

Wi-Fi Makes Trees Sick, Study Says - gxs
http://www.pcworld.com/article/211219/study_says_wifi_makes_trees_sick.html?tk=rss_news

======
chaosmachine
_"The TNO institute, linked in some reports to the research, said in a
statement it specifically distanced itself from the project.

A TNO researcher was involved in several discussions during the project but
the organisation 'emphatically distances itself from the conclusions about the
relationship between wifi and plant growth', the statement said.

There are no details about the research on the Wageningen University
website."_

[http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/11/mobile_interne...](http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/11/mobile_internet_is_bad_for_tre.php)

[http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&h...](http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tno.nl%2Fcontent.cfm%3Fcontext%3Dovertno%26content%3Dnieuwsbericht%26laag1%3D37%26laag2%3D69%26item_id%3D2010-11-18%252015%3A37%3A36.0)

------
nowarninglabel
This conforms rather well to "this is a news website article about a
'scientific' paper: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-
scientist/2010/sep...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-
scientist/2010/sep/24/1)

------
thecombjelly
_The study exposed 20 ash trees to various radiation sources for a period of
three months_

Sure seems like the evidence is a long ways from being able to make statements
like:

 _Radiation from Wi-Fi networks is harmful to trees_ and _All deciduous trees
in the Western world are affected_

------
Vivtek
WiFi makes trees sick! Or it might be air pollution! We're not sure, but it's
definitely something you should feel guilty about!

I'm as tree-hugging as the next bleeding heart liberal, but this article is
ridiculous.

------
jobenjo
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.

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...](http://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/pdf/env_health_projects/electromagnetic_fields/e-reflex.pdf)

And a longer article about some possible dangers of electromagnetic radiation:
<http://www2.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/EMF-Hazards.html>

~~~
niels_olson
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.

Here's a nice summary of the evidence:

[http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/m...](http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/medicaltreatments/radiation-
exposure-and-cancer)

------
SpacemanSpiff
from the article: "Besides the electromagnetic fields created by mobile-phone
networks and wireless LANs, _ultrafine particles emitted by cars and trucks
may also be to blame. These particles are so small they are able to enter the
organisms._ "

I think particle pollution is a much more plausible answer because the
radiated power emitted by WiFi and cell phones is so minuscule.

~~~
po
And right after that:

 _The study exposed 20 ash trees to various radiation sources for a period of
three months. Trees placed closest to the Wi-Fi radio demonstrated a "lead-
like shine" on their leaves that was caused by the dying of the upper and
lower epidermis of the leaves. This would eventually result in the death of
parts of the leaves. The study also found that Wi-Fi radiation could inhibit
the growth of corn cobs._

Where can we find this study? Was a peer reviewed study? There isn't a single
damn reference in this article other than "according to a recent study in the
Netherlands". They only make reference to "the researchers".

Why does science reporting suck so much?

~~~
zzzeek
the second paragraph references Wageningen University. A little googling +
translate from dutch:

[http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&h...](http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=www.wageningenuniversity.nl%2FNL%2Fnieuwsagenda%2Fnieuws%2FBomen101120.htm)

so the researcher would be, Dr. AAM van Lammeren - andre.vanlammeren <at>
wur.nl

~~~
Paulomus
A little more googling and you can find his biographical details with a list
of his publications:
<http://www.pcb.wur.nl/UK/People/Faculty/André+van+Lammeren/> and according to
<http://www.pcb.wur.nl/UK/Research/> he is the head of a research group whose
research is further detailed here:
[http://www.pcb.wur.nl/UK/Research/cell+division/From+cellto+...](http://www.pcb.wur.nl/UK/Research/cell+division/From+cellto+tissue/)

------
petercooper
And they can't even opt out and get a pat down instead.

------
Flyintist
Where is the reference to an article? More importantly, where is the
(relatively easy to do) controlled study of the effects of radiation on plant
life vs. the effects of pollutants from exhaust or anything else? This is
nonsense.

~~~
Paulomus
Well the article on the University's web-page states the study was
commissioned by the municipality of Alphen aan der Rijn. The municipality's
website has two pages about the study:
<http://www.alphenaandenrijn.nl/Smartsite.shtml?id=75994>
<http://www.alphenaandenrijn.nl/Smartsite.shtml?id=63643>

The second one, at least, refers to a control group. The first suggests
contacting the author for further details. I think it is a case where the news
value of a piece of research outruns the peer review and publication process.
For all we know the author thinks a lot more research is needed before he can
publish anything.

------
chc
Anti-Wifi appears to be the new antivax.

------
plemer
Today science said, "Something that's everywhere is bad."

------
BoppreH
Original:
[http://www.wageningenuniversity.nl/NL/nieuwsagenda/nieuws/Bo...](http://www.wageningenuniversity.nl/NL/nieuwsagenda/nieuws/Bomen101120.htm)

Translated:
[http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&h...](http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wageningenuniversity.nl%2FNL%2Fnieuwsagenda%2Fnieuws%2FBomen101120.htm)

Very poor on details. Were there any control groups? Why does the observed
effects in the test vary from the ones in the trees?

------
Dylanfm
For what it's worth, I keep 2 fig bonsai trees next to my airport extreme.
They're just as healthy as when I put them there, but figs are hardy little
buggers.

------
DjDarkman
There is no scientific reasoning here just some experiments. So many factors
could be in play here like: air pollution, global warming, cellular networks
etc.

------
fondue
The solution is pretty obvious; wrap the trees in tinfoil.

------
webuiarchitect
Utterly rubbish!

------
hackermom
Just because the electromagnetic radiation is on a different wavelength than
f.e. gamma radiation or x-ray radiation does not mean it DOESN'T affect matter
on low or high level. People "believe" in the effects of x-rays on living
tissue because we have established these effects as facts. People "believe" in
the microwave oven, too. But for some reason, people refuse to believe that
EMR on _this_ wavelength could have any negative effects what so ever on
living tissue and cellwork. Why? Is it because everyone knows how low power
we're talking about in the case of home wifi, and also know enough about
physics to conclude that the implied power is too weak to cause effect?
Probably not. Is it society clouding their judgement and critical mind?
Probably. "Of course it's harmless - it's used everywhere!"

The old saying of "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence"
comes to mind. I would personally not be surprised if these suspicions were
found to be true further down the road. The crowd that blatantly laughs and
goes "oh boy!" at the claims come out as nothing less than ignorant fools, and
the crowd of suspicious paranoiacs comes out as, well, uh, a wee bit paranoid.
Both camps would probably benefit by keeping their noise down a bit until we
have had enough time to let our studies' output grow, and given our statistics
time to mature and settle.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_But for some reason, people refuse to believe that EMR on this wavelength
could have any negative effects what so ever on living tissue and cellwork._

Anyone who took high school physics learned about the photoelectric effect -
if a single photon does not contain the ionization energy, no ionization
occurs [1]. This is supported by a huge number of experiments and is a generic
conclusion of quantum mechanics.

The only effect wifi can have on trees, people, etc, is the generation of a
tiny amount of heat. If you can disprove this, you will get a Nobel prize in
physics.

I wrote a paper on the topic, see the citations for a lot of background
material (my paper is just math, don't bother with it):
<http://cims.nyu.edu/~stucchio/pubs/dipole_delta.pdf>

[1] Not true at high intensity, i.e. in a high powered laser beam or microwave
resonating cavity.

~~~
hackermom
_"The only effect wifi can have on trees, people, etc, is the generation of a
tiny amount of heat."_

This is a very bold claim. People said something just as harmless about x-rays
in its heyday, too. Today we know it has absolutely profound effects on living
cells even at moderate power, and we know it indeed also has an effect of the
negative kind at low power given proper time and exposure. How can _you_ be so
sure that the GHz spectrum of EMR happen to be as harmless as you imply?

~~~
yummyfajitas
_People said something just as harmless about x-rays in its heyday, too._

That's a ridiculous statement. Before understanding QM, no reasonable person
would make any such claims.

Anyone who claimed that these "x-rays" (named "x" because we didn't know what
they were) had no effect on matter, except to be absorbed by it, was a moron.
I don't think any credible scientist made this claim, but feel free to cite
one. Once we understood they were EM waves at higher frequency than UV light,
it is very simple to deduce they might cause ionization.

Once we developed quantum mechanics and time-dependent perturbation theory, it
was just a matter chugging through the calculations. Literally millions of
experiments have confirmed that QM works _really fucking well_. If Ephoton >
Ebond, you get O(I) ionization. If Ephoton < Ebond you get O(I^2) ionization,
which is really small (unless I is huge).

I stand by my statement: if you disprove this, you will overturn the past 100
years of physics. We will need to throw away every single QM textbook written
since the 50's. You will receive the next Nobel prize. Future textbooks will
forever refer to "Newton, Einstein, and hackermom."

------
stretchwithme
Regardless of whether this research is valid, I think it makes sense to reduce
one's exposure to wifi. You may want to make sure you don't share a wall with
your neighbor that only puts a foot between your head and a wifi router when
you're sleeping. iStumbler can help you see how strong the various signals
are.

~~~
chaosmachine
Why does it make sense? Are you afraid of tiny amounts of non-ionizing[0]
radiation?

2.4Ghz is great for heating things at high power (my microwave outputs at 1200
watts), but the most powerful home routers only do about 0.2 watts. Cell
phones can do about 1 watt, and you hold those up to your ear. In fact, it's
been calculated that a year of wifi exposure is about the same as 20 minutes
on a cell phone.[1]

And if non-ionizing radiation is anything to fear, you should be really afraid
of the sun, which pumps it out at about 1000W per square meter[2].

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation>

[1]
[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/featu...](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article665419.ece)

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#sunlight>

~~~
stretchwithme
Yeah, wifi is in the most harmless category according to your first source. I
stand corrected. I should have looked this up myself earlier. Thanks!

------
fbea
So, will Greenpeace or other environmentalists draw up a petition to ban wifi
networks despite the fact that they probably own potted plants and have
wireless connections in their offices? hmm.

~~~
jackvalentine
You're being awfully glib in putting words in to the mouth of parties that
have made zero statements on this.

~~~
pjscott
A bit of googling around shows that Greenpeace has never seemed to have a
problem with using WiFi. They have lots of dumb opinions -- I won't pretend to
be neutral here -- but they don't seem to be against WiFi.

