Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bees Prefer Nectar Laced With Neonicotinoids

Posted by Soulskill on from the you-know-those-things'll-kill-ya dept.

Taco Cowboy writes: Neonicotinoids are a class of neuro-active insecticides chemically similar to nicotine. Neonicotinoids kill insects by overwhelming and short-circuiting their central nervous systems (PDF). Shell and Bayer started the development of neonicotinoids back in the 1980s and 1990s. Since this new group of pesticides came to market, the bee population has been devastated in regions where they have been widely used. Studies from 2012 linked neonicotinoid use to crashing bee populations.

New studies, however, have discovered that bees prefer nectar laced with neonicotinoids over nectar free of any trace of neonicotinoids. According to researchers at Newcastle University, the bees may "get a buzz" from the nicotine-like chemicals in the same way smokers crave cigarettes.

104 comments

  1. just say no by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    buzz off

  2. Every Creature Must Get Stoned... by IBitOBear · · Score: 1, Troll

    Don't tell the NeoCons, they'll have all the bees rounded up and put in jail because getting buzzed is immoral if nobody is paying for it.

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
    1. Re:Every Creature Must Get Stoned... by fustakrakich · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      Are you kidding? Marlboro* is already tooling up, making itty bitty cigarettes. And no doubt the bees will start wanting a cup of java to go with them.

      *'Africanized' bees will prefer Salems or Kools, and probably should avoid the caffeine...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Every Creature Must Get Stoned... by Adriax · · Score: 4, Funny

      Those degenerate insects were born in a cell for crying out loud? What more proof do you need of their criminal nature?

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    3. Re:Every Creature Must Get Stoned... by Sarius64 · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure you're thinking about the "Progressives" when it comes to intrusion into peoples' lives.

    4. Re: Every Creature Must Get Stoned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont say that. The French revolution, the Russian revolution and the German revolution of 1933 were all sort of unfortunate in their execution, but the noble goals outweigh that.

    5. Re: Every Creature Must Get Stoned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also Obama is a peaceful guy who uses intrusive surveillance and kill-by-siginit because he is under duress by nasty conservatives. He is a certified Nobel Peacenik and that means he is absolved of all crimes.

      Never could the noble Norwegians be a bunch of corrupt bastards. Never would they aid in excrementing on Magna Charta !

    6. Re:Every Creature Must Get Stoned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 Flamebait

      Fuck you people if you can't take a joke! Or maybe you don't know about the 'killer bees'. But fuck you anyway!

    7. Re:Every Creature Must Get Stoned... by sjames · · Score: 1

      I believe you must mean the Democans and Republicrats. I see no evidence that either has any intention of butting out of people's lives.

  3. "Get a buzz"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see what you did there...

  4. Oblig Simpsons by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    Tomacco!

  5. The study was flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    The study compared Neonicotinoids laced pollen to sugar water. Which means it was not a fair comparison. There needs to be a comparison between Neonicotinoids laced pollen and unlaced pollen.

    1. Re:The study was flawed by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thanks to Bayer and Shell, good luck finding untainted samples...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:The study was flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Thanks to Bayer and Shell, good luck finding untainted samples...

      So your knee-jerk response is to blame flawed science on "BIG EVIL KORPARASHUNS!!!!"

      Tell us, what color is the sky on your world?

    3. Re:The study was flawed by Guy+Harris · · Score: 5, Informative

      The study compared Neonicotinoids laced pollen to sugar water. Which means it was not a fair comparison. There needs to be a comparison between Neonicotinoids laced pollen and unlaced pollen.

      No, the study compared neonicotinoid-laced sugar water with sugar water:

      Individual foraging-age worker bumblebees or cohorts of 25 forager honeybees were housed in plastic boxes for 24 h and given access to two types of food tubes: one containing sucrose solution and one containing sucrose solution laced with a specific concentration of the[sic] IMD, TX, or CLO.

      (If you follow the "bees prefer nectar laced with neonicotinoids" link in the /. article and then the "the insects tended to eat more of the contaminated food" link from the article you get to after following that link, you can read the paper without going through a paywall.)

      So, no, it's not a comparison between neonicotinoid-laced pollen and pollen, but it's also not a comparison between (neonicotinoid-laced) pollen and sugar water.

    4. Re:The study was flawed by hankwang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The study compared Neonicotinoids laced pollen to sugar water."

      What are you talking about??

      From the actual paper in Nature: "bees of both species prefer to eat more of sucrose solutions laced with IMD or TMX than sucrose alone."

      http://www.nature.com/nature/j...

      --
      Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
    5. Re:The study was flawed by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      The study compared Neonicotinoids laced pollen to sugar water.

      The published study offered the bees a choice between a sucrose solution with neonicotinoids and another sucrose solution without neonicotinoids. It was a fair comparison.

    6. Re:The study was flawed by SeaFox · · Score: 2

      replying to undo mod. ignore.

    7. Re:The study was flawed by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Tell us, what color is the sky on your world?

      Grey, from the smog.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    8. Re:The study was flawed by Required+Snark · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Your are factually incorrect. The directly linked article in Chemistry World linked to an article published in Nature entitled Bees prefer food containing neonicotinoid pesticides

      The Nature article examined the neurophysiological response of bees to three of the most common neonicotinoid pesticides. They determined that the bee taste system cannot detect these chemicals, and additionally the chemicals have no influence on the bee's ability to recognize sugar. This means the bees preference for food with these substances results from interaction with their central nervous system. Considering that nicotine is a CNS stimulant, this makes perfect sense.

      You didn't like the conclusion of the article, so you read it with the single intent of refuting it. When you found one thing that you thought you could use as an attack, you picked on that. It did not occur to you that the people who do this kind of research are extremely knowledgeable and would would never make that kind of foolish error.

      You have revealed your true colors. You are willfully ignorant and have no regard for the truth. You were effectively accusing the authors of fraudulent research. Accusing others of lying to achieve their goals shows that you are a dishonest yourself, because that is the logic of habitual liars.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    9. Re:The study was flawed by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 2

      The makers of neonicitinoid pesticides have billions in profits to protect, they will not let something like the death of our number one food crop pollinator get in their way

      enhancing shareholder value or something like that

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    10. Re:The study was flawed by Ultracrepidarian · · Score: 1

      I have a rhododendron in bloom outside my kitchen window. Normally it would be abuzz with bees. This year I see only houseflies and ants.

    11. Re:The study was flawed by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 1

      Good catch, it is amazing how quickly people accept outright lies

      I notice a rapid response to any negative articles on neonicitinoid products, it seems similar in tone and tactic to anti-global warming noise

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    12. Re:The study was flawed by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 2

      I know they're still pretty new, but has anyone looked into the health effects on bees of the new e-Neonicotinoids?

    13. Re:The study was flawed by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Is this a Bayer or Shell astroturfer here to spread disinfo?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    14. Re:The study was flawed by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      And the unusual weather has nothing to do with it?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    15. Re:The study was flawed by TWX · · Score: 1

      Thanks to Bayer and Shell, good luck finding untainted samples...

      So your knee-jerk response is to blame flawed science on "BIG EVIL KORPARASHUNS!!!!"

      Tell us, what color is the sky on your world?

      No, I'm well aware of how agribusiness works, and how commissioned salesmen actually do a lot of work to sell as much product as possible. Much of my extended family is in farming, either as farmers, or as those who sell products or services to farmers.

      Farmers want the best yields possible. They assume that the products advertised to them are acceptable, and they use those products widely if they seem to solve the ill that the farmer was fighting against. As such, it's very likely that Bayer and Shell have managed to sell this product to loads and loads of farmers.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    16. Re: The study was flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well done gentlemen; best string of replies I've seen in awhile. If I didn't see all those UIDs I woulda thought it wasn't ad lib!

    17. Re: The study was flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serious corporate shills; Beware! Your fate may not be as pleasant as the above... Proceed with caution.

    18. Re: The study was flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So maybe the farmers are evil, too ?

      Or is it we, the lazy consumers who want cheap food and no manual labor on the fields ?

      Just asking.

    19. Re: The study was flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the western world. I assume you are an alien from Planet FairTopia and this is your first day here.

      We are a bunch of aggressive, lazy and sometimes highly nasty beings. We have fun in lying at each other and cheer when our victims jump off a bridge based on those lies.

    20. Re:The study was flawed by queazocotal · · Score: 0

      That doesn't mean it wasn't flawed.
      Bees don't drink sugar water in nature.
      The checking of the 'taste' of neonics is only one aspect that needs tested.
      Is this masked by non-taste responses to normal nectar?

    21. Re:The study was flawed by Required+Snark · · Score: 3, Informative
      You are being deliberately obtuse. (That is how adults describe someone who is being willfully wrong.)

      In the referenced Nature paper, the authors describe measurements they made on honey bee and bumble bee neurons in response to sugar with and without the neonicotinoid compounds. As I also stated, they also checked if the presence of the insecticides had any impact on the way the insects detect sugar. It did not.

      Understand this: they inserted electrodes into nerve fibers that bees use to "taste" what they are consuming. Using these electrodes they monitored the nerve signals going to the bees brain. By varying the concentration of insecticides over a range starting at zero, they were able to show that there was no difference in the response related to the amount of the chemical they were testing. The paper has charts and graphs with error bars and correlation (p) values. It's real science done by real scientists, who know that their academic reputation depends on avoiding mistakes.

      This is not a high school "science experiment" with a bunch of bees free flying in a cage with two sources of sugar and a student counting the number of bees going to one or the other. The experiment is based on a fundamental understanding at the neurological level of how bees function. It has nothing to do with nectar.

      Your criticism is based on a level of understanding that is extremely childish. Are you actually that uninformed? You are not asking relevant question, but making assertions based in ignorance. Even given the generally low quality of analytical thinking shown on Slashdot, you lack of knowledge is pathetic. Normally I would say that you should look at the paper, but in your case I expect that there are too many big words that you would not understand.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    22. Re:The study was flawed by Rei · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but calling flagging a "troll" because they misread an article is beyond the pale. None of their behavior was "trollish". Saying that a study is flawed is in no way shape or form engaging in "fraudulent research", aka, deliberately falsifying data to push an agenda.

      The Nature article appears to be down. But I have to caution, studying bee behavior is very difficult. Many of our senses, bees lack or have only at low resolution. But they have a number of senses that we don't. They see UV. They see polarized light. They sense electric fields. They're sensitive to a lot of chemicals that we cannot detect. And so forth. It's very, very easy to accidentally give bees signals, which will alter their behavior, that you didn't realize you were giving. I'd like how they attempted to control for all of this, but unfortunately that's not possible now.

      --
      "...but Republicans plan to come back with a new plan, where they just slash the tires on all the ambulances."
    23. Re:The study was flawed by Rei · · Score: 2

      I'd really like to read the paper but unfortunately it's down. But for example, do the neonicotinoids add a UV signature to the liquid not present in the sugar water? That would have little to no influence in the case of flowers in nature (where they're not looking at the nectar, and there's all sorts of other chemicals in the nectar). What other chemicals are in the neonicotinoid solution (they're rarely pure, they usually have all sorts of other chemicals to increase their effect)? What's their cleaning and handling procedure for preparing and filling the sample containers? I want to know how they controlled these experiments against factors that humans can't detect but bees absolutely can.

      Just the very act of hooking electrodes up to bee neurons I'd have concerns about. Is there any induced electric field involved, or even rubbing against the bee hairs? Bees transfer information to one another via dances, such as the waggle dance. Bees build up an electrostatic charge on their body, and a waggling bee imposes an electrostatic force on the antennae and hairs of all adjacent bees, causing them to feel dance over a short distance. Their stereoscopic sense of the dance lets them know the direction, and that combined with the time allows them to work out a direction to a food source relative to the (moving) direction of the sun. It functions like transferring a memory from one be to another. There's also "negation" behaviors, by other bees who don't like the information giving out; they have a different frequency buzz to say "don't go there", and sometimes different bees may even fight with each other over what's good and what's bad information.

      Also note that the linked articles refer to a second study published simultaneously which showed no effect on honeybees next to rapeseed fields sprayed with neonicotinoids versus an altogether unsprayed field. Which is pretty remarkable, because you expect almost *any* pesticide next to your hive to have a profoundly negative effect on it.

      --
      "...but Republicans plan to come back with a new plan, where they just slash the tires on all the ambulances."
    24. Re:The study was flawed by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think it's important to ask questions because there's been literally "dozens" of different things "definitively linked" with CCD. The public likes to seize on neonicotinoids, but they're probably one of the least supported of these many different "definitively linked" reasons. Whole countries have gone so far as to outright ban neonicotinoids, with no effect on CCD. France, for example, banned them. The next year they largely switched to blaming the condition on Asian Hornets when the decline rates didn't decrease.

      The problem is that when you ban a certain pesticide, people start using others. And going from neonicotinoids to organophosphates is a massive step backwards in terms of general safety, not just to pollinators, but especially to more complex animals as well. But the biggest problem with the neonicotinoid theory is that neonicotinoids are only used in a small fraction of the areas where CCD exists. Bees can only fly several kilometers from the hive, they're not going cross-country and picking up every pesticide in every farmer's arsenal. It even exists among people who are in places where no pesticides at all are used.

      It's easy for the general public to latch onto a particular cause. But once you learn more about beekeeping you realize how incredibly much out there is that can utterly f* up a hive. And which have in history regularly collapsed bee populations, far worse than the collapses we have today. Trachael mites once nearly obliterated beekeeping in Europe, saved mainly by the development of the Buckfast bee. Check out this very inexhaustive list of bee pests and diseases. There's even some really counterintuitive effects in that small levels of some pesticides can actually increase hive survival rates, in that they're deadlier to bee pests like mites than to the bees themselves.

      The public also tends to totally understand colony collapse disorder in the first place. Normal winter colony death levels are about 15% in most locations (though where I am it's higher). CCD raised the US average to about 30% at its peak. This is painful and expensive to beekeepers, but it has literally no impact on the ability to sustain bee populations. A new beehive can be started with just a queen and a handful of workers. Hives can be made to produce queens en masse through proper management. Hence people can mail order starter hives, and there's never going to be a threat to the ability to produce these starter hives - a single hive can make many dozens per year. Even normal hives not managed for breeding starter hives will naturally produce several swarms every year; beekeepers try to discourage and/or catch these swarms.

      In all likelihood, neonicotinoids are one among many different stressors to bees in the modern era that causes CCD. Modern bees are much more "stressed" than bees in the past. We've created an environment where new bee pests and diseases have spread far and wide to bees that never would have encountered them in the wild. We raise them on corn syrup and sugar water in the winter (good for reducing dysintery and increasing honey yields, but robbing them of certain vitamins and minerals). We transport them on flatbed trucks hundreds or thousands of kilometers (these are animals that get confused if you move their hive a couple meters; their ability to navigate by sight is poor, they're best navigating by the sun and dead reckoning). And countless varieties of poisons, even unintentional ones, affect them every day of their lives. There's so many factors now that weaken hives that any "new" factor to an area can push them over the edge.

      --
      "...but Republicans plan to come back with a new plan, where they just slash the tires on all the ambulances."
    25. Re:The study was flawed by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Farmers want the best yields possible. They assume that the products advertised to them are acceptable,

      because being so irresponsible is easier than being responsible enough to do the research to determine whether the products are safe. But don't fool yourself; this is still irresponsible behavior. Society encourages it by taking away your farm and throwing you into the street where it's illegal for you to live if you have a bad season or two, which is just another reason we need MGI. Then people can better afford scruples.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re: The study was flawed by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Well, if I'm a shill, I am very poorly paid. I have noticed a lack of bees in my yard this year, too. Usually they would be all over the cherries and early bulb plants. But I have also noticed that it is cold out, except for one nice day where (surprise) the bees and wasps came out to play. The weather has since returned to "highs in the low 50s" and the bees seem to be chilling out.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    27. Re: The study was flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry for the confusion. The shill remark was directed at the OP (currently rated Troll) and how the snarky replies seemed almost a coordinated attack. I wish your garden the best!

    28. Re:The study was flawed by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      It's easy for the general public to latch onto a particular cause. But once you learn more about beekeeping you realize how incredibly much out there is that can utterly f* up a hive. And which have in history regularly collapsed bee populations, far worse than the collapses we have today. Trachael mites once nearly obliterated beekeeping in Europe, saved mainly by the development of the Buckfast bee. Check out [wikipedia.org] this very inexhaustive list of bee pests and diseases. There's even some really counterintuitive effects in that small levels of some pesticides can actually increase hive survival rates, in that they're deadlier to bee pests like mites than to the bees themselves.

      I completely agree with your point. One interesting point of speculation is that it's highly possible that Brother Adam (the developer of the Buckfast bee) was responsible for bringing Varroa to Europe. Brother Adam imported bees from around the world, and the first appearance of Varroa in the UK was not very far from where he operated.

    29. Re: The study was flawed by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Shill or no, his post was a very unfair criticism of the study.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    30. Re:The study was flawed by illtud · · Score: 1

      sometimes different bees may even fight with each other over what's good and what's bad information.

      Hey! Bee Slashdot!

    31. Re:The study was flawed by BadDreamer · · Score: 1

      I agree it is important to ask questions. But the questions should not be of the strawman form, or asked from a position of apparent and obvious ignorance about not only the subject, but the very study being questioned. There is no added value, and in fact negative value, to ask that kind of questions.

      Trying to think laterally about the issue and find other causes for the observed behaviour is completely different from ignorantly spouting off unfounded criticism of test methodology.

  6. bayer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    kill bayer, shell ?

    1. Re: bayer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, force bastards like you to be a subsistence farmer without any access to modern pesticides, insecticides, herbicides and artifical fertilizers. No tractor either.

      On day three you will pray for any number of godesses to drop some Bayer stuff on you.

      Less cynically, the issue clearly needs to be investigated BY THE STATE. If the state is corrupt, you need to fix the state. It is their job to investigate and outlaw the substance if it truly is damaging to bees.

      Bayer is under duress by corrupt actors in NY, who are manic growth-junkies and will force Bayer to commit every single crime the state will allow them to commit. That in turn is due to the state being the whore of NY these days.

  7. Unfortunatly... by EmeraldBot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People and other living beings have a habit of craving the very things that ruin them.

    --
    "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    1. Re:Unfortunatly... by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

      People and other living beings have a habit of craving the very things that ruin them.

      Stop me before I post again...

    2. Re:Unfortunatly... by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      i see it as the genius of biochemical warfare by plants

      our livers have been in an evolutionary arms race with plants for hundreds of millions of years. they make a substance that kills, maims, disorients, or deters us. one up plants. our livers do their best to mop it up. one up animals. rinse repeat

      perversely, we've developed a taste for some of those substances. like cayenne pepper or horseradish, as a paradoxically enjoyable taste. or heroin or cocaine, as a disorienting drug

      in a way, the plant still wins when we get addicted to them, like these bees. drug use is just slow motion suicide. it might not kill us immediately, but it brings us back for more, and more and more, to finish the job

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re: Unfortunatly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if there was a plant that didn't try to kill us? A plant that was friendly and nice to us :) Might even wave and say "Hi" sometimes. That would be awesome.

    4. Re: Unfortunatly... by Rei · · Score: 1

      I dunno, they might be a bit boring.

      --
      "...but Republicans plan to come back with a new plan, where they just slash the tires on all the ambulances."
  8. sort of like Antifreeze and pets/wildlife by hguorbray · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Similarly, open containers of antifreeze (left outside after flushing a car's cooling system) have long presented a danger to wild and domestic animals due to the 'sweetness' of the antifreeze.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene_glycol_poisoning
    Ethylene Glycol is also used in other engine maintenance fluids -most notable in de-icers, which is the source of most of the ethylene glycol which is released in the environment

    However, except for the dumping of the de-icer, it is probably not as widespread in the environment as the neonics are

    -I'm just sayin'

    1. Re:sort of like Antifreeze and pets/wildlife by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      This is why I always try to purchase the "Low Tox" antifreeze for my vehicles. Should I ever be stranded in a remote location without water, I could survive for days just by cracking the draincock on the radiator. Plus, I don't have to feel as bad about parking my car over the storm sewer and emptying out the cooling system when I do a flush!

    2. Re:sort of like Antifreeze and pets/wildlife by hawguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is why I always try to purchase the "Low Tox" antifreeze for my vehicles. Should I ever be stranded in a remote location without water, I could survive for days just by cracking the draincock on the radiator. Plus, I don't have to feel as bad about parking my car over the storm sewer and emptying out the cooling system when I do a flush!

      Toss a few gallons of water in your trunk before you head to remote locations -- while the propylene glycol in the antifreeze may not kill you, the corrosion inhibitors and other ingredients plus possible oil and combustion product contamination is not going to be great for you.

    3. Re:sort of like Antifreeze and pets/wildlife by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Try catching it in a bowl, and then look at it and smell it. The antifreeze is the least of your worries.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:sort of like Antifreeze and pets/wildlife by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Toss a few gallons of water in your trunk before you head to remote locations -- while the propylene glycol in the antifreeze may not kill you, the corrosion inhibitors and other ingredients

      The glycol is the corrosion inhibitor. That's its job as much as anti-freezing. That's why we use it even in climates without freezes, and not just a smaller package of corrosion inhibitors. You have to substantially change the properties of the water to retard corrosion.

      You wouldn't drink the water in your engine even if it didn't have anything added to it, because with or without a corrosion inhibitor you will still have corrosion, and you don't want to be drinking heavy metals. Iron is not too bad, but Aluminum is fairly horrible. Many engines are still made of both, and the ones that aren't are generally all-Al. Regardless, you can check coolant condition with a voltmeter. If your coolant is making more than about 0.1v, then it's doing damage through corrosion and you need to change it. If it's making more than 0.2v, then you're definitely suffering ongoing damage.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:sort of like Antifreeze and pets/wildlife by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Toss a few gallons of water in your trunk before you head to remote locations -- while the propylene glycol in the antifreeze may not kill you, the corrosion inhibitors and other ingredients

      The glycol is the corrosion inhibitor. That's its job as much as anti-freezing. That's why we use it even in climates without freezes, and not just a smaller package of corrosion inhibitors. You have to substantially change the properties of the water to retard corrosion.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Propylene glycol oxidizes when exposed to air and heat, forming lactic acid.[9][10] If not properly inhibited, this fluid can be very corrosive, so pH buffering agents such as dipotassium phosphate, Protodin and potassium bicarbonate are often added to propylene glycol, to prevent acidic corrosion of metal components.

      http://www.amsoil.com/lit/data...

      Amsoil Low-Toxicity Propylene Glycol Antifreeze

      Composition by Weight:
      Total glycols >= 92 percent; Corrosion inhibitors and
      antifoamants = 8 percent      ; Water

    6. Re:sort of like Antifreeze and pets/wildlife by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      That stuff is relatively harmless. I'd not suggest using it as an emergency fluid supply for the reasons you and others mention and the fact that propylene glycol is the active ingredient in a number of bowel preparations used to clean the gut completely out before procedures. You'd be sick, nauseated, completely drained and in a world of butt hurt.

      But you won't rust.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  9. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    hahahahahahahaha

    They outlaw DDT because it weakens a few egg shells to protect a few birds.

    The replacement kills off all the Bees, dooming us all.

    Stupid People. Stupid Planet.

    1. Re:LOL by Skidborg · · Score: 2

      Deadly chemicals used on purpose to kill things continue to kill things besides what they were aimed at. Not really a shock.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
  10. Monsanto by tquasar · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Poison everything. I stopped using insecticides many years ago. Monsanto had a large display at Disneyland boasting about their use and how effective the products were. The chemicals are slow to break down and pollute the environment for years. There are are still a few honey bees in my yard, haven't seen a Bumblebee in years.

  11. So what you're saying is... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    So what you're saying is... *sunglassses* they get a buzz out of it?

    Yeeeaaaa- no.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  12. Quite so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hear that bees, like people, absolutely love microwave radiation. Some bees call it BeeMeth, but I imagine they are working on a more catchy name.

    1. Re: Quite so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, grandpa, the popular larva refer to it as getting "beemed up"

    2. Re:Quite so by Livius · · Score: 1

      Some bees call it BeeMeth

      Somewhere there's a Youtube video of the bee dance step that means 'BeeMeth' in bee language.

    3. Re: Quite so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any quotation to scientific research supporting this theory ?

      And dont come with the "e-smog" bullshit - that will disqualifiy your argument from the beginning.

  13. One of many potential causes by wilson_c · · Score: 3, Informative

    Colony collapse disorder (CCD) has been linked in studies to insecticides, pollution, climate change, GMO crops, viruses, fungi, and on and on. Unfortunately, those are merely statistically correlative links and the actual cause of CCD has yet to be determined.

    1. Re:One of many potential causes by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Besides those things, hasn't CCD also been linked to the recent proliferation of digital image sensors?

      (sorry, couldn't resist)

    2. Re:One of many potential causes by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      CCD is likely a multifactor agent. This is the reason it's been so hard to determine. I saw a discussion with bee keepers and the collapse goes like this.

      The bees are fine all summer. When they seal up the nest for the winter and begin to subsist on the remaining stored honey (from what the humans didn't take) somewhere in the middle of the winter the bees start flying off and not coming back. At some point after this has begun the queen dies and no new queen is hatched. (new queens can be hatched easily by feeding one of the larva royal jelly). It's like the bee's suddenly go insane, most fly off into the wild and die, those meant to keep the hive going stop working (such as hatching new queens) and in no time at all the hive is dead.

      They are having a hard time determining cause because their is no clear cause. The insanity thing is a totally new action that's never been observed in bee populations before, outside the wasps that lay larval in other insects brains. So they are examining multiple possible paths at the same time trying to figure out what is causing this bee insanity that's causing the collapse. Neonictids are suspects because they are potent CNS actors in some species, something that could explain the insanity. But it could just as easily be that the neonictids aren't the sole cause, they could be weakening the bees such that they are starving to death in the winter, or there could be a fungus that's attacking them while they are weakened.

      Once they understand better how bee's react to neonictids and perform some controlled experiments with them they will have a better idea if they are the cause or related to it. There is reasonable concern here that the risk of the neonictids isn't worth the benefit's they provide. A collapse of bee's would be catastrophic to plant life. It's not just honey bees that are dieing either, reports are bumblebee's and other species of bee are dieing off as well. There is a real concern right now that there may be whole species of bees that are gone.

    3. Re:One of many potential causes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey dude, still waiting on you to back up your claims in this post with a citation. At least three different people have politely requested some follow through. It has been days since then, and you've posted multiple times since then. Where's the beef?

      If you can't back that up, why should anyone believe anything else you have to say? I'm thinking you are just a poser running your mouth to make yourself feel good.

    4. Re:One of many potential causes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conflict of interest: there might be a lot of money behind washing out the true reason of CCD by suggesting a multitude of different reasons.

      By the way, some no-corporation-loving scientists dared to found out, that pesticides make the bees more vulnerable to viruses. You know, that so many possible causes are scrutinised, but that important detail somehow got lost in your post.

    5. Re:One of many potential causes by 12WTF$ · · Score: 1

      Where's the beef?

      Please google "beef..." as it will cut down the amount of snarkasm in your posts.

      As for the HECO study, try google "heco nrel study".
      Oh thats right, asking for stuff as Anonymous Coward "some one do it for me NOW or I'll throw shit".

      --
      Cryonics - Keep cool and carry on.
    6. Re:One of many potential causes by Rei · · Score: 1

      Yep. It's wierd because the symptoms can correspond with many different causes. For example, the climate change thing makes sense because bees can be tricked into thinking it's spring and start foraging or even swarming in the middle of winter when they really should stay in the winter cluster. The occasional warm day is good for them to be able to get out and void themselves, but longer periods of significantly fluctuating weather can be bad.

      But it also matches other problems. Diseased or dying hives often lead to "desperate" swarming where bees start abandoning the hive to try to establish a new, safe place. Most of these swarms, however, will die. The behavior could be seen as a general "exteme stress" behavior. It could also be seen as a neurological disorder from pesticide exposure.

      In short, it could match almost any possible cause. And probably is a result of many of them.

      --
      "...but Republicans plan to come back with a new plan, where they just slash the tires on all the ambulances."
    7. Re:One of many potential causes by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Actually there's a pretty good trail being laid down:

      http://missoulian.com/news/loc...

      Not only that, but per this article (with stats), bee populations are stable to increasing despite CCD:

      http://www.perc.org/articles/e...

      The amount of honey being produced is a good indicator, given you can't make honey without bees.

      This won't load for me but I imagine it goes into more detail:
      http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/...

      And actually, you can demonstrate 'insanity' in any wild colony with an aging queen -- the bees become aggressive at greater and greater distances from the hive. I watched this with a wild colony that had taken up residence in the wall of a barn. For the first three years, they were 'gentle' (not concerned about intruders) -- to the point that you could actually poke around in their entryway without incurring any retaliation. The 4th year, they got twitchy about people walking nearby. The 5th year, they regularly chased people who passed within about 20 feet of their hive entrance. The colony died off entirely that winter. Far as I saw, it never swarmed, indicating they didn't produce any new queens.

      We probably don't see this in domesticated colonies because modern beekeepers are diligent about replacing queens in a timely manner. But I asked an old-timer about it (who'd been in the bee business since the 1930s) and he said that was all perfectly normal for a colony with an old queen.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    8. Re:One of many potential causes by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      The number of colonies isn't a good read, nor the amount of honey being produced for one simple reason. The beekeepers are doing everything they can to keep production level. They are producing new colonies at a breakneck pace. I've been told they've never produced this many colonies ever, the honey producers are literally replacing their entire stock of bees almost every year.

      What's happening is pretty scary. It's being played up from both sides, the total freak out on the environmental side and the people that don't like environmental causes are playing it down like it's nothing. The loss of bee's on the commercial (honey production) side is being managed pretty effectively right now. I'm less concerned about that. What I am concerned about is the loss of the other bee's. Bumblebee's in particular are responsible for better than 50% of all pollination in the US. There are scientists that can't find certain species at all, species that used to be so common they didn't bother even trying to count them. It doesn't mean they are all dead but there is something going on and we need to know what it is.

      My only point is that given the risks here it might be worth it to temporarily ban the neonictids until we understand what's going on. This could be like DDT and condor eggs, it could take a decade of the poison to work it's way out of the system and allow recovery.

    9. Re:One of many potential causes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > As for the HECO study, try google "heco nrel study".

      Hey assface, NREL was not mentioned in the original post.

      Furthermore, I get two obvious hits and neither one of them backs up what he claimed.

      > Oh thats right, asking for stuff as Anonymous Coward "some one do it for me NOW or I'll throw shit".

      He made an extraordinary claim, the burden is on him to back it up. Two of the three people asking for a reference were not ACs and you "12WTF$" are just as anonymous as I am. In fact, I think the odds are 50/50 you are 'rahvin112' having a schizophrenic episode, so quit that bullshit superiority complex.

    10. Re:One of many potential causes by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Honeybees are technically an invasive species in North America; they were imported, not native. There are numerous other species, including small native bees, that did the pollination work before honeybees came along. Far as I have heard, populations of these native bees have not been affected by CCD.

      Neonicotinoids are relatively expensive (4 years ago, Imidacloprid was $25/pound, about 5x the cost of permethins), and I'd guess despite being about a quarter of the insecticide market, that in ag they are probably not used outside of the fairly limited areas that grow fruits and vegetables -- as those crops have a better profit margin. Yet CCD has been seen very widely, including in areas where there isn't any row-crop agriculture.

      Anecdotally, I've used Imidacloprid to control desert stink beetles, and did not observe any issues with my wild honeybees (who frequented the same areas, cuz that's where the water was).

      The scare over DDT was manufactured. Silent Spring (which I read, back when it was new) was mostly fiction and has been discredited, yet it influenced a whole generation of environmentalism -- that, not truth, was its point and intent. Some estimates put malaria deaths due to ending use of DDT in the millions. Meanwhile, the connection with condor populations was at best tenuous.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    11. Re:One of many potential causes by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's not just in agriculture though. It's hard to find decorative plants that haven't been treated with it.

    12. Re:One of many potential causes by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "Neonicotinoids in bees: a review on concentrations, side-effects and risk assessment"
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

      "Many lethal and sublethal effects of neonicotinoid insecticides on bees have been described in laboratory studies, however, no effects were observed in field studies with field-realistic dosages."

      As they say there's need for further study regarding synergistic effects and the like. But real exposure effects in the field are what counts, not just laboratory findings. Otherwise it's like finding that table salt is OMG-toxic as studied in the lab, even tho we know it's safe in normal realworld use.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    13. Re:One of many potential causes by sjames · · Score: 1

      Sure, but part of that is recognizing the extent of the real world exposure.Imagining it to be limited to a small portion of farmland is not realistic.

    14. Re:One of many potential causes by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Well, yes it is, since it doesn't have an infinite half-life and doesn't move around by itself. You're certainly not going to find it used in Montana wheatfields, yet CCD has affected bees here as well... so now what to blame?? Indeed, most of our acreage is never treated with anything, being non-arable grazing land or wilderness. Hasn't helped bees any.

      I'd guess in addition to the viral and fungal agents that when they occur together have been determined as CCD causes already, there might be a genetic susceptibility in some lines of bees, but far as I know that hasn't been looked at yet.

      I'm reminded that many a time, some OMG-Death-Chemical reaction has proven to in fact be due to a genetic defect. Frex, see MDR1 (multi-drug resistance gene) in dogs. Nope, it wasn't ivermectin causing illness and death; it was a genetic defect.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    15. Re:One of many potential causes by sjames · · Score: 1

      Apparently, wheat growers do use neonics. Note that one way to use them is to pre-treat seed. The pesticide will persist in the plant for some time after.

    16. Re:One of many potential causes by Reziac · · Score: 1

      But Georgia isn't everywhere, and wheat isn't a bee-pollinated crop.

      The relevant thing is that bees are affected without ever being anywhere near a treated area, in fact without being near an area treated for anything at all.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    17. Re:One of many potential causes by sjames · · Score: 1

      The website was for a Georgia group, but the article was about a national group.

      Pine trees aren't pollinated by me either, but I can't go outside in the spring without ending up covered in pine pollen (presumably grass pollens as well, but I can't see those).

      That leaves your relevant thing highly questionable. A re-analysis is in order.

    18. Re:One of many potential causes by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Airborne particulates is a false equivalency.

      I get the feeling you won't be happy until everyone admits your particular point of interest is the culprit, which isn't exactly a scientific method either. It's fine to look at every possible candidate. It's not fine to decide that's the culprit when it's not even present in many regions of interest.

      Also, if neonics are the culprit, that should be very easy to demonstrate -- you should be able to reliably induce CCD in fairly short order just by isolating a hive with a treated food source.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    19. Re:One of many potential causes by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, I am just not willing to rule it out based on patent falsehoods. Whatever the answer, it won't be found by sweeping facts under the rug.

      I get the impression that you'll convince yourself to believe nearly anything (even that nobody much uses neonics anyway) to 'debunk" an inconvenient hypothesis before it is even tested.

      I note that you spoke of the "lack of neonic use on wheat" supporting your conclusion like it carried the weight of God's own word. As soon as I debunked that belief, it was suddenly unimportant to your pre-formed conclusion.

      You're about a step away from claiming that because yse means no and no means yes, you are, in fact, permitted a second cookie.

      If you would like to present a case based on verifiable facts, have at it. Otherwise please don't waste everyone's time making shit up.

    20. Re:One of many potential causes by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I'll take the validity of research at my alma mater above most anything else, because I know the quality of the research departments.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    21. Re:One of many potential causes by sjames · · Score: 1

      Perhaps then, you should present that research as an argument rather than false claims about lack of neonic use on wheat. A shame you didn't.

    22. Re:One of many potential causes by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I did; I posted a link to it upstairs somewhere. Shame you didn't read it.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    23. Re:One of many potential causes by sjames · · Score: 1

      I may well have, but not knowing where you went to school, how would I know what you're talking about?

    24. Re:One of many potential causes by Reziac · · Score: 1

      The link went to an article which mentioned research on CCD done at Montana State U (where I was once upon a time a biochemistry/microbiology double major) and U of MT. Didn't find a link to the actual paper offhand but didn't look that hard either; no doubt you can find it.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    25. Re:One of many potential causes by sjames · · Score: 1

      I read the article. They have found what they believe may be *A* cause. They make no claim that it is *THE* cause nor do they claim to have fully characterized the contributing factors.

      It is good research and may hold important answers but you seem to be reading more into it than the actual researchers are.

  14. Wait for the end of the world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then we'll have cause to sue monsanto, right?

  15. Ban on Neonicotinoids by careysub · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The EU banned three neonicotinoids that are judged especially high risk for bees 17 months ago. If this is causing/contributing to colony collapse disorder, evidence should start settling this question over the next year or two I would think.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  16. Nightshades by adolf · · Score: 2

    So that's why I see bumble bees trying really goddamn hard to try to crawl inside of the little blossoms on my pepper plants* that they totally don't fit inside of at all.

    It reminds me of myself, shaking down the couch for change for tobacco money before ATMs and credit cards became commonplace. Or rather, groping for the cigarette at the bottom of the recliner that I can see with a flashlight, but can't reach at all without looking like a monkey fucking a football and even then it isn't easy.

    Or, as Rammstein said, "like an elephant in the eye of the needle." Whatever, you get my point.

    *: Pepper plants, as all nightshades, produce nicotine in their foliage and presumably their flowers.

    --
    Kid-proof tablet..
    1. Re:Nightshades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Potatoes also contain nicotine in those little buds that grow off of them.

  17. So that explains by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Why bees tend to hang around right outside the doors of office buildings.

  18. New studies however by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "New studies, however ..." as if the following news counters the previous one. So "liking" counters "short circuiting"? I am a simple man and don't understand.
    "Used to introduce a statement that contrasts with or seems to contradict something that has been said previously.".

  19. Editors: link to the original paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How hard is it for the editors to include a link to the actual paper?

    Please upvote or this will never get addressed.

  20. Who knew? by tsotha · · Score: 1

    Dateline 2015: Scientists finally decode honeybee "dance" language. First message recorded:

    "Man, I'm really jonesing for some of that nicotine-laced nectar. Can you watch the hive for a bit while I take a break? I'm gettin' the shakes."

  21. Taco Cowboy works with them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice try shill. Now fuck off to your pesticide sponsors. Hope you bought something nice from bee-killing money.

  22. Why are Bayer and Shell still operating? by katorga · · Score: 1

    They develop pesticides that wipe out the required beneficial insects world wide, why are their executives not in chains?

  23. Slashdot mods up shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Such shit like like parent's post could be done by reading several section titles on wikipedia, then adding "well, there are several factors". Not only it is cheap shit, but also misinformation - read just a bit more on the same wikipedia article to see, that some considered causes are weak suppositions, and some are strongly confirmed links. Now, either a shill or someone looking for cheap karma writes such shit here and here, and is modded up, diluting an insighful, worthy discussion.

  24. Drug Addicts by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Maybe in the Winter they are jonesing for a fix that they leave to find it despite it being winter, and as a result die. Due to all the bees leaving, the hive becomes unsustainable. It could also be that I think bees also provide warmth, if enough leave the rest just freeze to death.

    Drug users from an external observation point of view do all sorts of crazy things to try and get their next fix, particularly when their supply or their ability to get it (money) runs out. Could be as simple as that.

    1. Re:Drug Addicts by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Also after the fact I wanted to change my title to "Bug Addicts" :(