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

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."


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il














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