English DJ Claims Wi-Fi Allergy 515
path0$ writes "British Ex-DJ Steve Miller claims that his Wi-Fi allergy is making his life one big misery
, forcing him to live in an iron-clad home far from any neighbors. According to the article, more and more people are suffering from an allergy like his. The only positive side to this is that at least Miller didn't think of suing anybody yet, like these people did,
who claim to suffer from the same condition and were mentioned in a Slashdot article in 2008."
Crazy people (Score:5, Insightful)
Crazy people are everywhere. Stop giving them attention.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if he has a microwave in his place...
or even a bluetooth adapter somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Crazy people (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Crazy people (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The only electronics in it were, well, the LED to show it was "on"
Maybe they are allergic to LEDs?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
For those who disbelieve that EM waves can have an affect on organic tissue
- disable the "door open" safety feature on your microwave
- insert head
- press start
- remove head when the pain begins
Wi-Fi signals may be similar to bitter tastes. Some people think broccoli tastes bitter; others think it tastes fine. This is natural variation in the tastebuds and it's entirely possible that the ultrashort EM waves are having a similar unpleasant effect on 1% of humans.
Re:Crazy people (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, no one disbelieves that EM waves can have an effect on organic tissue. For a much safer and less sarcastic and condescending proof, GO OUT IN THE SUN. I don't believe that low level EM waves can have such a deleterious effect. I also believe that no scientific study has shown any correlation. Finally, I believe that people claiming to have such a condition respond to fake exposure they know about, and do not respond to real exposure they DON'T know about. In conclusion, while I accept the fact that this may possibly have a slight chance of being real, my working hypothesis is that these people are making shit up because they are crazy hypochondriacs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
His writing is fine. The ability to read attentively is dying, getting drowned out in the sloganeering and partisan tone of forum-speak.
Re:Crazy people (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I guess the hungover are also fairly allergic to sunlight.
People wouldn't be able to function in a city if they really were allergic to what they claim they are.
Re:Crazy people (Score:4, Informative)
Sounds like any properly blinded experiment.
The MSG episode was almost on par with a MythBusters experiment. One group got MSG (all on one side of the room), one group didn't (other side of the room). After eating they asked for food enjoyment and symptoms, then who thought the food had MSG. Better studies have presented the same result with more precise conditions.
Re:Crazy people (Score:5, Insightful)
Hate to play the part of Captain Obvious, but the article you linked to seems to indicate that those "afflicted" react to fake EM fields, too. Not very convincing...
Re:Crazy people (Score:4, Funny)
"electromagnetic hypersensitivity"
Poor guy. Must suck, particularly since his body radiates EM in several bands.
Re:Crazy people (Score:5, Informative)
In 2005, a systematic review looked at the results of 31 experiments testing the role of electromagnetic fields in causing ES. Each of these experiments exposed people who reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity to genuine and sham electromagnetic fields under single- or double-blind conditions.[1] The review concluded that:
"The symptoms described by 'electromagnetic hypersensitivity' sufferers can be severe and are sometimes disabling. However, it has proved difficult to show under blind conditions that exposure to electromagnetic fields can trigger these symptoms. This suggests that 'electromagnetic hypersensitivity' is unrelated to the presence of electromagnetic fields, although more research into this phenomenon is required."
Seven studies were found which did report an association, while 24 could not find any association with electromagnetic fields. However, of the seven positive studies, two could not be replicated even by the original authors, three had serious methodological shortcomings, and the final two presented contradictory results. Since then, several more double-blind experiments have been published, each of which has suggested that people who report electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to detect the presence of electromagnetic fields and are as likely to report ill health following a sham exposure, as they are following exposure to genuine electromagnetic fields.
Re:Crazy people (Score:4, Insightful)
And can he walk outside? Why haven't power lines played havoc with him?
Either the guy is a liar, or he has some mental problems.
Re:Crazy people (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if he has a microwave in his place... or even a bluetooth adapter somewhere.
Or, racks and racks of electronic DJ gear....
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Which is part of the point, he's story is bunk. WiFi isn't bothering him, any more than all the other electronic crap he uses is.
Of course your 900mhz equipment has nice side bands at 1.8ghz and 2.7ghz (and every other multiple of 900mhz as well), so you can't exactly rule it out.
The reality of course is that he's just crazy, but my point is that just because you're wireless gear works at its intended frequency of 900mhz, doesn't mean that both the transmitter and reciever are only emitting in the 900mhz
Re:Crazy people (Score:4, Informative)
Can you block the transmission of higher sideband frequencies by using a properly tuned crystal or one that can't possibly oscillate at those higher sideband frequencies?
Harmonics are caused by nonlinearities in the oscillator and the amplifier; they are not "oscillations" as such, but components of the spectrum formed by imperfections in transistors (or even vacuum tubes.) Harmonics can be greatly reduced in a single-frequency system by just using an LC filter (several configurations exist) and that also helps with antenna matching. Wideband systems require low-pass filters, and that is less efficient. I think a wireless microphone or a guitar would use just a single FM channel with undetectably low power. The ERP [wikipedia.org] at 900 MHz could be about 1 mW (say, 0 dBm,) and the second harmonic could be *easily* suppressed down to 1 microwatt (-30 dBm). Typically RF equipment suppresses harmonics by 40 or 50 dB. Elecraft K3 [elecraft.com], for example, guarantees at least 50 dB suppression of harmonics - and that with several bands that are not that narrow.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It depends- will you be dancing solo or with a partner? While solo dancing should be a dry affair, with a partner you absolutely want her to get the wetness effect. The wetter the better. So for dancing the two work together perfectly. In fact, I'll make a package deal- buy a 3 foot cable pair and a crystal, and I'll throw in the crystal, all for a mere $4000. You cannot pass up this deal.
Test This Claim: (Score:4, Insightful)
This is an incredibly easy claim to test.
First: See if he can identify when the "Wi-Fi" is on or off.
Second: If he can (which would be highly unlikely and scientifically amazing)... see if he can differentiate between Wi Fi, Bluetooth and his Microwave.
Why do we report bizarre claims to Slashdot without requiring the scientific method to be applied.
If I claim to be psychic and to be able to use ESP to read emails out of thin air, does qualify for the front page of Slashdot?
Re:Test This Claim: (Score:5, Funny)
Why do we report bizarre claims to Slashdot without requiring the scientific method to be applied.
If I claim to be psychic and to be able to use ESP to read emails out of thin air, does qualify for the front page of Slashdot?
If you have to ask... you must be new round here.. :-)
Re:Test This Claim: (Score:5, Informative)
This submission was posted by sampenzus which means it's just more idle crap polluting the front page.
Re:Test This Claim: (Score:4, Funny)
If I claim to be psychic and to be able to use ESP to read emails out of thin air, does qualify for the front page of Slashdot?
You are the psychic, you tell us.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well many syndromes have just been recently identified, for many centuries people suffering from them were considered crazy.
This guy problem might be psychosomatic, but I would be prudent before drawing any conclusion and keep an open mind. Further research on the topic could bring new knowledge. Wi-Fi is pretty new by comparison with man evolution ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously though, according to TFA it actually affects about 2% of the population. Which seems insane because I've never heard of it before.
Re:Crazy people (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, this is 100% psychosomatic.
Put these people in a faraday cage with a WiFi router without being able to see the unit, and have them report when it's on/off, double-blind the test and report and see if they're more than 60% reliable over a good number of tests. We'll see if it's real.
Re:Crazy people (Score:5, Insightful)
Crazy people are everywhere. Stop giving them attention.
This attitude is unhelpful.
The symptoms this man describes sound similar to anxiety disorder with agoraphobia. It's not uncommon, and is very treatable with cognitive behavioral therapy and an anti-anxiety medication such as an SSRI. Sufferers of this have physiological symptoms which are subjectively-- and sometimes objectively-- indistinguishable from anything from allergies to more serious medical conditions. The body creates a feedback loop in the endocrine system and the mind assigns causative correlations with anything that was happening at the time. It can result in anything from hot flashes to stuffy noses to a full-on asthma attack.
Calling such a condition "crazy" just exacerbates it, and attention to it is something that has to be managed carefully to try to break the feedback loops.
Disclaimer: I'm not a psychotherapist, just a patient.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad you pointed this out. I felt just like the grandparent post at first; this guy is a nutcase and should get no sympathy for it. But you make a great point; he really is suffering from his problem, even if it's "all in his head."
I'm currently going through all kinds of medical tests for a problem that feel to me like the onset of a heart attack. It could very well turn out to be "just anxiety." If I am crazy, the pain is no less real, the fear is no less real, and it's not pleasant in any sense.
Re:Crazy people (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Crazy people (Score:4, Funny)
Most people with decent hearing find TV aisles uncomfortable - it's either too many random TVs putting out the same audio minutely out of synch, or the high-pitched squeal that comes from any CRT being multiplied by a couple dozen. The EMF signals are hardly the most irritating thing that a TV can put out.
O RLY? I guess you haven't sat through an episode of 'Fringe' then?
Re:Crazy people (Score:5, Insightful)
Or... you know... the stuff that they're actually playing on the TVs...
Re: (Score:2)
Power supply sounds (Score:3, Interesting)
I used to be able to hear graphics being drawn on my PC. The power supply would ring. I don't think I can hear that high any longer.
Re:Power supply sounds (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people with decent hearing find TV aisles uncomfortable
Oddly enough I always find myself turning the CRT off the main TV in my house when I turn the cable box. We have a cable box so turning that off sometimes doesn't turn the TV off.
Now, my girlfriend doesn't notice but when I walk in the room, the sound off the CRT is quit annoying so I want to read a book, I'll walk up to the TV and turn it off.
My girlfriend will always ask me what I am doing turning off a TV that is already off...
Re:Crazy people (Score:5, Informative)
Personally, I'll start taking it seriously when at least one so-called sufferer can reliably report the appearance or disappearance of his symptoms in coordination with a randomly cycled emf source in a credible, double-blind experiment.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this DJ carries a wi-fi detector with him at all times.
Bet he doesn't get sick until AFTER it goes off or he sees someone using a laptop.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Detectors almost always emit as well, they have to generate their own signals to enter a PLL in order to detect other signals.
The idea however is that the detector will emit far less on its operating frequency and the harmonics will be a lot lower.
Re:Crazy people (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. There was a case on my university that I found very interesting.
We have access points (AP) distributed all around the campus, meaning we get wireless connectivity pretty much everywhere. One particular AP was located inside a small room used by janitors, adjacent to an interior garden. Being inside a room, it was safe from the weather and would still provide coverage for the area.
However, one day, one of the janitors complained she was getting headaches, and claimed that the AP was the culprit. The network managers, skeptical of it, decided to test her theory and switched off it's radio interface, not telling her anything about it. Although the AP stopped emitting radio waves, the status LED and Ethernet LED still blinked constantly. For the common person, not familiar with network devices, that is enough to assume the access point is working as usual.
Unsurprisingly, the headaches didn't go away and the whining continued. Despite the technical expertise and scientific knowledge of the network staff, the school directors decided to ignore all of the advisory they provided and sided with the janitor, ordering for the AP to be moved out of the janitor's room.
Now, the funny thing is that they moved the access point around two meters from the original position, so that it was on the other side of the wall, enclosed on an opaque, weather resistant box. Radio interface was brought up and then, mysteriously, the headaches went away...
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to verify if it's all in your head, try a blind test. Make friends with someone who has authority to turn those tag sensors on and off. Then set up a test where you walk through them several times, and tell your friend if it is on or off (it should be obvious to you right?). Obviously he will randomly decide (flip of a coin) if it's on or off each tim
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what being around TVs has to do with RF transmission, but hell, if that's your problem, its not like you HAVE to go to electrical stores?
I am on medication that makes me sensitive to bright lights, but you don't see me visiting tanning salons for shits and giggles do you?
As someone else points out, if the 2.4Ghz RF at .2W is causing big problems, a common microwave that produces (internally) 700+W at similar frequencies should drive him bat shit insane (yeah I know not much of that gets out, but I
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Not sure what being around TVs has to do with RF transmission, but hell, if that's your problem, its not like you
> HAVE to go to electrical stores?
Actually, he was referring to the high pitched sound that CRT tubes make. It is quite a bit more noticeable when they show a blank screen than when they show a video. The Sound track of most shows blots it out completely, but there is definitely a high pitched whine from TV sets.
We used to have a TV, if someone watched a movie on the VCR (yes this is goin
Re:Crazy people (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Crazy people (Score:5, Informative)
Some of the RFID units operate at extremely low frequencies - down in the kilohertz range. The lowest I've seen is in the 130-140 kHz range though.
These units usually use a LARGE coil as an antenna. There's a good chance the coil changes shape slightly with the duty cycle of the signal (lower than the carrier frequency) - this probably results in some audible energy coming from the security system coils. It may be such a low volume or at a frequency just outside of the normal human hearing range so that it can be "felt but not consciously heard". (This is a similar phenomenon to the well-known "GSM bleeps" - You can't hear 900 MHz or 1900 MHz RF, but you CAN hear when something in the environment rectifies it and low pass filters the signal envelope, because the GSM TDMA frame repeats at around 440 Hz.)
Similarly, CRT TVs often have horizontal refresh rates in the 15-16 kHz range, right in the upper end of the human hearing range. If the transformers in these TVs malfunctions slightly, they'll vibrate at this frequency. Really cheap/defective/failing monitors and TVs will make enough noise at hsync to be heard. I remember we used to have a monitor we had to junk because you couldn't use it for more than 20 minutes without developing a headache - it started squealing softly at hsync frequency.
Seriously (Score:5, Insightful)
Cordless phones? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
1010010101010100... oh ones!
pytos fixed.
I'm allergic to BS (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm allergic to BS (Score:5, Funny)
I'm allergic to BS.. And I got a nasty rash just reading the summary.
For the love of god; DON'T CLICK ON THE DAILY MAIL LINK!
There's levels of BS on there that scientists haven't yet been able to measure.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had mod points today...
Mind if I use that one? :)
Re:I'm allergic to BS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm allergic to BS (Score:4, Funny)
Hypoglycemia and Hypochondria.
Easy to test (Score:4, Interesting)
Put him into a room. Randomly switch on and off a WiFi-net and ask him to tell if it is on or off. If he manages to get more than 50 % right there might be something to it. He would also be the first person to manage this in years and years of testing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And He Can Profit! (Score:5, Informative)
A properly scientific proof of this would most likely qualify him for the JREF challenge. If he can physically detect relatively minor electromagnetic radiation on these frequencies, he could win himself a million dollars. http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html [randi.org]
Re:Easy to test (Score:5, Interesting)
This comment following TFA says it all:
=====
The problem with this claim is that WiFi uses the 2.4 gigahertz frequency spectrum along with Bluetooth phones, cordless home phones, and just about any other consumer wireless device. If he really had an 'allergy' like that, he wouldn't have been able to leave his house for the past 15 years. He should try to promote himself a different way than this.
- Dr. Black, Los Angeles, CA, 24/7/2009 14:30
=====
Not to mention that cosmic radiation doesn't conveniently omit some portion of the EM spectrum. Has he ever been outdoors??
There have always been people who claim that some particular class of witchcraft is making their lives hell. In days of yore it was the evil eye; during the hippie era it was Bad Vibes; today it's some portion of the EM spectrum, because that's the Newly Widespread Thing That We Know Is There But Can't See, So It Must Be Causing Our Ills.
Crank these people's tinfoil hats one notch tighter, and they'll claim it's thoughtwaves from aliens instead. Oh wait, we've already had that one!!
Re:Easy to test (Score:5, Funny)
He should try to promote himself a different way than this
Yeah seriously; he should just start a band and try promoting himself under his own name. Call it the Steve Mill... umm, never mind.
Re:Easy to test (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Easy to test (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Easy to test (Score:5, Informative)
Quite right. People who claim to be "allergic" to modern technology invariably fail to prove it in properly designed double-blind scientific tests. In extreme cases, you find people who claim to be allergic to anything "artificial", be it synthetic fibers, plastics, electronic equipment, automobiles, or any one of a thousand other modern conveniences. Their complaints are real, but the root cause is psychological, not physical.
Some EHS (electro-hypersensitivity) sufferers go so far as to line their rooms and clothing with aluminum foil to supposedly "shield" themselves. In the most extreme cases, they move out into the country and adopt a 19th century lifestyle to completely divorce themselves from the modern world. Of course, they're still being exposed to EM radiation even in remote areas, as AM and shortwave radio transmissions span the globe, not to mention the EM radiation emitted by the sun. But once they believe they are safe from EM radiation, their symptoms abate.
Re:Easy to test (Score:5, Funny)
But once they believe they are safe from EM radiation, their symptoms abate.
Whoa, that's weird. I believe I'm safe from EM radiation too, and I've never had any EM allergy-related symptoms. Coincidence? I think not!
You know what this means? The allergy is real, but believing it doesn't affect you is a cure! It makes sense, too -- allergies are an auto-immune response of the body, which can conceivably be affected by the central nervous system, if not consciously then subconsciously. People can learn to control their heart rates or body temperatures, maybe we unknowingly control our immune systems to respond or not respond to things it shouldn't. Thus the luddites fear of technology creates the very allergy that makes them fear technology. A vicious cycle!
But hopefully we can make use of this, and I can believe my way of of this annoying mold allergy -- THAT I DON'T HAVE BECAUSE I'M SAFE FROM MOLD. I KNOW I'M SAFE I KNOW I'M SAFE.
He can probably earn $1M bucks if legit... (Score:4, Interesting)
He should contact the James Randi foundation for their 1M prize for paranormal proof [randi.org], as they might very well consider "WiFi sensitivity" paranormal behavior.
Re:He can probably earn $1M bucks if legit... (Score:4, Informative)
From the Foundation's FAQ on the challenge ( http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/article/37-static/254-jref-challenge-faq.html [randi.org] ):
Many people have already undergone preliminary testing by the Foundation. Their claims have been deemed "paranormal." None of them succeeded in proving the abilities they claimed. I don't have the source handy, but I'm pretty sure that Randi himself has stated in the past that this sort of EM sensitivity would qualify.
Steve Miller allergic to Wi-Fi? (Score:5, Funny)
Some people call him the space cowboy
Some people call him the gangster of love
Some people call him Maurice
Because he has to stay in a Faraday cage to block out the wi-fi signals he's allergic to...
What about Microwave Ovens? (Score:4, Interesting)
If he were really allergic to Wi-Fi, wouldn't he have an extreme allergic reaction to microwave ovens too?
Re: (Score:2)
Microwave ovens have a cage (the sheet of metal with all the small holes) that reflects the microwave energy back towards the food.
Whenever I have the wi-fi network unit on my laptop (or a GPRS/3G modem), I do feel a certain dryness in my eyes, and a slight metallic taste on the underside of my tongue.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But this is obviously due to you being ever so slightly mental.
Re:What about Microwave Ovens? (Score:5, Interesting)
Absolutely. Yet if he does use a microwave oven, and you were to point this out to him, he would quickly declare that the WiFi transmissions must have some additional quality that makes them "bad" as compared to microwave oven radiation.
You must always keep in mind that you are dealing with people suffering from a psychological disorder. Logical arguments means nothing to them; they'll simply ignore what you're saying, or rationalize their behavior in one way or another. I've heard that some drugs for treating obsessive-compulsive disorder can be helpful in extreme cases, but these people are completely convinced that their ailments have physical causes, and will reject any suggestion that "it's all in your head".
Re:What about Microwave Ovens? (Score:5, Insightful)
You must always keep in mind that you are dealing with people suffering from a psychological disorder. Logical arguments means nothing to them; they'll simply ignore what you're saying, or rationalize their behavior in one way or another.
So, you're saying the mysterious wifi allergy disease is actually a religion?
Yeah, let's do the math... (Score:4, Informative)
Exactly. Microwaves are allowed leak up to 5 mW/cm2 at 5 cm according to the FCC. Half that leakage (2.5mW/cm2), is almost exactly the same output as a typical wi-fi access point. Which means if he can stand next to the microwave while he nukes his burrito, he shouldn't have any issues with wi-fi.
So unless he's actually 802.11b/g sensitive, I call BS.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I am slighty allergic to WiFi but only to packets that have their evil bit [wikipedia.org] set.
why does he need a 'wi-fi detector'? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Steve navigates normal daily chores with the help of a âwi-fi detectorâ(TM) which spots areas he should avoid."
Let's see, if someone could sense WIFI why would they need a separate detector??? Hmm...
Re: (Score:2)
I think the guy is either full of it or imagining it, but if we pretend for a minute that he's legit, then it could be more of something like "Am I sneezing because of a cold or is there some wifi nearby?"
Think of it like radiation. It affects us badly, but we still use detection gadgets to find it.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently him sensing it causes "dizziness, confusion and nausea". Maybe his sensor has a longer range than his "allergy"?
There's a lot of things in this article and this condition to be skeptical of, but I don't think this is one of them.
Lets try to be helpful (Score:5, Insightful)
I've heard of this before, and I've always been skeptical of it. Not because that I think it's impossible for people to absorb electromagnetic radiation, but because the first people to expose me to this sensitivity believed pyramid shaped crystals could fix them. I really blame them for killing all of the credibility this condition may have had with me, but it's their own fault. This always struck me as a powerful example of the placebo effect. People want to feel sick when electromagnetic waves are around them, so they do. I've had a few friends deeply wrapped up in holistic medicine, and you could pick any random ingredient on your soda (anything man made) and they give you a story of how they feel sick when they are in the room with that ingredient.
I'm not going to sit here and bash the people who think they have this symptom. You're going to get 50 posters who have done that thoroughly by now. Instead I'm going to offer them a suggestion. Find a person who exhibits a visible symptom when they're exposed to the types of radiation you object to. If we can take a person and reliably give them a rash with a wifi router, then we're in business. Until then you're...well this lady who had her house covered in tin foil.
"But beneath the coats of magnolia paint, she points out, the walls are lined with a special paper that contains a layer of tin-foil; and upstairs, the windows are hung with a fine, silvery gauze."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-450995/The-woman-needs-veil-protection-modern-life.html [dailymail.co.uk]
You think its funny? (Score:2, Funny)
Wi-Fi also causes me pain. Every time I jack up the power output of a laptop or my PC at home the wireless starts to give me a headache, it also bothers my wife, child and brother-in-law.
We also ended up taking the microwave out of the house because every time my wife would use it while pregnant the baby would go crazy and start lashing around in the womb. Shes 5 months old and still cant use it, her brother is the same it gives him an instant migraine if hes near a microwave in use.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're claims are funny as well. You and your family need to seek pyschiatric help. In short, your fucking lunatics.
Hold on... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because it's all in someone's head doesn't mean they aren't suffering from it.
I know what he needs (Score:5, Funny)
Electromagnetic Sensativity (Score:3, Insightful)
Like others, I seriously doubt that the cause of his symptoms have to do with Wi-Fi. One of the the the things not mentioned in the article is whether he has explored other possibilities. The highest concentration of Wi-Fi signals are in urban areas. By its very nature, there are environmental factors tied to urban areas that go hand-in-hand with Wi-Fi. For example, urban areas tend to have higher concentrations of pollution, noise, etc., any one of which, or in combination, could cause his symptoms.
David
Well now.. (Score:3, Funny)
...we finally have an instance where a tin-foil helmet will actually be beneficial!
Allergies (Score:4, Insightful)
EMF sensitivity (Score:5, Interesting)
As a kid, I could actually hear some EM quite distinctly. It was only the stronger pulse-like stuff, like arcing transformer a hundred meters away, or lightning strikes within about 2km. I can still hear lightning strikes that are fairly close as a faint crack in my head, a second or so before the thunder, but this ability seem to be diminishing as I age.
Of course, there is no frickin way anybody can feel 100mW of 2.4GHz radiation from any distance, and not feel 1kW (although shielded, but leaking a lot more than 100mW) microwave oven.
Found a corroborating study on the net (Score:5, Interesting)
FWIW take a look at this study (http://www.aehf.com/articles/em_sensitive.html [aehf.com]) which shows after weeding out people who are affected by fake situations, that this is a real health issue. An M.D. is involved in the paper. After weeding out people who got faked out by placebos and "active challenges", they got 100% positive, 0% negative. (I just briefly flipped through the paper so read it more carefully please.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Found a corroborating study on the net (Score:4, Interesting)
Thanks for the link. This is a very interesting article.
The experimental design of selecting for "true responders" before proceeding with double-blinded tests is interesting. After reading through, it seems that their may be some bias on the part of the experimenters, as they express belief that those responding to placebo could be suffering delayed reaction to previous challenges. They also report delayed responses that included lapsing into depression and unconciousness for hours or days. This seems highly unlikely. If EMF exposure was really causing these people to fall unconscious for days they would never be awake.
Also, they don't seem to have ever heard of a Faraday cage. They tested in the dark because some were sensitive to the florescent lighting, but a simple wire mesh should eliminate that possibility. I also wonder about their test equipment. As described the equipment is sitting right in front of the subject, so it seems that they might be able to ascertain if the emitter is on by means other than EMF sensitivity. There doesn't seem to be any reason not to have the subject acoustically and visually isolated from all test equipment.
I didn't put more than a couple of minutes of thought into it, but it is odd to me that a list of authors from a wide variety of institutes of higher learning would come up with an experimental design that was easy to question. Perhaps I'm misreading something. When I used to do medical research, I noticed that the medical doctors and particularly the behavioral sciences people were not very good at experimental design, so maybe their panel is full of those types. The "not good at experimental design" means that they allowed their biases to enter the results way too easily. Because the tenor of the article is that the authors believe that not only the 16% of patients they measured as sensitive to EMF, but as much as 75% of those claiming EMF sensitivity are in fact EMF sensitive, I would suggest that they may have strong biases that are affecting their design and interpretation.
This is just a hunch based on a brief reading though. Hey, for Slashdot that counts as informed expert opinion! If I was a researcher in this field, I would try to reproduce their results while correcting possible deficiencies in the experimental design. It should be easy to get a Science or Nature article out of this with strong enough results. If this high hit rate (16%) is really true, similar results should have shown up in any study of reasonable size. The fact that it hasn't is another reason to be skeptical of their methodology.
The truth! (Score:3, Funny)
Surely we all know the truth about wifi?! Wifi eats babies!!
Here:
http://miscellanea.wellingtongrey.net/2007/05/27/the-truth-about-wireless-devices/ [wellingtongrey.net]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Close Mindedness (Score:4, Insightful)
No, we're biased because, to date, double-blind studies done with people who are "WiFi sensitive" have turned up nothing. It is up to the people making the claims to prove their claims. If they are sensitive to WiFi signals, this can be trivially proven by a double-blind experiment. Yet, no-one has produced one.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Electrohypersensitivity is nothing new, and people claiming to have it is also nothing new. In Sweden there's been a lot of research on the subject since there's been a lot of cases of it over the last 15 years. There's no evidence for it, noone has been able to show it exists in a controlled experiment, and the science of its proponents have been thoroughly debunked.
The guy from TFA is undeniably sick and needs help, but shielding him from wifi is not the solution to his problem.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity [wikipedia.org] is pretty informative.
Re: (Score:2)
"However, the best evidence currently available suggests that cognitive behavioural therapy is effective for patients who report being hypersensitive to weak electromagnetic fields."
i.e. the guy is a kook.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean I probably think the guy is a kook, but can any of you really guarantee he is wrong?
Since such a condition is facially implausible, the burden of proof is on you to prove that he is not wrong, particularly because it would be a relatively simple matter to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that there all sorts of things that transmit near those frequencies, and long have been. It's ludicrous to claim that WiFi, in particular, other other radio transmissions at similar frequencies, is somehow responsible for health problems.
The guy is either nuts or just lying to get attention. Double blind studies and the sheer stupidity of singling out WiFi pretty much demonstrate it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Birds have been shown to react to magnetism, why not humans?
Sensitivity to magnetic fields are rather important for birds to navigate [alaska.edu], for humans it is not. 99,9999999% of pigeons survive getting dropped from 500 meters above a parking lot, why not humans?
Re:Close Mindedness (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean I probably think the guy is a kook, but can any of you really guarantee he is wrong? No, the history of science is of people being proven wrong. You are all just biased because you love wifi.
Uh-huh. Well I have a pretty solid theory that he's wrong based on the evidence that he has doubtless been bombarded with EM radiation of the same frequency and equal or greater magnitude for years with no complaints due to the vast numbers of other electronic devices and cosmic radiation entering our atmosphere.
So frankly I can't "guarantee" he's wrong (well okay I can -- he's wrong or your money back) but as far as I'm concerned the burden of proof is on you/this kook to give a plausible reason why Wi-Fi is different.
You're just biased against science, and think that because scientists have been shown (by other scientists!) to be wrong in the past means that any random arse thing you make up on the spot with some half-assed casual observation behind it has an equal or greater chance to be true than something studied via the scientific method.