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

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!

"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher

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