cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/7625705
According to the linked article, 72 studies suggest that wi-fi radiation harms/kills #bees -- and by some claims is a threat to their continued existence. I suppose if extinction were really a likely risk there would be widespread outrage and bee conservationists taking actions. It seems there is a lack of chatter about this. This thread also somewhat implies disinterest in even having wi-fi alternatives.
In any case, does anyone think this is a battle worth fighting? Some possible off-the-cuff actions that come to mind:
- ban the sale of wi-fi devices bigger than a phone in Europe¹ if they do not also comply with these conditions:
- include an ethernet port as well. So e.g. macbooks would either have to bring back the ethernet port or nix wi-fi (and obviously Apple wouldn’t nix Wi-Fi).
- have a physical wi-fi toggle switch on the chassis (like Thinkpads have)
- force public libraries with Wi-Fi to give an ethernet port option so library users at least have the option of turning off their own wi-fi emissions.
- ban the sale of Wi-Fi APs that do not have:
- a configurable variable power setting that is easily tunable by the user; maybe even require a knob or slider on the chassis.
- bluetooth that is internet-capable
- force phones that include wi-fi to also include bluetooth as well as the programming to use bluetooth for internet. Bluetooth routers have existed for over a decade but they are quite rare.. cannot be found in a common electronics shop.
Regarding bluetooth, it is much slower than wi-fi, lower range, and probably harder to secure. But nonetheless people should have this option for situations where they don’t need wi-fi capability. E.g. when a phone is just sitting idle it could turn off wi-fi and listen over bluetooth for notifications.
I suspect the 1st part of this quote from the article explains the lack of concern:
“The subject is uncomfortable for many of us because it interferes with our daily habits and there are powerful economic interests behind mobile communication technology.”
- I say /Europe/ because it’s perhaps the only place where enough people would be concerned and where you also have the greatest chance of passing pro-humanity legislation (no “Citizens United” that human needs have to compete with).
The document is not about WiFi, but rather about the effect of electromagnetic waves in the Hz - GHz region more generally. Currently the most common WiFi frequency is 2.4 GHz.
Looking at tables 2 - 5 from the original document, the articles that I can see that looked at 2.4 GHz are:
Westerdahl, Becky Brown, and Norman E. Gary. "Longevity and food consumption of microwave‐treated (2.45 GHz Cw) honeybees in the laboratory." Bioelectromagnetics: Journal of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, The Society for Physical Regulation in Biology and Medicine, The European Bioelectromagnetics Association 2.4 (1981): 305-314.
They observe normal development and normal foraging after long exposure to 2.4 GHz
Thielens, Arno, et al. "Exposure of insects to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields from 2 to 120 GHz." Scientific Reports 8.1 (2018): 3924.
Very low absorption of energy at 2.4 GHz, as the wavelength (12.5 cm) is larger than the insects studied (and bees). Above 6 GHz the absorbance begins to increase as the wavelength becomes closer to an insect's size.
Lopatina, N. G., et al. "Effect of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation on behavior of the honeybee, Apis mellifera L.(Hymenoptera, Apidae)." Entomological Review 99 (2019): 24-29.
I am not sure if they used 2.4 GHz as I can't access this article. From the abstract, I can see that when they place bees inside a Faraday cage for 24 hours with a WiFi router on, their short-term memory and food excitability decreases but their long-term memory increases. I can't comment much on this as I can't find an open PDF copy.
Margaritis, Lukas H., et al. "Drosophila oogenesis as a bio-marker responding to EMF sources." Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 33.3 (2014): 165-189.
In this paper they observe that very low power of 2.4 GHz has a strong effect on the fecundity of flies with absurdly significant values. I think that, if the effect is as strong as they claim, it would be extremely easy to observe and we would have massive amounts of evidence for this. I mean that science-fair level experiments (place a WiFi connected phone next to a container with mashed bananas inocculated with a known amount of fruitflies) would be enough to easily replicate this effect. I am... skeptical.
I think that 2.4 GHz is actually rather harmless because it has a relatively small penetrating power through walls and is unlikely to travel very far, its wavelength is larger than bees, and its period of 416 ps is way too fast to interfere with EM-field perception. I think that much lower frequency fields (Hz - KHz) are more likely to interfere with navigation. Even if the higher GHz frequencies are absorbed more strongly, you still might need to have a significantly strong field before it becomes a problem.
I don't have access to the article either but the description in the abstract seems deeply flawed to me. Comparing an on vs off wireless router seems to have a lot more differences than just the absence/presence of the wifi radiation. It's producing heat, noise, light, etc. Being next to blinking LEDs for 24 hours may not be a good thing for bees.