Slashdot Mirror


Man Sues Neighbor Claiming Wi-Fi Made Him Sick

OrangeMonkey11 writes "A Santa Fe man who claims to suffer from 'electromagnetic sensitivities' has sued his neighbor after she refused to stop using wireless devices. 59-year-old Arthur Firstenberg claims his sensitivity can be set off by cellphones, routers and other electronic devices. From the article: 'Firstenberg, 59, wanted Raphaela Monribot to limit her use of the devices. "I asked her to work with me," he said. "Basically, she refused." So he sued Monribot in state district court, seeking $530,000 in damages and an injunction to force her to turn off the electronics. "Being the target of this lawsuit has affected me very adversely," Monribot said Friday in response to e-mailed questions. "I feel as if my life and liberty are under attack for no valid reason, and it has forced me to have to defend my very basic human rights."'"

574 comments

  1. the more attention you give morons... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the more they'll act like morons.

    I wish reporters wouldn't give this type of crap the time of day.

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
    1. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      true, this nutjob should just go out and live in a shed in the woods

      This is just one step away from sueing your neighbour because he refuses to paint his house green claiming that 'the wavelength of light emitted by his house is caussing me severe pain'

      and WTF sueing someone for half a milion dollars for this? only in america

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    2. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >> I wish reporters wouldn't give this type of crap the time of day.

      Yep - let's ignore this story and focus on the previous story, which is... let's see... A NEW APPLE PRODUCT RUMORS!!

    3. Re:the more attention you give morons... by eparker05 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "the more attention you give morons, the more they'll act like morons."

      I disagree with your sentiment. If you publicly embarrass somebody for acting stupidly. They often think twice before acting stupidly again. What we need is more bad press for these types of people, like that town in Africa where everybody claimed to be getting sick from radio waves until they were told that the tower had been turned off two weeks prior. Also there is the guy who became violently ill only when cell phones rang (but not when they communicated with the cell tower silently). Yea. Lots of stupid people more need attention.

      Scientology too... but that is another thread.

    4. Re:the more attention you give morons... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Africa? I thought that story happened in the U.S.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We had something similar happening here, where people started complaining about the electromagnetic field from a cell repeater tower.

      PR statement from the telco: "Gee, wonder what it'll be like when we turn it on in a few weeks..."

      Needless to say that the court tossed the suit without a hearing.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:the more attention you give morons... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 5, Informative

      eparker05 is correct, it was Africa.

      Which is not to say that similar events have not happened in many places.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    7. Re:the more attention you give morons... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Funny

      the more they'll act like morons.

      I wish reporters wouldn't give this type of crap the time of day.

      Not to defend Arthur The Human Antenna Firstenberg, but perhaps he is suffering from some sort of mental condition and genuinely believes what he is claiming? It doesn't make him right, and may only prove he's watched "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" too many times, but he might only be a mental case and not an asshat.

      Never attribute to asshattery that which can be adequately explained by shit house rat crazy.

    8. Re:the more attention you give morons... by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These people don't get embarrassed.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
    9. Re:the more attention you give morons... by TheSpoom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just give the idiot plaintiff a double blind test, and we can move on with our lives.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    10. Re:the more attention you give morons... by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      One might say that him suing equates to "asshattery", crazy or not.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    11. Re:the more attention you give morons... by osgeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I disagree with your sentiment. If you publicly embarrass somebody for acting stupidly. They often think twice before acting stupidly again.

      Well, you've got two problems with this disagreement.

      1. People rationalize pretty much any behavior they intentionally exhibit. The most hardened of criminals in lock-up feel that they don't deserve it. What they did wasn't that wrong, or society made them do it, or they were justified because of some wrong they perceived against themselves. It's no different with this guy. What he's doing is right no matter what the judge says, what his neighbors say, what the general public says. It wouldn't be very surprising if it were shown that he deceptively uses a laptop or visual observations to know that his neighbor is using wifi or her cell phone. I'm sure he'd view these things as justified because of "what she's doing".

      If I'm wrong, he should go for the Randi prize. I bet they'd agree to test him if he claimed to be sensitive to the types of EMR described in the story.

      2. Many people do feed off of the negative attention. Just look at the enormous amount of effort that Slashdot editors and the moderation system go to in order to fend off the trolls. Trolls are the people that get a warm fuzzy feeling when they see someone frowning or imagine that they're frowning.

    12. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh, almost forgot: Of course the complaint was repeated a few weeks later when they turned it on.

      The judge issued a fine for wasting the court's time a second time. Don't remember the exact wording, but the general meaning was something like "don't play smart, we already know that you fake it".

      Reading verdicts can be quite entertaining at times. Especially when judges display a sense of humor.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Bakkster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wouldn't categorically say all of them are morons. Assuming they aren't intentionally claiming to be sick to get their way, they might actually be sick. Sure, it might be a psychosomatic illness rather than physiological one, but either way the person is ill and needs treatment.

      Also, by better separating the morons from the real cases, we can hopefully eventually perform actual research to separate any physiological cases from psychosomatic ones. Then we can hopefully cure both and put an end to cases like this.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    14. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In which case his neighbour should have told him that the wireless was being turned off at 8pm every day until 10am. That should have solved his problem.

      Unless he is checking up using a computer with built-in wireless!

      Btw, "told" != "doing", if you weren't clear on that.

    15. Re:the more attention you give morons... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Don't move to Taos if you can't take The Hum.

    16. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Bakkster · · Score: 0

      Of course, this could possibly be a case of the actual construction causing health issues (kicking up arsenic-laden dust, for example). Not that it's necessarily likely the tower caused any issues (other construction would have likely caused the same issues), but I wouldn't dismiss it offhand just because regular people misattributed the vector that caused the illness.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    17. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 1

      And I think the phrase "any press is good press" doesn't just apply to businesses. People do stuff like this for the attention it brings them.

      IMO, of course.

      Why can't slashdot tie in a decent system where you're allowed to post more than once per two minutes if say...you're not posting AC or maybe if your /. karma is above a certain level? It's stupid. (says Em as he waits the requisite 2 minutes....)

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    18. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're looking at this from the wrong perspective. Remember Jack Thompson. In this case, the lawyer who filed the suit and the judge who allowed it to begin are the only morons who matter. We have no right to expect regular people NOT to be morons, but we have every right to expect it of lawyers and judges because they have a great deal of power that can be used to ruin other people's lives. The judge and the lawyer should be fired and disbarred, and the best way to make that happen is to make a public spectacle of them.

    19. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 1

      "the more attention you give morons, the more they'll act like morons."

      ...

      Scientology too... but that is another thread.

      Well, Scientology isn't acting...

    20. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you have a source for that? I've heard such stories (in different versions) several times and it starts to feel like an Urban-Legend.

    21. Re:the more attention you give morons... by sharkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, but, which eye do you poke out first?

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    22. Re:the more attention you give morons... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      Just give the idiot plaintiff a double blind test, and we can move on with our lives.

      Is that where you poke him in both eyes and see if he can get back home on his own? I thought that was known as the Three Stooges Optical Assault #2.

    23. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are making HUGE assumptions about what embarrasses people, and the notion of what exactly it means to 'act stupidly' - you may be embarrassed when publicly humiliated but some people feed off of this type of attention and have no idea that they are 'acting stupidly'.

    24. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Informative

      This story is typical.

      We had the same exact situation here (Kiev, Ukraine). As far as I know, it's now a standard operating procedure for telecoms here to wait 1-2 months before turning on a base station after it is installed, so such complaints can be tossed out immediately.

    25. Re:the more attention you give morons... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      We have no right to expect regular people NOT to be morons

      I'm going to get that printed a t-shirt and walk around a MENSA conference. That'll show those know-it-alls.

    26. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Otto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Being able to sense electromagnetic fields, using no devices or other assistance, in a double blind trial, would definitely be worthy of the $1,000,000 from JREF.

      http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

      Anybody who claims to be sensitive to this sort of thing and who has not won the million bucks is basically a flat-out liar.

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    27. Re:the more attention you give morons... by IICV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That only works if the reporting is embarrassing. What tends to happen in the United States is that the reporters try to pretend that they are unbiased, and as such give equal weight to both the retarded side and the rational side - after all if there are two sides to an argument, then obviously there's a 50/50 chance that either side is true, right?

      Thus, some moron like this guy and his woo-filled doctor* get put up against Dr. Bob Park, a physicist at the University of Maryland. That's not embarrassing at all; it puts these two idiots on an equal level with someone who's spent his entire career studying the subject. It's fucking flattering.

      *Just because you have an MD doesn't mean you're qualified to determine whether "electrosensitivity" is a condition, no matter what the gullible reporter thinks. Do you think that a lady who pushes the always-vague "toxins" theory of chronic disease knows anything about electromagnetism beyond what she learned in Freshman physics?

    28. Re:the more attention you give morons... by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      If he has a problem, legitimate or not, all he has to do is tinfoil the inside of his house (then drywall or plaster over it) and he'll make a nice Faraday cage so no EM will ever bother him again.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    29. Re:the more attention you give morons... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Unfortunately, this urban legend has been manifesting itself around the world. People hear that many devices use the same (or similar) frequencies to microwave ovens, they panic, then their eyes light up and they think, "Lawsuit!"

          The only urban legend is that it happens. It's the mentally unstable who believe it's happening to them.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    30. Re:the more attention you give morons... by wykell · · Score: 2, Informative

      not to be a pain in the ass, but can we start using names of countries within the continent of Africa instead of just lumping it all together as one? Using "Africa" as a catchall is like saying that a bunch of nutjobs are busy flying the Confederate Flag above a government legislature in the United States (well, to be more accurate, North America). I'm sure that at least 35 US states as well as Canada, Mexico, the entire Caribbean and Central America would prefer not to be lumped in to that "bunch of nutjobs" - so why do we do this to people on the continent of Africa? That said, this guy is off his rocker, and we should probably just send him to the North Pole to live out his days.

      --
      --- He advocated thrift and hard work and disapproved of loose women who turned him down. ---
    31. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Canazza · · Score: 2, Informative

      no, the Aurora Borealis will cause him to be ill too.

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    32. Re:the more attention you give morons... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      I expect the worse from lawyers, among the lowest scum of the earth. A judge is a promoted lawyer. Sometimes lawyers get to be president.

    33. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Calmiche · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a plan! Of course, he also has to disconnect his house from all electricity, remove all batteries from his house, disconnect the telephone, remove refrigeration, heat, water pumps and computers.

      I guess the tin-foil might block the cellphone, radio and television radiation, not to mention signals from sattelites!

      Then he has to block all light from the sun and somehow figure out how to change basic universal constants so that he's no longer able to be affected by the earths electro-magnetic field.

      Wait! I just thought of a billion dollar business plan! Selling pre-made tinfoil clothing to morons! Look for our spring line of swimwear and bikinis!

    34. Re:the more attention you give morons... by HoppQ · · Score: 1

      not to be a pain in the ass, but can we start using names of countries within the continent of Africa instead of just lumping it all together as one?

      You Earth people are stupid.

      --
      My sig will be released in 2015 third quarter. Rating pending.
    35. Re:the more attention you give morons... by tinkerghost · · Score: 1

      If he has a problem, legitimate or not, all he has to do is tinfoil the inside of his house (then drywall or plaster over it) and he'll make a nice Faraday cage so no EM will ever bother him again.

      We already have this, it's called stucco - you just need to make sure you get the metal mesh support rather than the new fiberglass stuff.

    36. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This should be modded insightful, not funny...?

    37. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like this guy is a professional moron. This has to be the same individual;

      http://www.whale.to/b/elf6.html

      FTA, '"I'm not after publicity," he said.'

    38. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people though as stupid as there claims are continue despite the negative publicity. Why ? Because they are screwed in the head to begin with. Just shoot the guy and toss him in a deep deep hole. People like this deserve no right to harass people whos only crime is living there life.

    39. Re:the more attention you give morons... by bilbravo · · Score: 1

      "and WTF sueing someone for half a milion dollars for this? only in america"

      Or in Africa?

    40. Re:the more attention you give morons... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      This is just one step away from sueing your neighbour because he refuses to paint his house green claiming that 'the wavelength of light emitted by his house is caussing me severe pain'

      Oh, real nice. These nutballs have enough fucked up ideas without you tossing color specific photophobia into the mix.

      Just kidding, I'm sure no one would be stupid enough to claim that a certain frequency of light caused them physical problems, unless of course it really did...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    41. Re:the more attention you give morons... by pclminion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And what about the poor person who is actually suffering because of this idiot? You don't think the plight of this person should be made known to the world?

      My wife was sued last year for a completely stupid reason, and one of the worst parts of the experience for me was knowing that we were getting screwed and nobody in the world gave a crap about it.

    42. Re:the more attention you give morons... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      The reason that things get lumped into "Africa" is that you can't count on many African countries to keep the same name for more than a generation. Case in point: Congo Free State > Belgian Congo > Republic of the Congo > Republic of Zaire > Democratic Republic of the Congo

      I actually have a copy of a Routledge Atlas that is over 110 years old, and the Africa portrayed therein is politically unrecognizable, whereas all the other continents in the same book are basically the same now as then, regardless of colonialism.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    43. Re:the more attention you give morons... by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Santa Fe, California (where the story is set) is not in Africa.

    44. Re:the more attention you give morons... by xilmaril · · Score: 1

      This is just one step away from sueing your neighbour because he refuses to paint his house green claiming that 'the wavelength of light emitted by his house is caussing me severe pain'

      Oh, real nice. These nutballs have enough fucked up ideas without you tossing color specific photophobia into the mix.

      Just kidding, I'm sure no one would be stupid enough to claim that a certain frequency of light caused them physical problems, unless of course it really did...

      xeroderma pigmentosum a rare pigmentary and atrophic autosomal recessive disease in which extreme cutaneous sensitivity to ultraviolet light results from an enzyme deficiency in the repair of DNA damaged by ultraviolet light. It begins in childhood, with early development of excessive freckling, telangiectases, keratomas, papillomas, and malignancies in sun-exposed skin, severe opthalmologic abnormalities, and, in some cases, neurological disorders.

      That's... really not the same as what we were talking about. Not even a little.

    45. Re:the more attention you give morons... by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Or easier-- hide your SSID, claim it's off, and see if he notices.

      "Sure thing Mr Firstenberg, just let me log in and disable the WiFi on the router. There, can't see the network on your laptop anymore right? Good. Feel better? Oh yes, the kids are doing great. Have a nice day, sir!"

      --
      +1 Disagree
    46. Re:the more attention you give morons... by AtlantaSteve · · Score: 1

      Sigh... where are mod points when you need them?

      Not only is this story preceded by Apple product rumors, it's followed by a "government's coming to getcha!" piece. I'm amazed that even this LOOSELY science-related story was given that space on today's Slashdot... rather than a software patent or copyright issue that would draw more clicks and babble.

    47. Re:the more attention you give morons... by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just kidding, I'm sure no one would be stupid enough to claim that a certain frequency of light caused them physical problems, unless of course it really did...

      Great. Just when I was about to paint my house ultraviolet you came along and ruined it. Thanks.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    48. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Faux_Pseudo · · Score: 1

      While a double blind test of the plaintiff would be ideal it can't be done without the consent of the plaintiff because you can't force someone to testify against themselves.
      What we need is a good double blind study but the problem is that no one wants to spend that kind of money funding something that has been informally tested over and over again with consistent results.

    49. Re:the more attention you give morons... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      When commodore64_love said "Africa? I thought that story happened in the U.S." (emphasis mine) he was responding to eparker05 who said "...like that town in Africa where everybody claimed to be getting sick from radio waves until they were told that the tower had been turned off two weeks prior."

      commodore64_love said 'that story' in reference to the post to which he was replying, not 'this story' which would have been an antecedent for the more general context of this topic.

      Please go back and retake English grammar before you try to correct people who are already right.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    50. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I had a neighbor worried that my HAM antenna was going to potentially give her cancer, and headaches. I simply explained that my antenna was designed not to give off radiation but to collect it from the front and then refract it backwards. She was happy with that and her headaches from the radiation that she was getting have gone away since my antenna is collecting so much of it!

    51. Re:the more attention you give morons... by lena_10326 · · Score: 1

      I spent 3 months in Taos and didn't hear any hum. It's a bullshit myth repeated by new age Taos idiots who believe they have supernatural perception.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    52. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Anybody who claims to be sensitive to this sort of thing and who has not won the million bucks is basically a flat-out liar.

      Funny story. Once on /. someone was trying to claim that James Randi was rejecting legitimate claims of Super Powers. They of course failed miserably, but in the course of trying they linked to a randi.org forum post that simply made my day. It was the most awesome post I'd ever seen, at least on this topic.

      It was a post by a man who had previously submitted an application to be tested (I think it was for EM sensitivity, but it might have been dousing or something), but -- and here's the awesome part -- he was retracting his application because he'd decided to actually conduct experiments with at least a single-blind format, and concluded based on his experiment that he didn't really have super powers.

      Holy fuck. Every so often something happens that gives me a little hope for the human species.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    53. Re:the more attention you give morons... by mindbrane · · Score: 1

      2. Many people do feed off of the negative attention.

      Isn't attention a necessary condition of any complex and social life form? Theories of apoptosis suggests cells in complex life forms commit programmed death when they lack necessary communication from other cells. Theory of Mind suggests, at least in some interpretations, that an infantile state can be characterized as an inability to "...attribute mental states--beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.--to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one's own."

      Looking at both attention and Theory of Mind I think attention is fundamental and necessary whether it's positive or negative. Fucked up people may seek negative attention desperately as a substitute for social confirmation and self confirmation and/or as a cloaked call for help.

      --
      ideopath @ play
    54. Re:the more attention you give morons... by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Does the same apply in a civil case? Surely the plaintiff has to demonstrate harm, and he can't do that unless he can prove that he can sense the brain-searing death rays emanating from next door.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    55. Re:the more attention you give morons... by JonStewartMill · · Score: 1

      > If you publicly embarrass somebody for acting stupidly. They often think twice before acting stupidly again.

      If this was true there'd be no such thing as reality TV shows.

    56. Re:the more attention you give morons... by cellocgw · · Score: 2, Informative

      Being able to sense electromagnetic fields, using no devices or other assistance, in a double blind trial, would definitely be worthy of the $1,000,000 from JREF
      Well, aside from the rather obvious ability to sense EM fields in the 0.5 to 0.7 nm wavelength range, I seem to recall that some radar ops in Great Britain during WW2 could tell when the beam swept past them. It was some indirect stimulation of the otic or optic nerve IIRC.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    57. Re:the more attention you give morons... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, if you're going to that expense I'd go with infrared because it gives you that warm feeling when you come home... Use caution when applying the paint, you don't want to go to the dermatologist with "french fry face".

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    58. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I'm not a lawyer, but I think the "vector" is an essential part of the claim in a lawsuit. If you get that wrong, then your complaint is wrong, and you have no case. The law obliges you to get the "vector" right.

    59. Re:the more attention you give morons... by wykell · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure that there are few citizens of the Irish Republic that might disagree with that statement. As well as anyone who lives in Austria/Hungary or the Ottoman Empire... Actually, hell, if that were the case, I would have been born in an American Territory and not a state. Let's not all try to sound like Miss Teen South Carolina 07 now.

      --
      --- He advocated thrift and hard work and disapproved of loose women who turned him down. ---
    60. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Sanat · · Score: 5, Funny

      Damn Tom, They moved Santa Fe from New Mexico to California?

      Cool... that probably raised the IQ in both places.

      --
      And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
    61. Re:the more attention you give morons... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Not that I "believe in the Hum" - but there are differences in perceptive abilities among people, not that the more perceptive are "superior," in-fact the unusually highly perceptive are mostly unhappy due to all the noise they hear that no one else cares about.

      The Taos Hum I refer to is supposed to be low frequency emi based (submarine comms, etc.), but most new agers can't tell the difference between that, wi-fi, and a Walkie Talkie.

    62. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >They often think twice before acting stupidly again.

      You're making the assumption that you're dealing with someone who can tell the difference between a good idea and a bad one.

      Amazingly, there are adults who can't do this. For example, many people never get out of the grade-school of 'if you understood my point, you'd agree with me' level of logic. Internet discussion fora are full of people who say dumb things and think that they've won their disputes and discussions.

      I remember having a discussion with someone who was cutting my hair and somehow the subject got on to telepathy. I posited that if it existed, there'd be some form of work being done, ergo it could be measured, ergo there'd be an explanation.

      This was immediately countered by the barber who said it was an unknown. And always would be.

      Pure idiocy but this 'explanation' worked for him.

    63. Re:the more attention you give morons... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      While a double blind test of the plaintiff would be ideal it can't be done without the consent of the plaintiff because you can't force someone to testify against themselves.

      Are you sure that's correct? For the record, I am not sure you aren't correct, since my legal qualifications are nil. However, from high school and college civics classes, I seem to recall that the burden of proof might not play out the way you seem to think. In a criminal case, the state has to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty. In a civil case such as this, the plaintiff must prove to the judge's satisfaction that he has a legal claim against the defendant. I would therefore expect that the plaintiff can't just claim that his neighbor's WIFI signal is causing his illness; he must show some proof that his illness is actually caused by his neighbor's WIFI. And as people here on /. are found of saying, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. In my layman's opinion, for however much or however little that is worth, I would think that a double-blind test is not an unreasonable requirement to show that the neighbor's WIFI signal is, in fact, the cause of the plaintiff's illness.

      Does anyone with any legal background want to chime in on this?

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    64. Re:the more attention you give morons... by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      Isn't that the job of Home Owner Associations?
       

    65. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      We don't have extra resources to retest implausible claims. If we aren't allowed to kill people like this (and, in the name of humanity, that's probably for the best), then we should shame or ignore them, whichever is more effective.

      The tests for magical claims were all done years and years ago. There's no such thing as magic, so we don't need to keep testing the world for signs of magic.

    66. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you could do that and cowtow to his ridiculous assertions. If it were me, I'd prefer the more direct approach: fuck off, loser!

    67. Re:the more attention you give morons... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      ...sueing your neighbour because he refuses to paint his house green claiming that 'the wavelength of light emitted by his house...

      Oh crap, did those asshats that got Pluto demoted get their hands on the EM spectrum? It's OK if a house emits 530 nm radiation but once it's under 400 nm we can't talk about it...

      Joke, Dude.

      Although I did prevent someone from painting their house ultraviolet, so some good has come of all this...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    68. Re:the more attention you give morons... by djsmiley · · Score: 4, Funny

      Erm....

      If their eyes are "lighting up" then I think they have a perfectly valid reason to sue ;)

      --
      - http://www.milkme.co.uk
    69. Re:the more attention you give morons... by osgeek · · Score: 1

      As usual, considering the evolutionary impact of a behavior can be useful. Negative attention seeking can be a survival trait.

      Negative attention is normally a bad thing within a small cohesive society; but in a fragmented society (real life) or competing societies, negative attention from your enemies is a good thing to earn respect amongst your allies.

      Controlling your enemies emotions to an extent is useful. You can get your enemies to attack you when they may be at a disadvantage. You can get them to fear you because you're such an asshole.

      Trolls are assholes, but I wouldn't make a value judgement about whether or not their behavior was due to some underdevelopment or "infantile" deficiency.

    70. Re:the more attention you give morons... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>you can't count on many African countries to keep the same name for more than a generation.

      Precisely. I know South Africa and Egypt and Sudan, but that's about it. The rest of the continent is a blur, what with constantly changing names and redrawing of borders. Afirca doesn't have the stability of, say, Europe which was pretty constant from 1800 to 1918... and 1945 to the present... and easy to memorize.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    71. Re:the more attention you give morons... by julesh · · Score: 4, Informative

      Do you have a source for that?

      Not quite identical to the parent's story, but this is a reasonably close match: http://mybroadband.co.za/news/Wireless/11099.html

    72. Re:the more attention you give morons... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      All of your counter-examples pale in comparison because none are indicative of a continent-wide phenomenon lasting throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. I didn't say that other continents were unchanged, I said that comparatively Africa was unrecognizable. You have not disproven that (nor, being a personal subjective judgment, is it something that can really be 'disproved' but you have failed even to make a compelling case or contrast).

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    73. Re:the more attention you give morons... by wykell · · Score: 1

      Former USSR. Proved.

      --
      --- He advocated thrift and hard work and disapproved of loose women who turned him down. ---
    74. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      manifesting itself around the world. ... then their eyes light up and they think, "Lawsuit!"

      No, the "Lawsuit" part is mostly limited to the US.

    75. Re:the more attention you give morons... by cffrost · · Score: 1

      ...Especially if the time of day is read from a digital timepiece.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    76. Re:the more attention you give morons... by mindbrane · · Score: 1
      Totally agree. Just as an aside, you wrote: "Controlling your enemies emotions to an extent is useful. You can get your enemies to attack you when they may be at a disadvantage.", I very much agree, but recall a valuable bit of advice from the Wilhelm & Baynes translation of the 'I Ching', that is to the effect, one should exercise great care in choosing one's enemies as the costs of engagement are considerable. It's why I have no enemies. I've never valued anyone that highly. ;)

      Cheers

      --
      ideopath @ play
    77. Re:the more attention you give morons... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Less than a century. Fails parameters. Sorry.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    78. Re:the more attention you give morons... by AaronW · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine could detect radar. At one point he was working on a radar unit when it was activated and he survived. After that point he claimed to be sensitive to it. The funny thing was that when driving with him he was an awesome radar detector. It was uncanny how he would say there's a cop with a radar ahead on roads he'd never been on and he'd always be right. I'm still somewhat skeptical myself though.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    79. Re:the more attention you give morons... by wykell · · Score: 1
      So wait, basically, you're saying that it's ok to lump every African country into "Africa" when describing something that happens wholly within that country because "you can't count on many African countries to keep the same name for more than a generation." Yet you tell me that I fail at proving you wrong in claiming that this is true in other parts of the world because the parameters must now span a century? Which is it, a century or a generation? You can't keep expanding your time frame to fit your argument.

      Or you know, you could just say "this happened in South Africa" instead of "Africa".

      and now I've actually become that pain in the ass. Sorry.

      --
      --- He advocated thrift and hard work and disapproved of loose women who turned him down. ---
    80. Re:the more attention you give morons... by hduff · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a licensed amateur radio operator, I've seen this phenomenon for decades.

      30 years ago, a friend salvaged a 40-foot tall antenna tower, obtained the required permits to install it and did so, but he had to wait to save enough money to purchase an actual multi-band antenna to place on it. In the meantime, his neighbor hauled him into small claims court, saying this "huge antenna" was interfering with TV reception by making his television "say" things like "breaker one nine, good buddy" (ie, it was CB'ers, not ham radio operators, causing the interference). I helped my friend prepare his defense and as a result, the judge almost got all the word "dumbass" out before he stopped himself and dismissed the suit. The crotchety neighbor dismissed all our evidence and stated until his dying day that there was a conspiracy to deprive him of his rights and drive him crazy (like he needed help).

      So giving attention to it only makes rationale people more aware. The crazy remain morons until they die.

      --
      "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    81. Re:the more attention you give morons... by xeoron · · Score: 1

      I, also, wish that these people when stop complaining and coat their walls something that would block the radio signals as a solution.

    82. Re:the more attention you give morons... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      You started by saying that the Irish, Austro-Hungarians, and Ottomans would take issue with my singling out Africa from my global view of more than a century ago. That's how that parameter started out, and it was underscored by my response wherein I noted that Africa's name changes span centuries.

      Name changes do happen at a certain 'background level' in all parts of the world at all times, and occasionally at higher rates and in higher concentrations such as Eastern Europe after the collapse of the USSR, but that still is neither as broad as a continent nor as long as several centuries of consistent change. I maintain that there is no example in modern history equivalent to or surpassing Africa in terms of the scope of time or geographic expanse wherein so many countries have changed their names so many times. It is in a class by itself.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    83. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Sure, get get the warm fuzzy when coming home, but would what would Al Gore think of it? He'd have Michael Moore in his front yard telling everyone that he is the reason for global warming.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    84. Re:the more attention you give morons... by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

      I disagree with your sentiment. If you publicly embarrass somebody for acting stupidly. They often think twice before acting stupidly again.

      Not if this person is suffering from some sort of mental illness, which is possible in this case. What needs to happen is if the person has mental issues, the judge should throw out the case immediately and he should get some help. If he's just an asshole he should pay a fine and any legal fees for a frivolous lawsuit.

      What's so stupid about this is there are going to be cell and wifi waves anywhere he goes unless he moves to some 3rd world country. Makes me wonder if he just wants to make the neighbor move.

      --
      If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    85. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Wireless+Joe · · Score: 1

      If you publicly embarrass somebody for acting stupidly. They often think twice before acting stupidly again.

      Tell that to the judge who sued the dry cleaners for millions because they lost his pants (and lost his job because he wouldn't let it go), or Orly Taitz, etc. Some people just won't learn.

    86. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Otto · · Score: 1

      Pedantic. I meant low power fields, other than the obvious ones like light and high powered radar and such, of course.

      Wifi, for example, is well outside the threshold of human perception. As would be cell phone signals. An old TV set actually throws off more radiation than Wifi does.

      Hell, I once had a refrigerator that would trigger an electrical circuit detector (the kind that you can hold near an outlet to see if it's live) from 5 feet away. The same detector needed to be within half an inch of an outlet to work.

      EM signals are simply everywhere, if somebody were truly sensitive to this sort of thing, they'd probably simply be dead from overstimulation.

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    87. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This comment made me sick, I'm gonna sue you!

    88. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Otto · · Score: 1

      True, however the 100 milliwatts coming out of your WiFi device isn't quite in the same league as an MRI machine.

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    89. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      +5 informative.

      These people are to ignorant to know how stupid they are, but they've read a bit of propaganda and fancy themselves as "informed".

      I was staying with a friend this past weekend and got to "enjoy" her father explaining why she should not drink water out of bottles ('cause it produces cancer), and should only drink water out of a ceramic urn with extremely diluted pomegranate juice. "It destroys the neutrons in your brain", he said...over and over. I cringed every time he said it, but bit my tongue out of ...politeness?... Oh hell, I just didn't want to tell an old man that he was a mal-informed idiot. The juice in water is an upgrade from her standard diet, and will do no harm until it starts fermenting. Then she'll get a real body flush.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    90. Re:the more attention you give morons... by wykell · · Score: 1
      That last paragraph makes as much sense to my first argument of "Let's stop calling anything that happens in the African continent as happening in 'Africa' and start using the name of the country it occurred in" as if you had just said that my father smelled of elderberries. Just like we can easily keep track of whatever that guy who sang "Purple Rain" is calling himself now, we should be able to use the names of given countries, instead of lumping them into the continent.

      And even then your argument isn't sound, and now you've referenced "several centuries of consistent change." If we start talking about THAT, then every continent in the world has undergone enough "consistent change" over the course of 10-15 centuries that the African continent wouldn't stick out as being significant.

      Now that we're fully off topic and just arguing amongst ourselves, how many swallows do you think it would take to carry a coconut from tropical locations to the British Isle?

      --
      --- He advocated thrift and hard work and disapproved of loose women who turned him down. ---
    91. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Otto · · Score: 4, Informative

      A friend of mine could detect radar. At one point he was working on a radar unit when it was activated and he survived. After that point he claimed to be sensitive to it. The funny thing was that when driving with him he was an awesome radar detector. It was uncanny how he would say there's a cop with a radar ahead on roads he'd never been on and he'd always be right. I'm still somewhat skeptical myself though.

      Define "always be right". Is that actually true, or do you simply not remember when he was wrong?

      Tossing out of negative or non-noteworthy results is one of the most common forms of selection bias. Basically, only the notable events (where he was right) get remembered, while the mundane stuff (where he was wrong) gets ignored or forgotten.

      For example, this sort of bias is why many people are fooled by psychics. They only remember the hits, not the misses. And what can be a "hit" is very wide indeed.

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    92. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Funny that. When the EM radiation is enough to melt the chocolate in your pocket, some people can sense it. 8*)

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    93. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For this discussion, "Africa" was apparently sufficiently specific as a category for other participants to comprehend the reference, and using the name the country within the continent of Africa would have added no useful information. For similar reasons, we can refer to that man in Santa Fe who sued about a neighbour's Wi-Fi without identifying a particular street name or house.

      Also, you appear to be trying to claim that political units whose sovereign relationships with each other across administrative boundaries have changed is the same type of phenomena as political units whose administrative boundaries have changed to create new/destroy old adjacencies. The Soviet Union, the British Isles, and the Ottoman Empire have largely preserved ancient ethnic and geographic borders of their administrative and political units throughout the formation and dissolution of empires. The rectilinear lines drawn about Africa by the colonials created regions which mostly lack the characteristic of effectively containing groups of inhabitants with cohesive identities.

    94. Re:the more attention you give morons... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Isn't that the job of Home Owner Associations?"

      Fortunately, not everyone lives in a home that is ruled by these type agreements.

      Personally, I'd not buy a house that came with 'rules' and regulations on what I can and cannot do (within reason of city standards) to my own house and property I own.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    95. Re:the more attention you give morons... by __aagktx3544 · · Score: 1

      I would have to disagree with you I can sense WAP out to about -50db. I did a test 4 rooms away and was still able to verify if the AP was on or off based on whether I had a headache or not which is directly related to them being on while I am dehydrated. I have seen several doctors and done the same test in there office not knowing where there office AP was. so yes there are a small group of people about 3% who can sense AP's. In my case it's genetic in nature as some of my family can also sense them. Cell phone normally generate a headache / numbing sensation in about 10-30 minutes of usage. The only issue is no-one want to study the effect of wireless or 1.8ghz-3.0ghz on people so my doctors are working on testing rescue medication to allow me to work normally when it effects me.

    96. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She needs to give her electronic devices to a reporter for a couple of days without telling the psycho about it, then let said reporter ask him about his symptoms.

    97. Re:the more attention you give morons... by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      Such hypocrisy! You like reading this stuff, yet you bitch about reporters writing about it?

      Reporters are whores. As a group, they'll do anything--noble or disgusting--to sell a story that people will read.

      Don't ask them to censor themselves. Nothing good comes of that.

    98. Re:the more attention you give morons... by prockcore · · Score: 3, Informative

      Context for the Africa comment:

      http://mybroadband.co.za/news/Wireless/11099.html

      A community sues iBurst because they claim their tower was making them sick. iBurst reveals that the tower wasn't even on.

    99. Re:the more attention you give morons... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      not to be a pain in the ass, but can we start using names of countries within the continent of Africa instead of just lumping it all together as one?

      You Earth people are stupid.

      Hey, you've actually made a valid generalization! Stop doing that, we're not having this!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    100. Re:the more attention you give morons... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      And that's why JP Nickel gives you Both Sides.

    101. Re:the more attention you give morons... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      And if it were you, you'd be in court now too. Which is better in the long run, hiding your SSID or spending your money on a senseless court battle (even if you eventually get it back in a countersuit)?

      The problem isn't the guy thinking he gets sick from wifi (well, not directly). The problem is that the guy feels justified in suing over it.

    102. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      OTOH, there might be a good market for Faraday cages for hypochondriacs there.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    103. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Vintermann · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That people are interfering with your TV and/or radio in order to mess with your head, is standard paranoid delusion nr. 1. It's not just a cliche either, it really is common.

      I wonder why. Maybe static and noise are especially easy for people with schizophrenia to see non-existent patterns in.

      People who claim to get ill by cell phones fall in another category entirely. Sometimes it's simply a perfectly understandable stress reaction - people who literally are sick of getting calls all the time, but prefer to have a physical explanation rather than a psychological. Even Dr. Brundtland, former general secretary of WHO, claimed to have EM sensitivity at one point.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    104. Re:the more attention you give morons... by outlander · · Score: 1

      Tinfoil hats as a Faraday cage are so 1960s.....what we need are stylish Faraday Fedoras lined with metal mesh!

      (yeah, I knew I'd get a Linux reference in there somehow)

      --
      "Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
    105. Re:the more attention you give morons... by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Informative

      The last story that they ran on here regarding EM allergies was in Africa.

          I went looking around for history on this. The oldest I could find online was a 2003 case where a school in Chicago refused to use wifi because it could potentially harm students.

          this story references Canada and the UK.

          Oddly enough, I found this story from Santa Fe (the same city as this case in this story), where Arthur Firstenberg, the leader of a group of wifi sensitives, sued the city to not allow wifi to be installed throughout the city. He lost.

          Coincidentally, this came up again in January 2010 in this story, where Mr. Firstenberg sued his neighbor for using wifi.

          And coincidentally, he's the same guy in today's article.

          So, if you follow the trail back, you'll find that he's been making noise about this for a long time.

          In this 2007 article is mentioned for forming the Cellular Phone Task Force

          He is in the citations with:
      Electromagnetic Fields, (EMF) Killing Fields," Arthur Firstenberg, The Ecologist, v. 34, n. 5, 6-10-2004.

      "Radio Wave Packet," Arthur Firstenberg, Cellular Phone Task Force, Sept 2001

          In 1997, his group published this mortality report. Obviously cell phones kill people. Everyone repeat after me "Correlation does not imply causation".

          But hey, who am I to call a guy an attention seeking lunatic. Just because it's been spouting crap for over a decade *AND* getting published for it (drama queens love their attention), doesn't mean that he's all wrong. Talk to the guy yourself. On his site, http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/, he asks you to contact him. e-mail: info@cellphonetaskforce.org phone: (505) 471-0129 .

          Yes, those were copy & pasted directly from his site. If he didn't want to call, he wouldn't have put the details up there.

      Google phonebook reverses the number to his name.

          When you call, remind him that there's electromagnetic fields around everything electrical. That includes the wires running inside the walls of his house. Yes Mr. Firstenberg, you're allergic to your own house. Run, run for the Faraday cage in the mountains. It's the only place you'll be safe. Well, kinda safe. You gotta watch out for the government using their ELF radios. I saw a X-Files once, where a guys head exploded because of ELF experiments. If it was on TV, it must be true.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    106. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Otto · · Score: 1

      There's always a market in selling cheap things to stupid people for too much money.

      PROTIP: Chicken wire blocks WiFi signals particularly well. Cover an area with it and you have a really good Faraday cage for WiFi.

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    107. Re:the more attention you give morons... by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      Do a double blind test and get Leo Laporte to broadcast it :-) he seems to like crazy wifi stories :-)

    108. Re:the more attention you give morons... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Good luck finding a house in southern california.

    109. Re:the more attention you give morons... by AaronW · · Score: 1

      In other words, when he said there was a cop up ahead, there was, and no, there were not false positives either and these would be in situations where it was impossible to see the cop, for example around a blind curve. As for psychics... they have about as much credibility with me as the Flat Earth Society.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    110. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      But the health issues could be real and caused by the construction. They might not be able to prove it in court, but it could still be the truth.

      Of course, this is by far a less likely explanation than 'they didn't like the new construction, so they lied and said it was causing health problems'. However, without a better reason than 'we don't know of a way for EMI to do that', I can't say that's the case for certain.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    111. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it makes you feel better, I'd be willing to bet there are lots of cases of people getting screwed, all over the world, that you don't give a crap about!

    112. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really is refreshing, isn't it? I read an audio forum that takes claims of being able to hear differences in various audio formats (that is, MP3 vs FLAC vs CD, etc) very seriously, and requires evidence of double-blind tests.

      Most people, when asked for evidence of being able to tell, say, V2 lame MP3s from the source material, either claim that double blind testing is unnecessary ("the difference is obvious"), that it ruins the listening experience and thus the ability to tell the difference; or they simply disappear.

      But sometimes, you get someone who does the double-blind test (sure he will beat it) and, of course, can't tell a difference. On a few occasions these folks have come back, humbled, and admitted that it was all placebo. I still think humans are ridiculously stupid and irrational and unable to understand some of the most basic things, but sometimes they do surprise you.

    113. Re:the more attention you give morons... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Then your lawyer was an idiot for not countersuing for either frivolous or malicious litigation.

      A fight is a fight. You have to punch back or you're going to get your ass beat, regardless of who's right or wrong.

    114. Re:the more attention you give morons... by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Sorry about that - at least I got the continent right :-)

    115. Re:the more attention you give morons... by stevet_az · · Score: 1

      Which is now in Africa? I'm getting confused with the geography here. Must be the Cell tower near my house. Seriously, Didn't a town in California try to ban cellphones / Wifi a couple of years ago?

    116. Re:the more attention you give morons... by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      Or easier-- hide your SSID, claim it's off, and see if he notices. "Sure thing Mr Firstenberg, just let me log in and disable the WiFi on the router. There, can't see the network on your laptop anymore right? Good. Feel better? Oh yes, the kids are doing great. Have a nice day, sir!"

      If the guy has a laptop, his claims are more retarded than they initially appear. And they initially appear pretty damn retarded.

      Remember, he's also complaining about dimmer switches. DIMMER SWITCHES. He's saying he can sense and is made ill by being within 30 feet of a triode or variable resisitor! He's saying that some of the most basic pieces of electronics make him sick AT RANGE. And yet somehow he can stay at friends' houses or sleep in his car next to a motor and a charged lead acid battery and that's just peachy.

      The guy doesn't know how a dimmer switch works and thinks it shoots magic at him. Laptop? I severely doubt he'd touch one of those devil machines.

    117. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      But now my head hurts, for some odd reason...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    118. Re:the more attention you give morons... by pclminion · · Score: 1

      If it makes you feel better, I'd be willing to bet there are lots of cases of people getting screwed, all over the world, that you don't give a crap about!

      How can I give a crap about something I don't even know is happening? See the point now?

    119. Re:the more attention you give morons... by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Attorneys provided by insurance companies, as ours was, are not really interested in winning cases as their primary goal. They are interested in minimizing the cost to the insurance company. Yes, we could have gone with our own lawyer and had more control over the process, but we could have been financially ruined. It came down to a choice -- have insurance handle it, and be protected no matter what happened, or go it alone and run the risk of having our lives destroyed. It's a tough choice, and I don't regret making it the way we did.

    120. Re:the more attention you give morons... by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      How do expect me to remember he's complaining about dimmer switches as well? Do you really think I RTFA'd? You must be as much of a quack as Mr Firstenberg!

      --
      +1 Disagree
    121. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TELL more about this so called WIFE? What reason for sued SHE get?

    122. Re:the more attention you give morons... by websters · · Score: 1

      If their eyes are lighting up, it's more likely to be stargate radiation than cell tower radiation.

    123. Re:the more attention you give morons... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Do you smell fresh cracklins?

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    124. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Kitkoan · · Score: 1

      "the more attention you give morons, the more they'll act like morons."

      I disagree with your sentiment. If you publicly embarrass somebody for acting stupidly. They often think twice before acting stupidly again.

      May I introduce you to Mr Jack Thompson?

      --
      Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
    125. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I read an audio forum [...]

      Okay now you're just making shit up.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    126. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I completely agree with everything you say. The trouble with the Randi prize, though, is as soon as something "supernatural" like electricity becomes understood and known by science, it is immediately ineligible to win the prize.

      I practice Jin Shin Jyutsu, and other forms of energy healing. I feel a tingling when the energy is moving. (Others feel it as heat/cold, or as resistance/attraction, like a magnet.)

      I can't prove that I feel this. I can't prove that it's working, and making me more healthy. That is; I can't prove it yet, because we don't have instruments sensitive enough to detect it (just as a couple centuries ago we couldn't detect atoms).

      Some day, we will develop science to the point that it can say "hey, his fingertips are tingling right now, showing that energy is moving" -- and, I won't then win the prize, because then it will be natural, not supernatural.

      It's great marketing on Randi's part, but can never, ever, be paid.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    127. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Ninth+Marion · · Score: 1

      I heard Grigori Perelman is EM sensitive...

      *runs*

    128. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Eivind · · Score: 1

      I can sense electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength between 400nm and 800nm, aproximately, using no devices or other assistance. Where do I apply for my million ?

      I can also sense many other wavelengths, for example ir-radiation at a level above say 100W/sqm is detectible using my hand.

      I bet I can detect microwaves too, if there's enough of them.

    129. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1

      That is how science works but now how Randi's prize works. If you claim to be able to do something, and he calls you on it, and you do it then you get a million dollars.

      Also why do you need to wait for an instrument that can detect some kind of energy that might not even exist before you can test it? Just do a proper blind study and if, all things being equal, people who practice this are more healthy then you can say that it is real. Beware that every single person is easily fooled by themselves - even if they are acting honestly - that is why we have the scientific method.

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    130. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that imply's they understand they're acting stupidly, they're morons remember, hence they just don't get it until the judge kicks the case out.(fingers crossed)

    131. Re:the more attention you give morons... by richlv · · Score: 1

      nonono. the correct solution is "the cop with the radar was there, he simply was good at hiding !"

      --
      Rich
    132. Re:the more attention you give morons... by st0nes · · Score: 1

      Well of course he's having problems. He's wearing his hat with the shiny side out. Everyone knows that this concentrates the rays rather than deflects them.

      --
      Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis
    133. Re:the more attention you give morons... by commodore64_love · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      >>>Let's stop calling anything that happens in the African continent as happening in 'Africa' and start using the name of the country it occurred in"
      >>>

      (which he repeated about 5 times like a troll)

      How about YOU stop trying to boss us around? Other than the stable countries in the north (Egypt and Sudan) and south (South Africa), I don't know the ~20 different African hellholes that are being run by dictatorial bastards that let their people starve to death.

      Tough shit. Deal with it.

      It's MY mouth not yours. I'm not your slave and you're not my plantation master. So fuck off. If I want to say "somewhere in Africa" I will, and if you don't like it, then shove a fork in your eyes so you can't read what I wrote, you conttrolign, bossy, aergumentative, anti-free-speech asshole.

      "somewhere in Africa"
      "somewhere in Africa"
      "somewhere in Africa"

      There. Make me stop. I dare you.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    134. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Otto · · Score: 1

      You don't have to be able to explain an effect to tell that it exists.

      Your claim is untestable not because we don't have instruments to detect it, but because:

      a) It's vague. What do you mean by "energy is moving"? That single statement is, basically, total nonsense. You have to actually show the existence of whatever it is you mean by "energy" before it can make any sense.

      b) It doesn't affect the outside world. People can make themselves "feel" pretty much anything. Mind over body is pretty well-established, so the fact that you can make your fingers tingle is not a "supernatural" event. The sense of touch is all in the brain anyway, as feeling is simply nerve impulses conducted from your skin to your brain via the spinal column. I can feel like I'm flying when dreaming, and it feels completely realistic. But that doesn't mean I'm hovering in the air and defying the laws of gravity.

      "Healing" on the other hand, can be demonstrated. However, it's a bit unethical to do so, as actual injury must take place first.

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    135. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People like you make me wish it was painful to be that stupid.

    136. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Otto · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, but the problem is that has way too many factors. There's a thousand different ways to tell where cops are, even if you can't see them.

      I'm pretty good at "sensing" when there's a cop ahead myself. I don't claim to be able to sense radar, but I do have a pretty good subconscious idea of where they probably are. This comes from the layout of the roads, the behavior of the other drivers, the way people (and cops in particular) think, the time of the week/month, etc.

      Not saying your friend was lying intentionally. He probably believed it entirely. Most people who take these sort of tests have total belief in their abilities. It's just that a proper test doesn't depend on other factors, it's testing for the specific claimed ability.

      Being able to tell where cops most likely are, even to a great degree of accuracy, is not really a paranormal event. Being able to sense low power radar without any devices or assistance would be. The two are not really the same thing.

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    137. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Otto · · Score: 1

      Good for you. If you need to fund some research into the phenomenon or pay for your meds, then I bet that million bucks sure would come in handy:
      http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    138. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Otto · · Score: 1
      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    139. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also there is the guy who became violently ill only when cell phones rang (but not when they communicated with the cell tower silently).

      Although I believe the transmission power of cell phones too low to affect us, cell phones use far less energy when not on a call.

      The guy sounds like a typical psychosomatic.

    140. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only one problem this is not a super natural thing it's a medical thing so they will not take it.

      you can have the same issue if you fire microwaves at your head. It was used to provide chemo to brain cancer patients with the same side effect. The microwaves would effect the blood / brain barrier to allow the chemo in to the brain.

      I sure wish they would.

    141. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I completely agree with everything you say. The trouble with the Randi prize, though, is as soon as something "supernatural" like electricity becomes understood and known by science, it is immediately ineligible to win the prize.

      Yes, because if you have to wait until science has devised a theory for and experiments to verify your claims for you, then your claims were not very strong to begin with.

      As in, if you claimed in the 1700s to have the ability (natural or technological) to harness the Power of Lightning, but could never demonstrate anything at all related to this supposed ability, and then ten years later Ben Franklin comes along and actually does what you claimed to be able to do but couldn't, then you don't deserve a prize.

      It's great marketing on Randi's part, but can never, ever, be paid.

      It absolutely can.

      I'll accept for the sake of argument that your energy healing abilities are real, yet difficult to test for some reason. I don't see why; experiments have been conducted on other forms of non-pharmaceutical treatments like acupuncture. You compare the effect of using the real treatment to something that seems superficially similar but doesn't involve the real techniques (this is the placebo) and compare the result. But whatever, I'll take for granted it can't be done and you thus can't win the Randi prize because you'll never be able to prove your ability is real until science does it for you, and I'll admit that sucks.

      But for plenty of other abilities -- dousing, mind reading, EM sensitivity? These are not difficult to test. If someone actually had any of these abilities, they could demonstrate it easily. And they would walk away with the million dollar prize as science gaped in awe and spent the next however many years trying to explain the phenomenon. Eventually they may explain it and thus reclassify it as "natural", but the douser or psychic or whatever would have already won the prize.

      Except all of these abilities vanish completely when exposed to the reality of a valid scientific test. None of them have ever been able to do meaningfully better than random chance. That's because these abilities are not real, and are generally the result of selection/confirmation bias (only remembering times it worked, or only conducting tests that can confirm but not falsify your belief). Or in the case of mind reading or other psychic phenomenon, outright fraud. "Real" mind reading is just a trick where a skilled liar manipulates someone who wants to believe into giving up the answers.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    142. Re:the more attention you give morons... by Otto · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sure that Randi would accept low power 2.4 Ghz wavelengths (aka, Wi-Fi) as being in the "paranormal" arena. Man cannot detect that directly by any known means.

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    143. Re:the more attention you give morons... by arekusu_ou · · Score: 0

      Uhm....I shall rebut your theory with one name.

      Jack. Thompson.

      I was also thinking about Tom Cruise, LARPers, Medieval Faires, Civil War Recreation People, Mimes, Certain breed of Fanboys in Sports, Anime, Fantasy, and SciFi, Creationists, the list goes on and on....

      I had another one that's not PC, so I'll be nice and leave it off, though I'm sure anyone can make the connection with of Mice and Men.

  2. In this litigious society... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    In this litigious society, it's possible to sue anyone for anything. And, I'm sorry to say, probably win.

    1. Re:In this litigious society... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Funny

      Blasphemy! I'm going to sue you for that statement, you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:In this litigious society... by Moryath · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm going to sue you for insulting all of us insensitive clods, you insensitive clod!

    3. Re:In this litigious society... by Mitchell314 · · Score: 5, Funny

      And what's with this discrimination against sensitive clods? I'll be seeing you all in court.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    4. Re:In this litigious society... by tthomas48 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "And, I'm sorry to say, probably win."*

      *Citation needed

      Just because you're jaded doesn't mean reality matches your view.

    5. Re:In this litigious society... by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

      Btw, does anyone know what happened to the guy who sued God?

    6. Re:In this litigious society... by sl149q · · Score: 1

      Maybe in YOUR litigious society... there are slashdotters outside the US.

      Up here in the Great Frozen North we let our Human Rights Commissions handle that. :-)

      Which all in all is probably at least as entertaining.

    7. Re:In this litigious society... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      He got told to go to hell.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:In this litigious society... by heritage727 · · Score: 1

      Btw, does anyone know what happened to the guy who sued God?

      Let's just say that if you have a spare fan lying around he'd really appreciate your giving it to him.

    9. Re:In this litigious society... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      I think he got hit by lightning, or drowned in a flood, or broke his neck falling down the stairs in front of a church. No matter what it was that got him, I'm betting it was ironic.

    10. Re:In this litigious society... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          He wasn't specific to who won. Someone always wins, and someone always loses. It never ends with "they hugged, made up, and went home." :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    11. Re:In this litigious society... by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      we never hear of the innumerable claims that get thrown out, only the ones that get heard.

    12. Re:In this litigious society... by sjames · · Score: 1

      More specifically, because our courts do not have a step to protect potential defendants from silly lawsuits, the are too often re-purposed as goons for hire.

      Want to hassle someone and have a few dollars burning in your pocket? Sue 'em! The courts will then compel them to take off from work to appear in court, waste money on a lawyer, and give you their undivided attention just to answer your silly complaint that they wore a particular shade of red one day just to offend you.

      Much of this crap could be cut out if the plaintiff must first spend money on lawyers and court costs and the defendant is left out of it until a judge rules that the suit is at least non-frivolous. The judge should ask himself, if everything the plaintiff says is true, would he be awarded anything at all? If no, the suit is terminated right then and there before the defendant even hears about it.

      In this case, since I doubt that a court can rule that a person in a residential area is forbidden to use any technology (including dimmer switches, computers, wifi devices and cellphones) in their own home, the suit fails.

      My suggestion to the plaintiff is to quit trying to drag his neighbors back to the stone age and just wallpaper his house in tinfoil.That or buy a shack on several acres of cheap land and live there.

    13. Re:In this litigious society... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will be seeing all of you in court tomorrow! I'm suing all of you for either being insensitive, clods, or liking/disliking sensitive clods!

    14. Re:In this litigious society... by SomeJoel · · Score: 2, Funny

      He wasn't specific to who won. Someone always wins, and someone always loses. It never ends with "they hugged, made up, and went home." :)

      Well it does occasionally end like that. Especially when it's a mother suing her daughter on Judge Judy.

      --
      <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
    15. Re:In this litigious society... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're saying the defendant should counter-sue, claiming his neighbor's sickness has diminished his wifi reception?

    16. Re:In this litigious society... by tenaciousj · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure all this talk of litigation has caused me undue stress and therefore could let to irreparable mental and physical illness.

      I'll be suing all of you and myself since I also brought it up. I'LL SEE US IN COURT!

    17. Re:In this litigious society... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      How do you even cite a generalization? If I say "the sky is blue," do I need to cite that? It's kind of common knowledge...but yes, he should have dug up a sampling of some of the bogus court cases that have dragged out. God knows we've seen a bazillion of them on Slashdot. Oh wait, they never actually get solved, they just sit around for a few years while the lawyers get paid, then the evil corporation settles out of court to shut up the guy.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    18. Re:In this litigious society... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      The suit was dismissed by the judge because the named defendant could not be served with papers.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    19. Re:In this litigious society... by tthomas48 · · Score: 1

      My point is that it's a generalization that has been for years used for political gain. It sows distrust in our legal system and government at large, based largely upon suits brought, with little attention paid to the resolution of the suits (even the Hot McDonalds Coffee suit didn't end up paying out what they "won"), while completely ignoring the vast majority that are brought and resolved fairly.

      I have not heard of a single case of the perceived color of the sky being used for political ends. But if it happens then the generalization should be addressed, yes. Generalization's aren't horrible until they become completely divorced from reality.

    20. Re:In this litigious society... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      McDonalds coffee case. Woman spilled coffee on herself, resulting in severe burns, sued McDonalds. The jury awarded her 2.7 million.

    21. Re:In this litigious society... by FirstTimeCaller · · Score: 1

      Oh! I smell a class action lawsuit coming on!

      --
      Wanted: witty unique signature. Must be willing to relocate.
    22. Re:In this litigious society... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Oh, don't get me started there...

          I was out in LA for work, and met a couple in the hotel bar. They were in town to be on Judge Judy. It was a small claims court thing. The show contacted them, and asked if they wanted to be on the show. They were given the plane tickets and hotel room, and in exchange had to sign an agreement that they would be on the show and would accept the decision of the show.

            I don't even remember the details that they told me, other than it sounded like the crap I've seen on there when channel surfing. There are some things I can't stand when channel surfing. One is crap daytime shows that exploit normal people in exchange for the wonders of being on broadcast TV. The other is religious broadcasting. Well, I have become fond of Pastor Melissa Scott, but that's only with the volume muted, and mentally undressing her. That gets boring pretty quick, and on to shows where I'll find gratuitous amounts of gunfire, explosions, partial nudity and sex.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    23. Re:In this litigious society... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because he's jaded, doesn't mean he cannot be right.

    24. Re:In this litigious society... by tthomas48 · · Score: 1

      Actually no. She was awarded around $500k, but then went to settlement so no one knows what she really got. But hey, keep using that one isolated incident that didn't actually end the way you think it did.

      And while you're at it, go ahead and provide a couple thousand more to counter the thousands of times justice is served properly in any given day.

    25. Re:In this litigious society... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually no.

      Actually, yes.

      "[The jury] awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. ... The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. ... the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000."

      So, as I stated, the jury did award her $2.7 million.

      But hey, keep using that one isolated incident that didn't actually end the way you think it did.

      The clumsy bitch who spilled coffee on herself won, so it did "end the way [I] think it did". The details of the award are irrelevant.

      And while you're at it, go ahead and provide a couple thousand more to counter the thousands of times justice is served properly in any given day.

      Just because a man saves drowning kittens on the weekdays doesn't mean he's not a criminal when he breaks into a house on the weekend. Just because the legal system works most of the time doesn't mean it's not broken when it fails spectacularly.

    26. Re:In this litigious society... by tthomas48 · · Score: 1

      "Just because a man saves drowning kittens on the weekdays doesn't mean he's not a criminal when he breaks into a house on the weekend. Just because the legal system works most of the time doesn't mean it's not broken when it fails spectacularly."

      Just because the legal system "breaks" occasionally doesn't mean it's "broken". And I would contend that in this case it didn't break.

      a) This wasn't a frivolous lawsuit because actual injury occurred. This wasn't patent trolling. It was either McDonalds fault or her fault (or both), but someone got hurt, there were actual hospital bills to pay and an actual reason to bring the case (based on McDonalds' past negligence).
      b) While perhaps a jury trial wasn't best in this case, this is how the system is supposed to work. Her peers awared her $2.7 million dollars in punitive damages. Punitive damages are meant to hurt the guilty party. They're not decided based on how rich they'll make the plaintiff. The problem is that McDonalds makes a ton of money, not that the woman was greedy.
      c) Jury's regularly hand out death sentences which are a tad more punitive than a half-million dollars, and they fuck up a fair amount of the time. The "legal system is broken" crowd have nothing to say about that, though.

      Which leads me to my conclusion. The reason that all you whiny bitches complain about the legal system has nothing to do with the handing out of millions of dollars unfairly, it's that the million dollars handed out wasn't handed out to you. The system worked, and McDonalds changed its coffee temperature. If anything this is a brilliant example of the only recourse that normal Americans have for getting the attention of large multi-national corporation and enacting change. It worked perfectly.

    27. Re:In this litigious society... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a) This wasn't a frivolous lawsuit because actual injury occurred. This wasn't patent trolling. It was either McDonalds fault or her fault (or both), but someone got hurt, there were actual hospital bills to pay and an actual reason to bring the case (based on McDonalds' past negligence).

      What "past negligence"? Serving a hot beverage... hot? Just like everyone else?

      Check it out- the National Coffee Association (and who better knows coffee??) recommends 180-185 degrees, exactly the temp McDonalds had it at.

      Home coffee makers make/hold coffee that temp, too. See the Bunn.com site. Go on, open it in another tab, I'll wait. Got it open? Then click '@ home', then 'Brew Great Coffee', then 'Brewing Do's and Don'ts.' Now, read the part where it says "...using a brewer that keeps water at 200 Fahrenheit (the ideal temperature)..." and the part where is says "Don't" "Re-heat for serving any coffee with a temperature below 175 F "?

      Hell, here's a lawsuit against Bunn: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=docket&no=974131
      "Using the legal system to shift the costs of this injury to someone else may be attractive to the McMahons, but it would have bad consequences for coffee fanciers who like their beverage hot."

      And, finally, the American National Standards Institute Standard 5.2.1 provides:
        "On completion of the brewing cycle and within a 2 minute interval, the beverage temperature in the dispensing vessel of the coffee maker while stirring should be between the limits of 170? F and 205? F (77? C and 96? C)."

      So, don't even try saying that McDonald was "negligent" by serving coffee hot.

      The system worked, and McDonalds changed its coffee temperature.

      BZZZZTTTTT!!!! Wrong.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
      "McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80–90 C (176–194 F), relying on more sternly-worded warnings to avoid future liability..."

      Check the wiki article for cite(s).

  3. Ugh by jav1231 · · Score: 4, Informative

    If this makes it into the courtroom the judge is the idiot.

    1. Re:Ugh by arthurpaliden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if the SCO lawsuits can make it to court anything can.

    2. Re:Ugh by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Informative

      Only the judge can rule the case frivolous. Thus it has to "make it to the courtroom" though there need not be any trial. The preliminary injunction has already been denied. Hopefully the motion for dismissal will be granted and the defendant will be awarded costs and fees. That is the proper way to handle frivolous suits.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I think this lawsuit is fruitless, how is the judge and idiot for hearing the evidence in court?

    4. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful?!

      Stupid.

      This is case were there is no evidence that the plaintiff's claims or medical affliction have any basis in reality. SCO (and many other disputes) involve convoluted (intentionally or otherwise) evidence, lots of confusion to be sorted out, in order to validate any claims.

      The two are in no way similar.

    5. Re:Ugh by schon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is case were there is no evidence that the plaintiff's claims or medical affliction have any basis in reality.

      No, SCO had *no* evidence. They were given *everything* they asked for, every single benefit of every doubt, and they came up with no more that this guy's case - basically Darl's claim that "we *must* own the copyrights!"

      The only difference is the this guy probably honestly believes he's being affected, whereas SCO knew that they had no case.

    6. Re:Ugh by julesh · · Score: 1

      Hopefully the motion for dismissal will be granted and the defendant will be awarded costs and fees

      Seems likely. I suspect that even if the guy could prove he was being harmed, his case would fail. Here in the UK, there's a provision of the relevant law (tort of nuisance) that states that if an activity only causes damage because of an "unusual sensitivity" of the damaged party, then it is not the responsibility of the defendant. This seems like a textbook case for applying such a rule, and I'd guess (or at least hope) the same rule applies in the US.

    7. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. The consumer purchased an approved product. Neighbor can only properly sue the FCC or product manufacturer.

    8. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the judge is trying to set a precedent to prevent future idiocy.

  4. Picture in the summary has it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's the guy's problem, not his neighbour's. If he's got a sensitivity to it, he should don a tinfoil hat and live inside a Faraday cage.

    I developed lactose intolerance late in my life. Should I sue the makers of all my favourite foods because they can't accomodate me?

    1. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by IBBoard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you in America and seeking large sums of money for no real cause?

    2. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are the dairies pouring the milk into your house and forcing you to drink it?

      Not that I think this case has any merit, but your analogy doesn't match up – if this guys claims were actually true, then his neighbour would be actively doing something that was harming him, not just passively sitting there holding something that could harm him if it were used against him.

    3. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by mea37 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm impressed. There are so many solid arguments against those who claim sensitivity to consumer electronics, I didn't think anyone could possibly come forward asserting such a poor one as yours.

      If you tried to apply your "lactose intolerant" analogy, don't you suppose your opponent would point out that the makers of your favorite foods don't project those foods into your home against your wishes?

      If these sensitivities were real (though I very much doubt that they are), he would have a point. Just because something has become socially common doesn't mean it's ok to do if it later turns out that it harms others in their own home. The key phrase is if they were real; so this point is moot unless someone can show some credible scientific basis for anything beyond the psychosomatic.

      I don't know if this guy really believes he's sensitive or if he's just a complete asshat. It sure looks like he figured he saw a way to make a quick buck by convincing someone he knew uses electronics to move in to the next house over.

    4. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Mmmm... it's not that easy. When I play loud music past 3am I can't simply say that my neighbor should get some earplugs if he wants to sleep.

      There's always (at least here, your country may vary) the question of reasonability. It's reasonable that I do not listen to loud music at 3am, at least more reasonable than to ask my neighbor to wear earplugs. It's not reasonable to ask the maker of your food to bend to your whim when the rest of his millions of customers are happy with the way it is.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by oldspewey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A more apt analogy would be somebody who develops extreme sun sensitivity late in life, and then attempts to sue the sun.

      And as much as I'd like to believe this is a really, really stupid example, I somehow can not completely discount the possibility of this happening someday, somewhere.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    6. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Yes, they pour apricot yogurt down my chimney every night when I'm asleep. Bastards.

      --
      No sig today...
    7. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by japhering · · Score: 1

      If you tried to apply your "lactose intolerant" analogy, don't you suppose your opponent would point out that the makers of your favorite foods don't project those foods into your home against your wishes?

      If these sensitivities were real (though I very much doubt that they are), he would have a point. Just because something has become socially common doesn't mean it's ok to do if it later turns out that it harms others in their own home. The key phrase is if they were real; so this point is moot unless someone can show some credible scientific basis for anything beyond the psychosomatic.

      So where do we turn off the electronics.. radio silence for planes flying over New Mexico, no commercial radio or TV broadcasts with in what? a 1000 miles ? Going to ban all medical electronics as well ?

      Sorry, in this day and age it is impossible to turn off all intentional and unintentional electronic signals. If he is truly sensitive (not saying he is), then suing the neighbor will not improve anything other than the contents of his bank account.

      Personally, the lawyer that is taking this case forward needs to be disbarred.

    8. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Well, to extend your analogy to fit the actual situation in TFA...

      It's 3 AM. And you can hear your neighbors again.

      Their loud music, their footsteps, their breathing, their incessant heartbeats.

      Are you going to sue? When you inevitably lose, will you do the obvious thing?

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    9. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      At 3am I can't hear nothing, my music is way too loud.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by grumpyman · · Score: 1

      Just wondering: what if this happens in China?

    11. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Unless this guy has already ripped out all of the electrical wiring in his home, he is generating his own generation. In fact he owns an entire cage of radiation. I would guess that this guy sleeps with his head less than 4 feet away from a radiation source that he owns and that he personally has turned on.

    12. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      I think this is along the same lines as banning peanuts from schools. It should be the problem of those alergic, given they're the minority. go find a peanut free school, or be home schooled. I fail to see why the majority should bend over backwards because you have a sucky conidition.

      Likewise, this guy should simply move to some place without routers all around.

    13. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by hattig · · Score: 1

      I believe you can buy paint that shields from such signals. http://www.out-law.com/page-7953

      Maybe because of his very rare medical condition he could put a claim in on his medical insurance (or the local government's social care services) to get his place proofed against such evil electro-magnetic waves.

      Or he could just get up off his arse and do it himself. Surely the peace of mind that having such paint would give would be enough?

      Oh, he'd probably complain about losing his mobile phone signal... o_O

    14. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by Creepy · · Score: 1

      There are people around the world that honestly believe they can sense non-ionizing radiation and basically do live in a Faraday cage. I'd love to see a test though, with random people coming up to them, some with cell phones and some without, and see if they detect it.

      In America we call these frivolous lawsuits.

    15. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      A more apt analogy would be somebody who develops extreme sun sensitivity late in life, and then attempts to sue the sun.

      No, a more apt analogy would be somebody who develops extreme sun sensitivity (for instance, bright sunlight triggers migraine headaches for them) and then sues their neighbor who has put in a swimming pool that reflects sun into their bedroom window. Is it their responsibility to put up curtains (and block their view), or the neighbor's to move the pool? I don't know what the law says about that.

      If this guy is actually effected by her transmissions, then maybe he has a case. All he has to do is prove it. I don't discount the possibility of biological effects, even harmful ones, from EM radiation in the radio band, but to my knowledge no one claiming this sort of "extreme electromagnetic sensitivity" has been able to show in a blinded test that their experience correlates with whether or not the electronics gear is turned on or not.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    16. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      A more apt analogy would be somebody who develops extreme sun sensitivity late in life, and then attempts to sue the sun.

      Not really, since he claims he lived just fine with the condition before she moved next door. So your analogy would need to be that he developed sun sensitivity and moved to a cave, where the problem abated. Then his neighbor moved in and put up UV light sources (assuming such light sources were as commonplace as Wi-Fi and cell phones) which caused the condition to return.

      It does bring up some interesting questions about propertyand rights, such as whose rights trump whose: the person who is performing reasonably common activities within their own home, or the person for whom this activity causes harm. This is, of course, assuming the guy actually does have an uncurable condition that causes him physical pain.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    17. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Good afternoon, you have reached the law offices of Sue The Bastards.

      If you have been injured in an automobile accident, please press 1 now.
      If you have really been injured in an automobile accident, please press 2 now.
      If you have opened a can of tuna to find dead fish inside, please press 3 now. ....

      I miss Night Stand with Dick Dietrick.

    18. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by mea37 · · Score: 1

      So your position is that if something is widely enough used, it's ok to keep using it no matter what effect it has on others? Fascinating moral system.

      Slippery slope argument are always crap, so I'm not going through yours point by point. I will merely advise you that the complexities of adapting society to a world in which EM sensitivity were real needn't be a concern unless someone demonstrates a real EM sensitivity.

      Save yourself some trouble. Focus on the fact that all attempts to document claims of EM sensitivity have been busted.

    19. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > A more apt analogy would be somebody who develops extreme
      > sun sensitivity late in life, and then attempts to sue the sun.

      That would be stupid on another level entirely, since no court has jurisdiction to issue any kind of injunction against the sun, and even if such an injunction were issued no law enforcement agency has the jurisdiction to enforce it, or the ability to do so even if jurisdiction issues are ignored.

      This is more like saying you are allergic to iron (without any evidence to support this assertion, and without any statement from any doctor agreeing with your self-diagnosis) and suing the city for not filtering all of the iron out of the municipal water supply. Or the kooks who sue the city because important water additives, like chlorine and fluoride, are "poisonous", and nevermind about such esoteric concepts as safe doses.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    20. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by EyelessFade · · Score: 1

      Already been done several time in university studies. They always bust them.

    21. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by mea37 · · Score: 1

      Since he's claiming to be affected by "certain frequencies", you're probably wrong. If house wiring were that noisy in the frequencies used by wireless communications devices, then such devices wouldn't work in the home.

      Instead of trying to define away his claims, the proper procedure is to make him define them and prove them. He won't be able to, so quit losing sleep over it.

    22. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say you have a severe pollen allergy. Can you sue your neighbors because they refuse to remove certain plants from their property?

    23. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      And yet if it is anything like "alternative medicine" then they'll just claim that "the experiment is wrong" or "you can't measure it in that way" or some other such crap that says "I might have been proven wrong by evidence, but I'll claim the evidence isn't valid without anything to back me up".

      Damned idiots.

    24. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Just curious, have you ever actually had your water fluoride levels checked by an independent lab?

      A lot of people who do find that its substantially higher than advertised.

      There's a reason for those complaints.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    25. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by sl149q · · Score: 2, Informative

      The difference is that 99.99% of neighbors can hear the loud music while 99.99999% of neighbors cannot sense WIFI.

      And in fact there is as yet no proof that anyone can sense WIFI and that this is not just a NOCEBO effect.

      If I claim that your writing Slashdot entries gives me headaches you probably wouldn't pay much attention. Claims that WIFI gives me headaches merit about the same amount of respect and attention.

    26. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      No, a more apt analogy would be somebody who develops extreme sun sensitivity (for instance, bright sunlight triggers migraine headaches for them) and then sues their neighbor who has put in a swimming pool that reflects sun into their bedroom window.

      I'm trying to think how the hell the window could be aligned so that reflected sunlight off the pool hits it but direct sunlight never does.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    27. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by jeffasselin · · Score: 1

      Except there are real medical conditions which sun exposure can trigger.

      This guy's "condition" is psychosomatic.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    28. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by russotto · · Score: 1

      Good afternoon, you have reached the law offices of Sue The Bastards.

      If you have been injured in an automobile accident, please press 1 now.
      If you have really been injured in an automobile accident, please press 2 now.

      There's actually an attorney advertising in the New York area with an ad campaign like that. It starts with a crazy client claiming all sorts of fake injuries, calling the attorneys advertised. They tell him they can't help him, and then cut to their pitch, which ends "But you must have REALLY been injured"

    29. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by egcagrac0 · · Score: 1

      The Party has outlawed problems such as this.

    30. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by sjames · · Score: 1

      But I'm REALLY sensitive! The defendant is making me sick by consuming milk products in his home. I want him on a court ordered lactose free diet so the vapors from his pores don't come over here and make me sick!

    31. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by amplt1337 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If these sensitivities were real (though I very much doubt that they are), he would have a point. Just because something has become socially common doesn't mean it's ok to do if it later turns out that it harms others in their own home.

      Er, no offense, but no he wouldn't. He'd have a sensitivity that it would be incumbent upon him to solve. Otherwise what's to stop him from moving into an apartment in the center of a city and demanding that everyone in the building stop using electronics? He's welcome to retrofit his home to make it a Faraday cage if he wishes, but he has no right to restrict the law-abiding behavior of his neighbor in *her* home just because he's (supposedly) a genetic freak who can sense EMF radiation.

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    32. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          You have to consider the size of the "light source". She put up a 1 watt light. This ranks up with the person have an acute light sensitivity, and then complaining the neighbors nightlight burns him.

          (for reference, most night lights are about 7 watts)

          He's suing because she's doing something perfectly legal in her house. She doesn't have a bank of 500W halogen lights lighting up the side of his house (which would be a legitimate complaint), nor does she have illegally amplified RF, like a 100W transmitter on her wifi (which would be a legitimate complaint and prosecuted by the FCC). Unless both of their walls are paper thin and almost adjoining, there probably isn't much signal getting to him at all.

          It was indicated that they were friends before she moved in. It sounds like something else went bad, and he's trying to get revenge somehow.

          I want to sit out in front of his house and crank up the wireless power on my laptop to 11! :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    33. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by dwiget001 · · Score: 1

      || I don't know if this guy really believes he's sensitive or if he's just a complete asshat. ||

      Those two circumstances are not mutually exclusive.

    34. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It's not reasonable to ask the maker of your food to bend to your whim when the rest of his millions of customers are happy with the way it is.

      As someone who suffers from it myself, I think it's reasonable to expect that it's mentioned on the pack. Milk powder finds its way to places where you really wouldn't expect it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    35. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by mea37 · · Score: 1

      Really? It's ok to harm someone as long as you consider their sensitivity to that harm to be rare and therefore brand them a "freak"?

      Another fascinating moral system.

      The use of wireless electronics in your own home is only "law-abiding behavior" because the government has found that it is not harmful to those around you. If your use of those electronics were expected to cause harm to others - even if it were only so for a small percentage of "others" - it would be incumbent on you to remedy that as a condition of using the device.

      If you think I'm speaking theoretically, go look up how responibility is assigned to amateur radio operators for the effects of their activity. I'm sure you think that's different, but it's not; the only difference is, consumer devices are currently presumed to have no negative impact on your neighbors (hence no case-by-case ilcensing or remediation is currently required).

    36. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by raddan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, it looks like this guy has a very long history of being nutty about EMF. I'm inclined to say that he's just nutty. Unfortunately, you can't argue with a nut. The best thing for his neighbor to do is to end this case as quickly as possible and them move to a new neighborhood.

    37. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, even if the sensitivities were real, I'm not so sure he'd have a point. It would be quite unfortunate for him to be sure, but is it really OK for him to demand that the clock be turned back everywhere he might want to go in order to accommodate him? Where does it end? If he moves to a high-rise apartment, must everyone in the building discard all of their technology? How much power is he granted over his neighbors? Can he order them to discard anything he says bothers him? Perhaps make them buy vintage cars without electronic ignition? Get old analog spring watches? No TV? No stereo? What happens when he decides that the worst damage comes from 60Hz signals, must the power be turned off in the building? Across the street?

      Of course, once all of the damaging RF (including 60 Hz) is eliminated, that's when he discovers that he is also sensitive to mercaptans and hydrocarbons so no candles and no gas for heat, cooking, or light.

      At that point, can his landlord sue him for driving out all of his tenants?

    38. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get filtered dairy products. Problem solved.

    39. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      You have to consider the size of the "light source". She put up a 1 watt light. This ranks up with the person have an acute light sensitivity, and then complaining the neighbors nightlight burns him.

      Let's not belabor the point, there's no good analogy here. Light is cheaply and easily blocked (with a curtain), while radio and wicrowave radiation is not (grounded metal). Assuming he is hypersensitive, in the (poor) analogy he would only need to see the 'nightlight' to be harmed, and all houses are made of glass.

      He's suing because she's doing something perfectly legal in her house. She doesn't have a bank of 500W halogen lights lighting up the side of his house (which would be a legitimate complaint), nor does she have illegally amplified RF, like a 100W transmitter on her wifi (which would be a legitimate complaint and prosecuted by the FCC). Unless both of their walls are paper thin and almost adjoining, there probably isn't much signal getting to him at all.

      Agreed that there isn't any activity beyond what is reasonably expected for the average American. I disagree that her signal would completely attenuate before it reached his house, it's quite possible to connect to Wi-Fi from a neighbor in the suburbs.

      The reason I say it's an interesting case is twofold. One, it could depend on local interpretation of any verbal contract between the two. Secondly, there are other cases where otherwise legal activities (talking on the phone) can become illegal (while driving). Again, assuming he has a genuine medical condition, where does the state draw the line on his and the neighbor's rights? Likely case law will guide this, such as smokers living next to children with severe asthma or disruptive Christmas light displays.

      To clarify, I'm not saying this guy is definitely physically or psychologically ill (he could be faking) or that he has an iron-clad case. I'm just saying I don't think it can be dismissed off-hand without clear precedent on the matter. Maybe the judge will quickly decide that he has no legal recourse unless she does something with intent to harm (buying a directional antenna to aim at him), in which case the precedent will be set and future cases should be quickly dismissed.

      It was indicated that they were friends before she moved in. It sounds like something else went bad, and he's trying to get revenge somehow.

      Agreed, I expect one likely bothered the other, and this is the result of the back-and-forth.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    40. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Really? It's ok to harm someone as long as you consider their sensitivity to that harm to be rare and therefore brand them a "freak"?

      So do you don a biohazard suit every time you go out? You could run into with severe immunodeficiency, and kill her just by walking by. You filthy murderer.

      You might have a point if there really was a "small percentage" (implying at least several people in a hundred) with this kind of sensitivity, but there is a tipping point for everything, and at certain point of rarity it is not up to the society to adapt to the abnormal individual but the other way around. If there was one person in a million with extreme EM sensitivity, should all of humanity turn off their radiation sources? How about one in a billion? One in the entire planet?

      We do not sterilize the world and walk around in hermetic suits because there are people without immune systems, we put them in isolation tents - and there were equally rare people who have problems with radiation instead of microbes, we would not stop using electricity, we would put them in faraday cages. Sucks, but life isn't fair.

    41. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      There have to be limits to the ability of one person to restrict the rights of others on their own property. Purely fictitious injuries are one example of an appropriate limit. The protection of extreme minority conditions would be a similar one, as there are cases in which the needs of the individual impose such an undue burden on the rest of the society that the society is no longer bound to accommodate those needs.

      Let's take a case that, unlike this guy's "illness", might actually exist. Assume that there's a kid in the neighborhood who's allergic to pine pollen, which could be ameliorated by chopping down some nearby trees. For the purposes of the hypothetical, it's a medically real sensitivity that causes him serious respiratory problems.

      So what do we do? Naturally the family is welcome to cut down all the pine trees on their property. But what about the neighbors? Are they bound to chop down their pine trees? What about the neighbors for a full mile? For five miles? If the kid can only be helped by killing off every pine tree in a twenty-five-mile radius, is it still okay to harm everyone else, destroying their quality of life, their property values, and the environment generally, because of his phenomenally rare sensitivity?

      I will submit that you don't disagree with me in principle, only in where you draw the radius.

      Further, I do not believe it is okay to harm someone else by denying them reasonable freedoms in order to accommodate one's own sensitivity. People are obliged to look after themselves before making excessive demands to control the lives of others. If there were a sizable group of people negatively impacted by the defendant's actions, or if it posed some kind of threat to a natural system, that would be one thing, but she's not polluting the water table or blotting out the sun here, she's just using a cell phone.

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    42. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by BarefootClown · · Score: 1

      There's a little more to it than even that. (Caution: law student, and we were talking about nuisance in Property class just last night.)

      In order to be a nuisance, the behavior has to create a substantial harm to a person of ordinary sensitivity. The classic case is Amphitheaters, Inc. v. Portland Meadows, 198 P.2d 847 (Ore. 1948), in which the defendant, a horse track, had bright lights which spilled over and illuminated plaintiff's drive-in movie screen. The Oregon Supreme Court held that the light spillover did not constitute a nuisance merely because it damaged one who was abnormally sensitive (emphasis mine). The analysis was somewhat more complicated, but that's the important bit: abnormal sensitivity creates a duty for the injured party to mitigate, not for the injuring party.

      This, of course, assumes that Firstenberg is bringing his suit under nuisance; other standards apply to other claims.

      --

      "Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
      --Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca

    43. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by Myopic · · Score: 1

      This question has been settled law for a long, long time. I am not a lawyer, so I forget the court case, but I'm aware of a case where a landlord rented an upper room to a tenant, with permission for the tenant to practice his occupation, which was making specialty paper. Meanwhile, downstairs, the landlord was doing something that generated enough heat to negatively affect the tenant's paper.

      The tenant sued the landlord for, uh, for whatever. The judge decided for the landlord, saying that the heat-generating activity was "reasonable", and that if the tenant wanted protection from something reasonable, he would have to negotiate it in the rental agreement.

      So, I figure that using WiFi is "reasonable", so the neighbor has no case.

      Oh, also, the guy is nucking futs, so that will probably work against him.

    44. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by tilandal · · Score: 1

      You get put in a black prison and disappear. The government erases all public records of you.

      No I'm not joking.

    45. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 4, Funny

      Assuming high noon on the equator, it's a regular window mounted vertically in the wall. The trick is you need a pool mounted at 45 degrees.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    46. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by MoriT · · Score: 1

      Also like the anti-climate change folks ("islands sink all the time! It still snows!"), the anti-evolution folks ("carbon dating is a conspiracy!") and the people who believe in the existence of welfare queens.

      It's so much easier when you can believe the world is out to get you, you alone can see the truth and/or you are a special, special snowflake who is more deserving than all those Other People. Apparently this guy decided he's worth ~$500,000 more than someone else...

    47. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      If you tried to apply your "lactose intolerant" analogy, don't you suppose your opponent would point out that the makers of your favorite foods don't project those foods into your home against your wishes?

      And yet, consider the American's With Disabilities Act.

      You won't get off your fat ass for years, to the point that you become morbidly obese. Now it is my responsibility to ensure that you have a ramp that you can drive your government bought electric wheelchair up to get into my nightclub.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    48. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      If these sensitivities were real (though I very much doubt that they are), he would have a point. Just because something has become socially common doesn't mean it's ok to do if it later turns out that it harms others in their own home.

      Er, no offense, but no he wouldn't. He'd have a sensitivity that it would be incumbent upon him to solve. Otherwise what's to stop him from moving into an apartment in the center of a city and demanding that everyone in the building stop using electronics? He's welcome to retrofit his home to make it a Faraday cage if he wishes, but he has no right to restrict the law-abiding behavior of his neighbor in *her* home just because he's (supposedly) a genetic freak who can sense EMF radiation.

      You should consult the American's With Disabilities Act. Basically, it says that if you are fucked up, all the rest of us are responsible for accommodating you.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    49. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A roof or awning that extends a ways past the wall.

    50. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Not exactly correct.
      It is like someone that is allergic to grass and then demanding that you tear out your lawn.
      Actually it is more like someone saying they are allergic to the color yellow demanding that you paint your living room because some of the yellow leaks out of your windows.
      Really if his neighbor was legally using WIFI and cell phones then this guy needs to move to the middle of the woods or get real help so he stops imagining that he is sensitive to EM.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    51. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very well said!

    52. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      You should consult the American's With Disabilities Act. Basically, it says that if you are fucked up, all the rest of us are responsible for accommodating you.

      ...within limits. For instance, Title III (which deals with accessibility in public facilities like malls or places of business) is partially tested against the means of the business, and does not require modifications if they would entail an unfair burden on the business owner.

      And that's precisely my point in responding to OP -- not that we shouldn't be accommodating to people with disabilities, but that there has to be a sense of proportion. I have no problem with mandating that new malls need wheelchair ramps, or that employers not discriminate against people with disabilities in their hiring practices. I have a problem when someone demands that someone else no longer communicate with her family members through very-broadly-adopted technologies, on the grounds of a sensitivity that is vanishingly rare (granting for the sake of argument that it actually exists, which I do not believe).

      Justice is about balancing competing interests. It is not served by demanding that one side make disproportionate sacrifices, while the other makes no effort whatsoever to remedy its problem by changing its own behavior.

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    53. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      So your position is that if something is widely enough used, it's ok to keep using it no matter what effect it has on others? Fascinating moral system.

      Assume it is shown conclusively that this sort of sensitivity is real. How much of the population has to be certifiably affected before we ban electronics entirely? At what point do the needs of the very few outweigh the needs of the many? Why is their comfort (we're not talking survival here) so much more important than the societal improvements offered by electronics?

      There's nothing fascinating about this "moral system" - it's just common sense. When something makes life easier for everyone but one in a hundred thousand people (and even those people's lives are improved in many ways), it's silly to ban it just because that tiny minority gets skin rashes or headaches.

      And that's all assuming that, contrary to all available evidence, this sort of sensitivity is real.

      I'll agree with your last sentence though - we're better off just pointing out that these claims have been repeatedly shown to be garbage.

    54. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dihydrogen oxide vapour, then.

    55. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by Moridin42 · · Score: 1

      Except that if he is sensitive, the least damaging solution is highly likely to be if he insulates himself from the EM he is sensitive to. This is also highly likely to be the least expensive solution. It is also the one most likely to let him leave his home without incident.

      So.. requiring he alter his behavior, rather than compel another to alter hers, is the moral solution. It may not be the prescribed legal remedy, but then.. laws and morals frequently don't mesh.

      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
    56. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by el3mentary · · Score: 1

      The difference is that 99.99% of neighbors can hear the loud music while 100% of neighbors cannot sense WIFI.

      And in fact there is as yet no proof that anyone can sense WIFI and that this is not just a NOCEBO effect.

      If I claim that your writing Slashdot entries gives me headaches you probably wouldn't pay much attention. Claims that WIFI gives me headaches merit about the same amount of respect and attention.

      TFTFY. Until we get a double blind test where someone actually proves they can sense Wi-fi we should consider it completely Psychosomatic. Oh and I'm fairly sure more than 0.01% of the population are unable to hear the loud music due to hearing problems

      --
      I reject your reality and substitute my own.
    57. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It would have to extend downward to the bottom of the window, or sunlight would enter at dawn or dusk.  In which case it would have to overhang the pool or the pool would have to be at the bottom of a hole.

                  \|/
                  -O-  (noon)
                  /|\

           I\
      Idiot  \               \|/
              \              -O- (dawn)
        o      \             /|\
      /|\       \
      /\   I
           I
           I
           I- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-----

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    58. Re:Picture in the summary has it right by jonadab · · Score: 1

      Currently I am in the unfortunate position of living in a community that puts NO fluorine in the water, because of the irrational "It's a poison!" argument. Since I've moved here, I've gone from having no dental problems to now having CONSTANT dental problems. (I've started buying fluoride mouth rinse in an attempt to ameliorate the situation, but you can't really use the stuff often enough to make up for not having fluoride in the water.)

      But do you know what happens if there's a bit "too much" fluoride in your water supply? Your teeth turn dark yellow, and you get no dental cavities at ALL. The amount needed to pose any significant health risk is much greater than the amount needed to turn your teeth yellow. Consequently, an independent lab test is not required. If your teeth are closer to white than brown, the levels of fluorine in your water are safe.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  5. At least... by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

    ...we can hope that this will set a precedent. (Though it will probably just be dismissed.)

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:At least... by LingNoi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Even if it makes it to court the guy won't. I'll be there with a grid of routers, cell phones and all type of other EM emitting radiation devices.

    2. Re:At least... by Cwix · · Score: 1

      I think she should make a cantenna for her wireless router, and point it at his house.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    3. Re:At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if it makes it to court the guy won't. I'll be there with a grid of routers, cell phones and all type of other EM emitting radiation devices.

      Don't bother. Most courts have WiFi these days, and most lawyers have cell phones. The situation will resolve itself.

    4. Re:At least... by CompMD · · Score: 1

      "and all type of other EM emitting radiation devices."

      I think something else is going to beat you to the guy: the sun.

  6. Onus is on you... by rotide · · Score: 1

    Onus is on you buddy... Good luck proving that one.. Enjoy those bills too, by the way!

  7. Lucky for him by Grashnak · · Score: 5, Funny

    He's lucky he doesn't live in a universe where "electromagnetism" is everywhere, all the time. Oh, wait...

    --
    Life needs more saving throws.
    1. Re:Lucky for him by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      Whatever you do don't tell him about cosmic rays. *ouch!* *ow!!!*

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    2. Re:Lucky for him by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      And don't even bother telling him about the nuclear force.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    3. Re:Lucky for him by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      Whatever you do don't tell him about cosmic rays. *ouch!* *ow!!!*

      If he owns a Toyota then he probably already knows about cosmic rays.

    4. Re:Lucky for him by jeffasselin · · Score: 1

      Someone should tell him about the particle that transmits the electromagnetic force, aka photons.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
  8. Sounds like time for a countersuit by Drethon · · Score: 1

    With a major point showing how much EM radiation there is from the sun and then from all the TV and cell phone signals without this person using anything and then what little increase (if noticable) there is when this person's devices are turned on...

    1. Re:Sounds like time for a countersuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would be just as easy to put out three boxes and have him pick the one with the phone in it... see if he can get results better then chance

    2. Re:Sounds like time for a countersuit by Drethon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or if he can tell the difference between those wifi devices and the electric generators on the trains running behind his house (just actually read the article...)

  9. The waves are everywhere! by COMON$ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok people, do you have any CLUE how many radio waves are going through your body at any given time? I mean seriously do people think that GPS's, Cell Phones, Watches, all have some kind of invisible tether? Your best hope is to find a cave in the mountains. Not a home in suburbia...

    --
    CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    1. Re:The waves are everywhere! by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Funny

      >>>Ok people, do you have any CLUE how many radio waves are going through your body at any given time?

      I'm being irradiated right now.
      By my CRT.
      Tuned to playboy.

      It tingles.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:The waves are everywhere! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard the Space Station has a man cave now. Maybe that'll do.

    3. Re:The waves are everywhere! by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Funny

      No they don't. Most people are horribly undereducated about the world around them. I blame High Fructose Corn syrup consumption.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:The waves are everywhere! by Mouldy · · Score: 0

      ...Your best hope is to find a cave in the mountains. Not a home in suburbia...

      Actually, even a cave in the mountains probably wouldn't be as radio-free as you might hope. Many rocks are naturally radio-active.

    5. Re:The waves are everywhere! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's just artificial sources. The earth is bombarded by radio waves, gamma rays, etc. all the time from outer space. To avoid all EM, you'd have to find a deep cave with heavy shielding rock miles into the earth's crust.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    6. Re:The waves are everywhere! by kimvette · · Score: 1

      You would still be affected by the largest magnetic field on Earth.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    7. Re:The waves are everywhere! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CRT? I find you guilty, not of filing a frivolous complaint but of having a crappy old monitor.

    8. Re:The waves are everywhere! by dbet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      GPS's, Cell Phones, Watches

      Years ago working in a lab, after doing an experiment involving radioisotopes, I was doing a routine scan of my work area. My co-worker's hand was coming up hot. She took off her gloves and scanned again, still hot. Not just barely either, this was tipping our counter way past its max sensitivity. She scrubber her hands and it wouldn't go away. It took us a few minutes to realize... it was her watch. Apparently the glow on the hands is some kind of uranium or something.

      What's interesting is that the amount being emitted into her wrist every day was probably more than the amount of job-related radioactivity we were allowed to be exposed to in a month.

    9. Re:The waves are everywhere! by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      To be fair, specific frequencies at specific energies do have differing effects.

      There's a reason you don't put your head in the microwave oven.

      Notably, we've never ruled out the possibility of sensitivity to specific frequencies scientifically.

      Sure, the general population seems unaware of them, but that doesn't really preclude that some people could in fact be sensitive to some, and the easy option would be to actually test it.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    10. Re:The waves are everywhere! by egcagrac0 · · Score: 1

      Ahh yes... back in the day (20 years ago), I moved my monitor off my desk and onto an arm.

      Within 4 days, my tan lines had shifted.

      (Not troll, seriously. They moved.)

    11. Re:The waves are everywhere! by Androclese · · Score: 1

      But what about the Cosmic Rays? You can't avoid those anywhere!

    12. Re:The waves are everywhere! by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Uhhh, tritium???

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    13. Re:The waves are everywhere! by juhaz · · Score: 1

      But I'm allergic to neutrinos, you insensitive clod!

    14. Re:The waves are everywhere! by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      I wonder if he has a sensitivity to radon ...

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    15. Re:The waves are everywhere! by julesh · · Score: 1

      To avoid all EM, you'd have to find a deep cave with heavy shielding rock miles into the earth's crust.

      Yeah, but you'd better watch out for the neutron decay from all that rock. Seriously, that stuff's dangerous. Gives off radiation.

    16. Re:The waves are everywhere! by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that won't work either. The crust has lots of naturally occurring radioactive material in it. The deeper you go, the more stuff you find. A lot of the interior of the planet is kept warm by radioactive decay. And this is the ionizing stuff, not just EM. Plus, don't forget things like cosmic rays and neutrinos that can penetrate a great deal of solid matter. He also better not have ANY light sources whatsoever in this house. If he has so much as a light bulb then what he is claiming is false. Visible light is even higher frequency than his horrible 2.6 GHz wifi.

    17. Re:The waves are everywhere! by cffrost · · Score: 1

      I blame High Fructose Corn syrup consumption.

      I'm sorry but I don't believe that's accurate. I pour HFCS right on my pancakes. The interesting part is that I can cook additional pancakes with the power of the mind that I get from that sweet corny nectar.

      Please don't mod this funny; I'm as serious as diabetes.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    18. Re:The waves are everywhere! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You win the internet.

    19. Re:The waves are everywhere! by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      I blame High Fructose Corn syrup consumption.

      I'm sorry but I don't believe that's accurate. I pour HFCS right on my pancakes. The interesting part is that I can cook additional pancakes with the power of the mind that I get from that sweet corny nectar.

      It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the high fructose corn syrup that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.

      (The Mentat litany is utter garbage IMO, but it seemed so fitting!)

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    20. Re:The waves are everywhere! by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      That's just artificial sources. The earth is bombarded by radio waves, gamma rays, etc. all the time from outer space. To avoid all EM, you'd have to find a deep cave with heavy shielding rock miles into the earth's crust.

      Done and done. Now I just need some sharks for my tank...

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    21. Re:The waves are everywhere! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they don't. Most people are horribly undereducated about the world around them. I blame High Fructose Corn syrup consumption.

      But... but... what about Bisphenol-A?

    22. Re:The waves are everywhere! by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      That glow is probably tritium. Tritium-powered would be a better description, as tritium itself doesn't glow. The paint consists tritium and a phosphorescent agent that glows due to the energy released by the tritium decay.

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    23. Re:The waves are everywhere! by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Burma Shave.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  10. Homeowner? His responsibility by Evardsson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If he is a homeowner, how he protects himself from his surrounding environment is his responsibility. If he really believes he is being made sick by electro-magnetic energies around him maybe he needs to wrap his house in a Faraday cage and shut the hell up.

    You can't sue your neighbor when their cherry tree blooms and sets off your allergies. Same thing.

    --
    Death looks every man in the face. All any man can do is look back and smile. - Marcus Aurelius
    1. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 0

      If he is a homeowner, how he protects himself from his surrounding environment is his responsibility.

      So if your neighbor sets up a firehose and douses my front door non-stop, it's my fault?

      The comlpaint isn't about a level of radiation that naturally originates from his neighbor's yard. It's about radiation that he alleges only comes from his neighbor's yard due to his neighbor's use of WiFi. That's pretty different from your cherry tree analogy, which is a fairly natural and expected source of pollin.

      So actually, a better example might be not a cherry tree eminating pollin, but an up-wind neighbor who burns copious amounts of poison ivy.

    2. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, technically you can sue your neighbor for anything, you'll just lose (and be an ass).

    3. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by slim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For that to work, he'd have to believe that Faraday cages work.
      Since he clearly has no truck with science, why would he believe that?

    4. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by wisnoskij · · Score: 0

      So if his neighbor was throwing broken glass and garbage onto his lawn and throwing rocks through his window you would say the same thing? it is his responsibility to defend his house?

      The only thing wrong with the lawsuit is that 'electromagnetic sensitivities' does not exist, not that it is his responsibility to defend his house all by himself.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    5. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      no no.
      You can cut down your cherry tree.

    6. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that he wouldn't blame his problems on the tree, he'd blame them on the small gnomes that sneak into his room at night and steal his underwear for profit.

    7. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      no no.
      You can cut down your cherry tree.

      Good point. What does the law say about the division of responsibility in cases like this?

      I.e., if I have a tree that you're allergic to, do you have to suck it up, or to I have to deal with it? Is it based on some under-defined notion of "reasonable" accommodation?

    8. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If my neighbor sets up a firehouse in his living room and douses his walls, why should I complain?

      It's not like wifi signal can pass that easily trough walls....

    9. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by juhaz · · Score: 1

      The comlpaint isn't about a level of radiation that naturally originates from his neighbor's yard. It's about radiation that he alleges only comes from his neighbor's yard due to his neighbor's use of WiFi. That's pretty different from your cherry tree analogy, which is a fairly natural and expected source of pollin.

      A planted cherry tree - most likely Japanese or European species alien to the Americas - is no more "natural" than a WiFi AP. They're both there because a human put them there.

      As for "expected", both are that - and that's exactly the point - we can and do expect EM radiation and pollen to be everywhere, and if you can't live with that, YOU deal with it instead of the rest of the society.

    10. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      If we lived in a world where rocks, broken glass, and garbage were constantly pummelling your house all the time (for example a world of constant category 4 hurricanes), then yes; he would have a responsibility to ensure his house could defend against what constitutes an ordinary everyday reality.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    11. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by Courageous · · Score: 1

      Actually, you CAN sue your neighbor when their cherry tree blooms and sets off your allergies. Really, the deterrence for doing this should be more firm.

    12. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that to an extent this philosophy makes sense - but not when carried to extremes. The question is 'where do you draw the line'.

      Example 1:
      If I am your neighbor, and I direct a pipeline that extends to the border of my property and then proceed to blast poisonous gas from that pipeline - is it your responsibility to protect yourself from the gas?

      Example 2:
      I remove the pipeline and replace it with a foghorn. I then proceed to blow the foghorn 24 hours a day at a very high volume.

      Only an EXTREME view on personal liberties or anti-authoritarianism would see these two acts as uses of personal property that should not be questioned.

      So where does the line get drawn?

      The problem is externalities: I do something (on my own property), and the effects of that activity propogate onto other peoples body and/or property (we're still under the capitalistic policy of private ownership of all land). However, you could argue that everything has externalities, therefore freedom of personal expression shouldn't exist because they necessarily have an impact on other people and their property.

      So the answer is compromise - but where do you draw the line?

    13. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by Evardsson · · Score: 1

      If you are not kidding then the last shred of hope I had for humanity is gone. Now I am really depressed.

      --
      Death looks every man in the face. All any man can do is look back and smile. - Marcus Aurelius
    14. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 1

      Has anyone ever done so successfully? I'm allergic to just about every form of pollinating plant (though thankfully, the life threatening asthma stopped about ten years ago). I wouldn't cut down the elm tree in my yard at the time, let alone expect my neighbor to clear cut their property to solve my asthma properly (after all, I wasn't just allergic to specific trees, but the grass and shrubs as well, so they'd have had to move to non-pollinating plants or a desert theme). And I had actual medical evidence of my allergies (the whole "throat closing up" thing kind of gave it away), as opposed to a personal nutty belief. I don't think lawsuits should get beyond the filing stage in either case.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    15. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1

      if I have a tree that you're allergic to, do you have to suck it up, or to I have to deal with it? Is it based on some under-defined notion of "reasonable" accommodation?

      My brother and his wife used to live in Colorado, where medicinal marijuana is legal. My sister-in-law actually has severe allergies to marijuana, which her doctor said could be life threatening. She asked the neighbors who smoke it to do so indoors, instead of outside on the balcony where it blew into her apartment, and they basically laughed at her and sad "it's legal for us"

      --
      Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
    16. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Well your tree theory raises an interesting point.

      My neighbor has a tree in her yard. Its branches reach to my house. At point, they touched the house and windy day knocked some of the siding off. I paid to fix it, and paid to have the tree cut back... but my point here is this: should I have to pay yearly to keep her tree from poking my house again? Its her tree, why should I have the expense of making sure it doesn't cross onto my property?

      Now, the problem with this EM case is that there's likely Wifi from other neighbors, but the cell phone signals are there regardless of if she's using them or not. The other wrinkle is that, even if he IS affected, its a rare thing.

      So I agree, if I have a rare allergy to a cherry blossom tree, I may just have to deal. But at the same time if its dropping pieces of itself into my yard, why should I have to do EXTRA for a tree I chose not to have?

    17. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US: YOU CAN!!! Source: McDawnson vs Meredith, Supreme court of Illinois, 1975.

    18. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by muridae · · Score: 1

      Reasonable accommodation usually applies, in housing issues, to the landlord having to allow a tenant to make changes to their property to facilitate better living conditions. If this guy rents, and his doctor believes this is real, his landlord might have to allow him to install a faraday cage, though it would be paid for from the tenant's pockets. As far as I know, barring various HOA rules, and various town ordinances, there is very little legal basis for stopping this woman from using her FCC certified router. Now, if they find she swapped antennas to something unrated, or added an amplifier, or some other little FCC nit-pick, there might be problems.

      With the tree analogy, lets go even further and say it is a walnut tree. Some people are deathly allergic to walnuts, but I really doubt a court of law would require someone to cut a tree down based on the possibility that someone else might somehow ingest a walnut, or one could blow through their window at night. If the tree owner started grinding walnuts, venting powder in the direction of the allergic person's house, that might be taken as malicious. For radiation, the router/laptop/lightbulb/microwave/wiring should be good as long as they are all in their certified condition, or meeting code. If, as someone else suggested, she stuck a cantenna on the router and aimed it at his house, that would probably be malicious.

      Complete aside: who ever let walnut trees grow over state highways, with high transfer truck traffic, should be shot. Walnuts and windshields do not mix.

    19. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by Evardsson · · Score: 1

      My neighbor has a tree in her yard. Its branches reach to my house. At point, they touched the house and windy day knocked some of the siding off. I paid to fix it, and paid to have the tree cut back... but my point here is this: should I have to pay yearly to keep her tree from poking my house again? Its her tree, why should I have the expense of making sure it doesn't cross onto my property?

      Actually, in that case, you should have recourse to have your neighbor pay for the damages if you have already spoken to her about the encroachment and asked her to rectify it. We have neighbors with plants that over-arch and encroach and we just clear it with the neighbors that when we are working on our yard we will lop off the offending bits. But if we wanted to be whiny about it we could make them do it.

      And, not to you, but to all those who are coming up with flawed analogies of broken glass and poisonous gas, and so on: As far as the EM from legal devices she uses legally in her house - that is not encroachment in that the devices are legal and cleared for use in residential properties, the energies that are put out are low (especially by the time you get all the way into the neighbor's house), and the energies are also within the norm for any built-up residential area. This is not like piping poisonous gas onto or blowing a foghorn at the neighbor, this is like planting a non-indigenous tree whose pollen blows around in the wind. (Although where I am the cherry trees are indigenous and the pollen is wreaking havoc with my allergies even now).

      --
      Death looks every man in the face. All any man can do is look back and smile. - Marcus Aurelius
    20. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by muridae · · Score: 1

      In the USA, you can sue anyone for just about anything. What you sue them for has to just barely make legal sense. Suing, filing the lawsuit to start proceedings, has nothing to do with actually getting anything more than a preliminary 'this sounds like something the court should/shouldn't hear' ruling.

    21. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by MattW · · Score: 1

      Everyone would be bothered by poisonous gas and foghorns. By contrast, there are a half dozen wifi networks visible from my house and no one is bothered.

      Assuming his malady is real - which is obviously far from certain - he has an affliction which makes him sensitive to something that is all but pervasive in any suburban or urban environment now. Even if we assume 100% that he really is made ill, I'd expect him to put his bed and a chair inside a Faraday cage in his house first to accommodate his own disability, and then, assuming that's insufficient, he should go live in the wilderness.

    22. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by brufleth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There was a similar issue in Boston but with a woman who bought a place and found out smokers lived below her. She could actually smell the smoke in her condo and claimed it made her sick. That was a case of real detrimental environmental issues caused by a neighbor. The courts still didn't make the smoker change their habits. Any judge siding with this EMI sensitivity wacko needs to have their case log reviewed.

    23. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Funny

      Complete aside: who ever let walnut trees grow over state highways, with high transfer truck traffic, should be shot. Walnuts and windshields do not mix.

      I can honestly say this is the first time I've ever observed walnut-car anger.

    24. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by muridae · · Score: 1

      Why that walnut decided to attack our car, I will never know. I never had a chance to ask it, as it was promptly dealt with by the car behind us. I would say that it's remains were returned, it's next of kin notified, and so forth. But it wouldn't be true. The nut got what it deserved.


      Almost called it a fruit, and then realized exactly how badly that could be quoted out of context. Not that this can't be, mind you.

    25. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by jeff4747 · · Score: 1
      (IANAL)

      but my point here is this: should I have to pay yearly to keep her tree from poking my house again? Its her tree, why should I have the expense of making sure it doesn't cross onto my property?

      You can ask your neighbor to deal with it, and if they don't you should be able to successfully sue them. In fact, you can demand that none of the plants on your neighbor's property cross onto your property.

      Essentially, the tree is "trespassing" (a crude analogy, but it mostly works).

    26. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Almost called it a fruit,

      Nut that there's anything wrong with that...

    27. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      He doesn't need a Faraday cage at all.
      Just some screen on one side of the house would do.
      If it is only the house behind him then all he needs to do is block those emitters.
      I wounder if there is money to be made...
      Foldable Faraday Screens.

      Decorator screens that have a conduction layer in them. You plug them into your out let so they are grounded and shield yourself from EM! "Yes just connect the center ground on the plug.
      Put them around your bed for a restful nights sleep.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    28. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yea medical marijuana... What was it prescribe for? Boredom?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    29. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by SpaceCadets · · Score: 1

      I know in Australia, if guy next door has an apple tree, and the branches come over the fence, those branches - and any fruit on them - belong to you. You can cut them down, or if you don't mind it you can eat the fruit, whatever. Don't think you can make dude next door cut the branch off for you, as it is considered 'yours'. IANAL.

    30. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I have an uncle that embeds aluminum cuttings into hockey puck-sized epoxy castings, it's supposed to "purify the air" of cell and wifi radiation by placing one of these at each corner of the property. It's total BS, though I don't know if my uncle knows this. Supposedly he's educated, but then, he was trained a vet. Should I forward my uncle's information to him?

    31. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by Courageous · · Score: 1

      I'm not kidding, albeit it's fairly likely that such a case would be "dismissed with prejudice," which is to say the judge would rule it unfit to appear before the court in the present, and in it's present form, any time in the future.

    32. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by Courageous · · Score: 1

      I wasn't talking about "win," I was talking about "sue". :-)

    33. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by sahonen · · Score: 1

      If there's anything that an education will teach you, it's that it's really easy to convince idiots of anything you want them to believe so that you can sell them things.

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
    34. Re:Homeowner? His responsibility by GundamFan · · Score: 1

      You should be able to sue for the damages to your house and what you spent to have the tree trimmed back. A judge may also grant an injunction against your neighbor to keep plants from growing onto your property (technically this is how property works but people need reminding sometimes). However you neighbor could sue you for damaging her tree or at least modifying it without here permission.

      --
      I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
      Mark Twain
  11. Oh yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd love to see this guy prove his malady in court. Let's see the test results.

    Isn't his claims merely a psychosis? These claims all sound like they're coming from attention whores who are looking to cash in.

    1. Re:Oh yeah? by Cryophallion · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing after reading an article in PopSci a couple of months ago. It seems many are just willing to believe it is true. I think a nice double blind test would be in order (much like JREF does when having psychics, etc, prove their abilities). If they try and say it is a long term thing, where the issue is "build-up", then you can do a 5 day test for each. But first they have to list the symptoms....

      Also, how much more interference is caused by the electrical wiring within the persons own house, not to mention tv, microwaves, etc. If you have to have a powered antenna to pick up the frequencies (which you do - hence the wifi card), then the frequencies are minimal compared to the tons of other interference out there. Can this person also never go to a concert where there are wireless mics (or a presentation, etc)? Frankly, how can they even work?

      Actually this is a slippery slope. If one court finds that it is a real malady, it could be the next disability payment since the person can't work, can't go into supermarkets or any other store, etc. They just have to stay holed up in their house all the time.

  12. So presumably a lawyer took this case by Labcoat+Samurai · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is the irritating thing about it. You can harass people with frivolous lawsuits, and, while the judge may throw them out, the lawyers still get paid. Provided the guy's lawyer asks for his fee up front, what is his disincentive to file lawsuits like this one? I really wish lawyers could receive some sort of punishment or censure for wasting the court's time and enabling harassment.

    1. Re:So presumably a lawyer took this case by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      They can. It only happens in egregious cases like Jack Thompson unfortunately. The garden-variety ambulance chaser still has a career to look forward to.

    2. Re:So presumably a lawyer took this case by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      That's what I'm talking about. I used to have this presumption that lawyers were people too and rational like most. Obviously I'm wrong. Wouldn't a lawyer with a brain advise his client to sue the device manufacturer rather than the neighbor? This is assuming his neighbor isn't a person of means, of course.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    3. Re:So presumably a lawyer took this case by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      So you think its a good idea for the LAWYERS to have to make that "guilty, not guilty" decision, and to hell with a mans right to have his case heard?

      "Right to a fair trial" means PRECISELY that it should only be a jury making the decision on the merits of a plaintiffs claims, not the cops, not bystanders, and not lawyers. A lawyers job is to make sure that those rights are given.

    4. Re:So presumably a lawyer took this case by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      Maybe change the law. Maybe require the plantiff to put up like 1% of the amount being sued as a fee. If it is thrown out, being frivolous, the defendant receives the fee. That is...
      Person A sues Person B for $500k.
      Person A must put up $5k in good faith that the lawsuit isn't frivolous.
      If the judge throws it out, believing it is frivolous, then Person B receives that $5k Person A put up.
      Otherwise, if it goes to trial, Person A receives that money back immediately.
      Trial commenses, and whatever is decided, is decided.

      Or, maybe, countersue for lawyer fees?

    5. Re:So presumably a lawyer took this case by Labcoat+Samurai · · Score: 1

      An interesting idea. Kind of like earnest money for a house. And yeah, countersuing for legal fees seems to be the best recourse one has now, but it's a huge investment of time, the original plaintiff may not even have the money to pay your legal fees, and you won't see that money for a long time, so, in the short term, you're out a significant chunk of change. It's better than nothing, I guess, but I'm just generally uncomfortable with how easy it is to harass people with litigation.

    6. Re:So presumably a lawyer took this case by cynyr · · Score: 1

      right to a fair trial applies to the accused, and then only in criminal cases, not civil like this one. He is not saying lawyers should be punished if their client is found guilty, but if they bring a lawsuit the court feels is wasting it's time. Perhaps a smaller hearing to decide if the case has merits before getting a lawyer would be a good introduction to the system. If you don't have the courts, "it seems you have your ducks in a row" stamp good luck finding a lawyer. Even then it would still be possible, but just the lawyer would be sticking out his own neck as well.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    7. Re:So presumably a lawyer took this case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds like a good idea, but it's really not, and here's why: an attorney works as your agent to the courts, not as your co-conspirator in life.

      Allow me to make an extreme example to illuminate my point: If lawyers were responsible for the actions of their client, would you support a system where upon losing a case, criminal defense attorneys are jailed alongside their clients? Of course you wouldn't, because it would lead to a system where most criminals would be forced to represent themselves in the courtroom for lack of a third party willing to risk themselves, at serious disadvantage to a DA who prosecutes cases on a daily basis. There is very little motivation for taking such a huge risk of jail time simply for providing legal counsel. The same kind logic applies to civil cases.

      Lawyers themselves aren't providing the motivation to bring a case before a judge, they merely make sure the paperwork is in order (gross over-generalization, but the point should be obvious). They can already be fined for certain types of jackassery (see Orly Taitz). What you are looking for is not more penalties on lawyers, you're looking for more penalties on the idiots who try to sue for everything.

      Making lawyers liable only benefits the motivated individuals who have massive amounts of cash to offer, making the risk worth taking (MAFIAA, anyone?)

    8. Re:So presumably a lawyer took this case by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Your argument is reasonable for criminal charges, but in those cases the prosecutor is generally paid by the state. For civil charges a lawyer has the choice of whether to take the case and should have some responsibility to not take cases that are frivolous.

    9. Re:So presumably a lawyer took this case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds like a good idea, but it's really not, and here's why: an attorney works as your agent to the courts, not as your co-conspirator in life.

      Allow me to make an extreme example to illuminate my point: If lawyers were responsible for the actions of their client, would you support a system where upon losing a case, criminal defense attorneys are jailed alongside their clients? Of course you wouldn't, because it would lead to a system where most criminals would be forced to represent themselves in the courtroom for lack of a third party willing to risk themselves, at serious disadvantage to a DA who prosecutes cases on a daily basis. There is very little motivation for taking such a huge risk of jail time simply for providing legal counsel.

      I would prefer that to the current setup actually. So long as the DA who harasses people by prosecuting frivolous or malicious suits is subject to the penalty he sought for me if I manage to refute his claims.

      Malicious prosecution being prosecuted, like disbarments, and police shootings (either interpretation) are way, way too rare.

    10. Re:So presumably a lawyer took this case by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      That idea wasn't my own. I believe I've read about it somewhere.

      The question is this. How many lawsuits are frivolous? Are frivolous lawsuits a drain on the courts? Should this proposed fee be given solely to the defendant, or split 50/50 with the defendant and court? And what if someone has the time and money to pull off frivolous lawsuits regardless of fees? (Maybe jail-time (like less than a month) could be used if someone has attempted three or more frivolous lawsuits in a given five year period. As I said, I said frivolous, meaning the judge would have had to declare them frivolous.)

  13. If there is an island for these people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suggest they go to it.

    1. Re:If there is an island for these people... by pete_norm · · Score: 2, Funny

      If i can believe my TV, really strange things seems to happen all the time on islands...

  14. Mercy by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I suspect that the plaintiff is suffering from some significant mental health issues. Maybe paranoia or hypochondria or something. My guess is that this guy isn't suing because he's a jerk, but because he thinks the issue is real.

    Hopefully the suit will be dismissed with a minimum of fuss and expense, and the guy can get the help he probably needs.

    1. Re:Mercy by LingNoi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, the guy is simply a jerk. He knew before she even moved in that she uses these devices. He's trying to cash in and from reading the article this women is too afraid to even leave her house because of this dick and his friend.

      From the article..

      I have always made myself available to them at all hours," she said. "We communicate often through Skype, Gmail chat, video and audio sessions."

      Firstenberg knew this when he mentioned to her that the Casados Street house was for rent, but after Monribot moved in, he and a friend insisted that she turn off her Wi-Fi router and other equipment. She tried to comply, but felt harassed.

    2. Re:Mercy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully the suit will be dismissed with a minimum of fuss and expense, and the guy can get the help he probably needs.

      This is the US legal system we're talking about here, which has never been very good at recognizing basic scientific truths. Whatever happens, this guy's poor neighbor is going to go bankrupt trying to defend herself from this baseless lawsuit. And when the case inevitably goes to appeal, the Telegraph Operators Industry Association will get on board to say that not only do cell phones and WIFI devices make people sick, they're stealing profits from all the hard-working telegraph operators of this country. Suddenly it'll be a federal case which will take 10 years to work it's way to the Supreme Court and cost far more than the $500K this man is demanding.

      In all of this, you can be sure that no one is going to question this guy's reasons for trying to follow the American Dream (It's "Get Rich Quick!!" isn't it?) and the only ones to come out better for it will be the lawyers.

    3. Re:Mercy by CubicleView · · Score: 1

      I'm going to sue you for making me physically ill with all your good will.

    4. Re:Mercy by timholman · · Score: 1

      My guess is that this guy isn't suing because he's a jerk, but because he thinks the issue is real.

      He absolutely thinks it is real. Mental illness is as real as any physical illness. On the other hand, the chances of him getting help are essentially nil. In the first place, you can't convince EMS "sufferers" that it's all in their heads, anymore than you can convince a schizophrenic that the voices aren't real. Second, he already has a quack doctor who is more than willing to take his money and tell him, "Oh yes, you have a real physical ailment".

    5. Re:Mercy by seandiggity · · Score: 1
      Whatever the case, this reminds me of this episode of Intervention, where there were definitely some serious mental health issues involved:

      As her painkiller use escalated, she claimed that different sources were causing her pain, including electricity, energy, colors, and even specific people. Despite Linda's wild claims, her mother clings to the belief that Linda's pain is real and she must do everything to help her, including depleting the family's savings and sending her son to be Linda's caretaker.

      --
      Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
    6. Re:Mercy by Myopic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Be careful when saying things like "mental illness is as real as any physical illness". In order to equate mental illness with physical illness, you must equate imagination with reality. If I imagine my arm is broken, that doesn't make it physically broken. If I imagine I have a brain tumor, that doesn't mean I have a brain tumor.

      But, if I imagine I feel pain, then that might be equal to "actually" feeling pain, since pain is an imaginary symptom (occurring literally only in your head).

      So, it's true in some ways, and untrue in other ways. Just make sure to be clear on what you mean.

    7. Re:Mercy by wanax · · Score: 1

      The pain is instantiated in the physical behavior of a group of neurons, not an 'imaginary' symptom -- the change in neural response is just as real as having a broken arm. Just because we don't understand how to accurately diagnose, alleviate or correct most problems that occur in neural circuitry doesn't mean they aren't just as physically real as those ailments that we do understand.

    8. Re:Mercy by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Be careful when saying things like "mental illness is as real as any physical illness". In order to equate mental illness with physical illness, you must equate imagination with reality. If I imagine my arm is broken, that doesn't make it physically broken. If I imagine I have a brain tumor, that doesn't mean I have a brain tumor.

      But if you die in Canada, you die in real life!

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  15. Voodoo by bobdotorg · · Score: 1

    Hmm. So I guess that instead of pins, stick your Firstenberg (plaintiff) voodoo doll in the microwave.

    And yes, there have been cases of people being sued for practicing voodoo and placing curses on others.

    --
    __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
    1. Re:Voodoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did those cases turn out?

  16. She should have turned-off the devices by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...without telling the Moron, and then let the moron keep insisting "your wireless makes me sick". It would be funny. Especially in court.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:She should have turned-off the devices by wjousts · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or even better. Ask him how he knows the wireless devices are on?

    2. Re:She should have turned-off the devices by osgeek · · Score: 1

      I don't doubt that he uses a laptop or other wifi detecting device to know that his neighbor has wifi. He probably saw her using her iPhone and it made him feel sick. He has problems, but it's doubtful that the EMR is the direct source of them.

    3. Re:She should have turned-off the devices by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He probably saw her using her iPhone and it made him feel sick.

      I have the same problem... but only when I see them texting while driving at 90.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:She should have turned-off the devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, I was wondering if she turned all her appliances off for a week to see if he was was still rambling on about his allergies after the week.

    5. Re:She should have turned-off the devices by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Or even better. Ask him how he knows the wireless devices are on?

      NetStumbler?

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    6. Re:She should have turned-off the devices by wjousts · · Score: 1

      So, in other words, a wireless device emitting EM radiation that he claims to be sensitive to.

    7. Re:She should have turned-off the devices by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Or even better. Ask him how he knows the wireless devices are on?

      That's easy. "Because they're making me sick." XD

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    8. Re:She should have turned-off the devices by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Yes; it hasn't been established that this individual is sane, only that he's litigious.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  17. Human interest filler story by kriston · · Score: 1

    Let's see, we are reading a generically syndicated human interest filler story from Santa Fe, New Mexico that was published in the Chicago Tribune two days ago.

    This isn't the New York Times. It's pure silliness used to fill white space in newsprint as our other posters have agreed.

    --

    Kriston

    1. Re:Human interest filler story by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      This isn't the New York Times.

      So, there is at least a chance that it is true.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:Human interest filler story by Cryophallion · · Score: 3, Informative

      PopSci just had a major article on it: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-02/disconnected

    3. Re:Human interest filler story by sjames · · Score: 1

      Too bad it's costing the defendant real money.

    4. Re:Human interest filler story by kriston · · Score: 1

      We've ascended the journalistic ladder from daily newspaper human interest filler to a monthly magazine, but we notice that the PopSci article is dated 03-04-2010.

      --

      Kriston

    5. Re:Human interest filler story by Cryophallion · · Score: 1

      I didn't say the article had merit, I'm just letting you know it is getting a lot of attention lately in more than the usual places (although a different person is featured in the popsci article - I guess this is the new cool psychosis).

    6. Re:Human interest filler story by kriston · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I get it. The guy in PopSci seems more plausible but I really hope that people take PopSci for what it is, popular science.

      --

      Kriston

  18. Unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this makes it into the courtroom the judge is the idiot.

    Unfortunately, most that we ever read about in the news seem to be exactly that these days.

  19. Um... by hcmtnbiker · · Score: 1

    I really enjoyed the cell phone usage was one of the complaints. Someone better not tell this guy that cell towers are omnidirectional so he'll experience that radiation regardless.

    If he truly had an EM sensitivity, the odds of it existing on a higher wavelength(like 2.4Ghz) than visible light and on the lower wavelengths(like UV which affects everyone) are incredibly low without visible light affecting him as well. If visible light did affect him as well I think it would be very hard for a successful law suit unless he wanted to sue the sun as well.(and oh yea, the sun gives off far more things then his neighbors wifi, like trillions of neutrinos that pass through your body every second.)

    --
    If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.
    1. Re:Um... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Informative

      My dad actually presided an arbitration over a complaint against a cell tower, the complaint was of course about the electromagnetic field and how they have a negative impact on the people. The main complainant presented his case, lamented for nearly 15 minutes (he has to be given the time, no matter what, part of the procedure, even though my dad really wanted to interrupt...), when he ended the rest of the arbitration consisted of:

      Dad: What's that in your breast pocket?
      Complainant: My cellphone.
      Dad: Complaint rejected. My advice is to get a book about basic physics, read the part about electromagnetism and how distance affects fields and their strength.

      The hard part was to get the recorder to strike that last part from the record...

      I know that case pretty well, my dad always uses it as the perfect example why you have to know more than just your field of study, him only knowing law and not physics would not have ended this case so quickly. And it's a good example how hysteria often replaces rational thinking, especially when people feel ill for some reason and grasp for straws in their quest to find a culprit.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Um... by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1

      2.4 GHz is a lot lower frequency than visible light. UV is a higher frequency and longer wavelength than visible light.

    3. Re:Um... by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 2, Informative

      *shorter wavelength

      [facepalms]

    4. Re:Um... by hattig · · Score: 1

      "Someone better not tell this guy that cell towers are omnidirectional so he'll experience that radiation regardless. "

      Or better still, someone should tell the poor woman and/or her lawyer, otherwise she could end up without a proper technological and scientific defence against the man's claims.

    5. Re:Um... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      How far was the guy from the cell tower?

      Because it's possible the EIRP at his home from the cell tower is bigger than the total output his cellphone is capable of.

      This is why "arbitration" is no substitute for a court case. Arbitrators often don't know that even if you think you know everything, you need to weigh the facts against each other, not against what you personally believe. Unfortunately, many judges make the decisions based purely on their apprehensions of reality, too. Which brings up the central fallacy of our justice system, and why so many people have to be let out of jail every time technology finds a new way of extracting facts from evidence.

    6. Re:Um... by Piquan · · Score: 1

      Someone better not tell this guy that cell towers are omnidirectional so he'll experience that radiation regardless.

      But the radiation is subject to an inverse-square law. A high-power source at a considerable distance (the tower) can give this guy less radiation than a low-power source at a close distance (her cell phone), as Opportunist's dad pointed out.

      As an example: the guy is probably in a near-rural area, if he's trying to get away from radiation, on the outskirts of town. In hilly country, Wikipedia says a rural area can get a maximum of 5-8km. Let's say he's 5km away. (This is Santa Fe, so it's not exactly hill country, but it's probably not exactly totally rural either.) Let's also say the tower is using the regulatory maximum of 2000W output. (Most use much, much less, and I don't remember if modern cell towers are even allowed to use 2kW. But it's no more than that.) Using I=P/(4*pi*r^2), we see that the intensity at his house from the tower is 6.37 uW / m^2.

      Her cell phone, if it's GSM, is capped at 2W output. The article doesn't say how far apart their houses are; just "on the next block". I'm going to just guess 150m away. (Manhattan blocks are 80m x 200m; central Melbourne blocks are 100m x 200m.) Using the same formula, the radiation intensity from her cell phone is 7.07 uW / m^2. With this set of assumptions, her cellphone could be irradiating him more than the tower (at peak; of course, she's probably not continuously on her phone).

      The actual numbers are probably vastly different; different assumptions can change these by orders of magnitude. I'm ignoring modern cell realities, too: cell towers tend to be much lower power, but closer together these days. They also tend to use a non-uniform radiation pattern, not wasting power by radiating cell signals at the birds. Cell phones rarely radiate 2W of power. There's lots of other stuff that means that my numbers aren't anywhere near right, but it does demonstrate that it's POSSIBLE that her cell phone gives him more radiation than the tower.

      Then again, the sun provides 750 W / m^2 to the ground (after atmospheric effects), a hundred million times more intense radiation (remember, my other numbers were in microwatts per meter squared), and at higher frequencies. So yeah.

    7. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or how about this? What's it going to take to change American people's attitude about how if they get sick it's somehow someone else's responsibility?

  20. use UTP then by dshk · · Score: 0, Troll

    As if it was so extremely difficult to use UTP cables... Maybe his neighbor really have physical problems, maybe only he think it. Good neighborhood worth such small thing. And UTP is safer, more reliable and faster. But no, they visit the court instead.

    1. Re:use UTP then by PitaBred · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sorry... UTP is not the answer. The answer is to tell this guy to go fuck himself. I'm not responsible for changing my behavior because some other nutbar has a psychosomatic illness. That's for him and his doctors to deal with. Not me and his lawyers.

    2. Re:use UTP then by HungryHobo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      being able to sit my laptop on the counter without worrying about tripping over a cable is worth more than the crazy demands of a delusional hypochondriac.
      Good neighbours put up their own EM shielding when they suffer from imaginary conditions.

    3. Re:use UTP then by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      >Good neighbours put up their own EM shielding when they suffer from imaginary conditions.

      And if this guy is so cognitively challenged that he can't fold his own aluminum foil hat, someone should show him how. This is the traditional counter measure used by delusional hypochondriacs.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    4. Re:use UTP then by confused+one · · Score: 1

      And I insist you (my neighbor) not use cell phones. Or cordless phones of any kind. And your microwave oven -- That 1500 watt transmitter sends me into convulsions. And for heavens sake, turn off that computer, because it has a 2GHz processor. You're cable TV system must be leaking because I have a headache. The LNB in your satellite dish is screaming at me, please don't use your satellite system.

      All these devices generate RF in the 2-3GHz range. Point is, this insanity has no limits. It needs to be stopped.

    5. Re:use UTP then by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but I'm not running cabling all over my house and connecting/disconnecting my laptop as I go from lounge to kitchen to bedroom (etc) just because my neighbour has an imaginary sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation.

      If he can prove this sensitivity to the satisfaction of an impartial third-party expert (e.g. a medical doctor or similar) then we can talk. Until that happens, I'm going to dismiss his claims as bullshit based on the fact that we are all permanently bathed in EM radiation of both natural and man-made origin.

    6. Re:use UTP then by dwillden · · Score: 1

      But wireless is easier, and less intrusive to set up a dispersed network with. This isn't a workspace designed with cable runs and conduit. It's a home, so she could pay Electricians to come in and run cable all over the house inside the walls (with or without conduit), or she could have cables running all over the house. Or she can do as she has and run one wi-fi router and all is good (except for one idiot of a neighbor).

      Sure it's not as fast as UTP but it's a hell of a lot more convienient. Even more so if she uses a laptop and likes to move around the house with it.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    7. Re:use UTP then by The+Yuckinator · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that the U in UTP stands for "Unsheilded". That can't be good - hell, I bet the neighbour would use it as evidence of malice!

    8. Re:use UTP then by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      As if it was so extremely difficult to use UTP cables... Maybe his neighbor really have physical problems, maybe only he think it. Good neighborhood worth such small thing. And UTP is safer, more reliable and faster. But no, they visit the court instead.

      UTP isn't going to fix anything.

      From the article:

      But last October, when a friend of his rented a house on the next block that backed up to Firstenberg's property, the familiar waves of nausea, vertigo, body aches, dizziness, heart arrhythmia and insomnia returned -- all, he says, because she was using an iPhone, a laptop computer, a wireless router and dimmer switches.

      So, you're going to plug your iPhone in with UTP? You're going to run your dimmer switches off UTP?

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    9. Re:use UTP then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, are you the guy that writes the horoscopes for this free calendar I got at the oriental market?

    10. Re:use UTP then by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      >Good neighbours put up their own EM shielding when they suffer from imaginary conditions.

      And if this guy is so cognitively challenged that he can't fold his own aluminum foil hat, someone should show him how. This is the traditional counter measure used by delusional hypochondriacs.

      No, no, no... The aluminum ones are no good, it has to be tin foil.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  21. I think I have a solution by Takionbrst · · Score: 5, Funny

    Follow me here: The average household is somewhere around 2400 square feet. Let's assume for simplicity sake that it's a box measuring 49'x49'x10'. That makes for about 6800 square feet of interior surface area. The skin depth for gold at 2.4 GHz is pretty close to 200nm, but to be sure that the vast majority of the signal is stopped lets assume a coating of 1um thickness. 6800 square feet multiplied by 1um yields a volume of about 6e-4 m^3 of gold. Multiplying this by the density of gold (~20gm/cm^3) yields about 12 kilograms of gold. The last time I checked, gold was something close to $1200 dollars an ounce, which works out to be about $508k. So all the guy really wants to do is use the settlement money to WiFi proof his house. And have a gold plated interior. And a little bit left over for hookers and blow.

    1. Re:I think I have a solution by BarryJacobsen · · Score: 1

      Follow me here: The average household is somewhere around 2400 square feet. Let's assume for simplicity sake that it's a box measuring 49'x49'x10'. That makes for about 6800 square feet of interior surface area. The skin depth for gold at 2.4 GHz is pretty close to 200nm, but to be sure that the vast majority of the signal is stopped lets assume a coating of 1um thickness. 6800 square feet multiplied by 1um yields a volume of about 6e-4 m^3 of gold. Multiplying this by the density of gold (~20gm/cm^3) yields about 12 kilograms of gold. The last time I checked, gold was something close to $1200 dollars an ounce, which works out to be about $508k. So all the guy really wants to do is use the settlement money to WiFi proof his house. And have a gold plated interior. And a little bit left over for hookers and blow.

      Bender: Ahh, screw the gold plated interior. And the blow.

    2. Re:I think I have a solution by Takionbrst · · Score: 1

      Heh, I watched the episode last night as well. But seriously, this guy is crazier than a green snake in a sugar cane field.

    3. Re:I think I have a solution by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      And have a gold plated interior. And a little bit left over for hookers and blow.

      In fact, forget the gold plated interior!

    4. Re:I think I have a solution by hattig · · Score: 1

      You can buy WiFi signal blocking paint at a tenth of the cost.

      However if the guy was going to use gold at 1um thickness, I wonder if the gold could be patterned with holes (like the metal in a microwave door that blocks the microwaves but still lets you see in perfectly adequately), further reducing the cost?

    5. Re:I think I have a solution by Y+Ddraig+Goch · · Score: 1

      If I recall correctly from my electronics courses, you do not need to use Gold to stop EM radiation. A grounded aluminum screen should do the trick. Seeing as the wave length of a 2.4 GHz sine wave is 0.125 meters, the screen is more than fine enough.

      --
      Meddle thou not in the affairs of Dragons, for thou art crunchy and with most anything.
    6. Re:I think I have a solution by egcagrac0 · · Score: 1

      ... and the hookers, for that matter.

    7. Re:I think I have a solution by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      And a little bit left over for hookers and blow.

      It's well documented* that both of these things help mitigate the effects of EM sensitivity. It's all for his medical needs!

      * citation needed? The MAN won't let me post a citation!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:I think I have a solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who says math is useless? Numbers must be onto something.

    9. Re:I think I have a solution by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Well yea, but then he wouldn't have a gold plated house.

    10. Re:I think I have a solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why on earth would you use gold? Aluminum and Copper are ample conductors for a Faraday cage and MUCH cheaper. :P

      I think even high purity copper is like $9 per pound.

  22. Basic Human Rights? by wjousts · · Score: 1

    From the summary:

    "I feel as if my life and liberty are under attack for no valid reason, and it has forced me to have to defend my very basic human rights."'"

    Ok, so the guy filing the suit is a moron and the suit has no technical merit at all. But really? Running a router is now a basic human right? A little melodramatic don't you think?

    1. Re:Basic Human Rights? by DrMaurer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The actions of one inside one's house and freedom of movement and ability to do what you want within the law? That's not freedom? That wouldn't fall under their human rights? Seriously?

      Unless you think just food is a human right. Then I think you would be OK with people going and stealing food because they have a right to not starve. Certain rights have implications beyond the obvious.

      --
      Dan
    2. Re:Basic Human Rights? by Ephemeriis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From the summary:

      "I feel as if my life and liberty are under attack for no valid reason, and it has forced me to have to defend my very basic human rights."'"

      Ok, so the guy filing the suit is a moron and the suit has no technical merit at all. But really? Running a router is now a basic human right? A little melodramatic don't you think?

      Well, some places are declaring Internet access a human right...

      But I don't think that's really the point.

      Generally speaking, you're allowed to do what you want within the confines of your own house. Of course you still can't murder people and whatnot... But it's a little unusual for your neighbors to be able to dictate what kind of telephone you use, and whether your Internet connection is wired or wireless, or whether you can own or use a cell phone. Those are all liberties that we pretty much take for granted.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    3. Re:Basic Human Rights? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      but a basic human right might be having the freedom to do whatever you want on your own property if it is not hurting anyone else.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    4. Re:Basic Human Rights? by Cwix · · Score: 1

      She might have exaggerated a little, but no more then idiot next door has exaggerated about his "sickness".

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    5. Re:Basic Human Rights? by Cryophallion · · Score: 1

      The right to control what you do in your own home certainly is, and some may say that the pursuit of happiness may include youtube, etc.

      Many use cell phones and remote internet access to do work, so being able to work to do your job is likely a right.

      The concern comes when rights intersect - Playing loud music, putting a billboard in your yard, windfarm on the cape.... The issue here is that unless he can prove his malady, it is frivolous, and frankly, the power companies are going to be sued next, and they are going to contest this to death.

      So, yes, being able to use your laptop in your own home can be considered a right that on your property, you can do what you want.

      And didn't the Netherlands just say internet access was a basic human right?

    6. Re:Basic Human Rights? by cynyr · · Score: 1

      never thought of that, these devices talk at ~2.4GHZ, you can buy phones that use that same frequency, your microwave uses it as well. DOes this man have a cordless phone, microwave, or any other non shielded wiring in his home? if so, it's his own damn problem, also the amount of radation on an omni directional source goes down by the square of the distance, so even being 10 meters from the 5mW AP should make the radition around 50uW. I wonder what the level of radiation just the earth has, in the very helpful North/south poles thing.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    7. Re:Basic Human Rights? by wjousts · · Score: 1

      Well, fair enough, but to play devil's advocate for a second here, what if it was really making him sick (it isn't)? Clearly you can't claim to be able to do whatever you want within the confines of your own house if it makes the guy next door sick?

      Also, if I was your neighbor and, according to your argument, I can do whatever I want within the confines of my house, you won't mind if I play loud rock music at 2 AM in the morning every day? I think your right to a good nights sleep in your own home should trump by right to rock out at an unsocialable hour.

    8. Re:Basic Human Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's not exaggerating. He is trying to dictate what she can do in the privacy of her own home. That is a basic right. Contrary to popular behavior, your rights are not just those enumerated in the constitution. Our forefather were hesitate to even list rights in that document for that every reason. The constitution lists some rights. It does not list all (an impossibility).

    9. Re:Basic Human Rights? by wjousts · · Score: 1

      And didn't the Netherlands just say internet access was a basic human right?

      Okay, so I agree with everything you said, my point was purely about how dressing this as a "human rights" issue is a bit melodramatic when the focus should really be on how silly the whole premise is. But, to play devil's advocate again, I could argue that even if internet access is a basic human right, you could access the internet with a wired rather than wireless connection.

    10. Re:Basic Human Rights? by Locklin · · Score: 1

      I'm not allowed to blast my Stereo loud enough to bother my neighbors all night. Then again, humans *can actually* perceive sound.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    11. Re:Basic Human Rights? by timholman · · Score: 1

      Ok, so the guy filing the suit is a moron and the suit has no technical merit at all. But really? Running a router is now a basic human right? A little melodramatic don't you think?

      On the contrary, the right in question is one of the most fundamental rights humans cherish - the right to be left alone and not be harassed by people who try to force you to live the way they do.

    12. Re:Basic Human Rights? by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      Well, fair enough, but to play devil's advocate for a second here, what if it was really making him sick (it isn't)? Clearly you can't claim to be able to do whatever you want within the confines of your own house if it makes the guy next door sick?

      My first question would be what has the neighbor done to protect himself from the stuff making him sick. If the EM radiation is really causing him illness... Has he done anything to keep it out of his house? Because my WLAN isn't the only source. I'd like to know if they've bothered to do any kind of RF shielding on their house. I'd also like to know if there's any reason why he thinks it's my WLAN that's making him sick... And not his own microwave oven, or the radio tower on the hill, or some guy driving by with his cell phone.

      If he really was getting sick from EM radiation, I'd suggest that he look at moving someplace fairly remote and shielding his house fairly well - since EM radiation is very common these days.

      Also, if I was your neighbor and, according to your argument, I can do whatever I want within the confines of my house, you won't mind if I play loud rock music at 2 AM in the morning every day? I think your right to a good nights sleep in your own home should trump by right to rock out at an unsocialable hour.

      It depends.

      Am I insisting on sleeping at night with my windows open, there-by making any noise coming from your house far more audible? Have I even tried ear plugs or a white-noise generator?

      We have noise ordinances that specify sound over a certain volume is not acceptable... And if you exceed that then I could call the police and/or prosecute to have you quiet down... But those noise levels are based on "normal" human beings - not hypersensitive ones.

      If I've got some kind of aural hypersensitivity, that makes even reasonable noise coming from your house unbearable to me, then that's more-or-less my problem. I'm going to have to go the extra mile to soundproof my house or eliminate noise - because I can't very well expect everyone around me to alter their lives to suit my needs.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    13. Re:Basic Human Rights? by muridae · · Score: 1

      Well, fair enough, but to play devil's advocate for a second here, what if it was really making him sick (it isn't)? Clearly you can't claim to be able to do whatever you want within the confines of your own house if it makes the guy next door sick?

      Depends on what it is you are doing, and if your actions are otherwise legal. The FCC has said you are allowed to broadcast these wireless signals, I think that will trump a doctor saying that symptoms might be real. Now, if you were piping something known to be hazardous, say gamma radiation, because you were not following known safety guidelines, then the neighbors would have some ground to stand on.

      Also, if I was your neighbor and, according to your argument, I can do whatever I want within the confines of my house, you won't mind if I play loud rock music at 2 AM in the morning every day? I think your right to a good nights sleep in your own home should trump by right to rock out at an unsocialable hour.

      I, personally, would not mind as I am awake at 2AM most days. However, the existing town ordinance establishing a noise curfew might cause the police to take issue. Your repeated violation of that ordinance, with documents showing that the police had been there to shut you down multiple times, might give the cranky old lady across the way the legal ground to get a lawsuit past preliminary hearings and maybe even enough to win a suit against you. And if you decide to play it at 2PM, but even louder, you might run afoul of those safety laws for safe decibel levels.

    14. Re:Basic Human Rights? by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      From the article the guy knew that she uses wifi, etc. So an equivalent argument would be if you knew I play rock at 2 am in the morning and you then told me about the house next door being up for rent with the intention to sue me later on.

    15. Re:Basic Human Rights? by wjousts · · Score: 1

      Well, fair enough, but to play devil's advocate for a second here, what if it was really making him sick (it isn't)? Clearly you can't claim to be able to do whatever you want within the confines of your own house if it makes the guy next door sick?

      My first question would be what has the neighbor done to protect himself from the stuff making him sick.

      Okay, but let's assume that he could prove that it isn't anything in his house and isn't any of the multitude of other sources flying around. Why does he have to do something to protect himself? Isn't that a bit like me punching you in the face and blaming your for not having your guard up?

      I also disagree that I should have to wear ear plugs because of your loud music. Closing a window might be reasonable, but you expect me to wear ear plugs or get a white noise generator because you are (hypothetically) a jerk?

    16. Re:Basic human rights? by dancingmilk · · Score: 1

      Basic human right to do whatever lawful activities you want inside your home?

      Situation:
      I'm your neighbor, and I'm telling you that you aren't allowed to host a wireless network INSIDE YOUR OWN HOME. When you disagree citing that this is crazytalk, I sue you for half a million dollars. How is that NOT attacking and violating your rights?

    17. Re:Basic Human Rights? by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      Okay, but let's assume that he could prove that it isn't anything in his house and isn't any of the multitude of other sources flying around.

      So now we're assuming that he is not only actually being affected by EM radiation... Which is a bit of a stretch... But that he is only being affected by my EM radiation?

      Why does he have to do something to protect himself?

      Because EM radiation is freaking everywhere.

      Never mind the stuff coming in off the sun... We've got radio towers and cell phones and WAPs and microwave ovens and noisy wiring absolutely everywhere.

      If he is actually sensitive to EM radiation, he better protect himself, or he's going to be pretty miserable. And not just because of my cell phone.

      I also disagree that I should have to wear ear plugs because of your loud music. Closing a window might be reasonable, but you expect me to wear ear plugs or get a white noise generator because you are (hypothetically) a jerk?

      If I'm blasting my stereo at 140 dB I am, in fact, a jerk. And you are entirely within your right to complain and take legal action.

      If I'm blasting my stereo at 60 dB but you've got some kind of freakish aural hypersensitivity, or your house is literally made out of paper, that's not really my problem is it? Should I have to take extraordinary measures because you're too cheap to build your house out of wood like everyone else? Or because you moved into a regular neighborhood instead of some isolated countryside?

      And, keep in mind, if my stereo at 60 dB is bothering you - so is a lot of other stuff. Like everyone else in the neighborhood, and every car that drives by, and random people on the street having conversations, and whatever else.

      I'm allergic to oak trees - their pollen gives me hives. It's generally something that I just have to deal with because they're everywhere. But, when we were shopping around for a house, I did pay attention to the trees in the neighborhood. There are a couple houses that were pretty nice, that we turned down, because there were a lot of oak trees in the neighborhood. Instead we moved into an area that's wooded almost entirely with pine trees.

      I'm sure as hell not going to move in next to some oak tree nursery and demand that they cut down all their trees because they make me sick.

      Nor am I going to demand that my neighbors with oak trees on their property (there are a few of them) chop them down because they make me sick.

      Oak trees, like 60 dB noise levels and EM radiation, are just kind of a hazard of living on this planet. I can either deal with them, or go live in a bubble somewhere.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    18. Re:Basic Human Rights? by Myopic · · Score: 1

      To escape EM, he'd have to move pretty far, considering the magnetic field of the Earth.

    19. Re:Basic human rights? by secretcurse · · Score: 1

      I would consider being left the hell alone when you're in your home and not doing anything illegal a basic human right.

      --
      I'm using all of my mod points to mod ancient memes down. Please join me.
    20. Re:Basic Human Rights? by Imrik · · Score: 1

      You can expect your neighbors to accommodate normal sensitivity, if you have higher than normal sensitivity you are responsible for protecting yourself.

      For example, if your neighbors are playing their music loud at 2am, they are probably violating noise ordinances in your area. If they are playing it at a normal volume that most people can't even hear outside their property but you can, you are responsible for protecting yourself.

    21. Re:Basic Human Rights? by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      The actions of one inside one's house and freedom of movement and ability to do what you want within the law? That's not freedom? That wouldn't fall under their human rights? Seriously?

      Well, the point is that the radio waves aren't confined to just the one house. Personally I don't believe this claim is legitimate, but if you think this is somehow confined to "inside one's house" your wireless gear must be worse than mine...

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    22. Re:Basic Human Rights? by Cryophallion · · Score: 1

      Well, it is an interesting response for a few reasons:

      1. It is best to have a number of defense options in court. You'd be surprised what a jury can allow to happen, especially in a civil situation, where it can only require a liklihood that it is true.

      2. A person on a jury can be sympathetic to a person's percieved ailment. A lot of people have had pain they can't prove, and the man in this case could say it is too hard to prove he doesn't have the symptoms, so to err on the side of not making the man suffer. However, many people find that what they do in their own homes is inviolate, within reason, so it switches the focus from pity on the sick to trying to retain our rights which many feel are eroding anyway. It is a good response to percieved ailments that hits at the visceral level.

      3. Yup, you can go wired. But, why should he have to? If one can prove the the strength of the signal erodes as quickly as it does, then why should he not be allowed to use his laptop in any room he wants. And who's to say the man's microwave isn't far worse for him?

      I appreciate you playing devil's advocate. I agree - internet access is not a core right to be human (no matter what the Dutch say). But it can be an effective litigation strategy.

    23. Re:Basic Human Rights? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Ok, so the guy filing the suit is a moron and the suit has no technical merit at all. But really? Running a router is now a basic human right? A little melodramatic don't you think?

      No, being able to live in your own home, unharassed is a basic human right. If I have an pollen allergy all I can do is filter the pollen out of my own house or wear a mask both at my own expense, I cannot force all my neighbours to remove all flowering plants and pave over the area with concrete.

      Of course pollen allergies can be proven with proper scientific testing as well as empirical observation (sneezing is kind of obvious).

      So it's not about the WiFi per se, it's about her neighbours actions.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    24. Re:Basic Human Rights? by wjousts · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, perhaps I'm taking too much of a scientists view and should remember that most juries are sadly lacking in scientifically literate members.

    25. Re:Basic Human Rights? by DrMaurer · · Score: 1

      The running of a router in someone's house would qualify as something they can do within the law. That's their freedom, I would argue.

      Like abortion, you don't like it, that's fine, but work to change the law, don't work by killing doctors. Maybe not the best example...

      --
      Dan
  23. How to tell if he's a liar by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) Mount a satellite dish on the wall of a long room.
    2) Place a chair at the opposite end of the room.
    3) Have this guy sit in the chair for an hour.
    4) See how much he complains about headaches, how much he acts up, how he has been brain-poisoned etc.
    5) Show him that the dish is not connected to anything, and never has been.

    If he doesn't react, affix it to a signal generator and see how he performs in an actual scientifically conducted test. But do it my way first, then make it into an amusing video montage so everyone knows how much of a tool he is.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:How to tell if he's a liar by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Ugh, I had to post this right below the bleeding heart "he probably needs help, you insensitive clod!" post... Now I KNOW I'll get modded to hell.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:How to tell if he's a liar by TheSpoom · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Could we stop with the whole "ZOMG this post is going to be modded to oblivion" thing? I moderate frequently, and whenever most of us see something like that, we ignore the post (or possibly even mod it down for being off topic). Most moderators actually do take the job seriously.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    3. Re:How to tell if he's a liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that guy a "bleeding heart"? You make it sound like showing some pity is wrong. Yah, toss the guy's case out but this guy is obvioulsy delusional. If you had an asthma attack would you want someone like yourself dismissing it as "pity-me whining"?

    4. Re:How to tell if he's a liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, this guy's a complete fraud and we're well aware of it. We're experienced in these matters. Please don't go around stereotyping us because you refuse to take the time to try to understand us.

    5. Re:How to tell if he's a liar by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      Naw, even bleeding hearts realize he's a suehappy jerk after RTFA and noticing that he knew she used a cellphone and WiFi, and told her that the house behind his was for rent. He told her she could live there just SO he could sue her. The only help he needs is into jail for his protection racket. Step 1: Find somebody with a cellphone. Step 2: Tell them they can move in to your neighborhood. Step 3: Demand they give up all electronic devices, even electric lighting. Step 4: Sue for half a million dollars when they won't give up their lighting, and are stuck in their lease and cannot leave. Step 5: Profit!

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    6. Re:How to tell if he's a liar by Locklin · · Score: 1

      Because mental illness can easily be beaten simply be proving to the victim that they are wrong...

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    7. Re:How to tell if he's a liar by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Well, it eliminates that he's right, doesn't it.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    8. Re:How to tell if he's a liar by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      It was more of a sarcastic post, but not to worry. I mod frequently too, and do the same as you describe.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    9. Re:How to tell if he's a liar by inigopete · · Score: 1

      My father took part in a double-blind experiment similar to the one you describe four years ago. He didn't know whether the dish was on or not and reported no symptoms, adverse or otherwise.

      Last year he had a tumour removed from his brain, the doctors estimated it had been growing for at least a couple of years. He contacted the university group he'd volunteered for. They looked up the research data. Turns out he had been one of the individuals exposed to higher 2.4GHz radiation (the dish was switched on).

      The result was statistically irrelevant to their findings but it's hard to shake a niggling anecdotal doubt in his mind, theirs, and mine, that maybe the research and the tumour were connected.

    10. Re:How to tell if he's a liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asthma attack: Legitimate medical problem.
      This guy's problem: Wild delusion.

      Legitimate medical problem != Wild delusion

      This has been basic social logic and reality 101. Next semester we might get into self-absorbed snide cynicism, but that's not what we're teaching this lesson.

    11. Re:How to tell if he's a liar by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      And we have very little actual good research data on the subject.

      There was a day when we told women to put their face in a uranium shield to remove facial hair.

      There was a day we didn't shield people from xrays.

      What scares me is the pseudo-science of thinking we know things that we haven't done a really good job of researching yet.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    12. Re:How to tell if he's a liar by kimvette · · Score: 1

      That may be true for you and me, but if you look at how many posts are modded "troll" or "flamebait" when the moderator disagrees (and the posts are obviously not flamebait), and the racists modded down rather than insightful/interesting/informative/funny posts modded up (those assholes' goal is just to waste moderators' time - we're better off ignoring the GNAA types than acknowledging their bullshit by modding them down), the moderators clearly do not take their "job" seriously. All one needs to do is read the guidelines to know the goal is to mod up to improve the signal-to-noise ratio, not to mod down.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    13. Re:How to tell if he's a liar by Locklin · · Score: 1

      Not to him (usually).

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    14. Re:How to tell if he's a liar by Myopic · · Score: 1

      There's an easier way to tell if he is a liar:

      1) If he makes absurd implausible claims which have already been tested and found to be bogus, he's a liar.

      Phew, that's four steps easier than your way.

    15. Re:How to tell if he's a liar by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      The result was statistically irrelevant to their findings but it's hard to shake a niggling anecdotal doubt in his mind, theirs, and mine, that maybe the research and the tumour were connected.

      Well, better get shakin', because they're not related.

      Look: Humans are naturally bad at these kinds of analyses because of our over-active pattern detectors. You're seeing a pattern that isn't there. Step back, make that realization, and you're free.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    16. Re:How to tell if he's a liar by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      1) Mount a satellite dish on the wall of a long room.
      2) Place a chair at the opposite end of the room.
      3) Have this guy sit in the chair for an hour.
      4) See how much he complains about headaches, how much he acts up, how he has been brain-poisoned etc.
      5) Show him that the dish is not connected to anything, and never has been.

      Proves nothing. It could be that the subject's own brainwaves are being projected toward the dish, where they reflect and converge on the receiving element, which resonates and (due to lack of a load on the receiving element) bounces the waves back at the dish and back at his head again, but out of phase due to propagation delay. That would give anyone a headache!

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    17. Re:How to tell if he's a liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your unplugged dish was absorbing the radio waves that keep me from getting headaches!

  24. Send that guy over here by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

    I have a few powerful crystals that absorb electrosmog here for sale. I also sell Bach-flower tinctures that strengthen you against the onslaught of those waves.

    And if you buy that, I also have a beautiful bridge with a top notch view on SF for sale...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Send that guy over here by boristdog · · Score: 1

      Lisa, I would like to buy your rock.

  25. it's not so funny by meflo · · Score: 1

    ...when you are the victim. Don't know for an Wireless AP but I go real headaches from a telco's base station. It was as close as 70 meters from my appartment and although it was 4 storeys higher than my home it still made me sick. And the most interesting part: while climbing the stairs to my appartment going through the floors when I was getting near my floor the nasty sensation was setting off. So the guy may be in his right. All he did was to buy a house and then waited till somebody started making him sick. Why don't you look from the other side - make the lady put her house in a Faraday cage if she insist on her wireless?

    1. Re:it's not so funny by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      How do you control for the possibility that your experience is psychosomatic?

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    2. Re:it's not so funny by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Have you considered that what you're experiencing might be due to high frequency sound instead of EM radiation? There's a lot more evidence for that at least, and it's the only thing that could set the telco base station different from wifi. There is absolutely jack and shit for evidence that people can feel normal radio and other communications-style radiation.

      The guy is not right. Period, end of story. And if you think he is, perhaps you should go talk to your doctor about the possibility of you suffering from a psychosomatic illness and treatment options.

    3. Re:it's not so funny by Game_Ender · · Score: 1

      How did you learn of the device? Do you know its power output? Radio drops off really fast, so it's completely possible that its signal strength is less in your apartment then all of your neighbors WiFi.

    4. Re:it's not so funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because there's towers and such that are putting out a lot more power than a WiFi router in another house after it has passed over the distance between the houses plus two exterior walls.

    5. Re:it's not so funny by slim · · Score: 1

      There are researchers who would be eager to hear from you, if you can really discern the presence of RF at these frequencies, in double-blind conditions.

      Not that I doubt your experience - psychosomatic effects and placebos are very powerful things.

      I don't know how effective a treatment it is to have your experience's lack of physical cause demonstrated. I imagine in many cases it would merely cause confusion and anger. Plenty of people continue to respond to homeopathy even though their rational mind knows it can only be a placebo.

    6. Re:it's not so funny by arose · · Score: 1

      How about you put in a pla^HFaraday cage in your house instead?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    7. Re:it's not so funny by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      Because we know that her wireless isn't affecting him one iota?

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    8. Re:it's not so funny by pz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...when you are the victim. Don't know for an Wireless AP but I go real headaches from a telco's base station. It was as close as 70 meters from my appartment and although it was 4 storeys higher than my home it still made me sick. And the most interesting part: while climbing the stairs to my appartment going through the floors when I was getting near my floor the nasty sensation was setting off. So the guy may be in his right. All he did was to buy a house and then waited till somebody started making him sick. Why don't you look from the other side - make the lady put her house in a Faraday cage if she insist on her wireless?

      Where's the control in your experiment? How do you know that it was the tower and not, say, the ultrasonic pest repellent devices that your landlord had installed on your floor? Or any of a half dozen frequently used but kind of nasty chemicals that are routinely found in apartment buildings? Or the flickering old-style fluorescent lights? Frankly, the fact that the sensation wasn't worse OUTSIDE when the building isn't shielding you from what sounds like line-of-sight irradiation makes me dubious that the source of your headaches have been properly isolated.

      Or, you're trolling, and I fell for it.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    9. Re:it's not so funny by meflo · · Score: 1

      In elegant fashion: 1) The symptoms made me search for a problem not the other way. When I started having those symptoms I didn't knew the base station was there. 2) The symptoms were exactly those received from EMF exposure(not taking the into consideration its strength). When I searched the web for the condition the I had around 80% of the things mentioned. 3) Everytime I moved somewhere else for a couple of days, the thing went off. 4) When I "solved" the problem, the symptoms went off. 5) And finally maybe all the conditions in the world that can't not be diagnosed with precisely are psychosomatic?

    10. Re:it's not so funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Don't know for an Wireless AP but I go real headaches from a telco's base station."

      No, you don't actually.

    11. Re:it's not so funny by dancingmilk · · Score: 1

      Its her right to use Wifi. If he becomes sick from it, thats his problem, not hers. He needs to wrap his house in a Faraday cage and then he needs to shut the fuck up.

      I can't really see this situation from his point of view all that well since he's a crazy fucking moron.

    12. Re:it's not so funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She shouldn't have to put her house in a Faraday cage because she's permitted by the FCC to operate her wireless devices and to receive the outside signal.

    13. Re:it's not so funny by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      if you really can detect EM radiation from the phone base stations then I'd be interested to see you in a controlled trial-

      you spend an evening in a room, whenever you feel bad/get a nasty sensation press a button.

      At the end of the evening the times when you indicated you felt something and the times when they turned on the EM transmitter can be compared.

      very easy to double blind.

    14. Re:it's not so funny by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      It probably was.

      Does he know exactly when the tower was switched on? (See the South Africa fiasco, where residents were complaining about effects from a tower that was NOT RADIATING because it wasn't yet operational.)

      There's also, in the OP's case - did you move in before the tower was built? Or has it always been there? Maybe you're blaming the tower for a problem with your building. Or the mere act of building the tower changed the environment due to the construction work and not the transmitters themselves.

      Another possibility, if in close range to a high power facility, is that a partially malfunctioning switching power supply may be emitting a "squeal" just outside of human hearing range. It IS a known fact that sound just outside the human hearing range can cause discomfort, in fact people sell products that take advantage of this fact!

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    15. Re:it's not so funny by vlm · · Score: 1

      How did you figure out you got headaches from a telco base station?

      I mean, sure, you get headaches in a certain location. And there happens to be a base station a considerable distance away.

      But, how could you possibly "know" those are connected? Almost infinitely more likely:

      1) someones furnace/stove/rooftop pool heater is pumping out carbon monoxide.
      2) the carpets were cleaned with raw benzene, and/or the gasoline powered scooter is fuming away inside someones apartment.
      3) mold sensitivity from the leaky roof.
      4) a neighbor is doing god knows what in his meth lab
      5) Perfume or other stink sensitivity, especially if the applier is a smoker (those folks tend to apply literally choking quantities)
      6) Insecticide not rated for human occupation or improperly applied basically nerve gassing you.
      7) The "funniest" part was describing how the headache began as the stairs were being climbed. Probably just a brain aneurysm throbbing away.
      8) Drinking too much makes you hung over, not RF transmitters. Exercise, like climbing stairs, doesn't necessarily always help.
      9) Neighbor is having a "fun" time getting high huffing paint solvents, you're just getting the contact-headache.
      10) The hardwood floor down the hallway is getting refinished with no ventilation at all. Sorry if it makes you hurl.

      I've either experienced, or am familiar with others experiencing, all 10.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    16. Re:it's not so funny by meflo · · Score: 1

      Aahh you named, almost - "line of sight". When I was walking around I was too low and when I went far enough to enter the field the distance was already different. And all of us have different physiology, I might have a thinner skull or lack minerals if that may play a role.

    17. Re:it's not so funny by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      Or, look at it from the first side again, and allow for the fact that you are also crazy. There's a famous story about psychosomatic EM sensitivity. They built a large microwave relay station for cable television. Big huge microwave dishes and nasty pointy antennae. Nearby, a huge uproar, it was causing crippling migraines and vertigo and nose bleeds and nausea and blurred vision. They sign petitions and form a mob to go complain to the guys and tell them to shut it off. Well, the engineers at this station just laugh at them. "It's not funny!" they scream, just as you do, "Our pain is real! It's agony just being this close to your building, turn it off!" It turns out the engineers can't turn it off because they still haven't turned it on yet.

      All of the mentally afflicted who claim this impossible allergy to an infinitesimally narrow band of radiation (with complete immunity to all other bands of EM radiation) who have actually been tested, have been shown to be making it up. The test is easy: Put them in a sterile room with nothing but lights in the way of electronic devices, and assure them its shielded from signals. See how calm they are, despite the powerful WiFi routers in the false ceiling? Now wheel in a big scary machine covered in antennae. Still fine, see, it's off! Now flick that big "ON" switch for them, see how that green light comes on? Instant agony! They grab at their heads and they scream, make it stop, you are raping our minds! OK, switch it off, they have proven their point, radio waves cause them pain. Except there is no transmitter, there are just pieces of metals attached to an empty box. The "ON" switch turns on the light, and only the light.

      Afterwards, the quacks who make big bucks selling these folks expensive electricity cleaning devices and crystalline rods to protect them, say that of course the test failed, when you are allergic to pollen you don't sneeze as soon as you are near the plant, it can take hours. Or, they say the scientists negative thoughts, because they aren't true believers in chi points and auras, have corrupted the results. In any event, you are making the utterly absurd claim that you can feel the effects instantly as you climb higher towards the towers. So you have no excuse now. Go get tested. You can win $1,000,000 if you prove that your "disability" is real, and you have no room to complain since you've already asserted that there is no delayed reaction, you feel physical pain instantly. We'll be waiting.

      Further, this guy didn't just sit there, minding his own business. He knew her before she moved in. He knew she had a cellphone, knew she used WiFi on her laptop so she could chat with family using Skype. And knowing this, he told her that the house next to his was for rent. Then, as soon as she moved in, him and a big friend of his knock on her door and tell her she has to shut off all of her wifi stuff or she'll be sorry. She did, she turned off her router and used a wired connection. That wasn't enough, no cellphone. So she stopped using her cellphone while home. Not enough, now she has to replace her dimmer switches with regular switches. So she said no, I've made too many comprises, no more, I'm keeping my dimmer switches. So he sued for half a million dollars and a permanent injunction barring her from using any and all electronic devices. He told her about the place because he KNEW she used a cellphone, and wanted an easy target to sue.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    18. Re:it's not so funny by Hatta · · Score: 1

      1) The symptoms made me search for a problem not the other way. When I started having those symptoms I didn't knew the base station was there.

      So you had a bad day with some headaches and nausea. You blame it on the first thing you see, a telco tower.

      2) The symptoms were exactly those received from EMF exposure(not taking the into consideration its strength). When I searched the web for the condition the I had around 80% of the things mentioned.

      People who have psychosomatic syndromes often complain of the same vague symptoms.

      3) Everytime I moved somewhere else for a couple of days, the thing went off. 4) When I "solved" the problem, the symptoms went off.

      The placebo effect is amazing isn't it.

      5) And finally maybe all the conditions in the world that can't not be diagnosed with precisely are psychosomatic?

      Maybe, maybe not. Until you can demonstrate EM sensitivity in a lab, you can hardly blame people for being skeptical.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    19. Re:it's not so funny by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You are making a lot of claims with no evidence backing them up. "Victim", "headaches from a", "made me sick". A psychosomatic condition doesn't require the laws of physics to be rewritten, and is a far sight more likely than your alleged sensitivity. Talk to James Randi about it, and he'll kick you a million bucks if you can prove you are right.

    20. Re:it's not so funny by cynyr · · Score: 1

      ask the telco to turn it off a day or two over a few weeks without notification, and record your feelings during those few weeks, if you get a false positive, or no change it's not the telcos tower thing. See that community in south africa that was having issues, and the tower hadn't even been powered up yet.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    21. Re:it's not so funny by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Your error is in step 3. See, there may be lots of pages claiming to explain your symptoms, but there's not one shred of evidence the EM causes anything like this. And they've done some tests already; nobody really know if there's a signal or not, its only when told. Once you got to step three, your blamed the tower, and now believe its the tower (hey, these wackjobs are right!) But I suspect something else is going on to cause your symptoms.

      The fact that you "solved" it means nothing; when you know there's no signal your mind doesn't project the symptoms.

    22. Re:it's not so funny by hattig · · Score: 1

      It's not the telco's base station at 70m.

      Maybe one of your neighbours is building a nuclear bomb or something. Or someone has set up a Mosquito because of teenage louts in the area. Or a whole horde of other reasons, sick building syndrome, chemicals, flickering and/or dim lights, the dreary paintwork where you live, your worthless life coming home to cheetos and xbox every night, etc, etc.

    23. Re:it's not so funny by hypergreatthing · · Score: 1

      so... you assumed it was a wireless cell tower which caused the problems, not something a bit closer to home like fumes or mold or bad air circulation? Hell, you could have bad electrical which produces a lot more local EM fields than a cell tower 70 meters away.

    24. Re:it's not so funny by meflo · · Score: 1

      True, just make the on/off intervals for a whole day. Because as I've read the problem is not so much the strength of the field but the continuous exposure to it. And a base station probably serves a thousand of phones and eventually in every moment few of them are in conversation.

    25. Re:it's not so funny by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      but you said you felt it as you walked up the stairs.

      Do you feel it when you go up the stairs or only when you have been exposed to it continuously for a long time now?

    26. Re:it's not so funny by meflo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and presumably when you are cold your PC's CPU is idle and not emitting enough heat.

    27. Re:it's not so funny by meflo · · Score: 1

      You caught me, I give up. Can't explain this!

    28. Re:it's not so funny by compro01 · · Score: 1

      And the most interesting part: while climbing the stairs to my apartment going through the floors when I was getting near my floor the nasty sensation was setting off.

      I think you ought to have your blood pressure checked.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    29. Re:it's not so funny by muridae · · Score: 1

      Why don't you look from the other side - make the lady put her house in a Faraday cage if she insist on her wireless?

      Because it is much simpler to put his house in a Faraday cage, rather then first renovate this woman's rented house, and then the other neighbor that he sees with a wireless phone. And some time later another neighbor whom he finds out owns a cell phone.

      Did you test yourself to find out if it was the wireless radiation from the base station? Maybe vibrations from it instead, or maybe some mold/dust/CO or something else in the apartment complex. Allergy to the neighbor's incense of choice. The onus is really on this guy to prove not only that he is sensitive to wifi and cellular signals but that this woman is the source of the problem. Maybe another neighbor has a AP running, but not broadcasting any SSID, his computer might not spot that. And if he uses a computer to find the access points, someone really needs to point out that the wireless card will be broadcasting at the same exact frequency. The radiation from a cellphone in her house is going to be pretty low compared to the electrical noise from light bulbs in his house, or any AC-DC transformers, or AC motor. If he is only sensitive to certain frequencies like wifi, then the microwaves in just about all of his neighbors houses could be a bigger source. They don't leak much, for safety reasons, but they not leak enough to annoy a cell or wireless signal. Which should put the energy level close enough in power to bother him, if this is real.

    30. Re:it's not so funny by Elvii · · Score: 1

      The hf sound theory is a good possibility, speaking from personal experience. I can hear the high pitch buzz from crt's (probably the transformer in them?) and similiar sounds, but tv buzz is the only source I can always pinpoint. Probably because my tv doesn't move. Not sure the exact frequency of the buzzing, never was good at figuring exact khz stuff by ear.

      And for the record, it doesn't cause me any annoyance and I don't want to sue anybody over it.

      --
      This sig left intentionally blank.
    31. Re:it's not so funny by muridae · · Score: 1

      Not to be rude, but nothing you said is proof. I am curious, though, so feel free to elaborate on any points. I am just going through your story as an interested science type, so maybe you or someone else can prove they have a physical malady.

      If your points are in the other that you went through them, great. I, however, am going to respond in an order that I would look at from the outside. Point three, you find that leaving the apartment fixed the problem. Good, but this doesn't help the case that it was the telco. All it says is that you were having some reaction to the apartment, physiological or psychological. Points one and two, your symptoms matched the symptoms for EMF exposure. On a quick search, I found that I could pin any given symptom to EMF exposure. Someone, somewhere, has said that SymptomX (from dry mouth to pain to heart problems to depression) may be caused by EMF. The WHO has done double blind studies and found that people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity can not detect the radio signals they think, but instead may be picking up on the 60Hz flicker in florescent lights. I know that I can not walk into certain apartment complexes that leave old florescent bulbs to flicker, the noise and lights blinking make me ill. No clue of the symptoms, they could match any number of other real disorders, or reactions to things in the building. On to point four, you don't mention how you "solved" the problem, maybe you don't want to. If it was moving away, that would only say that either something in the building was making you ill, again physiologically or psychologically, or there is the possibility that since you had attached to this thought that the problem was because of the telco building you masked or removed the symptoms in the same way a psychosomatic allergy to yellow can be avoided by avoiding yellow things. If you got the telco to shut the building down, congrats on that if it is the case, or put up some radio wave shielding it still doesn't differentiate anything.

      As for point five, no, a psychosomatic response is definitely not the best answer for things that can't be diagnosed. However, it tends to be the common one; before chronic fatigue and fibromialgia, the problems those describe were usually treated as psychological only with no physical cause. The problem is, in double blind studies where people who claim to be sensitive to EMF were exposed to real and sham radiation, they proved no more able to determine which was real and which was fake than a person with no symptoms. Nor did they prove to be better than shear chance, if I read the studies correctly. So if, when tested, the symptoms appear to be psychosomatic in studied cases of other individuals with the same disorder, then it is not that far of a stretch to say that the disorder is psychosomatic.

      There is a lot more to your story than you mention, obviously. And this is the internet, so don't post anything you don't want everyone to see. But as an observer, with all the studies stacked against this being a real physical disorder, you are up against a lot that says this isn't real so I would have to see lots of information to believe it exists. The steps you took, especially the order you took them in, do not help your case as they line up with hypochondria pretty well.

      Disclaimer: Not a doctor, psychologist, LCSW, or any other diagnostic professional.
      Take everything with grain of salt. Or the whole shaker, as the case may be.

    32. Re:it's not so funny by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Not that I doubt your experience - psychosomatic effects and placebos are very powerful things.

      Psychosomatic? Yes.

      Placebos? No.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    33. Re:it's not so funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

        The lack isn't minerals. It's brain cells.

    34. Re:it's not so funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I suspect that you have a very thick skull.

    35. Re:it's not so funny by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1
      Assuming you mean a wireless base station? I'm curious as to how you determined this was the cause, as opposed to something like mold in the apartment? For that matter, why would it not happen 10 meters further away from the base station, or 10 meters closer? In the case of mold, its adverse effects are documented; whereas to the best of my knowledge, adverse reactions to EM remain unproven.

      All he did was to buy a house and then waited till somebody started making him sick.

      Let's look a little closer at TFA...

      She keeps in touch, she said, with relatives in the U.S., Asia, Europe and the Middle East. "Because my family members live in different time zones, I have always made myself available to them at all hours," she said. "We communicate often through Skype, Gmail chat, video and audio sessions." Firstenberg knew this when he mentioned to her that the Casados Street house was for rent, but after Monribot moved in, he and a friend insisted that she turn off her Wi-Fi router and other equipment. She tried to comply, but felt harassed.

      So your innocent victim knew that she used wireless devices before she moved in, but conveniently waited until after she moved in to mention the issues he had with them?

      "Ah," you say, "Clearly he did not know of them before hand."

      But then we see this:

      Nearly 400 people signed an online petition that Firstenberg helped organize against plans to add Wi-Fi antennas around town. The City Council postponed the project last month.

      .. Hmm. Well, maybe this was after the fact too? Here, wait, let's look a little deeper - Mr Fristenberg has a wikipedia page (The sources of the page do check out)

      s an American activist on the subject of electromagnetic hypersensitivity.[1] He is the founder of the independent campaign group the Cellular Phone Task Force.[2] His 1997 book Microwaving Our Planet: The Environmental Impact of the Wireless Revolution was published by the group.[3]

      Ah, now things become even more clear. This known activist who went so far as authoring a book about the evils of EM years before he met his new neighbor... just *happened* to not mention his concerns when they spoke up front? (Here's an article he wrote two or three years before the incident... even before his neighbor moved in: http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2006/Firstenberg-EMF-Experiment1jan06.htm. I'll let you discover the misrepresentations in there for yourself, if you're of a mind to.)

      Why don't you look from the other side - make the lady put her house in a Faraday cage if she insist on her wireless?

      Mr Firstenberg is bathed in EM spectrum every day, as he is well aware. Given that he has had issues with this dating back to at least 1997 or so, and given that he knows he can't control the actions of everyone walking by his house every day, I think that enclosing his house in a Faraday cage is quite a reasonable request. Kind of like closing your windows and running the AC when humidity gives you a headache.

    36. Re:it's not so funny by nameer · · Score: 1

      Good chance its the flyback transformer. In which case (if NTSC) it is 15,735 Hz.

      --
      "Uh... yeah, Brain, but where are we going to find rubber pants our size?" --Pinky
    37. Re:it's not so funny by Shimbo · · Score: 1

      Its her right to use Wifi. If he becomes sick from it, thats his problem, not hers.

      You have no right to do something that causes acute physical harm to others except in self-defence and similar circumstances. If he can establish a causal relationship then he should be able to get a court order to stop her.

      However, he's a nutjob, so won't be able to.

    38. Re:it's not so funny by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Aahh you named, almost - "line of sight". When I was walking around I was too low and when I went far enough to enter the field the distance was already different. And all of us have different physiology, I might have a thinner skull or lack minerals if that may play a role.

      Or it's any one of the alternative mentioned that, you know, actually feasibly causes problems, or any number of other explanations.

      Confirmation bias: it's getting between you and the truth, and thus between you and your health.

      For years people complained that the EM radiation from high tension power lines were making them ill. The emissions of these lines are many, many times stronger than the sources that are supposedly making you ill, yet no test has even demonstrated any ill effect from them nor is there any feasible mechanism to do so.

      Psychosomatic illness? Or bizarre new phenomenon science can't explain?

      Neither! Turns out the symptoms were real, but the cause was the herbicides used to clear the ground around the towers!

      Yet because the sufferers insisted on always blaming the wires themselves, it hindered investigation into the real cause because the discussion could never move past the false cause.

      So yeah. If your experience is real, the worst thing you can do is declare it to be the fault of the tower and try to falsify that claim, and believe it when it if and when it is falsified, and then look for something else

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    39. Re:it's not so funny by slim · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to tell me that the placebo effect is not powerful?

      Have you read much about it? Placebos are miracle cures!

    40. Re:it's not so funny by davidshewitt · · Score: 1

      make the lady put her house in a Faraday cage if she insist on her wireless

      A Faraday cage will block external electromagnetic radiation. It will not prevent it from escaping.

    41. Re:it's not so funny by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      I dont' know if this is sarcastic or really uninformed.

      http://moremark.squarespace.com/quackref/#43

      The skinny of the review:

      Placebos do bupkis for anything but low level pain. Unless you can't take aspirin or ibu profin, forget it.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    42. Re:it's not so funny by slim · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo#Symptoms_and_conditions

      Yeah, yeah, Wikipedia - but there are plenty of good references there.

      Unless you can't take aspirin or ibu profin, forget it.

      And how are you so sure that the apirin/ibuprofen is what's doing the job? There are studies that show that the efficacy of painkillers is affected by the colour of the pill. Even by what the subject paid for the pill. The placebo effect is amazing.

      Sure, for serious conditions, it's no substitute for proper treatment. But it's vastly more powerful than most people give it credit for, and of course it's an ethical minefield because it works best when the subject is being misled.

      There's a good chapter on this in Ben Goldacre's book, Bad Science.

    43. Re:it's not so funny by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's the point of my post. Cochran Review shows that beyond simple pain relief PLACEBOS DO NOTHING. Hence, placebo controlled. Or control experiments where nothing was done. If it turned out the placebo effect was powerful, then we'd be giving placebos left and right. They don't work that way. They don't work at all.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  26. Your retarted accusations... by undecim · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ...and lack of any knowledge of what electromagnetic waves are/do is making me sick. I have "stupidity sensitivities" so please turn off your brain.

    --
    The Internet has given stupid people the resources of intelligent people.
    1. Re:Your retarted accusations... by broggyr · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which, do you mind revealing what a retart is? Is it a dessert you eat twice?

      --
      Irony? Yea, it's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron!
    2. Re:Your retarted accusations... by jabelli · · Score: 1

      It's worse than that. Think 2girls1cup.

  27. Can you even sue your neighbor for this stuff? by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

    Can you successfully sue your neighbor for other types of activities that cross the border between the properties? If you cook with some strong stuff (curries, bbq, peanuts) and the fumes from these foods makes him sick, can he actually win against you?

    1. Re:Can you even sue your neighbor for this stuff? by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 1

      Well, excessive noise is grounds for a legit lawsuit. I suspect keeping mounds of manure in your backyard could be prosecuted solely on the smell. This lawsuit is groundless, but the general principle (things that affect your neighbors cannot be done if the negative effect passes a certain threshold) is sound.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    2. Re:Can you even sue your neighbor for this stuff? by Locklin · · Score: 1

      If you release some toxic gas from your house in sufficient quantities to impact the health of your neighbors then, yes, you will likely face a losing court battle. In the case of EM and curry, I'm sure they would have a hard time proving in court that they are, in fact, being made ill by your proximity.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
  28. to make a case out of that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the victim needs to quantify their health and then demonstrate there is a decrease in the health percentage after having been exposed to neighbor's wi-fi. just my two cents :)

    mircea

  29. Cell phone towers - sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cell phone towers put out more signal than wi-fi antennas and cell phones combined, add in FM/AM and VHF/UHF signals, people are bombarded by radio frequencies day in and day out.

    Getting your neighbor to turn off their wireless might, *might* reduce this by 1 to 2% at most.

    Agreeing with everyone else here - IDIOT!

  30. She's an idiot... by cyberjock1980 · · Score: 0, Troll

    From the summary:

    "Being the target of this lawsuit has affected me very adversely," Monribot said Friday in response to e-mailed questions. "I feel as if my life and liberty are under attack for no valid reason, and it has forced me to have to defend my very basic human rights."'"

    She has a basic human right to wifi!? Her life and liberty are under attack because she has wifi!? Are you Fscking kidding me!?

    Despite the fact that this EMF sensitive guy is crazy, she's not exactly a "winner" either.

    If having wifi is a basic human right for life and liberty the world has gone to shit like I had never thought.

    1. Re:She's an idiot... by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      Very basic human rights to do whatever lawful things she wants to do in her own house.

      Next.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    2. Re:She's an idiot... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      She has a basic human right to act as she pleases in her own home as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. Unless this guy can prove that her actions are adversely and unreasonably affecting him, he is indeed attacking her liberty.

    3. Re:She's an idiot... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      If having wifi is a basic human right for life and liberty the world has gone to shit like I had never thought.

      Unless he is suing his other neighbours for using wifi as well, then yes, her life and liberty are under attack. She's being sued for half a million dollars. The street the guy lives on is right in the middle Santa Fe, less than a mile from the state capitol buildings, and he is surrounded by houses. The basic right isn't wifi per se, but the right to do your own thing in your own home. How does that phrase go... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... or something like that?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:She's an idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot. Think for two fucking seconds.

  31. courthouse by confused+one · · Score: 2, Funny

    The fun part will be determining if he reacts to the wifi network that will most likely be present in some part of the courthouse. The wireless keyboards and mice on the computers. The sheriff's / bailiff's radio gear...

  32. No need by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    The courthouse probably has wifi...

    --
    No sig today...
  33. Nothing stopping him from moving by kgroombr · · Score: 1

    If a person has an issue with his neighbors, it isn't a problem with the neighbors, it is that person. Easy fix....... get up a move away. I know a cave in the mountains that would fit this guy nicely.

  34. Can he tell when it is on and when it is off? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Put him in a room. Set up a router in the next room. Randomly turn the router on and off. If the guy can't tell when it is on and when it is off, he is faking it.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  35. You obviously haven't heard of the American dream. by rattaroaz · · Score: 1

    Anything can happen in America!

  36. Nutty neighbor by mark-t · · Score: 1

    He feels his life and liberty are under attack for no valid reason? First of all, the reason he is being subjected to this radiation (not saying that it is an attack) is because he lives in the 21st century in a metropolitan area in North America. I can count on my fingers the number of places I've been to in my city where there is no perceptable wifi signal. It's pretty much everywhere. Secondly, he's perfectly free to move to a locale that is far enough away from everybody else that he wouldn't have to deal with it. His persecution is more self-inflicted than caused by any of his neighbor's actions... and that's even *IF* I give him the benefit of the doubt that he is actually sensitive to such things.

  37. Old News by Scotland+Tom · · Score: 3, Informative

    Didn't this same Firstenberg guy ALREADY DO THIS to another neighbor back in January?

    Why is anyone even paying attention to him and his absurd claims?

  38. Against something that's government sanctioned? by name_already_taken · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The devices in question are already approved by the Federal government for use in residential settings.

    That more than likely trumps any claims by this nutcase*.

    It will be up to the nutcase* himself to insulate or shield the interior of his home.

    Think about it - if instead of electromagnetic sensitivity he thought he had car sensitivity - cars driving by his house made him sick. He'd want to stop people from driving on the street, but that's another government sanctioned activity that no court would let him impose restrictions on.

    *nutcase - someone with a psychological disorder that they think is caused by something external, instead of the truth which is that he's got too much time on his hands. He should really buy an old mine and live underground if he wants to avoid RF.

    --
    Putting moderation advice in your .sig lowers your karma!
    1. Re:Against something that's government sanctioned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what about Neutrinos? Dark Matter headaches are the worst.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_Neutrino_Observatory

    2. Re:Against something that's government sanctioned? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      How about an old uranium mine? ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    3. Re:Against something that's government sanctioned? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      He should sue the LHC. No, not because of black holes, but because he is Higgs sensitive, and the LHC causes such a big disturbance of the Higgs field that he feels headaches even that far away. They also don't have to seek for the Higgs particle any more, because his headache already proves that the Higgs exists, so there's no reason to continue the experiments. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:Against something that's government sanctioned? by Xorlev · · Score: 1

      But what about the low-grade em put off by rocks? Surely that's enough to set off his affliction. The poor man.

  39. Samer Theory by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

    Actually to be fair I offer the Samer Theory:

    Samer, a former radar operator of some sort apparently called into AM 1500 some years ago and offered that man made electromagnetic emmissions were driving us nuts.

    Now we all know (most) that electromagnetic emissions are everywhere but, as most also know there is a given distribution of natural emissions and artifical emissions.

    Over millions of years of evolution humans expect and operate with a given norm of those emissions. Those normal emissions are the "White Noise" of EM emissions. Humans, only in the last century and a half have started creating emissions that operate outside that norm. The Samer theory implies that since we haven't had millions of years to adapt to these new emissions they are a form of 'noise' that stands out from the norm we are used to. We perceive this new noise if you would and it affects are behavior. We know that EM can and does influence animals, why would we be no different then? The question is, if the Samer theory holds water is what kind of atrifical EM 'noise' affects us, and how.

    I suffered from headaches for years until I bought a new LCD tv. I was 'hearing' the TV's high frequencies (That damn whine from CRTS). Now with LCDs I don't hear that at all. Imagine the amount of EM that we 'hear' but don't perceive. Like a noisy room making people irritable perhaps the Samer theory holds some water in human behavior. I am not quick to discredit the plaintiffs claim (I do disagree with a lawsuit) but if this case has real scientific implications furthering the possibility of the Samer theory being sound the impact is huge. The amount of man made 'noise' from everything from AM radio, powerlines, cell phones, etc then we have a big and pressing problem of identifying what emissions influence people physically and mentally, what the impact is, and what if anything can be done about it since we've already let the genie out of the bottle...

    We know that various forms of EM can affect behaviors (migration, grazing patterns, maze memory in rats, etc.) Perhaps his claim is legitimate. If so the implications warrant more then a passing "Meh" in regards to the case.

    White noise we are used to, anything that stands out from it (dripping faucet, etc.) can really piss people off. I wouldn't be suprised if people have sensitivities to various forms\freq\etc.

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    1. Re:Samer Theory by compro01 · · Score: 1

      I suffered from headaches for years until I bought a new LCD tv. I was 'hearing' the TV's high frequencies (That damn whine from CRTS). Now with LCDs I don't hear that at all.

      Completely different thing than "EM sensitivity". The CRT whine is not EM noise, it's mechanical sound. A marginal or failing flyback transformer in conjunction with the circuit board it's mounted on forms a loudspeaker and will give off a whine at about 15KHz (NTSC horizontal scan rate).

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    2. Re:Samer Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was 'hearing' the TV's high frequencies (That damn whine from CRTS). Now with LCDs I don't hear that at all.

      No need to put hearing in quotes, you actually were hearing that. CRTs make noise because the flyback transformer energizes and de-energizes with every sweep of the electron gun across the screen. For a US TV that frequency was 15.75kHz (Other video systems like PAL or SECAM - same principle different frequency.) 15.75kHz is a high enough frequency sound that many people either can't hear it or lose the abilty to hear it as they get older - or, can sense it only as a pressure in the ear and not a sound as such.

      We know that various forms of EM can affect behaviors (migration, grazing patterns, maze memory in rats, etc.) Perhaps his claim is legitimate. If so the implications warrant more then a passing "Meh" in regards to the case.

      [Citation Needed]

    3. Re:Samer Theory by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      Just a couple of points. . .

      The high-pitched whine TV's emit, (and which I was surprised to learn, many people cannot hear!), are often explained as being loose coils in power supplies which vibrate at the induction frequency, which basically makes the coils into speakers. It's audio, rather than EM.

      Although. . , using an EM frequency to stimulate the nerve in the ear itself can be used to put a voice signal into somebody's head without vibrating air at all. It would be interesting to learn if that might not be going on in the case of some whining electronics.

      But anyway. . .

      I find that the experiences I've had with feeling the EM spectrum comes in a different form altogether. -I remember blithely walking into one of those department stores in a mall, and suddenly being nearly knocked on my arse. -It felt like I'd walked into a field of fuzz. Everything went dizzy and. . , it's hard to describe, but it was very strong. -Like when you take two North ends of two magnets and try to push them together. . , if my entire head had been the one of those magnets, that's sort of how it felt, but not in a physically resistive way. Anyway, I actually yelped out loud and staggered backwards, dazed. Then my head was instantly clear again.

      I looked around trying to figure out what had just happened, and then realized that directly above that spot was a HUGE black & white television from the 70's with a security camera feed displayed on it. You know the kind, "We can see if you shoplift!"

      Anyway, I was pretty blown away. I tried moving into and out of that field, and you could really feel it. My girlfriend was also very aware of it. It was really neat actually, like playing with a real-life force field. I don't know if I am sensitive to such things all the time; I'd certainly never experienced anything like that so intensely with consumer electronics before. Maybe my blood iron was really high that day or something. I'll have to head back to that mall sometime to check it out again.

      Anyway, my suspicion is that even when we are not consciously aware of the influence of EM pollution, that it affects us nonetheless and that since it is affecting the brain, measuring it becomes tricky. Brain malfunctions can be hard to detect in oneself. It takes others observing objectively to really know.

      -FL

    4. Re:Samer Theory by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

      I never implied it was EM noise, just noise non the less. Good info though.

      --
      -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
  40. Turn off your SSID broadcast by timholman · · Score: 1

    As others have pointed out in similar cases, what she could have done was turn off the SSID broadcast on her router. As far as he would be concerned, the wireless signal would be "off" and his symptoms would abate.

    On the other hand, it is generally pointless to try to compromise with a crazy person. She might be better off sticking to her guns and countersuing him for harassment.

    1. Re:Turn off your SSID broadcast by mrjb · · Score: 1

      As far as he would be concerned, the wireless signal would be "off" and his symptoms would abate.

      Ehm. One thing is being sensitive to electromagnetism, another is to actually interpret 54Mbps of wifi traffic in real time, using nothing but your brain. (The guy wouldn't use wifi himself now, would he?)

      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    2. Re:Turn off your SSID broadcast by timholman · · Score: 1

      Ehm. One thing is being sensitive to electromagnetism, another is to actually interpret 54Mbps of wifi traffic in real time, using nothing but your brain. (The guy wouldn't use wifi himself now, would he?)

      I assume he borrowed someone's computer to check for wireless networks, or asked someone to check for him. The average person probably wouldn't be savvy enough to use a network sniffer - they'd simply look for SSID names. No SSID = no perceived wireless = no "illness" to an EMS hypochondriac - unless, of course, he spotted her sitting on her balcony or deck, using a laptop.

    3. Re:Turn off your SSID broadcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She might be better off sticking to her guns and countersuing him for harassment.

      I hope she counter-sues this idiot right into the loony bin. He would deserve it for interrupting my day with this level of crazy and stupid all at once.

    4. Re:Turn off your SSID broadcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need the SSID broadcast on to detect WiFi. The signal doesn't magically go way.

  41. Countersue for fraud by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    Electromagnetic sensitivity has been thoroughly debunked as a complete bullshit myth. The guy would have better grounds to sue his neighbors for psychic interference by setting him on fire in their imagination (which they doubtlessly do).

    1. Re:Countersue for fraud by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      Electromagnetic sensitivity has been thoroughly debunked as a complete bullshit myth.

      Hm. No.

      But maybe if you try saying it again in all caps. . ?

      -FL

  42. I feel for the woman by zcold · · Score: 1

    But I cant help but notice the statement that she feels her basic human rights are being violated... Umm sweety., wifi is not a basic human right... water...now theres something we should be talking about... hA!

    --
    you know you can fry stuff putting things into things that dont like the things you put into it...
    1. Re:I feel for the woman by dancingmilk · · Score: 1

      Its a basic human right to do whatever lawful activities you want to do inside your home. Her jackass neighbor is trying to legally force her to not use Wifi. If someone was doing that to me, I'd feel like my rights were being violated / attacked too. To the point where I would fire back a counter suit and sue him into the ground.

    2. Re:I feel for the woman by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      The problem is that there has been no determination as to the reality or severity of the supposed "illness".

      You do not have a right to breed anthrax in your home or apartment. Why not? Because it will get out and cause other people harm. If it can be shown that RF is leaking out of your home or apartment and that this is having a negative effect on people... well, then you no longer have any right to radiate RF.

      The basic problem is that there isn't any conclusive proof one way or the other. Which means the court could rule either way. Without a very clear scientific conclusion on this it is all up for grabs. Dueling expert witnesses in court and all that. Today, while we all might like to think this is utter crap there is nothing in any case law anywhere or scientific journals that could be considered "proof" one way or the other.

      So the court is going to be left to their own devices. If they rule in favor of the plantiff, all hell could break loose. People could begin suing to have cell towers removed, radio stations relocated and power transmission lines removed.

      There are plenty of people that would be cheering on such a ruling.

    3. Re:I feel for the woman by zcold · · Score: 1

      goes without saying... fireback and counter sue? I would just go spend 500$ on a bunch of linksys wrt54g's load em up with ddwrt and up that transmit power to like 200... and place them all close to his property..

      --
      you know you can fry stuff putting things into things that dont like the things you put into it...
  43. CFL bulbs and electrosmog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the guy really is sensitive to electromagnetic 'smog', the problem probably started when he changed his house bulbs for CFLs -- those CFLs are knows for producing large amounts of EMF radiation (along with dimmers, as TA mentioned). Just Google "CFL electrosmog" and read for awhile.

    Two of the worst creators of transient radiation: light dimmer switches and compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs). Transients are created when current is repeatedly interrupted. A CFL, for instance, saves energy by turning itself on and off repeatedly, as many as 100,000 times per second.

    WiFi and the like are very minor by comparison.

  44. I think the defendent is the idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All she had to do was tell her neighbor that she shut off all her wifi and is no longer using any electronic devices. then in the privacy of her own home continued to use wifi and this loon would never have known. problem solved.

  45. time to relocate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the people should be able to legally relocate this man to the Amish Country. Obviously it would be for the better good for all persons involved.

  46. You have to be very careful with these lawsuits by goffster · · Score: 1

    A while back, a "psychic" got an MRI
    and sued doctors for malpractice when she
    supposedly lost her powers after getting the MRI.
    She won.

    1. Re:You have to be very careful with these lawsuits by dstech · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

    2. Re:You have to be very careful with these lawsuits by goffster · · Score: 1

      google: CAT scan psychic lawsuit

    3. Re:You have to be very careful with these lawsuits by goffster · · Score: 1

      google: CAT scan psychic lawsuit

    4. Re:You have to be very careful with these lawsuits by dstech · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia suggests that this was misrepresented in the media, and the linked reference appears to cite copious references itself (I will admit to not caring quite enough to follow through on those references):

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Richardson_Haimes

  47. Have you considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these people banging on about science and not a single one willing to even consider the possibility that the poor guy might be sensitive to this stuff and it's making him sick.

  48. Re:At least... In Federal Court, by SargentDU · · Score: 1

    In our Federal Courthouse here, we have to surrender all cell phones at the door where the scanner is located. They of course prefer you leave such devices in your vehicle instead of bringing them in. (I think it has to do with the photo taking capability of most phones now, although it may have to do with the annoyance of phone calls when court is in session too)

  49. Maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While this guy is almost certainly a loon, it has actually been demonstrated in double blind experiments that some people are sensitive to certain EM frequencies, including those from cell phones. There have been people who could tell if a cell phone was switched on close to them even it was hidden from them. In some cases they weren't even told that they were going to be part of an experiment so they couldn't have just correctly guessed.

    Some people get headaches, others get rashes.

    It's usually only certain frequencies that set people off, and even then it has to be a close range signal. A long wave radio wave broadcast 100 miles away wouldn't be enough to do it, but a 2.4ghz device 3 feet away might. So it is scientifically possible that this guy might be telling the truth. The human body uses many different electormagnetic frequencies and is sensitive to many, too. Our muscles, generate em pulses when we move, and we use em pulses to tell them how to move.

    Rather than dismiss this case out of hand, I'm going to wait for a serious scientist to actually put their money where their mouth is.

    If this guy is just a money grubbing kook, then 15 minutes in a lab with an EM frequency generator will prove it. It could also prove that he's actually suffering.

    My money is on the telecoms companies rubbishing this and this case will be thrown out without his claim ever being proved or disproved. The cell phone companies would pay for this case to disappear, even if there were 1 or 2 people in the entire world who cold prove that cell phones or routers made them ill it would cause chaos for them because all of the loons would come out of the woodwork to sue.

    1. Re:Maybe? by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      The thing is, even if he's not nuttier than a fruitcake (unlikely as that may be), if he doesn't like it, the moral and (I suspect; IANAL) legal responsibility to prevent it is his. As others have noted, if you have a pollen allergy it doesn't mean you can required your neighbor to uproot all the plants in her yard.

      You can seal your house up nice and tight, you can have HEPA-filtered everything, you can wear the appropriate mask when your outside if necessary. You can put a big fan in your yard and blow air away from your house :p

      But you can't expect that your neighbor will not use her property as she sees fitSo , within the bounds of the law.

      So, he should paint his house with anti-RF paint, build himself a Faraday cage, line his walls with metal, whatever. Maybe move out to the countryside. I'm not unsympathetic to anyone whose really sick - I have an epileptic daughter and I understand about managing chronic illness - but if my something at my neighbor's house tended to trigger her seizures and my neighbor couldn't or wouldn't do anything about it, mitigating the problem would be up to me.

      So even on the off chance that this guy isn't a kook, that's not her problem.

  50. VOTE ON HIS WIKI PAGE by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 0

    A First Class nut. His Wiki Page is up for deletion. Pleas vote!

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  51. "If you publicly embarrass ... by msauve · · Score: 1

    somebody for acting stupidly. They often think twice before acting stupidly again."

    Unless they're too stupid to notice.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:"If you publicly embarrass ... by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      somebody for acting stupidly. They often think twice before acting stupidly again."

      Unless they're too stupid to notice.

      or getting married a second time...

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  52. I knew a guy, who knew a guy... by MattW · · Score: 1

    I have a friend who was my college roommate. We were both big into Street Fighter. A friend of his was a champion Street Fighter played (a 3rd place finish in the national SF2:CE tournament capcom held), and also was a fanatical and highly-ranked Mario Kart player. He also played poker online and so on. But he was no shut in; he was lean and fit, played basketball, and was a generally very cool guy.

    Anyhow, my friend and I were chatting a couple years ago and I asked what this guy was up to - and I was told he had to swear off gaming entirely, because if he played, he'd get sick. It apparently affected him if he was around anything electronic for too long, too close. Of course, you never know - but he was completely normal, funny, balanced when I knew him. So while this feels incredibly preposterous, I do know a guy, who knows a guy, who swore off electronics. (He didn't sue anyone, and afaik, he wasn't affected by something as far away as a neighbor's wifi; he had to be in close proximity to a TV or computer or such.)

    1. Re:I knew a guy, who knew a guy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my guess: he f'ed his eyes up staring at the screen for long periods of time. That did my eyes in (they're not bad, but I should be wearing glasses/contacts). If I sit in front of a computer for a few hours, my head will start killing me and my eyes won't want to focus on objects farther away. If I stay away from "up close screens" for a while, my eyes will focus on farther away objects just fine.

  53. clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right think about it. His neighbor uses an iPhone. We can assume from this she receives reception in her house. That means a FAR more powerful telecom transmitter/receiver nearby is permeating this guys head 24/7. Even if it's only 'one bar' of reception, the intermittent transmissions from the Iphone would be rendered negligible in comparison.

    Having easily found his place on google maps he’s not remotely located at all, he’s deep into the town, and near a regional medical center which has a helipad. That place is going to be packed with comms equipment. Then there’s the ACTIVE train yard a 5 mins walk from his place, which is going to have a power sub station feeding it. You can’t live at the end of a road and be remote dude. Radio waves don’t follow traffic flow.

    I don’t deny the research into the negative effects of some forms of infrastructure, but judging by his choice of home, this guy doesn’t even know the basics on how to avoid exposure. You know what I think? I think he WANTED his female friend to move in next door, he made weak pass and she jilted him, maybe without evening knowing. Now he’s using any means he can to mess up her life.

  54. Surprise, it's a dupe! by arielCo · · Score: 1

    It's the same neighbour, Raphaela Monribot.

    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
  55. Streisand Radiation Effect by SEWilco · · Score: 1

    in response to e-mailed questions

    The neighbor's lawsuit has caused an increase in electromagnetic radiation. Oops.

  56. Head for the woods..... by Megus · · Score: 1

    There was a article in Popular Science recently about a man that was "allergic" to radio waves, here's the link: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-02/disconnected

    So it's not so far-fetched that what he is claiming is indeed possible, however what idiot with this kind of problem would live near people? Like the guy in the PopSci article I'd be living waaaay out in the woods as far away from cities, towns or villages as possible. Just my 2 cents anyway...

  57. bot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Raphaela MonriBOT

    she's a bot, she cant turn it off

  58. I've mildly experienced this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually... I find when working in dense data centers, where cell phones and wifi cannot be used because of all the interference, that I get mild headaches and dizziness after a time. It's just as likely due to the constant hum sound though. In a different part of the building, a few hundred feet away, I'm just fine.

  59. Basic human rights? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    You mean, like, the basic human right to a cell phone? Basic human right to WiFi?

  60. show him how to build a faraday cage by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    Problem solved and he will also be trapped in there so he cannot bother the rest of us.

  61. Stories about EMR by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    Stories about EMR like this make me sick.

  62. Whatever by killmenow · · Score: 1

    I don't care because Lost is on tonight.

  63. Get a camera and follow him about. by TavisJohn · · Score: 1

    Take pictures of him when he is outside the home. When he is going into any place that has open, or closed WiFi.
    Take a picture of him using a cordless of cell phone.
    Take a picture of him with a bluetooth headset.
    Take a screen cap of all the WiFi networks in the area.
    Find out where the cell towers are in your area.

  64. Turnabout is fair play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man Sues Neighbor Claiming Wi-Fi Made Him Sick

    Tomorrow: Slashdot User Sues Man Claiming Lawsuit Makes Him Sick

  65. RF/EMF Shield paint by drkoemans · · Score: 1

    It exists and solves this guy's problem, you know, if he wants to live inside. Buy him a can of this stuff and tell him to go nuts. http://www.safelivingtechnologies.ca/RF/Products_RF_Shielding_Paint_HSF54.htm

  66. Easily disproved... by Sol+Rosinberg · · Score: 1

    The effects of her wi-fi and other wireless devices on this man can easily be disproved by running a signal strength meter in his home to find out what radio signals at what strengths are received within it. Likely her 2.4 GHz wireless is probably at a negligible -89 dBm, which may be even weaker by the time it goes through his walls. A wireless (cellular) telephone is doubly not a problem since the signal for the cell tower is radiated everywhere, not just in a local field around her handset, so his claim there is also null and void. Another way to catch him in a lie is to turn on hidden 2.4 GHz transmitters at regular wi-fi strength while he's in a room during a deposition, displaying no devices which use it, and if he displays no "symptoms" or complains of any discomfort, then it's pretty obvious he's lying and just a hair-brained Luddite.

    Also, someone on the story's site made a good point in the comments. This is similar to a neighbor's flowers causing allergies. It's your own responsibility to shield yourself from that problem, not the neighbor's. Should he feel that things which radiate in the electromagnetic spectrum are triggering some sort of allergy, he can always wrap his house in a Faraday cage.

    1. Re:Easily disproved... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      ...running a signal strength meter in his home to find out what radio signals at what strengths are received within it. Actually, that would require a spectrum analyzer, a very expensive piece of equipment.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Easily disproved... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Easier: She switches off the access point for one week, without telling him, of course. There should be a witness for this. Then after a week, she asks (or better lets her lawyer ask) him if he still feels sick (of course, in a way that he doesn't get suspicious; maybe even ask him "did your headaches get worse this week" so he suspects the radiation was increased). If he says yes, then it's proof that it's not the Wi-Fi.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  67. If he comitts suicide... by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Then the neighbor will go to jail for cyberbullying him with RF. And be charged with statatory rape, and be hounded by the IRS. I think America has gone certifiably bat-shit insane. It's too bad you can't lock up a whole country. Call me when ya'll learn to deal with life and become mature adults.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  68. Obvious Solution by Myopic · · Score: 1

    The WiFi-using neighbor should counter-sue, saying that she, too, is sensitive to electromagnetic signals, except that her symptoms only occur in the *absence* of such signals. Thus, the crazy dude's unwillingness to use WiFi causes her harm.

    Holy shit, it would be infinite recursion of idiocy.

  69. We've been here before by Belgaren · · Score: 1

    This seemed familiar somehow...

    Same town, same complaint. According to the article he's part of this first group.

    Another claim of sensitivity that didn't go very far.

  70. The HFCS analogy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you tried to apply your "lactose intolerant" analogy, don't you suppose your opponent would point out that the makers of your favorite foods don't project those foods into your home against your wishes?

    Perhaps it's better to apply the High-Fructose-Corn-Syrup analogy instead...
    Hard to choose products that don't have HFCS in them these days so it might be a fair argument that it's being projected into your home against your wishes...

    Or perhaps if your next door neighbor had a peanut allergy and you sat in your back porch and shucked peanut shells.

    Or maybe your next door neighbor had a hay-fever allergies to the flowers you planted.

    Not saying that this EM-boy hoax has a case, but there are plenty of analogies that might work better than Lactose intolerance...

  71. You can feel it at sufficient power levels by George_Ou · · Score: 1

    A high powered 2.4 GHz microwave beam shined at you that would induce 1000W/kg would probably be felt because your flesh would rapidly heat up. So anyone can detect RF at sufficient power levels. The problem is that a cell tower would likely cause a few nanowatts to a few milliwatts of heating energy per kg and nobody can detect this.

  72. There's paint for this by George_Ou · · Score: 1

    You can actually by Wi-Fi blocking paint and window film. http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=45. It's not cheap for a whole house, but that's his problem due to an imaginary ailment.

  73. more babble? by spazdor · · Score: 1

    This thing here's got 430 comments and counting.

    --
    DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
  74. Stupid Idiots by MasterMynd · · Score: 1

    I live in Santa Fe, unfortunately people around here give these cranks far to much leeway. Case in point, ATT Wireless wanted to put a cell tower on top of a building at Santa Fe High School which sits on top of a hill. They'd pay the school district thousands of dollars a month to allow them to do this. So, although the school district is in a budget crisis the School Board decided against it because they were concerned about the backlash from the public for inflicting electromagnetic energies on the students. The City wanted to set up a city wide public WiFi network, but while admitting that there was no proven correlation between EMF and health problems the City decided to let these wingnuts get their way and they stopped it because of the 'health effects'.

  75. That was AWESOME! by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

    Haven't read too many coments that made me laugh like that...

    --
    How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
  76. Fanta Se by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is Santa Fe for you. Home of "pets in motor vehicles must wear seat-belts" and the woman who, for nearly a decade, was angry at David Letterman for sending signals through the TV set about his secret desire to marry her. GET ME OUTTA HERE!

  77. Watch out for radon in that cave. by newdsfornerds · · Score: 1

    The cave would ideally be in a granite mountain where the radon from the granite would quickly kill them.

    --
    Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
  78. You can sue someone for -anything- by newdsfornerds · · Score: 1

    Sure you can. You could sue me for disagreeing with you. I DARE YOU!

    --
    Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
  79. How dare he! ( A lesson in ethics ignored) by macraig · · Score: 1

    This woman has a typical American grasp of ethics. "How DARE he try to tell me what to do and when to do it IN MY OWN HOME!" What she fails to grasp is the very nature of ethics and why they're needed.

    She indeed should be allowed to do whatever the hell she wants in her own home, AS LONG AS what she does doesn't escape those four walls with a potential to infringe on someone else's "pursuit of happiness". She's broadcasting EM radiation that indeed is escaping those walls. WHAT IF the guy actually has the sensitivity he claims in this case? WHAT IF instead his complaint was that her signals were interfering with some DEVICE of his IN HIS OWN HOME? Alternatively, what if this was about a loud stereo? It "sounds" as if she might have displayed a typical knee-jerk anti-ethical reaction. I know that reaction all too well.

    When we live and interact the way we do, no one actually has the complete freedom of action that they (Americans?) think they do, and have been ritually brainwashed to believe they should. Ethics exist precisely to govern and moderate human INTERACTIONS; if we all lived on our own private islands and had no contact, then ethics would be moot. How many of us live that way? The more densely humans live and the more they interact, the greater the ethical framework needed to govern that. It's only gonna get worse for most of us. For a few, who get to buy those private islands or those 40 acres out in the country, they indeed do get to do almost anything they want.

    The rest of us SHOULD be considering the effects of our actions on others and whether those effects can be mitigated, every minute of the day. I turn the car stereo down at stoplights, take 3 or 4 carts into stores from the parking lot, walk softly like a ballerina on the second floor of my row house, and don't slam anything. If there's a chance my behavior might diminish someone else's happiness, then I change or stop the behavior if the cost isn't too great. Isn't this what a certain authors have called "enlightened self interest"? It's neither impossible nor impractical; it just requires less brainwashing and indoctrination to the contrary.

  80. There are actual Reports that EMF causes nerve dmg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    I distinctly remember over the past month on American Voice Radio ( http://americanvoiceradio.com/ ) during Doc Mike Witort's show Wake Up Well ( http://wakeupwell.org/ ), about a jail guard in Texas that had been getting all kinds of sickly Immune System disorders that graduated to Nerve Damage. This man was a career Jail Guard for over 30 years, being around 50 years-old to this day. Upon doing some investigation about his environment, he found much more than what he expected. A line of jail cells at the prison were reserved for inmates in bad behaviour, a couple rows of solitary confinement areas. All the inmates put in these cells eventually became deathly ill within 4 months, and those of them that spent an accumulative of over 1 year in any of these solitary-confinment cells are either dead or dying of cancers with mental-illness. The same symptoms this career jail guard has been suffering from, but not as quick because his shift rotated often-enough away from this cell block. What he discovered was that just 2-feet outside the solitary-confinement walls there were power lines and communications lines. He went to some kind of ham radio or hobby store to inquire on equipment that could measure any EMF in the area, and what he discovered is much worse than just the measurements. All the inmates placed in these cells had been done so for political reasons and not necessarily behavioral disorder. Consistent with a corrupt warden, the administration was intentionally sending the politically active court gurus into these solitary-confinement cells for periods of time necessary to kill them, and there is an on-going investigation about the premise that administration has been aware of the deaths associated with these chambers far long enough that they intended to continue putting non-violent inmates into these cells with the dirty secret that they will be slowly microwaved by the power and communications lines just a couple feet parallel to the wall.

    So cook me up another batch of your "EMF doesn't cause harm" bullshit, because there is a lot more on the line for felons running jails and prisons using techniques to sedate or punish inmates reminiscent of a Nazi Concentration Camp while charging rent to the Federal or State Governments on average of $40k per year for each inmate and upto $150k for the one's on nasty medications.

  81. Made you do what on the floor? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    This story is on a collision course with another recent slashdot story.

  82. set him the test of what he can notice by daithesong · · Score: 1

    She should state that she will turn off transmitters on random half-days, and ask him to identify those half-days. I bet he can't.

  83. That jail guard is Joe. I heard him. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And my 50 year-old neighbor is pursuing the same in court because he still lives in the same house he grew-up in, where about 27 years ago there were large power-lines installed and a number of the leukemia and muscular-dystrophy children that resulted from pregnancies under those power lines. It all occurred when the power lines were installed.

    There is something to it. Whoever modded that prior post down is no different than Darl McBridge responding to a Pamela Jones discussion.

  84. You forgot the evil neutrinos.... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    .. where is my cat? Mini Me? have you seen my cat?

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  85. Dealt with this guy before.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I worked for an ISP in California where this guy used to live. When we tried to setup WiFi in our town he complained about it to our board and complained to the FCC. The FCC sent investigators out to look at our equipment. The meters they brought showed EM field coming from all kinds of devices in the office (especially when you put the meter up against an CRT display). When the used the meter on our WiFi equipment it didn't even register a signal.

    When he came to the board meeting he made them turn off the wireless microphone in the room.

    When asked about him working on a computer that has a monitor putting off much more EM then the WiFi equipment he said that it hurt him but he suffered through it so that he could do his online research. I'm really glad he is Sante Fe's problem and not ours anymore!!

  86. Exclusion zone distances by fezzzz · · Score: 1

    I found software written by EMSS that can simulate the radiation danger zones (ICNIRP standard) around cell phone base stations on buildings for anyone interested. The evaluation version gives some interesting results. Don't know if it will work for wi-fi, though.

  87. What will be next!?!?!?! by ddraculdiablo · · Score: 1

    Whats next will I have to carry insulin because I may run into a diebetic that went into shock, or will I have to build wheelchair accibile ramps at my house. Maybe I'll have to write ym secnitnes sdrawkcab for the people who are dyslesic. The point I'm making is that you can not expect people to change their lives because you have a disability. Personally I think he is full of *&^% but who knows this may be a real disability. If so there are things he can do to minimize or negate all signals into his house. A simple layer or two of alumimim foil will do as a start.

  88. Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She really needs to get a large HAM rig set up running at 1500 Watts---maybe even with an antenna just under the city limits.