Slashdot Mirror


9th Grade Science Experiment: Garden Cress Won't Germinate Near Routers

New submitter SessionExpired writes "Five 9th graders from Denmark have shown that garden cress won't germinate when placed near a router (Google Translation of Danish original). Article text is in Danish, but the pictures illustrate their results. The exact mechanism is still unknown (Danish original), but experts have shown interest in reproducing the experiment."

40 of 327 comments (clear)

  1. No reproduction by quintus_horatius · · Score: 5, Funny

    experts have shown interest in reproducing the experiment

    Or not reproducing, as the case may be.

    1. Re:No reproduction by ankhank · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Outgassing from the plastic and electronics, I'll bet.
      Nice new routers, I'll bet. Loaded with stuff that's volatile.

      Did they try a Faraday Cage to rule out the radio waves?

    2. Re:No reproduction by mikael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are so many combinations:

      Does the router need to be switched on?
      What if there is just a transformer and cable, but not a router?
      Does the router need wi-fi enabled? In the 2.5GHz band? In the 5Ghz band?
      Does the router need to be in line-of-sight, or can it be hermetically sealed in a container?

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    3. Re:No reproduction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or just as likely, they just faked the data. These kids aren't stupid, they understand that the only way to get a good grade on such a lame experiment is to get unexpected results. If the router had no effect, they would received a B minus, they would not have won the science fair, and we certainly wouldn't be discussing their experiment on Slashdot.

      My experience with science fairs was it was all about PR and very little about science. I did much better my second try using that information. Our stupid teacher never mentioned it. I went on to a career in science and while it's not nearly as bad as a science fair, PR and "sexed up" stuff is far more valued than real honest scientific discovery.

    4. Re:No reproduction by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Informative

      The radio, and associated amplifiers, will generate the majority of the heat. Just look how much longer a cell phone will operate if you disable wireless. One must also take into consideration that wireless routers operate at higher power levels.

      Actually, cellphones are higher powered - I believe they top out at between 0.5-1W max transmit power. Your wireless router is typically anywhere from under 50mW to 100mW, though it's possible to get "long range" ones that do 250mW.

      Of course, a cellphone dynamically adjusts its power - in urban areas, it typically is close enough to a cell tower that it can crank the transmit power way down. This, of course, is to save battery (RF level amplifiers aren't efficient at all - they waste a lot of power). If you live in a poorly covered area, you'll note your battery life is a lot lower as a result of having to crank up the power to maintain the link.

      CDMA phones are interesting - the amount of power they use is proportional to usage as the more phones using it, the lower the SNR. You've hit the limit when everyone's transmitting at max power and the SNR is too low for successful correlation.

    5. Re:No reproduction by Khyber · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Or just as likely, they just faked the data. "

      As someone that has performed similar radiation experiments as part of my research into zero-light horticulture, faking this is very doubtful, as I've encountered the same issues. Germination rates in the area of our facility with wireless access are roughly half of that on the other side of the shed that is totally free of radiation in that frequency range thanks to the natural faraday cage (the entire structure is grounded, metal walls and supports, etc.) that the facility provides. You can't even use your cell phone two feet inside the door.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:No reproduction by Required+Snark · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The only reason someone would accuse 9th grade students of scientific fraud is that they are themselves prone to committing fraud.

      You don't like the result because you are a computer geek. Any proof that computing gear has negative biological effects challenges your fundamental beliefs. Since this angers you, you respond with hostility and engage in a personal attack.

      The reason you bring up fraud is that it's what you would do if you wanted to force a result. People who don't consider that kind of cheat wouldn't jump to that conclusion.

      It is certain that these children have a better understanding of the scientific method then you do. They thought of an experiment, tried it and reported the results. Perhaps the outcome was a fluke, perhaps not. If other scientists try to refine their results then the effect will either be proven or refuted. It's called the scientific method.

      All you have shown is that you are a truly horrible human being. Your first impulse is to call someone a liar when they say something you don't like. Besides being better scientists, those children are certainly more decent then you are.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    7. Re:No reproduction by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's amazing to see how much venom people spew in order to avoid cognitive dissonance. "No, it can't be harmful because I like the stuff. Everyone that found it harmful must be a liar!".... *sigh*

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    8. Re:No reproduction by zazzel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The reason you bring up fraud is that it's what you would do if you wanted to force a result. People who don't consider that kind of cheat wouldn't jump to that conclusion.

      Excuse me, but that is clearly bullsh*t. Having gone through University will make you suspect fraud, but just because you have seen it everywhere left and right during your studies. From students cheating in math exams and "forgetting" references in their papers, to 100% faked studies published by high-ranking journals.

  2. Neither will... by dlingman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Your typical slashdotter probably sits closer to their router than the plants. And is about as likely to germinate.

    1. Re:Neither will... by spasm · · Score: 3, Funny

      More info would be nice - How old were you? How old was your wife? How old was your milkman?

    2. Re:Neither will... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Your typical slashdotter probably sits closer to their router than the plants. And is about as likely to germinate.

      Good thing, too, or we'd see a rash of siamese sextuplets.

      Though, to be fair, I'd thought that all the hallucinogens I took back in college had messed up my genes royally, but my daughter turned out perfect. Better than perfect. She can type like a banshee with those twelve fingers.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  3. Need a control. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They should have used a control, and put cress near a lamp bulb that gives off the same amount of heat.

    Simplest explanation is the additional heat which was nearby but not enough to alter room temperature affected them.

    1. Re:Need a control. by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They should have used a control, and put cress near a lamp bulb that gives off the same amount of heat.

      Simplest explanation is the additional heat which was nearby but not enough to alter room temperature affected them.

      Typical routers (i presume they are talking about an 802.11 router here) will emit 150 to 250 mW per radio. Even in a 3 radio version the total power is still less than 1W (depending on how high the bandwidth utilization was), and it's certainly spread beyond just the plate of seeds sitting next to it. That 1W of heat energy would have an amazingly small change in overall temperature on the subject, probably not even enough to measure with conventional instruments.

    2. Re:Need a control. by Megane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The router itself generates heat, and the point of the root post was that it was the radiated heat that cause the result, not some puny low-power microwaves. I've had quite a few DSL modems "fail to germinate" because they overheated themselves. Right now at home I'm running one with the cover removed and a small heat sink (the only one I have small enough to fit between the capacitors, etc.) on the main chip.

      If they can get warm enough to burn themselves up, they can also get warm enough to prevent a seed from growing, if through no other means than making the seed think that it's the wrong time of the year.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:Need a control. by lpevey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This comment is not really insightful. A lot of people even use electric heating pads underneath seed trays specifically to generate heat. I agree the experiment would have been even more impressive with controls wrt certain variables (including heat--why not), but it is extremely, extremely unlikely that, as the poster put it, "they can also get warm enough to prevent a seed grom growing."

    4. Re:Need a control. by Peter+H.S. · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They placed the AP's so that the heat they generated wouldn't affect the garden cress. Room temperature was computer monitored and regulated, the humidity was regulated, and they photographed the batches to document that no drying up or rot was present. They mixed the seed batches, randomized the seed selection etc etc.

      The experimental setup and their elimination of errors and bias is considered to of very high quality, which is why they won a junior science prize. Their actual result meant nothing in that regard.

      The first experiment was with idle AP's only broadcasting ESSID. The second experiment added some Linux laptops that ping-flooded to generate lots of network activity. The second experiment showed a clear increase in plant "damage" /lack of development.

    5. Re:Need a control. by Spiridios · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They should have used a control, and put cress near a lamp bulb that gives off the same amount of heat.

      Or not. Nothing in the scientific method says your first experiment has to be perfect. They did one experiment, with a control for one variable (router/no router), it showed unexpected results. So now you look at things that could explain those results (heat? VOC? EM?) and revise your experiment to prove them or rule them out. Seems to me it's not a "should have" but a "let try this next".

    6. Re:Need a control. by Khyber · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, heat is NOT EVEN CLOSE to being a viable cause. Room is controlled and regulated. Cress has quite a nice wide range of germination temperatures.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re:Need a control. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 3, Funny

      Microsoft will love this. Linux kills living things!

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  4. Not controlled for other factors by vivaoporto · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The experiment was setup to validate a foregone conclusion. The (probable, as I can't read the Danish complete report) untested control factor was the impact the different rooms had in the absence of the routers. Retesting both samples without the presence of the routers could fix this issue.

    Anyway, it is good science (it is testable and verifiable) but bad journalism.

    Unless it can be reproduced or its mechanism explained, it is nothing but fuel to add to the "communication radiation exposure is bad" hysteria.

  5. Now do it again by Clueless+Moron · · Score: 3, Interesting

    but this time move the routers to the other room. As it stands, they still don't know if it was the routers causing the problem or something else in that particular room (temperature, draft, amount of sunlight, etc).

  6. Incomplete science... by Stoutlimb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Some local newspaper has grabbed hold of the story and the implication is that the result is solid science, where in fact it is either a preliminary discovery, or an aberration of some sort. Things like this happen all the time, which is why there is a need for reproducing the results, which has not yet been done. However, the story is already circling the globe and no doubt this will add more fuel to the fire of people claiming this type of radiation is harmful. It's irresponsible journalism on Slashdot's part by posting this story and over-hyping something that could be nothing. Next thing we know, every lab error will be either heralded as cold fusion, the discovery of dark matter, or space aliens, if we go by the standard of proof in this article. When this most likely goes sour, I hope it doesn't turn off those hard working kids from science altogether.

    That being said, I would be interested if this experiment was reproduced by several respectable researchers, but the skeptic in me says that this will likely not happen. This story is really jumping the gun, and doesn't belong in anything but a small town Danish newspaper, let alone Slashdot.

    1. Re:Incomplete science... by SessionExpired · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since I submitted the story, the full report has been made public, and the biology teacher involved in the experiment has commented on various details.

      Based on information from these two links, I'll try to answer your questions (my translations).

      -Wifi and GSM are on different bands so why speculate cell phones could also have the same effect?

      The report doesn't explain this. It goes from "We want to study the effects of radiation from cell phones" in one paragraph to "we'll be doing this by [...] cress seeds placed near Wifi hotspots or not" a bit later. The teacher notes "For newer 3G or LTE connections, the difference [compared to AP frequencies] is minimal".

      -Did they repeat the experiment using the same plant seed type more than once?

      They used seeds from several bags, mixed together and then divided in 12 lots.

      -Did they note the temperature, humidity and sunlight available in each room at regular intervals or used any data logging equipment?

      Not according to the report. From the teacher: "windows of similar size and both facing south" and "computer controlled temperature (18 deg. Celsius)".

      -What kind of rooms, and were they in the same home? Were they the students bedrooms or what?

      The report doesn't say. From the teacher: "Access control: only a select group of people can access the 'depotrum' used for the experiment". 'Depotrum' could mean a room used by janitors, to keep books etc.

      -Were both testbeds receiving the same amount of sunlight for the same amount of time?

      The report says "both windowsills [?, the lowest part of the window frame, facing into the room] were facing south, so we could ensure that all plates were receiving the same amount of sunlight". See note from teacher above.

      -Did they try other plant seeds? Or buy the same plant seeds but from different vendors to compare?

      No other plant seeds were tested. It is not clear from report or teacher if the bags mentioned above were from the same vendor.

      -Did they try to repeat the experiment with the router off to isolate the possibility the rooms environments played a role?

      The report doesn't mention this. According to the teacher, they did run the experiment twice, not to test differences between the rooms, but to test if network traffic played any role. The first run was made with the AP only announcing ESSID, the second run had the laptops pinging each other [constantly, I assume].

      They used roline wireless routers for the experiment.

      --
      You want the taste of dried leaves boiled in water?
  7. I'm pretty sure I'm already sterile by WillgasM · · Score: 4, Funny

    When I was 16 or so, I was working on my uncle's boat in Alaska. It was a slow day, so we were painting railings and such. I heard my uncle call my name, wondering where I was. I called back that I was on top of the wheelhouse. He went ahead and shut off the radar, but I'd already been standing next to it for and hour or more. I honestly don't mind since pulling out seems so unnatural. I guess if I ever want to have kids I'll just have to try harder and think fertile thoughts.

    1. Re:I'm pretty sure I'm already sterile by s.petry · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Which is why we have known cases of human sterilization due to exposure to radar and microwave frequencies at high power? If you ever work in the industry, you would see warnings on the equipment that call that aspect out (Civilian and Military).

      I think we have a spoiler fail!

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  8. near a WIRELESS router by Gothmolly · · Score: 5, Informative

    Thanks, Editor-dot, for not reviewing TFS. This was an experiment to test EM radition, its nothing to do with 'routers'. Believe it or not, there are things which are 'routers' that are not supplied by your ISP when you sign up for home broadband.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  9. well done kids! by thephydes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is exactly what we should be encouraging kids to do. Regardless of lack of control or other "missing" experimental methods, this is a significant scientific result for a bunch of 9th graders. Good on them and good on their teacher for encouraging them to do the experiment and having the balls to publish it.

    1. Re:well done kids! by thephydes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are obviously not a teacher although you may well be a scientist. Teachers either tell the kids what to do or encourage them to explore and THEN discuss results/flaws/improvements. After 33 years as an educator I can assure you that the latter is the most effective method and is a better preparation for pre-tertiary science. In addition I'll bet that the first "scientists" did not think about controls, they just collected evidence. This experiment is just that, a collection of evidence.

  10. Re:Bit misleading by WillgasM · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yea, because we were obviously going to blame IP for the result.

  11. possible explanation for increased effect on seeds by MaxToTheMax · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wifi routers operate on microwave frequencies. It's possible that the harmful effects on the seeds were culinary rather than carcinogenic; that is, the seeds' internal temperatures were raised slightly, cooking them to death, instead of genetic damage. On the other hand, a human body has a giant active cooling system (the bloodstream and skin,) so minute temperature variations are less harmful. Alternate explanation: Based on my understanding of botany, I believe plant seeds usually consist of relatively few unusually large cells. This means there are fewer copies of each chromosome to go around, so damage to one chromosome is much more catastrophic than it would be in an adult human body, where mutations happen all the time and it's really no big deal. Finally, consider the inverse square law. The amount of radiation, say, two inches from a router, is vastly less than the amount of radiation a foot and a half away.

  12. Doubtful on the outgassing... by denzacar · · Score: 5, Funny
    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  13. Re:Bit misleading by clarkn0va · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not until we can rule out NAT acceleration.

    --
    I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
  14. Re:Bit misleading by Scutter · · Score: 3, Informative

    The point is that they are using confusing and inconsistent terminology to report on the parameters of a scientific study. Using imprecise language muddies the results and makes them hard to reproduce, or even to draw a conclusion of your own.

    --

    "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
  15. This is newsworthy... by dacut · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... but not due to the results; this is an example of good, solid science coming out of a secondary school with limited resources. Given what I could read of the translation, I don't think this is irresponsible journalism at all -- think of it more as journalism on the state of education, not science.

    It is, of course, an extraordinary result, and will require extraordinary proof. I suspect the claims will not be reproduced; at the same time, I hope these kid-researchers keep their interest level in this experiment up regardless of outcome. From this, they'll learn about experimental errors, uncontrolled factors, and -- most importantly -- to divorce their ego from their results. That last bit is perhaps the hardest for most scientists to achieve.

  16. Re:Bit misleading by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is what happens when carrier-level NAT is deployed. Even the plants would rather die than live with NAT.

  17. A comment from a native dane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    They're using 2.4GHz wifi routers. 3G and LTE was not chosen because of data cost.
    The rooms are all locked, so only the teacher and the 5 pupils have access.
    They've done the tests twice with the same results.
    They've controlled temperature, water amount, sun radiation from windows and more factors, to control bias.

    The danish newspaper Ingeniøren (The Engineer) has the teacher Kim Horsevad explain in detail in the comments on their article on the subject: http://ing.dk/artikel/folkeskoleelever-vaekker-forsker-opsigt-mobilstraaling-forhindrer-karse-i-spire-158867#comment-529110

    His comment is REALLY long, so some other dane will have to translate if Google Translate doesn't cut it ;)

  18. EM "attack" vectors by Immerman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember watching a TED talk a while back about a fellow who was perfecting an electromagnetic cancer-killing device that was looking to be extremely effective. Perhaps a similar phenomina is in play here. Basically part of the DNA duplication process prior to cell division involves stringing out the chromosomes into long electrostatically-bonded chains. By electromagnetically interfering in that process the device caused virtualy all replicating cells to die, with the few survivors typically being extremely sickly. Since in most parts of the body cancer cells are the only ones replicating with any frequency the device presented a method of selectively destroying cancer cells without significantly harming the surrounding tissue. Initial studies done on people with inoperable or recurrent tumors showed success on par with intensive chemotherapy, but without the horrible side effects.

    So anyway - we know that at least some EM fields are capable of killing replicating cells, and that's kind of the primary activity of embrryonic cells, so that could perhaps be the reason the seeds failed to germinate. Of course I have no idea what the strength, frequency, etc. of the anti-cancer device's EM fields were, so maybe it's not relevant, but something worth considering at least.

    Another "attack vector" is that fats typically absorb microwaves far more efficiently than water, and are an important component of cell membranes. That means microwave heating would is actually concentrated on the protective membrane around the cell, and in an embryo that membrane is in the process of growing very rapidly as the initial cell subdivides, and may be more vulnerable to damage.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    1. Re:EM "attack" vectors by Immerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you stop to think a moment you'll realise this argument is completely fallacious. If the sun were broadcasting at anything like the power levels of our communication systems at the particular frequencies being used then we'd be completely unable to pick out our own signals from the background noise. And the specific frequency is likely at least as important as the power levels - any interference in cellular function would almost certainly be due to resonance effects, which can be *extremely* sensitive to exitation frequency and magnitude.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  19. Fairly easy to test yourself.. by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've had a lot of experience in sprouting (alfalfa, beans like chickpeas, peas, lentils, etc) - i'm going to make two batches from the same mix of seeds/beans, and place one beside my wifi router, and see what happens...