There is no WiFi allergy: newspapers misreport PR as science

Funny this should come up today, I just met somebody that claimed that this was the case and used a very sensitive (&#60; 1 uW/m^2) field strength meter to verify their claims and even if I could not disprove it they could not prove it either.<p>As far as I'm concerned the jury is out on this one, but one important thing to remember is that the nervous system is essentially an electrical aparatus using very low powerlevels so interference would be expected by default rather than the opposite.<p>We're sensitive to exposure by sunlight, we're sensitive to hard radiation, it is not too much a stretch of the imagination that we're sensitive to HF too.<p>For much interesting reading about one positive sensitivity:<p><a href="http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=367925" rel="nofollow">http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=367925</a>

Technically, electrosensitivity could still exist as a condition even if wifi sensitivity is disproved, since the definition of the condition is much broader.<p>Also, the tests administered which disproved the so-called "wifi allergy" failed to account for the possibility that the effects take time to develop. I could disprove cat allergies easily using the same method, provided the exposure time was less than the time needed for symptoms to set in.

Wifi allergy? I'm glad I missed another meme.

In Germany the government office for radiation control asks people not to use WiFi in children rooms and where people sleep.

just like global warming...