Is Wireless Internet Damaging Trees?

An update from USATODAY:

A Google Translate translation of the study information page on the Wageningen University website indicates "no clear cause" has been identified as to the increasing incidences of cracks, bumps, discoloration and tissue necrosis found on trees in urban areas.

"An association between the studied Wi-Fi radiation and the wide range of symptoms in adult trees can not be explicitly placed on the basis of the present study," the page reads.

So, put away the tin-foil hats until a real scare comes along.

You can see what will be reported.

Google and Industry expert Wageningen University Professor DOORMAN is quoted as saying ".. clear cause ... tissue necrosis explicitly placed on .. the present study .." He advises everyone to keep tin-foil hats ready at all times.

Never mind the Emerald Ash Borer, turn off those cell phones!!!!!

Possibly.

Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't.

....that's the tribble with cur 'n' paste

Perhaps these researchers could do a study explaining why planting garlic in my garden keeps the elephants away.

No.

You want data? I'll give you data!

Like in:

"Has your grandmother ever been to China?"

"No"

"Well, she must know my Granni, she's never been there either"

Oooh, the maple syrup sweetie.

As a 22 year veteran hands-on electronics manufacturing, automation, and design expert with 18 years in the wireless industry (broadband transceivers, FM/PCS phones, FM video, FSK data, radars, etc...) I can first off tell you for a real-life observed fact that the denial of wireless energy damaging people is a big lie. Anyone who has touched an electrode with >=28dBm of RF energy on it can tell you that it burns your skin. Anyone who handles this gear regularly is familiar enough with the sensations of RF energy to know for a fact that holding a wireless or cell phone transmitting at full power next to your head for an extended period of time (10-20 minutes) will result in a tingly feeling inside your head near the offending device.

-RF energy is used to cook things in microwaves. Phones are lower power, but just like on a microwave, lower power simply means a longer cooking time. There is no magical point where the energy field somehow becomes "safe", it is simply less intense.

-RF energy at high power in radar applications is known by the military to cause cancer and result in high birth defect rates among radar technicians. The military's posting of radiation hazard signs by radars and use of RF radiation protection suits in RF environments is proof enough. Personally I have felt the energy due to my military radar experience.

-Excessive exposure to the sun's rays is known to cause cancer. RF travels as photons through the air and is the same real-world phenomenon as visible light, simply at a lower frequency.

-Tree tissue is fundamentally the same as human tissue.

Rough proof of tree damage by RF energy:

1) WI-FI fields same natural phenomenon as other photon fields known to cause cancer in humans (sunlight, radar)

2) Trees are not intrinsically different at a molecular level than humans

Therefore) It can be reasonably inferred that WI-FI fields are capable of causing radiation damage in humans, animals, and plants. The level of potential damage is proportionate to the field strength and exposure time.

As some of you know the main reason radiation damage in the form of cancer and other things have not been officially linked to wireless devices is that no one has done any serious studies. This is because the wireless industry repeatedly blocks attempts to study the phenomena in a controlled environment while simultaneously sending a never ending procession of paper-pushing dopes to conferences claiming there is no hazard.

From the perspective of someone like me who has felt these fields and become familiar with them in a real way, it has never been a matter of if they are capable of causing cancer or other issues, it has simply been a matter of when the U.S. government is actually going to admit it on the public stage and give the public a real guideline of risks vs. power/exposure time so we can stop playing this stupid game where every year people ask if it's a problem and some "expert" says it's not a problem. If someone tells you there is no risk ask them the following questions: "Have you spent a significant amount of time physically around this type of equipment?" and "Have you performed any laboratory tests yourself?". If the answers are no, then you can safely tell the speaker that he/she is clueless on the matter and should not be weighing in on the subject.

Kyle Pearson

San Diego, CA

Veteran of Remec Broadband Wireless, Z-Communications, Trango Broadband Wireless/Trango Systems, Qualcomm Personal Electronics, U.S. Navy Radar Tech

CR4 Admin: Email address removed

From the Site FAQ: Do not post phone numbers or email addresses. The CR4 Admin will delete all phone numbers posted in threads or comments, and we strongly urge you not to put up email addresses.

Well, OK Kyle. I will accept your comments as a hands on guy.

I would also tend to agree, "The level of potential damage is proportionate to the field strength and exposure time.".

Now would you tell me , "Have you performed any laboratory tests yourself?". If yes, would you share the test methodology, criteria, and results with us?

I wouldn't want to stick my head next to a 50,000 watt radio tower, either. But we are not talking about high-wattage radiators here. Please get real. There is a vast difference between a little and a lot of RF energy.

Your post is ludicrous. We are not talking about human exposure, but trees. You said yourself that sunlight and wireless signals are the same thing. Trees depend on sunlight for their life. Of course high power at close distance can be harmful, but like Tornado said "Get real".