Wi-Fi Is Safe For You And Your Plants
By Collin Maessen on comment
Lately there’s some strange claims doing the rounds on internet and in the media about students finding some adverse effects of Wi-Fi on plant development, cress in this case. It’s very strange that Wi-Fi affected the plants as studies show that Wi-Fi is safe as there’s just not enough energy available in the signal being sent. Which means that what the high school students observed isn’t due to the Wi-Fi signal.
Still this didn’t stop the media spending too much attention on this. And of course pseudo-science websites like Natural News used it (archived here) to bolster their unsupported claims that Wi-Fi is dangerous. Lets start with what Natural News says about the reason the student got interested in researching this:
The experiment began when the five students realized that they had difficulty concentrating in school if they slept near their mobile phones the previous night. Intrigued by this phenomenon, the students endeavored to study the effects of cellphone radiation on humans.
I have a very simple explanation for why they wouldn’t be able to concentrate well in school: they didn’t sleep as well with the phones in their bedrooms as without them.
The probably causes for why they didn’t sleep as well is why I also never have my mobile phone in my bedroom. Depending on the model you have and the settings you use a phone can make noises, you could hear the vibrate function, the screen could temporarily light up, or it has other light sources. All that can disturb you during your sleep or make it harder for you to fall asleep.
Another factor is that when you have your phone in your bedroom it is very tempting to use it while you should be sleeping. Looking at a bright screen will make it harder for you to fall asleep or will wake you further. All these points I just raised are far more likely causes for not being able to concentrate as well the next day. Which has nothing to do with the very weak Wi-Fi signal you phone receives and sends (more on this later).
However, I’m assuming that what the students experienced is a real phenomenon and not for example them thinking they can’t concentrate as well. The medical literature is filled with examples of people thinking they are affected by something when it’s just them thinking this. The effects can be real, but it’s caused by you thinking it has a bad effect on you (it’s the opposite of the placebo effect, it’s called the nocebo effect).
As this was a high shool experiment for a science fair the students didn’t have the resources to test if their concentration issue was due to the Wi-Fi signal. So they switched to using cress as their test subjects:
The girls placed six trays of Lepidium sativum seeds (a garden cress grown commercially throughout Europe) in a room without radiation, and an equal amount in a room next to two Wi-Fi routers. Over a 12-day period, they observed, measured, weighed and photographed the results. Even before the 12th day arrived, however, the end results were obvious: The cress seeds placed near the routers either hadn’t grown or were completely dead, while the seeds placed in the radiation-free room had blossomed into healthy plants.
Sounds dramatic, doesn’t it? The pictures certainly look dramatic:
But here’s someone else already noticed about how the experiment was conducted:
The WiFi and control group were not just different because of the presence of the routers. On the pictures in the report it can be seen that also the laptops in the WiFi group were placed quite near to the plates. It’s very likely that this had an effect on airflow and temperature around the plates and that could have an effect on germination, which has nothing to do with the presence of EM-fields.
Details like this can really affect how well and how fast cress germinates. He also points out another quite important detail from the report the students wrote:
The reports on blogs illustrated the difference in germination by photographs of plates with cress, one showing a full grown, not radiated, ‘healty’ one and a plate which almost doesn’t show any sprouted seed at all, a radiated, ‘sick’ plate. If you look at the actual reported results, they do not look that shocking: on average the control group had 332 sprouted seeds versus 252 in the WiFi group.
The article contains far more and I recommend reading it for a better understanding of the issues with the research the students did. But I’d like to add something else, the amount of energy involved.
A Wi-Fi signal is broadcast at 2.4GHz, consumer microwave ovens usually use a frequency of 2.45GHz to heat food (for simplicity I’m leaving out the 5GHz signal modern Wi-Fi equipment also can use). Most consumer grade Wi-Fi electronics usually don’t go beyond 1 to 3 Watts, that’s more than enough to do the job. With the right equipment you can already get a Wi-Fi signal 420 km (260 mi) with just 6 Watts. Your microwave works at hundreds of watts and that just heats your food. The only reason there’s shielding in your microwave is to prevent it from burning you.
That’s why you shouldn’t worry about the Wi-Fi signal in your homes. It’s harmless as it just doesn’t have the energy to harm you, which is exactly what scientists found when they studied this. One high school experiment doesn’t change the results from those robust studies.
Collin Maessen is the founder and editor of Real Skeptic and a proponent of scientific skepticism. For his content he uses the most up to date and best research as possible. Where necessary consulting or collaborating with scientists.
So one guy says its harmful, another says it’s not. Some people who use cellphones alot, get brain cancers, but apparently some prove its from the cell signals, others have evidence to prove its not. Listen Folks. These are people Opinions. [snip] And for every person who does a study to PROVE one thing, there will be 3 more PROVING it didn’t happen.
#1 Law of Nature: To much of ANY ONE THING, Is Never good. Even eating TO MUCH vegetables can be problematic.
So the Problem with humans is, the *new train* comes along with this new FAD and we all jump on and ride the hell out of it soaking up every second of our lives, Until the NEXT FAD comes along then we jump on that one and ride it like our lives depend on it.
Just stop the Cycle, Moderate things, a little of this, a little of that. have some common sense. and then use THIS as a rule of Thumb. *IF I died tomorrow , would having, getting this really matter at all??*
Chances are it wouldn’t, Unless its friends, family, food, shelter, and Love. So Focus on those things and stop getting sucked into every new fad that pops up for 24 hours.
What you’re railing against is the media jumping on research findings. They then either fail to properly report on it or report bad research. Which isn’t a problem with the available research, that’s a media problem. And it’s the available research that says that WiFi, or cellphones for that matter, are safe to use and to be around.
You stated that, “And it’s the available research that says that WiFi, or cellphones for that matter, are safe to use and to be around.” [snip]
And last but not least, perhaps, is a research paper from the National Center for Biotechnology Information website showing that plants, indeed are affected by EMFs at:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4769733/
[snip]
Yes, for humans it’s perfectly safe to be around. That’s what the literature shows us. The people who claim to be affected can’t even tell when they’re exposed. They show symptoms only when they think they’re being exposed. There’s very little evidence that hints at any problems and what we have shows it’s extremely low risk and very mild.
Also, that some plants can be affected by certain frequencies doesn’t change the point that this was a badly done experiment by the students. It’s also quite telling that an experiment set up by students is shared widely to argue WiFi is bad but the study you linked to isn’t.
That being said, it doesn’t mean that it has significant real life consequences. For example a cell phone exposes you to 0.19 mW/cm2 and the FCC has set a safe limit of 1mW/cm2. In the paper you’re citing they’re testing with values that are at least 10 times higher than the maximum limit set by the FCC. Often they’re testing exposures that are hundreds of times higher. That’s one hell of a difference.
My Reply is to Collin Maessen’s Reply above dated February 14th since the website does not appear to allow replies to him. [snip]
[snip]
You stated, “That being said, it doesn’t mean that it has significant real life consequences. For example a cell phone exposes you to 0.19 mW/cm2 and the FCC has set a safe limit of 1mW/cm2. In the paper you’re citing they’re testing with values that are at least 10 times higher than the maximum limit set by the FCC. Often they’re testing exposures that are hundreds of times higher. That’s one hell of a difference.” In the National Institutes of Health report that I included a link to, in one test, it says, “Ursache et al. [56] showed that exposure of maize seedlings to microwave (1 mW cm−2, 10.75 GHz) also caused a drop in chlorophyll a and b content.” Also, on the FCC’s website, is says, “The FCC limit for public exposure from cellular telephones is an SAR level of 1.6 watts per kilogram (1.6 W/kg).” They do not list a value of 1 mW/cm2. A problem with the FCC guideline is that it is heat based, not on whether it causes biological effects.
Yes, you can respond to me. What the site doesn’t allow is response comments when a certain nesting level is reached (you get an infinitely indent then). Simply respond to the comment I responded to in that case.
Also please note that I said “That being said, it doesn’t mean that it has significant real life consequences.” This is the important part. There’s a lot that can change biological processes but it doesn’t mean it is a significant effect or that it is automatically a negative effect. The research done in a lab doesn’t mean it has real world consequences. If it had a significant effect we would have already noticed it in field productivity (simply put the real world exposure doesn’t generate an obvious effect).
Now lets say for arguments sake that the effects are real, detrimental, and significant in the real world for maize. This then doesn’t automatically mean that it’s dangerous for humans. There research is very clear that so far there isn’t a link between Wi-Fi and cellphone radio wave exposure and adverse health effects.
Kudos to the students for trying.
Why kudos for trying? They started with an already wrong premise and then set up an incorrect experiment that ignored negative results and reported the findings that confirmed their suspicions. Somewhere during the experiment these students were doing someone should have intervened. But this didn’t happen and they got taken advantage of.
The above article is just opinion. Until the author attempts to replicate the experiment or heaven forbid, do the experiment in a repeatable scientific manner, that’s all this article is…. on opinion.
I’m a software engineer and work with these types of electronics constantly. There’s just not enough energy present in a consumer grade Wi-Fi signal to influence plants or humans. You need microwave level of transmission energy to have any detectable influence in the sense of heat on a plant or animal. That could certainly kill or hurt you depending on the amount of exposure, but that’s hundreds of Watts of energy and not the measly couple of Watts consumer grade Wi-Fi equipment emits.
This is what we already know from the literature and research into the influence of Wi-Fi usage. Besides, there are dozens of networks in residential areas; where I live there are almost 20 networks broadcasting a Wi-Fi signal. If Wi-Fi did what was claimed in that high school experiment we would have noticed the effects by now.
I’m not saying the argument is wrong but without experimental back up it just an option.
I would be interested in any links to papers you have that back up the argument though.
Sorry my spelling is terrible I meant without experimental back up its just an opinion.
No it isn’t just an opinion, a simple calculation of the energy involved tells you that there can’t be an effect. The WHO did a survey of the literature and they concluded based on it the following:
They only found an effect on body temperature in certain industrial fields where you can be exposed to high intensity fields. And that’s it, just a body temperature change of > 1 °C. No other adverse effects have ever been found.
They have more information and you can easily use that to learn more about the subject.
The WHO report says nothing about the effects on germinating cress. Also, as correct as Pepijn van Erp maybe in his analysis of school girl scientific prowess, he again has just highlighted the faults of the study but not actually carried out a corrected version of the study to provide proof for his opinion.
Let me be clear, I’m not saying the results are valid, just that the counter argument lacks scientific teeth. Its one thing to critique a study its quite another to prove your critique valid. Saying hand wavy things like “simple calculation” or “a literature review done by somebody else about something different says so” just aint enough.
And we’re done here. What the literature shows, and the WHO report, is that there isn’t enough energy in a Wi-Fi signal for it to have an effect. That’s what I meant with a simple calculation, it’s just not possible with the amount of energy being transmitted. It doesn’t matter if there isn’t a direct response in the form of a research paper of experiment. What we already have shows the results cannot be valid. It’s a high school experiment we’re talking about here, there’s no reason to take it seriously with what was found.
You’re demanding a level of evidence that’s just isn’t necessary to realize that the results found are an error. Especially when you state things like “I’m not saying the results are valid,” that’s a rhetorical tactic. One that I’ve seen used way to often to defend bad science to tolerate for long on this website.
I’m not defending the results I’m just pointing out the flaws in your approach. In your opinion there is not enough energy to effect the germination of cress but you don’t actually know because you haven’t done the experiments. And no the tangential literature review you provide is not evidence of how WiFi effects cress germination.
If your aim is to defend science from bad science then a good starting place would be to employ the scientific method.
This is the final time I’m going to repeat myself.
You can dismiss experiments like this when they do something that’s simply not possible. When I said energy I was talking about potential heat energy, which is the only thing a Wi-Fi signal could potentially cause. A Wi-Fi signal is at most around 3 Watts. That could only have a potential effect if it was directional (it’s not), the cress was right next to it, the signal has to output constantly at that strength (which it doesn’t), and you have a 100% conversion into heat. This is why you only see an effect when you’re talking about industrial applications, the energies compared in consumer routers are laughable compared to that.
This type of research goes against simple physics, what we know from experiments, and medical research. That’s why a simple application of a baloney detection kit suffices in this case.
So I guess no one will bother to continue this sort of testing (in a more rigorous scientific manner) to see whether or not there is any effect on the growth of cress since “heat energy is the only potential cause”?
What are you quoting? I never used that exact wording.
Any research into this is unlikely as what we have doesn’t indicate any serious problems. This is a high school experiment that is an outlier most likely due to bad experiment design and/or set up. Why investigate something that has no credibility and contradicts available data and literature reviews showing the exact opposite?
He was “paraphruoting” your last response to Bwts.
“{…]potential heat energy, which is the only thing a Wi-Fi signal could potentially cause.”
I have nothing else to add. Well, except “nice blog!”.
Ah, then it shouldn’t have been put in quotes (or at least given some indication that it’s a paraphrase). Heat effects is also the only thing we have solid evidence for, though only for a lot stronger signals.
And thanks. 🙂
I was recently reminded by a lively discussion in my Facebook feed that there is no such thing as a scientific “proof”, only theorems (from amassed evidence).
I think Topia has a great question, and implies another question that is on my mind.
To answer your question Collin (“Why investigate something that has no credibility and contradicts available data and literature reviews showing the exact opposite?”), science is never at rest. This experiment should be reproduced precisely _because_ it flies in the face of currently accepted results. This experiment may indeed be faulty, however previous experiments could have been faulty (instead of or in addition to this one).
Furthermore, the “data and literature” you refer to has its own problems; specifically much of past research into effects of EM radiation was funded by companies with vested interest in showing it is safe.
Suggesting the experiment has “no credibility” seems unnecessarily harsh. Perhaps they are not established, celebrated or accomplished scientists (yet), but their status as high school students certainly does not preclude them from attaining valid experimental results. And their experiment won their science fair, which indicates that some adults (maybe even scientists!) reviewed their work and decided it was not flawed to the point of being useless.
Finally, you do focus very much on “heat energy”, but EM radiation is not very well understood. Nuclear radiation is bad for animals and plants because it can kill cells directly or mutate DNA and cause cancer. Do you think it does this by heat?
Never said that science is at rest, but there’s a difference between looking into something that is interesting or points at more or something that cannot be correct and only distracts. What the students did is the latter. An example of something that is bad research (and actually got into the literature) is what Christopher Monckton did. That research got used by science deniers to attack valid science, just like what happened with this high school experiment.
Also the scientific literature isn’t perfect, but it’s far better than a high school experiment. It also doesn’t matter who the research has done, what matters is if these were valid results. Independent researchers who aren’t tied to the industry show the same results.
No, it isn’t unnecessarily harsh to say the experiment doesn’t have credibility. Does a report from a non-scientist who gives his evidence for a 6,000 year old Earth have credibility? None at all in the context of what the scientific literature says and scientists. Also winning a science fair doesn’t give them any credibility, the same kind of report can win a science fair or an award at the right places (take a look at Kent Hovind’s doctoral dissertation to get an idea of how bad some stuff can be). As long as there isn’t a “this is interesting, well done” response from the scientific community or experts it doesn’t mean much for progressing our knowledge.
EM radiation is well understood. It’s the basis for a lot of our technology and the physics behind it is also what keeps a lot of our technology working (look up the frequency of the radiation of your microwave and compare that to the Wi-Fi frequencies). This is also why we know that not all radiation is created equal. The radiation you’re referring to that does damage DNA and we know that can cause cancer is ionizing radiation. The energy of the radiation itself is high enough to damage DNA. Non-ionizing radiation, like Wi-Fi, doesn’t do that. I’ll happily expose myself to non-ionizing radiation as long as it isn’t strong enough to ‘cook me’ (by the way, this knowledge is the basis of several non-lethal weapons). Ionizing radiation I’ll avoid as best as I can, which is also the reason why I apply sunscreen (from a certain wavelength ultraviolet light is ionizing radiation).
Have you ever tried similar ‘experiment’ to actually verify and see the results or is this just a blog about repeating what’s considerd scientific and what’s not? No pb w/either way – just missing a point here: is the purpose just to extend the omnipresent mix of ‘dehumanized’ but scientific arguments along with artificial pseudo-arguments science-like bias spreding through the net widely to cloud the real impact of phenomena notoriously covered by the society we live in? Than why not to target something more than obvious to literaly anyone? Why don’t you just give it a try and put some of those seeds (known for usually germinating everywhere @ any conditions) near a computer / handy / tv or even near the head of a software engineer working with EMF devices (btw. it’s my proffesion too). Feel free to pay attentions to avoid mistakes above students made if it matters to you in terms of ‘scientific purity’ still once getting first results (that might come in 2-4 days), you are free to publish same case/study: Be sure these results including the perspective in which they’d be presented would become the best confirmation of the ‘skecticity level’ towards reality that this site represents…
For one this is not how science works. If flaws are discovered in the original research you can dismiss it and then almost always a correction issued or it’s retracted. When a paper survives this initial scrutiny then you start with trying to replicate the results or providing a counter argument/evidence.
Considering the flaws in the setup, it’s an experiment done by students, and the scientific literature disagrees with the results they found you can dismiss the results from a skeptical position. After all scientific skepticism includes the steps to check if research is well done, checks if the conclusions match what is found, and the arguments than made based on that research are valid.