Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Studies Link Pesticides To Bee Colony Collapse Disorder

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the sorry-for-breaking-your-species dept.

Science 128

T Murphy writes "Neonicotinoid pesticides, designed to attack insects such as beetles and aphids, have been shown to harm bees' ability to navigate back to the hive. While initially assumed safe in low enough, non-fatal doses for bees, two papers have shown that may not be the case. Although the studies don't directly study the Colony Collapse Disorder, the scientists believe these pesticides are likely a contributing factor."

cancel ×

128 comments

Well, those scientists should "bee" careful! (0)

Petersko (564140) | more than 2 years ago | (#39523791)

...lest they get sued by "big insecticide".

In Other words... (-1, Troll)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#39523819)

"Although the studies don't directly study the Colony Collapse Disorder, the scientists believe these pesticides are likely a contributing factor."

We have a hypothesis so we want people to panic and give us funding so we can actually see if there is a direct relationship between Colony Collapse Disorder.

Re:In Other words... (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39523873)

Considering the importance of bees to agriculture, I think the potential of any link between pesticides and colony collapses warrants both extreme concern and funding.

But hey, maybe you're looking forward to do the day we eat nothing but algal cultures or soylent green.

Re:In Other words... (5, Insightful)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 2 years ago | (#39523905)

Considering the importance of bees to agriculture, I think the potential of any link between pesticides and colony collapses warrants both extreme concern and funding.

But hey, maybe you're looking forward to do the day we eat nothing but algal cultures or soylent green.

I'm looking forward to the day when we use logic and reason instead of emotion and fear to get science funding and sway public opinion.

Re:In Other words... (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524139)

Why do advertisers use sexy models? Because it works.
Why so scientists use FUD? Because it works.
You can't stop it anymore than you can stop teens from sneaking-out and from having sex. It's human nature to do what works to achieve the objective desired.

Re:In Other words... (1)

bsane (148894) | more than 2 years ago | (#39525633)

Why so scientists use FUD? Because it works.

And it destroys scientific literacy in the process.

Re:In Other words... (0)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#39526797)

Why so scientists use FUD? Because it works.

And it destroys scientific literacy in the process.

Not as much as vaccines. They destroy scientific literacy more than anything.

Re:In Other words... (4, Insightful)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524145)

I'm looking forward to the day when we use logic and reason instead of emotion and fear to get science funding and sway public opinion.

I am not sure if you are including this situation in your thinking. The logical move is to find alternative pesticides that do not harm the bees. Bees pollinate our crops in most areas of the world. We need them.

Re:In Other words... (2)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524251)

I am not sure if you are including this situation in your thinking. The logical move is to find alternative pesticides that do not harm the bees. Bees pollinate our crops in most areas of the world. We need them.

The logical move is to actually do a study before announcing that the pesticide is destroying bee colonies. Once we decide to start looking for an alternative to something that isn't proven to be doing harm we take away resources that could be used to find the real problem if it turns out our initial assumption was wrong. While we are all busy looking for a bee friendly pesticide we could be ignoring a fungus or a mite, giving them time to do even more damage.

Re:In Other words... (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524523)

The logical move is to actually do a study before announcing that the pesticide is destroying bee colonies.

They haven't announced that pesticides are destroying bee colonies, so your point is moot.

Re:In Other words... (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524681)

The logical move would be to read and understand the research before making things up. The scientists have said these classes of pesticides might be the cause and more study is warranted. If they are right the next move is what to do which may include limiting the usage of these pesticides or their methods of dispersal.

Re:In Other words... (1)

dannys42 (61725) | more than 2 years ago | (#39525677)

The logical move is to actually do a study before announcing that the pesticide is destroying bee colonies.

Agreed. And the logical move is to get funding in order to perform the study. Research like this usually means getting funding from the government (i.e. politicians). So, the logical move by the scientists was to point out and say, "hey someone found a possible relationship here, we should investigate this further." And that's exactly what happened.

Re:In Other words... (1)

lambent (234167) | more than 2 years ago | (#39525151)

No, the logical move is to develop sustainable agriculture practices that don't need to rely on pesticides. By definition, any pesticide is poison, and will certainly affect something else down the line. Even if we find an alternative pesticide that does not harm the bees, it will harm something else.

Re:In Other words... (1)

someSnarkyBastard (1521235) | more than 2 years ago | (#39527027)

Hey, fun fact, there are currently ~7 billion people alive today, largely due to industrial agriculture practices such as pesticides. Without them we could not produce nearly as much food as we do as cheaply as we do. So, keeping that in mind, what do you suggest we do in the interim while waiting for pesticide-free agriculture practices to develop?

Re:In Other words... (2)

lambent (234167) | more than 2 years ago | (#39527333)

Hey, there, snarkopotamous. Did I say to stop all current agricultural practices RIGHT THE FUCK NOW so we can all step as one into the bright utopian future?

No, I did not.

It's this type of blatant refusal to address issues coherently and the related knee-jerk argumentativeness that keeps progress from being made.

Fun fact: a hell of a lot of those 7billion people who are alive today are very slowly and painfully starving because the system that IS in place doesn't adequately meet their needs anyway.

Also, cheap food is typically less nutritious, as well. What do I propose we do? Anything at all. But people like you try to reframe the discussion, so I suppose we'll just sit on our hands and do nothing, year after year. Which is what we are doing anyway.

Ho hum.

Re:In Other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39526519)

Bees pollinate our crops in most areas of the world.

I have it on pretty good authority that a leaf blower works just as well for this task, if not better.

Re:In Other words... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39524211)

Unfortunately, the politicians who control funding and public opinion don't understand logic and reasoning.

Re:In Other words... (2)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524569)

I'm looking forward to the day when we use logic and reason instead of emotion and fear to get science funding and sway public opinion.

There are several Utopian cults who promise what you seek, it is delivered right after the Kool-Aid is served.

Re:In Other words... (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524779)

Logic and reason say that bees are critical to agriculture and doing nothing about colony collapse, not investigating possible causes, could have dire consequences.

Is spelling out those possible consequences an appeal to emotion and fear? Maybe. If it wasn't needed then the plain and obvious logic would have already had the effect you desire.

Re:In Other words... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#39526057)

I'm looking forward to the day when we use logic and reason instead of emotion and fear to get science funding and sway public opinion.

Well, here's hoping the public starts responding to logic and science more than fear and PR. Bees pollinate 90% of the worlds crops, and they're dying out quickly. We need to identify why they're failing and then protect them or else we're going to face big food shortages. I don't care how it gets sold to the public or even IF it gets sold to the public. It's fine with me if tax dollars are spent on this research without the public even realizing it, so long as that doesn't jeopardize it.

If that sounds elitist, sorry, but I really stopped valuing public opinion when public opinion said we should invade Iraq because Saddam had a bunch of WMD and was behind the 9/11 attacks. [worldpublicopinion.org]

Re:In Other words... (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39527155)

I'm looking forward to the day when we use logic and reason instead of emotion and fear

This applies to everything, but it isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

I'd be glad if we used logic and reason for a lot of things, not just science:

* Education

* Health care

* Public policy

* Foreign policy

* The military

I could list so much that I would run out of space.

It's Not as Simple as You Make It Out to Be (4, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524003)

Considering the importance of bees to agriculture, I think the potential of any link between pesticides and colony collapses warrants both extreme concern and funding.

Well, I don't think you read the article. There's a complicated situation here. It's not that the toxin is killing the bees directly but:

“So far, they mostly require manufacturers to ensure that doses encountered on the field do not kill bees, but they basically ignore the consequences of doses that do not kill them but may cause behavioral difficulties,”

So we have this situation where we believe a non-lethal dosage of this pesticide ruins the bee's ability to navigate back home which is a very serious problem. The real issue is that there's no way to quantify this and study it prior to releasing or approving a pesticide. So you have this situation where these folks are saying "we want to use technology to better our productivity in agriculture" and then you are levying unfathomable responsibility on the corporate giants who are developing said technologies. It's not as black and white as you make it out to be. I mean, how do you know that the pesticide doesn't make the bee a murderous backstabber in the colony years down the road?

I'm hesitant to comment on anything like this anymore, it got pretty ugly last time I asked follow up questions [slashdot.org] .

Re:It's Not as Simple as You Make It Out to Be (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524243)

Human analogy:

Alcoholics don't die immediately.

Re:It's Not as Simple as You Make It Out to Be (3, Interesting)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524743)

I must have missed the part where the GP was laying responsibility at the corporations' feet for not figuring this out prior to putting the pesticide on the market.

What I read was the straightforward and common sense argument that once science discovers a negative side effect of this pesticide that was previously unknown, and could plausibly contribute to the serious problem of colony collapse, that we should investigate it.

Considering the importance of bees to agriculture, I think the potential of any link between pesticides and colony collapses warrants both extreme concern and funding.

What's not as simple about that as it was made out to be?

Are you saying maybe we shouldn't investigate the possible link between pesticides harming bee's ability to navigate and colony collapse? I guess because if a link was confirmed this could hypothetically mean we would want to make corporations have to be more thorough and test pesticides for non-lethal effects even though it is difficult and ? So to prevent that horrific future from coming about, we should refrain from figuring out of the link exists?

Well whatever, I don't care. The link should be investigated. When we know the truth then we can worry about the ramifications for future policy.

Re:It's Not as Simple as You Make It Out to Be (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39525697)

Wow dude, talk about engaging in exactly what you're criticizing. Where did eldavojohn say that he didn't want this link investigated? He calls it a "situation" meaning that now there are complications that are virtually endless and possibly untestable moving forward ...

Re:It's Not as Simple as You Make It Out to Be (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39525991)

He said "it's not that simple" in response to "this should be investigated" (which does not imply the research itself would be simple), followed by a screed about how corporations would find it inconvenient to do so in the future. So... I inferred a meaning, and asked if this was what he meant. If that's not what he meant then "it's not that simple" in response to "this should be investigated" makes no sense. If he wants to clarify, he can feel free.

Re:It's Not as Simple as You Make It Out to Be (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39526095)

"It's not as simple as you make it out to be" because how in the world would you test this hypothesis that this chemical makes these bees lose their bearings while out foraging? Give us real concrete goddamn examples of how you quantify a bee's actions and behavior like the expert in the article was quoted as saying. You can demand a study all you want ... how it's done though?

Re:It's Not as Simple as You Make It Out to Be (2)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39526433)

They did it by tagging individual bees with transmitters and observing their habits outside the nest. Notice past tense as this is the research they already did. RTFA maybe?

The next step, which is what was under discussion in this thread, is associating this effect with colony collapse syndrome. And that you'd do by correlating collapses with the use of this pesticide, and by looking to see if the effects observed in these studies (less food coming into the nest, more bees dying while away from the nest) are correlated with colonies that subsequently collapse.

And I'm not even an entomologist! I think the entomologists who already did the research that you couldn't even fathom have an even better idea than I do of how to conduct the follow-on studies they say should be done.

Oh and if that "How in the world would you even do that?!" isn't your way of justifying "so therefore let's not", you really need to explain.

Re:It's Not as Simple as You Make It Out to Be (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39525103)

Actually, there are perfectly valid ways to quantify these things, they just didn't WANT to and nobody made them.

Even before modern science, herbalists knew to watch how animals behave after ingesting something rather than just seeing if they live or die.

You see a man drink a glass of something on the table. He retches instantly and falls to his hands and knees and crawls away slowly babbling about the queen of grapes going to war with the California raisins. The next day he's fine. Conclusion, the substance in the glass is a perfectly good milk substitute for the school lunch program?

Re:It's Not as Simple as You Make It Out to Be (4, Interesting)

Dasher42 (514179) | more than 2 years ago | (#39525143)

There's a troubling aspect of this thinking, and that's that people expect there to be a single smoking gun and either the pesticides are it, or there aren't.

Living beings don't fit neatly into that. They process a large variety of inputs and can adapt to a number of stressors and heal; in fact, in machine culture we seem to take it for granted that living systems are at 100% because we're used to machines that are either working or very conspicuously broken.

Bees have been shipped about fields, worked harder than even their natures. They're exposed to crops now genetically modified to include pesticides in their pollen. The sprays being used are increasingly pushed into use for profit without review. This leaves them in such a weakened state that if a mite finishes them off, you can't say it was just one factor.

If you want a resilient system, you've got to pay attention to all of these factors.

Re:It's Not as Simple as You Make It Out to Be (2)

metrometro (1092237) | more than 2 years ago | (#39526607)

It's not that hard to quantify:

In parts of Europe, certain pesticides were banned. In those parts of Europe, bees came back.

Correlation isn't causation, but there's also a good theory of the mechanism, there's observed evidence of the mechanism at work with controls, and FFS the burden of proof is on the people folding the money.

Re:In Other words... (3)

thrich81 (1357561) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524013)

No problem, corn is wind pollinated so we'll still be able to live off of corn chips and high fructose corn syrup!

Re:In Other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39524573)

This should be moderated as "+5 Troll" but that wasn't an option so I didn't know what to pick.

Re:In Other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39525023)

That's one of those +5 Informatrollightfull comments.

Re:In Other words... (1)

willpb (1168125) | more than 2 years ago | (#39527463)

We'll also still have vanilla, onions, potatoes and paw paw [wikipedia.org] which is pollinated by other insects.

Re:In Other words... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39524073)

Mmmmm soylent green.. Its whats for dinner.

Nope (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524745)

But hey, maybe you're looking forward to do the day we eat nothing but algal cultures or soylent green.

Sadly, while soylent green is predominantly people, another key ingredient is honey.

Re:Nope (1)

St.Creed (853824) | more than 2 years ago | (#39527727)

Dear me, I'll just have to go for Soylent Green Pringles then :)

Funding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39525283)

How much funding is necessary to stop buying pesticides? Seems like anti-funding.

You're looking at the consequences all wrong (1)

Benfea (1365845) | more than 2 years ago | (#39526881)

If we lose bees, we do not lose all our crops overnight.

What happens instead is that the number of humans we have to devote to food production increases dramatically. Without bees or a decent substitute for bees, we would have to pollinate crops by hand, which is a very labor-intensive process. While this will not result in human extinction overnight, we are talking about a very drastic change in the kinds of civilizations we are capable of having. The less of your population you have to devote to food production, the more advanced your civilization can be.

If we had to suddenly devote a lot more human labor to food production, there would be profound effects for all of us for generations to come. We're talking about pretty scary stuff, but nowhere near as extreme as the complete loss of agriculture overnight.

This is very serious stuff, and I think we should err on the side of caution and ban these pesticides, but suggesting the instant loss of regular plant-based agriculture is a bit Henny Penny.

Re:In Other words... (4, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39523907)

Where the heck do you get "likely a contributing factor" == "everyone panic now! And give us more money."? This is how science works. These scientists are only publishing what their results will support and are not overstating the results. Other scientists will verify this work. Others (and possibly the same ones) will extend it if their conclusions have been shown to have validity.

Re:In Other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39524309)

Because he's a wanna corporate hack, that's why. Don't you know these days that if you suggest any evidence that a commercial product is harmful, you are in a funding conspiracy, possibly a vile leftist one?

Re:In Other words... (0)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524775)

Of course if you follow your logic. We would ban everything until we can prove it is safe. Pesticides are used to keep bad bugs off the crops, It was formulated with due diligence to not kill the bees. However there is some preliminary research that may mean there is an unknown side effect, and it should be studied. However this public statement that this Hypothesis may be a major factor, will only cause the wrong people to action. People who have bought the pesticides will still use it until they are told to stop, the same with producers. And they will fight tooth and nail until they got real evidence. In the meantime the Stupid Idiots will be protesting and creating a ruckus and taking the Hypothesis as fact, and if evidence proves that the Hypothesis is wrong then it is part of some conspiracy, in the mean times companies will need to retool just to silent the Idiots.

 

Re:In Other words... (1)

JustSomeProgrammer (1881750) | more than 2 years ago | (#39525071)

So aka, don't publish findings to try to secure grants for further research until said research is already done. Makes sense.

I didn't see anything calling for a ban. Just a possible link. I haven't even seen anyone saying they should ban it. I personally think it should be used more sparingly than it was before since there is a potential link since bees are so important to agriculture and the Colony Collapse disorder is a real major concern. If research shows that there is no real connection I don't see anything wrong with continuing to use it and if research shows there is a link, we need to stop using it. If a drug has shown a possible link to cancer in the majority of patients it is prescribed to, how would you feel about your doctor prescribing it to you if he knew that ongoing research was being done on the potential safety of the drug? It wouldn't be banned but I would prefer my doctor prescribe an alternative medication.

Re:In Other words... (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39526101)

Of course if you follow your logic. We would ban everything until we can prove it is safe.

I love it when "by that logic..." statements don't even try to follow the logic that was presented, but this one is even better because there was no logic regarding banning products provided at all!

Re:In Other words... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39526471)

Your overreaction is the exact root of the problem which you describe in others. The article makes it clear that scientists might have a cause to the bee problem and further study is required. You have taken it to cause panic (which has not happened) and bans (which were never suggested).

Re:In Other words... (1)

Omestes (471991) | more than 2 years ago | (#39526867)

My, that is a very nice man made of straw you have there!

Re:In Other words... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39525971)

It's typical conservative projecting. They think everything is a scheme to make money because with them pretty much everything is a scheme to make money. They think science is about power because everything is about power.

Also, the tendency to embrace simple answers to complex problems completely precludes understanding statements that essentially mean "I don't totally understand this situation, but I have knowledge/experience/research that makes me believe it might have something to do with X. It should be studied further to find out if that's true or not."

To a conservative that's weak because conservatives KNOW what's right and wrong and any evidence to the contrary is just ivory tower liberal thinking. That's especially true when the possible or probable conclusion would result in having to change behaviors, particularly profitable behaviors.

Re:In Other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39523921)

Step 1: Make a moderately random statement based on tangential evidence.
Step 2: Panic inducing press release.
Step 3: Government research grants.
Step 4: Generate inconclusive results, with hints of doomsday.
Step 5: More Government research grants! (goto step 4 as needed)

Re:In Other words... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39523943)

And, as we all know, /. summaries are always, always 100% accurate, unbiased, and a fair and thorough representation of the issue.

God help you actually RTFA.

Re:In Other words... (1)

WillgasM (1646719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39523945)

I fail to see the problem with that, other than the fact you've erroneously thrown the word "panic" in there.

Re:In Other words... this link existed for a 10yrs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39523955)

If you knew anything about anything, you would have known that specific classes of pesticides, like the nicotinoids , have been linked to bee colony collapses for over a decade!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid [wikipedia.org]

But I guess these systemic insecticides are just fine. Too bad they migrate *into* the plant and you end up eating them.

Re:In Other words... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39523983)

We have a hypothesis so we want people to panic and give us funding

While I think it's unfair, I realize this has become the conventional meme for looking at all scientific results, but you should understand that colony collapse already has people panicking. If things continue to get worse, farmers that rely on bees are going to be wasting a lot of money soon.

Well, except this is just one more study... (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39524015)

Several studies in the last year have indicated the same thing.
The evidence is stacking up pretty heavily at this point.

Nobody has panicked - these studies have been ongoing for the last couple years since the hypothesis was formed.
But, yes, there is some urgency in nailing it down before it starts affecting crop output.

Re:In Other words... (4, Informative)

Uncle_Meataxe (702474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524021)

> We have a hypothesis so we want people to panic and give us funding so we can actually see if there is a direct relationship
> between Colony Collapse Disorder

If you have been following the colony collapse story, you would already know that many entomologists suspect neonicotinoids as a possible part of the problem. Since pollination is a huge deal for agriculture, a lot of people really want to know the answer to CCD so it's not necessary to conjure up weird hypotheses to get funding. If you read any of the articles, you would also know that respected entomologists reviewing the papers thought they were well done.

Re:In Other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39524055)

Clearly you haven't been following CCD.

CCD is the effect of multiple factors in varying degress of severity. Pesticide/s, fungus, parasite/s, increasingly fluctuating local geographic weather patterns, all of these are playing a role in CCD. I'm skipping the specifics on these, since exactness varies from region to region, and in some cases per region, hive to hive.

Re:In Other words... (1)

dbet (1607261) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524157)

Both papers specifically study the effect of pesticides on bees. Colony collapse disorder is not even necessary to mention in the summary, not sure why he does.

Re:In Other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39524607)

"Although the studies don't directly study the Colony Collapse Disorder, the scientists believe these pesticides are likely a contributing factor."

We have a hypothesis so we want people to panic and give us funding so we can actually see if there is a direct relationship between Colony Collapse Disorder.

And panic you should however this would conflict with the interests and lobbing investment of the CORN industry and their allies, the pesticides and petroleum industries. Wait aren't these the same companies funding the majority of the collage laboratories?? How much funding is needed to study France where the beekeeper striked and got the neonicotinoid pesticides banned. CCD is not nearly present as before. Let just sit and wait to let the politician weigh in on it -NOT. As a not for profit beekeeper I say again "Panic you should".

Re:In Other words... (1)

Beorytis (1014777) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524685)

Since the papers are behind a Science paywall, I can't tell: Do the papers actually mention a connection to Colony Collapse Disorder? All I see is the mainstream press articles making that extrapolation.

Re:In Other words... (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524897)

And why is that wrong? It's the only way to get any science funded these days. I suppose they could go the whole evangelical "God wants you to give me your social security check" route, but that has a few ethical issues.

Re:In Other words... (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#39525223)

The sudden and drastic drop in the bee population has been ongoing for a few years now, and to date, no one has had a solid explanation for it. That an important part of our own food chain is rapidly and inexplicably disappearing in large numbers should be cause for panic. These studies point the researchers in a new direction. That's actually good news, as it may be bringing us closer to the real cause.
I should mention that I am old enough to remember when idiots like you were dismissing the systemic impact of DDT with similar language, whe all the birds began disappearing.

Re:In Other words... (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#39526479)

If all they want is money to study to see if there is a relationship between these pesticides and Colony Collapse Disorder, I do not have a problem with that. If, on the other hand, they want to ban the use of these pesticides on the basis of the study they have already done, I have a problem with that.

ASS DOGART SYNDROME (0)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 2 years ago | (#39523831)

everyone knows slashdot's got it!

I tried selecting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39523837)

the Funny comment filter, but there's nothing funny in this.

I doubt this will change 'cause we're talking hugh chemical Compaines.
By time enough evidence is available, it'll be too late. This country should
err on the side of caution; not side with corporations.

Re:I tried selecting... (1)

dbet (1607261) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524181)

Things won't change, not because of how big any company is, but because we can't just stop using pesticides unless you're comfortable with pretty much everyone you know dying of hunger.

Re:I tried selecting... (1)

Omestes (471991) | more than 2 years ago | (#39526971)

But the truly humorous things is that a large portion of the worlds crops are also fertilized by bees... So, perhaps in the end, either solution ends up in the same place.

Though I think we should hire little immigrant children to run around in bee costumes, with q-tips. Take that, bees!

(I kid... mostly)

useful applications (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39523851)

Now if only they could come up with something like that for lawyers...

This stuff is in your GMO food (0, Flamebait)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39523947)

The food was modified by the owner (corporation) to produce the pesticide internally. Which kills the bugs, harms the bees, and gets ingested into your body where it causes intestinal bleeding (for young or old individuals).

Yummy. ;-)

Oh and family farmers that refuse to use this GMO food, and prefer to use natural seeds that are not impregnated with pesticide, are routinely accused of copyright or patent infringement by Monsanto and drug into court (where the lawyer fees bankrupt them).

Re:This stuff is in your GMO food (4, Informative)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524151)

The food was modified by the owner (corporation) to produce the pesticide internally.

Wrong. It's a systemic insecticide, not related to GMO. You seem to be confusing this with BT.

Anyway, it's possible this is one of many factors involved in Colony Collapse. The scientists seemed careful to not repeat the "drinking 12 bottles of Hair Dye causes cancer in Canadian mice" study.

Re:This stuff is in your GMO food (0)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#39525819)

Monsanto's GMO corps are resistant to Roundup. So the GMO crops are relevant, Roundup is one of the pesticides that harms bees.

It's also true that Monsanto is ruthlessly aggressive towards farmers that don't toe the party line and use their seed.

Re:This stuff is in your GMO food (3, Informative)

Omestes (471991) | more than 2 years ago | (#39526993)

RoundUp, last I checked, was an herbicide, not a pesticide.

Re:This stuff is in your GMO food (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524161)

Stop making shit up.
  People who make shit like that up should be banned from the internet for a month.

Re:This stuff is in your GMO food (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524661)

>>>People who make shit like that up should be banned from the internet for a month.

Read the first amendment.
Or the enumeration of rights in your State constitution.
Nobody's speech may be censored.

Re:This stuff is in your GMO food (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#39525061)

The First Amendment protects your right to speak, but it certainly doesn't mean there can't be consequences. Go look up libel.

Nor does it require any private company to give you a platform to make shit up. I guess he should have stated it as "People who make this shit up should be banned by all of the companies that provide Internet services for a month".

Re:This stuff is in your GMO food (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#39525651)

Does this apply to companies that make shit up? No shortage of those.

Re:This stuff is in your GMO food (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39525101)

Read the first amendment.

Or the enumeration of rights in your State constitution. Nobody's speech may be censored.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I'm all for individual sites banning trolls.

Re:This stuff is in your GMO food (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524173)

Can people stop fucking using the word "drug" as the past tense of "drag"? It's "dragged".

Re:This stuff is in your GMO food (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524379)

According to the most recent survey by Websters, the word "drug" is used by 30% of english speakers. It is common usage and you have no right to tell this minority how they are "allowed" to talk.

Re:This stuff is in your GMO food (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39524849)

This is what we mean when we say "it isn't what you say, it's how you say it that gets you modded down".

From my perspective, the only one doing the telling is you. You are telling The Evil Atheist that they are not allowed to ask others to use a different word.

Re:This stuff is in your GMO food (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | more than 2 years ago | (#39525539)

I'm mostly in favour of evolutionary shifts in language. However, it doesn't mean we shouldn'y try to curb the more stupid mistakes. Sorry, but "drug" as the past tense of drag is just stupid. Like "irregardless". Or "bet" instead of "beaten". I fully reserve the right to tell people that they're wrong when they are, no matter how popular their wrongness is. You have the right to disagree. But your right to disagree does not negate my right to correct.

Re:This stuff is in your GMO food (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#39525709)

I corrected s/site/cite the other day and the fellow actually thanked me. Most people don't care if they sound illiterate. I suspect that 30% of the people who post on the internet confuse your and you're. That doesn't make it right but it does make them sound like toothless Okies.

Re:This stuff is in your GMO food (1)

Barsteward (969998) | more than 2 years ago | (#39526207)

I've never ever heard that use of "drug".... who are the 30%?

Many Citations Needed (4, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524179)

The food was modified by the owner (corporation) to produce the pesticide internally.

False. These are water soluble pesticides [wikipedia.org] that are included in the watering of plants and are easily translocated into the plant tissue as it grows. Alternatively they are applied to the soil or doused on seeds.

This is not the same as "roundup ready plants" which are GM plants that are resistant to roundup. You sound confused and appear to be bent on spreading fear about harm to humans who consume these plants.

Re:This stuff is in your GMO food (2)

dbet (1607261) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524207)

Nothing in either article suggests a link to GMO food, and there has never been a case of a consumer suffering a harmful effect that was linked to pesticide residue on produce.

Re:This stuff is in your GMO food (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524563)

>>> there has never been a case of a consumer suffering a harmful effect

According to the FOX, CNN, and MicrosoftNBC who are funded and controlled by the corporations. Yeah we can trust them.

  I did a bit of research (something you could have done yourself) and Neonicotinoid does indeed come already sprayed onto the seeds. In fact Monsanto is now advising farmers to plant about 80% GMO and 20% non-GMO, in order to provide a "safe harbor" for the bees to find some clean food that is not poisoned.

Re:This stuff is in your GMO food (2)

Lithdren (605362) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524719)

Have a source, or are you going to continue to make stuff up?

And before you tell me to do my own research, you brought it up, you defend it.

I dont even know if you're right, or wrong. But your claiming we cant trust all major news sites about a story that could impact every human on the face of the planet is a major red flag.

Not to mention Neonicotinoid being sprayed on seeds is not 'GMO'. Its standard pesticide. So...yeah, balls in your court champ.

Re:This stuff is in your GMO food (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#39525141)

You clearly don't even know what GMO means. Maybe you should start your "research" there. Hint: it involves Genetically Modified Organisms.

From 2010 (5, Informative)

bacon.frankfurter (2584789) | more than 2 years ago | (#39523953)

In Italy:

Following France and Germany, last year the Italian Agriculture Ministry suspended the use of a class of pesticides, nicotine-based neonicotinoids, as a "precautionary measure." The compelling results - restored bee populations - prompted the government to uphold the ban. Yesterday, copies of the film 'Nicotine Bees' were delivered to the US Congress explaining the pesticide's connection to Colony Collapse Disorder. Despite the evidence, why does CCD remain a 'mystery' in the US?

http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/nicotine-bees-population-restored-with-neonicotinoids-ban.html [treehugger.com]

Re:From 2010 (1)

willpb (1168125) | more than 2 years ago | (#39527195)

Obviously because the tobacco industry wants CCD to remain a mystery. It has to make up for declining numbers of smokers somehow. This is just a ploy to secretly get us all hooked on nicotine.

Little bland on details (2)

deciduousness (755695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39523969)

It looks like there are still more studies needed if we really want to understand what is going on here.

The treated bees were about two to three times more likely to die while away from their nests, and the researchers said this was probably because the pesticide interfered with the bees' homing systems, so they couldn't find their way home.

That seems like quite the leap in logic, but I don't have the actual study in front of me. That pesticide harms bees sounds like a REALLY obvious conclusion, I kinda like bees and what they do for us.

Re:Little bland on details (4, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524067)

Also note that the scientists are not declaring that the pesticides are 100% the cause as they don't have the evidence to support that. They are saying that it may be the cause. Bees are very important to agriculture so more research should be done. This is this first plausible link that scientists have had in figuring out the problem.

Re:Little bland on details (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39524985)

Also correlates with organic farms with their own hives not experiencing the colony collapse.

Re:Little bland on details (1)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524953)

Many years later, and all the Bees have died; the report comes - "We finally have come to the conclusion that pesticide does harm bees. Now what do we do?"

Bees are insects - pesticides kill insects (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39524087)

This is so insane. Pesticides are designed to kill insects among other pests. Bees are insects so why the hell do we need another study!!!

Need the Rubber Stamp of PROOF! (1)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524279)

Before anything gets done about it, and I'm guessing it's nearly impossible to get that rubber stamp because someone will always cry "We Need more Proof!".

Of Course (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39524305)

Duh, when you can't do science blame the pesticides every time. Did the 60's not teach us anything?

Cell Phone Radiation (1)

ScooterComputer (10306) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524549)

WAIT! I thought colony collapse disorder was caused by cell phone radiation...the science was settled. Everyone agreed. How can this be? (bee?)

How could we have possibly suspected... (1)

imkonen (580619) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524581)

...that insecticide would have bad side effects on bees? What does one thing have to do with the other?

Re:How could we have possibly suspected... (1)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524861)

They'll have to do more studies to confirm this. May take a few decades to get an answer, if there are any bees around by then.

In my brain place I know we need bees (1)

Eightbitgnosis (1571875) | more than 2 years ago | (#39525589)

But in my heart place I want to see everyone of those fuckers die in agony
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...