Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Electromagnetic Noise Found To Affect Bird Navigation

Posted by timothy on from the or-did-you-mean-magnetic-north? dept.

Rambo Tribble (1273454) writes "A 7-year German study has come to a troubling conclusion: the EM noise from human activities is interfering with birds' magnetic 'compass' [paywalled paper, but above-average abstract], and potentially disrupting migratory behavior. While science is unclear how the birds' compasses work, it is theorized it employs the quantum phenomenon of electron spin. As the lead researcher, Prof Henrik Mouritsen, is quoted as saying, 'A very small perturbation of these electron spins would actually prevent the birds from using their magnetic compass.' The BBC has a nice summary article, as well."

71 comments

  1. Design standards by hessian · · Score: 1

    There's a difference between "good enough" and "elegant" when it comes to design.

    Our society is a chaotic blast of all sorts of noise, from physical sound waves, to electromagnetics, to sheer ugliness.

    It doesn't reflect a consistent design philosophy.

    The high number of electromagnetic wave emitters inevitably creates other problems as well. But we're so focused on "good enough" that we ignore this.

    --
    Futurist Traditionalism
    1. Re:Design standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't reflect a consistent design philosophy.

      They do. It's the "free market" philosophy.

    2. Re:Design standards by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      that is a economic philosophy not design philosophy

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    3. Re:Design standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This point is that it's like that because of the free market. Now sit down and shut the fuck up, gump.

    4. Re:Design standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry this isn't Web 2.0. This is electromagnetics. Just because you don't grasp the subject sufficiently enough to actually evaluate existing solutions doesn't make the solutions any less "elegant".

      There are some very real physical and mathematical limitations on wireless communications. No matter what your design is, you WILL generate noise. This is the fundamental nature of signals. If you are so inclined, read up on Fourier Transforms and then look at the time/frequency domain representation of square/SINC waves.

    5. Re:Design standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi! Do you mean, "Damning with faint praise", perhaps?

  2. So they still find their way? by canadiannomad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So if I read this right, while they are in the presence of electromagnetic fields they can't orient themselves via their internal compass, but the moment they leave that field they regain their orientation. So all they have to do is fly in any direction, and they will eventually get oriented. I'm not sure I see how big a problem this is. It would be unusual for them to experience it in nature, but it seems like something they would naturally recover from.
    Are their any studies that tell us that large numbers of migratory birds are flying the wrong direction? (as opposed to saying that they might, if they are constantly in an abnormal electromagnetic field)

    --
    Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
    1. Re:So they still find their way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      So if I read this right, while they are in the presence of electromagnetic fields they can't orient themselves via their internal compass, but the moment they leave that field they regain their orientation. So all they have to do is fly in any direction, and they will eventually get oriented. I'm not sure I see how big a problem this is.

      Thanks armchair expert.

      http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo...

      So how much is really because of EM and not the ASSumed by us "red light"??

    2. Re:So they still find their way? by mr_mischief · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to the BBC summary they also orient according to the sun and stars. This disrupts one of three systems. In the US, there's some decent evidence that major landmarks like rivers and lakes are used even by birds that are not water birds, too. It's certainly not a huge problem for most migratory birds. Lack of food sources at their traditional migration times may be much more important.

    3. Re:So they still find their way? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      According to the BBC summary they also orient according to the sun and stars. This disrupts one of three systems.

      Except the sun and stars are not both visible at the same time. So it disrupts one of two systems effectively. How many birds of you see flying at night anyhow?

    4. Re:So they still find their way? by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      And at night stars may be not visible thanks to light pollution.

    5. Re:So they still find their way? by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

      I wasn't trying to act like an expert.. I was trying to ask a question... You know, to correct for the fact that I only briefly skimmed the article, and because migratory birds are not in any way part of my day to day job.

      --
      Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
    6. Re:So they still find their way? by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      How many birds of you see flying at night anyhow?

      Pretty much none, nighttime being the time when I'm indoors a lot and sleeping. Even when I'm outside, it's DARK. My inability to see birds flying at night should not be an indicator that birds are not flying at night.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    7. Re:So they still find their way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or clouds!

    8. Re:So they still find their way? by mr_mischief · · Score: 2

      Many birds fly 18 hours straight. Some species longer.

      Cornell has some information you may want to read, as do some other sources. Birds fly before sunrise and after sunset, even in complete darkness. Some species fly right through the night during migration.

    9. Re:So they still find their way? by mmell · · Score: 1

      They even fly on cloudy days (marginal sunlight, nearly no moonlight - no starlight or celestial navigation in any event).

    10. Re:So they still find their way? by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 1

      I think the bigger problem is that the avian electromagnetic sense is tied to their eyesight. So the electromagnetic noise isn't just causing them to fly in the wrong direction, it's interfering with their ability to see. This may cause them to run into buildings, wind turbines, and power lines more often than usual.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    11. Re:So they still find their way? by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 1

      Hmn. My link didn't work, so let's try it here. This is a study on avian electromagnetic vision, with a simulation of what a bird sees when looking at the magnetic field of the Earth. http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Researc...

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    12. Re:So they still find their way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can tell where the sun is even on a cloudy day if you can see polarized light.

    13. Re:So they still find their way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmell: Yer bein' called out. Why ya runnin', "forrest" http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?

    14. Re:So they still find their way? by mmell · · Score: 1
      Aren't you going to threaten to sue me? Are you this guy? The Start64 malware site shows the following:

      Company: Panisz Peter

      Address: Kossuth Lajos u. 51 Dunabogdany 2023 HU

      Phone: +36.203367173

      Fax: +36.203367173

      But I think he's living at his mother Jan Kowalski's basement at:

      Alexander Peter Kowalski

      903 East Division Street

      Syracuse, N.Y. 13208

      Apartment #1, Lower Level

      At least, that's where he wants users of his hostfile manager to send him money.

    15. Re:So they still find their way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmell: Yer bein' called out. Why ya runnin', "forrest" http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... ?

  3. Adapt or die. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Figure it out birds! Or else we'll replace you with lifelike robot birds that don't crap on my car.

    1. Re:Adapt or die. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is exactly why they crap on our cars, picnic tables, and heads. It's retaliation, pure and simple. :)

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    2. Re:Adapt or die. by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      This is exactly why they crap on our cars, picnic tables, and heads. It's retaliation, pure and simple. :)

      That's why they need to be fitted with these.

    3. Re:Adapt or die. by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      It's a little known fact that birds used to poo in pellets. Their new western diet just gives them diarrhea all the time.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  4. Is this why they fly into airplanes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Could this explain why birds are frequently found crashing into planes or being sucked into jet engines? The plane's own equipment screwing with their navigation until they fly into it?

    1. Re:Is this why they fly into airplanes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. Those are the birds who, having been pecked on their entire lives, and misunderstood by the entire flock, have settled into a deep, dark fugue and have decided to end it all rather than giving this unfair universe the satisfaction of screwing them over for one more single fucking day.

    2. Re:Is this why they fly into airplanes? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Many birds see polarised light patterns, a characteristic of water in nature. Very few natural things look like water in polarised light.

      Polished metal does though. Glass too. And many painted surfaces.

      This is why birds keep hitting windows. To their senses, the window looks like a nice pool of water to land in. As do parked cars.

    3. Re:Is this why they fly into airplanes? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      I would have thought that millions of years of evolution would have taught birds that vertical water surfaces don't exist.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    4. Re:Is this why they fly into airplanes? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Nor did glass, until recently.

    5. Re:Is this why they fly into airplanes? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      you mean like water falls?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Is this why they fly into airplanes? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      To their senses, the window looks like a nice pool of water to land in. As do parked cars.

      Whoa could this explain why birds specifically poop on cars so much? Maybe they have some kind of instinct to aim their poop at water sources (oddly enough).

      I'll have to see how much bird poop my car attracts when I paint it with plasti-dip which should look different.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    7. Re:Is this why they fly into airplanes? by c4320n · · Score: 1

      A waterfall is very, very far from a 'vertical water surface'. I doubt it the polarization of the light coming off of a waterfall makes it look any more similar to a pool of water than the colored light coming off of it does (that is to say, not at all).

    8. Re:Is this why they fly into airplanes? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      I don't buy the "glass mistaken for water" theory.

      Why would a non-aquatic bird try to land in water? And head-first at full speed, at that?

      I think they just don't see the glass and assume it's an open space. Birds avoid glass with a spiderweb pattern that's visible only in UV light.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re:Is this why they fly into airplanes? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      In the case of window collisions, yes - again, glass isn't something they evolved to cope with, so they have no instinct to be aware of invisible obsticles.

      The polarised car thing is more of an issue for insects.

    10. Re:Is this why they fly into airplanes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't buy the "glass mistaken for water" theory.

      Without evidence, there's no "theory" for you to buy; "glass mistaken for water" is just a hypothesis.

    11. Re:Is this why they fly into airplanes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Y]ou mean like water falls?

      I don't think so — substantial waterfalls are typically opaque due to the large quantity of air mixed into their turbulent waters.

    12. Re:Is this why they fly into airplanes? by cffrost · · Score: 1

      To their senses, the window looks like a nice pool of water to land in. As do parked cars.

      Whoa could this explain why birds specifically poop on cars so much? Maybe they have some kind of instinct to aim their poop at water sources (oddly enough).

      I don't know... Has cognitive bias been eliminated as a possible explanation? Speaking for myself, I tend not to pay much notice when birds shit someplace/on something I haven't paid to clean.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  5. long range planning always uses 3 generations. by NemoinSpace · · Score: -1, Troll

    WWII is finally over as german scientists reject jet engines and embrace the mystical world of the spotted owl. Still, I am slightly uneasy about this and now support U.S. efforts to develop superior spotted owl drones.

  6. Why does "no beta" always require 2 clicks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time I click the "I don't want slashdot beta" and go back to the story, I have to click that AGAIN.

    Every f'ing time.

    The "no beta" never works with just "one click."

    But then again, slashdot beta doesn't work, so why is it any surprise that this doesn't either?

    1. Re:Why does "no beta" always require 2 clicks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My bookmark has been http://slashdot.org/?nobeta=1 since before the Slashcott. I haven't had to worry about Beta for a while.

  7. this is old news by strstr · · Score: -1

    we have known this. and we have known bees were being effected, as well.

    and we know that humans and DNA are being effected by EMF.

    watch this video that covers it. called "Resonance: Beings of Frequency" : http://vimeo.com/groups/docume...

    In all living animals EMF causes activation of VGCCs intracell, causing release of calcium, that then creates nitric oxide and superoxidation, and injuries and sickness. You also have damage to DNA. The result is schizophrenia, autism, cancer, confusion, depression, anxiety, and other conditions.

    There's a condition where about 5% of the worlds population is hypersensitive to this.

    More details in this White Paper by Dr. Martin Pall: http://www.oregonstatehospital...

    Entitled: Microwave Electromagnetic Fields Act by Activating Voltage - Gated Calcium Channels: Why the Current International Safety Standards Do Not Predict.

    The paper was nominated for best research of 2013.

    More information can be found on my website about government EMF weapons, radar and satellite systems that are also hurting people: http://www.obamasweapon.com/

    If you read over the Dr. Martin Pall paper you'll actually find that the governments of the world has known about the effects of EMF for decades but kept the information classified and hidden from the public for national security reasons. Meaning they wanted to be able to weaponize it and keep it all secret. :)

    Another undocumented effect is radiowave heterodyning which allows a radar weapons platform to remotely beam signals into your head, which alter synaptic signals, allowing full remote control.

  8. The birds are migrating from Analog to Digital by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can here it in their calls, heavy distorted digital sounding noise, sometimes sounding like 14.4 modems.

  9. Yes by tomhath · · Score: 1
    FTFA:

    birds tested far from sources of electromagnetic noise required no screening to orient with their magnetic compass

    So (as I read it) they might get disoriented when they fly too close to a cell tower, but once clear they're okay.

    1. Re:Yes by geekoid · · Score: 1

      From the abstract, I didn't see where the were testing above 5 MHz.
      Cell towers operate at 750-2100MHz most above 1700MHz

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  10. Ok, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's no information on whether or not it's actually a problem. As the article states, birds have more than one means of navigation and they seem to still be migrating. So is there some group of birds that can no longer migrate because of this?

    1. Re:Ok, so? by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      Yup, the dead ones.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  11. Proof is lacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    There are no proof we actually have any need for birds. We're probably just fine without them. Good riddance1111!1one

    1. Re:Proof is lacking by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Came here for the bird denialists, leaving satisfied.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  12. This Study is Not Just Hogwash ... by pollarda · · Score: 2

    We really should take it seriously since it is for the birds...

  13. Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll just evolve a better compass that locks on to GPS and cell towers.

  14. Maybe once upon a time. by mmell · · Score: 2
    Nowadays, there are over six billion humans living on the planet, and that number is only going up from here. EM radiation? Trust me, that's pretty low on the list of ecological disasters looming ahead for humanity. Terra will keep right on spinning without us; but if we're going to die off from overpopulation you can bet we're going to take as many other higher life forms with us as we can.

    So how do we reduce the number of EM wave emitters (number, strength, impact) without causing even more damage to the overall environment?

    1. Re: Maybe once upon a time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're not going to die off anytime soon. We as a species have been through bottlenecks of down to a few thousand individuals. Even if 99.9% of the current population of seven billion would die we would still be far from extinction.

      Our technological civilization though...

    2. Re:Maybe once upon a time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you provide an example of a species that went extinct because its population was too large?

    3. Re: Maybe once upon a time. by mmell · · Score: 1

      Fine. But that ecosphere we've been living in will be irremediably altered by the presence of many billions of humans. Our technology will permit our numbers to grow until we have displaced all "naturally occurring" ecosystems (because six billion humans won't stop breeding or living just because the planet is becoming overpopulated). Once that occurs, die-back is the inevitable conclusion; leaving behind an environment fundamentally different from the one we know now.

    4. Re:Maybe once upon a time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmell: Yer bein' called out. Why ya runnin', "forrest" http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?

    5. Re: Maybe once upon a time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmell: Yer bein' called out. Why ya runnin', "forrest" http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?

    6. Re:Maybe once upon a time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmell: Yer bein' called out. Why ya runnin', "forrest" http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?

    7. Re:Maybe once upon a time. by mmell · · Score: 1
      Evidently, the Vagisil didn't help you with that itch. Are you this guy? The Start64 malware site shows the following:

      Company: Panisz Peter

      Address: Kossuth Lajos u. 51 Dunabogdany 2023 HU

      Phone: +36.203367173

      Fax: +36.203367173

      But I think he's living at his mother Jan Kowalski's basement at:

      Alexander Peter Kowalski

      903 East Division Street

      Syracuse, N.Y. 13208

      Apartment #1, Lower Level

      At least, that's where he wants users of his hostfile manager to send him money.

    8. Re:Maybe once upon a time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmell: Yer bein' called out. Why ya runnin', "forrest" http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... ?

  15. Magnetic particles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    While science is unclear how the birds' compasses work, it is theorized it employs the quantum phenomenon of electron spin.

    There are actual magnetic materials in the relevant cells, working as a compass. Confusing readers is optional.

    1. Re:Magnetic particles by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 1

      No reason to get snarky, especially when the original post is correct. There are magnetic materials in birds' eyes. However, they only register when exposed to a magnetic field under certain conditions, as a quantum phenomenon. It is an electron spin transfer that is delayed by the quantum Zeno effect to a timescale where the birds' retina can detect the difference.
      It's not as simple as a compass that points them in the right direction. Birds use some seriously weird quantum tricks to see magnetic fields.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
  16. Maybe once upon a time. by mmell · · Score: 1

    I had. Slashdot's web server apparently swallowed my post regarding several experiments with rat populations which effectively became 'extinct' or nearly so as a result of overcrowding conditions. Not doing the research twice to have it wiped out again. Google on 'overpopulation experiment' and draw your own conclusions.

  17. birds yes people no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah the poor birdies are affected by emr but humans are crazy to claim it has an effect on them?

  18. Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My new robotic birds will spam you and crap on u, and deliver you beer.

  19. I have electromagnetic hypersensitivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although i'm not very sensitivive to radio frequencies, appliances of all kinds are dangerous for me. Only after many years do I know the extent of it and know how to be selective about the electronics I keep around me. So I'm perfectly healthy, physically and psychologically until I'm exposed. Even then, since I can keep my environment 'clean', I quickly notice harmful radioations. Animals are more sensitive than humans in all sorts of things, and these kinds of studies are done occasionally so the relationships are not unknown.

  20. Re: Only 99.99%? by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    All that "Mars Mission" technology will only scale to a very small population. Its a bit too late now to evolve any methane-breathing abilities.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  21. Who are you? by mmell · · Score: 1

    I don't run from anonymous cowards. Please post using registered /. id.

    1. Re:Who are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmell: Yer bein' called out. Why ya runnin', "forrest" http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... ?

    2. Re:Who are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahaha bullshit. Yes you did. We can read you know. What a wuss you are.