> I feel that the study was well done, other than the duration being to short to completely satisfy all doubters.
Well, I think it is well known that I am not a small cell apologist -- you might call me a small-cell agnostic -- but I do believe in fair play and also understand the story. I've been on-site twice to investigate the phenomenon.
Please understand that I do not wish to start the whole pointless and repetitive argument up over again, but without having read the study, I must say that to do justice to the whole idea and test the Lusby concept properly, bees need to be run for a whole year at minimum, since there are apparently seasonal effects, and other things happening that just don't get going and settled down in as short a period as the duration of this test..
That having been said, the test did attempt to isolate and test one specific aspect -- small cells alone, and in the short term. This is a worthwhile thing to examine, and this is how science is typically done: try to eliminate all but one variable and see what happens.
When what is being tested, however, is a set of effects that only work as a set, synergistically (my dictionary says this is not a word), and when each effect in isolation may not seem potent by itself, testing is much more difficult.
There are a number of anecdotal reports from various people as to their experiences. Some I believe,and some I do not. Dee, I believe did what she says she did and it seems to work for her. What we have never been able to establish is whether it can work for others and under what conditions.
This study proves that small cell is not the whole picture, so, IMO, again without reading the study, I don't think the issue is settled.
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L
|
