"The only effect wifi can have on trees, people, etc, is the generation of a tiny amount of heat."
This is a very bold claim. People said something just as harmless about x-rays in its heyday, too. Today we know it has absolutely profound effects on living cells even at moderate power, and we know it indeed also has an effect of the negative kind at low power given proper time and exposure. How can you be so sure that the GHz spectrum of EMR happen to be as harmless as you imply?
People said something just as harmless about x-rays in its heyday, too.
That's a ridiculous statement. Before understanding QM, no reasonable person would make any such claims.
Anyone who claimed that these "x-rays" (named "x" because we didn't know what they were) had no effect on matter, except to be absorbed by it, was a moron. I don't think any credible scientist made this claim, but feel free to cite one. Once we understood they were EM waves at higher frequency than UV light, it is very simple to deduce they might cause ionization.
Once we developed quantum mechanics and time-dependent perturbation theory, it was just a matter chugging through the calculations. Literally millions of experiments have confirmed that QM works really fucking well. If Ephoton > Ebond, you get O(I) ionization. If Ephoton < Ebond you get O(I^2) ionization, which is really small (unless I is huge).
I stand by my statement: if you disprove this, you will overturn the past 100 years of physics. We will need to throw away every single QM textbook written since the 50's. You will receive the next Nobel prize. Future textbooks will forever refer to "Newton, Einstein, and hackermom."
This is a very bold claim. People said something just as harmless about x-rays in its heyday, too. Today we know it has absolutely profound effects on living cells even at moderate power, and we know it indeed also has an effect of the negative kind at low power given proper time and exposure. How can you be so sure that the GHz spectrum of EMR happen to be as harmless as you imply?