Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
Duplicate of another approved link: 8057783


(Natural News)   Those 'tomato plants' you have in the basement by your WiFi router are going to need tin-foil hats as well if you want them to succeed   (naturalnews.com) divider line 169
    More: Interesting, Wi-Fi, routers, oxidative stress, basements, lack of resources, experiments  
•       •       •

9104 clicks; Favorite

169 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-15 11:35:36 AM  

elysive: walktoanarcade: Oh of course I only meant to look at the ABC link. I did not say "results" plural.

Keep cherry-picking and don't read my posts with much comprehension. Good, fark.(some of you can still read, good on you)

You are critiquing other people's linked citations but providing none of your own. It's not my job to hunt down your evidence for you, moron. I don't believe any of what you said, so I have no motivation to research this topic beyond the scope of your posts. Either provide a scientifically link, explicitly cite a better source or maybe STFU? How about that?


Go back and read what I typed, that's what it's for. I've patiently and intelligently explained in full, what I said, but I realize you're the kind of farker that wants to argue for its own sake.

I'll save you some time: I'm not your all day sucker. Pull stupid crap with someone else. Please.
 
2013-12-15 11:38:18 AM  

walktoanarcade: If the study is to discover if and how wifi affects sperm, using utilizing men who previously have reported sperm count problems(which could have been caused by numerous things) prejudices the study. One needs to take a large, random group of men, make them use wifi, then look at the findings vs a large random group of men who, under control conditions of course, do not use wifi.


Knowing that the men have a low sperm count does not prejudice the study. Non-random assignment to a specific group based on prior knowledge does. Knowing that almost half the men have a lower sperm count is very relevant considering that random assignment does not guarantee an equal distribution. The men with a lower sperm count could/should be evenly (but randomly) split between the control and the WiFi group, reducing the chance that the control group has 60% of the men with a low sperm count. Can you imagine the headlines? "WiFi radiation increases sperm count!" plastered in font size 50 across all major newspapers. For a good study you get either a homogeneous group as possible or you get as much information for which you can control after the research data has been collected. Knowing that 45% of the men have a lower sperm count is something that either needs to be corrected for, or needs to be taken along in subject distribution.

Personally I would have simply dropped the data of the men with low sperm count, or done a separate analysis with only the low sperm count group. But then they would have needed to find 900 new test subjects. Which would probably have been difficult.
 
2013-12-15 11:38:22 AM  

Great Porn Dragon: Claude Ballse: Saw the included picture in the article and it gave me 'Nam-esque flashbacks...

That isn't a wireless access point. It's a COM-21 DOXPORT 1110 cable modem, and the worst such modem ever made. So many hours on the phone over almost 2 years listening to customer complaints, and tens of thousands of dollars wasted on truck rolls for non existent problems to swap these things out. First, the Ethernet port was only half-duplex so gamers and video streams by webcam women would never work. Second the damn things always reported back incorrect RF levels, so lazy field techs that used the modem to tune the signal instead of a meter would get it wrong and make things worse.

If you worked at COM-21 and had a hand in the design of this thing, please do the honorable thing and take your own life for the hell wot you wrought upon this earth. And fark you too author of this article for not just the bad memories you unleashed from the dark corners of my mind, but the fact that you can't even use the correct stock photo to accompany you asinine story, you buzz-feed hack!

Oh mother of God, I know your pain.  I know your pain, having long ago (when non-avian dinosaurs roamed the earth) worked at a cable modem support center where there were once a fair number of Com21 Doxports...

And yes, anyone involved in their design should be forcibly defenestrated.  Preferably from the top level of the Petronas Towers, if not the Burj Khalifa,  (Hell, I'd argue that anyone involved at any level of the design of Com21 kit should be defenestrated from a good height on general principle.)


Doxports?  You should be so farking lucky.  I had to deal with the 1way Com21 ComPorts.  Those were farking nightmare machines.  Non DOCSIS compliant.  The 'good' ones had a built-in dial-up modem to handle upstream to the headend, the 'bad' ones (they were ALL bad) had to use your PC's built-in modem.  <DEITY OF CHOICE> help you if granny just had a winmodem (a soundcard that emulated modem tones - they were dirt cheap and performed like it) installed rather than an proper modem.

/curls up in a little ball
//cries
///drinks the pain away
 
2013-12-15 11:40:17 AM  

walktoanarcade: Again, I'm not defending this study, only the notion that it's possible for wifi to affect plants' communications.


The communication we've identified has to do with the response to pests. Aphids or caterpillars  start eating a plant, the plant emits chemicals which alert the plants around them to use their precious anti-pest resources.

There is nothing in the article about pests. If there were, the pests themselves would be the likely cause of damage and would have to be a controlled variable. There is no evidence that water cress plants have a telepathic network that is required for them simply to grow, and your continued reference to plant communications making this study in any way plausible continues to be silly.
 
2013-12-15 11:42:50 AM  

walktoanarcade: Again, I'm not defending this study, only the notion that it's possible for wifi to affect plants' communications.

I do no believe, nor have I ever said that wifi stops plants from growing because that's demonstrably false, but it could have some affect.  Our radios could be having an affect for all we know.

Try not to be so close-minded.  How wifi could affect sperm is a different matter, and needs a study in which I illustrated.


And what we've gently noted (and often not-so-gently noted) is the following:

a) An elementary school science fair experiment does not quite meet the standards of scientific rigor--this needs to be repeated in controlled conditions, in conditions that can be controlled far better than those conditions typically available to fourth-grade students.

b) Reliable sourcing is important.  People are more likely to respect "scientists in a controlled trial have noted concern re plants near wifi routers" printed in a reputable information source (a scientific paper or even a science-friendly magazine that hasn't dumbed down everything to Pakled-ese yet) than the Daily Fail, and they will even trust the Daily Fail over a guy who basically follows every conspiracy theory known to man short of Time Cube Theory.

c) There is a fair amount of evidence (both scientific and ancedotal) that indicates that wifi at the low power ranges used is not definitively harmful to humans as long as you're not being stupid and trying to fellate the antennas.  (Amateur radio operators have used the same bands for decades at much higher power and aren't dropping dead.  Microwave transmitters operated for decades in the same bands before wifi was allocated by the ITU and haven't dropped dead.  Hell, we still have a lot of Nokia engineers around, and they're in both of the sets of "having developed cellular and wifi technology" AND "being amateur radio operators who love to play with equipment in the gigahertz bands, to the point we put in "SMS" in Morse code as an easter egg on our phones".)
 
2013-12-15 11:45:05 AM  

megarian: My sister injected 4 Wi-Fis and overdosed.

So dangerous... :(


That's why you bake your Wi-Fis into brownies. Much safer.

/personally, I vaporize all my my Wi-Fis, but I know not everybody can afford a $500 vaporizer
 
2013-12-15 11:46:02 AM  

FueledByEthanol: Doxports? You should be so farking lucky. I had to deal with the 1way Com21 ComPorts. Those were farking nightmare machines. Non DOCSIS compliant. The 'good' ones had a built-in dial-up modem to handle upstream to the headend, the 'bad' ones (they were ALL bad) had to use your PC's built-in modem. <DEITY OF CHOICE> help you if granny just had a winmodem (a soundcard that emulated modem tones - they were dirt cheap and performed like it) installed rather than an proper modem.

/curls up in a little ball
//cries
///drinks the pain away


...Ohgod you had to remind me of ComPort Hell.

WHY DID YOU HAVE TO REMIND ME OF COMPORT HELL

Excuse me...breaking out the Knob Creek Single Barrel nao, might have to hit the Everclear if this keeps up.

/two words: Terayon Terapro
 
2013-12-15 11:46:06 AM  

walktoanarcade: elysive: walktoanarcade: Oh of course I only meant to look at the ABC link. I did not say "results" plural.

Keep cherry-picking and don't read my posts with much comprehension. Good, fark.(some of you can still read, good on you)

You are critiquing other people's linked citations but providing none of your own. It's not my job to hunt down your evidence for you, moron. I don't believe any of what you said, so I have no motivation to research this topic beyond the scope of your posts. Either provide a scientifically link, explicitly cite a better source or maybe STFU? How about that?

Go back and read what I typed, that's what it's for. I've patiently and intelligently explained in full, what I said, but I realize you're the kind of farker that wants to argue for its own sake.

I'll save you some time: I'm not your all day sucker. Pull stupid crap with someone else. Please.


You want me to reread your other posts (for what purpose?) or do you think that other articles will contradict ABC news and reveal that the sperm study had a different experimental design? You have critiqued the experimental design of hardinparamedic's scientific articles, so now I am critiquing the experimental design of the study you sourced via ABC news. Perhaps there are more studies out there. I frankly don't care.

Around here we say [citation needed] and the onus is ALWAYS on the person making the claims. I'm not wading through a general Google search for you. Anyway, Google Scholar would the appropriate search engine for this topic if you knew the first thing about supporting your arguments.
 
2013-12-15 11:46:56 AM  

Reverend Monkeypants: Linux_Yes: since i've upgraded/flashed my firmware on my Linksys router to Tomato Linux...

/high five!
Tomato is awesome.
Coming soon to our town:  A mesh network



did i mention that Security is its middle name?  real security.  not microsoft's version.   (:
 
2013-12-15 11:48:48 AM  
Unless you use a random sampling of men-who have no idea as to their sperm count-you can't know for sure if other factors made them that way. Could be diet, could be many things.

However, if you want to find out once and for all if wifi is a factor, you'd need to conduct an experiment that subjects men to wifi that had never had been near it before with a control group who has been near wifi, although report no sperm count problems and unaware of the nature of the experiment.
 
2013-12-15 11:50:38 AM  

Great Porn Dragon: mongbiohazard: That's weird, considering I'm a gardener and I start everything from seed. I also have three wifi access points flooding my house: one in the attic, one on the first floor and one in the basement by where I store and germinate my seeds.

Strangely enough my seeds and plants all grow just fine. Most seeds I have, even the ones stored next to the router for a few years, have somewhere around a 98% germination rate. Keeping the seeds dry while storing them and then making sure the growing medium is kept at the right temperature and moisture is what matters, wifi doesn't do jack squat.

Hell, my seeds do better now that I've added the 2nd and 3rd access points vs before I had them. Of course that is actually a result of my increase in knowledge during that time...

And as another (purely ancedotal) point...the starting room I've had for my garden (including brassicas and tomato plants)...has been right above where the wifi router is (partly because it's the room that gets the best sun and is easiest to put supplemental lighting if necessary).  I'd suspect what happened to the kids' plants are either a result of not watering enough (which will kill the shiat out of cress), or not getting enough light (which will kill the shiat out of cress).


Sure could be moisture... It could be tricky for a kid to get and keep the growing medium moist enough without being too wet and getting moldy.

Could very well be temperature too though. The temperature that you germinate and grow plants at can will be the difference between none of the seeds germinating, all of them germinating and somewhere in between. I grow a bunch of different varieties of leafy greens and I have seeds to this one spinach which needs a different temp than everything else. I'm lucky to get around a 5% germination rate on those at the same temp as everything else germinates at like a 98% rate. Raise the temp and those seeds will do just fine and everything else will stop growing instead. It can be tricky to control temp for experienced gardeners, nevermind some self-guided kids.


Lenny_da_Hog: walktoanarcade: Again, I'm not defending this study, only the notion that it's possible for wifi to affect plants' communications.

The communication we've identified has to do with the response to pests. Aphids or caterpillars  start eating a plant, the plant emits chemicals which alert the plants around them to use their precious anti-pest resources.

There is nothing in the article about pests. If there were, the pests themselves would be the likely cause of damage and would have to be a controlled variable. There is no evidence that water cress plants have a telepathic network that is required for them simply to grow, and your continued reference to plant communications making this study in any way plausible continues to be silly.



He already said he was trolling earlier in the thread.

/hahajokesonthemIwasonlyPRETENDINGtoberetarded.jpg
 
2013-12-15 11:52:21 AM  
Damn you subby, I almost clicked NaturalNews.

They're certifiably insane over there.
 
2013-12-15 11:53:46 AM  

walktoanarcade: Try not to be so close-minded.


It isn't close minded to call out the unsubstantiated "studies" form a site that routinely spews stuff that is complete BS.

It is however stupid to keep coming up for excuses as to how it could be right with absolutely no proof.
 
2013-12-15 11:54:15 AM  
I was being trolled, not trolling.  Or a couple people were being obtuse.

I know, welcome to fark.
 
2013-12-15 11:55:26 AM  

walktoanarcade: Unless you use a random sampling of men-who have no idea as to their sperm count-you can't know for sure if other factors made them that way. Could be diet, could be many things.

However, if you want to find out once and for all if wifi is a factor, you'd need to conduct an experiment that subjects men to wifi that had never had been near it before with a control group who has been near wifi, although report no sperm count problems and unaware of the nature of the experiment.


*facepalm* re: your first sentence

Anyway there is no way to find people unexposed to wifi unless you go to impoverished third world nations, and even then you can argue that they are exposed to radio waves and cellular waves very close to the wifi spectrum. If you truly believe it's the "waves" damaging your sperms, bluetooth, cellular, am/fm radio, radiation from space, they're all attacking your sperm.

You must accept that your junk is constantly being bombarded by those nasty radio waves and increasingly you have no control over the wifi waves specifically, so you might as well give up on the hopes of having children. Happy now?!
 
2013-12-15 11:59:25 AM  

liam76: walktoanarcade: Try not to be so close-minded.

It isn't close minded to call out the unsubstantiated "studies" form a site that routinely spews stuff that is complete BS.

It is however stupid to keep coming up for excuses as to how it could be right with absolutely no proof.



walktoanarcade: commieprogressive: walktoanarcade: Wifi has been shown to affect sperm in men who use it on  their laptops, so this may also be true.

Plants use the air to communicate and are affected by the type of music one plays for them, making wifi interference with them entirely plausible.

Wait, E&M waves are interfering with sound waves?  Is my physics that bad or does this not make sense?

It makes sense because wifi uses radio waves, which uses the air...

/being trolled



i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-15 11:59:53 AM  

liam76: walktoanarcade: Try not to be so close-minded.

It isn't close minded to call out the unsubstantiated "studies" form a site that routinely spews stuff that is complete BS.

It is however stupid to keep coming up for excuses as to how it could be right with absolutely no proof.


What I stated was twisted by one farker and then more farkers ran with it.

I never defended that website's headline, only part of the logic which could be possible.  Later outright scientific truth I spoke about(plants using the air to communicate)  was called out as wrong. haha They defended that by proving my argument.  By simplifyiny, i.e., leaving out the chemical expression, I had proved my wrongheadedness. *facepalm*

Whoa is me!
 
2013-12-15 12:01:52 PM  
This thread is now a lesson is poor reading comprehension.


I didn't say I was trolling, dumbfark. I never pull that garbage. If I make a mistake, I admit it, not "HA I TROLL YOU!!11"
 
2013-12-15 12:04:24 PM  

walktoanarcade: I was being trolled, not trolling.  Or a couple people were being obtuse.

I know, welcome to fark.



That comment had made it easy to give you the benefit of the doubt - that you're trolling and not actually retarded. I'll take your word for it though. If you're not trolling then you're being insistently dumb. My mistake.
 
2013-12-15 12:05:30 PM  
Anyways, aren't plants subjected to far more intense EM radiation as well as a broader spectrum of EM radiation SITTING OUTSIDE GROWING UNDER THE farkING SUN than next to a cell phone?

There is a difference between full sun and partial shade and the myriad varieties of plants.  The sun, even at this distance, is a far more intense, by orders of magnitude, emitter of EM radiation than a cell phone.
 
2013-12-15 12:17:20 PM  

meat0918: Anyways, aren't plants subjected to far more intense EM radiation as well as a broader spectrum of EM radiation SITTING OUTSIDE GROWING UNDER THE farkING SUN than next to a cell phone?

There is a difference between full sun and partial shade and the myriad varieties of plants.  The sun, even at this distance, is a far more intense, by orders of magnitude, emitter of EM radiation than a cell phone.


I love that the article said the healthy plants were in a "radiation-free" room. That alone is quite a scientific achievement.
 
2013-12-15 12:17:26 PM  
Why is there a link to natural news and why does Fark have a special purpose banner for them? Are you trying to drive me away?
 
2013-12-15 12:19:02 PM  

jake_lex: That is, "Let's try this with people who actually know how to grow plants."


Which I have done. And it's true. Wi-fi radiation interferes with the germination and growth of many plants.

Crops tested and verified personally by myself: Cannabis, Parris Island Romaine Lettuce, countless cultivars of Heirloom and GMO tomato, Soy, and every Capsicum I've laid my hands on.

The effect is worse with older A/B routers in the 2.4 GHz bands versus the newer G/N/AC routers in the 5 GHz band.

Kinda part of my job as research director for a multinational horticultural research director.
 
2013-12-15 12:20:11 PM  
Good to know we have our top scientists looking into the issues......top.....scientists!
img.fark.net
 
2013-12-15 12:21:05 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: I love that the article said the healthy plants were in a "radiation-free" room. That alone is quite a scientific achievement.


They didn't mention this (you can call the school to ask, like I did, regarding the setup,) but 'radiation-free' was meant as in they had the rooms enclosed in a faraday cage to prevent wifi from other routers in the school causing interference.
 
2013-12-15 12:22:51 PM  

khyberkitsune: Kinda part of my job as research director for a multinational horticultural research director.


So you're a research director for a research director?

/yo dawg, I'm putting Xzibit on standby
 
2013-12-15 12:24:44 PM  

khyberkitsune: Kinda part of my job as research director for a multinational horticultural research director.


If the research director needs his/her own research director, that must be one hell of an organization.
 
2013-12-15 12:25:51 PM  

khyberkitsune: Lenny_da_Hog: I love that the article said the healthy plants were in a "radiation-free" room. That alone is quite a scientific achievement.

They didn't mention this (you can call the school to ask, like I did, regarding the setup,) but 'radiation-free' was meant as in they had the rooms enclosed in a faraday cage to prevent wifi from other routers in the school causing interference.


I think I'll wait for the published paper.
 
2013-12-15 12:26:54 PM  

gweilo8888: khyberkitsune: Kinda part of my job as research director for a multinational horticultural research director.

So you're a research director for a research director?

/yo dawg, I'm putting Xzibit on standby


Have Xzibit meet us for drinks at Shenanigans.
 
2013-12-15 12:31:34 PM  

gweilo8888: khyberkitsune: Kinda part of my job as research director for a multinational horticultural research director.

So you're a research director for a research director?

/yo dawg, I'm putting Xzibit on standby


Lenny_da_Hog: khyberkitsune: Kinda part of my job as research director for a multinational horticultural research director.

If the research director needs his/her own research director, that must be one hell of an organization.


mongbiohazard: gweilo8888: khyberkitsune: Kinda part of my job as research director for a multinational horticultural research director.

So you're a research director for a research director?

/yo dawg, I'm putting Xzibit on standby

Have Xzibit meet us for drinks at Shenanigans.


Yea, I haven't had my coffee, yet. Just finished a UK/Australia Skype meeting. Not quite fully awake.

img.fark.net

But that is indeed what I do for a living, plus other side jobs (and designing other LED units) for the extra R&D money.
 
2013-12-15 12:38:11 PM  

khyberkitsune: gweilo8888: khyberkitsune: Kinda part of my job as research director for a multinational horticultural research director.

So you're a research director for a research director?

/yo dawg, I'm putting Xzibit on standby

Lenny_da_Hog: khyberkitsune: Kinda part of my job as research director for a multinational horticultural research director.

If the research director needs his/her own research director, that must be one hell of an organization.

mongbiohazard: gweilo8888: khyberkitsune: Kinda part of my job as research director for a multinational horticultural research director.

So you're a research director for a research director?

/yo dawg, I'm putting Xzibit on standby

Have Xzibit meet us for drinks at Shenanigans.

Yea, I haven't had my coffee, yet. Just finished a UK/Australia Skype meeting. Not quite fully awake.



But that is indeed what I do for a living, plus other side jobs (and designing other LED units) for the extra R&D money.


Then maybe you should switch to HPS lights. I grow everything on your list except soybeans and pot right next to a wifi router, with 2 others with strong signals near as well, and I have seen no effects on either germination or growth before or after installation. As mentioned previously, if anything I've had better success with my seedlings as I've added wifi - and then more wifi. I'm already at around a 98% germination rate so I'm not sure how much better I would get if wifi did have the effect claimed and I removed my access points. That's pretty much as good as germination gets.
 
2013-12-15 12:42:41 PM  
I have never seen a more entertaining argument with an inanimate object. One person would say something super intelligent and then the inanimate object would say...... Toaster.
 
2013-12-15 12:46:04 PM  

khyberkitsune: Yea, I haven't had my coffee, yet. Just finished a UK/Australia Skype meeting. Not quite fully awake.

[img.fark.net image 850x637]

But that is indeed what I do for a living, plus other side jobs (and designing other LED units) for the extra R&D money.


A two-second GIS says that the multinational is so huge, it's website currently says "Our online store is currently closed for maintenance. Please visit us again soon."

Did you blow the whole budget on your in-depth Wi-Fi research and forget to sell your LED light bulbs?
 
2013-12-15 12:47:03 PM  

walktoanarcade: What I stated was twisted by one farker and then more farkers ran with it.


You stated several things in support of this. Form the wifi uses radio waves which use air, to the claim about the ABC news story.


walktoanarcade: I never defended that website's headline, only part of the logic which could be possible.


No there is no logic where it could be possible, unless you want to ignore all the other devices which use similiar frequencies.


walktoanarcade: They defended that by proving my argument.


Didn't happen.
 
2013-12-15 12:48:08 PM  
But what kind of effect will it have on my weed?
 
2013-12-15 12:54:39 PM  

SpdrJay: My Wi-Fi router gave me pinkeye.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-15 12:57:18 PM  

gweilo8888: khyberkitsune: Yea, I haven't had my coffee, yet. Just finished a UK/Australia Skype meeting. Not quite fully awake.

[img.fark.net image 850x637]

But that is indeed what I do for a living, plus other side jobs (and designing other LED units) for the extra R&D money.

A two-second GIS says that the multinational is so huge, it's website currently says "Our online store is currently closed for maintenance. Please visit us again soon."

Did you blow the whole budget on your in-depth Wi-Fi research and forget to sell your LED light bulbs?


We sold EcogroLED and no longer own the trademark rights, etc that went with the name.

But you don't seem to understand EcogroLED was a subdivision of a larger company that does everything from multimedia/website design to horticultural projects to making the huge LED-based ad screens you see around tennis courts and football pitches. Like most corporations, in fact.
 
2013-12-15 12:59:42 PM  
Bah, I realize that may have sounded a bit dickish. Apologies, it wasn't meant to be that way.


Essentially, EcogroLED was a subdivision of a larger company, which is a subdivision of an even larger company, which is owned by another company of investors. Multiple levels and multiple industries.
 
2013-12-15 01:06:51 PM  

khyberkitsune: But you don't seem to understand EcogroLED was a subdivision of a larger company that does everything from multimedia/website design to horticultural projects to making the huge LED-based ad screens you see around tennis courts and football pitches. Like most corporations, in fact.


Amazing -- and yet "EcoGroLED" or "EcoGro LED" in total return only 1,808 results on Google, and not a single news item ever on Google News. Not the most successful product launch ever, I can see why this huge multinational sold it.

It's interesting to me that the huge multinational was running its operation out of a house in Riverside, CA, according to the address on the Google Plus page for EcoGro. And that EcoGroLED, EcoGro, and Eco Gro, haven't ever been trademarked for anything except soil (and in all cases, those trademarks are lapsed.)

Care to identify the multinational, or will it sound a lot less impressive than the word multinational?
 
2013-12-15 01:45:14 PM  

oukewldave: where's the Tinfoil Hat  tag?  Or at least Unlikely


I would settle for a repeat tag.
 
2013-12-15 01:48:21 PM  
NaturalNews

farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2013-12-15 01:49:53 PM  

SpdrJay: My Wi-Fi router gave me pinkeye.


Mine gave me the clap.
 
2013-12-15 01:56:34 PM  

walktoanarcade: Zarquon's Flat Tire: walktoanarcade: Wifi has been shown to affect sperm in men who use it on  their laptops, so this may also be true.

Plants use the air to communicate and are affected by the type of music one plays for them, making wifi interference with them entirely plausible.

You know what else affects testicles? Heat, like from a laptop.

Really, if you'd check, wifi affects sperm, and it's been confirmed.  It's old news.

Google "wife affects sperm" and check out the results. The ABC news link dives right into it, and it's from 2011.


Alright...I'll bite.

One: I think you mean "wifi"
And two: This has got to be the dumbest post I have read on Fark since the election last year. Your body does NOT react to radio frequencies like that. There have been MANY studies done on the effects of EMI and RFI on the human body and nothing shows any sort of effect like that (or any effect at all last I checked). This article is hogwash and the author should be drawn and quartered for spreading misinformation...or at least have a disclaimer on the article (WARNING! This article contains high levels of bullshiat),
 
2013-12-15 02:24:00 PM  
welshnewsnot.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-12-15 02:25:18 PM  

DeathCipris: walktoanarcade: Zarquon's Flat Tire: walktoanarcade: Wifi has been shown to affect sperm in men who use it on  their laptops, so this may also be true.

Plants use the air to communicate and are affected by the type of music one plays for them, making wifi interference with them entirely plausible.

You know what else affects testicles? Heat, like from a laptop.

Really, if you'd check, wifi affects sperm, and it's been confirmed.  It's old news.

Google "wife affects sperm" and check out the results. The ABC news link dives right into it, and it's from 2011.

Alright...I'll bite.

One: I think you mean "wifi"
And two: This has got to be the dumbest post I have read on Fark since the election last year. Your body does NOT react to radio frequencies like that. There have been MANY studies done on the effects of EMI and RFI on the human body and nothing shows any sort of effect like that (or any effect at all last I checked). This article is hogwash and the author should be drawn and quartered for spreading misinformation...or at least have a disclaimer on the article (WARNING! This article contains high levels of bullshiat),


Hey, there are articles. Study it out.

/Sarcasm now off.
 
2013-12-15 02:45:46 PM  

walktoanarcade: commieprogressive: walktoanarcade: commieprogressive: walktoanarcade: Wifi has been shown to affect sperm in men who use it on  their laptops, so this may also be true.

Plants use the air to communicate and are affected by the type of music one plays for them, making wifi interference with them entirely plausible.

Wait, E&M waves are interfering with sound waves?  Is my physics that bad or does this not make sense?

It makes sense because wifi uses radio waves, which uses the air...

/being trolled

You do know E&M waves exist in a vacuum?

Yes.


So how do they use air?
 
2013-12-15 03:05:53 PM  

The first thing I looked at: walktoanarcade: commieprogressive: walktoanarcade: commieprogressive: walktoanarcade: Wifi has been shown to affect sperm in men who use it on  their laptops, so this may also be true.

Plants use the air to communicate and are affected by the type of music one plays for them, making wifi interference with them entirely plausible.

Wait, E&M waves are interfering with sound waves?  Is my physics that bad or does this not make sense?

It makes sense because wifi uses radio waves, which uses the air...

/being trolled

You do know E&M waves exist in a vacuum?

Yes.

So how do they use air?


It's been discovered that there are some air molecules in space.
 
2013-12-15 03:18:59 PM  

Great Porn Dragon: walktoanarcade: Again, I'm not defending this study, only the notion that it's possible for wifi to affect plants' communications.

I do no believe, nor have I ever said that wifi stops plants from growing because that's demonstrably false, but it could have some affect.  Our radios could be having an affect for all we know.

Try not to be so close-minded.  How wifi could affect sperm is a different matter, and needs a study in which I illustrated.

And what we've gently noted (and often not-so-gently noted) is the following:

a) An elementary school science fair experiment does not quite meet the standards of scientific rigor--this needs to be repeated in controlled conditions, in conditions that can be controlled far better than those conditions typically available to fourth-grade students.

b) Reliable sourcing is important.  People are more likely to respect "scientists in a controlled trial have noted concern re plants near wifi routers" printed in a reputable information source (a scientific paper or even a science-friendly magazine that hasn't dumbed down everything to Pakled-ese yet) than the Daily Fail, and they will even trust the Daily Fail over a guy who basically follows every conspiracy theory known to man short of Time Cube Theory.


The guy who owns the website regarding the link in question believes every story he hears is what your saying?  Hmmm

Your other points are duly noted and taken in the best way. Yeah, the experiment wasn't that good to say the least,  and NOW I understand the seeming vitriol..I didn't know that website was connected to conspiracies.  No wonder. OK, you men and women don't know me, but I have zero time for the likes of Jesse Ventura.

Point C made laugh. In the good way, in the good way..."farking the antennaes. "
 
2013-12-15 03:19:37 PM  

walktoanarcade: The first thing I looked at: walktoanarcade: commieprogressive: walktoanarcade: commieprogressive: walktoanarcade: Wifi has been shown to affect sperm in men who use it on  their laptops, so this may also be true.

Plants use the air to communicate and are affected by the type of music one plays for them, making wifi interference with them entirely plausible.

Wait, E&M waves are interfering with sound waves?  Is my physics that bad or does this not make sense?

It makes sense because wifi uses radio waves, which uses the air...

/being trolled

You do know E&M waves exist in a vacuum?

Yes.

So how do they use air?

It's been discovered that there are some air molecules in space.


haha, I love this guy...
 
2013-12-15 03:22:06 PM  

liam76: walktoanarcade: The first thing I looked at: walktoanarcade: commieprogressive: walktoanarcade: commieprogressive: walktoanarcade: Wifi has been shown to affect sperm in men who use it on  their laptops, so this may also be true.

Plants use the air to communicate and are affected by the type of music one plays for them, making wifi interference with them entirely plausible.

Wait, E&M waves are interfering with sound waves?  Is my physics that bad or does this not make sense?

It makes sense because wifi uses radio waves, which uses the air...

/being trolled

You do know E&M waves exist in a vacuum?

Yes.

So how do they use air?

It's been discovered that there are some air molecules in space.

haha, I love this guy...


It's OK to laugh,(I laughed too) I knew what I had to reply was weak,....yet scientifically valid! ;)
 
Displayed 50 of 169 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report