Honey Bee population crashes and Cell Signals

[DougPaul]

Beehives are almost always white. Why?

Wild guess--to minimize heating by the sun.

Doug

 

[jniehof]

Ars has a good article on how poorly this study was reported.

 

[una_dogger]

Interesting research topic: yes

Compelling study: maybe not so

 

[MichaelJ]

Good, the more holes people blow in this study, the better, because any change to world population cell phone use & technology will be slow and arduous, even in the face of environmental collapse.

 

[DougPaul]

Good, the more holes people blow in this study, the better, because any change to world population cell phone use & technology will be slow and arduous, even in the face of environmental collapse.

Just because this study is weak doesn't mean that their finding that bees are affected by radio signals isn't correct. Finding the truth is more important than any individual study (multiple studies and/or lines of evidence are often required) and the truth is not always convenient for or popular among humans...

Doug

 

[Little Rickie]

truth is not always convenient for or popular among humans...

So very sad but true.

This thread is starting to bug me, as sweet as it is, it's droning on and on , so I'm buzzing off to visit my queen.

 

[MichaelJ]

and the truth is not always convenient for or popular among humans...

That doesn't stop me from hoping the truth is something that our society will actually accomodate and do something about to correct. Turning off all the cell towers would not happen.

However, if it only affects the hives, perhaps just going to shielded hives (which would also protect from other electromagnetic interference, like power lines) would go a long way towards helping.

 

[brianW]

Wild guess--to minimize heating by the sun.

Doug

This was my understanding why most are painted white (took an apiary class at UMass) However beekeepers will paint them other colors as mentioned. I am hoping someday that I will again be able to start a hive of my own.

On a side note: a few days ago my 9 year old daughter started asking questions about bees. One of them is "How can you tell a girl bee from a boy one" I answered her about drones (males) have very large eyes to help locate queens on their mating flight. Later in the day I spoted a dying drone on the sidewalk near our community pool and brought it over to her. She was thrilled. Love teaching moments like this.

 

[DougPaul]

However, if it only affects the hives, perhaps just going to shielded hives (which would also protect from other electromagnetic interference, like power lines) would go a long way towards helping.

The effects of electromagnetic radiation on living organisms vary wildly depending upon the frequency (inversely proportional to the wavelength) and the organism. Evidence of effects at one frequency is not evidence of effects at other frequencies.

Certainly all (or at least the vast majority) of terrestrial living organisms are sensitive to some degree to EM radiation, for example: high-intensity microwaves (cooks by producing heat), high-intensity UV (kills), high-intensity gamma rays (kills), low-to-medium intensity visible light (required by many to survive). The question is degree of sensitivity and the nature of the effects at various frequencies.

Putting bee hives in Faraday cages (EM shields) would be an interesting experiment--however it might be a long one. (If one used rates of CCD as a metric, it might take years and hundreds of hives to achieve statistical significance.)

Doug

 

[Little Rickie]

Anybody else here even been/is a beekeeper???? Lots of fun (AND work!!!)

Personally? I *used* to have 1-2 hives alive at any one time, but, I couldn't keep them alive even without a cell phone!!!

I got my bees last Friday. Wish me luck.

 

[Little Rickie]

FYI

C Winter 2011
3
In response to an immediate need for a baseline of both
bee production and health, several survey and data
collection efforts, supported both by ARS and NIFA, have
been underway. Together, the different survey efforts have
better defined CCD symptoms. Previous studies showed
that symptoms included a rapid loss of adult honey bees,
excess immature bees present in the combs, and the queen
still present. Additional findings indicate an absence of
damaging levels of the gut parasite Nosema or parasitic
varroa mites at the time of collapse. Data on overall honey
bee losses for 2010 indicate an estimated 34 percent loss,
which is statistically similar to losses reported in 2007, 2008,
and 2009.
Survey work will continue to assess the status of honey bee
health and further refine CCD symptomology. Following
up on efforts from previous years, researchers supported
both by NIFA and ARS continue to analyze bee samples
for pesticide residues and pathogen loads to determine
possible linkages to bee declines. Studies continue to
demonstrate very high levels of pathogens in CCD-affected
samples and lower pathogen levels in non-affected samples,
consistent with the empirical observation that healthy
honey bee colonies normally fend off pathogens. These
observations have led to the hypothesis that bee declines
are resulting from immune suppression.
A large survey of healthy and CCD-affected colonies also
revealed elevated levels of pesticides in wax and pollen, but
the amounts of pesticides were similar in both failing and
healthy colonies. CAP-funded studies also identified sublethal
effects of neonicotinoids and fungicides on bees. It is
hypothesized that these pesticides impair the bee’s immune
system, which leaves the bee more susceptible to three
important bee viruses. Future experiments are needed to
test these hypotheses and conclusively identify mechanisms
of immune response, as well as how these interactions
might affect mortality and colony health.
Research efforts jointly supported by ARS and NIFA
continue to investigate factors that may play a role in
causing CCD, either alone and/or in combination. Factors
include diseases (parasites and pathogens), pesticides, poor
nutrition, and beekeeping practices.
Colony Collapse Disorder Progress Report
CCD Steering Committee June 2010
--Peter Borst

 

[DougPaul]

While it is much easier to analyze one factor at a time (ie assume that each factor is independent of the others) , in practice multiple factors can have effects that are very different from the sum of the effects of the individual factors (ie the factors may not be independent).

So while finding that each of the individual threats is subcritical is necessary (because if any one factor is critical, the hive is dead), it is not sufficient to conclude that the combination of threats is not critical. Analyzing for the total effect of multiple factors can be very difficult...

Doug

 

[Little Rickie]

Huh?

 

[DougPaul]

Huh?

Example:
* You have two chemicals, A and B, which in high concentrations, will kill bees. You know the LD50 (=Lethal Dose 50%, ie the concentration which will kill 50% of the bees) for each.

* Case 1:
- if you apply A at the LD50, 50% of the bees survive
- if you apply B at the LD50, 50% of the bees survive
- If A and B act independently and you apply A and B at their LD50s, 25% of the bees survive. (50% survive A and 50% of those survive B = 25% overall survival.)
- If A and B do not act independently all could die (synergism between A and B) or none might die (interference between A and B). Or something in between.

* Case 2:
- You apply A at 1/10 of the LD50 and all of the bees live.
- You apply B at 1/10 of the LD50 and all of the bees live.
- You apply A and B each at 1/10 the LD50 and all of the bees die. (Synergism between A and B.)


The quoted report states that a number of factors have all been found to be individually sublethal. However it does not state that the factors are sublethal in combination (Case 2 above). Analyzing for the effects of one factor at a time (ie assuming independence) is much easier than analyzing for the combined effects of multiple simultaneous factors (ie not assuming independence).


While most poisons are more dangerous at higher doses, it is not always true. Some have maximum effect at intermediate doses. And some are required in small doses to live.

Doug

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

WMO report on cell phones and possible cancer in humans

I realize that the main topic of this thread is about bees, but there is also a significant component on EM fields. A link within the Grist article at link below provides the recent WMO report titled "IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS."

http://www.grist.org/list/2011-06-01-once-and-for-all-do-cell-phones-cause-cancer

 

[David Metsky]

"IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS."

So cell phones are now in the same risk category as "insufficient alcohol." Ain't that a kick in the head.

 

[una_dogger]

thanks for the link, Dr D

 

[Little Rickie]

Example:
* You have two chemicals, A and B, which in high concentrations, will kill bees. You know the LD50 (=Lethal Dose 50%, ie the concentration which will kill 50% of the bees) for each.

* Case 1:
- if you apply A at the LD50, 50% of the bees survive
- if you apply B at the LD50, 50% of the bees survive
- If A and B act independently and you apply A and B at their LD50s, 25% of the bees survive. (50% survive A and 50% of those survive B = 25% overall survival.)
- If A and B do not act independently all could die (synergism between A and B) or none might die (interference between A and B). Or something in between.

* Case 2:
- You apply A at 1/10 of the LD50 and all of the bees live.
- You apply B at 1/10 of the LD50 and all of the bees live.
- You apply A and B each at 1/10 the LD50 and all of the bees die. (Synergism between A and B.)


The quoted report states that a number of factors have all been found to be individually sublethal. However it does not state that the factors are sublethal in combination (Case 2 above). Analyzing for the effects of one factor at a time (ie assuming independence) is much easier than analyzing for the combined effects of multiple simultaneous factors (ie not assuming independence).


While most poisons are more dangerous at higher doses, it is not always true. Some have maximum effect at intermediate doses. And some are required in small doses to live.

Doug

That helps?

I'm really thinking of re-queening annually with new queens as they breed strains that are more robust and resistant. Not stressing them for max production. Providing an extra comb of honey and wrap them for the winter. I won't be moving my bees around and down south, monitor their health and use the proper meds made as needed. If things screw up I'll talk with the cooperative extension folks and my bee keeping frtiends.

Having just a few hives allows me to give my bees the extra time and attention a comerical beekeeper can't afford. I'll keep them super healthy and take my chances.

OH I'll keep my cell out of the back yard.

Bee nice everyone.

Now back to the drift:

"insufficient alcohol." Glad to see that. I'll be making mead.

Bee nice everyone.

 

[una_dogger]

Bee nice everyone.

Because if you aren't, you won't get any Mead!!

 

[Raven]

Hi Rickie - maybe think of it something like this:

you have a new patch of grass:

(1) If you forget to water it one day, a quarter of it may die.

(2) If instead you leave a tarp on it for an hour, a quarter of it may die.

-But...the combination of the two, meaning you forget to water AND you leave a tarp on it for an hour...kills ALL the grass.

-Either bad thing by itself will only kill a little grass but both together kills it all...much more than expected if you just add a quarter to a quarter and think a half would be killed. (this is synergy...when 1+1= more than 2)

(1) and (2) above are like the individual "factors" affecting the bees and also like the chemicals Doug is talking about in his thorough example.

It would take alot more testing as Doug said, to determine if this was the case as there are many possible combinations.

Good luck with the bees!