Enjoying reading the latest technology news and reviews here on Crave? Hope you're pleased with yourself, because you're killing a tree. Dutch researchers have discovered the sad news that Wi-Fi makes trees sick.
The tree-loving folks of Dutch city Alphen aan den Rijn commissioned the study after finding abnormalities on trees that couldn't be explained by known viral or bacterial infections. Over the last five years, the study found that all deciduous trees in the western world are affected by radiation from mobile-phone networks and wireless LANs.
Over 70 per cent of trees in urban areas in the Netherlands are afflicted by Wi-Fi sickness, displaying significant variations in growth, and bleeding and fissures in their bark. That's compared with just 10 per cent showing symptoms five years ago. Meanwhile, trees in wooded areas remain happy and healthy, untroubled by wireless unwellness.
We've been debating the health issues raised by Wi-Fi since Crave was knee-high to a router, examining contradictory findings way back in 2007. Since then, there hasn't been any conclusive proof whether Wi-Fi is harmful to humans or not.
The Health Protection Agency states that "there is no consistent evidence to date that exposure to radio signals from Wi-Fi and WLANs adversely affects the health of the general population". A small number of people suffer from electromagnetic hypersensitivity -- the symptoms of which include headaches and nausea -- but there's some debate about the degree to which those symptoms are actually caused by electromagnetic fields.
Generally speaking, our exposure to radio signals from Wi-Fi is well below government safety levels, and much lower than from mobile phones, in part because you don't walk around with a router clamped to your ear. You'd have to live in a Wi-Fi hotspot for a year to absorb the same amount of radio waves as you would from a 20-minute phone call, and there's no concrete evidence that mobile phones are bad for you either. If you're worried, just make yourself a hat out of tin foil.
We like trees an' all, but they're no Internet. There's only one thing for it: we'll just have to launch all the forests into space. Right, time to make like a tree and leave.
Android App 
RSS Feeds 
iPhone App 
Newsletters 
Comments 22
Add your comment
J4M35 22 November, 2010 13:45
Trees are more important than the internet you f-ing idiot. They provide us with oxygen and are an important and increasingly endangered part of the environment. Whereas the internet brainwashes and makes us lazy and fat :)
Anonymous 22 November, 2010 13:55
The last few lines ruin the whole article.
Rich Trenholm 22 November, 2010 15:05
I'll tell you what trees do: they just stand there. Rubbish. Can you look at LOLcats on a tree? No. Can you listen to music on a tree? No. Do trees have 5.1 channel surround sound? No. This is a technology website not a yurt commune, you bunch of hippies
Anonymous 22 November, 2010 15:14
I love gadgets and technology and it provides my main income but not at the risk of damaging other living things. Personally I will be reading more into these findings and not take on the small minded approach mentioned above. I am not a hippie just because I like other living things....
Nick Hide 22 November, 2010 15:24
I hate other living things, with their filth and their ants and their mulch. I want to upload my brainthoughts to the Interwebs so I can be free of them.
tommo 22 November, 2010 16:01
Hey we've all seen 'Day of the Triffids' and 'The Happening', so I'm sure when they've had enough the trees and plant life will fight back. Why it was only the other week branch fell on my car, so all the signs are there. As for t'internet vs trees - the alternative to us spending our life inside plugged in is we spend it outside cutting down trees to make log cabins, or for firewood, or to make tree houses.
At least we don't eat them like the dinosaurs did... in fact trees have never had it so good!
Anonymous 22 November, 2010 21:32
Hmmm. I expect as usual the devil is in the details such as how close a tree (human/animal etc.) has to be to the source of the radiation. Also I wonder how the study was done and whether has been replicated. Not that this doesn't warrant watching but I wouldn't be throwing out my cell phones access points yet.
Anonymous 22 November, 2010 22:34
And... of course... it has nothing to do with any of the other environmental factors associated with urban living which have caused this damage.
I know, I know, the article clearly states that five years ago, it wasn't so bad, but, unless you forgot, WiFi is not the ONLY invention of the last five years.
I really want to know how they have decided that WiFi is the main culprit, and, why were they measuring this 5 years ago to get a baseline? Unless they set out to prove that WiFi kills trees, in which case, this 'experiment' leaves a lot to be desired.
ukmikk 22 November, 2010 23:23
I thought I was getting used to purile, ill-considered comments and sixth-form standard jounalism but I've clearly got more to do.
Rich Trenholm 23 November, 2010 10:45
Sixth-form standard? Thanks ukmikk! We were shooting for Year 11.
Anonymous 23 November, 2010 15:31
The study sounds flimsy at best (did the researchers even control for other effects such as increased pollution?) and the electromagnetic hypersensitivity condition so confidently name dropped has no evidence supporting its existence; blinded studies have so far failed to trigger the condition.
Please do some research before publishing such controversial articles, Rich.
Anonymous 23 November, 2010 15:36
The amount of trolling in this article just proves what internet does to you minds...
Kill all trees and you will not be around to use the internet. LOL MOFOS!
anonymous 23 November, 2010 15:56
such lazy reporting. here's the info from the dutch government site (translated from dutch):
The results of this study are not yet published.
First impression
The researcher from Wageningen University indicates that these are initial results and that has not been confirmed in a repeat survey. He warns strongly that there is still no far-reaching conclusions from its results. Based on the information now available it can not be concluded that the WiFi radio signals leads to damage to trees or other plants. It takes into account previously published studies showing no effect.
Anonymous 23 November, 2010 16:21
Rich. You are either the king of sarcasm, laughing at all the stupid comments post after your article. Hich would make really interesting or you are the biggest posser ever which would be a really sad waste of net resources.
K
Anonymous 24 November, 2010 13:50
Let's not discuss this any further, it doesn't warrent it. I promise everyone this "study" is entirely BS, so much so the reasons why don't even need to be iterated. My best guess is that the author moonlights for "The Onion" and accidentally posted the article to the wrong media. Thousands of factors can contribute to the decline and loss of vigor of trees, and WIFI is easily the LEAST plausible of them all.
I do love reading the Onion though
Jeff
Anonymous 25 November, 2010 01:02
Reap as one has sown - human will be punished by Mother Nature.
Anonymous 26 November, 2010 22:28
"Can you look at LOLcats on a tree? No. Can you listen to music on a tree? No."
Can't do any of those with you either Trenholm. So no need to worry about your passing either then.
Anonymous 1 December, 2010 19:52
This is really good. I like the first line that says, "Enjoying reading the latest technology news and reviews here on Crave? Hope you're pleased with yourself, because you're killing a tree."
This was a hilarious article. Just shows how idiotic people in this world have become and how ignorant others are to read one thing and immediately believe/agree with it.
Anonymous 2 December, 2010 22:09
Without trees, you wouldn't be writing this very article.
Anonymous 3 December, 2010 12:06
Ah, where to begin... As a professional working with trees I would not be too quick to jump on this bandwagon. Diseases and insect pressures upon trees do change as pests levels fluctuate in areas. Plants may exhibit signs and symptons of infestation/infection which may not have been present (or at the same levels) five years prior.
Greenspace is essential to any uban environment. But unlike a forest setting, the urben environment is constantly changing putting greater stress on trees" making them more susceptible to insect and disease pressures.
Anonymous 3 December, 2010 22:59
Correlation != causality
Anonymous 23 December, 2010 02:36
This 'study' is just another in a long list of health scares. Basically almost every single thing is killing everything else if all these 'studies' are to be believed. The only suprise is that people keep forgetting all the other BS scares that never came through. Acid rain? Mad cow disease? ect ect....