Time was when any mention of members of the order Hymenoptera referred to the prospect of killer bees stinging their way up through America. Not anymore. Today it's the other way around. Bee hives are collapsing left, right and center, and not just this side of the Atlantic. And no one is quite sure why. Among the strangest hypotheses is one that blames cell phone radiation, believe it or not. See here, and here for discussion elsewhere on ScienceBlogs in response to a story across the pond in the Independent. I just want to point out the curious fact that...
today's Science Times section of The New York Times catches up with the story, but makes no mention of the cell phone theory.
Ordinarily, I like my media to be open-minded. But, as has been said by many people, not so open that the reporter's brain falls out. So does the cell phone theory warrant serious coverage? Here's what The Independent story says:
German research has long shown that bees' behaviour changes near power lines. Now a limited study at Landau University has found that bees refuse to return to their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby. Dr Jochen Kuhn, who carried it out, said this could provide a "hint" to a possible cause.
Dr George Carlo, who headed a massive study by the US government and mobile phone industry of hazards from mobiles in the Nineties, said: "I am convinced the possibility is real.
That's it. Hmmm.
The wise folks at Effect Measure point out that
the appearance of the disease, first in the US, which has less cell phone use than Europe, and the pattern of geographic spread, doesn't sound like cell phones would be the cause.
That seems like a good reason enough to remain highly skeptical of the notion. That and the absence of any known mechanism. Not that we understand everything about bee neurophysiology, behavior and navigation. It's theoretically possible that cell phones are the problem, but my first reaction is it doesn't seem like there's enough science for prime time.
[UPDATE: The actual paper explored the effects of cordless phones, not cell phones, but the basic idea that non-ionizing radiation can affect hymenopteran neurophysiology is the same. Thanks to Dave for bothering to find it.]
So, The Independent of London thought it worth reporting. The New York Times didn't. That's the difference between leading newspapers in the UK and the USA. There's a similar theme evident when comparing coverage of other environment stories. The British papers tend to give more credence to the more dire warnings coming from the climatological community than do their American counterparts. Essentially, the US papers are more skeptical and less willing to embrace ideas from the edge. [Plus, it turns out that the Independent didn't even contact the researchers, suggesting that the Brit journalists could use a few lessons from their Yankee friends in remedial reporting. But I'm willing to bet that the story would still have gotten major attention even if the error regarding which frequencies of non-ionizing radiation were involved hadn't been made.]
Which approach serves readers better? There's no easy answer. The NYT, for one, is no paragon of skepticism. Its editors have much to answer for when it comes to buying the party line in foreign affairs, for example. One could easily argue (and many have) that George W. Bush managed to cow Congress into letting him invade Iraq in large part a credulous mainstream media wasn't willing to question the consensus of those calling the shots. (While Tony Blair also took his nation to war, he did it without the overwhelming support of either his country's Parliament or the news media. He could because UK government powers are centralized exactly the way US government powers aren't.)
A willingness to give attention to the weird and not-quite-kosher, within reason, is a good thing. Sure, that means that every now and then some kooky idea gets some traction it doesn't deserve. But the alternative is blind obeisance to authority. Which is never a good thing.
- Log in to post comments
It turns out this was quite the misrepresentation of the actual research being reported. Apparently the researchers placed a cordless phone base station near the hive in order to study the effects of RF radiation (1.9 GHz in this case); mobile (i.e., cellular) phones weren't studied at all.
I'm on my way to teach, else I'd Google a link for this to include.
Scratch that, it was easier to find than expected -- read the actual paper, specifically the very first section. They used DECT (Digitally Enhanced Cordless Telephone) telephone hardware.
Check this out:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/22/news/wireless23.php
Apparently, the scientists that performed the study were never even contacted about this. Talk about irresponsible reporting
Well... this is the first. i was siitting in my house working and all of sudden, i heard a strange sound on my roof, "My TIN Roof". It sound like we where have a reain storm in tucson, but there was one thing wrong. it was sunny out! so i went to see what it was and a Huge Swarm of bees hitting my windows and my tin roof, like they where flying blind and could not get out of the area. it was 5 minutes and then they passed. But to u think the TIN ROOF was an issues to help transmit what ever is killing these bees?
Curtis
The study itself was actually more science fair than science. Could anyone reading it figure out if, for controls, the students altered the non-RF hives in the least? It looks to me as if the "experiment" compared hives that were opened up to have a big piece of electronic equipment into them, vs. hives that were left completely alone.
Good for the NYT for leaving this alone.
"The British papers tend to give more credence to the more dire warnings coming from the climatological community than do their American counterparts.
***BEGIN RISIBLE CONCLUSION***
Essentially, the US papers are more skeptical and less willing to embrace ideas from the edge.
***END RISIBLE CONCLUSION***"
Ha! ha! ha! A joke of a conclusion drawn from a single bad science article. The case you have identified is a good example of the US papers being particularly skeptical about anything that might damage the interest of the big corporations. The US press plays along with the attempts of the oil and mining industries (and others) to sow doubt and pretend that informed scientific opinion is divided 50-50 about the climate change issue when it is more like 95-5. The same tactic was used by the tobacco companies to delay any legislation that would adversely affect their profits (does smoking really cause cancer? are you sure? many people don't think so, you know). Try checking the facts in some other place than your "skeptical press". Ho! ho! ho! I haven't read anything so funny in years!