4 ms·

"Some very intelligent people claim" Please be specific - which intelligent people? Who disagrees with them? "Electromagnetic pollution one of the main source

"Some very intelligent people claim" Please be specific - which intelligent people? Who disagrees with them? "Electromagnetic pollution one of the main source of its decline" What are the other sources? How do they compare to electromagnetic pollution in terms of impact?

ofou 5y ago
I think Elizabeth Kolbert with her book "The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History" did a great job on the overall subject. "Mobile phone and Wi-Fi radiation in particular opens the calcium channels in certain cells, meaning they absorb more calcium ions." That seems not be very good for insects. [1] There are many, good articles coming up. [2] and anecdotal evidence [3] Not sure, of course but the science is unequivocal in that the impact is significant, not negligible. [1]: https://phys.org/news/2020-09-mobile-insects-german.html https://phys.org/news/2020-09-mobile-insects-german.html [2]: https://sci-hub.st/10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.007 https://sci-hub.st/10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.007 [3]: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1086.6753&rep=rep1&type=pdf https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.10...
- Scandiravian 5y ago
  The first source use the word "probably" to describe the impact and there's no mention of how large an impact is found Second article lists it as a "potential cause" Third article defines it as a "possible cause" I have a hard time seeing how "the science is unequivocal in that the impact is significant, not negligible.", from the articles presented. What I read is that EMR is a possible cause among many, like known contributors such as loss of habitat and pesticide use, but there further research is needed. This is not the same as saying it's not possible that the effect is true - there just isn't enough evidence to support a definitive conclusion on the impact at this point. I'm not an environmental scientist, so I don't have the required knowledge on the current state of research in the area. There might be newer research that is solid enough to warrant making a definitive statement, but what I read in these articles definitely does not.
  - ofou 5y ago
    Nobody said a definitive conclusion or statement, but this is an overlooked AND significant one. I'm not an environmental scientist either, but I do see evidence of this point as a hobbyist beekeeper and casual reader of the science literature. The effect is true, and I agree with you, more research is needed.

ofou 5y ago

I think Elizabeth Kolbert with her book "The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History" did a great job on the overall subject. "Mobile phone and Wi-Fi radiation in particular opens the calcium channels in certain cells, meaning they absorb more calcium ions." That seems not be very good for insects. [1] There are many, good articles coming up. [2] and anecdotal evidence [3] Not sure, of course but the science is unequivocal in that the impact is significant, not negligible. [1]: https://phys.org/news/2020-09-mobile-insects-german.html https://phys.org/news/2020-09-mobile-insects-german.html [2]: https://sci-hub.st/10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.007 https://sci-hub.st/10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.007 [3]: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1086.6753&rep=rep1&type=pdf https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.10...

Scandiravian 5y ago
The first source use the word "probably" to describe the impact and there's no mention of how large an impact is found Second article lists it as a "potential cause" Third article defines it as a "possible cause" I have a hard time seeing how "the science is unequivocal in that the impact is significant, not negligible.", from the articles presented. What I read is that EMR is a possible cause among many, like known contributors such as loss of habitat and pesticide use, but there further research is needed. This is not the same as saying it's not possible that the effect is true - there just isn't enough evidence to support a definitive conclusion on the impact at this point. I'm not an environmental scientist, so I don't have the required knowledge on the current state of research in the area. There might be newer research that is solid enough to warrant making a definitive statement, but what I read in these articles definitely does not.
- ofou 5y ago
  Nobody said a definitive conclusion or statement, but this is an overlooked AND significant one. I'm not an environmental scientist either, but I do see evidence of this point as a hobbyist beekeeper and casual reader of the science literature. The effect is true, and I agree with you, more research is needed.