Wi-Fi Causes Forest Fires

Discuss

31 Responses to “Wi-Fi Causes Forest Fires”

  1. p96 says:

    Wi-Phy is Bad Times: “It will drink all your beer. It will leave dirty socks on the coffee table when you are expecting company. Its radioactive emissions will cause your bellybutton fuzz (be honest, you have some) to migrate behind your ears.”

  2. Brainspore says:

    How many of you looked up these statistics about the safety of wi-fi on your laptop computers or mobile devices without considering that those devices are probably in on the conspiracy???

  3. xzzy says:

    Within minutes of me turning on my laptop this morning, NOAA issued a tornado watch. When I closed my laptop and went to lunch, the clouds parted and we had some sunshine.

    I can’t explain why all the other days I use my laptop there are no weather warnings, but this is a little too coincidental to be a coincidence.

  4. Marcel says:

    Now now, no need to get defensive.

    It was just a little scientific experiment.

  5. kattw says:

    To be absolutely fair: it’s just electro-magnetic radiation. Just like the electro-magnetic radiation from the TSA backscatter devices (see you nekkid machines) that get blasted on this website regularly. Different wavelength, yes, but very similar properties at the fundamental level. So, it’s not actually THAT absurd to worry about what it does to Trees and people and such. If we accept that FM, AM and Cellphone wavelengths are ok, but that backscatter, X-Ray and microwaves are potentially dangerous, then where is the line drawn between ok and bad for you?

    Similarly, radio frequencies will blind you if you stare right into the feed line. Similarly, microwaves are quite safe if you’re on the correct side of the dish, or simply under the beam, or simply a few feet away.

    Now, that doesn’t mean such a study should be taken at face value either, especially given how such things gain a life of their own. But to mock the study just for being suggested/performed, or think it’s crazy to want to know, is a bit silly too. Perhaps this SHOULDN’T be a parody, and the time really should be spent figuring out an answer.

    • Anonymous says:

      The sun bathes you in more electromagnetic radiation every day than all those artificial sources.

    • Dawn deMom says:

      The answer DOES EXIST. You can read more about it at: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html

      Everything resonates on a certain frequency and it’s harmonics. The eye resonates on a different frequency than the skin and so forth. There is even a difference in resonance between the eyes of adults and children. As an amateur radio operator, I am allowed to use certain bands of radio waves but there are some precautions I need to take when using them. We have to learn about shielding ourselves and neighbors from RF emissions to prevent the problems associated with different frequencies. I am not as well versed in RF emissions as others, but I have a basic understanding of them and I study the subject when I am installing antennas in a new area so I can do my part to keep people (and myself) safe. I am NOT an expert and I may not have all the answers so I am not professing to know everything. I am sure there are others here who can contribute more than I can.

      Many people are studying what is resonant and why, and these studies not only dictate what frequencies can be used, but the results can lead to possible cures for cancer and other medical problems. However, as trees, plants, and body cells evolve and change due to environmental and other issues, resonance changes too.

      Let this be the day you learn something new about RF emissions and hit Google – there is a wealth of information there if you don’t want to take what the FCC has to offer.

  6. xzzy says:

    Important status update: I’ve been using my laptop all afternoon, and the weather service has no issued a tornado warning.

    I have spent significant portions of the afternoon streaming video, so I now have conclusive evidence that the danger of wi-fi scales with bandwidth used.

  7. user23 says:

    inb4 squirrels mate with chipmunks….Oh, crap. It’s already too late!

    “Additionally, the study found that Wi-Fi radiation causes squirrels to mate with chipmunks”

    uhm, really? This study..which essentially states that the planet is d00med..just doesn’t seem to fit in with reality. What about cell-phone repeater stations & their EMF? I’ve lived in neighborhoods for years..packed with trees…right next to CPRS (whatever their proper name is) and haven’t seen any visual evidence of dead/dying trees.

    what am I missing?

  8. bcsizemo says:

    +1 for the squirrels mating with chipmunks.

    “But the chipmunks seem to be adapting.”

  9. scarecrowlegion says:

    OH NO! SQUIRMUNKS!!

    • MrsBug says:

      Even worse, Chipells!

      Anyway we can tie this in with the Mayan 2012 Destruction Scenario? I mean, if we’re going to go off the rails crazy, might as well go for it. :)

  10. ryanrafferty says:

    Given that wifi kills trees, we recommend you kick your internet habits and return to traditional AM and FM broadcasting. Your local AM and FM stations provide endless hours of entertainment, news, and other original local content you’d be hard pressed to find over the net. Don’t kill trees, be green– listen to the Radio!

  11. Palefire says:

    oh well, so much for trees.

  12. Teller says:

    In case you didn’t notice, they had photo evidence.

  13. Boba Fett Diop says:

    Wi-Fi likes to wear a Pedobear t-shirt near playgrounds.

    Wi-Fi punches otters for fun.

    Wi-Fi repackaged and sold sub-prime mortgages.

    Wi-Fi stole my car.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Actually, the mentioned Dutch researchers did not conclude that Wifi kills trees?

    I quote from google translate:

    “He warns strongly that there are no far-reaching conclusions from its results. Based on the information now available can not be concluded that the WiFi radio signals leads to damage to trees or other plants.”

  15. kpkpkp says:

    I’ve located a picture of Nobel Prize winning Professor Gunnar Hofverberg, the leading Wi-Fi expert in the United States, and a world-renown arborist:

    http://www.cinecon.com/frontimages/2298-lorax.jpg

  16. BillGlover says:

    Trading trees for porn is what publishing is all about.

    Sounds like the squirrels are catching on, clever varmints.

  17. kattw says:

    To anon 23, yes, but it’s a different wavelength of energy than is emitted by various artificial sources. The ozone layer blocks a lot of wavelengths pretty specifically, while letting others through. UV is among them, for example. Similarly, your simple assertion, while accurate, doesn’t explain why it’s a bad idea to stand in front of a microwave dish while somebody’s transmitting. Consider: those simple radios back in the day you bought and built yourself had no band-pass filter, and no noise filter. Yet, they could get pretty clear signals. If the sun was broadcasting RF on the FM band, all you would have heard was sun noise.

    Dawn is closer, but neglects a few key things. One: the FCC website, unless I’m missing something, does not feature a study on wi-fi frequencies and their effect upon trees at various distances and power settings. Thus, it is a poor source for an answer to this question, as it does not have said answer. Two: distance and direction, and power, are just as important as resonant frequencies. For example: having your eye 1 or 2 feet away from a broadcasting Yagi with 1500 watts of power on top of a tower will probably blind you, regardless of whether it’s a 6m, 2m, 440, 220 or 1.2 gHz yagi. On the other hand, being directly in the path of that yagi’s broadcast, but being 2 miles away, is perfectly safe, even if the yagi and radio are directly tuned to your eye’s personal resonance frequency.

    I’ll be honest, I’m not entirely sure why “we don’t know for sure, we should learn more” is attracting such animosity, especially on boingboing of all places, where the igNobel prizes are saluted each year, and crazy studies are often brought to the fore. This type of study is quite logical, in comparison to some.

    • Dawn deMom says:

      Thanks, kattw – I did say I wasn’t professional and I know there are many more intelligent people than I who read bOINGbOING. Amateur radio operators or not, I hoped someone would post something with a more than I could.

      I posted the FCC website to show there are studies about RF and it’s effects on the body as an example. As far as I’m concerned, everything should be studied if it concerns someone. I’m not for the government paying for all these studies. I find when people search for answers and share their knowledge with others, we are all richer for it.

      And I always welcome other people’s input on something like this so I can learn more. I wish I enjoyed learning when I was younger! I wouldn’t have wasted so much of my school years!

  18. Yaruki Zero says:

    So, have any of the folks spreading paranoia about Wi-Fi explained why wireless computer networks are supposedly so catastrophically worse than the radio signals that blanket us pretty much everywhere? We already had TV, a zillion forms of radio, cell phone networks, satellites, and god knows what else going 24/7 years before Wi-Fi even became practical, much less widespread.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yazuki Zero, surely you’ve noticed that cancer rates have risen continuously ever since radio was invented? And not only that, but kid’s music has gotten worse (I didn’t think it could get worse than Punk, but now there’s RAP! Next thing you know the barbaric little apes will be listening to C&W!) and there’s more crabgrass in my lawn.

    • Jake0748 says:

      Um… did you notice the tags at the end of the post? :D

      • Donald Petersen says:

        Yeah, I had about 5 seconds of “Dear God, what now? Whole world’s gone teats-up,” until I saw “Thanks, Weekly World News!”

        So I must thank them again for reminding me that my world is ever so slightly less terrifying than theirs.

  19. GeekMan says:

    OH NOES!!1!!

  20. Anonymous says:

    there is only one hope. chuck norris can kill wi-fi! but.. who will volunteer to ask him?

  21. user23 says:

    some interesting reading on the so-called dangers of WiFi. Old thread from 2007, in which is cited a study which mentions trees, necrosis & WiFi (sorry, no thrilling tales of squirmunks):

    http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=177401

  22. Anonymous says:

    Man, I hate it when WiFi burns down my stone trees. Stupid WiFi.

Leave a Reply