This is a fascinating case of what happens when you DON’T check the original sources. I know, this has happened to me as a blogger.
Of course, their article came from
Read them both and notice something interesting… they don’t link to the article that they appear to have gotten their information from. Which, as near as I can determine, is this one.
Some notes of interest about this article
- It appears to be self-published and therefore probably not peer-reviewed*
- It draws extensive conclusions from limited data
- No where in the article do the words ‘death’, ‘die’, ‘dying’, or ‘killed’ occur**
- In fact, no actual deaths were recorded after 20 hours of exposure
- In fact, no swarming occurred, even after 20 hours of exposure
Which means that the conclusions of all those articles about this particular paper are wrong.
What this article is, is a pretty good initial test and some good jumping off points for further research and that’s about it.
BTW: In case you’re wondering what ‘piping’ is… well, so am I. It’s not explained in the article very well, though it seems like a signal that bees give off before swarming. Unfortunately, I can’t find any external reference that uses this… although I admit I didn’t try very hard. If wiki doesn’t have it, then I’m not worried about it… that’s the least of these articles problems.
*At least one comment in the paper would cause it to be sent back for editing by the author and resubmitted. And if I can find one comment, then a reviewer could probably find more.
** The word ‘death’ occurs in one reference, but not in the original.