PS: And yes having a normal router having significant effects on plant life though EM radiation is about as likely as neutrino's going faster than light. Heat, contamination, or bad seeds etc is a far more likely culprit.
how is it extraordinary? Decreased sperm count from holding a cellphone in your pocket is a well-known phenomenon and has been replicated time after time.
Your only judgment about likelihood of this is based on your limited mechanistic explanation, biased by the scientific dogma that nonionizing radiation is harmless. If you look above, I posit a quite reasonable (and testable!) mechanism for this to occur.
I would point out these are rather subjective measurements. In that a person is physically looking though a microscope and making a judgement call. Worse, sperm are highly impacted by temperature and negative studies get little attention and often don't get published.
Why such attention? Well in most cases the radiation needs to go through your freaking leg which if your cells are absorbing this em radiation should act as significant shielding for some vary weak radiation.
Compare this to this plant experiment which is blatantly obvious.
agreed (except that pretty sure radio waves will go through your leg). Also of note is that Ames tests on cellphone radiation are completely inconsistent.
It's extraordinary because people have argued about the safety of EM radiation for ages. Despite the arguments, only very weak evidence of interference was ever posted.
There is a very easy solution here. Reproduce it and control all the variables. I cannot fathom why anyone would take issue with this request.
of course a more careful repeat of the experiment is should be done. Without too much prejudice to scientific "professionals" (who very often aren't) - the experiment was done by high school students, after all.
But the post I responded to did not request a repeat, it totally dismissed it by saying it was "almost guaranteed" that other factors contribute, and that's what I take issue with.
Comments
Because there due to the extraordinary nature of the results it's almost guaranteed that something else is causing these results.
EX: Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anom...
PS: And yes having a normal router having significant effects on plant life though EM radiation is about as likely as neutrino's going faster than light. Heat, contamination, or bad seeds etc is a far more likely culprit.
how is it extraordinary? Decreased sperm count from holding a cellphone in your pocket is a well-known phenomenon and has been replicated time after time.
Your only judgment about likelihood of this is based on your limited mechanistic explanation, biased by the scientific dogma that nonionizing radiation is harmless. If you look above, I posit a quite reasonable (and testable!) mechanism for this to occur.
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/7219/does-the-pr...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21799142
I would point out these are rather subjective measurements. In that a person is physically looking though a microscope and making a judgement call. Worse, sperm are highly impacted by temperature and negative studies get little attention and often don't get published.
Why such attention? Well in most cases the radiation needs to go through your freaking leg which if your cells are absorbing this em radiation should act as significant shielding for some vary weak radiation.
Compare this to this plant experiment which is blatantly obvious.
PS: And just for fun, compare with the unharmed levitating frogs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1vyB-O5i6E
agreed (except that pretty sure radio waves will go through your leg). Also of note is that Ames tests on cellphone radiation are completely inconsistent.
http://www.nature.com/aja/journal/v15/n2/full/aja2012104a.ht... (at least, it's quite good if you have access)
It's extraordinary because people have argued about the safety of EM radiation for ages. Despite the arguments, only very weak evidence of interference was ever posted.
There is a very easy solution here. Reproduce it and control all the variables. I cannot fathom why anyone would take issue with this request.
of course a more careful repeat of the experiment is should be done. Without too much prejudice to scientific "professionals" (who very often aren't) - the experiment was done by high school students, after all.
But the post I responded to did not request a repeat, it totally dismissed it by saying it was "almost guaranteed" that other factors contribute, and that's what I take issue with.