![]() |
Allergic to wireless? ACHOO! Sorry, I'm allergic to bullshit
Quote:
|
fwiw, the (far too credulous in tone, IMHO) wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_sensitivity Quote:
Could be a tumor. |
Please do research:
http://bastyrcenter.org/content/view/313/ |
Sorry Will, but that study sounds like a sham, or they have poorly represented the test conditions.
Besides, I might believe skin irritations from prolonged microwaves, but not chest pains from radio- which is the region of Wi-Fi. |
Quote:
|
Augi, or rather Hain, the study I posted has been peer reviewed and published in an internationally recognized publication.
Quote:
|
That is why I might believe the microwaves causing skin irritation, because what do we use the microwave EM range for nowadays...
But EM for Wi-Fi is so far lower in frequency, it is radio. This guy should be complaining about TVs and fluorescent lights, too. UPDATE: And before anyone starts looking at Wikipedia for info on Wireless, Radio, and Microwaves, their diagram of the EM spectrum and the printed frequency range of microwaves are not in agreement. Since encyclopedia.com isn't working tonight- I thought that cellphones do not use the frequencies of microwaves that cause the thermal excitation of water molecules. I also doubt these are the frequencies which would thermally excite one of the organic compounds found in human skin. |
I get complaints like that all the time from people who finally realize that we have a cell tower on the roof of the building they live/work.
So I get my Narda RadMan scanner, show them how it works, where it triggers an alarm whenever exposure reaches 12.5, 25, 50, and 100-percent of recommended FCC levels of RF exposure (google up OET Bulletin 56 or OET Bulletin 65, it's a dry read, I warn you), and I take him up every floor, starting from the lobby all the way to the roof,and my RadMan stays silent. That's about when they start questioning whether the batteries work, so then I put the thing six inches in front of the antennas and then it goes off. The point? Cell phones and cell stations don't put out the kind of power necessary to affect health. We keep the footprint of the site small so they're not flooded with trying to handle too many cell phones at one time. The higher the density of phones in a given area, the smaller the footprint. It's not uncommon in urban areas for sites to be within blocks of one another. So to answer the question, no, WiFi and cell phones (the phones themselves transmit with less than 1 watt of power) can't cause these kinds of health problems. Quote:
|
Allergic to radio? Check out of the planet. We're inundated with the stuff and it's not going to stop.
These people sure as hell shouldn't reproduce. We don't need a race of weaklings that are allergic to radio. |
Since when do we ignore peer reviewed studies instead opting for unreviewed and biased personal experience?
smoore, maybe we should castrate people who are allergic to plants, dust, fungus, and animal dander. And short people. And fat people. Maybe people with fair skin, too. Social darwinism sure enjoyed a popular uprising in the 1930s and 1940s in Germany, maybe it's time to give it another shot. |
Do you "Hitler" 50% of all posts or just the ones I'm involved in?
Make a fucking pill, radio is here to stay. Quote:
|
There's genuine allergies, and then there's psychosomatics.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It's hardly my fault if you and Hitler agree a lot. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Everyone allergic to radio, off the fucking planet. Does that by chance, include you? Are you, Willravel, "allergic" to RF? Can you point to an actual study that shows this is accurate? From your source: Quote:
|
Quote:
The International Archives of Allergy & Immunology is a peer-reviewed journal according to EBSCOhost, the electronic database I accessed via my university library's proxy site (it has the full text of the article in question). The journal in question is also listed on PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract and here is a link to the article abstract on the journal's website: http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB...oduktNr=224161 Yes, the article will cited probably was not the best representation of the data, but the study that article was based on is real and was published in a peer-reviewed journal. |
Quote:
TY, snowy, for the work. |
OK, but I can't access anything actually refuting or endorsing this small test from six years ago. (login?)
If you can, did they decide it was bunk or are they working on it now or what? I note the scientist that produced this document is actually working on something called AEDS and his related experiments are all focusing on that. It used house dust mites and Japanese cedar pollen to see if they were affected by the microwaves. No one has seemed to comment on it one way or the other. In any case, does this actually say anyone is allergic to RF, Willravel? Don't forget, I'm Hitler and I'm looking for someone to persecute. Your help would be greatly appreciated. (I'm still of the opinion that no one is actually allergic to radio) Quote:
|
lol at RF allergies, I call bullshit too. Seriously.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
A man has excema and is experiencing mild allergies due to pollen. He goes into a Starbucks, which has wifi and many people on cell phones, which exacerbates his condition. He begins to itch, which causes panic. Panic causes chest pains. Unlikely? Shit yes. Impossible? Nope. Back to reality: there may be some people who are electro-sensitive. I suspect those in AZ aren't, though I readily admit I can't prove it. A point no one seems to be paying attention to, though, is that regardless of the cause these people are exhibiting symptoms of something. That fact should be addressed and, moreover, we should show some sympathy. Instead of trying to remove them from the planet, we should be more concerned about finding out what's really wrong and we should stop treating them like freaks. That was my original point. |
or he can wear rf sheilding and shutup about it already
|
Quote:
You quote a study with 50-some people in it as evidence then run when I ask for clarification. It's only when more credible (to you) people come along and call you on your BS you back off. I'm starting to see a pattern here. I'd say I'd avoid you but you're in every thread. I guess I should just ignore you. What's the motivation here? Does my toupee scare you that much? edit: Oh yeah, you claim to understand RF allergies and social Darwinism more than I too... care to elucidate me? What don't I understand about the horrors of declaring oneself genetically superior to another? What exactly do you know about radio allergy? (Besides the BS study you posted) Quote:
http://newssohot.com/bed_bugs/pics/tinhat.jpg |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
The first post was an attempt at a joke. You instantly attacked me, as you have done in the past. How many people have you run off of these forums? The "judgmental" tone of the thread? WTF? These people are only allergic to the ~2.4 Ghz and 820-850MHz range of radio frequency? Why aren't they affected by FM radio? Why aren't they affected by Microwave ovens? Why don't they have sudden attacks when they are passed on the highway by radio geeks broadcasting from their cars? I'll tell you why, it's BULLSHIT. Just like dowsing, alchemy, astrology and Star Trek. Just BULLSHIT. Yeah, I kinda like radios. |
Star Trek is not bull shit.
|
Quote:
My bad. Quote:
Damn dude... chop up a post and leave. I'm really starting to despise you. At least have the courage of your convictions and show me how I'm wrong or flat out apologize for defending bullshit. I'll be around for another half hour or so. Quote:
|
will, can't you *ever* let something go? It really is quite annoying.
|
*punches everyone in this thread in the mouth*
shut up already. *punches himself in the mouth* *walks off* |
Before I get caught up on the blaze of posts:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Figures the more I read, you'd have already pointed out that it was for a different condition, which I said earlier. Like I said before, I want to read how they tested it was the microwaves that caused the skin irritation. @ Willravel: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
//punches self in mouth// |
Speaking of allergies, I'm allergic to teenagers in movie theaters; they increase my heart rate and make me anxious because they frequently do annoying things.
*not that I was ever annoying as a teenager. nope, never* |
Quote:
http://bastyrcenter.org/content/category/3/129/175/ Quote:
Second, in regards to the actual study quoted: http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB...rtikelNr=67592 The study is about cellphone radiation at close range affecting allergic skin responses. It has nothing to do with what the hypochondriacs in the original article are talking about. The article was published in a decent journal, but it's a single, small study. It looks interesting, and might point to areas for more research. Quote:
*punches Shauk in the mouth* *punches self in the mouth* |
Quote:
Quote:
How many posts between mine and filtherton, who was apparently the first to actually read the study I posted? 12ish. |
So what exactly were you trying to prove by brining up a study that has nothing to do with the topic?
|
Quote:
Cept Filtherton. Well played. |
wow. glad i missed this thread.
|
*skipping every link and almost all of the conversations, except to skim them over*
I think that if you are honestly allergic to RF then move to the country, deal with it, or go kill yourself. the rest of the world is not going to change for your inferior genetics. |
Quote:
There is no scientific evidence supporting the belief in an allergy to radio frequencies. I think what these people are really allergic to is being poor and ignored. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project