Slashdot Mirror


Wi-Fi Allergy a PR Stunt

ADiamond writes "There is no Wi-Fi allergy. The English DJ claiming a Wi-Fi sensitivity, chronicled earlier, was a PR stunt to promote his new album. It would appear that the stunt was highly successful, appearing in multiple high-profile media outlets like The Sun, The Telegraph, and Fox News. The article at Ars goes on to discuss the evidence, or lack-thereof, of electromagnetic spectrum sensitivity."

37 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. It's Times Like These ... by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... I wish downloading an artists album without paying actually did do the artist physical/economic harm. Here's to hoping that later in life he suffers from an actual ailment while everyone ignores him.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:It's Times Like These ... by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He already has it. It's called Asshole disease. In rare cases, it cause a loss in popularity, being socially ostracized, and attempts to win back old friends as society turns their back on you for being a douchebag.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:It's Times Like These ... by JCSoRocks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      meh. The media spends so much time propagating garbage and so little doing background research I enjoy seeing them get owned like this. If you're a little guy trying to get noticed, I see no real harm in using their stupidity to your advantage. Guerrilla marketing ftw!

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    3. Re:It's Times Like These ... by Smidge204 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to worry, if we use a high enough signal power I'm sure we can get a reaction of some kind.

      A few megawatts should just about do it.
      =Smidge=

    4. Re:It's Times Like These ... by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder if they'll publish the retraction of the story tomorrow, with similarly big headlines. They usually do ... right?

      --
      No sig today...
  2. We know. by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you read the comments below the LAST article you would know that you didn't need to inform us.

  3. Couldn't someone have tested this disorder sooner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I mean how hard is it to get one of the people, put them in a room, and have them tell you whether or not you plugged in a router?

  4. Oh, very fning funny by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now this story will linger as 'common knowledge' for years and rational people will have to cnstantly explain it was a PR stunt.

    Well done jackass, you've made the world a worse place.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Oh, very fning funny by Seumas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Both, plus the news outlets covering it. Everyone knows "wi-fi allergy" has already been disproved, which means there is no story. They might as well be running news articles and segments about how some guy claims to have gotten aids from a hug. UNLESS, they're covering it with the same "what a moron" treatment they would give that "woman claims daughter got pregnant from swimming pool" moron. But of course, they didn't. They sensationalized it because that's easier than spending three minutes googling the truth. Most of today's "journalists" can sucking cuck a fock, as far as I care.

    2. Re:Oh, very fning funny by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He's feeding into a belief. Anyone claiming to ahve this problem while knowing it's not possible is a much bigger jack-ass then people who ignorantly think this can be true.

      Of course, the biggest jack asses are the one where you show all the studies and the still refuse to change there minds.
      Did I say jackass? I meant moron.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Oh, very fning funny by sorak · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now this story will linger as 'common knowledge' for years and rational people will have to cnstantly explain it was a PR stunt.

      Well done jackass, you've made the world a worse place.

      Didn't he do that by deciding to become a DJ?

    4. Re:Oh, very fning funny by Thaelon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Quick, put it on Snopes.com.

      It's the best we can do for now.

      --

      Question everything

  5. But I have a real allergy by Anonymusing · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm allergic to PR stunts. You have no idea how miserable they make life. I am dizzy all the time, and can't stop sneezing. And the rashes. And the boils. I may be going blind, as well.

    By the way, I have a new album coming out, called "Craposensitive".

    --
    Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
    1. Re:But I have a real allergy by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 4, Informative

      Most of the mysterious illnesses of our society, from wifi allergies to "travelling" pain, to fibromyalgia and chronic pain disorder, are all manifestations of dysthemia and depression.

      Source?

      Rectal extraction.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
  6. Re:would suck if someone somewhere was actually by adolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's attitudes like that which keep people reclusive when actually do experience strange things (whether medical, mental, metaphysical -- whatever strange means today).

    Some people are attention-whores, for sure. And some of those people make stuff up. The rest of the world, though - they'd probably rather keep their strangeness to themselves, than to be studied like a lab rat.

    You're talking about human beings, not creatures which we need to find in order to "be able to study them."

  7. Should be classified as fraud by syousef · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Misleading and deceiving people for notoriety and financial gain. How the fuck is this not fraud?

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Should be classified as fraud by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmm. So if I have ads on my blog and I post "misleading and deceptive" blog posts that are "fun to read" or "sensational" (sounds like the mass media), is that fraud? Or how about advertising that implies "If you drink this, you'll get a girl like the one in this ad!"? ...

      Summary: I don't see this as being particularly any worse than most publicity. Heh, for that matter, all of Hollywood is misleading and deceptive for the sake of financial gain

  8. I'm allergic to posting on /. by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Aaaaaaaaahhhhhh, It burns!!!!!!!!! (Buy my new album) Arrrrrrghhhhh, AgonyAgonyAgony!!!!!!!

    --
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
  9. On the contrary by Eevee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He's made the world a better place. Now anybody who claims to be suffering from this fake malady can be told to shut up with "Oh, that's a fake disease from an old PR stunt."

    You have to remember, people were already claiming to suffer from it; it's already in the 'common knowledge' bin. He's brought nothing new to the table as far as claims go.

    1. Re:On the contrary by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He added cement to the idea.
      All this stuff, Bigfoot, UFO's, Homeopathy, reiki, only gets stronger when something like this happens. When it is proven to be fake, or shown that there is no evidence, it doesn't get reported in mainstream and when it does it gets put on page 8.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  10. Amazing... by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 5, Funny

    It was reported by The Sun, The Telegraph, and Fox News. I'm surprised those bastions of journalistic integrity and careful, measured reporting didn't check their facts better before releasing these reports.

  11. Tried before with success.. by Technician · · Score: 5, Informative

    The ban Dihydrogenmonoxide stunt also got the media messed up in a comical frenzy over bad science.

    This site is still up for your reading pleasure.
    http://www.dhmo.org/

    The environmental impact of the stuff is huge. It's found most everywhere.
    http://www.dhmo.org/environment.html

    For those who don't get the joke the punchline is here;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax
    n 1989, Eric Lechner, Lars Norpchen and Matthew Kaufman circulated a Dihydrogen Monoxide contamination warning on the UC Santa Cruz Campus via photocopied fliers.[8] The concept originated one afternoon when Kaufman recalled a similar warning about "Hydrogen Hydroxide" that had been published in his mother's hometown paper, the Durand (Michigan) Express, and the three then worked to coin a term that "sounded more dangerous". Lechner typed up the original warning flier on Kaufman's computer, and a trip to the local photocopying center followed that night.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
    1. Re:Tried before with success.. by ivan_w · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Awww.. come on !

      The dihydrogen monoxide/hydric acid/hydrane stunt was just *brilliant* !

      --Ivan

  12. Re:What, if any, action do we take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I say we email the hell out of steve@subatomicuk.com, let us show this guy there is no wrath like that of /.

  13. Did the DJ confirm ? by droopycom · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I mean, I would call this a stunt if the DJ did indeed acknowledge it, and said that he has no condition.

    But as of now, this article is just another opinion from a journalist that the the condition is BS, and might indeed have been used as a way to promote an album.

    There is nothing fundamentally wrong to promote an album based on what one believes. If the DJ really believes that he is electro-sensitive, then it makes perfect sense for him to promote an album called "electro-sensitive" by talking about his "disease" (even if everybody knows that the disease is only in his head).

    What's more scary is not that its used as a PR tool, but the fact that the media was so gullible to just pass it along....

  14. Re:would suck if someone somewhere was actually by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Except they don't suffer from "this" affliction.
    If they can't pass a double blind test, then the affliction doesn't exist.

  15. Re:What, if any, action do we take? by Hadlock · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've noticed boing boing has had increasingly bad and misleading posts/articles lately, down to "what caused these waves in the snow" and other random BS. Whatever draws an audience, and the clicking of advertising links, I suppose. You don't see crappy articles like these in the NYT.

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
  16. I'm going to download his album 10 times... by jolyonr · · Score: 4, Funny

    to hurt him even more!

    --


    Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
    1. Re:I'm going to download his album 10 times... by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Jason Fox tried that once, IIRC.

      Something along the lines of:

      "What are you doing?"
      "Downloading and burning 10,000 copies of $paiges_favorite_cd."
      "You know, if people keep doing that eventually artists will quit making music."
      "That's what I'm hoping."

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  17. Some legit studies have found effects by marcle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Check out this link: http://www.aehf.com/articles/em_sensitive.html Double-blind study with repeatable results, showed some subjects were sensitive. Remember, the scientific method means that nothing is ever proven definitively; all we can do is hypothesize, experiment, lather, rinse, repeat.

    1. Re:Some legit studies have found effects by Rycross · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Its a fairly interesting study, I'll admit. However, after a brief reading of it, I noticed:
      1) The methodology doesn't say whether the generator is in view of the subject, and the phrasing suggests that it is. The generator could have had tells.
      2) Doesn't mention how the administrator was isolated from the subjects in the double-blind experiments.
      3) It states that a single-blind was first conducted, then goes on to say that the double-blind was conducted with "the same parameters."

      It would be nice to see these clarified and the results reproduced. If there were issues with the "double-blind" (either the administrator or the generator being observable), then the first run of the single blind, and subsequent weeding out of the test subjects, would select for those who would be able to recognize the tells.

      This particular paragraph gave me a bit of pause too:
      "In our experience, the patients' clinical responses could not always be reproduced completely, but the objective Iriscorder, EKG, and respirometer could be. However, the responses were definitely different from controls or placebo challenges. In our experience over the years, we have found partial reproduction of symptoms on repeat challenge to be as significant as total reproduction. Therefore, significant differences from controls in objective ineasurementa were deemed valid."

      There are some other questionable assumptions in the discussion section as well.

      Still, it would nice to see the experiment reproduced, since they did manage to obtain some interesting results that would be worthwhile investigating.

  18. Trifecta by jafiwam · · Score: 2, Informative

    "appearing in multiple high-profile media outlets like The Sun, The Telegraph, and Fox News."

    Lol, that's the tard-trifecta right there man. I sure hope Bigfoot doesn't get angry about the coverage of him this crap displaced.

    1. Re:Trifecta by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 2, Informative

      Replace the Telegraph with the Daily Mail. That's a bigger retard magnet.

  19. the best we can do is ignore him from now on. by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...except the damage is done. The hippies and new-agers have already latched onto the story as yet more proof that WiFi is harmful and their neuroses are real.

    Stunts like this aren't 'harmless'. We should publicly flog him, not ignore him.

    --
    No sig today...
  20. The cure is easy... by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Put them in a room with a black WiFi box and ask them to tell you when it's switched on, preferably with some other "sensitives" as witnesses and making sure there's no cheating by the weasel-faced skeptics.

    Having shown them what a real experiment is, give them one to take home so they can try for themselves whenever they have doubts.

    After enough dismal failures they should get the message that it's all in their head.

    --
    No sig today...
  21. Re:Cellphone cancer risk by gnupun · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The slashdot title for this story is highly misleading: it's trying to insinuate all people complaining of Wi-Fi allergy are phonies just because some greedy joker pulled a stunt.

    Let's look at the facts:
    • Sticking your head or any body part in a microwave oven will severely injure or kill you -- microwave energy is highly dangerous.
    • Overuse of cellphones is likely to cause brain cancer after several years of use. Cellphones emit the same microwave radiation as the microwave oven, only with much diluted power, so it takes more time than an oven to damage human tissue.
    • Wi-fi also uses microwave radiation, except it's not stuck close to your head. But it's always on, depending on where you live or work. Even though the power of the radiation reaching the human body is weaker than a cellphone stuck to the head, wi-fi is always on while the cellphone is not -- the cumulative effects of this exposure is yet unknown.

    Looking at these facts, it's very likely that Wi-fi (microwave radiation) may cause cancer or some sort of damage if human beings are continuously exposed to it for several decades.

  22. What a logic by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Putting your head in a boiling pot of water or in a working oven is dangerous as well. Ergo standing several feet away from it is going to kill you as well... NO.

    The microwave kills you because it cooks you. In fact, you will be CURED of any cancer because cooked cancer cells are just as dead as anything else that is cooked.

    Guns kill, so carrying a gun gives you cancer because cancer is caused by lead and since guns kill with lead... BAD LOGIC.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.