Wireless internet makes trees sick.

reply to post by Northwarden


Sound modulated scent molecules.... Now theres something!

So being on ATS kills trees?

Sigh!
So hart less, just make fun of other life forms.
No wonder aliens will not help us.
We would not treat them as equals.
We would use then and abuse them.
Well look at what humans do to each other.
We need to respect ALL life.
Every thing that is alive should have respect.
Yes humans to.
When it is too late you will weep.

By me is a phone mast.
Lots of birds perch on it.
The tower will sterilise them.
And you will wonder why the birds are all dieing off.
All life on earth is dieing off.
You need to love each other.
And not the false love of Christians.
They just hope to get a big reword!

Um, even light is an electromagnetic wave. So unless you're suggesting blocking out sunlight, I don't think electromagnetic fields are bad for living things. Sun's UV rays are probably far more dangerous because they have higher frequencies.

Understanding of biology increased many times during past century. But still we are just at beginning of long path to some "holistic" understanding. Thanks to modus operandi of science it is almost impossible to grasp some bigger picture. I want to say that we now know appearance of many particular peaces but we do not fully understand there meaning in great puzzle.
Many animals use EM field of Earth for navigation, hence animals are sensitive to low frequency low intensity EM fields. Many people claim they are sensitive to EM pollution. For five years I worked under huge TV transmitter accompanied by many WiFi and other RF sources. There were also cell phone antennas some 25m from my workplace. There may be many other reasons but when I moved to other locality after those five years my overall health and mood increased sharply. I work as network admin so I quite often climb up roofs and see ground under cell phone base stations. It is often full of dead insect. I started to think about it and the resulting equation is pretty clear for me: RF EM fields even of low intensity have negative impact on life. Somebody called here for peer reviewed study so here is nice abstract:

Resting and grazing cattle and deer tend to align their body axes in the geomagnetic North-South direction. The mechanism(s) that underlie this behavior remain unknown. Here, we show that extremely low-frequency magnetic fields (ELFMFs) generated by high-voltage power lines disrupt alignment of the bodies of these animals with the geomagnetic field. Body orientation of cattle and roe deer was random on pastures under or near power lines. Moreover, cattle exposed to various magnetic fields directly beneath or in the vicinity of power lines trending in various magnetic directions exhibited distinct patterns of alignment. The disturbing effect of the ELFMFs on body alignment diminished with the distance from conductors. These findings constitute evidence for magnetic sensation in large mammals as well as evidence of an overt behavioral reaction to weak ELFMFs in vertebrates. The demonstrated reaction to weak ELFMFs implies effects at the cellular and molecular levels.

Whole study can be found here.

I'm aware that we are discussing different interval of EM spectrum but I just want to show debunkers that we are just starting to see some phenomenons - not explanations yet. So if somebody say that EM field in microwave interval merely heat water molecules and nothing more I'll not believe him even if he have 5 doctorates.

I just found another abstract:

OVERVIEW FOR THE LAYMAN - In this article the fact that the most common form of DNA ( B-DNA) is electrically conductive is used to show that viral, bacterial, and animal (human) DNA can be thought of and used as tuned "radio" antennas. For example by choosing the proper frequency of light to match a resonance frequency of the length of DNA in a virus, the oscillating electric field of the light can induce an electric current from the virus DNA ends (field emission). This field emission can damage the virus DNA end segments and surrounding protein structures and thereby make the virus non-infective. When considering human DNA gene sets as tuned antenna, specific frequencies in the microwave range can be used at relatively low power levels for short time intervals to open up specific gene sets. This allows for resetting of genetic age clocks (restoring telomeres on chromosome ends), reversal of some genetic defects, and total tissue repair (opening up some fetal gene sequences), even from traumatic damage such as amputations and brain and spinal cord damage.

Source.

Bottom note: argument of low intensity of EM pollution is not sufficient because we do not know long time (decades) effects. Also take into account that level of this pollution is increasing almost exponentially.

This site look like nice rabbit hole opening

reply to post by Mdv2


What is wrong with nature?
Why can't it keep up with mankind?
We will have to get rid of it.
Lord knows we are working on it.

While I accept that the very idea of Wi-Fi being dangerous for trees , rather puts everyone on edge for one reason or another (and by that I mean, either makes them angry because of the plight of trees, or for naysayers, angry because of the plight of ignorant people) I feel it might be prudent to remember something.
Neutrinos pass through our planet, and us, pretty often. The sun creates them, and fires them out toward us, and the cosmos shoots them from out of the void toward us , and in general, we are caught in constant intergallactic cross fire.
We are always being penetrated by one force, or another, or one kind of particle or another. It never stops. However, do not discount the possibility of Wi Fi damaging species other than ourselves. Sonar is pretty harmless to people in the main, but you ask a wale how much the invention of sonar and navigation has affected thier lives, and they will tell you to go copulate with yourself vigorously , with a cheese grater, before bottling you in the face (of course, they wont do that, lacking as they do the opposable thumbs required to carry out such an act, but Im sure you understand the sentiment?).
I suppose what I am getting at, is that there is no reason to assume that just because something is harmless to mankind, means its harmless to his environment, and the creatures and plants he shares territory with.

So scientists can confirm that wireless radiation is very harmful to plants yet sill they deny that it is harmful to humans. Does anyone else think that's fishy? It would seem impossible to me that humans, with all of our complexities, wouldn't be as effected if not more affected than plants.
If you look at the dramatic increase in the rate of autistic children being born it almost exactly parallels the increases in wireless radiation emissions and sources. It's easy to see why some think that there must be a link between the two. My question; If science did determine there to be a correlation between autism and wireless radiation,

Would we eliminate the sources of this radiation or would we continue to use them knowing and accepting the subsequent harm being done?

reply to post by TrueBrit


For sure natural environment is full of EM fields - magnetic field of Earth for example. Live evolved in this environment and had adapted to those specific fields. My previous post is example of this adaptation. But what happen to live, when new type of field is introduced into environment? Can we honestly say NOTHING? In my honest opinion NO. Again my previous post clearly show that introduction of artificial EM field into environment change behavior of animals. Do we know mechanisms of interaction of various EM fields and live on molecular and macromolecular level? Again one big NO. We just know that too much exposure to UV can start up cancer and that lack of same is cause of vitamin D3 deficiency. We do not have enough data and understanding to rule out all doubts.

This post is reaction to this part of your post "... because something is harmless to mankind ...". We just do not know if it is harmless to mankind.