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.

Comments

The plaintiff is not unknown

[Dr. Cody]

Arthur Firstenberg, a known Mathematics major, looks to have some previous experience with electromagnetic conspiracy, mostly with cellphones and x-rays. He's also the author of Microwaving our Planet, published by his Cellular Phone Taskforce. Every once in a while he'll publish an article in non-scientific environmental periodicals.

Also, check out, Electromagnetic Fields (EMF): The Killing Fields , it's full of lol:

Today I am homeless. My money does not provide me shelter. My good health does not ensure my survival. My friends are unable to help me. I am being killed, but the law offers me no protection.
...
Having stumbled upon an obviously well-kept secret, I researched the world literature on bioelectromagnetics, (or the biological effects of electromagnetism), and made myself an expert. I learned that electro-cautery machines, used in every modern surgical operation to cut through tissue and to stop bleeding, expose surgeons to much higher levels of radio frequency radiation than is permitted for workers in any industry. I learned that there was a disease thoroughly described in the Russian and Eastern European medical literature called radiowave sickness, the existence of which was usually denied by western authorities. This description made me remember my `unknown illness', the one that had derailed my medical career. Bradycardia, or a slow heart rate, was said, in these texts, to be a grave sign.

Because there are virtually no workplaces without computers any more, I have not held a job since 1990. I had resigned myself to living on Social Security Disability, and learned, together with other members of a support group I had found, how best to live with my disability. This mostly meant learning to avoid exposure to electromagnetic fields. But in July 1996, to my dismay, I learned that an innovation was coming to my city, which threatened to make it impossible to avoid exposure any more.
...
The California Department of Health Services has concluded that, on the basis of a telephone survey, 120,000 Californians - and by implication one million Americans - have left their jobs because of electromagnetic pollution in the workplace. The people who have left their homes for such a reason are not being counted by anyone.

Re:that's not all

[Jeremy Erwin]

you can certainly sue your local municipality for not cleaning up its air.

Re:Yes I'd like to see that

[ColdWetDog]

No, they said "rates" have increased, not "numbers".

Who is this "they" person? from the US National Cancer Institute:

Overall cancer incidence rates (the rates at which new cancers are diagnosed) for both sexes and all races combined declined slightly from 1992 through 2004. Incidence rates for female breast cancer dropped substantially from 2001 through 2004.

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:Yes I'd like to see that

[GizmoToy]

And it's probably not only that they're getting better at detecting it, but also that average life expectancy is increasing. Living longer allows a larger window for getting cancer.

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

[SvnLyrBrto]

Exactly.

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

An Allergy to electromagnetic waves is impossible

[DrYak]

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss any concerns about the negative effects of cellular phone usage or the microwave radiation. Except that, an "Allergy" refers to a specific type of reaction of the immune system to some physical foreign body.
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 /.ers, they probably have microwave ovens but don't notice them as they've grown up with them)

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 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:Yes I'd like to see that

[hairyfeet]

Yes, but those don't have lobbyists pushing huge amounts of money to get them approved. Look at how many drugs we have had lately that get recalled after it turns out it causes some horrible condition. Do these folks even test their drugs in combination with the drugs most likely to be prescribed with them? But on the flip side there should be a way to sign a waiver and get whatever drug I need that my doctor approves of no matter the side effects. I was one of the original testers for Tegison. That drug was practically a miracle cure for my arthritis and psoriasis. I had to sign 15 pages of waivers and watch a film explaining that in all likelihood I would not be able to have children if I take this drug for AT LEAST a decade,possibly never.

So what happened? Some dumb bitches signed the waivers and then had unprotected sex which resulted in horribly f*cked up babies. So they sued the drug right out of the market and I had to suffer for a decade until Remicade came out. Tegison worked so well for me that my pharmacist contacted every one in the supply chain from Alaska to South America and bought cases of the stuff out of his own pocket so I would have it as long as I possibly could. So if someone ignores the warnings that say "hey stupid! Don't DO that!" and they do it anyway they shouldn't be able to ruin it for guys like me who actually followed the rules. But that is my 02c,YMMV