• Kids in Denmark do science and discover Wi-Fi signals inihibit plantgrowth
    48 replies, posted
[QUOTE=J!NX;42499671]Kids in Denmark do science and discover Wi-Fi signals [B]inihibit [/B]plantgrowth[/QUOTE] I know what inhibit means. That's why I wanted to move my router, I thought ,maybe I'd get a few grams more per harvest.
[QUOTE=Pr0fane;42499711]This article is like 1 year late, and there has been no 'scientific' stir caused by this. The project was done so incredibly shoddily there was no actual scientific value to this whole project. More than 10 variables were discovered between the test and control group. [CODE]The exposure to 'wi-fi' was done by placing the seeds next to a laptop. This is wrong and stupid, since a laptop does not radiate Wi-Fi. It only picks it up... so they might as well have put it next to a dishwasher. What a laptop does do however is blow hot and cold cooling air which is a growth inhibiting factor for developing seeds to have.[/CODE] [CODE]There was no blind testing done.[/CODE] [CODE] They did not report negative results, and kept quiet about results that pointed towards their hypothesis being wrong.[/CODE] [CODE]The press picked up heavily on this, and evangelized it as being "100% accurate and scientific" and treated it as such, even though it didn't meet the criteria needed to qualify as such"[/CODE] [CODE] I don't remember what, but there were problems with their analysis as well. Basically they had arithmetical errors in their statistics[/CODE] And much more. Denmark is a country which is very anti-radiation in it's mindset, and the teacher only provided literature towards the endresult she wanted to achieve. The point of this was never to scientifically determine if Wi-Fi is damaging, just to promote an agenda. The teacher formed an hypothesis and then steered the students towards developing that endresult instead of doing a proper unbiased study and then form a conclusion. I've looked into this, written an essay about it in Dutch, and gave a speech about it at Nijmegen University in the Netherlands. This whole project is unreliable, I promise you.[/QUOTE] It's actually pretty funny to see some people learning about background radiation.
Honestly with the sample they used the results can be extremely biased, not only are the seeds different (I'll give them that because they can't clone them now, can they?) they were in different rooms which means different temperature, exposure to sun light, etc and the quantity of seeds tested wasn't all that big.
[QUOTE=Trumple;42498787]WiFi is 2.4GHz, in the non-ionizing spectrum (radio) [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/EM-spectrum.png[/IMG] They don't have enough energy to "knock" electrons off atoms and mutate cells[/QUOTE] What's the reason for UV causing cancer then
If this is the case, then I'm probably retarded by now.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;42503465]What's the reason for UV causing cancer then[/QUOTE] because UV is in the ionizing range
[QUOTE=Zeke129;42503465]What's the reason for UV causing cancer then[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imm.io/1iex7.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Trumple;42503524]because UV is in the ionizing range[/QUOTE] Something like 99% of what we encounter at this level in the atmosphere is non-ionizing though ok I looked it up on wikipedia and there's something about how UV radiation produces free radicals that cause cellular damage that mimics exposure to ionizing radiation
do they know that cellphone radiation only puts out less than a milliwatt of power... there's literally more charge in the air on dusty days or humid days than what your router puts out. more likely they screwed something up in the growing. they should have built a Faraday cage over the one plants and grown them side by side, I'm thinking the light put out by a wireless routers Leds probably srewed with its cycle [editline]12th October 2013[/editline] I know its kept me up some nights before I taped cardboard over the front of it
I made this post some time ago in another thread: In order to be dangerous, the radiation emitted must be able to ionize atoms or at least break chemical bonds. To do so, the wavelength of the radiation must be extremely small (that is to say, have an extremely high frequency.) No radio signal comes [i]close[/i] to being ionizing. To put it in perspective, FM radio is from 88 to 110 MHz, cell phones operate at about 800 MHz and 1900 MHz. Wi-Fi operates at 2.4 and/or 5 GHz. Satellite TV is 16-18 GHz. Certain radar systems operate between 50 to 100 GHz. [B]Visible light[/B] is between 400 and 790 THz (400,000 GHz to 750,000 GHz). By the logic of anti-Wi-Fi nuts, a lamp is a million times more dangerous than a router. Ultraviolet radiation (which still does not ionize, but can break chemical bonds, making it dangerous) begins at 770 THz (770,000 GHz). X-Rays (Which can ionize) begin at 30 Petahertz (that is 30,000,000 GHz). Wi-Fi is nowhere close to ever being able to cause cancer. A Wi-Fi signal has a maximum power of 250 milliwatts. A microwave oven operates on the same frequency at 700 Watts. (700,000 milliwatts) The only way a Wi-Fi signal could hurt you was if you increased the power by 500,000 fold, and even [I]then[/I] all it would do is burn you, not give you cancer. And even [I][B]then,[/B][/I] you would have to be within 3-4 feet of the router.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;42498646]I have 2 routers underneath my bed and beside me my phone and tablet are charging while I sleep... [sp]I'm an A* student[/sp][/QUOTE] Your D grades say otherwise :v:
Did they even consider that being constantly near a warm router might have actually been the thing that killed the plants? maybe the nearby heat impeded retaining moisture in the plant and soil itself. Could have potentially been fairer if they had experimented it nearby, and with another set of plants near a much stronger signal that is the same "strength" far away when compared to other plants near a home wifi. they probably need to experiment more on plants with genetically similar seedlings, maybe compare growth from seed to plant, whilst also comparing plants fully grown being moved there, and possibly snippings from plants. if they test that over countless generations, perhaps they might have some potentially different data then compare it to regular plants grown over generations away from sources of wifi and compare the difference.
[QUOTE=michaeldim;42503577]I made this post some time ago in another thread: In order to be dangerous, the radiation emitted must be able to ionize atoms or at least break chemical bonds. To do so, the wavelength of the radiation must be extremely small (that is to say, have an extremely high frequency.) No radio signal comes [i]close[/i] to being ionizing. To put it in perspective, FM radio is from 88 to 110 MHz, cell phones operate at about 800 MHz and 1900 MHz. Wi-Fi operates at 2.4 and/or 5 GHz. Satellite TV is 16-18 GHz. Certain radar systems operate between 50 to 100 GHz. [B]Visible light[/B] is between 400 and 790 THz (400,000 GHz to 750,000 GHz). By the logic of anti-Wi-Fi nuts, a lamp is a million times more dangerous than a router. Ultraviolet radiation (which still does not ionize, but can break chemical bonds, making it dangerous) begins at 770 THz (770,000 GHz). X-Rays (Which can ionize) begin at 30 Petahertz (that is 30,000,000 GHz). Wi-Fi is nowhere close to ever being able to cause cancer. A Wi-Fi signal has a maximum power of 250 milliwatts. A microwave oven operates on the same frequency at 700 Watts. (700,000 milliwatts) The only way a Wi-Fi signal could hurt you was if you increased the power by 500,000 fold, and even [I]then[/I] all it would do is burn you, not give you cancer. And even [I][B]then,[/B][/I] you would have to be within 3-4 feet of the router.[/QUOTE] Thank you for clearing this up!
We have concluded, the teacher was a shit gardener.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;42503465]What's the reason for UV causing cancer then[/QUOTE] Look at the chart, UVs can be in the ionization range.
I planted a seed right on top of my wireless router. Now, let's see what happens. EDIT: OH GOD. THE SEED HAS CRACKED OPEN AND RELEASED ELDER THINGS BACK INTO THIS WORLD. I HAVE DOOMED US ALL. I SHOULD HAVE LISTENED. DAMN YOU, WI-FI. DAAAMN YOU.
The plants near the router were not watered as this posed a safety risk near electrical equipment.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;42503549]Something like 99% of what we encounter at this level in the atmosphere is non-ionizing though ok I looked it up on wikipedia and there's something about how UV radiation produces free radicals that cause cellular damage that mimics exposure to ionizing radiation[/QUOTE] It's because the radiation can pierce through cell walls and has the chance to carry enough energy to cause the molecules of nitrogen bases (innermost portion of the helix of DNA) to bind together, resulting in a region that doesn't work and gets knocked out, fucking up the entire DNA strand. Depending on the severity, it perhaps won't fully kill the cell, and it may become cancerous. UV is above optic light, and can cause this in very specific conditions. Anything beneath that [U][B]will not[/B][/U] be able to cause this type of damage unless somehow the power of a bunch of wavelengths of light somehow combined in energy levels to become at or worse than the ultraviolet range.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.