
School experiment finds cress won’t germinate near router (Danish) - vy8vWJlco
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2013/05/16/131324.htm
======
dnautics
One suspicion I've always have is that high frequency radio waves can induce
microcurrents in supercoiled DNA. It's been speculated by the Barton lab¹ that
the base excision repair error-correction mechanism actively surveys DNA by
injecting electrical current into the DNA and 'searching' for lesions which
disrupt the conductivity of DNA. Some circumstantial evidence for this is that
a major "base excision repair" component has a redox-active iron-sulfur
cluster, and at least one study shows that the oxidation state of this iron-
sulfur cluster can change how well it attaches to DNA.

The mantra that we always hear is that if the radiation isn't ionizing it's
harmless. While this mechanism for worrying about non-ionizing radiation
doesn't _directly_ cause harm, it's not quite 'harmless' either.

This mechanism would render quite a few results not surprising. Biologically,
there are many stages where not having DNA error correction could be more
catastrophic than usual. It makes sense that seed germination is one of these;
temporarily decreased sperm count in human males would be another.

The experiment to check this hypothesis is pretty obvious, and I'll probably
be doing it sometime in the next few years, especially if I can get my
nonprofit research org. up and running.

Edit: Footnote [1]<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Barton>

~~~
cyanoacry
I find this pretty unlikely, for the same reason that nanobots have difficulty
communicating: it's hard to make an antenna at those size scales that can
receive a signal, much less contribute to chemical-level energy changes.

At the point where the wavelength of the EM radiation is small enough to get
detected by DNA-scale antennas, it's probably already classified as ionizing
radiation.

~~~
dnautics
DNA molecules are pretty long. And this isn't a Nyquist law issue (I don't
think) because there isn't a need to transmit coherent information. You just
need to apply enough of a voltage to kick over the redox state of two iron
atoms (midpoint potential ~ -20 mV) every so often.

------
saurik
When I was in 8th grade I did an experiment that found that mold grew _better_
nearer a cathode ray tube computer monitor. I had, however, in retrospect,
failed to control for the CRT monitor being a source of heat and light (if not
much). I also did not verify it wasn't just due to the one side if the table
being closer to something unrelated in my basement. I did very well in the
science fair anyway (I have a plaque somewhere, and I think I had gotten it
for the state-wide level), as for a "school experiment" the competition bar is
quite low, and there are a ton of other factors on which you are being judged
than "scientific accuracy". This kind of research is really no better than the
people reporting homemade experiments constantly whom we often label
"crackpots".

~~~
omd
Here's a crazy thought. What if they use this opportunity to teach kids about
the processes of scientific discovery and how it is sometimes based on pure
chance. What if they then teach those kids about the scientific method and how
to conduct a controlled experiment. Even if the story turns out to be a dud I
guarantee the experience would make the students much more excited about
science than growing some cress in a window sill.

Or we could explain how a bunch of scientists are crackpots for even thinking
such a thing.

~~~
saurik
I feel like you are arguing with me. I am saying this because a some people
are commenting here about what the ramifications of this discovery is; others,
asking "serious" questions about the quality of the research, as if they
should have taken certain things into account. I am pointing out that this
isn't the right context for that analysis.

Also, that education is not news to post here in the first place. This is not
a website where children are learning about science. There are tons of
"discoveries" made as school experiments: I don't expect to see them on the
front page of Hacker News (unless, like, there is some kind of serious
interest in the larger science community). ;P

~~~
jacquesm
> This is not a website where children are learning about science.

On a website this size such assumptions are almost invariably false.

~~~
jlgreco
Nevertheless, HN is not a highschool science fair. The reason this story is
making the rounds on the internet is very plainly not to get children
interested in the scientific process, but rather because wifi somehow being
dangerous is a provocative concept and therefore a good way to get pageviews.

------
lifeformed
This is pretty off topic, but this reminds me of a weird thing that happened
to me:

Over the weekend, I rearranged the furniture in my computer room in my home,
and had just settled in to this new layout. Everything was working fine: my
computer and my internet connection were all good to go. I booted up Counter-
strike to play some rounds. However, the in-game server browser failed to find
any servers. I closed the game and checked my internet connection: everything
was fine. Maybe the master server was down? I went to bed.

The next day, I tried it again, and the same thing happened. No one else
reported an issue. I tried playing TF2, and the same thing happened: all
online functionality was nonexistent. It seemed like it must be a router
configuration issue, but I hadn't messed with that in a while, and my games
all worked fine last week.

I was able to play the same games on other computers without any issue. But as
soon as I loaded up a game on my primary computer, I noticed the internet
would go out for every system in my room. Maybe it was something with Source
engine games? I tried a completely different game (some 2D indie puzzle game),
and the same thing happened. Every game! The internet would go out, and turn
back on as soon as I closed the game. It wasn't Steam either: non-Steam games
did the same.

And it ONLY happened with games. Almost every other application worked fine. I
was about to reformat, but I first tried booting into a separate OS on my
computer and the SAME THING happened.

Finally, I noticed it failed with Unity and also with Photoshop. These
programs all had one thing in common: they were GPU accelerated. How did that
affect anything? Well, it only started happening after I rearranged my
furniture. I had moved my router to sit on top of my computer. I moved it away
by 1 foot, and then everything worked fine. It turns out, my laptop has Nvidia
Optimus, which toggles between the discrete GPU and integrated graphics chip.
When I launched a GPU accelerated program, my GPU would kick in, and I guess
its operation emitted some electromagnetic field that interfered with my
router.

~~~
scott_s
Back when I lived in the dorms in college, I had a metal loft bed. My desk,
with computer and monitor, was underneath it.

At the end of the year, I gave back the loft. The next time I turned on my
monitor, the screen was _messed up_. Distorted with purple waves. I stared at
my monitor for a few moments, baffled.

Then I hit the degauss button, and everything was fine. My monitor had been
normalized to the presence of a metal frame around it, distorting the magnetic
field.

~~~
dghughes
Sometimes even in a room made of wood no large metal objects nearby and then
moving a CRT monitor 90 degrees is enough to mess it up requiring it be
degaussed.

I'd say the metal frame had ferrous metal in it which is magnetic your monitor
was affected by it, I can't see if fixing it. Once removed the source caused
your monitor to require degaussing because a large source of nearby magnetism
was removed.

As to why it wasn't affected right away when it was new my guess is a lot of
monitors have built-in degaussing each time it is powered on, so gradually the
metal nearby was affected by the degausing coil in the CRT monitor. When metal
bed frame was removed the loss of such a large piece of nearby magnetism was
too much for the normal start-up automatic degaussing to handle.

------
atdrummond
How did they control for factors other than the router? Did they again attempt
germination when the 2 devices were completely off? I'm not convinced when
entirely separate rooms were used.

~~~
abraininavat
Yeah, I'm sure school experiments have found all kinds of crazy things. Can we
wait to post this until someone replicates the results?

~~~
johansch
Why should we only discuss replicated/confirmed results of scientific
experiments?

~~~
gus_massa
Because it's extremely easy to make mistakes during experiments, and people
usually underestimate that. Bad experiment design. Uncontroled variables.
Strange statistical results dew to small numbers. I'm probably guilty of all
of them! Go and find out any physics student/graduate and ask about his/her
stranger laboratory "result".

To analyze a completely different example, to proclaim that a new elementary
particle has been discovered, the community ask for a 5-sigma (i.e. if they
are only measuring noise, the probability that the noise generate a similar
signal is only 1/2000000.) The problem is that there are many many many
running experiments and a 1-sigma and 2-sigma "discoveries of particles" are
usual, but most of the just disappear when more data is collected. And that is
done by experts, so the probability of a mistake or error in the design is
smaller, but not 0 (remember to check the wires.)

The problem to give too much importance to a not reproduced, not peer review
result is that many times it's interesting and feed the people's fears.
Probably someone will propose to ban the wifi near the botanical garden and
kindergarten because everybody knows that they kill seeds!

It could be good to discuss about these preliminary results, but with a very
big warning signal that sais "STILL UNCONFIRMED". The problem is that in most
of the press releasses and discussions the warning is just dropped.

~~~
jerf
"Go and find out any physics student/graduate and ask about his/her stranger
laboratory "result"."

As a high school junior, I conclusively proved the strength of Earth's gravity
field was ~6.1m/s^2, give or take .2m/s^2. Or at least, if you're willing to
take this story and the experiments of high school students at face value, I
conclusively proved it.

This isn't a science story. It's a human interest story with delusions of
being a science story.

------
jvilalta
Adverse Influence of Radio Frequency Background on Trembling Aspen Seedlings:
Preliminary Observations

<http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijfr/2010/836278/>

~~~
mayank
Google "Hindawi journal scam". These guys regularly send me spam soliciting
publications, and are most likely a thinly veiled paper factory. I wouldn't
trust a thing I read in a Hindawi "journal".

------
ColinWright
Google translate:

[http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=da&tl=en&js...](http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=da&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dr.dk%2FNyheder%2FIndland%2F2013%2F05%2F16%2F131324.htm)

~~~
jriordan
there's an English version:

[http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Andre_sprog/English/2013/05/17/1309...](http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Andre_sprog/English/2013/05/17/130946.htm)

------
varjag
A friend of mine did his duty service at an old radar site. When they were
bored they'd send a pulse through antenna and the birds sitting on it would
flip dead.

Granted the energies involved are not comparable, but a router is active much
of the time. Also remember you deal with inverse square law here, the effect
likely fades out quickly with distance.

------
Nursie
Yeah, just like that experiment with the 'evil' microwaved water I bet.

------
bifrost
I find it hard to believe that the school built a faraday cage for this
experiment :)

~~~
X4
Relevance? You, plants and animals don't live in a Faraday cage, so this would
distort the results. But I agree that if they were not school children, but
grown up, then they should do the same test but additionally try it again
using a faraday cage.

~~~
jlgreco
It wouldn't "distort" the results. It would enable you to get results at all.
The number of likely uncontrolled results in this "experiment" means that it
was worthless for anything other than getting children excited about science.

~~~
X4
As said I agree that an "additional" test with a faraday cage should have been
done, but not by the children. I expect the scientists to come up with that
idea. Having too high expectations from children is counterproductive.

------
X4
I accidentally developed a new kind of polymer when I was in the 7th class. It
becomes thin as skin when wet and hard as hard-plastic when dry plus it
smelled like menthol.

The interesting part was that I didn't use oil or something else, but only
minerals available in a cheap chemistry-kit. My chemistry teacher was excited
to find that out, showed it to my class, but didn't understand how it worked.

------
danmaz74
This is very interesting, but I would wait for some confirmations. If I read
correctly, they didn't even repeat the experiment themselves.

------
bborud
It could be as simple as the plastics in the router enclosure giving off fumes
:-)

(No reason to get your panties in a bunch before the results can be reproduced
and a cause has been isolated)

------
Zigurd
The articles don't say if the experimenters knew which router was powered, for
one thing. There is way too much scope for bogusness here.

------
lifeguard
Every time my aunt's back hurts the Dow Jones average drops 3.7 points! Is she
a stock genius?

------
antirez
Any suggestion about relatively cheap equipment to measure the RF field with
some degree of accuracy? I found many companies selling this stuff but can't
judge easily what's good and what not. I'm interested in the 900mhz - 3Ghz
range.

~~~
X4
There was some research in Visualizing WiFi with Light. Here are the results:
[http://www.openculture.com/2011/03/visualizing_wifi_signals_...](http://www.openculture.com/2011/03/visualizing_wifi_signals_with_light.html)

------
icoder
"two routers emitting roughly the same type of radiation as an ordinary mobile
phone." Wait, what?

------
M4v3R
A fun experiment if you use an USB WiFi stick - put it on an USB extender
cable and lay on any plant in your home. After few days the plant will most
probably die in this place.

~~~
Tichy
Why?

~~~
M4v3R
Because it's basically a small microwave, at 2.4Ghz. Its harmless from a
distance, but if it's very near the antenna, it will toast the flower.

~~~
sliverstorm
I objected to this statement at first, as frequency plays a big part in what
electromagnetic radiation does, but then I discovered many microwave ovens do
operate at 2.45GHz

Though, before you freak out that you are cooking your family, consider that a
microwave oven outputs 600-1200 watts, while a WiFi antenna is typically 0.5-1
watt.

~~~
swamp40
The reason microwaves use 2.4 GHz is that water and fat molecules begin to
resonate at that frequency, absorbing energy from the waves.

It's also one reason why 2.4GHz systems can have problems outdoors.

During rainstorms, the range drops to nothing as the water grabs all the
energy.

Also any foliage (leaves w/ moisture inside) blocks the signals more than at
other frequencies.

~~~
joshu
The "resonating" explanation is wrong. Please stop propagating this mistake.

From Wikipedia: "Sometimes, microwave heating is explained as a resonance of
water molecules, but this is incorrect; such resonances occur only at above 1
terahertz (THz)."

