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
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.
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
I say we quarantine them all in a nice Faraday Cage.
Caveat Utilitor
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:
maybe they haven't heard of the sun
Yes they have, but they call it the day-star and it burns them.
Apparently they are allergic to it as well.
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!
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!!!
Just like lions. Lions are natural, as well.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
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!
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...
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 ]
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
The worst part about eating vegetables is what to do with the wheelchairs afterward.
blah blah blah