According to PCWorld, a new study in the Netherlands has found that in preliminary tests Wi-fi is "harmful to trees, causing significant variations in growth, as well as bleeding and fissures in the bark." Conventional wisdom says that if something is harmful to one organism, chances are the same thing is harmful to other organisms -- namely humans. Also, trees bleeding? That is just fucked up.
Even if Wi-fi is not harmful to humans, if it is determined that it is in fact harmful to trees, then we are in trouble also, being that we rely heavily on trees for our well-being -- both physical, through the synthesis of oxygen, and emotional and psychological, through the fact that trees are beautiful and bad-ass. Cities with more trees have happier residents. That's a fact. And one you can take to the bank, because happy residents are more productive, and higher productivity creates a stronger economy, which supports everyone and everything. So even if you're not a tree-hugging hippie, it would behoove you to support the health of trees. Everything is connected after all.Of course, salt from roads and tiny particles from motor exhaust could also be causing the problem. Until the freaky-deaky Dutch do more tests with Wi-fi signals, we can all just keep chugging along with our smartphones and our radio waves and our smog-filled cities, and we'll just chock up the deformed babies to genetic disorders, and the rampant depression to chemical imbalances able to be fixed by drugs. The world economies can't function without Wi-fi, so here's to the survival of the fittest, I guess. Right?
