Yet another study points to pesticides as cause of bee death disorder

boing
24

We read the whole paper

Who is we?

Bear in mind that neonicitinoids have been in use since 1990.

Neonicitinoid usage has changed since 1990 along with many other factors.

It wasn’t until 2006 that we saw the alarming spike in CCD, and that spike went away-- all without any change in neonicitinoid use.

That means very little. Focusing on anomalies regarding spikes reminds me of climate change denier tactics.

you have to read the methods and results to understand what they did and what they found.

I did, and what they found is summed up in the abstract and discussion.

They dumped high levels of various neonicitinoids into the bee chow, and half the poisoned hives became ghost towns and the other half lost queen and broods. Problems is, that’s not symptomatic of colony collapse disorder. That’s garden variety “Bees poisoned by stuff that kills bees.”

You should read the abstract more closely and focus on the word “subsequently”.

The Wikipedia page Colony collapse disorder - Wikipedia goes into some detail as to what is and isn’t CCD.

The Harvard researchers are already very well aware of what is and isn’t CCD.

As a matter of fact, all three of the researchers of the study Xeni linked to are all sourced in the very CCD Wikipedia article you linked to. :smiley:

1 Like
25

You do know that peer reviewers traditionally let authors run wilder in the abstract and conclusion than they do in methods and results, right? That’s why the speedy way to read a paper is to read the methods and results and look at the graphs; that’s where the bull quotient is lowest.

The showstopper remains: dead queens and dead brood is not colony collapse disorder. I don’t know why Lu et alia are throwing the words “colony collapse” around with the gleeful abandon they are; you’d have to ask them.

The Harvard researchers are already well aware of what is and isn’t CCD.

Can’t prove it by that paper. Look at the list of symptoms. Look at what Lu et alia observed. They don’t match. This is not rocket science. You Can Try This At Home.

That’s why Dove is rolling his eyes so hard-- why, indeed, he’s justified in saying "What Lu et al. are doing here is equivalent to looking at a heart attack and calling it cancer. "

26

@szielins : The Wikipedia page Colony collapse disorder - Wikipedia goes into some detail as to what is and isn’t CCD.

@Cowicide : The Harvard researchers are already very well aware of what is and isn’t CCD. As a matter of fact, all three of the authors of the study Xeni linked to are all sourced in the very CCD Wikipedia article you linked to.

@szielins : Can’t prove it by that paper.

Um, I proved it with your own Wikipedia link. Why are you repeatedly resorting to ad hominem attacks and insults against the researchers themselves?

You sound like Bayer pesticides public relations.

The showstopper remains: dead queens and dead brood is not colony collapse disorder.

False argument is false argument. The study doesn’t say that. Why misrepresent the study? It says that sub-lethal exposure to neonicotinoids impaired the honey bees’ winterization before proceeding to colony collapse disorder.

I don’t know why Lu et alia are throwing the words “colony collapse” around with the gleeful abandon they are; you’d have to ask them.

Gleeful abandon? Your gleeful bias is showing.

That’s why Dove is rolling his eyes so hard

Dove doesn’t agree with many of their suppositions including that sub-lethal exposure to neonicotinoids impaired the honey bees’ winterization before proceeding to colony collapse disorder. What else is new?

1 Like
27

Damn! I thought the onus was on you and then you sent it back to me!

You’ve failed to elaborate, in any form, upon your claim that “Apiary operators of all sizes already refuse to service areas with high CCD incidence”. Since you clearly don’t know anything about beekeeping, let me help you along a bit.

  1. CCD, if such a thing actually exists, is not location specific (Unless one lives next to Dave Hackenberg… hahahaha)

  2. State-level information isn’t universally possible to get on specific bee issues such as “CCD”, much less locale-specific information.

  3. Beekeepers may choose to avoid a particular location, for a variety of reasons, such as spraying, bears, people, or even competition… But consulting local “CCD MAPS”, if such a thing even exists, is pretty far down the list. More likely, they’re following the money, whether that be in honey-forage, or in pollination fees.

I would go so far as to suggest that the greatest single cause of CCD is non-beekeepers who have googled their way into a facade of expertise, misinterpreted studies, and then make grandiose claims about CCD, thus perpetuating a cycle of misinformation.

But, let us not forget that burdensome onus that you have placed upon me. Unfortunately, I must abstain from your challenge on the grounds that the CCD/bee decline consensus narrative is too dense to deconstruct in an online comment - That’s an exercise to be left to the observer, should it interest them. I’ll leave you with a few bread crumbs.

  1. What is the difference between “hive collapse” and “colony collapse disorder”

  2. What is the difference between a consistent yearly loss, a decline, and what role does replenishment play?

  3. How much of what we know about CCD is impressions generated by new beekeepers or google warriors trumpeting what they think is going on versus what is actually known by credible bodies? How is that credibility established?

Lastly, I must refer you to the comments of szielins. He suffers fools far more gladly than I, and should you so choose to take on this mission, you may even learn something from him.

I apologize for the tardy reply - I was out “saving the bees” during the afternoon.

28

I said - Beekeepers of all sizes already refuse to service areas with high CCD incidence

You say - Beekeepers may choose to avoid a particular location, for a variety of reasons, such as spraying, bears, people, or even competition…

Case closed. Spew at someone else.

29

I call Bee S on this whole thread.

30

Beeware! Buzz on the streets is that they are after our bee(r):
Brick wall collapses to reveal giant beehive - Boing Boing

1 Like
31

I’ll confess, I skipped it, in favor of the TLDR of the Mojo article, which turned out to be an excellent example of bee reporting that is filled with hysteria, yet short on understanding. I’m sure the author has a depth of experience criticizing big-ag, but clearly, his beekeeping knowledge leaves a lot to be desired. But I guess all of that doesn’t matter if one has already positioned themselves as an advocate of the bees - Which surely must be a good thing!

That being said, I’m already famliar with Dr. Lu’s work, and need only to get as far as claims of CCD losses in winter to dismiss his study as a ridiculous attempt to double-down on his failed 2012 study, which also sucked pretty bad.

But, since you’re gracious, I thought I’d read the article anyhow. Unfortunately, I only made it one page before stomach upset kicked in. It appears Dr. Lu doesn’t actually understand what CCD is… he’s conflated it with garden variety hive loss. An understandable mistake if one is an agricultural activist writing for the popular media… But perhaps not so forgivable if one is from Harvard, and ostensibly a bee researcher.

It’s funny how everyone’s eager to weigh in on beekeeping issues, but no one is actually listening to beekeepers - Even the many with doctorates. It seems to be the fearmongers who always get the airtime, however flawed their research.

I’ve seen enough of the article to know it’s probably already had the living shit kicked out of it online by beekeepers with more time on their hands than I. I’m sure the critiques are easily googleable.

But keep the Bee-saving articles coming BB moderators!!!

32

Wow, did you really just try to absolve yourself from providing evidence on the grounds that you disagree with the common view? That’s really not how things work outside the plasma cosmology threads.

I think at the very least you should give some reference for your statement that there is no bee decline at all. There are so many accounts of honeybee declines in so many places, it’s impossible to take that seriously without giving any back-up.

This matters, too, because while honeybees on the whole are not going extinct, not everything is pollinated by them and there are enough other bee species that have certainly been disappearing. From what I’ve read, habitat loss is a major factor, but insecticides might be just as important.

So indications they’ve been causing broad damage to any pollinator could mean a disaster for the others. I think it’s important enough to expect more evidence than just one apiarist’s say-so on whether that’s happening.

1 Like
33

I am so misunderstood! I am abstaining from providing evidence on the grounds that it would be too much work, and I really don’t care enough to try to convince!

Decline suggests that there’s less each year than there was the previous year, ostensibly trending towards Zero. Bees die each year, and bees are born each year. They are declining about as fast as mice or humans are.

The accounts consist of a lot of new-journalist and new-beekeeper bandwagon jumpers seeking a fast-track to greater exposure. The real beekeepers are remaining silent in the wings, not wanting to risk their credibility, and waiting until the mass delusion blows over. When they decloak, their words are cautious. The quotes from Jeff Pettis are purely delicious in terms of how carefully chosen and cagey they are.

Slowly, you will find a shift in the consensus narrative, as informed analysis prevails, assumption shift, and “Discoveries” are made. Looking back 10 years from now, it’ll be WTF?

Note the subtle shift in the narrative of honeybee doom, as manifested in yourself. This is not a mere nit-pick of wording, but highlighting that you yourself aren’t sold on the doom-and-gloom narratiive of impending honeybee extinction.

I hear where you’re coming from… the standard “I’m not gonna buy it unless you gift wrap and courier it to me” internet play… and that’s ok. I don’t need anyone to believe me.

I’m just here for the art of it all.

34

Brilliant. I saw a very similar response in the comments of the Mother Jone’s article: someone gave a thoughtful and well informed critique of Lu’s terrible research, and were promptly dismissed as a Shill for Bayer.

It’s a struggle for me to get my head around the simplicity of such thinking.

35

Power to the Beeple!

3 Likes
36

I don’t expect a species found on six continents is about to go completely extinct. That’s not the same as dismissing the possibility of population collapse ruining agriculture, which is the narrative you find in actual reports. To decide about that, I’d rather trust experts who do show their work.

It’s not a question of gift wrapping; I’m capable of finding evidence on my own, it just happens to all suggest you’re wrong. So I’m glad you’re ok with not being believed, because combining arrogantly dismissing research and lazily refusing to provide any better makes it inevitable.

Thank you, at least, for making it clear exactly how much your claims are worth even to you.

3 Likes
38

What population collapse?

There’s the rub. Who’s to determine who is an expert? Not knowing otherwise, I’d be inclined to trust the cachet of Harvard, but unfortunately I do know sufficiently otherwise to tell that Lu is very, very far from an expert.

The challenge here is that the whole CCD sob story has opened the playing field for any number of charlatans seeking to boost their personal profiles by declaring themselves as experts, and proclaiming a position that aligns with folks’ preconceptions.

To see experts, I suggest you dig deeper. Look for those that the experts consider experts, not just those that have convinced consumers they are experts.

My own claims are of transient interest to me… It is what others choose to believe that is far more interesting, but worth far less.

39

I’ll confess, I skipped it, in favor of the TLDR of the Mojo article, which turned out to be an excellent example of bee reporting that is filled with hysteria

So, you didn’t read the study, but also didn’t fully read the article because it was too long.

But I guess all of that doesn’t matter if one has already positioned themselves as an advocate of the bees - Which surely must be a good thing!

With all of that incoherent bumbling, I could mistake you for the bees. But maybe you’re just for the birds.

I’m already famliar with Dr. Lu’s work

By not reading it?

CCD, if such a thing actually exists … I would go so far as to suggest that the greatest single cause of CCD is non-beekeepers who have googled their way into a facade of expertise, misinterpreted studies, and then make grandiose claims about CCD

Dr. Lu doesn’t actually understand what CCD is… he’s conflated it with garden variety hive loss.

Right, and crazy Dr. Lu thinks CCD actually exists. That’s very problematic right off the bat, obviously.

Um, the study didn’t conflate (imaginary?) CCD with garden variety hive loss. It says that sub-lethal exposure to neonicotinoids impaired the honey bees’ winterization before proceeding to colony collapse disorder.

Speaking of imaginary CCD…

Goddamnit: There Are Colony Collapse Disorder Deniers

his failed 2012 study, which also sucked pretty bad.

Yes, the Bayer insecticide corporation really hated that study as well.

It’s funny how everyone’s eager to weigh in on beekeeping issues, but no one is actually listening to beekeepers

Well, here’s an example of why actually reading things can lead to stronger stuff, like comprehension.

Chensheng Lu worked with beekeepers. That was within the article you didn’t fully read and within the study you didn’t read at all. In fact, it was within Xeni’s summary above you didn’t obviously read either while you were bumbling along.

I’ve seen enough of the article to know it’s probably …

More bumbling I hear… bumble… bumble…

I don’t need anyone to believe me.

That’s obviously a lie.

2 Likes
40

Pick a citation, and let me know when you have any that disagree, instead of inventing the theoretical possibility some “real” expert might agree with you. Until then, I’ll leave you to your art.

Edit: link fixed. If you want a place to start, this and this are random examples others refer to, but there are obviously many more.

1 Like
41

9/11 → My unresearched position is that the consensus narrative is likely incomplete, but my POV probably doesn’t fall within what most would consider a 9/11 denier/truther’s views. The accepted story doesn’t ring true to me, but I haven’t really taken the time to dig into the alternatives. Doesn’t really interest me.

Evolution → Darwin was likely close, but it would be facile to assume he got it right in the first cut, or that he will be the last word on the matter. Not a creationist, if that’s what you’re asking.

Sandy hook → Some American shooting, right? Dunno, don’t care.

Climate change → Believe in AGW. Moreso, am in agreement with Lovelock. Recently found out there’s a label for my POV: It’s a “Dark Green Environmentalist”. Don’t think of myself as an environmentalist, but so be it.

If your intent is to determine if I’m a compulsive contrarian… The answer is that I’m a beekeeper.

42

[quote=“chenille, post:40, topic:32031”]
Pick a citation, [/quote]

Clicking the link doesn’t work for me, but if you provide a URL, I will read.

43

It’s a struggle for me to get my head around the simplicity of such thinking.

Well, of course I’m simplistic. That goes with where you called us all fools as well.

You sound like Bayer pesticides public relations.

Brilliant. I saw a very similar response in the comments of the Mother Jone’s article: someone gave a thoughtful and well informed critique of Lu’s terrible research, and were promptly dismissed as a Shill for Bayer.

You blatantly took my words out of context and tried to apply them to a different scenario. But, I suppose us simpleton fools weren’t supposed to catch that stunted performance on your part.

I very obviously wasn’t responding to a thoughtful and well informed critique of Lu’s research. I was responding to an ad hominem attack against the researchers themselves. I explained that in the very sentence above it that you witlessly left out of the quote.

1 Like
44

um, something i read on the internet. ;( when pressed, i’ll back down about that number. the below is a more accurate summary. i should have said something like ‘anywhere from 27-135 times’

“Bee experts quickly criticized the study, complaining that Lu had exposed his bees to an unrealistically high dose of pesticides — roughly 135 parts per billion in the corn syrup. As California beekeeper Randy Oliver points out, that’s far above the levels that even pesticide manufacturer Bayer concedes is lethal for bees (about 50 parts per billion), and it’s way above what bees are likely to encounter in the wild from things like crop nectar (usually less than 5 parts per billion).”