Mailing List Archive

> Can you provide a case where this may
> have happened?
>
As you mention, a normal operational scenario finds powerful RF on the
rooftop. My concern is an abnormal scenario where powerful RF is used to
sabotage an electronic equipment or human. Magnetron + horn antenna
(forgive me for using this as an example a few times so far) for instance
is capable of significant harm. If I mention, I have been victimized, at
present we do not have the diagnostic/forensic tests (forensic DNA
scientists at the NIST can be contacted to verify) to prove intentional
harm from powerful EMF has occurred.

My motivation to bring this topic for discussion is to make aware of the
unlimited risk _if_ someone chooses to use powerful EMF as a method of
sabotage. I do not relish to discuss this, but I remember reading on NANOG
some 20-25 years ago, I paraphrase 'those with anti-social intentions do
not publish papers'.

Regards,
Suresh


On Thursday, November 5, 2020, <nathanb@sswireless.net> wrote:

> To that end, anyone working around RF should be properly trained and use
> the safety tools provided them, they should be fine. If an untrained
> individual does something and gets hurt with high power RF, it is
> unfortunate and happens all too often because of people thinking that the
> worst case things don’t happen to them…
>
>
>
> Can you provide a case where this may have happened? Any RF in a Data
> Center should be on the roof, and isolated from the room at all times.
> This is standard practice in every RF data room we’ve ever been in, whether
> it be commercial or Government.
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Nathan Babcock
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+nathanb=sswireless.net@nanog.org> *On Behalf
> Of *Alain Hebert
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 4, 2020 10:32 AM
> *To:* nanog@nanog.org
> *Subject:* Re: Technology risk without safeguards
>
>
>
> Maybe someone is just looking for "inspiration".
>
> There is other venues to work this out "safely", IMHO.
>
> -----
>
> Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net
>
> PubNIX Inc.
>
> 50 boul. St-Charles <https://www.google.com/maps/search/50+boul.+St-Charles?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
>
> Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443
>
> On 11/4/20 12:24 PM, Matt Harris wrote:
>
> Matt Harris?
>
> |
>
> Infrastructure Lead Engineer
>
> 816?256?5446
>
> |
>
> Direct
>
> *Looking for something?*
>
> *Helpdesk Portal <https://help.netfire.net/>*
>
> |
>
> *Email Support <help@netfire.net>*
>
> |
>
> *Billing Portal <https://my.netfire.net/>*
>
> We build and deliver end?to?end IT solutions.
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 10:48 AM Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I believe the below described method of causing intentional (1) damage to
> equipment in data centers and (2) physical injury to a person at the
> workplace is on-topic for the NANOG community, if not, I look forward to
> your feedback. As a software developer who has subscribed to the NANOG
> mailing list for a number of years, I post this note relying on
> intellectual honesty that I have had the opportunity to observe since
> 1996-97.
>
>
>
> The below described technology risk is applicable to
> computing/communication equipment rendered vulnerable by Intentional
> Electromagnetic Interference (jamming an electronic device) and the risk of
> health sabotage affecting people (jamming a human) managing the Internet
> infrastructure enabled by intentional application of powerful
> radiofrequency fields (RF) emitted by re-purposed components salvaged from
> a kitchen heating appliance (Magnetron) or from an outdoor high gain/power
> Line of sight transceiver (unidirectional microwave radio) which has a harm
> causing range up to 25 meters (estimated using a Spectral Power Density
> calculator like www.hintlink.com/power_density.htm).
>
>
>
> This risk from mis-application of powerful RF is from human operated or
> IoT apparatus** with an avenue of approch from (a) subterrain placement
> aided by a compact/mini directional horizontal drilling machine (eg.
> principle of placing a stent in the heart) and/or (b) strategic placement
> in an obscure over-surface location to maximize negative impact on the
> target of opportunity.
>
>
>
> With building materials or ground offer insufficient* protection to block
> the passage of powerful RF and the absence of diagnostic/forensic tests to
> detect biomarkers expressed post-overexposure to harmful RF (combination
> of RF frequency, Spectral Power Density/Specific Absorption Rate incident
> on a person and duration of exposure), intentional damage to electronic
> equipment and people is at present unrestricted.
>
>
>
> The purpose of bringing this method of exploting technology to your
> attention is with an interest to build the momentum for ushering in the
> much needed safeguards in this context.
>
>
>
> While I'm a bit confused as to what this message is trying to ultimately
> get at, it should be noted that folks who work with RF communications
> equipment and other EM emitters which are strong enough to cause harm to a
> person are generally well aware of the necessary precautions and take them
> on a day to day basis when working with this equipment. If there's evidence
> that some part of our industry is ignoring or failing to train their team
> members on safety best practices, then let's hear that out specifically and
> I'm all for working to rectify that.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, the post seems to hint at intentionally using high
> powered RF to inflict intentional harm on a person or to jam communications
> signals. The former is relatively difficult to do by virtue of the amount
> of power necessary. Quite basically, there are much easier ways to go about
> injuring someone if that's what you want to do. Of course, intentionally
> injuring another person is a criminal act in just about every jurisdiction.
> As far as the latter goes, the ability to jam RF communications has existed
> for as long as RF communication has, and the knowledge of how to accomplish
> it is relatively widespread. It is also illegal in the US and most likely
> many other jurisdictions as well, and in the US the FCC has enforcement
> power with the ability to levy some pretty hefty fines on anyone who does
> so, even inadvertently though negligent practices.
>
>
>
> The post states that their intention is to "build the momentum for
> ushering in the much needed safeguards in this context." but lacks
> specificity with regard to what safeguards they propose beyond the
> legal/regulatory ones that already exist, so I'm not sure what more can
> really be said here.
>
>
>
>
>

    Well,

    I'm just saying...

        Speculating about "how to/was harm", on an open forum, is a
good way to help design "scenarios" that can be abused by bad actors. 
It would be better to address it in an academia setting.

    *Now* if you're looking for worker safety, surely your local
jurisdiction have a compliance body able to provide best practices to
protect the workers.  I hate to bring RFC1149 again, but those high
power microwave antenna are hell on packet drops on that medium.

    PS: From my experiences with 2 .com about a FPGA Based Firewall and
a FIPS-140 Encryption Network Card.  And my associate ~15y in the RF
radio industry.

-----
Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443

On 11/5/20 10:22 AM, Suresh Kalkunte wrote:
> > Can you provide a case where this may
> > have happened?
> >
> As you mention, a normal operational scenario finds powerful RF on the
> rooftop. My concern is an abnormal scenario where powerful RF is used
> to sabotage an electronic equipment or human. Magnetron + horn antenna
> (forgive me for using this as an example a few times so far) for
> instance is capable of significant harm. If I mention, I have been
> victimized, at present we do not have the diagnostic/forensic tests
> (forensic DNA scientists at the NIST can be contacted to verify) to
> prove intentional harm from powerful EMF  has occurred.
>
> My motivation to bring this topic for discussion is to make aware of
> the unlimited risk _if_ someone chooses to use powerful EMF as a
> method of sabotage. I do not relish to discuss this, but I remember
> reading on NANOG some 20-25 years ago, I paraphrase 'those with
> anti-social intentions do not publish papers'.
>
> Regards,
> Suresh
>
>
> On Thursday, November 5, 2020, <nathanb@sswireless.net
> <mailto:nathanb@sswireless.net>> wrote:
>
> To that end, anyone working around RF should be properly trained
> and use the safety tools provided them, they should be fine.  If
> an untrained individual does something and gets hurt with high
> power RF, it is unfortunate and happens all too often because of
> people thinking that the worst case things don’t happen to them…
>
> Can you provide a case where this may have happened?  Any RF in a
> Data Center should be on the roof, and isolated from the room at
> all times.  This is standard practice in every RF data room we’ve
> ever been in, whether it be commercial or Government.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Nathan Babcock
>
> *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+nathanb=sswireless.net@nanog.org
> <mailto:sswireless.net@nanog.org>> *On Behalf Of *Alain Hebert
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 4, 2020 10:32 AM
> *To:* nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Technology risk without safeguards
>
>     Maybe someone is just looking for "inspiration".
>
>     There is other venues to work this out "safely", IMHO.
>
> -----
>
> Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net <mailto:ahebert@pubnix.net>
>
> PubNIX Inc.
>
> 50 boul. St-Charles <https://www.google.com/maps/search/50+boul.+St-Charles?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> P.O. Box 26770     Beaconsfield, Quebec     H9W 6G7
>
> Tel: 514-990-5911http://www.pubnix.net <http://www.pubnix.net>     Fax: 514-990-9443
>
> On 11/4/20 12:24 PM, Matt Harris wrote:
>
>
>
> Matt Harris?
>
>
>
> |
>
>
>
> Infrastructure Lead Engineer
>
> 816?256?5446
>
>
>
> |
>
>
>
> Direct
>
> *Looking for something?*
>
> _*Helpdesk Portal* <https://help.netfire.net/>_
>
>
>
> |
>
>
>
> _*Email Support* <mailto:help@netfire.net>_
>
>
>
> |
>
>
>
> _*Billing Portal* <https://my.netfire.net/>_
>
>
>
> We build and deliver end?to?end IT solutions.
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 10:48 AM Suresh Kalkunte
> <sskalkunte@gmail.com <mailto:sskalkunte@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I believe the below described method of causing
> intentional (1) damage to equipment in data centers and
> (2) physical injury to a person at the workplace is
> on-topic for the NANOG community, if not, I look forward
> to your feedback. As a software developer who has
> subscribed to the NANOG mailing list for a number of
> years, I post this note relying on intellectual honesty
> that I have had the opportunity to observe since 1996-97.
>
> The below described technology risk is applicable to
> computing/communication equipment rendered vulnerable by
> Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (jamming an
> electronic device) and the risk of health sabotage
> affecting people (jamming a human) managing the Internet
> infrastructure enabled by intentional application of
> powerful radiofrequency fields (RF) emitted by re-purposed
> components salvaged from a kitchen heating appliance
> (Magnetron) or from an outdoor high gain/power Line of
> sight transceiver (unidirectional microwave radio) which
> has a harm causing range up to 25 meters (estimated using
> a Spectral Power Density calculator like
> www.hintlink.com/power_density.htm
> <http://www.hintlink.com/power_density.htm>).
>
> This risk from mis-application of powerful RF is from
> human operated or IoT apparatus** with an avenue of
> approch from (a) subterrain placement aided by a
> compact/mini directional horizontal drilling machine (eg.
> principle of placing a stent in the heart) and/or (b)
> strategic placement in an obscure over-surface location to
> maximize negative impact on the target of opportunity.
>
> With building materials or ground offer insufficient*
> protection to block the passage of powerful RF and the
> absence of diagnostic/forensic tests to detect biomarkers
> expressed post-overexposure to harmful RF (combination of
> RF frequency, Spectral Power Density/Specific Absorption
> Rate incident on a person and duration of exposure),
> intentional damage to electronic equipment and people is
> at present unrestricted.
>
> The purpose of bringing this method of exploting
> technology to your attention is with an interest to build
> the momentum for ushering in the much needed safeguards in
> this context.
>
> While I'm a bit confused as to what this message is trying to
> ultimately get at, it should be noted that folks who work with
> RF communications equipment and other EM emitters which are
> strong enough to cause harm to a person are generally well
> aware of the necessary precautions and take them on a day to
> day basis when working with this equipment. If there's
> evidence that some part of our industry is ignoring or failing
> to train their team members on safety best practices, then
> let's hear that out specifically and I'm all for working to
> rectify that.
>
> On the other hand, the post seems to hint at intentionally
> using high powered RF to inflict intentional harm on a person
> or to jam communications signals. The former is relatively
> difficult to do by virtue of the amount of power necessary.
> Quite basically, there are much easier ways to go about
> injuring someone if that's what you want to do. Of course,
> intentionally injuring another person is a criminal act in
> just about every jurisdiction. As far as the latter goes, the
> ability to jam RF communications has existed for as long as RF
> communication has, and the knowledge of how to accomplish it
> is relatively widespread. It is also illegal in the US and
> most likely many other jurisdictions as well, and in the US
> the FCC has enforcement power with the ability to levy some
> pretty hefty fines on anyone who does so, even inadvertently
> though negligent practices.
>
> The post states that their intention is to "build the momentum
> for ushering in the much needed safeguards in this context."
> but lacks specificity with regard to what safeguards
> they propose beyond the legal/regulatory ones that already
> exist, so I'm not sure what more can really be said here.
>

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 5:59 AM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
> Let's say roughly half of the science says the hypothesis is false, and half says it is true. It is absolutely fair in this case to state "We don't know enough."

Hi Tom,

Strictly speaking, if a hypothesis is disproven by even one repeatable
experiment then the hypothesis is disproven. It doesn't rule out that
a similar hypothesis could be true but that particular one is false.

Suresh's case can also be dismissed with Security 101: never spend
more protecting an asset than the value of the asset. Practically
speaking this means you assign a risk cost to a particular kind of
attack and then consider whether there are any protections from the
attack which cost less than the risk. That's Vulnerability * Threat *
Incident Cost.

The vulnerability to someone tunnelling under your data center to set
up an RF generator is not high. The logistics of such an effort are
very complicated and the inverse square law dictates that the power in
an RF signal deteriorates quickly with distance even in free air, let
alone with ground between you and the recipient. It is, in a nutshell,
impractical.

The threat for someone tunnelling under your data center to set up an
RF generator is basically zero. There are examples of tunnelling in
crime and war but both involve clandestinely overcoming a superior
force, such as breaking someone out of prison, evading detection by
authorities when smuggling or destroying a fortified military position
with explosives. There is no superior force guarding a data center.
Following staff home and picking them off with a rifle is so much
cheaper and carries a better probability of success.

Nearly zero times zero times some possibly high incident cost still
equals zero. The risk-cost from Suresh's scenario is zero. Hence the
security efforts it justifies are zero.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

--
Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/

Sir, I too believe in taking a low profile approach, but the irony is that
those in academia who I have appoached that do recognize this gap in
safeguards are reticent to take up this topic since it involves research
intersecting with negative actors.

I do not wish to take more time from this group beyond what has been
offered am all ears to being introduced to an intrepid epidemiology
researcher/academic institution who would consider to review the safeguards
I propose.

Regards,
Suresh

On Thursday, November 5, 2020, Alain Hebert <ahebert@pubnix.net> wrote:

> Well,
>
> I'm just saying...
>
> Speculating about "how to/was harm", on an open forum, is a good
> way to help design "scenarios" that can be abused by bad actors. It would
> be better to address it in an academia setting.
>
> *Now* if you're looking for worker safety, surely your local
> jurisdiction have a compliance body able to provide best practices to
> protect the workers. I hate to bring RFC1149 again, but those high power
> microwave antenna are hell on packet drops on that medium.
>
> PS: From my experiences with 2 .com about a FPGA Based Firewall and a
> FIPS-140 Encryption Network Card. And my associate ~15y in the RF radio
> industry.
>
> -----
> Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net
> PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles <https://www.google.com/maps/search/50+boul.+St-Charles?entry=gmail&source=g>
> P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
> Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443
>
> On 11/5/20 10:22 AM, Suresh Kalkunte wrote:
>
> > Can you provide a case where this may
> > have happened?
> >
> As you mention, a normal operational scenario finds powerful RF on the
> rooftop. My concern is an abnormal scenario where powerful RF is used to
> sabotage an electronic equipment or human. Magnetron + horn antenna
> (forgive me for using this as an example a few times so far) for instance
> is capable of significant harm. If I mention, I have been victimized, at
> present we do not have the diagnostic/forensic tests (forensic DNA
> scientists at the NIST can be contacted to verify) to prove intentional
> harm from powerful EMF has occurred.
>
> My motivation to bring this topic for discussion is to make aware of the
> unlimited risk _if_ someone chooses to use powerful EMF as a method of
> sabotage. I do not relish to discuss this, but I remember reading on NANOG
> some 20-25 years ago, I paraphrase 'those with anti-social intentions do
> not publish papers'.
>
> Regards,
> Suresh
>
>
> On Thursday, November 5, 2020, <nathanb@sswireless.net> wrote:
>
>> To that end, anyone working around RF should be properly trained and use
>> the safety tools provided them, they should be fine. If an untrained
>> individual does something and gets hurt with high power RF, it is
>> unfortunate and happens all too often because of people thinking that the
>> worst case things don’t happen to them…
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you provide a case where this may have happened? Any RF in a Data
>> Center should be on the roof, and isolated from the room at all times.
>> This is standard practice in every RF data room we’ve ever been in, whether
>> it be commercial or Government.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Nathan Babcock
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+nathanb=sswireless.net@nanog.org> *On
>> Behalf Of *Alain Hebert
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 4, 2020 10:32 AM
>> *To:* nanog@nanog.org
>> *Subject:* Re: Technology risk without safeguards
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe someone is just looking for "inspiration".
>>
>> There is other venues to work this out "safely", IMHO.
>>
>> -----
>>
>> Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net
>>
>> PubNIX Inc.
>>
>> 50 boul. St-Charles <https://www.google.com/maps/search/50+boul.+St-Charles?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>> P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
>>
>> Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443
>>
>> On 11/4/20 12:24 PM, Matt Harris wrote:
>>
>> Matt Harris?
>>
>> |
>>
>> Infrastructure Lead Engineer
>>
>> 816?256?5446
>>
>> |
>>
>> Direct
>>
>> *Looking for something?*
>>
>> *Helpdesk Portal <https://help.netfire.net/>*
>>
>> |
>>
>> *Email Support <help@netfire.net>*
>>
>> |
>>
>> *Billing Portal <https://my.netfire.net/>*
>>
>> We build and deliver end?to?end IT solutions.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 10:48 AM Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe the below described method of causing intentional (1) damage to
>> equipment in data centers and (2) physical injury to a person at the
>> workplace is on-topic for the NANOG community, if not, I look forward to
>> your feedback. As a software developer who has subscribed to the NANOG
>> mailing list for a number of years, I post this note relying on
>> intellectual honesty that I have had the opportunity to observe since
>> 1996-97.
>>
>>
>>
>> The below described technology risk is applicable to
>> computing/communication equipment rendered vulnerable by Intentional
>> Electromagnetic Interference (jamming an electronic device) and the risk of
>> health sabotage affecting people (jamming a human) managing the Internet
>> infrastructure enabled by intentional application of powerful
>> radiofrequency fields (RF) emitted by re-purposed components salvaged from
>> a kitchen heating appliance (Magnetron) or from an outdoor high gain/power
>> Line of sight transceiver (unidirectional microwave radio) which has a harm
>> causing range up to 25 meters (estimated using a Spectral Power Density
>> calculator like www.hintlink.com/power_density.htm).
>>
>>
>>
>> This risk from mis-application of powerful RF is from human operated or
>> IoT apparatus** with an avenue of approch from (a) subterrain placement
>> aided by a compact/mini directional horizontal drilling machine (eg.
>> principle of placing a stent in the heart) and/or (b) strategic placement
>> in an obscure over-surface location to maximize negative impact on the
>> target of opportunity.
>>
>>
>>
>> With building materials or ground offer insufficient* protection to block
>> the passage of powerful RF and the absence of diagnostic/forensic tests to
>> detect biomarkers expressed post-overexposure to harmful RF (combination
>> of RF frequency, Spectral Power Density/Specific Absorption Rate incident
>> on a person and duration of exposure), intentional damage to electronic
>> equipment and people is at present unrestricted.
>>
>>
>>
>> The purpose of bringing this method of exploting technology to your
>> attention is with an interest to build the momentum for ushering in the
>> much needed safeguards in this context.
>>
>>
>>
>> While I'm a bit confused as to what this message is trying to ultimately
>> get at, it should be noted that folks who work with RF communications
>> equipment and other EM emitters which are strong enough to cause harm to a
>> person are generally well aware of the necessary precautions and take them
>> on a day to day basis when working with this equipment. If there's evidence
>> that some part of our industry is ignoring or failing to train their team
>> members on safety best practices, then let's hear that out specifically and
>> I'm all for working to rectify that.
>>
>>
>>
>> On the other hand, the post seems to hint at intentionally using high
>> powered RF to inflict intentional harm on a person or to jam communications
>> signals. The former is relatively difficult to do by virtue of the amount
>> of power necessary. Quite basically, there are much easier ways to go about
>> injuring someone if that's what you want to do. Of course, intentionally
>> injuring another person is a criminal act in just about every jurisdiction.
>> As far as the latter goes, the ability to jam RF communications has existed
>> for as long as RF communication has, and the knowledge of how to accomplish
>> it is relatively widespread. It is also illegal in the US and most likely
>> many other jurisdictions as well, and in the US the FCC has enforcement
>> power with the ability to levy some pretty hefty fines on anyone who does
>> so, even inadvertently though negligent practices.
>>
>>
>>
>> The post states that their intention is to "build the momentum for
>> ushering in the much needed safeguards in this context." but lacks
>> specificity with regard to what safeguards they propose beyond the
>> legal/regulatory ones that already exist, so I'm not sure what more can
>> really be said here.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

----- On Nov 5, 2020, at 5:58 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:

Hi,

>> The parts that Tom cited, are very much relevant, and only reinforce the
>> notion that at this time, we simply do not know enough. We do know, that
>> at the low doses we generally receive, there is no evidence for harmful
>> consequences.

> This is a gross mischaracterization, and I would go so far to say patently
> incorrect.

Well, from the parts you quoted yourself, cut and paste from your email:

- "it’s not clear how RF radiation might be able to cause cancer."
- "the results of these types of studies have not provided clear answers so far."
- "this is still an area of research."
- "these studies had strengths, they also had limitations that make it hard to
know how they might apply to humans"
- "(ICNIRP) determined that the limitations of the studies didn’t allow
conclusions to be drawn regarding the ability of RF energy to cause cancer."

Which part of that is patently incorrect?

Again, I'm not saying anything regarding the actual topic itself, I'm not an
expert in that field.

> His findings go into the pile with all the other findings, and they get properly
> evaluated.

Exactly. That how science works. Glad you understand it. You evaluate the data,
instead of dismissing the doctor as some kind of QAnon conspiracy theorist.

And that was the whole point of my post. I never made any assertion with regards
to whether or not the hypothesis was correct. I merely quoted resources which
indicated that more research was needed.

Thanks,

Sabri

/Friday afternoon

On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 09:05:34AM -0800, William Herrin wrote:
> Following staff home and picking them off with a rifle is so much
> cheaper and carries a better probability of success.

So does following them home and leaving them brand new unopened large
bottles of Woodford Reserve. I highly recommend this approach for anyone
who has selected me as a target and promise that I will duly report on
its progressive deleterious effects. For accuracy, repeated trials
over an extended period of time may be necessary but this is an ordeal
I'm selflessly prepared to undertake for the sake of science.

---rsk

p.s.1: I've worked in high-energy EM environments twice, in two different
contexts. The safety measures were thorough and rigorous: it would have
been very hard to screw up and even if any of us had, the inverse-square
law would probably have saved us from serious harm.

p.s.2: The large quantities of power conduits, cables, shelving, racks,
HVAC ductwork, etc. that are typical of datacenters constitute a haphazard
but modestly effective EM shield, as measured on an ad hoc basis by anyone
who tries to receive external signals inside them (even when everything
is powered down) will quickly discover. Thus an attempt to pull off a
movie villain-grade underground attack designed to fry a staff member
would likely require that the victim stand still on a selected spot
(on the lowest-level floor) with a minimal amount of metal under it.
I recommend that prospective attackers use the Wile E. Coyote (Sooper
Genius) methodology, draw a large X on that spot, and install a sign
that says "Free Birdseed". I'm certain this will work.

On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 12:00 PM Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:
> p.s.2: The large quantities of power conduits, cables, shelving, racks,
> HVAC ductwork, etc. that are typical of datacenters constitute a haphazard
> but modestly effective EM shield, as measured on an ad hoc basis by anyone
> who tries to receive external signals inside them (even when everything
> is powered down) will quickly discover.

Hi Rich,

I expect that has more to do with the windowless concrete-and-steel
construction of the data center building.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



--
Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/

>> Following staff home and picking them off with a rifle is so much
>> cheaper and carries a better probability of success.
>>
And give law enforcement much better probability of success as well.

> The safety measures were thorough and
> rigorous: it would have been very hard to
> screw up and even if any of us had, the
> inverse-square law would probably have
> saved us from serious harm.
>
You refer to controlled exposure, where an exposee is aware of harmful
emissions and able to take the necessary precautions?1 without doubt is
outstanding. My avenue of apprach to this topic, in a scenario of
uncontrolled exposure where the exposee is unaware of harmful emissions and
without knowledge to recognize/anticipate failing health is deprived to
take prompt remideal action. Meaning to say, no limits to down-side. When I
Immigrated to the U.S. in 1994, the ethos of relentlessly striving for
precision and empower people made a deep impact on me.

Including yours truly (ie. until I learned the survival skills?1) are prone
to shy from calling spade-a-spade confronting an adversary who thrives on
inordinate EMF exposure as currency to overwhelm an adversary.

-ss

?1 If something does go wrong (for a person in relatively normal health
observe the onset of unusual loss of dexterity/presence of mind, abrupt
loss of appetite accompanied with near stopage of urine output), to have
the Liberty to take timely counter-measures such as:
- Visit a doctor.
- TTP discovered in 2015. Injest an anti oxidant for radiation damage like
Alpha Lipoic Acid (ALA).
- TTP discovered in 2018. Ingest, or infuse (depending on severity of
exposure) Vitamin B12+Folic acid.
- TTP discovered in 2018. Ingest after food liquiefied raw garlic (about
15-20 grams per intake taken twice daily for about 2-3 days
post-overexposure) mixed with raw tomato just enough to blunt the acrid
taste of raw garlic which provides antifibrotic, anti-inflamatory,
anti-cancer protection. I have found adding Vitamin B12 (1500mcg) + ALA is
a very favorable adjuvant to allow raw garlic assimilation probably because
it protects/revives liver function. Even my parents in their 80s/90s who
are on heart related medication (space out heart medication by at least 1/2
hour) have been benefactors of this regimen since May this year especially
due to the SAR-CoV-2 (prompting a therapeutic hypothesis
https://competitionunlimited.org/2020/04/03/covid-19-can-
allicin-found-in-raw-garlic-consumed-in-sufficient-
quantity-restore-respiratory-function/), only that the dosage is half (10
grams raw garlic) and intake of once a day and not to exceed two days
continuous (taking smaller dose, 5 grams regularly is alright). NOTE: need
to watch for digestive dysfunction and fortify with grease-free highly
nutritious food easy on the stomach during needs of prolonged intake and
save Woodford Reserve for easier times :-).


On Saturday, November 7, 2020, Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:
>
>
> /Friday afternoon
>
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 09:05:34AM -0800, William Herrin wrote:
> > Following staff home and picking them off with a rifle is so much
> > cheaper and carries a better probability of success.
>
> So does following them home and leaving them brand new unopened large
> bottles of Woodford Reserve. I highly recommend this approach for anyone
> who has selected me as a target and promise that I will duly report on
> its progressive deleterious effects. For accuracy, repeated trials
> over an extended period of time may be necessary but this is an ordeal
> I'm selflessly prepared to undertake for the sake of science.
>
> ---rsk
>
> p.s.1: I've worked in high-energy EM environments twice, in two different
> contexts. The safety measures were thorough and rigorous: it would have
> been very hard to screw up and even if any of us had, the inverse-square
> law would probably have saved us from serious harm.
>
> p.s.2: The large quantities of power conduits, cables, shelving, racks,
> HVAC ductwork, etc. that are typical of datacenters constitute a haphazard
> but modestly effective EM shield, as measured on an ad hoc basis by anyone
> who tries to receive external signals inside them (even when everything
> is powered down) will quickly discover. Thus an attempt to pull off a
> movie villain-grade underground attack designed to fry a staff member
> would likely require that the victim stand still on a selected spot
> (on the lowest-level floor) with a minimal amount of metal under it.
> I recommend that prospective attackers use the Wile E. Coyote (Sooper
> Genius) methodology, draw a large X on that spot, and install a sign
> that says "Free Birdseed". I'm certain this will work.
>

On Fri, Nov 6, 2020, 8:00 PM Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte@gmail.com> wrote:

> raw garlic assimilation
>

This thread is definitely going to be used in a future court case

>

To me, this discussion is as good that could come out of a Congressional
Committee proceeding. Ie., empower and deliberate on the substantiveness of
a subject that affects the unsuspecting and defenseless.

>>raw garlic assimilation
>>
> This thread is definitely going to be used
> in a future court case
>
Is there scope for misunderstanding my experiences to overcome superior
adversity? consider viewing competitionunlimited.wordpress.com/exposure-
scenarios, a page I authored after the discussion on controlled vs.
un-controlled exposure.

On Tuesday, November 10, 2020, Jon Sands <fohdeesha@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020, 8:00 PM Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> raw garlic assimilation
>>
>
> This thread is definitely going to be used in a future court case
>
>>

----- On Nov 10, 2020, at 12:56 AM, Jon Sands fohdeesha@gmail.com wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020, 8:00 PM Suresh Kalkunte < [ mailto:sskalkunte@gmail.com |
> sskalkunte@gmail.com ] > wrote:

>> raw garlic assimilation

> This thread is definitely going to be used in a future court case

Nah, by that time this thread will be classified as an internet conspiracy :)

If anyone should look at this thread for the purposes of bringing it in as
evidence in any type of legal action: keep in mind that few (if any) of the
contributors are medical or legal professionals, and some may be simple trolls.

Nothing in this thread has any evidentiary contribution and represents the
personal opinion of the writers. Scientific studies should be preferred over
this type of 'internet folklore'. We're network plumbers.

Thanks,

Sabri, certified plumber.

Since I value the health and well being of my fellow netwotking
professionals who exercise good judgment, I express the following.

If not anything else, if you have got the feedback from a leading law
enforcement/military practioner (I scarcely believe the Judiciary would
even condider my suggestion if this concern for status quo of lawlessness
was based on flimsy ground as you make it out to be -
https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/archives/suggestions/suresh-kalkunte-16-cv-g)
like I have and they say this path of enquiry is based on falsehood, go
ahead, call it a conspiracy.

When you agreed in an earlier post that research was required, it conveyed
rational reasoning, but not this.

I am no George Washington (because I have not experienced the hardship he
endured/saw or enjoyed the loyalty of Brave souls who breathed liberty),
but, this line of maligning reminds me of the false allegation made against
His Excellency Washington that he was in league with the adversary in an
effort to sow distrust just before the end of the first American Revolution.



On Wednesday, November 11, 2020, Sabri Berisha <sabri@cluecentral.net>
wrote:

> ----- On Nov 10, 2020, at 12:56 AM, Jon Sands fohdeesha@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2020, 8:00 PM Suresh Kalkunte < [ mailto:
> sskalkunte@gmail.com |
> > sskalkunte@gmail.com ] > wrote:
>
> >> raw garlic assimilation
>
> > This thread is definitely going to be used in a future court case
>
> Nah, by that time this thread will be classified as an internet conspiracy
> :)
>
> If anyone should look at this thread for the purposes of bringing it in as
> evidence in any type of legal action: keep in mind that few (if any) of the
> contributors are medical or legal professionals, and some may be simple
> trolls.
>
> Nothing in this thread has any evidentiary contribution and represents the
> personal opinion of the writers. Scientific studies should be preferred
> over
> this type of 'internet folklore'. We're network plumbers.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sabri, certified plumber.
>