Mailing List Archive

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 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.

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/
>

> 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-dangers-of-rooftop-transmitting-devices-on-highrise-buildings
.

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.
>
>

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/

> 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.
>
>
>

> 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/

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/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.

>
> 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/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.
>

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/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
> <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.
>

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.

> 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

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 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

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/radiofrequency-radiation.html
>>> |
>>> https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/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 [ 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.

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
>
>
>

Oops, meant include this reference

*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.

On Thursday, November 5, 2020, Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>

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_attachment.pdf.
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.
>>>
>>
>

>
> 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
>>
>>
>>