/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5745873]

I believe I may have understood part of the reason bee's are dying off. Many believe it is the cell phone towers we use and this just might be right. I believe there is a possibility that it destroys their sense of direction. I have lived in the same home for roughly 25 years(taking it after my parents passed away in a car accident) Anyways noticed that when I was younger before cellphones were popular many bees would be outside of window while hanging clothes on the line. Since cellphones became huge around 07-09 i noticed that is when they had stopped. Instead I would find many of them inside my clothes dead. I think it is making their senses less sensitive.

[Blackman No.5745877]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

You have a hypothesis, that's quite nice.

[Anonymous No.5745886]

>>5745877
Hence why I am posting. I am hoping to observe that data I can collect from this thread. If enough people have experienced this I will look further into it.

I work for a science firm doing research into bee's and am working desperately to figure out how to stop this madness. It has been going on for a decade at least, but now I am afraid we have reach critical mass. I am afraid now we are nearing the point where there will not be enough bees to sustain the earths ecosystems fully.

[Anonymous No.5745888]

>Many believe it is the cell phone towers we use
Not many scientists. There is no way bees are sensitive to radio waves, which contain about 0.0001% of the energy of red light.

Science does not work by making random uninformed guesses. Researchers have been studying colony collapse for years, and have reached many conclusions that you can look up yourself.

[Anonymous No.5745889]

>>5745877
>correlation does not imply causation

Are you saying that global warming isn't man made?

[Anonymous No.5745895]

>>5745889
the amount of greenhouse gases released by man each year pales in comparison to the amount of green houses gases relesed naturally

[Anonymous No.5745897]

>>5745889
Yes. That's exactly what he said.

Or maybe he's just pointing out an obvious statistical fact. There is no mechanism for your proposal, and anyway the majority of beehives are not close to cell towers.

Are YOU saying that correlation DOES imply causation?

[Anonymous No.5745901]

>>5745895
Learn to dynamic equilibrium or get the fuck out of here.

[Anonymous No.5745911]

>>5745897
>Are YOU saying that correlation DOES imply causation?

Of course it does, you retarded AGW denier. Go back to >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.5745919]

>>5745895
So?

You know not all science works like cooking?

[Anonymous No.5745922]

You fools realize I am actually doing research for my own thesis. I just did not explain the exact process. From my conclusion which I will not reveal I think this may be a good answer or something at least that we will be aware of. Since my vocal reach does not ordinarily go above my friend groups and peers at work i don't get to observe and I can't get the funding for this without more research being done on my own time.

[Anonymous No.5745928]

>>5745888
>we know anything about how butterflies migrate
It's in the same sense of mice having sharper hearing

[Anonymous No.5745930]

>>5745911
I specifically said I did not deny AGW, and no, correlation does not imply causation. Holy shit you are retarded.

Over the course of a year, ice cream sales are strongly correlated with drowning deaths. Yet neither causes the other. Both are caused by seasonal changes.

I feel like I'm talking to a third grader.

[Anonymous No.5745935]

I wonder how long before someone goes MUH GMOS DID IT.

[Anonymous No.5745936]

>>5745928
>implying anyone said anything about butterflies
>implying butterflies have enormous radio dishes on their heads
>implying the apparent urge to blame everything on cell phones means we can ignore basic physics and biology
>implying there aren't already good explanations for CCD
>implying you get to just make stuff up and say "YOU CAN'T PROVE IT ISN'T"

[Anonymous No.5745946]

>>5745922
Good job. I'll be looking forward to read more about this. However...
>/Sci/
>Real science.

Big nope unfortunately. You can come to /sci/ to ask something you don't know that has already been discovered, but... hypotheses? Something mind-blowing and new?! That's frightening! Trolls will send you straight to /out/ or to /x/ in the worst case scenario.

[Anonymous No.5745950]

>>5745946
I would like to add that it's been said that pesticides do provoke this kind of mental illness on bees and that it may have lesser effects on humans. I'm not sure if it has been proven or not, but it's certainly worth some research.

[Anonymous No.5745953]

>>5745922
If you are doing research for your thesis, you should know that the effects of cell phones on beehives has already been studied and produced negative results. You should also know that there is no plausible mechanism for cell phones having any effect.

I don't know how many times I need to say this. You may not like the results, but you can't ignore them.

[Anonymous No.5745959]

>>5745950
Pesticides are much more plausible, seeing as they are designed to be toxic to some insects.

[Anonymous No.5745970]

>>5745936
>any of that is valid

[Anonymous No.5745978]

>>5745970
>not making an argument

[Anonymous No.5745999]

>>5745978
>causality says I need to
>my arguement

[Vencer Vencer !xEmf3BzAWQ No.5746086]

Nature will deal with it.