stories filed under: "allergic"
by Mike Masnick
Mon, Jun 16th 2008 11:11am
Last month, we noted that a bunch of folks in Santa Fe, New Mexico were claiming not only were they allergic to WiFi, but the city's plan to install WiFi hotspots would be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Considering that multiple double-blind studies have shown there's no such thing as a WiFi allergy, we figured that those complaining of it should at least be forced to prove that such a thing exists. Indeed, it now appears that Santa Fe has decided to ignore the so-called WiFi allergists and move forward with installing WiFi. One of the folks protesting claims in response: "My first reaction is, it's a disaster. My second reaction is, they're inviting a lawsuit." That would be a fun lawsuit to follow, as I would imagine they'd have to show some sort of proof that a WiFi allergy exists.
If You're Going To Claim That WiFi Violates The ADA, Shouldn't You Need To Prove It Actually Hurts People?
from the just-saying... dept
Hot on the heels of yet another silly bogus WiFi health scare, Broadband Reports points us to a story of some folks in Santa Fe, New Mexico who aren't just worried about the health effects of WiFi, but are insisting that putting WiFi in public places is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Having once taken an entire college class on the ADA (admittedly many years ago), I'm having trouble recalling which section would apply. Given that double-blind studies and various tests have shown no evidence of WiFi having an impact on people, you would think that those worried about it would have the burden of proof in demonstrating a real health problem. And, given those double-blind studies, it should need to go beyond random people insisting that WiFi makes them feel ill.