Even the most well-established traditional news service doesn't report every individual case of drunk driving or identity theft.
They do however report the statistics and trends. A 200% rise in identity theft or a new method of doing so, is front page material. An individual case of identity theft among many is not. Unless that case has an aspect that sets it apart from the rest.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Some believe that like with hate speech, the best response to trolling or disinformation is not censorship but more speech. Explain why they're wrong. No so much for their sake, but for others whose opinions they might affect.
I thought that AC was wrong. While my response was sarcastic, it explained why.
Another AC thought that AC was wrong, and explained why.
Your preferred response is to shun AC. Fair enough, but it doesn't give you the right to force others to do so. For your efforts to supress others' speech, you earn a well-deserved Report vote yourself.