Slashdot Mirror
Group Wants Wi-Fi Banned, Citing Allergy
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.
"double blind test."
Allergic?, yeah sure you are.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I'm desperately trying to find something meaningful to say to this issue, that would rate me insightful. So I'm gonna go ahead and ponder over the fact, that their allergic reactions are probably an effect of solar gamma-radiation than it is your local Starbucks.
It's all fun & games until someone loses the game.
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. So, perhaps a few double blind tests are in order.
... violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Does everything have to be patriotic over there? Even your disability laws?-1 not first post
Because many, many studies have been done on many variations of radio waves and their effect on humans and have all concluded there is no danger so long as the safety limits already set, are adhered too.
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
Everyone wants to have a mobile phone that works everywhere, broadband internet, cheap electricity in their homes and produce tons of garbage but they will go to streets with pitchforks if you want to build a cell tower, Wi-Fi access point, nuclear powerplant or waste disposal facility in their neighborhood.
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.
FTA: Arthur Firstenberg says he is highly sensitive to certain types of electric fields, including wireless Internet and cell phones. "I get chest pain and it doesn't go away right away," he said
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.
Passing the cost of pollution back to polluters instead of letting it be carried by the commons would allow the market to solve the pollution problem. Let the invisible hand do the dirty work.
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.
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.
Part of it isn't even that people are necessarily getting more cancer. Doctors are finding more cancer. More testing and better testing will have that effect.
Some of my old neighbors were like these people. The (very) few who weren't obese, looked anorexic.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
"dismisses this as crazy."
Crazy? No. Unfortunate? Certainly. Hypochondria? Possibly. Time to do some experiments.
It is unreasonable to assume that parts of the electromagnetic spectrum are dangerous absent empirical evidence of same. That's what "reasonable" means.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
An allergen is a nonparasitic antigen capable of stimulating a type-I hypersensitivity reaction in atopic individuals. From: Allergen
2 (on/off) ^6 (tests) = 64, so 1/64 would be expected to be correct with purely random guesses. I'm sure someone who knows statistics better than I will jump in, but 2/44 or 5/114 "correct" (even though better than chance) no doubt has little significance, given the small sample size.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
No, they said "rates" have increased, not "numbers".
First they came for the bees, and I did not speak out because I was not a bee.
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!
Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
This may seem paranoid, but I choose to be both skeptical and cautious until we have proper, long-term studies of each and every chemical in these consumer products, and of what they do to us in combination.
To reiterate what an earlier poster said, there have been studies, and none have shown this to be a real issue.
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.
Easy. The adversarial legal system: We find out who can afford to hire a bigger team of lawyers.
I hate printers.
That's the difference between the city doing something that sparks an allergic reaction and a private individual doing the same. I can choose to avoid going near houses which have allergen-flowering plants. I can't avoid going to city hall if I need to do something there. I have to renew my license periodically (and only every other year can you do it online, here), for example.
I'm concerned about the fact that children aren't mentioned once in this article. You would think that these grownups who are allergic to wi-fi would also mention that their children complain about the effects of wi-fi. Perhaps the wi-fi has already killed off all of the children?
If I think something is funny, I will probably mod it +1 Insightful. "It's funny because it's true."
Pattern matching is a wonderful thing, and you are correct that it is a function of our intelligence and a product of evolution (for example avoiding eating things that make us sick.) However something else that developed out of our intelligence was logic and the ability to evaluate empirical evidence.
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.
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.
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).
There are people who really do have allergies and food sensitivities and such. Those people need to be careful about what they eat and expose themselves to. But when crackpots like this enter the fray, they make trouble for us, because they makes us all look like crackpots. It's no different from over-diagnosing ADHD. There are people who really have it (although I understand, interestingly enough, that some cases are helped by dietary adjustments). But then there are the countless more who just have discipline problems; they need a smack in the butt, not Ritalin.
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).
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.
Absolutely agree. The lack of general science knowledge outside of science students (and hey sometimes including science students) really make things hard for those in the know.
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.
I never get used to these constant resurrections
"However something else that developed out of our intelligence was logic and the ability for a few people to evaluate empirical evidence."
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.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Offer her a hemlock and oleander salad with amanita mushrooms and a lovely mistletoe-berry vinaigrette.
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
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?
While it always bugs me when people talk about chemicals and how scary they are, GP has a point. Potatoes, castor beans, the sun... we HAVE long term data on all those things. People have been eating potatoes and beans and being exposed to the sun since prehistory. We can look at disease data for different populations that have these foods as staples.
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?
You mean choose the "fresh" fruit with all its diseases and bugs and parasites, or the "treated" fruit with some artificial chemicals that may or may not be good for you after 50 years of eating said fruit to the exclusion of all else. Hmm... pass the chemically treated fruit this way.
Don't act dumb - you know perfectly well I was talking about day to day natural toxins that would could be fatal if the body didn't quickly metabolise them to something safe and excrete them - alcohol for example. Last time I looked I'm not generally surrounded by cynanide vapours or vapours from hemlock or poisonous toadstools. I am however surrounded by a cocktail of man made organics in the air.
Sure I understand but the problem now is that they don't understand yet are the ones doing the crusading.
I never get used to these constant resurrections
If that is true, then isn't our responsibility to expose ourselves to as many new toxins as possible for the sake of our children?
Spooooon!!!!!
Who wants to bet that these people have a 2.4GHz cordless phone in their home? That operates on almost the EXACT same frequency as wifi. If they're not 'allergic' to those, they're not allergic to wi-fi. Chances are, these are just some gullible idiots who heard that wi-fi 'emits radiation'. If they're that afraid of the little bit of radiation emitted by a wireless router, then they should be more afraid of a microwave and tv.
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
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.
This reminds me of the government who claims its bad for you despite the fact that it forbids research on the topic. Yes, ignorance, stupid beliefs, and blind gullibility are all around us.
Just callin' it like I see it.
What we have determined is that administering .05 cc of chlorhexidine 4 times daily to a cohort of laboratory mice will, in time, produce a paper.