It is currently Tue Jul 23, 2019 12:46 am


Announcement: Registrations are currently disabled. Apologies for any inconvenience caused.

WiFi Blocks Plants Growing..?

Environmental issues, staying in optimal health and avoiding poisons in everyday foods.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

Danson

Annoyingly Lovable

Registered User

0.5 stars

  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 24 June 2013
  • Location: Lyra
  • Thanks Received: 22

WiFi Blocks Plants Growing..?

PostTue Jul 16, 2013 10:38 am

Take 400 cress seeds and divide them into 12 trays.

Then place the trays in two rooms at the same temperature, six in each room. Give the trays the same amount of water and sunlight over 12 days, but expose six of the trays to mobile phone radiation.

This is the recipe for a biology experiment so ingenious that it has attracted international attention from leading biologists and radiation experts.

The experiment is the brainchild of five girls from class 9.b at Hjallerup School in North Jutland, and it all started when the girls were finding it difficult to concentrate in their lessons.

“We all thought we experienced concentration problems in school if we slept with our mobile phones at the bedside, and sometimes we also found it difficult sleeping,” explained Lea Nielsen, one of the five budding researchers.

The experiment

The school did not have the equipment to test the effect of mobile phone radiation on the girls themselves, which, as it turned out, was probably a good thing.

Consequently, the girls had to find an alternative, and the solution they came up with was cress seeds.

Six trays of seeds were placed in a room with no radiation, while six were placed in another room alongside two routers emitting roughly the same type of radiation as an ordinary mobile phone.

Then the girls just had to wait 12 days, observe, measure, weigh and take photos.

The results spoke for themselves: the cress seeds alongside the routers did not grow at all, and some even mutated or died.

Image
Healthy Cress, unexposed to the radiation from the routers.

Image
The "sick" Cress, exposed to the radiation from the routers.

Source & More --> http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_industryweapons278.htm
THERE IS A PLACE BETWEEN DOUBT AND BELIEF, WHERE WE CAN LET IDEAS REST WHILST WE CONSIDER THEM

"Wanting to reform the world without discovering one's true self is like trying to cover the world with leather to avoid the pain of walking on stones and thorns. It is much simpler to wear shoes."
— Ramana Maharshi

______________________________________________________________

~~~~ www.EachOneTeachWon.com | Facebook.com/ibeDanson
Offline
User avatar

jashutson13

Funnyfarm escapee

Registered User

2 stars

  • Posts: 706
  • Joined: 28 February 2013
  • Location: middle earth
  • Gender: Female
  • Thanks Received: 145

Re: WiFi Blocks Plants Growing..?

PostTue Jul 16, 2013 2:57 pm

This is why I am glad I live on the outskirts of town. We get poor phone service so that tells me the towers are not immediatly in my area. i don't use a mobile phone very much either. In fact I hope in 2 years to not have to have any device in my house that causes radiation. I don't want a microwave either.
    Loki: Well when a man loves another man....
Offline
User avatar

enkidu2368

Praetor-

Registered User

3 stars

  • Posts: 1247
  • Joined: 27 February 2013
  • Location: Britannia-
  • Thanks Received: 285

Re: WiFi Blocks Plants Growing..?

PostTue Jul 16, 2013 7:31 pm

I saw this, and the comment put it down to the heat by the wifi causing the deformed growth, not the actual wifi.
...this world is only play and amusement, pomp and mutual boasting among you, and rivalry in respect of wealth and children, as the likeness of vegetation after rain, thereof the growth is pleasing to the tiller; afterwards it dries up and you see it turning yellow; then it becomes straw. Al-Hadid (020)
Offline
User avatar

VibratingPickle

Positive Deviant

Registered User

2 stars

  • Posts: 584
  • Joined: 03 July 2013
  • Location: Uranus
  • Thanks Received: 188

Re: WiFi Blocks Plants Growing..?

PostWed Jul 17, 2013 12:03 am

enkidu2368 wrote:I saw this, and the comment put it down to the heat by the wifi causing the deformed growth, not the actual wifi.

Heat from wifi? You mean like microwave radiation right? Cooking the seeds just like it would cook our brains LoL!

Maybe they don't notice that plants thrive in heat and moisture.
Offline
User avatar

FlixKandish

OMNIPRESENT EVOSTATHEIST

Registered User

3.5 Stars

  • Posts: 1601
  • Joined: 20 March 2013
  • Location: TWL 4 LIFE
  • Thanks Received: 306

Re: WiFi Blocks Plants Growing..?

PostWed Jul 17, 2013 5:22 pm

Just doing my civil duty:

Danish School Experiment with WiFi Routers and Garden Cress, Good Example of Bad Science
Bad Science, Pseudo Science

The story of five Danish school girls who won a prize with their school experiment that allegedly shows that the electromagnetic radiation of WiFi routers has a negative effect on the germination of garden cress, has been reported by numerous sites on the Internet. Just check the number of Google hits while searching for “wifi cress”. The girls placed twelve plates with cress seeds on cotton in front of a window, watered those regularly an watched the seeds germinate. Between six of the plates WiFi routers were placed. After 13 days the cress was cut and dried and the germinated seeds were counted. A big difference was found. From the seeds which were held under radiation far less had germinated. Evidence for negative effects of WiFi? Nope.
Nice for the girls that they won this prize, but not so great that it’s promoted as a good example of science. It’s not the girls fault, but their study is an excellent example of how pseudo- or bad science can enter the classroom.

It was first published on a Danish website (Google translation) and then picked up by Geek.com and ABC News for instance. Not very critical these reports. Norwegian science journalist Gunnar Tjomlid had a good look at the study design and the report. He found a lot of things which are questionable. I suggest you read his excellent blog yourself (Google translated if you don’t read Norwegian). I will just mention the most important things from it:

*The WiFi and control group were not just different because of the presence of the routers. On the pictures in the report it can be seen that also the laptops in the WiFi group were placed quite near to the plates. It’s very likely that this had an effect on airflow and temperature around the plates and that could have an effect on germination, which has nothing to do with the presence of EM-fields. Not properly controlled.

*It was obvious what the WiFi group was and what control group. Not blinded.

*From communication with the science teacher of the girls Tjomlid learned that their had been two experiments. The first one had the routers only sending out the SSID. A second experiment in which the laptops had been ‘pinging’ each other constantly did not show the dramatic difference in germination. Only the first experiment was used in the report (not completely clear, because the teacher gave contradicting information on this). Publication bias: not reporting negative results.

Image
This graph is a far better presentation of what they found, but not as ‘sexy’ as the photographs of the cress

*The reports on blogs illustrated the difference in germination by photographs of plates with cress, one showing a full grown, not radiated, ‘healty’ one and a plate which almost doesn’t show any sprouted seed at all, a radiated, ‘sick’ plate. If you look at the actual reported results, they do not look that shocking: on average the control group had 332 sprouted seeds versus 252 in the WiFi group. Misleading representation of the result in the press.

*(not mentioned by Tjomlid). The plates in a group were not separated in space, so we cannot regard the results of individual plates as independent observations. In fact, you could argue this is an N=2 experiment. Faulty statistical analysis.

*The girls stopped the experiment on day 13. Not because that was a predefined moment, but because on that day the control group had reached the maximum height. The problem is that due to a difference in temperature of just a few degrees, it can already take a couple of days for the cress to grow to the same height. If there was indeed a difference in temperature due to the placement of the laptops, it would be likely that the WiFi group could have germinated and grown similar to the control group if it was allowed to grow on for a couple of days. They were just looking for the result they had in their mind beforehand. Biased towards a particular result.

*So how did these young girls get biased so badly? Well, they were only fed by literature which points to studies which have shown negative effects stemming from researcher who are discredited by main stream scientists. And for a possible (dangerous) working mechanism of EM-fields, they fully rely on a single report written by Thomas Grønborg, who at his tum relies on Olle Johansson (see further). Cherry picking.

Who are the scientists who are so enthusiastic about this poor study? The article on the Danish website mentions Olle Johansson, who received the ‘Misleader of the Year‘ Award from the Swedish skeptics in 2004. He is well known for having unsubstantiated ideas of negative health effects of radiation. He is cited in the Danish article as having plans to replicate the girls’ experiment in cooperation with senior researcher Marie-Claire Cammaerts from the Université libre de Bruxelles. We shouldn’t expect anything good from this replication, because as I’ve shown in a blog some while ago, Cammaerts probably cannot be trusted with this kind of experiments (see: Ants Performing Statistical Miracle under GSM Phone Radiation?).
Tjomlid also mentions Andrew Goldsworthy, another well known fear monger, and Dutchman Niek van ‘t Wout, who is head of green space of a Dutch city and the instigator of research into the possible deteriorating effect of WiFi on trees (so he is not a scientist himself). After a not so convincing first experiment, Wageningen University started a follow up, of which we never heard again.
It’s quite clear that based on this experiment, you can’t draw any conclusion on the non-thermic effects of WiFi routers on germination. It’s a pity that the girls had this obviously biased teacher as a supervisor and that their work is now being used by pseudo-scientists as ‘evidence’ that EM-fields are very dangerous, while there is consensus that if there is a risk at all, it’s very low. The faults made can’t be blamed on the girls and let’s hope that this experience doesn’t affect their interest in research. It could even be a very good learning experience, if they are willing to have look at what went wrong, because it has so many aspects of bad science.
Don’t forget to read Gunnar Tjomlid’s blog, it entails far more interesting stuff than my summary: http://tjomlid.com/2013/05/19/om-karse- ... agslaerer/

http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2013/05/dani ... d-science/
Yup.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
Offline
User avatar

Danson

Annoyingly Lovable

Registered User

0.5 stars

  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 24 June 2013
  • Location: Lyra
  • Thanks Received: 22

Re: WiFi Blocks Plants Growing..?

PostSat Jul 20, 2013 11:21 am

FlixKandish wrote:Just doing my civil duty:

Danish School Experiment with WiFi Routers and Garden Cress, Good Example of Bad Science
Bad Science, Pseudo Science

The story of five Danish school girls who won a prize with their school experiment that allegedly shows that the electromagnetic radiation of WiFi routers has a negative effect on the germination of garden cress, has been reported by numerous sites on the Internet. Just check the number of Google hits while searching for “wifi cress”. The girls placed twelve plates with cress seeds on cotton in front of a window, watered those regularly an watched the seeds germinate. Between six of the plates WiFi routers were placed. After 13 days the cress was cut and dried and the germinated seeds were counted. A big difference was found. From the seeds which were held under radiation far less had germinated. Evidence for negative effects of WiFi? Nope.
Nice for the girls that they won this prize, but not so great that it’s promoted as a good example of science. It’s not the girls fault, but their study is an excellent example of how pseudo- or bad science can enter the classroom.

It was first published on a Danish website (Google translation) and then picked up by Geek.com and ABC News for instance. Not very critical these reports. Norwegian science journalist Gunnar Tjomlid had a good look at the study design and the report. He found a lot of things which are questionable. I suggest you read his excellent blog yourself (Google translated if you don’t read Norwegian). I will just mention the most important things from it:

*The WiFi and control group were not just different because of the presence of the routers. On the pictures in the report it can be seen that also the laptops in the WiFi group were placed quite near to the plates. It’s very likely that this had an effect on airflow and temperature around the plates and that could have an effect on germination, which has nothing to do with the presence of EM-fields. Not properly controlled.

*It was obvious what the WiFi group was and what control group. Not blinded.

*From communication with the science teacher of the girls Tjomlid learned that their had been two experiments. The first one had the routers only sending out the SSID. A second experiment in which the laptops had been ‘pinging’ each other constantly did not show the dramatic difference in germination. Only the first experiment was used in the report (not completely clear, because the teacher gave contradicting information on this). Publication bias: not reporting negative results.

Image
This graph is a far better presentation of what they found, but not as ‘sexy’ as the photographs of the cress

*The reports on blogs illustrated the difference in germination by photographs of plates with cress, one showing a full grown, not radiated, ‘healty’ one and a plate which almost doesn’t show any sprouted seed at all, a radiated, ‘sick’ plate. If you look at the actual reported results, they do not look that shocking: on average the control group had 332 sprouted seeds versus 252 in the WiFi group. Misleading representation of the result in the press.

*(not mentioned by Tjomlid). The plates in a group were not separated in space, so we cannot regard the results of individual plates as independent observations. In fact, you could argue this is an N=2 experiment. Faulty statistical analysis.

*The girls stopped the experiment on day 13. Not because that was a predefined moment, but because on that day the control group had reached the maximum height. The problem is that due to a difference in temperature of just a few degrees, it can already take a couple of days for the cress to grow to the same height. If there was indeed a difference in temperature due to the placement of the laptops, it would be likely that the WiFi group could have germinated and grown similar to the control group if it was allowed to grow on for a couple of days. They were just looking for the result they had in their mind beforehand. Biased towards a particular result.

*So how did these young girls get biased so badly? Well, they were only fed by literature which points to studies which have shown negative effects stemming from researcher who are discredited by main stream scientists. And for a possible (dangerous) working mechanism of EM-fields, they fully rely on a single report written by Thomas Grønborg, who at his tum relies on Olle Johansson (see further). Cherry picking.

Who are the scientists who are so enthusiastic about this poor study? The article on the Danish website mentions Olle Johansson, who received the ‘Misleader of the Year‘ Award from the Swedish skeptics in 2004. He is well known for having unsubstantiated ideas of negative health effects of radiation. He is cited in the Danish article as having plans to replicate the girls’ experiment in cooperation with senior researcher Marie-Claire Cammaerts from the Université libre de Bruxelles. We shouldn’t expect anything good from this replication, because as I’ve shown in a blog some while ago, Cammaerts probably cannot be trusted with this kind of experiments (see: Ants Performing Statistical Miracle under GSM Phone Radiation?).
Tjomlid also mentions Andrew Goldsworthy, another well known fear monger, and Dutchman Niek van ‘t Wout, who is head of green space of a Dutch city and the instigator of research into the possible deteriorating effect of WiFi on trees (so he is not a scientist himself). After a not so convincing first experiment, Wageningen University started a follow up, of which we never heard again.
It’s quite clear that based on this experiment, you can’t draw any conclusion on the non-thermic effects of WiFi routers on germination. It’s a pity that the girls had this obviously biased teacher as a supervisor and that their work is now being used by pseudo-scientists as ‘evidence’ that EM-fields are very dangerous, while there is consensus that if there is a risk at all, it’s very low. The faults made can’t be blamed on the girls and let’s hope that this experience doesn’t affect their interest in research. It could even be a very good learning experience, if they are willing to have look at what went wrong, because it has so many aspects of bad science.
Don’t forget to read Gunnar Tjomlid’s blog, it entails far more interesting stuff than my summary: http://tjomlid.com/2013/05/19/om-karse- ... agslaerer/

http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2013/05/dani ... d-science/
Yup.


And you do it so well Flix..! Bravo :clap:

VibratingPickle wrote:
enkidu2368 wrote:I saw this, and the comment put it down to the heat by the wifi causing the deformed growth, not the actual wifi.

Heat from wifi? You mean like microwave radiation right? Cooking the seeds just like it would cook our brains LoL!

Maybe they don't notice that plants thrive in heat and moisture.


This ^
THERE IS A PLACE BETWEEN DOUBT AND BELIEF, WHERE WE CAN LET IDEAS REST WHILST WE CONSIDER THEM

"Wanting to reform the world without discovering one's true self is like trying to cover the world with leather to avoid the pain of walking on stones and thorns. It is much simpler to wear shoes."
— Ramana Maharshi

______________________________________________________________

~~~~ www.EachOneTeachWon.com | Facebook.com/ibeDanson

Return to Health and Nature

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron