digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

See the original image at theinformationparadox.com

Discrimination: Ban The Wi-Fi We Have Allergies.

theinformationparadox.com — This is something new to me.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • moolaismyfriend, on 05/25/2008, -6/+130God some people just ruin it for the rest of us. No wonder everything is so expensive, businesses have to price in the possibility of getting sued by lazy stupid people.
    • Haoie, on 05/25/2008, -3/+16Senseless litigation is the biggest thorn in the legal system in countries in the US.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 05/25/2008, -0/+12I would think if this guy was THIS sensitive to Wi-Fi he'd be feeling it EVERYWHERE. There is a wifi network just about everywhere you go now a days.
    • breadfred, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3Apparently this guy is making it his sole life purpose to prove his so-called illness:
      http://www.whale.to/b/elf6.html
    • YZBot, on 05/25/2008, -0/+4And to say nothing of the other devices that also operate within the same fequency spectrum. Ahem, microwave ovens, cordless phones, bluetooth, microwave satelite communications, etc.
      • thrasher6670, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Dont forget the Sun, it puts out quite a bit radiation at those frequencies
    • Laminarcissus, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1I don't know, this doesn't seem so far-fetched. Whenever I open Windows my head hurts and whenever I check my bank balance I cry.
  • CDep, on 05/25/2008, -11/+114They should sue Al Gore for inventing the Internet.
    • G4M3R, on 05/25/2008, -21/+4Al Gore is the anti-Christ.
    • craiginct, on 05/25/2008, -14/+5Did you notice that Al Gore only said that the there is global warming AFTER he got fat. If he lost weight, he'd preach Global Cooling.
      • tsf5000, on 05/25/2008, -0/+5You're an idiot.
      • jellygraph, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3I'm just curious, but do you ever cry yourself to sleep?
  • DeathWish808, on 05/25/2008, -9/+125That's ridiculous like so many other things. It's like every individual is their own minority group wanting special treatment. Sensitive to WiFi and other signals? Go to Antarctica you *****!
    • str1fe, on 05/25/2008, -1/+53I wear blue shirts on Tuesdays, and all my friends wear red shirts. I feel I'm being discriminated against and demand monetary compensation.
      • nreynolds, on 05/25/2008, -0/+34***** BLUE TEAM!
      • Anpheus, on 05/25/2008, -3/+2You'll find your friends are no longer a problem if you begin calling the group you hang out with a "landing party."
        • Phoenixfury, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1I don't see why you got dugg down.. That was one of the best Star Trek references I've ever seen. :)
  • WiseWeasel, on 05/25/2008, -3/+195I'm future-sensitive, and I'm convinced of being harmed by new things I don't understand. Who do I sue to stop progress and force everyone to ride horses and read newspapers again?
    • madpuppy, on 05/25/2008, -20/+4you sound more like an environmentalist
    • DarknessGP, on 05/25/2008, -13/+2Why would we need to ride horses and read newspapers if you wanted to just stop progress?
    • cdigioia, on 05/25/2008, -15/+2No, no suing.

      You want to join a radical Muslim group & blow ***** up, me thinks.
    • bludo, on 05/25/2008, -0/+14The amish community welcomes you brother
      • sexybobo, on 05/25/2008, -0/+9In the Amish defense. They don't want to force every one to live like them they just want left alone.
        • themouth, on 05/25/2008, -1/+1Right, until you're stuck behind a horse & buggy on a single lane rural road and instead of progressing at 45 mph your cruising at 15.
        • sexybobo, on 05/26/2008, -0/+2What i meant was they don't get any special treatment. It is not illegal for you to go cruise that same road at 15mph if you wanted to.
  • GrandmaSheila, on 05/25/2008, -11/+136And I'm subject to panic attacks in the presence of fundamentalist christians, can I get them banned from my workplace too? ;-)
    • plr4ever, on 05/25/2008, -1/+19If that works for you, i'm gonna try it at my job. But then i won't have an employer....
    • jackalsclaw, on 05/25/2008, -4/+3that is the best idea i have heard all day, but please thought be allergic to anyone who is intolerant , and expects you to act by their beliefs .
  • ichbeineinrcg, on 05/25/2008, -25/+11The complaints are ridiculous, but I've always wondered what the overall effect is of all the additional wi-fi and radio waves that are out and about today. We know it effects bees; why not people, too?
    • Brainmodder, on 05/25/2008, -1/+7Maybe we should study the people who lived in, near, or worked in radar bases. Radar bases send out hugely powerful beams of radiowaves and have been around for quite a long time.
    • dubloe7, on 05/25/2008, -2/+19because it would be the same as people being allergic to oxygen, because the entirety of the planet is literally bathed in radio waves.
      • t0x2c, on 05/25/2008, -8/+3Well considering no one I've ever heard of can live in an environment with more than 25% oxygen, I would say your analogy is rather irrelevant.
        • dubloe7, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1and people can drown, but we need water to survive, whats your point?
    • plr4ever, on 05/25/2008, -2/+9*affects

      /reluctant grammar nazi
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/25/2008, -0/+8Wifi affects bees?
    • evodude, on 05/25/2008, -0/+7I thought that it was determined that it was parasites and not man made signals that was causing the disappearing hives.

      Edit: Scratch that, it seems they still haven't pinned down the cause, but they have ruled out cellphone signals. Scroll down and it's mentioned.
      http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/docs.htm?docid=15572
      • Klowner, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1There's some speculation that it's GMO crops
        • evodude, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1There's a lot of speculation about a lot of things, but what there isn't a lot of is evidence. Speculation is just that, after all.
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 05/25/2008, -0/+11Um, no, we don't "know" that it affects bees. That was a wild conjecture. There is zero solid evidence to back it up.
    • apmtt, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2Because people aren't bees?
  • shadowmoose, on 05/25/2008, -9/+57Guess we should ban the selling of all wheat products on account of some people have wheat allergies.
    • Shuster, on 05/25/2008, -11/+1more people have an allergy to wheat than you think. but of course, that is not a reason to ban anything. wheat isn't good for anyone, but that's not a reason to ban it either.
    • ajb2015, on 05/25/2008, -5/+9thats not quite a fair analogy, you can't practically avoid being around wifi (unless you move away from civilization), but you can avoid eating wheat products. i can't believe i have to explain that.
      • Raian, on 05/25/2008, -0/+6you can't actually avoid being around radio frequencies period... it's not like they weren't there before wifi came around...

        It's a bogus claim, by someone with a mental illness.
    • unpolloloco, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3They're already working on that...along with milk, nuts, and soy
  • adml_shake, on 05/25/2008, -1/+142I'm allergic to hot clothed women at my office. I demand that they be required to wear only underwear or nothing at all.
  • Ricemanstm, on 05/25/2008, -18/+40This kind of crap is hobbling us as a country. For the benefit of a few, everyone must suffer. This socialist crap is getting old. Allergic to wi-fi? Stay out of public buildings, use the internet on a WIRED connection. ***** idiot.
    • ajb2015, on 05/25/2008, -3/+20what does this have to do with socialism?
      • blast_flame, on 05/25/2008, -7/+7The collectivist ideas both share I guess.
      • ajb2015, on 05/25/2008, -3/+7i still don't understand.
      • Scheissen, on 05/25/2008, -9/+1Americans with Disabilities Act is socialist.
    • evodude, on 05/25/2008, -2/+20Not to mention the fact that it's obviously *****. Think about all the different types of signals that we get hit with every second of every day: radio waves, television, telephones, microwaves, the whole freaking spectrum of light, etc. There is always some sort of signal going through your body, and you've managed to isolate this "allergy" down to Wi-Fi and cellular signals? And the symptoms are pain in your chest that doesn't go away right away? Not your legs? Head? Arms? *****. These people have either convinced themselves that they have something that they really don't, or they're lying.
      • senatorpjt, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3And, when you tune to an empty station, you hear static. That's not because nothing is there, otherwise you would hear nothing. There's radiation at all frequencies that are just present in the environment anyway. If you're allergic to them the only solution is to travel to another universe.
    • Cerius, on 05/25/2008, -2/+9If you consider Federalist founders socialists then sure, damn those socialists.

      Protection for the minority was a major part of the founding of the country. Case in point, the Senate. Also look to the judicial branch in its ability to revoke or reinterpret law in a spirit more in line with the constitution and its founding principles. Be happy that the minority is protected in this country.

      Whether these people's claims are legitimate is an entirely different question.
      • Scheissen, on 05/25/2008, -3/+1Oh gubbmet protect me from this door! I need it to automatically open! I have a right to park in front of a store! The world should inconvenient itself to serve me.
    • 35263526, on 05/25/2008, -1/+4This has nothing to do with socialism.

      If their claims were legitimate, which double-blind studies have shown otherwise, then they'd have every right to demand no wifi in _public_ (i.e. government owned, and therefore by extension owned by everyone) buildings.

      As it happens, they're full of *****, but if it's a government organ then it has to put open access into place. If I were actually allergic to wifi I wouldn't want my tax money going to something I wouldn't be able to use.
    • Weejay, on 05/25/2008, -1/+2This has nothing to do with socialism. Don't use terms you don't even understand.
      • Ricemanstm, on 05/25/2008, -2/+2Actually it does, it this lawsuit would, once again, seek to punish (deny) the majority by spreading the pain out over the majority. That's what socialism is, group misery.
  • adamgaudreau, on 05/25/2008, -2/+25What an unfortunate "allergy" to have at such a point in our country's time of technological growth. I'd hate to see what happens to them when WiMax hits.
    • BOFH2, on 05/25/2008, -0/+12According to them? Probably death.
      • gcnaddict, on 05/25/2008, -1/+9If that's the case, it would weed the allergy out of the gene pool...
        • Jashobeam5, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Only if it's genetic. Since it's an immaginary problem, it's not likely to be gentic, so more people will read stories like this and suddenly think they also have this problem.
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/25/2008, -0/+21Or when the sun shines emitting a blast of full spectrum radiation on them.
    • Cerius, on 05/25/2008, -1/+3Have you ever seen Mars Attacks?
    • flashback99, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3I think we all need to substitute the word 'allergy' with the words 'baseless fear".
  • Gamer12, on 05/25/2008, -5/+1Haven't heard this kind of allergy before. I guess you can never please every person in the world. No matter how good something is, some people will still against it.
  • ElBeh, on 05/25/2008, -2/+46Water hurts me, therefore water should be banned.
  • InspectorGadget, on 05/25/2008, -2/+48Many blind studies have confirmed that people that claim to be "sensitive" to electromagnetic radiation are no better at detecting it than control groups of unaffected people. Moreover, being allergic to wi-fi would be the least of their problems because every inch of the populated areas of the world is bathed in "electric fields" every second of every day. They're either extremely gullible or looking for easy money from a settlement and in either case should be mocked at every opportunity. $100 to the first person to hook up their router to a big directional antenna and point it at these nuts to chase them away from civilization.
    • Brainmodder, on 05/25/2008, -0/+17You forget about Faraday cages though. However your approach to idiot elimination is by far laudable. For bonus points one could hook up nothing at all to a directional wifi antenna to get funny results.
      • insertAliasHere, on 05/25/2008, -0/+7I'd forgotten about Faraday cages. We should let these people continue to be deluded, and sell them shirts, pants, and helmets made out of a fine wire mesh. Hey, we don't ban oak trees because some people are allergic to oak pollen. We give them medicine.
      • ISIfunded911, on 05/25/2008, -2/+2Psychological studies prove that you can make people feel better or worse with the power of suggestion, which is nothing new. They prove nothing about the long term effects of pulsed microwaves on health. And of course thess useless psychological studies are funded by the phone industry. 15 years ago this same industry funded physiological studies that lasted 6 years, and spent 25 million dollars on them. The scientist in charge of coordinating these studies, George Carlo, who at the beginning believed cell phones were harmless, finally concluded that cell phones were carcinogenic, and he had several physiological studies done by the best scientists in the field to back his conclusion. The industry and the government agencies concluded that further studies were needed instead of banning pulsed microwaves.
        There have also been many studies by doctors who gathered statistics of illnesses around phone masts. The population living 200 yards around a phone mast is twice more likely to get cancer, and other illnesses.
        The cases of cancer have doubled in Europe since 1945, and all the national associations of doctors in Europe have joined a couple years ago to denounce modern pollutions as the major cause of this deadly increase.
        Read this book co-written by George Carlo to find out about the scientific studies he coordinated and how the industry and the government agencies fought back:
        http://www.amazon.com/Cell-Phones-Invisible-Wirele ...
    • Tyr7BE, on 05/25/2008, -0/+18I wish I could remember the source for this, but someone in the UK did an interview with a woman who was a member of a similar group, claiming she got horrible headaches from wireless signals. The interviewer set up a wifi router, and turned it on, but had the firmware set up so that the lights didn't light up. Later in the interview, when the interviewer turned on the router lights, the woman started moaning about how her head suddenly hurt. Sure enough, when the interviewer turned off the lights, she was just fine.

      Just goes to show you how badly full of ***** some people are.
      • dazparkour, on 05/25/2008, -1/+4Was she confronted? What happened?

        Whiny ***** bitches.

        Time to start building a bigger parabolic dish, start a website adding them one by one to a google map and... pow!
  • jayb1rd, on 05/25/2008, -2/+34I thought the internet was a series of tubes. I am so confused.
  • djstrat, on 05/25/2008, -0/+43It's called radio and these people should go back to the 1920s when Radio was something new... maybe they could have had it banned back then.

  • adougy, on 05/25/2008, -0/+32Wonder if the symptoms worsen with faster download speeds.
    • matschig, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2xD
    • shawnanigans, on 05/25/2008, -2/+2I could have killed them a thousand times over last week when What.cd had a flac freeleech. Makes me feel powerful.
  • toastgodsupreme, on 05/25/2008, -1/+85I'm allergic to gravity. :( It's constant pull causes aches and pains on my joints when I'm upright for extended periods of time. It makes lifting large objects a strenuous task. It basically interferes in all my daily activities.
    • Allik, on 05/25/2008, -0/+26Gravity is only a theory, prove it wrong and you are in the clear.
      • str1fe, on 05/25/2008, -0/+4The alternative is that everything is made of the "earth" element and wanted to go back to the earth.

        Seriously, that's what people used to think cause thing to fall back in the day. If it floated, fell more slowly, or flew away it hard more of the "air" element in it.
        • Dynamo418, on 05/25/2008, -18/+2Oh my god, they so stupid! Stfu, if no one had told you about gravity you would probably think that too, except your idea would be worse and get you killed; good riddance, i say. ***** elitist, why do you know anything? Is it because you figured it out? No, you sat there while real men did the heavy lifting for you. I wish i could send you back a few million years, and watch you try and fight off dinosaurs with your big ***** ideas.
        • lukak, on 05/25/2008, -1/+6woah... easy on the angry pills buddy.
        • OutThisLife, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3rofl.
  • TOZZiE, on 05/25/2008, -27/+7I've heard of this before, someone i went to school with a few years back was sensitive to the Wi-Fi we had installed. She got sick when ever she entered the school, she would get headaches and get sick to her stomach
    I dont see why everyone just instantly dismisses the idea that some people are more sensitive to things then others.
    But I dont think a Full wide-spread ban is needed, people just have to research more into this, and find a way to fix it.
    • positron, on 05/25/2008, -4/+38Because your friend was not allergic to wi-fi. She was just mentally ill.
    • bwdd, on 05/25/2008, -3/+11She's like a human wifi sniffer.
      • Dotcommer, on 05/25/2008, -0/+7Suzy? Are you okay? No? QUICK! EVERYONE! GRAB YOUR LAPTOPS! There's wifi to be wrangled around here!
    • novastar123, on 05/25/2008, -0/+22Hey, most students get sick when they goto school. Didnt you know that?
      I got sick every time I walked in my school to, and it wasn't due to the Wi-Fi. It was due to the school.
    • blast_flame, on 05/25/2008, -2/+22Its a very strong placebo effect, nothing more.
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 05/25/2008, -1/+18Just the school? Did she get sick the in the presence of all wifi, even when she didn't know it was around? How do you know it wasn't something else in the school? Saying it was wifi when there are a million other factors is just plain stupid. I'm sorry, but I'm detecting the pungent odor of *****.
    • Murdats, on 05/25/2008, -1/+21its like claiming some people are more sensitive to infra-red light.
      its something the human body can not detect in any way, thus there is no way to be more sensitive to it.
      the same goes for this, the universe is soaked in radio waves, why do you think we use radio telescopes, however you say some people may have adverse reactions to a few very specific narrow bandwidths? and this causes generic symptoms?
      • jeffiek, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1I think this is BS just like everyone else. BUT
        "its something the human body can not detect in any way, thus there is no way to be more sensitive to it."

        Is illogical and wrong. Ever hear of x-rays? Just because you can't detect them, doesn't mean that there aren't varying degrees of resistance.
        • Murdats, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1that resisitance is due to your body composition, fat absorbs radiation quite well, the fatter you are, the more radiation it takes to effect you.
    • khyberkitsune, on 05/25/2008, -0/+14If they REALLY were allergic, you'd think that being on the planet alone would ***** them up, since the sun blasts us with EM across the entire spectrum 24 hours a day at powers far greater than our puny transmitters.
    • ShadowMerchant, on 05/25/2008, -1/+11The research has been done. There is no need for more. People who claim to be allergic to radio waves are either grifters looking for easy money, or mentally ill.
    • sleepbox, on 05/25/2008, -1/+3In Eu somewhere the govt will paint your house with anti-wifi paint for free. Sweden or Switzerland I think
  • Ghoztt, on 05/25/2008, -0/+32Uh... can we have some... you know... "scientific studies" to back these claims up with?
    kthnxcry
  • bpollay, on 05/25/2008, -2/+50This is happening in my hometown of Sebastopol, CA. We were about to get city wide free WIFI but some paranoid tinfoil hat wearing hippies shot it down. Luckily the city council is reconsidering the issue in a couple of months.

    "The city of Sebastopol, Calif., was all set to offer free wireless Internet service. Then last week the City Council rejected the idea after several residents complained that the radio waves pose a health hazard. “I have had health challenges, and my body cannot handle Wi-Fi,” one resident was quoted as saying. “It gives me headaches and makes me very sick.”

    As for the complainers, “I can only be glad that they weren’t alive when the city decided on electrification a century ago,” wrote Dale Dougherty on the blog of O’Reilly Media, a publisher of technology books that has its headquarters in Sebastopol (radar.oreilly.com). DAN MITCHELL"
    -NY Times

    http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/loca ...

    http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080413/NEW ...
    • korvan504521, on 05/25/2008, -0/+5On a totally separate issue, all the "health sufferers" happen to work for local ISPs. back to you Tom.
  • camintmier, on 05/25/2008, -2/+47I'm allergic to people who are "allergic" to wifi signals. When I'm around them I feel the sudden need to find a baseball bat and use their head as a practice tee.
  • JesusHimself, on 05/25/2008, -1/+11Ok, well, if they're allergic to Wi-Fi, can be allergic to work?
    • Brainmodder, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3Apparently they are see this study on psychological factors associated with becoming "electrosensitive," one of them is "Perceived sensitivity was associated with an increased likelihood of using a mobile phone predominantly for work."
      • snyperr2s, on 05/25/2008, -2/+1I've read up on it before, I'm sure there are people who are ULTRA sensitive to it, but, to go as far and ban its use entirely would be like trying to ban a barney show from a preschool or something, it doesn't make any since
    • lukeb1222, on 05/25/2008, -7/+1I can haz work alurgy plz?
    • str1fe, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2There's some disease, although I'm only using As I Lay Dying (the book, not the band) as a source, that causes you to die if you sweat too much, even just a little bit. I guess you go into shock because your body thinks you've lost too much water. Not sure what it'd be called though. I guess you could call that a work allergy?
      • snyperr2s, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2well, the AC is broken, and we're in la where it can get sweltering hot, and even worse inside, so i guess u cld call it that, kinda.
  • RobotLeAwesome, on 05/25/2008, -2/+14Oh man, this is setting off my stupidity allergy; quick, kill this guy.
  • BossKey, on 05/25/2008, -3/+40I'm allergic to a lot of things (really), but this is just bogus. If you're really "allergic" to wi-fi, you'll suffer in the presence of operating microwave ovens, cordless phones, Bluetooth headsets, or any other 2.4GHz source. Oh wait, you aren't suffering around those? Then you fail.
  • BloodWenis, on 05/25/2008, -4/+15I love it when the majority no longer rules. EQUAL not special rights to the minority, protect not cater to.
    • ryrocker, on 05/25/2008, -1/+5yep
      =]
    • geniusj, on 05/25/2008, -1/+2The majority elected these people who will make a decision on this and who made the decision to have laws that cater to the minority. Do I disagree with any laws that cater to a minority? Not entirely. After all, I'm sure there's an aspect/personality trait/whatever about all of us that only the minority possesses.
    • xaxxon, on 05/25/2008, -1/+2majority rules is NOT what this country is based on. That would be a pure democracy and that would turn to shambles EXTREMELY quickly. First, we double taxes on redheads. All for? against? Yep, that passes. Christian values for everyone? Yep. Freedom of speach? Not really that important unless you're going against what's popular.
  • SP0000TZ, on 05/25/2008, -2/+9Its probably true that no one is really "allergic" to wifi signals. But a thought is, what if some people are? Assume all manner of tests are run, control groups and all, and a wifi allergy exists. What then? If the context of our current discrimination laws, do they have a real case? If its true, wifi would have to be banned in a lot more places than just public buildings. Individual wifi networks extend well outside the house, they blanket sidewalks and neighboring properties. Would one be able to ban the use of wifi in their neighborhood as well, to prevent discrimination? Sorry for the number of questions and total lack of answers, scary thoughts though.
    • Murdats, on 05/25/2008, -0/+8all of those tests have been done, but idiots are immune to facts and reality (but apparently susceptible to wifi)
    • insertAliasHere, on 05/25/2008, -0/+6Lots of people are allergic to oak, cedar, and other trees' pollens. Cities don't ban trees. Lots of people are allergic to animal dander, but we don't outlaw pets. We've developed medicines that control these allergies. My roommate has recently developed a severe allergy to fish. But restaurants still serve seafood. He just has to avoid it.

      So, as long as we are going along with this hypothetical, we wouldn't ban wifi. We would tell people to avoid these areas. And when that's not possible, I bet someone would invent a Faraday cage suit (just like people found allergy medicines.)
      • Sverre, on 05/25/2008, -0/+4But I guess you would have to limit its use in public buildings.

        Still, this is just hypothetical. There is (to my knowledge) no evidence for these kinds of "allergies", and it is hard to believe you could react to Wi-Fi and not e.g. a mobile phone. I wonder how they would do in a blind test... "Tell me, is this Wi-Fi on or off?"
      • arobicha, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2I doubt it would be necessary to develop a faraday suit since there are solar "alergies", or photo-sensitivity which is treated like an allergy. Doctors found the best way to deal with these problems was to minimize sunlight exposure, and when necessary treat with antihistamines, and desensitize the skin with steroids such as hydrocortisone. (My Dad's a doctor, took the liberty of asking him, though surprising amounts of information can be found on the internet!). If this supposed hypersensitivity existed, it may even be possible to reverse it through controlled exposure.

        As for testing, 4 groups: 1 group has Wi-fi on, 1 group has Wi-fi off, 1 group with known sensitivity has wi-fi on, 1 group with known sensitivity has wi-fi off. On that note: Show me an idiot with wi-fi hypersensitivity who has a cordless phone, and I'll show you a hypochondriac who responds differently to the exact same stimulus. I probably should have kept my mouth shut though, considering now they'll likely try to ban that too.
    • senatorpjt, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Nobody is allergic to wifi - there's no mechanism in the body capable of detecting those frequencies, so unless these people have evolved a new organ capable of detecting them, they're full of *****.
  • jakk, on 05/25/2008, -2/+4http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/ ...
  • Hegemony, on 05/25/2008, -0/+31*****, you can't be allergic to radio waves. There's no immunological mechanism for it.
    • BOFH2, on 05/25/2008, -0/+7They are probably mis-informed. They probably want it classified as an allergy so that they can get SSI.
  • mogebier, on 05/25/2008, -4/+24I only have 2 words to say to idiots like this:
    1. *****
    2. You
    • matschig, on 05/25/2008, -12/+2that's actually three words.
    • mogebier, on 05/25/2008, -2/+1Um.... what?
      I think you need to read #1 and #2 yourself.
      'tard.
  • Brainmodder, on 05/25/2008, -1/+20Electrosensitivity is some of the largest bullcrap I have ever seen. It has been disproven!
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6914492.stm
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070725/095038.s ...
    • ISIfunded911, on 05/25/2008, -1/+1I read the BBC article. This proves nothing about phone masts at all.
      This just proves that you can make people feel better or worse with the power of suggestion, which is nothing new. It proves nothing about the long term effects of pulsed microwaves on health. And of course this useless psychological study was funded by the phone industry. 15 years ago this same industry funded physiological studies that lasted 6 years, and spent 25 million dollars on them. The scientist in charge of coordinating these studies, George Carlo, finally concluded that cell phones were carcinogenic, and he had several physiological studies to back his conclusion. The industry and the government agencies concluded that further studies were needed instead of banning pulsed microwaves.
      There have also been many studies by doctors who gathered statistics of illnesses around phone masts. The population living 200 yards around a phone mast is twice more likely to get cancer, and other illnesses.
      The cases of cancer have doubled in Europe since 1945, and all the national associations of doctors in Europe have joined a couple years ago to denounce modern pollutions as the major cause of this deadly increase.
      You should read books instead of quick articles on internet.
      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="george+carlo"&btnG=Google+Search
  • dagamer34, on 05/25/2008, -1/+14A tin-foil hat should fix your problems. It'll block the WiFi signals!!!!
  • ileftfark, on 05/25/2008, -1/+13There is a cure for this tragic disease- but it involves fashioning a covering for the cranium that involves the chemical element "Al". It's a complicated procedure, but instructions can found in the Hollywood film "Signs".
  • triscuitbiscuit, on 05/25/2008, -2/+8Why isn't he writhing in pain when he is being interviewed? Or is it that since cameras have been established pieces of technology for such a long time, that their electromagnetic fields don't bother him?
  • choopie911, on 05/25/2008, -3/+8They deserve a hearty "shut the ***** up"
  • lostngone, on 05/25/2008, -0/+19Ok so are allergic to 2.4Ghz or 5.8Ghz Wifi? The new 3G cell phones use 2.1Ghz and a cell tower puts out a lot more power then the 300 Milliwatts that a Wifi base station does.

    What are they doing about the cell towers?
    • matschig, on 05/25/2008, -1/+10Well, i don't know about you, but a couple of C4 took care of the towers around my town.
  • ChrisBensch, on 05/25/2008, -1/+8Completely banning a useful technology like RF? Not likely. We can't even ban things that have absolutely zero benefit to humans or any other living thing...like smoking! Cigarettes are a disgusting killer and we've managed to get them out of restaurants here in California. Unfortunately people, who have all heard the bad things and all the deaths etc, still smoke. At least RF technologies are a betterment to society and not a killer. Is there a "test" for wifi-itis? I know that I get all funny feeling when I get a lot of trouble calls from work!
    • geniusj, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3I'm not a smoker, but are you saying we should ban all smoking? I tend to not support banning anything that doesn't directly affect me in some non-minute way.
      • korvan504521, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1it affects me every time I come into my office and have to walk past half a dozen slackers smoking away their work day.

        on the other hand, they do pay a nice juicy tax to the government for killing themselves, so maybe it balances out.
      • Jashobeam5, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Yes, let's ban smoking, and then alcohol.
  • waxoff, on 05/25/2008, -1/+24I'm also electro-sensitive and live in Santa Fe, New Mexico. I get chest pain which doesn't go away right away every time I enter an area LACKING WiFi signals. I demand equal access to public buildings. I therefore demand a strong WiFi signal in all public buildings so that I too may have equal access under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  • tattertech, on 05/25/2008, -3/+11I'm pretty sure that this has been scientifically disproved. Unfortunately far too few of us actually pay attention to science in this country.
  • solarsavior, on 05/25/2008, -0/+15I'm allergic to their stupidity. I demand that they be banned!
  • busterpratt, on 05/25/2008, -10/+2Actually WiFi signals are microwave based. They are damaging to humans.
    www.safewireless.org
    • ufia, on 05/25/2008, -1/+3*****! WiFi signals are as damaging to humans as standing near a car engine.

      Listening to white noise all day long may become irritating after a while and make you lose your mind, but sounds below 85 dB won't permanently damage your hear drums. Same principle with microwave frequencies.
    • Murdats, on 05/25/2008, -0/+8the sun emits microwaves aswell, infact any moving metal will produce microwaves aswell, if I am not mistaken, the human body also emits microwaves.

      its not the type, its the strength.
      are you going to claim red light is harmful because powerful lasers can be used to cut through metal?
    • insertAliasHere, on 05/25/2008, -0/+5You must be joking.
    • craiginct, on 05/25/2008, -0/+5Everything, Gives You Cancer
      No one gets out alive
    • str1fe, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3Honestly. It used to be gamma rays from TV remotes, then you had microwave ovens, then radio signals, now it's wi-fi and probably Blue Tooth as well. Let's not forget cell phones. What's next, do the natural waves produced by bats, dolphins, and the like cause damaging effects to the human brain?
    • AnotherBrian, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2Physics fail.
  • macdaddy357, on 05/25/2008, -0/+10Back in the day, lunatics like these were committed to asylums. We should bring those back. Far too many nuts are running amok.
    • Jashobeam5, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1And many of them are working as judges in California.
  • sh4d0w4lk3r, on 05/25/2008, -0/+6POPPYCOCK!
  • blast_flame, on 05/25/2008, -0/+6This sounds like the next "multiple chemical sensitivity disorder" which is to say BS. MCS is outlined and ridiculed in the below podcast.
    http://digg.com/podcasts/Quick_Hitts/92907
  • tavisjohn, on 05/25/2008, -4/+4Like with other disabilities, they should adapt to the world instead of expecting the world to adapt to them.
    So instead of trying to get all wireless communications to stop, they should work to develop clothing that blocks such waves so that they are not effected, or effected less. (Faraday Cage based shirts maybe)

    Asking the public to go without Wireless communication just because a minority of the population gets discomfort would be like...
    Little people requiring all public places to have little people accessible areas. Hotels would be required to have several rooms that are designed for their shorter stature... Public restrooms would have to have special stalls and lower sinks... Grocery stores would be required to have all products 4 foot or below... You get the idea.

    And if they whine about how their special clothing is expensive, than they can kiss by ass! My wife has to use a power wheelchair. The costs over $10,000 USD!! (More than my van!) I also had to purchase a folding ramp to load and unload her wheelchair from my ramp... To the tune of $450.00. If I wanted to have a power lift installed... That would be another few thousand.

    So they can get themselves clothing that blocks these signals! And if a single one of them owns a cell phone, 2.4 ghz cordless phone, uses anything BlueTooth, or has a WiFi router (WiFi on) should be tattooed on the forehead with "I am a publicity whore".
    • DarknessGP, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3I think the bigger problem is that they are exploiting the Disabilities Act, which refers to people being limited from entering public places. There is a big difference in a person in a wheelchair not being able to enter a building, and a person feeling a slight amount of pain upon entering a building. That said, I agree with you, they should do something to protect them when they know their will be WiFi, instead of trying to make everyone not use it. Do they not plan on any type of travel?
      • frankverdi, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1There are people with allergies to peanuts that don't allow them to be near peanuts, they're so sensitive if someone were to eat peanuts in a public place, they couldn't enter due to the severity of the allergy. Should we ban peanuts from public places? There are people who can't go out into sunlight due to rare skin conditions, should we shield all of the public places from the sun? There was a girl on digg a few weeks ago who was allergic to water touching her skin. Should we criminalize rain? My point it, this is a rare condition, these people are a minority. We shouldn't stunt the technological growth of our nation to accommodate this handful of people.
  • buckrogers1965, on 05/25/2008, -1/+7Just put their desk down in the storage room.

    "Ummmm, yeaaah. I'm going to have to ask you to move down to the storage room."

    The signal strength is equal to the distance squared. They will be fine.
    • RedHerringHack, on 05/25/2008, -1/+9inversely proportional, actually called the inverse square law. But point taken.
  • ufia, on 05/25/2008, -2/+37My penis is claustrophobic. Can I walk in public without wearing pants?
    • Klowner, on 05/25/2008, -0/+13Ah yes, another sufferer of acute claustrophallicitis
    • MadHarvey, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Claustrophobic penis. I could see that becoming a problem in certain 'situations' in my life...

      My penis puppet show would have to be canceled, or extensively rewritten at least...

  • sgmbest12321, on 05/25/2008, -1/+10Just another group of assholes thinking we should ban something because 5 out of 300 million americans dont like it
  • ggtsu, on 05/25/2008, -1/+10Why don't they just wear tinfoil hats?
  • notyourbroom, on 05/25/2008, -10/+3I was in Hong Kong recently, and inside of the airport, there were small, sealed, bus-stop-sized chambers for smokers to go to light up. The smokers were able to get their fix, while the folks with sensitive lungs and/or asthma didn't have to encounter their pollution. I think this fits into the same sort of category.

    Digg me down, but IF (and ONLY IF) controlled, double-blind experiments could consistently show that a minority of people physiologically react adversely to wifi signals- even a small minority, say one in 20,000- then I wouldn't consider the accommodation of that minority's condition to be outrageous. The solution would not be to ban wifi, but to exercise some greater control over its scope (lower transmitting power maybe) and to label hotspot areas more clearly.
    • lostngone, on 05/25/2008, -0/+9Even less then 300 Milliwatts that a Base station puts out now? Do you know how much power a cell tower puts out???

      So we need to ban Wifi for these people but the building is still getting bombarded with cell signals of almost identical frequencies!

      What's next they demand all public building be EM and RF shielded?
    • zeebo, on 05/25/2008, -0/+12The syndrome doesn't survive any sort of double blind tests. Its all in their heads.
    • insertAliasHere, on 05/25/2008, -0/+4First of all, you can't tell me what to do. I'll bury you if I god-damned well please, for whatever reason I want.

      Second, if there were a larger amount of people afflicted with this than the number you defined, don't you think that we would have heard of it before now?

      And last, (once again) we don't typically ban things that a small or even relatively large amount of the population are allergic to (pollen, dander, seafood, peanuts, etc...), we make medicines or tell them to stay away from such products. I understand that wifi is broadcasted, so you may not be able to avoid it, but we could damn sure make some wire mesh shirts and pants to protect these people, should this actually be real. The answer isn't to stop progress.
  • spanglegluppet, on 05/25/2008, -12/+6Why is everyone calling this guy an idiot? He can't exactly help that he's hyper-sensitive to Wi-Fi signals, and he doesn't seem to be making it up. Not that I advocate the ban of Wi-Fi in his area, but it does raise an interesting question regarding whether or not certain individuals should suffer just for the convenience of the rest of the city.
    • blast_flame, on 05/25/2008, -0/+6Actually he likely can. What he is experiencing is a placebo effect not any real allergy. The reason why we're all calling him an idiot is his claims are fundamentally unscientific.
    • zeebo, on 05/25/2008, -0/+6He's suffering from a real illness all right, but it has nothing to do with Wi-Fi or RF in general. He needs real help, and playing along with his delusional state isn't going to help anyone.
    • DarknessGP, on 05/25/2008, -0/+6Even if we assume that he is "hyper-sensitive to WiFi", there is a lot he could do to limit and possibly remove his own exposure that isn't banning it. Copper mesh shirts? Moving out of range, etc. People with food allergies don't eat that food, they don't try and get it banned. The issue is really that his FIRST solution is to ban WiFi.
    • hlehmann, on 05/25/2008, -0/+7"He can't exactly help that he's hyper-sensitive to Wi-Fi signals, and he doesn't seem to be making it up."

      Yes he is making it up, since even if he does have chest pains, he has no way of connecting the pain directly to WiFi. Most likely he's just mentally unstable, an attention seeker, or a little of both.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.