# Wi-Fi Kills Plants, Could Harm Kids—But Can Be Harnessed for Energy



## qubit (Dec 4, 2013)

It looks like this study could appear to lend credence to all those nutjobs who claim to be "electrosensitive" to Wi-Fi signals.



> A high school project threw oil on the burning international debate about the adverse health and environmental effects of Wi-Fi radiation.
> 
> After 12 days of Wi-Fi radiation from two routers, garden cress seeds turned out stunted, dead, or mutated (showing genetic defects not present before the trial). By contrast, a control group of 200 seeds with the same conditions but no Wi-Fi radiation flourished. The study was conducted by students at Hjallerup high school in Denmark and made headlines in May.
> 
> ...



Read the rest at Epoch Times


----------



## Mathragh (Dec 4, 2013)

this has already been posted and discussed about on this forum iirc.
because of way to many uncertainties and unclarities in their setup and methods nothing can be concluded from their results


----------



## sneekypeet (Dec 4, 2013)

yeah pretty sure BP started a thread with images of the pants failing to grow on one side, yet thriving on the other.


----------



## qubit (Dec 4, 2013)

Must have been a while ago, because I had a quick look through the science section before posting this.


----------



## Nordic (Dec 4, 2013)

@shovenose even tried his own version of the experiment


----------



## TRWOV (Dec 4, 2013)

The only certain conclusion is: don't plant cress in areas with WiFi access. And even that is uncertain without knowing the methodology. 

That being said, radiation surely is harmful but then again we're bombarded with it every second of our life from both natural and man-made sources.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Dec 4, 2013)

james888 said:


> @shovenose even tried his own version of the experiment



http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/router-plant-test.187644/


Yeah, probably not the best source of information.  There was no follow-through, and little activity other than a rather angry backlash at the possibility that this might be true.

On to the topic at hand.  High doses of radiation might cause damage?  Who would have thought that?

There are some rather substantial indicators that the journalist covering this story is an idiot.  Let's count them off in order, and begin to understand why a member of the press doesn't get to wear a white lab coat to work.
1) No data on the experimentation.  Two routers means nothing.  It could be two WRT54G units boosted to 250 mW transmission, set to constantly be pinging each other for data.  It could be two ancient bridge units that barely put out a strong signal five feet away from each other.  There is absolutely no data, and therefore any conclusions developed from it can be dismissed as easily as they are made.
2) Where's the control?  Unless the plants received the exact same amount of water, sunlight, and the one "not" exposed was in a Faraday cage then you've got an experiment that proves nothing.  There isn't any experimentation without a control or baseline with which to compare to your experimental results.
3) Diversity.  Perhaps the garden cress was a unique plant in some way?  Perhaps the router were poorly designed, and leaking some radiation into unexpected frequencies.  We can't draw conclusions from one sample of a single plant.  This kind of crap makes people believe that vaccinations cause Autism.  One flawed study can color others, and the media doesn't care.
4) Everything else.  High Schoolers, no controls, and no research.  This kind of crap would be great for Supersize Me 2.0 (those of you who have had what could, only laughingly, be called a "documentary" understand what a poor experience that was), but the science here is weak.  Our personal opinions don't count as scientific research, but journalists seem to only be capable of conflating the two.  Opinions may be correct, incorrect, or partial truths.  Facts are facts.  Those who are incapable of differentiating between the two need to be barred from calling anything a fact.



Also, WTF?  It's a surprise that electromagnetic radiation (to which Wifi entirely owes its functioning) can be harnessed for power?  What do people think happens in a microwave?  Electrical potential is converted into microwave frequencies, which vibrate fat and water molecules to cause heating.  The converse logically follows as possible, assuming that it is not an irreversible reaction.  Given that no chemical changes take place as a direct result of the radiation exposure, it stands to reason that reversing the process is very likely possible.  

All of this argument misses one simple fact, the author is nearly scientifically illiterate.  There is a possibility that this is a one time lead to conclusions, but I see no reason to offer someone who failed to understand anything that was being reported, in lieu of raising the readers ire, is  worth listening to.


----------



## TRWOV (Dec 5, 2013)

This kind of reminds me of the video of a coke removing rust from a copper penny (after letting it repose for 10 freaking hours) and being presented as proof that coke is bad for your health (not saying that it isn't but you shouldn't fear its acidic properties). Vinegar does it in 10 *minutes* but I have yet to see a campaign against vinegar. 

People tend to extrapolate and skip over the obvious details like "Wait, how much copper do I have inside anyway?" (1/10 of a gram actually). They see copper being eaten away and suddenly think that the coke is melting them alive from the inside 


edit: grammar


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 6, 2013)

They didn't even specify what frequency they were broadcasting on (2.4 GHz or 5 GHz).  Frequency is what matters here, not "WiFi."  They also didn't specify how much network activity, if any, they were pushing through it.

The test needs to be redone with six discreet greenhouses:
1. 2.4 GHz router with 2.4 GHz laptop streaming data constantly.
2. 2.4 GHz router with 2.4 GHz laptop idling.
3. 5 GHz router with 5 GHz laptop streaming data constantly.
4. 5 GHz router with 5 GHz laptop idling.
5. A greenhouse that has magnetic shielding to block 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz signals.
6. A greenhouse that has no shielding whatsoever.

Because of #5, all greenhouses need to be artificially lit.  Obviously that light should mimic sunlight hours.

One should be able to draw precise conclusions from the results.  It would be awesome if it proves 5 GHz is safer...at least for plants.  FCC would probably be inclined to discontinue 2.4 GHz (although that would suck if you needed the range).


----------



## buildzoid (Dec 6, 2013)

The only harm wifi causes to humans and plants is that the humans sit around all day and forget to water the plants leading to a bunch of unhealthy humans and a lot of dead plants.


----------



## qubit (Dec 6, 2013)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They didn't even specify what frequency they were broadcasting on (2.4 GHz or 5 GHz).  Frequency is what matters here, not "WiFi."  They also didn't specify how much network activity, if any, they were pushing through it.
> 
> The test needs to be redone with six discreet greenhouses:
> 1. 2.4 GHz router with 2.4 GHz laptop streaming data constantly.
> ...


Your description of how to conduct the tests are right of course. I just wonder if for brevity they only reported the main aspects of the experiment? Normally an article like this would then link to the study for the full details, but I guess that's not possible here since it was a school science project.

I have a feeling that when this experiment is repeated by scientists they'll find that the Wi-Fi signals have no effect on the plant...


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Dec 6, 2013)

TRWOV said:


> This kind of reminds me of the video of a coke removing rust from a copper penny (after letting it repose for 10 freaking hours) and being presented as proof that coke is bad for your health (not saying that it isn't but you should fear it's acidic properties). Vinegar does it in 10 *minutes* but I have yet to see a campaign against vinegar.
> 
> People tend to extrapolate and skip over the obvious details like "Wait, how much copper do I have inside anyway?" (1/10 of a gram actually). They see copper being eaten away and suddenly think that the coke is melting them alive from the inside



Its not rust, its oxidation, Secondly Phosphoric Acid used to make coke absorbs calcium and takes it away from your teeth & bones, If you drink a lot of carbonated drinks like cola - your dentist will definitely love you if you dont have the bone density of a 90y.o with a replaced hip.


In extreme circumstances Phosphoric Acid has been linked to Osteoporosis or at least cause the same effect to a certain degree.



Everything in moderation I say.


::EDIT::

Vinegar is nothing but diluted acetic acid when you add water to acetic acid it makes vinegar, acetic acid can be harmful in its concentrated form but for household vinegar & as food condiment they never contain more than 18% acetic acid which is obviously safe.


----------



## z1tu (Dec 6, 2013)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Everything in moderation I say.



This! Same goes for almost anything, as long as you don't exaggerate, you should be fine.


----------



## Arjai (Dec 6, 2013)

When I was a kid, I put a penny nail in an 8 oz. glass of Coca Cola. Let it sit for nine hours, overnight. In the morning, nail was gone. Poured the contents through a nylon strainer, nothing.

Conclusions, penny nails have no chance against surviving in a Coca Cola atmosphere. Don't be a penny nail.


----------



## remixedcat (Dec 6, 2013)

I'm sure the cellphone carriers sponsored this to scare people outta using wifi and instead paying more for thier overpriced/slow data plans.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Dec 6, 2013)

Oh look, qubit is posting bunk news again!!!


----------



## qubit (Dec 6, 2013)

Oh look easy rino is talking bollocks off topic again!!!


----------



## sneekypeet (Dec 6, 2013)

Oh look, back on topic please!


----------



## Easy Rhino (Dec 6, 2013)

back on topic, this was posted ages ago and thoroughly debunked. /thread


----------



## qubit (Dec 6, 2013)

Got a linky? I do check for these things before posting, but it's quite easy to miss it, especially if it was a while ago.

Anyway, you can clearly see which side of the fence I'm on.
_
qubit rushes to turn off his Wi-Fi router, mobile phone, anything emitting this terrible, terrible radiation._


----------



## Sasqui (Dec 6, 2013)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They didn't even specify what frequency they were broadcasting on (2.4 GHz or 5 GHz).  Frequency is what matters here, not "WiFi."  They also didn't specify how much network activity, if any, they were pushing through it.
> 
> The test needs to be redone with six discreet greenhouses:
> 1. 2.4 GHz router with 2.4 GHz laptop streaming data constantly.
> ...


 
Ford, we await your test results on the TPU front page and the cover of the Weekly Examiner ;P

Oh and use these:


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 6, 2013)

Gimme money!  For science!


----------



## TRWOV (Dec 6, 2013)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Its not rust, its oxidation, Secondly Phosphoric Acid used to make coke absorbs calcium and takes it away from your teeth & bones, If you drink a lot of carbonated drinks like cola - your dentist will definitely love you if you dont have the bone density of a 90y.o with a replaced hip.



I balance it out with lots of milk


----------



## ShiBDiB (Dec 6, 2013)

Wasn't this posted months ago and disproven by the fact that it was a horribly done experiment with no controls.


----------



## kn00tcn (Dec 6, 2013)

i have a related question... bluetooth game controllers (& phones for that matter) in our crotch area, any word on reproductive effects?


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Dec 7, 2013)

kn00tcn said:


> i have a related question... bluetooth game controllers (& phones for that matter) in our crotch area, any word on reproductive effects?




I wouldnt think so....

For anything to do any serious damage like would require quite a big spike in radiation - we are talking like Chemotherapy and stuff like that, It would need to be a focused blast of radiation or the environment where you live thats highly radioactive but that would affect your entire body and not just your gonads.

If a bluetooth or wireless device was capable of giving off that much radiation then it wouldnt be on sale to the general public. The components used to make these devices arent capable of such high bursts of radiation anyway.


----------



## TRWOV (Dec 7, 2013)

Riding a bike would be more harmful.


----------



## remixedcat (Dec 7, 2013)

Or a:


----------



## Arjai (Dec 7, 2013)

kn00tcn said:


> i have a related question... bluetooth game controllers (& phones for that matter) in our crotch area, any word on reproductive effects?



Go ahead, have kids. Post results. Oh, and good luck!!


----------



## kn00tcn (Dec 8, 2013)

TRWOV said:


> Riding a bike would be more harmful.



haha... i'm a bmx rider for like 15yrs


----------

