Careful — the trees might fight back!
When officials in the town of Alphen aan den Rijn in the Netherlands began noticing unexplained abnormalities on trees, they were worried that the damage did not come from natural causes.
There were concerns that cracks, discoloration, tissue deterioration and other problems stemmed from radiation fueled by area Wi-Fi networks.
The town commissioned Wagenigen University to conduct a study to determine the source. The study concluded that radiation from Wi-Fi networks may have negatively impacted the health of nearby plants.
Ents!
I talk to the trees. But they don’t listen to me.
RTFA. From the article: “A repeat study did not determine the same conclusions. ”
So the town officials thought the problem was caused by WiFi, so they commissioned a study to confirm their conclusions, and the people they paid to perform the study agreed with them. What a shock.
Next thing you’ll be telling me is that environmental groups hired by Al Gore to study global warming have concluded that global warming is real, the science is in, and we must ban all CO2.
Did they look in the yellow pages under Arborist?
Commissioning a university study seems a bit excessive. Almost congressional.
#1 – just what I was thinking.
And I’ve been using an axe all this time.
#6: Not a good idea to use axes around Ents or Huorns.
I never liked trees anywhere…
ahem BULLSHIT!
You need to be a tree hugger operating on the same wavelength as the tree to understand.
Maybe this will cull the “Killer Trees” that Ronald Reagan warned the world about.
Why just WiFi networks? Don’t many things occupy the 2.4GHz range?
Hahahaha…
Stupidity. Fear it.
Radio can damage trees.
While deployed in Germany with a forward air control flight we used a 3MW radar system. We always had to be careful that the radiation didn’t radiate living things like people.
On one deployment we weren’t on the highest ground and there was a rise to one side with dense forest.
After 1 week we started noticing a swath of damage along the tree line about 2/3s of the way up the trees. The damage was caused by radio frequency radiation from our 3 mega watt radar system.
Again this was 3 million watts of energy.
I won’t believe for one second that WiFi puts out anywhere near enough power to do damage, even if a plant is in direct contact with the antenna.
Magnets, always with the magnets.
My palm trees could give a shit.
Many years ago I read that microwave ovens were serendipitously discovered by microwaves melting a Hershey bar.
Of course it’s all dose dependent. Stand in front of a plane with forward looking radar at high power and fried brain syndrome is likely.
I’ve hugged a few trees. I like/love trees but that doesn’t mean that I think my little network is doing the ones in the yard any harm.
At a guess they are getting a lot more exposure from the local stellar objects than they are from my unit: low power, limited range and aluminum siding.
How silly. I sit right next to my wifi radio all day long and it and it and it bothered me at all at all at all.
#18 deowll “I’ve hugged a few trees”
Remember, when it comes to knotholes, check for squirrels first.
Maybe it’s not the wifi radio itself, but the content of the packets. It’s the pr0n that’s killing the trees.
Total BS.
Those dang trees will encroach on our city if we let them. FIGHT BACK!
I’ve only hugged one tree. It was after drinking too much Moonshine.
Curious, we’ve had “Long Lines” microwave communication networks crisscrossing the US, for decades. And nobody ever notice anything bad happening to the forests. Of course, they all get burned up, or chopped down, on a regular bases. So perhaps all those accidental massive forest fires were just a Phone Company coverup.
More likely what this research means, is how easily it is to get a university to blame some new technology for ecological damage. In order to shift the blame away from much more entrenched and polluting, heavy industries.
Don’t forget that “may” means the same thing as “may not”.
Glenn #24 – Good idea. I’d like to commission a study that investigates if it isn’t really all the politicians blowing hot air that cause global warming … err … climate change.
#25 – Yes, Roddy6667. And I just like to further point out just how much more the main stream news media uses the terms “may” and “could”, in place of “does” and “will”. Particularly when it comes to “scientific” phenomena and studies. Usually as a “we’re-scaring-you-for-your-own-good” tacit. But “could” it be something else? Like making you forget about rivers, oceans, and soil pollution? And even most air pollutants, that aren’t causing any possible warming. Like all that sulfurous smog that China is cranking out. And all that extremely dirty diesel fuel that most large cargo ships burn thru. Ignore all that, and just worry about a fraction of a degree rise in global air temps. Or a centimeter rise in the ocean levels, in a century. WOW!
I’ve been saying, we need to ban or severely restrict wifi and cell phones. These are not proven to be safe, and perhaps they will kill off bees or trees, possibly extinguishing the human race.
Cell phones should be limited to emergency calling only. Use a secure landline for other phone calls.
Wifi should be enabled to work only for a limited range, not more and more powerful signals. Perhaps homes should be required to have jammers.
MikeN – FUD
“A repeat study did not determine the same conclusions.”
It’s a MIRACLE!! God has sent his sign! I’ll bet those diseased leaves and bark wounds show the face of Jesus if you look long enough and hard enough.
Jalla hoo ya!