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

Katie Haggerty   (Source: Kira Horvath)

Aspen Trees  (Source:

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

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!

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
- 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:

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
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.
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).
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
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
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.
Do you even know what the word radiation means?

According to your own source:
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
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.
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
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
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.

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

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:
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
"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer

Latest Headlines

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki