So let me get this straight. Instead of bringing something useful to the discussion, you bring up an unrelated report guessing that nobody would check your link to prove that nobody reads links?

And the point behind this was...?

not really interested in contributing to this thread except to say

Its not a TOOMAR

True. It's not a matter of if but when.

I almost happened once when I watched Dexter seasons 1 and 2 all the way through in 2 days. Almost.
I guess you missed it.
No one was even ready to listen to any alternative viewpoint.

No, the website you linked to had an article written by a naturopath, who graduated from a naturopathic school that also hosted the website. IOW, pure fantasy-land.

The actual study in question might have some merit, but it's a single study, and I'd want to see a lot more before changing my behavior based upon it. It also had *nothing* to do with the OP.

o You didn't post a study. You posted a summary of the study written by a naturopath, who as a group tend to believe any number of unlikely things.

o You could have linked to the actual study abstract, like I did. Trust me, I didn't have to look hard.

o The study you referred to has nothing to do with the OP. Did I say it already? Let me say it again. The OP referred to people who think that *WiFi* signals cause them actual distress. You referred to a study that claims that *cellphone* signals (similar, but Not Quite The Same Thing), may increase sensitivity to certain allergens. You apparently didn't bother to read and understand the OP, and/or your own damn article, and this has been pointed out to you several times.

o I did read your article, and by the end of the first paragraph, I wondered what the hell it had to do with the OP. Answer: Nothing. You're wasting my time. (Heh, which is actually a pretty stupid thing for someone on the internet to say, but hey, TFP is supposed to be different, right?)

This coming from the guy who used wikipedia as a source.

Just do me a favour and make sure that when it happens, it happens on the week of August 5th.

The week of my birthday? As long as I get to enjoy some cake first.

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 >

Thank you! I laughed.


As for the nut job:

He's fucked, time to move or invest in Reynolds.


-


And guys, seriously. Stop trying to compare your e-penis's. You look silly.

It's not just cell phones. Virtually all modern devices that are 'cordless' and use RF use the 2.4GHz range. Cordless phones, garage door openers, some types of remote controls, wireless game controllers, bluetooth devices, microwave ovens and so on. 2.4 GHz is an unlicensed frequency band, meaning that anyone can make use of it and it's very popular for all sorts of short-range devices. Wi-fi uses two distinct frequency bands but the 5 GHz band is only used by 802.11a and 802.11n; the more popular and widely used 802.11 b/g standards use the 2.4 range.

If I were responsible for handling this case, I'd tell these people that I'd be willing to make concessions if a reputable third party could prove their condition is real. On the very small chance that it is, they need to be looked after, and if it's really not then they get made fools of. Seems to work out to me.

Which reminds me - you owe me a sawbuck, dude.

I admit, I haven't read any of the studies cited, nor do I care to after reading the article. I do, however, have a hunch - very similar to the "Huge Guy Theory" put forth to explain the killing of two Russian mobsters in Boston a few years back.

If there really are people out there who are no-shit, genuinely allergic or reactive specifically to WiFi signals and frequencies, would they:

a) have likely been discovered randomly, in onesies and twosies, in several large, very wired cities like Chicago, Toronto, or Atlanta in the past five years?

b) be found in a group large enough to file a discrimination lawsuit in fuckin' Santa Fe New Mexico over the course of a few months?

Meanwhile, anyone want any of these wolftickets I'm selling?

I read the studies, and I felt they did not apply: wrong frequency range, wrong proximity range, wrong reactions. This is what I think of studies:

I am going to have to call bullshit on the wifi allergies. Go into any apartment building with your lap top, and see how many networks you can find. These people would be in non stop pain anywhere they went. Not just fucking Starbucks.

This, absolutely this. At any given time, I can pick up between 10 and 20 wireless networks in my apartment. They blanket virtually all homes, office buildings and businesses open to the public. It's silly, it's been presented as silly, and the article will linked says nothing to support their claim.

Well, i will have to default to my normal explanations on this subject:

A- Its all bollocks, and, failing that:

B- Blame Canada

I wasn't going to post on this thread anymore because it's so silly, but I saw this link on boingboing, and thought I'd share. Some crazy guys actually did a study on this:

http://www.badscience.net/?p=470

Shocking conclusion:

I wondered what 'order of exposure' meant...

I didn't bother reading the entire study. So it sounds like "Nothing to see here, except maybe the fairly surprising suggestion that some people are affected by some kinds of E-M radiation, maybe." The caveat is interesting enough to warrant further study, IMHO, but the rest is as expected.

Ooh, look. Research. Pretty.

A lot of people want Wi-fi, and a very few want it banned.

Therefore, the few should consider investing in a lead house and lead clothing.

But watch out- lead poisoning also causes chest pains! also known as death!