PDA

View Full Version : New CCD article points finger BACK at cell phones



Wolfie
11-14-2009, 07:07 PM
Looks decent to me, but then I'm no scientist. I believe cell phones were ruled out initially but this article points the finger squarely back at cell phone radiation. If cell phones are even partially responsible could corporate interests have ruled them out in the first studies? Lord knows other industries have bought scientists to cover their asses.


When cellular phones were placed near hives, the radiation generated by them (900-1,800 MHz) was enough to prevent bees from returning to them, according to a study conducted at Landau University.


Now I know there are a lot of alarmist articles out there, so I figured I'd pass it forward for info and scrutiny. Anyone else got input?
read full article here (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/07/Honeybees-Face-Towering-Threat-From-Cell-Phones.aspx)

/wolfie

akueck
11-14-2009, 11:28 PM
So how close does the cell phone need to be? I kind of doubt people stand around hives yakking away on their phones on a regular basis. The lack of information like this makes me skeptical, just like "compound x causes cancer in lab mice" but then you find out they feed the mice half their body weight of the stuff before bad things start happening. Doesn't make this theory necessarily wrong, but it's not very clean "proof" either.

Oskaar
11-15-2009, 03:58 AM
So how close does the cell phone need to be? I kind of doubt people stand around hives yakking away on their phones on a regular basis. The lack of information like this makes me skeptical, just like "compound x causes cancer in lab mice" but then you find out they feed the mice half their body weight of the stuff before bad things start happening. Doesn't make this theory necessarily wrong, but it's not very clean "proof" either.

Oh crap! I was driving through a very large apiary today and I was talking to the owner about his honey and his bees on my Pre.

andrewschwab
11-15-2009, 05:20 PM
The first cell phone story was quote out of context.
This second story sounds like crap also. How many phones are next to be hives?:p

Oskaar
11-15-2009, 05:28 PM
I've been trying to use my cell phone to chase people I don't like away from me today...no joy. It doesn't work so I'm guessing that it's not going to work with bees either.

I had some really good avocado honey yesterday in Westmoreland, CA. Mmmm avocado honey.

akueck
11-15-2009, 07:26 PM
I've been trying to use my cell phone to chase people I don't like away from me today...no joy. It doesn't work so I'm guessing that it's not going to work with bees either.

I had some really good avocado honey yesterday in Westmoreland, CA. Mmmm avocado honey.

Maybe you need one of those scary 1980's phones with the backpack. I'd run. :p

socpsy
11-15-2009, 09:01 PM
I happen to be a scientist and the article would fail as a report about research if handed in by one of my students. It's impossible in reports such as this to evaluate the research the author "cites" because he doesn't actually provide the primary sources (which would be quite easy to do). Consequently, we don't really know under what conditions the "research" was implemented. It always bugs me that people writing articles such as this make claims that we can't easily verify. They throw out titles of the persons who supposedly did the research, but it's bad science to rely solely on the stature and reputation of the researchers. Show me the data! :)

Wolfie
11-15-2009, 10:10 PM
I see what y'all are saying, I read the pioneer article cited in the link, it basically goes into a little more detail about the study. It is frustrating how much science is dummed down-- I cant tell if to manipulate the public or for fear of losing their breif attention spans (just happy if they're reading *some* science, even if it's not good science).

Guess the main thing is the article purports to confirm that high cellular radiation will chase bees away from hives. However it is a good point that numbers for cellular tower radiation levels and how close would a hive have to be to a tower to re-create the levels shown in the study. I know a lot of bee keepers aren't setting up their wi-fi on top of their hives or anything but none the less the tower argument could be plausible if radiation does indeed interfere with bee navigation. Furthermore it might fill in some of the blanks on the mystery of many CCD hives remaining unmolested after they are abandoned.

socpsy
11-15-2009, 10:34 PM
You are correct, the notions expressed in the article may be valid, but we just can't tell from the article itself. I learned a long time ago that even results that seemed unlikely at first blush may end up being supported by quite a bit of data.

It would be nice if people writing about science would simply add enough information that we could easily track down their claims.

akueck
11-15-2009, 11:08 PM
You are correct, the notions expressed in the article may be valid, but we just can't tell from the article itself. I learned a long time ago that even results that seemed unlikely at first blush may end up being supported by quite a bit of data.

It would be nice if people writing about science would simply add enough information that we could easily track down their claims.

My thoughts as well. There's nothing to say that this little experiment is incorrect, but it's hard to even understand what the implications are for "put the cell phone on the hive" without knowing more. And to make the leap to "cell phone towers are to blame" is irresponsible at best. I for one would love to see someone put together a real experiment to figure this out.

Wolfie
11-16-2009, 07:07 PM
on a side note...if you have a beekeeper nemisis there is one good way I read in article to get him real good.