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 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
"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs














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