Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Wi-Fi Makes Trees Sick!

<< < (2/4) > >>

worstje:
I'll see if I can get us a more scientific source tomorrow. :)

I have a family member who works at said university (and a good part of our family happens to have their roots in the city mentioned in the article) so there's a chance I might be able to get my hands on some more scientific stuff for you guys. Said family member did not know anything about this research till I mentioned it just now though, so we'll have to see.

All in all, I must say I am pretty curious myself towards details on this subject.

tomos:
I tend to be skeptical until I see a trustworthy scientific source that tells me that things are actually okay - which [trustworthy] sources, as Renegade says, are difficult to come by (these days of caring corporation love)

[not that I've really conscientiously avoided any of this stuff either]


edit/ didn't mean to misquote Renegade there who simply points out that a lot of research is 'sponsered'

Renegade:
tomos, you got me thinking about it there -- sponsored/non-sponsored/bias/non-bias research...

There's research that I read and believe, and other research that I don't believe.

Without much examination of why, it almost seems arbitrary/irrational. I suppose the primary source of my skepticism is where I see/perceive self-interest or a conflict of interest or something like that.

app103:
Sponsored research or research by someone with their own agenda can be a really dangerous thing, and sometimes the person reading about it doesn't know, or doesn't know the entire truth about it.

Take the "research" that was done that connected vaccinations with autism. The doctor that did it was paid to do it...by a lawyer that was looking for a connection for one of his clients. The "results" were spread around all over the place, with parents believing it and being afraid to vaccinate their kids. Now the medical journals the "study" was published in took a better look at it and pulled it. They refuse to accept it as a valid study for a whole bunch of reasons above and beyond the obvious conflict of interest of being paid by a lawyer to find specific results.

But there are still tons of parents that are made to believe that it's still truth and being told by quacks that there is some pharmaceutical company cover-up involved...and they are not vaccinating their children.

Meanwhile, there is a rise in the number of preventable diseases among children, a rise in the permanent disabilities they cause, and in deaths. And those that can't have the vaccines for various reasons such as allergies and other medical conditions, no longer can rely on herd immunity to protect them because the herd isn't protected any more. And as these kids grow up, it will affect the next generation worse, as a return to things like birth defects caused by Congenital Rubella Syndrome returns to developed nations. (yeah, sometimes the vaccines aren't to protect the child that gets vaccinated, and are instead meant to protect unborn children that could be exposed to a virus while in the womb)

MMR Vaccine-Autism Link Debunked
Doctor Who Linked Autism and Vaccines Faked Data
Why Does the Vaccine/Autism Controversy Live On?

Deozaan:
Funny, when I was in tech support I thought it was the other way around: Deciduous trees interfere with WiFi.

Pine needles just so happen to vibrate at 2.4 Ghz, which can interfere with WiFi signals which typically use a 2.4 Ghz frequency. Or something like that.

I wonder if that's related. I wonder if the trees are sick because they are somehow intercepting all the rotten things on the internet. :-\

If you believe that stuff about Messages from Water then imagine a trillion billion negative messages being broadcast simultaneously and pine trees are naturally in tune with the signal, so they get them all.

It's late/early so I'm having a bit of a hard time getting that concept to come across the way I want it to. I hope it makes sense.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page