Allergic to wireless? ACHOO! Sorry, I'm allergic to bullshit
 

Just because this guys heart starts pounding because the dumb blond won't get off her cell phone does not mean he is allergic to wireless signals; he is angry because he quite possibly is hearing the dumbest thing ever uttered.

fwiw, the (far too credulous in tone, IMHO) wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_sensitivity

So, I think it's safe to say it probably isn't EMF that's causing these people distress.

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.

Seconded. "Please do research"? Please, could you get more condescending?

Augi, or rather Hain, the study I posted has been peer reviewed and published in an internationally recognized publication.
I'd hit it.

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.

They don't. I don't know the transmit frequencies of all the carriers, but the lowest I've seen is 700 MHz from a paging company, the highest was 1.8 GHz that Sprint uses, and the 2.5 GHz spectrum that they're holding onto hasn't been used for anything yet. Keep in mind also that microwaves need to generate around 1000 watts of power to thermally excite water molecules.

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.

There's genuine allergies, and then there's psychosomatics.

I'm allergic to FM. I think they should pay me.

It's called "Godwin", but I didn't reference Hitler or the Nazi party specifically so it's not the same.

It's hardly my fault if you and Hitler agree a lot.

Yeah. You sir, are a whackjob.

A "whackjob" more familiar with RF's effects on humans and who has a handle n historical context regarding social darwinism.

OK, I'm Hitler.

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:

Care to show the "peer" review?

I put on my librarian glasses (actually I never take them off) and looked it up.

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.

I have dozens if not hundreds of allergies including animal dander, dust, funguses, pollen, and many other things. What makes me different than people who may have RF allergies? Perhaps it's time to terraform Mars for tolerant people.

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)

Won't work, we will still use RF to communicate with the four people left on earth allergic to RF.

lol at RF allergies, I call bullshit too. Seriously.

Peer reviewed or not, it doesn't matter. The folks in the op aren't claiming that cell phones are making their excema-related dust and pollen allergies more sensitive, they are claiming that they are allergic to wi-fi signals. Your research has nothing to do with this.

You'd think so, but you'd be wrong.

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

But you're not afraid to vilify me before you admit this.

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)

That's what I'm saying:

http://newssohot.com/bed_bugs/pics/tinhat.jpg

So you see "get off the fucking planet" as the same thing as "they may not have the affliction they claim to have, but let's be sensitive to their situation". How fascinating.
I must have missed when you said, "but Will, this study is about something else". Oh, right, you just claimed the study was BS, presumably without reading it.
People ignored Einstein, too. Not that I'm Einstein, or even his intellectual equivalent, but I feel the point still stands.
Honestly? I was surprised at the judgmental tone of the thread.
The study is fine. You calling it BS speaks in volumes.

Note the software doesn't do well with chopping posts up.

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.

OK, sorry... "Fantasy".

My bad.

Which point is this? That people are allergic to something you can't even be allergic to?

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.

Your strawman does not impress me. I guess you went to bed. I'm going to my rack here in a couple minutes.

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:

Yes I ignore it, because that is for skin irritation not heart problems. Plus it is a cell phone that is next to someone's head- not wi-fi devices and cellular antennas in some other room. And that is a low blow, bringing up Nazi eugenics at something that was clearly a joke. Yeah, we shouldn't be joking about it, but I doubt anyone has forgotten what the Nazis did, and I doubt anyone will forget in a long time.

Agreed. For all I know the person on the cell phone was really annoying- at least that is how I perceive every conversation when on a cell phone.

Psychosomatic reaction and they want money...


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:
Robot_parade addressed this, and that was the second post.

Damnit.


//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*

The first link I clicked from that page:

http://bastyrcenter.org/content/category/3/129/175/

What a load of crap. C'mon Will, do your so-called 'research' on websites of organizations that don't believe in magic.

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.

Thank you sir! May I have another?!

*punches Shauk in the mouth*

*punches self in the mouth*

The research was posted in the publication International Archives of Allergy and Immunology. The website I linked only happened to host it.
It demonstrated quite well what I wanted to demonstrate: people don't do research before forming an opinion about things like this.

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?

No one even bothered looking into a study. I was demonstrating that even when presented to a link that was said to verify the information, no one read it.

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.

I just assumed you'd finally gone off the deep end. I mean, we all know it's coming. There's a pool.

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.

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!