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 Monday 2nd October 2017, 13:31   #26
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 444
@ Jos Glad to hear you have so many birds. If you were here you might have a different view of things. As regards my paper and its methodology, I'm not a scientist, don't pretend to be, haven't been collecting bird numbers at each site for years (although now I wish I had). Call it the effort of a layman to call attention to a perceived problem, if you like. However, even though I can't quote exact numbers of birds of each type that I saw on each of my previous visits to various places, I do know which species were there, which birds were common, which birds are resident/on migration/summer visitors, and I damn well know that a lot of birds I should have seen were not there. The point of my paper, methodologically flawed or not, is to get people who are scientists to look into the situation. And the point of posting it here was to get people to think about whether cell tower radiation harms birds. I hope to succeed at the former, but I begin to think that the latter is a lost cause.

As for Naturetrek, it depends which part of the island they go to. Most parts of the island were not 4G until last summer, when the southern beaches became 4G. The high mountains of the central and western parts of the island are still not 4G, and I don't think they have been affected in the same ways. A year ago last spring I spent some days in the central mountains and the bird life seemed normal. The main affected area is the northeast part of the island, which became 4G in 2014.

@ Mysticete See my comment to Jos, above. While many things could explain a gradual decline over 10 years, it's hard to see why so many resident species of birds should have declined so rapidly in such a short period. The point I'm making is that I didn't see major changes except in the number and strength of cell towers.

@ Farnboro John See my comment to Jos, above. I know what you mean about hunters and it is a valid point; in a just universe they would spend eternity being hunted by birds. However, they and the farmers often have better knowledge of what is going on in the countryside than your average citizen who doesn't know one bird from another. Greece doesn't have many birdwatchers--most of HOS' 450 members all live in Athens, so they often don't know what birds you find in various parts of the country. And when you do get something unusual and tell them, nobody can be bothered to come see. We had a pair of juvenile cranes one winter on Evia, and a pair of breeding rock nuthatches in central Greece, but couldn't get anybody interested. I go out with my binoculars every day. I walk miles. I have never, in all my time in Greece, met anybody else doing that except foreign birdwatchers when I go to Northern Greece. The hunters do know the birds. I don't approve of them, or what they do, but they can be a good source of information. A lot of these guys don't do much shooting; it's an excuse to get out of the house.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 3rd October 2017, 15:43   #27
Hauksen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 772
Hi Diana,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
Greece doesn't have many birdwatchers--most of HOS' 450 members all live in Athens, so they often don't know what birds you find in various parts of the country.
Here's an article on the development of ornithological activities in Greece up to 2005:

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...logy_in_Greece

It notes: "Two major directions in ornithology in Greece can be distinguished, both strongly related to conservation: “Species and Population Surveys” and “Biological – Ecological Research”."

Population surveys are just what you're looking for when you intend to support the notion that there is a reduction in birdlife in Greece.

I'm sure you'll agree that solid data is better than an anecdotal narrative when it comes to convincing other people.

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 4th October 2017, 12:59   #28
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 444
@ Jos. First, sorry you don't like how my study reads, but did the best I could with the facts and observations I had. I am not a scientist. Had I known all the birds were going to start disappearing I would have recorded exact numbers on every trip in the past decade. It's not supposed to be a scientific study in that sense; I wrote it to send to birding organizations in hope that it would inspire them to look into this problem. In that respect I seen to be having some success. In terms of generating interest in this problem among birdwatchers on this site I am clearly wasting my time. Too much nitpicking over the methodology and zero interest in the main point. You are the only respondent that seems to understand what I originally wanted to know, even though you do not agree that electromagnetic radiation affects birds. Time will tell which of us is right.
With regard to Naturetrek, it would depend where they went. The area of the island where I live, the northeast quadrant,is 4G and has lost most of its birds. Other parts of the island are not 4G and have not lost all their birds yet (I think they will if those parts go to 4G; the southern beaches became 4G this summer, as did a couple of touristy areas). For instance, I spent some days on the central mountain a year ago and it still has good birding: short-toed eagles, coal tits, ortolan and Czechmar's buntings, mistle thrushes and ring ouzels among the species we saw there--but it hasn't got cell towers. The affected areas are the 4G areas, and even in those you won't see effects overnight.

@ Mysticete. I would agree with you if we were talking about a gradual decline; my point is that I saw a significant and rapid decline over a short period. Then there is the fact that birds seem to avoid areas of high electromagnetic radiation from cell towers but congregate in areas of little to no reception. I'm not saying there aren't other problems as well--of course there are. For instance, a lot of places are going to LED street lighting, which apparently is terrible for migrating birds. However, there isn't LED street or highway lighting in northern Greece, and resident non-migratory birds are falling in number. For the rest, see my comment to Jos.

@ Farnboro John. In a just universe, hunters would spend eternity being shot at by birds. I don't like or approve of hunting. That said, Greece has very few birdwatchers, and most of them live in Athens and go out mob-handed to watch birds--long lines of them standing on dikes with big scopes. Mostly they don't know the countryside all that well, and the few times I've tried to get anyone interested in an unusual sighting (a pair of juvenile cranes that wintered on Evia one year, a pair of breeding rock nuthatches) I got zero response. The hunters do know the countryside and what is in it; I don't have to approve of them to realize that their knowledge can be valuable.Also, for a lot of these guys, "hunting" is an excuse to get out of the house--sort of taking their gun for a walk without shooting anything. Then the wife doesn't want to come. They'd probably be just as happy walking all over with a pair of binoculars, but it's about acceptance by their peer group. This is a peasant society; it's not England.

@ Hauksen. There's no pleasing you, is there? Anyway,what are you? An ornithologist? A physicist? A troll for the telecoms companies?
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 4th October 2017, 13:37   #29
Jos Stratford
Beast from the East
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in Eastern Europe
Posts: 16,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Jos. First, sorry you don't like how my study reads.
To be honest, it is irrelevant how I think the study reads, it is important how the general readership reads it, or more importantly how those that might have influence read it. That persons on here are finding fault with some elements of your report is an important contribution, you could take this as constructive criticism, i.e. to look at the report and address these issues.

Throughout you are very absolute that cell towers are responsible for a hugely catastrophic decline in bird numbers, in trees dying off, etc, etc. You do not have causation, only observations, observations that are not replicated elsewhere - you need to be saying 'could be responsible', etc.

More importantly, whenever you are provided with similar species or settings that do not seem to be affected by the towers in the manner you report, you do not take this onboard, you seek reason to dismiss it, whether from here or elsewhere. I do not see any mention whatsoever of these apparently contradictory findings in your study - this will immediately lead to a weakness in the impact of your study: anybody opposing your finding can simply use these other areas as argument that your findings are incorrect. If you incorporate these observations/results that differ from yours and discuss them, your study is more realistic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
In terms of generating interest in this problem among birdwatchers on this site I am clearly wasting my time. Too much nitpicking over the methodology and zero interest in the main point.
As mentioned, it is not nitpicking, it is important comment. There are many on this forum that are scientists and know how studies work, I would think it a good idea to take these comments with interest rather than dismiss them as wasting your time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
You are the only respondent that seems to understand what I originally wanted to know, even though you do not agree that electromagnetic radiation affects birds.
I am skeptical that cell phone towers are solely responsible on the grounds that it is not replicated more widely, even more specifically that it is not here where 4G is at its best coverage in Europe. This said, I do not rule it out, maybe it is a problem, maybe it is combining with some factor on Samos to have a greater impact locally there. Who knows? And for this reason, i.e. 'who knows', I support you raising the issue - if potentially there is a problem, then good that someone is shouting. My only comment, and I think most on this site, is that the very absolute A=B style of your report weakens your argument and allows opponents to easily dismiss it when perhaps it shouldn't be.

PS. I also hope you are wrong, this simply because there are towers everywhere and I can't see them disappearing any time soon.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Hauksen. There's no pleasing you, is there? Anyway,what are you? An ornithologist? A physicist? A troll for the telecoms companies?
Not useful, he is raising valid points. We take it on trust that you are posting out of genuine concern for a decline in birds, not as a troll for some NIMBY concerned with towers blocking the view or whatever. Maybe extend the courtesy?
__________________
For photographs and articles, Lithuania and beyond, click here for my website

Last edited by Jos Stratford : Wednesday 4th October 2017 at 19:39.
Jos Stratford is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 4th October 2017, 15:56   #30
MTem
Registered User
 
MTem's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 2,314
I can only echo Jos's comments above. They are well framed and to the point.

We are not being dismissive - just pointing out flaws and gaps in your argument. As I said above you can find 'scientific' studies, papers from 'universities' and other such on the Internet these days purporting to establish beyond all doubt that the Earth is ~6000 years old, Noah really could have built an ark to hold all the Earth's creatures, that dinosaurs didn't exist/existed with man/still exist (the last is true as birds are dinosaurs, but that's not what they mean), that aliens have landed etc. etc.
Many on here are specialists in the 'peer-reviewed' process and they are trying to help, not hinder. Dismiss them as unhelpful if you will, but they are actually the opposite.

You might well be on to something, but your current approach is not going to get anywhere except among other conspiracy theorists.

Mick
MTem is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 4th October 2017, 17:29   #31
Hauksen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 772
Hi Diana,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Hauksen. There's no pleasing you, is there? Anyway,what are you? An ornithologist? A physicist? A troll for the telecoms companies?
I can well understand well that it is emotionally stressing for you not to find support in an issue that is important to you.

However, if you take a deep breath and look at what you wrote, you really sound a bit agressive there, and also a little like a conspiration theorist who believes that if someone doesn't agree with her, he must be part of the conspiration.

Is this really the kind of impression you'd like to make on other people whose help you're trying to enlist? Most likely it isn't.

On the topic of my professional background: It doesn't actually matter for the points I made. I pointed out some useful information on physics and statistics to you, even encouraging you not to take my word for it, but to read up on it yourself, or to consult people you trust in.

The issues I have pointed out are quite sufficient to arrive at a solid impression of how good Balmori's and Manville's arguments actually are, and it only requires high-school level math to understand why.

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 4th October 2017, 22:58   #32
locustella
Registered User
 
locustella's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Poland
Posts: 832
According to some researches electromagnetic pollution (radiation) can i.e. disrupt magnetic birds navigation and both solar and magnetic bee navigation:

http://www.nature.com/news/electroni...-birds-1.15176
Electronics' noise disorients migratory birds
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520958012.pdf
The Birds, the Bees and Electromagnetic Pollution

Birds obviously i.e. get problems with laying eggs as well, like in the presence of a witch in or near the village.
locustella is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 5th October 2017, 13:31   #33
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 444
@ Jos, Mtem, Hauksen I appreciate your comments but I did have a number of people review what I wrote and have made a number of changes between the first version I posted and the second, on this thread. They did not comment that my style was too combative--maybe it is, I don't know. I do know that I feel very strongly about the issue, and that my concerns are shared by other people some of whose works I cite in the Recommended Reading/Bibliography. I had hoped there would be more concern among birdwatchers; I know this has been raised before and most of the comments have been dismissive of the issue. I know that a lot of things are affecting bird populations, but is is not possible that some of the population declines which are attributed to other factors are in fact being caused by cell tower radiation? Or cell tower radiation in combination with other factors? And do none of you think that someone should be looking into this seriously? I'm not the best qualified person to do this by any means, but I hoped that by posting here I might get someone else interested in this. Also, governments around the world are approving legislation for 5G. If I am right about this issue, that could be a disaster for birds. It's no good saying that more research needs to be done on this subject if the technology proceeds a lot faster than the science. There should at the very least be a moratorium on 5G.

There are no safety standards for birds or nature. There are only safety standards for humans, and a lot of people think those are inadequate. There are also strong arguments for classing this type of radiation as a Group 1 carcinogen. There's a lot of advice about saying that children shouldn't use wireless devices at all and that even adults should be careful about how they use them. Wireless devices have been associated with brain and other tumors in humans, and it may also affect human fertility, cause Alzheimer's and early-onset dementia, plus a lot of other effects. As time passes we are seeing more and more effects on people, so why wouldn't it affect birds, which are smaller, have much thinner bones, and whose feathers act as miniature antennae? (See the Warnke paper posted above by Locustella--"The Birds, the Bees and Electromagnetic Pollutiion".)

As for the articles I cite, maybe some of you are right in your criticisms, maybe you are wrong. I would have thought that scientists working for US Fish and Wildlife would be qualified to judge the work they cite since it is their field--I'm not a scientist. I know you can find all sorts of rubbish on the internet but I have tried to find studies that aren't. I have taken the time to write to and telephone some of the scientists whose work I cite and talk to them about the effects of electromagnetic radiation, so I haven't just jumped to conclusions based on a bit of internet research. There are a lot of studies out there. The website https://emf-portal.org has a huge database covering the issue on both sides of the debate. I have heard that around 70% of studies which find no effect from electromagnetic radiation are industry-funded at least to some degree--again, I'm not best qualified to judge, but it's something to consider. What does seem to be missing is observational studies. There are some (I've cited most of what I found) but there's a lot of scope for more work. Anyone interested?

I don't know about the rest of you, but I grew up long before mobile phones and wireless devices. I don't use them--my computer is wired into the wall. As far as I can tell, the wireless world is no great improvement on the wired world. All around me I see people buried in their devices who are not looking at the world around them or talking to each other. How do you notice the birds if you're looking at a smartphone? If you had to choose between wireless devices and birds, which would you choose? I may or may not have succeeded in making my case, but I hope that you will all think about this issue. If you see a fall in bird numbers, if some species are failing to migrate or breed successfully, if you start seeing disproportionate numbers of some species compared to others, you might at least consider whether cell tower radiation is a factor. This isn't about me. It's about birds. I think we can all agree that we want them to survive.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 5th October 2017, 14:53   #34
MTem
Registered User
 
MTem's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 2,314
You have not taken in a word of what has been said. This is not about style (combative or otherwise) - you cannot beat people into submission - and it's not about whether we agree or not. You simply have not made a case that would stand up to any sort of proper scientific scrutiny, nor have any of the authors you list. THAT is why no one seems to be listening.

I for one would not be surprised to find that EMF has an impact on birds, and mammals (including us) and insects. But so does many other of mans' activities, and few of them good ones. What is required is the evidence that it is having a big enough impact (globally as well as locally) to put forward a case for curtailment or removal. This you do not have - and as has been said above the most obvious flaw is the absence of a wider impact in other areas with similar EMF presence.

Mick
MTem is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 5th October 2017, 18:59   #35
Hauksen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 772
Hi Diana,

I have to agree with Mick:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTem View Post
You simply have not made a case that would stand up to any sort of proper scientific scrutiny, nor have any of the authors you list. THAT is why no one seems to be listening.
The German news magazine "Der Spiegel" certainly has never been suspected of protecting the interests of the industry ... here is an overview over the articles on "electro smog", as the issue is called in German:

https://translate.google.com/transla...elektrosmog%2F

You'll find that they ran quite a few articles on bad science, biased interpretation, occasional scientific forgery, and the amount of scare-mongering connected with the issue. Perhaps a few on the danger of electro-magnetic radiation as well ...

In case you're not familiar with "Der Spiegel":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Spiegel

Decide for yourself how sceptical or credulous you'd like to be ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTem View Post
I know you can find all sorts of rubbish on the internet
It probably wouldn't be so full of rubbish if there weren't so many gullible people out there.

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 6th October 2017, 09:56   #36
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 444
@ Hauksen. I missed a point in replying to you earlier. You talk about the Greek species and population surveys--I tried really hard to get information on this. Kind of impossible if no one will actually give you any facts and figures. One guy who counts birds in the Evros Delta for the University of Thessaloniki thought it was really funny that I wanted this info--laughed, refused and hung up on me. This is quite typical for Greece, where all information is treated like a state secret. It is easier to get blood from a stone than to get proper information here. As for research--maybe they're doing some but I doubt it. Research takes funding. Money. There isn't any.

As for your Spiegel articles, they're about par for the course. Let me tell you what I see on the ground, here on Samos. Our local doctor is seeing a lot of testicular cancer in young men. A large proportion of young married couples are seeking fertility treatment--a lot of twins these days. There are at least ten people, nine of them under 50, with brain tumors--that I know of. In one village of 300 people, 18 were in hospital with terminal cancer at the same time. There is a phone mast above the village. Coincidence? Maybe. But it's a hell of a percentage of cancer patients. Asthma is going through the roof--every other child seems to have it. Growing up, I never knew anyone with asthma. I don't think real evidence of harm has even emerged yet. Wait till today's mobile-phone-using children grow up. I read somewhere lately that Denmark, one of the countries that track cancer rates, is seeing climbing rates of brain cancers in the young. If I recall correctly, they have doubled. You think this stuff is safe? Go ahead. Put your kid to bed with a tablet instead of reading him a bedtime story. Stuff your mobile in your pocket. Clamp it to your ear for hours at a time. I wouldn't, but that's me.

@ Mick Actually, I am listening. But I have to be convinced, too. Who are you guys? Why should I take your word for it that you know better than the sources I cite? Am I just supposed to say, "All right then, I guess you know better than I do"? Why? How do I assess your (plural) qualifications to judge the research? On the other side, does nothing I have said, not a single article or study I have listed, raise any alarm bells? Don't know what I can do about that. Just a few points:

One--I had no opinion about electromagnetic radiation one way or another before I noticed the birds disappearing on Samos and started to wonder what was causing it. That's when I started researching the subject.

Two--I started this project of posting on this site to see if anyone had noticed anything similar to what's happening here. The only person who's actually answered that question is Jos, who sees no effect. On another site there's an Irish bird ringer whose local cell tower went 4G about a year ago and is seeing a decline in numbers and disproportionate numbers of great tits and corvids. So there's Jos and there's him. Other than that I am not getting any actual information from anyone.

Three--This is not about beating anyone into submission. I have presented what I have personally observed and the conclusions I've drawn from it. On Samos, and elsewhere in Greece, there are few birds in 4G areas and near cell tower arrays, and more birds where there is less cell tower radiation. The people who run the bird center at Lake Kerkini seem to think cell tower radiation is a problem or they wouldn't have got signal strength turned down. Exactly how is stating this beating anyone into submission?

Four--the articles and studies. I don't get the impression that anyone has actually read all of them, but I understand that for one reason or another a number of them that have been mentioned have failed to convince. Fine. I repeat, I am not a scientist. I don't have the background to assess them in the way some of you may do, so it's quite possible they're flawed. But all of them? The conservation director of the RSPB told me that the Everaert and Bauwens study on sparrows is highly regarded as being a good piece of research -- is he mistaken? I would personally like to see a lot more observational studies. What happens to bird numbers when a tower is introduced or gets upgraded, allowing for other factors? I can't find any.

Five--You say you wouldn't be surprised if cell tower radiation is having an impact but I have failed to convince you. I suggest you do your own research if you are genuinely interested. At the end of the day my purpose was to get information (mostly I haven't) and to make people consider this issue (don't think I made much impact there either).

Six--How do you account for what I'm observing? What other plausible explanation can you find for what I am seeing on Samos, where I can definitely exclude pesticides, development, hunting, unusual climatic phenomena, and lights since I first started noticing a severe decline in bird numbers? Especially resident birds, which are not affected by what is going on somewhere else? Why are the 4G areas affected and other areas not affected? If there is another explanation I would like to know. I really would.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 6th October 2017, 10:26   #37
Jos Stratford
Beast from the East
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in Eastern Europe
Posts: 16,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
The only person who's actually answered that question is Jos, who sees no effect. On another site there's an Irish bird ringer whose local cell tower went 4G about a year ago and is seeing a decline in numbers and disproportionate numbers of great tits and corvids.
You also have to consider issues over a longer term than a year or two - declines in a single year at a ringing station or indeed at any locality can be totally meaningless over such a short period.

As I provided, numbers at my feeding stations are static over a period of ten-year period, or indeed even over 20 years, but within this there are notable declines and recoveries of species. Using Great Tits as an example (simply as they are the most abundant species here in winter), I saw a decline of about 30% between the winter of 2013-14 and winter 2014-15, followed by further decline in the winter of 2015-16. In the space of just two winters, it appeared I had lost almost half of the birds. However, this decline fully reversed in winter 2016-17 and numbers actually exceeded those of 2013-14. All indications of the current winter period are that numbers are again high.

I can provide similar variations for most species present, be in other tit species, woodpeckers, etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
So there's Jos and there's him.
Indeed, but one of these refers to numbers for just a single year.

Have you considered, for example, BTO survey numbers for the UK - annual garden bird surveys, CBCs, etc. This data goes back generations, certainly preceding the arrival of cell towers in the UK. If indeed towers are having an impact, then surely these measurable nationwide long-term data sources would be better at illustrating this - if towers are responsible in such a catastrophic manner as you describe, I would assume you might expect to see some correlations, locally and nationally, between the arrival of towers and declines of populations.
__________________
For photographs and articles, Lithuania and beyond, click here for my website
Jos Stratford is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 6th October 2017, 10:45   #38
Jos Stratford
Beast from the East
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in Eastern Europe
Posts: 16,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
How do you account for what I'm observing? What other plausible explanation can you find for what I am seeing on Samos, where I can definitely exclude pesticides, development, hunting, unusual climatic phenomena, and lights since I first started noticing a severe decline in bird numbers? Especially resident birds, which are not affected by what is going on somewhere else? Why are the 4G areas affected and other areas not affected? If there is another explanation I would like to know. I really would.
You cannot definitely exclude other factors. Already linked to a paper that shows a changing climate in Samos, which you dismissed as not relevant because the last couple of winters have been wet. Well, who knows, maybe populations stressed by a long-term drying of the island were already reaching a point where decline was inevitable regardless. Maybe not, but can you really 'definitely' exclude such factors?

And, as pointed out by several persons, the flip side to your question needs to be asked, i.e. why are other areas with equal or greater 4G not experiencing the catastrophic declines that you report, the tree die-back, etc?

If you are correct that it is cell towers solely responsible, then your declines should be replicated. Even in my basement, I can quite easily access mobile internet, the nearest tower is in close proximity, so I assume there is no issue with signal strength or whatever ...yet there are large flocks of sparrows at the feeders as I speak, breeding populations of Pied Flycatchers and virtually everything else appear to remain pretty much as preceding upgrade to 4G.
__________________
For photographs and articles, Lithuania and beyond, click here for my website

Last edited by Jos Stratford : Friday 6th October 2017 at 11:35.
Jos Stratford is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 6th October 2017, 12:27   #39
Hauksen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 772
Hi Diana,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
You talk about the Greek species and population surveys--I tried really hard to get information on this.
I quoted an article on Greek ornithology that was based on the evaluation of publications, which normally are publically available by definition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
As for your Spiegel articles, they're about par for the course. Let me tell you what I see on the ground, here on Samos.
As the Spiegel pointed out, there are a lot of methodical problems in many studies, and your observations are not even methodical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
I read somewhere lately that Denmark, one of the countries that track cancer rates, is seeing climbing rates of brain cancers in the young.
Read about it again in the Spiegel:

https://translate.google.com/transla...tml&edit-text=

According to the Spiegel, the Danish study actually did not find any increased cancer risks associated with cellphone use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
Why should I take your word for it that you know better than the sources I cite?
You shouldn't, and I already told you so. You can judge research for yourself, it's not even difficult. Any bright kid fresh from school should know what the standard deviation means, and be able to explain it to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
Four--the articles and studies. I don't get the impression that anyone has actually read all of them, but I understand that for one reason or another a number of them that have been mentioned have failed to convince.
The thing with rubbish from the internet is, it's available in unlimited amounts. I'm quite satisfied with a random sample - I'm sure you've heard of "the boy who cried wolf" ...

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 6th October 2017, 13:02   #40
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 444
@ Jos. I am reporting (on Samos at least) a continual decline that began nearly 4 years ago and is still continuing. And I have not seen huge climatic variation in the past decade or so that would account for it. Samos' water, for instance, is complicated. We actually get much of our groundwater from Turkey because the island is so close to the Turkish mainland and is fed by underground springs that originate in Asia Minor. So, while some minor springs have dried up, most haven't. A lot of damage to the water table would be reversed if hotels were banned from having swimming pools, which are a huge drain. But generally we don't have a problem with water. It rains somewhat less than it did 40 years ago, but that is true in most of the Med. Tree growth (mentioned in the article as a way to assess dryness) seems normal--small trees are sprouting up, new ones are growing, big ones are getting bigger. My cypresses grow at a very fast rate, and so do my olives. So, the article you found notwithstanding, climate variation is a slow process, and I doubt seriously that it is responsible for this sudden and severe decline of birds in 4G areas of Samos. And it is the 4G areas.

It is a good suggestion about the BTO and RSPB bird counts--I tried looking but couldn't come to any conclusions based on numbers alone. A lot of England is still 3G and there are 2G areas as well as areas of no reception. So you would have to correlate the bird numbers according to the cell coverage and then exclude other factors. The information is not broken up this way, but there is obviously scope for someone to look into if they could get the data.

In answer to the question of why other places aren't seeing the same declines in the presence of 4G, I don't have enough information. You say no decline, my Irish friend says he sees a decline (admittedly over a single year but he thinks it's significant), and that's not enough information. I think some places are experiencing bigger problems than others. India is apparently having huge problems with falling bird populations which is, at least in some cases I know of, being blamed on cell towers. There was a youtube video about Tamil Nadu about this--maybe you can find it (try bird disappearances + Tamil Nadu). A friend in the US had some visitors from India who said to her, "Gosh, you still have birds here." It's anecdotal, I know, but suggestive. So it seems some places are having problems like this, but I don't know any more than I'm telling you. I agree that these results should be able to be replicated, but a) someone needs to look and b) it may be that people are seeing declines and attributing them to other causes, so they aren't looking further. I had rather hoped I would hear from people in a large variety of countries on this site, but it didn't happen. As for tree die-back, this is happening in a great many places all over the world. The US is having huge problems in many places. Have you looked at any of the studies on trees I cited?

You say you had declines for a couple of years and then the birds recovered. Unfortunately I see no sign of that here. The only birds that appear to have bred successfully this past spring in the area around the main cell tower are crows, jays, gulls, domestic pigeons, great tits and blackbirds. That is all we are seeing now. Did you see the study about great tits I cited? Admittedly they were looking at power lines, but again, it is suggestive--not all species react the same way. Whether any other birds will ever recover? I hope so. But I don't think it will happen while the cell towers are there. I'll let you know if anything changes.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 7th October 2017, 10:37   #41
Hauksen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 772
Hi Diana,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Jos. I am reporting (on Samos at least) a continual decline that began nearly 4 years ago and is still continuing.
I don't actually doubt the decline, as unfortunately many bird species have been showing serious downwards trends for quote a while.

One major threat to migratory species that cross the mediterranean sea has only gained public attention a couple of years ago, and might not have existed before in this order of magnitude, is the illegal netting of birds at the North African coast.

Here's an article on this, estimating a combined length of 700 km of netting in Egypt (Google translates "bird killing" as "bird watching" ... please corect that mentally):

https://translate.google.com/transla...7%2F21007.html

(Just as an example of external factors affecting birdlife, which a survey of the breeding habitat couldn't detect.)

I'm not sure how much attention this kind of poaching has received internationally as it's a new development at least at this massive scale, but I think it's something everyone concerned about the conservation of birds should be aware of, as it's a new (in this magnitude) and very serious threat.

(The Nabu site also features a 2016 article on measures of the Egyptian gouvernment, mentioning that they started by taking down 2.5 km of nets near a wildlife reserve. A small step, but I hope that was only the beginning.)

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 8th October 2017, 12:27   #42
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 444
New study from the International Journal of Oncology

@ Hauksen Sadly, I have heard of this netting practice--not in Egypt, but in Cyprus, where they have been doing it for years and people keep trying to stop it. And I agree with you that there are a lot of problems for migratory birds--I don't think I have suggested otherwise. So if I were only seeing a drop in migratory birds I would assume that the problem was 1) something is interfering with migration (including lights, electromagnetic radiation, etc.) and/or 2) something is happening to birds somewhere else, so they are unable to migrate--i.e., they are dead. So a lack of migratory birds could be for many reasons. The problem is that I am seeing a sharp decline in resident birds of various species, and this is why I think that electromagnetic radiation from cell towers is a factor (in some cases perhaps the main factor).

I know your objections to Balmori's stork study and Manville. but have you read any of the other studies? Also, you place a lot of reliance on Spiegel, which you say doesn't have a pro-business agenda--but are you sure about that? There is a HUGE amount of money invested in mobile technology, in the Internet of Things, driverless cars etc. and there is enormous pressure not to rock the boat since our economies are not relying on anything else for future growth. You would need to dig deep, see who has interests in this publication, where he/they have their money invested--it's not easy. My husband used to write health features for major English newspapers, and they routinely rejected all kinds of health stories because investors might object--a lot of these were on subjects the public ought to know about. My own feeling is that none of the mainstream media are covering this subject properly, any more than they did with the Iraq war.

I attach a study that might interest you, from the International Journal of Oncology. It's about who sets the standards and their ties to industry. WHO do you trust (pun intended)?
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Hardell Int J Oncol 2017_51_405-413.pdf (565.9 KB, 37 views)
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 8th October 2017, 13:30   #43
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 444
@ Hauksen Re the link you sent me regarding bird studies done in Greece, the author of the piece, Savvas Kazantzidis, wrote to me that they have never considered the impact of cell tower radiation on birds in Greece and no studies have been done in this area.

However, if they have the data from bird counts in various areas they might be able to do a meta-analysis correlating with the introduction and upgrades of cell towers as well as look into what happens as further upgrades/installations occur. This would be better done by people like him, who have full access to all such data and the scientific background to interpret the results accurately.

My piece--whatever you think of it--was really only written to persuade people like Kazantzides to look into what I believe to be a serious problem. If it achieves that I will account my time well spent.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 8th October 2017, 15:13   #44
Hauksen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 772
Hi Diana,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
I know your objections to Balmori's stork study and Manville. but have you read any of the other studies?
Sounds like you might have missed this post:

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.ph...1&postcount=39

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
Also, you place a lot of reliance on Spiegel, which you say doesn't have a pro-business agenda--but are you sure about that?
If you manage to find another European news magazine specialized in investigative journalism with a more distinguished history than the Spiegel, just let me know if it takes the opposite stance towards electro smog :-)

If you're looking for a recent example of the the Spiegel rocking the boat mercilessly, check the series of articles castigating the German automotive industry for their conduct in the Diesel affair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
My piece--whatever you think of it--was really only written to persuade people like Kazantzides to look into what I believe to be a serious problem. If it achieves that I will account my time well spent.
Sounds like Kazantzides is a very nice guy indeed.

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 9th October 2017, 09:44   #45
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 444
@ Henning I don't doubt that Spiegel does some good investigative journalism. But ALL publications have owners who have business interests and agendas of their own, and ALL publications depend on advertising revenue to make profits. If you upset the advertisers, they withdraw their advertisements--that can cost millions. Also there are trends in public thinking that publications cater to in order not to alienate their audiences. Everyone had fun bashing VW for "Dieselgate" because it caters to the present concern with climate change as a by-product of human activity. That's the current orthodoxy. There are a great many examples like this. In the case of cell tower radiation, you've got a vast audience who are all (or mostly) using wireless devices all the time. You've got a huge number of people who own stocks in telecoms. The owner(s) probably do too. It's the growth industry, it's propping up an overvalued stock market, and it's marketed as a "green" technology (which it isn't--all that rare earth mining and the vast consumption of energy for these devices). So the mainstream media isn't challenging the orthodoxy, or not much. It risks alienating both the audience and the advertisers. It's a bit like smoking--do you know that old advertisements for cigarettes actually advocated smoking "for your health"? It seems ridiculous now that smoking is banned in all public places. It took a major lawsuit against the cigarette companies to change a lot of the legislation around cigarettes and tobacco--as well as people's attitudes Take a look at this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...-lawsuits.html and consider the tone. If Peter Angelos wins this, all the papers will be screaming that people have been exposed to these deadly devices for years and nobody warned them. A bit like the Iraq war--the media all went along with with the "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" story till it turned out that he didn't, and they looked like idiots.

Did you read the Lennart Hardell piece?
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 9th October 2017, 10:03   #46
MTem
Registered User
 
MTem's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 2,314
Most of the comments from me, Jos and Henning (if you read them) are not about portrayal or propaganda, but about the underlying data and scientific interpretation of that data. None of us have said you are wrong, just that the case you present is incomplete and hence cannot be used to demonstrate cause. Look back at my comment in your other thread about causal interpretation.

So please drop the conspiracy theory retorts. They will only support those wishing to dismiss your views. Instead either personally, or by getting others to, do some detailed data research and dispassionately (I.e., without a pre-formed view of the answer) interpret the cause considering all possibilities.

I say again - no one I can see is saying you're wrong, just that you are not going about this in a way that will convince the (predominant?) logically functioning scientific community, on here or elsewhere.

Mick
MTem is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 9th October 2017, 10:09   #47
MTem
Registered User
 
MTem's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 2,314
Oh and to depress you further - if you can ever convince that it is the 4G towers that are wiping out wildlife, you will then have to start on the bigger issue; namely convincing 'the general public' that this matters enough that they should care.
Sadly I think a majority today would keep the phones and sod the wildlife.
MTem is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 9th October 2017, 11:03   #48
Hauksen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 772
Hi Diana,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Henning I don't doubt that Spiegel does some good investigative journalism. [...] A bit like the Iraq war--the media all went along with with the "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" story till it turned out that he didn't, and they looked like idiots.
Here's one of the Spiegel articles from the time:

https://translate.google.com/transla...tml&edit-text=

That doesn't sound to me as if they were going along with the story "like idiots" - in fact they quoted experts criticizing the American assessment.

If you had cared to look up the Spiegel article on Powell's infamous speech to the Uno, you'd also have seen that while it naturally reported on the speech in detail, it also concluded that Powell had not provided evidence for his claims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
Did you read the Lennart Hardell piece?
I see don't see anything unusual with the WHO recruiting experts that are members of an association of professionals, and I don't see anything unusual in the WHO's refusal to talk about controversial fringe areas of the main topic in a specific context either.

Here is a WHO document outlining some of their criteria for studies on electromagnetic radiation exposure:

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/standards...ork%5b1%5d.pdf

Balmori's White Stork study didn't meet these (quite sensible) criteria, and wouldn't have done so even if the size of his sample had been greater.

Instead of putting up a wall of text each time someone disagrees with you, you could more sensibly invest your time in learning a bit about standard deviations, because that will give you a first-hand insight in Balmori's - and, through quotation, Manville's - scientific ethics. And from there on ... "Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me".

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 9th October 2017, 13:14   #49
Mono
Hi!
 
Mono's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lake District,UK
Posts: 1,920
The OP has "drunk the Kool Aid". They believe. There is as little point discussing standard deviations as there is discussing evolution with the Jehovah's Witnesses on the doorstep.
Mono is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 10th October 2017, 10:51   #50
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 444
@ Mick Look, I'm not saying you guys are wrong in your criticisms. And I know that I don't have complete data (accurate bird numbers for all the areas I'm talking about, going back a number of years, etc). Plus I'm not a scientist and I know I'm not very good at reading charts, graphs and diagrams. I also don't know anybody here who can sit down with me and explain it. I'd need somebody who could do it in English--my Greek is good but not that good. So I admit the flaws in my presentation, and in the some of the studies I used to make my case. I would like to have done better but I can't. I know I can't prove 100% that what I am observing (fall in bird numbers) is due to cell tower radiation.

Can you tell me please, is there a flaw in my basic premise? I would really appreciate your input. I've been asked to write an article and I would like to get it right--I think I will be able to get some help on the science. If my basic premise is flawed, I should refuse the offer.

1. We noticed a rapid decline in bird numbers after local towers on Samos were upgraded to 4G. This decline in bird numbers is continuing with only a few species seeming to thrive while some have altogether disappeared. 2. None of the usual reasons for a fall in bird populations seemed to apply in this instance, so we thought cell tower radiation might be the cause and did some research. 3. The research we found indicated that cell tower radiation could harm birds in a number of ways. 4. We concluded that local cell towers were probably causing a decline in bird numbers on Samos. 5. We wanted to know if cell tower upgrades in other parts of Greece were causing similar problems. On a winter trip in 2015 to western Greece, where cell towers had also been upgraded, we had seen far fewer small waders, warblers, finches etc. than on other trips, but at that time we hadn't considered cell tower radiation as a possible cause. 6. When we visited northern Greece, we noticed that 3G areas had more birds, while 4G areas had fewer (sometimes many fewer) birds. Birds seemed to avoid cell towers and especially clusters of cell towers. There were a great many new towers, both 3G and 4G, and an overall decline in the number of birds we saw over previous years. Some species seemed to be more affected than others. We attempted to account for any other environmental changes but found things hadn't changed much since 2014. The biggest changes were in the number and signal quality of the cell towers, and in some places, the number of dying trees. 6. We concluded that cell tower radiation was having an effect on bird numbers, both migratory and resident.

At the end of the day, proper studies should be done by those more competent than I. The question is, can anybody be persuaded to do them?

Re your second comment. Nothing could depress me further than the lack of birds where I live. I walk miles every day and the only birds I'm seeing are great tits, blackbirds, jays, crows and yellow-legged gulls--and none of them in great numbers. A few sparrows, the odd pied wagtail, one buzzard, one sparrowhawk--once or twice heard an owl (one tawny, one little). I could weep.

You are probably right in that no one cares at all about nature. If cell towers are ever banned it will probably be because of human data--I live in hope. How about yourself? If you believed that wireless devices were causing birds to die out, would you get rid of your cell phone? Would other birdwatchers? Or is wireless technology more important than birds?

@ Henning. So you see nothing wrong in setting the fox to guard the hen house?
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
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 0.30421591 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:43.