http://techdirt.com/articles/20100108/1532307683.shtml

Make of that what you will...

There is someone the Purple One knows who is sensitive to Wi-Fi signals, it's got something to do with her heart. She doesn't have a pacemaker or anything, but the signals seem to affect her, the doctors don't really know why, so she has to wear a shied...She's ok when she's at home out in the sticks, but she gets affected in town and in parts of uni where the Wi-Fi signal is strongest...

Oh god, this again?

quick break out the tin foil hats!!!!

I like this response

And it's a very good point, too.

But it doesn't hold any value beyond it's own statement.
Yes, you are correct, it is inconvenient that they appear to react to those frequencies. Do you have a further point?
Frequency is not the only factor present, there may also be issues with amplitude to be considered. Who knows? Not me.

Specifically, the modulation of the amplitude. WiFi signals pulse in a way that mimics brain alpha patterns, and it's a very well established fact dating back to cold war experiments with microwave weapons that interfering with brain waves causes irrational behaviour and sickness.

There was a similar issue with spread-spectrum police radios that meant they sent mental patients extra-insane, and have since been banned in case of zombie attacks or something. I forget the specific details.

Animals such as pigeons can detect and navigate by the Earth's magnetic field, which is far weaker than a mobile phone at close quarters. Just because radiation doesn't burn you is no proof that it's not interfering with the minute electrical signals in your brain. It's well known that solar maximums and electrical storms coincide with peaks in suicide and murder, for example.

If you're not tuned in then you can't hear it. That doesn't mean it's not there. Jack's all right, but Jill is totally f*cked...

Surely if he lived in a house, he could have either sold it and moved or insulated himself in some way?

My old neighbours were affected. We ended up agreeing to switch off the Wi-Fi on the router when I didn't need it and over night.

As all my kit was wired, I didn't need it often anyway (using the laptop on the couch or on the balcony, so 99% of the time I left it switched off.

The problem with this and many other examples is that they are anecdotal and subject to so much bias, that any conclusion is rendered non viable.
The question is why when any rigorous testing is done, the problem doesn't manifest itself? Especially now days when it would be nigh on impossible to go anywhere in a populated area not to be bathed constantly in the signals.

Let the bloke pass a double blind test, then he can argue the toss.