Wi-Fi Makes Trees Sick

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
I don’t know what the researchers in the Netherlands are smoking….oh wait, yes I do, but they are claiming the Wi-Fi radiation is harming the trees, according to a recent study at Wageningen University.

The researchers urged that further studies were needed to confirm the current results and determine long-term effects of wireless radiation on trees.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Oak tree that was in my front yard since 1982 or so I've heard has been dying for the last year, now it is brown, base is rotted and their are mushrooms growing all over it

Now I know what did it, $400 its gonna cost me to get it removed damn it
 
Looks like they controlled for other factors, could be a valid study if they didn't use super-powered wi-fi.
 
I could be reading wrong but it looks pretty close to a standard wifi source and possibly even weaker. 2472 MHz at 100 Mw? Thoughts?
 
Global warming (if you believe in it) and CO2 level has also increase as well as wifi signals. Global warming would have a greater impact on trees than wifi. Also if wifi did kill trees, then radio broadcasters would have made them go extinct.
 
satsunada said:
I could be reading wrong but it looks pretty close to a standard wifi source and possibly even weaker. 2472 MHz at 100 Mw? Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Arg, I suddenly got an itch to find out how cheap Faraday shield comes at, I use wifi for my computer.
 
Nightbird said:
Arg, I suddenly got an itch to find out how cheap Faraday shield comes at, I use wifi for my computer.
Click to expand...

Don't trust me. I don't know much and I'll admit that, but finding a translatable part of that actual study got those numbers and I'm kinda hoping one of the many guru's on the site can confirm if this is an actual problem :p
 
Project_Nightmare said:
Global warming (if you believe in it) and CO2 level has also increase as well as wifi signals. Global warming would have a greater impact on trees than wifi. Also if wifi did kill trees, then radio broadcasters would have made them go extinct.
Click to expand...

How would global warming be a negative thing for trees?
 
why on earth do people still act like man made climate change isn't real? Have you been buried underground the last decade or so?


I wonder what my wifi is doing to me.
 
SeegsElite said:
How would global warming be a negative thing for trees?
Click to expand...

It won't. High temperatures and CO2 levels, along with more precipitation and a year long growing season, are what produced the giant trees and great forests of the dinosaur age. Great for lizards too.
 
In theory, plants should thrive on higher CO2 levels, and then more will grow and produce more O2, and balance out the higher CO2 levels. It's a system that should approach equilibrium, given enough time.
 
Still none of the guru's on this site finding any big or small problems with this study? That is kind of confirming the studies validity a little more in my eyes, which just worries me v.v
 
At least this is slightly more believable than people being allergic to wifi. the article also stated the exhaust from cars might also be to blame...

and 100 mW is really high home grade is usually around 20mW 100 would be commercial grade or non standard...
 
Lunas said:
At least this is slightly more believable than people being allergic to wifi. the article also stated the exhaust from cars might also be to blame...

and 100 mW is really high home grade is usually around 20mW 100 would be commercial grade or non standard...
Click to expand...

While other factors can make trees sick, including exhaust, they tested a bunch of trees close together with the Wi-Fi signal at one end of the testing ground. If other factors are to blame, the trees would all get sick uniformly. To think that the trees closer to the Wi-Fi source got sicker in just three months... I'm no Elf but I'm scared.
 
Nightbird said:
While other factors can make trees sick, including exhaust, they tested a bunch of trees close together with the Wi-Fi signal at one end of the testing ground. If other factors are to blame, the trees would all get sick uniformly. To think that the trees closer to the Wi-Fi source got sicker in just three months... I'm no Elf but I'm scared.
Click to expand...

Ya, seriously, no kidding. I just walked into the other room and turned off my wireless transmitter.
 
I would be curious to see the conditions those trees were kept in while the test was going on and what type of controls they did like a set of trees in a Faraday cage in the same green house that is also EM isolated... Trees sharing the same air light water and isolated from the outside world EM radiation then one set of trees exposed to a wifi source a comercial grade wi-fi source not a EM frequency generator
and the other isolated via shielding as a control to eliminate other factors to further isolate the variables take tree specimens from the same parent tree grow them from seed to sapling in this test
 
Nightbird said:
It won't. High temperatures and CO2 levels, along with more precipitation and a year long growing season, are what produced the giant trees and great forests of the dinosaur age. Great for lizards too.
Click to expand...

That was my point...
 
nalc said:
In theory, plants should thrive on higher CO2 levels, and then more will grow and produce more O2, and balance out the higher CO2 levels. It's a system that should approach equilibrium, given enough time.
Click to expand...
That's assuming we aren't cutting down all the fucking trees, though. Good point, nonetheless.
 
maybe i'm wrong but aren't some cordless phones also on the same frequency as wifi?

and haven't cordless phones been around a lot longer and much more abundant?
 
The study exposed 20 ash trees to various radiation sources for a period of three months.
Click to expand...

Did the study account for: precipitation differences, soil composition and quality differences, insolation differences, etc.

The fact that I can't find the study's actual text *anywhere* (Granted I didn't look TOO hard) is an indication that something's either amiss, or a conclusion was made from improperly reviewed work.
 
SeegsElite said:
That was my point...
Click to expand...

I know :) I was expanding, not correcting you by any means :)

Lunas said:
I would be curious to see the conditions those trees were kept in while the test was going on and what type of controls they did like a set of trees in a Faraday cage in the same green house that is also EM isolated... Trees sharing the same air light water and isolated from the outside world EM radiation then one set of trees exposed to a wifi source a comercial grade wi-fi source not a EM frequency generator
and the other isolated via shielding as a control to eliminate other factors to further isolate the variables take tree specimens from the same parent tree grow them from seed to sapling in this test
Click to expand...

Arcygenical said:
Did the study account for: precipitation differences, soil composition and quality differences, insolation differences, etc.

The fact that I can't find the study's actual text *anywhere* (Granted I didn't look TOO hard) is an indication that something's either amiss, or a conclusion was made from improperly reviewed work.
Click to expand...

If there is any truth to this study, a larger scale study will surely be conducted. Just go into a forest and put down some transmitters at randomized locations and compare tree health to other randomized control locations.

If they could add cordless phones and cellphones, that'd be good too.
 
On the plus side, we're already destroying the environment in 101 other ways that will probably kill everything off faster than mere WiFi.

Oh wait, that's not a plus...
 
Nightbird said:
If there is any truth to this study, a larger scale study will surely be conducted. Just go into a forest and put down some transmitters at randomized locations and compare tree health to other randomized control locations.

If they could add cordless phones and cellphones, that'd be good too.
Click to expand...

larger scale = less control and more factors that could be the real cause of health issues...

a moderately large green house with a faraday cage to block sources outside the green house then two smaller faraday cages that allow light from grow lights above the trees but not em radiation from the lights themselves... the grow house is irrigated so a contained water source with the proper nutrients and minerals and temperature can be maintained air will be purified and have only trace pollutants then a wireless access point and wifi camera can be placed in one cage this will be the wi-fi cage all seeds and saplings will be exposed to normal levels of wi-fi the other cage isolated from all EM radiation is the control it should grow perfectly healthy trees and having the trees all come from a single parent tree they should all be similar to each other

The results of the test as i have outlined should be several saplings in the control being perfectly healthy and normal

The ones in the wifi cage should show differences over the normalized ones if wi-fi really does harm trees...

and the study can be as long as they like to make it and after it is done the saplings can be planted in an area as a reforestation project...
 
Lunas said:
larger scale = less control and more factors that could be the real cause of health issues...

a moderately large green house with a faraday cage to block sources outside the green house then two smaller faraday cages that allow light from grow lights above the trees but not em radiation from the lights themselves... the grow house is irrigated so a contained water source with the proper nutrients and minerals and temperature can be maintained air will be purified and have only trace pollutants then a wireless access point and wifi camera can be placed in one cage this will be the wi-fi cage all seeds and saplings will be exposed to normal levels of wi-fi the other cage isolated from all EM radiation is the control it should grow perfectly healthy trees and having the trees all come from a single parent tree they should all be similar to each other

The results of the test as i have outlined should be several saplings in the control being perfectly healthy and normal

The ones in the wifi cage should show differences over the normalized ones if wi-fi really does harm trees...

and the study can be as long as they like to make it and after it is done the saplings can be planted in an area as a reforestation project...
Click to expand...

Actually, such a study would be less informative than you think. While a large sample has a large amount of factors influencing individual members, if how the members are assigned to control and test groups is done randomly, on average, external factors cancel each other out and an accurate assessment of the difference between the test and control groups can be made.

In the study you mentioned, you are just testing saplings. What if younger trees like children are more resilient against injury and heal, hence not show any outward effects? A real test should include all age groups and species of trees, just as say a vaccine clinical efficacy trial takes place over a large population of heterogeneous ages, races, and physical fitness.
 
Anytime studies are reported where they mention "wifi" or "cell phone" specifically, instead of low power "microwave" radiation, it seems suspect to me. It's a way of creating additional panic in the reader since everyone has a wifi router at home. It propagates the idea that wifi uses some sort of voodoo radiation that hasn't been in the environment for billions of years.
 
hughJ said:
Anytime studies are reported where they mention "wifi" or "cell phone" specifically, instead of low power "microwave" radiation, it seems suspect to me. It's a way of creating additional panic in the reader since everyone has a wifi router at home. It propagates the idea that wifi uses some sort of voodoo radiation that hasn't been in the environment for billions of years.
Click to expand...

UV rays have been around for billions of years too, do you go to the beach without voodoo sunscreen?

It's not general knowledge that Wi-Fi uses microwave radiation, and a title such as "Microwave Radiation such as Wi-Fi Makes Trees Sick" doesn't have quite the ring to it xD
 
because if you called it microwave radiation a bunch of morons would throw out their microwaves.
 
You hear studies all the time how WI-FI is not good. It probably isn't that harmful but the combination WI-FI, cell, hydro lines and other sources of "electropollution" could be an issue for plant and animal cells.

Project_Nightmare said:
Global warming (if you believe in it) and CO2 level has also increase as well as wifi signals. Global warming would have a greater impact on trees than wifi. Also if wifi did kill trees, then radio broadcasters would have made them go extinct.
Click to expand...

http://homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichment.htm

The Importance of Carbon Dioxide (Co2)
for Healthy Plant Growth
Click to expand...
Global warming is a scam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top