Student science experiment finds plants won't grow near Wi-Fi router

[Triumph]

I do have a hunch that a combination of all the electromagnetic waves we have going may potentially be bad for us. Could explain why we see so much cancer compared to before. Though genetics also plays a role otherwise everybody would be getting cancer.

Where do you come up with this garbage?

http://www.cdc.gov/Features/dsCancerAnnualReport/

You're probably one of those people who also believes that there's more crime, crazies, pedophiles, and murderers out there now than there were back in the day.

 

[Crono]

Where do you come up with this garbage?

http://www.cdc.gov/Features/dsCancerAnnualReport/

You're probably one of those people who also believes that there's more crime, crazies, pedophiles, and murderers out there now than there were back in the day.

I think overall cancer incidence (possibly the result of increase in diagnoses) might have gone up in the past but not in recent years, which maybe confused him. Deaths have gone down, though, because of earlier diagnosis, better tests, and a variety of additional treatment options for different cancers, over the past few decades.

A lot of people seem to think cancer is a bigger threat now than it has been, but that's mainly because there is more discussion and news about it when diagnosing it, treating it, and preventing it has become a huge industry versus say 60 or 70 years ago.

 

[colonelciller]

All forms of electromagnetic radiation are harmful to health if exposed to high levels and are frequent cause of serious injuries and deaths.

This my dear friends, is what scientific illiteracy looks like in the year 2013. some forms of electromagnetic radiation (eg. X-Rays) are harmful to health, others (e.g. radio waves) are not harmful to health regardless of the "levels"

It is true that cell phone, laptop and wifi router with their 1mW emitted electromagnetic radiation won't do anything to you because it is very small, but being close to cell network tower, Radio/TV broadcasting tower, probably wifi array, or having cell phone communicating while sticked to your head all day, would definitely cause if nothing else than just feeling bad.

the "radio waves hurt you" pseudoscientific nonsense was created by a writer for the New Yorker Magazine. Scientific Illiterates then took the story and ran with it and created such a fuss that scientists the world-over actually studied it. A consensus study was performed on all of the scientific research and the results showed that there is no detectable effect... which means as far as science can tell you... there is no effect. This means that nobody on Earth can tell you to be wary of electro magnetic radiation based on science... of course this will never stop the illiterati from unwittingly snatching up the closest bit of pseudoscientific nonsense and declaring EMFs to be harmful.

Some health damages of electromagnetic radiation are:
High exposure to X-rays and Ultraviolet is instant cancer, vision damage and burns.

scientific illiteracy once again rears its head.

high exposure to ultraviolet light is not "instant cancer". this silly statement reveals:
1) a lack of understanding of how Ultraviolet light interacts with your body
2) a lack of understanding of how the nature of the DNA damage that UV radiation causes
3) a lack of understanding of what cancer is + how the DNA damage from UV exposure could lead to cancer

the same criteria can be said about the scientific illiteracy of that statement with regards to X-rays and genetic damage.

High exposure to Visible Light may cause your vision to be damaged or go blind completely.
High exposure to Infrared will cause you burns and may harm vision as well.

correct, however these have nothing whatsoever to do with the type of EMF fields discussed in the terribly designed "experiment" performed by the students, nor do these things pertain to the type of damage "proposed" by people who are paranoid about the pseudoscientific properties of EMFs.

 

[Doppel]

Did you know that Wikipedia.org has no entry for the term "gullibility"?

I came damn close to confirming whether this was true.

 

[mmntech]

I think WiFi routers top out at about 4 watts. Which in the grand scheme of things isn't much, especially when you're dealing with omnidirectional energy. Radio uses the dielectric effect to heat. This can cause genetic fragmentation but only if you're exposed to high power outputs. So it would probably be a bad idea to stick your balls in a microwave oven, but a WiFi router or cell phone isn't doing to do a damn thing.

Worth mentioning is the atmosphere is transparent to microwaves so you're being bombarded with them from space 24/7. In other words, natural radiation counts for far more exposure than artificial. These wavelengths are too large to cause DNA damage.

If a plant won't grow next to a WiFi router, there's probably another environmental cause of it. Perhaps it wasn't watered by the students regularly, or was watered too much, or didn't get enough sunlight, or the soil in the pot was poor. I have plants happily growing next to wireless equipment at home. They don't seem particularly bothered by it.

 

[StrangerGuy]

I think WiFi routers top out at about 4 watts. Which in the grand scheme of things isn't much, especially when you're dealing with omnidirectional energy. Radio uses the dielectric effect to heat. This can cause genetic fragmentation but only if you're exposed to high power outputs. So it would probably be a bad idea to stick your balls in a microwave oven, but a WiFi router or cell phone isn't doing to do a damn thing.

Worth mentioning is the atmosphere is transparent to microwaves so you're being bombarded with them from space 24/7. In other words, natural radiation counts for far more exposure than artificial. These wavelengths are too large to cause DNA damage.

If a plant won't grow next to a WiFi router, there's probably another environmental cause of it. Perhaps it wasn't watered by the students regularly, or was watered too much, or didn't get enough sunlight, or the soil in the pot was poor. I have plants happily growing next to wireless equipment at home. They don't seem particularly bothered by it.

Direct sunlight has 32W/m^2 of actual ionizing UV radiation yet plants have no problems growing under it but yet can somehow struggle with wifi microwaves at least 3 orders of magnitude lower on a flux basis.

Shit, why I am using logic to convince people without it anyway?

 

[Jeff7]

CRT didn't cause seizures, and they do hit the user with small amount of X-ray radiation, which is emitted from the backside of the fluorescent screen where its particles are hit by electrons beams that are fired from electron emitter.
It is unharmful, but it can be felt that it's there, depending on the monitor you have and your body ofc.

...So you can feel x-ray radiation now, can you?

The glass is manufactured to absorb x-ray radiation. Anything that might get through is at such a low level that it's harmless.

I didn't speak about eye strain from screen flickering.
I'm not sure everyone still has some CRTs around but I had compared staring to CRT and LCD for long periods of time and I felt much much worse after CRT use. Been using it at 85Hz.

I do however agree that the flicker alone may also cause headache(which is visible light) so it falls under electromagnetic radiation issue as well.

I know you weren't. But that's the only thing about a monitor that could cause eyestrain, or perhaps the difference in light levels between the monitor and the surroundings, not from some kind of wacky radiation.

 

[Sheep221]

...So you can feel x-ray radiation now, can you?

The glass is manufactured to absorb x-ray radiation. Anything that might get through is at such a low level that it's harmless.



I know you weren't. But that's the only thing about a monitor that could cause eyestrain, or perhaps the difference in light levels between the monitor and the surroundings, not from some kind of wacky radiation.

You just answered your own question, the x-ray rooms are strongly sealed to absorb alot of radiation, but still some of it makes its way out, the patient however faces its full force, it won't do anything if you are scanned few times and once in a while, but the operators and doctors who are there all the time have tiny instruments called dosimeters with them all the time and once they reach certain level of radiation they received in that day, they have to be exchanged.
The x-ray rooms are build from lead walls so not much of it leaves the rooms.
All this is done for the health and safety.

This my dear friends, is what scientific illiteracy looks like in the year 2013. some forms of electromagnetic radiation (eg. X-Rays) are harmful to health, others (e.g. radio waves) are not harmful to health regardless of the "levels"



the "radio waves hurt you" pseudoscientific nonsense was created by a writer for the New Yorker Magazine. Scientific Illiterates then took the story and ran with it and created such a fuss that scientists the world-over actually studied it. A consensus study was performed on all of the scientific research and the results showed that there is no detectable effect... which means as far as science can tell you... there is no effect. This means that nobody on Earth can tell you to be wary of electro magnetic radiation based on science... of course this will never stop the illiterati from unwittingly snatching up the closest bit of pseudoscientific nonsense and declaring EMFs to be harmful.


scientific illiteracy once again rears its head.

high exposure to ultraviolet light is not "instant cancer". this silly statement reveals:
1) a lack of understanding of how Ultraviolet light interacts with your body
2) a lack of understanding of how the nature of the DNA damage that UV radiation causes
3) a lack of understanding of what cancer is + how the DNA damage from UV exposure could lead to cancer

the same criteria can be said about the scientific illiteracy of that statement with regards to X-rays and genetic damage.

correct, however these have nothing whatsoever to do with the type of EMF fields discussed in the terribly designed "experiment" performed by the students, nor do these things pertain to the type of damage "proposed" by people who are paranoid about the pseudoscientific properties of EMFs.

I'm not speaking about any science, you just pointlessly trying to void my post, you haven't pointed out anything relevant, and you completely lack basic knowledge either of electromagnetic radiation or chemistry or physics. I'm far from scientist either but denying that electromagnetic radiation, is something that can't be harmful is beyond being illiterate. Electromagnetism in general is force of infinite strengh mechanical, radial, electrical, you name it.

I didn't say anywhere the phones or routers are harmful. I said that any electromagnetic radiation if taken in high dose is harmful. Claiming that we are resistant to effects of electromagnetic radiation is false idea.
I'm not paranoid or negative, I'm realist, not afraid but being aware.
I also didn't and don't read, follow, trust nor know any publishers of pseudosciences. Yes I am aware there are people who want to convince everything we use daily is somehow harmful, which it isn't but the physical and chemical principles these technologies use are harmful if are strong or uncontrolled.