As I get deeper and deeper into this whole WiFi/cell phone debacle, the one thing that never ceases to amaze me is how people stubbornly insist on “proven data” quoting Industry-funded sources like Health Canada stating that “a person would have to be in a room within 20 cm of 1,000 WiFi routers for an extended period of time for there to be any health concern.” And these are the sources and opinions that get quoted in news articles.

It drives me crazy! When we now have literally hundreds of studies showing that people living in close proximity to just ONE cell tower or WiFi tower suffer cancer clusters, headaches, sleep problems, GI problems, etc. But does the media report on any of these peer-reviewed, scientific studies showing the clear dangers of WiFi and cell phones?

No, they continue to quote industry stooges or just plain misinformed people who haven’t taken the time to look at the actual data for themselves.

But let’s take it away from scientific data and just put it into the realm of pure common sense: If we have studies that show microwave radiation (from cell phones, cordless phones, wireless computers and other wireless devices) cause marked, measurable damage in plants and animals – then WHY do we think, “Uh, gee, it’s damaging everything else on the planet, but not us humans, we’re fine!”

Plants Damaged By Microwave (RF) Radiation

Again, we have hundreds of studies now amassed showing that WiFi radiation from cell towers and WiFi towers and yes, YOU using these devices are damaging plants and animals. Here’s just one:

This experiment with Aspen seedlings in Colorado pinpoints why the trees in the region have been showing steady death and decline since 2004.

They put these seedlings inside a Faraday Cage – to shield them from RF radiation and here’s what they looked like, healthy, well-formed leaves, with plenty of leaves per branch:

These seedlings were not shielded from the radiation and you can visibly see how they are damaged and stunted:

The author of this study, K. Haggerty, goes on to say:

“Currently a strong human-generated RF background exists at every point on the earth’s surface, although radio field strength is relatively greater in the most populous and urbanized areas. Globally, the highest field strengths occur in central Europe, the eastern United States, and in China (Figure 9). Forest decline was first recognized and defined based on observed events in central Europe and the eastern US, and China, at this time, is experiencing rapid desertification. […]

More recently, it has been shown that mortality rates of all dominant tree species in the western United States have been doubling every 17–29 years in old growth forests, and that recruitment of new trees is now occurring at a lower rate than mortality [35]. Since aspen decline and other tree decline incidents worldwide have similar symptoms, and since no definitive explanation has been found for those events, it seems plausible that their decline may be related to RF exposure.”

Even Opponents of Wireless Carry Cell Phones!

And another thing that’s been bothering me: When I go to meetings where people gather who are concerned about the negative health effects of WiFi and cell phones….. nearly everyone there is carrying or using a cell phone! First everyone turns off their cell phone, and then we talk about how cell phone radiation is contributing to bees dying. How about putting your money where your mouth is?

If those of us who KNOW how wireless is damaging life forms will not stop using cell phones, how are we ever going to get Joe-public to stop using wireless devices?

Personally, I haven’t had a cell phone for about 2 years. But realistically, I don’t see how we’re ever going to get any kind of a ban on this technology, until as Dr. Allan Frey stated in the GQ magazine article, Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous To Your Health, “there are bodies in the streets.” This technology is simply too widespread and the revenues at stake make vaccination (another industry-driven fiasco) look like a poor cousin.

EMR Shielding Solution?

I wonder if the solution lies in someone inventing a personal RF/EMR protection device. Something that throws up a “force field” or wave-interrupter, dissonance-generator, etc. that then extends a foot or so around the body – so you can go to the shops, or your kids can go to school without being irradiated. And then there would also need to be a home version of that device, so you can protect your entire house. And then a version that can protect your yard and your land – so kids can play outside.

And I’m not talking about some woo-woo device (there are a lot of those already out there). I’m talking about a device that when activated, you take your RF meter and turn it on inside the protected area and it does not register/show any microwave radiation present.

I’m currently contacting scientists in Russia (where a lot of microwave research originated) trying to find someone who could invent this kind of device – so if you know of someone, or you have some ideas, please post below and I’ll contact you.

No, this won’t save our bees, birds, trees, cows (reduced milk production, shortened gestation) and crops – but at least we won’t have to stand by and watch our children get cancer, chronic fatigue, digestive disorders, etc. until the rest of the world figures out that we have to change this technology to something safer.

And no, I am NOT a Luddite. I use the latest iMac, my entire business is automated on the Internet, before this I owned a telecommunications company. But I am also savvy enough to recognize a serious health issue when I see one – and seriously, this is one of the greatest health challenges of this century.

Animals Damaged By Wireless Radiation

I’m going to leave you with two more animal studies that are clear as day on the dangers this technology presents, in its current form:

“… when you also take into account studies such as one in rats that has shown that exposing pregnant rats to a mobile phone for one hour a day during pregnancy led to abnormal dead cells in the brain of their offspring and fewer healthy cells in regions involved in learning and memory after birth, then it becomes more worrying.”

“Scientists have found that when rats were exposed to a mobile phone in standby mode, switched on to speech mode for 15 minutes twice a day during pregnancy, the female babies had an average of 30% fewer follicles (containing the eggs) in their ovaries after birth.  If this were to happen in humans then it could seriously reduce the fertility of the next generation of females.  We don’t know whether it was the 11 hours and 45 minutes in standby or the 15 minutes in speech mode that led to the decreased fertility.  If it was the former then it is likely that living in a wi-fi environment could also reduce the fertility of subsequent generations.”

(Source: Dr Sarah Starkey, PhD, Neuroscientist)

Microwave Radiation Killing Trees

8 thoughts on “Microwave Radiation Killing Trees

  • Yes, you are right.

    Now that the transmitting electric meters have been added to the toxic pot of microwave emitters in our area, I see no honey bees and all the trees are dying.

    We are microwaving ourselves and all biological life to death.

  • As a beekeeper, research has shown that it is mites and genetic destruction by mono-culturing our bees, as well as huge amounts of pesticides, and never giving them a natural life cycle. The bee industry trucks it’s bees all over, making them work far more than they were ever in the wild. This in turn has caused substantial damage to the bee stock we all work with.

    Also, as one that has conducted research on these very topics, I challenge you to find some actual facts that relate to the “common sense” of frequency interference. If there was a testing method that everyone could verify, we would have a leg to stand on. Currently, with vague talk and ‘intuition’ and ‘listening to your gut’ we have a subjective opinion that cannot be reproduced or proven. I think too many of these dilute the actual fight, and become easily lumped in with the crowd selling special crystals to alleviate RF issues. Thank you for citing an actual paper, albeit non-peer reviewed and preliminary.

  • Ri – thanks so much for your comment – it’s always great to get info from people actually directly involved! I have read about the factors you highlight as well and of course, it also makes (common) sense that these would be key.

    The other thing I have heard about is that the microwaves depress or stress the bees’ immune system which – combined with the stressors you have already listed – makes them more susceptible to mite infestation.

    The problem with trying to isolate ONE key causative factor is that so much of what is destructive in our world nowadays is about synergy of toxins, and/or cumulative effect. So whilst it’s certainly easier to get media attention for one aspect, it’s almost always more complex than that.

    Still, I figure if we all chip away wherever we can, hopefully overall, over time, we will reduce enough toxins and unnatural situations to have a shot at true health and vitality.

  • Here’s a link to a good pdf report on

    Bees, Birds and Mankind
    Destroying Nature by `Electrosmog´
    by Ulrich Warnke

    The main research areas of Dr. rer. nat. Ulrich Warnke, an internationally renowned bioscientist at Saarland University, include biomedicine, environmental medicine, and biophysics. For decades his research interest centered especially on the effects of electromagnetic fields.

  • Hi Jini,

    Thank you for increasing awareness of the effects of electromagneic radiation (EMR) on the environment. I cant believe there are still so may doubters out there!

    I have recently brought some products from the following website to help reduce my exposure to EMR:

    I can safely say that these are not placebo and do work (my family and friends have tried also them), so something like this is probably what you’re loking for.

    I have no direct interest in the company and definitely not a salesman. I am only doing this because I would like others to benefit in the same way I have.

  • Powerwatch in the UK does not have good things to say about the Tesla and other pendants. Don’t know if it’s the placebo effect that is so powerful, or something else not yet identified…

  • A simple thank you would do.

    p.s. I take it you would like us all to assume that Powerwatch has a valid argument against one of the most important scientists of our time or has indeed tried and tested his technoogy?

  • Thank you. Although this is not a place for sarcasm, but rather for sharing information and viewpoints. I was not refuting your information, merely presenting some other information I had come across in my search.

    Here is one comment from Alasdair Philips at Powerwatch, you can assess his opinion for yourself:

    “I was in dialogue with Q-link around the time the Croft paper was published and made direct contact with Rodney Croft in Australia. They had the Ally connected to a mains power supply and did not control for power-frequency ELECTRIC field EMFs – so the test was virtually worthless and would need to be repeated just using a battery run Ally. It would also need to be done with a dummy Ally – just flashing and with the rest of the gubbins inactivated, as a control to avoid a positive psychological response by people “thinking they are protected”.

    I also obtained (and still have) an Ally – although the LED flasher works (wow!), the main chip (a 28-pin AT28C64 memory chip) is completely incorrectly connected in such a way as it could never, even vaguely, work. I have detailed pictures of the circuit board and connections. It only contains standard electronic components and so no special “mineral and other elemental entities” to manifest the “Sympathetic Resonance Technology” wonders. I also measured the EMF output from the Ally – nothing significant at all – although I could pick up the fields from the current pulses flashing the LED.

    The team concluded, after studying only 24 people: “This pilot study suggests that the addition of the QL to active MP-exposure does affect neural function in humans, altering both resting EEG patterns and the evoked neural response to auditory stimuli, and that there is a tendency for some MP-related changes to the EEG to be attenuated by the QL.”

    They would also have been likely to be attentuated by holding the wire from the power supply and doing away with the Ally altogether.

    I did suggest to Clarus, their UK re-sellers and Rodney Croft that a larger study with proper controls be set up and carried out – but Clarus and their re-sellers and backers were not prepared to put up the money. Evidently this first study was done for very little money, which is why it is so small and ill-scienced.

    About seven years ago I also wore a standard plastic encapsulated Q-link for 3-months and noticed no improvement in my electrosensitivity. I then tested it for EMF resonances in the ranges 1 Hz to 2.7 GHz and found none. I then dissected it under a microscope and tested the individual parts. The copper wire coil is not connected to anything – the ends are open circuit. The special “chip” in the centre is a standard ‘zero-ohm’ surface mount resistor link. There is a rather technical looking gold-plated printed circuit board – rather techno-pretty, if you like such things. I could find no trace of the special SRT material in my one. I think they may have an extra blob of something in recent years.

    So, sorry, but I think both the Ally and the standard Q-link are pure Linus-blanket psychological props – nothing necessarily wrong with that – but I do get annoyed at the pseudo-scientific words they weave around the Q-link products. At least Q-Link (Clarus) offer a money-back guarantee – though many of their re-sellers fail to do this.

    I think that, if sold at all, they should be sold as “comforters” and not scientific gadgets / wonder protectors. But then Clarus have and their re-sellers have made loads of money from Q-Link products – and if people really feel better wearing them, then, maybe, it is OK for them.

    Good wishes for finding the truth behind things”


    However, then we have counter-info like this video from the BBC:

    Which is the truth?? I don’t know. I understand Tesla is different from Q-link technology and certainly bears separate scrutiny.

    I have also interviewed leaders of various EMF/EMR citizens groups and they don’t feel there is enough science to recommend these devices.

    Or maybe they haven’t done enough research? Who knows?

    I remain confused.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *