Lady protects house from the future

22 October 2014

'The Future' A pensioner from West Sussex has spent a small fortune renovating her house against WiFi.

Stefanie Russell has spent £4,000 covering her house in four thick coats of ray-repelling paint and has banned mobile phones and computers from her home, as she believes they threaten her health. Stefanie from Steyning, West Sussex, also uses a special device to detect unwanted signals in her house.

She claims that her sensitivity to the rays are responsible for frequent headaches and bouts of nausea.

She also believes that the severity of her condition means that she cannot travel on public transport due to the number of portable devices being used. Adjusting her tin foil hat, Ms Russell said: "I've not been diagnosed by a doctor but my GP surgery is aware of my condition."

"Every time I am near WiFi or mobile phone signals I feel ill. It makes it difficult for me to get around and see people. I don’t touch the internet or email - it’s not safe".

She's been assured that she will not have unwanted WiFi guests coming into her home. Stefanie also fears for the children, for the children are the future.

"Schools could use broadband instead of WiFi, protecting them from early exposure to radiation. This is important – exposing them at an early age is essentially cooking our children."

And there, at 'cooking our children', we must leave Stefanie. Bless.

TOPICS:   Technology


  • bob
    What about protecting them from the radio (sorry, wireless)? Same thing. Moron.
  • Question
    What a top notch fuckwit.
  • Mark W.
    I wonder if she owns a microwave oven!
  • Slacker
    "£4,000 covering her house in four thick coats of ray-repelling paint" Someone saw her coming then!
  • tiderium
    wibble wibble this lady is batshit crazy. her device for detecting these "evil" waves of deadly rays what does it use to detect them? I would love to hear her reasoning for refusing an x-ray, MRI or cat-scan if her doctor sent her for one to help find out the cause of her nausea and headaches. I can answer that though shes fucking mental.
  • James D.
    I was concerned for my health so I covered my house in lead based paint.
  • Alf H.
    She knows her own body, if she believes that wifi is the primary cause of her headaches than I say it's plausible. Besides there's plenty of academia to back up her claims:
  • 4x3p
    How does she go shopping as nearly every shop has Wi-Fi now? Or does she only have reactions to Wi-Fi she know about?
  • Alf F.
    "Besides there’s plenty of academia to back up her claims" None of which is recognised by the mainstream scientific community. The people behind that smart meter site you keep spamming are bat-shit crazy e.g. Liz Evans
  • Bogbrush
    She said: “I’ve not been diagnosed by a doctor but my GP surgery is aware of my condition." I bet they fucking are
  • b1
    There are some quite mean comments here. My question is, if WiFi, etc. is harmless, why do studies and patents funded by the industry show they cause cancer? This one was funded by T-Mobile: And this one was a patent logged by Swisscom and listed cancer initiation and promotion as known phenomenon: I used the stop smart meters website to serve notice on my energy company to get them to remove a smart meter I had (my bills nearly doubled within three months). They only agreed to do it when I asked them to send me a letter of accountability for any harm caused by it and signed by one of their directors. They wouldn't agree to that (I wonder why?) and I had a non-smart meter within a week. Funny 'eh.
  • Hoosten
    "My question is, if WiFi, etc. is harmless, why do studies and patents funded by the industry show they cause cancer?" What you are displaying is a classic example of citations bias - link to a couple of studies that support your viewpoint, ignore the majority which don't. You can find a 'scientific' study that's shows almost anything if you look hard enough. All the reputable organisations which have looked at this issue (eg The WHO) have concluded that there is no proven risk of using wifi, although of course the matter is under ongoing review as we are talking about a relatively recent technology.
  • Big M.
    We need a worldwide study where thousands upon thousands of people are subjected to WiFi signals on a daily basis in hundreds of different locations whether they know it or not, walking down the street, on the bus, in the home, school, college etcetera. We could then see if hundreds and thousands of people start developing the symptoms described such as nausea, headaches or cancer (which Ms. Russell doesn't have). And remember, correlation is not causation. That's like saying people who have £4000 to spend on painting their home don't have real problems (or worries) in their life (like poverty, work related stress or medically diagnosed illness) so go around looking for very unique illnesses in order to get some attention and feeling of 'being special'. People who think that are just wrong.
  • b1
    Hang on, the two links are what 'the industry' is saying - and you're calling that biased? If you want bias, have a read of this It discusses the typical spread of results between industry vs non-industry-funded studies. Bias is a business plan for these people. If you are relying on what the W.H.O. have to say, have you actually looked at what they say? They upgraded RF-EMF it to a class 2B carcinogen in 2011. That's not "no proven risk". It's "oh, dear... we might have a massive problem here". And it's not a recent technology - the military has used RF-based technologies for years, although always with big yellow warning signs to stop personnel straying too near to them. They know exactly what this type of radiation does to people and have written quite a few reports on it.
  • b1
    "We need a worldwide study where thousands upon thousands of people are subjected to WiFi signals on a daily basis in hundreds of different locations whether they know it or not, walking down the street, on the bus, in the home, school, college etcetera." We're already in it, Big Mozzer. But these people will go to the doctors with headaches, doctors here have no training or recognition of EHS (like they do in Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, etc.) and so people will be told to take some pills. No questions will be asked about proximity to wireless routers, and no recommendations given for avoiding exposure.
  • b1
    PS - brain cancer was up 50% in the ten year period between 1999 and 2009. (National Audit Office figures).
  • b1
    *sorry, Office for National Statistics figures, not NAO...
  • Hoosten
    There are thousands upon thousands of studies in this field which generally suffer from poor study design and various bias, especially publication and confirmation bias. You have picked one from 2000, and another highly dubious report from 1971! The best way to try and make sense of this mass of information is to look at conclusions drawn by larger organisation - health agencies & governments which are likely to be more objective - i.e. not as influenced by activists or industry. Class 2B doesn't mean there is a likely risk - it just means keeping options open, which seems sensible. Reassuring with a hint of caution - a rather mature scientific approach that allows for a change in opinion based on evolving evidence - quite unlike activists/fanatics who pick a side and then ignore general consensus based on an almost religious belief system. If you want to read more from a reputable source then look here:
  • b1
    ... 5,000 of which show harm. They're not all badly designed, are they? And it only requires one to show harm for it to be cause concern about us all being blanketed in. Age of docs - does that really matter? I wouldn't want us to start using the works of Plato for kindling because it's got a dusty cover. I personally don't go for looking at faceless organisations that much, and I certainly don't lean towards government objectivity given how much the exchequer earns from wireless and how much the military is dependent on it (can you imagine the liability suits they will face?). Remember what Macmillan told Eden about smoking about how tax revenues were good for the numbers? You can't trust consensus either - it's an appeal to majority/popularity and is therefore a reasoning error. Instead I try to go for verifiable facts. Here's a study accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed International Journal for Radiation Biology (86:334-343, 2010). It shows a mutagenic response from WiFI exposure from 2 hours exposure per day over 35 days. What we can see is that harm is caused - the DNA breakdown shown is due to non-ionising pathways and the production of peroxynitrite. This produces free radicals leading to inflammation, oxidative stress, cell, protein, lipid and DNA damage. If you search for people like Prof Martin Pall + Dr Andrew Goldsworthy (UCL), you can find them explaining not just that the radiation from wifi and cell phones cause damage, but how they do so (they cause voltage-gated calcium channels to leak, resulting in the above chain reaction). It's a signalling issue - not a heating one. Also worth looking up is Prof Lennart Hardell's work. His team's work, in Sweden, led to the upgrade decision by the WHO/IARC to 2B in 2011 (positive associations between mobile phones and brain glioma). What's more is that Hardell had a study accepted for publication last week in the International Journal for Environment Research and Public Health which calls for the classification to be lifted to 1 - known carcinogen. I wonder when our broadcast media will report that from their AM/FM towers!
  • b1
    *PS - I would argue against Class 2B meaning "keeping options open/reassuring with a hint of caution". It's two grades above "probably not carcinogenic" (4) and that's because it carries a sufficient evidence of harm for some concern. There were calls at the time for it to be 2A because mechanistic evidence was largely ignored by the "consensus". Prof Dariusz Leszczynski - an IARC panel member - criticised the decisions around this and said that the shock of it reaching 2A so quickly would be unmanageable. Dr Annie Sasco, another panelist, also called for it to be 2A.
  • Coran H.
    I think the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics and experimental design. This cartoon perfectly sums it up:
  • Bogbrush
    this thread si giving me cancer
  • Wilma M.
    Professor Hardells latest research states very clearly that cellphones cause brain cancer.The liability is now clear.WHO,ICNIRP, and all the governing bodies have received this information.Professor Hardell's research was blocked from being forwarded to the WHO - by one man-who has serious issues with conflict of interest.It has also come to light that the brain cancer figures in Sweden/Denmark are in a mess-there were actually more brain cancers than what was reported.Remove the people with conflict of interest from all these advisory boards,then we might hear the truth. There is not one,i repeat, not one independent,non-industry funded research paper that states that cellphones are safe. Prof Hardell calls for cellphone levels to be classified as 'carcinogenic',not possible or probable. Anyone aware that there is a class action suit against cellphone companies underway in Columbia USA?The industry has managed to stall it for allmost a decade and is only now going to trial.It is a benchmark case-it is the first time ever that a USA judge has allowed expert witnesses to testify on behalf of the plaintiffs.Why is there no major media coverage about this?Is it because most of the media is owned by the telecom industry? As for EHS(electrohypersensitivity) there seems to be a blatant attack on the EHS community, depicting them as mad.For those that are not aware of this condition,please educate yourself before making hurtful and insulting comments.An excellent video on this is the following:Current Concepts in Diagnosis and Management of EHS Radiation Research Trust Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe Society of Ecological Medicine BSEM March 2014. EHS is on the rise-rapidly- could that be why these degrading articles are published? Look at this one from South Africa-i have requested that the newspaper apologises to all EHS sufferers ,including this woman.Read the comments on this article at the bottom.The ignorance is astounding.Wi-Fi, cellular radiation fears lead to divorce: report

What do you think?

Connect with Facebook, Twitter, or just enter your email to sign in and comment.

Your comment