NISTInteragency/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.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 8:49 AM Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte@gmail.com> wrote:
I believe the below described method of causing intentional (1) damage to equipment in data centers and (2) physical injury to a person at the workplace is on-topic for the NANOG community, if not, I look forward to your feedback. As a software developer who has subscribed to the NANOG mailing list for a number of years, I post this note relying on intellectual honesty that I have had the opportunity to observe since 1996-97.
Hello, Did you test against common equipment deployments or did you just measure the field strength? In common equipment deployments, the electronics are wrapped in two layers of Faraday cage: the steel case of the equipment itself and the steel cabinet into which the equipment is installed, both well grounded. Penetration from even strong EM fields is limited. Also, if you go to the expense of boring under someone's data center I have to think dynamite will be more effective at disabling it. Regards, Bill Herrin -- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
Hello,
Did you test against common equipment deployments or did you just measure the field strength?
I have not conducted any test, only going by the field strength that is capable of causing EMI.
In common equipment deployments, the electronics are wrapped in two layers of Faraday cage: the steel case of the equipment itself and the steel cabinet into which the equipment is installed, both well grounded. Penetration from even strong EM fields is limited.
I agree. Depending on the magnitude of down side, ie., to mitigate an attack to induce electrical failure (Magnetron + horn antenna), it may be necessary for metal clad walls and floor housing the electronic equipment. The thickness of metal clading would need some testing with an RF emitter discussed at https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/analysis/emp-the- suitcase-that-can-close-down-your-site/.
Also, if you go to the expense of boring under someone's data center I have to think dynamite will be more effective at disabling it.
If all data centers without a floor beneath are hardened to repel a sub-surface horizontal drilling apparatus, that's great. For data centers that do have a floor beneath, the above said metal clading is relevant. Your comments gives me an overall impression that data center equipment are on average adequately protected, that is good. Also, public discussion on the risk of intentional EMI is a big positive. However, targeting a human using powerful RF is uncharacterized (please see https://github.com/sureshs20/De_Risk_Technology). If the RF emitters conducive for getting re-purposed for malice were prohibitively expensive _or_ the expertise to re-purpose RF for malice was very complex _or_ if there were diagnostic/forensic tests to detect foul-play using powerful RF, I would not be pursuing this initiative to safeguard unsuspecting/defenseless targets of opportunity. Please also note that I have been at the threshold of cancer post-overexposure to a combination of powerful RF and X-ray (re-purposed X-ray tube) during this lifetime to be committed to developing diagnostic/forensic tests and making you all aware of this in the spirit of 'fore warned is fore armed'. Regards, Suresh On Wednesday, November 4, 2020, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 8:49 AM Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte@gmail.com> wrote:
I believe the below described method of causing intentional (1) damage to equipment in data centers and (2) physical injury to a person at the workplace is on-topic for the NANOG community, if not, I look forward to your feedback. As a software developer who has subscribed to the NANOG mailing list for a number of years, I post this note relying on intellectual honesty that I have had the opportunity to observe since 1996-97.
Hello,
Did you test against common equipment deployments or did you just measure the field strength?
In common equipment deployments, the electronics are wrapped in two layers of Faraday cage: the steel case of the equipment itself and the steel cabinet into which the equipment is installed, both well grounded. Penetration from even strong EM fields is limited.
Also, if you go to the expense of boring under someone's data center I have to think dynamite will be more effective at disabling it.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 11:37 AM Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte@gmail.com> wrote:
Your comments gives me an overall impression that data center equipment are on average adequately protected, that is good. Also, public discussion on the risk of intentional EMI is a big positive.
I watched a T.V. program a few years ago where an investigative reporter did a piece on the risks of malicious electromagnetic interference (EMI). He did a demonstration where he tried to cause a car to malfunction. A bad actor could cause highway crashes! He had a great big apparatus about the size of the car's engine compartment and pointed at the car. Nothing happened. So he moved it about 3 feet from the car. Nothing happened. So he opened the car's hood and pointed it right at the engine. Finally the engine started sputtering and the dashboard electronics malfunctioned. The car, of course, remained completely controllable and when the EMI generator was turned off it resumed normal operation undamaged. I've also had lightning hit about 50 feet from my unshielded computer room. It fried a little plastic COTS router that was connected by about 100 feet of UTP ethernet to my core router. The core router crashed but worked fine after a reboot. No other equipment was affected. Vulnerability to EMI is a lot less than folks imagine.
However, targeting a human using powerful RF is uncharacterized (please see https://github.com/sureshs20/De_Risk_Technology). If the RF emitters conducive for getting re-purposed for malice were prohibitively expensive _or_ the expertise to re-purpose RF for malice was very complex _or_ if there were diagnostic/forensic tests to detect foul-play using powerful RF, I would not be pursuing this initiative to safeguard unsuspecting/defenseless targets of opportunity.
Malicious use of EMI emitters to harm human health is definitely out of scope for this list. Regards, Bill Herrin -- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
Vulnerability to EMI is a lot less than folks imagine.
I hope that is true.
Malicious use of EMI emitters to harm human health is definitely out of scope for this list.
I am of the belief that people are as important as electronic equipment in the gamut of workplace safety in the ambit of internal sabotage, be it data center or elsewhere. On Thursday, November 5, 2020, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 11:37 AM Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte@gmail.com> wrote:
Your comments gives me an overall impression that data center equipment are on average adequately protected, that is good. Also, public discussion on the risk of intentional EMI is a big positive.
I watched a T.V. program a few years ago where an investigative reporter did a piece on the risks of malicious electromagnetic interference (EMI). He did a demonstration where he tried to cause a car to malfunction. A bad actor could cause highway crashes! He had a great big apparatus about the size of the car's engine compartment and pointed at the car. Nothing happened. So he moved it about 3 feet from the car. Nothing happened. So he opened the car's hood and pointed it right at the engine. Finally the engine started sputtering and the dashboard electronics malfunctioned. The car, of course, remained completely controllable and when the EMI generator was turned off it resumed normal operation undamaged.
I've also had lightning hit about 50 feet from my unshielded computer room. It fried a little plastic COTS router that was connected by about 100 feet of UTP ethernet to my core router. The core router crashed but worked fine after a reboot. No other equipment was affected.
Vulnerability to EMI is a lot less than folks imagine.
However, targeting a human using powerful RF is uncharacterized (please see https://github.com/sureshs20/De_Risk_Technology). If the RF emitters conducive for getting re-purposed for malice were prohibitively expensive _or_ the expertise to re-purpose RF for malice was very complex _or_ if there were diagnostic/forensic tests to detect foul-play using powerful RF, I would not be pursuing this initiative to safeguard unsuspecting/defenseless targets of opportunity.
Malicious use of EMI emitters to harm human health is definitely out of scope for this list.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
I think the actual risk is the opposite of transmitting signals to damage or sabotage. I have read about many cases of receiving weak signals from things like monitors and wireless keyboards that could be snooped in by receiving and decoding them. I suppose routers and switches could leak signals representing actual data packets like this too. Perhaps even before they are encrypted. I could imagine a scenario where a neighboring cage in a DC attempted something like that. It would be much harder to detect than a physical breach. Brandon
On Nov 4, 2020, at 12:54 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 11:37 AM Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte@gmail.com> wrote:
Your comments gives me an overall impression that data center equipment are on average adequately protected, that is good. Also, public discussion on the risk of intentional EMI is a big positive.
I watched a T.V. program a few years ago where an investigative reporter did a piece on the risks of malicious electromagnetic interference (EMI). He did a demonstration where he tried to cause a car to malfunction. A bad actor could cause highway crashes! He had a great big apparatus about the size of the car's engine compartment and pointed at the car. Nothing happened. So he moved it about 3 feet from the car. Nothing happened. So he opened the car's hood and pointed it right at the engine. Finally the engine started sputtering and the dashboard electronics malfunctioned. The car, of course, remained completely controllable and when the EMI generator was turned off it resumed normal operation undamaged.
I've also had lightning hit about 50 feet from my unshielded computer room. It fried a little plastic COTS router that was connected by about 100 feet of UTP ethernet to my core router. The core router crashed but worked fine after a reboot. No other equipment was affected.
Vulnerability to EMI is a lot less than folks imagine.
However, targeting a human using powerful RF is uncharacterized (please see https://github.com/sureshs20/De_Risk_Technology). If the RF emitters conducive for getting re-purposed for malice were prohibitively expensive _or_ the expertise to re-purpose RF for malice was very complex _or_ if there were diagnostic/forensic tests to detect foul-play using powerful RF, I would not be pursuing this initiative to safeguard unsuspecting/defenseless targets of opportunity.
Malicious use of EMI emitters to harm human health is definitely out of scope for this list.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 10:48 AM Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I believe the below described method of causing intentional (1) damage to equipment in data centers and (2) physical injury to a person at the workplace is on-topic for the NANOG community, if not, I look forward to your feedback. As a software developer who has subscribed to the NANOG mailing list for a number of years, I post this note relying on intellectual honesty that I have had the opportunity to observe since 1996-97.
The below described technology risk is applicable to computing/communication equipment rendered vulnerable by Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (jamming an electronic device) and the risk of health sabotage affecting people (jamming a human) managing the Internet infrastructure enabled by intentional application of powerful radiofrequency fields (RF) emitted by re-purposed components salvaged from a kitchen heating appliance (Magnetron) or from an outdoor high gain/power Line of sight transceiver (unidirectional microwave radio) which has a harm causing range up to 25 meters (estimated using a Spectral Power Density calculator like www.hintlink.com/power_density.htm).
This risk from mis-application of powerful RF is from human operated or IoT apparatus** with an avenue of approch from (a) subterrain placement aided by a compact/mini directional horizontal drilling machine (eg. principle of placing a stent in the heart) and/or (b) strategic placement in an obscure over-surface location to maximize negative impact on the target of opportunity.
With building materials or ground offer insufficient* protection to block the passage of powerful RF and the absence of diagnostic/forensic tests to detect biomarkers expressed post-overexposure to harmful RF (combination of RF frequency, Spectral Power Density/Specific Absorption Rate incident on a person and duration of exposure), intentional damage to electronic equipment and people is at present unrestricted.
The purpose of bringing this method of exploting technology to your attention is with an interest to build the momentum for ushering in the much needed safeguards in this context.
While I'm a bit confused as to what this message is trying to ultimately get at, it should be noted that folks who work with RF communications equipment and other EM emitters which are strong enough to cause harm to a person are generally well aware of the necessary precautions and take them on a day to day basis when working with this equipment. If there's evidence that some part of our industry is ignoring or failing to train their team members on safety best practices, then let's hear that out specifically and I'm all for working to rectify that. On the other hand, the post seems to hint at intentionally using high powered RF to inflict intentional harm on a person or to jam communications signals. The former is relatively difficult to do by virtue of the amount of power necessary. Quite basically, there are much easier ways to go about injuring someone if that's what you want to do. Of course, intentionally injuring another person is a criminal act in just about every jurisdiction. As far as the latter goes, the ability to jam RF communications has existed for as long as RF communication has, and the knowledge of how to accomplish it is relatively widespread. It is also illegal in the US and most likely many other jurisdictions as well, and in the US the FCC has enforcement power with the ability to levy some pretty hefty fines on anyone who does so, even inadvertently though negligent practices. The post states that their intention is to "build the momentum for ushering in the much needed safeguards in this context." but lacks specificity with regard to what safeguards they propose beyond the legal/regulatory ones that already exist, so I'm not sure what more can really be said here. Matt Harris|Infrastructure Lead Engineer 816-256-5446|Direct Looking for something? Helpdesk Portal|Email Support|Billing Portal We build and deliver end-to-end IT solutions.
Maybe someone is just looking for "inspiration". There is other venues to work this out "safely", IMHO. ----- Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443 On 11/4/20 12:24 PM, Matt Harris wrote:
Matt Harris |
Infrastructure Lead Engineer
816‑256‑5446 |
Direct
Looking for something? *Helpdesk Portal* <https://help.netfire.net/> |
*Email Support* <mailto:help@netfire.net> |
*Billing Portal* <https://my.netfire.net/>
We build and deliver end‑to‑end IT solutions.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 10:48 AM Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte@gmail.com <mailto:sskalkunte@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello,
I believe the below described method of causing intentional (1) damage to equipment in data centers and (2) physical injury to a person at the workplace is on-topic for the NANOG community, if not, I look forward to your feedback. As a software developer who has subscribed to the NANOG mailing list for a number of years, I post this note relying on intellectual honesty that I have had the opportunity to observe since 1996-97.
The below described technology risk is applicable to computing/communication equipment rendered vulnerable by Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (jamming an electronic device) and the risk of health sabotage affecting people (jamming a human) managing the Internet infrastructure enabled by intentional application of powerful radiofrequency fields (RF) emitted by re-purposed components salvaged from a kitchen heating appliance (Magnetron) or from an outdoor high gain/power Line of sight transceiver (unidirectional microwave radio) which has a harm causing range up to 25 meters (estimated using a Spectral Power Density calculator like www.hintlink.com/power_density.htm <http://www.hintlink.com/power_density.htm>).
This risk from mis-application of powerful RF is from human operated or IoT apparatus** with an avenue of approch from (a) subterrain placement aided by a compact/mini directional horizontal drilling machine (eg. principle of placing a stent in the heart) and/or (b) strategic placement in an obscure over-surface location to maximize negative impact on the target of opportunity.
With building materials or ground offer insufficient* protection to block the passage of powerful RF and the absence of diagnostic/forensic tests to detect biomarkers expressed post-overexposure to harmful RF (combination of RF frequency, Spectral Power Density/Specific Absorption Rate incident on a person and duration of exposure), intentional damage to electronic equipment and people is at present unrestricted.
The purpose of bringing this method of exploting technology to your attention is with an interest to build the momentum for ushering in the much needed safeguards in this context.
While I'm a bit confused as to what this message is trying to ultimately get at, it should be noted that folks who work with RF communications equipment and other EM emitters which are strong enough to cause harm to a person are generally well aware of the necessary precautions and take them on a day to day basis when working with this equipment. If there's evidence that some part of our industry is ignoring or failing to train their team members on safety best practices, then let's hear that out specifically and I'm all for working to rectify that.
On the other hand, the post seems to hint at intentionally using high powered RF to inflict intentional harm on a person or to jam communications signals. The former is relatively difficult to do by virtue of the amount of power necessary. Quite basically, there are much easier ways to go about injuring someone if that's what you want to do. Of course, intentionally injuring another person is a criminal act in just about every jurisdiction. As far as the latter goes, the ability to jam RF communications has existed for as long as RF communication has, and the knowledge of how to accomplish it is relatively widespread. It is also illegal in the US and most likely many other jurisdictions as well, and in the US the FCC has enforcement power with the ability to levy some pretty hefty fines on anyone who does so, even inadvertently though negligent practices.
The post states that their intention is to "build the momentum for ushering in the much needed safeguards in this context." but lacks specificity with regard to what safeguards they propose beyond the legal/regulatory ones that already exist, so I'm not sure what more can really be said here.
To that end, anyone working around RF should be properly trained and use the safety tools provided them, they should be fine. If an untrained individual does something and gets hurt with high power RF, it is unfortunate and happens all too often because of people thinking that the worst case things don’t happen to them… Can you provide a case where this may have happened? Any RF in a Data Center should be on the roof, and isolated from the room at all times. This is standard practice in every RF data room we’ve ever been in, whether it be commercial or Government. Regards, Nathan Babcock From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+nathanb=sswireless.net@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Alain Hebert Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 10:32 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Technology risk without safeguards Maybe someone is just looking for "inspiration". There is other venues to work this out "safely", IMHO. ----- Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net <mailto:ahebert@pubnix.net> PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443 On 11/4/20 12:24 PM, Matt Harris wrote: <https://netfire.net/logo_sig_gen2.png> Matt Harris | Infrastructure Lead Engineer 816‑256‑5446 | Direct Looking for something? <https://help.netfire.net/> Helpdesk Portal | <mailto:help@netfire.net> Email Support | <https://my.netfire.net/> Billing Portal <https://netfire.net/Flag-United-States-of-America.jpg> We build and deliver end‑to‑end IT solutions. On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 10:48 AM Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte@gmail.com <mailto:sskalkunte@gmail.com> > wrote: Hello, I believe the below described method of causing intentional (1) damage to equipment in data centers and (2) physical injury to a person at the workplace is on-topic for the NANOG community, if not, I look forward to your feedback. As a software developer who has subscribed to the NANOG mailing list for a number of years, I post this note relying on intellectual honesty that I have had the opportunity to observe since 1996-97. The below described technology risk is applicable to computing/communication equipment rendered vulnerable by Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (jamming an electronic device) and the risk of health sabotage affecting people (jamming a human) managing the Internet infrastructure enabled by intentional application of powerful radiofrequency fields (RF) emitted by re-purposed components salvaged from a kitchen heating appliance (Magnetron) or from an outdoor high gain/power Line of sight transceiver (unidirectional microwave radio) which has a harm causing range up to 25 meters (estimated using a Spectral Power Density calculator like www.hintlink.com/power_density.htm <http://www.hintlink.com/power_density.htm> ). This risk from mis-application of powerful RF is from human operated or IoT apparatus** with an avenue of approch from (a) subterrain placement aided by a compact/mini directional horizontal drilling machine (eg. principle of placing a stent in the heart) and/or (b) strategic placement in an obscure over-surface location to maximize negative impact on the target of opportunity. With building materials or ground offer insufficient* protection to block the passage of powerful RF and the absence of diagnostic/forensic tests to detect biomarkers expressed post-overexposure to harmful RF (combination of RF frequency, Spectral Power Density/Specific Absorption Rate incident on a person and duration of exposure), intentional damage to electronic equipment and people is at present unrestricted. The purpose of bringing this method of exploting technology to your attention is with an interest to build the momentum for ushering in the much needed safeguards in this context. While I'm a bit confused as to what this message is trying to ultimately get at, it should be noted that folks who work with RF communications equipment and other EM emitters which are strong enough to cause harm to a person are generally well aware of the necessary precautions and take them on a day to day basis when working with this equipment. If there's evidence that some part of our industry is ignoring or failing to train their team members on safety best practices, then let's hear that out specifically and I'm all for working to rectify that. On the other hand, the post seems to hint at intentionally using high powered RF to inflict intentional harm on a person or to jam communications signals. The former is relatively difficult to do by virtue of the amount of power necessary. Quite basically, there are much easier ways to go about injuring someone if that's what you want to do. Of course, intentionally injuring another person is a criminal act in just about every jurisdiction. As far as the latter goes, the ability to jam RF communications has existed for as long as RF communication has, and the knowledge of how to accomplish it is relatively widespread. It is also illegal in the US and most likely many other jurisdictions as well, and in the US the FCC has enforcement power with the ability to levy some pretty hefty fines on anyone who does so, even inadvertently though negligent practices. The post states that their intention is to "build the momentum for ushering in the much needed safeguards in this context." but lacks specificity with regard to what safeguards they propose beyond the legal/regulatory ones that already exist, so I'm not sure what more can really be said here.
Can you provide a case where this may have happened?
As you mention, a normal operational scenario finds powerful RF on the rooftop. My concern is an abnormal scenario where powerful RF is used to sabotage an electronic equipment or human. Magnetron + horn antenna (forgive me for using this as an example a few times so far) for instance is capable of significant harm. If I mention, I have been victimized, at present we do not have the diagnostic/forensic tests (forensic DNA scientists at the NIST can be contacted to verify) to prove intentional harm from powerful EMF has occurred. My motivation to bring this topic for discussion is to make aware of the unlimited risk _if_ someone chooses to use powerful EMF as a method of sabotage. I do not relish to discuss this, but I remember reading on NANOG some 20-25 years ago, I paraphrase 'those with anti-social intentions do not publish papers'. Regards, Suresh On Thursday, November 5, 2020, <nathanb@sswireless.net> wrote:
To that end, anyone working around RF should be properly trained and use the safety tools provided them, they should be fine. If an untrained individual does something and gets hurt with high power RF, it is unfortunate and happens all too often because of people thinking that the worst case things don’t happen to them…
Can you provide a case where this may have happened? Any RF in a Data Center should be on the roof, and isolated from the room at all times. This is standard practice in every RF data room we’ve ever been in, whether it be commercial or Government.
Regards,
Nathan Babcock
*From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+nathanb=sswireless.net@nanog.org> *On Behalf Of *Alain Hebert *Sent:* Wednesday, November 4, 2020 10:32 AM *To:* nanog@nanog.org *Subject:* Re: Technology risk without safeguards
Maybe someone is just looking for "inspiration".
There is other venues to work this out "safely", IMHO.
-----
Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles <https://www.google.com/maps/search/50+boul.+St-Charles?entry=gmail&source=g>
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443
On 11/4/20 12:24 PM, Matt Harris wrote:
Matt Harris
|
Infrastructure Lead Engineer
816‑256‑5446
|
Direct
*Looking for something?*
*Helpdesk Portal <https://help.netfire.net/>*
|
*Email Support <help@netfire.net>*
|
*Billing Portal <https://my.netfire.net/>*
We build and deliver end‑to‑end IT solutions.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 10:48 AM Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I believe the below described method of causing intentional (1) damage to equipment in data centers and (2) physical injury to a person at the workplace is on-topic for the NANOG community, if not, I look forward to your feedback. As a software developer who has subscribed to the NANOG mailing list for a number of years, I post this note relying on intellectual honesty that I have had the opportunity to observe since 1996-97.
The below described technology risk is applicable to computing/communication equipment rendered vulnerable by Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (jamming an electronic device) and the risk of health sabotage affecting people (jamming a human) managing the Internet infrastructure enabled by intentional application of powerful radiofrequency fields (RF) emitted by re-purposed components salvaged from a kitchen heating appliance (Magnetron) or from an outdoor high gain/power Line of sight transceiver (unidirectional microwave radio) which has a harm causing range up to 25 meters (estimated using a Spectral Power Density calculator like www.hintlink.com/power_density.htm).
This risk from mis-application of powerful RF is from human operated or IoT apparatus** with an avenue of approch from (a) subterrain placement aided by a compact/mini directional horizontal drilling machine (eg. principle of placing a stent in the heart) and/or (b) strategic placement in an obscure over-surface location to maximize negative impact on the target of opportunity.
With building materials or ground offer insufficient* protection to block the passage of powerful RF and the absence of diagnostic/forensic tests to detect biomarkers expressed post-overexposure to harmful RF (combination of RF frequency, Spectral Power Density/Specific Absorption Rate incident on a person and duration of exposure), intentional damage to electronic equipment and people is at present unrestricted.
The purpose of bringing this method of exploting technology to your attention is with an interest to build the momentum for ushering in the much needed safeguards in this context.
While I'm a bit confused as to what this message is trying to ultimately get at, it should be noted that folks who work with RF communications equipment and other EM emitters which are strong enough to cause harm to a person are generally well aware of the necessary precautions and take them on a day to day basis when working with this equipment. If there's evidence that some part of our industry is ignoring or failing to train their team members on safety best practices, then let's hear that out specifically and I'm all for working to rectify that.
On the other hand, the post seems to hint at intentionally using high powered RF to inflict intentional harm on a person or to jam communications signals. The former is relatively difficult to do by virtue of the amount of power necessary. Quite basically, there are much easier ways to go about injuring someone if that's what you want to do. Of course, intentionally injuring another person is a criminal act in just about every jurisdiction. As far as the latter goes, the ability to jam RF communications has existed for as long as RF communication has, and the knowledge of how to accomplish it is relatively widespread. It is also illegal in the US and most likely many other jurisdictions as well, and in the US the FCC has enforcement power with the ability to levy some pretty hefty fines on anyone who does so, even inadvertently though negligent practices.
The post states that their intention is to "build the momentum for ushering in the much needed safeguards in this context." but lacks specificity with regard to what safeguards they propose beyond the legal/regulatory ones that already exist, so I'm not sure what more can really be said here.
Well, I'm just saying... Speculating about "how to/was harm", on an open forum, is a good way to help design "scenarios" that can be abused by bad actors. It would be better to address it in an academia setting. *Now* if you're looking for worker safety, surely your local jurisdiction have a compliance body able to provide best practices to protect the workers. I hate to bring RFC1149 again, but those high power microwave antenna are hell on packet drops on that medium. PS: From my experiences with 2 .com about a FPGA Based Firewall and a FIPS-140 Encryption Network Card. And my associate ~15y in the RF radio industry. ----- Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443 On 11/5/20 10:22 AM, Suresh Kalkunte wrote:
Can you provide a case where this may have happened?
As you mention, a normal operational scenario finds powerful RF on the rooftop. My concern is an abnormal scenario where powerful RF is used to sabotage an electronic equipment or human. Magnetron + horn antenna (forgive me for using this as an example a few times so far) for instance is capable of significant harm. If I mention, I have been victimized, at present we do not have the diagnostic/forensic tests (forensic DNA scientists at the NIST can be contacted to verify) to prove intentional harm from powerful EMF has occurred.
My motivation to bring this topic for discussion is to make aware of the unlimited risk _if_ someone chooses to use powerful EMF as a method of sabotage. I do not relish to discuss this, but I remember reading on NANOG some 20-25 years ago, I paraphrase 'those with anti-social intentions do not publish papers'.
Regards, Suresh
On Thursday, November 5, 2020, <nathanb@sswireless.net <mailto:nathanb@sswireless.net>> wrote:
To that end, anyone working around RF should be properly trained and use the safety tools provided them, they should be fine. If an untrained individual does something and gets hurt with high power RF, it is unfortunate and happens all too often because of people thinking that the worst case things don’t happen to them…
Can you provide a case where this may have happened? Any RF in a Data Center should be on the roof, and isolated from the room at all times. This is standard practice in every RF data room we’ve ever been in, whether it be commercial or Government.
Regards,
Nathan Babcock
*From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+nathanb=sswireless.net@nanog.org <mailto:sswireless.net@nanog.org>> *On Behalf Of *Alain Hebert *Sent:* Wednesday, November 4, 2020 10:32 AM *To:* nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> *Subject:* Re: Technology risk without safeguards
Maybe someone is just looking for "inspiration".
There is other venues to work this out "safely", IMHO.
-----
Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net <mailto:ahebert@pubnix.net>
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles <https://www.google.com/maps/search/50+boul.+St-Charles?entry=gmail&source=g>
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911http://www.pubnix.net <http://www.pubnix.net> Fax: 514-990-9443
On 11/4/20 12:24 PM, Matt Harris wrote:
Matt Harris
|
Infrastructure Lead Engineer
816‑256‑5446
|
Direct
*Looking for something?*
_*Helpdesk Portal* <https://help.netfire.net/>_
|
_*Email Support* <mailto:help@netfire.net>_
|
_*Billing Portal* <https://my.netfire.net/>_
We build and deliver end‑to‑end IT solutions.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 10:48 AM Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte@gmail.com <mailto:sskalkunte@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello,
I believe the below described method of causing intentional (1) damage to equipment in data centers and (2) physical injury to a person at the workplace is on-topic for the NANOG community, if not, I look forward to your feedback. As a software developer who has subscribed to the NANOG mailing list for a number of years, I post this note relying on intellectual honesty that I have had the opportunity to observe since 1996-97.
The below described technology risk is applicable to computing/communication equipment rendered vulnerable by Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (jamming an electronic device) and the risk of health sabotage affecting people (jamming a human) managing the Internet infrastructure enabled by intentional application of powerful radiofrequency fields (RF) emitted by re-purposed components salvaged from a kitchen heating appliance (Magnetron) or from an outdoor high gain/power Line of sight transceiver (unidirectional microwave radio) which has a harm causing range up to 25 meters (estimated using a Spectral Power Density calculator like www.hintlink.com/power_density.htm <http://www.hintlink.com/power_density.htm>).
This risk from mis-application of powerful RF is from human operated or IoT apparatus** with an avenue of approch from (a) subterrain placement aided by a compact/mini directional horizontal drilling machine (eg. principle of placing a stent in the heart) and/or (b) strategic placement in an obscure over-surface location to maximize negative impact on the target of opportunity.
With building materials or ground offer insufficient* protection to block the passage of powerful RF and the absence of diagnostic/forensic tests to detect biomarkers expressed post-overexposure to harmful RF (combination of RF frequency, Spectral Power Density/Specific Absorption Rate incident on a person and duration of exposure), intentional damage to electronic equipment and people is at present unrestricted.
The purpose of bringing this method of exploting technology to your attention is with an interest to build the momentum for ushering in the much needed safeguards in this context.
While I'm a bit confused as to what this message is trying to ultimately get at, it should be noted that folks who work with RF communications equipment and other EM emitters which are strong enough to cause harm to a person are generally well aware of the necessary precautions and take them on a day to day basis when working with this equipment. If there's evidence that some part of our industry is ignoring or failing to train their team members on safety best practices, then let's hear that out specifically and I'm all for working to rectify that.
On the other hand, the post seems to hint at intentionally using high powered RF to inflict intentional harm on a person or to jam communications signals. The former is relatively difficult to do by virtue of the amount of power necessary. Quite basically, there are much easier ways to go about injuring someone if that's what you want to do. Of course, intentionally injuring another person is a criminal act in just about every jurisdiction. As far as the latter goes, the ability to jam RF communications has existed for as long as RF communication has, and the knowledge of how to accomplish it is relatively widespread. It is also illegal in the US and most likely many other jurisdictions as well, and in the US the FCC has enforcement power with the ability to levy some pretty hefty fines on anyone who does so, even inadvertently though negligent practices.
The post states that their intention is to "build the momentum for ushering in the much needed safeguards in this context." but lacks specificity with regard to what safeguards they propose beyond the legal/regulatory ones that already exist, so I'm not sure what more can really be said here.
Sir, I too believe in taking a low profile approach, but the irony is that those in academia who I have appoached that do recognize this gap in safeguards are reticent to take up this topic since it involves research intersecting with negative actors. I do not wish to take more time from this group beyond what has been offered am all ears to being introduced to an intrepid epidemiology researcher/academic institution who would consider to review the safeguards I propose. Regards, Suresh On Thursday, November 5, 2020, Alain Hebert <ahebert@pubnix.net> wrote:
Well,
I'm just saying...
Speculating about "how to/was harm", on an open forum, is a good way to help design "scenarios" that can be abused by bad actors. It would be better to address it in an academia setting.
*Now* if you're looking for worker safety, surely your local jurisdiction have a compliance body able to provide best practices to protect the workers. I hate to bring RFC1149 again, but those high power microwave antenna are hell on packet drops on that medium.
PS: From my experiences with 2 .com about a FPGA Based Firewall and a FIPS-140 Encryption Network Card. And my associate ~15y in the RF radio industry.
----- Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles <https://www.google.com/maps/search/50+boul.+St-Charles?entry=gmail&source=g> P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443
On 11/5/20 10:22 AM, Suresh Kalkunte wrote:
Can you provide a case where this may have happened?
As you mention, a normal operational scenario finds powerful RF on the rooftop. My concern is an abnormal scenario where powerful RF is used to sabotage an electronic equipment or human. Magnetron + horn antenna (forgive me for using this as an example a few times so far) for instance is capable of significant harm. If I mention, I have been victimized, at present we do not have the diagnostic/forensic tests (forensic DNA scientists at the NIST can be contacted to verify) to prove intentional harm from powerful EMF has occurred.
My motivation to bring this topic for discussion is to make aware of the unlimited risk _if_ someone chooses to use powerful EMF as a method of sabotage. I do not relish to discuss this, but I remember reading on NANOG some 20-25 years ago, I paraphrase 'those with anti-social intentions do not publish papers'.
Regards, Suresh
On Thursday, November 5, 2020, <nathanb@sswireless.net> wrote:
To that end, anyone working around RF should be properly trained and use the safety tools provided them, they should be fine. If an untrained individual does something and gets hurt with high power RF, it is unfortunate and happens all too often because of people thinking that the worst case things don’t happen to them…
Can you provide a case where this may have happened? Any RF in a Data Center should be on the roof, and isolated from the room at all times. This is standard practice in every RF data room we’ve ever been in, whether it be commercial or Government.
Regards,
Nathan Babcock
*From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+nathanb=sswireless.net@nanog.org> *On Behalf Of *Alain Hebert *Sent:* Wednesday, November 4, 2020 10:32 AM *To:* nanog@nanog.org *Subject:* Re: Technology risk without safeguards
Maybe someone is just looking for "inspiration".
There is other venues to work this out "safely", IMHO.
-----
Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles <https://www.google.com/maps/search/50+boul.+St-Charles?entry=gmail&source=g>
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443
On 11/4/20 12:24 PM, Matt Harris wrote:
Matt Harris
|
Infrastructure Lead Engineer
816‑256‑5446
|
Direct
*Looking for something?*
*Helpdesk Portal <https://help.netfire.net/>*
|
*Email Support <help@netfire.net>*
|
*Billing Portal <https://my.netfire.net/>*
We build and deliver end‑to‑end IT solutions.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 10:48 AM Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I believe the below described method of causing intentional (1) damage to equipment in data centers and (2) physical injury to a person at the workplace is on-topic for the NANOG community, if not, I look forward to your feedback. As a software developer who has subscribed to the NANOG mailing list for a number of years, I post this note relying on intellectual honesty that I have had the opportunity to observe since 1996-97.
The below described technology risk is applicable to computing/communication equipment rendered vulnerable by Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (jamming an electronic device) and the risk of health sabotage affecting people (jamming a human) managing the Internet infrastructure enabled by intentional application of powerful radiofrequency fields (RF) emitted by re-purposed components salvaged from a kitchen heating appliance (Magnetron) or from an outdoor high gain/power Line of sight transceiver (unidirectional microwave radio) which has a harm causing range up to 25 meters (estimated using a Spectral Power Density calculator like www.hintlink.com/power_density.htm).
This risk from mis-application of powerful RF is from human operated or IoT apparatus** with an avenue of approch from (a) subterrain placement aided by a compact/mini directional horizontal drilling machine (eg. principle of placing a stent in the heart) and/or (b) strategic placement in an obscure over-surface location to maximize negative impact on the target of opportunity.
With building materials or ground offer insufficient* protection to block the passage of powerful RF and the absence of diagnostic/forensic tests to detect biomarkers expressed post-overexposure to harmful RF (combination of RF frequency, Spectral Power Density/Specific Absorption Rate incident on a person and duration of exposure), intentional damage to electronic equipment and people is at present unrestricted.
The purpose of bringing this method of exploting technology to your attention is with an interest to build the momentum for ushering in the much needed safeguards in this context.
While I'm a bit confused as to what this message is trying to ultimately get at, it should be noted that folks who work with RF communications equipment and other EM emitters which are strong enough to cause harm to a person are generally well aware of the necessary precautions and take them on a day to day basis when working with this equipment. If there's evidence that some part of our industry is ignoring or failing to train their team members on safety best practices, then let's hear that out specifically and I'm all for working to rectify that.
On the other hand, the post seems to hint at intentionally using high powered RF to inflict intentional harm on a person or to jam communications signals. The former is relatively difficult to do by virtue of the amount of power necessary. Quite basically, there are much easier ways to go about injuring someone if that's what you want to do. Of course, intentionally injuring another person is a criminal act in just about every jurisdiction. As far as the latter goes, the ability to jam RF communications has existed for as long as RF communication has, and the knowledge of how to accomplish it is relatively widespread. It is also illegal in the US and most likely many other jurisdictions as well, and in the US the FCC has enforcement power with the ability to levy some pretty hefty fines on anyone who does so, even inadvertently though negligent practices.
The post states that their intention is to "build the momentum for ushering in the much needed safeguards in this context." but lacks specificity with regard to what safeguards they propose beyond the legal/regulatory ones that already exist, so I'm not sure what more can really be said here.
There is other venues to work this out "safely", IMHO.
I started this effort for safeguards in July 2007. Until 2018, I did exactly what you mention. The FCC's Office of Engineeting and Technology in 2015 has been the only government agency that replied to my email query on jurisdiction stating the FCC does not regulate/enforce negative improvisation of outdoor high power wireless transmitters. By 2018, I had collected sufficient supporting data that was burdensome to send via email and absent response of multiple governments to address this significant gap in rule of law prompted me to put up the website competitionunlimited on Wordpress. If some institution innumerable to count had agreed to investigate, I would be very content writing code for commercial data communication systems which is what took me to the U.S. in 1994. During my overseas deployments with the U.S. Army National Guard, my reports to higher regarding vulnerabilities was consistently met with unambiguous response/acknowledgement indicating my concern is being investigated. Since I have not had that benefit from civilian organizations, I finally reasoned that common awareness reduces the element of surprise from an incognito perpetrator. Please note that I have wrestled with "Maybe someone is just looking for "inspiration"" for almost 13 years before bringing this to your collective notice today. On Wednesday, November 4, 2020, Alain Hebert <ahebert@pubnix.net> wrote:
Maybe someone is just looking for "inspiration".
There is other venues to work this out "safely", IMHO.
----- Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles <https://www.google.com/maps/search/50+boul.+St-Charles?entry=gmail&source=g> P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443
On 11/4/20 12:24 PM, Matt Harris wrote:
Matt Harris | Infrastructure Lead Engineer 816‑256‑5446 | Direct Looking for something? *Helpdesk Portal* <https://help.netfire.net/> | *Email Support* <help@netfire.net> | *Billing Portal* <https://my.netfire.net/> We build and deliver end‑to‑end IT solutions. On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 10:48 AM Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I believe the below described method of causing intentional (1) damage to equipment in data centers and (2) physical injury to a person at the workplace is on-topic for the NANOG community, if not, I look forward to your feedback. As a software developer who has subscribed to the NANOG mailing list for a number of years, I post this note relying on intellectual honesty that I have had the opportunity to observe since 1996-97.
The below described technology risk is applicable to computing/communication equipment rendered vulnerable by Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (jamming an electronic device) and the risk of health sabotage affecting people (jamming a human) managing the Internet infrastructure enabled by intentional application of powerful radiofrequency fields (RF) emitted by re-purposed components salvaged from a kitchen heating appliance (Magnetron) or from an outdoor high gain/power Line of sight transceiver (unidirectional microwave radio) which has a harm causing range up to 25 meters (estimated using a Spectral Power Density calculator like www.hintlink.com/power_density.htm).
This risk from mis-application of powerful RF is from human operated or IoT apparatus** with an avenue of approch from (a) subterrain placement aided by a compact/mini directional horizontal drilling machine (eg. principle of placing a stent in the heart) and/or (b) strategic placement in an obscure over-surface location to maximize negative impact on the target of opportunity.
With building materials or ground offer insufficient* protection to block the passage of powerful RF and the absence of diagnostic/forensic tests to detect biomarkers expressed post-overexposure to harmful RF (combination of RF frequency, Spectral Power Density/Specific Absorption Rate incident on a person and duration of exposure), intentional damage to electronic equipment and people is at present unrestricted.
The purpose of bringing this method of exploting technology to your attention is with an interest to build the momentum for ushering in the much needed safeguards in this context.
While I'm a bit confused as to what this message is trying to ultimately get at, it should be noted that folks who work with RF communications equipment and other EM emitters which are strong enough to cause harm to a person are generally well aware of the necessary precautions and take them on a day to day basis when working with this equipment. If there's evidence that some part of our industry is ignoring or failing to train their team members on safety best practices, then let's hear that out specifically and I'm all for working to rectify that.
On the other hand, the post seems to hint at intentionally using high powered RF to inflict intentional harm on a person or to jam communications signals. The former is relatively difficult to do by virtue of the amount of power necessary. Quite basically, there are much easier ways to go about injuring someone if that's what you want to do. Of course, intentionally injuring another person is a criminal act in just about every jurisdiction. As far as the latter goes, the ability to jam RF communications has existed for as long as RF communication has, and the knowledge of how to accomplish it is relatively widespread. It is also illegal in the US and most likely many other jurisdictions as well, and in the US the FCC has enforcement power with the ability to levy some pretty hefty fines on anyone who does so, even inadvertently though negligent practices.
The post states that their intention is to "build the momentum for ushering in the much needed safeguards in this context." but lacks specificity with regard to what safeguards they propose beyond the legal/regulatory ones that already exist, so I'm not sure what more can really be said here.
I'm a bit confused as to what this message is trying to ultimately get at
The superior tactical advantage of causing intentional harm with high power beam-forming RF and escape detection. Meaning, assault with powerful RF leaves a victim and bystander unaware of being attacked and my intention is to mobilize interest to plug the gap in safeguards.
it should be noted that folks who work with RF... well aware of the necessary precautions and take them on a day to day basis when working with this equipment...
At an employer where I developed Wi-Fi based SOHO device, an adjacent group was testing Line of Sight transceivers. Nobody warned me of the inclement health (a general physician in 2007 suspected cancer looking at a blood test) from close quarters exposure to the side lobes emanating from the microwave radio.
...let's hear that out specifically and I'm all for working to rectify that.
Applicable to workplaces pertinent to the NANOG community and elsewhere, there is need for publicising policy on curbing harassment using powerful RF along the lines of curbing gender/race based harassment. Why publicise? awareness among non-RF professionals of the leading health symptoms expressed post-overexposure to harmful RF/X-ray voids the element of surprise on an unsuspecting victim.
The former is relatively difficult to do by virtue of the amount of power necessary.
For instance, RF from Magnetron salvaged from a kitchen heating appliance focused using a horn antenna when positioned on a roof renders the person one floor above within 2 meters effective range of harm.
Quite basically, there are much easier ways to go about injuring someone if that's what you want to do
Without a doubt. However, other methods are very well handled by existing forensic tests to minimize repeat offence. With negative use of RF on humans, the perpetrator is fearless of law.
jam RF communications has existed for as long as RF communication has, and the knowledge of how to accomplish it is relatively widespread
Very good point, the FCC has enforcable regulations and the DoJ armed with statutes to curb jamming electronic devices. However jamming a human is not yet present.
...but lacks specificity with regard to what safeguards...
Thanks for asking. Safeguards I can think of: - Anti-harassment policy diplayed at a workplace, hospital, hotel etc. to raise awareness of failing health post-overexposure to harmful RF/X-ray (EMF). - Diagnostic/forensic tests that identify biomarkers expressed post-overexposure to harmful EMF. - Forensic tests that make visible transformation of paint and characterize the alteration of microbiome exposed to harmful EMF. - Detectors worn by firefighters^*^, civil law enforcement, military and outdoor wireless developers and field technicians. ^*^ Curtis S.D. Massey. The Facts and Dangers of Rooftop Transmitting Devices on High-Rise Buildings. Mar 31st, 2005. https://www.firehouse.com/safety-health/article/10513827/the-facts-and-dange... . On Wednesday, November 4, 2020, Matt Harris <matt@netfire.net> wrote:
Matt Harris | Infrastructure Lead Engineer 816‑256‑5446 | Direct Looking for something? *Helpdesk Portal* <https://help.netfire.net/> | *Email Support* <help@netfire.net> | *Billing Portal* <https://my.netfire.net/> We build and deliver end‑to‑end IT solutions. On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 10:48 AM Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I believe the below described method of causing intentional (1) damage to equipment in data centers and (2) physical injury to a person at the workplace is on-topic for the NANOG community, if not, I look forward to your feedback. As a software developer who has subscribed to the NANOG mailing list for a number of years, I post this note relying on intellectual honesty that I have had the opportunity to observe since 1996-97.
The below described technology risk is applicable to computing/communication equipment rendered vulnerable by Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (jamming an electronic device) and the risk of health sabotage affecting people (jamming a human) managing the Internet infrastructure enabled by intentional application of powerful radiofrequency fields (RF) emitted by re-purposed components salvaged from a kitchen heating appliance (Magnetron) or from an outdoor high gain/power Line of sight transceiver (unidirectional microwave radio) which has a harm causing range up to 25 meters (estimated using a Spectral Power Density calculator like www.hintlink.com/power_density.htm).
This risk from mis-application of powerful RF is from human operated or IoT apparatus** with an avenue of approch from (a) subterrain placement aided by a compact/mini directional horizontal drilling machine (eg. principle of placing a stent in the heart) and/or (b) strategic placement in an obscure over-surface location to maximize negative impact on the target of opportunity.
With building materials or ground offer insufficient* protection to block the passage of powerful RF and the absence of diagnostic/forensic tests to detect biomarkers expressed post-overexposure to harmful RF (combination of RF frequency, Spectral Power Density/Specific Absorption Rate incident on a person and duration of exposure), intentional damage to electronic equipment and people is at present unrestricted.
The purpose of bringing this method of exploting technology to your attention is with an interest to build the momentum for ushering in the much needed safeguards in this context.
While I'm a bit confused as to what this message is trying to ultimately get at, it should be noted that folks who work with RF communications equipment and other EM emitters which are strong enough to cause harm to a person are generally well aware of the necessary precautions and take them on a day to day basis when working with this equipment. If there's evidence that some part of our industry is ignoring or failing to train their team members on safety best practices, then let's hear that out specifically and I'm all for working to rectify that.
On the other hand, the post seems to hint at intentionally using high powered RF to inflict intentional harm on a person or to jam communications signals. The former is relatively difficult to do by virtue of the amount of power necessary. Quite basically, there are much easier ways to go about injuring someone if that's what you want to do. Of course, intentionally injuring another person is a criminal act in just about every jurisdiction. As far as the latter goes, the ability to jam RF communications has existed for as long as RF communication has, and the knowledge of how to accomplish it is relatively widespread. It is also illegal in the US and most likely many other jurisdictions as well, and in the US the FCC has enforcement power with the ability to levy some pretty hefty fines on anyone who does so, even inadvertently though negligent practices.
The post states that their intention is to "build the momentum for ushering in the much needed safeguards in this context." but lacks specificity with regard to what safeguards they propose beyond the legal/regulatory ones that already exist, so I'm not sure what more can really be said here.
My first instinct is to let this be because the level of conspiracy theory nuttiness seems to be very high and the level of knowledge of basic physics seems to be very low, but since this list is archived in a way that lay-people may reference it at some point in the future, I'm going to go ahead and reply just this once more and just one point here so that a lack of response here won't be used as fodder by conspiracy theorists. Matt Harris|Infrastructure Lead Engineer 816-256-5446|Direct Looking for something? Helpdesk Portal|Email Support|Billing Portal We build and deliver end-to-end IT solutions. On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:48 PM Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte@gmail.com> wrote:
At an employer where I developed Wi-Fi based SOHO device, an adjacent group was testing Line of Sight transceivers. Nobody warned me of the inclement health (a general physician in 2007 suspected cancer looking at a blood test) from close quarters exposure to the side lobes emanating from the microwave radio.
There is no scientific evidence that RF emissions in the bands used for communications have any causal relationship with cancer in humans. This is an internet conspiracy theory with no basis in reality or science. If your doctor suspected that you had cancer caused by something related to microwave band communications equipment, you need to find a new doctor.
Hi, Not that I'm into conspiracy theories, or believe at this point that RF emissions are in any way related to cancer, but Suresh' statement is not very scientific:
This is an internet conspiracy theory with no basis in reality or science.
RF emissions are absorbed by the human body. Your kitchen microwave works at the same frequency as your 2.4Ghz wifi. We all know it's a bad idea to put your head in a microwave oven. The hypothesis that RF may cause damage to human DNA is not at all conspiracy. The fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship, does not mean that there isn't any. For example:
In large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, researchers exposed groups of lab rats (as well as mice, in the case of the NTP study) to RF waves over their entire bodies for many hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for at least most of their natural lives. Both studies found an increased risk of uncommon heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in male rats, but not in female rats (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP study). The NTP study also reported possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and in the adrenal glands.
Source: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/radiofrequenc...
If your doctor suspected that you had cancer caused by something related to microwave band communications equipment, you need to find a new doctor.
On the contrary. Few people are more exposed to higher-powered RF radiation than a MW techie. That would make them an excellent subject for scientific research. Dismissing a medical professional's opinion based in your own firm beliefs is counterproductive to the advance of scientific knowledge. Thanks, Sabri, M.Sc ----- On Nov 4, 2020, at 2:01 PM, Matt Harris matt@netfire.net wrote:
My first instinct is to let this be because the level of conspiracy theory nuttiness seems to be very high and the level of knowledge of basic physics seems to be very low, but since this list is archived in a way that lay-people may reference it at some point in the future, I'm going to go ahead and reply just this once more and just one point here so that a lack of response here won't be used as fodder by conspiracy theorists.
Matt Harris | Infrastructure Lead Engineer 816‑256‑5446 | Direct Looking for something? [ https://help.netfire.net/ | Helpdesk Portal ] | [ mailto:help@netfire.net | Email Support ] | [ https://my.netfire.net/ | Billing Portal ] We build and deliver end‑to‑end IT solutions. On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:48 PM Suresh Kalkunte < [ mailto:sskalkunte@gmail.com | sskalkunte@gmail.com ] > wrote:
At an employer where I developed Wi-Fi based SOHO device, an adjacent group was testing Line of Sight transceivers. Nobody warned me of the inclement health (a general physician in 2007 suspected cancer looking at a blood test) from close quarters exposure to the side lobes emanating from the microwave radio.
There is no scientific evidence that RF emissions in the bands used for communications have any causal relationship with cancer in humans. This is an internet conspiracy theory with no basis in reality or science. If your doctor suspected that you had cancer caused by something related to microwave band communications equipment, you need to find a new doctor.
The hypothesis that RF may cause damage to human DNA is not at all conspiracy. The fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship, does not mean that there isn't any. For example:
If you are going to cite that American Cancer Society article, you should cite all the relevant parts. The parts you skipped are bolded. *RF waves don’t have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Because of this,
it’s not clear how RF radiation might be able to cause cancer. Some studies have found possible increased rates of certain types of tumors in lab animals exposed to RF radiation, but overall, the results of these types of studies have not provided clear answers so far.*
*A few studies have reported evidence of biological effects that could be linked to cancer, but this is still an area of research.*
In large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, researchers exposed groups of lab rats (as well as mice, in the case of the NTP study) to RF waves over their entire bodies for many hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for at least most of their natural lives. Both studies found an increased risk of uncommon heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in male rats, but not in female rats (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP study). The NTP study also reported possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and in the adrenal glands.
*While both of these studies had strengths, they also had limitations that make it hard to know how they might apply to humans being exposed to RF radiation. A 2019 review of these two studies by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) determined that the limitations of the studies didn’t allow conclusions to be drawn regarding the ability of RF energy to cause cancer.*
*Still, the results of these studies do not rule out the possibility that RF radiation might somehow be able to impact human health.*
The majority of science to date finds no causal relationship between EM radiation and cancerous mutations. If someone wants to claim otherwise, scientific proof is required. On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 7:56 PM Sabri Berisha <sabri@cluecentral.net> wrote:
Hi,
Not that I'm into conspiracy theories, or believe at this point that RF emissions are in any way related to cancer, but Suresh' statement is not very scientific:
This is an internet conspiracy theory with no basis in reality or science.
RF emissions are absorbed by the human body. Your kitchen microwave works at the same frequency as your 2.4Ghz wifi. We all know it's a bad idea to put your head in a microwave oven.
The hypothesis that RF may cause damage to human DNA is not at all conspiracy. The fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship, does not mean that there isn't any. For example:
In large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, researchers exposed groups of lab rats (as well as mice, in the case of the NTP study) to RF waves over their entire bodies for many hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for at least most of their natural lives. Both studies found an increased risk of uncommon heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in male rats, but not in female rats (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP study). The NTP study also reported possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and in the adrenal glands.
Source: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/radiofrequenc...
If your doctor suspected that you had cancer caused by something related to microwave band communications equipment, you need to find a new doctor.
On the contrary. Few people are more exposed to higher-powered RF radiation than a MW techie. That would make them an excellent subject for scientific research. Dismissing a medical professional's opinion based in your own firm beliefs is counterproductive to the advance of scientific knowledge.
Thanks,
Sabri, M.Sc
----- On Nov 4, 2020, at 2:01 PM, Matt Harris matt@netfire.net wrote:
My first instinct is to let this be because the level of conspiracy theory nuttiness seems to be very high and the level of knowledge of basic physics seems to be very low, but since this list is archived in a way that lay-people may reference it at some point in the future, I'm going to go ahead and reply just this once more and just one point here so that a lack of response here won't be used as fodder by conspiracy theorists.
Matt Harris | Infrastructure Lead Engineer 816‑256‑5446 | Direct Looking for something? [ https://help.netfire.net/ | Helpdesk Portal ] | [ mailto:
help@netfire.net |
Email Support ] | [ https://my.netfire.net/ | Billing Portal ] We build and deliver end‑to‑end IT solutions. On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:48 PM Suresh Kalkunte < [ mailto: sskalkunte@gmail.com | sskalkunte@gmail.com ] > wrote:
At an employer where I developed Wi-Fi based SOHO device, an adjacent group was testing Line of Sight transceivers. Nobody warned me of the inclement health (a general physician in 2007 suspected cancer looking at a blood test) from close quarters exposure to the side lobes emanating from the microwave radio.
There is no scientific evidence that RF emissions in the bands used for communications have any causal relationship with cancer in humans. This is an internet conspiracy theory with no basis in reality or science. If your doctor suspected that you had cancer caused by something related to microwave band communications equipment, you need to find a new doctor.
Since the Science is not settled... I still won't put a wireless earbud so close to my brain, and I'm especially worried about people doing this over extended periods. Personally I try to use a wired earbud when I'm using my cell phone. But I'm overly cautious I guess. I wear a mask when I go to the store and I use list specific email addresses - so ignore everything I say on this subject. Geoff On 11/4/20 7:32 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:
The hypothesis that RF may cause damage to human DNA is not at all conspiracy. The fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship, does not mean that there isn't any. For example:
If you are going to cite that American Cancer Society article, you should cite all the relevant parts. The parts you skipped are bolded.
*RF waves don’t have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Because of this, it’s not clear how RF radiation might be able to cause cancer. Some studies have found possible increased rates of certain types of tumors in lab animals exposed to RF radiation, but overall, the results of these types of studies have not provided clear answers so far.*
*A few studies have reported evidence of biological effects that could be linked to cancer, but this is still an area of research.*
In large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, researchers exposed groups of lab rats (as well as mice, in the case of the NTP study) to RF waves over their entire bodies for many hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for at least most of their natural lives. Both studies found an increased risk of uncommon heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in male rats, but not in female rats (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP study). The NTP study also reported possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and in the adrenal glands.
*While both of these studies had strengths, they also had limitations that make it hard to know how they might apply to humans being exposed to RF radiation. A 2019 review of these two studies by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) determined that the limitations of the studies didn’t allow conclusions to be drawn regarding the ability of RF energy to cause cancer.*
*Still, the results of these studies do not rule out the possibility that RF radiation might somehow be able to impact human health.*
The majority of science to date finds no causal relationship between EM radiation and cancerous mutations. If someone wants to claim otherwise, scientific proof is required.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 7:56 PM Sabri Berisha <sabri@cluecentral.net <mailto:sabri@cluecentral.net>> wrote:
Hi,
Not that I'm into conspiracy theories, or believe at this point that RF emissions are in any way related to cancer, but Suresh' statement is not very scientific:
> This is an internet conspiracy theory with no basis in reality or science.
RF emissions are absorbed by the human body. Your kitchen microwave works at the same frequency as your 2.4Ghz wifi. We all know it's a bad idea to put your head in a microwave oven.
The hypothesis that RF may cause damage to human DNA is not at all conspiracy. The fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship, does not mean that there isn't any. For example:
> In large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) > and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, researchers exposed groups of lab rats > (as well as mice, in the case of the NTP study) to RF waves over their entire > bodies for many hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for at least > most of their natural lives. Both studies found an increased risk of uncommon > heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in male rats, but not in female rats > (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP study). The NTP study also reported > possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and in the adrenal > glands.
Source: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/radiofrequenc...
> If your doctor suspected that you had cancer caused by something related to > microwave band communications equipment, you need to find a new doctor.
On the contrary. Few people are more exposed to higher-powered RF radiation than a MW techie. That would make them an excellent subject for scientific research. Dismissing a medical professional's opinion based in your own firm beliefs is counterproductive to the advance of scientific knowledge.
Thanks,
Sabri, M.Sc
----- On Nov 4, 2020, at 2:01 PM, Matt Harris matt@netfire.net <mailto:matt@netfire.net> wrote:
> My first instinct is to let this be because the level of conspiracy theory > nuttiness seems to be very high and the level of knowledge of basic physics > seems to be very low, but since this list is archived in a way that lay-people > may reference it at some point in the future, I'm going to go ahead and reply > just this once more and just one point here so that a lack of response here > won't be used as fodder by conspiracy theorists.
> Matt Harris | Infrastructure Lead Engineer > 816‑256‑5446 | Direct > Looking for something? > [ https://help.netfire.net/ | Helpdesk Portal ] | [ mailto:help@netfire.net <mailto:help@netfire.net> | > Email Support ] | [ https://my.netfire.net/ | Billing Portal ] > We build and deliver end‑to‑end IT solutions. > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:48 PM Suresh Kalkunte < [ mailto:sskalkunte@gmail.com <mailto:sskalkunte@gmail.com> | > sskalkunte@gmail.com <mailto:sskalkunte@gmail.com> ] > wrote:
>> At an employer where I developed Wi-Fi based SOHO device, an adjacent group was >> testing Line of Sight transceivers. Nobody warned me of the inclement health (a >> general physician in 2007 suspected cancer looking at a blood test) from close >> quarters exposure to the side lobes emanating from the microwave radio.
> There is no scientific evidence that RF emissions in the bands used for > communications have any causal relationship with cancer in humans. This is an > internet conspiracy theory with no basis in reality or science. If your doctor > suspected that you had cancer caused by something related to microwave band > communications equipment, you need to find a new doctor.
Existing research on health effects from RF signals dwell on emissions from regulated sources, (mobile handset, base of a tower etc), my overriding concern is, unrestricted/chronic exposure for extended duration of time for which there are very rare research efforts devoted. Chronic exposure to RF is found to induce DNA instability^1^. Even if RF at chronic exposure levels are not found to cause DNA strands to break, it creates upstream conditions such as excess Calcium influx^2,3^ into the cell's cytoplasm with implications on cardiac arrhythmia^4^, invoke and/or worsen neurodegenerative^5^ diseases to name a few. Labeling any discussion on adverse health from OVEREXPOSURE to RF is a cop-out from doing a threadbare analysis. Suresh S. ^1^ Mashevich M, Folkman D, Kesar A, et. al. Exposure of human peripheral blood lymphocytes to electromagnetic fields associated with cellular phones leads to chromosomal instability. Bioelectromagnetics. 2003;24:82–90. ^2^ Arber SL, Lin JC. Extracellular calcium and microwave enhancement of membrane conductance in snail neurons. Radiat Environ Biophys. Jun 1985;24(2):149–156. ^3^ Rao VS, Titushkin IA, Moros EG et al. Nonthermal effects of radiofrequency-field exposure on calcium dynamics in stem cell-derived neuronal cells: elucidation of calcium pathways. Radiat Res. 2008 March. 169(3):319-29. ^4^ Grace AA , Camm AJ. Voltage-gated calcium -channels and antiarrhythmic drug action. Cardiovasc Res. Jan 2000;45(1):43–51. ^5^ Leal SS, Gomes CM. Calcium dysregulation links ALS defective proteins and motor neuron selective vulnerability. Front Cell Neurosci. 2015;9:225. On Thursday, November 5, 2020, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
The hypothesis that RF may cause damage to human DNA is not at all
conspiracy. The fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship, does not mean that there isn't any. For example:
If you are going to cite that American Cancer Society article, you should cite all the relevant parts. The parts you skipped are bolded.
*RF waves don’t have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Because of
this, it’s not clear how RF radiation might be able to cause cancer. Some studies have found possible increased rates of certain types of tumors in lab animals exposed to RF radiation, but overall, the results of these types of studies have not provided clear answers so far.*
*A few studies have reported evidence of biological effects that could be linked to cancer, but this is still an area of research.*
In large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, researchers exposed groups of lab rats (as well as mice, in the case of the NTP study) to RF waves over their entire bodies for many hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for at least most of their natural lives. Both studies found an increased risk of uncommon heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in male rats, but not in female rats (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP study). The NTP study also reported possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and in the adrenal glands.
*While both of these studies had strengths, they also had limitations that make it hard to know how they might apply to humans being exposed to RF radiation. A 2019 review of these two studies by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) determined that the limitations of the studies didn’t allow conclusions to be drawn regarding the ability of RF energy to cause cancer.*
*Still, the results of these studies do not rule out the possibility that RF radiation might somehow be able to impact human health.*
The majority of science to date finds no causal relationship between EM radiation and cancerous mutations. If someone wants to claim otherwise, scientific proof is required.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 7:56 PM Sabri Berisha <sabri@cluecentral.net> wrote:
Hi,
Not that I'm into conspiracy theories, or believe at this point that RF emissions are in any way related to cancer, but Suresh' statement is not very scientific:
This is an internet conspiracy theory with no basis in reality or science.
RF emissions are absorbed by the human body. Your kitchen microwave works at the same frequency as your 2.4Ghz wifi. We all know it's a bad idea to put your head in a microwave oven.
The hypothesis that RF may cause damage to human DNA is not at all conspiracy. The fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship, does not mean that there isn't any. For example:
In large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, researchers exposed groups of lab rats (as well as mice, in the case of the NTP study) to RF waves over their entire bodies for many hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for at least most of their natural lives. Both studies found an increased risk of uncommon heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in male rats, but not in female rats (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP study). The NTP study also reported possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and in the adrenal glands.
Source: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposu re/radiofrequency-radiation.html
If your doctor suspected that you had cancer caused by something related to microwave band communications equipment, you need to find a new doctor.
On the contrary. Few people are more exposed to higher-powered RF radiation than a MW techie. That would make them an excellent subject for scientific research. Dismissing a medical professional's opinion based in your own firm beliefs is counterproductive to the advance of scientific knowledge.
Thanks,
Sabri, M.Sc
----- On Nov 4, 2020, at 2:01 PM, Matt Harris matt@netfire.net wrote:
My first instinct is to let this be because the level of conspiracy theory nuttiness seems to be very high and the level of knowledge of basic physics seems to be very low, but since this list is archived in a way that lay-people may reference it at some point in the future, I'm going to go ahead and reply just this once more and just one point here so that a lack of response here won't be used as fodder by conspiracy theorists.
Matt Harris | Infrastructure Lead Engineer 816‑256‑5446 | Direct Looking for something? [ https://help.netfire.net/ | Helpdesk Portal ] | [ mailto:
help@netfire.net |
Email Support ] | [ https://my.netfire.net/ | Billing Portal ] We build and deliver end‑to‑end IT solutions. On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:48 PM Suresh Kalkunte < [ mailto: sskalkunte@gmail.com | sskalkunte@gmail.com ] > wrote:
At an employer where I developed Wi-Fi based SOHO device, an adjacent group was testing Line of Sight transceivers. Nobody warned me of the inclement health (a general physician in 2007 suspected cancer looking at a blood test) from close quarters exposure to the side lobes emanating from the microwave radio.
There is no scientific evidence that RF emissions in the bands used for communications have any causal relationship with cancer in humans. This is an internet conspiracy theory with no basis in reality or science. If your doctor suspected that you had cancer caused by something related to microwave band communications equipment, you need to find a new doctor.
Hi Suresh, I'm not disputing anything you or Tom wrote. The current scientific consensus is that most RF exposures are sage. We agree on that. My point is simply that, as Tom wrote in his citation, the biological effects of RF are still an area of research. And for that reason, it's unfair to dismiss a physician's suggestion to look into a case as an "internet conspiracy". That's all. Thanks, Sabri ----- On Nov 4, 2020, at 7:23 PM, Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte@gmail.com> wrote:
Existing research on health effects from RF signals dwell on emissions from regulated sources, (mobile handset, base of a tower etc), my overriding concern is, unrestricted/chronic exposure for extended duration of time for which there are very rare research efforts devoted.
Chronic exposure to RF is found to induce DNA instability^1^. Even if RF at chronic exposure levels are not found to cause DNA strands to break, it creates upstream conditions such as excess Calcium influx^2,3^ into the cell's cytoplasm with implications on cardiac arrhythmia^4^, invoke and/or worsen neurodegenerative^5^ diseases to name a few. Labeling any discussion on adverse health from OVEREXPOSURE to RF is a cop-out from doing a threadbare analysis.
Suresh S.
^1^ Mashevich M, Folkman D, Kesar A, et. al. Exposure of human peripheral blood lymphocytes to electromagnetic fields associated with cellular phones leads to chromosomal instability. Bioelectromagnetics. 2003;24:82–90.
^2^ Arber SL, Lin JC. Extracellular calcium and microwave enhancement of membrane conductance in snail neurons. Radiat Environ Biophys. Jun 1985;24(2):149–156.
^3^ Rao VS, Titushkin IA, Moros EG et al. Nonthermal effects of radiofrequency-field exposure on calcium dynamics in stem cell-derived neuronal cells: elucidation of calcium pathways. Radiat Res. 2008 March. 169(3):319-29.
^4^ Grace AA , Camm AJ. Voltage-gated calcium -channels and antiarrhythmic drug action. Cardiovasc Res. Jan 2000;45(1):43–51.
^5^ Leal SS, Gomes CM. Calcium dysregulation links ALS defective proteins and motor neuron selective vulnerability. Front Cell Neurosci. 2015;9:225.
On Thursday, November 5, 2020, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
The hypothesis that RF may cause damage to human DNA is not at all conspiracy. The fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship, does not mean that there isn't any. For example:
If you are going to cite that American Cancer Society article, you should cite all the relevant parts. The parts you skipped are bolded.
RF waves don’t have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Because of this, it’s not clear how RF radiation might be able to cause cancer. Some studies have found possible increased rates of certain types of tumors in lab animals exposed to RF radiation, but overall, the results of these types of studies have not provided clear answers so far.
A few studies have reported evidence of biological effects that could be linked to cancer, but this is still an area of research.
In large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, researchers exposed groups of lab rats (as well as mice, in the case of the NTP study) to RF waves over their entire bodies for many hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for at least most of their natural lives. Both studies found an increased risk of uncommon heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in male rats, but not in female rats (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP study). The NTP study also reported possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and in the adrenal glands.
While both of these studies had strengths, they also had limitations that make it hard to know how they might apply to humans being exposed to RF radiation. A 2019 review of these two studies by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) determined that the limitations of the studies didn’t allow conclusions to be drawn regarding the ability of RF energy to cause cancer.
Still, the results of these studies do not rule out the possibility that RF radiation might somehow be able to impact human health. The majority of science to date finds no causal relationship between EM radiation and cancerous mutations. If someone wants to claim otherwise, scientific proof is required.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 7:56 PM Sabri Berisha < [ mailto:sabri@cluecentral.net | sabri@cluecentral.net ] > wrote:
Hi,
Not that I'm into conspiracy theories, or believe at this point that RF emissions are in any way related to cancer, but Suresh' statement is not very scientific:
This is an internet conspiracy theory with no basis in reality or science.
RF emissions are absorbed by the human body. Your kitchen microwave works at the same frequency as your 2.4Ghz wifi. We all know it's a bad idea to put your head in a microwave oven.
The hypothesis that RF may cause damage to human DNA is not at all conspiracy. The fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship, does not mean that there isn't any. For example:
In large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, researchers exposed groups of lab rats (as well as mice, in the case of the NTP study) to RF waves over their entire bodies for many hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for at least most of their natural lives. Both studies found an increased risk of uncommon heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in male rats, but not in female rats (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP study). The NTP study also reported possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and in the adrenal glands.
Source: [ https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/radiofrequenc... | https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/radiofrequenc... ]
If your doctor suspected that you had cancer caused by something related to microwave band communications equipment, you need to find a new doctor.
On the contrary. Few people are more exposed to higher-powered RF radiation than a MW techie. That would make them an excellent subject for scientific research. Dismissing a medical professional's opinion based in your own firm beliefs is counterproductive to the advance of scientific knowledge.
Thanks,
Sabri, M.Sc
----- On Nov 4, 2020, at 2:01 PM, Matt Harris [ mailto:matt@netfire.net | matt@netfire.net ] wrote:
My first instinct is to let this be because the level of conspiracy theory nuttiness seems to be very high and the level of knowledge of basic physics seems to be very low, but since this list is archived in a way that lay-people may reference it at some point in the future, I'm going to go ahead and reply just this once more and just one point here so that a lack of response here won't be used as fodder by conspiracy theorists.
Matt Harris | Infrastructure Lead Engineer 816‑256‑5446 | Direct Looking for something? [ [ https://help.netfire.net/ | https://help.netfire.net/ ] | Helpdesk Portal ] | [ mailto: [ mailto:help@netfire.net | help@netfire.net ] | Email Support ] | [ [ https://my.netfire.net/ | https://my.netfire.net/ ] | Billing Portal ] We build and deliver end‑to‑end IT solutions. On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:48 PM Suresh Kalkunte < [ mailto: [ mailto:sskalkunte@gmail.com | sskalkunte@gmail.com ] | [ mailto:sskalkunte@gmail.com | sskalkunte@gmail.com ] ] > wrote:
At an employer where I developed Wi-Fi based SOHO device, an adjacent group was testing Line of Sight transceivers. Nobody warned me of the inclement health (a general physician in 2007 suspected cancer looking at a blood test) from close quarters exposure to the side lobes emanating from the microwave radio.
There is no scientific evidence that RF emissions in the bands used for communications have any causal relationship with cancer in humans. This is an internet conspiracy theory with no basis in reality or science. If your doctor suspected that you had cancer caused by something related to microwave band communications equipment, you need to find a new doctor.
Hi Sabri, I hope by now my position on health effects from RF is becoming apparent, ie., my focus is exclusively on health effects from chronic overexposure scenarios (unintentional overexposure experienced by firefighters, telecom workers etc. and intentional overexposure) which have attracted insufficient attention except for rare instances (references I have provided in an earlier email and one more#1 that deserves mention). Due to the low volume of findings associated with _chronic overexposure_, it is understandable that findings associated with _regulated_ RF emitters (mobile handsets, base of communication tower etc.) as sage is popular understanding. The sage opinion is true since the test exposure scenarios are benign. I have mentioned the following earlier but I repeat to convey circumstances that have shaped my resolve to pursue this topic. When I certified Wi-Fi endpoints at Intel Corporation in 2003-'04, I spent 10+ hour days on a stretch in close proximity to 2.45GHz emissions. I did not experience perceptible changes to my health due to this overexposure to cause alarm. However, at Motorola in 2007 when I worked alongside high power (radiated RF power)/gain (antenna amplification) outdoor Line of Sight emitters where I was exposed to either the side or main RF lobes of unidirectional microwave fields, the types of negative health symptoms induced was cause for alarm. As a Infantryman trained in the U.S. military to anticipate and defend onself/team from 360 degree threats, I recognized the high risk of affordable powerful EMF emitters of civilian origin are opportune to get improvised for malice with civilian expertse (circuit design/fabrication to get started). Opportune since there are no diagnostic/forensic tests (I have checked with forensic DNA scientists at the U.S. NIST) and statutes/code associated with weapon (checked with the FCC), physical assault/trespass do not yet delineate improvised potent RF as method of malice. I sense there is a perception that this discussion is off-topic. However, having this discussion protects the unsuspecting people (like I was until 2007) and is as important as protecting electronic equipment in the data center. Best, Suresh #1 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_atta.... This report presents health effects in animal/avian model resulting from chronic RF overexposure. On Thursday, November 5, 2020, Sabri Berisha <sabri@cluecentral.net> wrote:
Hi Suresh,
I'm not disputing anything you or Tom wrote. The current scientific consensus is that most RF exposures are sage. We agree on that.
My point is simply that, as Tom wrote in his citation, the biological effects of RF are still an area of research.
And for that reason, it's unfair to dismiss a physician's suggestion to look into a case as an "internet conspiracy". That's all.
Thanks,
Sabri
----- On Nov 4, 2020, at 7:23 PM, Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte@gmail.com> wrote:
Existing research on health effects from RF signals dwell on emissions from regulated sources, (mobile handset, base of a tower etc), my overriding concern is, unrestricted/chronic exposure for extended duration of time for which there are very rare research efforts devoted.
Chronic exposure to RF is found to induce DNA instability^1^. Even if RF at chronic exposure levels are not found to cause DNA strands to break, it creates upstream conditions such as excess Calcium influx^2,3^ into the cell's cytoplasm with implications on cardiac arrhythmia^4^, invoke and/or worsen neurodegenerative^5^ diseases to name a few. Labeling any discussion on adverse health from OVEREXPOSURE to RF is a cop-out from doing a threadbare analysis.
Suresh S.
^1^ Mashevich M, Folkman D, Kesar A, et. al. Exposure of human peripheral blood lymphocytes to electromagnetic fields associated with cellular phones leads to chromosomal instability. Bioelectromagnetics. 2003;24:82–90.
^2^ Arber SL, Lin JC. Extracellular calcium and microwave enhancement of membrane conductance in snail neurons. Radiat Environ Biophys. Jun 1985;24(2):149–156.
^3^ Rao VS, Titushkin IA, Moros EG et al. Nonthermal effects of radiofrequency-field exposure on calcium dynamics in stem cell-derived neuronal cells: elucidation of calcium pathways. Radiat Res. 2008 March. 169(3):319-29.
^4^ Grace AA , Camm AJ. Voltage-gated calcium -channels and antiarrhythmic drug action. Cardiovasc Res. Jan 2000;45(1):43–51.
^5^ Leal SS, Gomes CM. Calcium dysregulation links ALS defective proteins and motor neuron selective vulnerability. Front Cell Neurosci. 2015;9:225.
On Thursday, November 5, 2020, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
The hypothesis that RF may cause damage to human DNA is not at all
conspiracy. The fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship, does not mean that there isn't any. For example:
If you are going to cite that American Cancer Society article, you should cite all the relevant parts. The parts you skipped are bolded.
*RF waves don’t have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Because of
this, it’s not clear how RF radiation might be able to cause cancer. Some studies have found possible increased rates of certain types of tumors in lab animals exposed to RF radiation, but overall, the results of these types of studies have not provided clear answers so far.*
*A few studies have reported evidence of biological effects that could be linked to cancer, but this is still an area of research.*
In large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, researchers exposed groups of lab rats (as well as mice, in the case of the NTP study) to RF waves over their entire bodies for many hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for at least most of their natural lives. Both studies found an increased risk of uncommon heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in male rats, but not in female rats (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP study). The NTP study also reported possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and in the adrenal glands.
*While both of these studies had strengths, they also had limitations that make it hard to know how they might apply to humans being exposed to RF radiation. A 2019 review of these two studies by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) determined that the limitations of the studies didn’t allow conclusions to be drawn regarding the ability of RF energy to cause cancer.*
*Still, the results of these studies do not rule out the possibility that RF radiation might somehow be able to impact human health.*
The majority of science to date finds no causal relationship between EM radiation and cancerous mutations. If someone wants to claim otherwise, scientific proof is required.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 7:56 PM Sabri Berisha <sabri@cluecentral.net> wrote:
Hi,
Not that I'm into conspiracy theories, or believe at this point that RF emissions are in any way related to cancer, but Suresh' statement is not very scientific:
This is an internet conspiracy theory with no basis in reality or science.
RF emissions are absorbed by the human body. Your kitchen microwave works at the same frequency as your 2.4Ghz wifi. We all know it's a bad idea to put your head in a microwave oven.
The hypothesis that RF may cause damage to human DNA is not at all conspiracy. The fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship, does not mean that there isn't any. For example:
In large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, researchers exposed groups of lab rats (as well as mice, in the case of the NTP study) to RF waves over their entire bodies for many hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for at least most of their natural lives. Both studies found an increased risk of uncommon heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in male rats, but not in female rats (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP study). The NTP study also reported possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and in the adrenal glands.
Source: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposu re/radiofrequency-radiation.html
If your doctor suspected that you had cancer caused by something related to microwave band communications equipment, you need to find a new doctor.
On the contrary. Few people are more exposed to higher-powered RF radiation than a MW techie. That would make them an excellent subject for scientific research. Dismissing a medical professional's opinion based in your own firm beliefs is counterproductive to the advance of scientific knowledge.
Thanks,
Sabri, M.Sc
----- On Nov 4, 2020, at 2:01 PM, Matt Harris matt@netfire.net wrote:
My first instinct is to let this be because the level of conspiracy theory nuttiness seems to be very high and the level of knowledge of basic physics seems to be very low, but since this list is archived in a way that lay-people may reference it at some point in the future, I'm going to go ahead and reply just this once more and just one point here so that a lack of response here won't be used as fodder by conspiracy theorists.
Matt Harris | Infrastructure Lead Engineer 816‑256‑5446 | Direct Looking for something? [ https://help.netfire.net/ | Helpdesk Portal ] | [
mailto:help@netfire.net |
Email Support ] | [ https://my.netfire.net/ | Billing Portal ] We build and deliver end‑to‑end IT solutions. On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:48 PM Suresh Kalkunte < [ mailto: sskalkunte@gmail.com | sskalkunte@gmail.com ] > wrote:
At an employer where I developed Wi-Fi based SOHO device, an adjacent group was testing Line of Sight transceivers. Nobody warned me of the inclement health (a general physician in 2007 suspected cancer looking at a blood test) from close quarters exposure to the side lobes emanating from the microwave radio.
There is no scientific evidence that RF emissions in the bands used for communications have any causal relationship with cancer in humans. This is an internet conspiracy theory with no basis in reality or science. If your doctor suspected that you had cancer caused by something related to microwave band communications equipment, you need to find a new doctor.
On 04 Nov 2020, at 19.54, Sabri Berisha <sabri@cluecentral.net> wrote:
RF emissions are absorbed by the human body. Your kitchen microwave works at the same frequency as your 2.4Ghz wifi. We all know it's a bad idea to put your head in a microwave oven.
It's a bad idea because you'll get burns. EM radiation isn't some sort of covert superweapon where by the time you get cancer, the attacker is long gone. The potential harm is getting burned. As I'm sure everyone is aware, burns are painful, so you'll know right away.
----- On Nov 4, 2020, at 7:19 PM, Randy Bush randy@psg.com wrote: Hi,
The fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship, does not mean that there isn't any.
just wow
and, for all we know, the back side of the moon is green cheese
I don't think you got the message buried within my message. True science is open to change, based on learning new facts. Like I said initially, I agree with Suresh that at this time, there is no scientific evidence that links RF with any kind of bodily harm. The parts that Tom cited, are very much relevant, and only reinforce the notion that at this time, we simply do not know enough. We do know, that at the low doses we generally receive, there is no evidence for harmful consequences. My point is that we should not dismiss the physician who thought that he may have found something, as some kind of conspiracist. That's not how scientific progress is achieved. Thanks, Sabri
Hello,
...I agree with Suresh that at this time, there is no scientific evidence that links RF with any kind of bodily harm.
Please note that there is scientific evidence to link chronic exposure to RF result in chromosome instability*1, however there is no diagnostic test to attribute a disease as the end state.
My point is that we should not dismiss the physician who thought that he may have found something, as some kind of conspiracist.
Thank you. I am your everyday engineer who has had to cope with after-effects of powerful EMF and hence self-taught biology. If not for medical experts (cancer biology in academia) express confidence in my analysis connecting post-exposure to RF biology to likely disease outcome, I know better than to make a fool of myself. As I have said before, this group has the clue to dig for truth and not be satisfied with pseudo concepts. Regards, Suresh On Thursday, November 5, 2020, Sabri Berisha <sabri@cluecentral.net> wrote:
----- On Nov 4, 2020, at 7:19 PM, Randy Bush randy@psg.com wrote:
Hi,
The fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship, does not mean that there isn't any.
just wow
and, for all we know, the back side of the moon is green cheese
I don't think you got the message buried within my message. True science is open to change, based on learning new facts. Like I said initially, I agree with Suresh that at this time, there is no scientific evidence that links RF with any kind of bodily harm.
The parts that Tom cited, are very much relevant, and only reinforce the notion that at this time, we simply do not know enough. We do know, that at the low doses we generally receive, there is no evidence for harmful consequences.
My point is that we should not dismiss the physician who thought that he may have found something, as some kind of conspiracist. That's not how scientific progress is achieved.
Thanks,
Sabri
The parts that Tom cited, are very much relevant, and * only reinforce thenotion that at this time, we simply do not know enough.* We do know, that at the low doses we generally receive, there is no evidence for harmful consequences.
My point is that we should not dismiss the physician who thought that he may have found something, as some kind of conspiracist. That's not how scientific progress is achieved.
This is a gross mischaracterization, and I would go so far to say patently incorrect. Assert a general hypothesis of "Does X increase the chance of Y to occur?", and a sufficient amount of science is done. Let's say roughly half of the science says the hypothesis is false, and half says it is true. It is absolutely fair in this case to state "We don't know enough." However, let's say that 95% of the science says the hypothesis is false, and 5% says it is true. We DO know enough in this case to state with reasonable certainty that X does not increase the chance of Y. The description then is "Although we cannot absolutely rule it out, we so far find no evidence that X causes Y." Then, we go back and do more science based on what we have learned so far, and learn some more. One doctor, who THINKS he MIGHT have identified something to the contrary does not instantly disqualify the thousands of studies that have already been completed on the topic. His findings go into the pile with all the other findings, and they get properly evaluated. An easy analogy : If you have a 50 gallon drum of blue paint, and you toss in a drop of yellow, the entire thing doesn't turn green. On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 12:53 AM Sabri Berisha <sabri@cluecentral.net> wrote:
----- On Nov 4, 2020, at 7:19 PM, Randy Bush randy@psg.com wrote:
Hi,
The fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship, does not mean that there isn't any.
just wow
and, for all we know, the back side of the moon is green cheese
I don't think you got the message buried within my message. True science is open to change, based on learning new facts. Like I said initially, I agree with Suresh that at this time, there is no scientific evidence that links RF with any kind of bodily harm.
The parts that Tom cited, are very much relevant, and only reinforce the notion that at this time, we simply do not know enough. We do know, that at the low doses we generally receive, there is no evidence for harmful consequences.
My point is that we should not dismiss the physician who thought that he may have found something, as some kind of conspiracist. That's not how scientific progress is achieved.
Thanks,
Sabri
...who THINKS he MIGHT have identified something to the contrary does not instantly disqualify the thousands of studies that have already been completed on the topic
I am not a doctor. The majority of results you refer to is equivalent to the Sun' impact on human situated on Earth's surface (benign RF). Unfortunately, there is no research to demonstrate potent RF's impact on human which is equivalent to Sun' impact on human in outer space except for reporting the rare accidental occupational overexposure scenarios. Exposure to powerful RF (eg. Magnetron + horn antenna) is no different from pressured water coming from a fire hydrant or coming from welding torch. EMF is invisible giving room for underestimating its powerful embodiment while water and flame are visible to give us a clue to head for safety. On Thursday, November 5, 2020, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
The parts that Tom cited, are very much relevant, and
* only reinforce thenotion that at this time, we simply do not know enough.* We do know, that at the low doses we generally receive, there is no evidence for harmful consequences.
My point is that we should not dismiss the physician who thought that he may have found something, as some kind of conspiracist. That's not how scientific progress is achieved.
This is a gross mischaracterization, and I would go so far to say patently incorrect.
Assert a general hypothesis of "Does X increase the chance of Y to occur?", and a sufficient amount of science is done.
Let's say roughly half of the science says the hypothesis is false, and half says it is true. It is absolutely fair in this case to state "We don't know enough."
However, let's say that 95% of the science says the hypothesis is false, and 5% says it is true. We DO know enough in this case to state with reasonable certainty that X does not increase the chance of Y. The description then is "Although we cannot absolutely rule it out, we so far find no evidence that X causes Y." Then, we go back and do more science based on what we have learned so far, and learn some more.
One doctor, who THINKS he MIGHT have identified something to the contrary does not instantly disqualify the thousands of studies that have already been completed on the topic. His findings go into the pile with all the other findings, and they get properly evaluated. An easy analogy : If you have a 50 gallon drum of blue paint, and you toss in a drop of yellow, the entire thing doesn't turn green.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 12:53 AM Sabri Berisha <sabri@cluecentral.net> wrote:
----- On Nov 4, 2020, at 7:19 PM, Randy Bush randy@psg.com wrote:
Hi,
The fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship, does not mean that there isn't any.
just wow
and, for all we know, the back side of the moon is green cheese
I don't think you got the message buried within my message. True science is open to change, based on learning new facts. Like I said initially, I agree with Suresh that at this time, there is no scientific evidence that links RF with any kind of bodily harm.
The parts that Tom cited, are very much relevant, and only reinforce the notion that at this time, we simply do not know enough. We do know, that at the low doses we generally receive, there is no evidence for harmful consequences.
My point is that we should not dismiss the physician who thought that he may have found something, as some kind of conspiracist. That's not how scientific progress is achieved.
Thanks,
Sabri
On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 5:59 AM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
Let's say roughly half of the science says the hypothesis is false, and half says it is true. It is absolutely fair in this case to state "We don't know enough."
Hi Tom, Strictly speaking, if a hypothesis is disproven by even one repeatable experiment then the hypothesis is disproven. It doesn't rule out that a similar hypothesis could be true but that particular one is false. Suresh's case can also be dismissed with Security 101: never spend more protecting an asset than the value of the asset. Practically speaking this means you assign a risk cost to a particular kind of attack and then consider whether there are any protections from the attack which cost less than the risk. That's Vulnerability * Threat * Incident Cost. The vulnerability to someone tunnelling under your data center to set up an RF generator is not high. The logistics of such an effort are very complicated and the inverse square law dictates that the power in an RF signal deteriorates quickly with distance even in free air, let alone with ground between you and the recipient. It is, in a nutshell, impractical. The threat for someone tunnelling under your data center to set up an RF generator is basically zero. There are examples of tunnelling in crime and war but both involve clandestinely overcoming a superior force, such as breaking someone out of prison, evading detection by authorities when smuggling or destroying a fortified military position with explosives. There is no superior force guarding a data center. Following staff home and picking them off with a rifle is so much cheaper and carries a better probability of success. Nearly zero times zero times some possibly high incident cost still equals zero. The risk-cost from Suresh's scenario is zero. Hence the security efforts it justifies are zero. Regards, Bill Herrin -- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
/Friday afternoon On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 09:05:34AM -0800, William Herrin wrote:
Following staff home and picking them off with a rifle is so much cheaper and carries a better probability of success.
So does following them home and leaving them brand new unopened large bottles of Woodford Reserve. I highly recommend this approach for anyone who has selected me as a target and promise that I will duly report on its progressive deleterious effects. For accuracy, repeated trials over an extended period of time may be necessary but this is an ordeal I'm selflessly prepared to undertake for the sake of science. ---rsk p.s.1: I've worked in high-energy EM environments twice, in two different contexts. The safety measures were thorough and rigorous: it would have been very hard to screw up and even if any of us had, the inverse-square law would probably have saved us from serious harm. p.s.2: The large quantities of power conduits, cables, shelving, racks, HVAC ductwork, etc. that are typical of datacenters constitute a haphazard but modestly effective EM shield, as measured on an ad hoc basis by anyone who tries to receive external signals inside them (even when everything is powered down) will quickly discover. Thus an attempt to pull off a movie villain-grade underground attack designed to fry a staff member would likely require that the victim stand still on a selected spot (on the lowest-level floor) with a minimal amount of metal under it. I recommend that prospective attackers use the Wile E. Coyote (Sooper Genius) methodology, draw a large X on that spot, and install a sign that says "Free Birdseed". I'm certain this will work.
On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 12:00 PM Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:
p.s.2: The large quantities of power conduits, cables, shelving, racks, HVAC ductwork, etc. that are typical of datacenters constitute a haphazard but modestly effective EM shield, as measured on an ad hoc basis by anyone who tries to receive external signals inside them (even when everything is powered down) will quickly discover.
Hi Rich, I expect that has more to do with the windowless concrete-and-steel construction of the data center building. Regards, Bill Herrin -- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
Following staff home and picking them off with a rifle is so much cheaper and carries a better probability of success.
And give law enforcement much better probability of success as well.
The safety measures were thorough and rigorous: it would have been very hard to screw up and even if any of us had, the inverse-square law would probably have saved us from serious harm.
You refer to controlled exposure, where an exposee is aware of harmful emissions and able to take the necessary precautions☆1 without doubt is outstanding. My avenue of apprach to this topic, in a scenario of uncontrolled exposure where the exposee is unaware of harmful emissions and without knowledge to recognize/anticipate failing health is deprived to take prompt remideal action. Meaning to say, no limits to down-side. When I Immigrated to the U.S. in 1994, the ethos of relentlessly striving for precision and empower people made a deep impact on me. Including yours truly (ie. until I learned the survival skills☆1) are prone to shy from calling spade-a-spade confronting an adversary who thrives on inordinate EMF exposure as currency to overwhelm an adversary. -ss ☆1 If something does go wrong (for a person in relatively normal health observe the onset of unusual loss of dexterity/presence of mind, abrupt loss of appetite accompanied with near stopage of urine output), to have the Liberty to take timely counter-measures such as: - Visit a doctor. - TTP discovered in 2015. Injest an anti oxidant for radiation damage like Alpha Lipoic Acid (ALA). - TTP discovered in 2018. Ingest, or infuse (depending on severity of exposure) Vitamin B12+Folic acid. - TTP discovered in 2018. Ingest after food liquiefied raw garlic (about 15-20 grams per intake taken twice daily for about 2-3 days post-overexposure) mixed with raw tomato just enough to blunt the acrid taste of raw garlic which provides antifibrotic, anti-inflamatory, anti-cancer protection. I have found adding Vitamin B12 (1500mcg) + ALA is a very favorable adjuvant to allow raw garlic assimilation probably because it protects/revives liver function. Even my parents in their 80s/90s who are on heart related medication (space out heart medication by at least 1/2 hour) have been benefactors of this regimen since May this year especially due to the SAR-CoV-2 (prompting a therapeutic hypothesis https://competitionunlimited.org/2020/04/03/covid-19-can- allicin-found-in-raw-garlic-consumed-in-sufficient- quantity-restore-respiratory-function/), only that the dosage is half (10 grams raw garlic) and intake of once a day and not to exceed two days continuous (taking smaller dose, 5 grams regularly is alright). NOTE: need to watch for digestive dysfunction and fortify with grease-free highly nutritious food easy on the stomach during needs of prolonged intake and save Woodford Reserve for easier times :-). On Saturday, November 7, 2020, Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:
/Friday afternoon
On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 09:05:34AM -0800, William Herrin wrote:
Following staff home and picking them off with a rifle is so much cheaper and carries a better probability of success.
So does following them home and leaving them brand new unopened large bottles of Woodford Reserve. I highly recommend this approach for anyone who has selected me as a target and promise that I will duly report on its progressive deleterious effects. For accuracy, repeated trials over an extended period of time may be necessary but this is an ordeal I'm selflessly prepared to undertake for the sake of science.
---rsk
p.s.1: I've worked in high-energy EM environments twice, in two different contexts. The safety measures were thorough and rigorous: it would have been very hard to screw up and even if any of us had, the inverse-square law would probably have saved us from serious harm.
p.s.2: The large quantities of power conduits, cables, shelving, racks, HVAC ductwork, etc. that are typical of datacenters constitute a haphazard but modestly effective EM shield, as measured on an ad hoc basis by anyone who tries to receive external signals inside them (even when everything is powered down) will quickly discover. Thus an attempt to pull off a movie villain-grade underground attack designed to fry a staff member would likely require that the victim stand still on a selected spot (on the lowest-level floor) with a minimal amount of metal under it. I recommend that prospective attackers use the Wile E. Coyote (Sooper Genius) methodology, draw a large X on that spot, and install a sign that says "Free Birdseed". I'm certain this will work.
To me, this discussion is as good that could come out of a Congressional Committee proceeding. Ie., empower and deliberate on the substantiveness of a subject that affects the unsuspecting and defenseless.
raw garlic assimilation
This thread is definitely going to be used in a future court case
Is there scope for misunderstanding my experiences to overcome superior adversity? consider viewing competitionunlimited.wordpress.com/exposure- scenarios, a page I authored after the discussion on controlled vs. un-controlled exposure. On Tuesday, November 10, 2020, Jon Sands <fohdeesha@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2020, 8:00 PM Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte@gmail.com> wrote:
raw garlic assimilation
This thread is definitely going to be used in a future court case
----- On Nov 10, 2020, at 12:56 AM, Jon Sands fohdeesha@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2020, 8:00 PM Suresh Kalkunte < [ mailto:sskalkunte@gmail.com | sskalkunte@gmail.com ] > wrote:
raw garlic assimilation
This thread is definitely going to be used in a future court case
Nah, by that time this thread will be classified as an internet conspiracy :) If anyone should look at this thread for the purposes of bringing it in as evidence in any type of legal action: keep in mind that few (if any) of the contributors are medical or legal professionals, and some may be simple trolls. Nothing in this thread has any evidentiary contribution and represents the personal opinion of the writers. Scientific studies should be preferred over this type of 'internet folklore'. We're network plumbers. Thanks, Sabri, certified plumber.
Since I value the health and well being of my fellow netwotking professionals who exercise good judgment, I express the following. If not anything else, if you have got the feedback from a leading law enforcement/military practioner (I scarcely believe the Judiciary would even condider my suggestion if this concern for status quo of lawlessness was based on flimsy ground as you make it out to be - https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/archives/suggestions/suresh-kalkunte...) like I have and they say this path of enquiry is based on falsehood, go ahead, call it a conspiracy. When you agreed in an earlier post that research was required, it conveyed rational reasoning, but not this. I am no George Washington (because I have not experienced the hardship he endured/saw or enjoyed the loyalty of Brave souls who breathed liberty), but, this line of maligning reminds me of the false allegation made against His Excellency Washington that he was in league with the adversary in an effort to sow distrust just before the end of the first American Revolution. On Wednesday, November 11, 2020, Sabri Berisha <sabri@cluecentral.net> wrote:
----- On Nov 10, 2020, at 12:56 AM, Jon Sands fohdeesha@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2020, 8:00 PM Suresh Kalkunte < [ mailto: sskalkunte@gmail.com | sskalkunte@gmail.com ] > wrote:
raw garlic assimilation
This thread is definitely going to be used in a future court case
Nah, by that time this thread will be classified as an internet conspiracy :)
If anyone should look at this thread for the purposes of bringing it in as evidence in any type of legal action: keep in mind that few (if any) of the contributors are medical or legal professionals, and some may be simple trolls.
Nothing in this thread has any evidentiary contribution and represents the personal opinion of the writers. Scientific studies should be preferred over this type of 'internet folklore'. We're network plumbers.
Thanks,
Sabri, certified plumber.
----- On Nov 5, 2020, at 5:58 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote: Hi,
The parts that Tom cited, are very much relevant, and only reinforce the notion that at this time, we simply do not know enough. We do know, that at the low doses we generally receive, there is no evidence for harmful consequences.
This is a gross mischaracterization, and I would go so far to say patently incorrect.
Well, from the parts you quoted yourself, cut and paste from your email: - "it’s not clear how RF radiation might be able to cause cancer." - "the results of these types of studies have not provided clear answers so far." - "this is still an area of research." - "these studies had strengths, they also had limitations that make it hard to know how they might apply to humans" - "(ICNIRP) determined that the limitations of the studies didn’t allow conclusions to be drawn regarding the ability of RF energy to cause cancer." Which part of that is patently incorrect? Again, I'm not saying anything regarding the actual topic itself, I'm not an expert in that field.
His findings go into the pile with all the other findings, and they get properly evaluated.
Exactly. That how science works. Glad you understand it. You evaluate the data, instead of dismissing the doctor as some kind of QAnon conspiracy theorist. And that was the whole point of my post. I never made any assertion with regards to whether or not the hypothesis was correct. I merely quoted resources which indicated that more research was needed. Thanks, Sabri
participants (13)
-
Alain Hebert -
Brandon Svec -
Jon Sands -
Matt Harris -
Max Harmony -
nanog08＠mulligan.org -
nathanb＠sswireless.net -
Randy Bush -
Rich Kulawiec -
Sabri Berisha -
Suresh Kalkunte -
Tom Beecher -
William Herrin