Internet Law
WiFi-Sensitive Individuals Claim ADA Violation
Posted May 27, 2008, 05:58 am CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
The city attorney in Santa Fe, N.M., is investigating claims that wireless Internet signals are a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act because they can cause an allergic reaction.
Arthur Firstenberg says he is highly sensitive to wireless signals and he experiences chest pain from WiFi, KOB-TV reports. His group is opposing a city proposal to install WiFi in public buildings, saying it violates the ADA.
Firstenberg is a well-known activist who wrote Microwaving Our Planet: The Environmental Impact of the Wireless Revolution, VNUNet reports.
The World Health Organization says there is little evidence to support claims that electromagnetic fields cause symptoms described by those who claim an allergic reaction, USA Today reports.
Related Stories
- Lawyer Won $2.4M for Client, But Should Get No Attorney Fee, 2nd Circuit Says
Jan 7, 2009, 03:03 pm CST - Ohio Prosecutor Takes Pay Cut and Moonlights to Keep Office Staff
Jan 7, 2009, 12:39 pm CST - Medical Ethics: Must Doctors Tell Patients About Best Hospitals?
Jan 7, 2009, 12:13 pm CST - Testimony: Former Pa. Senator Funneled Work to Law Firms
Jan 6, 2009, 04:02 pm CST
Commenting has expired on this post.
Comments
Posted by PN - 7 months, 1 week, 6 days, 2 hours, 41 minutes ago
It’s always hard to know who is right in these debates. At the same time, “there is little evidence to support . . .” has been used to deny the illness from the Philadelphia hotel that later came to be known as Legionnaire’s Disease; has been used to deny the connection between smoking and lung cancer before there were many, many studies; has been used (and still is used by some) to deny the problems of climate change.
The WHO’s reply can properly state that “there is little evidence . . .” but should also state an affirmative action plan to find out if there now is new evidence that needs to be studied.
Posted by R E Ramcharan - 7 months, 1 week, 5 days, 2 hours, 40 minutes ago
It wasn’t so long ago that people like Mr. Firstenberg would just put new aluminum foil in their hats and get on with life. That seems to have ended with the discovery that ADA can be used as a hammer to impose plaintiffs’ disabilities on the rest of society.
Posted by gopi - 7 months, 1 week, 4 days, 18 hours, 46 minutes ago
The claim that there is an *immediate* painful effect is fairly easy to test. Have somebody ina room with a WiFi AP and don’t tell them if it’s on or not. Let them tell you. Repeat this a few times.
So far, none of the people who claim to be sensitive in this manner have been able to tell when there is or isn’t a signal.
The question about whether EM fields cause harm over 10, 20, 50 years is a harder question to answer since we can’t just stick a cellphone next to somebody’s head for 50 years and see what happens. There is very little evidence of harm from that, either, but it’s not as clear.
So, my point is: When the evidence is *easy* to find, the fact that there is very little of it is significant. Many people have claimed to be sensitive and have been shown to not be sensitive. Maybe we will eventually find somebody who is genuinely sensitive in the future, but “I got a headache going into city hall so I’m sensitive to WiFi” is not how you find this problem.