Group Wants Wi-Fi Banned, Citing Allergy 525
54mc writes "A small group in Santa Fe, New Mexico is claiming that the city is discriminating against them by having wireless networks in public buildings. How are these buildings discriminatory? Simple. These people are allergic to Wi-Fi. And they're suing the city." I've been trying to sue people for the streetlights that I'm allergic to as well.
Three words... (Score:5, Insightful)
Allergic?, yeah sure you are.
The plaintiff is not unknown (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, check out, Electromagnetic Fields (EMF): The Killing Fields [mindfully.org], it's full of lol:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But they're still able to answer an electromagnetic telephone, hold the electromagnetic speaker next to their head, and answer a telephone survey.
Shouldn't this information be on my favorite 50,000 watt radio station or TV station?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I also laughed at the one guy "you're like walkin down the street man, and you're like, dodgin cell phone signals!" Dodging cell phone signals, huh? As if!
Re:Three words... (Score:4, Insightful)
You know what they found, nada, nothing, zilch, apparently they only have the reaction if they know about it.
I recommend putting a sticker on all wifi products that says "new allergy free design".
There is nothing quite like an ineffective solution to an nonexistant problem.
Re:Yes I'd like to see that (Score:5, Insightful)
We know full well why more people are getting cancer. Improvements in medicine have reduced the mortality rates of other diseases hugely and improvements in vacinations have vastly reduced the number of people who even get potentially deadly diseases like mumps and measles, so more people survive to get cancer.
Put another way, if we shot everyone at the age of 40, I can guarantee that cancer rates would plummet. If we irradicated every other type of disease (including old age) then everyone would get cancer eventually.
Re:Yes I'd like to see that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes I'd like to see that (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it'd be extremely difficult to back up a statement like "Cancer rates have increased in the last few years" with any kind of certainty.
Re:Yes I'd like to see that (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yes I'd like to see that (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes I'd like to see that (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes I'd like to see that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Quote: "Global cancer rates could increase by 50% to 15 million by 2020
3 April 2003 | GENEVA -- Cancer rates could further increase by 50% to 15 million new cases in the year 2020, according to the World Cancer Report, the most comprehensive global examination of the disease to date. However, the report also provides clear evidence that healthy lifestyles and public health action by governments and health practitioners could stem this trend, and
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
WARNING: PDF
I find the following a useful thing to add to my userContent.css.
a[href$=".pdf"]::after
{
content: url("

kLDRYPDQwMDRsUFRAWIB0iIiAdHx8kKDQsJCYxJx8fLT0tMTU3Ojo6Iys/RD84QzQ5Ojf/2w
BDAQoKCg0MDRoPDxo3JR8lNzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nz
c3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzf/wAARCAAMAAwDASIAAhEBAxEB/8QAFgABAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABg
MF/8QAIxAAAgIBBAICAwAAAAAAAAAAAQMCBBEABQYhEkETMTJSof/EABQBAQAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAP/xAAcEQADAAEFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAgMABBExobH/2gAMAwEAAhEDEQA/AEF/jN
+uqcbdmpceuK0mzYE5MkSfy7z+381K7Ut8eKalHc7aRNQa2Kp4gWHIkYjHQPjnWxy3dHVOQs
rhamJ+GLDCYODI9d4I9etDt93CT7S5fAqGFgeMDMD7Pry0azVeMamopQbMegPM/9k%3D");
padding-left: 1px;
vertical-align: bottom;
}
... and similar things for javascript links and target="_blank"/"_new" links. I find it makes web browsing enormously less infuriating.
Re:Yes I'd like to see that (Score:5, Interesting)
My own bout with cancer was in the early-mid '90s. Just twenty years before that, it would not have been diagnosed as such. I would have just had some mysterious disease, would have gone untreated, and died. My diagnosis was made possible by medical imaging techniques that were invented in the '70s... made possible by the microchip becoming ubiquitous. Before CT and MRI scans, MAYBE a particularly ballsy doctor would have had a 1 in 100 chance of making the cancer diagnosis by engaging in exploratory surgery. *shudder*
But before the '80s at the earliest, chances are that I wouldn't have been a "cancer patient". I'd just be some mysteriously dead guy.
cya,
john
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes I'd like to see that (Score:5, Funny)
This may seem paranoid, but I choose to be both skeptical and cautious until we have proper, long-term studies of each and every molecule in our natural environment, and of what they do to us in combination. Then, and only then, will I feel safe enough to live in this world.
Re:Yes I'd like to see that (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes I'd like to see that (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes I'd like to see that (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yes I'd like to see that (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes I'd like to see that (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Lions are great for you! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We consider, for example, civet coffee to be natural - and it's something that's been processed by an animal.
Humans are natural.
Therefore, isn't everything that a human produces natural, too?
The only argument that I feel can be made that way is if we're talking geographically - for example, cactii aren't natural in the arctic. Or, moon rocks aren't natural on Earth.
Re:Yes I'd like to see that (Score:4, Insightful)
This reminds me of a young woman who claimed that marijuana can't be dangerous since it comes from a plant. She thought that only humans can create poisonous substances.
Re:Yes I'd like to see that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes I'd like to see that (Score:5, Insightful)
We do not, on the other hand, have any data for synthetics with no other presence in nature. We know Wild Almonds can kill you because they've been around forever and documented. Why should we have MORE faith in substances for which we have NO historical background information?
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Not really. (Score:3, Informative)
Some poisonous mushrooms are so toxic that a single bite will destroy your liver, requiring a transplant if you want to live, and are lucky enough to get to medical help in the first place. Said mushrooms are virtually indistinguishable from the common button mushrooms in every grocery store and on every pizza.
Nature has PLENTY of toxins which we are not at all equipped to deal with. The above are just some well-known examples off the top of my head,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not really. (Score:4, Informative)
No, we haven't.
In general we are EDUCATED to avoid these things. But we've developed no natural immunity to their poisons. Nor have we even developed a dislike to them. Improperly done fugu sashimi that will kill you tastes just as delicious as the correctly prepared, and much sought after, dish that will just numb your lips. To this day, a handful of people die of fugu poison every year.
The mushrooms are an even better example. A fair number of people die from eating the wrong wild mushrooms every year. By the accounts of the lucky survivors, they taste just fine. But just half a cap of the destroying angel, which is the one that looks like the button mushroom, is certain death without immediate and intense medical treatment.
We haven't evolved ANY natural defense to either. We educate the hell out of people, though. To be licensed to prepare fugu takes YEARS of training and apprenticeship. And virtually every outdoorsy or survival book you'll see beats it over your head NOT to eat wild mushrooms. But that's ALL a function of society... not a change in our bodies.
cya,
john
Re:Yes I'd like to see that (Score:5, Funny)
I asked our guy in charge of environmental compliance if "dihydrogen monoxide" could be put down the drain. He said no.
*headdesk*
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes I'd like to see that (Score:4, Insightful)
You'll hear your mother or someone from the older generation talk about the dangers of chemicals. What a completely abstract and misinformed outlook to have. What is a chemical? EVERYTHING. Water is a chemical. Sugar is a chemical. And of course the examples of toxic things in nature posted above.
I know that may sound pedantic in this forum but this is a point that needs to be made clearer to the 'Think of the children' brigade. I am all for controlling substances that are generally harmful...who isn't...but let's stop running around like headless chicken and get the job done the right way without scaremongering, gossip and chinese whispers.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Make an effort to parse it, they mean man-made chemicals.
Oh I parse it just fine, the point I'm trying to make is that what innocently and with good intentions started out to mean man-made chemicals has unfortunately tarnished the word chemical. You talk about chemicals in the body and they'll shy away as if its a bad thing - though you may be talking about haemoglobin. You will hear people talking who have missed the point that carbon dioxide/monoxide levels are bad and instead choose to believe that carbon is one of the evils of the world and comes from exhaus
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yes I'd like to see that (Score:5, Insightful)
Subclinical allergies: There are some quacks who do a bunch of skin-prick tests and claim that the reactions to small amounts of substances injected into your dermis can reveal not only skin allergies, but respiratory and food allergies too! If their tests reveal an allergy to dairy, but you love milk, cheese, yogurt, and ice cream and have never had a reaction, your allergy is subclinical and is even more dangerous. Presumably more dangerous to their fees because you might realize that there's no way to tell if your lungs or digestive tract are sensitized to a substance by examining the skin on your arm or back.
On subclinical allergies: if you don't have a proximal negative reaction to the substance, you're not allergic. Anyone telling you otherwise is trying to make money from you. Check to see if their hand is in your pocket.
Extreme sensitivity: The reaction is real, the substance list is long, and the risk to your person is very high. You carry epi-pens because of your risk level. You've used epi-pens over the last year because of a serious reaction to something.
Psychosomatic allergies: A lot of people have physical reactions to their anxieties. Hives are a very real allergic response to stress. Just stress. To add to that, there are plenty of people who are just really high strung and who are worried about a lot of things, whether from OCD or simply thriving while complaining. Combine the two and you've got someone who has a true allergic reaction to the strangest things, often related to their own fears about cleanliness, hygene, toxins, etc. But that allergic pathway involves the conscious mind of the allergic person.
Based on your observation that you have many reactions to synthetic substances, I would first suspect this is the cause of your reactions. Most double-blind tests of sensitivity to synthetics reveals that people react to being told that something is synthetic, and not on whether it actually is synthetic. Which means that their allergic response is an anxiety response.
It's a bit of a pain to test, but not actually that bad if you really want to know. You'll need a friend, your washing machine (that has presumably only used natural detergents), someone else's washing machine, a synthetic detergent and a natural soap that you can't tell apart by smell, and a bunch of shirts. Put a number on each shirt's tag. Your friend should randomly take half the shirts, write down the numbers, and wash them with natural soap in your washing machine. Take other half of the shirts, write down the numbers, and wash with synthetic detergent in the other washing machine. Dry and fold all of the shirts, individually wrap them in paper, keep them separate. Now you go and ask for two shirts. You may get two natural, two synthetic, or one of each. So long as your friend is mixing it up and not telling you. Wear the two shirts, write down if you have a reaction, go get two more. Don't be wearing any of these shirts when you meet the friend to pick up two more, and don't tell your friend the results until you've worn all of the shirts. Now compare the list of shirts that you reacted to with the list of shirts washed in the synthetic detergent. If you normally get a reaction within minutes, this will be a quick test. If it normally takes a day or more, it could take several weeks.
That's a double-blind test and is basically the only way to tell if the response is psychosomatic or is based on an actual contact sensitivity. I strongly suspect that you'll discover you're really anxious about natural vs. synthetic and that's causing your skin to react.
Re:Yes I'd like to see that (Score:5, Interesting)
Who is this "they" person? from the US National Cancer Institute [cancer.gov]:
The press release goes on to talk about possible reasons for various cancers. It actually gets pretty complicated when you try to make sweeping generalizations. It likely means very little biologically (the sweeping generalization statement).
The thesis that EMF from cell phones increases brain cancers has been researched exhaustively. The fact that no clear trend has emerged from numerous, large studies indicates that any effect, if any effect indeed exists, is tiny and inconsequential.
These folks are loons.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
An Allergy to electromagnetic waves is impossible (Score:5, Interesting)
You can't bind an electromagnetic-wave to a cell receptor (Immunoglobine in most classes of Allergy). You just can't have an Allergy to an electromagnetic wave. YOU. JUST. CAN'T.
(Disclamer: IAAMD)
If it is something, it's definitely not allergy (nor lupus
In addition the symptom they are describing (chest pain during "exposure" to Wifi-enabled public buildings) seems much more typical for an episode of Anxiety than what Wifi is usually accused to provoke (cancers, disorienting bees, etc.). And Anxiety is definitely something I would expect from hippies exposed to some modern technology. (Whereas, as pointed by some other
Last but not least, microwave pollution is linked to technology which is important and useful, Wifi has also obvious benefits.
It's not the same situation as with cigarettes (whereas the main purpose of smoking is relieving the withdrawal symptoms of the smoker... Ok, I'm exaggerating, but you saw the point)
Banning Wifi completely would be the same as directly and completely banning all form of fuel-based motorised propulsion, on the ground that it contributes to pollution and causes cancers and allergy (well, technically, the substance cause increased probability of allergy arising in those with predisposition). You should try to diminish the pollution over the years, but you can't just ban cars overnight except maybe in a couple of European cities with decent public transportation.
The same with Wifi, cellphone and microwave ovens : they increase the microwave pollution, but on the other hand are pretty damn useful and made themselves almost irreplaceable. You may try finding way to decrease pollution either with small changes (bluetooth 1.x -> bluetooth 2.x) shift of usage (cellphone -> VoIP over Wifi or Blueooth) or newer technology causing less pollution.
But you have to weight the dangers and the benefits before trying to massively ban useful technology overnight.
And last but not lest correlation doesn't imply causation. Not until we have definitely more data (dose/effect relation, add/remove suspect and see impact on effect, all experiments done using a realistic signal, not just an antenna blasting a constant sinewave at full power next to the mice's cage, an explanation for the biological mechanism, etc.).
See Koch's postulate [wikipedia.org] to get an idea of how to build a proof beyond the simplistic "we found them both at the same place".
Until then it good to be prudent (and avoid too much exposure when reasonably avoidable - i.e. at home keep the cell phone's cradle near the window, not near your bed's head. Use a hands free, either a wired one or one which use a lower power wireless standard, turn off Wifi when unused (saves electricity too) etc. )
but it's over reacting to completely ban a technology before a viable replacement is there.
Re:An Allergy to electromagnetic waves is impossib (Score:3, Interesting)
As someone who is on Lexapro to subdue repeated anxiety attacks, I have to say that this was exactly my first thoughts when I read it. It sounds like they're having an anxiety attack and that avoidance and false correlations have caused "suspicion of wifi/electromagnetism"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because there is no -1, Full of Shit.
that's not all (Score:3, Funny)
Re:that's not all (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:that's not all (Score:5, Insightful)
These are good things and show that we have evolved past the point in society where we would leave people with disabilities to suffer or die. Leaving nature to 'trim the unfit out' as you suggest borders on repulsive depending on your definition of 'trim out'.
However that isn't the reason that this request should be denied. It should first and foremost be denied because there is no such thing as an allergy to Wi-Fi. I can't say that I have a disease where I am required to get a massage, a steak, and get laid twice a day or I will die.... and expect society to provide for this me. Because such a disease does not exist.
Secondly though, this approaches the point where even if they had a true allergy, it would not be a reasonable accommodation. A blind person can expect to be allowed a fair chance to be a programmer, but not an airline pilot. When there is a significant detriment to enough people, accommodations cease to be reasonable. Banning public Wi-Fi would have a serious detriment to some segments of the population and therefore might not be a reasonable accommodation.
they need treatment... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:they need treatment... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:they need treatment... (Score:5, Insightful)
Last Tuesday I went to a Sacramento Kings game. The Kings were ahead one run and my boyfriend left to use the restroom. As soon as I put his glove on (as a defense against the crapload of fouls they were hitting at us) the other team scored two runs. When he left again to get a beer, I again put on his glove and the other team got another run. Pattern matching (and superstition) would lead me to believe that in future I should not put BFs glove on if he leaves, because the Kings will lose the game. However, logic and a basic knowledge of the physical universe tells me that this pattern is a false one.
In this case the individuals in TFA have again falsely matched a pattern. They certainly have symptoms from their illness (which is a type of panic attack, which can give quite impressive and scary symptoms.) However, instead of accepting the reality that their expectation of becoming ill on exposure to X is a self-fulfilling prophesy and accepting therapy aimed at breaking that false association, they insist that Wi-Fi (or chemicals or whatever) is causing their symptoms in a manner unrelated to their expectation of becoming ill. Medicine and society does them (and others with purported multiple chemical sensitivity) no help by continuing to feed their fears and psychopathology.
We are designed to match patterns, but we don't have to be ruled by these when they are in error. I don't think that my wearing BFs glove has any more power to influence the outcome of a Sacramento Kings game than Wi-Fi causes these people any serious ailment outside of panic attacks. Show me a reason that these are related, or do a prospective double blind or good quality epidemiological study showing a link and I might believe you. That study has been done to people with 'MCS' and 'sensitivity' to EM radiation and it shows their is no effect from the purported causative agents. We haven't done it with the Kings, but if you buy me a set of season tickets, I will be happy to undertake it for you.
Re:they need treatment... (Score:4, Insightful)
Fixed that.
IMHO, the ability of the logical mind to override the limbic brain is debatable. Here in this part of the country it is considered unpatriotic to try.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's why he has the glove. He actually wants to catch balls... I just don't want to die of head trauma.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Allergy (Score:5, Informative)
Are they allergic? Let's not let data get in the way of a good argument: No [badscience.net] they're [wellingtongrey.net] not. [wikipedia.org]
Wow, even Wikipedia agrees.
Re:Allergy (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Let me get my tin foil hat (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Let me get my tin foil hat (Score:5, Funny)
maybe they haven't heard of the sun
Yes they have, but they call it the day-star and it burns them.
Apparently they are allergic to it as well.
Insightfulness (Score:4, Insightful)
They can't ban WiFi (Score:5, Funny)
Now how will we decide whose needs trump whose?
Re:They can't ban WiFi (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all in the mind. (Score:5, Insightful)
Two of the 44 sensitive individuals correctly judged if it was on or off in all six tests, as did five out of 114 control participants.
Uh.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uh.. (Score:5, Informative)
Well the key there is that the "5 out of 144" were the control group for the experiment.
In other words of the people who claimed to be sensitive, only 4.5% correctly identified when the mast was on in all 6 tries. Meanwhile in the control group - the group of people who do not claim to be sensitive - 4.3% correctly identified when the mast was on in all 6 tries.
Draw from that what you will, but the only logical conclusion is that a group of people who claimed to be extremely sensitive to EM signals are no more sensitive than a random group drawn from the general population. It's like taking a group of people who claim to be NBA all stars and pitting them against a team of randomly selected people, and then having the game end in a tie.
Re:Uh.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore, there are only 64 possibly outcomes of a series of 6 binary events. I'm not a stats guy (as my college prof will vouch), but it seems like pure dumb luck will get you 1:64 people picking all six correctly (and the same ratio picking all six incorrectly) without even trying. 2:44 and 5:144 are just about twice the "dumb luck" number. Isn't that within the error bar for such a small sample?
Re:It's all in the mind. (Score:4, Insightful)
Might these not be detectable subconciously before you are aware of them?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've worked with permanent magnets at
Older magnets did not have very good shielding, so that line extended quite far from
Re:It's all in the mind. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
However, after the dinner, I had been shelling Brazil Nuts. I had stabbed a finger with the nut pick, and it was from this site that the swelling emanated.
Some time later, I encountered brazil nuts again, and the same severe allergic reaction occurred. Had the diagnosis been correct in the first
Cool I am moving there asap (Score:5, Funny)
Looks like I am gonna be rich!!!!
Re:Cool I am moving there asap (Score:4, Insightful)
That's when I come in with a special pill (Spuriousol [Placebo HCL]) and liner (Fiberal) for those tin foil hats. And I'll sell it for $$$!
You see, the profit potential among those people is endless. Am I a bad person? You can't reason with people like that. They'll insist that there's "scientific evidence" (they got it from some "new age" type of magazine). So, I say, if they want to live in fantasy land, then why not take their money. It makes them happy, after all. Cosmetics companies do it - they give women hope that they'll be as beautiful as the model in the ad. Car companies do it - buy this expensive car and you too will be as cool and handsome as the model in the photo. And you need it to drive in today's traffic after all - nod nod wink wink.
Supplement companies do it.
All of these companies and more sell to folks who refuse to verify their claims and want to be deceived.
Cage 'em (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that they probably don't know it blocks radio waves, so they'll still get their allergy while inside it with a WiFi transmitter visibly nearby and on (or at leasty as far as the sufferer can tell).
This is the new trend today (Score:4, Insightful)
People got so used to having all the modern technology available to them that they simply forgot what makes such things possible.
Allergic to Wi-Fi? Fine! I can understand that. I'll turn off my access point as soon as you get rid of your Wi-Fi and Bluetooth enabled computer, cell phone and your microwave oven.
mod parent insightful.... (Score:3)
Get used to suffering. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well then, looks like you'd better move to the middle of nowhere, rather than trying to live in a fairly large city.
Even If:
1) A physiological basis existed for having an autoimmune response to RF,
2) Only the 2.4GHz range of frequencies triggers it (since we literally live in a sea of RF, including from natural sources),
3) The 9th circuit accepts "electrosensitivity" as a valid "disability", and
4) The city backs down on this...
Well, given all that - What do you plan to do about the 50,000 nonmunicipal WAPs in your area? The FAA, NOAA, and military radar installations scattered around the country? Or for that matter, the microwave ovens found in every home and restauraunt in the country?
And even if you have a legitimate complaint - Welcome to the real world, where no one cares about your pitiful psychosomatic response to spoooooooky radio waves. Get a shrink, get used to chest pain, or move to Afghanistan.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
easy fix (Score:5, Funny)
Re:easy fix (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I have a friend (actually, I can't call her a friend anymore, she's just too damn stupid), who has spent over $20,000 on courses and hardware to become a Quantum Biofeedback practitioner. Her mom won't stop her
She has a bag full of glass objects that contain bits of metal and crystal that supposedly block EM radiation, especially from microwaves, electronic devices, and overhead powerlines.
Oddly, she's never noticed that her cell phone and radi
ban away (Score:3)
How does Wi-Fi do this: (Score:4, Insightful)
Radiation! (Score:4, Funny)
We should ban it like Mr Burns wanted.
Of course, (Score:4, Funny)
First, they came... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then they came for the electro-sensitive, and I did not speak out because I was not electro-sensitive.
Then they came for the ethernet cables, and I did not speak out because I stopped using ethernet cables.
Then they came for me, and I enjoyed worldwide wireless coverage on my laptop. Woohoo!
Bullshit Job Creation (Score:3)
I resent people that purport to "help everyone" because of the health problems of a few. Screw you! I can either survive in a "normal" environment or I cannot, let's see what happens. It really, really pisses me off when crusaders take it upon themselves to speak or legislate on my behalf.
I suppose it's pretty obvious that said "crusaders" almost invariably are employed by an organization whose mandate is to interfere with normal people's lives just to "help" us cripples.
Fuck off already!
Re: (Score:3)
This is bad for us who really DO have allergies! (Score:5, Insightful)
That all being said, there are some hypotheses that humans can be affected by EM radiation. And maybe it's not good for us. I mean, being exposed to high levels of microwaves can cook you, so I'm sure low-levels aren't entirely risk free. Then there are the proposed links between power lines and leucemia. It's all worth investigating... with a critical scientific eye. But calling it an ALLERGY is just stupid and betrays a total lack of understanding what an allergic reaction is (an immune reaction to a foreign protein).
I'm allergic to idiots (Score:3, Funny)
*Note: I do not live in, around, or anywhere near Santa Fe
Re:Why do we assume it isn't possible? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why do we assume it isn't possible? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why do we assume it isn't possible? (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, it's not up to the people who want to disprove these people to provide the evidence, it's up to them to provide the evidence, which I guarantee they won't. They'll have some pseudo-scientist walk in there, he'll talk about the effects that these poor souls have to live through constantly, and then go home and continue writing on his webpage about how science has been stealing the future from us by suppressing the discovery of his perpetual motion machine!
And this would be fine as long as judges and juries knew how to read science and recognize its value compared to pseudo science, but most people can't. The patent office, at least as of a few years ago, patented multiple perpetual motion machines every year, either because they didn't read the application or because they didn't know that it was physically impossible. So, as long as they can put some crackpot up there who knows enough science-sounding gibberish to fool someone who doesn't know better, they actually have a chance of winning.
Is it possible that these people are actually allergic to wifi signals? Absolutely. It wouldn't even be a contender for strangest thing ever. The reason there's such a backlash against it is because there have been so many times that people have made similar allegations and ignored, lied, and suppressed actual science showing that they were wrong. Tempers are already flared over this issue, and it looks like these people are going to do the exact same thing that's been done before.
Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
use microwave ovens? They operate on the same band of frequencies, along with many other consumer devices. The ovens are shielded pretty well, but nothing is perfect. The radiation leakage is measurable and can overload a close by WiFi receiver.
Does it matter? The difference between always-on wifi and on-for-3-minutes microwaves is pretty big, I'd say.
If I put myself through excruciating pain in order to cook my meals, that's one thing. That's my choice. I'm allergic to dogs, but I still pet them. But if the city says that I have to go through excruciating pain in order to renew my driver's licen... oh, wait.
Re:Hay fever (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1) It really sucks when you feel crappy and everybody says it's all in your head. I'm sorry.
2) The only known influence that radiowaves and related phenomena can have on human tissue is heat, and that's only in specific circumstances (think microwave ovens). Otherwise, human being are not known to be able to detect radiation in that part of the spectrum
3) However -- and this is interesting -- many electrical devices can generate a high pitched whine or squeal, caused when some objec