Parents Sue School, Claim Wi-Fi Made Son Sick

from the shaky-science dept

For years now we've noted how some people are absolutely positive that Wi-Fi is making them sick, despite a lack of any substantive evidence on that front. Still, schools have repeatedly found themselves on the receiving end of lawsuits for simply installing and using Wi-Fi, and in some cases have been forced to remove the technology for the supposed benefit of the "electromagnetically sensitive." The majority of double-blind studies conducted indicate that, contrary to claims of the afflicted, these individuals cannot accurately state when they're in the presence of stronger electromagnetic fields.

Regardless, a lack of science hasn't stopped parents in Massachusetts from suing their local private school, claiming the school installed new Wi-Fi gear in 2013 that triggered "headaches, nosebleeds, nausea, and other symptoms" in their thirteen-year-old child. The suit hopes to have "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome" classified under the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the lawsuit (pdf), the child's mother, after "much research and study," concluded that it was the Wi-Fi making the child sick, something family doctors were willing to substantiate.

Justifiably, the school brought in EMF analysis experts to document the specific EMF hazard being posed (spoiler, there wasn't any):
"Isotrope found that the combined levels of access point emissions, broadcast radio and television signals, and other RFE emissions on campus ‘were substantially less than one ten-thousandth (1/10,000th) of the applicable (FCC) safety limits."
The family was also annoyed when the school district wanted to use their own doctors, who in about ten minutes (at least according to the parents) came to the conclusion that whatever is ailing the kid, it wasn't Wi-Fi radiation:
"The family was also unhappy after officials at Fay asked them to have G see another physician, who after speaking to G for 10 minutes and not conducting any tests “pronounced that in his view there was not enough study yet done to link Wi-Fi emissions to symptoms such as those G is experiencing at Fay School,” they say in the complaint. "This doctor stated in essence that he does not believe in EHS,” the lawsuit says. “Yet he made no alternate diagnosis."
All told, the parents demanded the school run Ethernet to classrooms their child attends, lower the overall power of Wi-Fi transmissions in the school, and provide $250,000 in settlement funds. A new, updated report suggests that a preliminary settlement with the school may have already been reached. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like these disputes could be settled very easily (and without hindering the school's coffers or other student's capacity for learning) by having the electromagnetically-sensitive participate in a blinded study requiring they clearly illustrate their ability to detect electromagnetic fields.

While there are countless diseases that constantly illustrate we certainly don't know as much as we think we do (Lyme Disease, for example), if EMF exposure really is having that dramatic of an impact on certain individuals, this is surely reproducible and provable, right? Right?

Filed Under: electromagnetic sensitivity, lawsuit, sickness, wifi, wifi sensitivity


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 7:47am

    if EMF exposure really is having that dramatic of an impact on certain individuals, this is surely reproducible and provable, right? Right?

    The absence of conclusive trials is enough indication that at least such effects cannot be easily proven by your regular family doctor. So, yes, the 3rd party doctors are right in their conclusion that a link cannot be established. However I'd promote blind tests to the kids in question and, evidence generated of the utter bullshit it actually is, sue the parents to recoup the costs. If there is any link in that particular kid that EMF are affecting their health then further research must be conducted and measures should be taken to alleviate the issue while not preventing the others from using the infra-structure.

    But honestly I'm very inclined to think it's bullshit and the kid suffers from some other maladie that the parents are erroneously (out of ignorance maybe) attributing to the waves.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:42am

      Re:

      Ninja, and who would run these trials? They are not cheap. Do the companies that sell this technology go out and run trials on their own, because the FDA or the FCC don't require them.

      Think companies are out there paying for these trials?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 10:06am

        Re: Re:

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19681059

        "46 blind or double-blind provocation studies in all, involving 1175 IEI-EMF volunteers, have tested whether exposure to electromagnetic fields is responsible for triggering symptoms in IEI-EMF. No robust evidence could be found to support this theory. However, the studies included in the review did support the role of the nocebo effect in triggering acute symptoms in IEI-EMF sufferers. Despite the conviction of IEI-EMF sufferers that their symptoms are triggered by exposure to electromagnetic fields, repeated experiments have been unable to replicate this phenomenon under controlled conditions".

        46 studies involving 1175 volunteers. Still not good enough?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        tqk (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 10:41am

        Re: Re:

        Ninja, and who would run these trials? They are not cheap.

        They ought to be cheap. Sit the kid in a chair, sit a technician in a chair behind him, and have that whole room surrounded by a Faraday cage. A WiFi transmitter in the room will transmit then not transmit randomly, and the technician will mark down responses to questions put to the kid, "WiFi on or off?"

        That shouldn't take longer than a minute, though let it go on for an hour anyway since you're paying the technician.

        In fact, for even more positive proof, don't even put a WiFi transmitter in the room. If the kid ever says it's on, well ...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          jackn, 1 Sep 2015 @ 1:18pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          i guess it is the same as xrays. Sure, a big enough dose is bad, but at least we can sense when we are being exposed to xrays.

          in others, nope, try again.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          MrTroy (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 6:47pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          And what if the effects have a lag? Maybe it takes days to build up to the point that symptoms are felt, and days without exposure to return to normal. I suffer from hayfever, but I couldn't tell you as levels of dust in the air go up with better than about half an hour lag, or within hours of levels going down again.

          Not that I'm saying that IEI-EMF definitely exists, but "no conclusive evidence" doesn't mean it definitely doesn't exist, and it's pretty easy to design a trial that won't tell you what you think it does.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 11:50am

        Re: Re:

        That’s easy about who should pay for the trials, the party that is wrong about the effects of EMF. It the parents are so sure they are correct they shouldn’t have any problem with that arrangement.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JoeCool (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 10:19am

      Re:

      Seems clear to me what the kid suffers from - it's MSBP: Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy. Far more likely than MHS.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Almost Anonymous (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 2:07pm

        Re: Re:

        This was my thought as well. Nasty stuff.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Zonker, 1 Sep 2015 @ 3:51pm

        Re: Re:

        Either that or DWTGTS (Don't Want To Go To School) Syndrome. I had that several times the year I got transferred to a new middle school I didn't like and I knew exactly what "symptoms" to come up with that would fool my parents into letting me stay home "sick" (sorry Mom and Dad).

        Thankfully I didn't have hypochondriac and litigious parents like the ones in this article trying to find someone or something else to blame. "You need to chop down all trees on school property so they don't trigger my sensitive kid's allergies and pay us $100,000" or the like.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 3:57pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Thankfully I didn't have hypochondriac and litigious parents"

          I'm sorry for your loss.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          MrTroy (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 6:52pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          It's reasonably easy to fake headaches and nausea, but a nose-bleed has to be real.

          Then again, if a nose-bleed was enough to get out of school, I'd have never gotten an education! Since primary school, I've suffered from regular nose-bleeds; particularly in summer where I'd bleed typically at least once per day. Electronic cauterisation stopped them for a few months, but mostly I just learned to live with them - no harm except for a mess if I don't catch it in time.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2015 @ 1:34am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Last time i responded to a first aid call for a blood nose, it was a combination of stress (high blood pressure) warmth, and blowing the nose too hard. But then again i guess if you can get mummy or daddy to come to school, wait till no one is looking, then smash you in the face so you can get a photo of a nosebleed at school then yell out "SEE WIFI CAUSES BLOOD NOSES' This is apparently a valid process.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 10:59am

      Re:

      The other malady is the parents wanting $250,000 and telling their child to fake illness.

      End result should be the parents sued into bankruptcy and their children put into social care, as these lying scum obviously can't be trusted with a childs welfare.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Rabbit80 (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 7:56am

    I would suggest the school..

    .. insists on the kid wearing one of these ...

    http://euclidgarment.com/KVGARD/KVGard.html

    That should fix any WiFi sickness :)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Machin Shin (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 8:22am

    Ok, so is it just me that finds multiple serious issues with their whole logic? If wifi radiation is really causing this issue then what about all modern cell phones? You know, the wifi enabled devices that constantly send out probe requests to look for 'preferred' networks? You really going to tell me that you don't have any students with wifi turned on?

    I also don't get the obsession with looking at wifi access points. They should never be broadcasting with more power than your average device simply because it is pointless to do so. Wifi is a two way thing, having a base point blasting out a signal so you can pick it up from half mile away does you no good unless your device can send a signal strong enough to get back. Knowing that, what should worry you more, the access point your rarely getting very close too, or the laptop that is sitting over your family jewels?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 8:46am

      Re:

      ...what about all modern cell phones?...

      The cel phone's frequency and power output is different than WiFi, but the principle is the same. Folks have been claiming for years that these signals are causing ill health effects, but AFAIK nothing has been proven to support such claims.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Richard (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 8:58am

        Re: Re:


        The cel phone's frequency and power output is different than WiFi, but the principle is the same.


        Actually the overlap in frequency.

        US 3G and 4G runs from 0.8GHz to 2.5GHz.

        Wifi is mostly 2.4 GHz.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 1:57pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I am wondering, why do the companies putting out 2.4ghz transmitters warn about getting too close to the antenna. Don't they know its perfectly safe?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2015 @ 3:18am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I have never seen any such warnings.

            Are you able to send a link to one?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              jackn, 2 Sep 2015 @ 8:56am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I usually work with more power 2.4 ghz systems and 5 CM distance is usually recommended. See this warning from cisco (its a pretty common warning).


              Warning In order to comply with RF exposure limits established in the ANSI C95.1 standards, it is recommended when using a laptop with a PC card client adapter that the adapter's integrated antenna is positioned more than 2 inches (5 cm) from your body or nearby persons during extended periods of transmitting or operating time. If the antenna is positioned less than 2 inches (5 cm) from the user, it is recommended that the user limit exposure time.
              From

              http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/antenna/installation/guide/ant2465.html

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Machin Shin (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:14am

        Re: Re:

        You seem to have missed my point. I was saying how all smart phones have built in WiFi. So their frequency and power output is exactly the same as WiFi, because well, it is WiFi.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        crade (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 10:22am

        Re: Re:

        Not that I think cell phones cause any problems, but the only thing having no evidence tells us is what we already know which is that long term effects even when they eventually show up are notoriously difficult to trace back to their source.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 1:15pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          the only thing having no evidence tells us is what we already know which is that long term effects even when they eventually show up are notoriously difficult to trace back to their source.

          True, but these people are claiming short-term effects. It's not as though the kid has been at the school for 20 years and has started to have headaches.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2015 @ 10:42am

        Re: Re:

        Wifi is just Radio Frequency. The SAME THING as FM and AM and TV, just using a different band. It's also at a much LOWER power level which is why the range is so short. Maybe around 100 feet depending on walls and whatnot where the others go on for miles and miles.

        If Wifi is the issue, you better move to a location with no AM, FM, TV, CELL, CB, and anything else.

        A BLIND TEST would be simple to do. The ones I've heard about, it's FAILED. Zero proof Wifi had any effect. Again why would it? The power is lower then most anything else. Hell you have SiriusXM blasting down to earth for Satellite Radio, same with DirectTV. No to mention you are bombarded from Space it's self.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 8:50am

      Re:

      A Wi-Fi access will have a maximum output power of a tenth of a watt. The typical leakage from a microwave oven is 1 watt. A GSM mobile phone can transmit two watts.

      As you double the distance to a transmitter, the field strength drops fourfold. And so if being two metres from a Wi-Fi access point for six hours a day is supposed to be harmful, using a mobile phone pressed against your skull for a second a day is 10 times worse.

      Even if being "electromagnetically sensitive" were a real thing, anything coming from the Wi-Fi access point would be insignificant compared to the students' and teachers' cell phones surrounding the kid in class.

      And when driving past a local radio station pumping out tens of thousands of watts, or near a cell tower or airport radar or weather radar, the kid would explode.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        PRMan, 1 Sep 2015 @ 10:40am

        Re: Re:

        Radio waves don't cook your food (and therefore your body). Microwaves do.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          tqk (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 10:52am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Radio waves don't cook your food (and therefore your body). Microwaves do.

          I think if you look into it that both "radio" waves and "micro" waves are otherwise known as "electromagnetic radiation." Their only differences are where they fall within the EM spectrum, their amplitude (their strength, power or energy), and their duration.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 11:00am

          Re: Re: Re:

          FYI:

          microwaves are a subset of radio waves

          Fun fact

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Uriel-238 (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 11:45am

            Can anyone here science?

            An LED that spouts microwaves, even if tuned to the wavelength that heats water (as is the case in your microwave oven) isn't going to cook your brain, at least not enough to pop a cell.

            You need a whole lot of microwave radiation, more so than, say, the light in an EZ-Bake oven to get your TV Dinner defrosted and heated. Same when trying to cook someone's brain.

            I'm pretty sure a router doesn't send cooking levels of radiation, rather enough that radiation-sensitive adapters can detect when they're on or not on (at super-high speeds).

            So the kid isn't going to get baked unless he specifically has some kind of cell structure that is sensitive to that sort of thing, and then only in those cells.

            Maybe it can give him headaches or epileptic seizures the way flashing strobes can? Maybe? I'm reaching here.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2015 @ 1:31am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Fun fact -
            Youre wrong. Its all called Electromagnetic Radiation. The 'Micro' refers SOLELY to the wavelength. It is in no way a 'Subset' - They are exactly the same thing in different frequency ranges.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Richard (profile), 2 Sep 2015 @ 1:57am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Youre wrong. Its all called Electromagnetic Radiation. The 'Micro' refers SOLELY to the wavelength. It is in no way a 'Subset' - They are exactly the same thing in different frequency ranges.

              The microwave band is a subset of the electromagnetic spectrum.


              The set of electromagnetic waves runs from 0 frequency to infinity.

              According to Wikipedia "Microwaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths ranging from as long as one meter to as short as one millimeter; with frequencies between 300 MHz (100 cm) and 300 GHz (0.1 cm). "


              The word subset can perfectly well be applied here - I don't know what you are complaining about.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 2:20pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Thanks PRMan, I feel better. I remember cooking chickens in the army with our transmitters, they must have been feeding us LSD.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2015 @ 3:22am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The radios in the army were probably over a kW so yes you probably could cook a chicken with it.

            Domestic WiFi has to be low power and is usually in the mW range.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              jackn, 2 Sep 2015 @ 9:21am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              oh, sorry, I guess PRMan was right on with his statement:

              Radio waves don't cook your food (and therefore your body). Microwaves do.

              Go techdirt!

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 11:01am

        Re: Re:

        ^^ Doctor: this. On Youtube. Stat.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Richard (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 8:50am

      Re:

      Knowing that, what should worry you more, the access point your rarely getting very close too, or the laptop that is sitting over your family jewels?

      Especially when you remember the inverse square law:

      Device on you lap or against your ear 200cm away.

      Difference between the two ?

      A factor of >10,000

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Richard (profile), 2 Sep 2015 @ 1:53am

        Re: Re:

        Whoops - a whole lot got missed out of the middle here.

        Should read

        Device on you lap or against your ear 2 cm away

        Wifi Access point 200cm away.

        Difference between the two ?

        A factor of >10,000

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Christenson, 1 Sep 2015 @ 10:44am

      Re:

      Oh, the heat on my family jewels from the laptop!!! The horror! lol

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2015 @ 1:27am

      Re:

      Because the parents like their mobile phones and want to use them, therefore cant pretend that they are getting sick from them and get a payout.
      Parents insisting children are extremely sick because (insert random illness) often quite simply will not be told that they are idiots and stop wasting doctors time, and will shop around until they get a dodgy ass doctor who will enable them by giving them what they want. Then what happens is that idiot doctor couple with the idiot parents end up with completely innocent third parties scared stiff that theyre going to have to pay out millions of dollars, all over a dumb shit report from a lazy ass doctor who refuses to say 'NO'
      The simple fact is, its time for a complete moritorium on public liability lawsuits everywhere, because the VAST MAJORITY of payouts for liability, can be observed to be dumb bastards doing dumb bastard things and hurting themselves, then refusing to take responsibility for their own dumb asses. Stop _all_ liability suits until rules come into place that force the litigant to prove beyond doubt (not likely liability, not fraction of liability apportioned) BUT BEYOND ALL DOUBT that this injury is solely the fault of the person/company being sued.

      Its raining outside? You slipped over? Theres no wet floor sign? WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK HAPPENS INSIDE A DOOR WHEN ITS WET OUTSIDE, TRY WATCHING WHERE YOURE GOING ASSHOLE.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    seedeevee (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 8:46am

    Prove you are healthy

    "by having the electromagnetically-sensitive participate in a blinded study requiring they clearly illustrate their ability to detect electromagnetic fields" -- If that money winning kid was mine he would tell you that his immune system has been so compromised by the evil magnetism that it would be impossible to do a scientific study.

    By the way, would you ask any other person claiming to have a serious health issue to "prove it and, by the way, don't bleed on my couch"?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Richard (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 8:53am

      Re: Prove you are healthy

      By the way, would you ask any other person claiming to have a serious health issue to "prove it and, by the way, don't bleed on my couch"?

      No - but then I would be assuming that they weren't talking total B****cks.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 8:58am

      Re: Prove you are healthy

      Your point would have been valid up until a century ago.

      Now we've had over a century of ALL OF CIVILIZATION living in close proximity to radio waves with no evidence of any "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome." Further, as such a thing has been theorized, that theory has been tested a few times without positive results.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        exceptions, 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:30am

        Some thoughts

        " no evidence of any "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome.""

        Except for all the people who have experience it.

        So it isn't wifi. What's making the kid sick?

        People not experiencing something seem quick to jump on those who are and call them liars. What if some people are sensitive?

        Safe FCC levels determined are for adults. There are no kid-tested levels that I know of.

        Maybe cell phones + wifi + smart meters + everything else is adding up to something that is causing some people some harm. It doesn't seem impossible.

        More tests please.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          ishould (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:57am

          Re: Some thoughts

          I think the point they are making is WiFi emits an insignificant amount of EM radiation compared to things he is (probably) using everyday, like a cell phone pressed against his head. This kid wouldn't be able to function long before the school installed Wifi

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 10:04am

          Re: Some thoughts

          So it isn't wifi. What's making the kid sick?

          Diet, or raised in too sterile an environment and suffering from exposure to bugs or allegens are both more likely causes.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            JoeCool (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 10:23am

            Re: Re: Some thoughts

            Or maybe MSBP... just throwing it out there. Gotta be thorough on finding the cause, right? Can't rule out anything before going to an imaginary cause.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          PRMan, 1 Sep 2015 @ 10:43am

          Re: Some thoughts

          I know a family that has nearly every electronic Christmas toy there is. Even just being in their house for a party made my skin crawl feeling all the electromagnetic radiation.

          Their daughter has had cancer twice and the son got it after that.

          I really don't think it's unrelated, but these people have an admitted power bill of over $2000 in December.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            tqk (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 11:14am

            Re: Re: Some thoughts

            Their daughter has had cancer twice and the son got it after that.

            That's a very sad story (and not just because I avoid Christmas). However I'm looking at a DVD called from Mark Wexler, "How To Live Forever", which includes an interview with "a 101 year old chain-smoking marathon runner."

            People have differing susceptibility to certain medical conditions and phenomena. It's not like we actually understand what's going on here. Biology is an horrifically complicated science (which is why I've always tried to avoid it and leave it to others).

            Blaming their problems on an apparent excessive use of electricity seems way too easy.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 11:16am

            Re: Re: Some thoughts

            I'll take "Things that never happened for $200" Alex

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            sorrykb (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 11:28am

            Re: Re: Some thoughts

            So... two closely-related people with cancer.
            Could it be their annoying electronic toys? Or... maybe... just maybe... genetics might have something to do with it?

            Everyone in my immediate family has had cancer except me (so far). We all played with our sheepdog when I was a kid. Therefore, sheepdogs cause cancer. (I just happen to have sheepdog-immunity.) Yes, that makes perfect sense.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 4:03pm

              Re: Re: Re: Some thoughts

              You wonder if you ever get through to them.

              Ignorance and severe deficiencies in logical reasoning skills are the world's biggest ills, in my opinion: for if you found a way to ameliorate both, many other critical problems would likely follow suit.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 1:19pm

          Re: Some thoughts

          Except for all the people who have experience it.

          There have been double-blind studies involving those people who experience it, and so far they have utterly failed to detect electronic signals. So they're experiencing something, but it's not electromagnetic sensitivity.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2015 @ 1:30am

          Re: Some thoughts

          "Except for the people living it"

          Except theyre not living it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:03am

      Re: Prove you are healthy

      If the "serious health issue" is one yet unproven to exist, yes.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:08am

      Re: Prove you are healthy

      > By the way, would you ask any other person claiming to have a serious health issue to "prove it and, by the way, don't bleed on my couch"?

      "Don't bleed on my couch" is a bit excessive, but if they want me to do something about their "serious health issue", yes. If they claim their health issue is a malady not generally accepted by medical practitioners, double yes.

      You have a problem with lead paint and want me to strip the walls and repaint? Perhaps you'd better make sure first that the walls you want me to strip have lead paint.

      You walk into my office and demand accessibility for your extra-wide wheelchair? Perhaps your point would have been better made if you showed that you HAD such a wheelchair. Or that there was a reason for it to be extra-wide. And why that three-inch exhaust for the motor, anyway?

      You flop on my couch and tell me you can only breathe in a boron-rich atmosphere? I... wait, what?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:41am

        Re: Re: Prove you are healthy

        You have a problem with lead paint and want me to strip the walls and repaint? Perhaps you'd better make sure first that the walls you want me to strip have lead paint.


        That's not quite the same analogy, since the question isn't whether the school has WiFi, but whether it's the WiFi that's making him sick. You might test the walls for lead paint before tearing them down, but you wouldn't ask a student to consume the lead paint to make sure it was really the lead paint that was making him sick. You wouldn't ask the student to breathe deeply in the asbestos-lined hallway to see if that was causing their lung problems. You wouldn't ask a student with a peanut allergy to stand next to someone eating peanut butter to see if they're really allergic.

        The difference being that those are recognized conditions. At some point, you have to ask: how do the parents know it's the WiFi and not something else?

        You walk into my office and demand accessibility for your extra-wide wheelchair?


        Wait... I WALK in, and demand accessibility for my wheelchair? Something does seem off about that...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Christenson, 1 Sep 2015 @ 10:48am

          Something Off: Paul Hansmeier and Accessibility Law Group!

          #prenda would do that!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          tqk (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 12:08pm

          Re: Re: Re: Prove you are healthy

          Wait... I WALK in, and demand accessibility for my wheelchair? Something does seem off about that...

          Not necessarily. Lots of people have *reduced* mobility without actually being crippled.

          However, somebody wanting to drive their internal combustion engine powered wheelchair into my office is going to meet resistance.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2015 @ 1:40am

        Re: Re: Prove you are healthy

        'Im bleeding thanks to EM Radiation'
        'So its nothing to do with the knife sticking out of your chest?'
        'Nope, EM radiation'
        'Stop bleeding on my couch and gtfo of my waiting room, i cant heal your brain damage, but i can do something about the knife in your chest youre pretending doesnt exist... but as it doesnt, i cant help you. Bye bye'

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Machin Shin (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:25am

      Re: Prove you are healthy

      When that person is demanding major changes to existing infrastructure plus asking for $250,000.... Um.... Hell yes I would want them to prove it.

      On second thought though, sense your cool with that....

      I have this terrible pain being caused by your having posted here. It is greatly effecting my ability to function. I am pretty sure though that the pain will clear up with a discounted rate of only $100,000. If you would please send that to me via Western Union.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:35am

        Re: Re: Prove you are healthy

        I am Machin Shin's official real doctor and as a real doctor my official real diagnosis which I didn't just make up is that he is indeed afflicted with this very real and not made up ailment.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      tabulator, 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:31am

      Re: Prove you are not healthy

      "By the way, would you ask any other person claiming to have a serious health issue to "prove it and, by the way, don't bleed on my couch"?"

      If they want money out of the deal, yes, prove it. C'mon man.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:54am

      Re: Prove you are healthy

      If you are claiming that 'serious health issue' entitles you to dictate how the school board is allowed to prepare its educational environment >and

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 11:02am

      Re: Prove you are healthy

      Yes, if the person for example was claiming to be sensitive to the presence of cheese within 500 foot, i'd ask them to prove it.
      Or if they claimed 'ghosts' made them eligible for welfare....etc

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 1:29pm

        Re: Re: Prove you are healthy

        Sensitive to cheese at 500 feet? That's not an ailment, that's a superpower.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 1:57pm

          Re: Re: Re: Prove you are healthy

          Sensitive to cheese at 500 feet? That's not an ailment, that's a superpower.


          Everyone knows Superman's best power is not the ability to fly or deflect bullets, but his ability to get sick in the presence of Kryptonite.

          Which reminds me. The Green Lantern was weak to yellow... which is a specific frequency on the EM spectrum right before green.... Hmm. Maybe the kid is secretly a superhero and they just have to adjust the frequency on those things from 5 GHz to 6 GHz, and instead of getting sick he'll be able to fly?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          David, 1 Sep 2015 @ 3:25pm

          Re: Re: Re: Prove you are healthy

          Only with that sad thing Americans call cheese. A good French soft cheese at best use age will immediately alert the entire house when fridge or pantry doors are opened.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2015 @ 3:33am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Prove you are healthy

            Stinking Bishop is your friend, I could probably detect that from at least 500 feet.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      sorrykb (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 11:22am

      Re: Prove you are healthy

      By the way, would you ask any other person claiming to have a serious health issue to "prove it and, by the way, don't bleed on my couch"?

      Oh hell yes.
      If they really have all these symptoms, then someone needs to figure out what really is going on, rather than accepting their ridiculous claims of a malady that is entirely unsupported by evidence.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 4:00pm

      Re: Prove you are healthy

      Yeah. I would ask that person.

      I would ask a person with a fictional disorder which is far, far, far from lethal by their own account, to fucking prove it.

      Are you joking, or what?

      Of course I would ask.

      You know what would be extra, extra funny? To ask those dumbass parents if they have a microwave at home.

      I'll let you figure out why exactly.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      art guerrilla (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 4:53pm

      Re: Prove you are healthy

      thank you seedeevee, i am afraid the point went right past most, which is what i signed on to say...

      asking someone -much less a kid- to 'prove' they are harmed by some sort of EM by 'feeling' it is absurd...

      what next, we ask the victims of hiroshima/nagasaki to 'prove' they had radiation sickness by telling us how it 'felt' as the radiation coursed through them ? do some double-blind tests to see if they could 'prove' when they were or were not exposed to alpha waves ?
      wtf ?

      how about victims of carbon monoxide poisoning, what a bunch of fakers; didn't they *KNOW* they were being suffocated ?
      *snort*

      however, i can also simultaneously hold in my mind the concept of too many crunchy tofu eaters who get their knickers in a twist about *ANYTHING* technological...

      on the other paw, i still have an open mind of the unknown and long-term effects of various EM that we simply do NOT know with any degree of safe certainty; ESPECIALLY if we are dependent upon INDUSTRY-sponsored 'research' on these subjects...

      but this bullshit: if you didn't 'feel' it, it didn't happen crap, is one steaming pile...
      *sheesh*

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        nasch (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 5:53pm

        Re: Re: Prove you are healthy


        asking someone -much less a kid- to 'prove' they are harmed by some sort of EM by 'feeling' it is absurd...


        Since the parents are asking for $200,000 because X that the school did caused Y in their son, is it not reasonable for them to prove that X actually caused Y?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Jason Baldus (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 8:38pm

      Re: Prove you are healthy

      By the way, would you ask any other person claiming to have a serious health issue to "prove it and, by the way, don't bleed on my couch"?

      If you were suing me for stabbing you, then I would want you to prove that you are bleeding because I stabbed you. But I'll be generous and take it on good faith that you are actually bleeding.

      But seriously, don't get that on the couch--it's new.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2015 @ 1:45am

        Re: Re: Prove you are healthy

        Theres one important point missing from that analogy....

        If you want someone charged with stabbing you....... you have to prove they stabbed you.
        Why the hell shouldnt they be asked to prove something they want a payout for?
        I wouldnt be paying them a red cent. Ill keep you in court until youre ordered to pay me.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      TRN, 2 Sep 2015 @ 7:38am

      Re: Prove you are healthy

      If it's a non physical thing, or one which can be faked, very much yes. I'd treat immediately if it seemed dangerous. But then it would be prove it's there before applying drugs or other remedies, as treating the wrong thing can do far more harm than good.

      Seizures are faked often, and often observed to see if they are faked. Pain is faked for drugs. Asthma is faked to get out of work. Knowing what is causing them to be ill is important, so you can try to address the root cause and not give people unnecessary drugs or treatment which may harm them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    383bigblock (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 8:50am

    "The Rest of the Story"

    Anyone on the net familiar with Paul Harvey and his afternoon recap of the day's news will undoubtedly recognize the phrase "An now for the rest of the story"

    "provide $250,000 in settlement funds"

    I think this says it all !!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 8:56am

    So the parents want to trade their kid's WiFi sickness for Getting-Beat-Up-by-Everyone-At-School sickness for ruining everyone else's good thing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 8:57am

    The Plecebo effect works both ways.

    Applied to beliefs that something causes a malady it's called a Nocebo. All the kid needs to do is believe that he's being inundated with harmful radio waves.

    Which he is, all the time. It's hard to escape them even in out in the wild.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:09am

      Re: The Plecebo effect works both ways.

      He's going to have to travel an awful long way from Earth to escape the radio waves.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 11:04am

        Re: Re: The Plecebo effect works both ways.

        If we blast the kid towards the nearest black hole he'll be fine as all the nasty harmful 'rays' will be sucked into the hole and away from his delicate noggin.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          ltlw0lf (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 1:22pm

          Re: Re: Re: The Plecebo effect works both ways.

          If we blast the kid towards the nearest black hole he'll be fine as all the nasty harmful 'rays' will be sucked into the hole and away from his delicate noggin.

          We really don't know what happens at the center of a black hole. However, he would be subjected to far more powerful and deadly fields heading into the black hole that the magnetic sensitivity wouldn't be his biggest issue.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        David, 1 Sep 2015 @ 1:34pm

        Re: Re: The Plecebo effect works both ways.

        Well, Voyager is quite a way off, and still picking up radio waves.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 8:59am

    Vaccinations are good for the overall population, but all drugs have adverse reactions in a subset of the population. Works wonders for the majority but harms (or kills others.)

    RoundUp is banned in other countries as being harmful, yet the "science" in the US says it is perfectly fine to use.

    We don't know what we don't know, so if you like the technology, you very easily dismiss things like this as poppycock or bad science.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      AnonCow, 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:05am

      Re:

      "yet the "lobbyists" in the US says it is perfectly fine to use."

      Fixed that for ya!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Bengie, 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:14am

      Re:

      All tests against people who claim to be hyper-sensitive to EM have concluded that the sensitive person is just guessing.

      Even worse is cases where placing an antenna near people like this has had them come forth and claim that after the antenna showed up, they have been filling ill and to remove the antenna, but they didn't know the antenna was not even powered up yet.

      It's a mental issue.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:22am

      Re:

      Vaccinations are known and predicted to harm a subset of the population. The point is that your chances of being harmed if you take the vaccine are FAR lower than if you don't. The how and why of this is well known, and that it happens is well documented.

      RoundUp is a POISON. It's marketed as such. While its approved in over a hundred countries, it's no surprise that an effective poison and other agrochemicals are banned in others. It's NOT because glyphosate and it's effects are unknown.

      What you have here isn't merely an all-accusation-no-evidence-give-me-$250,000 claim. (Even setting aside tests that have been done for electromagnetic sensitivity that failed to produce a positive result.) It's a claim that doesn't make sense. It's safe to assume that the kid is surrounded by teachers' and student' cell phones each putting out 20x (yes, 20x) the power output of the Wi-Fi access point. Plus all the other radio stations, airport and weather radar and whatnot all pumping out radio waves.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:37am

        Re: Re:

        I agree Roger, but what do you do for the people that are actually harmed? Do you compensate them? Yeah, the population is healthier, but my kid is dead. What do you say to that parent?

        As for RoundUp being a poison, true, but it is a poison that is applied to our food. Has it been studied to see if we ingest this poison when we eat that food and then what that does to us?

        As for studies being done on WiFi, who are they done by?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Jason Baldus (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 8:53pm

      Re:

      if you like the technology, you very easily dismiss things like this as poppycock or bad science.
      No, if you know science, you dismiss claims that have a great deal of evidence against them. Which this does.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:03am

    Just a minor nit - the post refers to a "school district". The Fay School is not a public school, but a private (and fairly expensive) boarding/day school.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    AnonCow, 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:03am

    And what about that huge radiation ball in our sky (no, not the NSA satellites, the OTHER one)?

    Should we shut that down too?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    AnonCow, 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:07am

    "provide $250,000 in settlement funds"

    Did they wrap the stacks of bills around his head to insulate him from the radiation?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:07am

    after "much research and study," concluded

    which i assume just means they cherry picked the few articles that supports their view while ignoring the majority.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:09am

    Well...

    Personally I find merit to running stuff like schools and their ilk via ethernet. Requiring physical access makes stuff more secure from snooping and unauthorized access. You can't decrypt packets you don't get to see.

    Of course, the installation costs may prohibitive and there is is the slight complication that today's computers and laptops, let alone lighter devices, don't necessarily have ethernet ports to show.

    But for fixed installed lab computers, a proper ether has something going for it, alone in terms of net congestion.

    Regarding the health benefits: if anybody in the next two adjacent rooms is carrying a smartphone keeping a smartphone typical level of packets going to the next cell tower (and I'll assume that there is none on the school premises because of frightened parents to start with), the Wifi is peanuts.

    Before you rooted out every cell phone on the premises, talking about Wifi does not even make sense. In fact, having Wifi access points also usable by smartphones right on the premises will reduce the levels of radiation as long as smartphones are around.

    So exactly when you worry about electrosensitivity, short of a complete ban of mobile devices, your best bet to reduce radiation would be open Wifi access points. The next best measure would be a small-power good-sensitivity cell tower right on top of the school. Because that will cause the cell phone transmitters of all the pupils to go light on power.

    That being said: I still like computer labs to be hooked up by ethernet. Wifi makes more sense for computers that are constantly being moved around. And even then, plugging in once per lesson would be tolerable.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 10:29am

      Re: Well...

      i would actually say its less secure, wpa isolates each connections from each other (a new key is negotiated with every cannection), so you cant snoop, you would need to capture the handshake, and bruteforce it, but with ethernet, all you would need is a wall jack and you have unhindered snooping on everyone.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    AnonCow, 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:10am

    Isn't there a vaccine for that?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:10am

    A joint study by researchers in Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom found that people who had used cell phones for more than 10 years had a significantly increased risk of developing glioma, a usually malignant brain tumor, on the side of the head they had favored for cell phone conversations (International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2008; Lahkola 2007).

    French and German scientists reported an increased risk of glioma for long-term cell phone users (Hours 2007; Schuz, Bohler, Berg 2006). Analysis of all published cell phone-brain tumor studies found that people who had used a cell phone for 10 or more years, the overall risk for developing a glioma on the cell phone side of the head increased by 90 percent (Hardell 2009; Kundi 2009).

    Cell phone use for 10 years and longer has been also associated with significantly increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a type of benign brain tumor, on the primary side of cell phone use (IARC 2008; Schoemaker 2005). An extensive review of published studies of acoustic neuroma found that long-term cell phone users had a 60 percent greater risk of being diagnosed with the disease (Hardell 2009; Kundi 2009).

    A study from Israel reported an association between frequent and prolonged mobile phone use and parotid (salivary) gland tumors (Sadetzki 2008). Scientists analyzing data from Sweden and Denmark combined found that people who had used cell phones for at least 10 years ran an increased risk of benign parotid gland tumors (IARC 2008; Lonn 2006).

    Multiple studies reported that the brains of young children absorb more radiation than those of adults (de Salles 2006; Gandhi 1996; Kang 2002; Martinez-Burdalo 2004; Wang 2003; Wiart 2008), potentially rendering them more vulnerable to brain tumors (NRC 2008b). Researchers in Sweden found the highest risk of brain tumors among people who started using cell phones during adolescence (Hardell 2009).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:17am

      Re:

      None of these are about WiFi though. They're all about using cellphones. Not just having cellphones, but actually using them as phones and calling people.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        OldMugwump (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:42am

        Re: Re:

        And holding said cellphones directly next to your head.

        A WiFi router across the room is hardly comparable.

        (*Even* if those studies were substantiated; there's a lot of controversy about them.)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Machin Shin (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:50am

        Re: Re:

        Not only cell phones, but think about this, the study looks to be 2008 and was on people using cell phones for at least 10 years. Ok, so now think back and remember what did cell phones look like in 1998? Unless I am greatly mistaken, the radiation output by our cell phones has dropped drastically sense then.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 1:25pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Thanks for the update. I was worried, but now I know, "Its all perfectly safe."

          Wait a sec, is he saying that we thought something was safe and then we found out is had some low risk? Could we be in the same boat now or should I just jump on the techdirt bandwagon and start calling people stupid if they have different thoughts?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 1:45pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Everyone has different thoughts, but few are worth sharing.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Machin Shin (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 1:49pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            There are all kinds of examples throughout history of things people thought were safe and then later found out were actually bad. Mad hatters were the result of people using mercury as a water repellent on their hats, people used to use lead to make nipples for baby bottles. You could compile a pretty long list of examples such as those.

            Are all our wireless communications slowly killing all of us? I personally don't think so and have yet to see a study that makes me think there is a significant risk. Most people seem to have much more important factors in their lives. Things like eating too much McDonald's is killing far more people than cell phone radiation.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            MrTroy (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 7:12pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "... or should I just jump on the techdirt bandwagon and start calling people stupid if they have different thoughts?"

            You haven't been on the internet very long, have you? Sure there's a bit of that here, but considerably less than... well, just about everywhere else.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        nasch (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 1:49pm

        Re: Re:

        Not just having cellphones, but actually using them as phones and calling people.

        Which kids, I've heard, hardly ever do.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:29am

      Re:

      In electronics classes in the early 1980s, we were taught that holding a microwave transmitter to the side of your head was generally a bad idea.

      Still, a GSM mobile phone can transmit two watts. A Wi-Fi access will transmit only a tenth of a watt.

      As you double the distance to a transmitter, the field strength drops fourfold. And so if being two metres from a Wi-Fi access point for six hours a day is harmful, using a mobile phone pressed against your skull for just a second a day is 10 times worse.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Christenson, 1 Sep 2015 @ 11:33am

      Absolute odds of *any* of these tumor types?

      Anyone else think those odds are pretty small, so doubling almost zero is still almost zero? It also means random effects are pretty strong and difficult to control out.

      Also, there are lots of confounding factors in those studies...I joke about someone having a cellphone tumor in their ear when they are on it constantly. But that "tumor" means, besides a constantly smushed ear, lots of extra auditory brain activity on that side, and plenty of exposure to the plasticisers in the phone's body.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 1 Sep 2015 @ 8:12pm

      Re: on the side of the head they had favored for cell phone conversations

      Didn’t that same study show a reduced incidence on the opposite side of the head?

      So either a) the radiation was simply attracting the existing propensity to glioma to itself, or b) the whole study is suspect because of reporting bias.

      Which do you think is more likely?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        MrTroy (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 8:23pm

        Re: Re: on the side of the head they had favored for cell phone conversations

        Likely? Dunno. But you have to admit that (a) is much more interesting as a result!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:24am

    I live in Sebastopol CA, which is the town which turned down free wifi because of people believing they have EHS. In my experience they don't typically claim to be able to detect a field, just to have various symptoms "a day or two afterwards." This makes testing much more difficult. Of course, it also makes it easy for them to retroactively find evidence that any health problem is a result of being exposed some time in the last 48 hours.

    As James Randi points out it's essential to actually test the claim the person is making.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    tom (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:25am

    Have the parents banned all wireless gizmos from their own house? If not, why not? If so, does the kid's condition improve when he is at home?

    Have they ruled out mom's new perfume? Or that new laundry detergent? Or those new snacks? Or the school's new pest control contractor's bug spray? The kid is 13. Puberty changes a lot of sensitivities. Cafeteria fumes that didn't bother the kid last year could be a big issue this year. Is it possible that EMF bothers the kid? Sure. But it is more likely the real cause is far more common.

    If the parents are really worried about the kid, they should have already transferred the kid to a new school. Forcing the kid to continue to attend a place the parents believe to be dangerous should be child endangerment and charges brought against the parents.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      OldMugwump (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:44am

      Re: Banned wireless gizmos

      And wrapped the house in aluminum foil?

      People joke about "tinfoil hats", but they really work - just wrap your phone in foil and watch the bars.

      Faraday cage.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:53am

        The problem with a tinfoil hat...

        is that the hat's rim will actually serve as an antenna and amplify the effects of mind-control signals.

        So make sure you make it properly to protect your head from electromagnetic radiation.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          OldMugwump (profile), 2 Sep 2015 @ 8:08am

          Re: The problem with a tinfoil hat...

          Maybe.

          I once went to a Halloween party dressed as a paranoid schizophrenic. I even wrapped my cellphone with foil (the bars really do disappear, even if you leave a hole to see them).

          Turns out tinfoil hats are really *hot*. Uncomfortable indoors.

          Probably great for the winter, tho.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Vincent Clement (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:45am

      Re:

      Better yet, have the parents removed all items that generate electromagnetic fields like the fridge, freezer, TV, radios, etc?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jyjon, 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:48am

    Seriously?

    A few problems with this article.

    You use a quote from the FCC to back up your slant that the family is wrong. I've been reading your website for a bit, and you slam the FCC all the time for it's ridiculous rulings. So, I'm guessing when the FCC agrees with you they're gods and when they don't agree with you they're jerks. Confirmation bias is anti-science.

    You keep talking about double blind studies where folks couldn't tell they were being irradiated. what's that have to do with this? Just because you don't have any organ that can detect radiation doesn't mean it is or isn't affecting you.

    Electrical radiation can do nasty things to the body, an example is microwaves, they'll cook your insides. And just because a band of frequencies doesn't effect the majority of people doesn't mean there might not be people sensitive to that spectrum. A simple example is CFL's most people aren't effected by the radiation from those, but there are lots of people that get nasty headaches from them.

    These arguments you are using are sorta similar to the one from the past. I can't see the bacteria with my eyes, therefore they don't exist.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Vincent Clement (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 10:05am

      Re: Seriously?

      Except that Karl doesn't uses a quote from the FCC. He uses a quote from the school's statement that the EMF analysis experts the school brought in noted that "RFE emissions on campus ‘were substantially less than one ten-thousandth (1/10,000th) of the applicable (FCC) safety limits.

      So FCC sets a limit. Experts analyze school and find that RFE emissions are 1/10,000 of the FCC safety limit. That's hardly saying the FCC are gods.

      It's not the "radition" from CFLs that is causing headaches. It's the number of cycles and modern CFLs don't have that problem.

      But, yes, lets talk about anti-science confirmation bias.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      techflaws (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 10:12am

      Re: Seriously?

      So where in the now is you scientific proof for the harm of Wifi radiation?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 1:54pm

        Re: Re: Seriously?

        Dude, there is plenty of proof that radiation can damage you. Non-ionizing or otherwise. All exposure involves some risk, that is the fact. At low levels (such as wifi), the risk is almost zero.

        You'd be pretty hard pressed to find any scientist to agree with any blanket statement, and even scientists know, science is never right, it is just the most right.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 12:55pm

      Re: Seriously?

      Every study and every scientist involved will tell you that you are wrong.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 1:28pm

      BINGO

      Confirmation bias is anti-science.

      Welcome to Techdirt

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 2:47pm

      Re: Seriously?

      Just because you don't have any organ that can detect radiation doesn't mean it is or isn't affecting you.

      They are claiming they feel sick (in other words, they are conscious of a change) when exposed to EM radiation. Yet they cannot tell whether they are being exposed or not without an external cue. That tends to indicate they are feeling sick for some other reason.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        David, 1 Sep 2015 @ 3:37pm

        Re: Re: Seriously?

        With that kind of argument, there would be no such thing as radiation sickness, mercury poisoning or lead poisoning.

        Just because you cannot pinpoint the exact timing of something affecting you negatively, that does not mean that it's hocus.

        Once the tin foil hatters got you to lean out of the window opposite to them, you are equally likely to be mowed down by science shrapnel.

        Don't try to compete with them.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Roger Strong (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 4:52pm

          Re: Re: Re: Seriously?

          Just because you cannot pinpoint the exact timing of something affecting you negatively, that does not mean that it's hocus.

          ...But you should still be able to give an at least a marginally credible explanation for how you know it's the Wi-Fi. As opposed to diet, fumes from a nearby factory, fumes from whatever cleaning fluid, deodorants, florescent lighting, printer ink, toner dust or a hundred other things.

          Heck, even making the assumption of radio waves, the cell phones carried by the surrounding students and teachers are each transmitting with far more power. And there's plenty of other far more powerful microwave transmitters around, starting with just the competing cell phone tower networks.

          If you can pinpoint that it's the Wi-Fi, then the timing shouldn't be a problem.

          And BTW, expose a million people to radiation, mercury poisoning or lead poisoning, and you'll get a million people with varying degrees of the same recognizable symptoms. What we have here is different: A million people exposed to Wi-Fi signals. Only one becoming ill. Nothing to connect the illness to Wi-Fi in an environment filled with other more powerful microwave sources, let alone other causes.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 5:02pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?

            The lawsuit alleges that several other students had less severe symptoms.

            Which still gives no indication of whether it's the WiFi, even if true.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Roger Strong (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 6:37pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?

              I also wouldn't believe the lawsuit's "other students" claim without hearing how they came to that conclusion. Especially given the wide variety of symptoms. "And other symptoms."

              "Has anyone here had any symptoms of any illness since the start of the school year. Anything at all? A nosebleed? Has anyone felt tired at any point?"

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 5:47pm

          Re: Re: Re: Seriously?

          With that kind of argument, there would be no such thing as radiation sickness, mercury poisoning or lead poisoning.

          I don't get what you're saying. Did I make too strong a statement about the absence of evidence implying something? If the evidence for radiation poisoning were similar to the evidence for wifi poisoning, I wouldn't believe in that either. But the hazards of the sort of radiation produced by nuclear fission have been conclusively and repeatedly demonstrated. Similarly with heavy metal poisoning.

          Is it possible that in 50 years we'll find long-term exposure to wifi causes problems? Maybe. But that is not the issue here - these people are claiming short-term, almost immediate effects. The only thing I'm not sure of is if anyone has tested the possibility of exposure having an effect not immediately but only after say a few days. But the experiments I mentioned were designed to see if there could be an immediate deleterious health effect from wifi, and failed to find any from the subjects who claimed they were experiencing it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:56am

    How do we deal with bubble boys?

    There's a subset of the population that is allergic to everything, or so many things that they have to live in a hypoallergenic chamber and can't leave the house without a special hazmat suit.

    Our schools aren't usually required by law to be accessible to such kids.

    At what point is a child's special needs regarded as special, thus the school can't be sued for not providing for them?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 10:00am

    Has anyone considered the parents are the source of the problem?
    OMG they put in wifi, is that making you feel bad snowflake?
    Are you sure its not the reason your grades are down?
    Blah blah blah blah blah...

    Moody teenager is moody, parents look for the easy simple answer. Parent finds scientist who appears to be one of the few "scientists" pushing this forward. (Hes published several papers) Parent demands entire world stop to suit their demands, ignoring the scene they are making at the school where their outbursts spread like wildfire. Other students pile on the already stressed out kid, kid is more stressed, parents turn dial to 11.

    While it would be invasive, I think having to turn over medical records of all of the complaints the parents sent him in with before spinning the wheel and landing on wifi as the source would be enlightening.

    I feel bad for the kid, hes being pushed and pushed and pushed and that can't be helping him move past his issues. He's in an elite school, and his parents are doing everything they can to make his life a living hell there. He most likely has huge expectations thrust upon him constantly. They made him an outcast with his peers, but can't see past their WebMD diagnosis to maybe remember when they were 13 and the pressures that seem like the end of the world at that age.

    I wonder if someone took him away from his parents for a month, and placed him in a school where no one knew this insanity if some of his symptoms would clear.

    Sometimes mom & dad, you're the problem.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Christenson, 1 Sep 2015 @ 11:21am

      An Alternative

      There's a hundred other ways to get headaches, from dehydration to heat problems to overexposure to loud noises to eyestrain. Not to mention allergies to all kinds of pollens, which may be unfamiliar to poor snowflake's immune system. Then there's lack of sleep, and, hey, this kid's at an elite school, what about an old-fashioned hangover?

      Which of these were ruled out?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 2:00pm

        Re: An Alternative

        We have no way of knowing, which is why one would be curious how much the child was subjected to by his parents trying to lock onto a cause.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 2:59pm

      Re:

      I feel bad for the kid, hes being pushed and pushed and pushed and that can't be helping him move past his issues. He's in an elite school, and his parents are doing everything they can to make his life a living hell there. He most likely has huge expectations thrust upon him constantly. They made him an outcast with his peers, but can't see past their WebMD diagnosis to maybe remember when they were 13 and the pressures that seem like the end of the world at that age.

      Wow, that is a lot of assumptions.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 10:08am

    When helmets were first worn by players, some players wouldn't wear them and called those that did pussies in birdcages. When I was in high school, a kid just got his bell rung and usually ended up being put back in the game.

    Fast forward to today and the NFL lost it's law suit, colleges will lose their law suit and high schools will be the next battle ground around concussions.

    Yes, science changes, and sooner or later you will not see football played in school because of the risk of long term, unavoidable brain damage. Hell, the science is proven right now. Change takes time.

    Maybe cell phones and WiFi will end up like that also.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 10:18am

    Psychosomatic?

    IIRC, electrosensitivity is general considered a real thing- it's just that it's the perception of EM more than the actual EM causing it.

    This is annoying.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 3:00pm

      Re: Psychosomatic?

      IIRC, electrosensitivity is general considered a real thing- it's just that it's the perception of EM more than the actual EM causing it.

      Then it isn't a real thing.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    New Mexico Mark, 1 Sep 2015 @ 10:25am

    Solution

    Rather than settle, the school should have:

    1. Run the minimal number of Ethernet cables to provide that ONE student Ethernet access in any classrooms. Signal strength is largely a factor of proximity (inverse-square law), so the student's laptop, tablet, or phone would be the primary "danger".

    2. Disable wi-fi, bluetooth, and any other transmitting devices on any school electronic devices issued to that student.

    3. Forbid that student to be in possession of any non-school-issued electronic devices on school property since the school cannot reasonably be expected to manage EM emissions on those devices. This would need to be enforced with a legal agreement with the parents that if the student violates this policy, the parents may be liable for expenses incurred so far.

    4. Get another legal agreement with the parents that the school will commission a double-blind study to determine whether the student is, indeed, being made sick by wi-fi at the levels used by the school. If not, the parents agree in advance to refund the study cost and school expenses for items 1-3. If so, the school will pay all expenses incurred and meet the parent's original demands. (If the parents won't agree, then nothing else will be done besides items 1-3.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 2:12pm

      Re: Solution

      The lawsuit says the school refused to even do #1 on your list and let just that one kid use a physical connection instead of wireless. Even if they think the whole thing is bogus, you'd think they'd at least be willing to do that much.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        JBlad (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:11pm

        Re: Re: Solution

        Running cable is often not without cost or complication. If it's bogus, then they shouldn't have to do anything.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2015 @ 12:08am

          Re: Re: Re: Solution

          Of course they shouldn't *have* to do anything if it's bogus, but this is a private school. People pay a lot of money to send their kids there; you'd think the school would *want* to keep them happy. They are, at the least, going to lose a student over this even if the lawsuit is dismissed.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 11:12am

    Do drug companies just invent some product and put it on the marketplace and then determine that the product was safe?

    Many many products are on the market (some even with FDA approval) that are later learned to cause harm.

    Tires, cars, drugs, food.

    As I said before, we will know what we know when we know it. Just because someone doesn't notice the radio waves doesn't mean it isn't harming them. Most people can eat chicken contaminated with salmonella and not get sick. That doesn't mean that it won't kill other people.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 3:10pm

      Re:

      Just because someone doesn't notice the radio waves doesn't mean it isn't harming them.

      They're not claiming it might be harming him even though he doesn't notice, they're claiming that he is noticing. And everyone else who has claimed they notice the difference has been unable to prove those claims.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 11:19am

    RF is used as an offensive military weapon,

    both domestically, and abroad. millions of dollars have been spent and accounted for in the public record. So the fact that damage CAN be done a foregone conclusion. The only remaining question is how much.

    There is a huge amount of disinformation out there on this subject. Most of it probably generated by domestic intelligence sources. To be fair, a person should consider how much of their own skepticism has been influenced by propaganda.

    If the kid is sick, THAT is the first problem. The reality is that ANY data from ANY test that hasn't been done specifically for this case is suspect. Research on this subject, can not be assumed at any level, to be genuine.

    There is a case to be made that those involved in related disinformation, have made themselves culpable of tortious interference.

    Get better soon, brat.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 3:14pm

      Re: RF is used as an offensive military weapon,

      RF is used as an offensive military weapon,
      both domestically, and abroad.


      Which has no bearing on whether WiFi can make someone sick.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 4:41pm

      It's still a matter of amplitude

      A thirty-watt RF laser could probably cut steel (dunno the applicability of RF to lasing though. IANALE).

      I bet the router in question is less than thirty watts, though.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Christenson, 1 Sep 2015 @ 5:38pm

        Umm, no.

        The trouble with a 30 W RF Laser (or, being kind, Maser) to melt steel is that it's going to have much too large a spot size due to the large wavelength. Not that guys haven't melted spots on radar waveguides before, and no doubt that a few hundred watts at close range wouldn't nicely cook a chicken.

        If I were going to do serious damage with only 30W average RF power, I'd want to deliver it in very short pulses so as to blow microscopic layers off the surface with each pulse. Might take me quite awhile to do much, though!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2015 @ 1:16am

        Re: It's still a matter of amplitude

        A thirty watt laser will cut things, so long as the energy is focused into a point that is a fraction of a millimetre diameter. Defocus it to a millimetre diameter, and it will not cut. It is a matter of power density, that is the power per unit area, and as mentioned elsewhere the router is putting out 1/10 watts spread over the whole area of the classroom. Also a phone which may put out a couple of watts, has that energy spread out over a sphere, more or less, and so even when held next to ones head, less that half the energy is directed towards the head.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2015 @ 1:52am

      Re: RF is used as an offensive military weapon,

      "There is a huge amount of disinformation out there on this subject"
      Yes, because people like you keep on regurgitating it. Knock it off and learn to science.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    How much before it is legit to complain?, 1 Sep 2015 @ 11:22am

    Are we saying wifi/EMF cannot cause problems, at any levels?

    Or that wifi is safe because the FCC limits levels?

    What if FCC levels are exceeded? Could someone then have symptoms?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 12:19pm

      Re:

      Are we saying wifi/EMF cannot cause problems, at any levels?


      At a high enough dose, it can absolutely be a problem. Heck, even neutrinos, which are so non-interactive that a trillion of them pass through you per second yet one will actually hit you only once every few years, can be lethal if you have enough of them.

      But you also just can't say that EM radiation is the same no matter what. I mean, normal visible light is a form of EM radiation, and while it *can* make you sick if it's too bright or flashing or something, that's because you can actually see it and your brain is trying to process it. That's not the case with the frequencies we're talking about here. What are they using, the 2.4-2.5 GHz range? 0.5 - 0.9 GHz or so would be what was used by over-the-air UHF channels for decades. 1.5 GHz or so is used by GPS signals. 2.3 GHz or so is used by satellite radio. Is the student affected by these? How would anyone even know?

      And it wasn't just below the FCC limits, it was orders of magnitude below the limits. It's like the difference between a room with 10,000 watts worth of bulbs lighting it and a room with a single 10-watt bulb.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Sheogorath (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 12:16pm

    According to the lawsuit (pdf), the child's mother, after "much research and study," concluded that it was the Wi-Fi making the child sick, something family doctors were willing to substantiate.
    o.0 Okay, let's assume for a moment that EMFs are making this kid ill. Why don't the parents throw out their cellphones, TV(s), and car radio(s), since their son will spend a far greater period of time around them than he will the Wi-Fi transmitter at his school? Right, because what he's actually suffering from is obviously Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 12:34pm

    So I guess you all thought to check out the childs home first to see what wifi signals are there and how strong they are right? Right?

    I bet the wifi signals in his home will be about the same as when he is at school.

    I know whats making this child sick and it made most of us sick as well who did not want to be there. Having to go to School is the problem. What kid wants to be there? Did we all not fake being sick to get out of things? Is this child being bullied?

    I am sure there are other things going on here.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 12:44pm

    From the lawsuit:

    Specifically, the Aerohize Network doubled the prior emissions in Fay classrooms from 2.5 GHz to 5 GHz.


    Wow. Science fail. GHz isn't a measure of the amount of emissions; it's a frequency. That would be like saying changing a musical note from middle C to high C was "doubling the sound".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 2:43pm

      Alpha, Beta, Gamma, cps, Hz.

      Wow. Science fail.

      Maybe it's just poorly worded. It's twice as many cycles per sec., which I imagine sounds pretty scary to people who have no idea how EM radiation works, or even what it really is. Alpha and Beta radiation look damned near flat compared to the buzzsaw which is Gamma (and is scary).

      Probably better not tell them about what bananas do to the Gamma radiation their bones emit, nor about those X-ray machines their dentists are irradiating them with, nor that they're getting a bigger dose from sleeping with each other than that X-ray machine's giving them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 12:54pm

    First off, this is an attempted money grab - pure and simple. Second, any "radiation" between 60Hz power lines and green light has only a heating effect on tissue. Once you get into blue light and beyond (UV, Gamma, X-Ray) you get into ionizing radiation that actually causes damage. The idea that WiFi or your local microwave oven (both running in the 2.4GHz band) cause damage is ridiculous. The most you get is a very small heating effect - at phone power levels it's much less than one degree, which the body rapidly dissipates.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 2:03pm

      Re:

      You seemed so sure and convinced, Im voting for you. You must be really smart.

      Its probably fine to raise the temperature of small amount of tissue by one degree.

      I like how you defenistrate them. That is a sign of your intelligence. Let them know the fools that they are.

      regards.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 2:37pm

        Re: Re:

        A fever often raises the body's tissue temperature by more than 1 degree, and is one of the bodies defence mechanisms for dealing with infection.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          David, 1 Sep 2015 @ 3:43pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          If permanent brain fever were a healthy thing, evolution would have made it the rule rather than the exception.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 7:20pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            If it were the rule rather than the exception, then it wouldn't be a fever anymore; it'd be 'normal'. Unless your temperature is 11, I suppose.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2015 @ 1:23am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Unless carried to extremes, saunas are considered healthy, and they raise the bodies temperature.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              David, 2 Sep 2015 @ 5:56am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The brain is rather temperature sensitive, so this raise of body temperature goes hand in hand with listlessness and inability to do engaging tasks. Complex activity raises the brain temperature 2-3 K over the artery blood temperature and if there are no reserves for that, the body shuts you down with headaches and apathy. So if you do the walk/talk/greet triathlon, putting an additional thermal load on localized areas seems like a bad idea.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 1:01pm

    Faraday Suit

    There's a business opportunity here!

    Quick, order your own Faraday Suit today and start blocking those harmful WiFi signals from destroying your health!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 1:01pm

    The other thing that's really sad is the lack of science education and understanding in the general populace. What I'm seeing is a total lack of scientific knowledge - I'm talking about the understanding one would acquire in High School or a general science course in college. They are treating it like pure superstition - if you don't understand it, it's magic, and therefore dangerous. BAH!!! Go read a general science book. It'll do you a world of good.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 1:32pm

      Re:

      I agree, the confirmation bias shown at techdirt is off the chart. I too wish for better science education. We can see in these comments, what happens without a good understanding of science.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        JBlad (profile), 1 Sep 2015 @ 9:00pm

        Re: Re:

        I'm not sure your confirmation bias chart has been calibrated properly. Seriously, visit any other site. Unless you are cleverly demonstrating the use of confirmation bias to reach that conclusion, in which case: Excellently done!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2015 @ 9:30am

          Re: Re: Re:

          oh yeah, good point, confirmation bias exists at other sites too.

          In fact, its a way of life for most people.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Zonker, 1 Sep 2015 @ 1:28pm

    No, the parents have it all wrong. I have researched this thoroughly on the internet and found that the kid is obviously dependent on WiFi signals to stay healthy and whenever he goes home to their dead zone he suffers painful withdrawal symptoms. I found a doctor willing to support this conclusion so it is now a proven fact.

    They should require the school to either house the kid 24 hours a day or provide free WiFi service to the family's home to keep their kid healthy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 1:49pm

    The problem is that most base stations are made out of peanuts and thimerosal.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2015 @ 3:02pm

    And this is why kids should come with pre-installed anti-virus hardware...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    ari, 2 Sep 2015 @ 12:05am

    artikel for all

    The first thing to visit this blog is useful information and add our insight and knowledge for us all thank you admin..http://tokojaketkulit.co.id visit my website

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Giuseppe Cerrato (profile), 6 Sep 2015 @ 3:21am

      Re: artikel for all

      Contains link out to a Javanese(?) store site.
      I feel they should pay for "real" ad space on Techdirt!
      Reported as Forum spam.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Whutthe, 2 Sep 2015 @ 1:21am

    Well its nice to see an easy way to get rich.
    Go to america,
    Claim 'x=disease/affliction/injury/illness' due to 'y=completely debunked and utterly stupid thing that not even the mentally disabled believe in'
    Threaten lawsuit,
    Get pissy when the people youre suing do their due diligence by having a doctor take a 30 second look at a completely healthy person,
    Claim the doctor is lying and in on it,
    Recieve payout offer of a fraction of the ridiculously greedy and stupid arbitrary amount im suing for and should NEVER BE BLOODY OFFERED.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Padpaw (profile), 2 Sep 2015 @ 4:01pm

    My guess is the family needs cash for some reason and stupidly decided to go after the school for a settlement for some nonsensical reason that just happened to be wifi in this case

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Edi (profile), 3 Oct 2015 @ 5:57am

    Elo boost

    Elo Boosting Amazing Clients with Passion since 2013
    We have been widely recognized as one of the leading elo boost organization throughout Season3 and we are glad to have 100% positive feedback coming into Season 5. We have strengthened our core of eloboost ers and our coaches. We have only diamond II+ players working on your accounts with some being professional players you like to watch play. We pride ourselves to be the most reliable, most friendly and most efficient lol boosting organization out there.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2015 @ 5:54pm

    (this comment is copy-pasted from another article in this site..)

    Note - I have never seen any forum so full of agents using psychological/emotional tactics to downplay and ridicule clear problems and issues facing society (in these regards the 'wireless tech' issue.)

    Also note, it is extremely easy to 'reproduce' tests in which people can 'sense' when they are being exposed to electromagnetic and wireless fields.

    But nobody 'pays' for legitimate studies, and the ones that exist (yes, they actually do, contrary to the 'spin' the write of the article promotes), get buried and ignored.

    Again, properly tested experiments DO exist in regards to EHS sufferers, but articles, and sites, like this, somehow 'ignore' them all.

    I myself will easily volunteer for free to 'prove' EHS is 'real'. But nobody will take up that offer. So who is in charge of your society and what 'agenda' are they running?

    It sure isn't anything regarding your health and safety.

    ---------------



    Being affected by 'WiFi' is as real as you can get.

    Electromagnetic Frequencies (EMF's) span a - Ranged Spectrum -, all that exists is 'radiation' in some form, but where it is along the 'spectrum' is what defines what it does, how it 'looks' (our eyes have a limited sensitivity, can only see a range of the 'spectrum'),how it sounds, etc (same way dogs can hear a different 'range' of sounds than humans, etc.)

    The reason WiFi is dangerous is because it uses the spectrum which microwaves use. Hence comparing it to 'sunlight' or the 'earths magnetic field' is asinine and shows any such persons level of ignorance who compares them.

    Understand these if you want to understand this 'wireless' situation:

    1 - EMF damage is -- Cumulative --. I never had 'EHS' symptoms or problems, now WiFi causes me severe pain, as well as electromagnetic fields from various devices (especially using switch-mode power supplies)

    2 - Tied in with the above point - EMF damage goes by critical 'thresholds', meaning once something happens that 'destroys' a threshold tolerance you have, you then become 'affected' by frequencies in that range. This is best understood by example -

    I used to use a desktop computer, on a monitor, AND have an xbox running to alternate with (switched the two using the same monitor), absolutely no problems - FOR 16 HOURS A DAY ALMOST 7 DAYS A WEEK (for --YEARS--, but note there was little WiFi exposure back then)).

    Then, one day I wanted to upgrade my video card, I did so, had a suggestion to upgrade the power supply from the store. I did so. I then began to have brutal headaches when I started using the desktop (just after a couple of minutes of turning it on). Didn't take long to realize (obviously), that it was the new parts I installed doing it. Upon researching, it was obvious it was the power supply that did it.

    Now here's the kicker folks, read this and tell everyone. After I obviously stopped trying to use that computer (tried for about 20 minutes at a time once per day, over a few days, then sold the 'upgrades'),

    -->> I THEN BECOME 'SENSITIZED' TO MY XBOX, WIFI SIGNALS, MY DESKTOP COMPUTER, etc etc.

    Meaning ALL THE THINGS I WAS ABLE TO USE BEFORE FOR 16 HOURS A DAY NO PROBLEM, I was now having massive pains in various parts of my face, depending which one was I using (the xbox now makes my right cheekbone ache, the desktop computer gives me brain-pain and WiFi burns my skin).

    It is a 'threshold' effect that you 'cross', and then -Cannot go back-. You are 'fine' _up to that point_, then upon having a 'too-much' instigating event (i.e. new computer, new cell phone, etc), that exposes you to a 'new frequency', you then get 'damaged' which your body cannot then undo.

    I once 'lol-ed' at hearing 'tin-foil hat' stories, I didn't necessarily make fun of them but obviously didn't know what to think.

    I now am a fantastic example of how all this stuff works (note there were other causative factors, but trying to keep this mail short). I had dental xrays (panoramic 180 3d modelling field), plus a bunch in a certain area specific to a certain tooth (dentists all told me the x-rays were 'perfectly safe', when I tried to state I wasn't comfortable getting so many x-rays), and now in that -Exact- spot, am HIGHLY sensitized to Wifi signals. I can feel my skin 'burning' and stabbing especially during 'peak' WiFi usage times.

    It has gotten to a point now that you can SEE the clear 'pock-marks' as my skin deforms, Exactly in the spot I feel that 'burning'.

    There is absolutely NOTHING 'imagined' in all this, it's easily verifiable by anyone simply looking at my face.

    3. The difference between people who say, 'well I'm 105 years old and was in electronics/radar/bum-hair analyzing for 50 years and never had a problem! So this all must be fake!!11', and those who are actually experiencing problems, are typically related to this -

    People (such as the above 'scoffers' who 'worked in an electrical profession'), do not understand there is a DIFFERENCE between 'linear mode' power supplies and 'switch-mode' power supplies.
    Linear mode power supplies have very low EMF 'noise', that is to say, they give off very little 'dirty frequencies'. Linear power supplies give off a relatively small range of frequencies in a relatively little area.

    Switch-mode power supplies are the EXACT OPPOSITE, they give off MASSIVE amounts of 'dirty electrical' noise. This is easily analyzed by any type of appropriate electrical sensor. The frequency bands 'spike' to huge levels, levels that (of course) interrupt the body cells and signals.

    Basically linear mode give off 'heat', whereas switch mode give off 'electrical frequencies'.

    Saying, "I worked in electrical profession for long and I have no problems!" is beyond ignorant and asinine, because it's the -Type- of power supplies and frequencies you were exposed to that causes the damage.

    Interestingly, almost all power supplies used to be 'Linear' mode from around 1990s and before. After 2012 Linear's are now -Banned-, with only Switch-mode being made. (For 'eco' reasons...)
    And the cases of 'EHS' are skyrocketing.
    You figure it out.

    As noted with my recent onset of 'EHS', guess which power supplies I'm okay to be around? And which hurt and cause me a lot of pain?

    You figure it out.

    If that wasn't enough, there are TONS of information on professions that actually do/have caused people massive amounts of EMF damage leading to 'EHS'.

    But they are expertly hidden and concealed among all the layers the internet provides, once again, it's a choice for a person to either be 'ignorant', or look for the truth.


    4 - Also to discuss commenters like "Well OmGz there ARZ POPLS aRouaNDD cell-tOwerZ, TV STATIONS etcZZ that haVZ no problemsZZ!!!111"

    Actually the complete opposite is true, some of the most pertinent documented 'evidence' (as in legal medically binding 'proofs' of these types of cases) revolve around 'cancer clusters' and leukemia clusters and (now quickly appearing 'EHS' clusters) involves people situated around areas that have various 'transmitting antennaes', tv/radio station broadcasters etc etc.

    All relate to these exact symptoms and health problems tied to wireless frequencies, radiation over time, etc etc

    Again, anyone stating otherwise is either ignorant or an agent.

    Military Radar Operators were some of the first displaying classic 'EMF Sensitivity' issues. Those are clear mirrors to 'WiFi' sensitive people, they use similar frequency bands, and who would've thought? - Cause the same set of symptoms when exposed 'over time'.

    There are thousands of medical reports on these cases, none of it was 'imagined' or 'psychological'.


    5 - "If the above is all true, why does Wiki tell me specifically that 'EHS isn't proven and in fact case studies show people cannot tell the difference when exposed to fields or not?" -

    Because Wiki is flat out LYING and is NOT serving -you-, as a 'public commoner', in your 'best interest', by telling you the whole and COMPLETE 'truth'.

    First off, Wiki is another branch of the government just like the whole internet itself is, if the government has an 'agenda' to push wireless technology for surveillance purposes, it will 'defend' it's right to do so. Anything under it's jurisdiction (which is ALL of media in case you didn't know..), will befit it's 'public information' to befit the agenda.

    You will not find a company talking 'bad' about itself when trying to sell you a product, so you will not find any 'bad' (as in telling you it's dangers) information on wireless if that's the government agenda, when given through a 'media' view. (that means you need to look at actual scientific studies to find the real truth, and even those are biased based on funding, agendas, etc)

    Most of all, on a technical level, they 'spin' the info based on proven garbage studies, that is to say, they turn a WEAK field on and off in less than a few minutes, which obviously is not enough time for anyone, regardless of 'sensitivity', to tell what is going on.

    You obviously need a few minutes, and, it must be directed at the Frequencies the person is actually '- Sensitized To-'.

    If you find the above difficult to understand look at it this way, imagine Wiki telling you, 'It is medically 'proven' no-one can tell when their skin is getting hotter'..

    Guess what! You can make that statement and it would be 'True'! If your study involves putting someone in a large room 20 feet away from a small heater and saying, 'Okay, you say you are 'sensitive' to heat, but we're going to PROVE otherwise!'. They then 'turn on' the heat, at low power, and 2 minutes ask, "Ok, so supposedly you are sensitive to heat, so is the heater on?"

    obviously, HOW THE HECK IS ANYONE GOING TO KNOW?..

    of course not, but, if you do a PROPER study, either A. 'Ok there are 'heat sensitives' that say if we stick your head in an oven and put it on 300Celsius you're going to feel it in less than a minute', would you deny the result?

    OR, more appropriately,

    B. "okay, there are heat sensitives, we're going to put them in a room, with a heater, turn it on, --and give it time to heat the room--, and ask them if it's on", guess what?.. most will tell you easily, 'well yeah I can feel the 'build up' of heat on my body, it must be on"

    All you scoffers saying, "Well duh but I could feel heat too!" are exactly right, and yet 'wrong', that's the point of this all, the 'EHS'ers are people who are sensitized to feeling frequencies which 'built up' in their system, which cause specific damage to organs/pathways related to those frequencies, eventually causes symptoms. Whereas the 'normal' types still have enough DNA/systemic protection (from not having been damaged in those specific areas) that they do not feel or have those 'emf' effects - at least not at a 'self-aware' level (the damage is still being done biologically beneath their 'noticing').

    Proper 'studies' done, through honest channels (i.e. not 'wiki'), prove this time and time again, never mind my own experiences and even people that began to post on here.

    It's all the same, damage done over time, which reduces your 'armor' to these fields, which leave you 'vulnerable' and susceptible to more and more frequencies at less and less 'levels'

    All human 'senses' are as such, some can handle more noise than others, some notice colours more, some are okay being fat slobs others are bothered by 3 extra lbs around their gut, etc etc

    In fact, another great example of this is, are, teeth, tooth decay and 'sensitive teeth'. DON'T BRING UP TOOTHPASTE COMMERCIALS for 'sensitive' teeth, but speaking in common sense terms, (myself as an example), it's the same deal. If you are young, good dental hygiene, nice full gum-lines, you can pretty much eat anything and 'get away' with it. Eat foods with a ton of sugar, no problem.

    But, let's say you're someone that didn't have good dental hygiene, you brushed 'wrong' (I did that, brushed 'towards' the gum-line), ate too much sugar, etc.

    Eventually your gums 'erode', and you get weakened tooth enamel, corroded dentin and holes in your teeth.

    Well guess what!

    Those 'same' foods? Forget it.. eat sugar, within minutes your teeth start aching. Too 'hot', too 'cold', all the same. Whereever your have the 'exposed' teeth, the lack of gum-line, thinned out dentin, etc, are all spots you 'feel the pain' when you eat the sugar that feeds the bacteria, the temperatures you used to be able to handle before etc.

    Your body is a true 'miracle' of protective mechanisms, adaptive responses, barriers and 'stops', to a vast variety of dangers and harmful environmental influences.

    They can all be 'destroyed', quickly or slowly, and, now, especially with these new 'tech' Wifi etc, can by 'bypassed' altogether.

    Use your brain none of this is difficult to understand.

    Finally, 'Wiki' is total nonsense for THIS reason -

    they completely 'leave out' all the THOUSANDS of studies done that show clear - Biological - effects on animals.

    That's - A N I M A L S -

    Animals that don't know what 'wifi' is, animals that don't care about 'psycho-somatic complaining', animals that have no interest in 'suing' anybody,

    etc etc

    Animal studies done over and over that show clear physiological/biological affects from various fields, frequencies, etc

    ALL REPRODUCIBLE over and over.

    Same fields, same exposures - same results.

    (This includes blood clumping and deformation (blood has iron, very susceptible to electromagnetic fields), DNA, Chromosome destruction/mutations, sterility/infertility, it just goes on and on..)

    The 'with-holding' of all these blatant animals studies done Around the World, by all manner of scientists etc, especially compounded by 'making fun' of EHS sufferers as if they're a bunch of 'weirdos' or something,

    is definite ' Food for Though ' as to what and 'who' 'Wiki's' really 'working for'.


    It should be obvious by now 'Wiki' cannot truly be trusted on anything important and relevant - you were warned.


    6 - All the above points make total perfect sense if you -- Simply know yourself --, that is to say, ' How your body works '

    All, that's ALL, your bodies functions work based on ELECTRICAL SIGNALS, that's electrical 'impulses', charges, frequencies etc etc

    Anything occurring in your body does so because it is 'communicating' with other cells, substances, markers and pathways based on -- electrical charges --. If a cell wants/needs to uptake a 'protein' it does so by relaying the appropriate 'charge' in it's cell wall, based on a 'hole' it has specially relayed to 'fit' the opposing charge of that protein (for example).

    In 'normal' functioning the cell wall (as an example), will 'signal' that it needs a protein to recover some damage let's say (as in you worked out for example), then, a 'passing protein', that 'fits' that open hole sending out the appropriate 'charge', will then come and 'fill' and 'unify' with the cell, because it had the appropriate charge for that fit.

    If you understand that, you can understand many things, for example this is why fluoride is dangerous, (as in many other chemicals, formulas, 'foods', etc), because you can have 'mimickers' that mimick substances your body needs, but to not actually fulfill that 'role'.

    Using fluoride as the example, it tends to mimick magnesium (same 'charge' interaction) and in cases of 'fluoride poisoning', you see exactly what you would see if you were deficient in magnesium, or your magnesium uptake pathways were distorted etc.

    Simply Put - being around these 'Wireless fields' are created havoc on people's bodies because they 'step-in' and interrupt all those microscope cellular interactions based on 'charges' and 'potentials' and electrical impulses etc.

    EMF's simply 'bully' your bodies own charges creating 'noise' in your cellular functioning, because they are an inherently "stronger" signal that overpowers your minutely weak, BUT EVER-PRESENT, cellular signals.

    Understanding this also makes it easy to understand why 'some' people are affected more than others, it's actually simple and common sense, if you're in a 'dangerous wifi field' for only 2 hours, then you have the other 22 hours to 'heal' the damage.

    So obviously not everyone 'exposed' to wifi here and there is going to notice, of course not, they haven't had all that damage built up over time, their body still had time to 'heal' etc.

    The vast amount of 'EHS' sufferers always show a clear pattern of having been 'stuck' in fields they can't escape, i.e. like the -- guy in the article --, exactly like my situation was/(and is), people in 'careers/jobs' and many others.

    You also see the clear correlation between distance, strength of the signal, -number- of signals (as in apartment dwellers surrounded by 30 WiFi signals, compared to an isolated home only having one router) etc.


    Imagine if you will if I told you 'You're going to be a murderer because someone will get in front of you and talk while you talk'.
    No average person (even if they think they are highly intelligent.. ) will seriously think they could be made a 'murderer' by that example.

    Again, being told 'because someone will stand in front of you and talk'.

    There's no way, they'd have to be crazy to believe that.

    Okay, so let's say this.. You wake up, nice day! You go out your room, say 'hi' to your parents..

    Guy appears out of nowhere, standing between you and your parents, 'bla bla bla', he says, effectively meaning, -- your parents don't hear YOU, they hear 'bla bla bla' from the guy that just appeared.

    You think, 'hey, this is weird, but whatever.. '

    You eat breakfast, go to school, you're like, "Oh man! I gotta say hi to that girl I like! Then during lunch I'm going to talk to her and get her number!!"

    You say 'Hi', guy appears, standing between you and her, all she hears is 'the exponential differential of the satellite was..' from some guy with a deeper, louder, different voice.

    "huh?" she says, "whatever that was.."

    You go to class, a bit flustered.. but whatever.. you sit, ready to do your schoolwork, you do want to 'succeed' right? pass the course, get good grades, get a good job..

    "So, Michael, what was the result of your thesis on genera in the floriscutum dioretheum flora sub-types?"

    Oh yeah, you're going to impress them now, "Well, I discovered that Florisceums have a breeding stage of 20 weeks which can invade waterways causing effective disruption of boat delivery services reducing profits to a company by 30%!"

    Your teacher hears, as the guy 'appears', "Touch my testicles they are large just for you"..

    Your speeches cancel each other out.

    "What? Michael I don't understand, obviously you didn't do your homework.."

    "What! I did! Listen to me!! I'm telling you what I " - "bla bla bla"

    'omg'

    'can't anyone hear me? i'm talking to them.. !!!'

    "Wait! Don't they see that guy 'appear' out of nowhere!! They must be able to!!"

    "No, that's just it, they don't SEE him, he's INVISIBLE to everyone but me!!..."

    goes to the lunch room, "what? what was your order? I can't understand.. go away"

    goes to the mall, "what? what did you want? I can't hear you, go away.."

    Next day.. same thing..

    "okay, i'm cool.. I can handle this.. "

    3 months later, "Man!! why's that girl dating that guy!! he's such a dork, I'm so much hotter!! what the hell!!"

    6 months later, "Sorry Michael, you failed your course, you seem to have problems explaining yourself in class, you don't seem to know how to get help to finish your assignments.."

    "But, BUT!! I do!! Just no one ever hears me!!! "

    "what? what Michael? see this must be what the teachers talking about.. "

    12 months later, failed school, parents think you're whack, no friends, can't shop, can't do anything, can't 'function'..

    "This is freakin it.. I'm going to KILL this ----er!!!!"

    You go to talk to your father, the 'guy' appears, YOU CAN'T TAKE ANYMORE

    pull out the gun, starts to shoot..


    guy turns around,

    "Well Michael, .."

    "HUH!!?? " - "YOU'RE TALKING TO ME???"

    "well of course Michael!.. oh you're silly, are you surprised? "

    "well .."

    "you see Michael, I was a - "

    "A MOTHER-#%@$%%&%^ #$#%^% WHO RUINED MY LIFE!!!"


    "an angel Michael, an angel.."

    .. "huh??"

    "yes, you see I was an angel.. sent to help you learn an important lesson.."

    "err... go on.."

    "you see, some time ago, you scoffed and mocked people that talked about how WiFi was causing them pain and suffering.. "

    "err, I think I remember that, oh yeah!! Weirdos saying Wifi hurts them or some sh--!!.."

    ...

    "well, they are weirdos aren't they?.. I think..."

    "you see Michael, what made you want to kill me? "

    "i don't know, everything I tried to do, well, whenever I tried to talk to someone.. "

    "that's right, I stepped in and blocked/warped your 'conversation'.. "

    "umm yeah.. okay..?"

    "Michael, that is how all your little cells work in your body, they all 'talk' to each other using their own little electrical frequencies.. "

    "yeah but.."

    "Michael, whenever I 'stepped in' and interrupted your conversation with others, what was I doing?.."

    "well you were getting in the way!! So annoying!!"

    "yes but what was I -literally- doing?.. "

    "i don't know, talking? what does that have to do with wifi??"

    "Michael, what is 'talking', literally?.."

    "well I don't know.. hmm.. .. oh wait, hold on, I know.. "

    "talking is frequencies and wavelengths going through the air, isn't it?"

    "that's exactly right Michael.. all I was doing was not even 'stopping' you, but simply adding my own frequencies to YOUR frequencies.. effectively making it impossible to communicate what you were actually trying to say.. "

    "no matter how bad you wanted to"

    "hmm.. "

    "wow you know you have a point.."

    "and remember Michael, did you want to kill me at first? right away?.."

    "well no, I thought ..well I didn't know what to think actually at first.."

    "exactly Michael, so it is with the people you were making fun of. None of them instantly died or got hurt by simple frequencies.. "

    "They all simply had their normal functions interrupted and -over time- all the 'serious' problems began to show, exactly like what happened to you"

    "Remember, you can see when I appear, as I block light.. people may not see me directly, but my presence is always there if people would simply look at my shadow."

    "Yeah that's so true I tried to tell.."

    "Tried to tell them what Michael? Did not all those people trying to tell you about those strange electronic frequencies tell you you simply could look at an electronic sensory device to see all those signals in the air?"

    "well yeah they pointed out WiFi is easily measured in the air... "

    "Did you not understand what they were saying? "

    ".."

    " Why did you not bother to look? "

    "well.. "

    "..."


    "So, Michael, did you learn your lesson?.."

    "Wow yeah, now that I looked at it this way, I sure did.."

    "wait Michael, ".. "??"

    "Did you -Really-"

    "what do you mean? I.. I don't get it.."

    "why are you staring at me like that??.. "

    "what did you learn Michael..

    besides some scientific information.. "

    "Well I dont' know I what was I supposed to.."


    - BANG BANG -


    "ARGhgh!!!! You killed me!!! I'm your father what did you dooooooOOOOooooooo"


    - Michael is in court defending himself against the charge of 'Murder'.. -


    "No I'm telling you!! Im' telling you what happened!! Why won't you guys listen to me!! It happened to me I'm being serious!!"

    - most everyone scoffs and laughs -

    "He would appear out of nowhere, get in the way of any conversation I had!! He made it impossible to talk with anybo..."

    "Yeah and aliens are coming to Earth right?"

    - HAHAHA - courtroom laughter -

    "Listen you guys don't understand, He was -Invisbile-!! that's what makes it so confusing -I- can see him, but nobody else!!"

    - Michael looks around can't believe nobody is listening to him -

    "Look I realized he would make shadows by blocking light but nobody would look at the floor!! "

    - HAHAHAH - - courtroom fills with laughter -

    "But, But.. why won't you guys listen to me!! I'm not lying I'm telling the truth!!.."

    "Alright enough of this courtroom charade! You are guilty of murder in the highest degree! Your own father!! "

    "But! But!! "


    " HHAHAHA "

    - 'what a weirdo!! Guy out of nowhere appearing and disrupting his 'conversations'' hahahah mass laughter -


    - poof - angel-person appears -


    "Did you Michael? Did you 'get it'?"

    "Yes! Ye.."

    "What did you 'get' Michael?"

    "What did you finally understand?"


    " Hummility.. "

    " I understand Humility..

    Not to judge others before I understand their situation myself.. "


    "Unfortunately, it took you so long your soul has been judged and deemed to be fit only for purgatory, as your 'real-life' prison sentence plays out"

    "bu.."


    - jury and audience laughs hysterically -



    "You people are a bunch of animals!!! What's the matter with you!!"

    "It's too late Michael, they can't hear you.. Just like you didn't hear 'them', .."

    "....."

    " May your Soul, though bound in Darkness..

    Serve Others, to Seek the Light.."

    ---


    This is all common sense folks,


    ---


    To All decent people, be aware the internet is FULL of Paid disinformation agents, 'trolls' and 'perception management' agents. It is a fact corporations pay -actual companies- to fill the internet forums with such 'comments' etc to specifically lie, confuse and 'spin' any real facts and knowledge.
    This is how companies 'fight' to maintain their dominance to be able to sell products that are obviously known to be dangerous.

    Do NOT try to 'argue' with anyone who is close-minded, trying to create 'spin' or is debating with nonsense. You will not 'win' because they are paid to be here.

    The agents are exceptionally dangerous because the better ones will 'spin' information by deflecting it to other 'causes', a great example is people do complain about computers, wifi, cellphones etc making them sick, then someone will 'spin' it into 'yeah people have a reaction to flashing lights here's the research', so normal people will think 'flashing screens' are making them sick, while being completely unaware of the 'real' problem.

    You would not leave your 6 year old daughter with drugged-out strangers in a dark alley at night, yet these internet forums where naïve 'innocent' people come to seek information are horror shows of psychological abuse and manipulation, people are 'raped' psychologically and intellectually and do not even realize it.

    These internet agents 'prey' upon people who do not know themselves, understand their own symptoms or have the time to look into it.

    They cannot flatout delete every message or block every post (not yet at least), so these agents misdirect and spin every reasonable post.

    Anyone not an agent has to realize the ultimate goal of 'WiFi' is to depopulate through sterilization.

    Just like my skin is obviously getting DNA damaged more and more (again, results are obvious just by looking at it), so it is WiFi passes through the skin and does that kind of damage to the reproductive cells etc, especially the ovaries in young girls.

    A female's ovaries do not 'reproduce', what they are born with is what they are stuck with. If you can damage those in the early years (when girls are small, have little WiFi defense), then they will be guaranteed to have damaged DNA/ovaries for life.

    This is then compounded by if they manage to have daughters and they too are exposed, by the 3rd generation sterility is guaranteed.

    This has been shown/proven in/by Naval Intelligence move than 50 years ago. (on repeated animal studies, all the same results. I'm sure they 'proven' this to themselves using humans in 'black projects' but let's not get into that..)

    Saying 'There's no proof that WiFi is dangerous because they haven't studied it enough yet' is another blatant agent tactic, the various dangers have been proven a LONG time ago.

    Anyone saying otherwise is either an agent or just ignorant.

    I could write a lot more, be aware you're at the End of the Age people, and the time has come for mass depopulation.

    Protect yourself, and spread good will and knowledge.

    These 'jokers' talking about 'evolution' and 'euthanasia' are completely right, but they fail to understand THEY are the ones that will not continue into the future.

    If you are too ignorant to not look into obvious technical factual evidence on all this stuff (which there are THOUSANDS of studies on), then guess what?..

    What could be better than YOU being sterilized and unable to have kids? So that the world will be a better place without all the foolish, selfish and ignorant animal types running around.

    WiFi and smartmeters, cell-phones and switch-mode power supplies, 'eco' lighting etc are basically for total control and surveillance as well as a soft-kill depopulation tactic.

    -- That's it --


    Anyone saying otherwise is mindless or an agent.


    Good luck to all.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 24 Oct 2015 @ 8:38pm

      Re:

      Well if nothing else, you may have posted Techdirt's longest comment ever.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        tqk (profile), 25 Oct 2015 @ 9:20pm

        Re: Re:

        Well if nothing else, you may have posted Techdirt's longest comment ever.

        Eeyaaaaa! That's some screed. I can't imagine anyone actually reading it. Any one care to attempt a distillation? Assuming you're uncontrollably bored with life ...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 26 Oct 2015 @ 6:09am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I read the beginning before I realized it was a novella and the gist was "electromagnetic sensitivity is real". There was definitely a part about how this person suffers from it, but in skimming I saw no links to supporting material.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            MrTroy (profile), 26 Oct 2015 @ 8:01pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You mean you missed the bit in the middle where an angel dealt karmic vengeance on an EHS-denier by driving him crazy until he shot his own father? Pure gold, I tell you.

            The bit where Wikipedia (and the entire internet) is a government agency was also quite informative. My mind reels at the conspiracy theories that come to light, looking back at the SOPA protests in that light.

            I'm a little disappointed that the poster didn't offer any help to locate any of the thousands of studies that positively demonstrate EHS, but that the article is ignoring.

            Maybe the simplest tl;dr takeaway from the whole comment is "EHS is like sensitive teeth". I really do recommend reading the angel bit, though. If it doesn't convince you that EHS exists, then you have no soul!

            -MrTroy, new true believer

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              nasch (profile), 26 Oct 2015 @ 8:21pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              You mean you missed the bit in the middle where an angel dealt karmic vengeance on an EHS-denier by driving him crazy until he shot his own father? Pure gold, I tell you.

              I started reading that part and then it got a bit crazy for me. Maybe I'll give it another try.

              The bit where Wikipedia (and the entire internet) is a government agency was also quite informative.

              Good to know!

              I'm a little disappointed that the poster didn't offer any help to locate any of the thousands of studies that positively demonstrate EHS, but that the article is ignoring.

              Same here. Maybe they are all so thoroughly ignored they aren't even on the internet.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              nasch (profile), 27 Oct 2015 @ 8:40am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Wow... the best part was at the end of that amazing allegory of angels and wifi (I am not kidding) he wraps it up with "this is common sense, folks".

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    quantim, 29 Oct 2015 @ 10:12am

    Put the kid in a Faraday Cage ...

    ... and see if the symptoms persist. Then we can know if they are lying.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Baxanga, 27 Nov 2015 @ 2:35pm

    Dr Google can prove it!

    LoLoLoLoLoL

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.