|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
28th May 2013, 06:58 AM | #1 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven
Posts: 7,401
|
Wifi stunts plant growth?
This is all over Facebook among my friends right now. It seems somewhat plausible, but sells like BS given the breathless way its being reported.
Can WiFi Signals Stunt Plant Growth? A group of 9th grade students in Denmark sowed seeds in several trays and placed some trays in a room with no router and some in a room with to routers. The seeds in the router room for the sot part failed to germinate. The article linked above is one of the very few I could find that included this caveat:
Quote:
My first reaction: why not put them in the same room, right next to each other, with one set inside a simple faraday cage? |
__________________
I love you and I vote. |
|
28th May 2013, 07:16 AM | #2 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
Different seed packets, different watering regimes, light, temperature and other things could affect the outcome.
But it's a very simple experiment to get right, so pro results shouldn't take long. I predict "no difference" and that the schoolkids messed up somehow. |
28th May 2013, 07:31 AM | #3 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
This kind of thing has indeed been being measured and studied for ages. Some of it with plants... if you include the power line debate which is where all this electric fields cause cancer/headaches/unhappy plants thing began it's been being studied since the early 60s with a heck of a lot of research money thrown at it. Then there were mobile phones of course...
The only health impact coming from non-ionizing radiation that I'm aware of seems to be a weak correlation with childhood leukaemia. Whether that is an artifact, or real, I don't know. |
28th May 2013, 07:35 AM | #4 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
By the way. Do they give any indication as to why they think it is the wifi that is at fault. They stuck the seeds next to two routers, yes? Won't that have an impact on temperature, huimidity, airflow etc...? Maybe the routers just dried out the seeds?
|
28th May 2013, 07:40 AM | #5 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
Incidentally, Olle Johanssen isn't just some random scientist. He's been involved in this for decades. He get's mentioned as being inveloved in the decision to recognize electrosensitivity as a disability in sweden.
|
28th May 2013, 07:50 AM | #6 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
Childhood leukemia is that it is 5 cases per 100.000 a rare disease. Count that high power line usually are not going thru very dense populated area when aerial, or are buried middle of the street, and you get actually quite low population going thru. So a difference of 1 case may give huge increase in rate. So at the moment it is more a "we don't know".
|
28th May 2013, 07:51 AM | #7 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
This (slightly amateurish) study looked at microwaving of seeds, water and soil on germination rate etc.
They did find that microwaving seeds dropped the germination rate from very high (15s exposure) to zero (4 mins exposure), but the seeds were actually placed in a microwave oven. Basically, it seems, they sterilised the seeds with the heat of the microwave with the longer exposure. |
28th May 2013, 07:54 AM | #8 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven
Posts: 7,401
|
Right - thats why I would have put the in the same room and protected one with a faraday cage. Too many variables from possible environmental differences in the two rooms.
Interesting. I wonder if he had any hand in suggesting the experiment to the school teacher? |
__________________
I love you and I vote. |
|
28th May 2013, 07:57 AM | #9 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
|
28th May 2013, 10:25 AM | #10 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,208
|
|
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen" |
|
28th May 2013, 10:46 AM | #11 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Charleston
Posts: 5,426
|
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): http://www.dr.dk/NR/rdonlyres/075641..._mobilstra.pdf http://www.dr.dk/NR/rdonlyres/075641...13.pdf 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. |
28th May 2013, 01:21 PM | #12 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven
Posts: 7,401
|
Yes, on some level I want to give them a pass because they are school girls. But by grade 9 they should know better. Then again, part of the broader scientific process is peer review. As others, I trust when scientists repeat the experiment with proper controls they'll find no material difference. The girls will be shown to have made fundamental mistakes. That should be a great learning experience for them and a proper introduction to real science.
Yeah, I noticed that in the links you posted. Surely some reporter doctored the images for better effect. Its sad, but not unexpected. |
__________________
I love you and I vote. |
|
28th May 2013, 02:47 PM | #13 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,909
|
Did they really try to grow something in a server room? Because there are so many things wrong with a server room that wifi radiation is the least of your worries. Just the noise vibration alone can make some people feel ill and then you have the temperature, too cold if done correctly and too hot if there's a problem. Add in lack of light, dry air and unusual airflow and you've got a horrible place for a little plant to try to grow.
|
__________________
A quick reminder to all participants that although incomprehensibility is not against the Membership Agreement, incivility is. Please try and remember this, and keep your exchanges polite and respectful. -arthwollipot |
|
28th May 2013, 03:20 PM | #14 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 252
|
No, whatever gave you that idea? Apparently the two batches of seeds were set on the window sill in different but similar class rooms with windows facing the same direction (south). In one of them three computers and two wifi transmitters were placed in proximity of the seeds. The computers were used to create constant wifi traffic between the routers.
The seeds were from 12 different batches, mixed together so they all should have the same growth potential. They were watered at the same time with identical amounts of water. The temperature in the two rooms was kept the same by an electronic regulator. Seriously, folks. Read the report before condemning it. Sure, the controls could have been better, and there should have been blinding applied, but the experiment was not set up as badly as people here want to think. |
28th May 2013, 03:46 PM | #15 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,909
|
Woot, I managed to finally con a summary out of somebody! Yay!
|
__________________
A quick reminder to all participants that although incomprehensibility is not against the Membership Agreement, incivility is. Please try and remember this, and keep your exchanges polite and respectful. -arthwollipot |
|
28th May 2013, 05:22 PM | #16 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven
Posts: 7,401
|
Its, um, in Dutch. I can read the letters and sound out the words phonetically, buts its still gibberish to me.
While they tried to control temps, I very much doubt they controlled humidity with two routers and two PCs running 24/7. I also doubt they controlled temps as well as they think they did. Or air circulation. Honestly, why they thought they had to put the samples in completely separate rooms is beyond me. It introduces too many variables they cannot control. |
__________________
I love you and I vote. |
|
28th May 2013, 08:05 PM | #17 |
The Jester
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,763
|
|
__________________
As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of resolving approaches zero. -Vaarsuvius It's a rum state of affairs when you feel like punching a jar of mayonnaise in the face. -Charlie Brooker |
|
28th May 2013, 11:32 PM | #18 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 252
|
OK, so you have lots of ideas on what the girls did wrong, while having no idea what their report actually says? Brilliant skepticism that.
This is probably true, however the air volume in a typical class room is large enough for it to be only very slightly affected by the equipment used. Because they wanted to avoid stray radiation from the experiment affecting the control and would/could not build suitable shielding? |
29th May 2013, 12:38 AM | #19 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,582
|
FWIW here is a picture of my parlour palm which lives near our wireless router. As you can see it's a pretty pathetic specimen.
Although its failure to thrive could be related to its proximity to the router, I feel it's more likely that it's because I don't water it as often as I could and because my cat likes to om-nom it (before barfing up the pieces on my office carpet). |
29th May 2013, 06:57 AM | #20 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven
Posts: 7,401
|
Oops, yes. Common mistake for we rubes in NC. I'm still confused that Holland is two provinces within Holland that is also the European portion of The Netherlands. Denmark just gets lumped in by virtue of proximity.
This all reminds me of a lively philosophical discussion with my then 12 year old several years ago: "Dad, who owns Greenland?" |
__________________
I love you and I vote. |
|
29th May 2013, 07:19 AM | #21 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven
Posts: 7,401
|
Not at all, but thanks for the breathless misreporting. What I have is what is being reported in various news sources in my native language. They give an overview of the protocol and that overview is enough to see major flaws.
That all depends on air circulation, proximity of the samples to the equipment, and the location of the thermometer, doesn't it? Or, have you never noticed how much warmer that one corner of your office is because the PC and router are sitting there, even though the middle of the room feels the same as the rest of the building? Yeah, this is the problem for me. A little metal window screen and five minutes work would do it. They are testing RF radiation from a router and don't know about this? And they are in a science class? As mentioned earlier, a few minutes thought would have given them an easy way to test their original hypothesis about cell phones and sleep. Faraday bags on the phones (and non-faraday bags that look the same, as a control). But, I guess that is too easy and too obvious. |
__________________
I love you and I vote. |
|
29th May 2013, 09:55 AM | #22 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Charleston
Posts: 5,426
|
|
29th May 2013, 10:05 AM | #23 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven
Posts: 7,401
|
|
__________________
I love you and I vote. |
|
29th May 2013, 10:33 AM | #24 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 252
|
Hypothesis: WiFi radiation does affect plant growth. Right?
As explained in the report, several computers were used to make sure the routers saw constant traffic. Plenty of nice graphs and photos in the report. As well as okular inspection to determine growth, they weighted all the seeds afterwards to compare biomass. No mention of mutation in the report. Uh huh. The funkosity of popular press articles is at a high level as usual. And that would have been a trial easier to control, how exactly? |
29th May 2013, 03:31 PM | #25 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
Surely in one you are talking about the presence or absence of a phone (presumably switched on) while the subject is sleeping without making any particular claims about whether it's heat, signal, whatever... causing the problem.
In the other experiment, they aparantly want to test whether wifi stops seeds germinating. To do that the way they've done it, they need to control for any other effect the computers and routers may be having on the seeds other than wifi. Maybe the best way to do that would be to run the experiment again having disabled the wifi. Wouldn't it have been easier to put a phone in a bag and sleep next to it without knowing whether it was on or off? You could even do the traditional verification of making sure the effect you are looking for is there with the experiment unblinded, and then blinding the experiment. |
29th May 2013, 03:41 PM | #26 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
There's also the issue, isn't there that it seems kind of unlikely that the signal coming off the back of a router would cause the effects claimed...? I'm sure kids do worse experiments in school science classes all the time demonstrating well established effects. The problem is applying the same methodology to an effect that may be hard to detect/not exist/be muddled up in other effects.
By the way, is there any indication of how some school science project made it into the newspapers? Also, did the kids really notice that they couldn't pay attention after sleeping next to their phones? I've never noticed that and I sleep near/next to my phone off and on. Is this a class of electrosensitives? If I was their teacher, I'd wonder whether it was because they wouldn't put their phones down to go to sleep. |
29th May 2013, 03:55 PM | #27 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
Reading further, I see their experiment took them to the final of some science competition, perhaps leading to the initial attention.
|
29th May 2013, 04:12 PM | #28 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Charleston
Posts: 5,426
|
Is that stated in their paper? It'd be a rather weak hypothesis as it contains no reasoning. Can you translate that part of the report for us?
Were the computers doing anything to generate traffic? Were students using them?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
8th June 2013, 07:36 PM | #29 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 145
|
Since I am a gardener, and have sprouted seeds using a heat-mat, I assumed I might find some instances where people may have used their warm WiFi router box for a heat source.
Bingo.
Quote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/...11/03/31/7398/
Quote:
Out of fairness of course, just finding some images on the web is not very scientific either, as these sprouts could have performed badly. So I won't claim this is "proof" of anything, except that seeds are sprouted on top of wifi boxes, by people who like to post photos on the web.. |
__________________
"Whatever." =Buddha= |
|
13th April 2017, 10:25 AM | #30 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,943
|
|
__________________
-- August Pamplona |
|
13th April 2017, 10:28 AM | #31 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,943
|
|
__________________
-- August Pamplona |
|
14th April 2017, 04:46 AM | #32 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 117
|
|
14th April 2017, 11:28 AM | #33 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven
Posts: 7,401
|
|
__________________
I love you and I vote. |
|
14th April 2017, 01:09 PM | #34 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 117
|
|
14th April 2017, 06:59 PM | #35 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12,511
|
How could they know if they were asleep?
ETA: OK, old thread. I'm around a lot of teenagers and I guarantee you that cell phones affect their ability to concentrate. Same with adults. Also, it would be hard to pry the cell phones out of their hands for a control group. Can you even get a phone now that isn't a smart phone? |
14th April 2017, 07:09 PM | #36 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
Pilot study, needs to be repeated. I'm going to hypothesize the results will not be repeatable.
Oh fudge, who's digging around in the necro-thread file? This is the second one tonight. |
14th April 2017, 07:09 PM | #37 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
|
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
15th April 2017, 05:58 AM | #38 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
WiFi stunts plant growth?
WiFi plant growth stunt. |
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
15th April 2017, 06:17 AM | #39 |
Up The Irons
Tagger
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 34,458
|
Excuse me, I believe the "correct" term is wee-fee demons.
|
__________________
i loves the little birdies they goes tweet tweet tweet hee hee i loves them they sings to each other tweet twet tweet hee hee i loves them they is so cute i love yje little birdies little birdies in the room when birfies sings ther is no gloom i lobes the little birdies they goess tweet tweet tweet hee hee hee i loves them they sings me to sleep sing me to slrrp now little birdies - The wisdom of Shemp. |
|
15th April 2017, 08:11 AM | #40 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,795
|
In my experience plant growth stunts wifi.
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|