But they didn't ask it as a useful question, they made a statement without backing it up, but in such a way as to imply it was true. That statement was socially and scientifically useless. To be clear, they said:
> The last I had heard, researchers believed that cell phones were at least partially to blame,
No-one can claim that, since no credible research has ever even hinted that. Hence, they are stating an unfounded opinion passed off as a poorly remembered fact. Not just misinformed, but attempting to perpetuate a wrong idea -> downvote.
As to eliminating a null hypothesis, that's just applying the precautionary principal to things that are salient, which is foolish and just pandering to the "new technology X is killing us" crowd. Additionally, mobile phones have been widespread for years longer than colony collapse disorder, so why even suspect a link?
>Not just misinformed, but attempting to perpetuate a wrong idea
It is entirely possible that they read an article (even possibly in the national press of their country) saying that "researchers believed that cell phones were at least partially to blame". This makes your statement "no one can claim ..." false. Indeed it might have been a neighbour or friend that told them, they might even have doubted it.
In any case, reading the second part of the post "the article doesn't seem to mention it at all. Does anybody know if that has been disproved?" clearly labels this as a current genuine enquiry that can be answered without assuming bad faith on the questioners part.
>which is foolish and just pandering to the "new technology X is killing us" crowd
So, when there's a temporal correlation between the rise of a global new technology and the apparent threat of a globally required (for on going human existence at least) genus [not sure on my taxonomy there?] you don't think it even deserves us to ask the question whether that correlation hides a causal link? There aren't that many global phenomena showing this sort of change in magnitude of use are there?
As it happens I have a vague recollection of reading about something along these lines in New Scientist, possibly in terms of "scientists have considered many possible explanations, mobile phone signals, ... [long list of varying suggested causes]".
'Now a limited study at Landau University has found that bees refuse to return to their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby. Dr Jochen Kuhn, who carried it out, said this could provide a "hint" to a possible cause.
Dr George Carlo, who headed a massive study by the US government and mobile phone industry of hazards from mobiles in the Nineties, said: "I am convinced the possibility is real."'
Care to retract anything or are you going to continue in claiming these two studies (plus at least 2 more on Google Scholar link) are not credible research.
Okay, I may have gone off at the deep end, for which I apologise. The OP may have been making a good faith observation on the basis on media coverage of this. However, I stand by the fact that "mobile phones are bad for you" is an extremely irritating meme and I'd like to see it die.
As to a temporal correlation, no there isn't. Six years before CCD was observed (2000) there were about 100 million mobile phones in the USA. In 2006, 200 million. Granted that is a large rise, but if I was looking for a correlation, I'd look at 0 to 100 million, not 100 to 200 million.
The reason the popular press includes mobile phone signals as a possible cause, is that a) it's a common meme that people lap up, and b) as you point out, scientists have shown that if you put strong radio signals near hives, bees don't return there. But to me, that doesn't credibly imply CCD is caused by mobile phones.
To look at this another way, Facebook was launched to everyone in 2006. Maybe the bees get distracted by facebook and starve to death? To test this, I put a computer running facebook inside a beehive. The bees stopped going to that hive. QED, facebook caused CCD. That wouldn't be credible, even if I had run the experiment and got that result.
Anyway, you are right, the OP probably did genuinely think this was the explanation, which sucks for science journalism and more generally civil and technological society everywhere.
> However, I stand by the fact that "mobile phones are bad for you" is an extremely irritating meme and I'd like to see it die.
Mobile phones are good for you is extremely irritating as well, probably just as much. All there is is research and evidence, you don't draw your conclusions based on things being 'irritating'.
You could discard pretty much all of science because it is at least irritating to someone, so we agree to not pick and choose but to follow where ever facts and evidence lead us, even if that requires putting to rest links that are suggested and that turn out to be false, lest we throw out a real possibility.
It is interesting that you would apologize and then you say the same thing again but in different words.
> The last I had heard, researchers believed that cell phones were at least partially to blame,
No-one can claim that, since no credible research has ever even hinted that. Hence, they are stating an unfounded opinion passed off as a poorly remembered fact. Not just misinformed, but attempting to perpetuate a wrong idea -> downvote.
As to eliminating a null hypothesis, that's just applying the precautionary principal to things that are salient, which is foolish and just pandering to the "new technology X is killing us" crowd. Additionally, mobile phones have been widespread for years longer than colony collapse disorder, so why even suspect a link?
</rant>