Comments on: There’s An Allergy To WiFi In The Afterlife?

By: Toxic Asshead

Toxic Asshead — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:17:36 +0000

#22 – there is an effect: it makes women hotter.

By: Cursor_

Cursor_ — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:07:14 +0000

More BS.

The dude is a DJ. He became that by listening to the radio (Wifi IS a radio) and playing records on a system that throws off electromagnetic fields all the time.

He must have gotten sick from his TV (I do but for cultural reasons) as well.

This is another one of those psychosomatic illnesses people get all the time. One can be convinced strongly about things in their own minds. This is why there are fundamentalists and paranoid sociopaths. (Sometimes, I know, they are the same thing)

Cursor_

By: Uncle Patso

Uncle Patso — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 07:10:28 +0000

Hmmm, “dizziness, confusion and nausea” — sounds like a typical Saturday night.

I do wonder, though — we are constantly bathing ourselves in more and more electromagnetic radiation of all usable frequencies — at what point will the effects be noticeable? When _everything_ constantly emits radio waves, possibly at several different frequency bands at the same time? Already we have thousands of commercial radio and TV stations, microwave ovens, microwave telephone towers, about a billion cell phones, wi-fi (a, b, g and n), Wi-Max, cordless phones, all the wireless data services, RFID scanners at the entrance to every store and library, traffic radar, satellite communications, bluetooth headsets, RF remotes, CB radios, ham radios, police, fire, ambulance and taxi service radios and on and on and on. At _some_ point there has to be some effect.

By: Johan

Johan — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:31:07 +0000

I’m pretty sure this kind of disease has been disproven a couple of years ago. That is: There is not such thing.

I might be wrong though, I’m skeptical that’s all.

By: clancys_daddy

clancys_daddy — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 01:41:23 +0000

Or he could cover himself in tinfoil and play lightning rod during a thunderstorm. The normal folks can stay inside and wave buh bye. What a ????? I can’t even think of an appropriate derogatory term to use on this guy.

By: GetSmart

GetSmart — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:54:28 +0000

A Faraday Cage that stops ALL short length radio waves is essentially a solid steel box with no openings. Maybe he should try that.

By: t0llyb0ng

t0llyb0ng — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:52:14 +0000

Are the walls of this guy’s bedroom lined with whatever kind of foil it is that spooks use to line the inner walls of their conference rooms? Supposedly nothing can get in or out of those rooms as far as radio waves. It’s probably not “tinfoil.” & aluminum foil doesn’t do anything, does it. Could somebody with an actual scientific background weigh in here, please. TIA.

By: Slatts

Slatts — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:35:46 +0000

So let me get this right.
He is ‘sensitive’ to WiFi signals, yet he has not noticed that we evolved to live right next to a bloody great star putting out gazillions of watts of stuff all over the electromagnetic spectrum (which equates to about 1,000 watts per square meter). Yet he can tell if a unit putting out about 800mW is switched on – aye right!
OK then – I’ll believe it when you put him in a Faraday cage with a wireless router (indicator lights removed) and he can tell when it is switched off or on.

By: Angel H. Wong

Angel H. Wong — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:35:25 +0000

Of course, this has nothing to do with him being a DJ at places were drugs like meth are consumed like candies.

By: KJS_swedishfriend_TheMAXX

KJS_swedishfriend_TheMAXX — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:24:07 +0000

These stories of sensitivity to radiowaves or electronics have yet to be shown true by any tests. However, it would seem to me that since everything is made up of vibrations of energy there should be some influence harmonically between everything in the universe, including radio transmitters. Any large reaction like sickness though, is probably a hypochondriac reaction to very small stimuli.

By: ahtnos

ahtnos — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:24:34 +0000

#12
So far it hasn’t even stood up in a single-blind study.

By: Olo Baggins of Bywater

Olo Baggins of Bywater — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:24:02 +0000

Maybe he’s OK with 802.11a.

By: KAMV

KAMV — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:18:54 +0000

This “condition” has been around for years, but so far it hasn’t stood up to a double blind study.

By: Zybch

Zybch — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:51:42 +0000

Hmmm
“Steve navigates normal daily chores with the help of a ‘wi-fi detector’ which spots areas he should avoid.”

So tell me then, WHY DOES HE NEED A WIFI DETECTOR if hes so f**king good at detecting the signals himself!

There is nothing some people won’t stoop to in order to gain attention and possible compensation!
I wish he’d come over to my house which has 3 separate wifi networks itself, and 3 out of the 5 adjoining houses have wifi too. I wanna see him fry!

By: Somebody_Else

Somebody_Else — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:51:34 +0000

# 7
Based on a century of use and observations, absolutely nothing.