Fact Checking? UK Paper Simply Takes The Word Of Guy Who Claims WiFi Allergy

from the proof-please? dept

For years, we’ve been hearing stories from various people insisting that WiFi makes them ill. The only problem? There is absolutely no evidence to support this at all. Double blind tests with people have shown that the people who claim that WiFi makes them ill are no better at figuring out whether or not there’s WiFi in a room. A more recent, and rather thorough, test showed that while those who claim “electromagnetic sensitivity” are having cognitive and neurobiological reactions, it’s got absolutely nothing to do with electromagnetic waves. That is, the presence (or absence) of electromagnetic generating objects made no difference on the person.

And yet… reporters just seem to love the story about people being allergic to WiFi. The latest is in the Daily Mail over in the UK, which has an entire article all about a guy who lives in “agony” because of all the WiFi around. Not once does the reporter look into the evidence of the “allergy” but does claim that 2% of the population suffer from this. The guy travels around with a WiFi detector to protect him… but it’s not protecting him from whatever is causing his problems (as the study found). You would think that a reporter would actually check the facts on such things, right?

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Fact Checking? UK Paper Simply Takes The Word Of Guy Who Claims WiFi Allergy”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Seriously, it's the Daily Mail

yeah, i was going to point out that this is the daily mail. mike, you know they’re a tabloid right? next to the wifi allergy articles, they talk about alien landings, wolf-boy, fish-girl, and nosferatu’s predictions which have all diligently written exactly how the current government official will be the anti-christ.

John Strickland (profile) says:

Take a Claritin and STFU.

Just because a portion of the population is allergic to something doesn’t make it newsworthy. I am allergic to pollen. It doesn’t mean I advocate burning all the flowers down, or putting barriers around every flower and then putting up signs around gardens warning people.

Radio has been around for close to a century. I am sure that if EM sensitivity were real we would heard bitching about it long before now.

DJ (profile) says:


This is right down the line of everyone who bought one of those cell phone reflectors a few years ago, thinking that they were being protected from harmful radio waves going through their head…..

All it takes is on “respected Journalist” (please note the quote marks) to read this story on the web somewhere and decide to run it in the Times or some-such “respected” place. Suddently you have people everywhere thinking this BS is true.

scote (profile) says:

Re: Still....

“All it takes is on “respected Journalist” (please note the quote marks) to read this story on the web somewhere and decide to run it in the Times or some-such “respected” place. Suddently you have people everywhere thinking this BS is true.”

I don’t think it even takes that much. All it takes is a compelling anecdote. Humans prefer compelling stories to scientific data. But the newspaper’s irresponsible, credulous reporting surely makes the situation worse, by spreading the story further and wider.

TW Burger (profile) says:

Journalism and Facts

Oxymorons (a tribute to George Carlin):

Military Intelligence
Jumbo shrimp
Factual Journalism

Any article in any paper that I have read, where I had personal knowledge of the event and/or the facts, were mostly incorrect and presented in a manner to support a particular view. It is as if the first criteria to becoming a journalist is to not know anything and the second to be highly opinionated.

Is this person related to the guy who says the mafia has bugged his home/car/mother’s house and is trying to force him to be a super model in New York?

Lithium anyone?

trollificus (profile) says:

“Journalists every day are faced with the choice of laboriously checking the validity of what they are told or just putting it in the paper. Both approaches pay the same.”
~More or less accurate Scott Adams quote

Also, good points above about the incestuous “sourcing” practices of the MSM. Not surprising from media that can’t or doesn’t bother to differentiate between advocacy group press releases and scientific stuides.

Mary says:

WiFi Allergy BS or Is It WiFi Radiation Sickness??????

What is proof? Is proof that WiFi is safe because the FCC (U.S. Federal Communications Commission) says so? What would proof look like to you? This is a gray area of science and ‘safe’ can look and feel different to everyone, even to the FCC. It was so hard for them to define what safe was they just avoided it all together. They just waived all of the safety testing requirements by invoking the magic ‘low power exclusion’ clause. What does that mean? You are the guinea pig! Just ask all of those that got radiation sickness at the US Embassy in Moscow what the ’low power exclusion’ clause meant to them. The Soviets used Cold War tactics of choronic low intensity modulated microwave bombardment at .01 microwatts/cm2 when they were directing low but steady doses of electromagnetic radiation into the embassy’s offices and they were able to take out our US diplomats lives legally! What’s the difference between that and WiFi hot spots I wonder? It’s all ‘safe’ right? Let’s do a reality test. If the FCC doesn’t want to take the time to safety test this stuff, why not after they know what happened at the US Embassy? Maybe you should ask them that question and see what they say.

WiFiAllergy says:

take the wi-fi challenge

I challenge any of you who doubt the existence of electromagnetic sensitivity to try the following:

Strap a wi-fi device to your head – 150 milliwatts ought to do the trick. Set it up to do constant uploads and downloads, and keep it strapped to your head for 30 days.

Don’t protest to me that signal strength declines in an inverse square. You are telling us it is safe technology – so it must be as safe from an inch away as it is from two feet away. Afterall, if the energy of the 2.5GHz particles can’t harm you, then they can’t harm you – right?

If you manage to keep it going for 30 days, congratulations – you are right and I am crazy. If, on the other hand you refuse to take the challenge, or can’t handle it for the full 30 days, then i am right and you are full of crap.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...