Student science experiment finds plants won't grow near Wi-Fi router

[IdaBriggs]

Oops!

http://www.mnn.com/health/healthy-spaces/blogs/student-science-experiment-finds-plants-wont-grow-near-wi-fi-router

Five ninth-grade young women from Denmark recently created a science experiment that is causing a stir in the scientific community.

It started with an observation and a question. The girls noticed that if they slept with their mobile phones near their heads at night, they often had difficulty concentrating at school the next day. They wanted to test the effect of a cellphone's radiation on humans, but their school, Hjallerup School in Denmark, did not have the equipment to handle such an experiment. So the girls designed an experiment that would test the effect of cellphone radiation on a plant instead.

The students placed six trays filled with Lepidium sativum, a type of garden cress into a room without radiation, and six trays of the seeds into another room next to two routers that according to the girls calculations, emitted about the same type of radiation as an ordinary cellphone.

Over the next 12 days, the girls observed, measured, weighed and photographed their results. Although by the end of the experiment the results were blatantly obvious — the cress seeds placed near the router had not grown. Many of them were completely dead. While the cress seeds planted in the other room, away from the routers, thrived.

Interesting.

[TrogL]

1. Fallacy of undivided middle

I'm betting something was different between the two rooms

[madokie]

3. I think it would take more than one experiment to confirm this as causation

[malaise]

14. True but while they do more tests the WiFi leaves our bedroom

[madokie]

44. Nothing wrong with that thinking for sure

[Berlum]

97. The precautionary principle

[malaise]

106. Ha

[sakabatou]

107. Of course. It needs more than one experiment to see if it's true.

[redwitch]

7. Agreed.

Amount of sunlight? Each watered the same?

[Kablooie]

37. Possibly but it certainly begs further study and therefore was a successful experiment.

[IdaBriggs]

84. Some of this was addressed in the longer ABC piece.

There is a paragraph about temperature and moisture issues.

http://abcnews.go.com/technology/t/blogEntry?id=19251950&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2F%3Fcom%3Dview_post%26forum%3D1002%26pid%3D2903827

[greiner3]

157. " I'm betting something was different between the two rooms"

There was a router in one of them?

[TrogL]

162. I'm thinking like a downdraft that dried out one set of seeds

Or different amount of sunlight.

[Cirque du So-What]

2. We're gonna need a bigger bag

of popcorn, that is.



In fact, this controversial topic has the potential to reach the epic proportions of pit bulls, circumcision, Olive Garden, breastfeeding, etc.

[KoKo]

4. Uh Oh...you looking to stir up "stuff?"

's

[Cirque du So-What]

10. Moi?

I am but merely a surrogate for Cassandra in this instance, as I haven't formed a full-fledged opinion, preferring instead to wait for more scientific evidence.

[Greybnk48]

21. LMAO! But phones out of the bedroom for now! n/t

[ananda]

32. Yep.

Phone and iPad will now move here too.

Better safe than sorry!

[IdaBriggs]

63. Wow. That is A LOT of popcorn!

But a 9th grade science study that can be easily duplicated at home within two weeks beating out pit bulls, circumcision, Olive Garden and breast feeding?

Impossible.

In the meantime,

[REP]

74. Would you like me to post photos from my greenhouse?

I grow orchids. I also have a router in here (and heaters, fans, misting system and espresso machine - and some other equipment). My orchids are doing quite well.

[etherealtruth]

75. Your orchids are incredibly beautiful!

Seeing them almost makes yet another WOOO thread worth it!

[REP]

79. Thanks! Compliments just gets you more photos, though.

[etherealtruth]

86. Breathtaking! Thank you! n/t

[MNBrewer]

90. Very nice!

What can I do to get my two Phalenopsis plants to bloom? I put them down in the basement for a few weeks so they would experience cooler temps. Brought them back up and have given some fertilizer.

Should I repot?

[REP]

94. Phals are winter bloomers*

They need a couple months of cool (60F) nights to set spikes, which should start happening late fall and take a couple months for the spikes to mature and bloom. Don't repot unless the media is broken down or is otherwise compromised. Basements are a bad idea, unless you've got lights rigged; even during a cool rest, they need sufficient light (and the cool rest is months, not weeks).

If you've had the plant a while and it's never rebloomed, it's not getting enough light. If you just got it, phalaenopsis bloom only once a year.

*yes, I'm aware some species do bloom in the summer, but most are winter bloomers.

On edit: that's a Sedirea japonica in my photo

[MNBrewer]

99. Will it help if I put it next to my wireless router?

[REP]

100. As long as they don't have your credit card number

Phals cannot be trusted on line with credit.

[tblue37]

148. OMG! circumcised Pitt Bulls were breastfeeding in Olive Gardens???!!! nt

[burnodo]

5. Seems to me there was a report several years ago

Also somewhere in Europe, someone had noticed degradation in the health of certain types of trees near a cell tower or wi-fi repeater. I think it's easy to believe that these electromagnetic signals would interfere with other magnetic fields, like those contained in living matter.

[DeadEyeDyck]

58. in the mid nineties there was a scare

about power lines. The claim was that plants in the vicinity were dying off. Then people living in the area claimed they had increased cancer rates. But the real kicker was skin issues on kids that played in the area.
After investigation by the CDC&ATSDR, it turned out that the only culprit was a weed killer sprayed to keep the access road clear.
The cancer rate data was skewed and the raw data showed that the counts fell within statistical norms and the case was dropped.

[siligut]

80. Yes and there are different frequencies of electromagnetic energy

But because of the uninformed naysayers and those who make money from naysaying, some of whom are powerful, the research is sparse, misinterpreted and squashed.

[Progressive dog]

6. You ever notice the dead circles around the cell towers

where several hundred times the cell phone power has killed all living things?

[unblock]

9. turns out we're all actually dead people.

in fact it was the fluoride in the water that did us in back in the '50s, but that's a whole nother story.

[ananda]

33. Zombiebot nation.

[Canuckistanian]

18. +1

Exactly. There are SO many sources of high-power RF. They always seem to focus in on WiFi for some reason.

What about the blowtorch AM stations, broadcasting at several THOUSAND times the power of even cell phone towers? Or FM stations with MW of power output?

Surely by now, we'd have seen the negative effects of high-power electromagnetic transmissions on plant life.

[SpankMe]

39. The dead circles around cell towers are most likely caused by

...landscaping, weed abatement and foliage maintenance by the cell tower operator, not the RF. You can't let foliage go wild around cell towers, power poles, phone translator towers, etc. It's a fire hazard, prevents access by tower maintenance personnel; and - if it gets tall enough - could block signals.

[Progressive dog]

46. I was joking about there being dead circles

The original OP is ridiculous.

[MineralMan]

8. Mother Nature Network?

First time I've heard of it.

This experiment should be duplicated in a real lab, where all variables but that one can be controlled. I'm betting real science will produce a different result than this impromptu experiment by some 14 year olds.

Truly.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. Also reported by ABC News.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2013/05/can-wifi-signals-stunt-plant-growth/

Looks like some scientists at the Karolinska Institute (one of the most respected medical universities in Europe) are going to try to replicate the experiment under properly controlled circumstances. It will be interesting to see what they get.

[Liberal_in_LA]

15. +1

[MineralMan]

27. Yes. It will be interesting to see the results of a

proper, controlled experiment.

[gvstn]

62. Might be interesting

For the girls to redo their experiment switching rooms. They then could either verify results or study how the two rooms effected their experiment. A plus for everyone.

I also am interested in the Karolinska Institute's results. Thanks for the link!

[Thor_MN]

153. That would be good, but they would also need the person watering the plants not know

which room had the routers and which did not. By knowing which plants you expect to die, you can unconsciously treat them differently. In a properly designed experiment, human bias is removed or controlled.

[Buzz Clik]

66. I promise you that the plants growing next to the router will not be dead ...

... nor dying nor sick.

If a difference emerges between control and "router" plants, the difference will be small and barely statistically significant, if at all.

I seriously doubt we'll see anything emerge from this.

[stevenleser]

11. Definitely deserving of more research. Good on the girls regardless of eventual outcome. nt

[Nye Bevan]

12. "If they slept with their mobile phones near their heads at night".....

they were more likely to stay up until 3 AM texting, Tweeting, and doing Facebook. This is probably a more likely explanation for "having difficulty concentrating at school the next day" than the phones' radiation affecting their brains.

[penultimate]

16. Exactly.

[mac56]

26. ^THIS^

Or at the very least, they kept waking themselves up to check if OMG SMONE TXTD ME.

[surrealAmerican]

55. ... or it didn't entirely wake them ...

... but none the less disrupted their sleep sequence.

"Alert" sounds can trigger a reaction even when they don't fully reach you on a conscious level.

[hughee99]

144. This was my immediate thought.

When my daughter used to take her phone to bed, I'd find her hours later playing on it. When we wouldn't let her do that anymore, she'd fall asleep at a reasonable hour.

[MNBrewer]

17. Woooooooo

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/missing-turtle-survives-in-storage-room-for-30-years

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. Not sure what the turtle story has to do with this one,

but it was widely reported by many news outlets - I remember reading about it on several web sites. As far as I can tell "Mother Nature Network" is simply an aggregator of news stories about nature that have been reported elsewhere and not, as you seem to suggest, a purveyor of "woo."

[MNBrewer]

48. Uh huh.

[Apophis]

51. ABC news isn't known for their science.

If this was posted in Science Direct or in a scientific journal, I'd take notice.

[SidDithers]

69. Who needs prisonplanet anymore? Who needs mercola, or naturalnews?...

We've got General Discussion, for all your woo and conspiracy theory needs!



Sid

[etherealtruth]

76. GD has certainly become a showcase for Wooo

[IdaBriggs]

83. See reply #82. Same answer. nt

[etherealtruth]

87. See post #49 / flawed science = wooo (a polite term)

[IdaBriggs]

92. Hmm. Judges at a regional science competition or you?

Who should I trust for an informed opinion?

Decisions, decisions.

[etherealtruth]

95. The kids did a magnificent job for K-I-D-S

They deserve a lot of praise for their efforts ... as KIDS. They certainly are worthy of their win.

"a neuroscience professor at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, is interested in repeating the experiment in controlled professional scientific environments." Quite an accolade for the kids.


This thread renews my faith in DU ... most responses are in mocking disapproval of Wooo and in favor of true scientific method. It appears the vast majority of respondents had no trouble making a decision.

[IdaBriggs]

108. So why the automatic assumption of "woo" (which is insulting to the kids)

Instead of praise for their achievement and/or reasonable curiosity about further results?

Calling something "woo" dismisses it as unworthy of investigation, which is annoying when one posts an article that discusses how an unexpected discovery from an unlikely source has been substantiated enough to merit further scientific investigation.

The close minded ness is simply astounding.

[etherealtruth]

110. The WOOOO label was not asigned to the kids

[IdaBriggs]

111. Since the topic is the kids and their achievement, please clarify.

Apparently I am misunderstanding, and if you were not attempting to be dismissive and insulting, then I owe you an apology.

[MNBrewer]

117. Is this a single trial study?

Did the girls come in on the weekend to monitor their seed trays? No methodology is presented.

Given what I know of biology, I call "woo" until further data are provided to convince me otherwise.

[IdaBriggs]

147. It is the results of a regional science fair that is generating international interest

And further study. There is no "woo". No long term conclusions have been drawn. The experiment is repeatable, and will be repeated/analyzed.

[MNBrewer]

158. The title of this thread is Woo

[uppityperson]

102. See post #87

someone had to write it

[etherealtruth]

105. LOL

[IdaBriggs]

82. For goodness sake - get off the "woo" train.

It is a nice story.

"The experiment earned the girls (pictured below) top honors in a regional science competition and the interest of scientists around the world."

One would like to believe the adults involved in a regional science competition held in a first world country can tell the difference between "woo" and a legitimate entry.

[REP]

101. Andrew Wakefield

One would like to believe ... and some would like to believe damn near anything.

[IdaBriggs]

109. I just finished watching a Mazda commercial that made more sense.

It discussed how Courage, Creativity and Conviction changed the game, and focused on

-- Olympic gold medal winner Dick Fosbury, who set the new standard for high-jump technique “the Fosbury Flop,”

-- surfer Laird Hamilton, who introduced the tow-in surfing technique, and

-- inventor Thomas Edison (lightbulb and over 1,000 patents)

Then I came back to your reply, and can only shake my head in awe at those who believe that all the discoveries have already been made.

[REP]

114. Ah. Commercials make sense to you. Understood.

Zoom zoom. Don't think, just buy. 30-seconds or less; pretty pictures, emotional tugs, buy buy buy.

I understand you perfectly now.

Heh.

[IdaBriggs]

116. Wow. Just...wow.

Edison = zoom zoom.

Sometimes there is no point in continuing a conversation. Thank you for sharing that moment with me.

[KittyWampus]

118. Ida- for a lot of DU'ers it's not about conversation but proving ones intellectual superiority.

[IdaBriggs]

142. Do you think they notice the "epic fail" that they keep coming up with?

The stupid hurts. Sigh.

[cleanhippie]

164. And for others it's not about understanding another's point, but proving one's ignorance.

[REP]

125. Enjoy the go!

Notice you didn't respond to my results of exposing orchids to wifi routers.

I'm Lovin' It!

[IdaBriggs]

145. Did you win a regional science contest and I missed it?

Your orchids are pretty pictures having not a lot of anything to do with sprouting garden cress over a two week period.

Some people smoke and never get cancer. Some people drink and don't become alcoholics. Some animals can handle pesticides in the environment and some have problems because of them.

The world is a complex place. I admire these young people and look forward to learning more.

Your orchids are pretty, but your logic is lacking. Honestly, you remind me of the opponents of Semmelweis with your lack of curiosity and assumptions of superiority.

You really haven't contributed anything worthwhile to the discussion, but you've kicked the thread a few times, so thanks for that.

Bye.

[winter is coming]

122. "can only shake my head in awe at those who believe that all the discoveries have already been made"

Seriously? Someone alludes to Wakefield, whose self-serving BS has impacted public health, and that's your response?

All the discoveries have not been made, but science experiments must have reproducible results. I will be astounded if the "experiment" alluded to in the OP yields reproducible results.

[IdaBriggs]

143. Edison. Fosbury. Hamilton.

Go read #112.

[hobbit709]

19. We had to constantly cut the weeds growing around the 50KW transmitter antennas.

[NutmegYankee]

22. I grew seedlings in a room with wi-fi with no problem.

There must be another variable.

[kelliekat44]

23. Here is a real life experiment that proved to be the cause of dying plants in my home.

As soon as my gas kitchen stove was replaced by an electric stove and oven my plants thrived and my little corner greenhouse turned into a jungle that needed pruning. Turns out that the little bit of gas escaping from the stove pilots and just before the burners lit was enough to stunt growth of,and in some cases, kill my plants...except for my aloe plant.

[GoneFishin]

24. No need to debate. The test will be refined and run by others and the truth will out.

One way or the other.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. Exactly.

No point in jumping to conclusions one way or the other until the scientists have done their jobs.

In the meantime I'm putting my router outside near a patch of stubborn buckthorn.

[JackN415]

25. I'm skeptical.. the statistics is way too much for not to be observed long ago. My bet is that it...

will be debunked. And if any effects, will be likely small.

[gulliver]

28. Power lines too.

Have you ever noticed that wherever there are power lines, the trees and brush nearby always seem to disappear? The grass is even shorter.

[Buzz Clik]

38. LOL!

Smart ass.

[wercal]

42. Some say its really humans

But no human can cut the brush that perfectly...that's a lesson I learned from crop circles.

[MNBrewer]

89. The longest grass in my yard is always right underneath the power lines

that bring electricity into my house. No septic tank, and the sewer line goes out the other side of the house.

[uppityperson]

103. And driveways. Grass is low along driveways and tree trunks are rarely by them also.

[Thor_MN]

154. I was amazed last summer. I went to work one morning, came home and all the trees along the power

line lost branches. Completely disappeared, vaporized. Any branches with 30 feet of the power or phone lines just vanished.

I immediately decided to not sleep within 50 feet of the power line, as it seemed prudent to avoid that area, plus a margin of safety.

I can't prove it, but I think the power lines also vaporized all the orange trucks that were in the neighborhood that morning as well... They were gone when I came home, too.

[snot]

29. The issue for me is, why have we allowed these technologies to proliferate

without meaningful, independent testing?

[jeff47]

56. For two reasons

First, the physics of RF are well understood. We know what happens when a photon hits an atom. RF photons don't have enough energy to trigger a chemical reaction. If they did, visible light would be utterly devastating - it has much more energy than RF.

Second, there was meaningful, independent testing. But that doesn't prevent people from claiming all sorts of effects from cell phone RF. The odd part is the effects are only present if they are aware of the cell phone's presence. And they suffer the same effects if the cell phone is off.

If RF could slaughter plants, Radio and TV would have completely deforested the US - they're literally millions of times stronger signals than a cell phone. A cell phone puts out 0.1-1W. Radio and TV stations put out megawatts.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

30. OK I'm going to put some plants next to the router

I will let you know tif there are any effects

[Gin]

34. My cell phone instruction book advised not to waer next to body......its a prepaid samsung.....

Imo we are harming ourselves with these phones always near us....or on us


IMHO

[Ms. Toad]

43. There are some studies which show a correlation

with an increased number of acoustic neuromas, so cell phone manufacturers have started including warnings.

Correlation does not equal causation, but sometimes correlation points to additional research that may be needed to figure out why there is a correlation.

One of the interesting things is that in at least one study, the tumors were in the opposite ear from the one used for the cell phone.

If I had a child (who would be likely to have decades of cell phone use) who liked to gab on the phone for all hours of the day, I would suggest using a land line for most of that. It is a simple precaution to take - costs nothing but convenience - and who knows what we will find out about the correlation.

But more broadly - I'm not concerned at all about any of the moderate cell phone use by anyone in our family.

[marions ghost]

70. I had a cousin

--an oncologist & surgeon--who developed one of the most common brain cancers which eventually killed him. He was convinced that his constant use of cell phones triggered the cancer.

[uppityperson]

104. I had a cousin who never used a cell phone, died of brain cancer at 50. Didn't use cordless phones

either.

[marions ghost]

113. 50-50 chance then

thanks for the snark

[uppityperson]

135. I know a lot of people who use cell phones but don't have brain cancer. I haven't seen reputable

studies proving causation. If there are some, I would love to see them. I miss my cousin. He was a wonderful person and loved by many. Sorry about your cousin too.

[marions ghost]

160. The reason we don't have such definitive studies

yet is because we need to follow people over a long period of time. Funding for health-related research is being cut everywhere. We need to study the younger <guinea pig> generation to see what happens to them in 10-20 years.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/prweb/article/Cell-Phones-and-Brain-Cancer-Group-Warns-RF-4199992.php

As long as this topic is being studied and debated, it's probably wise to be careful. Obviously there is a big investment in this technology and the younger generations (exposed all their lives) are the guinea pigs. Is there really any consumer protection in America? It's all about what can be litigated, and what can't.

Take the case of HRT--hormone replacement therapy--once pushed as completely safe. Now on the official list of "Known carcinogens" along with benzenes, asbestos, tobacco, etc.

So if you want to hear the "don't worry, be happy" business line of thinking, fine. But just realize that we don't really know.

[Ms. Toad]

152. I am convinced that my daughter's MMR vaccination is related to her development of IBD

That doesn't necessarily make it so - even though there is a strong correlation between the two.

It may be the case, or it may be that the MMR vaccination was the trigger which - combined with a susceptibility to IBD - made it manifest itself, or it may be completely unrelated. Bottom line we need more research to know for sure. Until then, it costs little more than convenience to minimize the use of cell phones so there is little reason not to if it concerns you.

[marions ghost]

159. Yes we need more research

http://www.sfgate.com/business/prweb/article/Cell-Phones-and-Brain-Cancer-Group-Warns-RF-4199992.php

As long as this is being studied and debated, it's probably wise to be careful. As you say, there may be effects. There may not. Until long term studies following younger generations can be done, we won't really know. Obviously there is a big investment in this technology and the generation exposed all their lives are the guinea pigs. Is there really any consumer protection in America? It's all about what can be litigated, and what can't.

Take the case of HRT--hormone replacement therapy--once pushed as completely safe. Now on the official list of "Known carcinogens" along with benzenes, asbestos, tobacco, etc.

I'm just agreeing with you that caution is probably the best course for now.

[kiva]

35. Bwwwaaahhaaaa! Kudzu, thy hour is nigh!!!!

[Ms. Toad]

41. Oooh - good thought! n/t

[Kablooie]

36. They better kill the plans to add wifi to the Amazon forest.

[Ms. Toad]

40. Hmm...sounds a lot like this microwaved water test

http://www.snopes.com/science/microwave/plants.asp

This one was actually touted by some pseudo-scientist my daughter went to hear (since she is desperately seeking ways to fix the very real things that ail her). Fortunately, I had already heard of the "experiment" and was completely astounded that someone with an actual degree in science or medicine (don't recall which) was actually promoting it), but able to quickly correct any inclination she had to believing anything else he said without verifying it with another reliable source.

[Junkdrawer]

45. If you wrap your router in aluminum foil....

Sorry...Sorry...Sorry...

[backscatter712]

91. A lot of people boost wifi range by making little antenna dishes out of tinfoil.

Oh wait, that makes a unidirectional antenna into a directional antenna, so that actually works.

[Junkdrawer]

93. (most) Everyone is waiting for better science. (most) Everyone is applauding...

the students pluck.

If anything, I was preempting the obvious Gaussian-Cage-from-Foil comment.

You know, from the I-Know-Science-and-You-Don't (tm) crowd.

[etherealtruth]

96. The KIDS absolutely rock

They deserve praise and accolades for their efforts.

[madokie]

47. I just realized my wife has a whole shit pot of flowers

not 3 feet from my wireless router. right outside the wall, wood framed vinyl siding so there is nothing stopping the wifi. She had plants there every summer as long as I've had a wireless router. They all seem to be doing fine I might add.

[arcane1]

49. Is today National Flawed Study Day or something?

Facebook is crawling with them this morning. I've "learned" so much!

[Gore1FL]

50. This is silly. I have a WiFi router in my bedroom

and pizza band aid squirrel.

[IdaBriggs]

64. ^== Best. Reply. Ever.

Took me a minute, then

[JimDandy]

151. Haa ha! n/t

[Loudestlib]

52. It's good that they are sparking an interest in science in children.

From the testing that has been done, there just isn't enough energy coming from cell phones to cause any problems. The light from their cell phones at night is know to cause problems sleeping. It's too bad that they didn't try keeping the cell phone in the room but not looking at it an hour or so before bedtime.

[cherokeeprogressive]

54. Maybe they should put the plants a little closer to the window.

Just thinkin' out loud here... LOL.

[surrealAmerican]

57. Are we supposed to just assume ...

... that the temperature, light, and humidity were the same in the two rooms?

[MineralMan]

60. You're expected to assume all sorts of things

that weren't specified in this experiment. Don't question the results. Acceptance is truth. Clear your mind and let the truthiness enter.

[SCVDem]

59. This is a job for...

The Mythbusters!

[FlaGranny]

61. Great that these

girls conducted a "scientific" experiment or that they even thought of it. Good on them. I'm sure that they did their best with what they had. I doubt they had the wherewithal to carry out the experiment correctly, but they tried and should be praised for their efforts and mostly for their thought processes that allowed them to come up with the idea.

[Lex]

65. I had a tray of seedlings die that weren't near a wireless router.

Now what?

[Buzz Clik]

67. The results are clear: it was you. You're toxic.

Sorry, but you've gotta go.

[Lex]

68. Science is harsh. nt

[Buzz Clik]

71. You wouldn't want to live in a world without WiFi.

[Gormy Cuss]

77. They would have died sooner had they been near the router.

Plant them again and surround the tray with tinfoil just to be safe.

[pasto76]

72. yeah this doesnt come close to qualifying as an 'experiement'

at best an exercise in experimental methods.

folks please, dont jump at everything that pops up like this. real scientific results will be peer reviewed and wont be published on a blog

what stands out to me is that word "blatant". My dollar is that the girls went into this with a prejudice, and the plants placed near the wifi suffered for it.

[IdaBriggs]

73. Out of curiosity, did you click on the link to see the photos?

"Blatantly different" is an accurate description of the photos.

NOTE: I make no claims as to anything else about this entry into their science fair, although I have to assume the adults around them probably addressed some of the issues being raised in this thread.

[etherealtruth]

98. The kids did a terrific job for kids

Very worthy of a science fair (or the like) win. If this was a thread simply saying it is great to see kids engaged and (roughly) following scientific method, I would think it was a great thread celebrating the young.

The danger comes from accepting the results as valid.

[MNBrewer]

120. It IS lovely Science Fair fare

It is NOT something that the scientific establishment (and I use the term loosely given who was cited in some of the articles as being interested in continuing the research) should be getting all up in arms about.

The reporting on this is insufficient to support the girls' (apparent?) interpretation that it was Wifi that caused the problem.

[bvar22]

78. Kudos to these kids!

This experiment is easy to repeat.
I would like to see the results from several thousand.

[Initech]

81. Why don't they just put toilet water on them?

[backscatter712]

88. What? Water from the toilet? We use Brawndo!

It's got the electrolytes that plants crave!

[JimDandy]

85. Monsanto will

now buy up every wi-fi router to elimimate their competition.

[Cerridwen]

112. And everyone responds according to their bias.

Those who can't be bothered to click links ask questions answered at the link.

Those who dismiss anything "out of hand" as "woo" based simplistically on the source, can't be bothered to drill down to the source of the article and instead lazily note the "woo" of the OP's linked article. BTW, to the OP, please do us all a favor and do your own "drill down" to the original article.

Those who are sure that science hasn't changed since high school, make note that this is not part of their "learned" (and outdated) science canon. Like high school football players reliving their glory days on the field, these people stuck in their "glory days" of science geek assure us that "everyone knows," "if God had meant man to fly He would have given him wings!"

Those who think knowledge is the domain of those above the age of ?? make note that "children" are incapable of "doing good science."

Those who think only "experts" are capable of intelligent thought and critical thinking use various forms of appeals to authority to note children/amateurs/not "scientists" can't possibly perform scientific research.

All miss that this experiment received international attention by....*gasp* experts in the field who will be taking this research to the next level.

Fortunately, many of the rest of us take knowledge where we find it; understand that "peer reviewed" included the Lancet who promoted andrew wakefield's less than, er, rigorous "science"; question the status-quo, yep, even in science; and appreciate those who would look beyond the accepted "wisdom" of, well, damned near anything, and question what "is" to ask, "what is possible?"


edit for grammar

[IdaBriggs]

115. And there is nothing I can add.

Excellent post that sums up the entire thread (and sometimes DU) brilliantly.

Thank you.

[Harmony Blue]

119. There is no such thing as "safe"

just like there is no such thing as "clean coal".

We are finding out that even microwaves have the ability to effect the electric potential of cell membranes. What we used to categorize as harmless is not so as we learn more!

[Honeycombe8]

132. It's always been known that microwaves are harmful, hasn't it? Signs...

are placed in public places that warn "microwaves in use on premises" and such. It's minimally harmful, but people can still be affected by microwaves, and it's advisable for pregnant women not to stand within a certain # of feet of them, I think. I'll have to look that up.

The danger in microwaves is mainly in the cumulative effect...mammograms, sunlight, microwaves, etc. A lifetime of radiation exposure, and there's no surprise that a lot of people get cancer in their older years.

Cell phones, I thought it had been shown, are known to affect the brain because you're placing the thing right up to your head at the brain. That's what makes it dangerous. It's also recommended, I read, that men not keep cell phones in their front pockets.

[William Seger]

146. There is no known way that microwaves can cause cancer

All things that are known to cause cancer (i.e. certain chemicals, certain viruses, and certain radiation) do so by damaging DNA. X-rays can cause cancer because they can damage DNA by knocking electrons out of molecules, allowing the atoms to recombine as different molecules. But that "photoelectric" effect requires electromagnetic photons with a certain minimum amount of energy, which was the subject of one of Einstein's famous 1905 papers that laid the foundation of quantum mechanics. Ultraviolet light photons have that minimum necessary energy, which is why sunlight can also cause cancer and why "sunblocker" actually blocks ultraviolet. Photons with less energy than ultraviolet light (i.e. visible light on down through infrared, microwaves and radio waves) are called non-ionizing radiation because they do not have enough energy to ionize a molecule by knocking out an electron. It isn't a cumulative effect: A single photon with the required energy can cause an atom to emit an electron, but no number of photons with less energy can do so.

The reason that most scientists do not believe that microwaves can cause cancer is because ultraviolet photons have about 600,000 to 1,000,000 times more energy than microwave photons.

The only know effect that microwaves have on humans is that it heats water molecules, but heating from a cell phone would be immeasurably slight and completely swamped by other sources of heat.

[thesquanderer]

161. Interesting post, thanks

Do you have any links to sources of info (for "The only known effect that microwaves have on humans is that it heats water molecules" etc.)? I'd like to show this info to someone in a more authoritative way then "some guy on DU said..."

[William Seger]

163. Physicist Bob Parks

... (U. of MD professor emeritus, American Physical Society Fellow) writes a weekly newsletter called What's New which frequently discusses the subject -- typically, right after the latest study showing no link between cell phones and cancer. He wrote a frequently quoted editorial for the February 7, 2001, issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute:

All known cancer-inducing agents—including radiation, certain chemicals, and a few viruses—act by breaking chemical bonds, producing mutant strands of DNA. Electromagnetic radiation is absorbed by molecules as discrete packets of energy called “photons.” The energy of a photon is determined by the wavelength; the shorter the wavelength, the higher the energy. Not until the ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum is reached, beyond visible light, beyond infrared and far, far beyond microwaves, do photons have sufficient energy to break chemical bonds. It's a little like trying to hit an object across a river with a stone. Even if your aim is poor, you might expect to hit the target now and then if you throw enough stones. But it won't matter how many stones you throw if you can't throw that far. Microwave photons heat tissue, but they do not come close to the energy needed to break chemical bonds, no matter how intense the radiation.

There's more info and other sources in the Sceptic's Dictionary entry for EMF and EMR.

[MNBrewer]

121. I looked at the link

And found others, and none of them added sufficient information to convince me that this is anything more than a single trial "study". That's not even enough to work the bugs out of an experimental system, much less draw conclusions.

Good for teaching the methodology of science. Good scientific interpretation? Hard to tell given the paucity of information.

[Cerridwen]

123. "given the paucity of information."..."

"...given the paucity of information...."Hard to tell..."

Yet you commented as though you had sufficient information to make a determination.

Your "weren't convinced" other than you were convinced it wasn't enough.

I'd make a more coherent reply if you could provide a more coherent justification for applying "woo" to the source you didn't appear to look beyond. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022903656#post17 Your initial reply.

[MNBrewer]

124. Based on the available information

the conclusion that Wifi had anything to do with the outcome is Woo.

[Cerridwen]

126. "Woo"? Or doesn't hold with your

knowledge of science as you learned...?

Did you know that the theory that something called bacteria might cause disease was dismissed as impossible since it wasn't possible for something that "couldn't be seen" to be the cause of...anything...was quite absurd.

I wish I had the assuredness of the uninformed to completely dismiss something that doesn't fit with my world view; I truly do. I don't. I have knowledge of profits distorting scientific research and its outcomes; politics and ideology doing the same; self-interested and self-promoting "scientists" and snake-oil salesmen doing the same; and on and on.

Did you know that a woman's uterus would "atrophy" if she acquired knowledge from higher education? 19th Century "science" used to hold back women.

I wish I had the luxury to be as sanguine as you as to what is valid and what isn't. I have the misfortune of being knowledgeable about some of human history and how "religion", politics, and "science" have been used to justify the most horrendous of actions, events, and social engineering in our human history.

Nothing is as simple as it looks and nothing is acceptable as presented. Then there are all the places called the "middle" that exist within the spectrum.

[MNBrewer]

127. Yeah, my 1994 Ph.D. from the University of California Berkeley is about to be made worthless

by a 1 trial science fair experiment in Denmark.

[Cerridwen]

130. Was two-dimensional thinking taught in your discipline

or did you come by it naturally?

Who said that this experiment debunked or proved anything? I noted it attracted international attention and it would be "taken to the next level" by "experts" in the field(s)?

Shall I tell you about the Ph.D with whom I worked and didn't know how to use a 3-hole punch? Or the one who said that travel to Canada from the US wasn't international travel because Canada uses the dollar? Or the dentist who had a degree but hadn't stayed current with contemporary research into dental treatment? Or the cardiovascular surgeon who couldn't find his way around his own house without a "map, a flashlight, and a guide dog" according to his son? The OB/GYN surgeon who had a contest with another OB/GYN to complete the woman's hysterectomy first or the "loser" paid the greens fees? How about the "climate scientists" who argue that there is no global warming?

Unless you've stayed current in your field of study and can prove it by your posting history, don't pull you're "I'm a Ph.D. on the internet" crap and expect me to be impressed. All I've seen from you in this thread is a resistance to anything that challenges your world view as "learned" 19 years ago as you received a "Ph.D." in????

[MNBrewer]

134. Ouch, got me!

Oh MAN that smarts!

Kidding. My field of study was fungal evolution, so if you can tell me how "keeping current" on it would or would not bear on my ability to evaluate this scientific discussion, I'd be impressed.

[Cerridwen]

137. The discussion was "woo" as defined

by "experts" who can't be bothered to click links or read the associated links and who would dismiss anything that questions/challenges their world view of accepted science, i.e., biases and who subsequently, make judgement calls based on that limited and unquestioned world view.

I would note that you keeping current through the past 19 years of research into disease, DNA, evolution, brain physiology, human physiology, viruses, fungii, as well as the gradual awareness that human physiology is an interconnected system and not a bunch of closed systems and separate functions (and so on and so forth) might inform your view of science and would be part of your staying current in your field of study. Or, you could just dismiss anything that you didn't learn 19 years ago as woo in order to feel better that your field of knowledge is "finished" and "complete".

[MNBrewer]

138. Well, again, I clicked the links

I went beyond that also. I even looked at the poster presented by the students. They did some excellent work toward controlling for variables, such as mixing bags of seed to avoid batch to batch variation.

However, it remains a single trial experiment where temperature and seed hydration were not well monitored or controlled. I imagine February in Denmark involves a lot of dry indoor air, especially in a computer equipment room, don't you?

But, go ahead, woo away!

[Cerridwen]

140. I'd ask you to point to the woo

in my post; but I'm off to watch some movies. Two dimensional thinkers and spin exhaust me. It's why I left politics. Republicans are just fucking draining.

[MNBrewer]

141. If you can't see it

given your ability to think N-multidimensionally, then there's no hope for you.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

128. It's an eighth-grade science project.

As such it's neither "woo" nor established scientific fact. If some actual scientists do the experiment under properly controlled conditions and nothing happens, we'll know the science project was useful only as an educational experience for some teenagers. If the scientists can duplicate their results we'll know it's not "woo." So as far as I'm concerned, until the experiment is repeated, it's just a science project.

[MNBrewer]

129. The Danish students may not have "woo-ed" but DU sure has

[IdaBriggs]

149. Quit making sense, dammit!

Don't you know this is a thread for the enlightened among us to scoff and sneer at the "woo" instead of being impressed by the cleverness of 9th grade students who figured out how to do an interesting science experiment which is now getting attention from experts internationally?

Why, this thread just proves the majority of DUers believe aliens make crop circles and that prayer makes people feel better and such.

Why do you hate America?

[Thor_MN]

155. The woo is the presumptive theory that non-ionizing radiation could have an effect on living matter.

The woo is the fear of the unknown. Good idea to test it, rather than just promote fear. Decent job of designing an experiment, for kids, but most likely flawed in execution. The kids worked towards promoting the woo to the level of science.

[winter is coming]

165. +1. It's one thing to observe that plants didn't grow in the wi-fi room

and another to assume that the non-growth was due to the wi-fi.

[Honeycombe8]

131. Wow. Glad my wireless router is in another room & I don't use cell ph. much.

I totally believe that. It makes sense and jives with the increased cancer rates by heavy useage cell ph users (at least I think that's what I read).

[LisaL]

133. I don't believe it at all.

Even if something were harmful to humans, it is not necessarily harmful to plants. For instance, plants in Chernobyl are growing up just fine.

[Gravitycollapse]

136. We are bathed by radiowaves every second of our lives. Most of them are not from humans.

But, you know, go ahead and base your decisions off student science fairs. Sound like a great plan.

[Cerridwen]

139. Yep.

And we're exposed to the sun everyday and it's just a natural part of human existence and is of no concern.

Tobacco doesn't cause any problems either as "researched" by all them "scientists" in the tobacco fields.

Hell, aspirin is just the active ingredient of willow bark. Concentrated and in a dose not found in nature but, hell, ain't no concern unless it make your gut bleed.

And the sun and exposure to it, well obviously some people are just "too sensitive" and "insist" on getting some form of cancer.

Or, wait, radiation. It's all around us! It's natural. Just because we can concentrate and direct it and magnify in such a way that it can cause cellular disruption in seconds rather than decades...well, that's just because we're more evolved; technologically speaking.

It's not the substance; it's the dose that'll kill ya. Or, "it's the dose that makes the poison". ~Paracelsus

[Gravitycollapse]

166. Get back to me when those living next to broadcast towers become ill

Or demonstrate any ill effects. Because the intensity of those radio waves greatly exceeds that of any WiFi system.

But that would require you to have at least a fundamental understanding of electromagnetic radiation. Which I assume is not the case.

[tblue37]

150. Maybe they can't concentrate the next day because like

many teenagers, they keep their phones on and respond to calls and texts all night long. That actually has been documented as a cause of student sleepiness and failure to concentrate in school.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39917869/ns/health-childrens_health/t/lights-out-phones-many-teens-text-all-night-long/#.UaLn76mkURk

One girl in that article commented, "A text message going off in the middle of the night will wake me up and I will usually respond.”

Another said "she doesn't think if impacts how much sleep she gets 'unless someone sends me a message after I'm already asleep because it wakes me up <emphasis added>.' ”

[NoMoreWarNow]

156. reminds me of the high school science project where microwaved water

supposedly killed plants that were watered with it. Which makes no sense.

But some people really want to believe that shit.