Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Cellphones Wireless Networking Science

Study Claims Cellphones Implicated In Bee Loss 542

Posted by kdawson
from the can-you-hear-me-now-wait-where-am-i dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Study Claims Cellphones Implicated In Bee Loss

Comments Filter:
  • by assemblerex (1275164) on Monday May 31, 2010 @06:58PM (#32412520)
    Before I BEE-lieve it
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I agree. One study involving 2 hives does not conclusively prove causality.

      • by Pharmboy (216950) on Monday May 31, 2010 @07:09PM (#32412590) Journal

        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?

        • by spazdor (902907) on Monday May 31, 2010 @07:45PM (#32412892)

          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.

        • by gstoddart (321705) on Monday May 31, 2010 @08:22PM (#32413188) Homepage

          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.

          • by oldspewey (1303305) on Monday May 31, 2010 @08:28PM (#32413228)

            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.

          • by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Monday May 31, 2010 @09:32PM (#32413722) Homepage Journal

            Study, yes. Jumping to conclusion, no.

            Somehow, I find it terribly hard to believe that cell phones are responsible for the GLOBAL decline in bee populations and bee productivity. The same problems are being witnessed in developed countries, as well as undeveloped.

            If you were to do a search on my posts about cell phones, you would quickly learn that I don't much like them, and I am also suspicious of health hazards that are little understood at this time. But, anyone who is even trying to be rational will recognize that bees dying off in backwoods areas with little or no cell phone service can't be blamed on cell phones.

            If cell phones were to blame, we would be seeing huge dye-offs in Florida, New Jersey, California -but states like Montana and Idaho would be virtually unaffected.

            As far as I can determine, that is not the case at all.

            • by inKubus (199753) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @12:22AM (#32414872) Homepage Journal

              Yes, you are correct. It's fairly likely that Colony Collapse is caused by feeding bees High Fructose Corn Syrup contaminated with hydroxymethylfurfural [acs.org]. Probably what happened was the phone uses a capacitance system to scan the buttons on the front. This scanning results in a high pitched sound that bees can probably hear and are probably annoyed by. Other things might be the phone smelled funny becuase a person had touched it, or the phone circuit board was treated with something toxic to bees. The only true test would be to put a sterile wire right in the hive and pump out 50W of power and see that nothing happens.

              • by profplump (309017) <zach-slashjunk@kotlarek.com> on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @01:28AM (#32415278)

                I was annoyed by the design of the test too (ignoring the obvious methodology flaws in the number of samples/etc.) Why did the inactive cell phones need to be dummies instead of just "off"? What if the bees are simply allergic to the batteries in the real cell phones? The test is obviously intended to examine the effects of the radio waves, since bees are not often in close proximity to cell phones themselves -- wouldn't a better test be to put in identical phones and simply disable the *radio* amplifier in one of the phones, so that the other conditions are as close to identical as practical? Or as you suggested, to simply pound the hives with radio sans any local electronics installation?

              • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @08:53AM (#32417754) Homepage Journal

                Yes, you are correct. It's fairly likely that Colony Collapse is caused by feeding bees High Fructose Corn Syrup contaminated with hydroxymethylfurfural.

                No, it isn't. Bees are dying en masse on Organic farms where the bees aren't being fed anything but minimally-environmentally-contaminated pollen as well.

                The only true test would be to put a sterile wire right in the hive and pump out 50W of power and see that nothing happens.

                That would be stupid. The only true test is to keep your control group in a faraday cage, because ambient EM spill from cellphone communications is otherwise washing over them all the time. However, the only way you could feasibly do this would be to keep the experiment small, effectively keeping the bees inside, which is also unnatural.

          • by Surt (22457) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @12:38AM (#32414962) Homepage Journal

            We're not going to lose bees, thank you evolution. There are plenty of hives that have survived CCD, and while it may take a few years for populations to fully recover, we can be confident that Darwin has left us with the bees that naturally resist whatever the cause of CCD turns out to bee.

        • by SnowZero (92219) on Monday May 31, 2010 @09:13PM (#32413568)

          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.

        • by FatdogHaiku (978357) on Monday May 31, 2010 @10:34PM (#32414220)

          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...

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by repapetilto (1219852)

          I dunno if anyone else has posted this... but its one of the worst studies I've ever seen. Theyve even got a picture as part of the article showing how they failed to blind themselves, not to mention the data doesnt make sense, (means outside of the range reported..at least I think, its not clear). "Current Science" appears to be a terrible journal, there should be a separate word for that kind of journal so as not to confuse the general public.

          http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/25may2010/1376.pdf [ias.ac.in]

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by erroneus (253617)

      No doubt. That was my first response. Please, someone do this same experiment in different parts of the US and around the world.

      A sad reality is that even if we proved the mobile phones are the cause, we would sooner die than give up our phones. On the other hand, if someone came up with a nice short-range, low-power strategy that utilized our old copper lines and power polls everywhere, we could reduce the amount of radiation quite a bit. The remaining problem would be service in the country areas, whi

  • Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Karganeth (1017580) on Monday May 31, 2010 @06:58PM (#32412522)
    They only had 2 hives in their experiment?
    • Re:Wait, what? (Score:4, Informative)

      by clang_jangle (975789) on Monday May 31, 2010 @07:02PM (#32412546) Journal
      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?
      • by PaulBu (473180) on Monday May 31, 2010 @07:34PM (#32412802) Homepage

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

        Just kidding,

        Paul B.

      • Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Monday May 31, 2010 @07:41PM (#32412862)

        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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by fru1tcake (1152595)
          One thing that seems to be missed in the discussion (not that I have read all the research or anything) is the factor that bees forage. They don't just stay in the immediate vicinity of their hives, they go and hunt, then go and tell their workmates where to look. So if the food is rarely very close to the towers (which is likely since many towers, at least in cities, are on the top of tall buildings, not in lush gardens), they will rarely get particularly close to them. But suppose a forager happens to fin
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Sycraft-fu (314770)

            Wouldn't matter. Individual bees are unimportant. Their society is structured much like ants in that the individual worker matters little. After all, a bee kills itself to attack a predator. When they sting, their stinger becomes embedded in what they attack, and it results in their death.

            So if a few bees got disoriented and couldn't make it home, wouldn't do anything to the colony. Bees don't make it home all the time. They die for various reasons (they are food for a number of creatures). It would have to

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by cain (14472)

        Not really. Both hives had phones in them. In one of the hives, the phones were powered on for two, 15 minutes periods per day. In the hive with the active phone, the bees stopped producing honey and there was a "dramatic" decline in the bee population for that hive. That seems like something, not nothing and seems like it'd be worth further study. This is the first step. If nothing had happened, they could dicard the thesis, but something did happen. Maybe the next step is hive near cell towers and hives n

        • The next step is to run more tests with more hives, and more test groups (with - as suggested elsewhere in the discussion - graduated exposure levels)
          Not to run around like a headless chook claiming the preliminary test actually means anything.

          1. Do limited unscientific test.
          2. Profit!
          3. ???

      • by gbutler69 (910166) on Monday May 31, 2010 @07:49PM (#32412924) Homepage
        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.
      • Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Informative)

        by buchner.johannes (1139593) on Monday May 31, 2010 @07:54PM (#32412972) Homepage Journal

        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 [ias.ac.in] -- 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?

        • Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Vellmont (569020) on Monday May 31, 2010 @10:24PM (#32414112) Homepage

          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.

      • by 3dr (169908) on Monday May 31, 2010 @09:52PM (#32413888)

        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.

    • No no. (Score:4, Funny)

      by Colin Smith (2679) on Monday May 31, 2010 @07:05PM (#32412566)

      There were millions of bees. The results are highly significant.

      Clearly we are seeing a great contribution to science.

       

    • by buchner.johannes (1139593) on Monday May 31, 2010 @07:09PM (#32412586) Homepage Journal

      Exactly, maybe one queen had poor leadership.

      • by Rogerborg (306625)
        Or maybe she was secretly gay? Damn gays, ruining the sanctity of bee marriage with their... gay rays.
    • by dwarfsoft (461760)
      To make the extrapolation [xkcd.com] far more interesting perhaps?
  • Easy to fix (Score:5, Funny)

    by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Monday May 31, 2010 @06:59PM (#32412526)
    Tell the damn queen to stop texting and get back to work.
  • It sounds like a very possible cause thing to investigate, but it would have been nice if there were more than just two hives involved in the experiment. I hope a follow-on experiment is done with more hives.

    It will be very interesting if cell phones and bees come into conflict. Considering all the jack-assery that I've seen associated with cell phones, there's a part of me that would love to see then banned.

    • by Hikaru79 (832891)
      I think it's so cute that you think that -- even if cell phones were proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be singlehandedly responsible for killing bees and twenty other varieties of non-cute animals -- they would ever be "banned" for that reason. Seriously, you're adorable :)
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Considering all the jack-assery that I've seen associated with cell phones, there's a part of me that would love to see then banned.

      I'm posting as AC because I already modded in this thread. I'm also feeling cranky because I have to go to work tomorrow so I'll take this to the ridiculous extreme.

      I see comments like this from time to time and I'm not going to jump on DOD but instead depersonalize it. Whenever someone makes a comment about cell phones being banned, I would ask them to lead by example. Get rid of their phone and ask everyone you're with to turn theirs off or leave them at home (wife/husband/sig other/kids/parents/friends/w

  • two hives (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mkavanagh2 (776662) on Monday May 31, 2010 @07:00PM (#32412536)

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

    • by LurkerXXX (667952)
      Probably why it was published in a non peer-reviewed journal. Zero chance it would pass peer review.
  • by santax (1541065) on Monday May 31, 2010 @07:00PM (#32412542)
    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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Compholio (770966)

      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.

      I haven't raised bees in a while, but I remember "mites" being the rea

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by santax (1541065)
        Yeah mites and parasites are both causes that they at least 'suspect' to be also responsible. I am in no way saying: oh look we found it. I'm just saying that this is at least very interesting and imho should be researched again. With bigger and more populations. It really could prove to be an important factor... or not.
      • I haven't raised bees in a while, but I remember "mites" being the really big problem affecting most hives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varroa_destructor [wikipedia.org])

        And because mites are smaller, cell phone radiation must have an even greater effect on them. Therefore, cell phones kill mites at a greater rate than bees, therefore cell phones save bees!!

        Save the bees! Build more cell towers!

    • It seems to me if "electro-smog" was the problem, the problem would be seen decreasing with increasing range of cell towers. In my neck of the woods I can literally ride my bicycle out of cell phone range, so it shouldn't be too hard to find apiarists in low EMF locations to compare with apiarists in high EMF areas for comparison.

    • by Stormy Dragon (800799) on Monday May 31, 2010 @09:34PM (#32413734) Homepage
      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.
  • by Dyinobal (1427207)
    So how do they know mobile hive didn't catch something that had nothing to do with a freaking cell phone, like bee stds or something.
  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Monday May 31, 2010 @07:07PM (#32412574)

    I'm sorry, but if you have to place the cell phone right in the hive there's no way a hive more than five feet away from a cell phone 24x7 is going to be impacted by this.

    Perhaps the bees just got really into texting to the exclusion of pollen gathering.

  • CCD Overblown (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Waitaminute... I thought I read in Scientific American or somesuch that the recent CCD scare was actually just a surge in reporting in the media, not an actual dramatic increase in rates. Furthermore, most of the real cases were attributed to more mundane causes pesticides or the stress of a colony being moved...

    Someone back this poor AC up with a link.

  • by AffidavitDonda (1736752) on Monday May 31, 2010 @07:16PM (#32412648)
    then the bees could have used the gps and google maps
  • by Colin Smith (2679) on Monday May 31, 2010 @07:22PM (#32412692)

    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.

     

  • by puppetman (131489) on Monday May 31, 2010 @07:23PM (#32412702) Homepage

    I was talking to a fellow beekeeper on Quadra Island [wikipedia.org], 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.

    • by PhoenixFlare (319467) on Monday May 31, 2010 @07:33PM (#32412786) Journal

      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.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 31, 2010 @08:30PM (#32413242)

        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 [anonymouse.org].

        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.

  • No effect on bees (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jonfr (888673) on Monday May 31, 2010 @07:28PM (#32412742) Homepage

    GSM and 3G signals should not have any effect of bees. As the waves are too big to have any effect of them. Wavelength of 900Mhz (and 850Mhz) is about 30 cm. It is slightly less at 1800Mhz and 1900Mhz.

    In fact, the waves are bigger then bee in size in most cases.

    This study needs to repeated few more times before any results can come from it.

  • I was going to suggest little teeny tiny earpieces for the bees, but then I got to thinking - isn't Bluetooth radio waves too? Will nothing save the bees and us from this onslaught of radiation!
  • Have you no standard? It's a retarded newspaper that prints nothing but idiocy.

    Christ! What's next on slashdot? Healthy eating research article from Burger King's site? That only features stuff from their menu?

  • ... who verified that humans can, in fact, engage in photosynthesis [randi.org].

  • As a Beekeeper... (Score:5, Informative)

    by xquercus (801916) on Monday May 31, 2010 @07:58PM (#32413002)
    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.
    • No kidding (Score:3, Informative)

      by Sycraft-fu (314770)

      I think what people need to understand is that yes, CCD is a real, serious thing. However that doesn't mean that the first crackpot theory that comes along is right.

      This is just more of the general anti-radiation paranoia that has been going on for, well, since we knew what radiation was. Another part of that would be humans and power lines. There was a bunch of paranoia that living near high voltage power lines would cause problems in kids because of the radiation. Now never mind that this is extremely lon

  • by indros13 (531405) * on Monday May 31, 2010 @09:40PM (#32413794) Homepage Journal
    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 [treehugger.com]

  • Then again... (Score:5, Informative)

    by cherokee158 (701472) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @05:54AM (#32416478)

    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/ [telegraph.co.uk]

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.

Working...