9th Grade Science Experiment: Garden Cress Won't Germinate Near Routers 327
New submitter SessionExpired writes "Five 9th graders from Denmark have shown that garden cress won't germinate when placed near a router (Google Translation of Danish original). Article text is in Danish, but the pictures illustrate their results. The exact mechanism is still unknown (Danish original), but experts have shown interest in reproducing the experiment."
No reproduction (Score:5, Funny)
experts have shown interest in reproducing the experiment
Or not reproducing, as the case may be.
Re:No reproduction (Score:5, Insightful)
Outgassing from the plastic and electronics, I'll bet.
Nice new routers, I'll bet. Loaded with stuff that's volatile.
Did they try a Faraday Cage to rule out the radio waves?
Re: (Score:3)
Easy enough to test experimentally.
Just disable the Wifi on one of two routers (or disconnect the transmitter on hardware) and see if it makes a difference.
Re:No reproduction (Score:5, Insightful)
There are so many combinations:
Does the router need to be switched on?
What if there is just a transformer and cable, but not a router?
Does the router need wi-fi enabled? In the 2.5GHz band? In the 5Ghz band?
Does the router need to be in line-of-sight, or can it be hermetically sealed in a container?
Re: (Score:3)
Is it the cold, lightless, lifeless, soul-sucking corner of the room that the router is located in?
Maybe it's the cold, lightless, lifeless, soul-sucking nation that the entire room is located in.
Or maybe these kids are just damn poor gardeners. It takes talent to botch it so badly that the seeds don't even sprout.
Re: (Score:3)
The radio alone probably generates insignificant heat. Easy enough to test, of course (all you need is a thermometer).
Re: (Score:3)
The radio, and associated amplifiers, will generate the majority of the heat. Just look how much longer a cell phone will operate if you disable wireless. One must also take into consideration that wireless routers operate at higher power levels.
A better way to test the effects wireless signals would be to disable wireless by replacing the antenna with 50 ohm resistors. The radio would utilize the same amount of power but would not radiate any significant signals.
Re:No reproduction (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, cellphones are higher powered - I believe they top out at between 0.5-1W max transmit power. Your wireless router is typically anywhere from under 50mW to 100mW, though it's possible to get "long range" ones that do 250mW.
Of course, a cellphone dynamically adjusts its power - in urban areas, it typically is close enough to a cell tower that it can crank the transmit power way down. This, of course, is to save battery (RF level amplifiers aren't efficient at all - they waste a lot of power). If you live in a poorly covered area, you'll note your battery life is a lot lower as a result of having to crank up the power to maintain the link.
CDMA phones are interesting - the amount of power they use is proportional to usage as the more phones using it, the lower the SNR. You've hit the limit when everyone's transmitting at max power and the SNR is too low for successful correlation.
Doubtful on the outgassing... (Score:5, Funny)
...as it grows fine on keyboards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cress_keyboard-3_sprouting_other_side.jpg [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Or the ninth graders just forgot to water one side of the tray.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or just as likely, they just faked the data. These kids aren't stupid, they understand that the only way to get a good grade on such a lame experiment is to get unexpected results. If the router had no effect, they would received a B minus, they would not have won the science fair, and we certainly wouldn't be discussing their experiment on Slashdot.
My experience with science fairs was it was all about PR and very little about science. I did much better my second try using that information. Our stupid teacher never mentioned it. I went on to a career in science and while it's not nearly as bad as a science fair, PR and "sexed up" stuff is far more valued than real honest scientific discovery.
Re:No reproduction (Score:5, Interesting)
"Or just as likely, they just faked the data. "
As someone that has performed similar radiation experiments as part of my research into zero-light horticulture, faking this is very doubtful, as I've encountered the same issues. Germination rates in the area of our facility with wireless access are roughly half of that on the other side of the shed that is totally free of radiation in that frequency range thanks to the natural faraday cage (the entire structure is grounded, metal walls and supports, etc.) that the facility provides. You can't even use your cell phone two feet inside the door.
Re: (Score:3)
Because my results are nothing more than a very tiny confirmation of studies previously published, all of which confirm this sort of thing?
No need to publish when I'm not being paid to do so and others already are. I'm not stepping on their toes.
Re:No reproduction (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't like the result because you are a computer geek. Any proof that computing gear has negative biological effects challenges your fundamental beliefs. Since this angers you, you respond with hostility and engage in a personal attack.
The reason you bring up fraud is that it's what you would do if you wanted to force a result. People who don't consider that kind of cheat wouldn't jump to that conclusion.
It is certain that these children have a better understanding of the scientific method then you do. They thought of an experiment, tried it and reported the results. Perhaps the outcome was a fluke, perhaps not. If other scientists try to refine their results then the effect will either be proven or refuted. It's called the scientific method.
All you have shown is that you are a truly horrible human being. Your first impulse is to call someone a liar when they say something you don't like. Besides being better scientists, those children are certainly more decent then you are.
Re:No reproduction (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason you bring up fraud is that it's what you would do if you wanted to force a result. People who don't consider that kind of cheat wouldn't jump to that conclusion.
Excuse me, but that is clearly bullsh*t. Having gone through University will make you suspect fraud, but just because you have seen it everywhere left and right during your studies. From students cheating in math exams and "forgetting" references in their papers, to 100% faked studies published by high-ranking journals.
Re:No reproduction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Wait a minute, are we talking about an actual "router" (as in something that deterministically routes packets) or are we talking about the a "layer 3 switch that also includes a wireless access point" which laypeople refer to simply as a router?
There are quite some not-so-subtle differences between the two, and if we're being scientific about this, we should note the distinction. If it is just the access point component, then that has broader implications on anything that runs at the 2.4ghz spectrum (or 5gh
Re: (Score:2)
Ha. I get your joke but of course there's a difference between replicating the experiment and replicating the results.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
For anyone who actually wants to reproduce the experiment, a teacher from Hjallerup posted a detailed description of the experiment setup [ing.dk] in the comments of the second FA. It's in Danish, but Google Translate should be able to make some sense of it.
At the very least, it seems to have been done a lot more thoroughly that I had first suspected. I'm still sceptical that the results will be consistently replicated, but the experiment as described is of high enough standard to warrant an attempt.
Neither will... (Score:5, Funny)
Your typical slashdotter probably sits closer to their router than the plants. And is about as likely to germinate.
Re:Neither will... (Score:4, Funny)
Good thing, too, or we'd see a rash of siamese sextuplets.
Though, to be fair, I'd thought that all the hallucinogens I took back in college had messed up my genes royally, but my daughter turned out perfect. Better than perfect. She can type like a banshee with those twelve fingers.
Re: (Score:2)
...Wonder Twins.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I never worked around any of that and it only took me a few hours to get your wife knocked up.
Re:Neither will... (Score:4, Funny)
More info would be nice - How old were you? How old was your wife? How old was your milkman?
Need a control. (Score:5, Interesting)
They should have used a control, and put cress near a lamp bulb that gives off the same amount of heat.
Simplest explanation is the additional heat which was nearby but not enough to alter room temperature affected them.
Re:Need a control. (Score:5, Interesting)
They should have used a control, and put cress near a lamp bulb that gives off the same amount of heat.
Simplest explanation is the additional heat which was nearby but not enough to alter room temperature affected them.
Typical routers (i presume they are talking about an 802.11 router here) will emit 150 to 250 mW per radio. Even in a 3 radio version the total power is still less than 1W (depending on how high the bandwidth utilization was), and it's certainly spread beyond just the plate of seeds sitting next to it. That 1W of heat energy would have an amazingly small change in overall temperature on the subject, probably not even enough to measure with conventional instruments.
Re:Need a control. (Score:4, Insightful)
The router itself generates heat, and the point of the root post was that it was the radiated heat that cause the result, not some puny low-power microwaves. I've had quite a few DSL modems "fail to germinate" because they overheated themselves. Right now at home I'm running one with the cover removed and a small heat sink (the only one I have small enough to fit between the capacitors, etc.) on the main chip.
If they can get warm enough to burn themselves up, they can also get warm enough to prevent a seed from growing, if through no other means than making the seed think that it's the wrong time of the year.
Re:Need a control. (Score:5, Insightful)
This comment is not really insightful. A lot of people even use electric heating pads underneath seed trays specifically to generate heat. I agree the experiment would have been even more impressive with controls wrt certain variables (including heat--why not), but it is extremely, extremely unlikely that, as the poster put it, "they can also get warm enough to prevent a seed grom growing."
Re:Need a control. (Score:5, Interesting)
They placed the AP's so that the heat they generated wouldn't affect the garden cress. Room temperature was computer monitored and regulated, the humidity was regulated, and they photographed the batches to document that no drying up or rot was present. They mixed the seed batches, randomized the seed selection etc etc.
The experimental setup and their elimination of errors and bias is considered to of very high quality, which is why they won a junior science prize. Their actual result meant nothing in that regard.
The first experiment was with idle AP's only broadcasting ESSID. The second experiment added some Linux laptops that ping-flooded to generate lots of network activity. The second experiment showed a clear increase in plant "damage" /lack of development.
Re:Need a control. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Need a control. (Score:4, Informative)
No, heat is NOT EVEN CLOSE to being a viable cause. Room is controlled and regulated. Cress has quite a nice wide range of germination temperatures.
Re: (Score:3)
"If they can get warm enough to burn themselves up, they can also get warm enough to prevent a seed from growing"
Uh, I use heated trays for seedlings all the time. Cress has a fairly WIDE range of germination temperatures.
I think you need to go take some horticulture classes, or get a job doing horticulture, before you go on speaking about something you're totally wrong about.
The seeds would have to have been right on top of the router for that kind of heat to affect them.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it was the direct heat itself. I am not terribly familiar with garden cress specifically, but I would assume it likes things warm and damp for germination. Assuming the dampness was adequate, I can't imagine the heat would be significant enough to prevent germination.
I would look closer at what is happening to the localized humidity near the router. The heat may instead be drying things outs, and if the router has any kind of active cooling, that may exacerbate things.
Re: (Score:2)
They should have used a control, and put cress near a lamp bulb that gives off the same amount of heat.
Simplest explanation is the additional heat which was nearby but not enough to alter room temperature affected them.
The control would have to be a router that's powered on but not transmitting to account for the possibility of outgassing or some other effect from the router (magnetic field from the power supply? Flashing Light from the router disrupting the plant's growing cycle?). Maybe replacing the antennas with terminators to eliminate (mostly) transmissions while leaving the transmitter active would be a better control.
Re: (Score:3)
Outgassing? My god, people still think this is an issue?
I run a HUGE facility loaded with PVC, HDPE, ABS, and other plastic channels.
Outgassing is bullshit until you get into the solvents and adhesives used to join the system together.
Most routers are screwed together, not glued together, and are almost always made from one of those above-mentioned plastic types.
If there's an outgassing issue, someone's failing at proper ventilation or using the entirely wrong adhesives/molecular-bonding solvents.
I think outgassing or other effect is much more likely than RF energy from the router preventing seeds from germinating. It's not neccessarily the plastics that are outgassing -- Maybe cheap electrolytic capacitors or other components are venting.
Re: (Score:3)
If the caps are venting, they're not working and neither is the device.
There are many other studies out there on this very thing, and I've done similar tests in a much tighter-controlled facility than what these kids had access to.
Our germination rates in our wifi-enabled area are roughly half that of the germination area on the other side of the facility (and perfectly protected from outside radiation due to the building being one giant cluster of faraday cages.)
Re: (Score:3)
Plants aren't that sensitive. Most likely explanation is failure to follow experimental protocol - these aren't professional scientists, they are students at a school, with the experiment in a room accessible to hundreds of people.
Chances are someone decided that 'plants grow' isn't going to get them a lot of attention, and sprinkled the router side with weedkiller. Or simply didn't water it. Thus they are assured of getting some media coverage, and a very good shot at winning the school science competition
Re:Need a control. (Score:4, Insightful)
They should have used a control, and put cress near a lamp bulb that gives off the same amount of heat.
Or not. Nothing in the scientific method says your first experiment has to be perfect. They did one experiment, with a control for one variable (router/no router), it showed unexpected results. So now you look at things that could explain those results (heat? VOC? EM?) and revise your experiment to prove them or rule them out. Seems to me it's not a "should have" but a "let try this next".
Re: (Score:2)
What if it was fairies or elves or unicorns?
All of those are about as likely as the culprit being radio waves. Go outside, look up at noon time. Notice that that big burning thing in the sky releasing lots of radio waves does not seem to be harming the plants.
Re: (Score:2)
Jokes on you, I went out and looked at it and now I see spots, clearly it causes harm~
Re: (Score:3)
This is interesting, especially coming from freshmen in high school
This is the real news here. It's not "OMG access points sterilize things!!!!", it's "wow, in this age of school experiments consisting of celery in food coloring, here's a bunch of kids that did an actual experiment. Oh, and they got interesting results that require further investigation." I'm not going to move my router based on this experiment, but I sure hope someone does the follow-ups, because that is science.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If I were them, I would find a way to measure the internal temperature of the cress.
At least read TFS.
..garden cress won't germinate when placed near a router
So, you see, there is actually no cress for them to measure. It never germinated.
Actually... yes it did germinate. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, you see, there is actually no cress for them to measure. It never germinated.
Take a look at the photo:
http://www.dr.dk/imagescaler/?file=%2FNR%2Frdonlyres%2FBE4CAC3A-4A0E-42CF-9ACB-69325246A40F%2F5130743%2Fdb6ac36f2c8248a1b782e25f61f5bfb2_Karse_udsat_for_t.jpeg&w=460&h=259&scaleAfter=crop [www.dr.dk]
See those green bits on the edge of the plate?
Yeah, I know... it's kinda small... But it's there. You can't deny it's there.
Also, from the not-so-fine translation:
And the result spoke his clear language: cress seeds next to the router was not grown, and some of them were even mutated or dead.
Mutated? How does something mutate if it does not grow?
Oh! I know! It's sensationalist BULLSHIT.
SOME the fucking plants withe
Re: (Score:2)
No they should not be failed. They should be taught better science and their teachers should be ashamed.
9th graders experiment had flaws? shocking.
EM "attack" vectors (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember watching a TED talk a while back about a fellow who was perfecting an electromagnetic cancer-killing device that was looking to be extremely effective. Perhaps a similar phenomina is in play here. Basically part of the DNA duplication process prior to cell division involves stringing out the chromosomes into long electrostatically-bonded chains. By electromagnetically interfering in that process the device caused virtualy all replicating cells to die, with the few survivors typically being extremely sickly. Since in most parts of the body cancer cells are the only ones replicating with any frequency the device presented a method of selectively destroying cancer cells without significantly harming the surrounding tissue. Initial studies done on people with inoperable or recurrent tumors showed success on par with intensive chemotherapy, but without the horrible side effects.
So anyway - we know that at least some EM fields are capable of killing replicating cells, and that's kind of the primary activity of embrryonic cells, so that could perhaps be the reason the seeds failed to germinate. Of course I have no idea what the strength, frequency, etc. of the anti-cancer device's EM fields were, so maybe it's not relevant, but something worth considering at least.
Another "attack vector" is that fats typically absorb microwaves far more efficiently than water, and are an important component of cell membranes. That means microwave heating would is actually concentrated on the protective membrane around the cell, and in an embryo that membrane is in the process of growing very rapidly as the initial cell subdivides, and may be more vulnerable to damage.
Re:EM "attack" vectors (Score:4, Insightful)
If you stop to think a moment you'll realise this argument is completely fallacious. If the sun were broadcasting at anything like the power levels of our communication systems at the particular frequencies being used then we'd be completely unable to pick out our own signals from the background noise. And the specific frequency is likely at least as important as the power levels - any interference in cellular function would almost certainly be due to resonance effects, which can be *extremely* sensitive to exitation frequency and magnitude.
Not controlled for other factors (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, it is good science (it is testable and verifiable) but bad journalism.
Unless it can be reproduced or its mechanism explained, it is nothing but fuel to add to the "communication radiation exposure is bad" hysteria.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The experiment was setup to validate a foregone conclusion.
isn't that basically the definition of a hypothesis?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no. Its to test an observation.
Now do it again (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I for one keep my router in a closed closet. I would expect that it will have less plants growing there than in a room with a window.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Bit misleading (Score:3)
So it would seem it doesn't matter that the device had routing capability, as they were using it as an AP. They should call it a wireless AP then, not a router, as the routing bit is irrelevant.
Re:Bit misleading (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bit misleading (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bit misleading (Score:5, Funny)
This is what happens when carrier-level NAT is deployed. Even the plants would rather die than live with NAT.
Re:Bit misleading (Score:4, Informative)
The point is that they are using confusing and inconsistent terminology to report on the parameters of a scientific study. Using imprecise language muddies the results and makes them hard to reproduce, or even to draw a conclusion of your own.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm also not sure if they are talking about a WiFi or cellular router. The transmit powers are very different.
The translated version says: The school was not equipped to test the effect of mobile phone radiation on them, but it was enough in fact very well. Therefore, the girls had to find an alternative. And the answer was karsefrø. Six trays seeds were put into a room without radiation, and six trays were put into another room next to two routers. Such a broadcast about the same type of radiation
Incomplete science... (Score:4, Interesting)
Some local newspaper has grabbed hold of the story and the implication is that the result is solid science, where in fact it is either a preliminary discovery, or an aberration of some sort. Things like this happen all the time, which is why there is a need for reproducing the results, which has not yet been done. However, the story is already circling the globe and no doubt this will add more fuel to the fire of people claiming this type of radiation is harmful. It's irresponsible journalism on Slashdot's part by posting this story and over-hyping something that could be nothing. Next thing we know, every lab error will be either heralded as cold fusion, the discovery of dark matter, or space aliens, if we go by the standard of proof in this article. When this most likely goes sour, I hope it doesn't turn off those hard working kids from science altogether.
That being said, I would be interested if this experiment was reproduced by several respectable researchers, but the skeptic in me says that this will likely not happen. This story is really jumping the gun, and doesn't belong in anything but a small town Danish newspaper, let alone Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
I would be interested if this experiment was reproduced by several respectable researchers, but the skeptic in me says that this will likely not happen.
You can always try the experiment yourself. Your local Home Depot (or equivalent) has a good selection of seeds, and the seeds don't require much attention. You can even buy exactly those seeds at Amazon for a princely sum of $1.89 [amazon.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Your local Home Depot (or equivalent) has a good selection of seeds
Do yourself a favor and never buy plants from Home Depot. They are grown by cut-rate farmers who (depending on the variety of tree) sometimes simply collect these plants from the wild. These trees are destined to fail. Of course, not all of their stock is this way, but the stuff that isn't is still poorly cared for by people who know little about plants.
I get that you're only talking about a pack of seeds, but the premise stands. Besides, buying from a local garden center is so much more of an enjoyable e
Re: (Score:3)
Speak for yourself.
The garden shops around here are the plant equivalent to a record shop in 1985. Snotty and derisive.
Re: (Score:3)
Reading the /. summary does not at all sound alarming or sensational. They are merely reporting a story that in all likeliness has been sensationalized and over hyped in the general media. Droves of average joes are going to freak out at declare that wifi and cell phones make your sterile, give you cancer or turns your children into autistic ironic hipsters. Sadly the general populace will not be smart enough to realize these students could have made a simple mistake in the experiment or not have been thoro
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is newsworthy... (Score:4, Insightful)
... but not due to the results; this is an example of good, solid science coming out of a secondary school with limited resources. Given what I could read of the translation, I don't think this is irresponsible journalism at all -- think of it more as journalism on the state of education, not science.
It is, of course, an extraordinary result, and will require extraordinary proof. I suspect the claims will not be reproduced; at the same time, I hope these kid-researchers keep their interest level in this experiment up regardless of outcome. From this, they'll learn about experimental errors, uncontrolled factors, and -- most importantly -- to divorce their ego from their results. That last bit is perhaps the hardest for most scientists to achieve.
I'm pretty sure I'm already sterile (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I guess if I ever want to have kids I'll just have to try harder and think fertile thoughts.
First you'll need to quit doing Slashdot (the great invention in the long line after condom and the pill)
Re: (Score:2)
Joke fail: Radar is non-ionising radiation. Won't affect fertility or give you mutant superpowers. You need something with a bit more energy for that.
Mythbusters did attempt to cook a chicken by strapping it in front of a radar transmitter. Didn't work. It's doable, but you need something with more power than your little marine radar to do it.
Re:I'm pretty sure I'm already sterile (Score:4, Interesting)
Which is why we have known cases of human sterilization due to exposure to radar and microwave frequencies at high power? If you ever work in the industry, you would see warnings on the equipment that call that aspect out (Civilian and Military).
I think we have a spoiler fail!
MS Grow (Score:2)
Simple cause: Plants don't run Linux ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
near a WIRELESS router (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks, Editor-dot, for not reviewing TFS. This was an experiment to test EM radition, its nothing to do with 'routers'. Believe it or not, there are things which are 'routers' that are not supplied by your ISP when you sign up for home broadband.
Well.. (Score:3)
Mobile phones...routers...? (Score:2)
First, the frequencies used by mobile phones are fairly different from those used by wifi routers. Second, I wonder what the total power output of the routers (and the received power at the watercress) was during the experiment. Third, I'm wondering how the kids will duplicate this experiment around a cell tower...very interesting.
(There is much anecdotal evidence about the bad health effects of cellphone radiation out there--I will not be surprised if the evidence proves a mechanism one day.)
Re: (Score:2)
oh really? my cell phone uses channels in the 2.4GHz space where I live. My wifi router does also.
well done kids! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
To the contrary, teaching kids that ignoring controls to seek a desired result encourages the type of junk science so common today. The teacher should instead explain how heat caused the germination to suffer and to determine the true impact, heat would have to be controlled for.
Re:well done kids! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
All the same, I'm more interested in the "how fast can you get daddy another beer?" experiment.
Obvious flaw in setup (Score:2, Insightful)
It said two different *rooms*. The room with the router could be a very different environment for a lot of other reasons.
Re-run the experiment in the same room so there are fewer variables to control. Place the sprouting trays in a line leading from the router, and see if sprouting and/or growth is always suppressed closer. Alternatively, same room but with a Faraday cage around some of the sprouting trays.
possible explanation for increased effect on seeds (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Radio is non-ionising, it wouldn't cause DNA damage. Nor is is possible that the radio could heat the seeds - not enough power. Far more likely is that heat from the router electronics dried out the medium the seeds were on, and more likely still is that the 'fail' group were in an entirely different room and thus at a completely different temperature.
Maybe it was an old router (Score:2, Funny)
and the flowers have already switched to IPv6.
Pretty Good Experiment (Score:2)
As long as you keep them away from babies (Score:2)
A comment from a native dane (Score:5, Informative)
They're using 2.4GHz wifi routers. 3G and LTE was not chosen because of data cost.
The rooms are all locked, so only the teacher and the 5 pupils have access.
They've done the tests twice with the same results.
They've controlled temperature, water amount, sun radiation from windows and more factors, to control bias.
The danish newspaper Ingeniøren (The Engineer) has the teacher Kim Horsevad explain in detail in the comments on their article on the subject: http://ing.dk/artikel/folkeskoleelever-vaekker-forsker-opsigt-mobilstraaling-forhindrer-karse-i-spire-158867#comment-529110
His comment is REALLY long, so some other dane will have to translate if Google Translate doesn't cut it ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Fairly easy to test yourself.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Shhh... Montsanto is listening
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. The plant can feel the steamroller crush of nearby technology running amok, so, it simply gives up in disgust.
Re: (Score:2)
Having once attended 9th grade in Denmark, I expect they are aware of basic scientific principles ... like control samples, reproducible setups etc..
Re: (Score:2)
This lot were also aware that there was prize money on offer for whichever school produced the best research - and confirming what everyone knows doesn't win prizes. I'd consider not just the possibility of poor experiment, but of outright fraud: It only takes one team member to poison the plants, thus assuring the team of a good shot at the prize.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll happily go fuck myself when this result is repeated by experienced scientists with all proper controls. If this result is unreproducible, you can go fuck yourself instead.
Re: (Score:2)
A consumer router is about the same size as an access point and often contains access point functionality. You're being pedantic without a cause.