Well with all the claims aside..y'all act as if we did not have wi-fi the USA would collapse. As I said the claims aside, I think wi-fi is a waist of time especially for home owners.
- Status
jimstouder
Distinguished
- May 25, 2008
- 1
- 0
- 18,510
The average person recieves 360 mrem per year of radiation exposure from nature. Perhaps they could sue the earth? Cosmic radio waves blanket the world, primarily from the sun, perhaps with a good lawyer.....
ToPostAComment
Distinguished
- May 26, 2008
- 2
- 0
- 18,510
I understand why the proposition that wi-fi signals could provoke an allergic reaction in some individuals sounds ridiculous to many people.
However, I think some of you are hiding behind your understanding of ESTABLISHED science, and ignoring that there is much we do not yet know.
For some, peanuts are lethal. I eat them by the handful.
Why are they harmful for some, but not for me?
I don't know. Obviously, there is some critical difference in the way our bodies react to the exact same substance.
Is the girl whose throat is closing after eating shellfish just trying to get money or attention, and should I insult her because I neither experience nor understand the science behind the reaction?
Sunlight kills people.
But how preposterous would it have sounded to you if someone developed skin cancer and claimed it was from being out in the sun for extended periods with unprotected skin, if they were making this claim before we understood the damaging effects of UV rays?
Furthermore, the idea that those complaining about the wi-fi are doing so for the money doesn't make sense to me for (at least) two reasons:
1. According to the article, they are not suing for monetary damages. They are suing to get wi-fi banned from public buildings.
2. This would be about the worst make-money-via-frivolous-lawsuit idea on Earth.
Can you imagine a group of people getting together and deciding that trying to demonstrate that invisible radiation (that does not appear to harm people in general) is causing them physical pain - which naturally would entail proving to some degree that the pain isn't caused by a host of other VISIBLE factors, or combination of factors - would be a great way to get rich quick?
Though like I said, they're not after money in this suit anyway, according to the article, which makes point #2 irrelevant.
I imagine these people were going through their lives symptom-free when one day they began suffering from chest pain, but only at certain times.
I imagine they then proceeded to try to isolate the cause, and found through this process that the only common factor in their reaction (that they were aware of) was their proximity to a wi-fi hotspot.
So I suppose they noticed a cause/effect relationship between wi-fi and their chest pain, the same way we all notice a cause/effect relationship between such things as your hand being in a fire and pain.
For the record, I have never personally experienced any physical problem from wi-fi exposure that I am aware of.
That, however, does not mean that other people have not, or that such a thing is impossible. Cordless phones have been around for many years, and there are also people who claim to be bothered by them. There are also many studies linking cell phone use to brain cancer.
Are these claims true? I don't know. And neither do you.
However, I think some of you are hiding behind your understanding of ESTABLISHED science, and ignoring that there is much we do not yet know.
For some, peanuts are lethal. I eat them by the handful.
Why are they harmful for some, but not for me?
I don't know. Obviously, there is some critical difference in the way our bodies react to the exact same substance.
Is the girl whose throat is closing after eating shellfish just trying to get money or attention, and should I insult her because I neither experience nor understand the science behind the reaction?
Sunlight kills people.
But how preposterous would it have sounded to you if someone developed skin cancer and claimed it was from being out in the sun for extended periods with unprotected skin, if they were making this claim before we understood the damaging effects of UV rays?
Furthermore, the idea that those complaining about the wi-fi are doing so for the money doesn't make sense to me for (at least) two reasons:
1. According to the article, they are not suing for monetary damages. They are suing to get wi-fi banned from public buildings.
2. This would be about the worst make-money-via-frivolous-lawsuit idea on Earth.
Can you imagine a group of people getting together and deciding that trying to demonstrate that invisible radiation (that does not appear to harm people in general) is causing them physical pain - which naturally would entail proving to some degree that the pain isn't caused by a host of other VISIBLE factors, or combination of factors - would be a great way to get rich quick?
Though like I said, they're not after money in this suit anyway, according to the article, which makes point #2 irrelevant.
I imagine these people were going through their lives symptom-free when one day they began suffering from chest pain, but only at certain times.
I imagine they then proceeded to try to isolate the cause, and found through this process that the only common factor in their reaction (that they were aware of) was their proximity to a wi-fi hotspot.
So I suppose they noticed a cause/effect relationship between wi-fi and their chest pain, the same way we all notice a cause/effect relationship between such things as your hand being in a fire and pain.
For the record, I have never personally experienced any physical problem from wi-fi exposure that I am aware of.
That, however, does not mean that other people have not, or that such a thing is impossible. Cordless phones have been around for many years, and there are also people who claim to be bothered by them. There are also many studies linking cell phone use to brain cancer.
Are these claims true? I don't know. And neither do you.
lmao dude with the long comment. Here's the reality.
The sun with it's UV rays are more lethal than wi-fi. So unless they are troll living in caves this case is just plain obsolete. And yes the claim that wifi doesn't cause human tissue damage has been tested and proven. By trying to mystify it and say we can never know is stupid attempt to make people think in circles and prevent progress. In which this case, those people are probably still stuck in the era of "OMFG RADIOWAVES GONNA BLAST US!" when radiowaves were first introduce.
The sun with it's UV rays are more lethal than wi-fi. So unless they are troll living in caves this case is just plain obsolete. And yes the claim that wifi doesn't cause human tissue damage has been tested and proven. By trying to mystify it and say we can never know is stupid attempt to make people think in circles and prevent progress. In which this case, those people are probably still stuck in the era of "OMFG RADIOWAVES GONNA BLAST US!" when radiowaves were first introduce.
samprasfan
Distinguished
- Mar 13, 2008
- 2
- 0
- 18,510
There is a huge difference between knowing the consequences of prolonged exposure to something, and measuring an immediate painful response to external stimuli. In short, the latter is much easier to test.
There have been many provocation studies on what is called electrical sensitivity. In every one, subjects could not tell the difference between true EMF and a nocebo. In other words, it's in their head.
Their mental defect is excusable, they probably can't help it. You on the other hand, have no excuse for spouting nonsense drivel, and are merely an idiot too lazy to actually research the phenomenon.
I guess you have a lot in common with the producers at that TV station, maybe you work for them. In any case, take you're uninformed opinions elsewhere.
There have been many provocation studies on what is called electrical sensitivity. In every one, subjects could not tell the difference between true EMF and a nocebo. In other words, it's in their head.
Their mental defect is excusable, they probably can't help it. You on the other hand, have no excuse for spouting nonsense drivel, and are merely an idiot too lazy to actually research the phenomenon.
I guess you have a lot in common with the producers at that TV station, maybe you work for them. In any case, take you're uninformed opinions elsewhere.
If they live in Sante Fe they have been exposed to tons of Radio Waves of variable strengths beyond Wi-Fi. On the Peanut Allergy you need to look it up. Something to do with Genetics and Sensitivity. People with Peanut Allergies are allergic to all Peanuts not just the one Peanut that was grown on a remote farm, on one Acre, with just the certain amount of water, and the right mixture of sunlight. This would be like a fifty year old man who ate Jars of Peanut Butter every day, buying a Snickers, getting stung by a bee, and suing Mounds because he had an allergic reaction.
For these people to even qualify they would never had to be exposed to any Radio Waves ever. That would mean no AM, FM, no planes, no Microwaves, no T.V., no elctricity, no cell phones, no ATM's, no Banks, no Computers, no Garage Openers, no Hospitals, no store, nothing. Then remarkably they would have to make it all the way to Sante Fe without driving a car, taking a train, catching a plane, and then have a reaction. Even if you lived on an Earth where the only person that was around was you, where there was no Technology, there would be a form of Wi-Fi.
It would be asking the entire Earth to black out the sky because 12 people on the planet has an allergic reaction to sun light. It's unreasonable.
For these people to even qualify they would never had to be exposed to any Radio Waves ever. That would mean no AM, FM, no planes, no Microwaves, no T.V., no elctricity, no cell phones, no ATM's, no Banks, no Computers, no Garage Openers, no Hospitals, no store, nothing. Then remarkably they would have to make it all the way to Sante Fe without driving a car, taking a train, catching a plane, and then have a reaction. Even if you lived on an Earth where the only person that was around was you, where there was no Technology, there would be a form of Wi-Fi.
It would be asking the entire Earth to black out the sky because 12 people on the planet has an allergic reaction to sun light. It's unreasonable.
ToPostAComment
Distinguished
- May 26, 2008
- 2
- 0
- 18,510
@Samprasfan:
I know there is a difference between measuring an immediate painful reaction to one thing, and knowing the consequences of prolonged exposure to another.
Nearly all remarks prior to mine made those filing the suit out to be either in it for the money (lack of reading comprehension), crazy, or scared of technology.
The fire/pain illustration was intended to show that they may have come to the wi-fi/chest pain conclusion through a logical process (even if the conclusion was incorrect) and that neither greed, nor neurosis, nor fear was necessarily a motivating factor in the formation of said conclusion.
You're right when you say that there have been many provocation studies on "electrical sensitivity."
However, the statement "In every one, subjects could not tell the difference between true EMF and a nocebo" is patently false.
A truer (read: not complete BS) statement would have been that while many studies support the notion that the suffering of those claiming electrical sensitivity is in their head, dozens have suggested otherwise.
So the studies are not clear: they are conflicted.
I will include URLs to a few of them at the bottom of this comment. Please feel free to cherry-pick data in support of your confirmation bias and argue that any study that disagrees with it was unscientific.
You should also bear in mind that I am not arguing that wi-fi is the cause of their symptoms.
I only commented because I saw lots of people, many probably having little to no real knowledge of the subject, speaking as though they'd done thorough studies of the matter themselves and found that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that wi-fi could have an effect on the human body.
That's nothing more than BS arrogance, and it retards true understanding.
And no, I am in not in any way involved with that T.V. station, with that case, or with any such similar case.
This first link - http
/www.es-uk.info/info/research.asp - is to a page containing links to many different studies that have found positive associations between electrical sensitivity and their suspected electromagnetic causes.
I'm including the following three links because their findings suggest that radiation from cell phones might affect tissue.
These experiments preclude the possibility of the phenomena being psychological in origin (in these particular cases) as the first looks at the effect cell phone radiation has on protein expression in human skin, the second looks at it's effects on human sperm motility, and the third examines cell death in insects from exposure to it.
http/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18267023
http/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16971222?dopt=Abstract
http/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17045516?dopt=Abstract
@Cuddles:
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with your reasoning.
These people are not saying that every frequency on every band on earth bothers them, and it does not appear that you have to be sensitive to all in order to be sensitive to a few.
From one study on EMF sensitivity (http/aehf.com/articles/em_sensitive.html):
"When evaluating frequency response, 75% of the 16 patients reacted to 1 Hz, 75% to 2.5 Hz, 69% to 5 Hz, 69 % to 10 Hz, 69% to 20 Hz, and 69% to 10 KHz (Table 3). No patient reacted to all 21 of the active frequencies in the challenges"
From what I've read, other factors can make a difference such as whether the transmission is continuous (radio) or pulsed (wi-fi).
From what I understand, these people are asking for wi-fi access points to be banned in public buildings in Sante Fe.
Whether that is "reasonable" or not something I'm interested in addressing, as I feel that's another matter entirely. But I can understand why you feel that way.
I know there is a difference between measuring an immediate painful reaction to one thing, and knowing the consequences of prolonged exposure to another.
Nearly all remarks prior to mine made those filing the suit out to be either in it for the money (lack of reading comprehension), crazy, or scared of technology.
The fire/pain illustration was intended to show that they may have come to the wi-fi/chest pain conclusion through a logical process (even if the conclusion was incorrect) and that neither greed, nor neurosis, nor fear was necessarily a motivating factor in the formation of said conclusion.
You're right when you say that there have been many provocation studies on "electrical sensitivity."
However, the statement "In every one, subjects could not tell the difference between true EMF and a nocebo" is patently false.
A truer (read: not complete BS) statement would have been that while many studies support the notion that the suffering of those claiming electrical sensitivity is in their head, dozens have suggested otherwise.
So the studies are not clear: they are conflicted.
I will include URLs to a few of them at the bottom of this comment. Please feel free to cherry-pick data in support of your confirmation bias and argue that any study that disagrees with it was unscientific.
You should also bear in mind that I am not arguing that wi-fi is the cause of their symptoms.
I only commented because I saw lots of people, many probably having little to no real knowledge of the subject, speaking as though they'd done thorough studies of the matter themselves and found that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that wi-fi could have an effect on the human body.
That's nothing more than BS arrogance, and it retards true understanding.
And no, I am in not in any way involved with that T.V. station, with that case, or with any such similar case.
This first link - http
/www.es-uk.info/info/research.asp - is to a page containing links to many different studies that have found positive associations between electrical sensitivity and their suspected electromagnetic causes.I'm including the following three links because their findings suggest that radiation from cell phones might affect tissue.
These experiments preclude the possibility of the phenomena being psychological in origin (in these particular cases) as the first looks at the effect cell phone radiation has on protein expression in human skin, the second looks at it's effects on human sperm motility, and the third examines cell death in insects from exposure to it.
http
/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18267023 http
/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16971222?dopt=Abstracthttp
/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17045516?dopt=Abstract@Cuddles:
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with your reasoning.
These people are not saying that every frequency on every band on earth bothers them, and it does not appear that you have to be sensitive to all in order to be sensitive to a few.
From one study on EMF sensitivity (http
/aehf.com/articles/em_sensitive.html):"When evaluating frequency response, 75% of the 16 patients reacted to 1 Hz, 75% to 2.5 Hz, 69% to 5 Hz, 69 % to 10 Hz, 69% to 20 Hz, and 69% to 10 KHz (Table 3). No patient reacted to all 21 of the active frequencies in the challenges"
From what I've read, other factors can make a difference such as whether the transmission is continuous (radio) or pulsed (wi-fi).
From what I understand, these people are asking for wi-fi access points to be banned in public buildings in Sante Fe.
Whether that is "reasonable" or not something I'm interested in addressing, as I feel that's another matter entirely. But I can understand why you feel that way.
No need to argue this one. It's fairly simple to test.
- Put a Wi-Fi generator in a box. Some days it's turned on. Other days it isn't.
- Have each of these people go into a room with it each day. When they arrive they have to tell you if it was on or off yesterday.
If their answers are correct a statistically significan't amount of time then their case is supported. If not then it isn't.
Also chest pain is often linked to heart problems. This can be monitored directly to add support for or against their case.
- Put a Wi-Fi generator in a box. Some days it's turned on. Other days it isn't.
- Have each of these people go into a room with it each day. When they arrive they have to tell you if it was on or off yesterday.
If their answers are correct a statistically significan't amount of time then their case is supported. If not then it isn't.
Also chest pain is often linked to heart problems. This can be monitored directly to add support for or against their case.
Yes,I do know its not true,because they dont complain about cordless phones which use the same frequencies,in fact with digital encoding,at the same powers and are far more common. How many of these people do you think are giving telephone interviews to the media,on a 2.4ghz cordless phone?
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question What would you recommend for data science student?
- Started by kenohol
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
-
Question Can Minecraft 1.20.51 Apk be installed with high graphics on Realme 5?
- Started by BertramBlythe
- Replies: 0
-
-
Facebook
Twitter