Nothing says "proper scientific rigor" quite like a public school science fair experiment. I'd even trust Fraudci's "science" over anything a science fair project done in the last 15 years concludes is happening. But yeah, go ahead and push your fear mongering video. It's not like we haven't been living with WiFi for twenty years or anything.
So what? That's how science is done, even if this was somewhat simplified. Whether or not the wifi is directly stunting the plants, these kids are learning about the scientific process, and how to critically think about a process. And their next step was to measure and control some of the other variables. If they took it far enough, they could have a very defensible study.
Fraudci and Company don't even allow questioning results, which is anti-science, by definition. So yep, these high school kids are "doing science" better than our government.
The likely most fruitful approach would be too try to prove their conclusion wrong. Have routers with the radio off. Have them on, with some plants shielded partly with metal. No experiment ever proves anything in the positive sense, but an experiment can show that something is not possible.
Shit, if this really worked, they could set up radio signals outside to prevent weed growth. It would save lots of money.
Have them on, with some plants shielded partly with metal
How are you going to make sure they get light? I get "partial", but that means you're letting in a bunch of "radiation" too.
Shit, if this really worked, they could set up radio signals outside to prevent weed growth. It would save lots of money.
Depending on how far the affect reaches, that may or may not be practical. I'm pretty sure having a router in the same room doesn't inhibit plant growth. People keep houseplants in the same room as WiFi all the time.
They literally did have a control with the router off. Did you even watch the video?
If you think that's how science is done, then you don't know science. They are doing some of the elements needed for a controlled experiment, but overall they are not doing it properly. They published this video instead of a video done after they controlled for temperature and humidity. Think about the reasons for that. I bet the discovered that it didn't reproduce the result they wanted or they just didn't do it at all.
these high school kids are "doing science" better than our government.
Now ask them how many genders there are. Trust the science, right?
temperature and humidity
They have them in the same room. Have you ever grown a seed?
experimentation is science.
Fear mongering? Oh yeah that was really scary. Keep throwing your credibility out the window. Have we been living the past twenty years? Or just surviving. If you ask me everyones health is in the gutter.
https://youtu.be/PKYN3-GB7y0?t=34 No Amount of Evidence (will ever persuade an idiot)
No Amount of Evidence (will ever persuade an idiot)
Which is why you will not change your mind on the errors of this experiment. Pot meet kettle.
Sounds like you work in the telecommunications industry and would hate to lose your job.
It's really pathetic. If you're for the truth about RF, you need to promote good science about it. Promoting garbage just makes the cause look stupid. It's lacking integrity to pretend that any experiment, no matter how flawed, is beyond criticism if the conclusion agrees with you. These conspiracy nuts don't even stop and think that being committed to honest science leads to the proper things to fight for.
I dont know why they just didnt do the experiment outside or in a wood shed. Would have made it a lot simpler.
I did read an entire booklet that came with my cell phone years ago. It said not to have the phone with in an inch of your skin. Dont know what to make of that.
It said not to have the phone with in an inch of your skin.
That's just lawyers making an absurd requirement for the use of the product so they can avoid any liability claims for any reason that might come up. It gives them an easy out if you use the phone the way it would be expected to be used and something happens, like your battery catching fire.
One thing that annoys me when fear-mongering is made about radiation (ignoring that they confuse atomic radiation with photonic radiation) is a lack of magnitude. Cell phones can pump out some serious power if there's a poor path back to the tower (2-3 watts). I don't want that right next to my head, if I can help it, and even an inch can reduce the absorbed power significantly due to the inverse-square characteristic. WiFi on the other hand is much lower power and not right next to your head, so even if cell phones are found to be a significant hazard, WiFi is not even on the same page.
What did they miss?
The video doesn't show anything about the actual setup, variables, controls, test methods or error modes. It is edited in such a way to show only the effect they wanted to show and there is no data given. It doesn't give us the actual truth yet at the end they say they decided to re-run the experiment again to control for humidity and temperature, yet there is no results from that experiment. I expect that the repeat of the experiment didn't go as they wanted so it was memoryholed. Finally, the video was produced in part with the Environmental Health Trust so there's no way this was impartial, objective science. It started off as modern "science" with an end result they wanted and they built the experiment around that predetermined conclusion. It's about as accurate as climate change model predictions.
"The video doesn't show anything about the actual setup, variables, controls, test methods or error modes."
The video showed all of that. You always pop up when there's a topic on Wi-Fi....why is that? What is your job?
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.
One VERY obvious one: those little routers put off 20-30W of heat when the Wifi radio amp is enabled. Far less if they are just in standby with the radio off.
In an open room, no issue. But, you take a small box, cover it in tinfoil and create a highly thermally insulated oven. The foil acts as both a convection and radiant barrier.
The retards roasted those little seeds with heat. Not RF radiation.
(Looks like they used a low watt LED bulb, so that wasn't much of a heat source ... just the wifi radio amp.)
I agree that matters, but they didn't miss that. They say the same thing in the video and that they have to do another experiment to know if that was the cause instead of the wifi.
I have to wonder about the reaction here. If this was a study on why niggers are niggers y'all would be praising how these kids are better scientists than leftist phds. The experiment appeared reasonable well executed, and the results shown wer inconclusive but implied something surprising. There's literally no reason to attack and discredit it.
Ummmmmmmmmmm
Millions of variables?
Such as?
This clearly wasn't some kid's project and was led by the teacher to help teach them about controlling for things. They even talk about what they could control better and are doing a follow up.
This is closer to actual science than the type of meta-analysis studies that make up the bulk of science reporting now.
The results are surprising to me too, but I'm not finding any fault with the methods I saw, and I even looked up a few things I thought were suspect and discovered they were just fine (like using aluminum for a Faraday cage for example.
The heat effect is real, and accepted. There is a warning on the phone instructions not to keep the phone within a metre of your brain for a reason.
(post is archived)