This thread is AWESOME!
First, I call bullshit on the allergic to EM. Maybe... MAYBE EM can make someone's existing allergies more excited... MAYBE! I doubt it!
Second, peer reviewed, shmeer reviewed. The only certainty in science is that nothing is certain. If you don't adhere to that, you're a shitty scientist. Damned near every possible facet of science goes through reviews and revisions every few decades, tosses out the vast base of recent discovery for that field, and inserts new "peer reviewed, proven" data. Medical is by far the worst. Saccharin is not a health risk, it IS but only in high doses, it's not... oh wait, it IS because we have Sucralose now and we want to sell it instead. Vaccination are important. No, they cause terrible disabilities in children. No, that's only ones that contain mercury. no, they ALL contain mercury.
See the problem here? A study can be done to prove or disprove damned near anything. Your best bet is to apply the logic filter. Does it make sense that RF can cause allergic reactions? Potentially. Are there massive amounts of RF/EM everywhere you go in the US, especially in urban areas? Yes, always and in many frequency ranges. What frequency does 802.11 run on? 2.4GHz and 5GHz... already two different frequencies. Do they BOTH cause allerigc reactions?
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf
According to this chart, published by the US Dept. of Commerce, the 2.4GHz range is in the Amatuer range and is bordered by cell phones (2.390GHz ~2.480GHz) and also such things as radio translocation devices.
The 5GHz range is also bordered by cellular as well as aeronautical navigation systems and space research/radio astronomy.
So... where's the bitching about other things in these ranges? Cellular is far more prevalent and puts out a stronger signal than a wireless access point. So if that's the case, how can they tell the access point is making things bad, when they should already be totally fucked by the cell phones?
It just stenches of bullshit!
< /application of logic filter >