Talk:Pollen
From Academic Kids
"see photomicrograph at right", yet the caption said the image was made by a scanning electron micrograph. Isn't the image, therefore, an electron micrograph?
Nutritional values
This statment, as written needs editing, but I am not yet ready to do this myself.
"Pollen is sold as a nutritional supplement, marketed as "bee pollen" (even though it is of course from flowers).
It has no biological effect at all,"
This last phrase is quite debatable, and certainly does not represent a neutral point of view. Pollinator 03:42, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
..."except in triggering allergic reactions."
This depends on what pollens are present, and it is also debatable whether consuming the pollens orally would have the same effect on the body as breathing them. Pollinator 03:42, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
There was no response to my previous comment, so I simply removed the misleading line.Pollinator 18:54, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- While it is debatable, here's a source (citing several studies) that backs the information up; I'm sure it can be reintegrated in a more NPOV-appropriate way. [1] (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/bee.html) --LostLeviathan 01:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Featured pictures
Note that this relatively short article includes TWO featured pictures. Apparently this topic is better explained with photons than words. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 15:50, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
- You could replace the bee in the hay-fever section with Image:Bumblebee closeup.jpg and make it three for three ;-) -- Solipsist 19:25, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
