BEEMANApr 18th, 2007 - 15:51:24

if people believe this, I have swamp land in Florida that would make a great investment for someone.

This problem would have shown up sooner if it was true, it may have some influence in some areas, but in other areas there has been no densification of cell towers or mobile users and this syndrome is happening there with the bees

I think what the study shows is bees navigation systems are sensitive to changes in electromagnetic radiation. I suspect the cyclical pattern in sunspot activity from the Sun and the changes this has on the Earth's magnetic field as a result of the sunspot changes is probably the bigger culprit as some other researchers suggest in the media.

Report this comment

NoMoreBlowhardsApr 18th, 2007 - 17:34:45

And your evidence for this is...?

You may be a legitimate investigator with hard data, I don't know.

The data regading cell phone radiation may be compelling also. I don't know.

But if you are just opining and offering up pet theories based on poorly-understood snippets of pop science journalism, then you are a buffoon, a bombast, or to put it more plainly, you are speaking out of the wrong orifice.

(I'm hoping these expletives fall on the right side of the moderators...)

Report this comment

TylerApr 18th, 2007 - 17:40:03

It's much better when evidence is used to support an allegation, and scientists with actual credentials are consulted rather than a guy in a lab coat who swears he's a licensed scientitian.

The cell phone theory seems particularly wrong for two reasons:

1) Cell phones weren't invented this past winter.
2) The die off pattern doesn't follow the spread of cell phone technology.

The inevitable conclusion is that there is more evidence against the tie between cell phones and CCD than there is for it. It's an interesting idea to entertain, but the evidence doesn't support it.

Report this comment

NoBeeNoFood?Apr 18th, 2007 - 18:11:33

I tink there is money to be made by dusting crops with pollen.

Report this comment

NoMoreBlowhardsApr 18th, 2007 - 18:47:26

Well Tyler, I agree with you here...

> It's much better when evidence is used to support an allegation, and
> scientists with actual credentials are consulted rather than a guy in
> a lab coat who swears he's a licensed scientitian.

But then what's all this?

> The cell phone theory seems particularly wrong for two reasons:
>
> 1) Cell phones weren't invented this past winter.
> 2) The die off pattern doesn't follow the spread of cell phone technology.
>
> The inevitable conclusion is that there is more evidence against the
> tie between cell phones and CCD than there is for it. It's an interesting
> idea to entertain, but the evidence doesn't support it.

Just because an idea is implausible doesn't make it wrong. Two reasons you list are excellent reasons for approaching the actual data behind this news story with some health skepticism. But I haven't seen the actual studies. It is entirely possible that these two concerns have been addressed in some way by the authors of the study.

Most importantly, no 'inevitable conclusion' follows from reasons 1) and 2), and these reasons do not constitute evidence of any kind (apart from being evidence that you believe them to be true and convincing). Not only do they not constitute evidence, but the second claim, which would require evidence to support it, has none. It's all another case of 'alternative-orifice-speak' (alt-orifice).

Your suspicions are worth entertaining, and you may be right, but you kind of hurried to the close on this one. I hope our politicians don't come to snap conclusions like this when considering complex and important issues...

Report this comment

Ed PApr 18th, 2007 - 19:01:07

There must be an island or other area with no cell phone coverage that can be used as a control group.

This story is a speculation for now, and more research is needed.

Report this comment

NoMoreBeesApr 18th, 2007 - 19:12:21

>>It's much better when evidence is used to support an allegation, and >>scientists with actual credentials are consulted rather than a guy in a lab >>coat who swears he's a licensed scientitian.

and you know this from where? Quote source.

>>The cell phone theory seems particularly wrong for two reasons:

>>1) Cell phones weren't invented this past winter.
>>2) The die off pattern doesn't follow the spread of cell phone technology.

Common sence dictates: Cell phones have been growing in numbers, as the numbers grow, so does the density of emmissions from those cell phones. Therefore, any patterns would be based on the increase in density of cell phone sites and numbers of phones supported.

>>The inevitable conclusion is that there is more evidence against the tie >>between cell phones and CCD than there is for it. It's an interesting idea >>to entertain, but the evidence doesn't support it.
You have not offered any evidence, statisitical or otherwise, to have a conclusion.

Report this comment

BEEMANApr 18th, 2007 - 20:04:47

HEY BLOWHEAD,

THE LOCAL REPORTS HERE FROM BEE KEEPERS THAT LIVE ON RELATIVELY ISOLATED GULF ISLANDS IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST IS THEIR BEE COLONIES ARE DOWN 50%.

NO CELL PHONE OR CELL TOWER TO BE FOUND WITHIN A 10 MILE RADIUS OF THEIR HIVES.

SO YOU FIGURE IT OUT GENIUS!

Report this comment

SmoApr 18th, 2007 - 20:13:25

There was a bee and a hornet walking down the street. The bee was wearing a yarmulke; so the hornet asked him why. The bee's reply: 'I don't want to be known as a WASP.'

Report this comment

DOOM!!!!Apr 18th, 2007 - 20:47:25

We Are ALL gonna DiE!!!!!!!!! The end of the world is happening because of our cell phones and those DAMN BlooDY BEe'S!!!!!!!

Report this comment