Despite years of study, there is no clear evidence that exposure to the photons emitted by devices like cell phones and wireless networks pose any health risk whatsoever. That hasn't stopped people from concluding they are sensitive to these electromagnetic emissions and taking various actions to avoid them. While some of these people have moved to areas with low levels of this radiation, others have tried to force the rest of society to accommodate them.

In the latest instance of this, a Massachusetts couple has sued their child's school, claiming that its "industrial-capacity" Wi-Fi system was causing health problems. The suit hopes to have "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome" defined as falling under the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The suit targets the Fay School, a pricey Massachusetts boarding school (families of younger students can pay $25,000 a year and up for them to attend during the day, while full boarding is offered for older students at $60,000). Fay has students use Chromebooks and tablets during classes and provides the devices with Internet access through a Wi-Fi network. In 2013, Fay upgraded its network to what the suit describes as "a high-density, industrial-capacity wireless system."

Shortly thereafter, the suit alleges that the child, called "G" to preserve his anonymity, began experiencing health problems, including headaches, nose bleeds, dizziness, chest pains, and nausea. This led to frequent visits to the school nurse's office, but the suit claims that symptoms declined once the child was home from school. (The suit claims that shifting from 2.5GHz frequencies to a 5GHz network "doubled the prior emissions."

According to the suit, G's "Mother concluded, after much research and study, that Fay’s Wi-Fi was the probable cause of G’s symptoms." The parents later found a doctor that specialized in environmental health who diagnosed the child as having "electromagnetic hypersensitivity." At this point, the parents asked Fay to visit G's classrooms so they could suggest ways of minimizing his exposure, like wiring the classrooms for ethernet.

The lawsuit alleges that the parents' concerns were met with a "hostile attitude." The school refused their request to visit the classrooms. It also asked that the parents take the child to doctors it selected; these either didn't accept that there was any scientific basis for accepting electromagnetic hypersensitivity existed or hadn't even heard of it. Finally, Fay threatened to ban the parents from a school-hosted e-mail list and keep their child from re-enrolling if they continued to bring up their concerns.

The parents allege that this behavior violates the school's contractual obligations to its student. But more significantly, they claim that electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. They're suing for damages, fees, and to force the school to take action.

What to make of all of this? The parents claim that "The evidence that will be produced at a hearing or at trial will show that it is very probable that G has EHS caused by the high-density Wi-Fi emissions from the Fay Wi-Fi system and devices." But they've also undoubtedly read the Wikipedia entry on this supposed disorder, which summarizes the scientific evidence nicely: people who claim to have the disorder simply can't tell whether equipment that emits this radiation is switched on or not.

Beyond that, there really isn't a plausible biological mechanism by which this low-energy radiation can cause changes to cells beyond heating them. In short, the doctors suggested by the school had it right: there's no compelling evidence that this syndrome exists. And it's not simply Wikipedia that says so; scientific organizations that have looked into this issue have come to the same conclusions.

To counter that, the suit attaches letters from a handful of academics who are convinced EMS is real. It also cites an organization dedicated to claiming this radiation is dangerous, a report from a journalist, and a press release. Overall, their case doesn't look convincing on these grounds.

As for the school's behavior, it's hard to judge based on what is undoubtedly a one-sided presentation. Without evidence regarding the parents' behavior at school or on the mailing list, it's tough to judge whether the school was simply trying to keep G's parents from inciting the rest of the community.

The final issue is the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit quotes approvingly from documents issued by the US government's Access Board (such as this one) in which the agency seems to suggest things like electrosensitivity may fall under the ADA. But the phrasing is critical, and the board's statements consist of language such as "may be considered disabilities under the ADA." And even the suit recognizes that "In creating these guidelines, the Board takes into consideration those diagnoses that could be considered disabilities under the ADA definition" (emphasis ours).

In other words, the Board is simply stating that, should these diagnoses be confirmed, they could be considered disabilities. But that shifts things back to the question of whether this is a valid diagnosis—and, as we noted above, that contention is on pretty shaky scientific ground.

A copy of the suit has been posted online.