Natural Beekeeping Network

[Safety]

There are many toxins causing bee deaths and loss
It would be great to have some research looking at all the toxins so we know what weight to put on each

Research shows that the radiation from mobile phone masts and other more localised sources destroys bees immune systems and interferes with their navigation and communication systems

In the last 15 to 20 years the background microwave radiation levels have been increased trillions of times as a result of mobile phone (and WIMAX) masts that now cover the countryside and that of all countries except some remote parts of the developing world. Dr Warnke (Universtiy of Saarland) has put together the evidence for the destruction in a paper presented at the Royal Society in 2008 (and ignored by the WHO and HPA who were present).

Its well worth downloading this document with refs to 40 research studies on radiation effects on bees. Most research was done in Germany over the last 30 years. Virtually nothing has been done in the UK
http://broschuerenreihe.net/britannien-uk/brochure/bees-birds-and-mankind/index.html
Bees, Birds and Mankind Destroying Nature by `Electrosmog´
Dr Ulrich Warnke

Two more recent studies that look at mobile phone signals. These will not cause much harm unless right near the bee. Its the phone masts which are the problem. However for research purposes it demonstrates the effects from the signals (which are the same from the phone and the masts)
When a phone is on the radiation levels are up to about 200v/m. However this is only when on a call. The rest of the time the signals are lower. However the signals from phone masts result in ambient levels from 0.05 to 1 v/m but 24 hours a day. This is the problem

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3052591/
Exposure to cell phone radiations produces biochemical changes in worker honey bees

http://www.springerlink.com/content/bx23551862212177/fulltext.pdf
Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker piping

Also more info here:
http://bemri.org/hese-uk/en/issues/nature3e83.html?id=bees

[Brosville]

"its the phone masts which are the problem" - they aren't! - simple maths will show you that the "business end" of a mobile 'phone mast is far LESS dangerous than a mobile 'phone (power falls off as the square of distance) - mobile phone masts typically are around 10 times the power of a 'phone, but at a distance of at least several feet, the likely radiation dose is FAR lower than will typically be experienced from a 'phone...

-there will be 130,000 TIMES the radiation at one inch than at 30',(it's unarguable physics). If it is to reach all mobile 'phones within it's area, the radiation is in ALL directions, thus the inverse square law applies
- so if you take the fact that the average 'phone mast is emitting a whole 20 watts, and a mobile 'phone may be emitting 2 watts (typical figures), there is a factor of 10 between them - using my example, simply divide 130,000 by ten (to give 13,000) - so if a mobile 'phone mast is dangerous at 30 feet, a mobile 'phone is 13,000 times more dangerous at an inch............ and everyone worries about the mast, few about the 'phones.....
As "fall out" from these sums, if we really believe the radiation from mobiles to be dangerous (and I really don't dismiss the possibility for really close-up use), then we should be campaigning for MORE 'phone masts.......
Mobile 'phones vary their power, according to how far they are from the mast - in a strong reception area, with a mast nearby, it will only be using a few milliwatts, whereas if it is a distant mast, it'll ramp up to a full 2 watts or thereabouts - if you look at the maths, it's the really close use/power where it is most likely to be dangerous, hence we really should be campaigning for MORE masts........

So I don't dismiss the idea that mobile 'phone radiation may be dangerous, but if the masts are dangerous............
_________________
http://farmco.co.uk
Sussex Natural Beekeepers' Forum

[zaunreiter]

Oh no, not again....

We've discussed this before many times. Use the search function, please.

[Safety]

Hi
I find it strange that some people are so dismissive of the evidence
I gave a few links so it could be read.
Just to dismiss it out of hand leads to nothing
People are very attached to mobile technology and it seems to cloud their ability to understand or even to look at the huge amount of research showing negative health effects for bees(and of course humans)
How can we ever get the bees back if people refuse to consider one of the major causes of their demise?

zaunreiter
We have discussed pesticides before but does that mean it can't be discussed again?

Brosville
The radiation emitted from mobile phone masts IS a major problem.
It destroys the bees immune system thus meaning they cannot withstand further toxic assaults such as the varroa mite, pesticides or GM crops

The only way to understand is to take time to read the research. Obviously you have not done this since it takes time to read a 40 page referenced research document
You assume by your calculations that phone masts are less dangerous than mobiles because they are lower power and one is further away
This is correct (about the power not the danger). However for a bee a mobile is irrelevant since they do not use them!
Bees do fly around nowadays in the ambient fields emitted by phone masts 24/7
Just consider this
The background microwave radiation levels at 1800MHz (from outer space) are 0.000,000,000,01 µW/m2
Since 1992 the phone masts have now virtually covered the whole of the UK the levels are now 10 µW/m2
This is an increase of a trillion times!!
Humans and bees have developed over millenia in very low microwave background level. To assume it is safe to pump them up to such high levels was a mistake
Further there are 1000's of studies showing adverse health effects and the mechanisms for these

More masts will result in more deaths for bees (and humans)

[zaunreiter]

Evidence? A couple of links?

I talked and emailed the scientists - even the one in far India. I asked for the raw data and/or further details about the methods and materials and concept of the study. All the people I asked were't able to deliver anything that I would call evidence.

To how many "scientists" did you talk to? How deep did you look into the studies?

I don't dismiss anything out of hand easily. I checked it, checked it again, checked it again....what new "evidence" turned up since?

My personal view is, that Bayer, Monsanto et al. are releasing such press news to puzzle the public. Why is the press jumping so readily at such a cr@p*? When I try to publish a long and detailed press release, not a single media answers. But to such "science releases" they do? I don't know, this seems too much manipulated as anything else.

So, did you use the search engine of the forum, yet?

Do you actually have bees? What hive type do you use?

Bernhard

[Safety]

Dear Bernhard

I can assure you I am not from Monsanto nor Bayer issuing counter evidence to puzzle the public!!!
I agree that Bayer and Monsanto (and other corporations) produce products directly linked to destruction of the bees immune systems

I am just saying there is ample evidence that the microwave radiation is also a toxin and its effects must be added into the pot

Before new products are released there is never any safety testing done and there is no effective regulator to do tests. What research that is done in Universities that comes up with adverse effects is suppressed and scientists often sacked if they say anything (Take Dr Putzai re Monsanto)
The same is happening to scientists researching the adverse health effects of microwave radiation

I've attended many radiation effects conferences and read many studies. It takes years to get to grips with the subject not 5 minutes
Funny I also emailed the Indian researchers and got no reply
I assumed this was because it is night time on a Friday in India and they are not in their office.
Would you be so good as to give the details of what they sent that you say is not evidence so I may take a look too?
Thanks

[Brosville]

You obviously haven't understood the information imparted in my post, IF as you state " The radiation emitted from mobile phone masts IS a major problem", then the radiation emitted from mobile 'phones is considerably more damaging (it is simple maths) - as Zaunreiter suggests, please use the search facility, this subject has been "done to death" on this website umpteen times, and it is rather irksome to go through it all again

Why, if they are so dangerous doesn't virtually every teenager have brain cancer? - to reiterate my main thrust - a mobile 'phone is an inch or two from the brain, a mobile 'phone mast is at the very least several feet away - as the radiation goes in all directions, at 30 feet (standing at the base of a tower), the radiation dose to your brain from a 'phone is 13,000 TIMES as strong as the dose from the tower.........
_________________
http://farmco.co.uk
Sussex Natural Beekeepers' Forum

[BoBnh]

I have thought that it would be a cool research project to look at the effects of wired frames vs. non-wired frames. AFA stray radio.

RF is also present without human influence.

A simple experiment that you can do is to drive 2 ground rods into the earth 300 meters apart and connect the rods with a wire. Put a volt meter in series with the wire. Cool!

I can trace underground metallic pipe for miles. The effects of cell phone towers are not really significant. Solar radiation is big.

But, what may matter is what Brosville points out. The radiation effects of a handheld device on the brains young people with not much bone mass.

[Safety]

HI
Well as this forum is about bees I was concentrating on the radiation damage from the phone masts to which the bees are exposed
Bees are not generally exposed to the radiation from a mobile phone. At least I have never seen one using a phone!

Adverse health effects in humans will depend upon the state of the immune system and the radiation dose and if it is a localised exposure and if so where.

The dose depends upon the intensity of the exposure and the duration of exposure.

Whilst a mobile held to the head offers a much higher exposure, it is generally a few minutes to a few hours per day and is a localised exposure.
However living in the main beam of a phone mast results in slightly lower intensity exposure but for a much longer time period. Therefore its hard to say which is worse. The dose could be comparable or larger and depends on all the above mentioned factors.

There are 2 studies showing a tripling of cancer incidence in the main beam of a phone mast (less than 350m) after only 5 years exposure.

There are studies on brain tumours and mobile phones
The industry's own studies show a 40% increased risk of brain tumour on the same side as the phone is held for 'heavy' users after 10 years use. Theyndefine a heavy user as someone who makes a half hour call a day.
There are studies by independent scientists showing this is a gross underestimate.
There are already teenagers (and adults) who have died as a result of mobile phone induced brain tumours. However its early days and cancer usually takes more like 40 years to develop so the fact that we are seeing effects so early on is very worrying.

There is more info on brain tumours on this brain surgeon's web site

http://www.brain-surgery.us/mobilephone.html
Dr Khurana was the coauthor of this paper:
Cell phones and brain tumors: a review including the long-term epidemiologic data☆
The results indicate that using a cell phone for ≥10 years approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same (“ipsilateral”) side of the head as that preferred for cell phone use


http://www.brain-surgery.us/KhuranaSurgNeurol.pdf

[Safety]

A really cool experiment would be to repeat the Stever and Khun experiment
This could easily be done. Anyone can try and see for themselves

They took a cordless phone base unit (in which a cordless landline sits) and placed it in a hive and switched it on.
Only a few bees came back to the hive as opposed to the non irradiated hive where all the bees returned
The significance is that the cordless phone emits radiation 24/7 from the base unit and will result in the same intensity exposure in the hive as being in the main beam of a phone mast.

You can verify this for yourselves by renting or buying microwave monitoring equipment from Powerwatch or other suppliers.

http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/heseuk/profile.php?id=hst
Award for a Study about Electrosmog and Bees
The Educational Information Technology specialist Stever and the physicist Kuhn received this award for their uniquely innovative and groundbreaking studies of the effects of electrosmog on learning processes. To examine the effects, the two scientists developed a model which they tested on bee populations. According to Stever, bees are particularly useful as bio-indicators because the bee brain is very similar to the human brain and similar experiments on humans were impossible.

[BoBnh]

[Safety]

BoBnh
Stever and Kuhn placed the phone unit in a hive to see what radiation effects would be on bees

The phone base unit constantly emits high levels of microwave radiation, even when not using the actual phone handset. These levels are comparable with being in the main beam of a mobile phone mast as bees often are nowadays.

(As an aside this is what is contributing to the increased incidence of cancer and other diseases in the human population. Everyone is exposing themselves inside their own houses. WiFi is the same)

[zaunreiter]

How many bee hives Kuhn et al. used for their experiment? Is there any (!) control group? Is there a full list of literature?


Again:
Do you actually have bees? What hive type do you use?

Thank you, "Safety", for your answers.

Bernhard

[Brosville]

" will result in the same intensity exposure in the hive as being in the main beam of a phone mast"

-it WON'T!!!!!! - do the sums! The "base unit", emitting perhaps 2 watts and the exposure being within inches will emit several thousand times the intensity of that from a 'phone mast (which typically broadcasts at 20 watts, but is at the very least many feet away!!!!!!

You may want the 'phone mast to be dangerous because it fits some hypothesis, but the simple maths do not back it up (they shoot the idea down in flames!) - this is not to say that the radiation can't be harmful, but you're looking in the wrong place if you direct your ire towards the masts - acting on the precautionary principle, we should actually be campaigning for far more phone masts, as the 'phones would then not need to ramp up their power, and we'd all get a far lower dose (particularly mobile users)....
_________________
http://farmco.co.uk
Sussex Natural Beekeepers' Forum

[zaunreiter]

Seems to be a campaign. In all forums I signed up, this message is spread - even in non-beekeeping forums and extremly offtopic.

Bernhard

[Brosville]

"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands" - in this case "spammer" is the word that springs to mind........
_________________
http://farmco.co.uk
Sussex Natural Beekeepers' Forum

[Safety]

I don't like the way you are being rude
I thought this was a forum about bees and by people who cared about them and were interested in natural methods to keep and protect them and were against unnatural industrial toxins?

The Stever and Kuhn studies are referenced in the links I originally gave which you said you had read.

In science if you have a theory and then test it experimentally and it goes against your theory then the theory is wrong.
Your calculations are wrong. You only have to get hold of some monitoring equipment to see for yourself.
There are also studies showing the intensity levels included in the links I gave
However it is clear by your quick responses that you do not read the links (for they take time) and do not want to for some reason
However others may be more interested

[Gareth]

[zaunreiter]

[Brosville]

I'd suggest they'd be well advised to read up on "propagation" and get their head round the implications of the inverse square law - which I'll reiterate, shows that if damage increases with dose, then they should be campaigning for MORE 'phone masts as the mobile 'phones are are FAR more dangerous, and a mutiplicity of masts would cut the power from them considerably.

As for "being rude", there's many fora where this sort of spam and it's poster would be unceremoniously deleted and banned - to arrive out of nowhere and start posting links tends to flag up a spammer with little interest or grasp of the forum and "what its about"
_________________
http://farmco.co.uk
Sussex Natural Beekeepers' Forum

[Sir David]

Very astute replies guys .
Look Mr Saftey may I suggest you read 'Bad Science ' by Ben Goldacre , it handles such topics as Statistics and the scientific method in an easy understandable way . It also discusses the use of science for propaganda perposes . Both topics seem relevent here .
Its also quite funny

[Guillemot]

Hi fellow beekeepers

I see that its easy to get into a heated discussion here, as the regular members on this forum have been and are still fighting an arduous battle against the multinationals over pesticides and are rightly very defensive of their positions.
..............

Rather than quoting another scientific paper I would like you to watch this 9 minute video (see below), which might be an eye-opener for most of you.
.............

Lets not get divided over this issue, please. Its the same multinationals/corporations we are talking about: they sell the pesticides, create GMOs, plaster the landscape with phone masts and run HAARP - weather modification, earthquake generation etc.
..................

Despite being around for decades, HAARP technology has been kept a well guarded secret, thats why we never hear about it in the news.
.................

This is the video, from the box below it you can get to the blog with all the information necessary on the topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_FdY4vvktQ&feature=player_embedded
..................

... And by the way: I do keep bees!

[Brosville]

I have seldom seen such a collection of paranoid, inaccurate hogwash! It has bog all to do with mobile 'phone masts, and a lot to do with saddos who think they're in the X-files! - What a collection of links - most of which won't/can't load..........
I have no desire to whitewash multinationals, but I won't let my loathing of much that they do cloud my judgement.....
It seems to be the "loopy fantasist" season at the moment, a forum I moderate is being spammed by claims of "over unity" energy (that defies all the laws of physics)...

What I am eagerly awaiting is an explanation from one of the "it's phone masts" brigade is precisely how and why the masts are SO dangerous, and yet the 'phones, which are demonstrably far more dangerous are largely ignored - are they saying that "dose" has nothing to do with ill-effects? All I've had so far is mutterings about putting my head back in the sand (would that be the sands of loopy self-delusion as practised by the "phone masters")
_________________
http://farmco.co.uk
Sussex Natural Beekeepers' Forum

[Gareth]

The video refers to 'weather modification' when what it actually means is cloud seeding. There are several methods of cloud seeding, the aim being to create rain on the crops below. It's used right around the world although, apparently, the technique is somewhat hit and miss. If you were a farmer with crops that are parched, I'm sure you too would welcome some rain, even if it meant paying somebody to get it.

That's the reality bit. The x-file bit, as Brosville puts it, is that I'd guess the more esoteric US defence research people will be dabbling in the technology to see if they can rain on the enemy's parade. But, hey, those guys dabble in everything, so nothing new there.

Now, can we get back to talking about the subject in terms that make sense and relate to what we, as beekeepers, can see and test in our own hives and, moreover, makes sense in terms of the basic physics. The solar system is awash with natural radio waves from the sun and all sorts of other sources. Always has been. It's what radio telescopes pick up. The man-made stuff is an interference for those telescopes but, as one such (Jodrell Bank) sits right outside Manchester in the UK (a large city), I'm guessing that they are not yet swamped by the man-made interference.

Here are some questions:

What is the intensity of man-made radio pollution around the world compared with the natural background level?

How does the level of the man-made stuff vary from place to place (assuming that the natural background is pretty constant everywhere)?

Are there hotspots and how much 'hotter' are they (and I don't mean right up against a mast or cellphone)?

How do the man-made frequencies compare with the natural ones - are they similar or very different?

How do different frequencies affect (or how might they affect) living organisms such as bees? What mechanisms are (or might be) involved)?

And, please,don't just reply 'this stuff is everywhere, look at the masts and where they point'. Put some numbers on the answers, comparing place with place and source with source, especially natural sources. And, please, don't just link to videos that say nothing new, such as the cloud seeding one or that poor piece by the Indian researchers who put mobile phones in beehives but failed to clearly demonstrate that what they found was any different from the normal variation between one group of hives and another because their sample size was too small.

[biobee]

I would like to hear a rational explanation of why - if phone masts are the problem - bees do so well in the cities, where masts adorn many buildings. I haven't heard reports of CCD in NYC.
_________________
The Barefoot Beekeeper
podcast

[Brosville]

Thanks Gareth - well put, and very apposite!

I do try to look at everything with an open mind, so I had a good look at the video, and had a look at some of the content - look at these evil devices for instance - obviously multiple antennae pumping out gazillions of megawatts of death rays -



-they're actually nothing of the sort, but glorified fireworks - flares that can be fired from a distance which release silver iodide in an attempt to "seed" clouds to cause rain - the only "radiation" involved is the mobile phone technology used to fire the things.
For the uninitiated, dumping silver iodide particles into clouds (more usually from aircraft) is a decades old technique for getting clouds to dump their rain...
Now this may in itself be less than desirable, but it's bog all to do with the assumed "dangers" of mobile phone masts, and everything to do with a schoolkid level attempt to scare the living willies out of people by telling lies (or just plain misrepresentation) -
_________________
http://farmco.co.uk
Sussex Natural Beekeepers' Forum

[Gareth]

[DaisyJane]

Gareth wrote:

[Brosville]

It should be eminently answerable - most man-made radio waves are at specific wavelengths (frequencies), and most transmitters quote their output power, so it's relatively easy to distinguish things like solar flare radiation or lightning radio waves because of their lack of "tidy behaviour" and refusal to stick to the rules about wavelengths - when I get a chance I'll find some references......
_________________
http://farmco.co.uk
Sussex Natural Beekeepers' Forum

[DaisyJane]

Thank you, Brosville. That was niggling at the back of my head but I couldn't clarify the thought. Now I see it.