Cell Towers Making People Sick Is All In The Mind
from the psychosomatic dept
A lot of noise has been made in the UK lately about the supposed health dangers of WiFi and other types of wireless communications -- though the media stories about them are generally full of shoddy reporting and bad science. The reports, as a rule, feature a person who claims to have "electrosensitivity," and that radiation from WiFi or mobile phone networks makes them sick. Despite the claims, these people generally fail double-blind tests to see if they really can feel the presence of WiFi or other wireless networks, and another study has now once again confirmed this. Researchers said that people claiming to have electrosensitivity weren't faking it, and really were displaying the symptoms they claimed -- but that they were brought about by the people's belief that they were being harmed by radiation, and not the radiation itself. Just two of 44 people claiming to be "electrosensitive" correctly determined when the wireless signals were being emitted in six out of six tests; this compares pretty evenly to the 5 out of 114 control participants. Somehow, though, it's hard to imagine this study will end debate on the matter. After all, claiming that electronic smog is hurting children is far too juicy a story to pass up -- even if it isn't true.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Always the same problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Always the same problem
You don't understand physics, do you? It's called radiation because it radiates - as in expands from some point.
Visible light is electromagnetic radiation, too.
The heat radiating from your body, or the food you eat, or the radiator in your car, is also (infrared) radiation.
Wanna know more neat physics? Visible light and infrared radiation are both higher frequency and more likely to cause chemical reactions than the microwave radiation used by cell phones and wifi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can feel it too...
Strange.
but True.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can feel it too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can feel it too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can feel it too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can feel it too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(dis)proves nothing
the only thing this study has proven is that most of those 44 people have a psychosomatic condition.
However, it does not really prove that nobody might be effected by radiation.
It would be very interesting to see if those 2 who predicted 6/6 would continue to do so: if they don't, obviously they were just the statistical portion that on average was going to get all 6 right, (and this would carry much more weight to the conclusion that there is no ill effect) but if they would continue to predict correctly, one would have to admit those 2 would have some sort of sensitivity...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh noes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If this is real and I'm being insensitive, then that is really interesting that the wavelengths our cell phones and wifi transmit on have hit some sort of biological resonance. It could be a new weapon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Epitaph
"See - I told you I was sick"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh No ...
how long before some bozo politician fishing for an issue comes out with this one in the states ?
electrosensitivity ! I REALLY like that word, LOL! I'm going to use it at least once daily now for a period of no less than 3 weeks.
oh, but wait ... gotta run ... my teeth are getting severe interference from my cell phone ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
see, I told you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: see, I told you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong suspect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
right....
http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/science/6df7/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Electrosensitives ?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Electrosensitives ?!
I have a job offer for them detecting unauthorised wireless networks at high security locations ;0)
Any idea what range they operate on and their directional capabilities? Do I need to employ three to triangulate or can just one give me a bearing and an accurate range?
Come on TechDirt - we need answers! ;0)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
straw man
this is a bogus arguement. a straw man. a red herring.
anglo-saxon countries tend to have this attitude where we wait until something is so obviously widespread and causing damage before considering that maybe we need to be careful.
other countries set higher standards for themselves and ask "what if" somthing is having an effect that we don't yet understand.
in other words, they are more cautious. and they have more respect for their collective health.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: straw man
You make no point as to why this would be a straw man fallacy. I see no straw man. They said they're trying to cast doubt on Point A. They do a study that shows, statisically speaking, Point A most likely is false. They then continue to say that their study says Point A is most likely false.
Where's Point B (the straw man)? If it were a straw man fallacy, they'd start by saying Point A is most likely false. They'd then set out to disprove Point B and when they've done so, they'll claim they disproved Point A. I don't see that format here. I may be interpreting it incorrectly, but I really don't see it.
Give us a counter-example, like, I dunno, one of these "other countries" you speak of and an example of their higher standards.
Unless of course, you want me to point out fallacies in your argument... like, basically not having one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Muscle twitching during MRI scan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell phones and cell towers are killing us
Man is killing man! That's all I have to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]