Bees and mobile phone masts.

[CTRandall]

@HareBrain Butt out! They're doing fine!

There, satisfied?

 

[RJM Corbet]

This document was sent in by Dr Goldsworthy (retired lecturer) as part of an open consultation in 2010 that allowed any person or party to comment on a proposal to increase the power of 3G networks in the UK.

It is not the opinion of Ofcom, it is merely an individuals opinion. Here is "the register"'s view of the whole process: Ofcom consultation brings out the tinfoil hatters

I'd also suggest, after a cursory google that Dr Goldsworthy does not like current wireless technology developements. Is he correct?

There may be health implications indeed, as one must keep an open mind on such matters, although I haven't seen proper studies on the long-term effects of living with increased power mobile phone sites. However a great deal has been claimed by certain groups that seem OTT and similiar to anti-vax and other unscientific movements - there has been no evidence for these claims as far as I can remember.

I'd have to dig deeper with this Dr G, but frankly he seems to be tying in everything to the advent of mobile phone/WiFi radiation: autism, obesity, ADHD, fatigue. And of course bee decline.

That screams a bit 'tinfoil hat' to me, I'm afraid.

The peak year for colony collapse disorder (CCD) in honey bees, at least according to this article: Are honey bees endangered? Here's the truth of the matter | AGDAILY was around 2010-ish - the journalist states that the American Council on Science and Health reported that it had abated by 2011. Since then., apparently, honey bee populations have (at least in the US) gone to historic highs and that CCD is no longer put forward as the main threat to bees. However I am no beekeeper, neither do I follow this too closely, so I will willingly be corrected by someone with better data on this issue.

However, I would suggest @Foxbat that you have pulled up a document out of context and, of course interested because of familial concerns, have been a bit blinded by the scientific language used. As others have pointed out this is not a peer reviewed scientific paper. We must be careful, as this is how bad ideas are allowed to propogate in the internet. (I have no problems discussing any of the ideas in Dr G's paper, but we must attribute the correct weight to his arguments - that he probably does not have strong or compelling evidence.)

Thanks VB. There may be many reasons for the decline of bees, but non-ionizing radiation would have to be very low on the list, imo? It is the weight of it being published on an official Ofcom site that gives it credibility -- "Wow! Ofcom is telling us this!" But in fact it seems to be an irresponsible editorial decision to include it as fact, without a proviso? There are enough problems with the 5G conspiracy theorists attacking masts and abusing telecom workers, without Ofcom putting out such speculative stuff as fact?

And it is the value of Chrons Science and Nature that we get to have a better look at this sort of information, imo.

As far as mobile phones go: agreed they may seldom be used as verbal speech telephones, but what about the value of having a computer in my pocket that a few decades ago would not have been able to fit into a double storey house -- and which enables me to instantly contact someone anywhere on the planet, or to access the greatest ever global library of knowledge at the touch of a button -- free of charge?

 

[paranoid marvin]

It's incredible just how quickly we have gone from not needing mobile phones to not being able to function properly without them. It will be interesting to see what the next indispensable item will become.

 

[Ursa major]

a vituperative, polarised argument

Don't get people started on the dangers of polarised light....

 

[CTRandall]

In medieval medicine, I believe bee stings to the tongue were a common prescription for reducing the vituperative humours. That would have the additional benefit of eliminating any verbal argument.