WiFi is killing trees

[bfdd]

Well one of the funniest things I've heard to date around the cyber cafe was a woman explaining to the manager how she refuses to use wireless or be around any networks.

She goes on telling about how porn is everywhere and people are surfing it everywhere and the bits of information that make up "evil" things such as bestiality and S&M are getting passed through our bodies turning everyone into demons that will wake up one day and even Jesus could not save us!

I'm not making this up! My side hurt from laughing so hard! :biggrin:

lol

 

[Cogman]

Way too hot is an understatement. "Bathe it in microwaves 24x7" displays quite bit of ignorance though, and plays upon people's lack of understanding of what "microwaves" are. It's simply a range of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. Visible light is a range of frequencies. Radio waves are a range of frequencies. Infrared is a range of frequencies. In fact, there's quite a bit of overlap between microwave frequencies and radio frequencies at the long end, and quite a bit of overlap between microwave frequencies and infrared frequencies at the other end. i.e. the exact same radiation is called "radio waves" just as correctly as "microwaves" over a portion of the range of microwaves.

And, those same trees are "bathed in" radio waves and infrared radiation 24/7. As microwaves are non-ionizing radiation, the only other possible mechanism by which they may have any harmful effect on living tissue is by the amount of energy absorbed. Thus, the power density is the important factor here. As the absorbed microwaves are turned to heat, we need only be worried about where the scale is tipped - when the rate that energy gained is quicker than the rate at which it can be dissipated throughout the material and back into the air in the form of infrared radiation.

Ionizing radiation has been understood since Einstein's days. Microwaves and their effects on living tissue have been studied for at least 6 decades. One study out of 10's of 1000's of studies which contradicts all the other studies is merely sensationalism. Even the rest of the article linked to pretty much hints that it's just a bunch of hogwash.

Not only that, but look at the method they used to perform the study. They took 20 trees, strapped wireless routers to them, and then because some fo the same trees they attached the routers too looked sick, they concluded it must have been the WiFi that did it.

Worst study ever.

 

[Nintendesert]

Way too hot is an understatement. "Bathe it in microwaves 24x7" displays quite bit of ignorance though, and plays upon people's lack of understanding of what "microwaves" are. It's simply a range of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. Visible light is a range of frequencies. Radio waves are a range of frequencies. Infrared is a range of frequencies. In fact, there's quite a bit of overlap between microwave frequencies and radio frequencies at the long end, and quite a bit of overlap between microwave frequencies and infrared frequencies at the other end. i.e. the exact same radiation is called "radio waves" just as correctly as "microwaves" over a portion of the range of microwaves.

And, those same trees are "bathed in" radio waves and infrared radiation 24/7. As microwaves are non-ionizing radiation, the only other possible mechanism by which they may have any harmful effect on living tissue is by the amount of energy absorbed. Thus, the power density is the important factor here. As the absorbed microwaves are turned to heat, we need only be worried about where the scale is tipped - when the rate that energy gained is quicker than the rate at which it can be dissipated throughout the material and back into the air in the form of infrared radiation.

Ionizing radiation has been understood since Einstein's days. Microwaves and their effects on living tissue have been studied for at least 6 decades. One study out of 10's of 1000's of studies which contradicts all the other studies is merely sensationalism. Even the rest of the article linked to pretty much hints that it's just a bunch of hogwash.

Your patience in actually explaining this issues is infinitely greater than mine. I'm not sure how you do it. I prefer to just punch someone in the balls so they can't continue to breed.

 

[DrPizza]

That does not make you an expert in microwave power density.

No wifi mesh is going to come close to the actual watts/cm² found in the oven cavity. Even though it may be on the same frequency they are quite different.

I like how your replies are more succinct than mine.

Well one of the funniest things I've heard to date around the cyber cafe was a woman explaining to the manager how she refuses to use wireless or be around any networks.

She goes on telling about how porn is everywhere and people are surfing it everywhere and the bits of information that make up "evil" things such as bestiality and S&M are getting passed through our bodies turning everyone into demons that will wake up one day and even Jesus could not save us!

I'm not making this up! My side hurt from laughing so hard! :biggrin:

That's hilarious. I think I'm going to start spreading that rumor among the types of people who would believe that.

 

[CVSiN]

someone tell the FDA.. maybe they can ban it like 4loko..

 

[zinfamous]

WiFi is microwaves, same as what is used in your microwave oven. There is merit to this study.

here we go again....

 

[lxskllr]

There's merit to every study. Sticking your fingers in your ears going lalalala isn't how science gets done. I didn't read the article, but I'm guessing there's /some/ evidence that wifi /may/ damage trees. Even poor evidence is evidence, and it needs to be weighted accordingly. The only way to know for sure is by performing a properly setup experiment, and them repeating it.

 

[Cogman]

WiFi is microwaves, same as what is used in your microwave oven. There is merit to this study.

You might as well say "people can drown in water therefore any water is bad."

It is just as asinine. Is it the same type of radiation? Yes, it is. However, it is several orders of magnitudes smaller than the radiation in a microwave. A lot might be bad, but a little wont kill you.

 

[Cogman]

There's merit to every study. Sticking your fingers in your ears going lalalala isn't how science gets done. I didn't read the article, but I'm guessing there's /some/ evidence that wifi /may/ damage trees. Even poor evidence is evidence, and it needs to be weighted accordingly. The only way to know for sure is by performing a properly setup experiment, and them repeating it.

We are weighing it properly. A poorly conducted study with a very small sample group should be thrown in the trash.

 

[Nintendesert]

There's merit to every study. Sticking your fingers in your ears going lalalala isn't how science gets done. I didn't read the article, but I'm guessing there's /some/ evidence that wifi /may/ damage trees. Even poor evidence is evidence, and it needs to be weighted accordingly. The only way to know for sure is by performing a properly setup experiment, and them repeating it.

No, there isn't merit to every study. Trash science doesn't add anything to human understanding. All it does it retard the public's awareness of the topic and puts real science back and in some cases to an unrepairable point.

Real science now has to waste time, money and effort refuting the trash that studies like this put out because the general ignorant public now believes it.

 

[lxskllr]

We are weighing it properly. A poorly conducted study with a very small sample group should be thrown in the trash.

That's not correct. Positive results on a small sample group means a larger study is more warranted, preferably sooner than later. ALL evidence is worthwhile, with science or anything else. The value maybe very small is some cases, but it still has value.

 

[Rubycon]

This reminds me of this video I found a few years ago...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNrgcY4vzvw

:biggrin:

If your router can light up a FL tube then watch out!

I don't think they can.

Now I've gotten FL tubes to glow when the antenna of a handie talkie (5W UHF 474MHz) was placed right against the tube. They also make the skin warm when transmitting.

 

[disappoint]

Ok this study is so obviously horsecrap that it doesn't even merit babbling about. But what about cell phone towers and microwave comm. horns? I once heard you should not stare at them because it might damage your eyes from heating of your retina.

Not sure I believe that one either. I mean for one thing is your eye really going to be able to focus that radiation to a point? I doubt it. Even if it could, is a microwave tower far away (though visible) going to heat up your retina much? Hell even a fever of 104 ain't gonna kill you and that is over a longer period of time so even if it COULD heat your retina by 1 or 2 degrees it's not going to be enough to damage it right?

You wanna worry about something? Worry about CT scans. At the hospitals they increase the power of those things over what the manufacturer sets them to to get a better picture, and that IS ionizing radiation which can increase your risk for cancer. I've heard CT scans are anywhere from 40 to 80 times more powerful than a standard chest X-Ray.

 

[Cogman]

That's not correct. Positive results on a small sample group means a larger study is more warranted, preferably sooner than later. ALL evidence is worthwhile, with science or anything else. The value maybe very small is some cases, but it still has value.

Small scale studies need to be conducted right in order for them to have merit for further studying. This one was not. You can't go to the park, strap a couple of routers to trees, and them make conclusions based on which trees die and which ones do not.

 

[ahenkel]

Idea time. We should get fat people to stand around trees and absorb whatever bad mojo the WiFi networks give off. It would be a Festivus Miracle.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

It's true! These trees have obvious radiation poisoning! What have you done spidey07?

 

[Mark R]

You wanna worry about something? Worry about CT scans. At the hospitals they increase the power of those things over what the manufacturer sets them to to get a better picture, and that IS ionizing radiation which can increase your risk for cancer. I've heard CT scans are anywhere from 40 to 80 times more powerful than a standard chest X-Ray.

It's probably closer to 50 to 200x more ionizing energy deposition than a Chest X-ray. Radiation dose from CT is a huge issue in medical investigation and treatment. Although, I wouldn't blame the hospitals necessarily - I've seen several CT scanners come from the manufacturer with everything set to max, leaving the docs to figure out why the radiation doses are so high.

Still, this thread is about non-ionizing radiation. What's interesting is that MRI scanners are probably the most intense source of non-ionizing (RF) energy that most people are likely to come across. There is an RF transmit antenna (typically 60- 120 MHz depending on magnet strength) in the tunnel of the scanner - so that the body to part to be examined lies within the near field (Fresnel) region of the antenna. The transmitters feeding the antennas are pretty impressive - 480 V 3 phase power feeds, and 35 kW RMS output (albeit pulsed).

The RF energy in the scanner is so intense, that the techs have to be very careful when they connect they place the receive antennas over the relevant body part. If the cables running to the receive antenna is coiled or two cables cross inside the scanner, they can arc or catch fire due to the intense RF (much like loops of metal will arc inside a microwave oven). On modern scanners the antennas are designed with super short, or rigid, leads so that they can't be crossed or coiled.

Body heating is a serious problem with MRI, and the scanners have special software built in to calculate the energy absorbed as heat (SAR) and to limit the SAR to pre-defined levels. Even so, it can get pretty hot in the scanner due to all the RF energy deposition. In fact this is one of the limiting factors in MRI - as you increase the magnet strength to get better image quality, the SAR goes up exponentially, requiring complex mitigation techniques.

 

[DrPizza]

Your patience in actually explaining this issues is infinitely greater than mine. I'm not sure how you do it. I prefer to just punch someone in the balls so they can't continue to breed.

I generally don't do it just so that one person understands. I do it with the slimmest of hopes that perhaps some news reporter might read it and think "you know, maybe all this cell phone cancer stuff is just like the conspiracy stuff. Nothing but a bunch of bs." It'd be nice if the newspapers, televisions, etc., weren't reporting on settled science as if there were still some realistic and lingering doubts.

 

[DrPizza]

There's merit to every study. Sticking your fingers in your ears going lalalala isn't how science gets done. I didn't read the article, but I'm guessing there's /some/ evidence that wifi /may/ damage trees. Even poor evidence is evidence, and it needs to be weighted accordingly. The only way to know for sure is by performing a properly setup experiment, and them repeating it.

If tomorrow, I reported that "Archimedes was right! Galileo was wrong! In a vacuum, a lead ball falls faster than an aluminum ball! Heavier things fall faster!" Then just about everyone would realize that I screwed something up. No one would be going on internet forums claiming "There's merit to every study. Sticking your fingers in your ears going lalalala isn't how science gets done." They would almost unanimously agree that I was wrong.

Now, on the other hand, if I came up with those results, but also described the mechanism for this difference, and how such mechanism would result in the incredibly small difference I found, then some people might look at the study seriously. But, if it was a poorly constructed study (i.e. attach wifi devices to 20 trees, or believe that my wife's canister vacuum had enough "suck" to create a vacuum for the purpose of this research) and make a claim that flies in the face of what's been established, then the "weighted appropriately" is going to be just that: weight = zero.

 

[sdifox]

Well one of the funniest things I've heard to date around the cyber cafe was a woman explaining to the manager how she refuses to use wireless or be around any networks.

She goes on telling about how porn is everywhere and people are surfing it everywhere and the bits of information that make up "evil" things such as bestiality and S&M are getting passed through our bodies turning everyone into demons that will wake up one day and even Jesus could not save us!

I'm not making this up! My side hurt from laughing so hard! :biggrin:

Should tell her she is emitting...

 

[Rubycon]

Should tell her she is emitting...

One would not need a FLIR to reveal such bad emission. :biggrin:

 

[BoberFett]

WiFi is microwaves, same as what is used in your microwave oven. There is merit to this study.

Christ almighty, you've been schooled on this before. Back out of this thread. Don't make me dig out the link.

 

[BoberFett]

I generally don't do it just so that one person understands. I do it with the slimmest of hopes that perhaps some news reporter might read it and think "you know, maybe all this cell phone cancer stuff is just like the conspiracy stuff. Nothing but a bunch of bs." It'd be nice if the newspapers, televisions, etc., weren't reporting on settled science as if there were still some realistic and lingering doubts.

Saying that this is "settled science" might be going overboard.

The problem in this particular case is just bad science. A poorly designed test with cherry picked results.

 

[DrPizza]

There's merit to every study. Sticking your fingers in your ears going lalalala isn't how science gets done. I didn't read the article, but I'm guessing there's /some/ evidence that wifi /may/ damage trees. Even poor evidence is evidence, and it needs to be weighted accordingly. The only way to know for sure is by performing a properly setup experiment, and them repeating it.

Saying that this is "settled science" might be going overboard.

The problem in this particular case is just bad science. A poorly designed test with cherry picked results.

If it's not "settled science", then you're going to have to come up with a mechanism by which it's possible that it could have any real effect upon people or trees. Current understanding of physics does not suggest any possible mechanism. (Actually, there are a couple of unique and interesting exceptions based on a magnetic field; but those only apply to something very tiny.)

 

[zinfamous]

That's not correct. Positive results on a small sample group means a larger study is more warranted, preferably sooner than later. ALL evidence is worthwhile, with science or anything else. The value maybe very small is some cases, but it still has value.

http://improbable.com/ig/

this is a pretty good annual resource for piles and piles of scientific studies of little-to-no value.