This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings - Comments

JLD Calgary's Avatar Comment 1 by JLD Calgary

I'm sure there are a few Amish communities that would open their doors for them :)

Thu, 29 May 2008 14:23:00 UTC | #176674

dloubet's Avatar Comment 2 by dloubet

"Electro-sensitive people"?

Give me a break.

I say we test them in a double-blind experiment to see if they're as sensitive as they say they are. And if they're not, they foot the bill for the experiment, and the lawyers.

Any takers?

Thu, 29 May 2008 14:32:00 UTC | #176677

designsoda's Avatar Comment 4 by designsoda

I say we test them in a double-blind experiment to see if they're as sensitive as they say they are. And if they're not, they foot the bill for the experiment, and the lawyers.


Looks like studies have been done.

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a systematic review of provocation studies

CONCLUSIONS: 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 EMF can trigger these symptoms. This suggests that "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" is unrelated to the presence of EMF, although more research into this phenomenon is required.

Hmmmm. Doesn't look like electrosensitivity is real. Or rather, there is no evidence for it as of now.

Thu, 29 May 2008 14:34:00 UTC | #176679

Wosret's Avatar Comment 3 by Wosret

Seems like bullshit to me. I would want to see a large amount of scientific evidence to back up their claims before I would take them seriously. Clock radios give off electric fields. Power lines give off much larger eletric fields than a cell phone or Wi-Fi. This seems entirely made up by morons to me.

Thu, 29 May 2008 14:34:00 UTC | #176678

designsoda's Avatar Comment 5 by designsoda

This seems entirely made up by morons to me.


Morons or

"There are also some indications that these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects, rather than the EMF exposure itself."

From:
World Health Organization: Electromagnetic fields and public health

Thu, 29 May 2008 14:44:00 UTC | #176681

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 6 by rod-the-farmer

They should stay away from me then. And I will try my very best to avoid them myself, to be sure.

Signed, Magnetic Personality.

Thu, 29 May 2008 14:46:00 UTC | #176684

mrjonno's Avatar Comment 7 by mrjonno

Can we ban cars please to as their pollutants do damage my health ,airplanes too?

In the end of the day it doesnt really matter if a tiny % of people are effects by radio waves (no evidence but even if there were) the economic and social benefits are going to out weigh the negative effects.

I'm all for helping minorities (liberal that I am) but in the end of the day if the numbers involved are tiny it makes more sense that they are givien protective clothing

Thu, 29 May 2008 14:52:00 UTC | #176686

EvidenceOnly's Avatar Comment 8 by EvidenceOnly

Maybe a double blind study will prove that vaccines given under a Wi-Fi tower do not cause autism?

Maybe Arthur Firstenberg is highly sensitive to certain types of electric fields, including wireless Internet and cell phones because he is intelligently designed that way? He should thank his creator. He risks going to hell if he complains.

:)

Thu, 29 May 2008 14:53:00 UTC | #176688

Cloudwork's Avatar Comment 9 by Cloudwork

Ive just read this in the comments section of The Times (UK)
let the collecting boxes in church display a sign "for entertainment purposes only" and let Catholics buy candles to light "for entertainment purposes only"; and let trips to Lourdes be sold "for entertainment purposes only". And let the raiment of the priest administering the Sacrament be embroidered likewise.

Imagine the churchyard billboard: the Power of Prayer (for entertainment purposes only).

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Thu, 29 May 2008 14:54:00 UTC | #176690

rustylix's Avatar Comment 10 by rustylix

"Group wants blue color banned from public sky."

Thu, 29 May 2008 15:00:00 UTC | #176692

righton's Avatar Comment 11 by righton

I do agree this sounds strange.

I dont think this is completely crazy. Many things are put on the market without enough research. This does need to be looked into.

I have problems with being around air fresheners and certain laundry detergents/fabric softeners make me sick. I get a really bad headache and light headed. I am still trying to figure out exactly what chemicals cause this.

Thu, 29 May 2008 15:16:00 UTC | #176693

righton's Avatar Comment 12 by righton

It does seem strange that the people affected are concentrated in that area and I have never heard of anyone around me having this problem, still, I think a double blind experiment and maybe some basic science research would be useful and interesting.

Thu, 29 May 2008 15:22:00 UTC | #176695

Agrajag's Avatar Comment 13 by Agrajag

11. Comment #186124 by righton on May 29, 2008 at 4:16 pm

I dont think this is completely crazy.
...
I have problems with being around air fresheners and certain laundry detergents/fabric softeners make me sick.

There is are plausible, one might even say "proven" mechanisms for adverse reactions to chemicals as you describe. There is much less (if any) evidence for the problem these folks claim. Let the blind studies commence. Meanwhile, yes, this *is* completely crazy. ;-)
Ste5e

Thu, 29 May 2008 15:24:00 UTC | #176696

pwuk's Avatar Comment 14 by pwuk

Lets turn off the universe, then perhaps they'll stop suffering.

Thu, 29 May 2008 15:26:00 UTC | #176697

Bonzai's Avatar Comment 15 by Bonzai

dloubet

I say we test them in a double-blind experiment to see if they're as sensitive as they say they are. And if they're not, they foot the bill for the experiment, and the lawyers.


steveroot

There is much less (if any) evidence for the problem these folks claim. Let the blind studies commence. Meanwhile, yes, this *is* completely crazy. ;-)



I don't really see your point. What is it that you try to establish with double blind experiments?

Hypersensitivity to em radiation may be psychosomatic, but as long as these people are not lying willfully, it is still "real" to them in terms of health impacts.

On the other hand, should the double blind experiments turn out to be positive, it doesn't follow that it is reasonable to ban wi fi in all public buildings just because of a rare affliction. It may mean these people should stay away from cities or wrap themselves in tin foil just like people with no immunity have to stay in bubbles.

Whether their "affliction" is "real" in the "objective" sense really has little to do with how one should handle the complaints.

Edit
The scientific method doesn't give you useful answers if you are not asking the right question in first place.

Thu, 29 May 2008 15:30:00 UTC | #176699

Lycosid's Avatar Comment 16 by Lycosid

The funny thing about the internet is that the village idiot's voice is just as loud as the Nobel prizewinner's.

That being said, who wants to chase this guy with a router for kicks?

Thu, 29 May 2008 15:38:00 UTC | #176700

righton's Avatar Comment 17 by righton

steveroot

"Meanwhile, yes, this *is* completely crazy. ;-)"

Banning it may be crazy but more research is not.

"There is much less (if any) evidence for the problem these folks claim."

Maybe because no research has been done on the people who have this problem. I think it is ignorant to completely dismiss something like this. WiFi has not been around for very long, we dont/cant know its possible adverse effects yet.

Thu, 29 May 2008 15:42:00 UTC | #176701

righton's Avatar Comment 18 by righton

steveroot

"Meanwhile, yes, this *is* completely crazy. ;-)"

Good to know that you have gone through all the physiological processes in the body and determined that this is not possible. Good for you.

Thu, 29 May 2008 15:48:00 UTC | #176703

AlexAtheist's Avatar Comment 19 by AlexAtheist

I have an ex boyfriend who was "chemically sensitive" so I was not allowed to use scented soap, deodorant, laundry detergent or spray cologne or air freshener because he would have an attack...but he was a chain smoker. It was such a silly situation that I could never take him seriously. I think these electro sensitive people are just seeking attention which trivialises people who have real sensitivities to certain things.

Thu, 29 May 2008 16:32:00 UTC | #176707

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 20 by rod-the-farmer

Another thought......just where do these people work, that they have no wireless signals around ? Many office buildings have them, and lots of private homes. If the signal strength from overhead high tension power lines is enough to run a light bulb, I ha' me doots the weak wireless signal will have much affect. They never complained about TV or radio signals ? Ham and police/taxi radios ? This needs some scientific investigation.

Thu, 29 May 2008 16:36:00 UTC | #176709

HourglassMemory's Avatar Comment 21 by HourglassMemory

Are you telling me that some of these people would get uncomfortable if I waved a Wii Remote at them?

I mean it's not enough to be bombarded every second with lots of cosmic particles and the whole rest of the electromagnetic spectrum...

Thu, 29 May 2008 16:40:00 UTC | #176710

notsobad's Avatar Comment 22 by notsobad

If they really valued their health, they would move.

Thu, 29 May 2008 16:44:00 UTC | #176713

Mike O'Risal's Avatar Comment 23 by Mike O'Risal

People's stupidity often causes me discomfort, but it rages all around me. I would hazard an informed guess that far more people suffer from exposure to stupidity than do so from WiFi signals.

Where do we sign up for the class action suit?

Thu, 29 May 2008 16:53:00 UTC | #176715

ivellios's Avatar Comment 24 by ivellios

I have plant allergies, Please remove all parks. Also, I need all plants removed from the Zoo's and other public entertainment facilities.

Thu, 29 May 2008 17:00:00 UTC | #176716

righton's Avatar Comment 25 by righton

AlexAtheist

"I have an ex boyfriend who was "chemically sensitive" so I was not allowed to use scented soap, deodorant, laundry detergent or spray cologne or air freshener because he would have an attack...but he was a chain smoker."

It is hard to know which specific chemicals, "chemically sensitive" people are sensitive to. The standard advice is to avoid as many as possible. Again, much more research needs to be done. Cigarettes don't bother me either but I don't think they put the same chemicals in cigarettes as they do in air fresheners and laundry detergents.

I am "sensitive" to this topic because when I first started having these problems a lot of people thought I was crazy or faking or just had anxiety. This was very frustrating. I have never, or ever plan on trying to get any compensation for this. I just want to figure out what causes it so I can stay away from it, and not have ignorant people, who know nothing about it, claim that I am crazy.

"I think these electro sensitive people are just seeking attention which trivialises people who have real sensitivities to certain things."

I think this happens a lot and unfairly puts these kinds of problems in the conspiracy theory category.

Thu, 29 May 2008 17:01:00 UTC | #176717

Apeseed's Avatar Comment 26 by Apeseed

Haven't they tried tinfoil hats. There's the added bonus of shielding you from the C.I.A and alien influence.

Thu, 29 May 2008 17:04:00 UTC | #176720

mmurray's Avatar Comment 27 by mmurray

This concern has been around for awhile

http://www.indxependent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/wifi-children-at-risk-from-electronic-smog-445725.html

I think we need to be careful not to dismiss these people as delusional without doing the research although the advice from WHO above would suggest that some research has been done.

Michael

Thu, 29 May 2008 17:07:00 UTC | #176722

jayalenik's Avatar Comment 28 by jayalenik

Bonzi said
"I don't really see your point. What is it that you try to establish with double blind experiments?

Hypersensitivity to em radiation may be psychosomatic, but as long as these people are not lying willfully, it is still "real" to them in terms of health impacts. "

I think what we could establish is , do we get rid of the wifi or do we help treat the patient with the psychosomatic illness.

Thu, 29 May 2008 17:15:00 UTC | #176724

Baka's Avatar Comment 29 by Baka

I agree with mmurray that research into the claims of these people should be encouraged. However, I understand the reaction of those like steveroot who are honest about their skepticism as well.

From what I've seen, the few studies that have looked into this have found either (A) no evidence or (B) inadequate evidence that there is a physiological relationship here. The findings so far appear more consistent, or at least as consistent, with a psychosomatic mechanism as compared with a bioelectric one. I'm sure someone more acquainted with the literature of this field would be more knowledgeable on the specifics, though.

In this case, I see no reason one cannot both acknowledge the utility of further research, while simultaneously admitting their strong suspicion that what these people are feeling is all in their minds. Being skeptical doesn't mean you have to belittle the things you're skeptical of ... but neither does it necessitate respect for ideas you find laughable.

Thu, 29 May 2008 17:21:00 UTC | #176725

ThoughtsonCommonToad's Avatar Comment 30 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

Speaking of Wi-Fi

Here is Chomsky on Religion and Humanism etc

I've sent it to article submission but I seem to be consistently ignored.

Part 1.1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqQJwcgFozU

Part 1.2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZXIrLTKtC0

Part 1.3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRQ6a0xVO5o

Part 2.1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnJ6ahB_g4g

Part 2.2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4SbQftq8cU

Part 2.3
REACHED LINK LIMIT

Thu, 29 May 2008 17:38:00 UTC | #176726