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.

14 of 298 comments (clear)

  1. Somehow I always knew... by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  2. Double blind study by bunyip · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Re:Not mine. by mrmeval · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  4. Re:i don't know about radio, but i find by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  5. Re:...not all EM radiation by countSudoku() · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

    --
    This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
  6. Re:Right by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.......

    --
    Qxe4
  7. A word on simple experiments... by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:A word on simple experiments... by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  8. Re:Double blind should not be hard by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Funny

    Confirmation bias is real.

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

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  9. Re:Double blind should not be hard by thrawn_aj · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  10. Re:If it's not a definitive study... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  11. Re:Hints? Might? by n3umh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:Not mine. by quenda · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whoosh!

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

  13. The Effects by DynaSoar · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B