Massachusetts Boarding School Sued Over Wi-Fi Sickness 588
alphadogg writes: The parents of an anonymous student at the Fay School in Southborough, Mass., allege that the Wi-Fi at the institution is making their child sick, according to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court earlier this month (PDF). The child, identified only as "G" in court documents, is said to suffer from electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome. The radio waves emitted by the school's Wi-Fi routers cause G serious discomfort and physical harm, according to the suit. "After being continually denied access to the school in order to test their student's classroom, and having their request that all classrooms in which their child is present have the WiFi network replaced with a hard-wired Ethernet denied, the parents sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act."
What does Science have to say about this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy way to win the Amazing Randi's million dollar challenge for supernatural powers. If you get sick when they turn the wi-fi on and feel better when they turn it off, you have the ability to detect 2.4GHz radiation with your body.
Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score:5, Informative)
Are you not aware of the many orders of magnitude difference between WiFi and Microwave ovens.
Microwave Oven typically 600+ Watts or 600,000mW
Wifi Typically 5mW or 0.005 Watts
Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score:5, Interesting)
There have been double-blind tests performed, but the subjects were quite upset when they learned that apparently it wasn't the wifi signals making them sick, but the blinking lights on the wireless devices.
IE lights disabled, radios fully enabled, on highest power, transmitting data: No symptoms.
Simulated status light activity, radios completely disabled and unpowered: symptoms.
Lights & radio on : symptoms
Lights & radio disabled: no symptoms.
Conclusion: Clearly we need to investigate the status lights. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting, do you have a source ? (Aka citation needed).
I'm genuinely interested in getting such kind of study result. Of course the real subject is long term exposure effects of radio microwaves. For which I'm not sure many results (scientific ones) exist. And incidentally I'm going to install Ethernet plugs in our sons school next week to avoid this - not for me but by other parents demand (which I think will bring more reliable connectivity - win win )
Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score:5, Informative)
LMGTFY: http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs296/en/
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, here's one [sjweh.fi] - Note "sham".
and another [sciencedirect.com].
The study I'm remembering was slightly different, but I'm being drowned out by different studies. [biomedcentral.com]
Re: What does Science have to say about this? (Score:4, Informative)
Falsehood 1: You can light your tap water on fire. Fox made this claim famous in the first Gasland movie when he showed a resident of Colorado striking a match as water came out of his tap; the natural gas dissolved in the water burst into flame. Yet the water was tested by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, which reported to the resident: "There are no indications of any oil & gas related impacts to your well water." The agency concluded that the natural gas in his water supply was derived from natural sources—the water well penetrated several coal beds that had released the methane into the well.
Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score:4, Funny)
When I was in preschool, I got a "cold" and had to stay home so I didn't make the other kids sick. That part was explained to me at the time. But they didn't also explain that my runny nose and sore throat were themselves the "cold." So those symptoms went away, and I had no idea that I no longer had a "cold." They asked if I wanted to go back to preschool, I said "no." I mean, I didn't like it for other reasons and back then in the stone age "preschool" was daycare with no education at all, and no concept of appropriate supervision either. So it was no loss. But they just respected my wishes, and it was many years later when they found out the reason I said "no" was that I didn't want to make the other kids get a "cold," whatever that was. It sure sounded bad by the tone of voice adults used when they said I had it.
It is the natural trajectory for making decisions from ignorance.
Re: (Score:3)
That could also be explained by the simple fact that their "symptoms" are all in their heads.
Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's exactly what double blind means. You don't tell the subjects whether they're in the active, placebo, or control groups.
Re: (Score:3)
The whole reason there is a placebo group is precisely because we know the human brain is susceptible to suggestion. In an experiment like this, there is no reason at all to provide that suggestion.
Re: (Score:3)
To expand upon this, in a 'double blind' test, not even those with any contact with the test subjects know whether they're administering the real thing or a placebo. IE those handing out the pills and recording any symptoms don't know. This prevents even more contamination, because the doctor can act differently if he knows which pills he's handing out, and influence the patients that way.
Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score:5, Informative)
You've described a "blind" study. "Double blind [wikipedia.org]" means that the testers don't know which subject is in which group until after the study.
Re: (Score:3)
That test is on the contrary quite revealing, since it correctly decorrelates radio signals from symptoms, thus refuting the hypothesis that radio signals are responsible for the symptoms.
Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score:5, Informative)
I disagree. There is no reason at all to show lights if what you are really testing is sensitivity to radio signals.
As the famous 'experiment' down in South Africa showed, where the cell phone tower operators shut the tower off six weeks before a meeting about turning the tower off, where people were STILL expressing the same symptoms, how getting away from the tower decreased them, how it was the radiation from the tower giving them rashes and such, perception is a thing.
By having the lights be visible, it allowed the study to not just test radio sensitivity, it allowed them to test perception of radio sensitivity.
The test essentially showed that the people were getting sick when they thought they were being bombarded with radio waves, not when they were actually being bombarded.
A real test would not provide any misleading clues.
They tested that as well. They had 4 different tests - Radio & lights, Radio & dark, No Radio &lights, No Radio & dark. Symptoms tracked with the status lights on the test device, not the radio waves.
If people were sensitive, but also fooling themselves with the lights, more people would have shown something when the lights were dark but the radio was on.
Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would it not be a stronger experiment if there were no lights at all?
OK, you run that test and nobody feels ill, on or off. What does that prove? Not much - your signal could be too weak or the wrong frequency, or the room could be interfering, or it need to send data in bursts or cycles, or both the signal and the blinking lights are needed, or... On the other hand, if you can create the feeling of sickness using just lights and with lights and wifi you can be pretty sure that lights are the (indirect) cause - making those 'what ifs' more implausible.
Second, it also gives you a chance to catch non-wifi issues that are making people sick. What if the school's lack of proper ventilation, or an old chemical spill giving off fumes, or the hot plastic of the router creating VOCs really is making people ill? We can catch it now by proving that it's not just not wifi, but also not all in their heads, and start looking for other answers.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would it not be a stronger experiment if there were no lights at all?
Let me ask this: What are you gaining by testing less?
There have been a number of experiments like you describe. By not telling them whether the wifi is active or not, you do indeed confound them enough that they can't just guess and fake the symptoms.
But as yndrd mentions, by having the lights as additional test groups, it can help zero in on whether it's psychosomatic in nature. And the evidence is that it IS, at least in part.
It also gives you the ability to differentiate between symptoms between two
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand this. Why is the suggestion that the radio is off (dark lights) not as strong as the suggestion that the radio is on?
It's a matter of ratios, which is why it's good to do all 4 possibilities(in this case) in 1 experiment.
Basically, between the lights on and lights off tests, you can figure out, roughly, how many people are (presumably) responding to the lights, and not the radio. How many are responding to the radio, and not the lights, etc...
Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. There is no reason at all to show lights if what you are really testing is sensitivity to radio signals.
There's no parlor tricks here. The lights are the placebo in a placebo-controlled study [wikipedia.org].
If you want to determine if a medicine is really the cause of the effect on patient's health - positive or negative - then you use a placebo to rule out the possibility that swallowing a huge pill or getting an injection itself is causing some psychological effect. You have the real medicine (lights+signal), fake medicine (lights + no signal), control group (no lights + no signal), and sometimes an alternative treatment (no lights + signal).
There is a known (or at least claimed) correlation between WiFi signals and reported illness. The test is designed to isolate the effects of perceivable stimulus (lights on the device) with the supposed cause of the illness (the invisible WiFi signals). Intuitively we all "know" that WiFi signals do not cause any physiological effects. But something is apparently effecting these people, and the test is aimed at figuring out what that something is.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3)
Boy, you're really going on that citation thing, you know? Completely missed where I posted sources?
Here, have another [sciencedirect.com] couple [nih.gov].
Re: (Score:3)
Or electrical tape works...
Re:OT: new study needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, why does my air purifier need an LED power on indicator light? I can hear the damn thing if it is running! It shouldn't take 5 layers of duct tape to make it dark enough to sleep in my room...
Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, if I stand outside in the hot texas sun for over half an hour, I do develop a bad skin rash that burns, itches and stings for a day or so. Sometimes it's also accompanied by nausea and lethargy. I suppose I have EHS!
Of course doctors don't diagnose me properly, instead they ask me to apply this skin lotion before hand, and warn me if I keep going out without it I may get cancer. I have tried to sue the sun, and have asked it to turn itself down, but it never complies for more than 12 hours a time, frequently less.
Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score:4, Informative)
That only works if he doesn't know that he's sitting in a Faraday cage. Otherwise the kid would simply subconsciously - or consciously - fake symptoms just to fulfill the prophesy declared by his parents. He can't know the Faraday cage is there, else you'd never be able to rule out WiFi RF and narrow it to "something [else] environmental".
So... give him an astronaut suit to wear for a day and tell him it's a reward for good grades or something.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Bah, we don't need him to sit in a Faraday cage. I'll simply sell them my patent pending WiFi Sickness Rocks. Each rock absorbs the bad components of WiFi via a process called Eam Nihil Penitus Operari. By simply keeping the rock in his pocket, he can be guaranteed that WiFi signals won't cause him any physical harm. All for the low, low price of $19.95 (plus shipping and handling). Order now and I'll throw in my Vaccine Toxin Be Gone rock which removes anything in vaccines that causes autism simply by
Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
" If he still develops symptoms then it's something else."
Yea, the student is full of shit and trying to get out of school.
Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score:5, Funny)
Bring in a portable faraday cage and have him sit in it.
Sounds like reasonable accomodation to me, problem solved.
"Thus arose, in the early 20's, a small subculture of spherically encased children known as 'Faraday Hamsters.'
Enabled by a 2017 Supreme Court interpretation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, these 'Faraday Hamsters' could frequently be seen running their electromagnetically impervious cages down school hallways along special troughs--evocative of the famous boulder chase scene in the 20th century classic, Raiders of the Lost Ark."
--Collected Histories of the Twenty-First Century
Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, they have the backing of this guy [columbia.edu] who is on some sort of crusade to protect humans and wildlife [businesswire.com] from those oh so dangerous invisible EMF rays.
Even more unfortunately, he appears to be a bright guy with fairly well established credentials.
The problem is (and this is sometimes overlooked by judges) smart people can be:
a) wrong
b) crazy
c) lying
In this case I think it's (a) with a healthy dose of (b) mixed in.
Hopefully the judge takes stock of the numerous double blind studies [wikipedia.org] where it has been shown that EMF "sufferers" symptoms disappeared when they were unaware of the presence of EMF radiation
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score:5, Interesting)
A private school has no particular obligation to deal with anyone in particular; so long as they don't explicitly step on some protected class or (as is being argued in this case) fail to make reasonable accommodation per the ADA.
If it were a public school, it would be the school's problem, just as they have to make provision for the education of any other sickie(mental or physical); but for the private school to be obligated; it has to be demonstrated that kiddo has a 'disability' for ADA purposes, that they are capable of performing if provided with 'reasonable accommodation', and that the 'reasonable accommodation' would not cause 'undue hardship' for the entity being asked to provide it.
I'd be interested to know how the meaning of those terms would be decided in this case. Fay is a pretty fancy school, east coast private boarding school with history dating back before 1900 and its own endowment and all; but even if that mitigates any argument about the financial impact of having to hardwire everything, it might well be argued that, say, making it impossible for anyone in this kid's class to do an ipad-related curriculum activity would impose excessive limitations on their ability to learn, and the school to teach, as it usually does. If the school were purely doing wireless because it was cheaper, they might have issues; but today wireless devices are used routinely in situations where hardwired stuff would never have been considered practical; plus(unlike an accommodation that requires adding something, like a braille copy of the textbook or the like, the accomodation here demanded requires depriving everyone in the student's proximity of any use of wifi devices, or segregating the student, neither of which are likely to go over all that well.)
Re: (Score:3)
As someone who has fought with the public school system to get accommodations for my son (who has an actual medical diagnosis for a real condition), it takes more than the parents saying "Johnny gets sick around WiFi" before the school would be forced to turn off all WiFi. So even if this were a public school, they would have an uphill battle and would need to 1) demonstrate that their child really does react badly to WiFi signals and 2) show that there is a solution that can be reached which wouldn't over
Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, but imagine a kid as agoraphobia and can't stand being in the open air. Is it reasonable for the parents to expect the school to put the football field inside of a building so the kid can be on the team? Also there is absolutely no evidence that EHS itself exists, which is what the parents claim. The child would be better off if the parents admitted that it was a psychiatric disorder and started getting the kid treatment for it. The ADA has limits on what accommodations an employer, or school has
Re: (Score:3)
You do have to have a disability, and you can't just self-diagnose(it would be interesting to see what the court thinks of the quack who did the diagnosing in this case); but the law covers basically any functi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Hell, you don't even need the gut feeling. Or the lawyer.
Re: (Score:3)
The rule is, it's an abuse of the system if the other side does it, but it's a constitutional right if your side does it.
Re: (Score:3)
A couple turned out to be more interesting; they'd started feeling unwell since having wireless routers installed in their homes. Turned out that a faulty batch of router power supplies was emittin
Really!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm guessing a whole new low has been reached here. Shaking my head ....
Just wait till we move the goal posts again by finding the school is actually liable.
ADA act? What's their disability (Score:5, Funny)
Chronic stupidity? Overactive placebo gland?
Re: (Score:2)
More like social anxiety.
I get it. School can be shit. Much easier to blame WiFi than it is to admit that you find the social environment at school daunting and unpleasant.
Re: (Score:2)
Overactive placebo gland?
Indeed, their doctor should administer a placebo blocker immediately!
Re:ADA act? What's their disability (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Oddly, works even better when administered to the parents of the sufferer instead of directly.
Re:ADA act? What's their disability (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ADA act? What's their disability (Score:5, Funny)
I propose a novel treatment:
Seal pure water into a container and place it into a microwave oven for 1 millisecond (or a microsecond for extreme cases). Sell it as a homopathic treatment for $50/ounce.
Re: (Score:3)
I should have looked more carefully. Apparently the diagnosing doctor DOES provide homeopathic treatments!
http://drhubbuch.com/patient-c... [drhubbuch.com]
commentsubjectsaredumb (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure you'll find one somewhere, but that doesn't mean it was the correct diagnosis.
Re:commentsubjectsaredumb (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.disabilityinfo.org/mnip/db/mddb/ResourceDetail.aspx?type=1&id=2344 [disabilityinfo.org]
Specializes in treatment of chronic illness through an intergrative approach.
IOW, fake medicine.
Re:commentsubjectsaredumb (Score:5, Informative)
Even "better":
http://drhubbuch.com/ [drhubbuch.com]
Her interest in health and assisting her patients take control of their own health began with her work in the Womenâ(TM)s Self Help Health Movement.
Even more better than better...
Dr. Hubbuch is a member of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine
But the AAEM is not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties, and is mentioned in Quackwatch.
http://www.abms.org/member-boa... [abms.org]
http://www.quackwatch.org/04Co... [quackwatch.org]
No medical evidence... (Score:2)
There is no scientific medical evidence that such a condition exists and their claims should be tossed until such a time that such a sensativity can be proven to exist. They should be encouraged to move to Alaska and homestead like all the other idiots that think they have this "disease".
Re:No medical evidence... (Score:5, Funny)
I work in a building full of equipment broadcasting on several different bands all day long, not just the few piddly wi-fi routers. It seems that every day I come to work I spend the day completely depressed, but I cheer up again when I go home at night. My only conclusion is that RF causes depression.
Oh dear (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope they don't have any cell phones in their house.
I hope they don't use a microwave.
I hope they don't live near any cell towers.
I hope they don't live near any TV or radio transmitters
What would be funny is if they had turned off WiFi in his classes and not told them, and they continued to complain.
Re:Oh dear (Score:5, Funny)
Alas, finding Spectrix Inc. networking gear is pretty damn tricky these days, so it's a difficult test to perform.
Re: (Score:3)
You could still be causing TV interference, by blocking the signal with your tall, grounded, metal pole.
Better (Score:2, Funny)
Call Saul
I suffer from Bullshit-Intolerance Syndrome (Score:5, Funny)
My condition causes me significant discomfort around people who say aggressively stupid things, internalize and repeat strange diagnoses they read on the internet, and causes me to have thoughts of self-harm when listening to security software vendor presentations. I have repeatedly asked my employer to accommodate my needs stemming from Bullshit-intolerance Syndrome (BS), but they all just say, "that's bullshit, we won't tolerate that" to which I say "yes, that's my problem too." Perhaps I also suffer from Jackass Impulsive Recursive Comment (JIRC) disorder, but they don't want to hear about that either. I'm gonna sue.
Here's to bullshit! (Score:3)
No show in court... (Score:2)
...since the courthouse will be filled with not just wifi, but other radio waves too. *smh
Too be fair (Score:5, Insightful)
The parents are apparently mentally disabled.
The kids full name... (Score:3, Funny)
... is 802.11 G
Re: (Score:3)
... is 802.11 G
It's quite natural for him to be extremely impressed. In every test at the school the other kid 802.11 N was shown to be faster, better and able to go further. 802.11 G will always be in second place and that takes its mental toll.
Needs to move to Green Bank, WV (Score:5, Insightful)
How can he be sensitive to Wifi, but not to the rest of the ubiquitous RF emissions that surround us all? Cellular signals, commercial radio+TV, microwave ovens, radar, etc.
Sounds like he needs to move to The Town Without Wifi [washingtonian.com]
Blind studies fail (Score:5, Interesting)
Blind studies with control groups fail. It's not a fscking anything it's a flavor of hypochondriac, he needs counseling and possibly some psych meds.
Re:Blind studies fail (Score:4, Insightful)
From TFA:
Specifically, the Aerohive Network doubled the prior emissions in Fay classrooms from 2.5 GHz to 5 GHz.1 Exposure to the emissions from the highdensity Wi-Fi now used by Fay is dangerous to persons having an aggravated sensitivity to those emissions, as will be explained in more detail further below.
Re: (Score:3)
You can not fix stupid.
Upgrade the child (Score:5, Funny)
The child, identified only as "G" in court documents
Well there is the problem. If the child identified himself as "N", there wouldn't be a conflict and the kid would learn faster.
Tinfoil hats (Score:5, Funny)
This is why you make a tinfoil hat: to keep the radio waves out of your head. It's simple to do, and as a bonus the voices stop.
Re: (Score:3)
Where to even start? (Score:3)
First off, it's a boarding school, which means that you are choosing to send your child there. Don't like the service they offer? Pull them out and send them to another one, or take advantage of the free, public education provided the state of Massachusetts.
Second, what disability? Every study done has either come back inconclusive or contrary to the notion that this disease exists. Every anecdote I've personally heard has indicated that these people have an accuracy not statistically significantly different from a coin flip when it comes to accurately identifying when WiFi is around in blind tests.
Third, is it really only an issue at school? Every Starbucks and McDonald's has free WiFi at this point, and they're on practically every street corner in America at this point. If your issue is with WiFi, you have bigger problems.
Fourth, 2.4 or 5GHz? Because they're just radio waves, so it kinda makes a difference...or is it just any WiFi at all? Would you still have this disability if we switched WiFi to use the same frequencies as TV or CB radio? Because WiFi?
Ugh, these people.
Re:Where to even start? (Score:5, Funny)
Why would the kid want to live with the people who sent them to boarding school?
The real reason (Score:4, Insightful)
You precious snowflake is sick because you put him on a strick vegan diet.
Chronically Stupid Parents (Score:5, Insightful)
So, send the kid ... (Score:5, Funny)
MIT WIFI Study (Score:4, Informative)
There was an MIT under grad psychology study done a few years ago on the Effects of WiFi on people with WiFi sensitivity. They had a WiFi generator that had antennas, dials and blinking lights. The generator was always positioned behind the test subjects so they could not directly see if it was on or off. However, there were enough reflective surfaces on the opposing wall so the the subject could tell when it was on or off. When the generator was brought in the room and and turned on the subjects felt the effects. When it was turned off and or removed from the room the subjects felt much better.
The machine did nothing.
The ceiling of the room was loaded with active WiFi base stations that were on all the time during the tests yet the subjects only reacted when the fake WiFi generator was turned on and in the room.
Re:yes (Score:5, Funny)
Of course Wifi only exists near hotspots, which is why I plan to sell the parents behind this lawsuit my own unique brand of Wifi that won't trigger their son's sensitivity. As everyone knows, only Wifi routers put out harmful radiation that can trigger such totally real disorders as electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome. Microwaves, on the other hand, contain all their radiation entirely within the steel box using the powers of science.
By putting their Wifi router in the microwave, along with any devices they wish to receive wifi, and turning the microwave on for 12 hours, young G's parents can bake the Wifi right into their devices without any risk of electromagnetic radiation triggering their son's disorder. I like to call it Mi-Fi.
Re:yes (Score:5, Funny)
Shouldn't it be called Wi-Fri?
Re:Blind test. (Score:5, Informative)
There was a case like this in South Africa, regarding cell towers.
http://idle.slashdot.org/story/10/01/15/1516245/tower-switch-off-embarrasses-electrosensitives [slashdot.org]
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/Wireless/11099.html/ [mybroadband.co.za]
Re:Blind test. (Score:5, Interesting)
Some cell tower companies and ham radio operators moving into elite neighbourhoods with high lawyer representation often will pre build the expansion and not install the equipment to collect baseline data and use the new complaints and lawsuits as baseline of the pre existing conditions. It's hard to make a case against the new cell tower or ham radio operator when the court case reveals to the plaintiffs the only operating device is the obstruction beacon.
Later when the equipment arrives and is installed, the community is not informed. Only then can the real cases be identified. Most of the time, the numbers are in the 0's.
If you put up a tower in a nice neighbourhood, make it look nice. Leave it unpowered for a few months. Reduce power on nearby towers to make marginal areas worse. Offer better signal by upgrades to nearby towers. Switch on the new tower to cover the poor coverage areas. Result, more even signal coverage with fewer towers running high power to reach into dead zones.
Re:Blind test. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Doctor's diagnosis (Score:5, Insightful)
From that physicians website [drhubbuch.com]
She treats cancer with homeopathy. "Supportive Care for Cancer: Possible treatments include: Complex homeopathy"
This makes me sad.
Re: (Score:3)
Her entire page is a buzzword soup of alternative hooey. I'll trust chicken soup before I trust her.
Re:Kids these days (Score:4, Funny)
My superstition is that not having a 13th floor is bad luck, since after all what is proping up the 14th floor? Magic? Though, whatever you do, don't try proving the fact that the 14th floor is the 13th, since this will lead to confusion and mass hysteria, and may even brand you as some sort of heretic.
Re: (Score:3)
Could it cause cancer/whatever? Maybe, otherwise I wouldn't be able to actively detect it
I can detect red, salt, rough, smooth, acceleration, loud, hot + many more things. Some of these are in the form of radiation. The ones I mentioned don't cause cancer/whatever. Your argument is flawed.
and I'm sure there are people more sensitive than me.
How? You'd better have some studies or you're only as sure about it as people who are sure the earth is flat. I'm open to evidence here as long as there is some.
And yes, I'm completely willing to submit to any test anyone wants to perform. I have done so many times so far and they're always surprised that my sensory disorder is real.
Dropbox + scanned image of diagnosis document + link in reply might not get you on the 6:00 news, but it's a start
Re:I have always been curious.... (Score:5, Funny)
Once arrogant technocrats imposed a 'binary' worldview that rejects the wholistic wisdom of the body, the transmissions became intensely disruptive to our health, and corrosive to the spirit.
Isn't it obvious?