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.
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
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.
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.
Lets just glue some crystals and magnets together, hand them out, and say the block the harmful energy.
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.
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.
Also, check out, Electromagnetic Fields (EMF): The Killing Fields , it's full of lol:
An allergen is a nonparasitic antigen capable of stimulating a type-I hypersensitivity reaction in atopic individuals. From: Allergen
Maybe they are also allergic to the greatest source of radiation: THE SUN!
We should ban it like Mr Burns wanted.
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!
That's the difference between the city doing something that sparks an allergic reaction and a private individual doing the same. I can choose to avoid going near houses which have allergen-flowering plants. I can't avoid going to city hall if I need to do something there. I have to renew my license periodically (and only every other year can you do it online, here), for example.
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.
Well the key there is that the "5 out of 144" were the control group for the experiment.
In other words of the people who claimed to be sensitive, only 4.5% correctly identified when the mast was on in all 6 tries. Meanwhile in the control group - the group of people who do not claim to be sensitive - 4.3% correctly identified when the mast was on in all 6 tries.
Draw from that what you will, but the only logical conclusion is that a group of people who claimed to be extremely sensitive to EM signals are no more sensitive than a random group drawn from the general population. It's like taking a group of people who claim to be NBA all stars and pitting them against a team of randomly selected people, and then having the game end in a tie.
But...But...But... Those are natural. So they must be good for you!!!
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.
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.
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)
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!
Dude, Asian American whispers, please.
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?
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...
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?
Furthermore, there are only 64 possibly outcomes of a series of 6 binary events. I'm not a stats guy (as my college prof will vouch), but it seems like pure dumb luck will get you 1:64 people picking all six correctly (and the same ratio picking all six incorrectly) without even trying. 2:44 and 5:144 are just about twice the "dumb luck" number. Isn't that within the error bar for such a small sample?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
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.
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 ]
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.
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
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.
The worst part about eating vegetables is what to do with the wheelchairs afterward.
blah blah blah