Slashdot Mirror


Study Claims Cellphones Implicated In Bee Loss

krou passes along word from Telegraph.co.uk that researchers from Chandigarh's Punjab University claim that they have proven mobile phones could explain Colony Collapse Disorder. "They set up a controlled experiment in Punjab earlier this year comparing the behavior and productivity of bees in two hives — one fitted with two mobile telephones which were powered on for two 15-minute sessions per day for three months. The other had dummy models installed. After three months the researchers recorded a dramatic decline in the size of the hive fitted with the mobile phone, a significant reduction in the number of eggs laid by the queen bee. The bees also stopped producing honey. The queen bee in the 'mobile' hive produced fewer than half of those created by her counterpart in the normal hive. They also found a dramatic decline in the number of worker bees returning to the hive after collecting pollen." We've talked about the honeybee problem before. Today's article quotes a British bee specialist who dismisses talk of cellphone radiation having anything to do with the problem.

38 of 542 comments (clear)

  1. Independent studies warranted by assemblerex · · Score: 4, Funny

    Before I BEE-lieve it

    1. Re:Independent studies warranted by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One study involving two hives doesn't even prove correlation, as it could be just random chance, as one hive will always do better than another hive. It is interesting and maybe worth doing some real studies.

      But are we going to all give up our cell phones if it turns out that they cause problems with bees?

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    2. Re:Independent studies warranted by spazdor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I got three words for you: inverse square law.

      If it takes putting a phone into the hive, then we're not really testing the effects of cellphones(as they are used IRL) on bees anymore.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    3. Re:Independent studies warranted by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But are we going to all give up our cell phones if it turns out that they cause problems with bees?

      No, but here's some food for thought:

      If commercial agriculture relies on bees to pollinate commercial crops ... and if the cell phones are killing the bees ... what happens when there's no bees left?

      We stand to lose a lot if we lose bees. Research into their health is important to our ability to grow food.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Independent studies warranted by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Several countries (most notably China) already use armies of human workers wandering around with pollination brushes in order to pollinate crops that used to be taken care of (for free) by bees.

      This sort of thing falls squarely in the realm of "ecological services" provided by the various natural systems we humans are busily degrading or outright destroying.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    5. Re:Independent studies warranted by SnowZero · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, if the study proves repeatable, we just need to stop storing our cell phones inside beehives. The inverse square law will take care of the rest.

    6. Re:Independent studies warranted by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 4, Funny

      But are we going to all give up our cell phones if it turns out that they cause problems with bees?

      No. We are going to end up fitting each of them with a little foil coat and hat though...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    7. Re:Independent studies warranted by grcumb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's empty our prison cells, our ghetto projects, and everyplace else we are warehousing deadbeat do-nothing bums, and put them to work.

      Either this modest little proposal of yours is a case of an epically poor sense of the mechanics of satire, or you're actually serious about this. Forgive me if I assume that it's the latter.

      Before you embark on the journey towards that lofty goal, you might want to do a bit of research into this historical social phenomenon called Indentured Servitude and workhouses. They were, after all, some of the means by which the US economy operated in its early days. (The other was slavery, but that meddler Lincoln made sure we'd never get that back.)

      You know, Charles Dickens, the Methodist movement and entire generations of the best and brightest in England, Europe and North America devoted their lives to ending this practice. If they knew you were proposing it again, they'd no doubt be rolling in their graves.

      Shame on you for even considering this. Shame too on the moderator(s) who thought this was in any way insightful.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    8. Re:Independent studies warranted by profplump · · Score: 4, Informative

      As far as we know with other examples of non-ionizing radiation, there are virtually no effects, immediate, delayed, substantial or otherwise.

      Even in the case of ionizing radiation, the effects *are* immediate. One might not notice the effects right away if they are mild, but the tissue damage happens when you're exposed, not some time later via radiation time-delay magic.

    9. Re:Independent studies warranted by vlm · · Score: 5, Informative

      We've done that experiment thousands of times in this state for darn near a quarter century here. It's called a ... farm.

      Its almost a stereotype that farmers on the perimeter of town lease a tiny plot of land for a tower, or lease the top of their grain silo, or lease the tippy top of the barn roof, etc.

      Generally the lease payments are enough to maintain the structure and/or the driveway leading up to the structure, not so little as to barely buy a beer and not so much as for the farmer to retire. I have two relatives in the farming business, one in sheep (well, that sounds completely inappropriate) and the other in corn and somewhat in vegetables, I know what I'm talking about here.

      Note that farmers in general and dairy farmers especially are very much tuned in (bad pun) to EMF and electromagnetic fields. First of all because its almost a stereotype that all their heavy electrical gear is in disrepair and they have to keep their wits about them or they'll get electrocuted, and secondly, dairy farmers attach metal/electrical milking machines to a part of the cow anatomy where very few female mammals, humans included, enjoy having even the smallest electrical current flow.

      I suppose it depends a lot on where you live, but around here its "normal" for farms to have a couple hives, or to rent some hives during pollination season.

      Given that base stations run 10 - 20 dB more power than a handheld, any electromagnetic effect would harm the bees/whatever about 10 - 20 dB worse.

      Since the reported effects from the very low power handheld transmitter are terrible, then every time for the last quarter century, simply driving a pollination truck onto a farm that rents basestation space should result in all the bees dying like instantly. But they don't.

      Also most "medium and up" farmers have some form of radio network. Think technology like CBs, maybe a little better, maybe a little worse. Anyway, that RF source seems to have had no effect for at least 50+ years.

      Hmm. I wonder if all of reality is wrong, or maybe, just maybe, the crackpot report is wrong.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  2. Wait, what? by Karganeth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They only had 2 hives in their experiment?

    1. Re:Wait, what? by clang_jangle · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not only that, but they put the phones in the hives. I can see how that would be quite disruptive to the little critters; generally we don't go to a beehive to call people on our cell phones. Surely the likelihood of a proximity effect renders this study kind of useless?

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    2. Re:Wait, what? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's also the whole "inverse square law" thing. Power drops off with the square of distance. So if something is outputting 3 watts right at the transmitter, you are not receiving 3 watts when you are 100 feet away. Even if the energy from mobile devices is what has an impact, you need to test it in the levels yo actually see in the real world. As an example: My phone currently shows 4 bars, which is the max for the model (Curve 8330). When I ask it how powerful the signal it is getting, it says -80dBm. That is 10 picowatts, or 0.00000000001 watts. The maximum output for a class 1 mobile phone is 33dBm, which is 2 watts. I should note this is a strong signal. The phone works fine with signals less than -90dBm.

      So, when you are talking about being right next to the transmitter, as opposed to a normal distance away, you are talking many MANY orders of magnitude of signal difference. The signal of cell towers is extremely weak at the average location in the city (and weaker still in the country). They work with low signal strength and low SNR. That's the reason they work with low power devices.

      Even if the physical presence of the phone doesn't fuck with the results, the power very well could. If they want to test this properly it would require multiple hives, and transmitters that bathed the area in the kind of energy you'd see from the actual network.

    3. Re:Wait, what? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 4, Informative

      You both are wrong:
      1. they actually used 4 hives
      2. the control group had phone dummies installed. So the "proximity effect" was controlled.

      It is unfortunate to see that the paper -- http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/25may2010/1376.pdf -- does not include a statistical test to evaluate that the results are due to chance, but it seems significant ... anyone care to do a ANOVA?

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    4. Re:Wait, what? by 3dr · · Score: 4, Funny

      As a bee that was part of the "mobile" hive (and I resent the assumption that we were not "mobile" before this unfortunate test), I can attest that the researchers got what they were looking for. Of course we're not going to linger around the hive, nor will the queen lay eggs, as long as they keep calling us with some mobile phone company tag line. Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now? Yeah yeah, how about I sting your lab coated ass?

      It's one thing to have a periodic interruption from our "keeper" even though he has a horrible smoking problem. But jeez, phone calls at 3am from a drunk whiner complaining about his love life and apologizing ... is that part of your thesis? Of course the phone's presence will impact us, dumbass.

      Oh, and the text messsages: seriously not funny. Just stop.

    5. Re:Wait, what? by Vellmont · · Score: 5, Interesting

      4 WHOLE hives you say? Wow.. just wow.

      I'm a beekeeper. Any beekeeper knows that hive productivity and queen laying varies quite a bit. Why? Queens aren't all the same, and the genetics obviously varies. Some queens lay more than other queens. As queens get older, they start to lay less eggs (and eventually the workers give her the boot and make a new queen). The queen will produce all the workers, and her genetics combined with the genetics of the drones she mated with will determine the behavior of the workers produced. There's probably a dozen other factors at work as well.

      The idea that you can take only 4 hives, average the results, and expect any kind of meaningful answer out of that is ridiculous. If they did this with 40 hives I might start listening. But 4? Beyond stupid.

      --
      AccountKiller
  3. Easy to fix by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 5, Funny

    Tell the damn queen to stop texting and get back to work.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  4. two hives by mkavanagh2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that's a sample size that even andrew wakefield would have considered ridiculous

  5. This is actually a very serieus problem. by santax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The grandparent from ms. Santax is a bee-keeper. He told me about the many losses of complete hyves in recent years, not only at his place, but with the 'competition' also. If this is truly the reason or of an influence of this magnitude as suggested by the article, then we really really really need to shut down those GSM-freqencies and fix it or find a better alternative. Cause else there won't be anybody left to call in about 40 years.

    1. Re:This is actually a very serieus problem. by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funny the bees had no problems back in the 70s when the GSM band was UHF television channels 70-83. Because you'd think that if little 3-5 watt transmitters are killing the bees, then high power broadcast antennas would have had some noticeable effect.

  6. should have used Googles Android by AffidavitDonda · · Score: 4, Funny

    then the bees could have used the gps and google maps

    1. Re:should have used Googles Android by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Funny

      But then they would all be smashed on somebody's windshield..

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  7. Re:Inverse-square law of radiation says no by stokessd · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can see it now, they kept trying to text the other hive and when they didn't get a response, the first hive realized that they weren't BFF and got depressed and stopped collecting pollen, making honey and doing the nasty with the queen...

    Sheldon

  8. This crap gives science a bad reputation by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean, seriously.

    And the bloody media come up with crap like "Mobile phones responsible for disappearance of honey bee" based on it.

    "Study says", "scientists say". It's tealeaf reading. Crystal ball gazing. Science is nothing more than a marketing term to convince people to buy whatever they're selling.

    We need a term to describe things which appear to be science but in fact which are not.

     

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:This crap gives science a bad reputation by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 5, Informative

      We need a term to describe things which appear to be science but in fact which are not.

      Um... pseudoscience?

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
  9. It doesn't explain losses at remote apiaries... by puppetman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was talking to a fellow beekeeper on Quadra Island, which is in a very rural part of the province, with a population of about 2000 people. This beekeeper lost 470 hives out of 500 this year.

    There aren't many people, and cellphone service is poor... I doubt there are many phones there.

    I'm skeptical until a lot more research is done.

    1. Re:It doesn't explain losses at remote apiaries... by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 4, Informative

      I just came back from a stay at a bed & breakfast in rural Virginia, where the innkeeper's husband also happens to keep 10 hives of bees on the property - very poor cellphone service in the whole area, 1 bar of EDGE reception, if even that much. He lost 8 of the 10 hives to apparent Colony Collapse a few years ago, but completely back to normal now.

  10. Re:No no. by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 4, Funny

    I say we ban cell phones from bee-hives immediately - let them use old fashioned land lines instead

  11. Not only that, but they also left them... by PaulBu · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... on the loudest setting AND vibrate mode! :)

    Just kidding,

    Paul B.

  12. Temperature Alone could be the problem. by gbutler69 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How much additional heat would the 15-minute per day cell phone sessions plus the phone being in "Stand-By" 24/7 produce in the hive? My guess is it might increase the temperature a couple of degrees.

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
  13. As a Beekeeper... by xquercus · · Score: 5, Informative

    I say this is simply ridiculous. It's not uncommon at all for a beekeeper to lose half of his hives in a season due to mites, foulbrood, starvation, genetics, poor management or any number of other known and unknown reasons. It's not uncommon for someone with two hives to lose one or both of them over a 3 month period -- the length of this study. The comparison of two queens is bogus too. The variability in quality (genetics) between two queens from even the best breeders can be enormous. Having read many studies about honeybee management I can say beekeepers insist on much better science than this. Proper studies involve groups of hundreds of hives; control for genetics, disease, management practices; and occur over multiple seasons.

  14. Don't ask don't tell by Capsaicin · · Score: 4, Funny

    That'd generate the kind of data we're actually looking for wouldn't it?

    Definitely not! I like my phone and mobile devices, so any empirical evidence which inconveniences me would have to be rationalised away in any case. I'm pretty confident the study would turn up nothing at all. It's almost axiomatic that what's good for me is good for the world. The research money would better be spent increasing coverage by erecting more transmission towers and the like.

    And yeah, Honey is bad for your health.

    --
    Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  15. Actual Apiarist/beekeeper here. Blame GMO'd pollen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hey guys. Here's the skinny of it all. Posting ANONYMOUS because it isn't worth the libel and slander of any effort against me to waste my time any more of whom I've to blame

    I am an active part-time Apiarist. Been that way ever since a kid, because I'm poor and insects are cheap fun that give me a God-complex of love over helping the little stingy creatures in my hands. From prior ventures in Construction I've accumulated enough window-screen and plastic-polymer sun-screen that I was able to cover my entire backyard into three cube sections each with two colonies in them. In the section with the plastic-polymer sun-screen that gives absolutely no breeze and complete isolation from the environment, I reared two colonies of bees on natural heirloom flowering plants and used air-conditioners to keep the moisture levels steady and supplemented artificial lighting to keep the nectar flowing through more seasons. In the other window-screen enclosure, I planted your Home Depot variety of GMO'd flowers and such that produced plenty of nectar just they are written GMO'd on them. If you ever visit a garden Nursery to buy your flowers, much of the plants being sold today no longer have butterflies and bees swarming them because they've been GMO'd to the point that their odor and nectar is unappealing or poisonous. In the 3rd enclosure, it is completely cut-off from all flowering plants of any kind and the colony is reared on a sugar-cane solution I've developed myself and all the time while aerial-spraying the bees with a Titanium Oxide solution that is apparent as an atmosphere conditioner that I encountered in Los Angeles County.

      You wouldn't believe what the results are.

    The results of my Bees under House-arrest is that the bees that consume Homo Depot potted-plants' pollen and nectar in the open-atmosphere window-screen enclosure proved that the bees are dying from diseases encountered through seriously week Immune Systems all because the GMO'd pollen and nectar physically hurts them; what kills them most is Fungal Infections, no mites in any of my bees because they are under House Arrest in each of their caged cubicles. The next enclosure that is closed-circulation in a Sun-screen plastic-polymer tent is they are thriving like any colony should, rougly 40k bees in the towers. The last enclosure, the one where the bees were again closed-off from the atmosphere like the other ones and fed on a reliable solution of my own making, yet aerial-sprayed with Titanium Oxide, they all encountered almost the same kinds of Fungal Infections as the open-atmosphere bees that were only allowed Homo Depot GMO'd plants.

    That's all there was to it, fellas. The contracts to the Aerial Spraying over Los Angeles is similarly available here as cloud_seeding_draft_mnd_final.pdf.

    It's bad enough that all the CORN Pollen of GMO's plants has killed all the Monarch Butterflies. You'ld think you all would take a hint that Bees aren't the only insects dying.

    It's costed me 4 dead colonies, over $2k of actual materials and 5 months of electricity for the test sites not including rent if were done on another premise, and all I got were obvious results that didn't have any tests to do with cell phone radiation. I would be more concerned with Cell-phone TOWERS and what effects they could have because those frequencies are resonating at frequencies of water that all life forms around them might be affected by. I've heard stories about Army communications officers and technicians, as well as ARRL HAM-licensees, getting all kinds of diminished Immune Systems and cancers from working over 5 hours a day in constant contact with these energy fields.

  16. I wouldn't mind... by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... if they banned cell phones. I made it through the first 35 years of life without one and I can make the rest of the way without one.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  17. They've already found the cause by indros13 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Nicotine-based neonicotinoids, a broad class of pesticides. A ban on them in Italy restored bee populations.

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/05/nicotine-bees-population-restored-with-neonicotinoids-ban.php?campaign=th_rss_science

    --
    Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  18. Then again... by cherokee158 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Did anyone else read the OTHER article in the same paper that totally debunks the theory?

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/iandouglas/100005223/mobile-phones-and-bees-shoddy-research-helps-no-one/

  19. LoL at article... by TrisexualPuppy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know a farmer who is a beekeeper. I used to be a beekeeper myself. Over the past year, he lost all three of his stationary hives that he leaves out in the woods. I inspected two of them with him

    The latest one that he lost was in March. In a matter of days, all the bees died within the hive as if they had been gassed or poisoned. None of the bees attempted to remove the old bees as normally happens. The "full complement" of workers was there in a pile at the bottom of the hive--nothing had dispersed. There was no smell of disease. And there was plenty of non-rotted honey left. Few predators or scavengers to be found in the hive eating the honey: no yellow jackets, and all the hive beetles were dead. A few spiders. Very, very odd.

    The previous one died in December/January. The previous year, there had been plenty of honey left. This was a very productive hive. We opened it up after noticing the eerie silence near the hive and that the bees were not egressing for cleaning flights. Pushing on the hive, it rocked with ease which normally doesn't happen because these things can weigh well over a hundred pounds when healthy. There was absolutely NOTHING left in this huge hive. No honey, no workers, no brood, nothing. No honey. No dead bees on the outside. A healthy hive had just disappeared during the middle of the winter.

    I find a little conflict here. The service out there is kind of sucky, and I don't see how he could have lost three hives in the last year and none in prior years when probably nothing has changed with the cell service out there aside from maybe a beam direction change.

    1. Re:LoL at article... by petgiraffe · · Score: 5, Informative

      While similar in appearance, neither of the cases you describe are typical of CCD.

      What likely happened here was war (beekeepers call it "robbing"). The hive you describe from March was the defender in an all out war with another hive, the other hive likely took heavy losses as well. The pile of dead contained bodies from both. That was the battlefield. The attacking hive may have also died completely during the war, which is why there was still honey in the victim hive.

      The winter loss you describe is indicative of the attacking hive in a similar war. An attacker that didn't win. Or perhaps did, but didn't gain enough honey for the queen to survive the winter. For some reason they lost all their honey stores (This can happen if yet another hive robbed them, or if the queen kept laying too many workers for the stores to support for too long after the nectar flow stopped). After the hive eats all its stored honey, it turns on neighboring hives.

      CCD looks similar to these losses, but both honey remains (until it's scavenged by others) AND there are no dead bees to be seen. Such that it looks as if a perfectly functional hive just up and left.

      My two hives went to war last summer, and the carnage was unbelievable. Hundreds of thousands dead in a pile in front of the "victim" hive. I didn't know why they went to war at the time, but now I know that 70,000 bees can consume a massive store of honey pretty quickly if they have no work to do. And I've also learned that if 3 days don't go by without rain, flowers don't produce enough nectar for bees to have any work to do. (It was VERY rainy here last summer)

      --
      -- The reader anything less than completely failing to not misunderstand this sig is cursed.