Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Good vibrations could save vanishing bees

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 26 April 2008
IT IS a mystery that has had scientists stumped. But now experts in Scotland believe they have discovered why bees have been abandoning their hives and vanishing.

Scientists at the Roslin-based firm Global Bioenergetics think disturbance to bees from mobile phones, radio signals, wi-fi and microwaves is disrupting them with devastating results.

They think increased airwaves could be interfering with the
ir ability to do the bee dance, which they use to tell other bees where to find pollen.

Stress caused to the bees by the radiation could be damaging their immune systems, leaving them prone to increasing levels of herbicides, insecticides and fungicides sprayed on crops.

The scientists are trying out a new device, called a Bioemitter, that transmits electromagnetic waves to provide a stable environment and reduce stress for the bees in their hives, boosting their immune system.

Global Bioenergetics is about to start trials with bee farmer Brian Poole, from Scottish-Honey.

Fiona Murray, a political and environmental adviser for Global Bioenergetics, said: "The Bioemitter creates a field in the hive. It inputs a highly specified frequency. In comparison frequencies from things like mobile phones are random.

The specific frequency shields out the frequency of the mobile phones, microwaves and everything else from the hives, to create a more stable environment in the hive.

We can also put in frequencies that are beneficial, to boost the bees' own immune system.

They are still going to be exposed when they are flying about to the radiation and the sprays that are going on to the field, but the aim is to get their own system to be able to cope with it better."

Previous trials have shown the Bioemitter can also get rid of the devastating varroa mite, which sucks blood from bees and leaves them susceptible to infection.

It has similarly been shown to destroy red mites, which infest chickens.

We are creating a field that these parasites can't live in," said Ms Murray. "They can't cope with the vibration of the signal."

The same technique has been used to eliminate salmonella from one farmer's pig shed in Yorkshire, and the company thinks it has huge potential.

Now it is trying to secure funding to carry out trials on bees using the device.

Environmentalists say the decline in bee populations threatens ecosystems.

Some experts say at least a third of the food we eat is affected by the bee population. Thousands have disappeared in Scotland and there are reports of entire hives vanishing across Europe and the US. Ms Murray said: "Bees are so representative of the whole ecosystem. Einstein said we have only got five years to live without the bees. I believe this is evidence that everything we have done to our environment is coming to a head."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 26 April 2008 12:05 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Adopado,

local 26/04/2008 00:52:55
I would have thought that the hive could be protected by encasing it in a fine conductive mesh to create a Faraday cage.
2

Douglas,

Bathgate 26/04/2008 09:12:56
To answer your question at num er 2, "these waves" have een a le to affect my key oard in a way that makes what I type ollocks.
3

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 26/04/2008 10:27:50
The Roslin Institute - still basking in the triumph of 'Dolly the Sheep' now seems to be heading off down the rabbit-hole woth 'Global Bio-Energetics'. Complete and utter rubbish.

Check out this website:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8436%3E%20&aid=8436
for a detailed overview of the possible causes of honey bee Colony Collapse Disorder.

The overwhelming scientific evidence on bee deaths points to a confluence of three factors: pesticides, parasites and viruses.
The varroa parasite arrived in the UK in 1998 and has had a devastating impact = every hive in the UK is now infested. Varroa is a blood-sucking mite and when it bites bees it introduces viruses - so bees are weakened. Add to this a new family of 'super pesticides' the neo-nicotinoids - and you ahve a disaster. Incidentally the new pesticides are nerve-poisons and are 'inside' the plants - as well as in the pollen, nectar and fruit/ grain. The key ones are 'Imidacloprid' and Fipronil.

Bees navigate by polarised light - not by electromagnetic radiation. If they were affected by weak electromagnetic radiation, how come they are not affected by the Sun's electromagnetic storms, which occur all the time and have a massive effect here on earth? The Aurora (Northern Lights) is spectacular evidence of the huge effect that solar radiation has on our atmosphere - as is broken radio reception.

Are Global Bioenergetics based at Roslin because of the Chapel and the Grail Legend? Their 'research' seems to have more to do with Dan Brown's book than real science.
4

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 26/04/2008 11:02:02
Just did a Google on Richard Kenchington - the MD of this 'Global Bioenergetics' company. What a complete charlatan! Check out the Google video of him flogging 'bioenergetic field transmitters' as a form of making homeoepathic medicines for cows! Snake oil, spiritualism and 'vibrations' - all wrapped up in new electronic cases. If this is what the Midlothian Innovation Centre is giving grants to - we are all doomed. Check this out - you will have agood laugh:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2450237678487521561
5

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 26/04/2008 11:16:43
Just did a Google on Richard Kenchington - the MD of this 'Global Bioenergetics' company. What a complete charlatan! Check out the Google video of him flogging 'bioenergetic field transmitters' as a form of making homeoepathic medicines for cows! Snake oil, spiritualism and 'vibrations' - all wrapped up in new electronic cases. If this is what the Midlothian Innovation Centre is giving grants to - we are all doomed. Check this out - you will have agood laugh:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2450237678487521561

6

Adopado,

local 26/04/2008 14:58:39
#3 No I am not a bee keeper but wrapping a wooden box with a fine flexible mesh to create a Faraday cage effect seems a lot more straightforward than using the dubious sounding equipment described above. If it worked it could be designed into new hives when constructed at very little additional cost.
7

Sylvia in Regina,

Regina 26/04/2008 16:20:52
#3 Douglas... Good one!!! Had a great laugh.
8

Save the cheerleader - save the world,

26/04/2008 22:44:43
Good grief. I can't believe that this twaddle - an uncritical puff-piece for snake-oil - got nearly a full page in today's paper. At least it wasn't in the science section, I guess.
9

callender,

glasgow 27/04/2008 10:02:50
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Global's claims. There is a large body of evidence dating back to the seventies to back them up as referenced in the CCD and EM radiation timeline at:

http://disappearingbees.blogspot.com

You must remeber that the official line is that EM radiation doesn't affect living cells at all, apart from thermal effects. Global's work is not the first commercial attempt to exploit the fact that it does.
When the Penn State University team investigated CCD they ruled EM out a priori. This would arouse anyone's suspicions. This approach is irresponsable given what's at stake.
Note from above timeline that German beekeepers have already experimented with shielding of hives with, seemingly, good results.
10

Kess,

Cheltenham, UK 27/04/2008 12:40:20
callender - I doubt anyone would deny that excessive EM might affect bees in some way, but as others have pointed out the solution would be a Faraday cage. Blasting the hive with even more radiation from Global's mysterious Bioemitter - a device that apparently uses "beneficial" frequencies that somehow cancel the evil EM frequencies, repel parasites and boost the bees' immune systems - is just silly.

If Global employ scientists then they ought to be sacked. Someone please tell Fiona Murray that if mobile phone frequencies were random then the phones wouldn't work too well. And I just hope farmer Brian Poole hasn't paid any money to these charlatans.
11

Allo V Psycho,

Fife 27/04/2008 15:59:27
Much simpler to provide each bee with a little tin foil hat. Or perhaps provide Jenny Haworth with a tin foil hat with ear flaps? Then she could be shielded from all that harmful radiation AND the effect of sensible people pointing and laughing at her? As someone with higher education qualifications in phsyics and biology, I find it hard to believe (but comical) that a newspaper like the Scotsman didn't have an editor who knew better than this.
12

Allo V Psycho,

Fife 27/04/2008 15:59:28
Much simpler to provide each bee with a little tin foil hat. Or perhaps provide Jenny Haworth with a tin foil hat with ear flaps? Then she could be shielded from all that harmful radiation AND the effect of sensible people pointing and laughing at her? As someone with higher education qualifications in phsyics and biology, I find it hard to believe (but comical) that a newspaper like the Scotsman didn't have an editor who knew better than this.
13

savethebees,

Glasqow 27/04/2008 21:27:01
Kees There is a cell phone industry lobby interested in pretending cell phones are safe, for people and other life forms. The majority of studies outside the industry say they are not safe according to Roger Coghill, who spoke in Rutherglen last year. Here is one of his articles. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmsctech/489/489a25.htm.
The treatment of CCD with emf to counteract maybe silly but at least it is an attempt to try something. Experiments tend to be "silly" till they work. The main plank of the article is that it points to emf as the prime cause of CCD. This as Callender has pointed out is dismissed out of hand by the US CCD working group or such like. The UK government denies it is a problem here like an ostrich with its head in the sand.
Then there is pseudo-scientists all over the net seemingly doing their damnedest to ridicule anyone who criticizes the cell phone industry.
14

callender,

glasgow 28/04/2008 11:53:38
"I doubt anyone would deny that excessive EM might affect bees in some way"

On the contrary virtually everyone concerned denies it; furthermore, any scientist who dares to suggest it is hounded mercilessly.The Greens won't hear of it no matter how many silent springs there are.The left don't do "conspiracy theories". The beekeepers have there suspicions, privately, but seem to be keeping quiet in the hope of compensation. The trolls are buzzing all over the net with their brilliant of-the-cuff commentaries. No one wants to link up CCD with the disappearance of butterflies, moths, bats, small birds etc. My mother went on a bird watching holiday to Tenerife last year: there was nothing there. Our own demise is surely imminent and I'm beginning to think it's for the best.

I was refering to Global's claims that EM is behind CCD, not to their claims to have a solution.
15

Homer,

28/04/2008 12:53:23
I hope the reporter, Jenny Haworth, is reading these comments.

Jenny, setting aside the question of whether or not these particular claims are true, my concern is that The Scotsman apparently published them without a hint of scepticism or critical analysis.

The article is about electromagnetic energy and bee-keeping. The very least you should have done is gain the views of independent experts in these fields. However, the only person quoted in the article is an adviser for Global Bioenergetics. This is a poor example of balanced and objective reporting.

Just because a company is willing to make such claims doesn't make them true. It's your responsibility to check your facts before publishing. Otherwise you run the risk of besmirching the good reputation of The Scotsman.
16

callender,

28/04/2008 14:46:09
We already know what the "independent" experts think; there views have been aired ad nauseam since the CCD crisis reached the mainstream media.In summary, any variations on varroa, nosema, Israeli virus, unknown pathogen, summer rain, warm weather, cold weather, GM crops, pesticides are permitted. Experts are also allowed to rule out each other's theories as much as they wish. There is only one golden rule: don't suggest the EM radiation thesis.

The experts have shown their usual diligence in sticking to their allocated parameters. Congratulations to The Scotsman for breaking the taboo and allowing another point of view!
17

Homer,

28/04/2008 16:08:43
Callender, even if CCD is caused by EM radiation, that doesn't mean that Global Bioenergetics has invented a device to fix it.

The Scotsman should be sceptical of this claim, as it should be of any claims made by companies about the efficacy of their products. Otherwise the articles are just free advertising.
18

S Densley,

London 28/04/2008 16:36:11
Now we'll be bombarded by mobile phone industry funded studies that fail to find any correlation between mobile phone radiation and bees’ behaviour. Then the politicians, having been conditioned by the industry to think that given the choice between bees and mobile phones, people would choose mobile phones will ignore this research and fail to find any extra cash to fund further independent research. Call me cynical but I've seen all happen before where the mobile phone industry is involved.
19

savethebees,

Glasqow 28/04/2008 16:37:19
Homer, the article refers to attempts not results,as all the articles I have read on other supposed culprits. The report is on the beginning of a process, not on a peer reviewed tried and tested curative product. The charge of "free advertising" does not apply.
Every avenue of investigation should be explored and reported. Expert opinion is all too thin on the ground, when it comes to CCD. Most blogs start with the words"Nobody really knows the cause of CCD".
20

Homer,

28/04/2008 17:11:07
S Densley, I share your cynicism regarding the mobile phone industry. However, my cynicism extends to other companies trying to sell something, including Global Bioenergetics.

savethebees, the article makes specific claims for the efficacy of the product, including:

"Previous trials have shown the Bioemitter can also get rid of the devastating varroa mite ... It has similarly been shown to destroy red mites, which infest chickens."

These are specific and testable claims, not just "attempts".
21

savethebees,

glasgow 28/04/2008 17:51:40
I was referring to the treatment of CCD, not its peripheral uses. These claims are of a much different order. They are not about a disease that could lead to the wiping out of a large proportion of our food chain and contribute to unprecedented global starvation of genocidal proportions.
These peripheral claims may yet need more verification but they distract from the gravitas of the article and represent pettifogging side issues..

Cynicism towards the cell phone industry is simply not good enough, as was cynicism towards the tobacco industry when the covered up cancer. What is needed is full public disclosure on the effects of cell phones on our health and environment.

Here are useful links to copy and paste.. Coghill's pdf document is here.
http://www.anotherburnsidemast.com/
Information on the bees and electromagnetism here pdf document
http://groups.google.com/group/mobilfunk_newsletter/browse_thread/thread/7f61ac8eb269cf30
22

Homer,

28/04/2008 18:19:55
savethebees, I wish you all the best in the fight against CCD, but my ambitions are far more modest.

My aim is to encourage Scotsman journalists not to uncritically parrot press releases, be they from government, telcos or Rosslin-based technology companies.
23

callender,

glasgow 28/04/2008 19:48:47
Homer,the use of EM radiations for pest control is well established: there is a company in Dublin which guarantees to wipe out household insects with a small EM emitter. Who can doubt their claim: as far as I can see the stuff eventually wipes out everything that moves. There is also the example cited in the timeline referenced above. So I don't think there is much reason to doubt their claims to have used EM to clear pests.

As I pointed out above, expert opinion denies any biological effect due to EM radiation- that is the position of the WHO, generally speaking:to admit to the effects Global refer to would be to raise the question of whether EM affected us as well. So, I repeat the point that we already know what "expert" opinion would be on all of Global claims and I feel that The Scotsman have done well not to allow these parrots to keep repeating the same thing ad nauseum.

To my mind they have reported a news item which is clearly of public interest and in the face of such an urgent issue your focus seems, indeed, to be remarkably modest.


You're obviously fond of the red-herring: how many times do I have to say that I don't claim to know anything about Global's proposed solution?

Incidently, I am in touch with scientists working on the EM/CCD connection in southern Africa under the auspices of the Oppenheimers. I hope to hear of their progress soon and hope, also, that this will be of interest to The Scotsman.
24

Homer,

29/04/2008 07:25:19
Callender, you're obviously better versed in this subject than I am - I had no idea that EM was well established as a form of pest control. Indeed, I find the idea rather frightening: if this technology "wipes out everything that moves" then why not us (and, for that matter, bees). This would have been useful background information to cover in the Scotsman article.

You also imply here and above that expert opinion would deny that this technology could possibly work (which challenges the claim that it is "well established). That might be obvious to you and other contributors to this comment thread, but not to all readers of the Scotsman. Whether or not you agree with the "experts" in this case, their opinion is a salient point to include in the article.
25

callender,

glasgow 29/04/2008 08:35:36
I'm glad you find it frightening too, especially as we are being exposed to large quantites of the stuff all the time. Yes, it would be good to see the press alerting us to the danger we're in but the perpetrators of these crimes have a huge apparatus of experts to cover for them and a compliant press.In general one would expect to hear nothing about the life-destroying properties of EM radiation. This articles is a rare exception, an anomalie which has obviously upset you and your colleages.

I think it's OK to give the "experts"' opinions as long as you point out their history of lying and deceiving on behalf of the interests who run them. To prevent the views of corporate stooges as "independent" would certainly be bad journalism in my view.
26

Homer,

29/04/2008 16:37:08
Callender, we agree on one crucial point - companies pay people to promote views that advance their commercial interests. Such views will often be biased, occasionally misleading and, in exceptional cases, completely untruthful.

Global Bioenergetics is a company. They pay a "political adviser" to promote their business. I'm sure that any scepticism you hold towards the views of industry funded academics applies equally to the statements quoted in the article above.
27

Kess,

29/04/2008 20:02:51
I'm intrigued why people who are worried about the possible harm caused by mobile phone radiation seem totally unconcerned by Global's claim to have a product that emits radiation which really CAN affect a creature's psysiology (in this case boost a bee's immune system). What bizarre random side-effects might such a device have on other creatures in the vicinity that are not bees?

If they really had such a device then it would be reckless to deploy it without extreme care. The impact of its radiation on nature and the environment could be disasterous.

But I suppose because it's a small company run by (presumably) nice people who have all our interests at heart, rather than the big evil money-grabbing mobile phone industry, that's OK.
28

callender,

glasgow 29/04/2008 22:17:57
I'm even more intrigued by people who having grasped the principle that EM radiation can be used to destroy life, fail to see a potential threat from the massive exposure everything and everyone is being subjected to from the mobile phone network.

29

savethebees,

glasgow 30/04/2008 00:35:55
Kess, I am not unconcerned by the claims of this company or the possible consequences for other species. What I would like to see the full disclosure to the public of all research on CCD and its previous relative Marie Celeste Syndrome, from all companies and government (if pertinent MOD studies. ) The US Department of Defense is part to the guiding departments on the direction of CCD study in the USA.
What I suppose is that you are a fully paid up member of those trying to spread disinformation. Your use of emotive language is a dead give away. The problem of the stature of the device is a red herring. Perhaps you want to stick us in the mud.
Try saying "cell phones are safe". Instead of the not so subtle use of the word "evil" . Like they are not. The real question is Global's claims part of the solution to CCD.

30

callender,

glasgow 30/04/2008 13:47:33
It goes without saying that I'm sceptical about bio-energetics.

From this article and the flurry of comments resulting from it I would highlight three main points.

1) A group of scientists working in the field of EM radiation are aware of the the effect it has on bees. This is significant even though they may not be a disinterested party, and backs up the findings of other scientists(see http://disappearingbees.blogspot.com)

2) EM radiation is used commercially to destroy life. This gives the lie to official claims that it is completely benign.

3) Swarms of trolls will immediately descend on anyone raising these issues, whereas they will be silent in the face of ridiculous claims, made by "experts". about how bees, butterflies and other pollinators are disappearing due to rainfall.( correct me if I'm wrong)
31

Homer,

30/04/2008 16:28:41
Callender, I don't think it's fair to call everyone who disagrees with you a troll.

The point I choose to make is that the article is an example of poor journalism, since it uncritically quotes remarkable claims made by a company without seeking an objective point of view. We both agree that companies cannot be trusted to provide an objective opinion, so I assume you agree that this criticism is sound.

You question why I focus on bad journalism rather than the more important issues of CCD and the effects of EM.

While I'm sure these are both important topics, I choose not to debate them here. Firstly, because I know very little about them and - with respect to all contributors - if I wanted to learn about them, I wouldn't choose to do so from comments on Scotsman articles.

Secondly, because I expect the debate would be fruitless. There are by now about 12 people reading these comments, none of whom are likely to change their minds on EM or CCD as a result of what they read. Even if they did, they are unlikely to have any influence on the issues involved: in general, people with influence don't spend their time reading (never mind writing) comments on Scotsman articles.

However, one of the people likely to be reading these comments is the article author, Jenny Haworth. Jenny has influence, since her articles will be read by thousands of people. By politely criticising her article, I hope to encourage her to write better articles in future.

Perhaps she could speak to her science editor to discuss the viability of the claims made for this Bio-emitter technology. Perhaps she could speak to the environmental editor to discuss the protocol to adopt when publishing such claims in future.

Or perhaps not. In any case, that is my aim - to make the Scotsman a slightly better paper and thus, by some unspecified mechanism, to make the world a slightly better place.
32

callender,

glasgow 30/04/2008 17:18:40
"Certainly, a magnetoreception system for positioning and orientation exists in honeybees, and this simple, primitive, and highly accurate sensing mechanism may be present in all other magnetotactic organisms.'

This is a quote form a recent study which backs up Global's claims.

You can read it here:


http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1851986

Note the number of studies refenced which deal with electromagnetism and the orientation of bees and other creatures.

It may not be accidental that most of the scientists are from Taiwan: Taiwan has a high density of mobile phone masts and there bee population is being decimated.See:

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTP16248120070426

For more on this issue you can do no better than read Electromagnetism and Life by Robert O. Becker. It can be read online at:

http://www.ortho.lsuhsc.edu/Faculty/Marino/EL/ELTOC.html

Bees and most of the eath's creatures are sensitive to EM fields millions of times lower than those generated by the mobile phone network

33

Kess,

04/05/2008 09:44:36
savethebees - I'm not attempting to spread disinformation, just make a few common-sense points and maintain an open mind (i.e. treat both Global's claims and the mobile phone industry's claims with *equal* skepticism).

Put simply, as others have pointed out, if Global's scientists really wanted to prove EM is affecting bees they all they need to do is surround a hive with a Faraday cage to block ALL radiation from reaching it. It's cheap and effective and if the bees do then behave differently to those in an unscreened hive then great, the point is well proven.

I'm afraid the fact that Global are diving straight in with some bizarre and potentially hazardous equipment with pseudo-scientific qualities (apparently flooding the hive with even *more* radiation of unknown nature) makes their scientific abilities and motives highly questionable. I would suggest the only disinformation is coming from their direction.

It would certainly be interesting to keep abreast of whatever results or conclusions Global achieve, good or bad. I trust the Scotsman will keep an eye on this story?
34

savethebees,

Glasgow 06/05/2008 01:11:56
http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/kompetenz_beekeepers.pdf
This is most unreported story ever told

35

blaze,

Kutztown, PA 02/06/2008 16:40:40
For the poster who asked what these electromagnetic and microwave/radiowave fields are doing to humans, please read the Biointiative Report below.

Bioinitiative Report:

http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm

I suffer from severe electromagnetic hypersensitivities, and I also have been battling chronic Lyme, babesia, and multiple parasitic coinfections - and my bugs are winning. I also have high titers of several viruses - EBV, HHV6, and even parvo.

Electrical Sensitivity & Hypersensitivity:

http://www.ei-resource.org/illness-information/related-conditions/electrical-sensitivity-&-hypersensitivity/

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.