Late last month, we covered the goings on in Santa Fe, NM, and their plans to introduce free WiFi in a number of public buildings. As you may recall, those plans were being challenged by a group of cranky citizens who claimed that the plan constituted discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as they suffered from an alleged sensitivity to electromagnetic radio frequency emissions. Santa Fe’s city council has spoken, and it seems they think the complaint is a spurious as the rest of us.

Santa Fe's city council voted unanimously to go ahead with the plan to provide free WiFi hotspots around the city in libraries and other public buildings, and rejected a motion to leave city hall uncovered by the plan.

Arthur Firstenberg, leader of the group who claim to be allergic to wireless emissions, calls the decisions both a "disaster" and also invites "a lawsuit." On the other hand, Frank Katz, the city attorney appointed to investigate whether Mr Firstenberg's claims held water, came to the conclusion that such a legal challenge would be without merit.

As we've covered repeatedly here at Ars, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the claims of these so-called WiFi sensitives, but it has been noted that patients who present themselves to doctors with such symptoms often also suffer from psychiatric complaints.

That’s not to say that Mr Firstenberg couldn't still bring a lawsuit under the ADA, but I find it hard to see how such a suit could be won. I'm also a little puzzled as to how Mr. Firstenberg manages to conduct his daily business in Santa Fe when he's not in public buildings, what with the proliferation of hotspots in cafes and multitudes of private networks from businesses and residences. As we showed a few years ago, WiFi signals can be detected from as far away as 2,500 feet, although in that case it the distance was vertical. But don't tell the so-called WiFi sensitives.