Wi-Fi Makes Trees Sick

if its strong enough to kill trees wonder what its doing to my balls :(

a large percentage of fighter pilots have baby girls
 
twatt said:
http://homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichment.htm

Global warming is a scam.
Click to expand...

Riiiight. If only we JUST put CO2 in the atmosphere (i'm looking at you China.. thanks for the sulfur). Also, CO2 abundance is great for plants and they should do great... as long as we stop cutting them down or hitting them with toxins or re-engineering them not to breed or introducing hostile viruses through travel or abusing the topsoil. Ya wanna know something else plants need? Water. The slowly creeping desert isn't helping plants. Neither is the accelerated glacial melting that's slowly drying up streams or flooding them out. Carbon buildup leading to acid rain doesn't help the cause either.

Oh.. and CO2 is awesome for plants on land. The fact that ocean is slowly sinking in Ph due to ridiculous CO2 levels in the atmosphere could kill all base life in the sea's in a few decades.. assuming we don't overfish it to death first.
 
Nightbird said:
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.
Click to expand...

I dont really want to get this too far off topic. But if picking existing trees outside in a forest it will be impossible to get a non biased result simply due to the fact of there is not alot of places on this planet not exposed to Microwave radiation. There hasn't been wide variety of places not exposed to some frequency since am/fm and television started broadcasting into the air. Now with cell phones covering almost everywhere there is even more coverage of radio wave saturation to find a forest not saturated with radio waves would be impossible let alone one that could easily be monitored... And the control to tell if trees are being harmed how are they isolated and made a valid control cause if they are exposed at all to ambient microwave radiation then you might as well throw any results out the window cause the control has been contaminated. It is like trying to test for staph when you take samples with a contaminated probe all samples will have staph cause all samples touched an unclean instrument...

Also the typical behavior of living things is the opposite of what your what if statement the younger will be more susceptible to outside influence instead of being resistant.


Little factoid UHF frequencies have been broadcast since 1949 and UHF band covers 300mhz to 3 ghz VHF has also been in use since the 1940s and covers 30-300 mhz

cordless phones, wireless networking are clustered around 900 MHz and 2.4 GHz

Microwaves use 2.45 ghz to heat water...

and cellular phones use 800-2690mhz

Find a place isolated from all of the above then do your study there.
 
Nightbird said:
UV rays have been around for billions of years too, do you go to the beach without voodoo sunscreen?
Click to expand...

No, because the science regarding ionizing radiation and the health risks related to it are relatively well understood and uncontested.

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
Click to expand...

And is major reason why ignorant parents pull their kids from schools because they think the wifi is causing their kids to be sick. They hear the word "radiation" coupled with a new technology like "wifi", and all sense is lost. They start associating every ailment, both imaginary and real to this scary new technology.
 
hughJ said:
And is major reason why ignorant parents pull their kids from schools because they think the wifi is causing their kids to be sick. They hear the word "radiation" coupled with a new technology like "wifi", and all sense is lost. They start associating every ailment, both imaginary and real to this scary new technology.
Click to expand...

Then more wifi for the rest of us! :D This is almost exactly the same as those idiots who think vaccines cause autism.
 
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...

That's what I was thinking. On the other hand, everyone wasn't walking around with "radio broadcasters" in their pockets all day like they do now.

Looks like we'll just have to GM trees that have built in Faraday cages. They can leach metals out of the soil to grow and we can mine them for metals when they get big enough. It'll be awesome.
 
Powerage said:
I'm sure you're an expert in science. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Since this had devolved into an Internet Message Board Dicksizing Contest, this is just a case of pot and kettle. Can we get beyond it please? Nobody cares how big either of your e-peens are.
 
The findings don't seem unreasonable.

Wifi, and everything else like that, is still pretty early in its technology. Why is it impossible that these technologies are hurting the ecology around us? Most of the cases against it goes back to human arrogance: "I'm better than a tree" or "it doesn't hurt me, it doesn't hurt anything". But even if there's a slight hint that WiFi is harming trees, TREES THE THINGS THAT MAKE ALL LIFE ON EARTH POSSIBLE, then continued research into the field is imperative.
 
When radioactivity was first discovered, it became the "cure-all" for everything. People made radium-based paints to go on watches so they'd glow in the dark. They'd use radiation in children to shrink the sinuses. It wasn't until later, when people started getting tongue cancer that they realized the paints were dangerous (workers were licking the paint brushes to keep them moist) and the damage to the children involved in these medical practices screwed up their thyroid and thymus glands for life. I know individuals who underwent this procedure, and yes, it f!@#ed them up. Later on they discovered the sinuses shrink on their own and it was completely unnecessary. That's the price you pay for people throwing caution to the wind when something "new" comes along.

Wi-Fi is a new technology and as such it's long term effects are not well understood. Unlike conventional radio broadcasts, Wi-Fi is low-level but it is saturation. Cell towers and wireless access points are everywhere. Old-style radio towers emit high-levels of a single carrier wave from a central point, and are spaced out, but Wi-Fi is more localized, and in cities it's everywhere. You have more than just a low-level signal as well. In a city, you have mutliple sources of varying frequencies of radiation, and when you mix waves you get interference patterns. Those are extremely hard to measure, but you can get "hot spots" where the amplitude of the waves is much stronger than they would be for any single transmission point, and "cold spots" where they cancel out. The other difference is Wi-Fi is packet-based, which means that unlike a traditional carrier wave, you're pulse-modulating the signal because it's digital data. That part is completely new.

What the Dutch are doing here is sensible. They're taking a new technology that has invaded every aspect of modern life, investigating it, and seeing if it's a possible cause of a problem that's only recently appeared. This is a preliminary scientific study that may lead to more in-depth experiments to see if there's any solid evidence behind their theory. I don't see anything wrong with that, it's how science is done. It's understandable for people who find a technology convenient to want it to be harmless, but it's the responsible thing to do to test it scientifically and find out if it is or is not. If it is harmful in some way, then it's the scientists' job to find out how and why and look for a solution. It doesn't mean "OMG NO MORE WIRELESS!!" it simply means finding out if wireless needs to be adjusted in some way to be made safer.
 
stealthy123 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Maybe because some of us don't think emotionally or irrationally. Studies show that the Earth heats and cools in cycles, and those cycles seem to correspond with cycle that giant fucking nuclear inferno in the sky goes through.
Now it has been a few years since I was in school, but I recall that the heat the earth gets comes from the sun.
Let's not forget that more "greenhouse" gases are emitted during one volcanic event than all of mankind puts out in a year.

Nature isn't as peaceful and balanced as you and other tree huggers would like to believe.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
Lebowski said:
Maybe because some of us don't think emotionally or irrationally. Studies show that the Earth heats and cools in cycles, and those cycles seem to correspond with cycle that giant fucking nuclear inferno in the sky goes through.
Now it has been a few years since I was in school, but I recall that the heat the earth gets comes from the sun.
Let's not forget that more "greenhouse" gases are emitted during one volcanic event than all of mankind puts out in a year.

Nature isn't as peaceful and balanced as you and other tree huggers would like to believe.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. The "giant fucking nuclear inferno in the sky" does dictate heating and cooling cycles. The problem is, the sun has been in a low activity cycle for the better part of 5 years.. yet temperatures keep going up. Also, solar cycles don't just change the temperature 10 degrees in 50 years unless there's major activity. Solar cycles also don't melt icebergs that are 40,000+ years old in a decade or so. It's the sun, not the stock market. Change is gradual... barring getting hit by a plasma jet or a major flare.

As far as the volcano thing, you are probably also correct... I won't argue that. However, besides this year, how many volcanoes went off last century? 15? Maybe 20? We've seen 5 this year alone. Now, add in the fact that there's a constant and building supply of those chemicals and that it never leaves the atmosphere because it's overwhelming nature's ability to counteract all the damage. The ocean's pH level is turning more acidic, I don't remember acid rain in the bible (barring revelations), and smog wasn't even really a word until the early 1900's. Believing we have no affect is wreckless and dangerous.

If you need further evidence of man's impact on nature, look at satellite photos of the amazon. Look up the Atlantic, Pacific AND Indian Ocean Garbage Patches. Ask the people of Louisiana what one blown well pump can do. Ask the people of China and India why they can hardly even touch the water running from their sacred rivers. Ask the Antarctic researchers who are literally watching Antarctica fall apart in their own lifetime. Research why PERMAFROST is melting. Question why Moscow was experiencing a heat wave in September (temperatures in the 100s). So much data, right there in front of you. Hell.. if you're over 40, you can probably remember when Spring and Fall felt longer and cooler and there was more snow in the southern US.
 
Since the Wi-Fi is no good outside the apartment, I would guess my wireless is having very little effect, compared to Cell Phone towers, Broadcast towers, heck even general polution/Smog.
 
About wi-fi being new... i already stated that the frequencies wi-fi uses have been in use since the late 1930s and in the 80 years since have only been used more... In those 80 years what has "the frequencies" caused. If you want to go and say 100mW at 2.4 ghz is bad for you what about 300-800mhz can go up to 5000 kW ERP for video and 500 kW audio, or 1000 kW digital.

The average energy received over the entire earth is about 250 Watts per square meter over a 24 hour day, ignoring clouds.[5] So, on a day with no clouds, the average electromagnetic energy received from the Sun is 25,000 times that received near a cell phone tower.

And to think wifi operates on alot lower power than cellular and televison and am/fm/cb radio broadcasts.

Scare science at its worst telling us the internet is causing cancer...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top