Follow this blog:
RSS

Trees are sick, Wi-Fi radiation to blame

By | November 22, 2010, 12:21 PM PST

The trees in the city of Alphen aan den Rijn weren’t doing so well, but the usual suspects (viruses and bacterial infections) didn’t have anything to do with the poor health of the trees.

The unlikely culprit turned out to be Wi-Fi. Researchers at Wageningen University discovered that when trees are exposed to Wi-Fi radiation, they don’t grow correctly, the bark bleed, and the leaves die.

Dutch researchers discovered that 70 percent of trees in the Netherlands are affected by Wi-Fi radiation. Five years ago, only 10 percent were.

The scientists studied 20 ash trees and gave them a dose of Wi-Fi radiation for three months. The trees away from the radiation remained healthy, but the trees exposed to the Wi-Fi radiation were sick.

According to the news release, “initial observations suggest a negative effect on the health of the ash… Researchers find it necessary to repeat the experiments before reaching conclusions.”

Ok so if Wi-Fi can make trees bleed, what does it do to us?

The debate over Wi-Fi radiation continues. The Health Protection Agency states “there is no consistent evidence to date that exposure to FR signals from Wi-Fi and WLANs adversely affect the health of the general population.”

Wageningen University via CNET and Popular Science

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Boonsri Dickinson

About Boonsri Dickinson

Boonsri Dickinson was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2010 to 2012.

Boonsri Dickinson

Boonsri Dickinson

Contributing Editor, Science

Boonsri Dickinson is a freelance journalist based in San Francisco. She has written for Discover, The Huffington Post, Forbes, Nature Biotech, Technewsdaily.com, Techstartups.com and AOL. She's currently a reporter for Business Insider. She holds degrees from the University of Florida and the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Follow her on Twitter.

Boonsri Dickinson

Boonsri Dickinson

In the unlikely event that Boonsri has a professional or financial relationship with a company she writes about, it will be prominently disclosed.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
21
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Trees are sick, Wi-Fi radiation to blame
I may agree with you somewhat on this subject and your findings.
You also might want to take soil samples of the area where these trees are showing signs of sickness. There are a lot of people talking about the soil becoming to alkaline where it was once more on the acidic side which is wear it should be.
Most vegetation and produce need slightly acidic soil to prosper and grow healthy.
Research "What In The World Are They Spraying" to learn more.
Posted by joelaw
22nd Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
The conclusion is preliminary
According to a translation of this news release from the Antenna
Bureau in the Netherlands

http://translate.google.com/translate?
hl=en&sl=nl&tl=en&u=http://www.antennebureau.nl/actueel/nieuw
s/2010/eerste-indruk-kennisplatform-onderzoek-naar-bomen-en-
wifi-zendsignalen

Of course, science lives for disagreements like this.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
23rd Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Trees are sick, Wi-Fi radiation to blame
Doesn't surprise me. We're introducing lots of non-normal affectors through wi-fi, TV broadcasts, radio, cell phones. Not to mention the chemical effects of our transition from generally agricultural economies to electronic / mechanical.
Posted by steve.mathys
23rd Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Trees are sick, Wi-Fi radiation to blame
Correlation is not causation. Some real science remains to be done.
I am very skeptical that the low power of WiFi installations could
have that effect on a tree, given that megawatt transmitters of radio
and TV are also around.
Posted by alan.sewards@...
23rd Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Trees are sick, Wi-Fi radiation to blame
It's articles like these that are lowering smart planets' credibility. It
is extraordinarily unlikely that wifi is making trees sick. Combine
that a priory estimate with a study that's not going to be published
in even a d-list journal. Crank the Bayesian inference machine.
And you get exactly what you started with. It is extraordinarily
unlikely that wifi is making trees sick.
Posted by caburlingame
23rd Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
bring back a golden oldie.
- - There are a lot of people talking about the soil becoming too alkaline where it was once more on the acidic side which is where it should be. Most vegetation and produce need slightly acidic soil to prosper and grow healthy. - -

We need to bring back acid rain to fix this problem?..

Sorry for the brain cramp.

That is my chronic knee jerk reaction from listening to far too many global warming supporters saying we should pump sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to counter global warming.
Posted by Hates Idiots
23rd Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Trees are sick, Wi-Fi radiation to blame
A tangential topic, but if atmospheric co2 is high, shouldn't the
soil start to be more acidic? Carbonic acid, no?
Posted by caburlingame
23rd Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Trees are sick, Wi-Fi radiation to blame
Maybe they're staying up all night surfing and chatting and posting to LeafBook. And playing that farm game. And posting to blogs. And...other stuff.
Posted by dmm99
23rd Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Trees are sick, Wi-Fi radiation to blame
Also, I can't believe there's no virus involved. It's an open WiFi network!
Posted by dmm99
23rd Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Trees are sick, Wi-Fi radiation to blame
So.. a cabal of "tree sickening deniers" jk . Should this study survive publication and peer review I hope there will be larger studies undertaken. Of course it is often difficult to get funding for studies that run counter to the interests of multinational corporations.
Posted by emrldpath
23rd Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Trees are sick, Wi-Fi radiation to blame
My friend's daughter got pregnant from all the smutt on the wifi
going through her body. I don't look at the stuff, but little
Chastity's boyfriend was over at their house all the time, and she
reckons he might have been downloading the stuff.
Posted by caburlingame
23rd Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Trees are sick, Wi-Fi radiation to blame
Funny, funny posts. Anybody old enough to remember when color tv's were going to give us all cancer?
Posted by IMWeira
23rd Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Color was going to give you cancer..
but the black and white was going to make you go blind.

You had a consumers choice to make.
Posted by Hates Idiots
23rd Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Trees are sick, Wi-Fi radiation to blame
HA HAH HAHAH..HAH...THERE ARE
PLENTY OF LOOPY PEOPLE OUT THERE
BUT THIS IS NOT SCIENCE..IT IS PIFFLE
WRITTEN BY IDIOTS..N
Posted by nfiertel
23rd Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Trees are sick, Wi-Fi radiation to blame
Hmm so everybody is an expert on WiFi that's funny, we are quick to put out new and exciting technology without thinking of the consequences. Did anybody do a study about WiFi to see if it has any adverse affects on anything, trees, people, animals, etc. before they decided to put it on the market.

Signed Just a Thought
Posted by bookkeeper@...
23rd Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Trees are sick, Wi-Fi radiation to blame
From a translation of the page:

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. It takes into account previously published studies showing no effect. The knowledge center awaits with interest the publication of the survey.

Even the researchers are basically saying there's nothing to see here, move on, wait until we have done more research, because even we're not sure what's causing it

Yellow journalism is alive and well at SP
Posted by BrewmanNH
23rd Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
FM Radio Waves And Skin Cancer
Don't forget that FM radio (of the type 88 to 108 MHz ) has been lined to the
increase in ferocity of skin cancer (melanoma) that occurred in many
countries after FM was introduced.

In this case, it the carcinogenic effect was frequency specific. As I
understand it, former Soviet bloc countries used a different FM frequency
range (65-74 MHz), and did not experience the same effects. But It is
postulated that the East European countries that have now introduced the
88?108-MHz band will show an increasing melanoma rate for the next 10
years.

REF: Hallberg O, Johansson O (2002). "Melanoma incidence and frequency
modulation (FM) broadcasting" PMID: 12071358

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a920921576~f
rm=abslink

So if FM radio waves can apparently cause more severe melanoma, one
might not be too surprised to see biological effects from WiFi
Posted by Hip777
23rd Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Trees are sick, Wi-Fi radiation to blame
Don't forget that FM radio (of the type 88 to 108 MHz) has been
linked to the increase in ferocity of skin cancer (melanoma) that
occurred in many countries after FM was introduced.

In this case, the carcinogenic effect was frequency specific. As I
understand it, former Soviet bloc countries used a different FM
frequency range (65 to 74 MHz), and did not experience the
same effects. But It is postulated that the East European
countries that have now introduced the 88 to 108-MHz band will
show an increasing melanoma rate for the next 10 years.

REF: Hallberg O, Johansson O (2002). "Melanoma incidence and
frequency modulation (FM) broadcasting" PMID: 12071358

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a9
20921576~frm=abslink

So if FM radio waves can apparently cause more severe
melanoma, one might not be too surprised to see biological
effects from WiFi.

(POSTED AGAIN, AS GREMLINS MESSED UP THE FIRST
ATTEMPT TO POST THIS)
Posted by Hip777
23rd Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Trees are sick, Wi-Fi radiation to blame
The world has become a crazy place when science professionals sell their opinions and people doubt a study completed at a university asked to do the study by a municipality with trees dying. The study subjected plant biology to Wi Fi frequencies and after 3 months there was necrosis which is a stage of dying.

Wi Fi is being put everywhere for convenience to avoid the cost of construction. It seems easier to radiate an entire area instead of doing what we have done forever, pull a cable to protect people and the integrity of the data.

The Health Agency is incorrect that there isn't peer reviewed science supporting the dangers of electromagnetic radiation. Health Canada is the authority for Canada and there was an oversight in their code because they compared radio frequencies with humans and ecosystems without providing the frequency of biologic systems. The error or omission changed their entire document.

As an electrical professional, I was a witness for the Standing Committee on the subject and reported to the committee that children in schools are not objects. They are essentially a bare conductor running at low frequencies and when you impose billions of cycles a second on that electrical system there are problems. The code itself says we don't want to cause excitation of tissue because experimental studies have shown there to be nerve and muscle depolarization. Nerves are the switches for your body and if they don't work, neither will parts of you. It should set off alarms in science with the omission because they know there is a heat effect so they have given tissue a heat load instead of understanding this heat is caused inside the body.

Here is a link to our letter to the committee on the oversight because this planet and everything on it that sustains life runs off the earth's magnetic field. Very fast electromagnetics are foreign and dangerous. http://www.thermoguy.com/blog/index.php?itemid=47

President Obama has stated health costs can bankrupt the US Government, what effect will depolarizing the population have? Nuking the trees is a subtle way of deforestation and who needs that oxygen or ground cover.
Posted by Thermoguy
24th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Trees are sick, Wi-Fi radiation to blame
We have lived in the same location for over 20 years. We have been until last fall relatively distant in our urban setting from cell
phone base station antennae (400 & 800m). Last fall at 200m a ?low power? new 2.1-something gHz transmitter was aimed our way (and the general ambient level is of course up as well with more & more wireless mania dependencies). A Norway maple previously resplendent (at least 15 of those years) suddenly this spring became defoliated by half ? only on the side facing the mast (photos available). There are other aspects of vegetative stress on the property: a giant aggressive rosebush for years near that Norway, probably in the same plume of radiation descending on our yard, has turned sickly; there have been leaf deformities never seen all our years here on grape vine & pear tree; one fir tree sheltered mostly from that plume, has newly browned-out spots ONLY where the branches poke out around a north wall thus directly exposed to this new emitter. Wake up! Synthetic xenobiotic radiation like this is a universal bio-/enviro-stressor, and must be turned back starting now, lest everything with cells in its body eventually succumb in one way or another. All over our city, now further densely e-smogged with ?smart? utility meters just activated this year, we have noticed accelerated tree stress this year, whereas In local ravines where radiation tends to be much lower there are few or no signs of this defoliation etc. Open your eyes, pay attention to your own symptoms and those of people around you, clue in & tell everyone you can, so as to effect drastic corrective change as speedily as possible. Another current anecdote: black raspberry bush part exposed to new ?smart? electricity meter radiation (different locality, stronger transmission, higher frequency) had exposed cane leaves wrinkle and turn yellow and yield inedible-tasting fruit, canes sheltered just fine.
Posted by verdee
24th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Trees are sick, Wi-Fi radiation to blame
Thanks, Boonsri, for giving a heads-up on this topic. I did find some more details by following the link from the Crave website, where the Health Protection Agency is doing a study on the radiation levels found in typical wi-fi arrangements found in the home, with a focus on children, since they would probably be more susceptible:

"Using a sitting voxel model of a ten-year-old child, and considering an exposure scenario of a Wi-Fi device operating at 2.4 GHz with an output power of 100 mW and a duty factor of 1 (100%), the highest localised SAR value in the head was calculated as 5.7 m W Kg-1. This value is significantly lower than the limit of 0.08 W Kg-1 set by ICNIRP for the general public. This represents less than 1% of the SAR previously calculated in the head for a typical mobile phone exposure condition. Please see the recent article by R P Findlay and P J Dimbylow in the journal Physics in Medicine and Biology at http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/55/15/N01)."

The link: http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/Radiation/UnderstandingRadiation/UnderstandingRadiationTopics/ElectromagneticFields/WiFi/WiFiprojectprogressOctober2010/

I couldn't find any credible journal that had more information between tree health and wi fi radiation, so you might poke around and post us any you run across. Otherwise, it looks like we're very early in the curve on this and the evidence on a causal connection between tree (and human) health and wi fi radiation levels is far from conclusive.

But keep us posted!
Posted by klassman6
25th Nov 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!