Bee's disappearing

[Aliantha]

Bee populations are lower in the area I live in also. It has been attributed mainly to the drought and not enough blossom which of course becomes a vicious cycle in many respects.

Lucky we've still got lots of ants and other creepy crawlies to do some of the pollenation.

[Elspode]

Bees have had a lot of problems for several years running, now. Mites, drought, fungus...I wouldn't be surprised if it is found that bee populations have simply collapsed from the accumulated ongoing stresses, and that no single, present cause is to be found.

This is going to make it a lot harder for me to mooch free mead from my several meadmaker friends.

[Aliantha]

My father has a batch of mead on the way. Maybe I'll send you a bottle of aussie mead. Dunno if it'd go through customs though.

[tw]

A leading suspect for bee hive depopulation has been an insecticide that causes insects to become confused. This insecticide has been accused of causing bees to not return to the hive - which would explain so many hives without even dead bodies.

Beekeepers recently testified to Congress on this problem requesting a major funding for research. Without these facts the insecticide companies refuse to stop selling their unique product.

The usual suspects (ie mites) have been eliminated from the suspects list. This problem has been ongoing and increasing for many years now.

[footfootfoot]

I knew insecticide companies had a hand in this, they are probably getting ready to unveil their new product:
"Now that the bees are all dead, try our new strain of pollination free plants. They're patented, so you need to send us 30% royalties on your annual harvest."

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

"Now that the bees are all dead, try our new strain of pollination free plants. They're patented, so you need to send us 30% royalties on your annual harvest."

Cheaper to have migrant workers do it. Give them a cotton swab and make them run around the fields brushing it over all the flowers.

"Pablo?"
"Que?"
"You're not doing it right."
"..." (heavy sigh) "Buzzzzzzz~zzzzzzz, buzzzzz bzzzzzzz...."

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Cheaper to have migrant workers do it. Give them a cotton swab and make them run around the fields brushing it over all the flowers.

"Pablo?"
"Que?"
"You're not doing it right."
"..." (heavy sigh) "Buzzzzzzz~zzzzzzz, buzzzzz bzzzzzzz...."

Or we could just let them run through the fields naked.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Cheaper to have migrant workers do it. Give them a cotton swab and make them run around the fields brushing it over all the flowers.

"Pablo?"
"Que?"
"You're not doing it right."
"..." (heavy sigh) "Buzzzzzzz~zzzzzzz, buzzzzz bzzzzzzz...."

[duck_duck]

Here is an article that claims cell phone radiation may be the cause.

"The theory is that radiation from mobile phones interferes with bees' navigation systems, preventing the famously homeloving species from finding their way back to their hives. Improbable as it may seem, there is now evidence to back this up."

link

[tw]

Originally Posted by duck_duck

"The theory is that radiation from mobile phones interferes with bees' navigation systems, preventing the famously homeloving species from finding their way back to their hives. Improbable as it may seem, there is now evidence to back this up."

Yes it is possible. But where are specific details on any of those studies. It sounds like Saddam's WMDs all over again.

Wifi operates at frequencies that are best for vibrating and therefore warming water. Same frequency used by microwave ovens. Can we conclude anything from this? Those authors might. The real answer: No. Can certain cell phone frequencies subvert magnetic navigation within a bee? Maybe. However we don't even know what bees use for navigation. First a study must be conducted to determine if the 'maybe' is a viable theory. Clearly that has not been done. Then more studies must follow to demonstrate the theory as fact.

Meanwhile, the article is too typical of what English and communication majors do - no technical citations - citing the isolated and rare case while ignoring other facts. I have a serious doubt about the authors' credibility since they cited other disreputable 'fears' (cell phone cause brain cancer) that are repeatedly rejected by science but are promoted by people with the same grasp of science as Cheney and George Jr.

The speculation is rather interesting - has merit. But messenger demonstrates why communication majors are little different from propaganda experts. That news article distorts what is and is not known - just like Saddam's WMDs and just like those who claim the intelligence community got the WMD thing wrong. The only wrong part was the messenger who could not put reality into perspective - ie an MBA named George Jr. Just another example of how we are supposed to learn from history.

I love the speculation: how great studies get started. The messenger completely fails to grasp the other facts: it is total speculation. The messenger also cites other junk science proclamations (cell phones cause brain cancer) to prove their point. Classic of how the naive promote urbane myths.

[Kitsune]

Our world has been bathed in RF energy of varying frequencies for decades and this is just now a problem? Unlikely.

The US also has the highest rate of honey bee decline, yet we have the lowest density of cellphone coverage when compared to European countries and Japan. It doesn't correlate.

[duck_duck]

In fairness to the author of the article he does point out the studies to see if cell phones cause brain cancer were inconclusive.
Kitsune's brings up the biggest question which the article didn't discuss. If cell phone radiation were the cause then why is it happening now and not years ago?

[tw]

Originally Posted by duck_duck

If cell phone radiation were the cause then why is it happening now and not years ago?

The answer starts by first learning underlying details. What frequencies are used for cell phones? What was using those frequencies 20 years ago?

The damning part. The authors probably have no idea and never asked - which is why English and communication majors are so easily deceived. Not because they did not know the answer. Because their education was so deficient as to not even learn they needed to ask such questions. Educations based in a grasp of reality results in one who never knows something until a grasp of underlying facts and reality is provided. Latter would then know such details are necessary.

A perfect example: Mr A sees light bulbs burn out when power is applied. Therefore that is proof that power cycling causes light bulb damage. Reality is different. Power cycling does not damage light bulbs. Hours of operation cause that destruction. But since Mr A never learned why he knows nothing by only using observation, then Mr A jumped to junk science conclusions.

Article implies same thinking: conclusions based only on observation because the authors did even ask simple questions such as which frequencies, how much power, and relationships between specific bee hive failures and cell phone service.

Most damning is that they even mentioned a brain cancer myth - which is exactly like Mr A claiming power on caused light bulb failure. Again, that is why English and communication majors are 'exampled' as how junk science gets created. Why must underlying facts and principles be learned? Where do authors even suggest or imply a grasp of how bees navigate? Only studies I saw reported that bees navigate by visually watching the sun. Why did they 'forget' to ask how bees navigate? It required then to think more like someone trained in science and reality.

Again, I still find the speculation intriguing. I wish the reporters had bothered to report relevant details rather than junk science myths about cell phones and brain tumors.

[Shawnee123]

.

[ferret88]

UK scientists are positing that cell phones are interferring with the bees' navigation and therefore are responsible for the decline...

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technolo...ut_people.html