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.

Comments

Somehow I always knew...

[Narcocide]

... that one day AM radio would be the death of us all.

Double blind study

[bunyip]

it's hard to see how a double-blind study could even be designed in this area

In the medical field, it means that both the patient and the doctor evaluating the symptoms don't know who received a placebo.

For this experiment - setup two antennae in front of some seedlings, have a different dude turn one of them on. The person measuring the seedling growth doesn't know which were exposed to radio waves. That's all you need to make sure the study doesn't have some bias in it.

Re:Double blind study

[martinX]

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".

Re:Double blind study

[h4rr4r]

The study surely needs to be blind from the researchers point of view, this sort of this is just begging for confirmation bias.

Re:Double blind study

[flowwolf]

When it's a medical study, it's accounting for a patient's bias.
Scientists can have bias as well, this is why researchers use the double blind method to eliminate their personal bias from the results.

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. Perhaps even the faraday cage was diminishing the light around the geraniums, so they spent more energy growing their leaves bigger to compensate. Given my personal bias, I wouldn't of published yet since I know there couldn't be a correlation. There are any number of reasons why a bias of opinion might be involved and there is any number of reasons why plants in a cage could grow better than plants not. I doubt she had the soil, in which the roots were, wrapped with a faraday cage either.

Re:Double blind study

[n3umh]

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.

Re:Not mine.

[mrmeval]

I modulated a 1 kilowatt microwave HERF gun with a microwave stirring device rotated using motor controlled by a PWM signal to vary the speed using an audio source playing White Metal at some plants and the all died. RADIO WAVES ARE EVIL!

Re:i don't know about radio, but i find

[h4rr4r]

Sure you do, we all grow our "peppers" in a closet lined with tinfoil.

Re:...not all EM radiation

[countSudoku()]

and us too! Great study, but it comes too late I'm afraid. I've already spotted at least 8 wild trees in urban areas that have sprouted what appear to be cell phone tower transmitters in them! We're boned!

Re:Double blind should not be hard

[girlintraining]

Have the plants taken care of by one person and judged/reviewed by another who only sees them when they are moved to the review area. Since this is just seedlings using large plant pots should be fine.

Now probably isn't the best time to tell them the Sun is a giant radio, amongst other things.

Re:Right

[phantomfive]

Yeah, you know, what's the likelihood that someone designing the experiment would have thought of the same problems you thought of in 30 seconds since reading the summary? If you read the article, there were three groups:

In spring 2007, she planted the aspen seedlings -- one group in a shielded Faraday cage, another group in a cage wrapped in fiberglass that did not block radio waves and a third set was unprotected altogether. By the end of July, there were measureable differences in growth, and at the beginning of October, she noticed differences in coloration.

It's one thing to criticize a study, but at least try to READ it first.......

A word on simple experiments...

[copponex]

Remember, Louis Pasteur only finally disproved the theory of spontaneous generation with a simple experiment involving meat broth and a long necked decanter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

There's no reason to doubt that the certain frequencies we consider harmless are in fact slowly destroying delicate parts of our biosphere. We're the same scientists who didn't think lead paint or asbestos were a problem, and discovered germ theory only a short time ago. The article itself is not sensational, and even the DIY scientist is modest in her conclusions.

Re:A word on simple experiments...

[copponex]

2. the sun dumps all kinds of EM on everything.

This is where critical thinking comes in handy. I don't think any serious scientist will suggest that plants are not well adjusted to EM radiation from the sun.

As far as "nothing noticed so far," I imagine that was the same phrase they used when they were handling raw mercury without protection in science labs not too long ago. Ignorance is no substitute for reality.

Re:If it's not a definitive study...

[thrawn_aj]

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).

Re:Double blind should not be hard

[girlintraining]

Confirmation bias is real.

No it isn't, and nothing you say can change that!

Re:Double blind should not be hard

[thrawn_aj]

No no. You see, the sun is natural. Which means that it only emits magic sprinkles and unicorn dust. Only the teh ebul radio towers are out to get us.

Won't matter to the anti-radio/radiation nuts

[Sycraft-fu]

This shit has been going on forever. They keep changing their target, but it is always the same tune: Radiation is bad, X is radiation, so X is bad.

When I was a kid the target was high voltage distribution lines. They said those were bad for kids, caused cancer. They had a data point, kinda, in terms of one community. Of course upon further study there was actual radioactive shit there (Radon IIRC). At any rate because of the serious nature of this, it was looked in to. Long term studies were done, looking at kids who grew up near these lines. I am probably a data point in one of those studies as our house was under some large lines when I was young (that's why I know about this shit, Mom was worried).

Well, now there's many decades of results compiled and guess what? There's no difference at all. They don't do shit.

Now any scientist could have told you that, the radiation is non-ionizing, hell the waves are millions of meters long from 60Hz power. 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.

Re:If it's not a definitive study...

[Anonymous Coward]

For someone outside of academia to get reviewed and published is news enough.

Re:Hints? Might?

[n3umh]

I have a deep concern about over-stating the dangers of RF radiation... honestly, though, I don't see anything wrong with the PAPER and would say that Haggerty
approached the experiment in an appropriate scientific manner.

Come back and talk to me when you have a more definitive study.

This is not a perfect experiment... no experiment is. But the methodology is laid out. The experiment is reproducible, and that's what matters. I think it may spark interest in study... very likely from people who are VERY skeptical that RF could be the cause, and that's perfect.

I think that it's probably the case that something else is the cause, not RF. There are things that aren't controlled for. But you or anyone else can do a better experiment. You're right to be skeptical of a single one, but that doesn't mean Haggerty's work wasn't valuable.

Re:Not mine.

[quenda]

Whoosh!

Meta-woosh! Nobody could be that dumb. It must have been ironic. Maybe he was trolling for wooshes?

Re:No double-blind?

[metrometro]

Yeah, that's pretty much what she did. Wasn't double blind, but she used real Faraday cages and placebo cages in fiberglass, along with another non-caged control. Should be easy enough to replicate, only with uninformed interns watering the plants.

Re:i don't know about radio, but i find

[Khyber]

"fscking amateurs. foil absorbs light and causes hotspots on your "pepper" plants."

LOL. I have *NO* problems with any of my foil-lined boxes. ANY improperly-done reflective job will create a hot spot, INCLUDING MYLAR, which is the stuff we use for an EMERGENCY BLANKET.

"Of course if you weren't really growing peppers but something like medical marijuana then you'd want to know that experimentation shows that grow is no better under targeted spectrum LED than it is under select HID lighting. In fact, it takes just as many watts of LED to get the same effect so you don't save electricity there."

Dead wrong, sir. I am a licensed medical patient, as well as a breeder for the Dutch (I preserve landrace genetics found in the wild across the globe,) AND I do indoor NFT hydroponics sheds across the globe which are illuminated by LED, and your statement is factually incorrect. From wheat, to tomatoes, to medical cannabis, I've regularly achieved higher yield per kilowatt-hour with LED versus HID. Also, with LED, the resulting product is more potent, as there is no green or yellow light, which plays an inhibitory and regulatory role in most non-marine flora.

In fact, I replaced 832w of *VERY SELECT* HPS and T5HO lighting with 350w of my specially-designed LED lighting and get the same results.

I know why LED panels fail to yield. That research went into my own panels. Also, most panel manufacturers use the CHEAP 1w diodes. Those bottom-bin pieces of garbage aren't worth the sapphire substrate they're laid upon. That's also incidentally why the garbage LED panels are so cheap.

The Effects

[DynaSoar]

Once it's shown that radio waves are detrimental to aspen seedlings, there will be:

1. Signs posted around transmitter towers saying "WARNING -- Radio waves can be detrimental to your leaf area development". In both English as Aspenic.

B. Pictograph version of the same for Aspens that read yet.

Three. Non-animal subjects committees at arboreal research centers defining then testing for proper and ethical treatment of seedlings, such informed consent.

IV. Radical vegans, rejected Greenpeace applicants and overly sensitive hippie hangers-on 'rescuing' seedlings from Torture Hothouses because they're being tested 24 hours a day and not allowed to sleep.

Cinco. Smarmy, crooning, sexy but aloof modern folk singers moaning out a somewhat relevant lyric while you see pictures of abused seedlings, then their eyes tearing up as they beg you "Won't you please help? Think of the seedlings."

=== 100 years pass ===

99. Members of the Poplar* Peoples' Front forming a picket line around the Deciduous Students Union, carrying signs made of rock (no living material was harmed in the making of these signs) in their branches, demanding representation of their own kind among elected officials (Vote Yeast, Not Beast) and protesting the deplorable treatment of some of the more 'culturally mature due to greater experience evolving' and 'third forest' species (Smile Mold Is People Too) while Jefferson Floodplain sings "Up against the wall... Up against the wall, Carbonizers" from their hit album 'Nothing Can Stop The Shape of Leaves To Come and then giggle when you start to turn blue and gasp because you have cyclic respiration and can't read sentences this long without stopping for air whereas their constant bidirectional respiration means they can talk for hours straight without stopping once.

* Not misspelled, you meat chauvinist pig.

Got to protect seedlings from E-M radiation ...

[RockDoctor]

... particularly that with wavelengths between around 350 and 700nm.

• Practically every person who has ever died of cancer has been exposed to electro-magnetic radiation between 350 and 700nm.
• Sexually Transmitted Infections are more frequently reported in people who have been exposed to electro-magnetic radiation between 350 and 700nm.
• Many drowning victims have been exposed to electro-magnetic radiation between 350 and 700nm in addition to their obvious exposure to DHMO.
• Drug dealers and terrorists frequently use electro-magnetic radiation between 350 and 700nm in performance of their terrorist acts (including growing "peppers" for their pizzas).

I think that the journal publishing and the amateur scientist published should attempt to grow their seedlings in complete absence of electro-magnetic radiation between 350 and 700nm. That'll teach them something that every troglobite population on the planet learned millennia ago.