Wi-Fi Illness Claim Doesn't Impress New Mexico Court
McGruber writes "Arthur Firstenberg, the Santa Fe, New Mexico man who sued his neighbors, claiming their Wi-Fi made him sick, has lost what might have been his final round in court. According to the Santa Fe New Mexican, state District Judge Sarah Singleton ruled that no scientific study has yet proved that electromagnetic stimulus adversely impacts personal health. While he lost the lawsuit, he did score a victory: the neighbors he sued have moved out of Santa Fe."
Basic sanity wins once in a while. Maybe one of every 50 cases.
Sanity. We haz it.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
that since the neighbors are gone, his symptoms will go away. Nevermind that his new neighbors also use Wi-Fi.
Well, he can always start eating lots of microwave popcorn and try it that way. $7.2 million isn't bad, is it?
And this just goes to show you... no matter how wrong you are, as long as you're a big enough asshole, you'll at least get most of your way.
The only reason they say 'nice guys finish last' is because they get last by default, since nice guys simply aren't allowed to finish. Not when there's a sea of assholes just waiting to step on their back to get slightly further ahead.
Have they found an 'electrosensitive' who's prepared to go double-blind on which of a selection of ten telephones/routers is actually switched on yet?
A certain Mr Randi has a million dollars waiting for the first person to do it. Maybe he should apply for that so he can buy a new house in the woods (or even buy the neighbors house and make them go someplace else). Problem solved.
No sig today...
Gentlemen we found Magneto's cousin, ElectroMangeto. His powers are retarded though.
he doesn't watch television, use a computer, have any electrical device in his house, doesn't use lights of any kind, and has shielded his house from any and all radio sources?
Did he also request that we snuff out the Sun and stars, not to mention getting rid of the naturally occurring radioactivity in the soil around him?
What about cars/trucks that drive by his house or the street lights? Did he request to have them stopped?
I am offering my services to prove once and for all that these people cannot tell when a wi-fi or similar device is on or off. I will offer my entire life's savings to anyone who can tell, greater than random chance, whether a device is on or off.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I don't have to bend over backwards to satisfy my neighbor's needs. If they have a problem, they deal with it themselves.
This idiot should have built his house out of lead, he probably had enough of the stuff lying around that he woke up and chewed on every day.
bah... can't login. captchas -- I failed to prove I Was human 9 out of 10 times. mail still hasn't come in. whatever.
I'll post anomymously. was supposed to be short and sweet, but I'll have to bitch first about the stupid captchas.
Anyway -- the guy should have used crystals to protect himself.
Finally, for your stupid fvcks out there, that last sentence is meant to be humor. If you have lived in or anywhere
near Santa Fe -- unless you are one of the new age whackos -- you might have even found it funny.
why aren't you working?
get back to work.
“no scientific study has yet proved that electromagnetic stimulus adversely impacts personal health” Are we to assume that it is ok, in Mexico, to sunbath without sunscreen? Are X-rays and gamma rays also harmless there?
Just last week my father sent me an article from a motorcycle magazine that proposed that EM energy (including wifi, cell phones, et cetera) is harmful to the human body. My father is a logical person who can listen to reason...he just isn't well informed on this issue. Does anyone have any suggestions on scholarly reference material I can link to when I rebut this article? So far I haven't found anything well written that wasn't behind a paywall.
Went through something similar (though it didn't go to court) in my old flat, which I moved out of earlier this year. Middle-aged couple living downstairs, got on fine with them for years, then the woman's late-teenaged daughter from a previous marriage gets kicked out by her father and moves in with them in the summer of last year (putting 3 people in a flat which is, to be honest, a little small for one person and downright cramped for 2).
This is one deeply troubled youth - clear mental health problems and surrounded by a constant stench of strong cannabis. She can also - in her mothers' eyes, do no wrong. Anyway, my life very quickly becomes absolute hell. First it's the complaints about noise. I take these seriously at first and do everything I can to limit the noise I'm making. Doesn't help, indeed she calls the police on multiple occasions, though they don't actually do anything. She loses access that particular trick after she calls the police over a weekend when I'm away visiting my parents - they force open the door to my flat and find it empty. After that, they stopped responding to her calls.
Anyway, in the course of this, she gets to see inside my flat (while I'm not there, imagine how delighted I am) - and she notes the fairly large amount of electronic equipment. Her next move - a phone call to the council complaining that interference from the electronics in my flat is giving her headaches.
I get a very puzzled call from an environmental health officer. He's very apologetic about the whole thing and freely admits that he has no idea whether he has any legal basis to do anything. By this point, I've already got my escape in sight - I've finally, after 4 years, been able to save for the deposit needed to get a mortage and out of rental accomodation (and to move to a much better area in the process). So I'm quite prepared to be all reasonable and light. We agree that he can come and inspect my flat for anything that might be emitting either outside of the allowed spectrum, or high-pitched noises outside the normal hearing range (which can be a genuine issue for teenagers and for some adults - like me!).
Anyway, he comes, he waves a toolkit around and he agrees that there's absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. He sends my neighbours a letter telling them this. He and I then get a very angry letter back (or rather, he gets a letter, I get a copy pushed through my letterbox with something obscene scribbed on it as well) saying that, among other things, my wireless network is "beaming words through her head".
Two days later, I load my possessions into a van and move off to my new home. I've not seen or heard from her since. I still see my old upstairs neighbour, who works at a station I pass through on my morning commute (and who I always got on very well with). He tells me that she continues to make life unbearable for the new occupants of my old flat and has started to turn her attention to him as well.
It would have been interesting on one level to see what would have happened if I hadn't been in a position to move out - but I'm glad I didn't have to find out.
By the way, this all happened in London, so it's definitely not a US-only phenomenon.
Q: Do you have a cell phone?
Att: Yes
Q: Is it normally on?
Att: Yes
Q: Do you drive and talk with a wireless head set?
Att: Yes
Q: Do you use a computer in your office?
Att: Yes
Q: Is it a laptop?
Att: Yes
Q: Do you connect to cable to access email, or do you use wireless?
Att: wireless
Q: Can you explain how your client ever got within 100feet of you or your office?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1533043/
He could always wear a tinfoil hat. Problem solved
Why, I hold both amateur radio extra and commercial radiotelphone licenses.
I'd kindly explain Part 15 to him. You know, the one that says devices have to accept interference from licensed services and may not generate interference to licensed services.
And then I'd pop a 100 foot tower on the property under PRB-1 and then proceed to transmit on 20m at 200W for starters. Maybe install a dish and do some EME or meteor scatter.
I can see how government bureaucrats can incorrectly attribute headaches to cell phones.
The headaches are caused not by the cell phone, but the person on the other side.
this guy's not crazy, or sick. check for the blue meth.
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Grant that, a dosage of wifi-wavelength radio emissions of sufficiently high wattage and duration, aimed at his cranium, *would* cause this man some mental health issues.
But people like this neglect to consider a little something I like to call the "inverse square law." Not to mention multiple layers of sheetrock and other possible cladding on the domicile.
Recently in San Francisco I saw a sign on a house with the text "Electromagnetic Harassment" in a red circle-slash, with lightning bolt symbols around the head of a stick figure man that was falling backwards. Wish I'd taken a picture.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
I live in Santa Fe and I work for a WISP so I deal with wireless interference all the time. Santa Fe is blanketed by WiFi as well as WiMAX, that's not counting the 50000 watt radio transmitter overlooking the city, nor is it taking into account the wireless signals used by the city, county, state, and Federal government. And don't get me started about Los Alamos National Labs not far from here which is constantly blasting out radio waves of every imaginable frequency and strength. Yet, we here in Santa Fe have a small but very vocal group of crackpots who insist upon putting the kibosh any any sort of wireless initiative, be it cellular, WiFi, WiMAX, etc, etc, some on the City Council listen to them, but anybody with a brain calls them what they are, crazy. This court ruling hopefully will show how shallow their claims truly are. Without a shred of solid evidence, nobody will, nor should they, take them seriously.
Cell phone radio waves are used for carrying voice. This means that they are analog in nature and are therefore sine waves. Now sine waves are by their very nature are curved. This means they are easily able to flow over and around DNA and other molecular structures such as proteins. This is not the case for digital computer WiFi EM radiation. The data computer WiFi radiation carries is digital in nature and therefore only has two values 1 and 0. This means that it is transmitted as a square wave with a flat instead of a curved leading edge. As a result it is not able to easily flow over and around a cell's DNA but rather slams into it at several hundred thousand times a second. This is like a hammer hitting a string of pearls over and over and over. Eventually the pearls and the string will break.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
It has been demonstrated in the lab that exposure to terrhertz radiotion causes non-thermal changes in cellular development and signalling. a theoretical mechanism modeled and shows that low level terrahertz is capable of resonantly exciting bends and strand openings in Double stradded DNA. Since those are in fact the primary mechanisms of signal transduction at the molecular level it would not be surprising if this was the explanation for the experimental observations. However these studies are still at the preliminary stages. they are peer reviewed but there has not been a lot of other investigators yet to isolate and confirm the phenomena. Just a growing body of not fully chartcterized and explained observational phenonema of strong changes in cell regulation under low dose terrahertz. It has been noted to be frequency dependent which both is in line with the reonant effects argument and also could be why it is hard to study at this stage in a reproducible manner in different labs.
The reason this model is interesting is that, just as X-rays were thought safe until the mechanism of amplified effects from DNA damage became accepted, the problem is that terrhertz are individually too low in energy to break chemical bonds. Thus if there is means of affecting cells it has to be resonant, high field gradient effects, or something that works at a vibrational or rotational level in cells. All of these might have very different depths of penetration in multi-celluar organisms and their affects might be very indirect.
so it's not implausible, but is very murky.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
My problem is that I need wifi to stay healthy. My neighbors refuse to use wifi. This cuts into my free internet usage and makes me depressed. I get constant headaches the longer my neighbors refuse to use wifi. I tried visiting a hospital but they use that inferior WPA brand of wifi which does not alleviate my headaches or sleeplessness. Should I sue my neighbors?
Anyone else recall that one group of people who all said they were suffering from symptoms due to wifi? As soon as the complaint was filed, it was switched off and a month later, they were demanding that it be turned off because their symptoms were worsening and the company that owned it revealed it had been switched off a month prior. They lost the case. Dumbasses.
Not sure if trolling..
[fry] .. or total idiot.
I can almost see the radio gear and home made antennas being carefully carried out of the u-haul van as Sir Firstenberg's new neighbors move in and make themselves at home.
A man can dream...
Now they need to make this fucker pay all associated court costs, legal fees of the defendants, and damages to the defendant for being such a douschebag that they felt they had to leave because of the mental anguish he caused them.
If I were one of his neighbors I would put literally hundreds of dummy wifi routers all over my home with little led's blinking wildly! and a directional antenna pointing directly at his window, just for added effect.
I'm not sure why you are deducing mcgrew's comment infers a weak understanding of physics. His point is relevantly accurate enough and concise... If pedantry is of that much importance then you might remember; there is no threshold for what constitutes an ionising particle, as it is entirely subjective. Now if you would consider relevance you find that there is a far more solid threshold for frequency and magnitude requirements to ionise biological mater. Also you failed to recognise that "microwaves tuned to the frequency to cook water" do not exploit ionization (which would require far greater energy), but exploits molecular dipole alignment... a microwave oven is essentially a rotating electromagnetic [i]field[/i] at the frequency that causes water molecules to match the field, the resulting friction at a molecular level creates heat... this is an entirely separate phenomenon from ionisation and requires high intensity changing electromagnetic fields, not electromagnetic propagation, and it's not relevant to people claiming to become sick from EM microwave radiation.
Theorise all you like.
I could tell you that my wife and I seemed less tired in the morning after moving a wi fi unit away from the side of our bed - but why should you believe me?
Why don't you just sleep with one right next to your bed for a month and see how you feel - let your facts speak for themselves.