"The TNO institute, linked in some reports to the research, said in a statement it specifically distanced itself from the project.
A TNO researcher was involved in several discussions during the project but the organisation 'emphatically distances itself from the conclusions about the relationship between wifi and plant growth', the statement said.
There are no details about the research on the Wageningen University website."
from the article:
"Besides the electromagnetic fields created by mobile-phone networks and wireless LANs, ultrafine particles emitted by cars and trucks may also be to blame. These particles are so small they are able to enter the organisms."
I think particle pollution is a much more plausible answer because the radiated power emitted by WiFi and cell phones is so minuscule.
The study exposed 20 ash trees to various radiation sources for a period of three months. Trees placed closest to the Wi-Fi radio demonstrated a "lead-like shine" on their leaves that was caused by the dying of the upper and lower epidermis of the leaves. This would eventually result in the death of parts of the leaves. The study also found that Wi-Fi radiation could inhibit the growth of corn cobs.
Where can we find this study? Was a peer reviewed study? There isn't a single damn reference in this article other than "according to a recent study in the Netherlands". They only make reference to "the researchers".
I agree that this is a crap study, but I still wouldn't be quite so dismissive of any possible effects of WiFi just because it is so low energy.
Why? Because the assumption that everyone makes here is that the only cause of this damage is from heat/high energy, and that could be wrong. I think the more troubling possible danger (to trees, or humans) is _interference_. Living things are complex systems that use low energy electric signals throughout. If some radiation were able to interfere with one of this processes, even at very low energy level, it could do far more damage than something with higher energy.
I'm not claiming to say any of these threats are real, or the science is good, just that we shouldn't dismiss concerns about X because it's less energy than Y, and Y seems to be safe.
We have to learn more about how the things we're trying to protect work, and particularly what types of radiation we should avoid.
Physics major and doctor here. I've done the calculations twice now, once for ELF as an electrodynamics class project, and once for cell phones for mom's peace of mind (she's a math teacher and "wanted to really know". In both cases, the predictions were impressively reassuring.
I'm also in the military and see plenty of old retirees who were exposed to huge amounts of radio-length radiation compared to the average human (mainly from shipboard radar sidelobes, ELF from living among the power cables, and numerous shipboard radio comms systems). I haven't seen any case that suggested to me that their exposure such non-ionizing radiation has changed their risk of any disease or increased their all-cause mortality.
So what you're saying is that while high levels of heat cook and burn, and high energy radiation causes mutations and cancers, low level interference could do far more damage ... which we haven't clearly noticed yet?
Where is the reference to an article? More importantly, where is the (relatively easy to do) controlled study of the effects of radiation on plant life vs. the effects of pollutants from exhaust or anything else? This is nonsense.
The second one, at least, refers to a control group. The first suggests contacting the author for further details. I think it is a case where the news value of a piece of research outruns the peer review and publication process. For all we know the author thinks a lot more research is needed before he can publish anything.
For what it's worth, I keep 2 fig bonsai trees next to my airport extreme. They're just as healthy as when I put them there, but figs are hardy little buggers.
There is no scientific reasoning here just some experiments. So many factors could be in play here like: air pollution, global warming, cellular networks etc.
Just because the electromagnetic radiation is on a different wavelength than f.e. gamma radiation or x-ray radiation does not mean it DOESN'T affect matter on low or high level. People "believe" in the effects of x-rays on living tissue because we have established these effects as facts. People "believe" in the microwave oven, too. But for some reason, people refuse to believe that EMR on this wavelength could have any negative effects what so ever on living tissue and cellwork. Why? Is it because everyone knows how low power we're talking about in the case of home wifi, and also know enough about physics to conclude that the implied power is too weak to cause effect? Probably not. Is it society clouding their judgement and critical mind? Probably. "Of course it's harmless - it's used everywhere!"
The old saying of "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence" comes to mind. I would personally not be surprised if these suspicions were found to be true further down the road. The crowd that blatantly laughs and goes "oh boy!" at the claims come out as nothing less than ignorant fools, and the crowd of suspicious paranoiacs comes out as, well, uh, a wee bit paranoid. Both camps would probably benefit by keeping their noise down a bit until we have had enough time to let our studies' output grow, and given our statistics time to mature and settle.
But for some reason, people refuse to believe that EMR on this wavelength could have any negative effects what so ever on living tissue and cellwork.
Anyone who took high school physics learned about the photoelectric effect - if a single photon does not contain the ionization energy, no ionization occurs [1]. This is supported by a huge number of experiments and is a generic conclusion of quantum mechanics.
The only effect wifi can have on trees, people, etc, is the generation of a tiny amount of heat. If you can disprove this, you will get a Nobel prize in physics.
"The only effect wifi can have on trees, people, etc, is the generation of a tiny amount of heat."
This is a very bold claim. People said something just as harmless about x-rays in its heyday, too. Today we know it has absolutely profound effects on living cells even at moderate power, and we know it indeed also has an effect of the negative kind at low power given proper time and exposure. How can you be so sure that the GHz spectrum of EMR happen to be as harmless as you imply?
People said something just as harmless about x-rays in its heyday, too.
That's a ridiculous statement. Before understanding QM, no reasonable person would make any such claims.
Anyone who claimed that these "x-rays" (named "x" because we didn't know what they were) had no effect on matter, except to be absorbed by it, was a moron. I don't think any credible scientist made this claim, but feel free to cite one. Once we understood they were EM waves at higher frequency than UV light, it is very simple to deduce they might cause ionization.
Once we developed quantum mechanics and time-dependent perturbation theory, it was just a matter chugging through the calculations. Literally millions of experiments have confirmed that QM works really fucking well. If Ephoton > Ebond, you get O(I) ionization. If Ephoton < Ebond you get O(I^2) ionization, which is really small (unless I is huge).
I stand by my statement: if you disprove this, you will overturn the past 100 years of physics. We will need to throw away every single QM textbook written since the 50's. You will receive the next Nobel prize. Future textbooks will forever refer to "Newton, Einstein, and hackermom."
"Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence" is false. Absence of evidence can very well mean evidence of absence depending on how hard we've looked. People have looked really hard for evidence of Bigfoot and found nothing worthwhile, and it is reasonable to conclude that Bigfoot does not exist.
By this stretch of logic of yours, the various photographs supposedly depicting Bigfoot must thusly be concluded to be reasonable evidence of Bigfoot's existence :)
Regardless of whether this research is valid, I think it makes sense to reduce one's exposure to wifi. You may want to make sure you don't share a wall with your neighbor that only puts a foot between your head and a wifi router when you're sleeping. iStumbler can help you see how strong the various signals are.
Why does it make sense? Are you afraid of tiny amounts of non-ionizing[0] radiation?
2.4Ghz is great for heating things at high power (my microwave outputs at 1200 watts), but the most powerful home routers only do about 0.2 watts. Cell phones can do about 1 watt, and you hold those up to your ear. In fact, it's been calculated that a year of wifi exposure is about the same as 20 minutes on a cell phone.[1]
And if non-ionizing radiation is anything to fear, you should be really afraid of the sun, which pumps it out at about 1000W per square meter[2].
I'm troubled that this comment was so ferociously downvoted. Of course as far as science is concerned, the burden of proof/evidence lies with those who make claims about the effects of low-energy radiation to make their case. But that doesn't mean your personal health strategy should work the same way. The skepticism tilts the other way here: Don't unnecessarily expose yourself to things you're not sure are safe. Why? Because you don't get repeated experiments with your own body.
So, will Greenpeace or other environmentalists draw up a petition to ban wifi networks despite the fact that they probably own potted plants and have wireless connections in their offices? hmm.
A bit of googling around shows that Greenpeace has never seemed to have a problem with using WiFi. They have lots of dumb opinions -- I won't pretend to be neutral here -- but they don't seem to be against WiFi.
A TNO researcher was involved in several discussions during the project but the organisation 'emphatically distances itself from the conclusions about the relationship between wifi and plant growth', the statement said.
There are no details about the research on the Wageningen University website."
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/11/mobile_interne...
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&h...