- On Nov 10, 2020, at 12:56 AM, Jon Sands fohdee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020, 8:00 PM Suresh Kalkunte < [ mailto:sskalku...@gmail.com |
> sskalku...@gmail.com ] > wrote:
>> raw garlic assimilation
> This thread is definitely going to be used in a future court case
Nah, by
On Fri, Nov 6, 2020, 8:00 PM Suresh Kalkunte wrote:
> raw garlic assimilation
>
This thread is definitely going to be used in a future court case
>
On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 12:00 PM Rich Kulawiec 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
/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
- On Nov 5, 2020, at 5:58 AM, Tom Beecher 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
>>
oof, 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
>>
>>
>>
>> *F
On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 5:59 AM Tom Beecher 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
ehalf 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 o
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 *On Behalf
> Of *Alain Hebert
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 4, 2020 10:32 AM
> *To:
> ...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
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
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
> 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
> 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
.
Regards,
Nathan Babcock
From: NANOG 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 &quo
>
> 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
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
- On Nov 4, 2020, at 7:19 PM, Randy Bush ra...@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
> 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
On 04 Nov 2020, at 19.54, Sabri Berisha 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
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
>
> 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
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
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
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
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 11:37 AM Suresh Kalkunte 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
Maybe someone is just looking for "inspiration".
There is other venues to work this out "safely", IMHO.
-
Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 10:48 AM Suresh Kalkunte
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
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 8:49 AM Suresh Kalkunte 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.
29 matches
Mail list logo
