5 ms·

The last I had heard, researchers believed that cell phones were at least partially to blame, but the article doesn't seem to mention it at all. Does anybody kn

The last I had heard, researchers believed that cell phones were at least partially to blame, but the article doesn't seem to mention it at all. Does anybody know if that has been disproved?

jacquesm 16y ago
from 2007, in English (in spite of the .de domain): http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,477804,00.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,477804,00.h... Another: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2007/apr/16/ifmobilephone http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2007/apr/16/ifmobi... more recent: http://www.pattayadailynews.com/en/2010/10/01/the-sudden-disappearance-of-the-honey-bees/ http://www.pattayadailynews.com/en/2010/10/01/the-sudden-dis...
CamperBob 16y ago
No legitimate researchers ever believed that.
nitrogen 16y ago
I've upvoted you, because I don't think being misinformed is worth -4. 0 or -1, maybe. Do you have a source for the cell phone claim? I'm curious to know if there is a rational argument behind it, or just a speculative guess by a journalist.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >I don't think being misinformed is worth -4. 0 or -1, maybe. They asked a useful question which should IMO have been at least a null hypothesis in some lab somewhere ("do hive deaths correlate with mobile phone use density or with mast locations"). Sure they assume something which appears slightly shaky in the process, but IMO they added to the post with their comment and deserve a +1 or +2 and a comment "that whilst it may have been an initial hypothesis it was quickly discarded, see {citation}". Down-modding this sort of comment reduces the quality of the thread.
  - Robin_Message 16y ago
    But they didn't ask it as a useful question, they made a statement without backing it up, but in such a way as to imply it was true. That statement was socially and scientifically useless. To be clear, they said: > The last I had heard, researchers believed that cell phones were at least partially to blame, No-one can claim that, since no credible research has ever even hinted that. Hence, they are stating an unfounded opinion passed off as a poorly remembered fact. Not just misinformed, but attempting to perpetuate a wrong idea -> downvote. As to eliminating a null hypothesis, that's just applying the precautionary principal to things that are salient, which is foolish and just pandering to the "new technology X is killing us" crowd. Additionally, mobile phones have been widespread for years longer than colony collapse disorder, so why even suspect a link? </rant>
    - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
      >Not just misinformed, but attempting to perpetuate a wrong idea It is entirely possible that they read an article (even possibly in the national press of their country) saying that "researchers believed that cell phones were at least partially to blame". This makes your statement "no one can claim ..." false. Indeed it might have been a neighbour or friend that told them, they might even have doubted it. In any case, reading the second part of the post "the article doesn't seem to mention it at all. Does anybody know if that has been disproved?" clearly labels this as a current genuine enquiry that can be answered without assuming bad faith on the questioners part. >which is foolish and just pandering to the "new technology X is killing us" crowd So, when there's a temporal correlation between the rise of a global new technology and the apparent threat of a globally required (for on going human existence at least) genus [not sure on my taxonomy there?] you don't think it even deserves us to ask the question whether that correlation hides a causal link? There aren't that many global phenomena showing this sort of change in magnitude of use are there? As it happens I have a vague recollection of reading about something along these lines in New Scientist, possibly in terms of "scientists have considered many possible explanations, mobile phone signals, ... [long list of varying suggested causes]". --- Edit: Not NS it seems, but this came up - http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/are-mobile-phones-wiping-out-our-bees-444768.html http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/are-mobile-p.... Also, try http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=%28%22mobile+phone%22|%22cell+phone%22|%22handy+phone%22%29+bees+hive+collapse&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=%28%22mobile... 'Now a limited study at Landau University has found that bees refuse to return to their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby. Dr Jochen Kuhn, who carried it out, said this could provide a "hint" to a possible cause. Dr George Carlo, who headed a massive study by the US government and mobile phone industry of hazards from mobiles in the Nineties, said: "I am convinced the possibility is real."' Care to retract anything or are you going to continue in claiming these two studies (plus at least 2 more on Google Scholar link) are not credible research.
JulianMorrison 16y ago
From the article: "suspected culprits ranged from pesticides to genetically modified food". Q. What do pesticides, GM food and mobile phones have in common? A. Technophobic nature-romanticists hate them. Those things are just the "usual suspects". They get blamed for anything.
- ahi 16y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide_%28toxic_to_bees%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide_%28toxic_to_bees%29 I haven't read GMO as a possible culprit, but I have seen monoculture, made possible by pesticides and GMOs, as a possibility. Industrial agriculture is rather sterile, not really providing a balanced diet for bees (or us for that matter). The cell phone thing is just batty though.
- jj_aa 16y ago
  Remarkable- that list supports your conclusion way more when you insert an item! Darn those irrational technophobic nature-romanticists, putting mobile phones into lists where they don't belong.

The last I had heard, researchers believed that cell phones were at least partially to blame, but the article doesn't seem to mention it at all. Does anybody know if that has been disproved?

jacquesm 16y ago

from 2007, in English (in spite of the .de domain): http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,477804,00.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,477804,00.h... Another: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2007/apr/16/ifmobilephone http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2007/apr/16/ifmobi... more recent: http://www.pattayadailynews.com/en/2010/10/01/the-sudden-disappearance-of-the-honey-bees/ http://www.pattayadailynews.com/en/2010/10/01/the-sudden-dis...

CamperBob 16y ago

No legitimate researchers ever believed that.

nitrogen 16y ago

I've upvoted you, because I don't think being misinformed is worth -4. 0 or -1, maybe. Do you have a source for the cell phone claim? I'm curious to know if there is a rational argument behind it, or just a speculative guess by a journalist.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago
>I don't think being misinformed is worth -4. 0 or -1, maybe. They asked a useful question which should IMO have been at least a null hypothesis in some lab somewhere ("do hive deaths correlate with mobile phone use density or with mast locations"). Sure they assume something which appears slightly shaky in the process, but IMO they added to the post with their comment and deserve a +1 or +2 and a comment "that whilst it may have been an initial hypothesis it was quickly discarded, see {citation}". Down-modding this sort of comment reduces the quality of the thread.
- Robin_Message 16y ago
  But they didn't ask it as a useful question, they made a statement without backing it up, but in such a way as to imply it was true. That statement was socially and scientifically useless. To be clear, they said: > The last I had heard, researchers believed that cell phones were at least partially to blame, No-one can claim that, since no credible research has ever even hinted that. Hence, they are stating an unfounded opinion passed off as a poorly remembered fact. Not just misinformed, but attempting to perpetuate a wrong idea -> downvote. As to eliminating a null hypothesis, that's just applying the precautionary principal to things that are salient, which is foolish and just pandering to the "new technology X is killing us" crowd. Additionally, mobile phones have been widespread for years longer than colony collapse disorder, so why even suspect a link? </rant>
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >Not just misinformed, but attempting to perpetuate a wrong idea It is entirely possible that they read an article (even possibly in the national press of their country) saying that "researchers believed that cell phones were at least partially to blame". This makes your statement "no one can claim ..." false. Indeed it might have been a neighbour or friend that told them, they might even have doubted it. In any case, reading the second part of the post "the article doesn't seem to mention it at all. Does anybody know if that has been disproved?" clearly labels this as a current genuine enquiry that can be answered without assuming bad faith on the questioners part. >which is foolish and just pandering to the "new technology X is killing us" crowd So, when there's a temporal correlation between the rise of a global new technology and the apparent threat of a globally required (for on going human existence at least) genus [not sure on my taxonomy there?] you don't think it even deserves us to ask the question whether that correlation hides a causal link? There aren't that many global phenomena showing this sort of change in magnitude of use are there? As it happens I have a vague recollection of reading about something along these lines in New Scientist, possibly in terms of "scientists have considered many possible explanations, mobile phone signals, ... [long list of varying suggested causes]". --- Edit: Not NS it seems, but this came up - http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/are-mobile-phones-wiping-out-our-bees-444768.html http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/are-mobile-p.... Also, try http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=%28%22mobile+phone%22|%22cell+phone%22|%22handy+phone%22%29+bees+hive+collapse&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=%28%22mobile... 'Now a limited study at Landau University has found that bees refuse to return to their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby. Dr Jochen Kuhn, who carried it out, said this could provide a "hint" to a possible cause. Dr George Carlo, who headed a massive study by the US government and mobile phone industry of hazards from mobiles in the Nineties, said: "I am convinced the possibility is real."' Care to retract anything or are you going to continue in claiming these two studies (plus at least 2 more on Google Scholar link) are not credible research.

JulianMorrison 16y ago

From the article: "suspected culprits ranged from pesticides to genetically modified food". Q. What do pesticides, GM food and mobile phones have in common? A. Technophobic nature-romanticists hate them. Those things are just the "usual suspects". They get blamed for anything.

ahi 16y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide_%28toxic_to_bees%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide_%28toxic_to_bees%29 I haven't read GMO as a possible culprit, but I have seen monoculture, made possible by pesticides and GMOs, as a possibility. Industrial agriculture is rather sterile, not really providing a balanced diet for bees (or us for that matter). The cell phone thing is just batty though.
jj_aa 16y ago
Remarkable- that list supports your conclusion way more when you insert an item! Darn those irrational technophobic nature-romanticists, putting mobile phones into lists where they don't belong.