Smartphones and Wi-Fi are killing vital insects
bgr.com
An analysis of over 80 studies shows a direct link between mobile phone and Wi-Fi radiation and declining insect populations. Radiation can affect insects at …

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.”

  1. 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).
      • @xkforce
        6•1 year ago

        I am a biochemist that understands german. This is nonsense. Post something that actually makes sense.

          • @xkforce
            16•1 year ago

            You want a cool argument? There is no plausible mechanism through which the amount of electromagnetic waves wifi uses can harm bees. Ionizing radiation harms cells by breaking chemical bonds that are part of important molecules like DNA or to a lesser extent, proteins. Wifi makes use of a form of electromagnetic waves that are on the order of a million times less energetic than visible light is and about 10 million times less energetic than the lowest energy ionizing electromagnetic waves. You’re not going to harm bees if theres a wifi router pumping out 10 watts of microwaves 100 meters from a hive. If you are going to claim that wifi is harmful to bees, you need to show that there is a plausible mechanism to do so. Not just rely on most people not understanding why ionizing radiation is dangerous.

            • @[email protected]OP
              -5•1 year ago

              It’s sounds as if you’re assuming the radiation is claimed to do cellular harm. What I’ve heard is that the radiation harms bees’ ability to navigate by interfering with their signalling. Imagine having a PA system turned up so loud in your office you cannot hear yourself think, in which case you would be less functional. I don’t recall the particulars but it’s something that causes them to get lost or lose track of where the nectar is. Like postal workers, bees develop a regular route where they pickup nectar. It’s not cellular harm but more like constantly rattling their sensitive antennas in a way that disrupts their tasks.

              BTW, a roughly similar thing is happening in the ocean as well. Some sea creatures (orcas iirc) use echolocation and also communication. Humans are disrupting that by making lots of noise that carries on sufficiently far under water in sufficiently similar frequencies to cause a disruption.

              • @xkforce
                5•1 year ago

                There is zero credible evidence that bee communication has anything at all to do with radio waves. This all seems like people looking for a reason to demonize anything people create. Id rather people focus on human activity that actually does harm the environment like fossil fuels, waste dumping, roads cutting off migratory routes, encroachment on native habitat, slash and burn agriculture, dosing cattle with subclinical levels of antibiotics, sea floor dredging anything that is a real threat not an imagined one.

                • Ephera
                  1•1 year ago

                  You are looking at a listing of tons of scientific papers reporting notable correlations on this. Scientific papers are the most credible way for recording evidence that humanity has developed. Just how much more credible do you want your evidence to be?

                  I also thought, non-ionizing radiation was likely fine, up until this point. But it does not surprise me that pretty much just dumping energy into an open room would have effects beyond WiFi reception.

                  • @xkforce
                    1•1 year ago

                    Again, there is no plausible mechanism. Just like there was no plausible mechanism for LK-99 to be the fantastical superconductor it was claimed to be. If someone claims something in science, they need to back it up with evidence and a solid mechanism. You CANNOT just claim things without something solid to back it in science.

                • @[email protected]OP
                  1•1 year ago

                  This all seems like people looking for a reason to demonize anything people create. Id rather people focus on human activity that actually does harm the environment like fossil fuels, waste dumping, roads cutting off migratory routes, encroachment on native habitat, slash and burn agriculture, dosing cattle with subclinical levels of antibiotics, sea floor dredging anything that is a real threat not an imagined one.

                  The bias evident in your 1st sentence above is causing you to ignore the irrefutable drop in bee populations, which is not imaginary.