It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Wi-Fi anxiety: Man sues neighbor to shut off electronics

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:35 PM
reply to post by Magzoid

...sure ok... if you are blindfolded, and wear ear plugs, and are shielded from any heat from the device, and you can not touch the device, and you tell me exactly how many times I turned the device on and off, then I will put my money where my mouth is.

Seriously, if you get a head change from radio waves of such weak amplitude, I don't understand how you can go outside in the day?

You know the Sun emits radio waves? So does every star, and entire galaxies, and other objects. Even lighting strikes create radio waves. Radio waves are all around us at all times... Certainly you must have a head change at all times too?

We already know the effects of radio waves on people. It vibrates electrons and ions in the body which then raises the temperature of the body (like a microwave). The size of the body determines how much or how little the body is effected and amount of time it takes to be effected, much like how the size of an object in a microwave determines the cooking time.

I don't see any other way for radio waves to effect you and cause the symptoms described. There must be another factor...

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:37 PM
reply to post by tgidkp

G'day tgidkp

OK.....we're speaking at "crossed purposes".

I thought you were stating that I was refering to whether or not jammers worked properly as jammers.....I was not refering to the (IMHO nonexistant) condition called radiosensitivity.

I don't believe there is any such condition, as per my original post.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 28-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:41 PM
reply to post by ALLis0NE

That's the only thing you can really do, an experiment. But I have a feeling people who claim they have this wouldn't accept the results regardless.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:42 PM
reply to post by ZombieOctopus

That kind of goes back to what i was saying about specific implementation....just saying.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:44 PM
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

well, like i said, i am playing devils advocate. i myself am a little torn on the issue. i can certainly see why "crazy" people would choose this particular topic as an outlet for their "crazy" ideas.

on the other hand, i think we need to leave the jury out a little longer. i am not totally convinced that one day in the not too distant future there will be a huge plague of folks dying off from currently unknown residual molecular changes being induced from common microwave oven cooking.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:45 PM

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by Damian-007

my answer to that question is quite simple:

enough to bring it above the noise floor.....and probably not much more than that (for the sake of efficiency).

That was the answer I was looking for. I knew an Intelligent one wouldn't be forthcoming.

As far as your comment about Shorter wavelengths and Penetrating power go. You could argue that there may not be much of a difference depnding on the power used.

Just to put your mind at ease and to qualify my earlier post about the RF burn I received. I've actually had more than one RF burn, In fact I've had a few. Mainly from when I've been replacing the Final Transistors in Transmitters.

The worst burn I received, ever, was on an 10 meter band Transmitter putting out about 25watts. I can say for certainty that this was the worst Burn I ever did receive and If I had a choice of RF burns, I would take a UHF one anyday. But all this talk of Burns and Deepness off radio siganls etc is a bit childish really. It doesn't apply in the real world where people never get that close to any high powered transmitters.

Now Back to your answer of "Just above the noise floor". It's interesting that you come back with that answer when you have just told us all this stuff (For a better word, Non Censored), you bring up Inverse square law, blah blah blah.

I asked you a very straight forward question. Can you answer it definatively or will the "Above the noise floor" answer suffice??

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:46 PM
reply to post by ZombieOctopus

The problem with all of the studies that I have read concerning this subject is that they are all very broad...and treat all sources as if they are implemented the same. Like most of the skeptics here have been doing. Which makes them meaningless.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:47 PM
reply to post by saturnine_sweet

What about it? Explain what you mean! What implementation would make this viable? Duct taping a wifi transmitter to your head? I still don't think that would do anything but do you think would be reasonable? Going back to the inverse square rule, 10-100mW equates to less than 10mW by the time you walk a few meters from it. How can that kind of power penetrate your skull? That's just not a logical conclusion to come to.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:49 PM

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
reply to post by Magzoid

You realize that 2G and 3G work on the same band, right? Just sayin.

May I kindly inform you that you are wrong:

GSM networks operate in a number of different carrier frequency ranges (separated into GSM frequency ranges for 2G and UMTS frequency bands for 3G), with most 2G GSM networks operating in the 900 MHz or 1800 MHz bands. Where these bands were already allocated, the 850 MHz and 1900 MHz bands were used instead (for example in Canada and the United States). In rare cases the 400 and 450 MHz frequency bands are assigned in some countries because they were previously used for first-generation systems. Most 3G GSM EDGE networks in Europe operate in the 2100 MHz frequency band.


However, the old 2.5g wap protocol used a frequency of 1.8 gHz and this caused headaches whereas the traditional GSM network does not.

I've simply made the deduction that 1.8 gHz and higher causes the nausea and simply avoid using these devices or stray away from them when people are using them.

Please don't forget that I have had 10 years experience of this ES phenomena as well as an advanced understanding of antenna propagation theory gained in the military and the dangers associated with it 10 years before that.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:52 PM
Here are the operating frequencies for 2G and 3G respectively.

As you can see it's the bandwidth that makes the difference. Changing from a 3G system back to a 2G system won't really affect anyhting much.

Most carriers operate in the 2G band while 3G could be reserved for Data Services.

"3G has a Bandwith of up to 500 times more than 2G and that bandwidth is the key to Faster Data rates".

Also, to add, Most Phones operate between 1 and 2 watts respectively.

Just Sayin....

[edit on 28-3-2010 by Damian-007]

[edit on 28-3-2010 by Damian-007]

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:54 PM
reply to post by ZombieOctopus

I feel like you are speaking another language here. Let me try to break this down more.

Lets take Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, which is what I started with. The operate on very similar frequencies, and neither are massively powerful. But why do they not interfere with each other? BECAUSE THEY ARE IMPLEMENTED DIFFERENTLY.

Why is it so hard to think that something in specific implementation of RF in certain devices might have effects, where a broad range of random RF noise would not? I mean, I suppose it could be a direct RF thing, but the data supporting the ability of RF to do that is....not solid. Most goes against that, some goes with it, but all in all, I think it is more likely to be related to the specific implementations.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:54 PM
reply to post by Magzoid

Where ever you live would be an exception then, because here we use 800/1900MHz

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:54 PM
reply to post by Damian-007

i was not quoting to you the inverse square law....that was someone else.

i do not intend to go into technical details because at this point i do not believe it to be necessary. my previous answer still stands because of this:

if a signal is powerful enough to get through the walls of your house, it is plenty powerful enough to penetrate your body.

thus: if the body is sensitive to unfiltered modulation artifacts, phase changes, or inconsistent power spikes within a particular band, then a tiny signal from the handheld device to the local tower is ample to produce harmful effects.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:58 PM
An experiment would seemingly be cheap and easy. Go find a decent faraday cage, like an elevator, and have a friend with a laptop create an ad-hoc network. Switch it on and off.

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:01 AM
I think it is very important for people with strange problems to take care of themselves. There's got to be a limit to what people have to worry about.

People with 'allergies' to perfume...demanding no one use ANYTHING scented....people with shellfish allergies sueing the grocery store...whatever.

If he's that bothered by EMR, he needs to get out in the country or shield his home or something.

I'm allergic to my own blood. lol Maybe all these folks need to try what fun THIS is - I only have myself to sue.

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:06 AM
reply to post by saturnine_sweet

Yes you Are right. They are, in fact, Implimented Differently.

But, not by much.

You could say one speaks French while the Other Speaks Arabic.
Arabic is read Backwards to the french Equivilent.

Bluetooth implements Frquency Hopping techniques while WiFi inplements it a little diferently but still Frequency Hops to a point.

Bluetooth may use a wider Bandwidth but essetially is the same as WiFi.

I know you're frustrated at the response the Myself and Others have given you and I can understand you ghetting a little upset.

Thing is, we are all intelligent Individuals here and when Something doesn't make sense it's usually not true. Judge Judy's words, not mine.

To say that Bluetooth, with an output of around 1 milliwatt 9Usually more like 0.5 milliwatt), Gives you Headaches and Nausea and yet yet a WiFi router that operated in the same frequency as Blutooth with an out put that is Much, Much higher than Bluetooth does not give you the same symptoms except when you are sitting right on top of it, to me, doesn't make sense.

But look. I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong and I could very well be. Because it does not make sense to me does not mean it does not happen. I can't see how it can happen, but, that's me.

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:09 AM
reply to post by ALLis0NE

As I stated previously, the effects of EMR are like getting drunk.
If you down half a bottle of rum you're not going to feel the effects until a few minutes later.

The same goes for EMF it takes a while to 'build up' to the point of realising that ok - 'i feel it now'

If the transmission persists and I allow myself to be in proximity then the nausea kicks in, gradually getting worse.

When you switch it off the nausea doesn't go immediately (very much like when you don't stop 'being drunk' when you stop drinking)

It takes a while to 'electrically sober up' so to speak.

So it wont be as case of 'now it's on' 'now it's off' in quick succession.

The challenge is that I sit in a shielded room away from any EMF blindfolded with earplugs and ear defenders for upto 12 hrs. During this time a wi-fi, bluetooth or 3g phone (1.8 MhZ or above) is switched on and transmitting for 5 minutes and I let the adjudicator know that it's on.

The odds of getting this correct by chance is 144 to 1 (60mins /5mins*12hrs)
I can do this 10 days straight and the odds will be 144 to the power of 10 to 1

On this basis I am willing to prove to anyone who will allow their ignorant views to be challenged in that I can physically detect anything transmitting above 1.8 mHz.

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:10 AM
I thought this was interesting.

PR stunt posing as science

STORIES appearing in The Sun, The Telegraph, and The Daily Mail, and on Fox News have been claiming that two percent of the world suffer from an illness called "Wi-Fi sensitivity".

The stories focus on a British DJ who is convinced that Wi-Fi signals set off a variety of health symptoms, including dizziness, headaches, and nausea. He has found it difficult to pursue his career, but also simply to find a house, shops, and pub that he feels comfortable occupying.

The articles claim that two percent of the population suffers from the same problem. The Currant Bun tells us that Dave happens to have a new album out which is called Electrosensitive, but it also fails to point anyone to any medical data that backs up its story.

This is probably because there is none. Ars Technica claims the whole thing is a PR stunt made up by someone claiming to suffer from a condition and promoting an album named after the nonexistent condition. It says that the condition called electrosensitivity doesn't appear to exist and people who have claimed to suffer from it are incapable of determining whether there is an active wireless signal in their vicinity or not.

In multiple blinded studies they did no better than random chance when asked to identify whether equipment that broadcasts on Wi-Fi or cellular frequencies is active.

Some people are just suggestible like that. MSM comes out with a "story" about it and suddenly there's a massive outbreak of wifi sensitivity.

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:12 AM
reply to post by saturnine_sweet

Great topic for discussion. I have said before on ATS, it is wrong that I and no one else have any choice about all the microwaves and god knows what that is running through our bodies all the time now. We are bombarded every moment now with radiation and waves, coming from all kinds of technology. If we knew for sure that it was safe we would have had this technology all along, we don't know that it is. There are however many many illnesses across the world that I would bet will eventually be attributed to technology, cell phones and towers will top that list. I will never use a cell phone. I hate them. I hate what they turn people intto, and I cannot stand to see a child with one, grrrr, or teenager flying through traffic while texting or talking. I wish we could all just go back to basics.

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:14 AM
reply to post by hadriana

I agree that there needs to be a line. This case, Im not sure what to think, because if his neighbors devices are causing effects in his home, thats sort of a sticky situation. IF they are. It would be like having a neighbor that smokes so much that it was coming into your home.

Myself, I think he should just adjust his house according to his needs. Its what I do. A lot easier, and it lets everyone else go their way merrily. But then, Im not a fan of lawsuits.

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in