Ripley's Believe It or Not by Ripley’s Believe It or Not! for December 29, 2012

Amazing with Wikipedia & Phil there.

Heck, everybody I know lives alone in the woods. big deal

I doubt that one could be allergic to those kinds of radiation. Perhaps “allergic” was a poor choice of words. Even so, I doubt that Phil’s condition can be scientifically documented. In other words, I don’t believe sensitivity to that radiation is the cause of Phil’s condition.

Phones & TV’s emit EMF, but how does the internet cause radiation?

When I was doing a degree course a few years back we were told that if we used Wikipedia as a source in our work it would earn you an instant fail mark,

False sugar also comes from science lab and comes to light by pure hazard…

Not only the length of Manhattan, but also several blocks wide and far taller than any of the skyscrapers apparently.

If it was published.

Gee, a chemical created in a lab that sounds like plutonium . . . let’s see what it tastes like!

I’m wondering if Phil is just “allergic” to work.

I’m thinking Phil is very likely writing his “manifesto of technology”

Hey! Phil’s allergic reaction to radiation may be legit. I start sneezing everytime I start checking my email. I swear I’m not maiking this up, but shortly before I read today’s Ripley and when I finished my sneezing concert I said to my wife – " Is is possible that I’m allergic to this God damned machine?"

Has Phil seen “Safe”? I think it’s just psychosomatic.

Tv, radio and all kinds of other radiation is everywere. You cannot get away from it unless you hide in a lead lined closet.

I knew a guy that was sensitive to florescent light- he could see it flicker.

How can one be “allergic” to the Internet? Wouldn’t it be more likely that he is allergic to the “radiation” from the computers and not the Internet itself?

The main problem with using Wikipedia as a source is the fact that it is user-edited, and thus open to the possibility of attack from someone with an agenda. At the same time, the fact that there are hundreds of people doing the editing theoretically can guard against the prejudices of a small group of editors, and the fact that it is electronically updated on a regular basis allows the inclusion of new information on old subjects. I would certainly recommend it and other similar services as a place to start research, but ideally it should be the way you find other sources to consult. When I was a college student, it was drummed into us that primary sources were always preferable to secondary sources if you had access to those primary sources.