They weren’t rumors. They were what scientists call “baseless speculation lacking even a trace of empirical evidence of scientific method.”

“I think the news needs to find two people who look like they could be experts to argue about it.”

Damn, I just got punked, didn’t I?

Are you speaking ex cathedra?

WiFi doesn’t use some magical, new death ray to transmit data. It uses the same Radio Frequency Spectrum that a million other devices use. It is retarded to claim WiFi is killing trees. The sad part is my wife gets worried after reading this shit and then I have to spend 2 hrs basically writing a paper outlining why her irrational fears are just that. The last one I had to do was map out the danger, or rather the lack-thereof, of mercury in vaccines.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.html

Who am I to divulge this nonesens you’re probubly asking. Hah! If you saw what I saw on my tOAST this morning, you’d stop with your doubtin!

–Sarah Pail

Ozone is poisonous to vegetation, visibly damaging the stomata of foliage. Long-term, cumulative exposure such as is experienced by trees and other perennial vegetation is gradually, incrementally killing them.

check out http://www.witsendnj.blogspot.com. There’s a link at the top to “Basic Premise” and a long list of peer-reviewed, published scientific research documenting this topic.

People notice that trees are dying and it’s scary. They latch on to crazy theories like contrail conspiracies and radiation because it’s too painful to acknowledge that every day we pour tons of pollutants into the atmosphere to the point where the level is intolerable to the ecosystem.

Oh, the WHO estimates that ozone kills more Americans every year than breast and prostrate cancer combined – more than automobile accidents. I guess that’s the price we are willing to pay to live our cheap-energy-gobbling lifestyle.

WiFi doesn’t use some magical, new death ray to transmit data. It uses the same Radio Frequency Spectrum that a million other devices use.

This this so many times this. *waves hands around* I’m so sorry you end up having to do extra homework for no credit for your wife, but thank you for going to the effort. One little step at a time.

I’m not brave enough to do the same with my co-worker, who thinks microwaves work by tearing atoms apart.

———————————

Dutch: Wageningen University onderzocht in opdracht van de gemeente Alphen a/d Rijn in hoeverre het toenemend aantal bronnen van elektromagnetische straling, zoals zendmasten, een rol zou kunnen spelen bij de verslechterde gezondheid van de bomen. Daarbij werd in een kweekcel het effect van de straling van zogenaamde wifi accesspoints op kleine Esboompjes onderzocht.

English: The University of Wageningen conducted research for the city of Alphen a/d Rijn to which extent the increased number of sources of electromagnetic radiation, like communication towers, could play a part in the deteriorated state of health of the trees.
For this, the effect of the radiation of so-called wifi accesspoints on small ash trees was researched in a hybernation chamber.

Dutch: De essen werden gedurende ruim drie maanden blootgesteld aan zes stralingsbronnen met frequenties variërend van 2412 tot 2472 MHz en een vermogen van 100 mW EIRP op 50 cm afstand.

English: The ash trees were exposed to six radiation sources with frequencies varying from 2412 to 2472 Mhz and a intensity of 100 mW EIRP at a 50 cm distance over a period of three months.

Dutch: Bladeren nabij de stralingsbronnen vertoonden tijdens het onderzoek na een paar maanden een metaalglansuiterlijk, een verkleuring van de bladeren die het gevolg bleek te zijn van het afsterven van de buitenste cellaag van de bladeren. De metaalglans werd opgevolgd door verdroging en afsterven van een deel van het blad.

English: Leaves near the radiation sources displayed a metallic hue appearance after a few months, a discoloration which turned out to be caused by the decay of the leaves outer layer of cells. The metallic hue was followed by a drying out and dying off of a part of the leaf

——————————-

I may not be a physicist, but I knows what matters.
– Popeye

The studies that I’ve read look at people with brain tumors that are one side of the head (either as the complete study or part of a large cancer/cell phone study), and attempt to get information from the cancer sufferer about usage–whether it’s primarily one side or either. (Recollection bias is factored in, as most people apparently recall the side of the head they used the most was the side they got the tumor on regardless of contradictory information.)

No smoking gun. Some people are going to get such tumors. Some of them are going to be heavy phone users. So far, the studies can’t make a connection, even with large numbers of people looked at.

The incidence of brain tumors has arisen in the past 10 years. My brother-in-law, an on the road salesman who spent upwards of 10 hours a day on his cell phone, died from an incurable brain tumor on the side of his head he used everyday to speak on his phone. No one in the medical world was willing to entertain the idea that his cell phone use was in any way related.
see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1DFpqZ0k08