Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

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.

Does EMR harm living organisms?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 3.50 average.
Old Thursday 19th October 2017, 12:47   #101
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 399
@ fugi and Jos
Yes, I think it is different. Because I forgot (my husband reminded me later) that he had asked the girl, "Where does it live?" to which she had replied, "On the internet". So yes, I think there is a real disconnect, or a blurring of the lines between reality and virtual reality. I don't think she would have said that the beetle lived in a book where she happened to see its picture. I think that a lot of people, especially younger people, view the internet as a kind of alternative reality. Obviously it's a wonderful thing to see photos and films of creatures one may oneself never encounter in real life. But we do have to remember that they are not the creature itself, and that to encounter the real one is always a singular experience. You look at a bird or an insect, and it looks back at you. It reacts to you--with fear or curiosity or whatever--and you to it.

Computer programmers are developing all sorts of virtual reality applications. Imagine one for birdwatching. You could, say, program a visit to see the birds of Irian Jaya, perhaps specifying different birds you want to see, perhaps even specifying a level of difficulty to make the experience more challenging and realistic. So you "go" there and "spot" birds using a virtual scope or virtual binoculars--imagine a really good program, with accurate shapes and birdcalls and colors and movements and behavior. It might be quite fun--but is it the same as really going, as a real experience? Most of the birdwatching I do seems to involve a lot of trekking around, waiting, getting very hot or cold, insect bites, disappointments, unexpected rewards, wishing I'd had a moment longer, a bigger lens, better light.

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I am very suspicious of technology that allows you to think you have experienced things without making any actual effort. When you watch a film, look at a photograph, use a program written by someone else, you are seeing the world through someone else's eyes. These can be valuable tools, but should not be mistaken for actual experiences. I think that line is blurring, and it concerns me.

@ Henning I will myself be most interested in finding out the results of studies they do--and I really do hope they follow through on this. If/when I learn anything, I will be glad to share that, however those studies turn out.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 24th October 2017, 11:43   #102
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 399
Massive insect decline in Germany--what if pesticides are not to blame?

See the article from the Telegraph: "'Alarming' study shows number of insects have been decimated in Germany" at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...mated-germany/

The article says that pesticides are assumed to be the reason for the insect decline, but there are no pesticides used in the nature reserves. Cell tower radiation is not considered (and certainly wouldn't be by the Telegraph). But what if pesticides are not entirely to blame? The tone of the article suggests that pesticides is not the full answer to what is causing insects to disappear, but is being accepted as such because no one can think of another cause.

It's very easy to attribute declines in bird and insect populations to pesticides, and they are certainly going to be one factor--pesticides are certainly not good news. But where I live, with a lot of forest and untended land, it is hard to see pesticides as the main culprit for bird and insect declines. I have been round to several horticulturalists locally and can confirm that neonicotinoids are not used here.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 28th October 2017, 12:00   #103
Mysticete
Registered User
 
Mysticete's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 3,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
See the article from the Telegraph: "'Alarming' study shows number of insects have been decimated in Germany" at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...mated-germany/

The article says that pesticides are assumed to be the reason for the insect decline, but there are no pesticides used in the nature reserves. Cell tower radiation is not considered (and certainly wouldn't be by the Telegraph). But what if pesticides are not entirely to blame? The tone of the article suggests that pesticides is not the full answer to what is causing insects to disappear, but is being accepted as such because no one can think of another cause.

It's very easy to attribute declines in bird and insect populations to pesticides, and they are certainly going to be one factor--pesticides are certainly not good news. But where I live, with a lot of forest and untended land, it is hard to see pesticides as the main culprit for bird and insect declines. I have been round to several horticulturalists locally and can confirm that neonicotinoids are not used here.
it's not like nature reserves have some sort of magical barrier that prevents insecticide usage from outside the reserve to drift in, or that will keep insects and other fauna from venturing outside...
__________________
World: 1193, ABA: 626
Last Lifer: Louisiana Waterthrush
Last ABA:Louisiana Waterthrush
Mammal: 228 Herp: 174
Mysticete is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 28th October 2017, 12:29   #104
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 399
@ Mysticete Agreed. But depending on the size of the nature reserve, there should be a difference between areas bordering farmland and areas that are quite far away. It seems to me that pesticides/herbicides are getting ALL the blame for declining insect populations, and a good deal of the blame for declining bird populations, despite good studies showing both genotoxicity and sterility as a result of electromagnetic radiation from cell towers. Mice, for example, become sterile in 5 generations in the presence of this radiation; fruit flies in 3 generations. Sterility in human populations is also growing. By the time the world got to 3G, overall radiation levels were about one quintillion times the natural background radiation of the earth. How is that not going to have some kind of effect? Then we keep changing wavelengths--moving closer to the ionizing end of the radiation spectrum. The issue with electromagnetic radiation is, it's not a question of intensity but one of frequency. No creature evolved to live with these frequencies. Why wouldn't it have a host of effects on different creatures? No one including yourself has ever told me why you are so positive that cell tower radiation could not possibly affect birds, insects and every other form of life. I really do want to know.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 28th October 2017, 13:19   #105
Hauksen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 597
Hi Diana,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
The issue with electromagnetic radiation is, it's not a question of intensity but one of frequency.
Funny that the studies you linked all take great care to measure intensity (or field strength), and even pick it as the primary parameter to correlate their observations against.

And just look at the emf-portal ... no shortage of studies on harmful effects in all frequency bands.

So the warners against low-frequency radiation are incompetent then and cannot be trusted? What makes you believe the warners against high-frequency radiation are any better then? Obviously, those of them who believe that intensity makes a major difference can't be considered fully trustworthy, either.

That's really where common sense should kick and warn you that when it's necessary to be so highly selective in whom to believe in order to be able to maintain a preconceived notion, it might be time to question the preconceived notion instead.

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 28th October 2017, 13:46   #106
MTem
Registered User
 
MTem's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 2,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
No one including yourself has ever told me why you are so positive that cell tower radiation could not possibly affect birds, insects and every other form of life. I really do want to know.
I will again say that I can find no-one in this post or your previous one that says you are wrong and that any of us are 'positive that cell tower radiation could not possibly affect birds'. If so please give some references to these denials please.

What I think we ARE saying is that you are not demonstrating any sound scientific basis for your assertions.

Go back and look at what was done to demonstrate the impact of DDT on BOP eggshells for example.

You may well be correct (I think I've said this a few times) but your current approach is hindering rather than helping. Please do READ what is written as the comments come from people trying to help, reflect on what they say, and put together a forward plan that incorporates (rather than ignores) their input.

Mick

Edit: Apologies for the capitalisations - I hate them in e-mails. Just getting a bit irritated in having to keep saying the same thing repeatedly.
MTem is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 29th October 2017, 11:00   #107
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 399
@ Henning So now you concede that there is evidence of harm at all frequencies? I never said that lower frequencies were not harmful. Let me clarify: frequency is the main issue, rather than intensity. Of course the studies measure both.

@ Mick I do read the comments. I concur that my own piece is not proper science: I have a correlation, and while from my observations right up to today that correlation seems to hold, I cannot demonstrate causation. I understand the objections to some of the studies. But there are thousands of studies, as Henning just remarked above, which do show harm. Add to the bird studies all the other studies showing harm to laboratory animals, to humans, and what have you got?

The focus here is all on whether or not I have proved my case. I can't, unless every one of you is willing to sit down and read an awful lot of studies. Even then you might not be 100% convinced. But I think--and where I am going with all this--is that there is enough evidence to justify enacting the precautionary principle with regard to wireless technology--a principle that is enshrined in law but not, as far as I can tell, in practice. And I definitely think that anyone who gives a damn about birds ought to be calling for a moratorium on 5G, not because I have proved my case but because all the scientists who say it's affecting birds (and everything else) might be right. The onus is not on me, a private individual who is not a scientist, to prove beyond question that cell tower radiation causes harm. It's up to those who make and operate the equipment and the systems to prove that it is indisputably safe to us, to birds, to insects and the environment. All I can do is raise the issue.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 29th October 2017, 12:59   #108
Hauksen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 597
Hi Diana,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Henning So now you concede that there is evidence of harm at all frequencies?
What I actually wrote is:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hauksen View Post
And just look at the emf-portal ... no shortage of studies on harmful effects in all frequency bands.
Since you were already running away with that quote in quite the wrong direction, I would like to remind you of your own words that rubbish is available in unlimited quantities on the internet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
I never said that lower frequencies were not harmful. Let me clarify: frequency is the main issue, rather than intensity.
Unfortunately, that clarifies nothing. You previously wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
Then we keep changing wavelengths--moving closer to the ionizing end of the radiation spectrum. The issue with electromagnetic radiation is, it's not a question of intensity but one of frequency.
That very strongly implied that you were suggesting a causal mechanism that made low frequencies irrelevant to your concern, and that's what I responded to.

So if you didn't mean to imply this, what were you actually trying to say?

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 29th October 2017, 20:27   #109
Mono
Hi!
 
Mono's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lake District,UK
Posts: 1,878
Beware the precautionary principle, the last refuge of the believer.

http://www.sirc.org/articles/beware.html
Mono is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 30th October 2017, 00:41   #110
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mono View Post
Beware the precautionary principle, the last refuge of the believer.

http://www.sirc.org/articles/beware.html
Nice, says it all. . ..
__________________
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 offline  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Monday 30th October 2017, 11:42   #111
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 399
@ Henning. As to your first point, about there being no shortage of studies demonstrating harm at all frequency bands, it does rather imply that you've looked at them. The fact that these studies are available on the internet does not make them rubbish. I think I told you before that emf-portal is a German government website, and most of the articles link to peer-reviewed journals. So the fact that something is available on the internet does not automatically make it rubbish. Otherwise we would have to assume that every article you have recommended to me, and I to you, are all rubbish. The internet is, whether we like it or not, the modern library. You couldn't believe every word you read in the library, either.

With regard to your second comment, I'm afraid I really don't understand what you appear to have read into what I wrote. It is man-made frequencies, which do not occur in nature and which interfere with nature's own frequencies, which we are discussing. Studies are finding that these frequencies pose health, genotoxic and reproductive risks to people and the natural world. I think the studies that find harm are probably right, in part because of what I am experiencing. How is this unclear?

@ Mono, fugi Exactly what is wrong with being cautious about a technology which may cause harm and which has not been irrefutably proven safe?
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 30th October 2017, 13:02   #112
Hauksen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 597
Hi Diana,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
I think I told you before that emf-portal is a German government website, and most of the articles link to peer-reviewed journals.
Peer reviews are part of the normal scientific process, and not the most functional one at that.

Here's an interview with a Nobel laureate criticizing "Science" and "Nature":

http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/m...a-1154483.html

"Peer review" is just one way of assessing the opinion of scientists on the work of other scientists. On a bigger and more decisive scale, the opinion of scientists on the work of the electrosmog community is obvious: It's very far from becoming the majority opinion, to put it mildly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
With regard to your second comment, I'm afraid I really don't understand what you appear to have read into what I wrote.
I'm afraid the root cause of the matter is that all the technical terms you are using have a well-defined meaning, which you're not aware of.

Here's a book that should be very helpful to you:

http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTi...471134473.html

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 30th October 2017, 13:07   #113
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
. . [email protected] Mono, fugi Exactly what is wrong with being cautious about a technology which may cause harm and which has not been irrefutably proven safe?
The “irrefutably proven safe” part when there’s no sound scientific basis for thinking otherwise.
__________________
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 offline  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Monday 30th October 2017, 13:18   #114
Mono
Hi!
 
Mono's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lake District,UK
Posts: 1,878
Nothing is "irrefutably proven safe". Antibiotics save the lives of millions of people, but they also kill people with unidentified allergies. Motor vehicles kill and injure through accidents and pollution but they also facilitate economic activity. There are risk assessments to be done and based on those risk assessments protocols and controls are established. The potential for harm is balanced against utility. Such protocols and controls can and will change as evidence on both sides of the balance changes.

If the precautionary principle had been enacted by our ancestors we would not be having this conversation as the none of the technology that enables it would exist. I certainly would not be alive as the medical insights that saw me through the first few days of life would not have happened.

The precautionary principle would have seen off Homo habilis, the moment they decided to wait to see if fire was "irrefutably proven safe".
Mono is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 31st October 2017, 12:18   #115
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 399
@ Henning One scientist's criticism of Science and Nature--even if he is a Nobel Laureate--is just that. As for technical terms, let me phrase this in my own words: I see evidence of harm from cell towers and Wi-Fi in many forms. I see declining bird and insect populations. I see people becoming ill and dying. I think that the day will come when we wonder why we allowed this to go on for so long without listening to any of the scientists who said it was dangerous. I know you disagree. There is, however, a growing body of evidence that wireless radiation causes harm, and increasing numbers of people are concerned about this. What else can I say?

@ fugi There is plenty of sound scientific basis for thinking otherwise.

@ Mono You say the potential for harm is balanced against utility. I see no real utility in wireless technologies. I see great potential for harm. But as you say, the protocols can and will change as the evidence on both sides of the balance changes.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 31st October 2017, 12:37   #116
MTem
Registered User
 
MTem's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 2,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
I see no real utility in wireless technologies. I see great potential for harm.
Well I suspect that therefore you really have little idea what 'wireless technologies' provide to allow the current world to function as it does. Not all is for universal good for sure, but many many would prefer a world without birds to a world without wireless technologies sadly.

Consider cigarette smoking as an example - I doubt there is any smoker who thinks it isn't harming them and in a big way, but give it up .... you must be joking.

So proof or harm sadly does not automatically lead to action to remove.

Mick
MTem is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 31st October 2017, 14:20   #117
Mono
Hi!
 
Mono's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lake District,UK
Posts: 1,878
Quote:
I see no real utility in wireless technologies.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rm-democracies
Mono is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 31st October 2017, 14:32   #118
Hauksen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 597
Hi Diana,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Henning One scientist's criticism of Science and Nature--even if he is a Nobel Laureate--is just that.
You're quite out of touch with science ... the ineffectiveness of the peer review has been a major concern for quite a while, and it's still unresolved.

Another article highlighting this:

http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcbl...the-reviewers/

Was Balmori's tadpole study published as peer-reviewed? His White Stork study? If they were, there's the problem.

Was the Greek island insect study peer-reviewed?

"Finally: What is published in scientific publications is often characterised by bizarre and misleading simplication and by interpretations that don't match the data the article is based on. The 'spin' typical for politics and other fields is much more wide-spread in science, too, than the naive observer would expect."

From:

http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/m...-a-942323.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
As for technical terms, let me phrase this in my own words: I see evidence of harm from cell towers and Wi-Fi in many forms. I see declining bird and insect populations. I see people becoming ill and dying. I think that the day will come when we wonder why we allowed this to go on for so long without listening to any of the scientists who said it was dangerous.
If you have no idea how the physics work, you are unable to see evidence for anything. You can observe events, that's all.

Observing people becoming ill and dying, and firmly believing this to be evidence for their pre-conceived notions, is what in medieval times lead people to burn innocents as witches. I'm glad people are much more rational today.

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 1st November 2017, 16:40   #119
DMW
Registered User
 
DMW's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Jersey
Posts: 1,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by fugl View Post
Nice, says it all. . ..
Really?! To me it reads like a propaganda piece for Monsanto, Exxon or Glaxo. So we shouldn't worry about GMO at all? Or about "greenhouse" gases? Despite evidence that some of the predicted environmental risks of GM crops have been born-out by reality, or the evidence of little to no economic benefit for at least some crops? Or the almost complete consensus about AGW among credible scientists?

Tell you what, why don't we release some of those nice big Cane Toads in our sugar cane plantations? I mean, what could possibly go wrong? Don't listen to those over-cautious idiots who claim they might harm our native wildlife. Where's their evidence?!
DMW is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 1st November 2017, 18:26   #120
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMW View Post
Really?! To me it reads like a propaganda piece for Monsanto, Exxon or Glaxo. So we shouldn't worry about GMO at all? Or about "greenhouse" gases? Despite evidence that some of the predicted environmental risks of GM crops have been born-out by reality, or the evidence of little to no economic benefit for at least some crops? Or the almost complete consensus about AGW among credible scientists?

Tell you what, why don't we release some of those nice big Cane Toads in our sugar cane plantations? I mean, what could possibly go wrong? Don't listen to those over-cautious idiots who claim they might harm our native wildlife. Where's their evidence?!
Come, come, the article’s about over-caution in reaction to new technology (or whatever), not due caution. My own views, since you ask: AGW (very very worrisome and of great concern), GMO crops (good greatly exceeds bad but an eye needs to be kept), cane toad introduction (unequivocally bad). Any more false hares to start? If so, I’m at your service.
__________________
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 offline  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Wednesday 1st November 2017, 19:48   #121
DMW
Registered User
 
DMW's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Jersey
Posts: 1,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by fugl View Post
Come, come, the article’s about over-caution in reaction to new technology (or whatever), not due caution. My own views, since you ask: AGW (very very worrisome and of great concern), GMO crops (good greatly exceeds bad but an eye needs to be kept), cane toad introduction (unequivocally bad). Any more false hares to start? If so, I’m at your service.
The article purports to be about over-caution... then cites GMO and concerns about greenhouse gases as examples. Where is the over-caution about global warming? I see a lot of the opposite from US corporate interests (e.g. funding climate change deniers). The article implies that concerns about GMO are harmful because they hinder progress with crop yields, yet studies have shown that US GMO cereal crop yields are not significantly higher than non-GMO yields in Europe, where advances in conventional seed development and reduced use of herbicides have been just as effective.

I am not arguing that there isn't an issue with over-caution, but to me it is rather outweighed by the tendency of vested interests to push the opposite agenda, and this article could have been written by a tobacco company in the 1950s, or a modern day agro-chemical business.
DMW is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 1st November 2017, 20:25   #122
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMW View Post
The article purports to be about over-caution... then cites GMO and concerns about greenhouse gases as examples. Where is the over-caution about global warming? I see a lot of the opposite from US corporate interests (e.g. funding climate change deniers). The article implies that concerns about GMO are harmful because they hinder progress with crop yields, yet studies have shown that US GMO cereal crop yields are not significantly higher than non-GMO yields in Europe, where advances in conventional seed development and reduced use of herbicides have been just as effective.

I am not arguing that there isn't an issue with over-caution, but to me it is rather outweighed by the tendency of vested interests to push the opposite agenda, and this article could have been written by a tobacco company in the 1950s, or a modern day agro-chemical business.
Well, perhaps you have a point, I may have read the article too hastily. The reference to AGW is certainly disquieting. . .. I’ll poke around a bit and see what I can find on the author and “publication”.
__________________
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 offline  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Thursday 2nd November 2017, 00:17   #123
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hauksen View Post
Hi Diana,

The diagram shows Balmori's data has an error margin that is so large that the observed events are virtually indistinguishable from random variation.

If you don't understand what that means for the scientific value of Balmori's study, just show the diagram to a math teacher you trust, and ask him or her for an independent opinion.

Regards,

Henning
Hi Henning,

I haven't followed this thread in great detail, but it's evident that a good deal of criticism has been leveled against Alfonso Balmori Martínez' findings in 2004. So, I read the article to check out the design and statistical analysis. (see attachment)

There is no way to avoid saying this, but your implication is not correct. If this were a parametric analysis based on Normal (i.e., Gaussian) distributions, then the means (1st moments) and variances (2nd moments) could be tested independently, using the appropriate test statistics, e.g., a t-test for equality of means and an f-test for equality of variances. The fact that the observed sample distributions overlapped would only impose a larger sample size requirement to discern the difference in means.

However, for good reasons the author elected to use a non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-test, thereby avoiding parametric assumptions. Using this procedure, the null-hypothesis is that two populations, A and B, have identical distributions (i. e., all moments are equal). The alternative hypothesis to be tested is that samples from one population are stochastically (i.e., probabilistically) larger/smaller than samples from the other. *

Now let's look at the results, which may be somewhat surprising.

Quote:
Results: (slightly edited)
  1. The total productivity (number of young flown by couple, including the nests with 0 chicks), in the nests located within 200 meters of antennae, was 0,86±0,16. For those located further than 300 meters, the result was practically duplicated, with an average of 1,6±0,14 (Fig. 2). [The] groups showed [highly] significant differences in the breeding success (U=240; P=0,001, Test U of Mann-Whitney) (Fig. 2).
  2. In partial productivity (number of young flown by number of couples with some chicks, excluding the nests with 0 chicks), an average of 1,44±0,16 was obtained for the first group (within 200 m. of antennae.) and of 1,65±0,13 for the second (further than 300 m. of antennae) respectively. The difference between both groups of nests in this case were not statistically significant (U=216; P=0,26, Test U of Mann-Whitney). Twelve nests (40%) located within 200 meters of antennae didn't have any chicks, while only one (3,3%) of those located further than 300 meters didn't have chicks.
The most important finding is stated in the last sentence of para. #2. "Twelve nests (40%) located within 200 meters of antennae didn't have any chicks, while only one (3,3%) of those located further than 300 meters didn't have chicks." Once the nests with no chicks were eliminated, there was no statistical difference between the two groups in productivity (albeit with reduced sample sizes). In fact, the presence of no-chick nests in the first analysis arguably accounted for the significant difference in para. #1.

So, what we are left with is that, for some reason, appreciably more nesting pairs closer to cell towers don't produce any chicks. However, for those that do produce chicks the number is statistically the same. It's as if there were an on-off trigger with regard to chick production. Of course, this is only one study, and others would be necessary to confirm that working hypothesis. If I were a physiologist, though, I'd start looking for what that biological trigger might be.

Overall, I think the study was well done technically, and is a worthwhile contribution to our imperfect state of knowledge.

Ed

* Such differences could be due to any moment or combination of distribution moments.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf effects_of_emf_on_white_stork.pdf (114.6 KB, 35 views)
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Thursday 2nd November 2017 at 02:32.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Thursday 2nd November 2017, 01:20   #124
litebeam
Registered User
 
litebeam's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northwest U.S.
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Hi Henning,

I haven't followed this thread in great detail, but it's evident that a good deal of criticism has been leveled against Alfonso Balmori Martínez' findings in 2004. So, I read the article to check out the design and statistical analysis. (see attachment)

There is no way to avoid saying this, but your implication is not correct. If this were a parametric analysis based on Normal (i.e., Gaussian) distributions, then the means (1st moments) and variances (2nd moments) could be tested independently, using the appropriate test statistics, e.g., a t-test for equality of means and an f-test for equality of variances. The fact that the observed sample distributions overlapped would only impose a larger sample size requirement to discern the difference in means.

However, for good reasons the author elected to use a non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-test, thereby avoiding parametric assumptions. Using this procedure, the null-hypothesis is that two populations, A and B, have identical distributions (i. e., all moments are the equal). The alternative hypothesis to be tested that is that samples from one population are stochastically (i.e., probabilistically) larger/smaller than samples from the other. *

Now let's look at the results, which may be somewhat surprising.



The most important finding is stated in the last sentence of para. #2. "Twelve nests (40%) located within 200 meters of antennae didn't have any chicks, while only one (3,3%) of those located further than 300 meters didn't have chicks." Once the nests with no chicks were eliminated, there was no statistical difference between the two groups in productivity (albeit with reduced sample sizes). In fact, the presence of no-chick nests in the first analysis arguably accounted for the significant difference in para. #1.

So, what we are left with is that, for some reason, appreciably more nesting pairs closer to cell towers don't produce any chicks. However, for those that do produce chicks the number is statistically the same. It's as if there were an on-off trigger with regard to chick production. Of course, this is only one study, and others would be necessary to confirm that working hypothesis. If I were a physiologist, though, I'd start looking for what that biological trigger might be.

Overall, I think the study was well done technically, and is a worthwhile contribution to our imperfect state of knowledge.

Ed

* Such differences could be due to any moment or combination of distribution moments.
Excellent posting, Ed.
litebeam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 2nd November 2017, 08:14   #125
Hauksen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 597
Hi Elkcub,

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
The fact that the observed sample distributions overlapped would only impose a larger sample size requirement to discern the difference in means.
Agreed - if you work accurately.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
However, for good reasons the author elected to use a non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-test, thereby avoiding parametric assumptions.
My point is, the Mann-Whitney U-test is valid only for independend random events, and if you have several pairs of storks in the same areas, competing for food and territory, their breeding efforts are not independend random events.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
So, what we are left with is that, for some reason, appreciably more nesting pairs closer to cell towers don't produce any chicks. However, for those that do produce chicks the number is statistically the same. It's as if there were an on-off trigger with regard to chick production.
Balmori did not tell us which criteria he used to establish that there was a serious breeding attempt, opposed to the category "not finish nest".

However, he noted "The nests that didn't have chicks generally presented a very scruffy and compressed aspect, as if the couple had not placed sticks in the last months".

It might well be that these nests were given up because the building pair gave up on them because they lost the fight for the territory to the dominant pair. (No independence of random events.)

In table 1, you can see a clear bias in the population in that the number of nests in a town or village was much higher for the "close to mast" cases than for the "far from mast" cases. In fact, the majority of breeding pairs "far from masts" did not face any inter-species competition in their municipality, while the majority of the "near mast" breeding pairs did.

Another conclusion from that is that it appears likely that there is not only a difference in nesting environment, but also in feeding environment, since small municipalities with no cell-phone masts most likely are rural communities whose surrounding areas might well offer storks better feeding opportunities than large municipalities. (Statistical bias.)

It's also worth noting that there were 13 nests without any chicks, 12 of them near masts, only 11 of them documented by location in the article: 10 of these were in municipalities with a high number of nests, 1 was in a municipality with another, successful pair. (More statistical bias.)

Even aside from invalid test and the statistical bias, the "significance" of Balmori's result is entirely based on the count of nests with zero chicks, which he based on undisclosed criteria. Statistical sleight of hand ...

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen 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
Google - this site may harm your computer ?? Kits Computers, Birding Software And The Internet 7 Saturday 31st January 2009 17:09
What birds can harm humans scuba0095 Birds & Birding 40 Friday 26th May 2006 18:09
Do feeders do more harm or good? cavan wood Garden Birds, Bird Feeding & Nestboxes 14 Tuesday 17th May 2005 14:19
The Living House, The Living Garden George Ordish Richard D Books, Magazines, Publications, Video & DVD 3 Tuesday 5th October 2004 13:59

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.17656803 seconds with 36 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:23.