Wi-Fi Illness Claim Doesn't Impress New Mexico Court

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wi-Fi Illness Claim Doesn't Impress New Mexico Court

Posted by timothy on Thursday September 20, 2012 @02:24AM from the show-me-the-blind-test dept.

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."

164 of 217 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

yay by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-09-20 02:26 · Score: 4, Funny

Basic sanity wins once in a while. Maybe one of every 50 cases.
1. Re:yay by NatasRevol · 2012-09-20 02:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That statement, as is, is obviously not true. However, I believe that's an editor's words, not the judges words.
  From FTA, the judge said:
  "reliable studies, including one from the World Health Organization, “have failed to provide clear support for a causal relationship between electromagnetic fields and complaints of EMS"."
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
2. Re:yay by LordLimecat · 2012-09-20 02:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  We are constantly bombarded with radiation across the EM spectrum, from visible light to infra red (which we, ourselves, emit) to ultraviolet to radio. I think its fair for the judge to say "show me proof that we're all slowly getting cancer from radio waves".
3. Re:yay by mcgrew · 2012-09-20 03:15 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Why would hospitals worry about the dose of X-rays they give you if "no scientific study has yet proved that electromagnetic stimulus adversely impacts personal health"?
  Because the danger from X-rays isn't that they're electromagnetic, it's because the radiation is ionizing. Normal radio waves aren't.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
4. Re:yay by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 03:25 · Score: 2
  
  The wavelength is much smaller for x-rays and gamma rays, allowing it to penetrate deeply (sounds like fun!) and disrupt atoms. In comparison, RF and microwave EMF is easily blocked. That metal grill on the front of your microwave oven does just that.
  The only danger with RF and/or microwave EMF is being in close proximity to a high-powered source. RF/microwave is safely blocked by skin, but the energy has to go somewhere, so it becomes heat. This is how a microwave oven works. But wi-fi and cell phones are so low power that it's ridiculous to worry.
  If you still think EMF is worth worrying about, then you should also avoid visible light. After all, visible light lasers can be used to cut flesh.
5. Re:yay by RobertLTux · 2012-09-20 03:33 · Score: 2
  
  in the same fashion that folks do not worry about somebody throwing a pencil tip at you and somebody SHOOTING you
  its all about the doseage
  
  --
  Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
6. Re:yay by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 04:11 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  This is the dumbest comment I've read all week
7. Re:yay by ColdWetDog · 2012-09-20 04:28 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  This is the dumbest comment I've read all week
  You must be new here.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
8. Re:yay by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 04:59 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It's more like saying, "Just because some chemicals are dangerous doesn't mean all chemicals are dangerous." Water is a chemical, after all. I guarantee that ingesting 1 liter of water will have a much different effect than ingesting a 10M solution of NaOH, despite the fact that they're both chemicals.
9. Re:yay by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-09-20 05:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That is like saying poisons are not poisonous because they are chemicals, but because they chemically interact.
  Which is completely true and a great point to make.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
10. Re:yay by Shoten · 2012-09-20 05:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Which is actually correct. What makes a poison poisonous isn't the inherent nature of being a chemical; it is the interaction that it has with an organism's chemistry. That's why chocolate is safe for humans, and poison to dogs. It's the same component (theobromine) in chocolate that stimulates humans and poisons dogs; the nature of that chemical interaction is what is different, and thus makes all the different.
  In this case, however, there's a difference in types of electromagnetic stimulus. X-rays are nothing like radio signals emanated from consumer electronics. Not at all similar. So, what mcgrew was really saying was more like "that's a whole other kind of chemical than the one that the OP is talking about. Just because warfarin is lethal at relatively small doses doesn't mean that table salt is, even though they are both technically chemicals."
  
  --
  
  For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
11. Re:yay by coyote_oww · 2012-09-20 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Also, graphite vs lead. But your point still stands, quantity matters.
12. Re:yay by Genda · 2012-09-20 06:01 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I see that physics isn't your strong suit. Here are the electromagnetic wave types that our science is familiar with;
  Radio waves
  Microwaves
  Far - Near Infrared waves
  Visible light
  Ultraviolet - Hard Ultraviolet
  X-rays
  Gamma rays
  Any light from mid visible through gamma rays can cause fluorescence, that is excite and electron to a higher state than well it drops have it emit a photon at a different wavelength. Ionization usually requires higher energies and demands light with wavelength from Ulraviolet to Gamma rays. The only difference between these forms of light are their wave length/frequency/source temperature. For instance we can now see the echo of the big bang as a microwave afterglow across the entire sky, and the static you see between channels on your TV or hear on your radio is part of the same phenomenon.
  There are a number of EM waves that can harm or kill you. Microwaves tuned to the frequency of water can cook you, they are also known to cause cataracts and sterility. UV can damage your skin and cause sun burn and melanoma. X-rays can cause lethal radiation sickness and cancer as can gamma rays. Just being in the fields of such things as radio and microwaves below a certain threshold have not been proven to cause illness, though there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of possible cancer caused by radar emissions, and energy fields around high tension power lines. Sadly, anecdotal evidence is not proof, and we've built entire industries on these forms of radiation (every time you make a cell phone call you microwave your brain) so without hard evidence its very hard to justify costly industrial standards that might hurt cultural progress and innovation. That said, its seems very possible that there are human being with a prediliction to EM sensitivity, just as there are rare folks who can hear well about the normal 20 Khz. cut-off for most healthy, young people. Rather than demonizing them we need to study them and see if in fact that are canaries in the mine and may point to threat against the general public. As well, we have folks whose sensitivity lies more in the realm of hypochondria and irrational fear, for those folks we can show compassion (their suffering is real even if the cause isn't), but we need to enlighten them, that their fear is not based in any physical phenomenon and is more properly placed in the realm of the psychological.
13. Re:yay by Genda · 2012-09-20 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but in large amounts H20 drowns you and wash away you village! In fact all chemicals are dangerous, the issue at hand is simply under what circumstances and what safety precautions need to be observed. Lead can poison you, pierce you as a bullet, or split your skull as a black-jack. Each expression of lead has its own safety considerations. There are plenty of chemicals far more scary than NaOH. Botulina Toxin is so toxic that a pound properly distributed could kill the entire human race several times, the same goes for Plutonium. There are innocuous organic compounds out there that can cause your cells to explode, or stop your DNA from replicating (Uracil). Seeing as virtually every single thing we enjoy in life exists at the business end of some kind of chemistry, it behooves us all to understand our relationship with the activities and processes of the physical universe.
  Oh and not make silly comments, removing all doubt that someone doesn't know what they're talking about.
14. Re:yay by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 07:27 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Sadly, anecdotal evidence is not proof, and we've built entire industries on these forms of radiation (every time you make a cell phone call you microwave your brain) so without hard evidence its very hard to justify costly industrial standards that might hurt cultural progress and innovation. That said, its seems very possible that there are human being with a prediliction to EM sensitivity, just as there are rare folks who can hear well about the normal 20 Khz. cut-off for most healthy, young people. Rather than demonizing them we need to study them and see if in fact that are canaries in the mine and may point to threat against the general public.
  We have, in many, many peer-reviewed papers, and the general consensus is "no." However, I await your peer-reviewed paper showing otherwise.
15. Re:yay by serviscope_minor · 2012-09-20 07:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  just because A==B does not mean B==A
  Well, that's some interesting axioms you must be working with. I guess you could devise a system where == does not commute. I like equality to be commutative and transaitive (*cough* PHP *cough*).
  all dogs may be mammals but not all mammals are dogs
  You mean subset of not equal to. The dog species is not equal to a mammal, it is a subset of mammals.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
16. Re:yay by flimflammer · 2012-09-20 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. Just wow.
17. Re:yay by Genda · 2012-09-20 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  I said "Just being in the fields of such things as radio and microwaves below a certain threshold have not been proven to cause illness". It seems you are agreeing with me in an argumentative fashion, I made no mention of any scientific study that suggests that microwaves cause cancer. The only known health issues regarding microwave is the increase chance of getting cataracts by standing too close to a old microwave over whose seals are no longer working properly. This is not a widespread problem.
  As to my own parent comment I apologize, I may need new glasses, I originally read that as X-Rays are not EM, when in fact he said the reason they are dangerous is not because they are EM.but because they are ionizing which they indeed are.
18. Re:yay by Gideon+Fubar · 2012-09-20 16:40 · Score: 1
  
  You mean A=>B != B=>A.
  == equal
  => implies (causal)
  
  --
  http://www.xkcd.com/354/
19. Re:yay by sl149q · 2012-09-20 17:51 · Score: 2
  
  Classic example of a nocebo effect.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo
  "a nocebo reaction or response refers to harmful, unpleasant, or undesirable effects a subject manifests after receiving an inert dummy drug or placebo. Nocebo responses are not chemically generated and are due only to the subject's pessimistic belief and expectation that the inert drug will produce negative consequences.
  In these cases, there is no "real" drug involved, but the actual negative consequences of the administration of the inert drug, which may be physiological, behavioural, emotional, and/or cognitive, are nonetheless real."
  So the effects may actually be real but are not actually caused by anything other than the belief that something is causing it.
  Is society responsible for idiots that have convinced themselves that they should be sick so that they end up being sick?
20. Re:yay by Vintermann · 2012-09-20 21:13 · Score: 1
  
  Fact: water has killed more people than plutonium!
  
  --
  xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
21. Re:yay by drinkypoo · 2012-09-21 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  I think its fair for the judge to say "show me proof that we're all slowly getting cancer from radio waves".
  Well, we all die eventually, and if you don't die of something else first you die of cancer... QED ;)
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
22. Re:yay by drinkypoo · 2012-09-21 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  You can warm a glass of water to 100 degrees and you now have bath water, you can also heat it to 1000 degrees and now you have live steam
  You can vibrate something five times a second and a person can't hear it, vibrate it 10,000 times a second and they can, vibrate it 1,000,000 times a second and they can't. Wake me up when you have a point.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
23. Re:yay by drinkypoo · 2012-09-21 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  Note: throwing a bullet rather than shooting it out of a gun wouldn't do much more dammage than the pencil tip.
  Hold still while I pin you with this .50 cal cartridge...
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
24. Re:yay by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  There was a case in Ontario, Canada last year where about 50 of 50.000 students had bizarre symptoms after industrial Wi-Fi was installed so laptop computers could be used anywhere in classrooms. Children had headaches, nausea, dizziness, trouble sleeping, memory loss, and psychosomatic medical complaints. Their symptoms stopped on weekends and school vacations. Parents blamed Wi-Fi EMR for the bizarre symptoms but teachers and staff in the school longer than the students were uneffected. (Google Wi-Fi illness Ontario Canada)
  Pictures used to illustrate the stories and TV news crew video showed the problem was Subliminal Distraction exposure.
  A normal feature in everyone's physiology of sight, SD exposure was discovered when it caused mental breaks for office workers in 1964. The way it happened allowed engineers to find the problem and they had experts in human physiology explain it for them. They designed the office cubicle to stop it by 1968.
  Known by a tiny number of designers and engineers it is unknown in mental health services. If you have chronic but separated incidents of exposure so that the paranoid psychotic-like episodes happen every few weeks you will be diagnosed as Bipolar.
  Anyone with a computer at home or a child in school-college should be aware of it.
  VisionAndPsychosis.Net Pictures saved at the time of the incident are linked at the top of my Home page.
25. Re:yay by doccus · 2012-09-21 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  But aren't gamma rays light also? In fact, light from the sun is only safe because of the low intensity when it reaches us 95 million miles away... just 40 million miles closer, and we'd find out that light is, indeed very dangerous..
26. Re:yay by jep305 · 2012-09-21 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  X-rays are nuclear (ionizing) radiation.
  WiFi routers do not generate nuclear radiation. They generate non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, unless they are plugged in to an outlet that gets its current from a nuclear power station.*
  *Not really.
  
  --
  In Reason We Trust
27. Re:yay by niftymitch · 2012-09-21 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  Which is actually correct. What makes a poison poisonous isn't the inherent nature of being a chemical; it is the interaction that it has with an organism's chemistry. That's why.......
  There needs to be an * above here.
  Argon gas and even Helium can suffocate and kill a living creature.
  They do no react chemically....
  There was a mystery story where Nitrogen gas was used to murder
  and left no trace. Lacking an increase in CO2 the person that
  died did not react in terror as one might when deprived of O2 in
  other ways.
  * as in a footnote.
  
  --
  Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
28. Re:yay by niftymitch · 2012-09-21 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  You mean A=>B != B=>A.
  == equal
  => implies (causal)
  Gark.... I need a magic decoder ring.
  a=b equality
  a .eq. b test for equality
  a:=b assignment
  a = b assignment
  a >=b test a greater than or equal
  a==b a is defined as exactly b as in 1 inch == 2.54cm
  a~=b a is approximation the same as b as in 3m ~= 10 feet., a pint is ~= to a pound the world around.
  a =/= b state a is not equal to b.
  a =/= b test a is not equal to b.
  a != b what he did not say.
  This stuff needs a #define or some such thing.
  
  --
  Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
29. Re:yay by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-09-21 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  There was also a huge lawsuit under way in a town where a cell tower had just been installed. A large percentage of the population complained about headaches, etc (VERY similar to your so-called evidence in Ontario). During the trial, a representative from the cell phone company simply stated that the tower hadn't even been turned on yet and the judge dismissed the case.
  There was another case where a cell tower was installed (and turned on) and after a stream of complaints about headaches/etc (once again, VERY similar to your story), they actually made the company move the tower elsewhere and the complaints stopped. Someone then did a study and found that the new location (due to a large metal structure behind it) actually focused MORE em radiation on the residence than the tower had in the original location.
  Double-blind study or STFU.
30. Re:yay by DirtyLiar · 2012-09-21 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  Basic sanity
  Is that anything like Basic Cable?
  It comes bundled with a bunch of crap you don't want and will never use?
  
  --
  THINK! It's patriotic
31. Re:yay by DirtyLiar · 2012-09-21 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  X-rays are nothing like radio signals emanated from consumer electronics. Not at all similar.
  Yep. Except, you know, for the fact that they are both forms of light, and forms of electromagnetism, just vibrating at different frequencies, they're not similar at all.
  ^_^
  
  --
  THINK! It's patriotic
32. Re:yay by DirtyLiar · 2012-09-21 14:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yup, a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.
  Just as X-Rays are a subset of Light, but Light is not a subset of X-Rays.
  See? Public school taught me something!
  
  --
  THINK! It's patriotic
33. Re:yay by DirtyLiar · 2012-09-21 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  just 40 million miles closer, and we'd find out that light is, indeed very dangerous..
  Just a stones thow away! ^_^
  
  --
  THINK! It's patriotic
34. Re:yay by Shoten · 2012-09-23 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yes and no. You're right; they can kill. But it's not because they are considered poisonous; they are not actually poisons. And it's not the argon or helium that kills you either...it's the absence of oxygen. Poisons are what I was discussing. Drinking too much water can kill you too...but water is not a posion to us. Wood can kill you if you get beaten with a 2x4, without being a poison. There are other ways in which substances may incur lethality besides toxicity.
  
  --
  
  For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
3 cheers for Judge Singleton by gestalt_n_pepper · 2012-09-20 02:28 · Score: 4, Funny

Sanity. We haz it.

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
1. Re:3 cheers for Judge Singleton by DirtyLiar · 2012-09-21 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  Sentence structure, not so much. :P
  
  --
  THINK! It's patriotic
How much you wanna bet... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 02:28 · Score: 1

that since the neighbors are gone, his symptoms will go away. Nevermind that his new neighbors also use Wi-Fi.
1. Re:How much you wanna bet... by firex726 · 2012-09-20 02:33 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  If he actually did feel any symptoms they would probably just psychosomatic.
  TBH I would not be surprised if there was some feud between them and he just went full retard. Someone who sues because of WiFi probably is not entirely there to begin with.
  Wasn't there also some public school district that was suffering legal trouble from the same claims?
2. Re:How much you wanna bet... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 03:01 · Score: 2
  
  yes, exactly. I remember an article from about a year ago (too lazy to go find it, but it was covered here on slashdot) where a company put up a new cell tower and immediately began getting these "it made me sick" complaints. However the tower had not been powered up yet. So, it is a simple case of (choose one or more) psychosomatic issue, or fakers wanting money, or people are actually allergic to metals or paints in towers and not the RF.
3. Re:How much you wanna bet... by Talderas · 2012-09-20 03:05 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  TBH I would not be surprised if there was some feud between them and he just went full retard.
  You never go full retard.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
4. Re:How much you wanna bet... by firex726 · 2012-09-20 03:51 · Score: 2
  
  Well how's he going to know that if he has no wifi?
  lol
5. Re:How much you wanna bet... by jythie · 2012-09-20 04:04 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, there is a pretty sizable alt-med community that believe EM from modern electronics make us sick because the energy in their body is going a different direction or something. In the US they pay for (what they think) are shielded walls and stuff.
6. Re:How much you wanna bet... by firex726 · 2012-09-20 04:12 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  There is also a sizable population of mental patients who think they are Joan or Ark or Napoleon.
  Good thing physics does not care how many people believe in something.
  How do they account for background radiation, or all the other various EM radiation we're exposed to every day?
  Do they live in some kind of 100% perfect Faraday cage that blocks all forms of radiation; because I know some physicists that would love to get their hands on a building material that could do that.
7. Re:How much you wanna bet... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 04:31 · Score: 2
  
  In the city where I live, a city-wide wireless network was set to be opened in the autumn a few years ago. After the opening "ceremony", a bunch of people started complaining about various diffuse pains and tiredness. What they didn't know, was that the wireless network had been on for more than half a year for testing the infrastructure. There was no doubt in these peoples minds that the problem was caused by the wireless network, and they demanded it switched off.
  Morons.
8. Re:How much you wanna bet... by The+Archon+V2.0 · 2012-09-20 05:12 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  TBH I would not be surprised if there was some feud between them and he just went full retard.
  Nah, he was full retard from day one. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/28/nation/la-na-hometown-santa-fe28-2010mar28
  My favorite parts: "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." To stress this: he gets that sick from DIMMER SWITCHES 30 FEET AWAY. And it would have to be a damn fantastic dimmer to have wi-fi.
  And: "Firstenberg said he was staying with friends and occasionally sleeping in his car." A dimmer switch in a house about 30 feet from his makes him sick, but he can drive (I assume) and sleep in a car about a yard from an internal combustion engine, alternator, and a lead acid battery.
  
  Wasn't there also some public school district that was suffering legal trouble from the same claims?
  You were probably thinking of: http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/07/wi-fi_lawsuit_against_portland.html
  Or maybe: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2003/10/60769
  But there's been a LOT of places suffering legal trouble: http://www.smdp.com/resident-files-1-7b-claim-with-city-hall/
  If you want to find more, look up Magda Havas. She's making a nice profit being an "expert" on how Wifi is killing you and UR BABIEZZZZZ. Then there's Barrie Trower. I haven't heard much about him except that he adds some conspiracy theory to the mix and meets interesting people like the king of Botswana (the country is a republic).
9. Re:How much you wanna bet... by meerling · 2012-09-20 05:41 · Score: 2
  
  Don't forget the ones that believe in Hollow Earth, Homeopathy, Magic, Demonic Possession, Alien Invasions, Flat Earth, Werewolves, Vampires, and so many other things. There's way too many people around these days that think reason is anathema and science is based on belief.
10. Re:How much you wanna bet... by firex726 · 2012-09-20 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Wait I thought Hollow Earth was a big troll/joke like the Time Cube?
11. Re:How much you wanna bet... by firex726 · 2012-09-20 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Dimmer switches?
  How would they produce any EM that is different from a regular toggle switch?
12. Re:How much you wanna bet... by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-09-20 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  my bubble wrap suit coat is mylar coated to keep the government rays from misaligning the hydrogen bonds in my cells.
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
13. Re:How much you wanna bet... by cffrost · 2012-09-20 06:50 · Score: 2
  
  Dimmer switches?
  How would they produce any EM that is different from a regular toggle switch?
  Inductors and autotransformers were among the components used in early dimmer designs. Current designs are solid-state, employing SCRs (silicon controlled rectifiers).
  
  --
  Thank you, Edward Snowden.
  
  "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
14. Re:How much you wanna bet... by firex726 · 2012-09-20 07:00 · Score: 2
  
  Oh god I hate that word "natural"
  Immediate red flag when it gets used to describe something.
  "Made with ALL NATURAL ingredients"
  So as opposed to synthetic ingredients? Arsenic is natural, hell it can even be a 100% pure element with no other compounds or elements mixed in; doesn't mean I'll want any on my food.
  Interstellar space has "natural" radiation in it, why don't all these "natural" people go take a stroll and let us know how beneficial it is for their health, in the mean time I'll stay here under the magnetosphere.
15. Re:How much you wanna bet... by firex726 · 2012-09-20 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Was a joke, meant how he's supposed to know not to go full retard if he does not have wifi to get on /. and find out :)
16. Re:How much you wanna bet... by firex726 · 2012-09-20 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  Gotcha, but I'm guessing even in the old days they did not emit so much EMI that it could be detected from hundreds of Ft away?
17. Re:How much you wanna bet... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 07:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  interesting point as he self admits dizziness and vertigo (although for an unconfirmed reason) I would look to get his driving licence removed as a matter of public safety
  can you also counter sue for legal costs and related expenditure?
18. Re:How much you wanna bet... by cffrost · 2012-09-20 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Gotcha, but I'm guessing even in the old days they did not emit so much EMI that it could be detected from hundreds of Ft away?
  I seriously doubt it. I'm no EE, but I imagine that the leaked inductance/EMF from something as small and undemanding as a mere residential dimmer would be negligible compared to (for example) an early CRT TV, AM radio, or vacuum cleaner.
  Veering off-topic a bit, but you may find this of interest: I recall an account of the Canadian doctor/researcher who developed the "God helmet" investigated a young woman who suffered from debilitating nightmares, and believed for years the she or her bedroom was haunted. He removed her clock radio from the nightstand, and the ghosts disappeared.
  
  --
  Thank you, Edward Snowden.
  
  "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
19. Re:How much you wanna bet... by firex726 · 2012-09-20 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  So was it ever concluded to be the clock?
20. Re:How much you wanna bet... by cdrguru · 2012-09-20 09:01 · Score: 2
  
  The caution here is that once a belief gets to be sufficiently mainstream it is going to be impossible to defeat in court.
  Today, people with EMF concerns are indeed able to block electric transmission lines - building a new transmission line is almost impossible to do because of the public complaints. Physics has nothing whatsoever to do with it, belief does.
  Why you should be concerned is that homeopathy is one step away from being mandated to be covered by the new federally approved insurance plans. This will mean that every insurance plan in the US must cover homoepathic treatments. This is going to be a huge boon for the believers and give them all sorts of new credibility.
  We are walking - er, running - down the road to such things right now.
21. Re:How much you wanna bet... by cdrguru · 2012-09-20 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Dimmer switches dim by chopping the AC line current at a high frequency, thereby inducing a high frequency component into the line current.
  With the right tools, like a trace set, it is quite detectable at close range to the dimmer and along the wire feeding whatever it is controlling.
  Florescent fixture dimmers and those compatible with CFL bulbs work differently and there isn't really a high frequency component there.
22. Re:How much you wanna bet... by cffrost · 2012-09-20 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  So was it ever concluded to be the clock?
  I believe I saw it in BBC's Horizon, but I've seen Michael Persinger several times in different TV documentaries, so it's hard for me to provide a reference. YouTube was a bust. Web search indicates that what I described is practically a daily activity for this guy... Psychological effects of EM fields on human brains is what he's all about.
  Now I know it lacks proper rigor, but I'm going to tentatively assume that Persinger vetted the clock radio, that supernatural phenomena were not at play, and that BBC or PBS wasn't trying to yank my crank. ;o)
  
  --
  Thank you, Edward Snowden.
  
  "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
23. Re:How much you wanna bet... by firex726 · 2012-09-20 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, I would not be surprised if there was some super obscure and rare condition like this.
  It's just really fucking unlikely that this WiFi guy had it given his circumstances.
24. Re:How much you wanna bet... by green1 · 2012-09-20 17:27 · Score: 2
  
  I'm a ham radio operator, I've been looking in to putting up a tower in my yard, the biggest suggestion I have received from all other hams is to put up the tower and the antennas several months before putting up any coax to connect anything. This allows you to deal with all the RF complaints quickly and easily so that by the time you actually connect anything the nutters have already been shut up.
25. Re:How much you wanna bet... by DirtyLiar · 2012-09-21 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  Except there has been no recent study showing that some of them actually are Joan of Ark and / or Napolean.
  Acupuncture, always labeled an Alternative Medicine, does have such a study.
  http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-acupuncture-works-above-placebo-effect-for-chronic-pain-study-shows-20120913,0,3155965.story
  
  --
  THINK! It's patriotic
26. Re:How much you wanna bet... by DirtyLiar · 2012-09-21 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  it would have to be a damn fantastic dimmer to have wi-fi.
  Ask, and you shall receive. Some damn fantastic dimmers!
  What kind of wireless dimmer do you want?
  http://www.amazon.com/X10-LM465-Lamp-Control-Module/dp/B00022OCCI/ref=sr_1_4
  http://www.amazon.com/X-10-Decorator-Companion-Slave-Switch/dp/B003ZMA24O/ref=pd_sim_e_4
  http://www.amazon.com/X10-WS4777-Remote-Dimmer-Switch/dp/B00022OCFK/ref=sr_1_6
  Just add a laptop and control it over WiFi!
  
  --
  THINK! It's patriotic
27. Re:How much you wanna bet... by DirtyLiar · 2012-09-21 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  fucking unlikely != impossible
  
  --
  THINK! It's patriotic
28. Re:How much you wanna bet... by DirtyLiar · 2012-09-21 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  Not always, but it can happen if it's been determined to be a nuisance suit, a lawsuit with no merit, brought just to harass the defendant.
  
  --
  THINK! It's patriotic
29. Re:How much you wanna bet... by DirtyLiar · 2012-09-21 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  Genius!
  
  --
  THINK! It's patriotic
Eat popcorn! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 02:28 · Score: 1

Well, he can always start eating lots of microwave popcorn and try it that way. $7.2 million isn't bad, is it?
1. Re:Eat popcorn! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-09-20 03:00 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Well, he can always start eating lots of microwave popcorn and try it that way. $7.2 million isn't bad, is it?
  "Popcorn lung" makes it sound funny; but that one is actually a pretty ugly story(at least for the production workers and some of the QA guys at the plants, this guy must have really been a big fan to inhale that much). Let's just say that "constrictive bronchiolitis obliterans" is almost as much fun as it sounds like it would be. A much rarer disease; but the macro-scale symptoms are pretty similar to emphysema.
  The matter first came to broader attention when NIOSH looked into a cluster of occurrences of this(usually quite uncommon) condition at a microwave popcorn plant. As it turns out, diacetyl, the usual artificial butter flavoring component, causes a delightful progressive, irreversible, destruction of lung capacity(pretty much what 'bronchiolitis obliterans' sounds like it does, it does.) The most severe cases require permanent supplemental oxygen or lung transplants to survive. Less severe cases experience ongoing shortness of breath and respiratory difficulties(whether only under exertion, or even when idle depends on the severity of the case).
  As usual with these cases, the story of the discovery is littered with OSHA dragging its feet, popcorn producers skipping cheap protective measures like extractor fans to keep exposure down(25k to install fans, or slow death for the workers in the mixing room... Hmm, which is better for shareholder value?), and similar depressing anecdotes. Since consumer exposure is much, much lower than flavor-mixing exposure, the FDA has twiddled its thumbs about any questions of reconsidering the present regulatory status of 'safe' give to diacetyl as a food ingredient; but some are a bit concerned...
2. Re:Eat popcorn! by DirtyLiar · 2012-09-21 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  "Popcorn lung"... As it turns out... the usual artificial butter flavoring... causes... progressive, irreversible, destruction of lung capacity
  Hell of a price for the munchies.
  
  --
  THINK! It's patriotic
Way of the world by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 02:31 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Way of the world by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 02:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Dude. Don't jump, okay?
2. Re:Way of the world by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2012-09-20 02:52 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Not when there's a sea of assholes just waiting to step on their back
  Now there's a fine visual for you.
3. Re:Way of the world by Baloroth · 2012-09-20 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Really? I'd say his neighbors won, in this case: they get to not live in New Mexico, especially not next to this guy. Major win for them.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
4. Re:Way of the world by Immerman · 2012-09-20 03:27 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  A corporation is like a tree full of monkeys - when those at the top look down they see a tree full of smiling faces, but when those at the bottom look up all they see is a bunch of assholes.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
5. Re:Way of the world by RespekMyAthorati · 2012-09-20 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  A corporation is like a tree full of monkeys - when those at the top look down they see a tree full of smiling faces, but when those at the bottom look up all they see is a bunch of assholes.
  Awesome! Too bad I don't have mod points.
6. Re:Way of the world by RespekMyAthorati · 2012-09-20 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but I suspect the neighbours had to spend a lot of $$ in legal fees.
7. Re:Way of the world by DirtyLiar · 2012-09-21 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but I suspect the neighbours had to spend a lot of $$ in legal fees.
  ...and moving costs, and probably sold their house at a big finantial loss, and lost wages, and lost friends, and lost neighbors (other than Mr WiFi), etc...
  And counter suing this guy is probably pointless. I doubt he has the money to pay a fraction of those legal costs, let alone the rest.
  
  --
  THINK! It's patriotic
Simple question... by Joce640k · 2012-09-20 02:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

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...
1. Re:Simple question... by firex726 · 2012-09-20 02:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Or take the Darwin approach; selection of ten wires, nine are hot and you're grounded.
  If you're electrosensitive it should be no issue to figure out which one's cold and not electrocute yourself.
2. Re:Simple question... by darkstar949 · 2012-09-20 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  A certain Mr Randi has a million dollars waiting for the first person to do it.
  I'm not sure that would really apply in this case as they aren't claiming anything that is paranormal per se as they aren't claiming anything paranormal in the same way that someone who claims to predict the future is.
3. Re:Simple question... by LordLimecat · 2012-09-20 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Ill take that test. I just need 9 eager-to-help volunteers standing by.
4. Re:Simple question... by MetalliQaZ · 2012-09-20 03:08 · Score: 2
  
  I assume you are using AC on those lines, otherwise there would be no waves to "detect". Lines with enough power to cause a fatality can be detected by normal human beings. You could use the rug to build up some static electricity on your person, then place your arm hairs near the wires. You'd have to be very careful, but I think you could do it.
  
  --
  "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
5. Re:Simple question... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  I used to "test" bare 120v AC lines to see if they were live by quickly touching them with the tips of my fingers. Life was fun back then.
6. Re:Simple question... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  I'm quite quite certain I saw a study somewhere where they did this and did find real volunteers. They rigged a Wi-Fi router with LEDs that could be set to blink when the Wi-Fi was not on, and could be turned off when the Wi-Fi actually was on.
  They placed this behind the volunteers, so that they could sort of see the reflection of flashing LED's on the wall in front.
  Then, of course, they ran some trials with and without Wi-Fi, and with and without the blinking LEDs in various random combinations.
  The obvious results? The volunteers were sensitive only to blinking LEDs.
  I am trying to find that study.....
7. Re:Simple question... by Joce640k · 2012-09-20 03:30 · Score: 2
  
  The JREF expanded the scope of its challenge over the last few years. They now include things like telling the difference between Monster speaker cables and cheapo lamp wire.
  
  --
  No sig today...
8. Re:Simple question... by paiute · 2012-09-20 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/article/37-static/254-jref-challenge-faq.html
  
  --
  If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
9. Re:Simple question... by interkin3tic · 2012-09-20 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure the people who claim wifi sickness are keen on Darwin. Real science confuses and annoys them.
10. Re:Simple question... by firex726 · 2012-09-20 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  There are people who get those magnets implanted in their fingers that can do that.
  They can move their finger within a few inches of a wire or device and see if it's live. I wonder if they get a break on insurance for that reason.
11. Re:Simple question... by firex726 · 2012-09-20 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Eager might be a bit of a stretch, would eight apathetic and one crazy volunteers work for you?
12. Re:Simple question... by firex726 · 2012-09-20 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Even better, then they won't know it's a trap.
13. Re:Simple question... by ColdWetDog · 2012-09-20 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Hopefully, they aren't very strong magnets.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
14. Re:Simple question... by ColdWetDog · 2012-09-20 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Well, jeez. Just sign me right up. Monster cables are big and fat and have a directional arrow for the electrons. They even say "MONSTER" on them.
  Boy, did my ship just come in.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
15. Re:Simple question... by tlhIngan · 2012-09-20 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  There is one guy in Sweden.
  http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-02/disconnected?single-page-view=true
  He does, however, live away from civilization (in the woods) and with very little electricity (because that can trigger him - doesn' tmatter the frequency).
  His case though, is that it isn't just Wi-Fi. Or cellphones, it's *everything*. It's a lot more compelling than anyone who complains they got headaches after a smart meter got put in or something, especially since he moved away to the countryside and gave up modern conveniences.
  You simply cannot claim to be sensitive to "WiFi" or "cellphones" or "smart meters" and live in a modern city - if you were sensitive, you'd already be off on the countryside far away from electrical infrastructure.
16. Re:Simple question... by Joce640k · 2012-09-20 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  There is one guy in Sweden.
  One guy in Sweden who ... what?
  Has he taken a double blind test? Even if he doesn't want the million dollars, a few minutes of suffering from him could bring relief to the millions of sufferers around the world by forcing science to take him seriously. Surely he'd want that.
  I suggest you get in touch with him and explain the situation. Report back here with his reply, we'll be waiting.
  
  --
  No sig today...
17. Re:Simple question... by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2012-09-20 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  To obvious conclusion is that LEDs cause the condition. We must outlaw LEDs!!!!!
  
  --
  If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
18. Re:Simple question... by firewrought · 2012-09-20 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Eager might be a bit of a stretch, would eight apathetic and one crazy volunteers work for you?
  Grandparent post is inefficient... you really just need one extremely lucky volunteer.
  
  --
  -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
19. Re:Simple question... by firex726 · 2012-09-20 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Kind of why I want to get it.
  Plus I heard Electricians are starting to do it regularly, and helps them get a break on insurance.
20. Re:Simple question... by firex726 · 2012-09-20 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  I think they are small rare earth ones wrapped in silicone or something biologically neutral/sterile.
  They need to be strong enough to be affected and move inside your finger.
21. Re:Simple question... by BadgerRush · 2012-09-20 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  I'm afraid you wouldn't be able to “build up some static electricity on your person” if you are grounded like the parent post says.
22. Re:Simple question... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  His case though, is that it isn't just Wi-Fi. Or cellphones, it's *everything*. It's a lot more compelling than anyone who complains they got headaches after a smart meter got put in or something, especially since he moved away to the countryside and gave up modern conveniences.
  No actually it is not.
  Occam's Razor would tend to point towards his symptoms being a result of stress which was relieved when he shut himself away from society. It is known that stress can cause symptoms like headaches, and it it also known that "modern life" can cause stress. Furthermore the typical treatment to reduce stress is to "get away from it all" for a while.
  His claim pre-supposes an as yet unknown causal link between EM radiation and his symptoms, and an absence of EM at his new home (which is crap because the Earth gets way more EM on basically all frequencies from the sun than from any local source).
  The only way to validate his claims are with an experiment that demonstrates some predictive capability possessed by his theory and not by the competing theory of "it's just stress". Until such experiment is done (and ideally repeated) there's no reason to prefer the theory that requires more unproven assumptions.
23. Re:Simple question... by firex726 · 2012-09-20 07:08 · Score: 2
  
  Not normals, just people who claim they can detect electromagnetism...
  If their claims are true they should have no problem.
24. Re:Simple question... by Joce640k · 2012-09-20 08:26 · Score: 2
  
  Right, plenty of animals out there are electrosensitive, sharks and many predators that hunt in mud or murky water have receptors that respond to the tiny electric signals
  That's electric current, transmitted through a conductive medium. No scientist will have a problem with that.
  "Electrosensitive" in the context of this thread is a label people apply to themselves when they think electronic devices make them ill. It's not electric current in water, it's (relatively) low frequency electromagnetic waves traveling through air. Back in the 70's it was overhead power lines, these days it's WiFi, mobile phones, etc.
  
  As for the ESP prize, as others have pointed out if anyone actually has such powers they probably wouldn't advertise it. Kids learn early that being different is dangerous to your well being, and adults who don't choose to blind themselves to such things realize that there really are plenty of shadowy organizations in the world, government and otherwise, that would be interested in controlling or destroying such a person. Opportunistic or self-deluded individuals on the other hand don't have to worry about such things.
  If there was a percentage of the human race with ESP powers there'd be no such thing as a casino.
  
  --
  No sig today...
Never amazed by roland_mai · 2012-09-20 02:35 · Score: 5, Funny

Gentlemen we found Magneto's cousin, ElectroMangeto. His powers are retarded though.
1. Re:Never amazed by roland_mai · 2012-09-20 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  And we found the grammar Nazi.
2. Re:Never amazed by Aaden42 · 2012-09-20 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  Not unlike roaches, there's never just one.
3. Re:Never amazed by game+kid · 2012-09-20 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  The grammar nazi wouldn't care (though it appears the attribution nazi wants to have some words with you).
  
  --
  You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
4. Re:Never amazed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  I believe that's what's called a Fraudulent Slip. Sorta like a Freudian Slip, but intentional.
5. Re:Never amazed by roc97007 · 2012-09-20 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  "His powers are retarded" is my favorite phrase of this week.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Does this mean . . . by smooth+wombat · 2012-09-20 02:36 · Score: 2

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
1. Re:Does this mean . . . by slim · 2012-09-20 02:41 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I will offer my entire life's savings to anyone who can tell, greater than random chance, whether a device is on or off.
  Randi's already offered $1M.
  But these people are wackos. They don't understand why a 50% detection rate demonstrates nothing.
2. Re:Does this mean . . . by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-09-20 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  I will offer my entire life's savings to anyone who can tell, greater than random chance, whether a device is on or off.
  The ones with the illuminated LEDs are on.
  PM me to get my address to send the check.
3. Re:Does this mean . . . by RobertLTux · 2012-09-20 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  i can rig both a false positive and a false negative for you
  False negative: open the router and cut the traces to the LEDs
  False postive: set the router to disable the radio or just wire camo leds into the holes.
  
  --
  Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
4. Re:Does this mean . . . by ballpoint · 2012-09-20 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, and they produce narrow bandwidth insanely (whole orders of magnitude more than very, ultra, super) high frequency electromagnetic radiation that is easily detectable by a M1EB.
  
  --
  Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
5. Re:Does this mean . . . by 91degrees · 2012-09-20 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  No, you see, there's something magical about the specific frequencies used!
6. Re:Does this mean . . . by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-09-20 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, yeah, moving the goal posts.
  Check, please.
Re:Not his neighbor's problem. by slim · 2012-09-20 02:51 · Score: 1

If his claim that it was a health hazard was true, then it would be your responsibility not to pollute your neighbour's home with a health hazard.
The issue is that the claim holds no weight.
Re:Blatant ignorance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 03:09 · Score: 1

x-rays are harmless if they're in use the same microvoltage levels as phones and wifi devices.
go read the report before blurting out something retarded.
Been there, done that by RogueyWon · 2012-09-20 03:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Been there, done that by DBCubix · 2012-09-20 03:26 · Score: 2
  
  I would have called Mental Health and had her involuntarily committed. At that point you have enough of a paper trail to get her some help.
  
  --
  I called it a mighty Sperm Whale, she called it Finding Nemo.
2. Re:Been there, done that by slim · 2012-09-20 03:29 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  or high-pitched noises outside the normal hearing range (which can be a genuine issue for teenagers and for some adults - like me!).
  This is significant. Despite fast approaching my 40th year, I can still hear those inhumane "mosquito" devices designed to keep teenagers from loitering.
  My dad has a PSU in his study which makes a constant, loud, high pitched tone. It drives me mad. Nobody else in the family can hear it (but then, my dad's high frequency hearing is so wrecked he can't hear hi-hats).
  I find it easy to believe that someone superstitious could think that tone was electromagnetism.
3. Re:Been there, done that by RogueyWon · 2012-09-20 03:48 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Yes, quite, I can also hear those mosquito devices, despite being well up into my 30s. When I was in my teens, my dad was a director in a small business that sold, serviced and provided training for medical electronics. It was a very small company and even the directors did a bit of hands-on engineering, so our garage was often full of bits of medical kit.
  There was one weekend that I spent seriously ill - headaches, nausea, dizziness. Eventually, I tracked it down to a monitor in the garage. My dad didn't want to believe me, but it was proven int he end.
  So when this came to a head earlier this year, I was actually perfectly happy to have my flat checked to see whether there was something even further up the range beyond what I could hear - but we proved that there wasn't.
  And yes, I would not be the slightest bit surprised if this were behind at least some of the complaints of "magical computer waves give me headaches".
4. Re:Been there, done that by RogueyWon · 2012-09-20 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly, it's not that easy (at least not in the UK, where resources for these things are limited and the emphasis for mental health is on "care in the community"). In particular, it was complicated by the fact that she'd been the first one to raise a complaint with the authorities. That makes it very difficult to lodge counter-complaints without them being discarded as retaliatory actions. Besides, from about the mid-point of this sequence, I knew that I was going to be moving out in the near future, so my motivation to do more than try to minimise the immediate grief was pretty low.
  But yes, she clearly needed to be removed from the environment she was in - to provide her with treatment if any was likely to be effective and to protect other people from her in any event. I feel very, very sorry for whoever got the flat after me (a young couple, I'm told by my former upstairs neighbour - god, I hope they have a baby soon, a really loud, cranky baby).
5. Re:Been there, done that by Beowulf_Boy · 2012-09-20 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  I recently bought a 60" LG Plasma TV.
  I get headaches when watching it.
  I can also hear a high pitched sound coming out of it when its on. A bit of googling told me this is the transformer it uses to power the plasma with.
  I'm a bit concerned the two are related.
  Kind of mad I just spent $900 on a TV that gives me headaches.
6. Re:Been there, done that by ADRA · 2012-09-20 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Make sure true-motion or whatever they call it in your TV (motion compensation) is turned right off. A lot of my friends have complained about feeling nautious having it on when viewing. Also 3:2 pulldown has caused similar swiming in my stomach from time to time sadly =/ The easy one is to usually enable 'game' modes which usually turn off all TV correction techniques.
  
  --
  Bye!
7. Re:Been there, done that by HornWumpus · 2012-09-20 06:04 · Score: 2
  
  Just go to a few Slayer shows. Sit right in front of the speakers. Your high pitch sensitivity will be cleared right up.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
8. Re:Been there, done that by Beowulf_Boy · 2012-09-20 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  I did some research.
  Apparently Plasmas don't use motion compensation due to the 600hz refresh.
  I will try it in game mode though to see if that helps.
9. Re:Been there, done that by eth1 · 2012-09-20 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  After the point where she had your flat busted into, I would totally have gotten someone to print me up some boxes for various fictitious electronic equipment that I could "leave out for the trash" where she could see them. "Radio Mind Control Emitter," "Electromagnetic Pain Amplifier," "Molestation Beam Focusing Array," etc. :P
10. Re:Been there, done that by Martin+S. · 2012-09-20 22:08 · Score: 1
  
  By the way, this all happened in London
  Next time you see him point him towards the Protection from Harassment Act
11. Re:Been there, done that by drinkypoo · 2012-09-21 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  This is significant. Despite fast approaching my 40th year, I can still hear those inhumane "mosquito" devices designed to keep teenagers from loitering.
  I have the same problem. When I last went to school (few years back) I could still walk into a room and tell that the TV is on with no sync. These days they might have LCDs :) And I might add that I could tell because it was giving me a headache, and I could tell as soon as I walked in the door even though the TV was on the other side of the room. Happened several times. Last I checked I could detect all CRTs, not just some of them, so presumably it wasn't anything to do with a dying transformer, and only one other person in the class (smallest, youngest female) could perceive it.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
12. Re:Been there, done that by Modern+Primate · 2012-09-21 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  I find it easy to believe that someone superstitious could think that tone was electromagnetism.
  That's probably the best explanation I've heard for this yet.
13. Re:Been there, done that by mgcarley · 2012-09-21 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  Had something like this happen to me in Helsinki, too.
  One time got a call from my downstairs neighbour (how she got my number I have no idea) complaining about noise in my flat. I was out of town at the time so said "Well, if there's noise in my flat, please call the police for me as I must be being burgled". And hung up.
  Another time I woke up to torches being shined through my 4th floor window. While I was sleeping. Opened the window and asked what the problem was and was told I was making too much noise, so I said "If I was making so much noise, why didn't you even come up and knock on my door?" (There was noise but it was coming from another building a block away).
  She found other things to complain about too - and called the police on several occasions complaining about everything from TV noise (didn't own one for a start, but Finland also has laws relating to reasonable hours and stuff) to being too loud on the stairs (I'm not a large person, but apparently I should have been taking off my shoes in the lobby and tip-toeing up the stairs in socks) - but the police were always on my side... it was only after several months when she called the landlord that I was eventually forced out.
  Guess that's why the rent on that place was so cheap (considering the property value in the area).
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
question guy's attorney by RichMan · 2012-09-20 03:11 · Score: 5, Funny

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?
Re:Looking for helpful references by Canazza · 2012-09-20 03:39 · Score: 1

Talk to Ben Goldacre http://www.badscience.net/category/electrosensitivity/

--
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
Re:Not his neighbor's problem. by Anubis+IV · 2012-09-20 03:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

If you are bothering or disturbing your neighbors, it is understood that you will undertake reasonable efforts to rectify the situation. For instance, if you were playing your music extremely loudly, the proper response would not be to have your neighbor spend thousands of dollars installing soundproofing throughout their house in order to "deal with it themselves". The proper response would be to ask you to turn it down, and, if you refused, to call the police and have them issue you a citation for violating local noise ordinances. Similarly, if your water hose was left running for an extended period of time and had begun to flood your neighbor's garden, the proper response is not for your neighbor to go out and buy sandbags to obstruct the flow of water. Instead, they should just ask you to turn off the hose.
Essentially, your rights end as soon as they step on mine, so if you're causing harm to me or my property, or else causing a disturbance, I am well within my rights to ask that you cease doing so. And should you fail to respond, local ordinances will likely back me up.
The difference in this case is that we're talking about something that causes no demonstrable harm or disturbance.
Oh he wouldn't like me by kilodelta · 2012-09-20 04:26 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:Oh he wouldn't like me by confused+one · 2012-09-20 07:10 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Almost there but not quite. First step is to put up the dish, tower and antennas, then wait a couple weeks. Put up a yagi as well, pointed in the general direction of the neighbor, just for fun. When the complaints start rolling in, invite the authorities over and show them that nothing is connected to the antennas
  old trick. works to discredit neighbors who complain needlessly.
2. Re:Oh he wouldn't like me by kilodelta · 2012-09-20 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Now that is deliciously evil and yes, I left that part out. Thank you for contributing!
3. Re:Oh he wouldn't like me by cdrguru · 2012-09-20 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that it is possible to demonstrate that there is a signal that is being absorbed by the antenna and will move a meter connected to the antenna feed.
  That then gives them a lot more credibility - they can show that even without something connected the antenna is producing electric power which people claim affects them.
  I assure you, you do not want to go down that road without a firm grasp of all of the possible ramifications. Being surprised is one of the worst things that can happen in court or with a bunch of people claiming to be "the authorities" on site. All it takes is for one of the group (sometimes this starts with a group) having a little bit of knowledge about RF and HAM gear, like a FSM.
4. Re:Oh he wouldn't like me by green1 · 2012-09-20 18:11 · Score: 1
  
  This was the biggest advice I was given when discussing with other hams before putting up a tower. I was told that step 1 is to put up tower with no antennas then wait a few months, this will weed out most of the worst neighbours as they usually start complaining about the RF interference even though there are no antennas (they can't usually tell the difference between a well grounded tower and an antenna) and it's easy to prove that you haven't done anything yet. Next step is the antennas. don't hook them up to anything, don't even run the coax up the tower, just mount the antennas. now wait a couple more months. This will eliminate the people that CAN tell an antenna from a tower but still think RF is a problem. Next step is to connect everything up and enjoy, now when someone complains it's actually worth taking seriously, most likely it will be "every so often when you're home in the evenings my TV goes rather wonky for a few seconds" technically, and legally that's their problem not yours (part 15 if you're in the US, similar regulations in many other countries) but as a good neighbour it's worth trying to help figure out filtering and such to help (or realizing that maybe all 1500w shouldn't be used with that particular rotor direction...)
5. Re:Oh he wouldn't like me by green1 · 2012-09-20 18:14 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that it is possible to demonstrate that there is a signal that is being absorbed by the antenna and will move a meter connected to the antenna feed.
  The suggestion I was given was to not even put up the antennas, just the tower, for the first few months. Most of these idiots can't tell the difference anyway, and your tower should be well grounded anyway. After you've weeded out those people put up antennas, but no coax or equipment, to weed out the remaining few, and a few months later finish your install and enjoy without fear of those sorts of people.
Re:Headaches from cellular telephones: are they re by EmagGeek · 2012-09-20 04:26 · Score: 4, Funny

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.
just because fring's dead, don't mean it's safe by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-09-20 04:31 · Score: 3, Funny

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
Wifi-type radiation CAN cause harm... by Maxmin · 2012-09-20 04:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Wifi-type radiation CAN cause harm... by Maxmin · 2012-09-20 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Just to be clear, I'm talking about microwave ovens, whose power rating is typically reported in watts, as are wifi APs, and they have similar wavelengths.
  Certain radar systems have wavelengths in the microwave range (E band), and if you get close enough to the dish/grid/horn of one, you will feel it and it won't be psychosomatic.
  For those lacking the sarcasm idiot light, my previous post was laced with it.
  
  --
  O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
Crazy Santa Fe by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 04:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
Re:Blatant ignorance by ColdWetDog · 2012-09-20 04:48 · Score: 1

Among other things, Slashcode doesn't handle sarcasm well. A known bug.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Looking for helpful references by ColdWetDog · 2012-09-20 04:51 · Score: 2

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.
A motorcycle magazine? They're worried about cell phones and they tolerate the 60kv from the coil that's busily building charge (and a field) up right between their legs?
My head aslpode. Again.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Not his neighbor's problem. by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2012-09-20 05:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't have to bend over backwards to satisfy my neighbor's needs.
Where do you live? Because I want to move there.
Where I live (Vancouver Canada) we regularly get people complaining about the noise and inconvenience caused by the PNE (Pacific National Exhibition), not what these people completely ignore if the fact that the PNE has been going on for 100 years! So they knew the score when they moved to the area. The worst part, from my perspective, is that people listen to these whack jobs. The response should be "The PNE was here first. Here is a $250 fine for wasting my time."

I feel the same way about these "WiFi makes me sick" idiots.

--
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
It's the shape of the wave that is the problem by arthurpaliden · 2012-09-20 05:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

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
1. Re:It's the shape of the wave that is the problem by thygate · 2012-09-20 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Digital signals are modulated onto a carrier that is ALWAYS a sine wave.
2. Re:It's the shape of the wave that is the problem by vsync64 · 2012-09-20 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Haha well played sir.
  
  --
  TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
3. Re:It's the shape of the wave that is the problem by arthurpaliden · 2012-09-20 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  I had a better copy but could not find it. Maybe next time.
  
  --
  Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
DNA destruction by terrhertz by goombah99 · 2012-09-20 06:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
1. Re:DNA destruction by terrhertz by green1 · 2012-09-20 17:19 · Score: 2
  
  wifi doesn't work in the terrahertz range...
2. Re:DNA destruction by terrhertz by goombah99 · 2012-09-21 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  Well maybe you should just start with slashdot and work forward in time:
  http://www.science.slashdot.org/story/09/10/30/1216230/How-Terahertz-Waves-Tear-Apart-DNA
  http://www.technologyreview.com/view/416066/how-terahertz-waves-tear-apart-dna/
  
  --
  Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
3. Re:DNA destruction by terrhertz by goombah99 · 2012-09-21 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  wifi doesn't work in the terrahertz range...
  Indeed. My point was that the reason we don't think wifi is dangerous is that we can envision a mechanism other than cooking (thermal) where non ionizing, low energy photons with enormous wavelengths could damage cells. Yet we once thought that rare x-ray events could not be harmful till we learned about DNA damage. and We now have some reason to believe that maybe long wavelength terrahertz can resonantly manipulate DNA. So it becomes less far fetched to imagine that WiFi could have a physiological effect even if we don't really know the details of how yet. I'm not saying it does. I'm just saying that the same arguments that dimissed other phenomena were wrong.
  
  --
  Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
4. Re:DNA destruction by terrhertz by green1 · 2012-09-22 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  long wavelength terrahertz? frequency and wavelength are related, and I don't know anyone who would describe terrahertz frequencies as having a long wavelength...
I have the opposite problem by Darinbob · 2012-09-20 08:21 · Score: 2

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?
reminds me of a similar, way funnier case by slashmydots · 2012-09-20 08:40 · Score: 2

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.
And a ham moved in by WaffleMonster · 2012-09-20 09:48 · Score: 2

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...
Re:Not his neighbor's problem. by green1 · 2012-09-20 17:55 · Score: 1

My favourite is the people who buy a house in the flight path to the airport, and get a substantial discount on the property value due to this fact, and then complain that it's too loud and lobby to move the airport, or curtail flights at night, etc.
We also had one that made the paper a few weeks ago who bought a house adjacent to a proposed train line, with big signs and maps all over the neighbourhood showing where the train line would go, then went to the media and forced the city to buy the house from them because of the noise of the trains... They got such a good deal on the house originally because of it's proximity to what was going to be a rail line, then they forced me, the taxpayer, to buy the house!
Drive him insane! by Dutchmaan · 2012-09-20 21:28 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Looking for helpful references by drinkypoo · 2012-09-21 01:05 · Score: 1

They're worried about cell phones and they tolerate the 60kv from the coil that's busily building charge (and a field) up right between their legs?
Unless they have COP or DFI they probably only have 20kv. Point still stands though.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"