Well, neurosis is a disease, isn't it?

I love thinking about the psychiatric underpinnings of the "Wi-Fi allergy" meme that's been floating around like an Internet virus:

A group in Santa Fe says the city is discriminating against them because they say that they're allergic to the wireless Internet signal. And now they want Wi-Fi banned from public buildings.

Arthur Firstenberg says he is highly sensitive to certain types of electric fields, including wireless Internet and cell phones.

"I get chest pain and it doesn't go away right away," he said.

Firstenberg and dozens of other electro-sensitive people in Santa Fe claim that putting up Wi-Fi in public places is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The city attorney is now checking to see if putting up Wi-Fi could be considered discrimination.

I think these people are victims of psychosomatic group hysteria -- something I have discussed before in general. This post by Dr. Helen touched on similar disease symptoms in the context of Wi-Fi. (At the time, the medical community did not accept the existence of the condition.)

What's interesting is that such mental states are known to be able to bring on actual physical symptoms. I do not doubt for a moment that Mr. Firstenberg (an activist with a Wiki entry, BTW) does in fact get chest pains, and that they are real. But a lot of pain and a lot of disease symptoms have strong mind body connections. Books like this have been written on the subject. That the mind can cause or aggravate physical symptoms of disease does not diminish their reality to the patient, nor does it in any way diminish their suffering.

That emotional distress can make you sick is not a terribly profound nor terribly new idea. Why, even this blog post might upset people -- especially those who believe the Wi-Fi signals are the direct cause of their symptoms, rather than a trigger of a mental process which causes them. It is not unreasonable to assume that in such cases, mere disagreement with the diagnosis of such a suggestible person might cause more symptoms to erupt.

Even political disagreements can cause physical symptoms of illness. At the height of the Bush Derangement Hysteria era, I heard about a woman who fulminations against Bush caused her to literally erupt in hives -- something that shocked my friend whose disagreement with her had set it off.

This all raises an interesting point, though, because if we assume for the sake of argument that certain suggestible people like this will get chest pains in the presence of Wi-Fi, and that these symptoms can be documented, under the law it really doesn't matter how they originate, because it is the Wi-Fi signal (or, at least the awareness of the WiFi signal) that triggered them. Whether the signals cause the disease symptoms directly or indirectly via a psychogenic component, they still could be considered a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

All symptoms and diseases are created equal.

And after all, isn't that what lawyers are for?

If racism can cause symptoms, why not Wi-Fi?

And while we're at it, why not a lot of other things? (Global Warming, for starters....)

Hey, I'm not being judgmental here. I'm just as sick as anyone else.

Isn't my neurosis just as valid as anyone else's?

MORE: Despite my satirical tone, this is no joke to activists like Mr. Firstenberg, whose group advocates getting rid of a lot of things many people take for granted:

Electric floor or ceiling heaters, fluorescent lights, dimmer switches, and electronic security systems can all produce problematic electromagnetic fields. Finding all the sources and eliminating or avoiding them requires patience and may be time-consuming but is not necessarily difficult or expensive.

Your basic measuring tools are a $40 magnetic field meter, or "gaussmeter," and a cheap (poorer quality is better for this purpose) battery-operated AM radio. When the gaussmeter reads 0.2 milligauss or less, and the radio, when tuned between stations, remains silent (does not buzz or give loud static), you have a relatively calm environment--especially important in the sleeping area. These two measuring devices will not detect the very high frequency radiation produced by cordless phones, wireless computers, baby monitors, remote controls for appliances, radio-controlled toys, and other wireless equipment. We recommend eliminating wireless technology from the environment altogether.

While I remain skeptical, anyone has the right not to use electronic equipment, and to shun all such technology.

However (and perhaps this comes from living for decades in Berkeley), the worry wart inside me causes me to wonder whether this could lead to a busybody movement against "second hand electronic emissions" -- in a manner similar to the movement against smoking.

Back in the early 70s, I laughed at Berkeley's GASPers. No one laughs at them now.

But suppose someone said this:

"Please turn off your laptop. You're emissions are hurting my health!"
That's still funny, isn't it?

But how long will it be funny? I'd appreciate having some sort of time frame, because after all, satire can be ruined by too much reality.

posted by Eric on 05.25.08 at 10:35 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/6730






Comments

I say we take this seriously right after they demonstrate they can reliably tell when a wifi is on or off.

Charlie (Colorado)   ·  May 26, 2008 12:39 AM

The country is flooded with healthophobes, and unethical academics provide them with spurious statistics to back their claims.

Our courts should have long ago held that if one finds others' practice of liberty tickles their phobias, he should stay home. It is impossible to run a mutually respectable society when every hypochondriac and his placebo can successfully petition the government to bully the people whose doings he disapproves. It's just plain tyranny.

Brett   ·  May 26, 2008 09:10 AM

It's worth noting that *this* is an actual example of a problem that can be cured by wearing a tin-foil hat.

Amazing.

Clint   ·  May 26, 2008 01:06 PM

On a CA-NY Jet Blue flight not long ago, shortly after takeoff an announcement was made that because one passenger had a severe allergy to nuts, the usual nut snacks would not be offered and we were all requested not to eat any nuts we had brought on board ourselves. What most irked me was the fait accompli aspect. But what should have happened? Should this person simply not fly, as being too much of a burden to others? Should the airline refuse to make accommodation? And after the nut allergies, what shall we say about perfumes in such enclosed, semi-public spaces? And the list will surely go on, until surely, yes, I will be asked not to operate my laptop on board next to someone who claims a problem with it.

italtrav   ·  May 27, 2008 09:28 AM

Clint, I thought the exact same thing.

Phelps   ·  May 27, 2008 02:52 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



May 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits