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 alergic to car emissions but I can't sue every driver.
Why UNIX?
send them to live in some remote caves in the mountains. as for me, I'm allergic to idiots
I'm allergic to stupidity. Can we ban these people?
Are they allergic? Let's not let data get in the way of a good argument: No they're not.
Wow, even Wikipedia agrees.
They're spacin me out with all their "electro-waves" I wonder if they know they've been bombarded with electro-waves their whole life. Or maybe they haven't heard of the sun.
Ze Atomic Device! It iz Ztolen!
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.
They can't ban WiFi because I'm allergic to stupid.
Now how will we decide whose needs trump whose?
Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
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
I have some designs for tin foil hats, I just could never find the proper market.
Looks like I am gonna be rich!!!!
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Fortunately the mental hospitals don't have Wi-Fi, just good old shock therapy.
Should everyone with respiratory problems sue their cities due to pollution?
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
I say we quarantine them all in a nice Faraday Cage.
Caveat Utilitor
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.
Can't you see that WiFi signals are bad for all of us? WiFi was actually created by the Ultra-Evil lord Cheenu 100 Billion years ago to suppress the "WiTans" - the evil beings that inhabit all of us creating misery war and famine on earth. Quickly! Grab the nearest hard object and take to the streets! WiFi must end. (This is what Wiologists actually believe)
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.
I think the various stats, articles, and studies linked elsewhere in the discussion give good reason to be dismissive. Whether the jaded offensiveness is justified is another quesion.
Its just the internets ma'am. NEDM.
I used to live near some people like this. A strange and humor-impaired bunch. Like the filthy-speech movement, this IMHO is good to see, e.g. We live in a society where one can apply for redress in court for ANYTHING. OTOH it also serves to piss off the ignorant masses who will soon demand that this sort of "abuse" of the legal system be outlawed. They'll probably say it is necessary to conserve resources for the War On Terror.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
This is borderline to humor, but hey, we are allowed some joking no ?
It is easier to define "be allergic to a 2.4Ghz radiowave" than "be allergic to idiots" :-)
After all I have doubts that we will ever be able to define (and agree upon) what an Idiot is..
P.S. The definition of idiot I like is: A person that while doing something hurts him and the others
Lets just glue some crystals and magnets together, hand them out, and say the block the harmful energy.
I'm going to side with them and say wifi should definitely be banned in public buildings. Not because of the allergy, but because wifi is a huge security hole if it isn't handled properly, and one shouldn't assume public institutions are capable of handling ANYTHING properly.
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.
So this story comes out and people are all like "let them die, the bastards, they're stupid," but a story about fat people causing global warming comes out and everyone's like "lose some weight, fatty!" How's that 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.
Actually, even IF say, 10 people were allergic to Wi-Fi, would that justify to slow down progress and lower the quality of life of more than enough other people just for them?
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
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.
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.
Also, the Sun puts out quite a bit of microwave radiation. People found that out in the early satellite dish days. Aiming your dish towards the sun would cause a lot of noise.
For those who have hellish hay fever, can they get flowering plants banned during the summer, or sue those who grow them? And for those who are allergic to cats and dogs, can they get furry animals banned, or sue their owners? I'm allergic to washing, but that doesn't stop people shouting at me to have a bath whenever I sit next to them on the train!
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.
Also, check out, Electromagnetic Fields (EMF): The Killing Fields , it's full of lol:
"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
Maybe they are also allergic to the greatest source of radiation: THE SUN!
We should ban it like Mr Burns wanted.
Cause I'm getting hives!
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
And no one knows why cancer rates have increased so much in the last few years.
More people???
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
No, they said "rates" have increased, not "numbers".
The easiest way to fix this would be for this group to start wearing tin-foil hats. And if they already are, they need thicker ones.
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.
Who is this "they" person? from the US National Cancer Institute:
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.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I break out in song.
*ducks*
I've had allergies all my life, ranging from skin conditions to breathing problems to third arms growing out of my back (OK, so that last one was a bit of an exaggeration - could have been handy, though).
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!
running water, medicine and any food you don't grow yourself.
In this case, the "they" person is some AC whom I couldn't identify and didn't want to arbitrarily assign a gender to. Sadly, the English language has no real third-person, non-gendered pronoun suitable for people (as opposed to objects). That said, you're right, and the AC is wrong. Also, your quibbling with actual facts is more useful than my quibbling with phrasing or mathematical concepts.
I seriously bet $1,000 that the group is like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: Funded by telecom corporates.
Dig deeper into this group by "recommending" they be sent to a psychiatric ward in Gitmo, and you will see the truth spilling out.
God, i wish the Gestapo were around today. They would so get the truth out of these jokers and they don't even break your teeth.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
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."
Do you know how many natural toxins are present in vegetables? Did you know that castor beans contain trace amounts of ricin, a toxin more lethal than arsenic? Do you know how many toxic glycoalkaloids are naturally present in the potatoes you eat, and that it happens to be in the same family as the deadly nightshade? Do you know what the sun is bombarding your skin with everyday, or the potential damage it can cause to the eyes just from looking at it for a few seconds? Are you aware of the cancer risk of naturally occurring radon?
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.
The patent office no longer reads for content. They get so many patent applications per year that they just grant them all and let the courts work it out.
Interestingly enough, here's some more correlation.
Cancer rates are sky rocketing.
Posts on Slashdot are increasing.
Software and media piracy are skyrocketing.
People are living longer.
More and more people who don't understand causation and correlation post stupid things on web forums.
We should ban all of these things to prevent cancer!
To test if cancer is a growing menace one should check mortality rates by age groups. Like, statistics what was the cause of death of all people of the age between 40 and 45 and compare it to the situation in the past.
I am too lazy to do a google PhD on this subject, but if someone younger than me with higher number of functioning brain cells is eager to do that, please share it with us.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
I for one know a few people who get massive headaches from 2.4GHz RF. They can without a doubt detect when something is on or off. I have tested this myself with my PocketPC wireless radios, the wifi is the worst and the bluetooth somewhat. Has Slashdot really turned into a bunch of people posting garbage? There is no serious discussion going on here anymore, just a bunch of mindless comments and fear mongering with a bit of baseless trashing thrown in for good measure. Time to find a new place where serious discussion can take place.
But...But...But... Those are natural. So they must be good for you!!!
Doesn't their health insurance cover a faraday cage?
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychophysiologic_illness are what your friends are suffering from. You can take that seriously. Blaming it on imagined effects that can not be proven is not necessary. It has been shown that these people do show real physical effects when you expose them to "electrical environments", but they do this even if they are real or not. They also get better if they believe they are removed from the environment in question, even if they are not.
c++;
hahahahahahahhaha, i've seen some ass-in-nine things in my life but this surely takes the cake.
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.
... and many people eat more processed food and are fatter.
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
My opinion is TFA misses the larger point of what Santa Fe represents. It is referred to as "The City Different" as has people who for mayoral candidates that run on the platform that they will channel the long dead popular mayor and act on his advice. Actually, that's not the surprising part. That the person did not finish last in the race is to me more surprising. So in the greater scheme of things, an allergy to Wi-Fi seems perfectly reasonable.
Who can I sue about being allergic to idiots (aka "other people")?
:)
Local government and courtrooms seem to have the highest concentration, so I guess I'll start there
I have spoken'eth.
Fair point , but it could be argued that the human body has evolved to deal with natural toxins , but it doesn't have such a good defense against man made chemicals.
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).
He was referring to reproducible studies.
Just like lions. Lions are natural, as well.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
who do I sue?
John Soward...University of Kentucky
Wild almonds are also natural. Its just that one wild almond can cntain enough cyanide to kill you.
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
Cancer rates have DECREASED over the last several years. (http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2005/results_merged/sect_01_overview.pdf WARNING: PDF) What most fail to recognize is that the perceived increase is a combination of increased news access and increased numbers but the actual per capita numbers are trending down. So while living longer and preventing or surviving other diseases grant ample increased opportunity to get cancer, better living has also saved many from that fate. {Examining the other data at this site will probably indicate that some cancers are on the rise, as well as cancer incidents in some populations being on the rise. The PDF I linked to shows the overall trend.)
I hope this comment is well received... I could have moderated instead!
Persecutors will be violated!
Jesus Christ it's a wifi get in the car!
Like with other disabilities, they should adapt to the world instead of expecting the world to adapt to them.
So instead of trying to get all wireless communications to stop, they should work to develop clothing that blocks such waves so that they are not effected, or effected less. (Faraday Cage based shirts maybe)
Asking the public to go without Wireless communication just because a minority of the population gets discomfort would be like...
Little people requiring all public places to have little people accessible areas. Hotels would be required to have several rooms that are designed for their shorter stature... Public restrooms would have to have special stalls and lower sinks... Grocery stores would be required to have all products 4 foot or below... You get the idea.
And if they whine about how their special clothing is expensive, than they can kiss by ass! My wife has to use a power wheelchair. The costs over $10,000 USD!! (More than my van!) I also had to purchase a folding ramp to load and unload her wheelchair from my ramp... To the tune of $450.00. If I wanted to have a power lift installed... That would be another few thousand.
So they can get themselves clothing that blocks these signals! And if a single one of them owns a cell phone, 2.4 ghz cordless phone, uses anything BlueTooth, or has a WiFi router (WiFi on) should be tattooed on the forehead with "I am a publicity whore".
I was allergic to perfumes, cigar and pipe smoke until I gave up caffeine. I also now have greatly enhanced resistance to heat and cold and don't sunburn any more all because I no longer consume caffeine. Some reactions can be composites of multiple things.
I was going to point out that cyanide is natural but was beat to the punch. The point is that many natural substances, plants and animals are also dangerous.
The fact is that these people are claiming an extreme sensitivity to a range of RF frequencies that have been in use for years. Almost every commercial alarm system in the world will trigger a radar detector - most RADAR systems run in the 2.4GHz band. Microwaves run at 2.4GHz. There are cordless phones that run at 2.4GHz (I have seen these!).
I say test them. Put them in a trial - either like the one done in Britain to show that the "we're sensitive to cellphone mast" people were full of shit - or a true double-blind. It's almost guaranteed that you'll find that there is no statistical evidence that these people are correct.
Yes, 2.4GHz is dangerous - if pushed to high power levels. The military and commercial RADAR systems generate a signal powerful enough to cook almost anything in under a minute. During WW2, before the advent of the microwave oven, pilots would warm themselves by standing in front of the antennas. (this is what actually led to the creation of the microwave)
People have mentioned the danger of X-Rays and Gamma Rays and fail to see that the problem actually comes from the amount of power in them. Understand that? It's the amount of POWER behind the signal that causes the damage, not the frequency. (okay, frequency is important - at 2.4GHz the signal does resonate with water)
--Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.... oh, wait, this is supposed to be a
The article makes so much more sense when you read Firstenberg's account with a Mort Goldman voice.
Dude, Asian American whispers, please.
... you can sue your local Starbucks ... you can't sue the Sun ... although, I would not be surprised if someone tried ...
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
This is obviously a baseless claim since cordless phones also operate on the same frequency (2.4GHZ).
These same people are exposed to all sorts of radiation from cell phones, radio waves, TV, etc; likely they're allergic to something else or lying.
The human genome is incredibly complex - like any piece of code, there's bound to be bugs somewhere. The only real difference between a thorough security audit and doctors discovering a new type of cancer is that the silicon's much easier to reboot or patch than a tumor is to excise.
If I want to get pinned to the seat like a bug to a sheet of cardboard by having a solid steering column rammed through my chest, its my right.
Who are these Safety Nazis to tell me that I have to pay them good money for something I don't wanna buy anyway?
Let Darwinism run its course.
(Sorry Johnny, we've decided to coat the kiddie slide with broken glass and have it empty into a pool full of piranha. Its the new accelerated "Swimming for Tots" playground program.)
Brilliant.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
If there is a judge without the cajones to just summarily throw them out of court. This sort of BS costs the taxpayers money.
Cast them into a solid aluminum ingot.
That would take care of everybody's problems.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
The key thing to determine is which of these natural toxins and chemicals are body can continually clean our body of for the majority of our lifespan, but in the end, who really wants to live forever?
To all ya have been joking about tin foil hats:
Watch the video in TFA. One of the people who's suing actually has special siding on his house and car to protective from the evil elctro-wavez!!!
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?
How do you know he's alive?
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
You know, Philadelphia? One of the largest cities in the US that could fit all of Santa Fe inside it at least twice over? That's almost completely covered by a (failed) wifi network?
Yeah, no allergy reports up here. Mind you, it isn't like the network, you know, actually works well or anything.
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
Imagine all the people...
It's interesting to note that the "allergic" people aren't trying to get Wi-Fi out of city hall yet; they're starting with the library system.
I'm sorry, but that is intrinsically counter-intuitive to what a library is; a place to freely access information. Naturally, the internet should be included in this information.
But that still won't tell you how we react to chemicals.
(No, I'm not using that stupid "satire tilde", and no, I don't expect anyone to take the above seriously.)
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
No, Jeremy, I am not comfortable judging others, it causes a constant struggle of will. I am not a doctor, nor do I claim to have seen a true cross-section of the "Environmentally Sensitive" population. What I personally observed in my 20 years living in the vortex of the Bezerkeley alternative universe is nothing more than my own perceptions. I can think of at least a dozen environmentally disabled people that I personally met while living there, and their body type and complexion differences were not my criteria for "judging" them. My decades of cultural bias led me to believe that their Far-out wackiness and hysterical hypochondria differed somewhat from my self-selected ideal. And their self-prescribed treatments with- yes, crystals and pyramids, differed somewhat with my "conventional theory" of scientific reality.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Point well taken.
I guess it would be very international of us to pass the "Citizens of All Nations with All Disabilities Act" but enforcement would be much more difficult. Unless you'd like us to plan out a few more invasions, involving street crews to lower the curbs at crosswalks.
that the results show that BOTH groups are about equally sensitive, but that doesn't answer what the study claims - "the range of symptoms and physiological response does not appear to be related to the presence of either GSM or 3G signals."
Indeed, if the results were statistically significant (and it is my contention they are NOT, due to the small sample size of only 6 "tests"), then it would seem to show that all people (even those not claiming sensitivity) are indeed sensitive to the RF fields in the test.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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?
Can I get my city to ban them as well?
*Note: I do not live in, around, or anywhere near Santa Fe
"Preservatives might just be preserving you I think that's something you missed Ya you missed it..." - Grace Slick, Jefferson Airplane
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
tin foil hats have been found to be a government conspiracy, don't you? They have exactly the opposite effect you desire.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Hey! I'm allergic to taxes. And war. Can I sue?
Do hemlock, ricin, nightshade, and cyanide ring a bell?
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, and I haven't even mentioned a single venomous animal there.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
== First cross river, then insult alligator.
If (and it's a huge 'if') these people really are allergic to wi-fi, then they're allergic to it in the same way I'm allergic to being stabbed. I find it extremely hard to take these people's scientific claims seriously when they don't even understand the basic terminology they're using.
And death itself.
Alternately:
It is unreasonable to assume that parts of the electromagnetic spectrum are harmless absent empirical evidence of same. That's what "reasonable" means.
There are people who are light-sensitive, peanut-sensitive, heat-sensitive, cold-senstive, and pollen-sensitive.
All of them will have problems in public building which:
* are illuminated
* sell peanuts in the vending machines or cafeteria
* are too hot
* are too cold
* don't have cleanroom-level filtered air
The proper remedy for the city is to
* require the plaintiffs to prove their claim, using double-blind tests
* require the plaintiffs to prove that honoring their request will give sufficient relief to make the buildings usable, i.e. that other EM sources don't by themselves make the building unusable to the plaintiffs
* Go with the cheapest means possible to make sure that the plaintiffs have access to city services. This may mean they get free document delivery services, a wifi-free hallway, or a free tinfoil hat, for example.
If the claim is bogus or if turning off WiFi in the building won't help the plaintiffs, then the plaintiffs have no claim and are entitled to no remedy.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Still, all-natural cobra venom will kill you dead, but if you have to choose between fresh organically-certified fruit and fruit with added chemicals, I'd go with the first option.
You can't take the sky from me...
I suppose I can sue the cordless phone manufacturers who also produce phones using the 2.4GHz range for this then, right? Since they use the same frequency and power as a WiFi network? Or cell-phone companies, or pager companies, and the radio communications companies who provide service to the police, taxis, fire dept, etc? How about TV stations for the radiation their towers cause? Radio stations for the same? People like this are why our country is a laughingstock. Please go back to Uzbekistan or wherever the hell you came from, and return to your 'dead king inheritance' scam emails instead of trying to wipe out a useful technological institution like public WiFi.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Why don't we sue these clowns for being idiots? Gawd knows I'm allergic to idiots. cattywhumpus
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.
What's the maximum energy Wi-Fi can even produce?
Looking at the power adapter on my wireless router, it says it outputs 500 milliamps at 12 volts. That's 6 watts. Since the device isn't 100% efficient, there's a plethora of other stuff it has to provide with power, and the antennae are omnidirectional: I'd say you'd be lucky to absorb half of a single watt standing just a metre away from it. And the energy falls off with the square of the distance!
Isn't an histamine response required to consider something an allergy?
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
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 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.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Your solution is easy - you need to adjust your living situation so that you couldn't possibly have neighbors who won't respect your desire for peace and quiet. Otherwise, you have only yourself to blame. Other people are not responsible for living the way you want them to live.
According to WHO rates have been lowered in both women and men, while absolute numbers have been raised only at women. The reason is believed to be the
I don't know if I put it right, but in few words: QUIT SMOKING.
in a large city where you can pick up large amounts of pollution, much of which will contain metal, it should come as no surprise that the human body would become a big antenna.
... but if i'm correct, i think actually that such people should worry more about the toxic metals in their bloodstream and fat deposits than they should about the 2.4ghz radiation.
so, being "allergic" to 2.4ghz (12.5cm) radiation isn't such a surprise.
You know, I have an aunt who insists that the TV tells her to wear certain clothes and perform certain acts that, shall we say, fall outside the range of normal and acceptable human behavior. Would the prudent thing in this case be to accept that it is possible the TV is doing this to her, or to assume there's something wrong with her mind due to the fact that no one she's informed of this experiences the same effects?
did any of these studies also take into account the amount of toxic metals in the subject's bloodstream and fat deposits?
It's sort of interesting to explore the psychology of people who make claims like this. A ubiquitous trait in those who adhere to some Complementary and Alternative (i.e., not evidence based) medicine modality is that they are absolutely fixated on having some ailment. But more to the point, they also steadfastly believe that their preferred modality has the cure for whatever ails them. It's essentially just a mechanism for people to feel like they have some control in their lives.
Since when do teams score runs in basketball?
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
Yes, PDFs cause cancer. The danger is in direct proportion to the size/load time of the document.
I hope this comment is well received... I could have moderated instead!
Persecutors will be violated!
Exactly. Cell phone radiation is non-ionizing. No matter how much power you pump into it the only effect you will cause is heating. You could have the world's most powerful radio emitter at those frequencies and never knock a single electron off a molecule of your DNA. So it's only the heating that could be causing the cancer. Yet no one says that fevers cause cancer.
Not a sentence!
Hopefully the recent trend will continue.. but I do notice one of the graphs shows that the 2005 age-adjusted incidence rate is still around 15% higher than the 1975 rate.
Well, for starters, allergy refers specifically to a hypersensitivity of the immune system to a chemical irritant. you can't be allergic to radio waves, sorry.
And smallpox! You forgot smallpox, dude. We know that was natural because it was present centuries ago. HIV of course is a man-made virus that was designed to kill all the black people and queers.
I bet they are allergic to dihydrogen monoxide as well, someone should warn these people about its dangers.
I propose removing all electronic devices from their houses first though, for their own protection of course.
**TODO** [X] Steal someone elses sig.
...and cool. Its time we stopped giving pseudoscience the 'benefit of the doubt'. If its moronic, call it out as such.
Presumably these people grew up on cathode tube television, the HT circuit of which blasted out X-rays, the dangers of Wi-Fi being minuscule in comparison.
I recall reading somewhere, that they did a test on people who clamed to be susceptible to electric fields and found they still got symptoms even when it was switched off.
davecb5620@gmail.com
it depends on the statistical significance.
You are making the unreasonable assumption that either everyone is sensitive, or no one is. It is much more realistic for some fraction of the population to be sensitive (as is the case with "real" allergies, like pollen).
If, after a million trials (instead of 6), the results showed that there was a correlation twice what pure chance predicted, then that would indicate that there IS a portion of the population which is sensitive.
Please refrain from further posting. I don't know much formal statistics, but I know enough to recognize that you're completely off base.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Actually, the frequency is more important than the power.
See, ionizing radiation causes cancer. If the incoming energy of a given photon (determined by the frequency) is higher than the ionization energy of the impacted material electrons will be "knocked off" and the atom ionized. When this happens to DNA it can cause errors, thus causing cancer. Non ionizing radiation, such as 2.4ghz microwaves, will never do this, it will merely heat whatever it hits. Signal power is only important in determining how much heat will be produced. The frequency determines how much cancer causing damage you get, the power determines how cooked you get.
Not a sentence!
The plural of anecdote is 'not data.' - Roger Brinner.
What he said.
"And no one knows why cancer rates have increased so much in the last few years."
I don't like feeding anonymous trolls, but I will this time round. It's most likely exposure to pollutants and various chemicals from our industrial developments, cars, and consumer products.
I blame the bioaccumulation of dioxins.
And in response to your horseshit comment about cancer rates increasing so much over the last few years. I'll give one example of why cancer rates have NOT increased, and that's breast cancer.
"Incidence and death rates for breast cancer have declined since 1969 in women aged 20-39."
And if you have allergies to detergents and other artificial things, are you saying you don't have allergies to ragweed, grass, pollen, and whatever else nature throws at you?
There are idiots, and there are fucking idiots. And these people belong to the third group for which I lack words.
Please, please have someone in the city subject them to a double-blind test before even listening to them. That should quickly show that the only thing they are allergic to is their own fucked up imagination.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
In the comments I've already made and the ones I've read (far from all), I failed to mention or read the big, obvious problem with the claims: it isn't an allergy. The body produces allergic responses to proteins. This is why some of us who have have an issue with milk are called lactose intolerant, not allergic to milk. While some are allergic to milk (a protein therein), what I and others suffer from is a sensitivity to the lactose sugar due to a lack or insufficient amount of the lactase enzyme.
The principle is the same here. IF this proves to be true (and I've noted my doubts), then this would be classified as a sensitivity, not an allergy. (Yes, before someone dumps on me about it, an allergy is classified as a type of hypersensitivity, but the defining aspect of the imuno-response to a protein is what makes the difference for the subject at hand.)
I hope this comment is well received... I could have moderated instead!
Persecutors will be violated!
Professor Bruce Armstrong of University of Sydney: "I think the evidence that is accumulating is pointing towards an effect of mobile phones on tumors".
Siegal Sadetzki of Chaim Sheba Medical Center in Israel: "The time is past when it could be said that this technology does not cause damage; apparently it damages health."
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!!!!!
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.).
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" to be a trigger. My guess is that anti-anxiety medication and cognitive behavior counseling might cure their "allergy" fairly effectively. Unfortunately, they appear to have gotten themselves into a situation where they're unlikely to be able to pay for their cure, making it harder to get-- counseling can be hard enough to get covered when you DO have a job and good insurance.
E pluribus unum
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Yeah, but that's the RIGHT answer, and doesn't allow for the ultrahipubercool snarky comments that are all the rage.
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
Over by the sinks where I work, there are signs about it being illegal to pour "chemicals" into the drain.
I asked our guy in charge of environmental compliance if "dihydrogen monoxide" could be put down the drain. He said no.
*headdesk*
--
BMO
This wouldn't bug me, as long as the application was accompanied by a fully operational example :)
More generally, it's not up to the patent office to determine what is or isn't officially possible, as long as there's a physical device producing the correct results for the appropriate inputs. And if a device/effect is impossible, what's the harm in issuing a patent for it anyway? If it's ever challenged by someone who says that their Perpetuatron works while Professor Frink's Watts Up device doesn't, *and* the originally patented device has not been put into production, then the two claims can be tested against each other in an independent lab to see if the patent should be transferred.
These new cancers are also helpful for healthcare rhetoric: the healthcare industry is using these newly detectable low-grade cancers to argue that expensive detection and aggressive treatment are worth the cost. They state that mammograms, biopsies, surgery, radiation and chemotherapy are largely responsible for a big increase in five-year survival rates from breast cancer. Except that the increase in five-year survival rates doesn't correlate with any of those cancer-fighting methods, but with the discovery of low-grade cancers that appear after menopause and take about 30 years to grow into macro-scale tumors. These low-grade cancers wouldn't have killed you in five years anyway, so for the healthcare industry to take credit for survival is disingenuous at best.
What hasn't changed is the death rate due to cancer. That's pretty much stayed the same for decades, once you control for known carcinogenic behaviors (smoking) and changes in other causes of death that provide more or less time for cancer to appear and develop.
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
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.
It still looks like the jury is out - there are some reports of trending towards increased tumors and some not.
It DOES need to be carefully vetted it's POTENTIALLY a large public health issue. My personal feelings is if the current legions of Bluetoothed Zombies running around talking to themselves were suddenly silenced, I'd drink one more toast to Darwin's legacy.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Bad example. Unless you have ancestors who were indigenous to south America, your ancestors wouldnt have come in contact with potatoes until a couple of centuries ago.
Still, all-natural cobra venom will kill you dead, but if you have to choose between fresh organically-certified fruit and fruit with added chemicals, I'd go with the first option.
Assuming the first fruit wasn't toxic to humans, as several are.
True. But there is more power in a high-frequency signal. This is why a 2.4GHz signal at 1000 Watts creates a heating effect when a 700MHz signal at the same power doesn't. So it's natural that a signal at higher frequencies would be more damaging at lower powers.
--
There is no
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 exhaust pipes. Never mind that we are all carbon based ourselves, along with most of our diet.
All you have to do would be to get these people to abstain from "di-hydrogen monoxide". That should show results within a week.
Indeed. I recently visited a new doctor and he asked me about my family's medical history. The only thing I could think about is that both my grandmothers died of cancer (different types). Is that really a 'history of cancer in the family'? They were /old/ I was 10 or 15 when my great grandmother died, I also kinda almost remember her husband (my great grandfather).
I would say I have a family history of not fucking dying. Everybody in my family lives to at least 80.
Look up the MSDS on Febreeze and it's pretty much alcohol and corn starch.
Get a grip, people. This world isn't perfect and we can't afford to ban everything that upsets anybody. I can't restore an amputated limb to make things fair again, and I don't think a few of you hypochondriacs should be allowed to stop useful technologies for everybody else. Get yourself some RF shielded clothing and quit trying to tell the vast majority of the rest of us that we have to accommodate you no matter what the cost.
Give you this and the next thing you'll be complaining about is your neighbor's home router.
Your complaints that cell phones and WiFi both cause your symptoms appear bogus due to the widely different frequencies in use there. Furthermore, by your logic, all cell phone towers must be shut down since they continuously broadcast even more strongly than cell phones.
I don't buy it. Your town is already known for crazies, and you seem to fit the mold.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
My allergy isn't made up, I'm allergic to rape seed. Does this mean I can sue all the local farmers and force them to quite growing it while making a profit? Where do I sign up?
I bet Lions would be far better for you then farmed Beef. The Lions are 100% Organically fed, steroid free and free range!
Mind you I'd rather be in a cow field then a Lion field!
I saw this Peta add that said "Try Vegetarian" and I thought, great Idea from now on I will only eat vegetarians.
but ahem, back on track here, yes those wifi people are teh ideeots!
Have to correct myself. The power of a photon is a function of it's frequency, in a linear progression in relation to Plancks Number. (E = hf where E is the energy of a photon, h is Plancks number and f is the frequency)
In other words it takes fewer photons to make up a given power as the frequency goes up. (At 3GHz a photon has about 1.24eV of power while at 3THz a photon has about 12.4meV of power)
So, while frequency is important, it's important because there are fewer photons, but at a higher power, in a 1THz signal than in a 1GHz signal. Interestingly, a signal from 3 to 30 terahertz is good for cooking - it's infrared radiation.
But, you claim, a second study, using exactly the same data, but which also includes a separate look at a self-selected "sensitive" group, would determine there is no causal relationship.
No, you can't have it both ways.
Change the self selected group to "people who think they'll get hit by a car next March" and the control to a random selection. When next March comes along, come back and tell us all how because the same percentage of each group got hit by a car, no one did.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Can you fly now, too?
blah blah blah
What we have determined is that reasearch causes cancer in lab rats.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Actually, that brings up an interesting point...
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.
I'd love to meet her when heroin is explained to her.
Opium, maybe. Heroin is two stages down the road in a lab from Opium.
Opium->Morphine->Heroin
Therefore, by that reasoning, heroin is an evil unnatural chemical and opium is from a plant and therefore harmless.
Cancer rates have DECREASED over the last several years.
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 prevent as many as one third of cancers worldwide."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2003/pr27/en/
www.iarc.fr/IARCPress/general/wcr.pdf
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
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.
Most of the perpetual motion machines that actually get a patent are because it's not submitted as "perpetual motion machine", it's some crazy complicated device that turns out to be a perpetual motion machine at its core, but that particular claim is buried among several hundred, or whatever.
To investigate further if there is actually a "sensitivity" then you would bring back all those that got 100 percent and run the test again.. I liked to see THOSE numbers.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
I didn't see the grandparent post when I wrote that, and it said almost the exact same thing. Mod him up and me down, please.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
There is a difference between pointing out a historical trend (number-based facts in this case) and prognostication (number-based predicting in this case, a highly advanced form of guessing). Also, as I pointed out before, there is a difference between numbers of cases and per capita cases. The story you link to provides no per capita data at all, so it's impossible to ascertain what the numbers actually imply about the global cancer load and its positive or negative growth.
However, you (and the authors of the story you linked) do have a valid point in that, as the population ages, the likelihood of cancer increases. We know this to be true, just as we know that through better living (better diet, exercise, less pollution, etc), this can be mitigated. Which side of the equation will dominate? That depends mostly on location. I say location in the political sense. When much of the world has what it needs for a better life that lends itself well to lowering the cancer risk (and so many other benefits), why is the rest of the world does not? Not to go too much off topic, but Myanmar is a prime example, as are many nations in Africa, Asia, and South America. The government (or other forces sometimes) either actively inhibits the proper distribution of aid (be it food, medication, or education) or, through incompetence and/or greed, fails to distribute it properly. A prime point in this would be that enough rice was produced in the previous season to supply every living person 700lbs, but, due to the aforementioned problems, people still starve.
Back to the topic at hand, how many of these disadvantaged places that are likely to be the source of any increase in cancer rates are as inundated with RF as Japan, S. Korea, or the U.S.? Our (U.S.) cancer rates are trending down, as indicated by my previous post, despite the remarkable increase in the use of RF devices. So even if these people do prove to be sensitive (it is not an allergy!!), cancer is not the issue here.
I hope this comment is well received... I could have moderated instead!
Persecutors will be violated!
Well sure. Global cancer rates COULD increase by 1,000,000% in the next 5 minutes also. They COULD do anything.
Can't prove a negative. I win!
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
IMO, pesticides are easier to wash off than bacteria/fungi/etc. Take the relatively recent e coli outbreak in organic spinach for instance.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
The test might not have had 2^6 different possible combinations. If instead it was a random arrangement of 3 on and 3 off, there would only be 20 combinations. This would make the expected percentage getting it right by random chance is 5%. This is a lot closer to the measured values so I think this is what happened.
In a plane? Yes I could fly now without risking becoming deathly ill from someones perfume. It used to be the risk of not being able to eat or drink for days made flying too dangerous. You just can't get along for too many days without drinking. Spending days in the hospital on an IV puking your guts up as a result of being confined for hours with someones perfume was just not worth it to me.
Someone needs to do a proper study on the natural supplement "lions." And release the raw footage to the public.
I like how the article adds the bit about two of the "sensitive" people getting it right 6 times. I REALLY hope the next line (not having clicked the link) was about how that's bang on what you get by random guessing, but I suspect it probably wasn't.
Lots of parts of the electromagnetic spectrum are dangerous. Wi-Fi isn't one of them.
A) there's lots of similar radiation around. You can't live in a major city and not be exposed to it. If you approach a building with Wi-Fi enabled and have some sort of reaction, I can assure you it is something besides the Wi-Fi causing it.
b) an earlier poster pinned it - double-blind testing is required to prove allergies. With Wi-Fi, this would be easy.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
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 if it's two dollars difference between fresh local fruit and chemically preserved fruit from miles away? It's important to understand how costly such preferences are.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
It's a bit more insidious than you propose: medicine is now taking credit for smaller tumors you might have destroyed on your own!
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Actually, it would be quite hard, for exactly A reason. It's hard to find or create quiet areas. You'd need a testing center somewhere in the Australian outback, a source of wifi signal and a spectrum analyzer to determine how much exposure the subject is recieving.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Cellphones and cellphone towers have been common for 20 years now. And back then with analog phones the radiated power was MUCH higher than it is now. The reason early cellphones struggled to get a day out of a battery charge wasn't just because the batteries were crap...
With the number of people who are exposed to cellphones and cellphone towers every day if there was a significant risk it would be a piece of cake to prove it.
You can't be allergic to things which aren't chemical in nature. I'm personally highly sensitive to frequencies that TVs put off, but it's fairly common, and has been known about for a long time. It's also something which is relatively easily explained via science. Most often it's a interplay between tinnitus and the flyback transformer.
There isn't really anywhere that you can go these days where you aren't bombarded by these waves. If there really were people who were sensitive to this sort of thing, it would have been known about years ago.
X-rays are high energy particles which contain a lot more punch than wi-fi does. The radio waves that cellphones use are known to contain too little energy to cause a meaningful interaction with DNA.
It's paranoia, I'm sure they feel the symptoms, but this is just way to rare of an occurrence from something way too questionable to be taken seriously. This would seriously fly in the face of all available science. Not just use an unknown process, but outright break the known ones. There just isn't enough energy in these waves to cause that sort of damage.
I prefer unnatural selection... bring on the zombie apocalypse! All of that bullshit about natural selection goes out the window when you're competing and/or reproducing with the undead!
The three things most in demand after a zombie apocalypse are, in order:
1. Sledgehammers (Fuckin' A!)
2. Social skills (An armed society is a polite society. And an unarmed society in the age of zombies has the lifespan of a mayfly.)
3. Shotguns (More valuable than ammo, you can't club a zombie to undeath with a shotgun shell)
4. Ammunition (Preferably edible.)
And for all of you jackholes saying that wasn't three things; math is not in demand after a zombie apocalypse. The last thing we need is another l33t m4th d00d comparing the relative quantities of ammo and zombies.
I rest my case.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
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.
a highly advanced form of guessing
Assuming that a given trend continues is exactly what?
Besides, quote: "Sources of electromagnetic fields, such as equipment using electricity, television, radio, computers, mobile telephones, microwave ovens as well as radars and equipment used in industry have seen an unprecedented increase, but the carcinogenicity of these fields is not clear, according the study."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/canc-a26.shtml
Finally, in a complex world, building on the idea of monocausal relations is rather inappropriate, IMHO.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
>>If they're that afraid of the little bit of radiation emitted by a wireless router
Wireless routers don't emit radiation.
(They radiate EM energy, which is != emitting radiation.)
It's a shame that we have a noun and a verb which mean two very different things.
Yes, we're so compatible with beans that many varieties will kill you if not cooked. (Cooking is, of course, a highly unnatural process.)
We're so compatible with potatoes that many varieties will kill you if not cooked.
We're so compatible with the sun that being exposed to it for significant periods of time without artificial protection can cause painful skin conditions and life-threatening diseases.
Evolution is just a description of stuff that happens. It contains no statement or consciousness of any kind of purpose. Evolution has caused us to be able to digest certain kinds of nutrients. It has also caused us, mostly by coincidence, to be able to digest various kinds of plants but only when prepared by artificial methods. And finally, it has also caused us to die horrible deaths when ingesting the wrong substances, many of which have been around far longer than humans have been.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
My landlord had a similar problem... Vioxx was the only thing that really worked for his arthritis in the spine. After it got pulled from the market, he was put on morphine, and slept 18 hours a day. He said he'd risk the 2% greater chance of having a heart attack in order to get his life back.
I think our drug industry really needs to adopt a policy of informed consent. If people really know what they're getting into, they should be able to get access to such drugs of last resort. Of course, that's technically the policy already... but when manufacturers pull the drugs entirely off the market, it's a de facto ban.
I wonder why a particular frequency? Maybe because it's not regulated?
Lucky for them, I think I'm getting together with several of my friends and ban the whole band from 40 to 80Hz. 60Hz in particular produces me lots of headaches, specially when writing in forums! 50Hz makes my stomach upset when I'm in Europe.
RF waves are indeed radiation. For your enlightenment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
The confusion usually arises because people use "radiation" casually to mean only nuclear radiation, gamma rays, X-rays, etc. They forget that they are swimming in EM radiation every day they walk out into the sun.
I had a chemistry teacher who told the class he didn't recommend using a microwave to cook, because "it's radiation." I don't know whether he thought it was making his food radioactive or what, but I had to point out that an electric toaster also cooks with "radiation."
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
It's worth pointing out that electrical equipment produces constant humming. And a high-pitched whine that certain, I believe, transformers can make, that many people can't hear but some can. And there's the known issues with florescent lights, both from the unnoticeable flicker and the incorrect light spectrum they and other non-incandescent lights emit.
Any number of those can cause continual minor headaches and stress, which can cause tiredness and whatnot. Constant environmental stresses over long term, causing health problems, can get immediately better when those stressers are removed.
It going away when you hide the equipment behind a wall (Where they can't hear it.) and coming back when you fake it (Presumably with fake humming sounds.) only means it's not EM, which would pass through walls. It doesn't mean it's not caused by the equipment.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
That's actually a single-blind test. Or somewhat.
For a double blind test, you have to use another friend who doesn't know which shirt is which when you ask for them. Or just you get them all in one big box and pick them yourself. This is because, even if your friend doesn't mean to, their reaction when handing you the shirts can give things away.
In fact, as their reaction to seeing the shirt could give things away, you should probably use someone who you are not likely to see often. Or someone who's forgetful.
But, anyway, a double blind test specifically requires no possible information passing, including subconsciously, from a person who knows which is which to the tester.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Well, as people don't like fevers and no one wants them, I doubt there would be much outcry if someone actually came out and said that.
Now, sweatpants, OTOH...
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Right, and then the manufacturer can claim it's patented and thus must work like how they described, despite the fact that, as has been pointed out, something like 50% of all patented processes do not actually function the way they should, as that is not a criteria for patenting something. This is why they stopped patenting such machines. But unless it's absurdly stupid, like a patent for turning lead to gold with a magical incantation, or something that is explicitly listed as a perpetual motion machine, it can be patented, no matter how non-working it is.
This, incidentally, includes 'zero point energy' machines, which are the new perpetual motion machines, but are allowed under patent rules without a working model because they aren't actually perpetual motion...they claim to extract energy from the vacuum difference between this universe's vacuum and true vacuum, which is maybe possible in theory, but quite obviously none of them actually can do that.(1) There is no theoretical process, even assuming the theories of vacuum energy are true, that can create a 'true vacuum' or even a 'lower vacuum', except the Casimir effect, and using that to create power is like trying to create power by letting two magnets come together and then pulling them apart.
1) It is worth mentioning that, if it was indeed possible to punch a hole to a stable region with a lower vacuum energy and send our 'vacuum' into it, (to create energy as it went by), this would actually be incredibly dangerous and could 'pop' the universe like a balloon to the lower vacuum state.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I actually would be surprised if many of these people had cordless phones. They're paranoid about "wireless", and they're clearly obsessive about it.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Applies to chemicals, and a zillion other things.
That was how I ended up having my lick-on tatoos banned when I was a kid, people innocently and with good intentions believing they could have LSD in 'em. For no reason discernible to intelligent beings.
You can't take the sky from me...
The chemical lobby sure managed to make that sound as if organic was dangerous, and not laziness so great you'll forgo basic hygiene.
You can't take the sky from me...
You can't take the sky from me...
I've sworn off all artificial heat and now operate entirely at 3 degree Kelvin. (Did you know that the sun's heat is nuclear? Yet they're allowed to claim it's 'natural'? Don't fall for it.)
I am currently suing the creator of the universe for the background radiation.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
You're absolutely right, and I'm not arguing with any of that. Quite the opposite: if we can't expect to be perfectly fine with anything that occurs in our natural environment, how can we trust every product (and perhaps more significantly, by-product) that modern industry throws our way? This is exactly what the great-great-grandparent comment was about: we need to test these things.
I once moderated an "insightful" as a "troll", so I commented in the thread in order to undo it! (That only works if you haven't made any other moderations that you want to keep, of course.) Anyway, what I mean to say is "no worries" :)
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
My point was that washing wouldn't take the bacteria off, unless you're using boiling or soapy water.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
"Unless you have ancestors who were indigenous to south America, your ancestors wouldnt have come in contact with potatoes until a couple of centuries ago."
Well, five is a bit more than "a couple". In fact, about a couple centuries ago, european people was already so dependant on potatoes that its sudden scarciness provoked famine (1845: irish potato famine).
"I asked our guy in charge of environmental compliance if "dihydrogen monoxide" could be put down the drain. He said no."
And properly he said it. Dihydrogen monoxide can only be put down the drain if at all when diluted 100/0 on distilled water.
Which IMHO illustrates one of the more sickening trends in this country: The "take care of me no matter what" attitude and the nanny state that goes hand in hand with it. If I develop a drug that will make you unable to have normal children but at the same time is a miracle drug for something like MS I should be able to say "If you take this it is a trade: Your right to have children for the right to live free from MS symptoms." and that should be the end of the discussion. if you take it you have chosen which right you desire more and I shouldn't have to take care of you if you decide later that was a poor choice.
But instead I'm afraid to think of how many "miracle drugs" are sitting in some lab somewhere that will never see that light of day because the company will be sued out of existence when someone chooses to ignore what they have been told and demands that they "be taken care" of. To me it is the ultimate insult. It is like saying that as an adult I am so feeble minded that I can't even be trusted to make my own decisions with regards to my own body and health. I know that by taking Tegison I have given up my right to have children without risk. I should not have the state or some defacto agent of it in the form of a lawyer telling me I'm too stupid to access that risk and make an informed choice based on what is right for me. There needs to be a way for a drug company to have a document,perhaps signed in front of a court officer while the subject is sworn in,that states that after accessing the risks you are giving up the right to sue for these side effects in return for treatment. That way I could have Tegison, your landlord could have Vioxx,and the drug companies wouldn't be forced to support the truly stupid who refuse to heed the warnings given to them about their chosen treatment. But that is my 02c,YMMV
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
a highly advanced form of guessing
:D I obviously didn't think about it that way, but yes, you're implication is correct. Assuming a trend will continue is assuming that the factors that created the trend will remain in place, and this is a lot of assuming. (I'm sure you've heard this: to assume is to make an ass out of u and me.) A case against such is the news that the life expectancy in the U.S. has dropped. What factor changed that reversed the trend of increasing life expectancy? It's believed to be that we Americans are getting fat and lazy.
Assuming that a given trend continues is exactly what?
However, trends have inertia and if the trend model is built on good research, it's usually a very good guess. The WHO report, while built on solid information such as the knowledge that the older a population, the higher the incident rates of cancer, it doesn't take into account the complete complexity of the issue when making the projections. It mentions various complexities, but there are no numbers, no math to show how it all relates to their projections. Essentially, their report simply says that the world population is aging and older populations show more cancer, so we'll see more cancer. Also, as I mentioned before, they use hard numbers, but show no per capita data or trends.
Besides, quote: "Sources of electromagnetic fields, such as equipment using electricity, television, radio, computers, mobile telephones, microwave ovens as well as radars and equipment used in industry have seen an unprecedented increase, but the carcinogenicity of these fields is not clear, according the study."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/canc-a26.shtml (emphasis added by me)
The very next statement (after your quote) of the report says, "[h]owever, exposure to ionizing radiation, such as medical X-rays and occupational exposures, particularly in the medical and nuclear industries, can cause a variety of neoplasms, including leukemia, breast cancer and thyroid cancer." They point out what we know, that ionizing radiation is linked to cancer and other issues, but this seems to be trying to link it to non-ionizing radiation, such as the radio sources of the first quote. I pointed out already that the studies have, so far, only muddied the issue. Some show a correlation, others do not. And, of course, correlation != causation, with causation having not been determined at all. The two don't equate and we've already beat to death the fact that the reports on the non-ionizing radiation have thus far proven nothing.
(BTW: On a side note, I want to thank everyone who is participating constructively in this. I'm really enjoying myself, whether I am right or 'get schooled'. Fun stuff!)
I hope this comment is well received... I could have moderated instead!
Persecutors will be violated!
There's no need to fid a quiet area. The subjects in question already live in a noisy area, so it's a case of thresholds rather than simple exposure (and trust me, anywhere the sun is shining counts as "noisy").
All you need is a room with a chair in it with a wifi source that can be turned on and off from another room, with the intensity able to be adjusted. Then get the subjects (and a bunch of controls) to tell you if they think the wifi is on or off at any given time. For an added spin, add a light bulb in the room, tell the subject that the wifi is only on when the light is on (and then only sometimes) and then leave the wifi _off_ all the time (or on all the time - whichever you find funnier).
Oh, and the "Australian outback" is only 45 minutes drive for me. If you in California, try the Mojave. Not that it's needed or anything...
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
Only in the sense that EM Radiation is "that which is radiated". The English language can turn any verb into a noun.
Radiation radiation is something different entirely.
Like I said, it's an unfortunate mix of words.
Well, as long as you're consistent.
The trouble is that most people who make this distinction are wildly inconsistent. They will accept a "natural" product with minimal testing. Meanwhile artificial products are unacceptable after years of study, or even after years or decades of actual use with no widescale health effects.
There are people out there who are perfectly comfortable smoking pot because it's "natural", but who think that cell phones will kill you. Out here in reality, dumping fine particulates into your lungs is a bad way to die peacefully of old age. It's this sort of behavior which makes the whole thing look silly. Really, there's no point in distinguishing between "natural" and "artificial", safety-wise. Test both to whatever rigor you think necessary.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
> Only in the sense that EM Radiation is "that which is radiated". The English language can turn any verb into a noun.
Whatever, dude.
> Radiation radiation is something different entirely.
No, it isn't. There's no such thing as 'radiation radiation'
> Like I said, it's an unfortunate mix of words.
It's an unfortunte misunderstanding by people who don't really know what 'radiation' means - in that sense, you are correct.
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
It might be more pursuasive to argue that the existence of natural toxins is not a particularly good reason to ingest artificial ones as well.
The orginal argument, that the fact that we are producing more and more articifial toxins is somehow offset by the fact that toxins exist in nature , doesn't seem a particularly good one to me. OK, my jaw is already broken, so I guess it won't hurt if you punch me again?!
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Move to a place where earth quakes are a certainty of life and then bitch about how they can't get affordable insurance from a reliable provider on their overpriced home sitting on the fault line?
Go to resturants and look at the menus so they can catalogue the ingrediants available in the kitchen and then order food, not on the menu made of ingredients they're guaranteed not to have?
Bitch about the environment being in such poor repair and bitch about gas prices but go out and buy his and hers hummers?
Take jobs and buy houses that specifically require them to sit for 2 hours in traffic each way and then bitch about how the government is screwing them by making it hard for them to get to work?
People who bitch all day and night about illegal immigrants costing them a fortune, while they sit outside by the pool because Maria and Rosa are busy inside vaccuuming the living room?
And of course, worst of all... people who think that chicken or pineapple are in fact pizza toppings!
Wellington Grey sums it up nicely:
The Truth About Wireless Devices
People fear that which they don't understand. The news media doesn't understand ANYTHING. This leads to blind fear-mongering.
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
I originally had a second friend in the test. But the instructions to not wear the shirts around the friend seems like enough of a separation that no information can pass. I can see, however, that it is necessary to add another intermediary to prevent unconscious signals from ruining the test.
>>>>> Only in the sense that EM Radiation is "that which is radiated". The English language can turn any verb into a noun.
>>Whatever, dude.
It's like the who's on first of the physics community. But it's true, the process is called Verbification. If I run someone over with a car, I can claim that I carred him and invent a verb on the spot. Many of our most common words in English were formed by verbifying a noun. Email someone recently?
You can enlighten yourself here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbification
Note that not all languages allow conversion between nouns and verbs, which means that they would probably be less susceptible to confusing EM Radiation and Radiation Radiation.
>>No, it isn't. There's no such thing as 'radiation radiation'
Sure there is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation
Radiation which is radiated from a source is radiation radiation -- but I was using in the reduplicated form in order to differentiate it between other things which are radiated. Sound waves radiate from a source, so they are sound radiation.
>>It's an unfortunte misunderstanding by people who don't really know what 'radiation' means - in that sense, you are correct.
Well now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
Look, what most people think of as 'radiation' is stuff like X-rays and gamma rays, which are both EM. The only difference is the frequency band the source is radiating in.
If you think radio waves such as those from a wi-fi router are not radiation, then you don't understand what radiation is, simple as that!
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
Flamebait? Who am I going to flame? The people complaining about WiFi? THEY AREN'T IN HERE! TECHNOLOGY SCARES THEM!
Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos
Radiation includes alpha, beta, and gamma particles (among other things), of which gamma particles are indeed EM "radiation", but even though all cats are mammals, and dogs are mammals, it doesn't mean that dogs are cats.
Wi-Fi routers also don't emit gamma rays, I'm pretty sure.
<shrug> Whatever, dude.
Uh, no, they don't. You got that much right. For bonus points, tell me why gamma-frequency EM waves are 'radiation' and radio-frequency EM waves are not?
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."