Smart Meter Experiment by Blond Girl Students Proves WI-FI is dangerous - Now YOU do the experiment.

If wifi poses danger then be it. Life has to make nessecery adjustments, mutate to withstand and whatnot.

I know, wifi causes high blood sugar level. How do I know you ask? Over a decade in IT near 2.4GHz radiation and as a result high sugar levels. There scientific conclusion LOL)))

On a serious note, astronauts in space absorb hell knows what radiation that is more hurmfull than plain weak wifi radio signal and these people live normal life from now on.

Moon walkers are still alive. Hardly costumes they worn were absolutely safe.

ps Yeah, plants grow in space too.


new smile faces suck by the way)

darkorange
I know, wifi causes high blood sugar level. How do I know you ask? Over a decade in IT near 2.4GHz radiation and as a result high sugar levels. There scientific conclusion LOL)))

That proves it. I ate mexican food today, and then I sat in front of my Wi-Fi linked computer and read this thread, and got indigestion. However my co-worker used his ethernet-linked computer after lunch and felt fine.

Another successful experiment! Unless it was the burrito....he had the fajita. But I know it was the wi-fi cause beckybecky said so, and she is no shill for big drug like the rest of us.

This experiment needs to be repeated, but I need a blond to help me cause I got this dark hair and just ain't that smart ya know. Wanna go to lunch tomorrow?

I bought cotton wool and cress seeds just like the original experiment used and am looking at repeating the setup just as unscientifically, to prove absolutely nothing, but I'm concerned - I don't have blonde hair, so won't my results be suspect no matter what?

reply to post by opopanax


Yes they most certainly will. but peroxide can get you the color you need, and will kill enough brain cells to equalize the IQ to those with the more natural hair coloring.

And you better hope the seeds by the wi-fi die, or most certainly it will prove once and for all you are a big-wig shill taking all that big drug money and killing the poor for profit and giggles.

reply to post by lakesidepark

I don't know, I think I'd look pretty awful as a blonde...

Anyway, I plan to set up four plates, each with 400 garden cress (Lepidium sativum) seeds sown in cotton wool and watered with 274 grams of water, exactly as in the original experiment. I will water each plate every day with the same amount of water. Each plate will be placed next to a window in a different room of my apartment (all that matters is that they're in different rooms, right?). One of the plates will be placed right next to my Wi-Fi router. The others will be in rooms without Wi-Fi routers. I give my word that I will not "mess with" any of the plates in any way (e.g. failing to water one, putting poison or Miracle-Gro on one). As per the original experiment, I will not control variables like temperature or humidity. I will photograph the plates each day. After 13 days, I will, like the 9th-graders, count the number of seeds that germinated on each plate.

Since the experiment will take me 13 days and I ordered the seeds online (from a well-established, reputable company), I won't have any results to share for a while, but I'll report back when I do.

opopanax
reply to post by beckybecky

 

A proper scientific experiment, conducted to test a hypothesis and yield results from which you can draw a sound conclusion, is completely different from just growing plants or farming (or inventing the wheel). I don't think you understand the concept of a scientific experiment, despite having it explained to you over and over. I'm very familiar with how to grow plants, and already have some growing in my apartment - the problem with doing this experiment properly is being able to control all of the variables except the one you are testing (in this case, proximity to Wi-Fi). I could replicate, to the best of my abilities, exactly what these 9th-graders did, but what you're missing is that it wouldn't constitute proof that Wi-Fi is dangerous or stunts plant growth.

If I came back after two weeks and showed you a single picture of a sparsely-covered plate of unhealthy-looking cress sprouts marked "away from Wi-Fi" and a densely-covered plate of healthy-looking cress sprouts marked "near Wi-Fi," would my "proof" convince you that Wi-Fi is not, in fact, dangerous, or that it even helps plants grow? It shouldn't...nor should the original experiment convince you that Wi-Fi is dangerous.

The world does have people like me. They are called scientists. You may not have noticed, but nowhere did I assert that I believe Wi-Fi is or is not ultimately dangerous or that it causes cancer in humans. You're acting like I have vehemently denied this point, supposedly to protect my (nonexistent) cronies who control the evil global Wi-Fi industry or something. I merely brought up the serious flaws that exist in the 9th-graders' experiment and pointed out that, because of these flaws, you cannot take their results as "proof" of anything. You can use their experiment as a starting point for further research, and I have no objection to doing so. I would very much like to see the results of a properly-conducted experiment that measures the effect of proximity to Wi-Fi on the growth of cress sprouts. Do you want to fund it?

I do live in, and love, the real world. It seems that you are the one living in a fantasy world, as you have - without knowing any personal information about me - concocted a ludicrously off-base story about me being some sort of evil corporate shill who has a stake in "industry profits," "rub[s] shoulders with billionaires," believes themselves to be "magically invincible" to cancer, has "greedy corporate pals," is just like a James Bond villain's henchman, etc.

By the way, if you really are just trolling here (a possibility I'm still holding out hope of), congratulations - you've been very convincing.

edit on 12/16/2013 by opopanax because: Grammar

Have you heard of THE LHC?

it collide particles together and discovered the god particle.

do you think they discovered the god particle on the first try.

no

they ran it thousands of times and after analysis of same said god particle exists with 95% certainty blsh,blah.

no in the case of plants its not rocket science requiring billiions.its just some crummy seeds.

which need to be grown by large numbers either next to a router or not next to a router with other factors minimized.


www.youtube.com...

beckybecky

opopanax
reply to post by beckybecky

 

A proper scientific experiment, conducted to test a hypothesis and yield results from which you can draw a sound conclusion, is completely different from just growing plants or farming (or inventing the wheel). I don't think you understand the concept of a scientific experiment, despite having it explained to you over and over. I'm very familiar with how to grow plants, and already have some growing in my apartment - the problem with doing this experiment properly is being able to control all of the variables except the one you are testing (in this case, proximity to Wi-Fi). I could replicate, to the best of my abilities, exactly what these 9th-graders did, but what you're missing is that it wouldn't constitute proof that Wi-Fi is dangerous or stunts plant growth.

If I came back after two weeks and showed you a single picture of a sparsely-covered plate of unhealthy-looking cress sprouts marked "away from Wi-Fi" and a densely-covered plate of healthy-looking cress sprouts marked "near Wi-Fi," would my "proof" convince you that Wi-Fi is not, in fact, dangerous, or that it even helps plants grow? It shouldn't...nor should the original experiment convince you that Wi-Fi is dangerous.

The world does have people like me. They are called scientists. You may not have noticed, but nowhere did I assert that I believe Wi-Fi is or is not ultimately dangerous or that it causes cancer in humans. You're acting like I have vehemently denied this point, supposedly to protect my (nonexistent) cronies who control the evil global Wi-Fi industry or something. I merely brought up the serious flaws that exist in the 9th-graders' experiment and pointed out that, because of these flaws, you cannot take their results as "proof" of anything. You can use their experiment as a starting point for further research, and I have no objection to doing so. I would very much like to see the results of a properly-conducted experiment that measures the effect of proximity to Wi-Fi on the growth of cress sprouts. Do you want to fund it?

I do live in, and love, the real world. It seems that you are the one living in a fantasy world, as you have - without knowing any personal information about me - concocted a ludicrously off-base story about me being some sort of evil corporate shill who has a stake in "industry profits," "rub[s] shoulders with billionaires," believes themselves to be "magically invincible" to cancer, has "greedy corporate pals," is just like a James Bond villain's henchman, etc.

By the way, if you really are just trolling here (a possibility I'm still holding out hope of), congratulations - you've been very convincing.

edit on 12/16/2013 by opopanax because: Grammar

Have you heard of THE LHC?

it collide particles together and discovered the god particle.

do you think they discovered the god particle on the first try.

no

they ran it thousands of times and after analysis of same said god particle exists with 95% certainty blsh,blah.

no in the case of plants its not rocket science requiring billiions.its just some crummy seeds.

which need to be grown by large numbers either next to a router or not next to a router with other factors minimized.


www.youtube.com...

edit on 17-12-2013 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)

The discovery of the Higgs boson ("God particle" is a really awful nickname for it) is totally different from and irrelevant to the experiment we've been discussing. Higgs bosons are produced very rarely in particle collisions, so the physicists at the LHC needed to analyze the data from hundreds of trillions of collisions before they could come to a conclusion. If Wi-Fi is as dangerous as you claim, it should interfere with plant growth at a much higher frequency than one in ten billion times, shouldn't it? I'm trying to understand your point here. Are you saying that we should perform the same poorly-designed Wi-Fi/cress experiment over and over and over until we come up with a few instances where the cress near the Wi-Fi router didn't grow as well as the other group(s) and discard all of the instances where this wasn't the case?

You finally got close with your statement that "other factors" need to be "minimized," but you still don't seem to grasp what's wrong with the Wi-Fi/cress experiment. I'll try to break it down for you one more time. ONE of the major problems with the experiment is the lack of control of the extraneous variables - the factors other than the one being tested (proximity to a Wi-Fi router). Both groups of cress (near Wi-Fi and away from Wi-Fi) were placed on south-facing windowsills. They were watered with the same amount of water every day. That's good. However, here are some things we don't know:
- Did both groups get the same amount of light?
- Did both groups stay at the same temperature?
- Did both groups stay at the same humidity?
etc.

Assuming no one intentionally tampered with either of the groups or tried to skew the results, which isn't out of the question, there are still a number of factors that could have been different between the two groups. These factors could have been responsible for the disparity in growth between the groups. Since the extraneous variables weren't controlled, we can't take the results as proof that proximity to Wi-Fi was the variable responsible for this disparity in growth.

reply to post by beckybecky

The LHC is one of the most controlled experiments in existence.

And they ran it thousands of times with - no success finding ANY god particle.

It took SERIOUS CONTROLS to make it successful. The LHC, may I say, is probably the MOST CONTROLLED experiment ever conducted by man!

Now maybe a pile of crummy seeds doesn't need the SERIOUS CONTROLS necessary to grow, or otherwise NONE OF US would even know a cress plant exists. We would have to spend billions, and grow billions of seeds, before we would have discovered the FIRST CRESS PLANT. But, some controls are necessary (amount of light, water, temperature, wind, etc.) or the results are essentially meaningless

Thats the point he is making that you are not getting.

Opapanex is trying the experiment, with the same parameters (barely none) and with two additional controls (three plates non-exposed to one exposed). You should be HAPPY.

But if he comes back in a month and reports that the wi-fi plants are alive and one plate of control is dead, please don't discredit yourself AGAIN by calling him a shill.

Thats the point I am making that you are not getting - repeatedly. And I have conducted MY experiment many times, with almost the exact same results, right down to the false citation about prescription deaths! Always called a shill, accused of hob-nobbing with the drug industry, making wild analogies with absolutely no grain of research, and other such crap.

FYI (and OFF-TOPIC - make a new thread to discuss) most sources state 100,000 deaths to adverse prescription drug reactions!!!! If you are gonna attack do YOUR research and get the numbers RIGHT, as this shows you are really not interested in the TRUTH but only a 'position'. HERE is a crappy discredited source you can parrot for that new number. You can update your signature with that new figure if you wish - please credit me thanks.

In MY experiment, I have also observed the controls (other posters) many times, and the results are always the SAME (these results are recorded in the OP previous postings if anyone wants to review the results of my experimentation). If people disagree with a premise you post, they are forever labeled a shill.

Since that was the desired result of MY experiment, and I have proven it is measurable (shill to the pharma industry, 24000 prescription drug deaths, etc.) and repeatable (she always says the same things to attack) my experiment is deemed a success. Anyone can repeat it as they wish, its good for laughs as it always works.

lakesidepark
reply to post by beckybecky

 

The LHC is one of the most controlled experiments in existence.

And they ran it thousands of times with - no success finding ANY god particle.

It took SERIOUS CONTROLS to make it successful. The LHC, may I say, is probably the MOST CONTROLLED experiment ever conducted by man!

Now maybe a pile of crummy seeds doesn't need the SERIOUS CONTROLS necessary to grow, or otherwise NONE OF US would even know a cress plant exists. We would have to spend billions, and grow billions of seeds, before we would have discovered the FIRST CRESS PLANT. But, some controls are necessary (amount of light, water, temperature, wind, etc.) or the results are essentially meaningless

Thats the point he is making that you are not getting.

Opapanex is trying the experiment, with the same parameters (barely none) and with two additional controls (three plates non-exposed to one exposed). You should be HAPPY.

But if he comes back in a month and reports that the wi-fi plants are alive and one plate of control is dead, please don't discredit yourself AGAIN by calling him a shill.

Thats the point I am making that you are not getting - repeatedly. And I have conducted MY experiment many times, with almost the exact same results, right down to the false citation about prescription deaths! Always called a shill, accused of hob-nobbing with the drug industry, making wild analogies with absolutely no grain of research, and other such crap.

FYI (and OFF-TOPIC - make a new thread to discuss) most sources state 100,000 deaths to adverse prescription drug reactions!!!! If you are gonna attack do YOUR research and get the numbers RIGHT, as this shows you are really not interested in the TRUTH but only a 'position'. HERE is a crappy discredited source you can parrot for that new number. You can update your signature with that new figure if you wish - please credit me thanks.

In MY experiment, I have also observed the controls (other posters) many times, and the results are always the SAME (these results are recorded in the OP previous postings if anyone wants to review the results of my experimentation). If people disagree with a premise you post, they are forever labeled a shill.

Since that was the desired result of MY experiment, and I have proven it is measurable (shill to the pharma industry, 24000 prescription drug deaths, etc.) and repeatable (she always says the same things to attack) my experiment is deemed a success. Anyone can repeat it as they wish, its good for laughs as it always works.

edit on 17-12-2013 by lakesidepark because: (no reason given)

you simply the swap the rooms the router is in.this cancels other variables.

quite simple.

also you don't seem to understand different models of routers have different outputs.you can even set the power output from the control panel of the router.mine has low, medium and high.


you seem to dismiss 100000 deaths with a wave of your hand.would you care a little more if one of them was related to you?
or do you only care so much about money money money and protecting big pharma profits?

you do realize you cannot take the money with you when you die?

also you con only live in 1 house,swim in 1 swimming pool and drive 1 porche at a time.

look at that tom walker from the fast & furious.50 million in the bank yet a Porsche killed him because he though his money and fame made him invincible.

you do realize that for the person who dies from an ADR the death rate from ADR is 100%



in any case the true figure is thought to be nearer 240000 and is thought to be an underestimate with the real figure being nearer 700000.

why?

because not every ADR death is reported.it is voluntary.

also not every death has a post mortem done..

also if the person is weak and ADR kills him the the cause of death is dismissed as ""underlying health issues" which reduces the figure further and is never blamed on the ADR.

beckybecky
you simply the swap the rooms the router is in.this cancels other variables.

quite simple.

What does this even mean? How does putting the router in a different room cancel out the other variables? If you're talking about running the experiment multiple times with the router in different rooms, the variables like amount of light, temperature, and humidity could (and probably would) vary from experiment to experiment, given that the experiment lasts almost two weeks and we're talking about doing this in a home. You really need a more controlled environment, like a lab, in which you can ensure that all of the extraneous variables remain consistent between groups and the only difference between groups is proximity to a Wi-Fi router.

beckybecky
also you don't seem to understand different models of routers have different outputs.you can even set the power output from the control panel of the router.mine has low, medium and high.

It's odd to say that someone doesn't understand this issue when it hasn't yet been discussed here - unless I've missed it?

Also, the evils of Big Pharma is off-topic, unless you are now alleging a link between Big Pharma and Wi-Fi.

beckybecky
you seem to dismiss 100000 deaths with a wave of your hand.would you care a little more if one of them was related to you?
or do you only care so much about money money money and protecting big pharma profits?

you do realize you cannot take the money with you when you die?

also you con only live in 1 house,swim in 1 swimming pool and drive 1 porche at a time.

look at that tom walker from the fast & furious.50 million in the bank yet a Porsche killed him because he though his money and fame made him invincible.

See people, every time you try MY experiment (disagree with beckybecky) IT WORKS!!!!! Every SINGLE TIME!!!

Amazing!!! Controllable and repeatable!

FYI if you knew my income, and my credit score....and added that the value of all THREE of my cars is less than $3000.00...the best being an old Ford pickup....you would refrain from your ASININE statements about my 'porsche' and my millions of dollars!!!!

I assure you that when I die, there will be NO money left, only DEBT, and I am VERY thankful I don't take that with me!

Jury is still out about the effects of wi-fi on seed germination...but it is pretty obvious no enlightenment will come from the followups of beckybecky! This post was only an effort to shill for NATURAL NEWS, and NOTHING MORE.

Before accepting any posting from the OP as sincere, everyone needs to know and beckybecky needs to answer the following THREE QUESTIONS:

- how much money does NATURAL NEWS pay beckybecky to shill on the forums?

- how many kickbacks does beckybecky get when forum readers link to NATURAL NEWS from this site??

- how many swimming pools and Porsches has NATURAL NEWS bought beckybecky?

Only THEN can beckybecky credibly comment on the effects of wi-fi radiation on the germination and growth of cress seeds.

Until then, before a shill, now a shill, FOREVER a shill!

My router is right next to some plants They are doing alright, but they are a little dry. they need water, the dry air is sucking the moisture out of them.

beckybecky
also you don't seem to understand different models of routers have different outputs.you can even set the power output from the control panel of the router.mine has low, medium and high.

Yet another variable to be controlled.

abecedarian

beckybecky
also you don't seem to understand different models of routers have different outputs.you can even set the power output from the control panel of the router.mine has low, medium and high.

Yet another variable to be controlled.

Worse, it's really hard to tell if the router is actually sending much in the way of traffic. If it's not belting out packets to an endpoint, you don't know the transmission duty cycle. You'd have to generate a known traffic rate as well as choose an output level. It's not transmitting all the time.

reply to post by beckybecky


I actually have a repeater in my greenhouse, and my seeds dont have any issue germinating and growing into seedlings.

Bedlam

abecedarian

beckybecky
also you don't seem to understand different models of routers have different outputs.you can even set the power output from the control panel of the router.mine has low, medium and high.

Yet another variable to be controlled.

Worse, it's really hard to tell if the router is actually sending much in the way of traffic. If it's not belting out packets to an endpoint, you don't know the transmission duty cycle. You'd have to generate a known traffic rate as well as choose an output level. It's not transmitting all the time.

Very true.
There are beacons transmitted, broadcasting SSID but if there are no authentications and other traffic occurring, there's not a whole lot of energy being emitted.

SirMike
reply to post by beckybecky

 

I actually have a repeater in my greenhouse, and my seeds dont have any issue germinating and growing into seedlings.

My indoor "seed starter" area is less than 10 feet from my wifi router and I sprouted more than 8 tomato plants, 10 different chili pepper varieties including Bhut Jolokia, Habanero and Butch-T, 4 basil, 2 watermelon, various legumes and other plants without issue.

I had more problems with seeds started outdoors than those next to the router.

abecedarian

Bedlam

abecedarian

beckybecky
also you don't seem to understand different models of routers have different outputs.you can even set the power output from the control panel of the router.mine has low, medium and high.

Yet another variable to be controlled.

Worse, it's really hard to tell if the router is actually sending much in the way of traffic. If it's not belting out packets to an endpoint, you don't know the transmission duty cycle. You'd have to generate a known traffic rate as well as choose an output level. It's not transmitting all the time.

Very true.
There are beacons transmitted, broadcasting SSID but if there are no authentications and other traffic occurring, there's not a whole lot of energy being emitted.

That I believe is the MOST important control factor that must be considered, more so than proximity to the router!

The broadcast range of the wireless router (transmission signal power), as well as the amount of traffic / data transfer, and the hours of use vs. hours of idle time, will affect results significantly. The effects of most types of radiation are cumulative - and there is a threshold level that, if crossed, will afect living organisms to some degree depending on the hazard of the type of radiation exposure.

This test performed with a large-range router being used for dozens of computers handling huge quantities of data traffic will most undoubtably produce a different result (provided there is ANY effect - which has YET to be proven), than a low-range router used by ONE computer that remains idle thru most of the time period.

SO even if a hazard is proven repeatedly in one instance using a wi-fi router with large range, processing high data traffic 24/7, this factor MUST be considered, before one can reliably predict hazards by the common user of wi-fi routers in the home or small business.

Still don't know how a wi-fi router corresponds with the different wavelengths used by a smart meter transmitter!

I'm sure beckybecky can answer that one for us with her blond wisdom.

Wi-Fi aint the only thing that's dangerous to us. There's all kinds of stuff bombarding us from space, and it ain't comin' from the sun. There's a reason cancer is on the rise, and it has nothing to do with "second hand smoke". That, was just an excuse to rule over us; while they boost cigarette prices, now that people are addicted.

I took a look at our wireless router in our office and noted ANOTHER factor that could affect the germination of seeds. The router has two fans on the rear that exhaust some pretty hot air.

Any seeds placed there to germinate would be dried out, and any that sprouted would also rapidly be dried out, at a faster rate than those placed a distance away. So even if the 'room' is the same temperature, the area in proximity to a large air-cooled wireless router would be hotter and drier than the rest of the room.

So death of the seeds near the router could be nothing more than a drier, hotter enviroment, and not due to the wireless radiation. A hard-working wireless router would produce more radiation...but also more heat!

Unless this factor is controlled then the experiment will ALWAYS come out the same, but the cause would NOT be the radiation! Example of an EFFECT (dead seeds) being blamed on the wrong CAUSE (wi-fi radiation) simply because the same mistakes are REPEATED (exposure to HOT AIR - which is what I thought happened to me upon reading the opening post of this thread)

Just another factor to consider when validating any results of this experiment. It's a factor easily eliminated...unless ignored to produce desired results (as possibly done here).