Slashdot Mirror


US Beekeepers Fear For Livelihoods As Anti-Zika Toxin Kills 2.5M Bees (theguardian.com)

A new report suggests that an insecticide sprayed from airplanes to kill mosquitos carrying the Zika virus may in fact be killing bees, since the "fine mist" is "beaded with neurotoxin." Earlier this week, one beekeeper posted a video showing thousands of dead bees heaped around hives. Meanwhile, South Carolina hobbyist Andrew Mache wrote in another Facebook post that he had lost "thousands upon thousands of bees" and that the spraying had devastated his business. The Guardian reports: "The program head, Dr Mike Weyman, said that though South Carolina has strict rules about protecting pollinators, country officials were using the neurotoxin, Naled, under a clause exempting them in a 'clear and public health crisis.' South Carolina's protocol for Zika infections is to alert local officials of a carrier's residence, which they 'consider a ground zero,' Weman said. Local authorities then target the local mosquitos in a 200-yard radius, in this case with spray. Experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and independent universities say Naled is far safer than other chemicals. It breaks down rapidly and, in the very low doses at which it is prescribed, should not pose a risk to humans. 'In Louisiana, we use these products quite frequently to reduce mosquitos, but we don't see many non-target effects, because the doses are really small,' said Dr Kirsten Healy, a public health entomologist at Louisiana State University. 'A lot of people don't realize that we always have the environment in mind. We try to have products that have the lowest possible impact.'" The report adds that bees and other pollinators "contribute an estimated $29 billion to farm income" around the U.S.

25 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. Night vs Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Much of this fallout is because they sprayed during the day. If they had sprayed at night, a) they would have hit more mosquitoes since they're active then, and b) they would have affected fewer bees since they don't forage at night. Does anyone know why it was done during the daytime?

    1. Re:Night vs Day by sims+2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because that's when normal people work? I would assume most pilots wouldn't want to fly that low at night and those that would wouldn't be the lowest bidder.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    2. Re:Night vs Day by dbreeze · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Answers: a) government in general is determined to explore how much utter incompetence can be accomplished at the expense of the public. b) because when depopulating 90+% of the world population is the goal, that's just how you roll baby...

      --
      When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
    3. Re:Night vs Day by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 3, Informative

      well, the article does mention "aerial spraying".

      There's also this quote "It’s aerial bombing without any sense of being able to lay the chemical down on the target,” but that comes from a lwayer and not a scientist.

      My guess is they hit the targeted mosquitoes just fine, but they also hit the bees and who knows what else.

    4. Re:Night vs Day by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dear Mosquitos,

      See what we did to those bees? If you don't shape up, you're next.

      Love,
      South Carolina state government.

    5. Re:Night vs Day by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      In their defense, the illegals they hired are only available at Home Depot during the day.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  2. This is serious business by marmot7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am not sure everyone understands that we totally depend on viable bee populations for our own survival. We're abstracted from it but it's real. Plants --> Animals -->People eating. ^ System cut off at the knees by destabilizing bee population, a process that's already started so more pressued isn't the right input.

    1. Re:This is serious business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No we're not. First off, the majority of staple crops are not dependent on bees; corn, wheat, rice, beans, and soybeans are either wind or self pollinated, and crops such as potatoes, sweet potatoes, yams, bananas, and cassava are not dependent on pollination of any sort. Even in crops that are not staples, there are still things that do well without bees, like tomatoes, peppers, persimmon, papaya, and crops not dependent on pollination for the edible portion, like onion, lettuce, carrot, spinach, broccoli ect.

      Second off, why does everyone think that the European honey bee is the single species keeping the world together? Asia, Africa, Australia, and the Americas did pretty well without it for millions of years. They can continue to do so.

      I'm not trying to downplay the actual problems that are caused when honeybees are hurt in various ways, and there are a lot of crops that would take pretty big hits without bees (although there are alternative pollinators...what do you think pollinated all New World crops prior to the Colombian Exchange?), but I'm tired of hearing this doomsday hyperbole about how humans can't survive without this species of bee every time this topic comes up.

    2. Re:This is serious business by dryeo · · Score: 2

      I've come across enough feral swarms to know they exist. The real problem is the native bees. I have some bee attractive flowers here and there's at least 3 types of native honey bee visiting in large numbers. These aren't European bees, not as highly social and crappy honey producers but more cold tolerant and busy as fuck pollinating as they stock up on pollen.
      In the spring there are quite a few bumble bees here as well, busy pollinating the early stuff such as huckleberries. Last year the weather turned unseasonably cold at the vital time, no bumble bees, no huckleberries and I'm sure lots of other stuff suffered such as the blueberry farms. This led to a lot of hungry bears visiting town and various problems.
      Bees are very sensitive to insecticides and when I was young and had a pesticide ticket, it was really emphasized to be careful about bees.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  3. How many bees is your childs life worth? by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 4, Interesting

    DDT could save millions of lives. We tossed that to the side because of shaky science. Now we have Zika and that fix is killing bees.

    So do we go back to ddt? Or just suffer the effects of Zika?

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    1. Re:How many bees is your childs life worth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It could, but it won't and it wouldn't have. At the time it was stopped, it was already mass sprayed to the point where the mosquitoes were developing immunity.

      Even now you can look at post-2000 research in places like Brazil that shows there's a fuck ton of DDT in the environment, which tells us one of two things: the pro-DDT people are lying when they say it breaks down and is harmless, or Brazilians don't give a shit about what some woman in the US says about how loud it gets in the spring and kept spraying, in which case it doesn't seem to be doing jack shit against Zika in Brazil.

      Personally, I'm leaning towards the second.

    2. Re:How many bees is your childs life worth? by sjames · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nothing shaky about it. The science was well done and replicated all over the world many times.

    3. Re:How many bees is your childs life worth? by El+Puerco+Loco · · Score: 3, Informative

      That is thoroughly debunked right wing nonsense. DDT was never banned for vector control, not even in the U.S. It is still used in malaria endemic regions for indoor residual spraying, which, unlike aerial spraying with adulticides, is actually effective for mosquito control. Spraying Naled is theater.

    4. Re:How many bees is your childs life worth? by jandersen · · Score: 2

      To quote from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT):

      ...
      DDT is a persistent organic pollutant ... Because of its lipophilic properties, DDT can bioaccumulate, especially in predatory birds.[53] DDT, DDE and DDD magnify through the food chain...

      DDT is an endocrine disruptor....

      DDT may not kill vertebrates as swiftly as it kills insects, but it hangs around in the environment, and because it is lipophilic, it accumulates in body fat rather than being excreted with the urine. Those at the top of the food chain like birds of prey and humans tend to accumulate more, because we eat many animals that each have accumulated some. The words "endocrine disruptor" is bad news in that context.

    5. Re:How many bees is your childs life worth? by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sure, did you tell yourself that about lead in gasoline and smoking cigarettes too? What else do you believe is "shaky science" that really isn't.

      DDT is shakey science because indoor spraying in smaller concentrations has since been shown to have no ill effects on the environment. The initial science was wrong, overblown by the hippie movement, and poor application of DDT in mass outdoor spraying.

      Maybe we should just keep our women indoors.

      And wrapped in a burqa.

  4. The U.S. legal system will fix this. by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The beekeepers are saying they were never given any warning of this, so there will certainly be lawsuits in the pipeline and the spraying will stop.

    1. Re:The U.S. legal system will fix this. by lindseyp · · Score: 2

      I'm sure what spraying needed doing has been done, but FTFA:

      "Flowertown Bees was listed on local records but not in the state’s voluntary registry of pollinators, according to Weyman. “We know where the big ones are,” he said, “but as you can see this was a fairly large operation and almost right smack dab in the spray path.” "

      So I don't know if the sprayers were obligated to check local records as well as state records, but there is a system in place to protect pollinators, and Flowertown neglected to get themselves on the state registry, so they are at least partially to blame for their own demise.

      --
      j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
  5. No risk to humans so everything's fine. by rnturn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It breaks down rapidly and, in the very low doses at which it is prescribed, should not pose a risk to humans.

    Uh... did they test it on other, you know, non-mosquito insects? Have they had their fingers in their ears for the past decade and didn't hear about declining bee populations?

    This insecticide might not have a direct effect on humans. But the secondary effect of not having any damned food just might turn out to be rather important.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  6. Vietnam by stooo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Agent Orange breaks down rapidly and, in the very low doses at which it is prescribed, should not pose a risk to humans. 'In Vietnam, we use these products quite frequently to reduce Crops, but we don't see many non-target effects, because the doses are really small,' said General A. Nonymous, a public health Military at Louisiana War Department. 'A lot of people don't realise that we always have the environment in mind. We try to have products that have the lowest possible impact.'"

    --
    aaaaaaa
  7. Toxin != Toxic compound by hankwang · · Score: 2

    The word "toxin" is misued all the time. Toxin = toxic compound produced by living organism. Zika toxin would be something synthesized by the Zika virus or by Zika-infected cells, which makes the story title rather nonsensical.

  8. mosquitoes CANNOT be controlled with biotoxins by ihtoit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    they reproduce too damn fast, and with their rapid lifecycle comes the development of resistant strains.

    Now, what we do know (I learned this in junior school!) is that mosquitoes breed in stagnant water.

    How about a mechanical control method, that's been proven to work? DRAIN THE POOLS, PUDDLES, OPEN SEWERS, AND ANY OTHER BODY OF WATER WHICH DOESN'T FLOW! Problem SOLVED!

    (Fuck Monsanto et al whose business depends on shifting ludicrous amounts of the nastiest chemicals known to exist).

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    1. Re:mosquitoes CANNOT be controlled with biotoxins by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 2

      One of the types of mosquito that carries zika only needs as much water as a bottle cap. There is no way to remove water to that level. Even leaves can have enough water on them for that.

      Spraying is also a bad idea since it is indiscriminate and as you said they reproduce too fast to be effective.

      For this problem we should be using genetic engineering. Infertile male mosquitoes would be the most obvious first step. It would dramatically cut the population and it is highly targeted and does not require removing standing water to an impossible level.

      There has also been work on RNA based insecticides where the sequence is designed for a particular organism. That technology is too new to use for something like this but in time that would probably be an ideal method to solve this problem.

      Lets go with what works and that is using gene drive mosquitoes to destroy the species without harming any other species. No chemicals, no off target effects, no harm to bees and no harm to other mosquito species that don't bite humans. This last one is very important since they will just move into the niche left behind by the species we wipe out and not harm any other species that depend on eating mosquitoes.

      --
      Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
  9. Stop killing the mosquitos by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2, Informative

    The whole concept of trying to contain Zika in the first place is ludicrous. We're seeing dead bees now and who knows what tomorrow... and stopping Zika? It's simply not going to happen. We can't wipe it out in any of the countries it has now established itself and we're just going to keep getting reinfected. It may be stopped temporarily in one place, but then it will pop up in another. It's not going away. Are we going to spend billions every year doing goodness knows what to our environments to try and stop an inevitable threat.

    Here's the deal with Zika. IF you're not a pregnant woman- it's really not that bad. Not only should we let it spread- we should probably introduce it to our children (if we can come up with a vaccine even better, but as mild as Zika is, it may not even be necessary). Let them build up resistance before they get to child-bearing age themselves. In Zika's native range there is no problem with microcephaly because everyone has exposure to the disease before they get pregnant. We need to be working on doing the same rather than spraying pesticide like crazy in a region every time Zika appears.

    It's far cheaper and much more common sense to inoculate the populace one time rather than spend billions each year trying to contain it. Yeah, sucks if you're trying to get pregnant now- we need to take special care of our pregnant women, extra education, extra shielding from potential infection- but it makes far more sense to deal with Zika just one time rather than battle it continuously from now until the end of time or it overruns us naturally and perhaps in ways we're not prepared to deal with it.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Stop killing the mosquitos by Sumus+Semper+Una · · Score: 2

      The thing is, I'm pretty sure quite a few people along the chain of command responsible for this decision know all the things you just said. I suspect they did it anyway because allowing Zika to spread is a PR nightmare after the rabid hype that's been devoted to it by various news outlets. Far easier to make a wasteful and inadvertently harmful attempt to control the outbreak and say "but we were trying to help!" than to do nothing and say "but it was right to do nothing and we couldn't have stopped it anyway!" The people who would have made the latter decision could never last in a position that ultimately has to answer to the general public.

    2. Re:Stop killing the mosquitos by Thelasko · · Score: 2

      Here's the deal with Zika. IF you're not a pregnant woman- it's really not that bad.

      Guillain-Barre syndrome is no walk in the park.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".