FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Wi - Fi effect on trees!





rjraaz
Technology because of the environmental threats faced variety. Holland recently been discovered that a research be sent from person Waliean emails can also be the enemy of trees. Wi - Fi network to be via the communication tree - plant health affects. Showed that the trees were located near the most wireless router, were bending their branches and leaves were wither away. Indeed, this research Elfne aan den Rin Meean city was following a complaint by the parents, the schools were opposed to putting the wireless router. They say that when the wireless Hanrgoan tree - such a profound effect on plants, the children with them can not imagine the damage.

The research done by scientists at University Veaganinagan. According to him, 70 percent of trees in urban areas are showing similar symptoms, while only 10 per cent five years ago, such symptoms would come look at the trees. However, he says, just to confirm the results and research needs. Earlier in 2007 the BBC aired a documentary was informed that the Wi - Fi network mobile phone waves waves are three times more powerful. While this level 600 times lower than government safety standards.
Bondings
First of all, the study is not completed yet and the results will be published next year. The media have sensationally taken the preliminary results and seem to be making a huge drama about it.

In any case, other similar studies have shown no effects on trees and even if this study really shows effects, then it is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion that wifi or cell phone radiation has an effect on trees and other plants.
Cliffer
if Wi - Fi effect on trees, i can effect people health?
menino
I believe that wifi devices are used almost everywhere now, in most parts of the world.

I know that outdoor wireless devices have an effect on the human brain, and it is written in the manual as well... and 2 of my colleagues have gotten headaches,while the equipment was being tested and they were in front of them, while it was in operation.
Its probable that there might be some minor effect on the human body, but we will find out only when the test results are conclusive.
bukaida
Any kind of strong microwave radiation in injurious to living cells.Thats why the mobile towers in dense locality are extremely hazardus and is now banned in India. However the WiFi (IEEE 802.11b/g) operates in ISM band which is a radio wave. So theoreticaly, it should not affect any living cell.
mrjw
WI FI like a kind of Micorwave liking you r using yhe Micorwave near your Head,Please DO NOT TRY TO PUT AN EGG IN MIRCOWAVE .
Bikerman
bukaida wrote:
Any kind of strong microwave radiation in injurious to living cells.Thats why the mobile towers in dense locality are extremely hazardus and is now banned in India. However the WiFi (IEEE 802.11b/g) operates in ISM band which is a radio wave. So theoreticaly, it should not affect any living cell.

I don't get that - seems wrong to me.
(checks up)...Yep, thought so.
A kitchen microwave oven operates in the range of around 2450 MHz and the Industrial Medical Scientific band used for 802.11b is 2400 to 2483.5 MHz. That's not radio-waves, that's microwaves - smack in the middle of the frequencies used by domestic units. (There are several ISM bands but the one here is the 2.4 gig band).

Technically I think anything between 300 meg and 300 gig is defined as microwave.
pll
It's a new way of pollution and humans don't even know if this has an effect on them
Yep, before they got out with cell towers about 15 years ago there were studies that said that ''there is no direct effects of these microwaves on humans''.

But those studies didn't even know what the effects (and if there are effects) on long-term.
What will it be in 50 years ? What if those microwaves affects the way we grow up or the way our brain develops?
Maybe that in 50 years effects will start to appear and we don't even know what it will do on us.


My friend has bought a cell waves blocker from eBay, one day he tried it with me to see if my mobile would stop working, and yes it stopped working but when he started his cell blocker (which is also sending microwaves to block other ones) I started to have an headache and right when he stopped it my headache gone away.

Now I can even know when his cell blocker is on or off with my head we did the test several times (I didn't know when he would stop it and I was still able to guess when it stopped).

Imagine what a cell tower can do.



It's really a new way of pollution but we can't see direct effects so we are not able to decide if it's dangerous or not.
Bikerman
Well this is putting it too strongly I feel.

Firstly it needs to be remembered that microwaves are all around us. Sunlight contains significant amounts of radiation in the microwave frequency range, and we are bathed in microwaves which are the remnants of the Big Bang - turn on a TV set, detune it and there you see the effects of microwaves.

Secondly it needs to be remembered that microwaves are actually less energetic than, say, infra-red. You do much more damage to yourself with a few minutes in the sun than you do from using a mobile.

Thirdly, you say that the cell-blocker had a physiological effect on you. I would like to test that before I accept it, since placebo can be a very powerful effect as well.
Get your friend to hide his cell blocker in a room and run some experiments. Leave it switched on half the time, and switched off the other half. You then enter the room and say whether it is on or off. If you score less than 65% then it is almost certainly placebo.
Bondings
Bikerman wrote:
Secondly it needs to be remembered that microwaves are actually less energetic than, say, infra-red. You do much more damage to yourself with a few minutes in the sun than you do from using a mobile.

I don't agree with this statement.

What you imply is that radiation from the sun does more damage than radiation from microwaves. You mention infra-red radiation, which is (just like microwaves) low-energetic non-ionizing radiation which normally only causes heating in your body. Unless you get a lot of the radiation in a very short time and concentrated, both those types of radiation should be harmless (at least at the current scientific knowledge).

The sun does indeed a lot more damage, but that's due ultraviolet light, especially the ionizing radiation may cause cancer. On the other hand, the ultraviolet light close to the ionizing radiation is useful for vitamin D creation (it is able to excite electrons) and photosynthesis.

However, if you assume that non-ionizing radiation may have an effect other than heating, then theoretically it could have a bigger impact than radiation from the sun. It could even be lethal. Of course, all the evidence and scientific knowledge points otherwise, but different radiation has different effects and simply saying it is less energetic radiation or simply less radiation is only a (very strong) indication that it is less harmful, but not 100%.

By the way, you mention using a mobile, not just radiation. Using a mobile has a lot of risks. First there is the heating of your head due to the mobile being pressed against your head (in a lot of cases) and due to the heating of the battery. The small radiation should not be able to have an effect unless you have use a very small scale. However the battery may explode (this actually happens, but very infrequently luckily). If you use your phone for an affair, you run the risk of your wife/husband finding out and causing you harm (including killing you). And if you use it while driving, you have a lot of risk into causing an accident. So I'm not sure if it is indeed less harmful than the radiation of the sun.
Bikerman
You are quite correct. I meant to type ultraviolet and it came out at the other end of the visible spectrum.
The point is well made - microwave (and infra-red) radiation is non-ionising so it can't knock electrons out of orbit and change the chemistry of the cell. What it does, in simplified terms, is cause vibration in certain molecules - generally those which have two atoms attached to a central other atom (H2O and CO2 being the obvious examples) - by causing the two attached atoms to 'vibrate' - like a sound hitting the resonance frequency of a glass and making it wobble.

(This is also why CO2 and H2O are greenhouse gasses).

There is some research which shows that non-ionising radiation has an effect on the cell-membranes - particularly altering the permeability.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4070542
As regards mobiles and radiation - there is a small heating effect but that would not concern me for adults so much - it WOULD concern me for younger children because their skulls are much thinner and they are still 'mobile' in the sense that the skull plates have not 'fused'.

In general terms we could measure the things you mention and compare with premature death from skin cancer - I'm betting the latter 'wins'.... Smile
bukaida
Bikerman wrote:
bukaida wrote:
Any kind of strong microwave radiation in injurious to living cells.Thats why the mobile towers in dense locality are extremely hazardus and is now banned in India. However the WiFi (IEEE 802.11b/g) operates in ISM band which is a radio wave. So theoreticaly, it should not affect any living cell.

I don't get that - seems wrong to me.
(checks up)...Yep, thought so.
A kitchen microwave oven operates in the range of around 2450 MHz and the Industrial Medical Scientific band used for 802.11b is 2400 to 2483.5 MHz. That's not radio-waves, that's microwaves - smack in the middle of the frequencies used by domestic units. (There are several ISM bands but the one here is the 2.4 gig band).

Technically I think anything between 300 meg and 300 gig is defined as microwave.


Actualy frequency is not the correct parameter to differentiate between wave spectrums.It is the characteristics of the waves ( Like omni/uni direction, penetrating capacity through walls, propagation type(ground/sky/line of sight, etc)which makes the difference.The lower band of one spectrum always overlaps with the upper band of the spectrum immediately below it.

As for the microwave ovens, they operate by means of low power magnetrons (700 Watt to 1000 watt usualy) which is not very harmful to human being (I will not say it good either Very Happy ).
Bikerman
bukaida wrote:
Actualy frequency is not the correct parameter to differentiate between wave spectrums.It is the characteristics of the waves ( Like omni/uni direction, penetrating capacity through walls, propagation type(ground/sky/line of sight, etc)which makes the difference.The lower band of one spectrum always overlaps with the upper band of the spectrum immediately below it.
Obviously frequency IS the correct parameter to differentiate between 'waves spectrums' - it is the only parameter needed.
Penetrating capacity depends directly on wavelength and amplitude.
Quote:
As for the microwave ovens, they operate by means of low power magnetrons (700 Watt to 1000 watt usualy) which is not very harmful to human being (I will not say it good either Very Happy ).
It can be extremely harmful. The microwaves produced would quickly cause severe burns if they were applied to the human body.
Bondings
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
As for the microwave ovens, they operate by means of low power magnetrons (700 Watt to 1000 watt usualy) which is not very harmful to human being (I will not say it good either Very Happy ).
It can be extremely harmful. The microwaves produced would quickly cause severe burns if they were applied to the human body.

Are you sure about that? It takes quite a while to heat something in the microwave oven. I don't think it would cause severe burns unless you stay inside the microwave for a long time (like over a minute). A few seconds wouldn't cause any burns unless it's an industrial microwave with a lot more power than the ones at home. Putting your hand in the microwave for a few seconds would (by my knowledge) not cause any harm to you or your hand.

Radiation from the microwave would cause harm to humans even if you stay in the radiation for just a second. Not because of the burns, but because you would become blind. The delicate tissues in the eye would be destroyed, causing blindness.
Bikerman
Wiki wrote:
Significant injury with erythema, blisters, pain, nerve damage and tissue necrosis can occur even with exposures as short as 2-3 seconds. Due to the deep penetration of these frequencies, the skin may be minimally affected and show no signs of damage, while muscles, nerves, and blood vessels may be significantly damaged. Sensory nerves are particularly sensitive to such damage; cases of persistent neuritis and compression neuropathy were reported after significant microwave exposures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_burn
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1911632/pdf/bullnyacadmed00079-0059.pdf
bukaida
Bikerman wrote:
Obviously frequency IS the correct parameter to differentiate between 'waves spectrums' - it is the only parameter needed.


Please go through "Data Communications & Networking", fourth edition(ISBN-13: 978-0-07-063414-5),Chapter 7 article 7.2(Unguided Media:Wireless),page number 205 by Behrouz A Forouzan, published by McGraw-Hill which states--
Quote:
Although there is no clear-cut demarcation between radio waves and microwaves, electromagnetic waves ranging in frequencies between 3kHz and 1Ghz are normally called radio waves; waves ranging in frequencies between 1 and 300 Ghz are called microwaves.However, THE BEHAVIOR of the waves, RATHER THAN THE FREQUENCIES,is a better criterion for classification
. This is one of the primary text book of Networking for all the engineering courses across the world.
Bondings
Bikerman wrote:
Wiki wrote:
Significant injury with erythema, blisters, pain, nerve damage and tissue necrosis can occur even with exposures as short as 2-3 seconds. Due to the deep penetration of these frequencies, the skin may be minimally affected and show no signs of damage, while muscles, nerves, and blood vessels may be significantly damaged. Sensory nerves are particularly sensitive to such damage; cases of persistent neuritis and compression neuropathy were reported after significant microwave exposures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_burn
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1911632/pdf/bullnyacadmed00079-0059.pdf

Ok, I stand corrected. I read an article about it a few months ago, which was clearly wrong.
Bikerman
Well, I trawled the literature and there isn't a great deal on the subject - about half a dozen papers in total. I suppose that is testament to the safety of the modern microwave oven. Something pretty drastic has to go wrong for the oven to switch-on whilst the door is open, unless you really fiddle-around with the thing.
I certainly agree with the general point you are making - that microwave ovens aren't nearly as 'risky' as some of the less technically minded people keep saying they are. I have seen stories of cancer/leukaemia, degenerative illnesses of all sorts etc etc.
Bikerman
bukaida wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Obviously frequency IS the correct parameter to differentiate between 'waves spectrums' - it is the only parameter needed.


Please go through "Data Communications & Networking", fourth edition(ISBN-13: 978-0-07-063414-5),Chapter 7 article 7.2(Unguided Media:Wireless),page number 205 by Behrouz A Forouzan, published by McGraw-Hill which states--
Quote:
Although there is no clear-cut demarcation between radio waves and microwaves, electromagnetic waves ranging in frequencies between 3kHz and 1Ghz are normally called radio waves; waves ranging in frequencies between 1 and 300 Ghz are called microwaves.However, THE BEHAVIOR of the waves, RATHER THAN THE FREQUENCIES,is a better criterion for classification
. This is one of the primary text book of Networking for all the engineering courses across the world.
I have it on my bookshelf (computer networking was my 'specialist' area for my post-grad work), but mine is 3rd edition.
It doesn't change what I said. The only way to differentiate spectrum is frequency. If you ask me what part of the EM spectrum a particular photon is, all I need to know is the frequency to give the answer.
Of course there is overlap between what we call Radio waves and what we call Micro waves - that is because those are terms which are quite arbitrary and are meant to be used as general classifications rather than specific descriptors.
What the text is saying is that for a specific instance it is more meaningful to look at how that particular frequency and amplitude of wave behaves in the specific application.
Non of this changes the fact that 2.4 gig is microwave and not, in any possible classification, radio wave.
bukaida
A possible misunderstanding may be due to my poor english. I was talking in context of High frequency radio waves and low frequency microwaves.The behavior rather than the frequency is a better parameter to distinguish between them.

And obviously I never tried to classify a 2.4GHz signal as radio wave, my poor english again.

Actually I was thinking about bluetooth(which operates on radio wave) and loosely written them for Wi-fi. Thanks for correction.
Bikerman
No problem. Your English is pretty good for a second language, so I'd be the last to criticise.
gverutes
Even if the results aren't confirmed, that's still crazy that it may be a problem.
inuyasha
Cliffer wrote:
if Wi - Fi effect on trees, i can effect people health?

Ha. That's exactly what I thought of when I entered this post. After all, we are much closer to Wi-Fi adhocs than plants.
twotrophy
Almost everything humans do has an impact on the environment. Someone should invent a type of Wi-fi
technology that doesn't harm or reduces harm on trees and plants. If humans could invent environmentally friendly vehicles, why can't they make environmentally friendly Wi-fi devices?
sysna
So if wi-fi affects trees then it surely can affect us too, but it is good to see a research to compare wi-fi bluetooth and many other ways of wireless communication with the damage they can do to our health. i think wi-fi seems to be the safest one.
zaxacongrejo
why wifi? just watch this, and as been always here

inoshi
zaxacongrejo wrote:
why wifi? just watch this, and as been always here


Yeah no kidding! As long as you know about it, and have permission I suppose. I find this interesting, as it shows an abundance or overflow of useful energy being put to good use.

Thanks for this.

Inoshi
spinout
My Wi fi router is not as strong as the cell phone. The router just have enough strength to service my house with internet, also it is a dual freq to work with.

So what this is about is the even this shitty wifi signal strength is making my plants respond to it?

Of course a wider bandwith signal can transmitt more info than a lower in the same time but the significant to the environment is the power. Or, hm, a higher bandwith signal can transmitt more info with less energy would be the correct statement! sorry for that blunder. Anyhow, I know the level of tolerance of radiation is different betweeen countries! We (Sweden) have half or less tolerance as compared to the US. So i think the study is important!

Have anyone read white line fever? The motorhead frontman biography... They had some devices making audio that did low n high frequencies so the audience shit their pants, litterally! So of course waves can influence us in our BEHAVIOUR! Cell phone users more stressed than others???

Hm, the cell blocker thing as a placebo? Well placebo is the GOOD effect in a non working pills, not a bad experience in general. A bad experience from nothing is called another thing Smile
descent_of_man
As an interesting side note, there has been some recent research into the use of WiFi to "see through" walls, kind of like radar. If you do an internet search for wifi to see through walls or something like that, you should see several articles.
In light of the thread, I am wondering if it would be possible to detect things in say, a forest, with multiple trunks of varying size and thickness.
windhw
Oh.... WIFI is harmful to human beings can I understand as this??? Sad
Nyasro
Obviously if wifi affects tree then we all people are being affected by wifi
Ankhanu
Nyasro wrote:
Obviously if wifi affects tree then we all people are being affected by wifi

Explain.
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> Life

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.