Popular Pesticides Keep Bumblebees From Laying Eggs (npr.org)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Popular Pesticides Keep Bumblebees From Laying Eggs (npr.org)

Posted by BeauHD on Monday August 14, 2017 @03:30PM from the ugly-results dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: Wild bees, such as bumblebees, don't get as much love as honeybees, but they should. They play just as crucial a role in pollinating many fruits, vegetables and wildflowers, and compared to managed colonies of honeybees, they're in much greater jeopardy. A group of scientists in the United Kingdom decided to look at how bumblebee queens are affected by some widely used and highly controversial pesticides known as neonicotinoids. What they found isn't pretty. Neonics, as they're often called, are applied as a coating on the seeds of some of the most widely grown crops in the country, including corn, soybeans and canola. These pesticides are "systemic" -- they move throughout the growing plants. Traces of them end up in pollen, which bees consume. Neonicotinoid residues also have been found in the pollen of wildflowers growing near fields and in nearby streams. The scientists, based at Royal Holloway University of London, set up a laboratory experiment with bumblebee queens. They fed those queens a syrup containing traces of a neonicotinoid pesticide called thiamethoxam, and the amount of the pesticide, they say, was similar to what bees living near fields of neonic-treated canola might be exposed to. Bumblebee queens exposed to the pesticide were 26 percent less likely to lay eggs, compared to queens that weren't exposed to the pesticide. The team published their findings in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution.

137 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The market can handle this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 15:37 · Score: 3, Funny

No bees means no pollination. Farmers recognizing this will voluntarily reduce their use of these pesticides once they consider what manual pollination would entail.
1. Re:The market can handle this by youngone · 2017-08-14 15:50 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Farmers don't operate in a market.
  Corn, Soy and canola are all heavily subsidised in both Europe and the US.
  Interestingly the Shorthaired Bumblebee was extinct in the UK, but because it had been introduced to New Zealand in the 1880's a new population could be started.
  That might not be that interesting actually.
2. Re:The market can handle this by jvin248 · 2017-08-14 16:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The largest crop in the US is not Corn or Soybeans, it's lawn grass. Many of the lawn and garden chemicals homeowners like to use, or are used on plants homeowners pick up at the local big box retailer, contain these chemicals harmful to pollinators.
  The statistic is somewhere around 70% of the foods in the typical American Diet need pollinators. No pollinators then pretty limited menus.
3. Re: The market can handle this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yes but those bees are neo-nazis, now what????
4. Re:The market can handle this by ArmoredDragon · 2017-08-14 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  AFAIK these kinds of pesticides are used the most by organic farmers because they are pretty much the only "natural" ones that work, with the others being synthetic pesticides. May not be a coincidence that the organic industry's rise has coincided with the decline in bee populations.
5. Re:The market can handle this by markdavis · 2017-08-14 16:33 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  But the plants most homeowners use pesticides on are not the flowering kinds that most bees go for. Lawn grass is rarely, if ever, allowed to flower because it is mowed (save maybe some low-growing clover... which is not grass anyway).
  I know in my yard, the ONLY thing I use neonicotinoids on are my non-flowering ornamental bushes (which are trimmed enough to keep from flowering). Without it, unfortunately most would all be dead due to scale. Yes, I tried everything else and nothing worked until I applied Merit and that stuff is magic. Applied only once a year and the problem is gone.
  I don't think the casual use by homeowners seeking protection of some established ornamentals is much (if any) exposure to bees. Its use is relatively infinitesimal (and the price extremely steep... one treatment for 20 bushes in my yard is about $50 for a single application). The wide-spread use on huge agricultural farms, however, could be significant (if neonicotinoids really are the main problem with harm to bees).
  I would not be in favor of any type of across-the-board ban of neonicotinoids if it would mean taking it out of the hands of responsible use in ways that can't possibly be much danger.
6. Re:The market can handle this by ShanghaiBill · 2017-08-14 16:34 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  No bees means no pollination.
  Wrong. Many crops don't require bees for pollination. For instance, corn pollen is carried in the wind. Other crops, such as alfalfa are pollinated by bees, but don't need pollination to produce the crop (the leaves and stems) and may produce more foliage without pollination. So why should these farmers give a crap about a beekeeper a mile away that they don't even know? Hint: They don't.
  It is already ILLEGAL to spray these pesticides without notifying the beekeepers, but enforcement is lax, and when a beekeeper finds a million dead bees in her hives, it is almost impossible to find out which farmer was responsible.
  These pesticides should be banned except for some very narrow uses.
  Disclaimer: My mom is a beekeeper. I help her with her hives, so I know a bit about these issues.
7. Re: The market can handle this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 16:46 · Score: 0
  
  Well duh. Obviously depending on your political bias, this is either a plot by President Trump to kill off all the bees so he can enslave black people, or a plot by liberal east coast Hollywood elites to kill off bees so poor southern farmers have to sell their farms to the banks.
  Fuck the media
8. Re: The market can handle this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 16:48 · Score: -1
  
  Jewggers, chimps, and n1ggers have an excuse to rally whole day and block traffic
9. Re:The market can handle this by Beau1080p · 2017-08-14 16:51 · Score: -1
  
  This thread sucks. So here's Jack Nicholson ordering a suit. Enjoy. The background effects are INSANE.
10. Re:The market can handle this by Arzaboa · 2017-08-14 18:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  My thought is that no plant in the right environment should need any *cide's. Even if every neighbor only doses one bush, it does have a cumulative effect large enough to matter. Most would use the same argument, a smart guy like me should be able to use it so... Think about the people you hear say that and roll your eyes at. Just because bees aren't in there, others are, and just because they aren't bees, doesn't mean they aren't having the same effects on them. This stuff is just bad. So while you aren't a farm causing a 25% loss, even a 5% loss matters. Just because we haven't studied the other 'pests', as well doesn't mean they aren't as important. If they exist, there is a biological reason they are in your bushes.
  Tailoring a yard for the local environment with local plants, or food, has so many benefits. Plants that are naturally occurring don't need all this "help", and stay under control with light pruning/cutting. Local plants only need what rain falls locally. It certainly may not look the same as mom's house, but that doesn't mean its not very pretty. It is hard for humans to change what makes them comfortable.
  With that said, I get the shortcuts. It is hard to do. We are not setup for it in this country for many reasons. Everyone wants a nice looking piece of grass, but no one has the time. Stores stock cheap products, mostly produced all in the same cycle of plants that need their fertilizer, that are roundup-resistant. Its easy to keep control of a cycle like that. There is no incentive to change it for the large companies involved selling what most can "afford" or just that is stocked. The expensive stores are just that, so by definition, most shop at large retailers for plants where they can get their discount for a homogeneous selection of plants.
  Its not your fault. It is by design.
11. Re:The market can handle this by Opportunist · 2017-08-14 18:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yeah, that works out so well with pollution in general, see how people avoid wasting gas, voluntarily install filters and forgo using air condition to make a smaller eco footprint because else we can't breathe anymore? No regulation required.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
12. Re:The market can handle this by Beau1080p · 2017-08-14 18:07 · Score: -1
  
  Retard, all food crops have been bred for the past 10000 years by humans to bear LARGER FRUITS which attracts pests and to be EASILY ACCESSIBLE which also attracts pests. The entire world, oh, let's say midwest USA, all of Canada, Ukraine, etc. hey, let's throw in my Brasil too, is not a "Mediterranean environment" as you might hope. So you go back to eating your corn that is size of thumb nail and eating beans with a 1mm shell that cannot be cooked through and picking peas that cannot be taken out of their pods. I will use pesticides!
13. Re: The market can handle this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 18:16 · Score: 0
  
  You know where most of these pesticides are produced? China. They don't use them because they engineered them for this exact purpose. To destroy us with our own fascination with tidy lawns. Genius really... too genius.
  Obamers knew it and was secretly fighting a shadow war. They pulled out their ultimate trump card and installed Trump. It's highly likely there was a miscommunication on that one.
  Only they didn't know he was actually a gray in disguise. The grays love this bee killing pesticide shit and get high as fuck on it. That's why he makes them jacked up tweets. Our food is mostly crystal meth to the grays now. As a result, we mostly get the hillbilly variant of the Grays now.
  The lizard men aren't sitting on the sidelines, no sir. They took over Bernie and had it in the bag. If he hadn't smiled with all those sharp teeth they might have been undetected. That's why the DNC had to hastily switch over to robo Hillary.
  It was a pretty alpha release and it lacked a lot of features. Compassion, love, sensibility and humanity... still. Nothing a little rewrite can't fix.
  At least that was the plan until master hackersmith McCain jumped into the fray and changed all of her access codes. People think McCain was locked in a wooden hut in the jungle. No, that bastard has been underground this whole time logged into his deck. He just wasn't an active player in the game until he stumbled across their plans in cyberspace.
  This would have never happened if they just gave Putin the Y2k fix for his cybernetic enhancements he stole back in the 80s. He would have never arranged for the grays to infest the chineese in exchange for a hot patch.
14. Re: The market can handle this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 18:20 · Score: 0
  
  So the Russian Orthodox Church of Stealing The Election From Hillary as told by the Apostle BeauHD is no longer bias but fact?
15. Re:The market can handle this by BeauHD+(4450103) · 2017-08-14 18:23 · Score: -1, Funny
  
  Farmers don't operate in a market.
  Uhhhh, do u know what a farmers market is?
  
  -=]> Beau &lt[=-
16. Re:The market can handle this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 19:13 · Score: -1
  
  Retard, you're creating resistant pests and losing the battle.
17. Re:The market can handle this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 21:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Hahaha - nice one.
  Here's another...
  Nuclear wars means no people. Countries recognizing this will voluntarily reduce their use of these nukes once they consider what nuclear fallout would entail.
18. Re:The market can handle this by Whibla · 2017-08-14 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  No bees means no pollination.
  Pollination is carried out by insects, not just bees. Bees are just the public friendly face of pollination, probably because they also provide honey, while all flies do is, in popular perception, eat shit and carry diseases.
  
  Farmers recognizing this will voluntarily reduce their use of these pesticides once they consider what manual pollination would entail.
  Possible, though, since there are other insecticidal options, regulation might work better - the EU wide ban on neonics being a case in point.
  Long term, I suspect species migration will also be a telling factor. Evolution might also have a say in the matter.
19. Re:The market can handle this by sjames · 2017-08-14 21:59 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  You REALLY need to re-do your research. Neonics are synthetic and NOT used by organic farmers. You might be thinking of nicotine.
20. Re:The market can handle this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 23:32 · Score: 0
  
  No bees means no pollination. Farmers recognizing this will voluntarily reduce their use of these pesticides once they consider what manual pollination would entail.
  No pesticides, little crop, little food. I'm telling you farmers to stop using them, figure out how to deal with all the problems that causes on your own, that's not my problem.
21. Re:The market can handle this by hord · 2017-08-14 23:50 · Score: 2
  
  Bees aren't native to North America and aren't the only pollinators. Also, it might be important to note that something like 40% of bee hives are transported to California yearly solely for the purposes of running on the gigantic food industry there. Maybe we should be re-thinking how we do food and why bees are such a critical part of it. I eat beef and cows don't need bees.
22. Re: The market can handle this by KGIII · 2017-08-15 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  All, eh? Hmm... I wonder what you'd say if you saw a commercial wild blueberry harvest?
  They are just as nature made them.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
23. Re:The market can handle this by Talderas · 2017-08-15 00:35 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The investigation of pesticides is more driven at colony collapse which is the sudden disappearance of the workers leaving the queen and a few nurses the reasoning for it are still misunderstood. This research at least provides some path to explain why the bees disappeared. If the queen is producing fewer eggs, the workers may be able to sense that is occurring and leave the hive either going feral, dying, or attempting to merge with another colony with a healthy queen because it is very rare that the bees in a hive will leave while there's still brood in cells.
  When the colony dies, a bunch of dead bees in the hive, it's far easier to autopsy the hive and determine a cause. You could find the presence of varroa mites, indicators that the bees are suffering from dysentery or nosema, American/European foulbrood, starvation, or a loss of a queen which could not be replaced. There's numerous other reasons as well but unless you perform the autopsy on what you find you can't determine the cause. Blindly blaming pesticides for a bunch of dead bees is pointless when you have the option to find the cause of the colony death.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
24. Re:The market can handle this by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-08-15 00:46 · Score: 2
  
  The statistic is somewhere around 70% of the foods in the typical American Diet need pollinators. No pollinators then pretty limited menus.
  Out of work coal miners will be given Q-Tips and sent into the fields to pollinate, just like Jesus would have done.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
25. Re:The market can handle this by Gilgaron · 2017-08-15 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  Do you have a citation for worker bees leaving one colony to try to join another? That goes against my admittedly sub-hobby level of knowledge about bees, but I can't imagine why sterile workers that normally attack non-related bees would behave in such a manner and why they wouldn't be instantly killed by the 'new' hive.
26. Re:The market can handle this by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-08-15 01:01 · Score: 2
  
  With that said, I get the shortcuts. It is hard to do. We are not setup for it in this country for many reasons. Everyone wants a nice looking piece of grass, but no one has the time.
  Its kind of amusing. I live in a village where the two best lawns are our neighbor across the street and ours. Theirs is definitely the winner. And neither of us use any of that poisonous crap on our lawns.The biggest thing for lawns in our area is lime to make the soil alkaline enough, and corn gluten in the spring. Every so often spread a little finely shredded compost - just beware that it needs to be tested for pesticides depending on where it came from. I have a fireplace and get wood ashes to spread as well.
  When the weather starts to cool in September, overseed with some grass seed, and you hardly need do much else other than mow. It isn't difficult at all - a few hours per season of the lawn maintenance.
  The people who use stuff like Chemlawn and all the weird shit to put on the lawn get this weird thin grass that goes away the minute the service is stopped.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
27. Re:The market can handle this by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-08-15 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  So you go back to eating your corn that is size of thumb nail and eating beans with a 1mm shell that cannot be cooked through and picking peas that cannot be taken out of their pods. I will use pesticides!
  I think you might have been drinking those pesticides.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
28. Re:The market can handle this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-15 01:04 · Score: 0
  
  What about farmers who don't recognize the problem or farmers who recognize the problem but raise crops that don't need bees for pollination or farmers who grow crops that do not need pollination at all? Do you think what you sprays on your farm stays on your farm?
29. Re: The market can handle this by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-08-15 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  All, eh? Hmm... I wonder what you'd say if you saw a commercial wild blueberry harvest?
  They are just as nature made them.
  It has been another great year for the Blueberries and Huckleberries here in the Northeast.
  But that Beau idjit doesn't know what it's talking about. Larger "fruit" is not the only criteria - not even the crop in all cases - and the breeding itself doesn't make the crops need pesticides any more than wild, other than monoculture issues. But much of the breeding is designed to create a crop that doesn't fall off the plant and to the ground at harvest time. Genetic modification.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
30. Re:The market can handle this by jbengt · 2017-08-15 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  Bees aren't native to North America . . .
  
  wrong
31. Re:The market can handle this by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-08-15 01:22 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  AFAIK these kinds of pesticides are used the most by organic farmers because they are pretty much the only "natural" ones that work, with the others being synthetic pesticides. May not be a coincidence that the organic industry's rise has coincided with the decline in bee populations.
  Neonicitinoids. Just as natural as arsenic and Death Angel Mushrooms? Natural doesn't equal safe, and even then, these compounds, which are similar to nicotine - hence the name - are quite synthetic.
  They were introduced mainly because they are less toxic to mammals and birds than organophosphates. It was also thought that they would break down fairly quickly. As it turns out, they don't, and they are proving to be very toxic to some beneficial insects.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
32. Re:The market can handle this by kilfarsnar · 2017-08-15 01:30 · Score: 0
  
  No bees means no pollination. Farmers recognizing this will voluntarily reduce their use of these pesticides once they consider what manual pollination would entail.
  +1 Funny
  You were making a joke at Libertarians' expense, right?
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
33. Re:The market can handle this by hord · 2017-08-15 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  From the thing you tried to defeat me with:
  "Most people don’t realize that there were no honey bees in America until the white settlers brought hives from Europe."
  We call them native because we are stupid.
34. Re:The market can handle this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-15 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  You didn't notice the whole list of native bee species in the link he posted? Honey bees aren't native, but what does that have to do with disproving the statement "bees aren't native to North America and aren't the only pollinators"
35. Re:The market can handle this by Talderas · 2017-08-15 02:03 · Score: 2
  
  I will admit that it's difficult to search for info on wild bee hives. A majority of search results will go to beekeeping links. That said, beekeepers can and do merge hives together but doing so requires one hive to be queenless and this is obviously different from bees voluntarily leaving one hive and finding another in the wild. Colonies will also respond differently when a frame of brood cells is introduced to the hive. If the hive has a queen they will not accept the brood but they will accept it if they do not have a queen. We can readily observe that some colony responses and behaviors are tied to the queen and that the lack of a queen does seem to trigger different behaviors in colonies.
  I consider it more likely that bees that abandon a queen do so because there's a virgin queen in the mix and there's something inherently wrong with the old queen or reproductive workers in bees that flee lay eggs which are used to raise a new queen in a new hive.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
36. Re:The market can handle this by epine · 2017-08-15 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  Farmers don't operate in a market.
  More of a market than Wall St, so long as they continue to accept giant bail-outs.
  
  It is a truth liberally side-stepped, that any enterprising man in possession of a fast fortune—who now finds himself the kingpin of a mature industry—must be in want of escaping natural market forces.
37. Re:The market can handle this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-15 02:37 · Score: 0
  
  You're a troll trying to impersonate a libertarian.
  No, this is not how libertarianism or free markets work.
38. Re:The market can handle this by Curupira · 2017-08-15 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  Commenting here to undo a wrong moderation. Your post wasn't funny. It was informative to me. Come on, Slashdot, please fix this 10 year old bug!
39. Re:The market can handle this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-15 02:47 · Score: 0
  
  >people avoid wasting gas
  I certainly do. Nothing's free, and gas is one of those budgetary items that costs enough it is worth minimizing my consumption of it. Apparently everyone agrees because MPG is important enough to advertise heavily on.
  >voluntarily install filters
  Not certain what kinds of filters you're talking about. I'll assume air filters. None of the ones I've installed made much difference for the environment. My furnace filter is there to keep my furnace from failing, my car's air filter is there to keep the engine from failing, and my dust mask is there to keep my lungs from failing when I do woodworking.
  >and forgo using air condition
  Electricity prices mean I do forgo using air conditioning. It's like fuel, it's not cheap and my sense of frugalness demands I use only the amount I require. The proliferation of high-tech thermostats that reduce energy consumption would show that others agree with me. And air conditioners are typically sold by BTU and SEER, again, highlighting the importance of saving money.
  I assume you were supporting his point?
40. Re: The market can handle this by dryeo · 2017-08-15 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  Here on the west coast, the wild blueberries, huckleberries and salmonberries have had horrible crops the last 2 years. In the last couple of springs there has been close to no bees out fertilizing the berries. Used to be a few on each bush, usually big bumblebee types as well as smaller ones, but not lately. Really feel sorry for the bears.
  I doubt that it is pesticides here as it is very rural with no farms locally, but the winters and springs have been weird. On the other hand there are also almost no moths. Used to go out in the summer and there would be a cloud of them around the porch light. Last 2 years, it's more like 1 or 2.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
41. Re:The market can handle this by dryeo · 2017-08-15 03:07 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  One of the problems with residential use is all the idiots who can't follow directions. Label says 50:1 mixture, they say that 10:1 must be better. Don't know much about neonicotinoids but do know that with most systematic herbicides, it's actually self defeating as it kills the tops before it transfers to the roots.
  Took a pesticide applicators course a long time ago and it was consistently stressed that pesticides are a last resort.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
42. Re:The market can handle this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-15 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  I think you forgot to finish with "/s", at least I hope so.
43. Re:The market can handle this by Herkum01 · 2017-08-15 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  I consider it more likely that bees that abandon a queen do so because there's a virgin queen in the mix and there's something inherently wrong with the old queen or reproductive workers in bees that flee lay eggs which are used to raise a new queen in a new hive.
  If that were true then bee keepers would have known about it, and reacted accordingly. Since the drastic damage to bee hives is new, you would assume that there is something occurring within the environment (whether is pesticides, herbicides, pollution, disease, or combination of them) that is causing it.
  The impact of domesticated bees on farming can be quite large,.I would hesitate to go with a simple answer without significant supporting evidence.
44. Re:The market can handle this by CrashNBrn · 2017-08-15 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  I landscaped our front yard from a lawn with rose bushes, to a stone path with succulents and rose bushes. The yard needs about 1/4 or less as much water now, and no pesticides nor herbicides. A little bit of miracle grow (nitrogen mostly) used in water pots for quicker rooting for succulent cuts.
45. Re:The market can handle this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-15 04:04 · Score: 0
  
  Apparently everyone agrees because MPG is important enough to advertise heavily on.
  Don't you think a better metric would be whether people were in fact purchasing vehicles with better MPG? They're not.
  
  Not certain what kinds of filters you're talking about.
  OP's talking about pollution scrubbers on things like power plants.
  
  Electricity prices mean I do forgo using air conditioning.
  You, perhaps, but society at large, no.
46. Re:The market can handle this by ShanghaiBill · 2017-08-15 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  You could find the presence of varroa mites, indicators that the bees are suffering from dysentery or nosema, ...
  I don't think these are separate issues from the neonicotinoids. Exposure to pesticide weakens the bees, and that can make them more vulnerable to these other afflictions.
  Neonicotinoids and Varroa Mites
47. Re:The market can handle this by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-08-15 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  Commenting here to undo a wrong moderation. Your post wasn't funny. It was informative to me. Come on, Slashdot, please fix this 10 year old bug!
  No problem Curupira. At least it isn't deniers claiming I'm a troll! 8^)
  And if you want to see something interesting, its when you see how many bees and bumblebees there are when you don't use that stuff. Especially with the bumbles, since they don't have as far a range and stick nearby with non-toxic plants and flowers.. We have a slew of them in our local yards.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
48. Re:The market can handle this by youngone · 2017-08-15 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Be fair. Wall St. invests an awful lot of money in the political process, and needs an ROI.
49. Re:The market can handle this by ausekilis · 2017-08-15 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  If only we could make a pesticide that wasn't harmful to bees, but fatal to hornets. Those assholes.
50. Re:The market can handle this by ArmoredDragon · 2017-08-15 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, I misread TFS. It's rotenone and azadirachtin (neem) that do, and somehow I thought I saw the later in TFS rather than just neonics. Nonetheless, these are highly toxic to bees and organics can't go without them. Because they're "natural" they're legal everywhere.
51. Re:The market can handle this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-15 14:12 · Score: 0
  
  https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/t...
  I don't see rotenone or azadirachtin listed...
52. Re:The market can handle this by Opportunist · 2017-08-15 21:45 · Score: 1
  
  If MPG is what you're going for, buy a Diesel.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
53. Re:The market can handle this by ArmoredDragon · 2017-08-16 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think that list is comprehensive, rather there is an explicit allowed and explicit disallowed with definitions for each, but none of that excludes these from being used. And these particular pesticides have no alternative for certain organic crops that would be allowed under the current rules in both the US and the EU, as stated by the organic lobby itself to the EU:
  http://www.ifoam-eu.org/sites/...
  A whitepaper about their toxicity to bees can be found here:
  https://academic.oup.com/jinse...
Cue the bee decline denialists by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 15:43 · Score: 0

Watch them say that bee population decline is a hoax, a conspiracy from the Evil Scientist Conglomerate to suck up more grant money. Or watch them say that bee populations are declining, but that human activity has nothing to do with it, that the science isn't settled, that bee populations have been "naturally" varying for centuries.
Etc etc etc.
Sometimes I think if cancer cells could talk, they would hold a similar discourse to all these fucking denialists, refusing to admit that THEY are responsible for the slow decline of their host.
1. Re:Cue the bee decline denialists by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 15:51 · Score: 0
  
  Actually the bee population is increasing now. OH! - does that not serve your purpose? I guess you're not paying attention to the latest news.
  Fuck off.
2. Re: Cue the bee decline denialists by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 15:54 · Score: -1
  
  Instead of bees exterminate other parasites, such as invading smelly hindu-chimps
3. Re:Cue the bee decline denialists by PopeRatzo · 2017-08-14 16:11 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Actually the bee population is increasing now.
  The bee population increased 3% in 2017, after dropping 33% in 2016.
  https://www.washingtonpost.com...
  https://phys.org/news/2017-05-...
  In the stock market, and in statistics, that's what's known as a "dead cat bounce".
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
4. Re:Cue the bee decline denialists by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 16:36 · Score: 0
  
  Your comments on other topics make you a knowledge denialist.
  If you happen to be right on this,
  And in statistics, that's what is known as "broke clock is right twice a day"
  https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/a_stopped_clock_is_right_twice_a_day
5. Re:Cue the bee decline denialists by kilfarsnar · 2017-08-15 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  Actually the bee population is increasing now. OH! - does that not serve your purpose? I guess you're not paying attention to the latest news.
  Fuck off.
  And he was right! There you are, right on cue!
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Oh come on... by willoughby · 2017-08-14 15:43 · Score: -1

Bees don't consume pollen. Bees carry pollen from flower to flower as they move from one to another to consume nectar. Damn! Do they not teach this stuff in school anymore?
1. Re:Oh come on... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 16:01 · Score: 0
  
  You're a fucking moron.
2. Re:Oh come on... by n329619 · 2017-08-14 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  Bees do consume pollen, but I think you were talking about the worker bees.
  The worker bees consume nectar and store the excess to feed the rest of the bees. In the meantime, they bring their pollen basket around which pollinates other flowers.
this is great by schematix · 2017-08-14 15:53 · Score: -1

i hate bees. mean fckers. let them all die. there are other pollinators out there.

--
Scott
1. Re: this is great by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 16:41 · Score: -1
  
  Yes, replace bees with cockroaches and with smelly hindu-chimps
2. Re:this is great by ShanghaiBill · 2017-08-14 17:00 · Score: 1
  
  there are other pollinators out there.
  We could switch to robotic pollinators.
  The robots pollinate, but they don't produce honey.
3. Re:this is great by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 18:24 · Score: 0
  
  Also pollinator robots are not sustainable, they do require maintenance, bees are part of other invisible relationships with other unknown aspects of the world ecosystem, basically we don't know enough what other problems might bring their demise.
4. Re:this is great by dunkelfalke · 2017-08-14 19:01 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Bumblebees are the most peaceful kind of Apidae. And also one of the most important polllinators because they fly out when other insects are still hibernating due cold temperatures.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
5. Re:this is great by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 22:16 · Score: 0
  
  Introducing "altruistic pollinators" would put evolutionary pressure on flowering plants to stop producing nectar (which is waste of plant's resources if it is not needed), and that would screw remaining pollinators even further.
6. Re:this is great by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-15 02:18 · Score: 0
  
  And I hate you, so lets just kill you. There are other human beings out there.
  Fucking moron. You're not even funny.
7. Re:this is great by eaglesrule · 2017-08-15 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Bumblebees are the most peaceful kind of Apidae. And also one of the most important polllinators because they fly out when other insects are still hibernating due cold temperatures.
  They are indeed passive, but they aren't above using their greater size to bulldoze smaller insects out of the way when they decide they want to visit a particular bloom. It can be entertaining sometimes to watch them work.
8. Re:this is great by dunkelfalke · 2017-08-15 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  What I meant, of course, is that they generally only attack people if hurt. And even then they might just as well bite instead of stinging. I really have a lot of fondness for bumblebees.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
9. Re:this is great by eaglesrule · 2017-08-15 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  I have a special appreciation for bumblebees as well, as they were my introduction to entomology at an early age. Never once was I stung, even when I deserved it!
Bees lay eggs? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 16:01 · Score: 0

Funny, never seen a bee egg on the menu. Sounds like FAKE NEWS!
Re:Oh by jvin248 · 2017-08-14 16:02 · Score: 2

Bees consume pollen. Some even call it 'bee bread'...
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in868
http://www.hhmi.org/biointerac...
Bumblebees aren't Monsanto's core business by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 16:06 · Score: 0

so deal with it.
Watch your language please by swell · 2017-08-14 16:39 · Score: 0, Troll

from TFS: "They play just as crucial a role in pollinating ... [as honeybees]"
This seems to be an exaggeration. Mild for Slashdot, but extreme for scientists. My own anecdotal experience is that for every bumblebee I see, there are 1,000 honeybees. How can their work be comparable? And yes, I've seen a lot of bees during my time as agriculture inspector with the department of Food and Agriculture. This is a science story and the entire study is in doubt when such distorted language is used. This is the language of marketing people, not scientists. It's the kind of language you might expect from an outfit that has to capitalize every word in a headline, just as the hucksters did hawking newspapers in 1920. I hope it reflects another Slashdot edit failure and not the words of actual scientists.

--
...omphaloskepsis often...
1. Re:Watch your language please by MightyMartian · 2017-08-14 17:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Wow you debunked a scientific claim with an anecdotal claim that looks like nothing more than casual observation. I'm sure you're Nobel is in the mail
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. Re:Watch your language please by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 18:31 · Score: 1
  
  The world is bigger than a town or a country, we still not know enough about this planet (and we have a lot of studies and information) and more less about the invisible relationships that ties all together to determine if the demise of a bee specie might no react in other parts of the ecosystem.
  Might sound incredible but animals can affect ecosystems across the world and huma interaction might bring uncontrollable changes that might bring a chain of problems that we might not be able to solve.
3. Re:Watch your language please by n329619 · 2017-08-14 21:14 · Score: 1
  
  My own anecdotal experience is that for every bumblebee I see, there are 1,000 honeybees.
  
  bees have different preference. There are some flowers that attract more bumblebees.
4. Re:Watch your language please by dunkelfalke · 2017-08-15 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  Mostly.because bumblebees wake up earlier. They are also the first ones to get out in the early spring when bees would freeze to death. That is why bumblebees are so furry.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
5. Re:Watch your language please by Barefoot+Monkey · 2017-08-15 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  from TFS: "They play just as crucial a role in pollinating ... [as honeybees]"
  That's not what TFS says. "They" refers to wild bees in general (and arguably feral bees too), not specifically the bumblebees from the study - and they are being compared only to "managed colonies of honeybees" rather than honeybees in general.
6. Re:Watch your language please by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-15 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  And my own anecdotal experience is that I see 10000 bumble bees for one honey bee. Why ? Because I don't live in a agricultural sector, and the places I visit and travel to are not selectively biased by the fact that I work as an agricultural inspector.
  TL;DR: Your anecdotal experience is worthless.
Why you are an idiot by SuperKendall · 2017-08-14 16:51 · Score: -1, Troll

While idiots like you continue to cherry pick data to spread fear, actual scientists that understand the importance of a longer sampling rate are reporting something very different (2.62 million colonies in 2017, a slight increase from the graph, and the number of managed hives has increase 45% in the last half century. Where is your 33% drop fool???)
The real reason why you are an idiot though is because you choose to believe numbers that only include commercial hives - which being a monoculture are of course prone to large drops at times, but as we can see also quickly recover because it turns out bee keepers can breed more bees *surprise gasp*.
Keep your moronic fear mongering to yourself. You are seriously worse than the anti-vaxxers in terms of your inherent and very un-scientiffic fear of pesticides which massively increase crop production and help feed the world.
Talk about denial...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Why you are an idiot by PopeRatzo · 2017-08-14 17:24 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  [agprofessional.com]
  
  I'll bet you didn't know that Rhonda Brooks, the editor of aggprofessional.com, worked in marketing communications for DuPont for a few decades. DuPont manufactures one of the pesticides that's blamed for killing bees.
  I see you also linked to a USDA report from August 1. Donald Trump appointed Sam Clovis, who has no science background at all to be the head scientist at the USDA. His work experience was as a campaign staffer for Rick Perry (noted idiot who now heads the Department of Energy). This after the Administration announced that all scientific publications from government agencies could not be released until they were vetted by the White House.
  Then, the one actual scientific article you link to actually refutes your points.(read the article, it's short)
  You believe what you want to believe, bucko. You're entitled to your own reality and don't let anybody tell you different.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
2. Re:Why you are an idiot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 23:49 · Score: 0
  
  ad hominem much?
  You can't arbitrarily dismiss articles based upon who wrote them. You have to do so based upon the content. From your response, you didn't give any indication that you made your decision based upon the content but rather the author.
  As you said, "you believe what you want to believe, bucko".
3. Re:Why you are an idiot by jbengt · 2017-08-15 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  reporting something very different [agprofessional.com]
  Quoting the number of managed beehives, which number people work hard to maintain because they need that many hives for their business, says nothing about the survival of individual bees or individual hives.
4. Re:Why you are an idiot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-15 01:44 · Score: 0
  
  ad hominem much?
  You can't arbitrarily dismiss articles based upon who wrote them. You have to do so based upon the content. From your response, you didn't give any indication that you made your decision based upon the content but rather the author.
  As you said, "you believe what you want to believe, bucko".
  Actually, yes you can in science. You need credential in order to be credited on your work. If you have already had a long record of strong opposition to certain issues, your credibility on any work on the issues needed to be heavily verified again due to bias. Thus, ad hominem in this case is OK.
Fuck that shit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 17:09 · Score: -1

Kill'em all. They are just a pest.
Thomas Malthus was right by enrique556 · 2017-08-14 17:30 · Score: 0

The Green Revolution only shifted the catastrophe from mankind to plants & animals. It's enabled us to unwittingly explode in population - for what? Does a person who was never born suffer for never having existed?
1. Re:Thomas Malthus was right by Kiuas · 2017-08-14 19:56 · Score: 2
  
  The Green Revolution only shifted the catastrophe from mankind to plants & animals.
  Last I checked homo sapiens sapiens was part of the animal world too, no?
  
  It's enabled us to unwittingly explode in population - for what?
  For our own benefit, what else?
  
  Does a person who was never born suffer for never having existed?
  I presume the implication here is that had we never had the green revolution no unborn humans would've been harmed as the population would've simply never grown to its current size and therefore the green revolution is an evil thing that shouldn't jave happened. But that's simply not true. The green revolution happened out of necessity, it happened because people were starving and we had the means to develop ways to get more food to there's people to reduce starvation and reduce human suffering.
  I'm acutely aware of the environmental issues caused agriculture, which is why, for the past couple months I've cut out all meat and roughly 90 % of all dairy. And I intend to maintain this diet, despite the fact that fucking love bacon, it's just that at this point I think someone with as much access to information as I do and living in the west, reducing meat and other animal products intake is while still not starving to death and eating food that tastes alright is both possible and economically feasible, and for someone in my position it's the single biggest consumer choice that I can do to try to control the ecological impact we're having on the biosphere.
  However at the same time I'm always frustrated as hell to see people make this bland black and white argument of 'man bad, nature good!" as if we're not a part of nature (and conversely, as if moral judgements themselves are not a man made idea but somehow universal truths) and acting according to our genes just as much as the bees and all the rest. We're doing what we've been the best at doing on the planet for hundreds of thousands of years, which is surviving at all costs. Yes, that has over the millenia meant that we've hunted many a species to extinction destroyed numerous others unwittingly, because despite being the smartest force on the planet we're still just very advanced apes and not omniscient, but what makes the position of the eco-misanthropes so unbearable to me is that they seem to assume we are. Like, do you seriously think men of science, human beings with intelligence and compassion for their fellow man, should've looked at the starving masses of people in the early parts of the last century and gone: "well, I think we have some ideas of how we could grow more food for all these people, but since it might lead to unknown consequences let's just let them die horrific deaths' Such an attitude is essentially genocidal.
  More to the point: Population growth provably decreases with a rising standard of living. People have less children in developed countries because they don't need to have 13 of them to make sure that even as 4 of them die in childhood, they still have enough labor to make sure someone farms their land and provides for them at their old age. The number of children globally per couple is coming down fast because advancements in the quality of life and technology are allowing people to not rely so much on manual labor and their own offspring as a sustaining force for their own old age. People in the west have access to an excess of food that would be unimaginable to anyone living in the past, or in the developed world today I can go out today and buy a delicious, ready cooked lunch with a fraction of my day's income without having to even exert any effort into preparing it myself. This used to be the luxury of kings and queens, and for us it's a common activity. yet the people in the west are having the least kids on the globe. I'm not sure I'll ever have biological kids, but if I do the maximum amount is 2, more likely
  
  --
  "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
2. Re:Thomas Malthus was right by enrique556 · 2017-08-15 00:37 · Score: 0
  
  tl;dr: Well, that's like, your opinion man.
  
  Last I checked homo sapiens sapiens was part of the animal world too, no?
  I considered making this distinction but chose not to for the sake of brevity. In fact, even if I'd said "other animals, and plants", I'd be excluding archaea and bacteria. So, "all other forms of life"? Then some pedant would chide me for assuming that life only exists on Earth. You can't always be brief and correct at the same time.
  
  It's enabled us to unwittingly explode in population - for what?
  For our own benefit, what else?
  I suppose anything that moves us further away from subsistence living is necessary for further advancement, and the green revolution did increase our quality of life more than it increased population growth.
  
  We're doing what we've been the best at doing on the planet for hundreds of thousands of years, which is surviving at all costs. Yes, that has over the millenia meant that we've hunted many a species to extinction destroyed numerous others unwittingly, because despite being the smartest force on the planet we're still just very advanced apes and not omniscient, but what makes the position of the eco-misanthropes so unbearable to me is that they seem to assume we are.
  No, you totally misunderstand my stance. I do consider humans part of nature, and see them as intelligent animals, I don't put their intelligence on a pedestal like you assume. I honestly don't give a shit about "mother earth"; I'm not a greenie, I don't think humans are "evil" - I just worry about the fate of people that come after us, and since there'll be so many more of them than there are living now, I think their fate is more important than ours. If our intelligence is just a part of us - and we are just a part of nature - why is it so distasteful to you for us to employ our higher brain functions to prevent greater suffering in the future? Why be so selfish and only demand that we employ our intelligence to improve our current living standards? That is the distinction that I see between yours and my attitudes.
  
  Malthus was wrong saying that we couldn't help yourselves, we have.
  
  I disagree that Manthus was wrong. We haven't hit that wall yet, but when we do (and assuming we do), the problem will be much greater in proportion to our environment. The human suffering will also be there, in much greater numbers. If you choose to believe that we will never hit that wall, then that's your opinion.
  
  Had the fate of the species rested on men like you who see progress overall as a bad thing in aeons past, we'd have followed the Neanderthals a long, long time ago
  Where did I say I was against progress? The green revolution doesn't encompass all human progress, it was improvements in agricultural output. Your argument does remain somewhat valid; the tale of one of the pharaohs rejecting some greek inventor's steam engine comes to mind. However if I were in a position of authority, I don't think I'd really stop the green revolution from happening, since I wouldn't know what the outcome would be. It certainly wouldn't have looked like a bad idea at the time.
  You've put humans in a special category by assuming that even though we're overpopulated, we shouldn't be culled or have our population controlled somehow, when we see it necessary to do the same for animals in their own best interest. You say my stance is "essentially genocidal" - I'm more interested in the survival of the human race than the survival of the planet, but this is our spaceship; if we destroy it, we all die.
  You wrote a really well thought out and eloquent reply to my post, but I'm not the gaia-loving mankind-hating boogieman you imagine. I don't want people to suffer or die starving just to save the pandas & whales, I'm just worried about our future, and it's not because of morals, it's pragmatism.
3. Re:Thomas Malthus was right by Kiuas · 2017-08-15 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  I just worry about the fate of people that come after us, and since there'll be so many more of them than there are living now, I think their fate is more important than ours.
  As do I.
  
  If our intelligence is just a part of us - and we are just a part of nature - why is it so distasteful to you for us to employ our higher brain functions to prevent greater suffering in the future? Why be so selfish and only demand that we employ our intelligence to improve our current living standards? That is the distinction that I see between yours and my attitudes.
  I never said or implied it's distasteful to me. Why do you think I explicitly said I've changed my diet to something that - on a personal level - is less pleasurable to me abecause my intelligence tells me based on the data I have access to that it's the less harmful choice for the ecosystem overall and that I think the smart thing to do is to control out rate of population expansion by not having too many kids if I would not think that? We're on the same page with this one, completely.
  
  Where did I say I was against progress?
  You didn't, this one's on me. I got the impression that you overall thought of agricultural progress/increase in food output as a negative thing and drew this conclusion based on that. My bad, and I apologize.
  
  You've put humans in a special category by assuming that even though we're overpopulated, we shouldn't be culled or have our population controlled somehow, when we see it necessary to do the same for animals in their own best interest.
  This is false. Like I said, I told you I'm planning to have 2 or less kids, or none at all, precisely for this reason, I think the smart choice to control our rate of population growth is not to force people via laws or such to have less kids, as that tends not to work, but to keep increasing the standard of living especially in the poorer regions of the planet as that's where it provably has the largest effect on the amount of childtren, but also for us in the west to voluntarily, knowing all the facts and what's at stake, to have less kids.
  
  I'm more interested in the survival of the human race than the survival of the planet, but this is our spaceship; if we destroy it, we all die.
  Again, 110 % agreed.
  
  You wrote a really well thought out and eloquent reply to my post, but I'm not the gaia-loving mankind-hating boogieman you imagine. I don't want people to suffer or die starving just to save the pandas & whales, I'm just worried about our future, and it's not because of morals, it's pragmatism.
  Fair enough and thanks for your reply. I misjudged your moral position on the matter based on my previous encouters with similar replies on the topic, which is entirely on me.
  We're not in disagreement on the matter in any way that bears further arguing, and I thank you for correcting my false impressions about your position(s). I have bad habit of extrapolating too much based on too little information, maybe as a consequence of spending too much time engaged in online debates, or maybe it's just my ego, but based on this exchange I'll gladly consider myself corrected when it comes to you.
  I look forward to hearing your thoughts on other matters here on /.!
  
  --
  "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
The Pesticide is Neonicotin in Monsanto's RoundUp. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 17:35 · Score: 0

The Pesticide is Neonicotin in Monsanto's RoundUp.
Monsanto is to blame. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 17:40 · Score: 0

Monsanto is to blame.
CCD? by shentino · 2017-08-14 17:44 · Score: 1

Any relation to Colony Collapse Disorder?
1. Re:CCD? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 23:50 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. Neonics are one huge factor in CCD. The other factors are a fungus, monoculture crops, and the bees for rent market.
Well, look on the bright side by Opportunist · 2017-08-14 18:04 · Score: 1

With Bumblebee gone, we might be spared another Transformers movie...

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re: The Pesticide is Neonicotin in Monsanto's Roun by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 18:23 · Score: 1

RoundUp is glycophosphate, not a neonic.
Glycophosphate is a major reason you're as likely to kill your plants as to fertilize them if you dump "free" manure on them... the cows & horses eat grain with RoundUp in it, and their shit ends up being poisonous to plants for a few months until the glycophosphate breaks down.
Good. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 18:52 · Score: 0

These nasty mofos STING!!! Kill them all with fire! (or with neonicotinoids, if that's cheaper).
Where Was The Testing? by ytene · 2017-08-14 19:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

We need to consider this story in abstract - and when we do it is much more disturbing.

In essence, what has happened here is that a pesticide supplier, i.e. a commercial organisation that is required by law to have their products tested and approved by a Federal agency, developed and tested a product which has now been shown to be detrimental to the environment in a pretty significant way.

But what would have happened if the detrimental impact from this chemical had caused sterility in men, for instance? Or early onset dementia? Or some other unpleasant, irreversible side effect? The whole point behind having Federal agencies and licensing requirements is to ensure that no chemicals released into the environment have such results.

It's easy to think that, in the 21st century, these are exaggerated or "doomsday" scenarios. If we thought that, we'd be wrong. Mankind does not learn from past mistakes in this regard. In the mid 1940s, the US released huge volumes of DDT into the environment. The chemical caused the shells of (wild) bird eggs to be super-thin and especially brittle and was responsible for the near-extinction of the Bald Eagle. In the 1950s, the drug thalidomide became widely available - resulting in literally thousands of individuals being born with mal-formed limbs, unable to care for themselves. The list goes on...

Bottom line: the moment we put profit ahead of public safety, scandals follow. As a sophisticated society, with a well-developed and functioning scientific community, there should be no excuses for the situation we see described in this article. The doubly sad and shocking thing is that it seems it will only be when we experience a potentially extinction-level event that we will see a determination to do something about this. By then it might be too late.
1. Re:Where Was The Testing? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 22:32 · Score: 0
  
  > The list goes on...
  *Does* it? The only two that pretty much anyone can mention are DDT and Thalidomide. Perhaps coincidentally, the only ones you mentioned are DDT and Thalidomide. Not to mention that those are _both_ 20th century chemicals. ;)
2. Re:Where Was The Testing? by ytene · 2017-08-15 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  With respect to the examples being "20th century chemicals", whilst I will agree with you, the reason for including them was to show that there has been a long history of implementing such "solutions" before appropriate testing has been conducted. As for other examples, how about:-
  
  Asbestos (fire retardant - no longer deployed but much remains in places like land-fills, older buildings, etc)
  Tetra-Ethyl Lead (the anti-knock additive in petrols)
  Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (flame retardants)
  Chloroflurocarbons (fire suppressants)
  
  Whilst I'd concede that some of these might not be "household names", there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they should never have been released in to use...
3. Re:Where Was The Testing? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-15 01:30 · Score: 0
  
  Fluoride. Sure it helps prevent cavities when it comes into contact and sticks to your teeth, but it's toxic to every other system in your body. How many broken bones has it caused and the untold suffering from thyroid problems? Why not drink less sugary drinks instead of consuming poison?
4. Re: Where Was The Testing? by Dripdry · 2017-08-15 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  Incorrect! The DDT study was bullshit, and worth googling.
  
  --
  -
5. Re:Where Was The Testing? by MobyDisk · 2017-08-15 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  BPA in plastics (although some argue plastics in general are not food safe)
  Lead in paint, gasoline, and metals
6. Re: Where Was The Testing? by Dripdry · 2017-08-15 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  DDT isn't dangerous. No science has ever shown it to be.
  
  --
  -
7. Re: Where Was The Testing? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-15 02:33 · Score: 0
  
  Great. We have DDT denialists now.
  As if there wasn't enough anti-science denialists already.
8. Re:Where Was The Testing? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-15 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  Alllll just liberal scare tactics! The Market would have sorted this all out! /s
9. Re:Where Was The Testing? by doctorvo · 2017-08-15 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  Mankind does not learn from past mistakes in this regard. In the mid 1940s, the US released huge volumes of DDT into the environment. The chemical caused the shells of (wild) bird eggs to be super-thin and especially brittle and was responsible for the near-extinction of the Bald Eagle.
  And the political reaction was hysterical: rather than a measured approach towards DDT use, we ended up effectively banning it, costing the lives of millions of people.
  
  In the 1950s, the drug thalidomide became widely available - resulting in literally thousands of individuals being born with mal-formed limbs, unable to care for themselves.
  The drug was not approved in the US. But the political reaction, and outright ban for several decades, instead of a limited approval caused enormous suffering to people.
  
  Bottom line: the moment we put profit ahead of public safety, scandals follow.
  Neither DDT nor thalidomide were particularly important for profits, in the sense the companies that made them could easily make profits with producing many other chemicals/drugs. The reason these chemicals were popular and big sellers was because they were very effective at something. The knee jerk reaction to them when their problems were discovered caused unnecessary and preventable human suffering on a massive scale.
  
  As a sophisticated society, with a well-developed and functioning scientific community, there should be no excuses for the situation we see described in this article.
  What you describe is not a "sophisticated society with a well-developed and functioning scientific community", it's a society of irrational Luddites that cowers in fear in their cold caves. A society with a well-developed and functioning scientific community recognizes that excessive risk reduction is not rational and ends up causing more harm than good.
  The FDA and EPA are lousy mechanisms for making the necessary tradeoffs between safety and social benefits, because they are politically driven entities whose policy making is dominated by nincompoops like you. Regulations aren't the only way, or the best way, of preventing injury from new products. What we need is far stronger legal liability for harm caused by new products, and weaker regulations to make it easier to introduce new products.
10. Re: Where Was The Testing? by Ann+O'Nymous-Coward · 2017-08-15 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Tell it to the raptors, moron.
11. Re:Where Was The Testing? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-15 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  The whole point behind having Federal agencies and licensing requirements is to ensure that...
  ...Corporations make profit.
  Welcome to 2017.
12. Re:Where Was The Testing? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-15 16:27 · Score: 0
  
  > ...the reason for including them was to show that there has been a long history of implementing such "solutions" before appropriate testing has been conducted.
  We could apply the same attitude to the failure of doctors to realize until the late 17th century that handwashing and proper sanitation was essential to medical care for exactly the same reasons that you cite here. We don't do that because it's an _unreasonable_ thing to do.
  > Asbestos (fire retardant - no longer deployed...
  Asbestos is only dangerous if inhaled or embedded into the body. _When contained_, it's an excellent material that poses no health risk. It had been used for thousands of years prior to its industrial adoption. It was adopted industrially _in the 1870's_. I'm not sure if you know much about those times, but that's even pre Muckraking and Meatpacking Industry Investigation era! There wasn't much of a culture of _detailed_, rigorous human safety testing back then... nearly _one-hundred fifty_ years ago.
  It took quite a while to _fully_ phase out the use of the material, but we _did_ by the 1980's or so.
  > Tetra-Ethyl Lead
  Introduced in _1920_ and still used in some aviation gas.
  > Chloroflurocarbons
  What's the procedural problem with CFCs?
  They replaced _toxic_ refrigerants, were initially researched in the _1920's_, and deployed in the 1930's and 40's. You'll note that we didn't even really have good ways of inspecting the Ozone Layer until the mid-to-late 1950's. A little while after it became clear that this chemical was doing serious damage to the ozone layer, we started to find ways to replace this otherwise COMPLETELY harmless and VERY useful chemical with others. This appears to be exactly how you want the system to work.
  > Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers
  This is _almost_ a 21st century problem. Congratulations!
  Having said that, there's no indication of any significant harm caused by these things. There was suspicion that they might be harmful, studies were done, and steps taken to stop using these chemicals. That sounds like a success to me, and -again- how you want the system to work.
  Leaded gasoline _might_ be the same sort of problem as DDT, but it's certainly not in the same class as the mistaken understanding about the mechanism of chemical transfer across the placental barrier that lead to the Thalidomide debacle. As for the others? They don't support your argument at all.
  The failures of the past don't matter much today _if_ we've learned all we can from them and are committed to doing the best we can to not fail that way again. This sort of Chicken Little nonsense that you're spouting isn't productive.
For accuracy's sake... by Oligonicella · 2017-08-14 20:11 · Score: 1

Corn is wind pollinated. Bees have nothing to do with it. Hence the tassels.
this is "Great" by n329619 · 2017-08-14 21:09 · Score: 1

Great! Let's replace all the bees with the next best pollinator, mosquitoes!
So like nicotine and mammals by Togden · 2017-08-14 21:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

Nicotine has been shown to have a similar effect on mammals.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
I know its not the same, but they are part of the same family of chemicals, this should really have been investigated before they were approved for wider use.
1. Re:So like nicotine and mammals by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-15 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  My mom works with a lot of animals, and she actually used a neonic on her head for lice! Crazy, I know. She said after applying it in the shower, she felt like she had a "sort of caffeine like buzz". She's a non smoker. I'd have to assume that's the psychological effect of the neonic.
2. Re:So like nicotine and mammals by twistofsin · 2017-08-15 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  Imidacloprid is a neonic and is the active ingredient in most flea and tick treatments for dogs. I've wondered if using it on humans would be an effective way to get rid of bed bugs.
Re:Oh by GNious · 2017-08-14 22:10 · Score: 1

Bees consume pollen. Some even call it 'bee bread'...

How....how do we know? Who speaks "Bee" ?
Re: The Pesticide is Neonicotin in Monsanto's Roun by Entrope · 2017-08-14 22:26 · Score: 1

RoundUp is a herbicide. Neonics are pesticides, and are not among the active ingredients in RoundUp.
Show the evidence by sjbe · 2017-08-14 23:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

I know in my yard, the ONLY thing I use neonicotinoids on are my non-flowering ornamental bushes (which are trimmed enough to keep from flowering). Without it, unfortunately most would all be dead due to scale. Yes, I tried everything else and nothing worked until I applied Merit and that stuff is magic. Applied only once a year and the problem is gone.
Maybe the fact that they cannot survive without putting toxic chemicals on them is a hint you should take. How about planting something that doesn't require special toxins to survive. Native plants are usually a good start.

I don't think the casual use by homeowners seeking protection of some established ornamentals is much (if any) exposure to bees.
Based on what evidence? You "don't think" it is a problem why exactly? And we're not talking about one or two homeowners. We're talking about millions of them all across the country using quite a lot of the stuff. Furthermore the chemicals don't just stay were you spray them and they don't magically disappear.

I would not be in favor of any type of across-the-board ban of neonicotinoids if it would mean taking it out of the hands of responsible use in ways that can't possibly be much danger.
Given that there appears to be substantial evidence of important negative effects on critical pollinators, exactly what is the basis of your argument? Because you think your are being "responsible" with them? Particularly in regards to plants that are purely ornamental. There is such a thing a responsible use in the food supply but no such thing exists for ornamental plants including lawn grass. If your lawn requires even occasional spraying then you are Doing It Wrong.
1. Re:Show the evidence by Gilgaron · 2017-08-15 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  You'd think so about the native plants, but it is interesting that when my vegetable garden gets powdery mildew (Which then requires me to treat my pumpkins) the domesticated crops are resistant, but the native weeds also get the mildew and suffer and die. Similar with insect pests, only a few susceptible domesticated species but all the local weeds are on the menu. When you walk through the woods there is a mix of native wildlife with plants that are living and others that are dying. This works well for the woods but less well for a home where I'd like to have some plants to control drainage, erosion, and shade the house to improve energy use versus setting up a complete ecosystem with lots of detritus. Otherwise I do agree that avoiding treatment is best. I had some spots where the grass consistently has trouble to the extent that I've given up and let the clover and wild grass take over, just pulling out the dandelions and thistles. It doesn't even look any different than the monocultured parts of the lawn if it is mowed regularly.
2. Re:Show the evidence by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-15 02:18 · Score: 0
  
  using milk to control powdery mildew see you don't need poisons, there are many ways to skin a cat. also, chrysanthemums are great natural pest deterrents, and it actually protects plants in the proximity of them. companion plantings can reduce the needs for pesticides and even fertilizers. treat the microbes and fungus in the soil and it will pretty much eliminate nutrient deficiencies and needs for most if not all pesticides. more about pyrethrin (from chrysanthemums) look to natural ways to fix problems rather than using poisons and even chemical fertilizers. a healthy soil culture solves most nutrient and pest problems.
3. Re:Show the evidence by Gilgaron · 2017-08-15 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't realize pyrethrin came from chrysanthemums. I think they may actually be the active ingredient in the spray I've been using, I'll have to check. I've tried the milk before, it works well on tomatoes but less so on the pumpkins unless you apply nearly daily. They must be more susceptible.
4. Re:Show the evidence by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-15 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  "Native weeds"? Which species, exactly? And what region are we discussing?
5. Re:Show the evidence by pi_rules · 2017-08-15 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Mums won't do much of anything to keep bugs out. Yes we get pyrethrin from them but whatever amounts are in the flower are pretty small. This time of year western flower thrip and two spotted spider mite are a problem in mums. While both can be treated with pyrethrins/pyretheroids according to product labels they basically stopped working a few years back. If going after them with concentrated synthetic versions of pyrethrin doesn't work the natural amount in the plant certainly won't.
  I've got around 50,000 mums in our greenhouse right now. Trust me. I'm also one of the pesticide applicators.
6. Re:Show the evidence by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-15 09:08 · Score: 0
  
  I was rather surprised in my last house. When I moved in, the garden was a desert; ivy, mud, and a lone cherry tree that would be black with aphids every year. We dug it up, removed the ivy, added yards of compost etc., planted it, and so on. Within a few years we found that the soil was full of worms, the garden full of birds and insects, and the plants flourishing. We were surprised to discover that we didn't need any chemicals at all once we got into balance. Maybe we got lucky, but it can be done.
Re:Oh by hord · 2017-08-14 23:52 · Score: 1

When we open their hives and see that they actively store and eat pollen. Because we can see it with our eyes. Our eyes speak bee.
Re:Oh by GNious · 2017-08-15 01:02 · Score: 1

1) Whooosh
2) There are small signs in the bee-hives saying "bee bread"?
Re: Oh by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-15 01:02 · Score: 0

When we open their hives and see that they actively store and eat pollen. Because we can see it with our eyes. Our eyes speak bee.
Sure. But how do you know what the bees call it?
What about cell phones by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-15 01:06 · Score: 0

Are you telling me that cell phones are NOT the cause??? color me shocked
DDT by Dripdry · 2017-08-15 02:17 · Score: 0

For the record, as an aside to this, let's set the record straight on DDT:
https://spectator.org/48925_dd...
Other publications follow up on that.
We need less belief and more facts!

--
-
1. Re:DDT by Ann+O'Nymous-Coward · 2017-08-15 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Wowee, what an Authoritative, Scientific reference! I'm Ever So Convinced by this Amazingly Credible Site!!!
  ROTFLMAO
2. Re:DDT by AxeTheMax · 2017-08-15 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting article, though if the case for DDT is as overwhelming as it suggest, it suggests that environmentalists are much more better at propaganda than the major industry of chemical production. So, I checked two things quoted, about Ecuador reintroducing DDT and 2.5 million cases of malaria after Sri Lanka abandoned DDT. I found the first for Ecuador easily, it is a modest figure and seems to be sound. Not so for Sri Lanka, and other sources give a fraction of that figure, e.g. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09... . This does not leave me with confidence that it is not another anti environmental rant.
Re:Oh by Megol · 2017-08-15 04:17 · Score: 1

Beesexuals? Hard to get laid without talking first...
Well that's a giant buzz kill. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-15 04:18 · Score: 0

get it
Also really dangerous if.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-15 06:00 · Score: 0

They establish a hive near your home, and you accidentally (or intentionally disturb it.)
We had them nest in one of our compost piles one year, would get aggressive any time people came near it, watered it, etc.
Just in the past six months we've seen them burrowing into a wooden fencepost.
Having said all that: There is far more diversity in 'bee' and other pollinating insect populations this year, but between drought, earlier than usual heatwaves, early/late blooming, and a variety of other factors, there are almost no pollinators at this point in the season, even though the diminished but diverse population earlier in the season seems acceptable.
This is CA btw.