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?
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.
For example, here's a PDF talking about the potential risks of low energy radiation on human cells. http://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/pdf/env_health_proj...
And a longer article about some possible dangers of electromagnetic radiation: http://www2.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/EMF-Hazards.html