WiFi Damages Trees

Arwin

Now Officially a Top 10 Poster
Moderator
Legend
There are a number of issues with trees under investigation, that have in the last five years risen from affecting 10% of all decidious trees, to 70% of all decidious trees. Only trees in cities are affected, and it appears that all trees in the Western world are affected.

Symptoms attributed to WiFi signals with great certainty:
- dying leaves
- stunted growth

Symptoms still under investigation, where an alternative cause that hasn't been ruled out is ultra fine particle dust (as I think among others created by diesel carburators):

- bleeding
- swelling
- 'scars' that sometimes rip open

Research was conducted by Universiteit Wageningen, TU Delft, TNO and the municpality of Alphen aan den Rijn. The first three are internationally renowned expert institutions (so it's not just some rogue scientist).
 
Seriously ? I dunno the trees by me seem to be fine except for what the animals hollow out and live in which has been going on since i was little
 
Seriously ? I dunno the trees by me seem to be fine except for what the animals hollow out and live in which has been going on since i was little

And you live in the city / can detect various wifi access points from your neighbour at the location of this tree?

Right now at my desk I can detect 12 WiFi access points, two of which are my own companies. This is near the city center of a small village in the south of the Netherlands. At home it's not much different though (5-12 depending on where in my home I hang out).
 
What physical phenomena would manifest itself in plant cells to cause these alledged damages (out of less than milliwatt output from wifi transmitters no less)? No such process has EVER been identified or even described by theoretical models!

I call bullshit and alarmism on this.
 
Doesn't the news article at least reference the research paper they are presumably getting this information from? If not, then it's just baseless fear mongering.

Regards,
SB
 
Hmm, interesting. One down, two to go eh? Ok, have to admit that credibility of this article is dropping fast.

TNO consulted on the measurements ... they did not determine to methodology and they don't support the conclusion.

PS. I'm pretty sure we will see a similar disavowal from TU Delft soon.

PPS. of course by then the damage will be done.
 
And you live in the city / can detect various wifi access points from your neighbour at the location of this tree?

Right now at my desk I can detect 12 WiFi access points, two of which are my own companies. This is near the city center of a small village in the south of the Netherlands. At home it's not much different though (5-12 depending on where in my home I hang out).

I'm not in a city , but by our new trees (we have 3 trees within 8 years old) we can get about 15 wifi signals. 1 xinfity , 1 optimum , 1 fios and then the school at the corner and a few homes in the area.

How many signals do the trees need to get hammered with
 
There are a number of issues with trees under investigation, that have in the last five years risen from affecting 10% of all decidious trees, to 70% of all decidious trees. Only trees in cities are affected, and it appears that all trees in the Western world are affected.

Symptoms attributed to WiFi signals with great certainty:
- dying leaves
- stunted growth

Symptoms still under investigation, where an alternative cause that hasn't been ruled out is ultra fine particle dust (as I think among others created by diesel carburators):

- bleeding
- swelling
- 'scars' that sometimes rip open

Research was conducted by Universiteit Wageningen, TU Delft, TNO and the municpality of Alphen aan den Rijn. The first three are internationally renowned expert institutions (so it's not just some rogue scientist).
Yeah, this is physically impossible. WiFi signals are too low-energy to do anything whatsoever to trees. Complete bullshit.
 
How many signals do the trees need to get hammered with
It's not the number of networks that can be detected at any one location that is of importance, it's the total level of microwave radiation. And with wifi, that's going to be extraordinarily low out amongst trees, outside of any physical structures.
 
It's not the number of networks that can be detected at any one location that is of importance, it's the total level of microwave radiation. And with wifi, that's going to be extraordinarily low out amongst trees, outside of any physical structures.
The total level of microwave radiation isn't really relevant either. Rather, it's the temperature change caused by the additional radiation. And unless the tree is right next to a big emitter, that temperature change is going to be completely and utterly negligible (and even if the tree were right next to the emitter, the temperature change might still be negligible, but in any case we would cut the tree down because it'd be blocking the signal).
 
Areas with wifi signals also tend to have more air/ground polution than areas without on average.
 
What about bees?
I've read several different reports connecting high % of dying beehives with wife and GSM networks
AFAIK, this is neither 100% confirmed nor 100% rejected
Claiming "No such process has EVER been identified or even described by theoretical models!" is very bold statement.
 
Back
Top