Slashdot Mirror


Mystery of the Dying Bees Solved

jamie points out news of a study attempting to explain the decline of honeybee populations across the US. As it turns out, the fungus N. ceranae that was thought to be killing off bee colonies had a partner in crime — a DNA-based virus that worked in tandem with N. ceranae to compromise nutrition uptake. From the NY Times: "Dr. Bromenshenk's team at the University of Montana and Montana State University in Bozeman, working with the Army's Edgewood Chemical Biological Center northeast of Baltimore, said in their jointly written paper that the virus-fungus one-two punch was found in every killed colony the group studied. Neither agent alone seems able to devastate; together, the research suggests, they are 100 percent fatal. 'It's chicken and egg in a sense — we don't know which came first,' Dr. Bromenshenk said of the virus-fungus combo — nor is it clear, he added, whether one malady weakens the bees enough to be finished off by the second, or whether they somehow compound the other's destructive power. 'They're co-factors, that's all we can say at the moment,' he said. 'They're both present in all these collapsed colonies.'"

347 comments

  1. Don't sting me bro' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Phrase of the year!

    1. Re:Don't sting me bro' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      My curiosity gets the better of me... how can the first post be redundant?

      I understand the meme failure, of course, but redundancy? not so much...

    2. Re:Don't sting me bro' by ooshna · · Score: 1

      Yeah something like "Yo dawg heard you like bees so we put a stinger on your bee suit so you can sting while your being stung" would be a better meme to be called redundant.

  2. Now to bring them back by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Any guidelines on how to help the bees return?

    I like gardening a lot and put out a lot of ornamental flowers and vegetables to attract bees, but this year there have been very few.

    1. Re:Now to bring them back by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I heard one idea about stop trying to get bees to pollinate a single crop at a time. The idea is that like us, they aren't getting the nutrition they need from one plant. They need many different plants.

      My idea would be to stop shipping them all over the country. Yeah, yeah, hippie organic shit but I'm willing to bet that the fungus and the virus were in separate regions at one point. Shipping them around exposed them to new diseases and exposed native bees to new diseases. Well, that's my hypothesis anyway.

      I'd also like to see more stringent pesticide regulations.

    2. Re:Now to bring them back by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      The wildlife biologists have been struggling with what to do about the white-nose syndrome fungus that is wiping out bat populations for years.

      Not much good news on either front.

      We are headed for a very buggy and polen-less world.

    3. Re:Now to bring them back by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Kill the fungus, they can survive to repopulate hives if they have the virus. Really all that needs to be developed is a weak fungicide that targets it, and that's not as hard as it sounds. Either that or you find queens that have survived a collapse and breed them with normal bees, who haven't developed an immunity.

      I'm also going to say, the whole "RF/Secretgovernment testing/out to destroy us all" conspiracy theories have once again proven to what they are. Bullshit.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:Now to bring them back by JonySuede · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm willing to bet that the fungus and the virus were in separate regions at one point

      I am pretty sure that your hypothesis is valid. However I do not see a way to test it, anyone has any ideas for an experimental setup?

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    5. Re:Now to bring them back by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Well, this is the time of the year to have zombies, but normally, when something is dead, it is dead.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    6. Re:Now to bring them back by charlesj68 · · Score: 1

      Any guidelines on how to help the bees return?

      Since the military was already involved, they forwarded your question to the Navy SEALS. The reply mentioned high explosives ...

    7. Re:Now to bring them back by EdIII · · Score: 1

      We are headed for a very buggy and polen-less world.

      Yeah, yeah... but if you want it to hit home we are heading for a world without Honey Nut Cheerios. I just got goosebumps saying that...

    8. Re:Now to bring them back by Kilrah_il · · Score: 2, Informative

      Really all that needs to be developed is a weak fungicide that targets it, and that's not as hard as it sounds.

      Actually, it is not that easy. Antibiotics (for bacteria) are easier to make than antifungals and that is one of the reasons why we don't have so many anti-fungal drugs for humans (and hu-womans).
      Granted, when you develop a drug for bees you are less worried about side-effects than you are with humans, but it's still not that easy.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    9. Re:Now to bring them back by muyshiny · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't have a good idea for an experiment but I think it's awesome of you to ask. This is what the Internet should be---constructive. Props!

    10. Re:Now to bring them back by Gilmoure · · Score: 3, Funny

      First we build a second Earth...

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    11. Re:Now to bring them back by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 0

      Virus != bacteria.

    12. Re:Now to bring them back by MarcQuadra · · Score: 5, Funny

      You know who else liked experiments?

      Hitler!

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    13. Re:Now to bring them back by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Short of necromancy I don't think you can bring dead animals back. If there's no bees around you have to wait until a hive gets built nearby, either by a wild colony or beekeepers. Alternatively set up nesting places for bumblebees, those things work just as well for pollination.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    14. Re:Now to bring them back by BarryJacobsen · · Score: 0

      (and hu-womans)

      Really? Really? Have you actually met some woman who objected to being referred to as a human or are you just being PC to an absurd extreme?

    15. Re:Now to bring them back by Kilrah_il · · Score: 2

      And I said so when?
      I didn't talk about the bees' virus. I meant to say that unlike bacteria, for whom making antibiotics is (relatively) easy, for fungi it is hard.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    16. Re:Now to bring them back by t33jster · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm also going to say, the whole "RF/Secretgovernment testing/out to destroy us all" conspiracy theories have once again proven to what they are. Bullshit.

      Are you kidding? This so-called "paper" was "co-written" by some Army chemists. If anything, it PROVES the conspiracy theories!

      *adds yet another layer of tinfoil to an already heavy hat*

      --
      Take off every 'sig' for great justice.
    17. Re:Now to bring them back by tsa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a bit more complicated because bees don't only die in America but also in Europe and maybe other places. I don't think bee colonies are moved over the Atlantic, are they? If not, the virus and fungus are probably transferred via people.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    18. Re:Now to bring them back by interval1066 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "I'm willing to bet that the fungus and the virus were in separate regions at one point."

      Would have only prolonged the wait, not prevented the combination. Also- shipping the bees around would expose them to more variety of flowers, not less. Your hypothesis on that part seems incorrect to me.

      "I'd also like to see more stringent pesticide regulations."

      We already have some of the strongest pesticide regulations in the world. Its not clear to me how pesticides play a role in this scenario.In an unrelated pesticide story larger US cities are currently reporting much higher incidences of bedbug infestation, largely blamed on the banning of DDT in 1972.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    19. Re:Now to bring them back by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Yeah, yeah... but if you want it to hit home we are heading for a world without Honey Nut Cheerios. I just got goosebumps saying that...

      And even more importantly, you won't have Cutey Honey and will be overrun by monsters.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    20. Re:Now to bring them back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this Godwin moment was brought to you by a generous contribution from these sponsors:

    21. Re:Now to bring them back by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was going for satire. BTW, that sound you hear is not the flight of the bumblebee, but just a slight Whoosh. Good night (GMT+2).

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    22. Re:Now to bring them back by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      Whoosh.

      I think he's just implying that bacteria are easier to attack than fungus, being a bit lower on the organism complexity scale. Live plants and nematodes tend to do well against fungi, but it will probably be troublesome to find something specific that could help the bees.

      But yeah, an effective antiviral might be tougher to develop than an effective fungicide, and both probably harder than an antibacterial, since you usually have to prompt an existing immune system's lymphocytes to recognize and attack a specific virus. And then find a way to inject them into all the little bees' knees.

    23. Re:Now to bring them back by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude, we're heading for a world without mead!

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    24. Re:Now to bring them back by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Granted, when you develop a drug for bees you are less worried about side-effects than you are with humans, but it's still not that easy.

      Damned straight. I find that I get stung roughly once for every 12-15 bees I try to force feed medicine. Even when I explain how it's for their own good, they buzz and scream and kick up a fuss and somebody always ends up getting stung.

      I hate my job.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    25. Re:Now to bring them back by Bake · · Score: 1

      And in order to do that we must first create another universe.

    26. Re:Now to bring them back by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 0, Troll

      All I have to say is...

      Reduce, Reuse, Reanimate
      Support your local necromancer.

      --
    27. Re:Now to bring them back by Kenja · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If we stop shipping them around, that means no more US produced nuts or fruit.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    28. Re:Now to bring them back by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Any guidelines on how to help the bees return?

      Teeeeeny tiny vaccines?

    29. Re:Now to bring them back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Than you Godwin.

    30. Re:Now to bring them back by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you're trying to say in the first part but as for the second, I mean store bought pesticide for home use. I don't have much hope that the person who buys that stuff will use it sparingly when they could spend some time outdoors with a trowel.

      Maybe regulations was the wrong word. I'll use that other scary word TAXES here but I think curbing home use of pesticides would be good.

      As for the bedbugs, I'm of two minds here. It would be good to get rid of them and responsible use of DDT (you know, this vs coated netting and spot spraying) but on the other hand, anything less than overkill could leave survivors who could breed with other survivors to create better ones and so on and so forth... but while looking for a link to DDT coated netting, I came across this: http://www.awitness.org/column/bed_bug_science.html

      I don't know how accurate the website is but DDT resistant bedbugs gives lots of results on google.

      Why can't bees adapt? Different breeding habits. I don't know a whole lot about bedbugs but I'm confident what they do is closer to an orgy vs the queen bees male harem. There would be far more DNA combinations with the former than the latter.

    31. Re:Now to bring them back by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Even more tragic.

      No Post Honeycomb cereal. Swarms of cereal-deprived children turning into whirling, raving, wild-eyed (and bug-eyed) brown-furred monsters. Seriously, do you want to live in a world full of millions of these?

      No way. Bring on the zombies first.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    32. Re:Now to bring them back by Gilmoure · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ooh, we're gonna' have some cost overruns here.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    33. Re:Now to bring them back by digitig · · Score: 1

      Well, they've only just discovered what's killing them. That's a good first step, but it would be a remarkable turn of speed if they'd already got to a cure. (It will be a nice turnaround if we have to vaccinate them, though...)

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    34. Re:Now to bring them back by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      Not sure about experimental but if you were able to get these bee businesses to give when and where they let bees out, that'd be a puzzle piece.

      Trying to pin point origins of the fungus and virus would be harder but maybe they could do something similar to DNA tracing of migration patterns.

      Or it could be that where that they never were in truly distinct areas and the only thing that kept it in check was the severity of their one-two punch. If bees get infected, they die out in that area but now with our "help", the bees can travel much further and much faster than before, increasing the chance of running into bees with one or the other disease.

    35. Re:Now to bring them back by internettoughguy · · Score: 1

      We already have some of the strongest pesticide regulations in the world. Its not clear to me how pesticides play a role in this scenario.In an unrelated pesticide story larger US cities are currently reporting much higher incidences of bedbug infestation, largely blamed on the banning of DDT in 1972.

      Bedbugs are fairly harmless, especially when compared to DDT; and there are other more suitable pesticides available. On the other hand I can understand using it against Mosquito's/Malaria. The various DDT bans do seem silly when the even more toxic organophosphates are in relatively unrestricted use.

    36. Re:Now to bring them back by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      Imagine the shock when she realizes 'woman' still has 'man' in the word.

    37. Re:Now to bring them back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Also- shipping the bees around would expose them to more variety of flowers, not less"

      Not true in this instance. The reason they are being shipped about is to help pollinate *crops*. So they spend a few weeks at one type of orchard eating only one kind of food. Then they get moved to another orchard. The problem is that at each point they consume only one kind of food, only getting a different type of food *if* they are transported to a different type of crop, and that's not always the case.

    38. Re:Now to bring them back by Mikkeles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ..., largely blamed on the banning of DDT...

      By whom? I largely blame prohibition and overfishing of cod.

      (For a creature with a generational reproductive rate of about a month or two to take over 30 years to become a problem requires a bit more evidence than 'blame'.)

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    39. Re:Now to bring them back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Tinfoil-hat protection is an aluminum-industry conspiracy.

      I manufacture a latex anti-conspiracy suit you can purchase for the low low price of only $20. By two (in case the first one rips) and tell your friends!

    40. Re:Now to bring them back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay okay I know this is slashdot but did you even read the OP? What part of 100% fatal did you not understand? When we do find a queen that survived then we can look at breeding that until then we need to be very worried!

    41. Re:Now to bring them back by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      If (generic) you left large tracts of undeveloped land in towns, didn't dedicate hundreds of hectares to monoculture, and stopped killing them with pollutants, there would not be a need to ship them around.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    42. Re:Now to bring them back by darthdavid · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, there'll be plenty of bees there, we can sell their honey to offset the cost of the experiment.

    43. Re:Now to bring them back by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bees are shipped all over the world, Australia and Israel are big bee colony producers.

    44. Re:Now to bring them back by darthdavid · · Score: 2, Funny

      woperson?

    45. Re:Now to bring them back by Spykk · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why not just breed the honey bees with a hardier strain of bee? Perhaps something from Africa...

    46. Re:Now to bring them back by znerk · · Score: 1

      Either that or you find queens that have survived a collapse and breed them with normal bees, who haven't developed an immunity.

      Sounds good, except for the part where the collapse seems to be 100% fatal.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    47. Re:Now to bring them back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      42.

    48. Re:Now to bring them back by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      Or you could just say "that's what you get for not evolving to fit your environment, bitches". You know, the way nature intended.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    49. Re:Now to bring them back by turtledawn · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ack, I can't decide between funny and insightful, so I'll just comment instead!

      --
      Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
    50. Re:Now to bring them back by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, what was the question?

    51. Re:Now to bring them back by jd · · Score: 1

      No, no, we just need to find Magrathea and a very very large sum of money.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    52. Re:Now to bring them back by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      I'm also going to say, the whole "RF/Secretgovernment testing/out to destroy us all" conspiracy theories have once again proven to what they are. Bullshit.

      But the conspiracy wackos never listen to reason, so they still aren't going to believe they are wrong, even now that the true answer has been found. They'll keep kicking for a while, I guarantee it.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    53. Re:Now to bring them back by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Wait! I have an Idea! *Whap*

      - Dan.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    54. Re:Now to bring them back by Destoo · · Score: 1

      Bullshit makes
      the flowers grow
      & that's beautiful.
      -- Principia Discordia, P.42

      Somehow, on topic!

      --
      Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
    55. Re:Now to bring them back by Kilrah_il · · Score: 4, Informative

      The main reason that bacteria are easier to attack than fungi is that, since they are further down the evolutionary chain (they are prokaryotes, not eukaryotes like the fungi and humans), they are more likely to have proteins different enough from ours to serve as safe targets for drugs. Finding a protein that is foundamental for a fungi's survival yet different enough from the human counterpart is the main obstacle in developing effective antifungals.

      The problem with viruses is that since they use the host's cellular machinary, they usually have a small amount of unique proteins, and thus exacerbating the problem mentioned above. BTW, an antiviral drug doesn't have to prompt the immune system's response (Interferon does that, but others, such oseltamivir, do not).

      P.S. It's 2AM, I don't feel like including Wikipedia links. Feel free to look up what you need yourself. Sorry.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    56. Re:Now to bring them back by mnbob · · Score: 2, Informative

      Consider getting a colony of your own. It's the closest thing you'll ever have to an alien civilzation in your backyard.

      I started this year and the time investment is very low once the colony is established. Most of the time they'll be happier if you just leave them alone.

      http://www.beesource.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=275

    57. Re:Now to bring them back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, get a beehive. Seriously, it's a fun and interesting hobby.

    58. Re:Now to bring them back by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      "Are you kidding? This so-called "paper" was "co-written" by some Army chemists. If anything, it PROVES the conspiracy theories!"

      Not too far from the truth. At the very least, they are in collusion, burning up your tax-dollars to fend off lawsuits on behalf of a private corporation, or so it appears.

      And here is the rest of the story...

      http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/10/bee_mystery_unsolved_lead_inve.html

    59. Re:Now to bring them back by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Stinging the bees, eh? I guess turnabout is fair play.

    60. Re:Now to bring them back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mead isn't that good though. I paid twice as much for a bottle of mead as I would for a bottle of wine. It was refreshingly different from wine and beer, but for the price I paid per unit of alcohol, I could have gotten a nice bottle of scotch or something.

    61. Re:Now to bring them back by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      [L]arger US cities are currently reporting much higher incidences of bedbug infestation, largely blamed on the banning of DDT in 1972.

      Is the ban on DDT being blamed because it actually has had an effect that wore off over the past couple of decades or because the DDT ban is a political football used by some people who have a bug up their ass and are still obsessed 30 years later with proving environmentalists to be chicken littles who do more harm than good?

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    62. Re:Now to bring them back by r0kk3rz · · Score: 1

      The only real way to test is to trace the origins of both virus and fungus, to first validate that they were indeed in seperate regions to start with.

      Then of course to then understand how these things propegated to each other.

    63. Re:Now to bring them back by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Or more people have to keep bees. Which barring stuff like this colony collapse disorder is not so difficult.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    64. Re:Now to bring them back by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, we'll just raise taxes to compensate.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    65. Re:Now to bring them back by Reziac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Trouble is, it's extremely tough to eliminate the average fungus, being they're opportunistic. Ask anyone who's battled a fungal infection -- treatment isn't one-shot, it can continue for months or years and still not succeed in eliminating the problem. (Frex, blastomycosis has about a 40% fatality rate even with the best of treatment, which if you're lucky can drag out for 6-9 months.)

      A vaccine against the virus is more likely to be successful, and more likely to succeed with only one or two treatments. Also, it may be possible to incorporate viral immunity into the bees' DNA.

      And that was my first thought when I saw TFA... "so much for the cellphone towers tinfoil asshattery!"

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    66. Re:Now to bring them back by ooshna · · Score: 1

      You know who liked them more than him?

      Dr. Mengele

    67. Re:Now to bring them back by catmistake · · Score: 1

      Any guidelines on how to help the bees return?

      Killer Bees!

      Forgot about them, didn't ya? Well, that's just what they want us to do!

    68. Re:Now to bring them back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you Glenn Beck.

    69. Re:Now to bring them back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The main reason that bacteria are easier to attack than fungi is that, since they are further down the evolutionary chain (they are prokaryotes, not eukaryotes like the fungi and humans), they are more likely to have proteins different enough from ours to serve as safe targets for drugs.

      Prokaryotes are NOT further down the evolutionary chain. They are just as evolved as you are, they've been evolving as long as you have been. They are JUST DIFFERENT. Because they are so DIFFERENT (not because they are less evolved) we can target them with drugs that will not interact with out own biology.

    70. Re:Now to bring them back by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      "I'm willing to bet that the fungus and the virus were in separate regions at one point."

      Would have only prolonged the wait, not prevented the combination. Also- shipping the bees around would expose them to more variety of flowers, not less. Your hypothesis on that part seems incorrect to me.

      I'm not sure you're right. Assume that the virus and fungus are in separate but almost connected areas. In the natural environment, if bees with the virus meet bees with the fungus they will die. This will create a dead zone for both the virus and the bacteria between their infection areas where fully healthy hives will have a massive selection advantage. It would also create a long term stable area where bees will survive but be able to evolve against pressure from both.

      I think that a natural meeting of the two would give a good opportunity for bees to evolve to deal with both of them.

      The problem is that the current way of doing it wipes out all the hives which get infected with no long term survival of those that are doing better at getting rid of either the virus or the vungus.

      If this were a legal article I might add INAL at this stage, so instead I'll just say: INAMBE (I'm not a micro-biological expert) but then, nor are any microbiologists I've ever heard of... at least when you look back at the answers they gave ten years ago.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    71. Re:Now to bring them back by izaakrach · · Score: 1

      You could stop wishing them back and start your own hive. Compared to your other hobbies, bee keeping isn't that expensive to start up. Plus if you play your cards right and post a single picture of your 200lbs of honey on Facebook, you'll have 50 orders for honey in like 5 minutes. If you ask me, keeping bees is a natural fit for a computer geek. So turn off the computer for an hour and go outside and do something cool and help the bees make a come back!

    72. Re:Now to bring them back by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Bravo good sir!
      well played!

    73. Re:Now to bring them back by triffid_98 · · Score: 1

      The wildlife biologists have been struggling with what to do about the white-nose syndrome fungus that is wiping out bat populations for years. Not much good news on either front.

      I expect that if the existing bat populations succumb we can import foreign bats to fill their missing niche. The question is how long it will take for that to happen. Likewise in the case of bees, there are plenty of other insects that can pollinate plants, bees just happen to be the most convenient since they all congregate back in their hive/box for easy transportation. There are other options, they just aren't as cheap...

    74. Re:Now to bring them back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Fuck the bees. I think that I only saw a handful of bees this summer but my plants where pollinated by other insects. I did see a lot of bumblebees this year which is unusual.
      Anyway, fuck the bees other insects are doing their job ... well except for honey.

    75. Re:Now to bring them back by captain_dope_pants · · Score: 1

      Unless someone finds a way to re-animate them, thus creating the world's first zom-bees !

      --
      while (true != false) process_more_stupid_code();
    76. Re:Now to bring them back by eyendall · · Score: 1

      Hitler and his Nazi party supporters have a lot in common with today's Republican/tea-party Americans:

      Both are highly nativist, intolerant and ignorantly nationalistic.
      Both irrationally believe their country to be superior in all ways to other countries.
      Both blame foreigners and immigrants for their economic problems.
      Both hate socialists, communists, homosexuals, immigrants. liberals.
      Both consider certain ethnic groups inferior and a threat to society (Jews for one, Latino immigrants for the other) and would happily deprive them of their civil rights and legal protections.
      Both are militaristic and bellicose.
      Both like big government when it does what they like.
      Both misuse religion to promote their ideology of fear and cultural superiority.
      Both are primarily white, "middle-class", christian, poorly educated, ignorant, and gullible.
      Both rest on fear and resentment.

      I could go on. Not my kind of folk. Ignorant, selfish, and dangerous for a modern democratic society. Such are their leaders and activists. Most of the run-of-the-mill supporters are simply stupid. Wake up America

    77. Re:Now to bring them back by russotto · · Score: 1

      (For a creature with a generational reproductive rate of about a month or two to take over 30 years to become a problem requires a bit more evidence than 'blame'.)

      It's not just DDT. A lot of effective pesticides have been banned and/or regulated into ineffectiveness. While the bedbugs are dining on you, the termites are feasting on your home's structural members, thanks to the chlordane ban. Chlordane kills bedbugs too, and it's quite persistent, so the 1988 ban may well have something to do with the recent resurgence.

    78. Re:Now to bring them back by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Fungus is easy to kill. Of course if you want to keep the host alive, it's a different story :)

    79. Re:Now to bring them back by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      Ah, good! Someone's thinking like a physicist.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    80. Re:Now to bring them back by Xest · · Score: 1

      Different bees have different needs so you'd really need to see what bees are native to your region and plant out accordingly. I'm sure Google will happily oblige in providing you information as to the types of bees that live where you do and what they like.

      Generally you want to find out their colonial habits- some like to build full blown colonies, others are solitary bees, then you need to try and provide for their needs which in the case of solitary bees can be as simple as providing a block of wood with a bunch of holes drilled into it that are maybe a centimetre or two thick. Colonial bees will wants a hive, or a natural area that can provide the conditions and resources they need to build a nest. Then you really just need to find out what plants are favoured by the species of bee you have near you. The problem is that bees like pollen an nectar, but the amount of nectar plants produce can be dependant on climate, so it's hard to give you a blanket species of plant because what may be good in Arizona, may be useless in North Dakota. The way you plant can have an effect too- they'll appreciate large clusters of flowers so that they can fly and sit in between them.

      One important point is to avoid using pesticides, systemic pesticides used on ornamental plants seep into the pollen and nectar which bees consume, which makes bees sick. Generally the best way to deal with pests is using organic methods. I grow succulent plants (mostly cacti) in a large greenhouse and maintain within the greenhouse conditions ideal for ladybirds and lacewing- providing homes for them and bring in an artificial stock of prey that isn't a threat to my plants when the pests that cause me problems are temporarily eliminated because these two species of insect eliminate red spider mite and mealy bugs for me without the need for pesticide. The problem with pescticides is that many pests they're designed to control become resistant to them anyway, and some of the stronger ones have been banned because they're dangerous to humans, so they effectively cause a lot of harm to things like bees, whilst failing to offer any worthwhile long term control.

    81. Re:Now to bring them back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just breed the honey bees with a hardier strain of bee? Perhaps something from Africa...

      We could call them "Africanized" bees. :)

    82. Re:Now to bring them back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "no more US produced nuts or fruit." Does that mean a coastal population decline in California?

    83. Re:Now to bring them back by angiasaa · · Score: 1

      Then we'd destroy the First in a Second! :P

      --
      Geekism is your _only_ God!
    84. Re:Now to bring them back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if any of the bees were fed corn syrup in the winter (most are). Corn syrup can develop a compound that's toxic to bees.

    85. Re:Now to bring them back by wrygrin · · Score: 1

      (i see you've fallen for the whole "tinfoil hat protects your brain pan" scheme. any pastafarian knows that only lightly cooked spaghetti - al dente - can protect your noodle without disastrous side effects.)

      --
      everything leaks
    86. Re:Now to bring them back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that there are enough fruits and nuts in the US already.

    87. Re:Now to bring them back by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 1

      The latter solution is well in the works by hundreds of beekeepers around the country. I bought my bees from a chap that lost more than 90% of his hives to Varroa mites and small hive beetles. He didn't treat them with antibiotics or antifungals, but instead kept the remaining colonies and split them to make new hives. Now we have resistant strains of survivor bees that work well for our environment and the threats within it.

      Evolution rocks!

      -Ellie

  3. Uh oh, used the wrong coffee grinder by Tekfactory · · Score: 0

    At first they just mashed the bees, then used mortars and pestles, but they found the best bee puree for testing came from a coffee grinder.

    1. Re:Uh oh, used the wrong coffee grinder by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      A burr coffee grinder

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    2. Re:Uh oh, used the wrong coffee grinder by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Hopefully, one labeled "Bees". You don't get your decaf mixed up with your caf, and you don't get your caf mixed up with your bees.

      I don't much like bee grind; the buzz is too harsh.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  4. The cure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    So let me get this straight all the bees need is some athletes foot powder and some chicken soup?

  5. Dodged a small bullet this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I grow a lot of chile in my backyard garden, and I have a chamisa bush there as well. This year, again, I had a very large number of honeybees working the garden and the chamisa. Don't know where they hive, but their population appears to still be healthy.

  6. Humanity by improfane · · Score: 1, Funny

    This is why you have to keep people alive.

    Anyone of us could hold the DNA to be resistant to anything. It doesn't matter what someone did or who they are*, you must keep everyone alive. Apparently there was a massive killing of humanity with a volcano, so we're not very versatile except for the different ethnic groups.

    Clearly the bees that are alive were partly immune to at least one.

    * People like Murderers, rapists. Then people who cannot take care of themselves like those with extreme learning difficulties. You have NO idea what the incapability of their genes could actually immune to. If they're too dangerous to keep around, stick em in a freezer.

    --
    Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
    1. Re:Humanity by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      So if everyone died except for a bunch of frozen rapists, that would better than if all humans were wiped out?

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    2. Re:Humanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * People like Murderers, rapists. Then people who cannot take care of themselves like those with extreme learning difficulties. You have NO idea what the incapability of their genes could actually immune to. If they're too dangerous to keep around, stick em in a freezer.

      Fine.

      YOU pay for it.

      No one's stopping you.

    3. Re:Humanity by Surt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With 6 billions humans and counting, there has never been a great surplus of humans to cover any possible genetic advantage. So don't worry about wiping out a small contingent of murderers and rapists, the odds of eliminating any desirable trait are vanishingly small.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:Humanity by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      freezing prisoner would be a lot cheaper than caring for them

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    5. Re:Humanity by MachDelta · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Does this mean when Wesly Snipes gets out of jail, we have to freeze and then thaw out Sylvester Stalone?

    6. Re:Humanity by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      freezing prisoner would be a lot cheaper than caring for them

      Shooting them in the head would be even cheaper, and would create only a slightly lower probability of them being revived.

    7. Re:Humanity by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      Yes it is, because at least the show will go on.

      Plus, there'd have to be a lot of reproduction, and those guys aren't exactly known for taking "no" for an answer. They aren't exactly known for creating works of art or scientific marvels either, but hey, maybe one of their kids would figure out how to math and science.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    8. Re:Humanity by suutar · · Score: 1

      Until someone decides he needs a murder spree for political reasons and thaws one out. Then they have to unfreeze Sylvester Stallone, team him up with Sandra Bullock, and feed him lots of taco bell...

    9. Re:Humanity by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      Shooting them in the head would be even cheaper, and would create only a slightly lower probability of them being revived.

      yeah but it is way, way cooler to freeze them !

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    10. Re:Humanity by locallyunscene · · Score: 1

      Your suggestion is impractical and misguided for several reasons. First ethnic groups aren't that different from one another genetically. On average you're more genetically different from your neighbor than ethnic groups are from each other. While the book isn't SF, recommend reading The Red Queen by Matt Ridley, it takes those concepts from High School genetics and shows how the science has evolved itself. Other posters have pointed out the feasibility and ethical concerns of freezing prisoners, but beyond that humanity is much greater than the sum of its genetics. Reducing each person to genetic value is an interesting perspective, but it is not the only or best perspective that society is viewed from. This kind of argument is similar to the one eugenicists use.

      To respond directly to your sig, assuming you've read the rest of Brin's SF novels(especially Sundiver and Earth), check out Glenn Cook's The Dragon Never Sleeps. And Heinlein is still a good read, especially Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land.

    11. Re:Humanity by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Especially since freezing them would kill them.

    12. Re:Humanity by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Clearly it's faster to just freeze Sly now.

    13. Re:Humanity by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      As are the odds for eliminating any undesirable trait as well.

    14. Re:Humanity by Surt · · Score: 1

      I think the assumption is that murder/rape have a larger memetic component than a genetic one.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    15. Re:Humanity by znerk · · Score: 1

      And Heinlein is still a good read, especially Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land.

      ... and in case it's necessary to point it out for those who think otherwise, Starship Troopers the movie has very little to do with Starship Troopers the book.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    16. Re:Humanity by modecx · · Score: 1

      Why waste bullets? You ever seen what a high velocity chunk of lead does to a watermelon? Bingo. We can give the lesser-sentenced criminals a good show. Still equally painless--but you have to admit, a hell of a lot more entertaining... Though it does complicate the harvesting of some organs. I guess we can take their corneas, etc. whilst they're still alive.

      Bullets are pretty cheap and we have billions of 'em--and we even have plenty of general-purpose bullet delivery devices. So, no need to invest in some fancy and all too hygienic cattle-killer.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  7. Bleh by NetServices · · Score: 0

    Buzz off

  8. What, a computer virus? by AndyAndyAndyAndy · · Score: 0

    What the hell kind of virus isn't DNA-based?

    --
    It's always confirmation bias!
    1. Re:What, a computer virus? by marcansoft · · Score: 3, Informative

      RNA retroviruses, such as HIV.

    2. Re:What, a computer virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Maybe the most famous of them all.

    3. Re:What, a computer virus? by treeves · · Score: 1

      Ones that are RNA based. Like the common cold virus, Ebola, influenza, West Nile, Dengue fever, and Rabies, for instance.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    4. Re:What, a computer virus? by daitengu · · Score: 1

      A lot. Viruses are called that because, well, they're viral. They can be passed from pigs to humans, from dogs to cats, from monkeys to humans, from birds to humans and vice-versa.

    5. Re:What, a computer virus? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Retroviruses are based on RNA.

      --

      Waiting for the Bee Czar.

    6. Re:What, a computer virus? by glwtta · · Score: 1

      RNA retroviruses, such as HIV.

      Any RNA viruses really, not just retroviruses.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    7. Re:What, a computer virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not too bright are ya?

  9. Answer by martin-boundary · · Score: 0

    'It's chicken and egg in a sense we don't know which came first,'

    Oh, that's easy: the CIA. I have pro...
    Wait, there's somebody at the door. Be right back.

    1. Re:Answer by cpscotti · · Score: 3, Funny

      I always wonder how many people tried to play the same hoax you're trying there but they took it so serious that they didn't click the "Preview" and theeen the "submit" buttons.

      I fact, I like them better.

    2. Re:Answer by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

      Chickens and eggs are things that are created one from the other and thus it's not known which was created first (since each is dependent on the other).
      In this case it is not a chicken-and-egg situation. The fungi and the virus are created independently. They are not dependent on one another for creation. On the contrary, their being together in the same bee causes them to die* (together with the bee). It is more logical to assume each was created on its own and by chance have such an effect on the bee.
      It mught be that somehow their infecting the bee increase the pathogens' spread, but it's still not chicken-and-egg.

      Next metaphor!

      * As much as a virus can be said to die.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
  10. Too bad, do we help them...? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are bees an integral part of our society, and do they need to be present else we die off somehow....the impact of the species becoming extinct is not unimportant as let's say the platapus....I think if we can, we should help the species by giving them some sort of cure, if we can find it....else we might go without honey in our future.

    1. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by RingDev · · Score: 5, Informative

      Are bees an integral part of our society, and do they need to be present else we die off somehow.

      If you'll excuse a slight over simplification: Yes.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    2. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Informative

      Somehow?

      Do you eat any fruits or eat anything that ever ate a fruit? Including fruits that some people think are vegetables, tomatoes, peppers, cumcumbers, etc?

      If so thank a bee. We do not have the man power to pollinate our crops by hand, without bees no fruit.

    3. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by bhcompy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bees are the primary pollinators in our world. Without them we'll have serious issues with plant growth and our food supply

    4. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by a20tornado · · Score: 1

      It's not just a matter of going without honey. When honey bees are collecting the pollen for their own uses, they inadvertently pollinate plants. This goes beyond just pretty flowers and extends to food crops as well, that put on blooms that have to be pollinated before they'll actually produce fruit. There are lots of people essentially maintaining backyard bee hives for this very reason, to keep the populations around and try to help make sure they don't go extinct.

    5. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are bees an integral part of our society, and do they need to be present else we die off somehow....the impact of the species becoming extinct is not unimportant as let's say the platapus....I think if we can, we should help the species by giving them some sort of cure, if we can find it....else we might go without honey in our future.

      Actually, almost all flowering crop species and many keystone plant species in most biomes depend upon bees for pollination. Keeping bees alive, is an ultimately selfish act. It could be argued that even species such as the platypus are indicators of overall biosphere health. The loss of any species is an indication of poor conditions for life in general including ours.

      Like the canary in the coal mine, you may not consider the canary helpful in removing coal for productive use, but if it dies, I don't think you will have much time to complain about its lack of productivity...

    6. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by Surt · · Score: 2, Informative

      I assume you're joking, but just in case:
      Honey is not the main thing we get from bees. The main thing we get from bees is pollination, and our food supply would suffer significantly if they were wiped out.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    7. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by b0bby · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are bees an integral part of our society, and do they need to be present else we die off somehow....the impact of the species becoming extinct is not unimportant as let's say the platapus....I think if we can, we should help the species by giving them some sort of cure, if we can find it....else we might go without honey in our future.

      Honey is just a nice side benefit - many many crops rely on bees to pollinate them. So much so that in the US, farmers pay people to drive hives around on trucks to pollinate their fields at the right time. Before this study, the stress of transport was thought to be connected to collapse disorder; it may still be a contributing cause.

    8. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by MaWeiTao · · Score: 2, Informative

      Bees aren't the only pollinating insects. Certain kinds of flies also do a decent job. Many plants are also self-pollinating, to one extent or another. And there's always the option of doing it manually.

      That said, bees are extremely vital and their disappearance is cause for serious concern.

    9. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Do you eat any fruits or eat anything that ever ate a fruit?
      Including fruits that some people think are vegetables, tomatoes, peppers, cumcumbers, etc?

      I think you got that last one backwards - those aren't fruits, those are eaten by fruits.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    10. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Funny

      golf clap.

    11. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you eat any fruits or eat anything that ever ate a fruit? Including fruits that some people think are vegetables, tomatoes, peppers, cumcumbers, etc?

      I don't want to eat cumcumbers.

    12. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by notaspy · · Score: 2, Funny

      "We do not have the man power to pollinate our crops by hand, without bees no fruit."

      We can solve two problems with a single stroke. With 20 million Americans out of work, let's get them out in the fields, woods, orchards and gardens with little paintbrushes, pollinating like crazy.

      --
      hi!
    13. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      We do not have the man power to pollinate our crops by hand, without bees no fruit.

      This is only meant as a hypothetical question, not as an actual solution to the bee problem.

      Couldn't we "clone" pollen, and spray it with a firehose (or more likely some sort of mister) on plants?

      I realize that would lower the genetic diversity of fruit, but we already have that problem with bananas.

    14. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Pollen is very small and you have to get it in just the right place, mass spraying is unlikely to be very effective in this case.

    15. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by the+biologist · · Score: 1

      The stress of transport may be a contributing cause. The driving bees all over the countryside is very directly a cause.

      One sick colony somewhere doesn't amount to much... but if you then drive that colony all over the country so every other colony also gets exposed, you have yourself a epidemic. This is pretty simple epidemiology and was apparent to be involved from early on (at least by the biology-types I hange out with).

      The work identifying a specific virus and a specific fungus is handy because we'll be able to develop specific countermeasures... however, we're still going to be driving the damned bees all over the place spreading potential bee plagues as they go. (Prediction: a decade after this disease is licked, there will be another 'mysterious' bee dieoff and we'll go through the whole cycle again of people wondering why.)

    16. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by Hinhule · · Score: 1

      The bigger issue is probably that the bees help plants, I believe flowers in particular, pollenate.

      While being without honey would suck there are plenty of other forms of sugar around.

    17. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow?

      Do you eat any fruits or eat anything that ever ate a fruit? Including fruits that some people think are vegetables, tomatoes, peppers, cumcumbers, etc?

      If so thank a bee. We do not have the man power to pollinate our crops by hand, without bees no fruit.

      Not true. As Corporate America leverages its synergies, creates Economy of Scale, automates and outsources, we have an employment situation. However, if we take all those unemployed people, put them in yellow-and-black striped suits and turn them loose on the plants, we'll have Universal Employment. Even the illegals can help out!

      See? God has a Plan for us all...

    18. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Tomatoes (except for "potato-leaf" varieties) and peppers are self-pollinating; as are all cereal grains that I know of. There are other bees to pollinate the rest; sometimes doing a better job than honeybees.

      And the "ZOMG, we're all gonna DIE" media coverage of CCD is getting pretty fucking old.

    19. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by Xtifr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Including fruits that some people think are vegetables.

      You say that as if fruit and vegetable were exclusive categories.

      Vegetable, n.
      1.
      a. A plant cultivated for an edible part.
      b. The edible part of such a plant.
      c. A member of the vegetable kingdom; a plant.

      Oranges and strawberries are vegetables by any of those definitions just as much as tomatoes and cucumbers are fruit. All four fall into both categories; all edible fruits are vegetables.

      Wikipedia has a slightly more nuanced definition of Vegetable: "an edible plant or part of a plant other than a sweet fruit or seed." There's no direct citation for this distinction, but even if we accept it, then strawberries stop being vegetables, but tomatoes and the like are still members of both categories. I can't find any definition anywhere that would exclude tomatoes or cucumbers from the vegetable category.

      That said, while I basically agree with your point of your post, the claim "without bees no fruit" is slightly exaggerated. Not all edible fruits rely on bees. But the loss of those that do would certainly be catastrophic.

    20. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      But pickles are okay.

    21. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, many plants have specific mechanisms that interact the pollinator to transfer the pollen.

    22. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm curious, how so exactly? Some of our biggest grass family staple crops, like corn, rice, wheat, and sorghum, are wind pollinated. Root staples like potato and cassava are not dependent on pollination at all. A good number of vegetables, like tomatoes & peppers (beans & peas too I think), are self pollinating, and others, like brassica, leaf, bulb, and root vegetables, need pollination only for seed production, not for the crop itself, so if seed producers produced seed without bees (and they might already since hybrid seed production isn't exactly done haphazardly) it wouldn't be an issue. Some fruits and nuts, like watermelon, apple, kiwi, cacao, blueberry, and macadamia, might be out of luck, but we wouldn't die off if the supply were cut. Of course, even there we could get substitutes, for example, fruits pollinated by things like beetles/flies, such as Annonaceae fruits like pawpaw, cherimoya, and sugar apple, or parthenocarpic species and varieties, like figs, pineapples, persimmons, bananas, and oranges, or use chemicals/hormones to set fruit.

      It's certainty not a good thing by any measure, but I don't really see how humans are absolutely dependent on bees. This is just an agricultural perspective though, not sure what ramifications it would have on the greater ecosystem, but I thought it was only the European honey bees in real danger, not the every other bee. Unless I'm missing something?

    23. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, peppers and tomatoes will self fertilize themselves quite nicely. For example, to prevent varieties of pepper from hybridizing, I take a little piece of tape and seal the flower before it opens. After a while, it falls off on its own and a pepper forms. Try it sometime. For cucurbits like cucumbers, melons, and watermelons, there you'll want pollination.

    24. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      You say that as if fruit and vegetable were exclusive categories.

      You say that as if English is not your first language, and you've learned it exclusively through reading the dictionary instead of through speaking to people.

      I can't find any definition anywhere that would exclude tomatoes or cucumbers from the vegetable category.

      The problem is that words have can have multiple, overlapping meanings with nuanced differences between each use, and a dictionary will not tell you which is appropriate. The fruits and vegetables divide is a classic example. As we grow up, most of us learn to associate "fruit" with sweet plant foods and "vegetable" with other plant foods. These are the common meanings people use, and the implication (not found in your dictionary references) is that these meanings are exclusive.

      But then we learn that some "vegetables" are actually "fruits," because a different, more technical definition of the word "fruit" is "the seed-bearing structure of a plant." So, by this definition a tomato is a fruit, and we learn that something can be fruit and a vegetable. This is well enough known that it too becomes a popular definition.

      But we don't get taught that all fruits are vegetables, like the definitions you cited suggest. That's not the common meaning of the word. Ask 1000 people on the street if an apple is a vegetable, and I'll bet that less than 10 answer that it is. That doesn't mean the definition is incorrect or that all these people are grossly ignorant -- someone may in fact use vegetable in the way your dictionary suggests. However, the dictionary's primary failure here is that it does not inform the reader of when to use each definition in context.

      So don't toss dictionary definitions around like they actually mean something. :-)

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    25. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      Fruit- the fruiting body of a plant, that which has seeds. Potentially edible.

      Vegetable- any part of a plant which is edible but is not a fruiting body.

      Not so hard really.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    26. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      And there's always the option of doing it manually.

      Rule 34?

    27. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      A thing to think about is this; There was a big load of hype about experiments a few years back where NASA / xxx university etc. would build a biosphere with "all the elements to support life"; people would live in there for X months and we would all learn how the ecology of the world. Since that time we hear nothing. Why?

      Well, I actually checked up. The results are available on the internet, they just didn't get big publicity. Basically all these experiments "failed" after a few months. The atmosphere lost oxygen, predators died out for unknown reasons and pests took over etc. etc.

      In the end, these experiments didn't fail. The told us what we need to know. We do not know what is needed to support life on earth and it's quite possible that some of the species of bacteria which live on blueberry roots are needed for life. Who knows. Certainly killing off all the flowering plants just because we aren't sure they are needed doesn't sound like a good bet.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    28. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      How did crops pollinate before the Americas imports the honey bees?

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    29. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by muphin · · Score: 1

      yeah! didnt you see the bee movie ??

      --
      It's not a typo if you understood the meaning!
    30. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by Surt · · Score: 1

      Other, less efficient species of bees and insects. We did not have industrial scale agriculture without the honeybee.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    31. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by Ed_Pinkley · · Score: 1

      You are correct. We would not starve if the honeybee went extinct. The variety of food would suffer. There are some plants that just don't produce well without a lot of pollinators. Natural pollinators are not as proficient or predicable as honeybees. Many industries would cease to exist. Depending on how quickly this happened it would be a financial burden on growers until they are able to switch to other crops.

      --
      "Long time listener, first time caller."
    32. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by Ed_Pinkley · · Score: 1

      Pretty much any plant that evolved without honeybees will do fine without them. There are some plants that are very well-suited to being pollinated by honeybees. (I think almonds are one.) Those plants won't do well if we lose honeybees.

      --
      "Long time listener, first time caller."
    33. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      Actually I was not joking, I was merely assuming that with today's technology,
      the pollination and crop growing can pretty much maintain itself without bees,
      although I guess the wild flowers would all die off...

    34. Re:Too bad, do we help them...? by Surt · · Score: 1

      The bulk of our pollination is still done by bees. Having to do it by hand or having to invent technology to do it would be very expensive for our food supply (at least until we invented a very efficient way to do it).

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  11. Cure by p0p0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let's hope the scientists make a beeline for the cure. :P

    1. Re:Cure by blackmonday · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of buzz, but no definite answers yet.

  12. Headline by ffreeloader · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, the headline is: Mystery of the Dying Bees Solved.

    The first sentence in the first paragraph says: jamie points out news of a study attempting to explain the decline of honeybee populations across the US.

    I guess "attempting to explain" now means "solved". The English language sure is changing rapidly here on /..

    --
    "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    1. Re:Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop crying headlinegate. Sounds like you're censoring us. Don't try to steal Slashdot's purpose. You might brick the website in the process. (for the humor impaired, I'm illustrating several words often misused here)

    2. Re:Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, since when did correlation mean causation anyways?

    3. Re:Headline by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure I heard people say from time to time that global warming wa killing the bees

    4. Re:Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientists are a humble bunch.

    5. Re:Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mystery is solved when it is better understood, which is what happened. What you mean is that the problem hasn't been solved.

    6. Re:Headline by Halo1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I recently saw a documentary (in Dutch) on this topic on TV (which was a translated version of a French documentary).

      They indicated many different causes:

      • the parasite (a kind of mite) mentioned in the summary, and the fact that it spreads viruses. Good news: a few colonies have learned to adapt by recognising and killing larvae infected with mite eggs, and removing them from the colony

      • The current bee population is way too homogeneous. All bee queens that are currently sold on the global market are bred in the US by a handful of people. Moreover, the bee population in the US is was already not very diverse in the first place because honey bees are not native to North America, they were imported by European settlers (so they all descend from a few colonies).

      • The global bee trade from the previous point also results in quickly spreading diseases and parasites all over the world.

      • Bee colonies are "abused" in many parts of the world. For example, California has immense almond plantations, with hundreds of thousands of acres that contain nothing but grass and almond trees (apparently it's the state's larges source of income). These flower at the end of winter and have to be fertilised within a period of a few weeks. In order to be achieve this, they import bee colonies from all over the US.

        Problem: bees are normally still hibernating at that point. "Solution": a few weeks in advance they put patties with antibiotics and food concentrate in the colonies to "warm them up". Problem: apart from the forced de-hibernation, many bees die of malnutrition in those plantations because even though there is an abundance of pollen, it's all almond pollen and these do not contain all different kinds of nutrients that bees requires.

      • Pesticides, in particular neonicotinoids (but not just those). There were some pretty horrible stories in the documentary about Bayer refusing all responsibility in the face of all evidence, which included negative effects on bees even when researchers diluted the pesticides to the extent that they could no longer detect them.

        It has become that bad that several beekeepers now take their colonies "on holidays" (e.g. to the Provence in France) to allow them to recuperate from all the poison they get from the farmlands and plantations. Even more surreal was that apparently a number of beekeepers are moving from the countryside into cities, because the lack of pesticides in urban settings more than compensates for the other pollution and the reduced availability of pollen.

      --
      Donate free food here
    7. Re:Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quiet YOU!

      This is Science we're talking about here!

      /what?!?

    8. Re:Headline by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      No, it's the cell phone towers - your strange new technology scares unfrozen caveman apiarist!

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    9. Re:Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's very suspect. Beekeepers got control of their stock by refusing to use their buzzy-things on fields using a particular pesticide. I can't remember it's name, couldn't pronounce it anyway. Go to a local farmers' market, and talk to the honey people. They tell you the same story regardless of where you are in the country. Coincidentally, my "greener" friends in Europe did the same and got the same tales. Not proof, but pretty interesting results.

    10. Re:Headline by turtledawn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A contributing factor to the severity of varroa mite infestations is the use of pre-manufactured wax or plastic comb supports, which cause the bees to build comb with cells that are just slightly larger than the cells bees build in the wild. For some reason, the bees aren't able to clean out the larger cells as effectively or perhaps they don't notice the presence of the mite eggs as soon. When bees are allowed to build comb to their own liking, as in a top-bar hive, you see very few varroa infestations (and that's more or less the extent of my bee-keeping knowledge, sorry).

      --
      Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
    11. Re:Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is always the case with journalism vs science.

      a journalists thinks there is enough evidence, the scientists just feel they have a very strong case and are ready to conduct further testing to actually prove it.

    12. Re:Headline by mseitz · · Score: 1

      Yes, I had a similar thought about that headline. During an NPR interview, the researcher essentially said this wasn't "the solution" to the mystery, just another step on the road to solving the mystery.

    13. Re:Headline by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      Well, you're someone else here on /. that doesn't understand the English language.

      solve
      verb \sälv, solv\
      solvedsolving
      Definition of SOLVE
      transitive verb
      1
      : to find a solution, explanation, or answer for

      The past tense of solve is solved. That means the final solution, the final answer, to the mystery has been found and the mystery that once was is now in the past. To solve a problem/mystery does not mean to just better understand it. In logical terms "better understanding" is necessary, but not sufficient for a solution.

      None of the researchers involved even begin to say that they know all the answers to solving this mystery. They say they have found two medical issues that are found in 100% of the affected bee populations, but they do not say they have 100% of the answers. They do not say the case has been solved and the mystery is in the past. They do not say this virus/fungus combination is the only cause, only that in combination they are fatal. There are other factors involved and they say that very clearly.

      Learn to read and comprehend.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    14. Re:Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read any of the paper? ALL (100%) of collapsed colonies sampled were infected with both the virus and the fungus. None of the control colonies
      contained both. Further more very rigorous studies were done of homogenized (aka liquified) bees to isolate the causative factors with very high confidence.

      So yes. In this case their "attempt to explain" is quite successful = solved (with very high probability).

    15. Re:Headline by Lennie · · Score: 1

      I heard there is an other problem, it seems the Bee keepers are also a dying breed. There are very few new Bee keepers. Most of them are old men and ready for retirement. If the experience (and possible knowledge) is lost that would be a problem too.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    16. Re:Headline by Halo1 · · Score: 1

      One more thing I forgot: the queens they breed and sell are selected for only two traits, namely producing offspring that is docile and with maximal honey production. And at least the former trait directly conflicts with the ability to survive.

      The documentary also included an interview with a bee keeper from the Scottish highlands, who keeps the more aggressive black bees. He's been hit less hard by the mite infections that most other bee keepers, but then again his and his father's motto is: if a hive dies, good riddance. They quite strictly followed the "survival of the fittest" doctrine as far as their bee hives are concerned, rather than selecting for other traits.

      --
      Donate free food here
    17. Re:Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there are "small-cell" foundations available. the "small-cell" or natural-sized comb help with varroa since they get capped 24 hours sooner, and don't allow the mites as much time to infest. another method of varroa control is to put in a plastic frame of drone cells. since varroa prefer drones, they will attack this frame. the beekeeper can then take out this frame and dispose of the mite larva before they hatch. Here's some info I found on cell size from a quick google search http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm.

    18. Re:Headline by turtledawn · · Score: 1

      interesting, thanks.

      --
      Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
  13. God's Vengeance by jfz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wait, so it isn't God's vengeance for Bee homosexuality?

    1. Re:God's Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      And does this mean we can start using our cell phones again?

    2. Re:God's Vengeance by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      No, that's still the reason. We've simply figured out how God's will has manifested itself.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    3. Re:God's Vengeance by Surt · · Score: 1

      Yes it is. In this case, God smited them with a pair of plagues. A lot like what he did to the Egyptians for picking on the Jews.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:God's Vengeance by charlesj68 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes it is. In this case, God smited them with a pair of plagues. A lot like what he did to the Egyptians for picking on the Jews.

      It took ten plagues for the Egyptians to catch on, and only two for the bees? Are you mocking the Egyptians?

    5. Re:God's Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Now if we can just get Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church to start picketing killer bee hives because God hates gay killer bees, then we might have a solution. Different problem, but the solution would work for me and the bees.

    6. Re:God's Vengeance by ukemike · · Score: 1

      Wait, so it isn't God's vengeance for Bee homosexuality?

      No. No. No. This is about Bee polygamy. You should always get your "offensive in the sight of GOD" sin right before you go on a smear campaign. Having all your distorted facts in a row is critical in preventing the liberal mainstream media from painting you as a nutcase.

      --
      -- QED
    7. Re:God's Vengeance by lewiley · · Score: 0

      Actually, the bees got raptured.

    8. Re:God's Vengeance by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I thought it was God's vengeance for cellphone use.

    9. Re:God's Vengeance by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 4, Funny

      Put down Xenocide and walk away.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    10. Re:God's Vengeance by lgw · · Score: 1

      Put down Xenocide and walk away.

      That's simply good advice regardless of context.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:God's Vengeance by Surt · · Score: 1

      God didn't hit the egyptians with all the plagues in one day. If the bees haven't stopped their homosexuality, I'm sure things will get worse.

      OTOH, have you met any Egyptians? They are totally worthy of a good mocking.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    12. Re:God's Vengeance by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      Hah. Haven't read that in a decade at least actually.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    13. Re:God's Vengeance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was whitey...

  14. Kill the fungus, fix the problem by SheeEttin · · Score: 1

    Great! Now that we know what's wrong, all we have to do is develop a method of killing the fungus, and the problem is solved. (Not much you can do about the virus, but if it takes two...)

    Meanwhile, I wonder if something similar is going on with those bats' white-nose syndrome (also caused by a fungus).

    1. Re:Kill the fungus, fix the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original article says they already know how to kill the shroom. So problem solved, the future is bright, the sun is shining and there are rainbows in the sky =D

    2. Re:Kill the fungus, fix the problem by WarwickRyan · · Score: 1

      > Not much you can do about the virus ..except vaccination...

      Not sure how you'd deliver a vaccine to the bee colony, though.

    3. Re:Kill the fungus, fix the problem by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      If only there was a small, bee-sized hypodermic available...

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    4. Re:Kill the fungus, fix the problem by perbert · · Score: 1

      Probably the same way that commercial beekeepers administer antibiotics: mix it in with some feed syrup.

  15. many common viruses are RNA based, not DNA... by slew · · Score: 5, Informative

    What the hell kind of virus isn't DNA-based?

    For example, the flu is an RNA based virus...
    Perhaps you might want to stick to writing computer programs ;^)

  16. I'm fairly certain that God killed the Bees by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2, Funny

    After all, since He created the Earth in seven days, he figured why mess with biology and science and not do a little Divine Intervention to keep Bees from ruining his Picnic.

    Every time He holds a picnic, after all, Jesus always complains about his dinosaurs getting stung by them.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:I'm fairly certain that God killed the Bees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, where is my +1 Sarcasm mod?

    2. Re:I'm fairly certain that God killed the Bees by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      Those are wasps, hornets, and yellow jackets. And sometimes deer flies.

      I like nature but I HATE all of those bastards. Yes, there was a few childhood incidents.

    3. Re:I'm fairly certain that God killed the Bees by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      You know, wasps & hornets aren't out to get you unless you surprise or anger them somehow. You can usually avoid that if you pay attention.

      Deer flies on the other hand are zeroing in on you for a meal so I'm with you on that.

    4. Re:I'm fairly certain that God killed the Bees by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Wasps and hornets are invasive and territorial. And they will dive bomb you while you're in the shower, not surprising or angering them.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
  17. The Mystery is NOT Solved ! ( +1, Helpful ) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "They're co-factors, that's all we can say at the moment,' he said. 'They're both present in all these collapsed colonies.'"

    I hope this helps the UNSCIENTIFIC editors with the news summary.

    Yours In Edmonton,
    Kilgore Trout

  18. The Wi-Flys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it wasn't the Wi-Flys? Not the cell phones with their GBees?

  19. CCD mystery: manufactured misinterpretation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems like there's a whole branch of CCD-related journalism evolving: Half claiming proclaiming the matter to be a mystery, and the other side which will highlight one of many factors as a "cause", thus declaring a solution. Both feed upon each other.

    There is no mystery, other than the mystery of why people keep failing to acknowledge unsustainable and abusive beekeeping practices as a root cause.

    - Metropropolis.

  20. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One mystery down, now let's tackle this one, this is while trying to get to the comments page of an account on /.:

    HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 21:00:38 GMT Server: Apache/1.3.41 (Unix) mod_perl/1.31-rc4 Connection: close Transfer-Encoding: chunked Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
    OK
    The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

    Please contact the server administrator, admin@slashdot.org and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

    More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

    Apache/1.3.41 Server at slashdot.org Port 80

    1. Re:Good by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      "One mystery down, now let's tackle this one, this is while trying to get to the comments page of an account on /.:

      HTTP...Port 80"

      Same...

      Verbatim.

  21. Fungicide? by istartedi · · Score: 0

    So, will fungicide be the answer? IANAbiologist, but fungi are easier to kill, right?

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  22. this is great news by Nicky+G · · Score: 1

    Not an answer to the problem (which is huge) but at least now people can target their efforts to make an impact on the core issues that are leading to this. Interesting that the Army seems to have been a big contributor -- GO ARMY! :)

    1. Re:this is great news by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      The army has always been a large contributor in these fields. Every major installation employs wildlife biologists (and others) and their findings are regularly submitted to journals that only people with a masters degree in treehuggerology would appreciate.

      One reason is the usefulness of chem and bio weapons research. The other is that the Army can't do anything without the environmentalists freaking out. Also it takes good management to use training land for years without it becoming unsuitable for training.

  23. are they both never present in thriving colonies? by proclivity76 · · Score: 1

    I don't have time to check it out -- but just because two items are in ever failed colony doesn't mean that's the cause. I'm touchy on the use of corollary evidence used to claim causation which is the irresponsible route of the fame whores of science. If they were to introduce the two into a healthy colony together where it previously did not exist and they destroyed the colony near 100% of the time, it's causation. But the quoted statement doesn't say anything about these two not existing in thriving colonies. It might be there, and I might be a grouchy old man for this, but -- well I am a grouchy old man, so it would fit.

  24. Fungi are actually *difficult* to kill by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 0
    The reason bacteria was once fatal, and even common bacteria will sicken you is that bacteria have a totally different chemistry from humans.

    Antibiotics are what fungus uses to kill bacteria. Fatal to bacteria, safe for humans.

    The problem is that anything that will kill a fungus will kill a human. Bees too, presumably, as being animals I would expect their chemistry to be roughly similar to humans.

    (Evolution took hold with the discovery of antibiotics: with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the bacteria are changing their chemistry and learning to fight back.)

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
  25. Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean I can start using my cell phone again?

  26. So I can use my cellphone then, right? by Kostya · · Score: 1

    You mean, I'm not killing baby bees every time I take a call or text? My, what a relief!

    --
    "Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs." -- Switchfoot, Ode to Chin
  27. Nice study, now what? by dunsel · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a practical beekeeper I feel it is my duty to take this one step further and speculate on how to apply this finding to saving my bees. Virus transmission should be kept to a minimum, I can't think of much else to do to keep a virus like this in check. The primary vector for honeybee viruses is the varroa mite and this pest continues to be the primary killer of honeybees despite all of the hubub about this "Colony Collapse Disorder". Finding that this mite has a hand in CCD is no surprise to me. Nosema is not new to the beekeeping world although N. ceranae is a bigger problem than the tamer N. apis that we're used to dealing with. The treatment is the same though, feed Fumidil B. The bad news is that there isn't much new here so there won't be a silver bullet cure. Keep the bees healthy as best we can, that's about all I can see here.

    1. Re:Nice study, now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      > As a practical beekeeper I feel it is my duty to take this one step further and speculate on how to apply this finding to saving my bees.

      You should leave the speculation to the theoretical beekeepers.

    2. Re:Nice study, now what? by oldhack · · Score: 1

      I wonder if there is a way to make lemonade out of this lemon.

      Can we use the disease to push back the onslaught of the killer bees invading up north?

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    3. Re:Nice study, now what? by the+biologist · · Score: 1

      One of the motivations of the research which led to the killer bees is that the wild African bee strain was much more robust under the assault of known bee diseases. This is likely due in part to the inbred nature of most domesticated bees and a concommitent decrease in immune system function.

      I expect killer bees have generally not cared the slightest about this little plague killiing our bees.

    4. Re:Nice study, now what? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      I wonder if there is a way to make lemonade out of this lemon.

      no, but they've stumbled across an efficient method to make bee jam

    5. Re:Nice study, now what? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Can we use the disease to push back the onslaught of the killer bees invading up north?

      What you want to do is infect all bee colonies south of a line of non-africanized hives with these substances and exterminate them, and then reintroduce non-africanized bees to the cleared regions.

      BTW, they don't so much invade as inveigle. The africanized bees interbreed with the local populations. That's why they're "africanized" and not just "african".

      Here's where they are so far: http://www.millennium-ark.net/News_Files/Garden_Seeds/Africanized_bees_map.jpg

      And this is what they look like: http://hotoffpress.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/snls2e3-killerbees.jpg

    6. Re:Nice study, now what? by turtledawn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      have you tried top bar hives? Supposedly bees can keep control of the mite more easily in natural-sized comb instead of the slightly too-big comb you get when using commercial frames with pre-molded supports. Of course it's more work for somewhat less honey, but mites suck.

      --
      Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
    7. Re:Nice study, now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So....
      If the transmission and the virus is primarly through the varroa mite and Africanized bees were developed to be resistance to the mite, then...

      Are Africanized bees affected by colony collapse disorder?

      This article identifies a spike in africanized bees, is this an anomally (article is from 1998), or are swarms of agressive stinging insects going to be the salvation of our agricultural industry?

      http://californiaagriculture.ucanr.org/landingpage.cfm?article=ca.v052n02p7&fulltext=yes

    8. Re:Nice study, now what? by catmistake · · Score: 1

      I expect killer bees have generally not cared the slightest about this little plague killiing our bees.

      Killer bees, or Africanized bees, are the same as regular bees. I always thought they were bigger or something... but saw a few documentaries on them when the spread was being sensationalized. I was always afraid of killer bees when I was growing up... but realize now it's absurd. It's likely I've never been within a hundred miles of a killer bee, LOL. So, they differ in individual and swarm behavior, crazy aggressive, but otherwise are the same as regular bees, biologically. Honestly, have no idea, but I'd guess they're killed by the same things that kill any bees. Whether they care less than other bees is ... difficult to imagine. What is it like to be a bee?

    9. Re:Nice study, now what? by dunsel · · Score: 1

      I have three Langstroth hives that I don't use foundation in. This gives the natural (vairable) cell size which I believe is beneficial. These are also some of the hives I don't treat for Varroa in since I produce treatment free honey in addition to regular honey. I think this is my last year going completely without foundation, even though I start a box with a few drawn frames as guides it takes longer for them to be filled with usable comb. I've noticed that when conditions aren't perfect the bees will still draw new comb from foundation but they will only draw new foundation when they have a strong nectar flow or they are from a recent swarm.

    10. Re:Nice study, now what? by the+biologist · · Score: 1

      "otherwise the same as regular bees"

      ...for the most part. the standard bee we think of is a domesticated, inbred, tamed animal.

      Part of the "killer bee" aggressive behavior is the more aggressive killing/discarding of sick colony members, resulting in improved health of colonies facing disease.

      As well, the introduction of wild gene stock which resulted in the "killer bees" brought with it a lot of genetic diversity which in general has been found to be associated with improved health.

  28. Just do a comparison by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You can buy wild desert honey. The bees that make it feed on the various plants found in the desert. They are allowed to feed on whatever they can find. It isn't that common in stores nationally, but you see it in the desert states, since that's where it is made. At any rate, compare their health to the health of clover honey bees. If there is a significant difference, then maybe you are on to something.

    Remember that not all honey is produced the same way. Clover honey is popular because it is easy to make and has a very uniform taste, however polyfloral honey is available. Personally I always buy wild desert honey because I appreciate the flavour. It isn't always the same bottle to bottle, but it has some complexity than regular clover honey. Little more expensive too but then it isn't like you go through a honey bottle a week or something.

    1. Re:Just do a comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      > it isn't like you go through a honey bottle a week or something.

      Speak for yourself.

      Signed,
      The Bears.

    2. Re:Just do a comparison by Derosian · · Score: 1

      As a prior beekeeper and honey aficionado myself, I strongly prefer Texas Wildflower Honey, a rich brown flavor. Clover honey has this green taste that I find out of place in my honey. On the other hand I've found several other local honeys that are great as well. Orange Honey, generally from the southeast, and Kansas Honey, not sure what by but it has a lighter mild flavor. I am interested in this Desert Honey you speak of, do you have a specific producer you prefer?

    3. Re:Just do a comparison by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Not that I can remember. If I remember (which is by no means guaranteed) I'll check the bottle when I get home tonight. I just buy it at Safeway though. However I have checked in other parts of the country, and haven't found it, so I presume it is stocked regionally. It is produced right around where I live so not surprising. It is from Arizona, that much I know. If I remember to check, I'll post more details.

    4. Re:Just do a comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a prior beekeeper and honey aficionado myself, I strongly prefer Texas Wildflower Honey, a rich brown flavor.

      As a former beekeeper, I prefer to buy local honey. Lucky for me, Texas Wildflower Honey is local honey. Great stuff.

    5. Re:Just do a comparison by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      a rich brown flavor. Clover honey has this green taste

      I really not trying to be a smart-ass, but what does "brown" and "green" taste like?

    6. Re:Just do a comparison by LearnToSpell · · Score: 1

      You know how at Hallowe'en, you get a bunch of candy so you dump it out into a bowl and go for the best stuff right away, and there's a few lime lollipops in there, so you eagerly tear the wrapping off and jam that sucker in your mouth to grab all the luscious citrusy goodness and after a moment of unrealized bliss you spit it out and exclaim in horror "FUCK! GREEN APPLE?!" Yeah, like that.

      Summary: green sucks.

    7. Re:Just do a comparison by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is going to sound wine snob - sorry.

      Brown is like its name, thick, earthy, think fresh turned earth, with sugar.

      Green is as well, light, airy, with a sharpness - and there is the rub. Many do not like a sharpness in their sweet.

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    8. Re:Just do a comparison by BluBrick · · Score: 1

      As a prior beekeeper and honey aficionado myself, I strongly prefer Texas Wildflower Honey, a rich brown flavor. Clover honey has this green taste that I find out of place in my honey.

      Judging by your descriptions of taste, I think you would really enjoy Tasmanian Leatherwood Honey. It has a unique rich, round, almost nutty flavour, with no hint of that thin green sharpness some honeys have.

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    9. Re:Just do a comparison by jd · · Score: 1

      Is it good for making mead? That's the only thing that I care about with honey.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    10. Re:Just do a comparison by Fyzzler · · Score: 1

      My favorite is Florida Orange Blossom honey. You used to have to buy it in Florida but now I can get it in Ohio at some of the upscale Grocery stores.

      --
      I have one question. If the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture is not in charge of Gundam, then who is?
    11. Re:Just do a comparison by Reziac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I live in the desert. I have a wild honeybee colony on my property. It's a sad affair that barely stays alive. The ONE time in the past nine years that it got up enough numbers to generate a swarm, you could have stuffed the entire swarm into a shoebox and had room to spare. I've tried feeding them but they don't seem interested (tho they show up to get water every day).

      One problem with the western US deserts is that the dirt is loaded with fungus and bacteria spores (thus explosive growth anytime it rains or in any dampness including dew), and now that we mention it, I wonder how that affects the bees. -- I've found that I cannot let young puppies be out in the dirt until their eyes are fully developed (about 4 weeks of age) or they are likely to get eye infections.

      [PS. I used to work for a beekeeper.]

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    12. Re:Just do a comparison by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Your post made me go "MMmmmm wild desert honey". Began googling, I did. Found a place that sells it cheap:

      http://stores.homestead.com/hstrial-DLucas8/-strse-202/Health-Foods,Arizona,Raw,Desert,Honey,unfiltered/Detail.bok

      I am in no way affiliated with the above online store. They were just the second link when I googled "wild desert honey". My bottle is already on the way.

    13. Re:Just do a comparison by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      Living in a desert state now as I do, you did more to explain the difference between regular "table" honey and this new "desert" stuff I'm seeing. I've been hesitant to try it. I'm not allergic to regular clover honey, but I didn't know enough to chance it on the desert honey, and the grocers don't seem to know the differences. I've also seen raw honey. Are there risks to eating desert honey or raw honey when you're only used to processed clover honey as I am?

    14. Re:Just do a comparison by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      This is going to sound wine snob - sorry.
      Brown is like its name, thick, earthy, think fresh turned earth, with sugar.
      Green is as well, light, airy, with a sharpness - and there is the rub. Many do not like a sharpness in their sweet.

      Many do not like earth in their sugar, either.

    15. Re:Just do a comparison by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      It is made by Killer Bees from Mexico.

  29. Other Factors? by ukemike · · Score: 0

    From the beginning of this I have thought that genetically engineered crops must have something to do with this. In many cases the crops are "roundup resistant" which in practice means that lots and lots of roundup is sprayed on them. In other cases crops have been designed to excrete pesticides. Lots of toxic chemical and plants that are by nature insecticidal can't be healthy for pollinators. Hey but who's gonna believe little tin-foil hat wearing me when ADM, supermarket to the world, and Monsanto say otherwise.

    --
    -- QED
    1. Re:Other Factors? by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      care to back that up with a citation. IIRC much of colony collapse has happened on old fashion *non* genetically engineered crops.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    2. Re:Other Factors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      care to back that up with a citation. IIRC much of colony collapse has happened on old fashion *non* genetically engineered crops.

      care to back that up with a citation. IIRC much of colony collapse has happened on genetically engineered, systemic pesticide crops.

    3. Re:Other Factors? by jd · · Score: 1

      Care to back that up? IRC is a chat system on the Internet and should not be trusted for information. :P

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:Other Factors? by ukemike · · Score: 1

      no I don't care to, that would seem too much like work. I note that your statement is equally unsupported. Since bee colonies are moved from crop to crop so frequently I have to wonder how you are so sure. I was merely suggesting a line of inquiry, you are making a categorical statement.

      Obviously correlation does not equal causation. But when you have a major mystery like this and there is an apparent correlation then it ought to be investigated. Regardless I hope the problem is understood sooner rather than later.

      --
      -- QED
    5. Re:Other Factors? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      From the beginning of this I have thought that genetically engineered crops must have something to do with this...

      From the beginning. Without even studying the problem. I don't need to hear a counterargument from Monsanto or anyone else to know you're an idiot. Even if your opinion was right, it would be by coincidence alone, since logical, objective thought was out of the question from the beginning by your own admission. Whether anyone else says otherwise is irrelevant when you make it clear from the start that your own opinion is invalid. ADM doesn't have to say anything when you are self-refuting.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    6. Re:Other Factors? by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      I readed the papers and went to the talks.

      You made the accusation, you need to back it up. But its pretty clear your making it up.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    7. Re:Other Factors? by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      I readed the papers and went to the talks.

      Well, it's obvious that you have a hard time with the English language so how much you understood of what you readed(sic) and heard is up for debate....

      The past tense of the verb read is read. Same word, same spelling, just pronounced differently. The past tense is pronounced the the same as the color red. Learn to use a dictionary.

      Further evidence of your lack of English skills is your user name. Once again your understanding of grammar is very poor. You need to understand subject/verb agreement. The two turtles move. The single turtle moves.

      Even more evidence of your lack of English skills is your misunderstanding of how and when to use your and you're.

      Your shows ownership. It's possessive. It's your lack of grammar skills that call into question your ability to comprehend what you read. Your grammar skills belong to you.

      You're is the contraction for you are. It shows action as it's a noun and verb together. It says you are doing something. You're not parsing the English language correctly so you're quite likely to draw mistaken conclusions from your reading.

      So many mistakes in three sentences. I figured you needed the help as you obviously didn't learn these things in school, and any intelligent person wouldn't want to go on repeating such basic mistakes over and over again as they make you look ignorant and like you have less than a 6th grade education.

      You need to go back and ask for a refund at all previous schools you have attended as problems like this are systemic to the educational system itself. The system passed you along whether you learned what you needed to know at that level or not. That's a huge disservice to the students in that system. That educational system failed you on a very basic level. They didn't teach you, and that's about as basic, and as serious, as educational failures can get.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    8. Re:Other Factors? by ukemike · · Score: 1

      Wow! [sarcasm]nicely said[/sarcasm]. I apologize if some of this is hard to for follow since English clearly isn't your native language.

      I didn't make an accusation. I voiced a suspicion, or to phrase it another way, I made a hypothesis. It seemed to me that no explanation has satisfactorily explained the problem. When there is no current satisfactory answer to a question, posing hypotheses is a useful thing to do.

      What is your attachment to this issue? Why get so emotional? Do you have some sort of vested interest? Are you financially tied in some way to GM crops?

      --
      -- QED
  30. The Happening... by zcubed11 · · Score: 1

    M Night Shyamalan killed the bees!

    1. Re:The Happening... by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      What a twist!!

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
  31. Ummmm, what? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    Seriously, this argument is somewhat incoherent, I'm having trouble parsing it. If you are trying to argue we should make sure nobody dies, well that is rather silly. You do realize the death rate stands at 100% right? EVERYBODY dies, nobody has ever been saved from death in the long run. We have no technology that lets us prevent this, and nothing even highly experimental that shows signs of it. Everyone will die off at some point.

    If this is supposed to be an argument against the death penalty then please leave off it because it is a very poor one. There are good arguments against capital punishment, that someone's DNA might be magic is not one of them. We do not test the DNA of most people, and we certainly don't to a complete sequence and diagnosis to see what it contains.

    1. Re:Ummmm, what? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      This is factually not true. Cryogenic freezing of humans appears to preserve human brains well enough that readily achievable technology will allow for their revival.

      Philosophically, to revive a frozen human the process will involve a molecular level teardown that some might consider to be death followed by the creation of a mere copy. Nevertheless, for all practical purposes, all known laws of physics and known systems in nature will allow this to work just fine. There are existing examples in nature for all of the technology needed.

  32. Were they healthy to start with? by epte · · Score: 1

    I mean, the common cold can kill someone whose immune system is compromised. Is there any indication that bees' immune systems are healthy to start with? Do we have any numbers on white blood cell counts in relation to these studies, or anything like that?

  33. solved? great! by moqi · · Score: 1

    how wonderful, a fungus/virus combo. i was starting to think it had something to do with the elevated aluminum levels in the soil/plants and the way plants have been genetically modified to produce their own insecticides. glad we cleared this up before some sort of disaster happens.

    1. Re:solved? great! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      i was starting to think it had something to do with the elevated aluminum levels in the soil/plants and the way plants have been genetically modified to produce their own insecticides

      That's because you're stupid. Judging by all the tinfoil-wearing enviro-fanatics these days, it appears to be a communicable disease. Now put down your bag of "organic" tomatoes, and pick up a goddamn biology book.

    2. Re:solved? great! by moqi · · Score: 1

      nice ad hominems. i'd post some links, but i doubt you're looking for a real debate on issues. drink some more fluoride, buddy!

    3. Re:solved? great! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      lol. Watch out for the chemtrails!

  34. I've been seeing bees all over the place. by egibster · · Score: 0, Troll

    I've been going for walks and seeing bees everywhere on flowers on stuff. This is dumb.

    --
    Eric
  35. Ought we not be more concerned about this? by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 1

    I first noticed a real decline in bee populations a couple of years ago.

    It was late spring, there were wildflowers everywhere at the airfield where I work -- but not a single, solitary honey-bee.

    Their absence was kind of scary (silent spring anyone?) and things have not improved in the years since.

    It's now mid-spring here in the Southern Hemisphere and there are still no honey-bees to be seen in our gardens. The only bees buzzing around the flowers are bumble-bees and there are far too few of them to do a decent job of pollinating.

    When you consider that honey-bees play an absolutely vital role in the food chain on which we depend, I really wonder if we're not taking this decline in bee populations seriously enough.

    Combine the effects of low plant pollination with increases in extreme weather and sooner or later we're going to get a coincidence of events that produces some pretty drastic collapse of global food supplies.

    By that time -- it might be a little too late to do anything -- or perhaps it already is.

    1. Re:Ought we not be more concerned about this? by bartwol · · Score: 1

      ...a couple of years [...] not a single solitary honey bee [...] in the years since. [...] When you consider that honey-bees play an absolutely vital role in the food chain on which we depend

      Two years, no bees, and no visible effect on our food supply. Am I to believe my eyes, or your alarming declaration?

      Perhaps the "food chain" is not quite as fragile as you suggest? Perhaps, if we just do nothing, the bees will slowly recover while we will continue to observe no significant diminishing of our food supply?

      I'm inclined to add this one to the list of possible but unlikely disasters. It's a very, very long list.

  36. Climate Change Ripples by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    As the climate changes, fungus and possibly virus infections will reach new populations that previously hadn't evolved immunities. The entire process will be evolution in action, with populations unfit to the new infectious agent footprints dying out, hopefully replaced by descendants of the fraction which randomly possess immunities. I hope species essential to human civilization like honeybees aren't destroyed faster than we can cope with losing them.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  37. Ummm No by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    Quote myself
    "it's really only an 93-94% mortality rate so far.. who knows what tomorrow will bring
    I'm currently beating the odds......"

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  38. The problem is over blown by RatherBeAnonymous · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is not a problem world wide, and it is only a problem for professional bee keepers and farmers in the US. Even farmers are able to compensate by keeping their own hives, as non-mobile colonies tend to fare better, or by providing habitat for native pollinators. All of the wild honey bees in the Americas are really feral bees, escaped domesticated bees. The interesting point here is that the decline of the honey bee, a European species, is allowing American native pollinators to return. This includes dozens of species of American bees that are not being killed off by this fungus/virus combination. Since the colony collapse disorder spread to my region, I have seen an explosion of bumble bees and other interesting native bee species now that they are not being out-competed by the feral honey bees. If we are lucky, this disease will continue to kill off feral honey bee hives, sparing native bees.

    1. Re:The problem is over blown by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So having the less efficient and non-honey producing pollinators is what you call lucky?

    2. Re:The problem is over blown by blair1q · · Score: 1

      It is if you sell bananas and cane sugar.

    3. Re:The problem is over blown by Spugglefink · · Score: 1

      I have seen an explosion of bumble bees and other interesting native bee species...

      Me too. I'm not sure if their numbers really have grown, or if they're simply more obvious now. Either way, I have a very plentiful and diverse population of bees. Most of them I can't even identify off hand. I love the little ones that sleep in my sunflowers most of all.

    4. Re:The problem is over blown by RatherBeAnonymous · · Score: 1

      Part of my comment seems to have disappeared. Or I just filed to finish a thought. What I meant to say, is that if we are lucky, effective treatments will allow domestic hives to survive while continuing to kill feral bees.

  39. Oblig. Simpsons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At Goldsboro's Honey, two beekeepers discuss the day.

    Beekeeper 1: Well, sure is quiet in here today.
    Beekeeper 2: Yes, a little too quiet, if you know what I mean.
    Beekeeper 1: Hmm...I'm afraid I don't.
    Beekeeper 2: You see, bees usually make a lot of noise. No noise --
                              suggests no bees!
    Beekeeper 1: Oh, I understand now. Oh look, there goes one now.
    Beekeeper 2: To the Beemobile!
    Beekeeper 1: You mean your Chevy?
    Beekeeper 2: Yes.

    The beekeepers track their bees down to Homer's sugar pile.

    Beekeeper 1: Well, very clever, Simpson, luring our bees to your sugar
                              pile and selling them back to us at an inflated price.
                Homer: Bees are on the what now?
    Beekeeper 2: Simpson, you diabolical...we're willing to pay you $2000
                              for the swarm. [starts counting money]
                Homer: Deal!
                                [thunder crashes, rain starts]
    Beekeeper 1: Oh, wait a minute. The bees are leaving.
                Homer: No! My sugar is melting. Melting! Oh, what a world.
                                [thief spits out his tea]
                Homer: [weeps] My sugar's gone...
                Marge: [walk out with umbrella] I'm sorry, Homey.
                Homer: It's OK, Marge. I've learned my lesson. A mountain of
                              sugar is too much for one man. It's clear now why God
                              portions it out in those tiny packets, and why he lives on
                              a plantation in Hawaii.

    1. Re:Oblig. Simpsons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other obligatory Simpsons quote:

      Homer: "Animals can get sick?!"

      Yes, it was also in reference to bees.

  40. really now by ohiovr · · Score: 1

    They say they know the culpret but the don't know how it actually kills the bees. Think of a court room: "look your honor we know that this man here murdered John Doe, we just don't know what method was used to actually commit the murder and we have no murder weapon nor any evidence that supports our conclusion". If they think a fungus is killing bees wouldn't it make sense to first try putting some fungicide in a bee colony to see what happens. No fungus, no bee killing fungus. However: fungus dead, bees dead, then theory also dead. Talk about leaping to conclusions. This is as bad as the cell phone theory.

    1. Re:really now by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      From TFP:

      Conclusions/Significance

      These findings implicate co-infection by IIV and Nosema with honey bee colony decline, giving credence to older research pointing to IIV, interacting with Nosema and mites, as probable cause of bee losses in the USA, Europe, and Asia. We next need to characterize the IIV and Nosema that we detected and develop management practices to reduce honey bee losses.

      Wow, it's almost like they're proposing that we do more science!

  41. Problem solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not worried about, since we all worship the god of evolution and self, we can just expect the bees to evolve into something that will not be affected by these issues. Problem solved.

  42. Just to point out by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Informative

    That farmers have to pay to have hives driven round because they liberally spray insecticides which wipe out local populations of native insects, including bees.

     

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Just to point out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever stop to think that this may be the problem to begin with?

    2. Re:Just to point out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One reason many farmers have to use commercial beekeepers to pollinate their crops because they have large concentrations of one or two plants. The crop they're growing only blooms at one time of the year, so a "natural" bee population doesn't have enough food most of the year to support enough bees to pollinate the large number of blooms your commercial crop needs pollinated in a short period of time.

      Even without the "monoculture" problems, farmers want to grow a lot of a particular crop in a small area. You'd hate to spend money to raise a big crop of plants and have a low fruit yield because of natural variations in the local bee population.

    3. Re:Just to point out by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      Even without the "monoculture" problems, farmers want to grow a lot of a particular crop in a small area. You'd hate to spend money to raise a big crop of plants and have a low fruit yield because of natural variations in the local bee population.

      He's still right. Liberal use of pesticides is a huge ecological problem.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
  43. 100% Fatal? by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 1

    The only bees they studied were dead.

    --
    I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
    1. Re:100% Fatal? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      I bet they had control groups.

  44. Global Warming by z-j-y · · Score: 1

    Of course, the virus-fungus outbreak is the result of global warming.

    1. Re:Global Warming by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Bah global warming has nothing to do with it. It was the evil mobile phone tower radiation. That must have clearly caused the outbreak. Radiowaves are bad. /sarcasm

    2. Re:Global Warming by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      Of course, the virus-fungus outbreak is the result of global warming.

      No, no, it's God punishing us for allowing gays to serve in the military.

  45. Post hoc ergo propter hoc by fnj · · Score: 1

    Correlation is not causation. There is nothing in the article I read to demonstrate causality: that the combination of the specific virus and fungus caused the death of the bees. Organisms which are morbid or dying are likely to be the target of infections which they otherwise could fight off. The syndrome should be pursued and understood. Once the progression is understood adequately, only then can corrective measures be developed and applied to assured effect.

    1. Re:Post hoc ergo propter hoc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If everything morbid was more likely to be the target of infections, all those goths I went to highschool with would be dead.

    2. Re:Post hoc ergo propter hoc by blair1q · · Score: 1

      If they've found this in all colonies they've studied that have collapsed

      and

      if they've found it in no thriving colonies

      then...

      as far as science goes, it's reasonable to conclude that this correlation is the cause. You could do an experiment where you introduce the two diseases into a healthy colony and watch it die, if you want.

    3. Re:Post hoc ergo propter hoc by zentext · · Score: 1

      This! Skimming through n pages of superficial joking and poor reasoning abilities, regarding one of the potentially most critical environmental problems today, and this was the ONLY comment pointing out the blinding obvious. Finding the virus and fungal types present in the dead bees does NOT prove they were the cause of death. It just proves sick bees get sicker. One bee keeper also points out that CCD is likely a result of multiple factors, from the set of hive maltreatment, GM crops producing pesticides (and/or all the other subtly off metabolites typical of GM organisms), radio spectrum pollution, infection with foreign parasites, monoculture diets, etc. Meanwhile all you supposedly smart tech types are making fart jokes - metaphorically speaking. So it turns out persons involved in this study (that makes no mention of control groups) have links to the companies producing pesticides? What a surprise. The only thing that does surprise me, is that we haven't yet seen studies demonstrating that 911 truthers, marijuana, and illegal music downloads are causing CCD. Enjoy your future food rationing.

  46. Missing word from headline... by Angostura · · Score: 1

    "Possibly"

  47. Bee's and cell phone towers? by NormAtHome · · Score: 1

    While this may be good news if true, I recently read a news article that tests concluded that radiation from cell phone towers was the culprit: http://www.naturalnews.com/029958_mobile_phones_honeybees.html

    I find it strange that there's more than one thing being blamed for this.

    1. Re:Bee's and cell phone towers? by icebike · · Score: 1

      Cell phone opponents try to blame cell phones for everything.

      The study you link to studied exactly TWO hives. The put the phones DIRECTLY in the hive for pete sake. Heat, vibration, magnetic fields, or noise (inaudible to humans) could have caused the results they observed.

      Or it could have been caused by the fungus.

      The point is, bees don't have cell phones. They certainly don't have them in their hive. And the Control hive was getting cell phone exposure as well. Just not the noise, heat, vibration, or magnetic fields, of a phone inside the hive.

      Give that the study was from Chandigarh's Punjab University,?? and never repeated anywhere, and glibly attributed to magnetite in the bee's bodies, (which is not affected by radio waves) should give you reason to question it. Especially when no believable causal mechanism is cited.

      At least the biological studies were able to determine precisely a combinations of fungus + virus that affected bees and control for either and thereby eliminate bee death.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  48. Chicken and Egg by Gavrielkay · · Score: 1

    The "chicken and egg" dilemma is not a real mystery. It's simply a question of creationism vs. evolution. Either you believe a higher power created the chicken in its current form (and it then continued to reproduce by laying eggs) or you believe that something that wasn't quite a chicken laid an egg with a mutation that caused it to be what we now know as "chicken." The chicken comes first in creationism and the egg comes first in evolution.

    1. Re:Chicken and Egg by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

      I admit I haven't seen the dilemma in this light before, so thanks. Nevertheless, its use in the summary is still wrong.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    2. Re:Chicken and Egg by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      Actually, evolutionarily, the chicken came first.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/

      The chicken would have had to have the mutation necessary to lay the egg in the first place.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    3. Re:Chicken and Egg by Mathinker · · Score: 1

      > The chicken comes first in creationism and the egg comes first in evolution.

      The egg obviously comes first in evolution, since very primitive animals laid eggs millions of years before birds evolved. This is, of course, merely a pedantic quibble.

      The real dilemma is whether the meaning of the "egg" in the question is "an egg laid by a chicken" or "an egg out of which hatches a chicken". The choice of interpretation has nothing whatsoever to do with accepting evolution, either interpretation of the language is still possible in that case, and each interpretation yields a different answer.

  49. Solitary Bees by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I like gardening a lot and put out a lot of ornamental flowers and vegetables to attract bees, but this year there have been very few.

    You don't need colonial bees for your garden. Take a block of hardwood, drill a bunch of holes in it (about 3/8" but look it up) and tack it up to a post or tree near your garden. Solitary bees will build homes in it.

    Encourage your local wasp population too. I'll assume you don't spray bug killer on your garden, seeing as how you understand the need for bugs*.

    * speaking as a normal human, not an entomologist.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Solitary Bees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasps are a pain in the ass to keep around. Slightly less painful to keep than africanized bees. But still bad. They will fight you for territory, and they will try to invade your space.

      I had a wasp that flew in through my open bathroom window EVERY MORNING, right as I was showering. In fact, it tried to sting me for just standing there. I ran off that time (seeing how I was bollocks naked and unequipped to fight an arthropod). It did it again and again, until I got some flying insect spray and killed it. That's the only time I've ever used that stuff though.

  50. Wait... by cobrausn · · Score: 1

    M. Night Shyamylan said it was the trees, and humans operating nuclear power plants near them would surely cause us to be next...

    --
    How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
  51. Re:Cheesy Movie Plot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Next Star Trek Movie Plot...

    Bee's on Earth are dying so we need to create a 2nd Earth to farm them... or flee to...

  52. Ummmmm by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    They have researchers at universities and the Army's CBC studying it. What the fuck more do you want? Id' say they have been taking it very seriously, and they've finally figured out what is happening. As for curing it, well in the real world we don't wave a magic wand and fix things. Developing a cure may be harder than finding the problem.

    You seem to be of the opinion that either things can be fixed just by wanting to bad enough, and that we haven't done that, or that there should be a lot more running around and shouting that wouldn't accomplish anything but would at least be "doing something."

    From my perspective, this has been taken rather seriously. Many hypothesis were studied, including hairbrained ones like the "Cellphone radiation is killing them," from the anti-technology crowd. The government cared enough to put one of their national security organizations, one of two possibly relevant ones (USAMRIID might be the other one) on the case.

  53. Combo Dual Win ! by DrYak · · Score: 4, Funny

    What a magnificent example of both critical research failure and Godwin law, all rolled together in a single flamebait. Brilliant !

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  54. Seriously? Seriously? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    You are trying to make this a climate change issue? I've got three hints for you:

    1) There's no evidence this has ANYTHING to do with climate change.

    2) Not everything has to do with climate change. There is change all the time, much of it intendant form other change. The idea that "Climate is changing, this changed, thus climate changed this," is pseudoscience at the worst. Bad shit happened long before the last 100 years.

    3) Arguments like this make people distrust climate change. When you try and tie every random ass thing in, it makes people wonder why. It makes it seem as though you don't have any real solid evidence, and thus are just going for mountains of flimsy shit and scare tactics.

    So either find evidence, or leave off it please.

  55. The mystery is not quite solved. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the root cause for new maladies eradicating bees?
    The design of domestic (artificial) bee hives make bees vulnerable to bacteria, pests and viruses (for an illustration see http://vandermerwe.co.nz/?p=8 )

  56. Seriously by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    There is quite a lot of evidence of climate change increasing fungal disease reach in areas where organisms haven't evolved to cope with new fungus that are fit to survive in the new climate. Climate has changed before, and bad shit has happened before. All of which is evidence for the threats from climate change, not some fallacious argument against it.

    Look, you probably spent a lot of time denying that the climate was changing, before that went the way of the flat earth. Now you'll spend a lot of time denying each specific effect of climate change. Why don't you channel your energy into helping understand what we've got to cope with, instead of obnoxious attacks you make from ignorance as if you're some kind of expert? Or at least take your own advice and leave off it, please.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Seriously by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 0, Troll

      Ahh so I was right. You don't know shit, you are just in to scare tactics. Someone dares to question even the smallest part of what is claimed (notice I never said anything about not believing in climate change) and they are immediately a "denialist" a flat earther, someone just to be shouted down and ridiculed.

      Guess what? That's not science, that is purely the stuff of con men and religion. If someone doesn't accept EVERYTHING you claim to be true at face value, you shout them down, claim they are an idiot, a heretic, working against you, whatever. Religions have used that shit to try and maintain their status for centuries and con men have been doing it likely since humans developed communication.

      That you use tactics like that tells me you don't understand your position, you believe in it blindly. You cannot tolerate an attack of any kind, at all, on any piece. EVERYTHING must be evidence towards your One True Belief(tm) because your belief requires it to be so. Thus anyone who questions it is fit only for ridicule.

      Sad, but unsurprising. I find this all too often. Well you have fun with that, but don't expect to persuade anyone, me in particular. I like my science done right, which is to say evidence, solid predictive theories, and continual testing and questioning.

      Oh by the way your Google search? A horrible argument. The first link is to a credible site, though not a journal, but an article about toadstools, not fungus like you are talking about (there's a difference between a yeast, a mold, a mushroom, and so on). The second one is a typical news story that talks about a spreading fungus (one of the kind we are talking about) but that is just asking the sensationalistic question "Symptom Of Climate Change?" not a research paper showing any proof. The third is to a site that is selling fear on a massive scale (if you can navigate the disaster of a front page it is all speculative scare stories, most not climate related at all) as well as herbal cures and the like. The fourth is to a site claiming that climate change linked to fungal growth is lies.

      Not very persuasive evidence there.

    2. Re:Seriously by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I didn't shout you down. I disagreed with you politely, and very politely asked you to be polite yourself.

      I linked to the simple Google search that turned up plenty of the science you asked for. You do know how to use Google, don't you? So what if a Google search also includes a few spurious pages that don't give what you're looking for? If a couple of sex sites spammed themselves into the results, would that convince you that the other sites are wrong? All that matters is that there's at least one page with science you accept - it's not the results list that's supposed to educate you, it's up to you to look in the list. You should figure out how to use Google - you could use the enlightenment available, and the skills screening out the distractions.

      To the point of how climate change is affecting fungal growth and disease, you found the reputable site in the list, so go look at that yourself. Climate change is indeed all-encompassing, when we're talking about Earth's biology. When a species starts dying out suddenly without obvious cause, climate change is a good suspect, because climate is fundamental to any species' survival, and it's changing, perhaps to one in which the species is unfit. When the specific disease is caused by a species like a fungus that is documented to be spreading, and likely evolving under new conditions itself, then climate change is likely a critical factor.

      Against which you are rudely and fallaciously insisting that it cannot be climate change, by mere assertion. Today you say you admit the climate is changing, but from your tone and attitude I'd bet you used to deny it was changing at all, or you used to spin it as "climate has changed in the past, so this is a nonissue now". I wouldn't be surprised if you still say that humans aren't causing the climate change we're seeing now, or that we cannot change to prevent it. Deniers have the convenience of not having to be consistent, among other illogical rhetoric you hope will kill the issue.

      You are a classic denial projector: you're in denial, though overwhelming evidence will shift you to deny something slightly different after a while, and you project your own rhetorical deficiencies onto those who confront you with the truth. I'm not really interested in persuading you specifically, since you're just one person who's not actually debating but just denying. I'm interested in putting the truth there against your fallacies, so others reading this public exchange can decide for themselves. People like you we'll just drag along kicking and screaming while we save you from what you insist on doing in harm to our climate. You're welcome.

      And goodbye.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  57. Bees die after stinging once. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bees part of Monarchic Social System in which they are inferior will be born with a barb on their stinger that causes their lower intestine and bladder and glands to be physically ripped out of the abdomen to result in death when the Bee crawls away after stinging whomever it fought against. The Royals can kill many times without threat of theirselves dying, mainly because their stinger lacks the barb. As well, the Royals release a perfume in the hive that causes all other inferior Bees to have no fertilitiy, and it is debatable whether an experiment of removing a barb from a stinger and isolating the Royals out of the hive would result in a Socialist Commune style of environment.

    Bees in the higher order of cast that are Royal will be born with a barb-less stinger.

    And here is the trippy side to the matter: in Mammals it is the male that has an ovipossitor, meanwhile in Insects it is the female that has a ovipossitor that can sting or lay eggs yet the male Insect has no ovipossitor and can't sting.

    So let me ask you, if you are like the Human governments that when innoculating your HOSTS with a questionable medicine that could result in their death, are you going to give the un-vaccinated people a chance to die naturally in the wild or are you going to force them to be innoculated with the chance of killing them yourself? I got Herpes virus from a Vaccine like many others, and whenever I get an outbreak it causes me to suffer secondary infections of bacteria that otherwise would have no occasion had I not been forced to be vaccinated.

    1. Re:Bees die after stinging once. by BluBrick · · Score: 1

      Oh, you must be a hoot at parties!

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
  58. Article: Fungus & Virus are cofactor,not cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I swear, employees of U.S. Government and USDA are trolling everyone by telling us Bee keepers what we already know. In my experiences of bee-keeping, it was EVERYTHING causing the colony to weaken. You really need to baby everything today because there is so much universal unknown incidents that induce things like The Butterfly Effect. It's just like ADD/ADHD; just get out a Checklist and enumerate all the bad things that have been exposed and keep testing the non-domestic and try the same with domestics in closed-environment. I've always known of virus and fungus in bees, but that's not the case because like all organic Immune Systems they have natural immunity as long as they have no contact with materials that diminishes their Immune Systems long enough that their body is compromised. People are the same way with Virus, yet when we eat bad food it quickly changes the Blood content and slows the Lympnodes and Immune System to allow such infection; even Vaccinations have chemicals in them that intentionally diminish the Immune System of the host just to allow the Immune System to get exposure to the Virus in the Vaccine that it can develop a natural response.

    The article quote:

    "They're co-factors, that's all we can say at the moment,' he said. 'They're both present in all these collapsed colonies.'"

  59. And here we go by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    I buy Mrs. Crocketts Natural Wild Desert Honey. Produced by Crockett Honey, Tempe Arizona. http://www.crocketthoney.com/

    The one I like does appear to be on their site, though you have to buy it in a pack of 12 24 ounce bottles. They sell other stuff as well, such as darker honeys, but I've not tried those. This particular one I get is apparently pretty popular and is just sold in Safeway and thus easy for me to get.

  60. cause and/or effect by bigato · · Score: 1

    Now that a virus, fungus or other microorganism has been found, people has someone to blame. But the only thing the research has proved is that the microorganisms are present in the sick bees; it does not mean that they are the cause. Another day someone discovered that the people that have best sense of humour had stronger hearts. But why not the contrary? Maybe the people with stronger hearts have better sense of humour! Or maybe some other unknown cause was the reason that made people have both stronger hearts and better sense of humour. Maybe they had a better way of life! But is so easy to tell, just smile and your heart will be stronger. Cause and effect are always connected in a long series of relationships.

  61. Shut up, fool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You heard me.

  62. Necessary for crops by kbahey · · Score: 1

    Do not think of bees as just for honey.

    They are crucial for many commercial crops to produce anything substantial, by pollination.

    There was a program on TV recently (PBS Nova, or The Nature of Things on CBC), and the numbers are staggering. Those who practice apiculture have been transporting hives near flowering trees and being paid by orchard owners so they get a proper crop. If they don't get the bees to do it, the crop yields fall by orders of magnitude.

    And that is the commercial part. The natural part can be equally important for wild plants, and all the other creatures in the ecosystem that depend on their seeds and fruits.

  63. Chicken and Egg again? by SlashDev · · Score: 2, Funny

    Everyone who repeats this non-sense phrase, is a complete moron, it's like asking which came first the woman or the child. Of course the chicken came first, it evolved from another creature, unless you can imagine the egg suddenly appearing out of nowhere, like the monolith for example.

    --

    TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
    1. Re:Chicken and Egg again? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Gonna have to disagree with you here: there were eggs long before there were chickens. They weren't chicken eggs, but they were eggs nonetheless. Something that wasn't a chicken laid an egg, and from that egg hatched a chicken, to oversimplify a million years of evolution.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    2. Re:Chicken and Egg again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but there were eggs before there were chickens, and when the first recognizable chicken was born it was probably from an egg.

    3. Re:Chicken and Egg again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there were eggs long before there were chickens ...

    4. Re:Chicken and Egg again? by Nesman64 · · Score: 1

      So, maybe you can tell me, what did this first chicken mate with? And after it mated with the non-a-chicken, was the offspring a sterile hybrid like a mule?

      --
      coffee | nose > keyboard
    5. Re:Chicken and Egg again? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      So, maybe you can tell me, what did this first chicken mate with? And after it mated with the non-a-chicken, was the offspring a sterile hybrid like a mule?

      It's possible it was like lions and tigers: able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. But it's more likely that it was simply geography: this group of not-chickens and that other group of not-chickens stopped hanging out because it was too long a walk, and 10,000 years later that group of not-chickens wasn't really not-chickens anymore, but something rather like chickens, and a million years later they were definitely chickens. The concept of species is entirely a human invention, and nature has no respect for it whatsoever: stuff that's living close together and is closely related, interbreeds way more than stuff that is distant or distantly related. Stretch that out a few hundred thousand generations, and you have what humans call species.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  64. "solved?" so they'd have you believe by bdambrosio · · Score: 1

    beware - the researcher was funded by big pharma - no see, it wasn't pesticides! right

  65. Re:Ummm No by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    I've always said I'm going to live forever or die trying.

  66. Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An average hive has more than 10 female bees for every male - what did God think was going to happen?

  67. Don't be silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's because (some of) the bees are aliens.

    They are fleeing Earth prior to its attempted use as part of the reality bomb. (Dr Who refresh season 4 finale)

  68. Not until beekeepers can protect their hives by grikdog · · Score: 1

    Polio was "solved" by Salk and Sabin, and not until. Similarly, the third of world agriculture that depends on non-feral honeybee pollination remains at risk until there's a working solution to CCD.

    And why are "military scientists" working this problem? Because CCD is a threat to Homeland Security? Back in the old days, the USDA's ARS division in Beltsville, MD would get that job.

    Or is it because CCD, like anthrax, is a potential weapon?

    --
    ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
  69. Wait ... by lennier1 · · Score: 1

    Hasn't the question of the dying bees already been answered by Doctor Who? ;)

  70. Some things we do know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about we stop using the tired "chicken and the egg" metaphor as we now know which came first.

  71. This cannot be the cause. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all, it doesn't explain how global warming cause CCD!

  72. Mod up: Re:Now to bring them back by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up; There are vast monocultures all over e.g. californian almonds. The bees are basically taken there, pollinate the crops and die of starvation after a few weeks. They probably meet more types of flower in one day in their natural environment than they meet in their lifetime working for agriculture.

    --
    =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
  73. Virus and fungus? bah by oxpecker · · Score: 1

    The doctor already figured this one out! Melissa Majoria was the homeworld of Bees, some of which made their way to Earth. In early 2009, the Bees sensed that a catastrophe was about to befall the Earth, and began to make their way back to Melissa Majoria. Donna Noble noticed this several times, and remarked on it to the Doctor, who also found it odd. (DW: Partners in Crime, Planet of the Ood) The catastrophe was Davros moving the Earth to the Medusa Cascade. The bees' movement created a disturbance on the Tandocca Scale, which allowed the Doctor and Donna to trace their path towards the Earth. (DW: The Stolen Earth) http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Melissa_Majoria

  74. Ahem. What the scientist didn't disclose... by MadLad · · Score: 1

    ...is that he's connected to Bayer, maker of pesticides, whose confirmed bee-killing effects were notably absent from this study. It's described in detail here (CNN.com).

    1. Re:Ahem. What the scientist didn't disclose... by artao · · Score: 1

      D'OH to myself for not noticing YOUR post before I posted the same exact thing. LOL

  75. Without bees we're all dead. by delire · · Score: 1

    It's a bit more serious than the loss of Cutey Honey. Crops all around the world will perish. Bees are the CAT5 cable that keep it all together.

    This research is extremely important.

  76. Another corporate skewed study ... D'OH!! by artao · · Score: 1

    Well, I too had hope this study would lead to a resolution. Alas, looks like the researcher was at least partially funded by Bayer AG, maker of another possible cause of CCD -- pesticides. Hard to tell these days what is or is not relevant research. Sad. Here's an article about it :: http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/08/news/honey_bees_ny_times.fortune/index.htm

  77. Slartibartfast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that you?

  78. The Missing Link by drmattnd · · Score: 1

    So now we have identified a parasite, a virus, and a fungus.  Maybe the solution is a bacteria.