This pisses me off to no end. A science experiment should follow the scientific method.
Step one, formulation of a question. They seem like they actually got this, "Does WiFi radiation effect plant growth".
Step two, hypothesis. Don't see this one anywhere.
Step three, prediction. Don't see this one anywhere either, but I'm going to assume they predicted that the radiation would be bad.
Step four, testing/experiment. They of course fail miserably when it comes to scientific controls here, the most blatant I think being that of blinding. And of course the experiment was not designed very well as two WiFi routers not doing any work will only emit radiation in short bursts separated by long intervals. Plus there are probably differences in the rooms, etc.
Step five, analysis. Oi, this is the one that is driving me the most insane. The only analysis they have is a picture of a tray in the control group that grew well, and a tray in the test group that didn't. What about the other 10 trays? Also, they are claiming that some seeds mutated? Really? How was that determined?
Gah, they even won an award for this? Scientific method is something that should be picked up well before year 9.
Hooray, I found their documents (but I can't read them):
The photos are on the second document, the heading is "Top: Cress exposed to microwave radiation. Bottom: Control group, the same growth conditions as test plants without microwave radiation."
Something funky is going on in the news articles, because while the photos of the "non-exposed" cress looks healthier in the linked pdf, the stark difference shown in news photos isn't there.
The most frustrating thing about all this, is that if they were actually empowered with the scientific method, they could test if sleeping near a cell phone effected their ability to concentrate.