backtop


Print 41 comment(s) - last by Spivonious.. on Dec 2 at 11:19 AM


  (Source: product-reviews.net)

  (Source: hotgardens.net)
Dutch report finds unexplained foliage abnormalities.

When officials in the town of Alphen aan den Rijn in the Netherlands began noticing unexplained abnormalities on trees, they were worried that the damage did not come from natural causes.

There were concerns that cracks, discoloration, tissue deterioration and other problems stemmed from radiation fueled by area Wi-Fi networks.

The town commissioned Wagenigen University to conduct a study to determine the source.  The study concluded that radiation from Wi-Fi networks may have negatively impacted the health of nearby plants. 

Three months of research found outbreaks of bleeding bark and dying leaves on a large number of Ash trees and a slower rate of growth in corn plants near area hotspots.  

Leaves within 50 to 300 centimeters of a 100 milliwatt, 2412-2472 megahertz radiation source showed “a metallic luster appearance, a discoloration of the leaves that appeared to result in the disappearance of the outer cell layer of the leaves. The metallic luster was followed by desiccation and death of a portion of the leaf.” 

The Dutch Antenna Agency indicated that the same adverse effects have not been found on other species of trees and that the abnormalities discovered on the trees at Alphen aan den Rijn may have simply come from disease.

A repeat study did not determine the same conclusions.  While scientists found the study to be inconclusive and further research is expected, the full report will be under discussion at a February 2011 conference.

 



Comments     Threshold


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

Study suggests
By MeesterNid on 11/30/2010 1:47:28 PM , Rating: 5
...that more studies are needed or that the "researchers" should just be given money to do stuff they like doing...studies.




RE: Study suggests
By Spivonious on 11/30/2010 2:02:32 PM , Rating: 3
This one's not altogether useless.

50 to 300 cm from the source is a fairly large distance. I wouldn't have expected any effects at 6.5ft.


RE: Study suggests
By Samus on 11/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Study suggests
By Spookster on 11/30/2010 6:06:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
by Spivonious on November 30, 2010 at 2:02 PM

This one's not altogether useless.



Except for the fact they said this: "A repeat study did not determine the same conclusions."


RE: Study suggests
By FaceMaster on 11/30/2010 8:22:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Except for the fact they said this: "A repeat study did not determine the same conclusions."


Exactly. Being against studies like this from being carried out is just as bad as hand picking the results you want to believe in, for the sake of trying to prove something.

We progress by debating, analysing and coming to fair and just conclusions. Let's see what the next research project comes up with.


RE: Study suggests
By Dr of crap on 12/1/2010 8:46:04 AM , Rating: 2
In case you didn't do the conversion -
50cm = 1.6 feet
300cm = almost 10 feet

And you think this is a LARGE distance!?!


RE: Study suggests
By FaaR on 12/1/2010 5:38:14 PM , Rating: 5
EM radiation diminishes at the inverse square of the distance. If the output is 100mW (tiny tiny), at 300cm it's only going to be a small fraction of the original value and increasingly insignificant even further away.


RE: Study suggests
By theArchMichael on 11/30/2010 3:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand your contention here? Because they don't intend to make a publication, this is useless research?

If they are given the time and money I think the value in doing research that produces one or more publications is pretty obvious here as we become more and more reliant on wireless tech.

I'm of the mind also that most research that adds to the body of scientific knowledge is useful, even if it's conclusions might only eliminate possibilities. In this case, if the wireless signals were harming the trees. I can't see how somebody posting to a tech site argue that.


RE: Study suggests
By MeesterNid on 11/30/2010 3:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
Hey buddy, did you read that blurb all the way through or just saw that I critisized it and jump to the defense of poor/misunderstood researchers everywhere?

quote:
A repeat study did not determine the same conclusions. While scientists found the study to be inconclusive and further research is expected...


You must be a "researcher" yourself, you sure pounced to conclusions quickly like one:

quote:
In this case, if the wireless signals were harming the trees. I can't see how somebody posting to a tech site argue that.


Cheers.


RE: Study suggests
By theArchMichael on 11/30/2010 4:25:36 PM , Rating: 2
I read the article. What I was asking you was whether the decidedly negative connotation of your comment was directed to the fact that the study didn't produce a publication with decisive results or whether you were just against spending on research of this kind.

If it was the former, I think that those kind of metrics that somehow equate the quality of a lab by how many papers they produce is pretty inaccurate. Sometimes further testing and study is necessary before publication, that doesn't make these scientists lecherous. I am not a researcher.


RE: Study suggests
By invidious on 11/30/2010 4:02:45 PM , Rating: 2
Their results could not be reproduced, their conclusion is probably wrong, they shouldn't be given funding.


RE: Study suggests
By JediJeb on 12/1/2010 11:58:13 AM , Rating: 2
But when you have one positive result and one negative result, what automatically makes the negative result the correct one?

If that is always true then tobacco use doesn't cause cancer. Who commissioned the second report? Was it more concern citizens or the wireless companies? There is not enough information to decide hands down that there should not be another study conducted. I'm not saying one way or the other here just pointing out that to instantly denounce someone's conclusions because a second disagrees is not always the most prudent course of action.


RE: Study suggests
By FaaR on 12/1/2010 5:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
Their positive result is wrong because EM radiation at the levels they claim CANNOT produce the observed results. It's totally impossible, according to our observed laws of physics.

What they've found is caused either by pollution, disease, climate factors like heat, drought or such or a combination thereof. Not Wifi transcievers.


RE: Study suggests
By radicledog on 12/1/2010 7:47:17 AM , Rating: 2
I think the problem here is the headline. Instead of "Study Suggests Wi-Fi Could Be Harming Trees," It should read something like "Study Concerning how Wi-Fi Affects Trees Inconclusive."

Of course no-one would read the article then, but that would be fine by me, because I don't think people actually read the articles anyway. I just can't wait until someone tells me my Wi-Fi is killing the trees in my neighborhood!


Is this a typo? If not, who cares!
By Schrag4 on 11/30/2010 1:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Leaves within 50 to 300 centimeters of a 100 milliwatt, 2412-2472 megahertz radiation source showed “a metallic luster appearance, a discoloration of the leaves that appeared to result in the disappearance of the outer cell layer of the leaves. The metallic luster was followed by desiccation and death of a portion of the leaf .”


So let me get this straight: If a leaf is within 10 feet of a radiation source, a portion of that leaf might die? Forgive me if I don't think this is worth worrying about.

That is, unless they mean meters and not centimeters.




RE: Is this a typo? If not, who cares!
By Souka on 11/30/2010 2:00:55 PM , Rating: 3
So cut down any trees within 50-300 centimeters (or meters) of any wi-fi spot.... to protect the trees of course

:)


RE: Is this a typo? If not, who cares!
By RMSe17 on 11/30/2010 3:38:46 PM , Rating: 3
A portion of a leaf dies when it is within 10 feet of a wifi transmitter.. sounds like WiFi could have health impact on other living organisms, like humans.


RE: Is this a typo? If not, who cares!
By Reclaimer77 on 11/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: Is this a typo? If not, who cares!
By Souka on 11/30/2010 7:28:19 PM , Rating: 2
hmmm....perhaps we already know

Diseases that are all on a rise in recent years...
Cancer
Dementia
Parkinson's
migranes/headaches
epilepsy
Heck, toss in Diabetes

:)


By cmdrdredd on 11/30/2010 10:06:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
hmmm....perhaps we already know Diseases that are all on a rise in recent years... Cancer Dementia Parkinson's migranes/headaches epilepsy Heck, toss in Diabetes


That's called inbreeding


By SilthDraeth on 12/1/2010 4:55:01 PM , Rating: 3
Except you can actually argue that the diseases are actually on the rise, or whether improved screening is detecting more diseases that may have went undetected in the past.


By Pjotr on 12/2/2010 7:15:23 AM , Rating: 2
Those are all diseases that occur mostly among the older population. As the world average age goes up, it is normal to expect cause of death to rise among these diseases, especially in the 3rd world where the average age of death is still a lot lower.


RE: Is this a typo? If not, who cares!
By niva on 11/30/2010 9:21:30 PM , Rating: 2
Same thing about cell phones, yet the debate rages that they do/not cause harm. There is some strong evidence that cell phone usage increases risk of certain cancers such as the ear and brain cancer. Bottom line is that it took almost a century before people figured out cigarettes are bad for you. A few decades ago doctors were recommending cigarettes to aleviate anxiety and such.


what i'd like to know
By Luticus on 11/30/2010 1:57:57 PM , Rating: 3
What I'd like to know is how much wifi output the town "Alphen aan den Rijn" actually has because I'm inclined to think that other large cities such as New York would surely have a huge output and if that's the case do they notice the same trend with their foliage?

Just a thought.




RE: what i'd like to know
By spamreader1 on 11/30/2010 2:12:53 PM , Rating: 5
New York doesn't have trees as far as anyone knows. :P


RE: what i'd like to know
By DigitalFreak on 11/30/2010 7:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
Give this man a 6!


RE: what i'd like to know
By Spivonious on 12/2/2010 11:19:54 AM , Rating: 2
I know you meant this as a joke, but there are trees all over NYC.


Ok
By Ammohunt on 11/30/2010 2:02:51 PM , Rating: 2
We have only been broadcasting radio signals everywhere for over 100 years now you would think they would have seen worse near a broadcast tower like the 50,000 watt AM tower used by a local AM station or better yet the cell phone transmitters that dwarf anything wi-fi puts out.




RE: Ok
By Kurz on 11/30/2010 3:13:29 PM , Rating: 3
Not advocating the fact these are doing damage.

Just saying they don't use the same Frequency.


RE: Ok
By JediJeb on 12/1/2010 2:36:39 PM , Rating: 2
Correct, cellphones and WiFi are near the microwave band where AM/FM are far lower and less energetic. Difference in Ghz frequencies and Mhz frequencies.


RE: Ok
By Ammohunt on 12/1/2010 2:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
Electro-magentic Radiation is Electro-magentic Radiation ever study the Hutchison-effect? google it.


Come on, Tiff...
By AssBall on 11/30/2010 2:29:20 PM , Rating: 2
Google Image "Ash Tree"
Google Image "Bleeding Bark"

HOW ABOUT SOME USEFUL PICTURES THAT ACTUALLY PERTAIN TO THE ARTICLE? Lazy....




RE: Come on, Tiff...
By Anoxanmore on 11/30/2010 3:33:54 PM , Rating: 3
Umm... Tracie wrote it...

Reading comprehension fail?


RE: Come on, Tiff...
By DigitalFreak on 11/30/2010 7:49:17 PM , Rating: 2
People see a tree article and automatically assume it's Tiffany or Mick.


a single species of tree
By Murloc on 11/30/2010 2:05:30 PM , Rating: 2
ONE species of tree, in ONE town.
I'm sorry but it can't be wifi related.
It just happens that all the trees belonging to a species in an area die, because of illnesses or weird stuff.
No need to waste money on stupid studies. It's not like it's an endangered species either.




RE: a single species of tree
By jjmcubed on 11/30/2010 11:42:55 PM , Rating: 2
You're right. Different species could never be affected differently. It is a tree!!! They are all the same!!!


What actually warrants further investigation.
By bennyg on 11/30/2010 7:53:31 PM , Rating: 1
When I put my hand inbetween the aerials on the Wifi router - I *feel* the EM radiation. My hand feels wierd for about 10 sec after I remove it.

The standard conservative approach says that experience means nothing until it's proven to mean something.

I say, there's anecdotal evidence of effect on biological material - which is of *unknown* effect. I'm not saying "Wifi is dangerous I'm living out in a field in a tent" - just that it is not black or white and WE DON'T KNOW.

Use your heads people, by the time most things are "discovered" to be dangerous the "evidence" on which that is based is proven cases of injury and death! Too late for them huh!




By EidolWays on 11/30/2010 8:33:10 PM , Rating: 2
The trick is being careful of how you interpret the "Evidence". You need to be able to control variables and be careful of your assumptions, otherwise your results can be flawed.

As in this study, for instance: "Town commissions group to study effect of Wi-Fi on trees. Group finds Wi-Fi has an effect on trees!"

Either the Wi-Fi does have an effect, or else the group suffered from confirmation bias: they went in wondering if Wi-Fi had such an effect, and any data correlation was seized upon as positive proof.

Humans aren't perfect, and even hard numbers mean nothing if you don't control the process that went into producing them.

For instance, with your ability to sense radio waves, in order to be sure that you are in fact feeling what you think you're feeling, you need to arrange a blind test in which you literally cannot see what is happening and somebody else holds the Wi-Fi router near your hand, moves it away, holds it close again, etc. Have them repeat it, tell you they're holding it close to your hand, and several times when they do so they need to be lying and actually holding the router away. That'd remove the possibility of mental suggestion on your part.

For this test, it seems easy enough to orchestrate in a lab... It sounds like they're trying to do statistical analysis. What they might want to do is put two saplings inside two separate Faraday cages, place a Wi-Fi router in one of the two, and then monitor the saplings. The Faraday cages should help isolate outside radio influence, and if you raise the saplings yourself, you stand a greater chance of eliminating disease as a variable.


Old news
By Denigrate on 11/30/2010 3:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
Guess DT is short on things to post? This story, or one just like it, has been circulating for quite a while. There's no actual scientific basis for this story, it's your typical "decide what's happening then skew facts to support your improbable theory" load of junk.




New study
By bug77 on 11/30/2010 6:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
Ever since I got my wireless router, the old, wired-only router is nowhere to be found. So I conclude WiFi may cause disappearance of older equipment. Further study is required, someone send me some money.




Wi-fi causes global warming
By xxsk8er101xx on 12/1/2010 5:05:27 PM , Rating: 2
After extensive studies it has been proven that wi-fi causes global warming. 2200 Scientists agrees and that all wi-fi should be banned.

I believe this study I just made up.




“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith














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