Slashdot Mirror
Study Hints Ambient Radio Waves May Affect Plant Growth
dwguenther writes "A Lyons (Colorado) area woman with no academic pedigree has published a scientific paper in the International Journal of Forestry Research about the adverse effects of radio waves on aspen seedlings. Katie Haggerty, who lives north of Steamboat Mountain, found in a preliminary experiment done near her house that aspens shielded from electromagnetic radiation were healthier than those that were not. 'I found that the shielded seedlings produced more growth, longer shoots, bigger leaves, and more total leaf area. The shielded group produced 60 percent more leaf area and 74 percent more shoot length than a mock-shielded group,' she said." This was not a definitive study, as its author readily admits — it's hard to see how a double-blind study could even be designed in this area — but it was refereed.
some plants grow really well when exposed to blue/red light combination from LEDs in a closed room. also, way cheaper and more unobtrusive than using incandescent lamps. (disclaimer for the well-informed slashdotters, i grow hot peppers for my pizzas).
I don't see why you'd need a double-blinded study in this? The double-blinded study is to account for patient reporting bias ("I feel a little better today - I think those new Addrexo pills are really working") and patient-selection bias by the doctors.
In this case the plants aren't reporting anything, it is a simple measurement, or series of measurements. And is anybody really calling into question the biases of biology RAs? Once again, take the measurements, report the results, draw conclusions, suggest reasons, conclude: "more research needed".
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
It's a nice enough preliminary study. I'm usually quite skeptical about "OMG teh ebul microwaves are killing us" studies but this one seems sensible enough and it doesn't go overboard in its claims like so many do. Good for the lady for doing things systematically enough to get published in a peer-reviewed journal (that's also serious).
Everything is balance. We ride the fragile zone of a magnetically and gravitationally protective mass where energy is flowing in and near it in prodigious quantities from an incandescent fusion inferno. It is a dangerous place where a steady state is disallowed and change is everything. To unbalance this is to court oblivion but to think it will last forever is folly. It is a seed pod and it will be burst from within or without. Nothing lasts forever ... even change.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
Personally, I think the shielding worked more as a cozy for the plant and gave it a more stable immediate environment upon which to grow.
Read the paper. Haggerty had two cages, one of which was RF-transparent fiberglass which was close to the same air and light blockage as the aluminum faraday cage.
I still think it will come out that something else was the cause.
But as far as personal bias, a good scientist is aware of their own biases and tries to do things that are somewhat antagonistic to their own point of view. This isn't perfect, but that's why you use objective measures and report all your methods. Someone else can try to reproduce the experiment, improve upon it, control for more things, etc.
It is possible that subconcious/unconcious biases in plant care play a role here, but anyone can repeat the experiment, and it's very likely that those repeating it next will be VERY skeptical to the idea that RF is at fault and will be very careful not to baby the RF caged plants.. and if biased they'll be biased the other way. That's a good outcome of such a publication.
Many repeated experiments by people who are skeptical of each other average over personal biases.
Thanks for illuminating the difference with your post, since you know it all and aren't willing to share.
Now, I was pretty sure that "blind" eliminated the bias of the subjects of the study (Pepsi challenge style), while double blind eliminates the scientist's bias as well as the subjects (drug trials). The GP may be talking about the medical studies like they use blind studies when they really use double blind (technically a form of blind study), but other than that, I see no reason he's wrong in saying they use double blind to remove the experimenter's biases. If you have some information that's different from this, please share it.
The nuts weren't doing science, they were just being nuts.
So this is more of the same shit, same as the "cellphones kill honeybees" and so on. They do not consider it logically, they are just reactionary.
I have some problems your "the same shit": to me is a valid "data point", worth investigating further. TFA:
The paper was later accepted for presentation at the North American Forest Ecology Workshop at Utah State University in Logan last June. As a result of that presentation, her paper was accepted to be published in a special edition from the workshop of the peer-reviewed online International Journal of Forestry Research.
Does the peer-reviewing automatically make the preliminary findings true? No. But it certainly does make the paper worth more to my eyes than the correlation between toxo infestation and World Cup results.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
I see your point, but it's also true that all life on Earth evolved with the solar emissions, none evolved with microwave QAM emissions (for example).
It's not time to order radio silence by any means, but followup studies are warranted.
Bull. That is just making up a statement with absolutely no evidence or proof. Where-as much of the previous assertion does indeed have scientific evidence to back it up.
1. There is a prodigious amount of energy flowing around our planet produced by the Sun.
2. If this radiation was not diverted it would indeed be more than enough to kill off most if not all life on Earth.
3. The make up of the atmosphere plays a large role in radiation absorption and deflection.
4. The make up of the atmosphere changes over time as evidenced both through findings in the geological record and through modern recordings.
5. The magnetosphere of the Earth does indeed change as well, again as evidenced both through findings in the geological record and modern recordings.
6. Man may or may not be able to affect the magnetosphere to any relevant but we certainly are able to produce gases in sufficient quantities to change the atmospheric makeup to affect the atmosphere to a very relevant and perhaps dire degree.
If on the other-hand you mean this purely in a philosophical sense you are only arguing the meaning of the verb "to be" and existence, again with no evidence and probably not taking into account all available options, as I doubt any human mind can take all options into account in the purely philosophical sense.
No, I'm serious. My suspicion is that she shielded the successful plants with something that contains trace nutrients that are lacking in her local soil.
For example, if her shielding was composed of steel chicken wire, then rainwater will pick up iron and zinc from the wire before it falls on the ground, both of these are essential trace nutrients for plant growth. In particular the rich red colour of the leaves in the experimental group speaks of a good supply of iron.
Alas, I've not seen the paper. If she's doing it properly her control plants should be growing through a layer of what she's using for shielding, instead of inside it. I suspect this is not the case.
The Sun is among the other sources of radio waves streaming down to the surface of the earth. I would suggest that man made radio waves are not automatically the cause. Although we broadcast strongly on particular frequencies in most areas background radiation drowns out total human output but across a wider spectrum. Plants may be sensitive to changes in background radio sources, for example we're in a period of unusual solar activity. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/11jul_solarcycleupdate/
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.