Whats happening to the Bees?

this was reported a couple of months ago but i just heard about it on the radio today because they're having a hearing in washington about the disappearing/dying bee colonies. apparently 3/4 of all flowering plants (and most fruit, grain and vegetable crops) rely on bees for pollination. for some unknown reason(s) the bees are leaving their colonies. i had no idea that so many farmers rely on traveling beekeepers to pollinate their crops. could this be some sort of under the radar, natural disaster affecting the food supply? how serious of an issue do you guys think this is? here's an article i found from february.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/11/AR2007021100650.html

From what I've read it's serious, but they'll have a problem fingering one cause. Mites, Roundup in GM crops and beekeepers traveling a lot. What did it?

Serious long term assessment?

Best case scenario, wind pollenated crops will turn to key staples, a lot of vegans are going to starve to death or change their mind, and cattle feed prices will go thought the roof as hay harvests get worse and worse (alfalfa and clover both rely on insect pollination).

Worst case scenario, we're all just screwed.

Check out my earlier posts: Food Shortages on page 2 or 3 of this long term preparations section.

the head of the beekeepers union in Europe gives the world
4 years of life if the bees go down for good..note he said
"world" and not "people"..no plant reproduction--no nothing.

Pesticides, "killer bees," increased urbanization... more causes than answers.

Hopefully (!!!) if it's a slow enough progression, some other insect can step up and fill in the ecological void. If not, I'd better stock up on frozen dinners.

There are other species that can step in, but they aren't as easy to domesticate because they don't hive. Honey production is nil.

I just checked our orange tree in the back yard and there are bees all over it, one tree and about a dozen bees. That's not an indicator of the health of the bee industry -- as far as I know those are wild bees, not kept bees.

I checked the CA Dept of Food and Agriculture site and in response to the Euro Honey Bee problem they are considering using BumbleBees. There are options, we just need to explore them (not exploit them).

"...if it's a slow enough progression..."

Some beekeepers have lost 25% of their bees, some have lost 90%. Some haven't lost any. Everyone seems in a panic about the honeybees, but are any other kinds of bees being affected? And if they aren't, why not?

A rather odd addition to the equation: colony collapse disorder is also a problem in Spain and Poland, but not England, France, Italy, Germany... so far. One thing that came to my mind (possibly incorrect): America and Spain are both into GM crops. England has forbidden them, and the European Agricultural Union apparently tried them but the people won't buy GM crops.

The more I read about GM crops, the scarier it looks. Apparently, it has been clearly proven that the DNA from GM crops can be absorbed by ingesting a single meal of the crop, AND it can be acquired from inhaling the pollen or working with the crop during processing.

Here's a letter regarding GM crops that is very interesting, "Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments":
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/let2000-cn.htm

IOW, GM crops = our tax dollars at work.

Sue

Some of what I've heard is that the others are being hit. I haven't seen a wild hive in at least a decade, and there used to be at least one on the my parents land when I was a kid.

GM is all about control in the form of patents $$$ You can't patent nature so you modify it to something you can patent. If it gets all screwed up in the process. . .

Re Susan – Excellent comment about the possible loss of the Bee Population due to Genetically Modified (GM) Crops. For many thousands of years since human society have progressed from hunter gatherers through farming then through the industrial revolution and then ultimately urbanization, there is a long history of refinement in the quality and productivity of crops and farm animals. This has been done through selective breeding.
Without these advances in selective breeding for farming we would not be able to feed the human race. But GM crops are a step to far. Industrial and post industrial societies have lost the connection with nature and most cannot grasp the dangers, which GM crops and Cloned farmed Animals represent. Ultimately the push for GM and Cloning is purely down to corporate profit and greed through the use of intellectual property rights. Here in the United Kingdom we have seen the results of the disgusting Industrial farming practices - BSE in cattle. I hope we here in the United Kingdom have learnt the lesson.

The main problem I see is the fact that urban human beings have absolutely no idea where their food comes from. I find it shocking that many children cannot even tell that Chips (French Fries or Freedom Fries) are actually made from potatoes. The majority of small children can tell you what the McDonalds Corporate Double Arches Symbol looks like but can’t tell what a turnip or leek looks like. Ronald McDonald has aways gave me the creeps. Cheese does not come out of a pressurised can and meat and fish does not come readily wrapped in a cardboard box or plastic. Therefore the consequential use of GM food does not even register with hundreds of millions of urbanised city people. Could the Science fiction movie film Soylent Green become a reality? I think we should all heed the warnings from that movie. I think we should all have respect for the animals and food that we consume no matter the shareholders demands.


Gratuitus picture of a Scottish Highland Cow.

GM food is essentially banned in the United Kingdom, although you'll be surprised at the efforts the US corporations have tried to get this decision reversed. People have also voted with their feet. Even if GM crops were allowed to be planted, they would soon be destroyed by protesters and the general public would not purchase the food products made with GM crops.

If there is a link between Bee Colony numbers and GM food I would find this extremely worrying. If GM crops can effect the local bio-ecology in such a profound way then it may also effect the spider populations. The consequences of that are unthinkable. The Open letter link on your post was very disturbing. It may come about that GM crops may ultimately cause the failure of argiculture in areas where GM has been planted. The most disturbing thought of course is that once GM had been released into the Biosphere, it cannot be contained. Has there also been any reported increase in swarms of flies and other disease carrying insects also where GM crops have been planted in the United States?

During a recent famine relief in an African country the government of that country had passed a law to ban the use of GM crops in the country because of issues due to the poor being forced to pay royalties to the GM seed manufacturers – The US government would only allow GM food relief. The US government is actively promoting GM as part of its foreign policy.

Lets hope there will be a day of reckoning for the greedy corporate types who have ultimately infringed on Gaia's copyright and we can teach our children where our food ultimately comes from. The fertile earth which needs to be managed with responsibilty.

Good letter, apparently unread or under-appreciated. Monsanto has strong support in Washington DC so we'll probably need to get further down the slippery slope before people attempt to climb back up the hill. More likely though they'll first attempt another technique with yet more intellectual property.

Sue, I take back my comment about you being too cynical. Just what do you think happens to the DNA of everything single thing you eat? Or do you think that somehow the GM DNA somehow incorporates itself into your own DNA?

Reminds me of a young girl who was horrified to find out that there was a skeleton living inside of her.

Or people conned into signing a petition to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide.

IMHO, today's living requires a healthy dose of cynicism, skepticism, paranoia, and the ability to read between the lines!

That's the society we have and that's what it takes to survive and thrive.

I'm not a scientist, and there's a lot I don't understand about GM crops (among a ton of other things). But there's a lot NOBODY knows about GM crops, including the people who created them.

You don't think there might be a vast difference between what they might do to us, as opposed to what "normal" plants might do?

I've heard that problems are already showing up in animals raised on GM feed. But they're feeding those animals to us, and the GM crops themselves directly (esp in the form of rape/canola oil and soybeans, plus others)

England has barred GM plants from being grown there, but the English plant relatives of our GM crops are showing up with GM changes in them, so that means the pollen is being dispersed worldwide, not that 1/8th acre that the GM folks promised. What to you think that does to the biodiversity of future food plants?

But can just continue blindly following the trail of GM seeds that they're laying down for you... They're depending on people like you.

Sue

It's the splices that are scary. Like taking putting peanut enzymes into tomatoes so they last longer and are tougher- that's something that has been tried. Looks like a tomato, tastes like a tomato, splats like a tomato when you kick it, but if you have certain allergies, it kills like a peanut.

Others are actually designed to produce their own pesticides. Sure, it's only supposed to kill aphids or repel potato beetles, but if it scaring away or killing the insect pollinators, well....

Don't get me wrong, I think gene mods are great. Like pharmagoats, or the silk worms who's poo is twice as strong as regular silk.I think the idea of modding pigs to produce harvestable organs that are compatible with humans and have something like a quarter of the rejection rate is great, but I won't eat one. They are industrial equipment of a biological rather than mechanical origin. I don't want them getting into the wild under any circumstances. And if it's outside and not sterile (and we've heard "don't worry, it's sterile" bit before), then there is no certainty that it won't get into the wild.

does anyone know the likelihood (or possibility) of vegitation like weeds being effected in the GM process? basically is it possible we are inadvertently helping create a type of "super weed" that robs soil of nutrients and is extremely difficult to eradicate?

Unfortunately, the cause of CCD is not well understood. As much as I'd like to be able to point my finger at one causal factor (GMO), the evidence apparently isn't there (yet). Just theories some folks read as fact.

That said, I'm considering starting an apiary in an area where there is no large crop production, just fruit trees, wild blackberries and thistles, lots of thistles. If I do this (still studying) a healthy bee population (not pollinating commercial crops or collecting honey) will be the only goal. On the side the fruit trees, blackberries and thistles will be pollinated. I can whack the thistles later.

More HERE

Some thoughts on Bees and the madness of biofuels from Fidel Castro

So Castro is an expert on Biofuels now? What are you going to link to next, Kim Jong Il's musings on String Theory?

The only thing more pathetic than an aging, dying Stalinist are the dwindling numbers of people who still consider him relevant.

I would encourage people to read Castro's thoughtful remarks. Although he mentions bees, it's sort of an after-thought in this particular speech. But he does make excellent points about our newfound enthusiasm for ethanol, the impossibility of growing enough crops for ethanol production, how rising demand for food crops to make ethanol raises food prices for everyone, and other good points.

Well, ethanol is a different topic from this thread. Castro's comments about bees in this speech is rather brief.

Comrade-Primo Castro, and in all honesty pretty much everyone else, fails to grasp that ethanol engines will burn methanol just as easily, and paper and saw mill wastes can be used to feed microbes that will produce more methanol per pound than can be dreamed of with an equal quantity of sugar.

Can we apply those microbes to our daily garbage? So much waste.

Yes, it appears that superweeds may currently be in 'production'... inadvertently.

An article by Tom Clarke in the British magazine, Nature, says the problem is apparently cropping up with the wild relatives (weeds) of the GM crops. The pollen of one of the GM crops, yellow-flowered oilseed rape (Brassica napus) seems to have gotten into the atmosphere and pollinated a few wild relatives, bargeman's cabbage (Brassica rapa) in England, a place that has never allowed GM crops.

From the article:
"Opponents of transgenic crops in Britain and much of Europe fear that genes for herbicide tolerance or insect resistance in yet-to-be-introduced strains might spread in pollen to form invincible weeds... How human-inserted genes move, and whether they persist in the environment, are the ultimate questions... It is a single piece in a very large jigsaw..."

The problem is that GM crops were planted, forced onto other countries, and put into commercial use without any information WHATSOEVER as to their consequences.

Wouldn't it be amusing to discover that our ignorant scientists and politician have engineered the eventual end of mankind?

How do you prepare for THAT?

The problem with the geneticists and their approach is that they have a very simple view of the world. Many of the geneticists who are effectively randomly (although they would state otherwise) replacing genes in living organisms believe in evolutionary biology. They regard a gene as a component which can be manipulated so that the gene can be transplanted from one organism to another so as to give a desirable profitable attribute. They believe that because a gene or set of genes in the first organism provided a useful attribute, they can transfer these attributes into another organism. They then believe that the have created a new useful organism which suits their companies profit and loss sheet and have also generated intellectual property, which can then be protected under corporate law. They do not believe that there are any consequences in the very complex biological interactions which occur within the biosphere because of this genetic modification or transfer.

What the geneticists and evolutionary biologists do not want to comprehend is Professor James Lovelock's theory called the Gaia hypothesis. This hypothesis basically states that the planet we all inhabit is essentially one large organism which is self regulating and is therefore in a state called homeostasis. The evolutionary biologists do not like (radically oppose) this hypothesis because a fundamental principle of the Gaia hypothisis states that an organism or group of organisms can change its environment to suit their own genetic propagation - this is fundamentally opposed to the principles behind their believes of the laws of natural selection whereby the organisms propagation of genetic material is dictated by the environment. They think that by controlling the environment in which the new organism exists they can control the genetic propagation of the organism.

By forcing a change in any organisms genetics, through the process of transgenics, goes directly against the fundamental principle of the natural laws which regulate the Gaia. The 'collective intelligence' of the Gaia may respond to the new genetics within the organism in ways which are unpredictable and consequential to the other plant, animal and human species. The consequences are unknown and could potentially be so profound that the Gaia may be forced into a different homeostasis set point.

Bee Colony Collapse Disorder may be a consequential process of GM release.

*nods* Paper and wood waste, they feed on cellulose. The left over fibers can then be dried and used for wood pellet-type heating systems at any scale or recycled further.

Bentirran,

Um, so what you/Lovelock are saying is Mother Gaia is purposely wiping out innocent bees (and every plant/animal depending on them!) in an attempt to kill mankind?

Sounds like several women I know...


-Blast

I could have been criminal mastermind but no, I wanted to use my gifts to help people. And this is the sort of thanks I get?

That's it. Time for the sharks with frikkin' laser beams attached to their heads!

-Blast, a scientist who now realizes all his sacrifices have been wasted.

Sounds more like "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". I don't know about this Gaia stuff, but when an equilibrium is upset, there are consequences.

You break it, you own it.

That's getting into theology, as one of our "dirty pagans" (only when I've been in the bog for a few days) AND someone with a scientific background, I won't bother to shoot holes in your theory. I'm only going to giggle and say one this:

The Gaia Hypothesis can summed up as "you break it, momma spank". Bees didn't break anything, but humans are sure trying hard. Ipso facto, bees don't get spanked.

Are you thinking of some neopagan, spiritual concept of Gaia as Mother Earth, defending "herself" against the assaults of humanity? That's a different idea from what bentirran is referring to and the Gaia Hypothesis of James Lovelock. A hypotheticial scientific link between the introduction of GMO by people and bee colony destruction is not ipso facto impossible within the framework of the Gaia Hypothesis.

Then lets call it Earth Science Systems, which is an attempt sanitize for, I'll be polite, a wider audience due to cultural bias and bigotry. What's left is basically just an extrapolation of basic chaos theory into an environmental science setting with an arguably anti-human bias. Or Ras' equal and opposite reaction.

Lovelock's initial hypothesis was partially an attempt to reconcile theological and scientific belief systems and included an predeterministic factor of undefined origin. That factor is the significant difference between Lovelock's proposal and Earth Science Systems.


Oh, and FYI, a lot of people consider "neopagan" to be slightly insulting. Not quite a full fledged slur, but getting there. There is nothing new other than a sharing of beliefs among those who have survived ever attempt to stamp us out.

First, we the citizens of Lousy-anna, know it is time to throw a VERY big party.

Re ironraven



Actually Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis was not an attempt to reconcile any theological and scientific belief system into a new age or 'Pagan' belief system. In much the same way that Darwin's Origin of Species was not published for 10 years because of the difficulty and ridicule it would give the author, the Gaia hypothesis has unfortunately been ridiculed in much the same way even by scientists (evolutionary biologists) and geneticists who should know better. Because of the threat Darwin's theory posed to the established religious theological order, the Gaia hypothesis has been ridiculed also because of the association by the so called 'New Age or Pagan' religions in much the same way. The Gaia hypothesis is an attempt to describe the complex chemical and non linear thermodynamic and biological operators in a very complex non linear feedback control system. The main issue is the nature of the macroscopic natural laws which describes the Gaia system (Earth System Science). An analysis of the system quickly concludes that the extra-ordinary effect that life itself (the multitude of organisms, the complex interactions of plant and animal species) has on the stability of the Gaia system. Because of the dynamic nature of an organisms ability to multiply and propagate through out the Gaia system due to the genetics of the organism (DNA is actually a self replicating plastic which has its own unique quantum electronic configuration and therefore carries genetic information to be stored within the molecule for future combinative iterations) this has been theorised to cause the Gaia system's homeostasis. When I mentioned the phrase 'Collective Intelligence', what I meant was that there still is not a full understanding of how the stability of the Gaia system is a consequence of highly non linear grouped chaotic systems, such as climate, genetic biomass and volcanism systems interact to produce a stable Earth system. I think this was the most appropriate phrase to use.

The Gaia hypothesis is hard physical science not a theological reconciliation to prove the existence of a God through science. The theology begins to enter the discussion because even the Book of Genesis is a attempt to describe why the world we all know is here and why it is the way it is. Some may interpret the phrase 'collective intelligence' as a reference to an omnipresent force so as to re-enforce their believe in their faith whether it is neopagan or not.

Lovelock was employed by NASA to determine what physical circumstances would be required for life in general to exist on other planets. As a reference point the Earth was selected for obvious reasons. The exercise was also to determine what life's signature would be also. (Will not go there - Star Trek the Movie wasn't as good as the one with Ricardo Montalban). It soon became clear that there should be no life on the earth purely from the physical point of view. A new hypothesis for life on earth was required.

I don't understand the argument that the Gaia hypothesis has an anti-human bias. If there is one organism on the planet which exemplifies the principle of the Gaia hypothesis it would be the human race simply because of the capacity of the Human race has to change its own environment to suit its own future propagation. Of course that would imply that the Human race is still subject the the laws of nature and not above or out with nature. Most people I suspect feel they are not when in fact they are inextricably linked to the Gaia.

I'm sorry, I may have spoken poorly. The Gaia hypothesis does not have an anti-human bias; ESS does. The two aren't quite the same, just like Marxism and Leninism aren't quite the same. ESS doesn't really humans into the system as positive force, only negative or neutral. Humans are the only form of life on this planet able to actively take large scale steps to modify their environment, but to ignore the possibility of actions taken to have a net benefit rather than merely neutral effect and then relying on the biosphere to be self healing might not be biased. What else could we call it?

Becuase I'm not going to rule out the possibility of some of the more theoretical repairative actions and technologies we could develop just because they are complicated, and ESS supporters rule that out. I truly belive that humanity can take active steps to undo some of the damage we've done rather than going into a state of zero impact and sitting on our hands and watching. Perhaps then it is not the theory that is flawed, but those who back it. But it does not change that Earth Systems Science has been used to paint the species with a dark brush.

And I am familiar with the hypothesis, thank you for explaining it for those might not be however. I am also familiar with what Lovelock himself has said about it. Read his earliest writings, rather than what his co-author (her name escapes me at the moment) to the some of the later papers has written. She has tried to minimize the importance of the homeostatic balances in favor of her take on the theory which is that homeorhetic forces have a greater importance, and have been greater published. Lovelock had originally required a much greater emphasis on homestasis, and while his statements have never stated that a supernatural force is directly involved perhaps the life signature or collective intelligence that you make mention of and that Lovelock is a supporter of might be better described as a supranatural force.

Either way, saying "we don't understand it" and "but it isn't this" are the same time is unscientific. We've twisted science into the act disproving things, while truly scientific thought tries to prove things. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable if we just gave it a sterile variable name rather than implying that it has a sense of self? Personally, I'd rather call it Gaia or the Earthmother, and think of it as that which gives us life, and if you'd rather think of that as biological mechanics rather than philosophy or religion it is your choice.

I'm also inclined to say "magic" because it is faster and uses less time and thought than "technology or phenomena that my understanding and application of the universe does not yet include." Odd for a computer engineer, but I tell people all the time "it's computer geek magic, just accept that it works" when they ask me silly things like how a modem works and they want more detail than computers talking to each other. I also don't work out the proofs for things like LaPlace transforms or trig identities when I have to use them, I just grab my CRC book and accept that they work, either automatically or "automagically" depending on my mood.

It's about reaching equilibrium. The system will attempt to balance things and we might not like that balance -- so we'll mess it up some more to try and fix it. The problem is that we (mankind in general) are not satisfied with some parts of the system, so we change things thinking everything will be better. Not so, now the system has to react to reach equilibrium. One thing changes and the system compensates. We get GM corn and lose honeybees, people look for a connection. Nature can play tit for tat and win; nature always wins. We look for results next year, nature looks for balance over eons.

I think we are jumping to conclusions here. I haven't seen any hard evidence that GM crops are killing the bees. Aren't bees dying in counties that don't allow GM crops?

Y'know, this admonishment is rather ironic coming from you. That said, I do apologize if you are offended by my use of this term, and I'll refrain from using it in the future.

Another article on the problem. I only quoted a few paragraphs, read the rest of the article for more information. (BTW, whoever suggested that if the bee population collapses the entire flowering ecosystem collapses with it is just FEAR MONGERING. Bees are not the only insect or method of pollination.)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/insects/index.html
The plight of the honeybee

Are honeybees becoming an endangered species? Their numbers have been declining drastically across North America, more so in the United States than in Canada, but how serious is the problem?

The latest phenomenon threatening honeybees is known as "colony collapse disorder," referred to as CCD by scientists, beekeepers and farmers. It has not yet been detected in Canada — perhaps because spring results are not yet in — but a Canadian authority on bees says CCD in the United States is "an absolute catastrophe."

Dr. Peter Kevan, an associate professor of environmental biology at Guelph University in Ontario, says the cause of CCD remains a mystery. It might be caused by parasitic mites, or long cold winters, or long wet springs, or pesticides, or genetically modified crops — or stress.
.
.
.
"In Canada, we can be proud that Canadian beekeeping seems to be a gentler practice than in the U.S.A., especially when it comes to the major commercial operations there. Canadian beekeepers, by and large, seem to use fewer chemical and antibiotic control agents against pests and diseases than do their U.S. counterparts, and those that are used are applied more conservatively.

"Migratory beekeeping for pollination services is not so much a part of commercial beekeeping in Canada as it is in the U.S.A., and where it is practised in Canada, the moves are shorter and fewer. Nevertheless, vigilance is required. Beekeeping in Canada and the U.S.A. share too many similarities for Canadians to dismiss the problem out of hand." http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/insects/index.html

It's been a long time since I read Lovelock, but in the one book and the couple early articles of his that I read, I have never thought that he had any theological/philosophical intentions. In 1990, he stated, "Nowhere in our writings do we express the idea that planetary self-regulation is purposeful, or involves foresight or planning by the biota." (sorry, I don't have any exact reference for this but I believe it was at a conference. I found it on the web.)

I admit that Lovelock used rather literary language in talking about the Gaia Hypothesis at times, but in the context of the writing, it's clear that he is not claiming or even alluding that there is some "higher being" or greater conciousness. He's giving a romanticized packaging to physical or biological phenomena. When he refers to "collective intelligence," he defines "intelligence" rather loosely, likening the "collective intelligence" of the self-balancing Gaia to the self-regulatory capacity of the human body. He affirmatively denies any conciousness to Gaia.

I don't have any problems with belief in Earthmother, Goddess, or any other higher conciousness/supernatural entity, but ascribing it to Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis just doesn't seem to fit what he meant. Sure, people can take the Gaia Hypothesis and add stuff on and still call it Gaia Hypothesis, but that's not Lovelock's original idea. I concede that I haven't read everything of Lovelock, and that he could be unconciously influenced by the writings of other philosophers/theologians before him, but IMHO it just doesn't seem to come out in his writings. He's a scientist writing about the physical world.

No, there's really no evidence. We're just trying to count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin here. Bentirran is just saying that under the Gaia Hypothesis, one could be the effect of the other, while Ironraven is also saying that under the Gaia Hypothesis, it is out of the question. Now I think our little debate is, are we talking about the same Gaia Hypothesis?

"Pagan" is fine- the issue many take is the implication that there is something new.

I haven't read everything either, mostly his earlier work when he was rather literary in his choice of wording. I generally operate on the theory that if you are including that type of thing in a scientific paper, you intend it to be there.

Also, keep in mind that gravity, while essentially unchanged in description of the mechanics, has changed a bit since Newton as successive generations attempt to define it. It is possible that the newer papers have modified the Gaia Theory slightly with more recent modeling.

And I apologize to everyone- I was in a pissy mood and took things into the personal more than I should have. I had abandoned my scientific detachment.

Tosses Ironraven another SPAM-cheddar sandwich and a flagon of mead.
No problems mate. It happens to all of us.

-Blast

Latest hypothesis is cell phones

A very interesting theory. I wish they had said who or where the research had been conducted that led to this theory, becuase I'd be interested in looking at the actual data.

Bees being about the only "industrial" bugs other than silk worms would be ones that would spot it. There has to be an organization that organizes butterfly watchers and has data about sightings. I'd also look at the birder clubs, but there are a lot of other factors that are going to come into play to, any of them could also be effecting the bees.

The only problem with theory, and the part that is almost comforting, is back in the 60s, there was something called "disappearing colonies". Very similiar to colony collapse now, but no where near as wide spread and the failed colonies' honey wasn't shunned by scavengers. I've heard that a few times in the recent phenomena.

The other part of it is, isn't that when the African bees were imported?



"Equally alarming, blue-chip Swedish research revealed that radiation from mobile phones killed off brain cells, suggesting that today's teenagers could go senile in the prime of their lives."

Yeah, anyone who's spent much time on a college campus in the past few years and loathes cellphones would believe this.

The main problem with the Cell phone theory is that the Colony Collapse Disorder would have happened in the UK a few years before the US as the Cellular Technology infrastructure has been in place in greater density and for a longer period within the UK.

I used to work for a company that designed and manufactured the microwave components that went into the Seimens, Ericsson and Nokia Cellular base stations (also military and NASA microwave communications components also). Most of the excutives and top engineers who work for these companies limited their use or do not own their own products.

I'm sure it won't take long before someone blames the mysterious goings on at that most secretive of establishments in Alaska run by the US military for the demise of the Bees. You know that part of Alaska on Google earth near the Canadian Border, which is completely Blacked Out for some apparent reason.

This makes sense as a possibility.

Where are the cell towers located vis-a-vis the crops and the hives? What frequencies are the cellphones -- analog or digital? How about the microwave links connecting the towers? It's not just one or two cellphones, it's a network and it's all over. I'll bet every farmer and beekeeper has a phone on all day. This hypothesis needs testing quickly to determine true impact of the network and if true, eliminate frequencies that interfere or move the towers away from the crops.

New thought: Do you guys move your colonies around like the crop follower beekeepers do in the US?

As people walk around, the location of their cellphones change. What if the cell phone signals don't hurt the bees so much as play tricks with their navigation. The network that the bees were using to navigate is altered so the bees can't find home and they die.

A little research to correlate where the beehive was relative to the cell towers when the bees went missing would help. Tough to do historical research on individual cell phones, but should be easy to test in the field.

Do these big farms use Nextel to stay in touch?

Yes, but do you know if cell phones around the world don't always use the same frequencies? Different frequency, potentially different effects. Also, what wattage are UK towers emitting?

Of course, the official words is that it isn't happening in the UK but there reports from bee keepers of failed hives in numbers similar to what we've seen in the US. "Rumor control"?

More info on how honeybees navigate

I don't think that the problem lies with Bee Navigation, I think the issue is to do with the following;



There could be a chemical in the environment caused by GM crops which is behaving in the same way as the pheromone eythl oleate but is a much more powerful and longer lasting chemical. Bee Navigation is mostly due to the nature of plane polarized sunlight and microwaves from Cell phones are not able to re-polerize the sunlight into a different direction.

EDIT

The biochemical agrochemical industry really needs to held to account.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5631205-description.html

That doesn't answer the question of why the subject bees don't return to their hive and the dead bees aren't found in its vicinity. Also, IIRC, the bees remaining in the hive are not afflicted. Navigation seems to be a valid issue. GM crops may be a problem with bees, but not necessarily with CCD.

Actually I think this actually explains it quite nicely, if there is another chemical which is preventing the nurse bee from maturing into forager bees over a long period of time lets say by a factor of 10 then the overall effect after a period of time, say a few months especially over the winter period, would be that the foraging bees would die away naturally (there life time is 7-10 weeks) but there are no more foraging bees to fill the ranks (this is because they are still nurse bees). Additionally the energy that would have been brought back by the foraging bees has now been diminished making the situation even more critical for the hive overall. Inside the hive it would appear as normal. The nursing bees would still be tending the hive and the foraging bees would become more and more notably absent until the criticality point is reached and the hive is completely abandoned when the queen and nurse bees leave the hive.

When chemicals similar to the pheromone eythl oleate are being sprayed on GM crops to act as a defoliant. I am beginning to see a much more powerful link. By the way is the patent holder the same person who was involved in this link -

http://www.nalusda.gov/speccoll/findaids/agentorange/text/03812.pdf

Hmm US army - 1970s - defoliants - Agent Orange

EDIT

Actually the cell phone towers do use the same frequencies and the same power ranges all over the world. I used to tune the frequencies for the circulators that went into the cell base stations. These devices went into all the Cell networks base stations through the world because Semiens, Ericsson and Nokia had most of the cell base stations market even in the USA. All your cell phone providers will be using these companies for the base stations. Almost all cell networks throughout the world now use GSM and the GSM cell phones use frequencies within four different frequency bands :


850 MHz (824.2 - 848.8 MHz Tx; 869.2 - 893.8 MHz Rx)


900 MHz (880-2 - 914.8 MHz Tx; 925.2 - 959.8 MHz Rx)


1800 MHz (1710.2 - 1784.8 MHz Tx; 1805.2 - 1879.8 MHz Rx)


1900 MHz (1850.2 - 1909.8 MHz Tx; 1930.2 - 1989.8 MHz Rx)

OK, I hadn't realized that GSM had become as standardized, I thought there were still a lot of countries that had legacy networks to support the older protocals. And does everyone use all four bands? Or as some of them not utilized in some countries?

What I've read indicates the forager bees are dying away from the hive, the dead aren't being found in the hives vicinity. That tells me they got disoriented/lost. If foragers die off and then the nurse bees are forced into the forager role early (due to not being fed the pheromone) and then they die off for the same reason as the previous generation of foragers, who's left to do the nursing? The hive gets younger and younger until it cannot function.

There are lots of variables in this problem but it would seem that a controlled study should be able to varify or discount some of these hypothesis' quickly.

Someone said previously that farmers aren't really dependent on foreign honeybees for their crops because there are wild bees that will do the job.

Yes there are working wild bees, but you have to make some effort to keep them around to be there to pollinate the crops when the crops need pollinating. Farmers have done their absolute best to wipe out food sources and habitat for useful wild insects. If you've ever traveled through farm country consisting of many 1000-acre single-crop farms, you don't see much in the way of native habitat, do you? So where are the native bees supposed to come from when they're expected to take over the duties of the honeybees?

My next question: Everyone is concentrating on what is happening to the honeybees. Is anyone checking out the wild bees? Is the source of the problem affecting the wild bees, too?

By the way, the problem isn't happening (or very much) in England, so one might suspect that cell phones are not the problem.

We tamper with Nature at our own risk. Nature doesn't care whether we exist or not.

By the way, people would do well to remember that all religions ---EVERY SINGLE ONE --- are manmade.

Susan, I just can't resist...

If humans "tamper with Nature at our own risk" but at the same time you insinuate that humans are just another part of nature, nothing more, then how can we tamper with it?

By your definition, whatever we do is always "natural". Does a beaver tamper with nature when he builds a dam?

The US wild bee population got hammered hard back in the 80s by some kind of parasite. I've seen numbers ranging from 25 to 80% hive failure in the wild as a result, I haven't seen much about how well they've recovered. I will say that I haven't seen wild fruit trees in Vermont and New Hampshire with a decent yield in well over a decade, for what it is worth.

This story is just hitting the mainstream media, with little mention of GM crops as a possible factor. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18274416/

"If humans 'tamper with Nature at our own risk' but at the same time you insinuate that humans are just another part of nature, nothing more, then how can we tamper with it?"

I've read your question about a dozen times now, and it still doesn't make any sense. Maybe I'm more tired than I realize.

If armadillos could create atomic bombs, an endless stream of poisons aimed at the environment, and create lambs from moldy cheese and toenail parings, they would neither be part of nature NOR negatively affecting it?

Do we live in a vaccum and I haven't noticed???

Sue

If the above was true then this shouldn't be possible



right? I mean if we can jack up the system by toying with stuff we shouldn't be toying with then Gaia isn't doing her job very well. :-)

Humans were a poor invention. Mean, destructive, irresponsible... what the English call 'a spanner in the works'.

Run a Ferrari at 175 mph with the oil pan drain plug in the garage. Is the result the Ferrari's fault or the mechanic's?

Very true. But we can also be loving, kind, generous, self-sacrificing, etc.

Humans are like a box of chocolates... you just never know what you're going to get!

And people get really upset if you take a bite out of one then put him/her back in a box...

-Blast

I've been following some of the developments on Colony Collapse Disorder. There have been a few articles within the last couple days regarding gene sequencing tests being used to find possible culprits.

More CCD Clues

And More

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-bees26apr26,1,367041.story

Maybe it occurs because we’re spraying pesticides on genetically-modified fungus while using our cellphones during the occurrence of sunspots!

Well, at least now they have some evidence to back up a hypothesis.

Here's an interesting article on how we treat our honeybees: http://www.acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/May07_HaukBees.pdf

It also explains what 'royal jelly' is, and how it's produced... yuck!

Acres U.S.A. is a magazine dedicated to sustainable farming... fascinating reading.

Sue

No doubt we are headed in a bad direction.

Albert Einstein is reported to have said, “If honeybees become extinct, human society will follow in four years.”

Dave

He never said that. See Snopes.

Thanks Susan very interesting

Interesting developments in the CCD story... (maybe)

A story was forwarded to me via email regarding CCD and organic beekeeping. I'm trying to find the story on major news service sites, but haven't run across anything yet to corroborate it.

I'm checking for obvious reasons... You knowv why... Because of those BS emails sent when some schmoe is pushing one agenda or another and they don't care if they lie about it or not... Basically so I don't look like a big chump...

In brief, the essence of the story is that organic beekeepers are reporting that they are only suffering bee losses that are on par with the average year and thus far in the community of US organic beekeepers there have been no instances of CCD.

If it's true, it could be a great and hopeful story.

If I find out more, I'll pass the story along.

And on a side note, my previous comments are not directed toward the growing number of organic farmers. I buy about 75% Organic Foods half of that locally grown, and love those people... Especially for bringing the taste back to tomatoes... And melons...

That is excellent news. There may be some lessons here for the non-organic bee keepers.

On the subject of honeybees, a couple bees found themselves in our home today trying to get out through a window. Bees being such a hot topic I felt a touch from my conservationist side and I put my hand down to give them a ride outside. One rocketed as soon as we were outside, the second just kept walking all over my hand until I took him over to our orange tree so he could explore there. Cool very non-aggressive.

American honey bees only get aggressive if you mess with thier homes. Like most of us, they just want to be left alone and not use thier big sting.

And it is very interesting to hear that about the organic bee keepers; I'm going to hunt for more data from them. Bees, bats and frogs are good barometers of health in an area.

I wouldn't have given them a hand if I thought it would get me or the bees hurt; my lack of aggression comment was just an observation. I need to learn more about organic bee keeping also. Might be something to take up when my situation changes.

If that is true, it may be a matter of amount of whatever the bad stuff causing the problem is, because even organic growers with bees can't really control where their bees go. Bees can travel up to 6 miles from their hive, and few (if any) organic farms (even combined farms) wouldn't be that size. Of course, maybe the honeybees prefer to stay in the organic area, if they can tell the difference.

It's an interesting concept, and one that I would love to find was true.

Sue

They probably can- thier sense of smell makes a dog look snoutless, and IIRC they see into the UV spectrum so they might be able to actually see if something has been applied recently.

I'm just glad I don't see in the UV spectum. *shudders*

Hearing of this Great and Concernable Matter lately, -I've decided to make something of a Point, -of seeing how my Local, Wild Bees are Doing!

I'm Happy to report that my Local, (West PA, USA), ordinary Honeybees, -seem to be doing Quite Normal and All Right! Here on the White Clovered Grass, -of a typical Sunny, Summer, Afternoon!

One of the Causes of Concern, -concerning Honey or other Bees, -has been recent Arrivals on the Scene, -of New Mite Pests and the like! In addition to the Highly Destructive Varroa Mites and such. _themselves I think New Arrivals on the Scene, -Not all that terribly long ago! (I just could be Incorrect on that one though!, -I am somewhat Foggy on this!).

I've also had a Yen to sometime Try my Hand at Beekeeping! Now and over the last number of years!

This was interesting, and cleared up a lot on this issue for me:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mvanishingbees.htm

(This is a site I have read for years and always found to be very well-researched and seemingly free of bias.)

Dave

Bigmbogo,

Thanks for the link. Once again the sky ISN'T falling.

-Blast

Kind of makes me wonder what the next big media-driven ecoscare is going to be.

Thanks for identifying this website. I've been on it for 20 minutes and found it to be addictive. I also like The Junk Science Webpage for clearing up nonsensical media reports.

That was an interesting website, thanks.

I love his sixth point especially:

Sixth, it's never a good idea to trust what the media are telling you.

That turns out to be good advice, well beyond the bee issue

Old thread, New Theory.

Old thread… Another potential lead.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/06/bee.disorder/index.html

Just watched a documentary on the show "Nature" tonight that focused on CCD. According to the shows website:



http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/bees/update.html

Great show. Anyway, the most interesting part of the program was a segment about an area in China where all of the bees had been wiped out by pesticide use so they now manually pollinate their pair trees one blossom at a time using a stick with chicken feathers attached to the end. Man, talk about a labor intensive.

"... an area in China where all of the bees had been wiped out by pesticide use so they now manually pollinate their pair trees one blossom at a time ..."

But pesicides and herbicides and chemical fertilizers are all designed to make the farmers' lives easier, don't you know??? Ask Dow or Monsanto, they'll tell you.

Sue

There you go again Sue, speaking common sense in a public forum/platform!!!!!

That's about 3 times today,,,,we won't report you to the Thought Police though!!!!

I'll try to control myself.

Maybe.

Sue

Old thread, possible new cause:

"Zombie" Fly Parasite Killing Honeybees


Pete

I've been following this development also. This parasitic fly is known to go after bumblebees and paper wasps, and has only recently been noticed in tame honeybees.

We had a collapse in the population of our wild bumblebees last spring, and don't know why. They rebounded later in the year, but it's a worry. No bees, no food.

I wonder what the habitat range of this nasty little fly is?