You're likely in more danger from Scotch™ tape than cellphones - at least the tape releases a known carcinogen (X-Rays).

By which I believe you mean heat given off to the electrical resistance in the device. Absolutely. However is it that unreasonable to think that an object within an electromagnetic field could present resistance to that field and buildup heat under the same principle?

Sure, given appropriate strength of the field's source. Kind of like microwaveovens. Only, the emmissions from WiFi devices aren't strong enough. That's like saying you can weld with a red dot laser pointer because it is a laser too.

Think simpler: objects block your body heat from escaping. Carrying a deactivated cell phone in your pocket or hand will probably still get noticeably warmer than the other pocket/hand.

I have the opposite problem, electricity is allergic to me.
Flourencent bulbs tend not to work if I am alone with them. Every car I have ever owned has died due to electrical problems. I get power outages in my appartment during storms, yet the rest of the building still has power. And when I carry a compass, it rarely works.

I blame the BP, it seems to be the in thing to do. Afterall, no one can prove this isn't their fault. And what contingencies did they come up with to address this problem. Heck, it must be Obama's fault too, after all, FEMA hasn't solved this issue for me.

Well.. you have gremlins. I started to get them when I started playing SR, as a wiccan mage with gremlins... and from that moment my notebook acts weird. Yes this actually happenned and yes I see the logical fallacy in my thinking

Reading comments about metal allergies on Boingboing : http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/23/im-al...p.html#comments

I found this link : http://www.feb.se/feb/blackonwhite-complete-book.pdf
It's apparently a study by the Swedish Association for the ElectroHyperSensitive : http://www.feb.se/index_int.htm

Seems like people are having a problem with electrical fields, or at least think they are.

Or at least they think they are, yes.

See the link I posted (and fixed). A systematic review of the available data as of Jan 2010 shows no evidence for electohypersensitivity. If anything this is a psychological condition.

Like Hypochondria.

Better not show these people the movie Pulse. Then they'd start thinking Wifi is really out to get them.

You say that like it isn't ...!

If you convince somebody that the mushrooms he just ate were some kind of toxic fungus, the person can develop quite real symptoms of a life-threatening intoxication. There's also the story of a double-blind study for a new cancer medication, which lead to hair loss among many participants - however more people in the placebo group than people who took the actual drug suffered this side effect. Layman knowledge tells you that cancer patients often lose their hair, so these people believed the same would happen to them, and belief made reality.

Also interesting to note that link is hosted by FEB - The Swedish Association for the ElectroHyperSensitive International.

Flourescent lights are my bane. I can see the flicker of 60 hz line power in them. One of my daughters can see refresh rates up to 85 hz as a flickering screen without issue though she can see it on some CRTs as high as 100 hz.

My ability to see screen refresh stops around 75hz.

Also went and got an audiogram done about a year or so ago. Was concerned about hearing loss.

After the test, the audiologist told me the results. I basically have hearing that is 20db **better** than the normal person except in one range (human voice) which is slightly better than average. When I told him how old I was, he was stunned. He had never seen results from a person in their early 30s with hearing so significantly good. He said those kinds of results are (typical in his experience) from people in their early teens.

But with my hearing like it is, I can usually tell if something electronic is getting ready to fail because it starts making noises I can hear before anyone else can.

I'm actually with you right there. I don't know what the correct science is behind it, but both flourescent lights and monitors with low refresh rates (anything below the 85-90 range) absolutely wrecks my eyes. And if a monitor gets below 75, I can see (and more importantly 'feel') it flickering myself. I absolutely loathe older laptops. Massive headaches all around.

here is a wiki article on phone radiation and health. I don't normally advocate Wikipedia as a research source, but it probably is a good source for inspiration for a WiFi allergy.

Oh the stupidity.

Yes, EM radiation that cannot be proven to cause cancer is evil because maybe it does cause long term effects of some kind.

EM radiation that is proven to cause cancer and is one of the major sources of cancer is good, because hey, sunbathing is natural, and how can something natural and organic actually be bad.

I do hope you are not directing that at me for addressing the original poster's question...

In any event, something are harmless or even beneficial in small/controlled doses but become harmful with extended or excessive doses.

Yep considering our bodies actually use sunlight that hits our bodies to make certain vitamins.

Too much of a good thing is bad, m'kay?

No, the wiki article. Sorry to have caused offense.

In Portugal, when topless beaches became legal, the incidence rate of breast cancer increased. This is probably due to women sunbathing based on their overall tan level and not taking into account their breasts's reduced tolerance (melatonin levels?), though it could be increased sensitivity of the tissues.

Plus, sunburn. So, yes, too much of a good thing.

Breast cancer means a tumor of the mammary glands, not of the skin covering the breasts

The reason why breast cancer (and other cancer forms) are seemingly becoming more common is quite simple: Western societies are growing older with each year, and older people are more likely to develop cancer. When just comparing individual age groups, cancer rates are stagnating...which also is a problem for people claiming that mobiles or wifi are harmful, not just can't they produce a single study which establishes a link between phones and cancer (let alone a a mechanism how this is supposed to work), but statistics stubbornly refuse to show the alleged pandemic...

I don't think that matters if the cause for the increase is the same. And I believe the incident rate was a drastic increase and thus not so easily attributable to lifespan.

OK, let me phrase it differently: UV radiation is not Gamma radiation, it does not penetrate beneath the skin and thus the carcinogenic effect of UV radiation is limited to the skin. So if exposing a few extra cm² of skin had a significant effect on cancer risks, it would be cause skin cancers and not cancers in the deeper tissues.