Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wi-Fi Allergy a PR Stunt

ScuttleMonkey posted about 5 years ago | from the hope-he-made-his-buck dept.

Communications 174

ADiamond writes "There is no Wi-Fi allergy. The English DJ claiming a Wi-Fi sensitivity, chronicled earlier, was a PR stunt to promote his new album. It would appear that the stunt was highly successful, appearing in multiple high-profile media outlets like The Sun, The Telegraph, and Fox News. The article at Ars goes on to discuss the evidence, or lack-thereof, of electromagnetic spectrum sensitivity."

cancel ×

174 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's Times Like These ... (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 5 years ago | (#28901291)

... I wish downloading an artists album without paying actually did do the artist physical/economic harm. Here's to hoping that later in life he suffers from an actual ailment while everyone ignores him.

I'm going to download his album 10 times... (4, Funny)

jolyonr (560227) | about 5 years ago | (#28901941)

to hurt him even more!

Re:I'm going to download his album 10 times... (3, Funny)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 5 years ago | (#28902023)

Jason Fox tried that once, IIRC.

Something along the lines of:

"What are you doing?"
"Downloading and burning 10,000 copies of $paiges_favorite_cd."
"You know, if people keep doing that eventually artists will quit making music."
"That's what I'm hoping."

Already happened to Kid Rock. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28901957)

Re:It's Times Like These ... (1)

Bemopolis (698691) | about 5 years ago | (#28902013)

If you want to hurt him, then just make sure that when you bittorrent his album that your computer is connected wirelessly, since he's allergic to...DOH!

Re:It's Times Like These ... (3, Insightful)

Smidge204 (605297) | about 5 years ago | (#28903085)

Not to worry, if we use a high enough signal power I'm sure we can get a reaction of some kind.

A few megawatts should just about do it.
=Smidge=

Re:It's Times Like These ... (4, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | about 5 years ago | (#28902137)

He already has it. It's called Asshole disease. In rare cases, it cause a loss in popularity, being socially ostracized, and attempts to win back old friends as society turns their back on you for being a douchebag.

Re:It's Times Like These ... (2, Interesting)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | about 5 years ago | (#28902291)

meh. The media spends so much time propagating garbage and so little doing background research I enjoy seeing them get owned like this. If you're a little guy trying to get noticed, I see no real harm in using their stupidity to your advantage. Guerrilla marketing ftw!

Re:It's Times Like These ... (2, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | about 5 years ago | (#28903345)

I wonder if they'll publish the retraction of the story tomorrow, with similarly big headlines. They usually do ... right?

Re:It's Times Like These ... (1)

orkybash (1013349) | about 5 years ago | (#28902763)

Oh it does, if you believe the RIAA's legal theories...

Re:It's Times Like These ... (1)

impaledsunset (1337701) | about 5 years ago | (#28903147)

He got his cheap publicity in a way that we most don't agree with. So, the best we can do is ignore him from now on.

But how are the artists that currently have the biggest chunk of the publicity cake any better? OK, some of them might be, but most aren't. And he's just some asshole. Too many assholes around, why care about this one? Even wishing him bad things you're caring too much. So don't wish him anything, instead go and download and/or *buy* music from artists that deserve it more than he does.

That said, I can't believe I'm reading this. When I read that he lied that he had an Wi-Fi allergy as a PR stunt I certainly felt I've read the most dumbest thing in my life. His "stunt" isn't even interesting. I mean, he got his coverage, got his 5 minutes of fame, and now when we know what it's about, it just sounds... stupid. Is it just me, or this sound like a rediculous way to get attention?

the best we can do is ignore him from now on. (2, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 5 years ago | (#28903389)

...except the damage is done. The hippies and new-agers have already latched onto the story as yet more proof that WiFi is harmful and their neuroses are real.

Stunts like this aren't 'harmless'. We should publicly flog him, not ignore him.

would suck if someone somewhere was actually (1)

weirdo557 (959623) | about 5 years ago | (#28901357)

would suck if someone out there in some remote place actually was sensitive to radio-waves. then with people pulling crap like this nobody would ever find them and be able to study them.

Re:would suck if someone somewhere was actually (3, Insightful)

adolf (21054) | about 5 years ago | (#28901509)

It's attitudes like that which keep people reclusive when actually do experience strange things (whether medical, mental, metaphysical -- whatever strange means today).

Some people are attention-whores, for sure. And some of those people make stuff up. The rest of the world, though - they'd probably rather keep their strangeness to themselves, than to be studied like a lab rat.

You're talking about human beings, not creatures which we need to find in order to "be able to study them."

Re:would suck if someone somewhere was actually (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 years ago | (#28901905)

You're talking about human beings, not creatures which we need to find in order to "be able to study them."

Excuse me, but you could quiet it down a little. I'm trying to study some of the other subjects in the test tube, and you're causing quite a ruckus.

Re:would suck if someone somewhere was actually (1, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | about 5 years ago | (#28901653)

People do suffer from this affliction. The fact that it's actually a mental problem doesn't actually make it less of an affliction. Mental issues cause real world problems in much the same way as physical ones.

Re:would suck if someone somewhere was actually (4, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 years ago | (#28901857)

Except they don't suffer from "this" affliction.
If they can't pass a double blind test, then the affliction doesn't exist.

Re:would suck if someone somewhere was actually (1)

Denihil (1208200) | about 5 years ago | (#28901991)

People's unfounded fear and mistrust of wifi/bluetooth/microwaves/cellphones manifesting itself as an affliction generates MUCH LESS sympathy (from me, at least) than from a actual physical health problem generated from external forces. It's like a placebo effect, except people believing this....this crap hurts the companies who make these devices. This stuff is like neo-luddite propaganda. Personally if i owned a small wireless manufacturing company, i'd love to sue the crap out of this guy for slander. Yes, i probably couldn't do that, but it would feel oh so nice...

Re:would suck if someone somewhere was actually (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | about 5 years ago | (#28902461)

No, they suffer from hypochondria. Not some wireless allergy.

And since it's a mental issue, might I suggest a cure of a lobotomy?

Re:would suck if someone somewhere was actually (1)

PitaBred (632671) | about 5 years ago | (#28903039)

They suffer from a delusional, psychosomatic illness that needs treatment. Electrosensitivity itself is no more an illness than feeling pain from loud thoughts is.

We know. (3, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | about 5 years ago | (#28901371)

If you read the comments below the LAST article you would know that you didn't need to inform us.

Couldn't someone have tested this disorder sooner? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28901377)

I mean how hard is it to get one of the people, put them in a room, and have them tell you whether or not you plugged in a router?

Re:Couldn't someone have tested this disorder soon (1)

couchslug (175151) | about 5 years ago | (#28902611)

"I mean how hard is it to get one of the people, put them in a room, and have them tell you whether or not you plugged in a router?"

They might guess that if they can hear transformer hum.

Either they do an accurate mental Nmap scan or I call bullshit.

Oh, very fning funny (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#28901421)

Now this story will linger as 'common knowledge' for years and rational people will have to cnstantly explain it was a PR stunt.

Well done jackass, you've made the world a worse place.

Re:Oh, very fning funny (1)

hymy (735785) | about 5 years ago | (#28901497)

The "jackass" tag is more than deserved, but I wonder... Who's the bigger jackass? Him or the people claiming the same allergy?? The world is getting more rotten by the minute, it seems.

Re:Oh, very fning funny (1)

therocketdog (1608009) | about 5 years ago | (#28901541)

When a new illness or condition is announced/"discovered", there will always be people wanting to jump on the sympathy bandwagon attention-seeking. It's human nature, regrettably.

Re:Oh, very fning funny (3, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | about 5 years ago | (#28901597)

Both, plus the news outlets covering it. Everyone knows "wi-fi allergy" has already been disproved, which means there is no story. They might as well be running news articles and segments about how some guy claims to have gotten aids from a hug. UNLESS, they're covering it with the same "what a moron" treatment they would give that "woman claims daughter got pregnant from swimming pool" moron. But of course, they didn't. They sensationalized it because that's easier than spending three minutes googling the truth. Most of today's "journalists" can sucking cuck a fock, as far as I care.

Re:Oh, very fning funny (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#28901645)

He's feeding into a belief. Anyone claiming to ahve this problem while knowing it's not possible is a much bigger jack-ass then people who ignorantly think this can be true.

Of course, the biggest jack asses are the one where you show all the studies and the still refuse to change there minds.
Did I say jackass? I meant moron.

Re:Oh, very fning funny (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28901935)

Why are you so hateful? Not everyone knows as much as you do about "technology". Do not hate them for being "dumb".

But, regardless, it's a good thing these morons have a super intelligent person, such as yourself, to show them the error of "there" ways.~

Re:Oh, very fning funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28901557)

If that's all it takes to dismiss 'electrosensitivity' completely, did you consider that the case may be weak as hell?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrosensitivity
""The symptoms described by 'electromagnetic hypersensitivity' sufferers can be severe and are sometimes disabling. However, it has proved difficult to show under blind conditions that exposure to electromagnetic fields can trigger these symptoms. This suggests that 'electromagnetic hypersensitivity' is unrelated to the presence of electromagnetic fields, although more research into this phenomenon is required.""

Oh oh, I can sense the aura emanating from people, except it doesn't always work when they are completely covered in something which makes me unable to see whether there's a dummy there instead and while karma-destroying people in lab coats are watching.

On the contrary (4, Interesting)

Eevee (535658) | about 5 years ago | (#28901569)

He's made the world a better place. Now anybody who claims to be suffering from this fake malady can be told to shut up with "Oh, that's a fake disease from an old PR stunt."

You have to remember, people were already claiming to suffer from it; it's already in the 'common knowledge' bin. He's brought nothing new to the table as far as claims go.

Re:On the contrary (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28901989)

I am of the opinion that douchebaggery is often an issue of intent, not the unintended result of one's actions.

Having carefully considered his intent, I recommend he be beaten around the face with a claw hammer.

Re:On the contrary (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#28902033)

He added cement to the idea.
All this stuff, Bigfoot, UFO's, Homeopathy, reiki, only gets stronger when something like this happens. When it is proven to be fake, or shown that there is no evidence, it doesn't get reported in mainstream and when it does it gets put on page 8.

Re:On the contrary (1)

JuicyBrain (977451) | about 5 years ago | (#28902835)

He's brought nothing new to the table

You mean aside from bringing a new disk to the turntables ?

Many people will agree, This story should never have been publicized. This man used the media's own lack of professionalism and thirst for sensationalism to his own gain. Good for him. They should be thanking him for having put their nose into their own shit and should remember the lesson they've just been taught.

Re:Oh, very fning funny (2, Funny)

sorak (246725) | about 5 years ago | (#28902231)

Now this story will linger as 'common knowledge' for years and rational people will have to cnstantly explain it was a PR stunt.

Well done jackass, you've made the world a worse place.

Didn't he do that by deciding to become a DJ?

Re:Oh, very fning funny (3, Insightful)

Thaelon (250687) | about 5 years ago | (#28902245)

Quick, put it on Snopes.com.

It's the best we can do for now.

But I have a real allergy (5, Funny)

Anonymusing (1450747) | about 5 years ago | (#28901437)

I'm allergic to PR stunts. You have no idea how miserable they make life. I am dizzy all the time, and can't stop sneezing. And the rashes. And the boils. I may be going blind, as well.

By the way, I have a new album coming out, called "Craposensitive".

Re:But I have a real allergy (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 5 years ago | (#28901709)

I may be going blind, as well.

That's not the PR stunts. "Can I do it until I need glasses?"

Re:But I have a real allergy (1)

j-stroy (640921) | about 5 years ago | (#28901883)

But the stunts are so cunning.

Re:But I have a real allergy (1)

radtea (464814) | about 5 years ago | (#28901983)

I'm allergic to PR stunts.

It's an interesting question as to why no one would take this seriously, no matter how brain-dead stupid they are, but legions of the very same morons take equally idiotic claims of "wifi allergy" seriously.

It isn't like everyone loves PR people and hates wifi, so it isn't as simple as that (the affect of how much people like something is dramatic--ask people about post-op pain and there answer will tell you how much they like their surgeon, and nothing else.)

Wifi is relatively new, while PR stunts are ancient, which helps a bit, although cell phones and other forms of electromagnetic radiation have been around for long enough that it's clear to all but the completely vacuous that they have no negative effect on human health compared to their enormous positive effects.

So why do the anti-empirical morons insist on taking things like wifi allergy seriously, and not PR-stunt allergy?

And more importantly, how can we come up with something that a) only certifiably intelligent people suffer from and b) would result in massive class-action lawsuits against assholes like the clown who perpetrated this?

Re:But I have a real allergy (1, Interesting)

m.ducharme (1082683) | about 5 years ago | (#28902873)

So why do the anti-empirical morons insist on taking things like wifi allergy seriously, and not PR-stunt allergy?

Well, because if I don't take is wifi allergy seriously, then why should he take my fibromyalgia seriously? Or your chronic pain disorder? What I think is happening is that there are two main effects at work here. One is a result of a kind of "post-scientific" thinking, the same kind of thinking that drives the New Age movement, basically the idea that nobody is wrong, everyone has their own opinion about the world, and that opinion is valid. If you subscribe to this school of thought, one of the rigours of it is that you have to assume each person is capable of creating a truth. And one of the benefits of course is that you can believe whatever you want and others like you will eat all your bullshit up with a smile. A lot of the ills of our society can be tracked to this kind of reasoning.

The other problem is our society's consistent inability to treat mental illness as an illness and not as a moral failing. Most of the mysterious illnesses of our society, from wifi allergies to "travelling" pain, to fibromyalgia and chronic pain disorder, are all manifestations of dysthemia and depression. People simply refuse to acknowledge that they're depressed, because of the moral stigma attaching to mental illness, and so the illness manifests itself in other ways.

Calling all these people stupid, however, is just counter-productive and innaccurate. Many of these people aren't stupid in the intellectual sense, even if they lack self-knowledge. Many people here at slashdot, though not stupid, also fail at self-knowledge. Our society simply doesn't encourage self-knowledge, in part because of that moral stigma attaching to mental illness, psychotherapy, or really anything to do with the workings of our emotions. These people are reacting to an illness the only way they know how, because they've never been taught better.

Re:But I have a real allergy (1)

FrankSchwab (675585) | about 5 years ago | (#28903403)

Most of the mysterious illnesses of our society, from wifi allergies to "travelling" pain, to fibromyalgia and chronic pain disorder, are all manifestations of dysthemia and depression.

Source?

Re:But I have a real allergy (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | about 5 years ago | (#28902941)

You lucky lucky bastard! I have an allergy allergy. I get sick from people claiming they have allergies that will never ever be healable. (While I know for a fact that they are and have seen many allergies heal.)

And the believers only hung me the right way up yesterday!

Just shows, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28901443)

the media plays people and the people that listen typically don't know about the electromagnetic spectrum.

Don't believe me? Ask all the people that thought he was for real and ask them what devices use the same part of the electromagnetic spectrum as Wifi. They'll probably say green.

Really? (0, Redundant)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 5 years ago | (#28901499)

I think everyone here knew very well that the was no such thing as a "WiFi Allergy". That it doesn't exist doesn't mean that the claim was a PR stunt though. He could just be a gullible hypochondriac.

Should be classified as fraud (4, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | about 5 years ago | (#28901517)

Misleading and deceiving people for notoriety and financial gain. How the fuck is this not fraud?

Re:Should be classified as fraud (1)

ivan_w (1115485) | about 5 years ago | (#28901613)

Are you talking about politicians ?

--Ivan

(ok.. that one was easy..)

Re:Should be classified as fraud (2, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | about 5 years ago | (#28901713)

Hmm. So if I have ads on my blog and I post "misleading and deceptive" blog posts that are "fun to read" or "sensational" (sounds like the mass media), is that fraud? Or how about advertising that implies "If you drink this, you'll get a girl like the one in this ad!"? ...

Summary: I don't see this as being particularly any worse than most publicity. Heh, for that matter, all of Hollywood is misleading and deceptive for the sake of financial gain

Re:Should be classified as fraud (1)

cathars1s (974609) | about 5 years ago | (#28901715)

Because fraud has a very different definition from "lying" in the legal system.

Re:Should be classified as fraud (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 5 years ago | (#28901717)

Its only fraud if he had people give money (such as, help me build a new wi-fi proof house because I have this condition) simply blogging about fictional events is not fraud.

Re:Should be classified as fraud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28901873)

Nope, fraud can also be obtaining services or goods for free (when there should have been a charge) or reduced payment - for example, if I board a train after waving an expired ticket at the person on the ticket barrier.

One could argue that in this case, national press publicity was obtained for free by making false statements, but how successful this would be in court is debatable.

Re:Should be classified as fraud (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 5 years ago | (#28902265)

But there are loads of written fiction masquerading as truth. That I wouldn't call fraud. Just look at The Da Vinci Code, which despite loads of inaccuracies Dan Brown claims is at least mostly true.

Re:Should be classified as fraud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28901727)

Obtaining Services (PR) by deception?

S11 Fraud Act 2006,
Theft Act 1978

Maybe - IANAL etc.

Re:Should be classified as fraud (1)

JumpDrive (1437895) | about 5 years ago | (#28902487)

If you haven't noticed, the US has legalized this to protect our financial institutions.

Re:Should be classified as fraud (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | about 5 years ago | (#28902959)

How is this fraud?? What exactly did he *take* from you? What did it hurt you?
I can claim I got three buttocks all year long. So what? If you decide to pick it up and run with the story, the shame is on you.

This one needs two people. The one stating the bullshit, and the one believing in it. ;)

Re:Should be classified as fraud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28903121)

Misleading and deceiving people for notoriety and financial gain. How the fuck is this not fraud?

Fraud? My god you are a fucking dumbass.

Re:Should be classified as fraud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28903277)

So do you want to go buy his album now so you can join a class action law suit against him later? You'll have to argue that his PR stunt was the reason you bought the album, which will make you look pretty dumb...

No Alergy eh? (1)

the_leander (759904) | about 5 years ago | (#28901519)

Yeah that'll totally pacify thousands of idiots out there who'll be pointing to his claims for years to come in the same way they point out the MMR stuff now.

I'm allergic to posting on /. (4, Funny)

Hawthorne01 (575586) | about 5 years ago | (#28901529)

Aaaaaaaaahhhhhh, It burns!!!!!!!!! (Buy my new album) Arrrrrrghhhhh, AgonyAgonyAgony!!!!!!!

What, if any, action do we take? (1)

BobMcD (601576) | about 5 years ago | (#28901535)

Do we censor the news outlets that failed to do even the most basic fact checking? Put them on notice somehow?

Do we boycott those sources? As groups or individuals?

Do we just ignore it, as status quo, and bitch about it on slashdot?

Now that we know, and people can prove we know, I wonder if we aren't supposed to take some kind of action.

Re:What, if any, action do we take? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28901671)

I say we email the hell out of steve@subatomicuk.com, let us show this guy there is no wrath like that of /.

Re:What, if any, action do we take? (1)

davmoo (63521) | about 5 years ago | (#28901769)

If we boycott the outlets that spread the story as news and real, we then would not be able to bitch about it on Slashdot...Slashdot was just as guilty of spreading the story as factual as anyone else.

Re:What, if any, action do we take? (2, Interesting)

Hadlock (143607) | about 5 years ago | (#28901863)

I've noticed boing boing [boingboing.net] has had increasingly bad and misleading posts/articles lately, down to "what caused these waves in the snow" and other random BS. Whatever draws an audience, and the clicking of advertising links, I suppose. You don't see crappy articles like these in the NYT.

If it's not the WiFi Allergy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28901549)

If it's not the WiFi allergy, why do I have these 4 hour erections?

Re:If it's not the WiFi Allergy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28901839)

If it's not the WiFi allergy, why do I have these 4 hour erections?

That blue pill Morpheus gave you? It has nothing to do with The Matrix...

Oh, darn... (1)

kiehlster (844523) | about 5 years ago | (#28901583)

There goes my idea for a thesis.

Amazing... (5, Funny)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | about 5 years ago | (#28901589)

It was reported by The Sun, The Telegraph, and Fox News. I'm surprised those bastions of journalistic integrity and careful, measured reporting didn't check their facts better before releasing these reports.

Re:Amazing... (1)

JumpDrive (1437895) | about 5 years ago | (#28902517)

If anybody in the US doesn't know that Fox doesn't check information, they deserve to get pwnd.

What?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28901615)

Is the name of the album called "Wi-fi Allergy"? Because otherwise the stunt didn't work.

Tried before with success.. (5, Informative)

Technician (215283) | about 5 years ago | (#28901641)

The ban Dihydrogenmonoxide stunt also got the media messed up in a comical frenzy over bad science.

This site is still up for your reading pleasure.
http://www.dhmo.org/ [dhmo.org]

The environmental impact of the stuff is huge. It's found most everywhere.
http://www.dhmo.org/environment.html [dhmo.org]

For those who don't get the joke the punchline is here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax [wikipedia.org]
n 1989, Eric Lechner, Lars Norpchen and Matthew Kaufman circulated a Dihydrogen Monoxide contamination warning on the UC Santa Cruz Campus via photocopied fliers.[8] The concept originated one afternoon when Kaufman recalled a similar warning about "Hydrogen Hydroxide" that had been published in his mother's hometown paper, the Durand (Michigan) Express, and the three then worked to coin a term that "sounded more dangerous". Lechner typed up the original warning flier on Kaufman's computer, and a trip to the local photocopying center followed that night.

Re:Tried before with success.. (5, Insightful)

ivan_w (1115485) | about 5 years ago | (#28901691)

Awww.. come on !

The dihydrogen monoxide/hydric acid/hydrane stunt was just *brilliant* !

--Ivan

Re:Tried before with success.. (1)

Technician (215283) | about 5 years ago | (#28901793)

Awww.. come on !

The dihydrogen monoxide/hydric acid/hydrane stunt was just *brilliant* !

And the press and some governments fell for it hook line and sinker.

In March 2004, Aliso Viejo, California almost considered banning the use of foam containers at city-sponsored events because dihydrogen monoxide is part of their production. A paralegal had asked the city council to put it on the agenda; he later attributed it to poor research.[13] The law was pulled from the agenda before it could come to a vote, but not before the city received a raft of bad publicity.[4]

Quote from the wikipedia linked above.

Re:Tried before with success.. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 5 years ago | (#28901841)

Anybody at slashdot who doesn't know wht dihydrogen monoxide is should turn in his nerd card. Saturday Night Live had a skit about that very thing, back when the now Senator was a cast member. He played a Dow executive saying that chemistry always made life better, and drank some of the DHMO to show how good chemistry was.

So Gilda Radner gave him a glass of H2SO4, and hilarity then ensued.

Re:Tried before with success.. (1)

PitaBred (632671) | about 5 years ago | (#28903019)

Little Johnny was a chemist
Little Johnny is no more
For what he thought was H2O
Was H2SO4

- Author unknown, but a very old poem

Re:Tried before with success.. (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | about 5 years ago | (#28901943)

At least dihydrogen monoxide can be dangerous, unlike 2.4 Ghz low-power equipment. It's known to fill in low spaces and force out breathable air. People with more dihydrogen monoxide in their lungs than air tend can suffer brain damage and even death. An unconscious human can asphyxiate in even a shallow pool of this stuff. It's so common, in fact, that there's a special word for it. It's called "drowning".

Re:Tried before with success.. (1)

ivan_w (1115485) | about 5 years ago | (#28902251)

Hmm.. you are going to have to define what you mean by 'low power'.. (that is, low compared to what).

Because, just like excessive or incorrect absorption of DHMO, excessive amount of EM radiation (including those in the proximity of 2.4GHz or "micro waves") can also have adverse effects !

What's probably more important is the irradiance (W.m^-2) - since I guess focusing the entire power emitted by a source such as a Wifi appliance to a small surface could cause burns (although it's probably quite difficult to achieve).

--Ivan

Re:Tried before with success.. (1)

Late Adopter (1492849) | about 5 years ago | (#28903013)

Are you sure? I think the Photoelectric Effect works against you there... You have to get a photon to interact with the body, and the energy of any given 2.4 GHz photon is insufficient to ionize atoms because of Planck's Law. It doesn't matter how many photons are emitted.

Re:Tried before with success.. (1)

ivan_w (1115485) | about 5 years ago | (#28903139)

Of course it's not ionizing.. Each photon has way too little energy to do that !

But unless the material either reflects or is transparent at this wavelength, some of the energy will be transferred to the material and eventually raise its temperature !

Otherwise, how would a microwave oven work ?

--Ivan

Re:Tried before with success.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28902347)

My Lord. People are still thinking about, let alone POSTING ABOUT, this unfunny cliche. This is the type of thing that makes fringe-stupid people think they are smart. "Oh ha! I am smart enough to realize that it means water. Ha ha! Only an IDIOT would fall for this! I am so much smarter than everyone else!"

Re:Tried before with success.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28902477)

Fell for it, did you? Well, at least you're not bitter about it...

Re:Tried before with success.. (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about 5 years ago | (#28902483)

I think someone didn't get the joke.

Re:Tried before with success.. (1)

hercubus (755805) | about 5 years ago | (#28903369)

This site is still up for your reading pleasure. http://www.dhmo.org/ [dhmo.org]

I hope it stays up forever. I've sent this link to some skepticismically-impaired folk, listened to them get all excited, then pulled the rug out.

They tend towards a lot of anger, but they do remember. Whenever the latest monosodium glutamate/sodium lauryl sulfate/random-scary-chemical-name baloney comes down the pike they either skip over me or I gently remind -- "So is this stuff as dangerous as dihydrogen monoxide?"

I raise my glass to DHMO.org -- may they live forever!

Did the DJ confirm ? (3, Interesting)

droopycom (470921) | about 5 years ago | (#28901811)

I mean, I would call this a stunt if the DJ did indeed acknowledge it, and said that he has no condition.

But as of now, this article is just another opinion from a journalist that the the condition is BS, and might indeed have been used as a way to promote an album.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong to promote an album based on what one believes. If the DJ really believes that he is electro-sensitive, then it makes perfect sense for him to promote an album called "electro-sensitive" by talking about his "disease" (even if everybody knows that the disease is only in his head).

What's more scary is not that its used as a PR tool, but the fact that the media was so gullible to just pass it along....

He fogot to mention the other papers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28901829)

"appearing in multiple high-profile media outlets like The Sun, The Telegraph, and Fox News."

It also appeared in other such high-profile media outlets let Weekly World News, The Enquirer and Pravda.

Seems to me... (1)

sporkenstien (1574851) | about 5 years ago | (#28901847)

This is a mutated Rickroll

Some legit studies have found effects (2, Insightful)

marcle (1575627) | about 5 years ago | (#28902087)

Check out this link: http://www.aehf.com/articles/em_sensitive.html [aehf.com] Double-blind study with repeatable results, showed some subjects were sensitive. Remember, the scientific method means that nothing is ever proven definitively; all we can do is hypothesize, experiment, lather, rinse, repeat.

Depends on your definition of legit (1)

spun (1352) | about 5 years ago | (#28902827)

Hmmm, a so called study, posted on the website of one of the guys who performed the study. Said website being a storefront selling dubious 'environmental' products. Color me skeptical.

Old news and... (1)

1080bogus (1015303) | about 5 years ago | (#28902097)

this is linked to Ars Technica which I'm sure a lot of us already read (not all). Why link a story that's linked to a story that's linked to the actual article? I know not every site is perfect but 3 days later, come on!

Trifecta (2, Informative)

jafiwam (310805) | about 5 years ago | (#28902169)

"appearing in multiple high-profile media outlets like The Sun, The Telegraph, and Fox News."

Lol, that's the tard-trifecta right there man. I sure hope Bigfoot doesn't get angry about the coverage of him this crap displaced.

Re:Trifecta (2, Informative)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 5 years ago | (#28902551)

Replace the Telegraph with the Daily Mail. That's a bigger retard magnet.

Cellphone cancer risk (1)

scorp1us (235526) | about 5 years ago | (#28902193)

Ok, so not an allergy, but what about these cell-phone cancer studies? If confirmed, it would also confirm electromagnetic sensitivity, although not an allergy, but it still would be having adverse affects.

I'll let you all debate the validity of those studies.

Not original music (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | about 5 years ago | (#28902353)

He'll get sued for copying the music on his album. Sonata Arctica already wrote the song Weballergy.

Re:Not original music (1)

justinlee37 (993373) | about 5 years ago | (#28903441)

Covers are legal in copyright law (at least as I have heard, IANAL). You can keep someone from reproducing your song, but you can't stop them from memorizing the lyrics and playing it themselves.

Hope he gets ball cancer (0, Offtopic)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 5 years ago | (#28902475)

I think ball cancer would be a suitable punishment for this.

As I suspected! (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about 5 years ago | (#28902715)

Can we sue him now, for all the profits he may get from this album of his? Or at least, can the news services sue him for fraud or something to that effect? People shouldn't be allowed to get away with crying wolf like this.

As Usual, the Summary is Lacking... (1)

denmarkw00t (892627) | about 5 years ago | (#28903037)

It would appear that the stunt was highly successful, appearing in multiple high-profile media outlets like The Sun, The Telegraph, Fox News and Slashdot

Fix'd

Info (1)

xmod2 (314264) | about 5 years ago | (#28903131)

The PR stunt almost worked on me, until I found I was allergic to terrible music.

A choice gem from a sidebar on The Sun's site by Carol Cooper, Sun Doctor:

"Wi-fi waves are higher in frequency than mobile phones and are intense due to the amount of info they carry."

Maybe the reason all these studies are failing to repeat results is because they're not transferring big enough files! One time I got between my computer and the router when I was sending a 10 GB file to the server and it almost knocked my on my arse.

Ignorance On Parade (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | about 5 years ago | (#28903183)

The fact that Fox News and The Sun got hosed in by this stunt comes as no surprise to me. News media by the morons and for the morons. But the Telegraph? They're normally a bit smarter than that.

Still, the fact that the news media were so easily fooled serves to illustrate how little the mainstream media understand about science and technology.

Nice stunt.... (1)

rickb928 (945187) | about 5 years ago | (#28903195)

My wife's friends, who sell this medallion that supposedly shields you from EM radiation, especially WiFi and cell radiation, have been calling and emailing everyone they know quoting this incident and going on about how we M U S T H A V E T H I S P R O T E C T I O N .

Pus. Can I beat this guy down? Please? Please?

I don't know about The Sun or The Telegraph but.. (1)

kawabago (551139) | about 5 years ago | (#28903243)

I don't know about the Sun or Telegraph but Fox News employs every idiot they can find!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>