Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Thursday 15th February 2018, 21:38   #476
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 559
OK fine, I had resolved not to go back to this thread, but a message from one of the other frequent posters made me think again and ultimately dissuaded me.

But if we're going to do this then let's do it by the books. By way of disclosure, I am a trained scientist with an MSc in Earth Science & Palaeoclimatology, a PhD in biogeochemistry & environmental microbiology, and (after switching fields) seven years postdoctoral experience in human biochemistry & translational medicine (main focus on asthma and metabolic diseases). I've published 17 peer-reviewed paper, have supervised 8 MSc & PhD student projects, and am working my way up to a full academic post. If anyone wants I am more than happy to send them my CV or LinkedIn profile.

Despite earlier allegations I am not in the pocket of any company, nor am I particularly inclined to wanting to please 'big business'. Anyone interested in the way universities in the UK are funded follow this link:http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/poli...-explained.pdf For the record: UK business contributes only 4% of our total research income. Moreover, legal contracts with commercial funders explicitly protect our academic freedom. Thus, anyone suggesting that UK academia would 'wither' without this source of income, and that its researchers therefore 'aim to please' big business, frankly doesn't know what they're talking about (or, in the case of fake news blogs purposefully put out this suggestion to make their readers doubt scientific integrity).

But enough about that, let's have a look at the hypothesis put forward here. It states that "Cell tower radiation harm birds". The argument breaks down into two parts:
A) Purple Heron (and others she has cited or quoted) claim to have observed a marked decline in the numbers of birds at, or near, the locations of cell phone masts/towers. However, the OP (and others) has also noted that this observation does not apply uniformly to all bird species (e.g. storks vs starlings). This observation is then extended to account for, or at least contribute to, the decline of a range of animal species around the world (particularly Europe). I do not recall whether plants and/or non-Eukaryotic life forms were included in the discussion or not, but this relevant.
B) The proposed mechanism of action is on the molecular level within an organism's cells. It is stated that a high enough dosage and/or continued exposure to non-ionising radiation will induce 'oxidative stress' (i.e. an excess of free radicals within the cell that have the potential to alter organic biomolecules such as proteins, lipids, DNA etc). This is then postulated to have significant systemic effects, including inducing cancer & leukemia, infertility, metabolic disorders (diabetes), auto-immune diseases (asthma) and a range of others.

How the two strands of the argument are linked together is not well-defined.

Since neither the OP nor any of the other contributors to this thread have performed any original experimental research related to this topic, all evidence is taken from published sources. These have ranged from peer-reviewed scientific literature (a minority) to opinion pieces in scientific and non-scientific outlets, a variety of website and blog content, and observations/anecdotal evidence (a majority).

* So far so good for a fair & balanced summary of this discussion Purple Heron? *

To avoid any more accusations of juvenility, my pledge is that I will approach this topic as I would a peer-review of any scientific study. I'll happily acknowledge that I've let my common sense and passion for scientific endeavour get in the way of neutrality in the past (because, well, tin foil....), but I'll do my best to keep it strictly dispassionate from this point on.

So to start off with, Purple Heron (or anyone else supporting the hypothesis), my first two high-level questions are:
1) How do you account for the spatial inconsistency in the observations? If, as you propose, there is a direct correlation between the proliferation (and/or power) of cellphone masts and the decline of many animal (and plant?) species, then this effect should be observed consistently. Thus, if White Stork numbers have plummeted in Greece for this reason, then the same should have happened elsewhere, as it's the same organism and the same technology. Several contributors have posted opposing evidence from other locations, and this mixed message is reflected in the BirdLife Red List assessment of the species (http://datazone.birdlife.org/userfil...ia_ciconia.pdf). So, if the original observation cannot be validated (a basic principle in experimental science), then why should it not be rejected?
2) How do you account for the species-to-species differences? Looking at the proposed mechanism of action (see B) there is little reason to assume that different types of birds would be affected in significantly different ways on a population level. Thus, why would White Storks populations decrease due to cellphone mast proliferation/power, but not Common Starlings?

I know that these points have already been raised a number of times in various forms, but I feel they should be addressed satisfactorily before we can dive into the nitty-gritty of cellular biochemical effects (let alone the epidemiological studies).

Cheers,
Joost
__________________
IOC Life list: 1311 (latest: Grey Phalarope @ Lymington-Keyhaven NR, Hampshire, UK)

Last edited by Nohatch : Thursday 15th February 2018 at 21:48.
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 15th February 2018, 22:16   #477
fugl
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 13,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
OK fine, I had resolved not to go back to this thread, but a message from one of the other frequent posters made me think again and ultimately dissuaded me.

But if we're going to do this then let's do it by the books. By way of disclosure, I am a trained scientist with an MSc in Earth Science & Palaeoclimatology, a PhD in biogeochemistry & environmental microbiology, and (after switching fields) seven years postdoctoral experience in human biochemistry & translational medicine (main focus on asthma and metabolic diseases). I've published 17 peer-reviewed paper, have supervised 8 MSc & PhD student projects, and am working my way up to a full academic post. If anyone wants I am more than happy to send them my CV or LinkedIn profile.

Despite earlier allegations I am not in the pocket of any company, nor am I particularly inclined to wanting to please 'big business'. Anyone interested in the way universities in the UK are funded follow this link:http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/poli...-explained.pdf For the record: UK business contributes only 4% of our total research income. Moreover, legal contracts with commercial funders explicitly protect our academic freedom. Thus, anyone suggesting that UK academia would 'wither' without this source of income, and that its researchers therefore 'aim to please' big business, frankly doesn't know what they're talking about (or, in the case of fake news blogs purposefully put out this suggestion to make their readers doubt scientific integrity).

But enough about that, let's have a look at the hypothesis put forward here. It states that "Cell tower radiation harm birds". The argument breaks down into two parts:
A) Purple Heron (and others she has cited or quoted) claim to have observed a marked decline in the numbers of birds at, or near, the locations of cell phone masts/towers. However, the OP (and others) has also noted that this observation does not apply uniformly to all bird species (e.g. storks vs starlings). This observation is then extended to account for, or at least contribute to, the decline of a range of animal species around the world (particularly Europe). I do not recall whether plants and/or non-Eukaryotic life forms were included in the discussion or not, but this relevant.
B) The proposed mechanism of action is on the molecular level within an organism's cells. It is stated that a high enough dosage and/or continued exposure to non-ionising radiation will induce 'oxidative stress' (i.e. an excess of free radicals within the cell that have the potential to alter organic biomolecules such as proteins, lipids, DNA etc). This is then postulated to have significant systemic effects, including inducing cancer & leukemia, infertility, metabolic disorders (diabetes), auto-immune diseases (asthma) and a range of others.

How the two strands of the argument are linked together is not well-defined.

Since neither the OP nor any of the other contributors to this thread have performed any original experimental research related to this topic, all evidence is taken from published sources. These have ranged from peer-reviewed scientific literature (a minority) to opinion pieces in scientific and non-scientific outlets, a variety of website and blog content, and observations/anecdotal evidence (a majority).

* So far so good for a fair & balanced summary of this discussion Purple Heron? *

To avoid any more accusations of juvenility, my pledge is that I will approach this topic as I would a peer-review of any scientific study. I'll happily acknowledge that I've let my common sense and passion for scientific endeavour get in the way of neutrality in the past (because, well, tin foil....), but I'll do my best to keep it strictly dispassionate from this point on.

So to start off with, Purple Heron (or anyone else supporting the hypothesis), my first two high-level questions are:
1) How do you account for the spatial inconsistency in the observations? If, as you propose, there is a direct correlation between the proliferation (and/or power) of cellphone masts and the decline of many animal (and plant?) species, then this effect should be observed consistently. Thus, if White Stork numbers have plummeted in Greece for this reason, then the same should have happened elsewhere, as it's the same organism and the same technology. Several contributors have posted opposing evidence from other locations, and this mixed message is reflected in the BirdLife Red List assessment of the species (http://datazone.birdlife.org/userfil...ia_ciconia.pdf). So, if the original observation cannot be validated (a basic principle in experimental science), then why should it not be rejected?
2) How do you account for the species-to-species differences? Looking at the proposed mechanism of action (see B) there is little reason to assume that different types of birds would be affected in significantly different ways on a population level. Thus, why would White Storks populations decrease due to cellphone mast proliferation/power, but not Common Starlings?

I know that these points have already been raised a number of times in various forms, but I feel they should be addressed satisfactorily before we can dive into the nitty-gritty of cellular biochemical effects (let alone the epidemiological studies).

Cheers,
Joost
You’re wasting your time, you know. I submit that there is zero probability that PH will take any of this to heart.
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 15th February 2018, 22:34   #478
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by fugl View Post
You’re wasting your time, you know. I submit that there is zero probability that PH will take any of this to heart.
We'll see, like I said let's do it properly and see where we end up (and if your hypothesis is rejected or not)
https://stronglang.wordpress.com/201...t-out-of-this/
__________________
IOC Life list: 1311 (latest: Grey Phalarope @ Lymington-Keyhaven NR, Hampshire, UK)
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 15th February 2018, 22:58   #479
hwinbermuda
Registered User
 
hwinbermuda's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 142
Great link, Nohatch,
It has been your input on a rational basis that has kept me reading this thread, as since the inclusion of the Bioinitiatives report my scepticism has increased.
I am in the insurance industry, and have had to follow, at various times, the possible liabilities that relate to EMF / RF exposure, so I have been keen to see 'proof' one way or the other into the possibility or even probability of harm from the EMF / RF sources.
I have been perturbed by the (understandable) inclusion of so much rhetoric, hearsay and possible prejudging issues without scientific support, properly conducted and properly peer reviewed.
I am, as I have stated still unconvinced either way, but that is because I have witnessed (in my industry) the controversies following health issues related to smoking, lead in fuel and the use of silicone implants. All of these needed to have been PROPERLY investigated as soon as there was a question regarding their safety, but unfortunately this may not have been the case or worse still the investigations were hidden.
Personally I am currently comfortable with modern life and the various forms of waves that pass through me, mine and the rest of the world.... but I may be wrong.
I would hope that this is currently a research project (and not just a military one to utilise cell towers to pump out 'special waves' to destroy enemies) covering this area.
You are so right to point out causation / correlation points that seem to be swept under the carpet. Is the increased use of insecticides and herbicides causing the food sources in Greece to die out, so the birds are moving too, but this correlates to the use of 4G systems becoming more widespread? Huge topic.
Maybe I should try and get my zoology PHD godson interested in it as a research project, it has got to be in the interests of some funding organisation to know for sure.
Thank you for having the patience to bring scientific reason back to the thread.
Harry
hwinbermuda is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 16th February 2018, 09:45   #480
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 217
@ Gordon and Harry My degrees are not in science, so I doubt anything I wrote when I got them is pertinent--if I could even find them, 40 years after the fact. I used a typewriter at the time; there were no PCs. I very much doubt that Nietzsche's influence on the works of Kazantzakis is of interest to you (or to me, any more) or that you are interested in folkloric traditions concerning evil eye spells (considerably more fun though irrelevant to this post). However, academic disciplines have certain factors in common, one's interests change, and you tend to apply the skills developed at university to other areas as you move on in life. Education is not about memorizing a series of facts, but about learning how to acquire and use information. I'm not a scientist. But the people whose studies I post are. So read the studies.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 16th February 2018, 10:00   #481
hwinbermuda
Registered User
 
hwinbermuda's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Gordon and Harry My degrees are not in science, so I doubt anything I wrote when I got them is pertinent--if I could even find them, 40 years after the fact. I used a typewriter at the time; there were no PCs. I very much doubt that Nietzsche's influence on the works of Kazantzakis is of interest to you (or to me, any more) or that you are interested in folkloric traditions concerning evil eye spells (considerably more fun though irrelevant to this post). However, academic disciplines have certain factors in common, one's interests change, and you tend to apply the skills developed at university to other areas as you move on in life. Education is not about memorizing a series of facts, but about learning how to acquire and use information. I'm not a scientist. But the people whose studies I post are. So read the studies.
@Purple Heron, again, please do not misquote me... Where have I questioned your education?
I have read it ALL of the threads and attached papers; my query to you was that you referenced your thesis in post 473 (I think) and I asked if you would share it, as I had not realised you had written a relevant thesis on cell towers et al.

My later comments were commending, as I have consistently, the use of scientific method, for which I do not apologize, as opposed to unproven or unsupported theory, whilst maintaining my concerns that there may be areas of doubt as shown by highlighting dangers from smoking, lead in petrol and solicone implants that went awry.

It may be better if rather than lecturing me an reading scientific reports, you considered the antagonistic feelings that such lectures cause.

The whole subject around EMF etc needs proper review, and if proven action to be taken.
hwinbermuda is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 16th February 2018, 10:21   #482
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by hwinbermuda View Post
@Purple Heron, again, please do not misquote me... Where have I questioned your education?
I have read it ALL of the threads and attached papers; my query to you was that you referenced your thesis in post 473 (I think) and I asked if you would share it, as I had not realised you had written a relevant thesis on cell towers et al.
Might I suggest that the 'confusion' stems from PH's use of the word "thesis"? "Theory" would have been more appropriate in this case.

Cheers,
Joost

P.S. this is not intended as a criticism in any way shape or form - most of us (including myself) are not native English speakers after all.
__________________
IOC Life list: 1311 (latest: Grey Phalarope @ Lymington-Keyhaven NR, Hampshire, UK)
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 16th February 2018, 10:33   #483
hwinbermuda
Registered User
 
hwinbermuda's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
Might I suggest that the 'confusion' stems from PH's use of the word "thesis"? "Theory" would have been more appropriate in this case.

Cheers,
Joost

P.S. this is not intended as a criticism in any way shape or form - most of us (including myself) are not native English speakers after all.
Thanks Joost,
I had got to that understanding, and was not being critical of anyone's language skills, as almost all speak better english than me (and I was born in the New Forest). It was just that the word thesis has a specific meaning, and I felt it only fair to bring Purple Heron's writings into the discussion. Had it been 'theory' I would never have asked.
Personally I am exceptionally grateful thet the Lingua Franca in most forums. My language skills are being able to apologise for not speaking peoples languages in about 13 languages, food and drink in many languages, casual conversation in 3 other than english. I have a bizarre ability to read many more than I can speak, from days of dealing with Europe wide motor insurance claims.
Harry
hwinbermuda is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 16th February 2018, 10:36   #484
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
However, academic disciplines have certain factors in common, one's interests change, and you tend to apply the skills developed at university to other areas as you move on in life. Education is not about memorizing a series of facts, but about learning how to acquire and use information.
Whilst I quite agree, I do have to point out that there is a significant difference between doing a Masters degree (even a research MSc) and a PhD. And there are a further two steps up when you start doing research semi-independently (as a postdoc), and finally when you start writing your own research grants. Yes, the basic skills are taught to Masters students, but only applied properly for the first time whilst doing a PhD. And even then there is a lot of guidance from the supervisors. I'm now at the grant writing stage and boy it's not easy! My first two ideas (which I initially thought were pretty solid) were ripped apart by internal review committees, and it's not easy to take that amount of criticism on the chin after you've invested so much into the idea. But ultimately that's the only way to progress our knowledge.
__________________
IOC Life list: 1311 (latest: Grey Phalarope @ Lymington-Keyhaven NR, Hampshire, UK)
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 16th February 2018, 10:42   #485
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by hwinbermuda View Post
Personally I am exceptionally grateful thet the Lingua Franca in most forums. My language skills are being able to apologise for not speaking peoples languages in about 13 languages, food and drink in many languages, casual conversation in 3 other than english. I have a bizarre ability to read many more than I can speak, from days of dealing with Europe wide motor insurance claims.
Harry
Me too Harry! I love the English language, so many ways to insult people whilst being perfectly polite Just kidding, I just love the subtlety and flexibility of it. It's something Dutch (my native language) lacks for me.
Ah I actually live on the edge of the NF - give me a shout if you're ever back in the area.

Joost
__________________
IOC Life list: 1311 (latest: Grey Phalarope @ Lymington-Keyhaven NR, Hampshire, UK)

Last edited by Nohatch : Friday 16th February 2018 at 10:53.
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 16th February 2018, 10:46   #486
hwinbermuda
Registered User
 
hwinbermuda's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 142
Unfortunately my infrequent visits are biased to family, leaving the birding on the fringes. This forum has highlighted what a resource I grew up in and took for granted, as opposed to looking at it with wonder and awe.
Golden Oriole in Totton, in 1968, I think... and as a youngster thought it was nothing out of the ordinary.
Will pm you next time I am in the area.
Best
Harry
hwinbermuda is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 16th February 2018, 11:46   #487
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 217
@ Nohatch Good, it is time for serious debate. Did you have a look at the last paper I posted, about synergistic effects and "windows" where effects occur? Because I think that may at least partially answer both your questions.
However, let's take them one at a time.

1a. How do I account for the spatial inconsistency of the observations? I account for the spatial inconsistency (why aren't exactly the same things happening everywhere) by considering that one or more variables may be different from one place to another. Balmori, for instance, observed certain behaviors in storks roosting near cell towers which he attributes to the radiation from those towers. I haven't personally observed that, but does that make him wrong? No, but there may be knowledge gaps and multiple factors affecting the storks' behavior.
It may be that the towers in question were emitting a specific frequency to which storks react strongly. The frequency may have opened one of those "windows" in which an effect is clearly observed. Or the situation may be more complicated. The EMR from the towers (at that specific frequency) may have interacted with a particular chemical contaminant--air pollution, pesticide residue in whatever the storks ate, and heightened the effect of the frequency to which the storks were reacting. The point is, the conditions that obtained when Balmori did that study may not have occurred universally, which would make the study hard to replicate.

One of the problems with studying the effects of cell tower radiation on wildlife is that the exact same conditions do not apply universally. We have moved from 2G to 4G+ very quickly, with some places upgrading towers more rapidly, some more slowly, and there are a great many unknown variables. Do all cell towers at 2G or 3G or 4G give off exactly the same wavelength at the same power? Probably not, if in the US they have found that one tower in ten exceeds legal maximum output. In Greece, I have no idea if tower output is properly monitored or controlled. I can guess that 4G in Greece is approximately the same as 4G anyplace else, but if specific frequency windows affect certain species in different ways, I could well see an effect here that is not observable in Lithuania or Holland.

There is some consistency in observations to the extent that people worldwide have observed effects on birds living near cell towers/wireless infrastructure. But they are not always exactly the same effects, and not everyone observes them. Does that mean they do not occur in the places where they are not observed? Does that mean that effects are not occurring, now, in places where effects are not currently being observed, but which will have impacts on future generations of birds?

There are huge knowledge gaps, unquestionably. What concerns me is that there is sufficient indication the EMR has an effect to trigger the precautionary principle, and that should have been done long ago. Wireless technology keeps advancing, using more and more frequencies, and we're onto a new generation before we have adequately studied the previous one. You know perfectly well that no pharmaceutical would be allowed to develop in this way. Yet we are prepared to take the risk of great harm to us, to children, and to nature because this is a technology? Despite the knowledge that we do already possess?

1b. If the original observation cannot be validated, why should it not be rejected? If it were singular, it could be rejected. However, this is not a situation in which we have just one observation of harm. We have many, and while they are not identical, they are not totally inconsistent, either. There is enough good research showing that EMR affects migration, for instance, that the Eklipse Forum committee considered this issue to be "well established". They found the evidence that EMR affects plants to be even more compelling. The panel consisted of physicists and biologists. I therefore see no reason to assume that EMR is safe for nature, and I would argue further that the Eklipse committee was very conservative in its assessment of the harm EMR does to nature. Be that as it may, I think the original observation "EMR affects living organisms" has been validated. It should not, therefore, be rejected.

2. How would I account for species-to-species difference? There are a number of possible explanations, but let me give you one: nesting behavior. Some species nest in places where the eggs.embryos/hatchlings are not exposed to much if any EMR. A hole in a tree or a cliff-face will block all or most EMR, with the result that the young bird develops unexposed. Bee-eaters are a good example, as they nest in ground holes. Their numbers are expanding. In the Aegean insect study, it was found that bees that nested underground also remained unaffected by EMR. Their numbers too are expanding; one of the authors of the study, Tscheulin, said they thought this was because they were facing less competition from species whose numbers were affected by EMR. Other reasons why some species may be more vulnerable than others may be explained by size, by sensitivity to a particular frequency, or by a synergy of EMR with particular habits of the species in question (eg, if EMR interacts with a particular pesticide that is found in a particular insects the bird feeds on). The answer to this question is undoubtedly complicated and multi-factorial; indeed there may be more than one answer.

I don't think there is really much doubt that EMR can be dangerous. There is a sufficiently large body of evidence documenting undesirable effects to man and nature that nobody can claim this technology is safe. Indeed, nobody does claim it is safe. If it were safe, cell phones and wireless devices would not come with warnings to keep them away from the body, or advice for people to restrict their use. The proponents of wireless technology merely claim that its utility outweighs its potential for harm--a proposition which I question.

Nor, I think, do I have an obligation to provide definitive answers to all questions in order to ask if it is wise to proceed with a potentially very dangerous technology before we have those answers. This is a new technology. The real damage it does may not be evident for another ten or twenty years. I am arguing that we have enough reason to be concerned to warrant further study BEFORE we proceed further. I think there is enough evidence already that EMR is an environmental pollutant and should be classified as such. But then, I am not addicted to any wireless device.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 16th February 2018, 13:43   #488
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 559
OK let's take this one step at a time. Jumping around and getting ahead of oneself is one of the reasons this thread got so muddled up in the first place. Can we stick very strictly to the specific hypothesis or observation that's being discussed please?

As a side note: Yes I did have a look at the book chapter you posted. Although I did not have the time to read the whole thing the underlying message is clear: we live in a complex, multifactorial world in which driving factors interact in various ways; sometimes they enhance each other, sometimes they cancel each other out, etc. That message in itself is nothing new and very familiar to me, I work in medicine after all nowadays. However, I want to point out (and this is from personal experience, as well as very well documented in numerous fields of research), that if a driving factor is strong or significant enough, then the resulting trends will still emerge through the 'noise' of its interaction with other factors. And there are dedicated fields of mathematics and statistics that deal with these kinds of analyses (topology for example). Your assertion is that we are dealing here with such a primary driver, but that its effect can vary depending on circumstances, correct?
Now one difficulty with trying to identify such a noise-sensitive factor (assuming it is), is that you need a very large number of observations to 'see' it. That's why epidemiological studies often number in the hundreds of thousands, and even then are often barely significant. On the flip side you could say that a factor that affects only a specific part of the population (but not the whole) is still very important. But in that case the primary driving factor depends on its interaction with secondary factor(s) to generate an effect; in which case it becomes the question which is actually the main driver for that specific population.

But anyway, let's have a look at the evidence base then, sticking to birds only (I haven't had time to look at plants, invertebrates or microbial communities - assuming anybody has bothered to look at the latter, even though they're the best environmental indicators in many ways). I looked at the epidemiological studies you have posted and did a literature search (PubMed & Google). In addition to your own observations from Samos, Greece, I could only find four other papers: Bhattacharya & Roy (2014), Everaert & Bouwens (2009), Balmori & Hallberg (2007) and Balmori (2005). The remainder were review or opinion papers and did not include any original field data. Did I miss any? If so, please direct me to them so I can have a look (including stuff behind paywalls, my uni has pretty decent access rights). So, let's go through the papers in turn OK?

First off: Bhattacharya & Roy (2014), published in the International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology (IJIRSET). This journal boasts that it has a high impact factor (7.089) on its own website - however, the journal is not indexed by the ISI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instit...ic_Information) so the IF is not legit (in fact it was bought off a company called SJIFactor). But never mind, let's examine the data. The first thing that struck me, as a birder, was that the authors apparently struggled to identify 19 common Indian garden birds on their own. Second, they visited only two sites, once (by the looks of it - it's hard to tell without a proper methods section). Then they counted the birds at irregular intervals up to 100 m away from each tower in four directions. Exactly how the data is then plotted (Fig. 1) is unclear; they report a "percentage of birds". The maximum value is ~19% so I'm struggling to work out what this represents, or how (if) the data was normalised. Oh, and they looked for nests too - and only found four. Looking around their campus on Google Earth I'm not too surprised, it looks pretty rough for birds. There is almost no formal description of the methodology, the Results consist on one paragraph and a figure, and there is no Discussion section at all. Also, the Introduction overstates the conclusions of a couple of selected earlier studies.
So, here we have a tiny, ad hoc, single time point sample that was performed in a non-systematic way by people who seem to know less about birds than just about everybody on this forum. No stats on their results, the reader has to just eyeball it from Figure 1. And there are funny idiosyncrasies in there too: at tower II they measured the power density three times at 0 m distance - their values: 400, 1000 and 1700 uW/m2. Finally, there is zero Discussion of the 'results' - just some off-the-cuff conclusions.
So Purple Heron, since you decided to present this as part of your original evidence base, could you please give me a defense of the scientific rigour of this piece of work? I'll stick my neck out and say that it is about the level of a high school biology project (and not an A+ one at that...).

We'll do the other three papers tonight, plus whatever else you have on field observations (in the first instance birds only please, I like birds )

Thanks,
Joost
__________________
IOC Life list: 1311 (latest: Grey Phalarope @ Lymington-Keyhaven NR, Hampshire, UK)

Last edited by Nohatch : Friday 16th February 2018 at 15:11.
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 17th February 2018, 13:28   #489
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 217
@ Nohatch I find no problems with your analysis of Bh. and Roy. It wasn't a bad idea for a study, though, and could be redone by people who can at least identify the birds.

One of the things that came up repeatedly at the Eklipse web conference was the lack of observational studies, and the dire need for more of them. There are a few you have missed out on: Balmori did one on storks and one on sparrows, which can both be found on Researchgate, and there is also an Indian study on sparrows, which I will attach. Also there is the Mount Nardi document which I will re-attach. And check out the references from my paper, which I will attach, which includes a study on great tits, one on kestrels and one on gulls at Project Sanguine. The kestrel study is one of many looking at oxidative stress as a result of power line EMR. I don't have time today, but I think (per a suggestion from Joris Everaert) that we could be looking for bat studies as well. Although bats are mammals, they share certain characteristics with birds, as they catch flying insects for food. Anyway, there are more studies than you have found, though not all of them look at cell tower radiation but also at power line EMR. Note--I attached the wrong paper, so I will attach it to another post below.

Another thing that came up at the conference was the need to tap into knowledge of local communities, who have often observed phenomena (such as the disappearance of birds around cell towers) that are unknown to scientists, who may visit an area once in a blue moon or never. I touched on this subject in my own paper on northern Greece. There is a vast amount of useful observation going on daily by people who spend their lives outdoors and are keenly aware of what is going on around them, but they often have no way to communicate this information and are not asked what they know. Scientists "discover" information as if it did not exist prior to their discovery, but of course it did--they just didn't know about it. A good example is the recent discovery of an ant-sized chameleon (in Madagascar, I think). Science may not have known about it, but I'll bet local communities did. This little chameleon did not come into being when these particular scientists set foot in that bit of jungle. So, if you want observational information, there is a vast untapped resource that could be accessed without much difficulty other than creating an instrument for asking the questions so that you get consistent and comparable results. Particularly useful, in the case of cell towers, are older people who can remember areas before there were any cell towers. They will also be able to tell you what other changes have occurred locally--whether forests have been cut down, how land use has changed, what pesticides were used then compared to now, etc. As an additional observation, I should say that the less literate people often make better observers, because they spend more time using their eyes and often have phenomenal memories. Men are better than women at this. A shepherd may spend all day watching a hawk; a shepherdess is more likely to get on with her knitting (or these days, talking on her cell phone). I would add that I think this sort of research should be done, and soon, because we have no other way to go back in time to the pre-cell-tower age except through accessing community memories, particularly in countries where there is no long tradition of keeping records of bird numbers.

Having said all the above, and despite the fact that birds are my primary interest here, I should say that identifying EMR effects on birds is not the only way to tell if EMR affects nature. I said yesterday that the Eklipse committee felt the best-established effects had to do with plants, and it may turn out that the worst-affected group is invertebrates despite there being less conclusive research on that subject. I believe there has been research showing that EMR affects bacteria; I haven't read it, but it has been mentioned in some of the studies I have read (can't recall which ones). One of the points made in Balmori's review article on the effects of EMR on trees (see my attached list of references) is that EMR kills beneficial soil bacteria, leading to soil acidification.

What I'm trying to say is that it may not be possible to come to a definite conclusion by looking at birds alone, especially when everything in nature is interdependent. And, once again, the main thrust of this thread is to argue that we should be applying the precautionary principle because, whatever the flaws in particular studies, there is a sizeable body of evidence overall that shows EMR is affecting nature. Suppose (though I don't think this is the case) we determined that EMR only damaged plants--would that not, in itself, be sufficient reason to stop it? Also, see the article I'm posting below.

@ Hwinbermuda Since you are in insurance, the following article might interest you: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/4...-is-acceptable

My understanding is that insurance companies will not insure against damage from EMR. Lloyd's and Stirling said so in 1996, and more recently, Swiss Re. I attach a letter recently written to the EU (answer still pending) which has a link to the Swiss Re statement.

Also, as an insurer, you might be interested in this large, recent cohort study linking EMR exposure to miscarriage, "Exposure to Magnetic Field Non-Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Miscarriage" (attached). I hear from my contact in Gateshead that there have been many miscarriages and still births since 5G came in, though I have no independent confirmation of this.
Attached Files
File Type: docx 3rd-letter-Andriukaitis3.1-18.docx (1.05 MB, 4 views)
File Type: pdf NARDI WILDLIFE REPORT.pdf (2.55 MB, 4 views)
File Type: pdf Pradha Sparrows.pdf (260.4 KB, 4 views)
File Type: docx RF Radiation References.docx (26.3 KB, 7 views)

Last edited by Purple Heron : Saturday 17th February 2018 at 13:38.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 17th February 2018, 13:32   #490
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 217
@ Hwinbermuda The study on miscarriages didn't load--attached here.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf s41598-017-16623-8.pdf (1.01 MB, 9 views)
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 17th February 2018, 13:39   #491
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 217
@ Nohatch My paper, reattached for the references at the end.
Attached Files
File Type: docx Birds & Trees North Greece.docx (84.5 KB, 12 views)
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 17th February 2018, 22:50   #492
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,121
Hi Diana,

Just thought I'd mention that I did read the Sarah J. Starkey paper and found it well written and rather interesting. She may not be the most published scientist in the world, but based on two of her papers, I have no reason to question either her academic background or neuroscience credentials.

Unfortunately, I've not been able to locate the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) 2012 report, so I can't cross-check her specific criticisms, but I did download a few of the papers discussed on pg. 496, and her comments are valid.

Quote:
The summary for neurocognitive effects in humans
stated, “Studies of cognitive function and human performance
do not suggest acute effects of exposure to RF fields
from mobile phones and base stations” [page 226 (2)]. But
acute detrimental effects on cognition were omitted from
the report (22–25) or mentioned in different sections (26–
29). Increased errors during a memory task (26), slowed
performance (27) or decreased accuracy in a cognitive test
(28) were reported in the electroencephalogram (EEG)
section [pages 209–213 (2)]; slowed performance in cognitive
tests (29) were reported under sleep [page 215 (2)].
Omitting the studies which found effects in the relevant
section led to an incorrect conclusion.
Carry on. I greatly admire your tenacity and forbearance.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Yesterday, 00:33   #493
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,121
Also note this recent study supported by the Kaiser Foundation entitled: "Exposure to Magnetic Field Non-Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Miscarriage: A Prospective Cohort Study."

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Yesterday, 10:16   #494
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 217
@ Ed Many thanks!
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:56   #495
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 217
It's the last weekend of carnival here. I read a joke today in a Greek paper:

Having dug to a depth of ten feet last year, British scientists found traces of copper wire dating back 200years and came to the conclusion that their ancestors already had a telephone network 150 years ago.

Not to be outdone by the Brits, in the weeks that followed an American archeologist dug to a depth of 20 feet, and shortly after, this statement appeared in the NY Bulletin: "American archeologists, finding traces of 250 year old copper wire, have concluded that their ancestors already had advanced hi-tech communications 50 years earlier than the British."

One week later, Punch Newspaper in Ibadan, Nigeria, reported the following: "After digging as deep as 30 feet in his back yard, Lucky Abe, a self-taught archeologist, reported that he found absolutely nothing. Lucky has therefore concluded that, more than 250 years ago, Africa had already gone wireless."

As indeed it had. Drums were the pre-cellular form of wireless communication in Africa, and very effective they were too, able to transmit complex messages to whole populations at a distance. The ancient Greeks used the heliograph and signal fires to transmit messages at virtually the speed of light. In no time at all, the Athenians could receive the message from Asia Minor that Troy had fallen. A sensible people, the ancient Greeks knew when not to develop a bad idea. An early model of steam train was found in Alexandria, in the form of a child's toy. Presumably the Alexandrians recognized that developing a rail network would lead either to massive deforestation or to vast pollution from burning dirtier fuels like coal and lignite. Hasn't stopped us, though. Now we burn coal to power wireless communications. Kind of makes me yearn for the stone age.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Today, 10:34   #496
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 217
5G will be beamed down from space

As if burning coal to generate the power for wireless communications (you really ought to consider this if you think climate change is affecting insect and bird populations) isn't enough, soon we get to add rocket fuel exhaust to the unholy mix of carbons and toxins we've got in the atmosphere already. And that's before you get to the effects of 5G millimeter waves covering every square inch of the earth's surface. What will that do to nature?

Yes, they really are planning to blanket this planet with 5G from space. The military-industrial complex thinks this is a wonderful idea: autonomous robots, drones that will never lose signal, EMP weapons--it's a wet dream for those guys, and they can't wait for the day it all comes true. Have a look the page that comes up on this site: http://www.stopglobalwifi.org
At the bottom of the page is a list of the companies that plan to get involved in blasting 5G from space and the upper atmosphere. First among them is SpaceX, owned by Elon Musk, the man who recently shot one of his own cars into space to float around as more garbage and who spends his time warning about killer robots. So he doesn't like the idea of killer robots, but he's fine with providing the infrastructure that will allow them to operate. I diagnose schizophrenia.

The trouble with 5G and Wi-Fi from space is twofold. One is a global warming/pollution problem generated by the rocket fuel exhaust (see the attached paper) and the other is the direct consequence of the EMR which will affect all living things on earth. Even if you still doubt the latter, it's hard to see how anyone could endorse the former.

For anyone still cherishing the illusion that 5G is going to be a good thing, I attach a study (released ahead of publication) concerning potential health effects (see "Towards 5G"). Nobody has looked at potential effects of 5G on nature, but we can extrapolate from the human data. This article mentions many very recent studies--there is new stuff coming out all the time. Page 5, paragraph 2 talks about 5G plans for Europe (note: there is very little time to stop these plans from becoming reality, after which we will be dealing with the consequences) and page 13 deals with DNA damage from 5G. Again, if 5G can damage our DNA, what will 5G from space and the upper atmosphere do to the DNA of birds and other creatures?

There is still time to protest, at least in the EU. We have rights to liberty, security and a safe environment that are enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty. This is not the case in the US. If you look at the attached Press Release, you will learn that the 1996 Telecommunications Act prohibits states, municipalities and citizens from objecting to the placement and construction of wireless facilities for reasons of health or the environment. This effectively muzzled the Environmental Protection Agency, which was prevented from developing biologically-based exposure limits of EMR. This situation, already bad, is going to be much worse since Trump identified 5G as a national security priority.

There is a lot to protest regarding 5G. For me, the environmental and health effects are paramount, in that order. The pollution is another. closely related issue--wired communications would cause a lot less pollution. Another issue is data security, the implications of which are immense. Do you really want private companies and government to have access to all your data, effectively spying on you in your own home? Also, with 5G, if "smart" meters and "smart" appliances become mandatory, they will effectively be able to deny basic services like water and electricity to those who refuse to install them. This severely mitigates against those who can't afford new appliances in the first place. Finally, there is the issue of unemployment leading to social unrest. Those of you on this forum are mostly or all well-educated, but most people in the world are not. These are the people who drive lorries and taxis, who work in factories, flip burgers, stack shelves and collect rubbish. Removing their jobs to replace them with robots means depriving these people of a way to make an honest living and support themselves and their families. It is folly to think that they will be able to afford the products of the robotized new world order, and folly to think they will not turn to crime and active protest. Perhaps governments plan to crush those protests with new millimeter-wave crowd controls weapons--and yes, they do really exist.

Welcome to the 5G world.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Impact of Rocket Exhaust Plumes.pdf (440.6 KB, 1 views)
File Type: pdf PressReleaseDec2015.pdf (164.2 KB, 3 views)
File Type: pdf Towards 5G - Potential Health Effects.pdf (434.3 KB, 2 views)
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Please help with a survey about birds and cell phone towers Purple Heron Conservation 15 Saturday 29th July 2017 19:43
SE U.S.A. Osprey nest in cell tower lashinala Birds Of Prey 20 Friday 13th May 2011 04:13
Amateur's question about birds and cooling tower scarlettudor Birds & Birding 1 Tuesday 1st June 2010 18:07
Erratic weather 'harms wildlife' (BBC News) BF Newsroom Live Bird News from around the World 0 Saturday 27th December 2008 10:05
TV Tower Wires Kill 400 Birds in One Night birdeast Birds & Birding 32 Saturday 29th October 2005 08:10

{googleads}
£100 Cashback on Opticron DBA VHD Binoculars. Click to find out more.

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.19092393 seconds with 33 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:19.