It showed the most of those things, idk where you're getting that from it sounds like you're just trying to use scientific vocabulary to strengthen your weak argument since you don't go into detail.
They were transparent about temperature and humidity needing to be measured and that those could have caused the results rather than wifi. Complaining that you don't know what happened for the followup is changing the subject.
Yes they showed those things, but that's not enough to guarantee any scientific rigor. Do you know anything about the Scientific Method and how to setup a controlled experiment? It sounds like you want to simply accept their conclusions without knowing the actual details of the experiment, the data and the methods used.
And yes, they were transparent about the temperature and humidity being additional variables that they did not control for, but they still published the video without re-running the experiment with those variables being controlled. They published the video that showed what they wanted to show rather than what may have actually happened. That is scientific fraud.
Can you just chill with the "Ever hear of the scientific method" nonsense? It sounds like you don't like the results of what they tried and you're trying to critique a short and interesting video as if you're peer reviewing an academic paper. Maybe the details are published and you should dig that up if you want to critique at this level of detail.
Yes, the video is short and doesn't prove a flawless execution but it doesn't show any huge red flags either, and they're not pushing a conclusion, just surprising results. If you want to prove one way or another if it was the wifi signal that affected the plants then run the same experiment yourself instead of spouting off pretension that you're an expert like a middle schooler would.
they're not pushing a conclusion
They may or may not be, but I've seen this video pushed by others as definitive proof that WiFi is harmful which is why I pick it apart as I do. Do you want to spread wrong information and have someone put an agenda on it? This is how people are programmed these days. Wrap the agenda in something innocuous looking and get people to defend it because "muh kids". Don't fall for the (((tricks))) used to spread the lies. Use your brain and always be skeptical. When we stop being skeptical, then it's over and done with. It doesn't take an expert to spot a tool used to push a narrative.
And I don't have to do the experiment for myself to know the end results. We've been blasting out RF/EMF radiation at all kinds of frequencies for 100 years and at power outputs far greater than any WiFi router. Plants are growing just fine all over the world including right next to towers and antennas.
Are you a fan of Nikola Tesla? If you are, then you better do some reconciliation between RF/EMF being bad and also being the most amazing thing ever. Did his work kill plants too? Would you fear for your life and health if we were using Tesla wireless power around the world? Think about that carefully.
(post is archived)