[Pollinator] cell phones and bees

[David Inouye]

>Sender: Entomology Discussion List <ENTOMO-L at listserv.uoguelph.ca>
>From: Doug Yanega <dyanega at UCR.EDU>
>Subject: Re: Fw: THE BEE MYSTERY IS MULTI - NATIONAL
>To: ENTOMO-L at listserv.uoguelph.ca
>
>>Cell phones as a cause of CCD in honey bees? NO WAY!
>
>Unfortunately for real scientists, these are physicists in Germany
>that have done a pilot study demonstrating that honey bees with
>mobile phone signal emitters embedded in their colonies (a sample
>size of 2) are less likely to return to the hive when released (the
>theory is evidently that bees will "resonate" with the frequency of
>the EMF emissions, thereby interfering with their homing ability).
>Two UK reporters jumped on this as an explanation for CCD, and got
>one of the physicists to agree with this possibility when
>interviewed. And then they got a guy who wrote a best-selling book on
>how cell phones are killing people to also go along with the theory,
>which now means that he's going to make a few more million dollars
>from all the free advertising his book is getting. So, it is now an
>established scientific fact (if you believe the media's definition of
>"fact") that cell phones (which are completely different from the
>mobile phones used in the experiment) not only cause CCD, but are
>ushering in the end of all life on earth, since Einstein said we
>would all be dead within four years of bees disappearing, and
>everyone knows Einstein was right about everything.
>
>All kidding aside, this is an appalling manipulation of junk science
>to create junk fact, resulting in REAL fear and REAL misinformation.
>The saddest thing is that the people who actually know about bees are
>not being asked to speak, and if we do, and dare to say "Well, that's
>just stupid" then the accusatory fingers are pointed at *us*, and we
>are told "Is that all you have to say? Where is your scientific proof
>that these people are wrong?? Huh, Mr. Scientist??"
>
>It's tragic how in a court of law, if you show that a person is not a
>credible witness, their testimony is thrown out, but if you attack
>someone's credibility in a scientific context, then you are guilty of
>"ad hominem" attacks, and YOU become the bad guy because you didn't
>refute their arguments using science (on top of being accused of
>committing slander).
>
>Ultimately, no matter how idiotic a crackpot theory may be, if we do
>not put out scientific papers refuting it, it is assumed by the world
>at large that the theory might be correct, if only because
>"Scientists don't know everything" and "There are things Science
>can't explain". So, you can expect that we will not hear the end of
>this cell phone nonsense, so long as no one does a study that shows
>that it IS nonsense *AND* holds a press conference to announce it -
>which means at least several more months for it to fester and poison
>the public consciousness, just like the Bt theory, the sunspot
>theory, and all the other ridiculously improbable theories
>circulating out there now. This sort of thing sometimes simply fills
>me with despair, at other times with indignant rage (the image of
>grabbing the entire world by its collective throat and shaking some
>sense into it comes to mind).
>
>Einstein may have been right, but not because we're going to starve
>--- instead, because we've become a society of ignorant and
>superstitious people incapable of telling fact from fiction, and lies
>from truth. It's probably just a matter of time before such an
>irrevocably gullible society self-destructs. I intend to fight
>against it, for my part, but man, is it ever an uphill battle.
>
>Peace,
>--
>
>Doug Yanega        /Dept. of Entomology         /Entomology Research Museum
>Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521-0314
>phone: (951) 827-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
>    Skype: Dyanega               http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
>   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
>         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82