4 ms·

This should be an easy condition to prove with a trial. Get two shoe boxes and place them on them in two rooms, get two 'electrosentives' and place one in each

This should be an easy condition to prove with a trial. Get two shoe boxes and place them on them in two rooms, get two 'electrosentives' and place one in each room. One of the shoeboxes has a WiFi router in it. Do this a bunch of times and see if its any better than random chance.

hannob 11y ago
Such studies have been done numerous times. You need to consider proper blinding to get it right, but it's not too hard. But if you have people who will claim that every study contradicting their belief is a conspiracy by the phone industry that doesn't help a lot. It's like homeopathy: You can throw as many studies as you want at the believers. They don't believe in science, therefore it's not working.
zalzane 11y ago
in the article it says they don't want to submit to testing > None of which gets round the core issue: if EHS is real, I asked Diane, then why has it not shown up in formal experiments? “I encourage scientists to go to where we are and measure the environment,” she replied. “Don’t try to pretend that you’re God and expose us to different frequencies in a lab. That’s like taking someone and breaking their legs and asking how much it hurts.”
- emiliobumachar 11y ago
  Their should be a signal intensity level high enough to be distinguishable from nothing but still low enough to cause slight annoyance rather than traumatic agony over a short period.
  - cwyers 11y ago
    One of the people in the story claims the florescent bulbs at the Dollar Store triggered her condition. If that's the case, it should be REALLY easy to verify some of these claims in a laboratory setting.
    - vsync 11y ago
      Heachaches caused by fluorescent lights are an entirely separate issue, considering they produce flickery light at odd color temperatures with weird peaks across the spectrum. Never mind that lots of establishments have things way too bright, and probably failing sockets causing extra fluctuations as well. I don't think it's disputed that anyone can see visible light.
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        I'll add to your comment that light sensitivity in general is a known issue with many people (eg autistics). They actually feel pain from seeing lights that are too bright including lots of sunlight or artificial light. So, one or more of these people might have this condition.
        vsync 11y ago
        Well, programmers historically have tended to stereotypically prefer a dimmer milieu. Not to mention there are a number of simple physical injuries that can cause photophobia: <URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photophobia#Causes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photophobia#Causes > Overillumination has been known for some time to cause various other deleterious health effects anyway, and flicker aside fluorescents just put out plain terrible light. It completely baffles me why so many establishments install it (well, workplaces; retailers like it because it makes you buy more apparently).
        nickpsecurity 11y ago
        Appreciate the link. It linked to something that applies to me: the photic sneeze reflex. It really sucks haha.
- superskierpat 11y ago
  Well breaking someones legs with a tire iron is an efficient way of proving they are vulnerable to them.. nonetheless, I dont see how getting your legs broken is similar to a headache and a few rashes
- johnchristopher 11y ago
  Ah, I remember one documentary/subject in the news on the TV and technicians came to measure things then they found out the cell tower was not connected yet. Not connected as in not even powered on and no electricity running through its systems. Of course it's just one data point and it doesn't prove people aren't suffering.
jotux 11y ago
Related: http://www.bmj.com/content/332/7546/886.full http://www.bmj.com/content/332/7546/886.full >60 “sensitive” people who reported often getting headache-like symptoms within 20 minutes of using a global system for mobile communication (GSM) mobile phone and 60 “control” participants who did not report any such symptoms. >Participants were exposed to three conditions: a 900 MHz GSM mobile phone signal, a non-pulsing carrier wave signal, and a sham condition with no signal present. Each exposure lasted for 50 minutes. >Headache severity increased during exposure and decreased immediately afterwards. However, no strong evidence was found of any difference between the conditions in terms of symptom severity. Nor did evidence of any differential effect of condition between the two groups exist. The proportion of sensitive participants who believed a signal was present during GSM exposure (60%) was similar to the proportion who believed one was present during sham exposure (63%).
- fragsworth 11y ago
  Of hundreds of millions of people who suffer migraines or other common headaches, some small percentage of them will notice a strong correlation between their headaches and being near electronics. I can see how they can convince themselves that this is the cause.
steckerbrett 11y ago
It's easily disproved by the fact that they think they are escaping it by simply moving away from WiFi. The 2.4GHz band is swamped in most consumer settings by remote controls, doorbells, video systems, remote control cars. Beyond that (imagining you somehow eliminated all of those) the biggest source of radio frequency garbage is going to be from space rather than a consumer grade <1W transmitter, the atmosphere is pretty opaque to 2.4GHz. Somewhat coincidentally the cosmic noise we can hear from earth is mostly in the microwave range. Maybe if people's skulls started vibrating in time with the woodpecker [0] or something I'd believe it. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duga-3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duga-3
- jancona 11y ago
  No, not true. The strength of electromagnetic fields is governed by an inverse-square law. The reason the town bans WiFi is that even a low-power router can overpower the signals from space, even though a 100 meter diameter dish is focused on the space signals. The same phenomena means that people who complain about radiation from cell towers while not avoiding cell phones are being irrational--the signal from a phone in the same room (or in your pocket) is far stronger that from a tower hundreds or thousands of meters away.
beloch 11y ago
Wifi signals actually create fairly complex regions of nodes and nulls in most rooms. There might not be a simple gradient between the two rooms in this setup, so it could be difficult even if people really were "sensitive" to those signals. It would be more reliable to just turn the router on and off and (in a double blind test) ask "sensitives" to tell you if the router is on or off. That being said, blind-folding a bunch of these people and asking them to simultaneously stumble around and find the router would be pretty hilarious.

hannob 11y ago

Such studies have been done numerous times. You need to consider proper blinding to get it right, but it's not too hard. But if you have people who will claim that every study contradicting their belief is a conspiracy by the phone industry that doesn't help a lot. It's like homeopathy: You can throw as many studies as you want at the believers. They don't believe in science, therefore it's not working.

zalzane 11y ago

in the article it says they don't want to submit to testing > None of which gets round the core issue: if EHS is real, I asked Diane, then why has it not shown up in formal experiments? “I encourage scientists to go to where we are and measure the environment,” she replied. “Don’t try to pretend that you’re God and expose us to different frequencies in a lab. That’s like taking someone and breaking their legs and asking how much it hurts.”

emiliobumachar 11y ago
Their should be a signal intensity level high enough to be distinguishable from nothing but still low enough to cause slight annoyance rather than traumatic agony over a short period.
- cwyers 11y ago
  One of the people in the story claims the florescent bulbs at the Dollar Store triggered her condition. If that's the case, it should be REALLY easy to verify some of these claims in a laboratory setting.
  - vsync 11y ago
    Heachaches caused by fluorescent lights are an entirely separate issue, considering they produce flickery light at odd color temperatures with weird peaks across the spectrum. Never mind that lots of establishments have things way too bright, and probably failing sockets causing extra fluctuations as well. I don't think it's disputed that anyone can see visible light.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      I'll add to your comment that light sensitivity in general is a known issue with many people (eg autistics). They actually feel pain from seeing lights that are too bright including lots of sunlight or artificial light. So, one or more of these people might have this condition.
      - vsync 11y ago
        Well, programmers historically have tended to stereotypically prefer a dimmer milieu. Not to mention there are a number of simple physical injuries that can cause photophobia: <URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photophobia#Causes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photophobia#Causes > Overillumination has been known for some time to cause various other deleterious health effects anyway, and flicker aside fluorescents just put out plain terrible light. It completely baffles me why so many establishments install it (well, workplaces; retailers like it because it makes you buy more apparently).
        nickpsecurity 11y ago
        Appreciate the link. It linked to something that applies to me: the photic sneeze reflex. It really sucks haha.
superskierpat 11y ago
Well breaking someones legs with a tire iron is an efficient way of proving they are vulnerable to them.. nonetheless, I dont see how getting your legs broken is similar to a headache and a few rashes
johnchristopher 11y ago
Ah, I remember one documentary/subject in the news on the TV and technicians came to measure things then they found out the cell tower was not connected yet. Not connected as in not even powered on and no electricity running through its systems. Of course it's just one data point and it doesn't prove people aren't suffering.

jotux 11y ago

Related: http://www.bmj.com/content/332/7546/886.full http://www.bmj.com/content/332/7546/886.full >60 “sensitive” people who reported often getting headache-like symptoms within 20 minutes of using a global system for mobile communication (GSM) mobile phone and 60 “control” participants who did not report any such symptoms. >Participants were exposed to three conditions: a 900 MHz GSM mobile phone signal, a non-pulsing carrier wave signal, and a sham condition with no signal present. Each exposure lasted for 50 minutes. >Headache severity increased during exposure and decreased immediately afterwards. However, no strong evidence was found of any difference between the conditions in terms of symptom severity. Nor did evidence of any differential effect of condition between the two groups exist. The proportion of sensitive participants who believed a signal was present during GSM exposure (60%) was similar to the proportion who believed one was present during sham exposure (63%).

fragsworth 11y ago
Of hundreds of millions of people who suffer migraines or other common headaches, some small percentage of them will notice a strong correlation between their headaches and being near electronics. I can see how they can convince themselves that this is the cause.

steckerbrett 11y ago

It's easily disproved by the fact that they think they are escaping it by simply moving away from WiFi. The 2.4GHz band is swamped in most consumer settings by remote controls, doorbells, video systems, remote control cars. Beyond that (imagining you somehow eliminated all of those) the biggest source of radio frequency garbage is going to be from space rather than a consumer grade <1W transmitter, the atmosphere is pretty opaque to 2.4GHz. Somewhat coincidentally the cosmic noise we can hear from earth is mostly in the microwave range. Maybe if people's skulls started vibrating in time with the woodpecker [0] or something I'd believe it. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duga-3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duga-3

jancona 11y ago
No, not true. The strength of electromagnetic fields is governed by an inverse-square law. The reason the town bans WiFi is that even a low-power router can overpower the signals from space, even though a 100 meter diameter dish is focused on the space signals. The same phenomena means that people who complain about radiation from cell towers while not avoiding cell phones are being irrational--the signal from a phone in the same room (or in your pocket) is far stronger that from a tower hundreds or thousands of meters away.

beloch 11y ago

Wifi signals actually create fairly complex regions of nodes and nulls in most rooms. There might not be a simple gradient between the two rooms in this setup, so it could be difficult even if people really were "sensitive" to those signals. It would be more reliable to just turn the router on and off and (in a double blind test) ask "sensitives" to tell you if the router is on or off. That being said, blind-folding a bunch of these people and asking them to simultaneously stumble around and find the router would be pretty hilarious.