Author Topic: Wi-Fi Makes Trees Sick! (Read 9876 times)

KynloStephen66515 · « **on:** November 23, 2010, 10:29 AM »

Radiation from Wi-Fi networks is harmful to trees, causing significant variations in growth, as well as bleeding and fissures in the bark, according to a recent study in the Netherlands.

All deciduous trees in the Western world are affected, according to the study by Wageningen University. The city of Alphen aan den Rijn ordered the study five years ago after officials found unexplained abnormalities on trees that couldn't be ascribed to a virus or bacterial infection.

Additional testing found the disease to occur throughout the Western world. In the Netherlands, about 70 percent of all trees in urban areas show the same symptoms, compared with only 10 percent five years ago. Trees in densely forested areas are hardly affected.

Source Website
Raw Link: http://www.pcworld.c...sick_study_says.html

tomos · « **Reply #1 on:** November 23, 2010, 10:42 AM »

So,
what's it doing to us guinea pigs...

Renegade · « **Reply #2 on:** November 23, 2010, 12:13 PM »

Wi-Fi Easy Bake City.

Scary stuff. God only knows what we're doing to ourselves.

Eóin · « **Reply #3 on:** November 23, 2010, 03:17 PM »

Kinda worrying, but I'll reserve judgement until I read more details from a scientific source.

Renegade · « **Reply #4 on:** November 23, 2010, 03:30 PM »

Kinda worrying, but I'll reserve judgement until I read more details from a scientific source.
-Eóin (November 23, 2010, 03:17 PM)

I know what you mean.

I'm sort of skeptical of a lot of research now. A lot of industries sponsor their own "research" to get the results they want. So, it's kind of tough to really know who's telling the truth.

worstje · « **Reply #5 on:** November 23, 2010, 03:31 PM »

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 · « **Reply #6 on:** November 23, 2010, 05:27 PM »

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 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 24, 2010, 01:13 AM »

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 · « **Reply #8 on:** November 24, 2010, 02:22 AM »

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 · « **Reply #9 on:** November 24, 2010, 06:22 AM »

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.

Eóin · « **Reply #10 on:** November 24, 2010, 08:06 AM »

app103, you raise an excellent point, and the anti-vaxers are a very dangerous group of people. But care should be taken to distinguish between the lies spread by anti-vaxers and the results of sponsored research.

Ultimately all research is sponsored by someone, and almost always, the sponsor has more invested than just the good of humanity. For this reason we have peer reviewed journals which attempt to validate the research and publish only legitimate results. Of course sometimes this system too fails, and you link to one of the more damaging examples. Still most (all?) anti-vax literature is unpublished lies, all easily debunked.

In general however, just because results of a study come out in support of it's sponsors doesn't mean it's wrong. We should of course scrutinize the results, but then we should always scrutinize any results, and if they prove legit then they should be published like any other research.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #11 on:** November 24, 2010, 09:45 AM »

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. $:-\$
-Deozaan (November 24, 2010, 06:22 AM)

Internet porn for trees - oo er thats a sexy branch!

Picking up the vibes over hear - naughty!

Maybe not ...

Gothi[c] · « **Reply #12 on:** November 24, 2010, 09:58 AM »

The talk here about sponsored research would imply to a reader that the linked article is sponsored research but I see no indication of that. (unless i missed something?) While I agree that PCWorld is not a good source, and they don't link to the original, it seems to me that there wouldn't be a valid reason to simply dismiss research done by a university as 'not scientific'. (again, unless I'm missing something really obvious, in that case, correct me

)
Under the comments for the original pcworld article someone linked a bunch of links to other research done on the subject that may be enlightening:

There have been more studies:

http://www.buergerwe...e/pdf/plantingle.pdf

The Effects Of Microwaves On The Trees And Other Plants

© Alfonso Balmori Martínez. Valladolid. Spain. December, 2003

http://www.emrpolicy...t_microwave_smog.pdf

Microwave smog and forest damage; movement in Bonn after all? Volkrodt

http://www.emrpolicy...ollution_environ.pdf

Electromagnetic pollution of the environment, Volkrodt

http://www.mindfully...sco-Volkrodt1991.htm

http://www.emrpolicy.../volkrodt_fiasco.pdf original document

Are microwaves faced with a fiasco similar to that experienced by nuclear energy? Volkrodt

http://www.emrpolicy...ath_dying_forest.pdf

The Path into the Dying Forest, Ulrich Hertel

http://www.emrpolicy...rodt_letter_yale.pdf

Letter to Professor Wm. Smith, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Volkrodt

Enough material, right?

I'm not saying wifi kills trees, by the way

PCWorld may well be misquoting the research or jumping to conclusions as it's not clear what type of tests they performed, at what frequencies and what power.
But dismissing it as non-scientific or sponsored when it's not may upset a few researchers that put a lot of work in the study

Renegade · « **Reply #13 on:** November 24, 2010, 10:41 AM »

Eóin said he'd reserve judgment until he saw a more scientific source. I then brought up the topic of sponsored research and my skepticism of it.

tomos · « **Reply #14 on:** November 24, 2010, 11:25 AM »

[edit] scratch that request [/edit]

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #15 on:** November 24, 2010, 11:35 AM »

The part that's been bugging me is many people are saying that WiFi being "right next to" Microwave is somehow "proof" of it's damnation. Yet the also rather dangerous ultraviolet "radiation" is right next to visible light (which has proven to be relatively safe...) ... So the whole guilt by association thing really isn't working for me.

worstje · « **Reply #16 on:** November 25, 2010, 01:54 AM »

Dutch article on this subject

It's kind of useless to most I suppose, but I figured I'd post it since my contact at the university had no clue where to find more info. The article above says results have not been published yet, there's some details about numbers and testing methods, but TNO (a big organisation dedicated to nature/physical research) says they do not support the university and that any conclusions are the universities own. (Although one TNO member did from time to time assist the researchers of the univesity.) The university itself also voices a wish to repeat the experiment with a bigger testing group over a longer period.

They're basically covering their asses since the effect of very fine dust in the air has not been excluded as a possible source yet.

All in all, I think the research was just fine. It just needs what every study needs: confirmation, and more specific tests to continue on the lack of answers and extra questions previous studies have brought on.

40hz · « **Reply #17 on:** November 25, 2010, 09:08 AM »

It would be nice to be able to get a look at the experimental design document for this study.

I've got no intrinsic quarrel with sponsored studies as long as all the cards get laid out on the table for examination and peer review.

Be interesting to see what controls were set up along with which statistical methodologies were used to interpret the test results. Otherwise, it's just another candidate for mention in the next What the Bleep! Do We Know? installment. (i.e. a "good story" but hardly scientific proof)

Guess we'll have to wait for more complete information.

Shades · « **Reply #18 on:** November 25, 2010, 04:50 PM »

@40Hz
If you want more of the same ilk as 'What the bleep! do we know?", you should try 'Ancient Aliens' (History Channel). From memory, the first title starts out reasonable enough, but becomes more and more esoteric.

'Ancient Aliens' consists of 6 episodes from about 45-60 minutes. It was more interesting in some parts, but even more esoteric in others (the aeronautics part I found interesting).

On-topic:
Here in Asuncion the municipality does not remove trees even when they grow in the middle of the street. The power company (yes, there is only one here) does not remove branches when they put cables up. But when a transformer in the grid goes bad (recognizable by the sound it makes) there are no leaves around the power lines that go through trees.

From what I see it looks like trees are (minimally) affected by electromagnetism, so it is not a big stretch for me to believe that high frequencies can have their effect on them too.

KynloStephen66515 · « **Reply #19 on:** November 25, 2010, 08:00 PM »

It would be nice to be able to get a look at the experimental design document for this study.
-40hz (November 25, 2010, 09:08 AM)

Same.

PCWorld aint the best of sources, but the headline slightly interested me, so I thought it might do the same here...seems I got my desired result