Fact Checking? UK Paper Simply Takes The Word Of Guy Who Claims WiFi Allergy
from the proof-please? dept
For years, we've been hearing stories from various people insisting that WiFi makes them ill. The only problem? There is absolutely no evidence to support this at all. Double blind tests with people have shown that the people who claim that WiFi makes them ill are no better at figuring out whether or not there's WiFi in a room. A more recent, and rather thorough, test showed that while those who claim "electromagnetic sensitivity" are having cognitive and neurobiological reactions, it's got absolutely nothing to do with electromagnetic waves. That is, the presence (or absence) of electromagnetic generating objects made no difference on the person.And yet... reporters just seem to love the story about people being allergic to WiFi. The latest is in the Daily Mail over in the UK, which has an entire article all about a guy who lives in "agony" because of all the WiFi around. Not once does the reporter look into the evidence of the "allergy" but does claim that 2% of the population suffer from this. The guy travels around with a WiFi detector to protect him... but it's not protecting him from whatever is causing his problems (as the study found). You would think that a reporter would actually check the facts on such things, right?
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
Filed Under: electromagnetic sensitivity, wifi, wifi allergy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Which is to say he travels around with his enabling device that tells him when to feel sick...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, it's the Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously, it's the Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seriously, it's the Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Seriously, it's the Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seriously, it's the Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seriously, it's the Daily Mail
Yeah, that's Nostradamus, not Nosferatu.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously, it's the Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take a Claritin and STFU.
Radio has been around for close to a century. I am sure that if EM sensitivity were real we would heard bitching about it long before now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Take a Claritin and STFU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fact Checking?
Or did. Before they were all fired. Still, not their department.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well...
Sheesh, you should know that by now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still....
All it takes is on "respected Journalist" (please note the quote marks) to read this story on the web somewhere and decide to run it in the Times or some-such "respected" place. Suddently you have people everywhere thinking this BS is true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still....
I don't think it even takes that much. All it takes is a compelling anecdote. Humans prefer compelling stories to scientific data. But the newspaper's irresponsible, credulous reporting surely makes the situation worse, by spreading the story further and wider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reliable source
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Journalism and Facts
Military Intelligence
Jumbo shrimp
Factual Journalism
Any article in any paper that I have read, where I had personal knowledge of the event and/or the facts, were mostly incorrect and presented in a manner to support a particular view. It is as if the first criteria to becoming a journalist is to not know anything and the second to be highly opinionated.
Is this person related to the guy who says the mafia has bugged his home/car/mother's house and is trying to force him to be a super model in New York?
Lithium anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
~More or less accurate Scott Adams quote
Also, good points above about the incestuous "sourcing" practices of the MSM. Not surprising from media that can't or doesn't bother to differentiate between advocacy group press releases and scientific stuides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why?
cause i aint from the pre-internet era
tell these people to stop liven in the past
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Daily Mail is NOT a tabloid, and it's about the only paper which reports the truth in the UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WiFi Allergy BS or Is It WiFi Radiation Sickness??????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
take the wi-fi challenge
Strap a wi-fi device to your head - 150 milliwatts ought to do the trick. Set it up to do constant uploads and downloads, and keep it strapped to your head for 30 days.
Don't protest to me that signal strength declines in an inverse square. You are telling us it is safe technology - so it must be as safe from an inch away as it is from two feet away. Afterall, if the energy of the 2.5GHz particles can't harm you, then they can't harm you - right?
If you manage to keep it going for 30 days, congratulations - you are right and I am crazy. If, on the other hand you refuse to take the challenge, or can't handle it for the full 30 days, then i am right and you are full of crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]