Man Sues Neighbor For Not Turning Off His Wi-Fi

Scyth3 writes "A man is suing his neighbor for not turning off his cell phone or wireless router. He claims it affects his 'electromagnetic allergies,' and has resorted to being homeless. So, why doesn't he check into a hotel? Because hotels typically have wireless internet for free. I wonder if a tinfoil hat would help his cause?"

Re:Should we punish people for suing?

[MaXintosh]

The plaintiff is a serial litigant. He's sued just about everyone and his uncle before [overlawyered.com]. While I agree, there needs to be protection for those with less extreme claims, there also needs to be more teeth to punishing those who abuse the system. A nice place to start is to punish those with outlandish or vindictive claims.

Re:Don't sue, get $1M instead...

[Qzukk]

WiFi sensitivity should easily count for paranormal

I suspect that Randi would call it "abnormal" rather than "paranormal", after all, WiFi scientifically exists, and there are various mechanisms for detecting electromagnetic fields throughout nature.

Re:litmus test

[91degrees]

He's not really abusing torts though. At least not deliberately. He does suffer from a genuine medical condition. The fact that it's psychological rather than physical doesn't make it any less of a problem.

Re:Don't sue, get $1M instead...

[RapmasterT]

WiFi does exist, but that's not the paranormal claim, being allergic to it (no less just being able to SENSE it) most definitely IS a paranormal claim. The JREF makes no requirement that the person taking the challenge believe the claim is paranormal, they handle that part for them. In fact the most common claim they receive is plain old water dowsing. Water can be "detected" through many different processes, a forked stick just isn't one of them.

Re:Retard.

[goodmanj]

I have an alergy to sunlight ... when I mentioned to a professional, apparently it's common but not normal and has been diagnosed as an alergy.

No you don't. Get a better professional, or at least spend thirty seconds Googling it.

It's a common genetic condition, probably related to some sort of signal crosstalk between the optic nerve and the nerve that causes sneezes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photic_sneeze_reflex [wikipedia.org]
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/527/why-do-some-people-sneeze-when-going-out-into-bright-light [straightdope.com]

Re:Retard.

[DJRumpy]

Considering back in 2006 they did no less than 31 studies (probably more but I'm too lazy to google for them) and found that overwhelmingly, people couldn't even tell when they were around a electromagnetic device [badscience.net] like a cell phone:

"31 is a good number of studies, and 24 found that electromagnetic fields have no effect. But 7 did find some measurable effect, and because I have a reputation for pedantry to uphold: in 2 of those studies with positive findings, even the original authors have been unable to replicate the results; for the next 3, the results seem to be statistical artifacts (details below); and for the final 2, the positive results are mutually inconsistent (one shows improved mood with provocation, and the other shows worsened mood)."

There comes a point when both the doctors involved, and society at large need to consider that someone is more likely to simply be a hypochondriac, a head case, or misdiagnosed.

Re:Retard.

[Anonymous Coward]

They are the same form of energy, electromagnetic radiations

Re:Retard.

[pclminion]

My mother in law has a medical condition where exposure to bright sunlight breaks down proteins in her skin. One of the breakdown products generates an auto-immune response. In other words, she's "allergic" to bright sunlight. True, sunlight contains no proteins, but the interaction of sunlight with her skin CREATES proteins to which she is allergic.

I seriously doubt that WiFi radiation could do the same thing, but these processes can't be oversimplified like that.

Re:Retard.

[denton420]

X-rays are most certainly detectable by humans.

The energy they contain is orders of magnitude higher than what a wireless router would emit.

Depending on the length of exposure you could determine whether or not you are being exposed to x-rays

Wi Fi is on the order of a GHz which is 10^9 Hz.

An X-ray is defined as a pretty large range but it starts at about 10^18 Hz.

Being that EM radiation energy is directly proportional to frequency you can see that the chances of experiencing thermal heating due to x-rays is not entirely unlikely. Not to mention you did not specify the intensity of the x-ray source.

My buddy in the Navy said he and a couple of crew members were accidently caught infront of one of the large radars on the ship.

They began to vomit immediately after exposure and felt terrible for hours.

Thats the power of EM radiation at high intensities...

You can also view the IEEE standards for allowable transmittable power densities at given frequency ranges. You think they would regulate this stuff if there was no danger?

http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/Radio/table-power-field.gif [astrosurf.com]

I mean yeah what the guy is claiming is bogus but do not go so far as to claim x-rays are harmless. X-rays account for many times the mSv incurred on a given human body than any nuclear explosion or accident at a power plant has ever caused.

Re:Retard.

[Nemyst]

So much for mod points...

I'd just like to point out that high-pitched noises, often caused by the flyback transformers found in things such as CRT monitors, are a far cry from detecting x-rays and radio waves. Why? Because one is just a sound and we have ears to feel that; that some people cannot hear the sound while others can is related to the auditive acuity of the person, nothing more. Case in point, you can make the test yourself. Just Google for "mosquito sound" and look for the different frequencies. You have a whole array of higher and higher noises which different people will react to differently. I can hear them and it's annoying, but there was a girl in my physics course who'd immediately sense it the second I turned it on no matter where she was in the classroom. This is perfectly valid because we have ears and ears are supposed to do that.

However, as far as I know, the skin isn't supposed to be an x-ray detector. The closest we have to that would be our own eyes, since x-rays are EM waves just like visible light. The skin's only way of triggering a response would be to react adversely to the energy being transmitted (IE alpha/beta/gamma rays, but not as dangerous). I don't really see how this would be possible for extremely short exposures (although I'm not saying it is impossible, I don't know). However, I'd just like to point out: from what I gathered, the GP saw the x-ray scanner. Have you ever felt a tingling sensation when feeling like something's close, even though there isn't anything? It's a bit like a presence, as if you were about to get touched by someone. I'd argue that you might very well be reacting in this way and not because of the actual x-rays. Until you've been bombarded by them randomly with no visual or auditive cues, it's impossible to say whether you're reacting to the x-rays themselves or just to the thought of the x-rays.

Re:Retard.

[qc_dk]

Ummm, because the french have actually been in a lot of wars (50 major european wars since 1500) and won 2/3 of all wars they've been in(since records began)?