Wi-Fi Radiation Harms Trees, Study Says

[BrklynLiberal]

http://www.switched.com/2010/11/22/wi-fi-radiation-harms-trees-study-says/?icid=maing|main5|8|link4|27831

The Internet may be moving us ever closer to a paperless existence, but, according to a newly released study, it's still not that great for trees. As Mac World reports, the study was commissioned five years ago by the Dutch city of Alphen aan den Rijn, after officials noticed that many trees in the area were exhibiting inexplicable abnormalities, including bleeding and fissures in their bark. Such symptoms didn't seem connected to any particular bacteria or virus, leading some to suspect that wireless networks may be to blame.

After exposing trees to varying degrees of radiation for three months, researchers from TU Delft University, Wageningen University and several other institutions found that trees sitting closest to Wi-Fi radios exhibited a "lead-like shine" on their leaves -- a sign, apparently, that the leaves are dying. Similar reactions were observed in samples from across the Western world; in the Netherlands, a full 70-percent of all trees in urban areas were visibly affected by Wi-Fi radiation, compared with just 10-percent five years ago. Trees in densely forested areas, on the other hand, were hardly affected.

Researchers also observed that wireless networks could stunt the growth of corn cobs, and hypothesized that small particles emitted from trucks and cars may play a role, as well. They acknowledge, however, that further research must be conducted in order to arrive at any definite conclusions about the long-term effects of Wi-Fi on plant life. Until then, we'll be keeping our laptops far, far away from our treehouses.

[elocs]

1. I read about that last Monday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x266398

[BrklynLiberal]

2. oops. I missed your OP. Sorry for the dupe

[TheWraith]

3. What a completely bullshit article.

Well, we can't identify a specific virus or bacteria, therefore it must be low power wireless networks on frequencies we've been using for decades. Or witchcraft. You know, whichever. Because we just like making claims like that without actual scientific study, just staring at the leaves.

When someone can tell me why a 0.1 watt WiFi transmitter is more dangerous to plants than a 100,000 watt FM radio transmitter, then maybe I'll listen to this crap.