'Wi-Fi' Allergies



  • I don't know whats the bigger WTF ... that this guy filed this suit, that the court didn't laugh him out of the building, that it showed up on CNN, or that people are willing to claim they know someone with this 'problem' too.



  •  Shouldn't the quotes be around "allergies" and not "wi-fi"?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

     Shouldn't the quotes be around "allergies" and not "wi-fi"?

    Not according to CNN.



  • Re: Wi-Fi 'Allergies'

    @rad131304 said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

     Shouldn't the quotes be around "allergies" and not "wi-fi"?

    Not according to CNN.

    Huh?  Precisely "according to CNN":

    [quote user="http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/12/wi-fi-allergies-leave-man-homeless/"]

    SciTechBlog   « Back to Blog Main
    <!-- content table --> <!-- content area --> <!-- blog post 5217 -->
    <div class="cnnBlogContentDateHead">January 12, 2010</div><h1><a href="http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/12/wi-fi-allergies-leave-man-homeless/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: Wi-Fi 'allergies' leave man homeless">Wi-Fi 'allergies' leave man homeless</a></h1>
    
    Posted: 11:31 AM ET

    The Santa Fe New Mexican reports a man claiming to suffer from electromagnetic sensitivity is suing his neighbor for refusing to disconnect her electronic devices.

    Santa Fe, New Mexico resident Arthur Firstenberg claims that his neighbor Raphaela Monribot's use of electronic devices such as cell phones, computers, compact fluorescent lights and dimmer rheostats is aggravating his "electromagnetic sensitivity" and causing him to get sick.

     

    [/quote] 

    [edit: adjusted subject line ] 



  • @rad131304 said:

    that people are willing to claim they know someone with this 'problem' too.
     

    A couple of months ago there was a huge argument about this on Slashdot.

    What's worse, there were [i]slashdotters[/i] claiming to be allergic to wifi (or other types of radio waves) - not just claiming to know someone.

    The conclusion from that argument?  Studies have conclusively proven that people who think they can detect wifi really can't.  It's purely psychological.  If they [i]think[/i] there's a wifi signal, they become uncomfortable, whether or not there actually [i]is[/i] a signal.



  • @Heron said:

    @rad131304 said:

    that people are willing to claim they know someone with this 'problem' too.
     

    A couple of months ago there was a huge argument about this on Slashdot.

    What's worse, there were slashdotters claiming to be allergic to wifi (or other types of radio waves) - not just claiming to know someone.

    The conclusion from that argument?  Studies have conclusively proven that people who think they can detect wifi really can't.  It's purely psychological.  If they think there's a wifi signal, they become uncomfortable, whether or not there actually is a signal.

    I really hope the defence arranges a proper blinded test during the trial.  It will be funny to see the plaintiff floundering around, randomly trying to guess when the defence attorney switches the test device on or off...

     



  • @Heron said:

    A couple of months ago there was a huge argument about this on Slashdot.

    What's worse, there were slashdotters claiming to be allergic to wifi (or other types of radio waves) - not just claiming to know someone.

    You seem surprised by this.  The average IQ on Slashdot commenters is now probably around the average IQs for commenters on CNN.com or YouTube.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    The average IQ on Slashdot commenters is now probably around the average IQs for commenters on CNN.com or YouTube.
     

     Well sure, when you include the AC trolls.

    Registered users usually appear to be slightly above average, though, so it was mildly surprising to see vaguely tech-oriented people (tech-oriented enough to register a username on slashdot, anyway) claim they were allergic to wifi.

    Though I suppose you're right; I probably do generally give people far more credit than they deserve.



  • @Heron said:

    @rad131304 said:

    that people are willing to claim they know someone with this 'problem' too.
     

    A couple of months ago there was a huge argument about this on Slashdot.

    What's worse, there were slashdotters claiming to be allergic to wifi (or other types of radio waves) - not just claiming to know someone.

    The conclusion from that argument?  Studies have conclusively proven that people who think they can detect wifi really can't.  It's purely psychological.  If they think there's a wifi signal, they become uncomfortable, whether or not there actually is a signal.

    The linked CNN article quoted the same study, I think. Basically this is a psychosomatic disorder. However, psychosomatic disorders produce real physical symptoms. So these people may very well have such a disorder, and they become physically ill whenever their brain tricks them into beleiving wifi is nearby. It's just that the symptoms aren't actually caused by wifi.

    I certainly don't think the guy should win his lawsuit or other people should be compelled to do anything differently around these people though.



  • I really like the crazy responses from the True Believers, in particular one guy - Alex Richards, who appears to be spamming every blog he can find that isreporting on this. All his comments are identical and he seems to have been doing this for months, actually. The comment starts with this gem:

    I'm a technology exec in Silicon Valley and became hypersensitive to electromagnetic fields on February 29, 2006. Since then I have suffered head shocks, burning, rashes, sleep disturbances, memory loss, concentration issues, heart palpitations and more than 20 other symptoms from all forms of wireless technologies. A pain hits my head 5-15 seconds before a cell phone rings nearby.
    He describes his various symptoms like this:
    • I can detect wireless networks by the sharp rodent-like biting across my scalp.
    • I experienced Park communications signals at UHF/ VHF like a thick 2 inch nail penetrating my skull.
    • WiFi burns for awhile across a wide area of my head/ face like a rope burn and then starts biting like quick pricks from the tooth of a hamster.

    Even funnier is that some people take this troll seriously as evidence for their 'issues', look at the sites here, citing him apparently genuinely:
    I better stop posting, as my 3G mobile broadband dongle is causing me to feel cat-like scratches on my shins, unless that's actually my cat...


  • They have already addressed this.  Neighbor needs to upgrade to 802.11n.



  • I would probably be considering switching to a DoR HAM setup, but that's just me.  Wifi allergies?  Wanna hear your chain-link fence sing?  ;)



  • @grkvlt said:

    He describes his various symptoms like this:

    • ...
    • I experienced Park communications signals at UHF/ VHF like a thick 2 inch nail penetrating my skull.
    • ...

    Actually, a thick 2 inch nail penetrating his skull might explain quite a bit.



  • @grkvlt said:

    February 29, 2006
    You mean the date doesn't give it away?



  • @PJH said:

    @grkvlt said:
    February 29, 2006
    You mean the date doesn't give it away?
     

    He was most likely trying to stage an accident to gain superpowers.

    Instead, he lost the rare superpower of common sense.



  • @DaveK said:

    @rad131304 said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

     Shouldn't the quotes be around "allergies" and not "wi-fi"?

    Not according to CNN.

    Huh?  Precisely "according to CNN":

    They changed the headline - they can do that you know.



  • @rad131304 said:

    @DaveK said:

    @rad131304 said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

     Shouldn't the quotes be around "allergies" and not "wi-fi"?

    Not according to CNN.

    Huh?  Precisely "according to CNN":

    They changed the headline - they can do that you know.

    Well, fair do's.  But the statement "Not according to CNN" was not correct at the time you posted it, and had not been for some time, as the timestamps demonstrate (and as I had also seen myself, having followed your link shortly before Morbs' reply came through), so it's only reasonable that I was surprised by what turned out to be out-of-date information.



  • @DaveK said:

    Well, fair do's.  But the statement "Not according to CNN" was not correct at the time you posted it, and had not been for some time, as the timestamps demonstrate (and as I had also seen myself, having followed your link shortly before Morbs' reply came through), so it's only reasonable that I was surprised by what turned out to be out-of-date information.

    I didn't bother to re-check the headline when I replied to morbs, so I missed that they had changed it by then. I guess thats TRWTF.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.