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.... 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.
I'm probably the last person you'll find minimizing the plight of the disabled, the allegedly disabled, or those who think that their particular affliction qualifies them as disabled. Having said that, though, shouldn't we be able to assume that there is a logical point at which society says "enough is enough"? At what point do we as a society stand up and say that we've accommodated about as much as we can accommodate without tying ourselves up in knots? And when do we stop considering allergies or afflictions as disabilities? I'm allergic to some perfumes, but I don't think you'll see me filing an ADA complaint on that account. I'm not saying that I have these answers, just that I'm posing the questions, because I think on some level we're about to exit habitat of the sublime for the realm of the ridiculous.
I'm not going to denigrate those who believe (accurately or otherwise) that they're allergic to WiFi, but we've been bombarded with unseen electromagnetic forces for...well, what seems like half of forever, really. Arthur Firstenberg may well be legitimately disabled; I can't speak to that with any degree of authority. My question, though, is whether the rest of us should be required to sacrifice for the disability of an exceedingly small number. What happens when someone decides or discovers that they're allergic to the odors produced by a Cinnabon? Do we then regulate (or outlaw altogether) the smell of cinnamon buns as it wafts through our local mall?
Electromagnetic radiation of all varieties is a fact of modern life. I don't know what an effective solution for Arthur Firstenberg may be, but must the many be forced to accommodate for the sake of a very few? Banning WiFi in public spaces hardly seems a reasonable or enforceable solution, simply because WiFi doesn't respect personal boundaries...or any boundary, really. While I sympathize with Mr. Firstenberg's plight, enough is enough...unless we're willing to take this to it's logical extreme where no one does, experiences, or traffics in ANYTHING that adversely impacts ANYONE for ANY reason. Is that really how we want to live?
Hey, don't be looking at me for the answers; I'm just posing the questions....
