backtop


Print 84 comment(s) - last by FearTec.. on Jul 13 at 1:53 PM


Katie Haggerty   (Source: Kira Horvath)

Aspen Trees  (Source: bcp.phys.strath.ac.uk)

Honey Bee  (Source: Encyclopedia Britannica's Advocacy for Animals)
Cell phone and other electronic use has depleted aspen seedlings and honey bees

Katie Haggerty is a woman with no academic degree from Lyons, Colorado, but she has published an environmental research paper in the International Journal of Forestry Research about the harmful effects radio waves have on aspen seedlings.

Haggerty started studying electromagnetic fields 20 years ago. She had heard of a preliminary

experiment conducted near her home north of Steamboat Mountain that aspen seedlings were healthier when shielded from radio waves.  

Sometime in 2005, she saw that her geraniums were stunted and had an inkling that it may have had to do with radio frequencies, since she placed her plants in a Faraday cage, which is covered by a metal screen that prevents radio frequency energy from "hitting" the plants. Haggerty's inkling was correct, since her geraniums were suddenly growing at a faster rate with larger leaves.

She first planted the aspen seedlings in 2007, where one group was in a Faraday cage, another was wrapped in fiberglass that didn't protect the plants from radio waves and the third group was completely unprotected. The procedure began in spring, and by the end of July, there were noticeable differences in growth. Once October approached, even the colors varied.

"I found that the shielded seedlings produced more growth, longer shoots, bigger leaves and more total leaf area," said Haggerty. "The shielded group produced 60 percent more leaf area and 74 percent more shoot length than the mock-shielded group.

"The leaves in the shielded group produced striking fall colors, while the two exposed groups stayed light green or yellow and were affected by areas of dead leaf tissue. The shielded leaves turned red, which was a good sign. The unshielded leaves in both exposed groups had extensive decay, and some leaves fell off while they were still green."

According to the U.S. Forest Service researchers, drought conditions are likely the cause of death for thousands of acres of aspen trees in Colorado. While Haggerty recognizes that her study is only a preliminary experiment, she argues that the surrounding area is "saturated" with radio waves from televisions, radios, microwave ovens, weather radar and cell phones that are contributing to the demise of these forests. 

"It appears that there may be negative effects on the health and growth of aspens from the radio frequency background," said Haggerty.

But trees are not the only victims falling dead to radio waves. According to researchers at Chandigarh's Panjab University in India, radiation from mobile phones is a key factor in the decline of honey bees throughout Europe and the United States. The experiment was conducted by putting two cell phones that were powered on for a total of one half hour per day inside one bee hive while putting dummy models of cell phones in another. Three months later, researchers found a severe decline in honey bees in the active cell phone infested hive. In addition, the queen bee in the powered cell phone hive produced less eggs.

Whether it's plants or bees, researchers and everyday citizens like Haggerty alike have proven that radio waves have an adverse effect on the surrounding environment and hope that it will change the point of views of doubters and help find ways to protect the environment.

Haggerty's paper sparked interest in Wayne Shepperd of the Forest Service's Rocky Mountain Research Station, and he had Haggerty present her data at the regional conference on forest decline in Fort Collins in 2008. From there, the paper was accepted at the North American Forest Ecology Workshop at Utah State University and is now published in the scientific journal. 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

also...
By Quadrillity on 7/9/2010 7:33:07 AM , Rating: 3
If the average person knew how much they were bombarded by radio waves on a daily basis, they would probably freak out. I am a firm believer that dramatic increases in radio saturation on ever spectrum have lead to the spike in cancer rates and medical anomalies in recent decades.




RE: also...
By Quadrillity on 7/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: also...
By Mitch101 on 7/9/2010 8:46:08 AM , Rating: 4
Radio saturation might be a contributor but I would wager on high cancer rates from processed foods/poor diet and chemical exposure as being a bigger culprit.

People probably drink more soda/coffee than water today those kidneys need a flush every now and then.

Our awareness and ability to detect cancer today is a billion times better than it was before radio stations so maybe its been there all along only instead of saying they died of natural causes long ago now we know they died of cancer.


RE: also...
By Camikazi on 7/9/2010 9:30:54 AM , Rating: 2
Water FTW! Never drink coffee and rarely drink Soda, I drink water!


RE: also...
By deputc26 on 7/9/2010 6:20:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yayyy for water!!!


RE: also...
By ARoyalF on 7/10/2010 11:42:49 AM , Rating: 3
Water sucks it really really sucks. I prefer Gaaaaatorade. : P


RE: also...
By spread on 7/10/2010 3:55:44 PM , Rating: 3
I prefer sugar with some water in it.


RE: also...
By tedrodai on 7/10/2010 10:40:21 AM , Rating: 2
And I bet you're cancer free!!! Aren't ya?! That proves it!
</kidding>

I don't do too bad, but sometimes I go through phases where morning coffee just makes the day better...not in a girly way...ah hell.


RE: also...
By funkyd99 on 7/12/2010 5:09:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yay fluoride!


RE: also...
By JonnyDough on 7/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: also...
By JediJeb on 7/9/2010 3:55:37 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
- such as EDTA which is comprised of formaldehyde (perhaps the most cancer causing agent known to man) and cyanide (a poison). Never before have we eaten so many processed foods.


Not sure where you are getting this from, but just looking at the structure of EDTA there are functional groups of carboxylic acids that could be considered formaldehyde but not in the form of the molecule as is. Also cyanide is a double bonded Nitrogen to Carbon which is not present in EDTA. Also Benzene is probably more cancer causing than formaldehyde, as are many other compounds. Many of the structures you are pointing out as being in EDTA are also present in the proteins and hormones found in our bodies that we can not live without. Also there are compounds called isothiocyanates which are cancer preventors found in foods lie broccoli that have structures much like EDTA.

While EDTA is not benign it is also not some horrible poison as you make it out to be. So many chemicals have gotten bad press when they do not deserve it, yet others are never heard of that are very lethal.


RE: also...
By jhb116 on 7/9/2010 7:01:12 PM , Rating: 1
This is all bunk - radio waves are do not cause cancer. They cause people to boil and can cook popcorn and other food - but not cancer.

They are probably the leading cause for GW though. Certainly much more than CO2.... :)


RE: also...
By Ammohunt on 7/12/2010 2:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
Doubtful, more likely the 1200+ atmospheric nuclear tests from 1945-1980 releasing fun stuff like Caesium-137 and other nastiness in the environment. Caesium-137 is water soluble and can be absorbed by the body like potassium. It’s simple really grass growing downwind of say the Nevada test site which in turn is eaten by cattle which concentrates the Caesium-137 then we eat the meat. Now you have a gamma emitter integrated into your bones, teeth what have you. Remember the cattle mutilation stuff that went on a few years back? With their Lips and anuses removed? I bet you can tell just how much radioactive material is getting into the beef supply by analyzing the concentrations of such elements like Caesium-137 from the entry point of a cow (lips) to the exit point(butthole).


RE: also...
By FearTec on 7/13/2010 1:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
Try 2053 tests.

Check out a flash timeline of the nuke test here:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-07/6/japa...


RE: also...
By Aloonatic on 7/9/2010 7:49:03 AM , Rating: 3
Isn't there a lot of radiation all around us, covering most of the EM spectrum, that perfectly natural in its origins?

If you were bothered about radiation, you probably wouldn't ever fly again, lots going on in the background there as the atmosphere thins.

I have no idea about the level, power wise, and maybe this is a climate change kinda debate where there is a certain man made aspect to it, but how much and it's affect is yet to be made clear, but I am not sure that general radio waves are responsible for the spike in cancer rates.

I'd wager that part of the "spike" could be put down to the better ability for medical services to actually identify cancer and bother to work on it, rather than ignore it rather and just putting "natural causes" or some secondary cause as the cause of death down on a chart.

There are many other things that probably affect cancer rates too. The number of chemicals that we choose t surround ourselves with. Cleaning products that we are happy to mix up in the home and inhale, as well as touch. The amount of red meat that we eat, as well as other chemicals in processed food. Then there are the other more pointless things that I am amazed that people don't seem to care about, like air fresheners, which seem like a gross waste of resources and energy, as well as a wonderful way to pollute the air that you breath with chemicals at a nice steady rate, 24hrs a day.

So the "spike" in cancer that we are living thought may well be being affected by our mobile phones, microwave broadcast towers, power lines etc, but they are almost certainly (IMHO) just one small part of the "problem" that exists in the environment that we live in, and I don't think that they are as big a problem as others. Even so, I feel that their benefits mostly outweigh the negative aspects that may exist, which even after many many studies have yet to be proven.


RE: also...
By Quadrillity on 7/9/2010 8:07:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd wager that part of the "spike" could be put down to the better ability for medical services to actually identify cancer and bother to work on it, rather than ignore it rather and just putting "natural causes" or some secondary cause as the cause of death down on a chart.

That is one big factor yes. I didn't mean to come across as an alarmist.
quote:
There are many other things that probably affect cancer rates too. The number of chemicals that we choose t surround ourselves with. Cleaning products that we are happy to mix up in the home and inhale, as well as touch.....

You are exactly right about that one. Processed food is probably the biggest issue we face when it comes to increasing cancer/disease rates. I failed to mention this because I assumed that it was common knowledge by now that our ever increasing need for saturating ourselves with unnatural chemicals is getting to be an issue (although you will never see studies conducted from major fast food restaurants).
quote:
Even so, I feel that their benefits mostly outweigh the negative aspects that may exist, which even after many many studies have yet to be proven.

I agree with that completely. Not one single study has been reliably conclusive that radio waves have a direct effect on natural health. Although I will say again, if the average person knew what was going through their body, they would seriously consider it as a major factor along with the aforementioned.


RE: also...
By Aloonatic on 7/9/2010 8:22:51 AM , Rating: 2
On the general point of people being alarmed if they "knew the truth" about radio waves that surround (and penetrate them), I am not so sure.

Maybe it's different where you live, but there has been a lot of talk about power-lines giving people cancer, and then mobile phone masts have also been suspected a lot too.

In both cases there have been many many studies that have shown that there is not any really issue. As part of that, as well as interference with digital TV and mobile phones interfering with radios/hi-his, the idea/issue has been raised and people are very aware that there are a lot of radio waves about.


RE: also...
By Mitch101 on 7/9/2010 8:48:42 AM , Rating: 4
People often blame what they dont understand. Ive seen video of a guy who touched power lines because he didn't believe in electricity because he couldn't see it. Luckily for him he lived. Unlucky for us because he probably is reproducing.


RE: also...
By omnicronx on 7/9/2010 11:48:10 AM , Rating: 2
I just don't see how any of these studies could ever be conclusive either way. How exactly do you have a control, when your control subjects have no idea what they have really been subjected to throughout their lifetime. Same can be said for the true test subjects, unless these studies have been going on for a good part of the subjects lifetime, I don't see how a study like this could ever be credible.


RE: also...
By omnicronx on 7/9/2010 11:45:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not one single study has been reliably conclusive that radio waves have a direct effect on natural health.
Being a bit generic are we not? Radio waves are just one small part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

I'm pretty sure it can be shown that waves at the top of the radio scale(i.e basically Microwave) can be detrimental to your health even in the short term.

Its all about moderation, if you sit beside a giant cell phone tower all day and night, you could be in for some problems, but you really need to realize that pretty much everything gives off some type of EM radiation and our bodies are built to deal with it, just not in massive amounts.


RE: also...
By jimhsu on 7/9/2010 11:01:04 AM , Rating: 5
Why are cancer rates so high right now? If any of you read Freakonomics, you would immediately come to the correct answer - people aren't dying of other horrible diseases (polio, dysentery, cholera, smallpox, whatnot); thus, they live long enough to die of cancer. It's no surprise that treatable diseases decline in incidence; what people miss is that those people with treatable diseases live long enough to get cancer, Alzheimers, and other "hard to treat" conditions.

Does the environment have an impact? Certainly. But far less than you would guess.


RE: also...
By TSS on 7/9/2010 6:22:58 PM , Rating: 3
Heh that sparked a memory :p

"Despite millions of dollars of research, death continues to be our nation's number one killer."


RE: also...
By nafhan on 7/9/2010 8:15:06 AM , Rating: 3
Do you have something specific you are basing your ideas on, or is it just a feeling? Radio waves are non-penetrating and non-ionizing. Exposure to large amounts of radio waves might make you warm, but wouldn't give you cancer (this is actually what a microwave does). Really, if the average person knew more about radio waves, people would be a lot less worried about it.


RE: also...
By tbhuang2 on 7/9/2010 8:41:19 AM , Rating: 2
I like the way you think. People need to depend less on their "gut feeling" and more on scientific facts and principles.


RE: also...
By Quadrillity on 7/9/2010 8:56:09 AM , Rating: 2
It's understood (as of right now) that scientists know very little about the effect of every day radiation. Every single test so far has been completely on the fence; leaving science completely clueless. In situations such as these, I am perfectly within reason to give my "opinion" on the matter (as long as I make it clear that it's only opinion of course).

You can apply this same argument to evolution and global warming. Up to a certain point, you end up believing what you choose to believe since the there is such much "on the fence".

Are you saying that you have found the breakthrough study results? If so, then please enlighten us.


RE: also...
By nafhan on 7/9/2010 10:15:01 AM , Rating: 2
It's also understood that you and every person since people have existed are, have, and will be bathed in "radiation" constantly. Do you even know what the word radiation means?


RE: also...
By Quadrillity on 7/9/2010 2:40:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's also understood that you and every person since people have existed are, have, and will be bathed in "radiation" constantly.

If you would have taken the time to read before running your mouth, you would find that we have already discussed this matter.
quote:
Do you even know what the word radiation means?

According to your own source:
quote:
Radio waves are a type of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum longer than infrared light.

Quit being an ass-hat on a high horse. Read the earlier discussion to see that we discussed that there has been no complete or conclusive study that decided either way if constant exposure to man made radiation has a negative effect. It was even mentioned that such a test may never be viable. As I stated earlier; please direct me, Dr. Nafhan, to your breakthrough study.


RE: also...
By nafhan on 7/10/2010 9:31:54 AM , Rating: 2
Radiation is energy that is radiated or transmitted in the form of rays or waves or particles. As you can see, this is a pretty broad definition, and includes non-harmful things like RF (radio, as you pointed out) and visible light along with harmful things like alpha particles and gamma rays. It seems like you are associating "radiation" with ionizing radiation (high energy particles and high frequency electromagnetic energy), and attributing the negative affects of ionizing radiation to radiation in general.
Not a doctor, but I did spend a few years training on and working with high power RF comm gear. Sorry if I seemed a little brusque!


RE: also...
By Quadrillity on 7/12/2010 7:58:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Radiation is energy that is radiated or transmitted in the form of rays or waves or particles .

lol, you can't use the word in the sentence that tries to define what it is.
quote:
Not a doctor, but I did spend a few years training on and working with high power RF comm gear. Sorry if I seemed a little brusque!

I'm not doubting your expertise, but I don't think anything is conclusive as of yet. It was mentioned before that it seems rather impossible to have such a test scenario where we can actually come to a conclusion. For now though, I am justified at having my doubts.


RE: also...
By nafhan on 7/12/2010 10:02:31 AM , Rating: 2
Words that sound similar don't always have the same meaning...
Radiate: extend or spread outward from a center or focus or inward towards a center
Both definitions are from those illiterates at wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
They used to call that place an Ivy League school, too! Later!


RE: also...
By Quadrillity on 7/9/2010 8:48:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Radio waves are non-penetrating

I guess I can't listen to the radio in my office since it's indoors... oh wait...

Radio waves to penetrate the body; albeit the lower spectrum more so than higher. Either way, we are bombarded with waves on every recognized level of the spectrum every day. I am simply noting that we have increased, and significantly altered atmospheric radiation in the past hundred years or more (since the invention of radio and even machinery). Radio and TV broadcasts use the ionosphere to bounce signals around. This human induced change has not been found to directly affect our health yet, but I feel in my personal opinion that it's certainly not helping.

quote:
Exposure to large amounts of radio waves might make you warm, but wouldn't give you cancer

Based on what conclusive research? You just called me out, yet you are making unsupported claims also.

Again I'll say, I am not an alarmist; But lets be realistic here. It's a legitimate concern.


RE: also...
By FaaR on 7/9/2010 9:08:51 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody has ever described any physics of how radio waves could interfere with cellular metabolism or genetic material in such a way as to cause cancer.

...Because fundamentally that's what this is all about; physics. Radio waves aren't magic, and they can't just conjure up lumps of cancer in tissues, there MUST be an actual physical connection between the waves and the molecules of our cells, and there just doesn't seem to be one in this case, regardless of how "bombarded" you think we all are. Most radio waves are incredibly, incredibly weak in power (intensity declines by inverse square of the distance and alla that you know), and just don't have the strength required to break atomic bonds in molecules.

I'd be a lot more worried about all the largely unstudied chemicals we release into the environment on a daily basis and often in enormous amounts, rather than some stupid radio waves. Virtually no studies are done of how these chemicals interact with living cells (human or otherwise), scarcely any of these chemicals' toxicity, and even less of how different chemicals interact with one another. Nor are any such studies required either before a chemical is taken into use. It's presumed innocent until found guilty that is par for the course here, and even when found guilty it may still not be taken out of use, or at least not until years or decades have passed (like with ftalates or halogenic flame retardants for example.)


RE: also...
By 0ldman on 7/9/2010 11:49:49 AM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Rife

As 2.4GHz is absorbed by water and the side effect is heat, other frequencies are absorbed by other materials.

Lots of people swear by Rife machines, I don't know myself, but it does make sense. An antenna is just a bit of conductor that is tuned to a wavelength. It is not outside the realm of possibility that a particular wavelength has a particular effect on living tissue.

Of course, a strand of DNA would be tuned to something in the freakin petahertz band or something, which should be reflected by the skin, probably would have problems passing through air.

That being said, hell yea, I'm pretty sure antibiotic overuse, preservatives and yellow number 5 are causing a helluvalot more problems than my Linksys router or my wireless Internet service.


RE: also...
By nafhan on 7/9/2010 10:21:42 AM , Rating: 3
If you're actually interested in this stuff and not just interested in arguing based on what you think is true, here's the wikipedia article on ionizing radiation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation
Not the worst starting place.


RE: also...
By Quadrillity on 7/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: also...
By YashBudini on 7/10/10, Rating: 0
Not really a controlled environment
By nafhan on 7/9/2010 8:30:32 AM , Rating: 5
What size mesh did she use on the Faraday cage? How much radiation were the control plants getting? Was the only thing blocked radio wave frequencies that would be transmitted artificially by humans? The atmosphere has been "saturated" with radio waves since the dawn of time. This is silly.
It really seems like the main thing this experiment does is add fuel to the fire for other people who don't know what they are talking about.




RE: Not really a controlled environment
By VahnTitrio on 7/9/2010 10:32:23 AM , Rating: 3
Agreed. To me it seems like a poor experiment design. If I were to perform this experiment I would only use two groups, both in EM shielded rooms with controlled lighting. Each tree would be placed in identical planters with the same soil. Watering would be controlled and all seeds would come from the same batch. Sample size would be at least 100 plants in each of the 2 rooms. One room would be left completely shielded, and the other would have nominal EM noise broadcast within the room.

There are simply too many variables in her experiment. Not only those you mentioned, but is the cage itself reflecting additional light? Does it capture additional water? This experiment was performed outside, certainly a metallic cage would harness some dew (mountain dew if you will) each night. The Faraday cage is hardly serving as just an EM shield. The fiberglass cage simply doesn't have the same characteristics. Personally I dismiss this experiments results due to poor experiment design.


By Riven98 on 7/9/2010 12:12:02 PM , Rating: 4
I agree. Too many variables. Remember the main point of any Stat 101 class - Correlation does not prove causation.


By Alexstarfire on 7/9/2010 11:07:36 AM , Rating: 2
I would agree that this doesn't specifically say it's radio waves, but it would indicate that EM radiation affects plants. Now, if she had set up another Faraday Cage and placed some kind of radio wave emitting device in it then we'd have a much better picture.


RE: Not really a controlled environment
By jbartabas on 7/9/2010 11:44:45 AM , Rating: 5
I don't know what's your particular interest in the mesh size, but if it's about its shielding performances:

quote:
The aluminum screen material in the configuration used for this experiment was tested at a laboratory of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Boulder, CO. From 1.0?MHz to 3.0?GHz, its effectiveness in attenuating RF signals was found to vary from 40?dB to 73?dB across the entire range of frequencies.


For the radiations to the control plants:
quote:
A sweep of RF background at the site, June 6, 2009, using an Anritsu spectrum analyzer, showed that field intensity ranged from -117?dBm to -87?dBm at frequencies from 1 to 1,000?MHz. Mean field intensity was -109?dBm.


quote:
Nafhan: The atmosphere has been "saturated" with radio waves since the dawn of time. This is silly.


Levels are very different.

quote:
It really seems like the main thing this experiment does is add fuel to the fire for other people who don't know what they are talking about.


You may want to read the study. It is not very long and one click away ...


RE: Not really a controlled environment
By nafhan on 7/9/2010 12:40:50 PM , Rating: 3
Took a look at it.
She used a sample size of 30 plants, total, over one growing season. This doesn't seem like a statistically significant population.
The screen material was tested by the NIST, not her screen, tape and bamboo, faraday cage. So, we still don't know how much RF is actually being blocked.
It sounds like they did one sweep of background radiation. Background RF will be higher or lower depending on the time of day and likely the date.
She also has a tangentially related section at the end about problems with forests in the 1970's, which makes it sound like she had a goal with her experiment...
I'm not necessarily saying this is a bad line of research. I'm saying this does not appear to be a very useful experiment or paper.


RE: Not really a controlled environment
By psychmike on 7/11/2010 9:41:50 AM , Rating: 3
It's nice that Daily Tech has such a scientifically literate readership but I wonder why so many people are questioning the research rather than thinking of ways to replicate the study and then identify the possible mechanisms of action that may be responsible.

The study is NOT a bad one. No, it's not an ideal design. Not every possible independent variable has been accounted for but this person has taken a decent stab at preliminary research.

Someone earlier critisized having 3 comparison groups. The point of having 3 groups was to plausibly account for the effect of creating a shelter which did not reduce EM radiation. If both the bamboo and EM sheltered plants did better than the unsheltered group, this would be evidence AGAINST EM radiation having a casual effect on plant growth. It's thoughtful to say that a metal cage might have affected local soil moisture content but let's not be cynical and throw the whole study out. The fact that this researcher thought to try to DISconfirm her own hypothesis shows good scientific rigor.

As for sample size, exactly what is your concern with N =30? You might rightfully be concerned about the external validity of the experiment. That is, 30 plants in one study might not represent plants in general but this is NOT the same as statistical significance. The fact that she was able to show statistically significant effects with such a small sample suggests that the effects were quite large. I think you're mixing up 2 different concepts. In my opinion, this experiment was more thought-provoking than you give credit for. Scientific skepticism is not the same thing as cynicism.


By mcnabney on 7/11/2010 1:10:04 PM , Rating: 3
A Faraday cage, in addition to insulating against EM, will also insulate in other ways as well. It would act as both an insulator and as a heat sink. The metal will also interact with the local atmoshere. I can think of a lot of better ways of testing EM radiation impact (think direct radiation and selective shielding panels to adjust for exposure).

I would also suspect that if EM was impacting the environment we would have noticed something near all of the high-power VHF broadcasting antennas in the past 50 years. VHF is highly penetrating and has been broadcast at considerable power for decades now. Haven't seen any cancer clusters, vegetation patterns, or animal behavior impacts near this highly exposed areas.
So I am pretty sure a .5w cell phone that broadcasts at 700mhz and 1.5ghz (higher frequencies penetrate less) isn't going to come close to 800,000w at 700mhz which have been providing us with TV since the 50's.


RE: Not really a controlled environment
By JediJeb on 7/9/2010 3:32:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't know what's your particular interest in the mesh size, but if it's about its shielding performances:


One thing I was wondering is if the mesh size is small enough it will be somewhat shading the trees from sunlight and precluding animals or insects from interacting with the trees inside the cage. This would leave open the possibility of damage to the control trees by birds, bugs, sunlight, ect that was not measured. It is a good start, but needs to be expanded to include a more controlled environment for both the target and control trees. This experiments says there is a possibility that EMF has an effect, now it needs to be repeated in a way that EMF is the only possible variable.

So if it does prove out that EMF is what is causing distress to bees and trees, will that mean there will be the possibility of banning cellphones, TV, Satellite, Radio and only allowing wired phones and cable TV?

I haven't put on my tin foil hat yet, but I was always curious about how cancer rates seemed to begin to increase in the late 60's early 70's once we started using satellites for communications.


By bigdawg1988 on 7/10/2010 1:25:49 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know about the trees, but you could put Faraday cages around bee hives (assuming radio waves cause colony collapse) and protect the Queen and the young bees. The ones you see flying around collecting pollen are the old bees who'll die in a few days anyway so there shouldn't be a problem there. And I mean the commercial hives, not the natural ones. The commercial hives do most of the pollination on farms anyway.
Wonder if our government is sponsoring a scientific study on this?


By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2010 3:57:25 PM , Rating: 2
Even if the experiment is sound, and her hypothesis is correct, I say: so what?

Cellphones and radio waves aren't going away. That's not even a possibility. They will just have to adapt I guess.


Easy Experiment
By Kurz on 7/9/2010 8:07:08 AM , Rating: 3
If Bees are colonies are dying off as they are because of said issue.
How much is it to get some chicken wire and make a Faraday cage around each bee hive. We can actually have controls and we can see the failure rates just fine.




RE: Easy Experiment
By Quadrillity on 7/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Easy Experiment
By Goty on 7/9/2010 9:10:48 AM , Rating: 5
I like how you dropped radio in there with absolutely no connection to anything else you were saying. You do realize that "pressure waves" (aka sound) and radio waves are in no way the same thing, don't you?


RE: Easy Experiment
By Spivonious on 7/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Easy Experiment
By Kurz on 7/9/2010 9:42:56 AM , Rating: 5
P-waves are type of elastic wave, also called seismic waves, that can travel through gases (as sound waves), solids and liquids, including the Earth.

There is a difference between an inherently electro Magnetic particle/wave and one thats based purely on matter interacting with matter.


RE: Easy Experiment
By Goty on 7/9/2010 10:05:00 AM , Rating: 5
You're a moron. Sound waves are mechanical waves that require a medium to travel, radio waves are electromagnetic waves (pure energy)that require no medium to travel. Other than the fact that we call them both waves, they literally have NOTHING to do with on another.


RE: Easy Experiment
By Kurz on 7/9/2010 10:25:57 AM , Rating: 2
What kind of person would rate you down? >.>


RE: Easy Experiment
By bupkus on 7/9/2010 10:47:51 AM , Rating: 1
Uhh... a moron who thought Goty was talking about him?


RE: Easy Experiment
By Spivonious on 7/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Easy Experiment
By 2uantuM on 7/9/2010 12:35:01 PM , Rating: 2
No, we won't.


RE: Easy Experiment
By 91TTZ on 7/9/2010 11:50:16 AM , Rating: 2
No, a hundred years ago it was already understood that magnetism was related to electricity.


RE: Easy Experiment
By Quadrillity on 7/9/2010 2:59:54 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I like how you dropped radio in there with absolutely no connection to anything else you were saying.

My connection was the unsupported theory of radio or pressure wave communication. I guess the slash was misleading as I do know the difference between pressure waves and radiation. Either way, bees and other small insects have been known to be extremely receptive to things we couldn't even imagine sensing. Maybe some of you are reading WAAAY to much into what I typed, idk.

Why not add something productive to this discussion instead of just setting out to make someone look stupid?


RE: Easy Experiment
By Kurz on 7/9/2010 9:28:06 AM , Rating: 3
Sorry typed the first sentence before I woke fully, same as you I wish I had an edit button. The problem is Colony Collapse disorder; where there are many deaths of bees, including the Queen which leads to the Collapse of the hive associated with Radio waves hence in the article.

quote:
The experiment was conducted by putting two cell phones that were powered on for a total of one half hour per day inside one bee hive while putting dummy models of cell phones in another. Three months later, researchers found a severe decline in honey bees in the active cell phone infested hive. In addition, the queen bee in the powered cell phone hive produced less eggs.


Like I sad a simple experiment/solution would to put chicken wire to act as a Faraday cage. The control, sorry I should really error check my posts, is the hives without the cage around them. And its an easy implementation probably no more than 10 dollars per hive.

I have no idea why you would talk about dance, pheromones, pressure waves? They have nothing to do with the article. And I am specifically talking about Electromagnetic Waves.


RE: Easy Experiment
By Solandri on 7/9/2010 12:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
It's not quite that simple. I've been trying to point this out where ever this study is mentioned because it seems to have a major flaw in its control. Electric currents have long been known to stimulate plant growth. And when you stick a metal cage into moist ground, it creates a weak voltage and slight current as the metal slowly corrodes.

To properly control for this, your fiberglass cages need to have bars of metal at the bottom, same metal as your metal cages. You may need to counteract for differing corrosion rate too, as I don't know if the metal cage would corrode faster at the parts underground or the parts exposed to air.


RE: Easy Experiment
By Kurz on 7/9/2010 5:04:33 PM , Rating: 2
I am talking about Bees


Look out...
By bradmshannon on 7/9/2010 7:40:05 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure the wackos in California are already writing legislation to require that every tree be contained in a faraday cage. Crazy morons...




RE: Look out...
By Lord 666 on 7/9/2010 8:01:32 AM , Rating: 1
Provisions will be included within the "No Bee Left Behind" bill. The main focus of NBLB is coating bees in a polymer protective suit and creating protected park areas just for bees far from cell phone towers.

Also, current research shows that having a California Tree Hugger blanketing the organism decreases radio wave absorbtion by 40%. Concerned Californian's can donate their time as tree shields at treehugger.org. Using shift rotations and all of the unemployed in California, the CA Department of Agriculture estimates they can save the majority of "important" species such as the redwood.


RE: Look out...
By MrTeal on 7/9/2010 10:22:45 AM , Rating: 2
Just wait, there's a bill on the books requiring that every tree be completely shielded from and and all forms of EM radiation.

It's only when we can keep all that nasty EM off of our trees that they will be able to grow to the holistic beauty and splendor that Gaia intended.


RE: Look out...
By bupkus on 7/9/2010 11:00:08 AM , Rating: 1
Gee, guys, can I join this circle jerk about Californians, tree huggers and other stereotypes whereas we 4 are the last remaining normals? We are so f'n witty!...and smart... aren't we ?
</realitycheck>


RE: Look out...
By YashBudini on 7/10/10, Rating: 0
I never realized...
By Motoman on 7/9/2010 11:38:43 AM , Rating: 2
...until just now how much I love bees...




RE: I never realized...
By inperfectdarkness on 7/9/2010 12:32:03 PM , Rating: 2
where are my high rez pics?


Bee Hive - I don't buy it.
By pharea on 7/9/2010 8:34:00 AM , Rating: 3
I keep bees as a hobby (have 3 hives). I do not believe the research in India is valid. There is so much variation between hives just normally without introducing a potential stressor to just a single hive. The amount of hives used is not statistically significant to determine if the cell phones were at play or if it was just a coincidence that the hive with the active phones was performing poorly in comparison to those with the dummy phones.




Dummy phones?
By The Raven on 7/9/2010 12:23:36 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The experiment was conducted by putting two cell phones that were powered on for a total of one half hour per day inside one bee hive while putting dummy models of cell phones in another.

Wait. What are "dummy models of cell phones" that pull down a weak radio signal? Oh, I know...
quote:
The experiment was conducted by putting two cell phones that were powered on for a total of one half hour per day inside one bee hive while putting iPhones using AT&T in another.




The Faraday hat for children
By omgwtf8888 on 7/9/2010 9:59:11 AM , Rating: 2
This derivative of the aluminum foil cap to shield from alien mind reading will become mandatory attire for children. I believe we can capitalize on the entire Faraday wardrobe. Heck, we might even see the resurgence of chain mail as a fashion statement. Forget shielding entire bee hives.. we can make little micro faraday suits for each bee.. or better yet... little nano-robot bees... when they aren't pollenating that can attack our enemies... ah yes technology FTW....




Questions
By clovell on 7/9/2010 10:48:20 AM , Rating: 2
> Sometime in 2005, she saw that her geraniums were stunted and had an inkling that it may have had to do with radio frequencies, since she placed her plants in a Faraday cage, which is covered by a metal screen that prevents radio frequency energy from "hitting" the plants. Haggerty's inkling was correct, since her geraniums were suddenly growing at a faster rate with larger leaves.

I don't suppose anyone ever thought that the Faraday cage was actually accelerating growth by some other means? Refractory UV rays, changes to natural magnetic fields, etc?

> She first planted the aspen seedlings in 2007, where one group was in a Faraday cage, another was wrapped in fiberglass that didn't protect the plants from radio waves and the third group was completely unprotected. The procedure began in spring, and by the end of July, there were noticeable differences in growth. Once October approached, even the colors varied.

Again, I insulate my house with fiberglass. The difference in ambient temps is enough to account for growth difference. Native seedlings can have very specific germination conditions - too hot or too much water, and germination can speed or slow. Notwithstanding is the interference the fiberglass would introduce into UV uptake.

>"I found that the shielded seedlings produced more growth, longer shoots, bigger leaves and more total leaf area," said Haggerty. "The shielded group produced 60 percent more leaf area and 74 percent more shoot length than the mock-shielded group.

Total shoot length? Mean Shoot length? Median shoot length? We're talking about trees here - there's a lot of shoots. I'm sure it's specified in the source article, and I know you have other articles to write, Tiffany, but this is a tech site - we're all big boys who can handle the gory details. I wouldn't mind seeing the deviation on these, either.

>Whether it's plants or bees, researchers and everyday citizens like Haggerty alike have proven that radio waves have an adverse effect on the surrounding environment and hope that it will change the point of views of doubters and help find ways to protect the environment.

Speculation. The aspen's leaves falling early may actually be a part of the ecosystem, influencing soil acidity, and encouraging new growth and biodiversity. As for the bees - that's a surprisingly parallel study, but the phone that was turned on produced heat, which we'd expect to introduce changes.

Besides, nobody stands next to a beehive talking on their cell phone. Look, the results are interesting, even almost fascinating - and I know conclusions make for a great story, but neither experiment seems to be confirmatory. The take home message should be - "This is interesting, and something to stay aware of. Stay tuned, and let's think about it."




Not to be outdone...
By chagrinnin on 7/9/2010 11:01:11 AM , Rating: 2
...Mr. Haggerty is in the process of publishing a report on improving sex with a Faraday bag. :P




By moenkopi on 7/9/2010 11:54:44 AM , Rating: 2
Non ionized radio waves have been a natural part of the universe being generated by star death and star birth. Considering that, i must say that maybe human use has a higher output power? Still, It doesn't make sense since the universe emits from 30mhz to 300ghz!




By The Raven on 7/9/2010 12:28:09 PM , Rating: 2
What? No comments on the girl in the caption?
I thought she would get more buzz !
<rimshot>

But seriously, I'm beginning to worry about the effects of radio signals on DTech readers!
<rimshot>

I'll be here all week!
<cricket chirping>




Gaaah!!!!
By DaveSylvia on 7/9/2010 1:45:20 PM , Rating: 2
I read the title and knew it was a Tiffany article! Tiffany, the new Jason Mick!

The thing that gets me about this stuff is:
1. none of the studies are long-term (a few seasons of growth at best)

2. WHAT THE F- do you want to do about it? Get rid of cell phones, radios, TV, etc? It's just a STUPID, inane topic of discussion that gets you absolutely no where.

3. Radio waves of varying frequencies have bombarded nature for eons. Usage of the word radiation (light is radiation! RUN AWAY!) is purposefully negative biasing - makes it sound dangerous NO MATTER WHAT.




Makes sense
By morphologia on 7/9/2010 3:20:38 PM , Rating: 2
Does this explain why advanced civilizations in sci-fi media are barren concrete wastelands?

But on topic...what do we do? We could shield domesticated bee hives, but there's thousands upon thousands of natural, wild hives we don't know about, and that are less likely to be shieldable (is that a word?!). Our technology is full of potential perpetrators if this is right, and there's no alternative to most of them.




By xxsk8er101xx on 7/9/2010 6:39:19 PM , Rating: 2
It's already known what is killing the honey bees. It's not radio waves but a virus. Trees are probably dieing due to droughts and other natural cycles. The simplest answer is usually the correct one. Basic scientific method 101.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/06/bee.dis...

Story Highlights
•Colony collapse disorder has killed millions of bees

•Scientists suspect a virus may combine with other factors to collapse colonies

•Disorder first cropped up in 2004, as bees were imported from Australia

•$15 billion in U.S. crops each year dependent on bees for pollination




Aspen Trees
By Silver2k7 on 7/10/2010 3:47:04 AM , Rating: 2
IIRC one groove of Aspen trees can be the same organism..
like imagine a tufft of grass if pulled up every blade on it has the same roots, I think the same is true for aspen trees.

So perhaps thats why *acres of it is dying* if something is killing the organism, an entire grove could die just like that.

Now if radio waves have somekind of impact or not.. ive got no idea :/




Morons
By jkostans on 7/11/2010 6:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
This is the dumbest thing I've heard. Nothing in the article suggests this idiot actually performed a legit experiment. Just another uneducated lunatic ranting and raving. I would LOVE to see this "faraday cage" she is using. I bet if I stuck a radio inside this supposed faraday cage I would still pick up every station. She has no background in electromagnetics and an obvious bias against technology in general. People like this serve fear to the uninformed public, and it's wrong. I would expect daily tech to be a little more responsible and not post total garbage as news.




Brondo's got what plants need....
By Integral9 on 7/13/2010 1:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
it's got electrolytes.




Studies
By owyheewine on 7/9/2010 10:35:07 AM , Rating: 1
Most studies by trained scientists magically get the answer the researcher was seeking. It's a way to make a name for themselves. Clumsy studies like this one fall into the same category. The methodology may fool a scientifically challenged journalist, as many do, but conclusions made from studies like this need to be at least viewed with great skepticism.




Silence that Infidel!
By Shadowmaster625 on 7/9/10, Rating: -1
"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki