PDA

View Full Version : OT: Alarm sounded over US honey bee die-off


alkemical
02-11-2007, 11:50 PM
Alarm sounded over US honey bee die-off (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/USA%2C_Honey-bee_die-off_accelerates...massive_crop_declines_possible)


Honey-bee decline has accelerated in North America beyond the steady attrition of the past 25 years according to scientists and farmers. A relatively new term - "Colony Collapse Disorder" is being used to describe this poorly understood phenomenon.

Colony Collapse Disorder (or CCD) is a syndrome evidenced by massive die-off affecting an entire insect population. The cause of the syndrome is not yet well understood. CCD may be caused by mites or associated diseases or unknown pathogens. CCD is possibly linked to pesticide use though several studies have found no common environmental factors between unrelated outbreaks studied. According to Dennis vanEngelsdorp, a bee specialist with the Pennsylvania State Department of Agriculture, "We are pretty sure, but not certain, that it is a contagious disease."

Honey-bees are responsible for approximately one third of the United States crop pollination including such species as: peaches, soybeans, apples, pears, pumpkins, cucumbers, cherries, raspberries, blackberries and strawberries.

From 1971 to 2006, approximately one half of the U.S. honey-bee colonies vanished. The rate of attrition reached new proportions in the year 2006, which were alarming to many farmers and honey-bee scientists.

At least eleven different states as well as portions of Canada are known to have been affected by colony collapse disorder. The disorder has been identified in a geographically diverse group of states including Georgia, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and California. In some states the loss of honey-bee colonies is estimated as high as 75 percent of the population.

The phenomenon is particularly important for crops such as almond growing in California, where honey-bees are the predominant pollinator and the crop value is $US 1.5 billion. Total U.S. crops that are wholly dependent on the honey-bee are known to exceed $US 15 billion.

In a related development on January 17, 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has drastically tightened use rules on some of the chief pesticides used on apples, blueberries, grapes, peaches, pears and other fruits pollenized by honey-bees. Citing general environmental protection and farmworker safety, the EPA recently announced the tightening of use or phaseout of the highly toxic pesticides phosmet and Azinphos methyl. Under these rule changes the use of these organophosphate pesticide would be allowed continued use for five years but have somewhat reduced dosage limits. Azinphos methyl is a dangerous neurotoxin derived from nerve agents used during World War II.

Atlas
02-12-2007, 12:00 AM
When I was in high school I worked as a beekeeper. Bees are one of the most important species on the planet for man's survival. What they do for pollination is a key process in plants reproduction. I know disease among hives can bee common, this kinda sucks.

cutthemdown
02-12-2007, 12:03 AM
This isn't ties to them trying to eradicate the africanized bees we were suppossed to be so scared of is it? I've never heard anything about this before but now that I think about I see way less bees then I used to. Also way less butterflies and spiders etc etc. I'm in california I figured it was all the malithion we sprayed for the fruit flies.

penguintheory
02-12-2007, 12:46 AM
I hate bugs.

Atlas
02-12-2007, 12:55 AM
I hate bugs.

pussy

spdirty
02-12-2007, 01:28 AM
When I was in high school I worked as a beekeeper. Bees are one of the most important species on the planet for man's survival. What they do for pollination is a key process in plants reproduction. I know disease among hives can bee common, this kinda sucks.

Yeah but they sting me for no reason. And it hurts. Therefore they should all die.

Atlas
02-12-2007, 01:45 AM
Yeah but they sting me for no reason. And it hurts. Therefore they should all die.

HAHA one time I was stung over 35 times in one beeyard. Once they smell the venom on you they become crazy. I was the only guy getting stung and my boss was laughing at me. I was pissed, tears were coming down my face.

spdirty
02-12-2007, 01:57 AM
HAHA one time I was stung over 35 times in one beeyard. Once they smell the venom on you they become crazy. I was the only guy getting stung and my boss was laughing at me. I was pissed, tears were coming down my face.

LOL I would immediately wipe the boss's smile off his face and go get a can of spray. Teach those damn bees a lesson.

Atlas
02-12-2007, 02:01 AM
LOL I would immediately wipe the boss's smile off his face and go get a can of spray. Teach those damn bees a lesson.

Don't think I didn't consider it.
It did cross my mind that I should just take the truck and leave their asses out in the middle of the Badlands!!!

Dudeskey
02-12-2007, 02:26 AM
Honey-bees are responsible for approximately one third of the United States crop pollination including such species as: peaches, soybeans, apples, pears, pumpkins, cucumbers, cherries, raspberries, blackberries and strawberries.


I heard about this earlier during the summer... As a result they have had to import some bees to the regions affected by it to help the crops... Which explains a bit of why I always saw those boxes transported into california on a flatbed- covered w/ a big ass screen of course.

watermock
02-12-2007, 03:08 AM
As an agronomist, I can say that this truly terrifies me. This isn't about the price of honey, it's about famine. Maybe they don't like genetically engineered roundup ready soybeans...something is very bad and it's even more scary they don't know why it's happening. It's literally a birds and the bees metaphor in importance.

Here is another scary decline of critters that bite:

North Atlantic Sharks on Sharp Decline, Experts Say
By Cameron Walker
for National Geographic News

January 16, 2003
North Atlantic sharks are in serious trouble. Scientists searching through fifteen years of fishing logbooks have spotted a precipitous drop in shark populations.

Of the 17 shark species studied, all but two have seen their numbers slashed in half in less than two decades.

Email to a Friend

"These species are declining, and they're declining really rapidly," said Julia Baum, a biologist at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia and lead author of the study, which appears January 17 in the journal Science.

Hammerhead sharks showed the most serious decline with an 89 percent decrease in population since 1986.

To Catch a Shark

The U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has been following the decline of sharks spotted in North Atlantic fishing areas. But the state of several individual species, such as the hammerhead, has remained unclear. And sharks that range across the open ocean, known as oceanic or pelagic sharks, have been an even bigger mystery.


The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) puts out a "red list" of threatened species. Of the 21 shark species it assessed in the North Atlantic, 20 received question marks when it comes to population trends, Baum said.

To piece together the status of sharks, the team pored through fishing logbooks from the National Marine Fisheries Service. The boats of U.S. pelagic longline fleets, or boats that head to the open ocean, record the number and type of caught fish. These longlines, which dangle hundreds of hooks into the deep, are set to catch swordfish and tuna.

But sharks can rise to the bait as well. Fishermen record this accidental hooking, called bycatch, in their logbooks along with their regular hauls.

The researchers also looked at shark counts from trained shark observers that sail out on some fishing boats. After poring over 15 years' records, the team ran their shark counts through the wringer, considering under-reported shark catches in log books and checking seasonal changes and fishing conditions that might skew the statistics.

Now, these fishing records have started filling in the blanks. "It's the first time anything has been recorded for thresher sharks and oceanic white tips," Baum said. The numbers of sharks in these two groups, both oceanic, dropped by more than two-thirds.
The two species of Mako shark, an oceanic group, were the only ones that declined by less than 50 percent.

All sharks falling into the category of large coastal species also dwindled by more than half. "Coastal species are going downhill because fisheries are covering their entire range," Baum said.

Email to a Friend

The result: a gloomy forecast for sharks around the ocean. "We found they're declining at a phenomenal rate," said co-author Ransom Myers, a biologist at the University of Dalhousie, Nova Scotia.

Myers and other researchers are now comparing the current shark numbers to counts gathered from U.S. government fisheries surveys in the 1950s. This snapshot of the sharks' past provides an even bleaker view on their present state, Myers said. "When we go back, it's even worse."

The shark paper "packs quite a wallop and is very much to the point," said Mark Grace, a biologist at the National Marine Fisheries Service Laboratory in Pascagoula, Mississippi. Grace, who has conducted shark surveys in recent years for NMFS, said these findings are in line with many researchers' suspicions about sharks.

However, Grace said studies like these need to take into account how fishing gear is used and what environmental conditions might affect the catch, potentially swaying shark numbers.

Sharks Sensitive to Overfishing

Some people see sharks as the sea's scariest fish.

"We have this idea of sharks being really fierce predators—and they are. They're at the top of the food chain," Baum said. "But they're also really fragile."

These oft-feared sea creatures grow extremely slowly, taking years to reach maturity. A shark has only a few offspring during its lifetime, compared to other fish, making it difficult to jumpstart a dwindling population. While the sharks have survived as the kings of the ocean for millions of years, their slow-growing populations make them especially sensitive to a recently introduced predator—humans.

"Sharks are the most vulnerable species in the ocean," Myers said. "They're going to be the first thing you'll see eliminated."

Sharks get hooked as a byproduct of other fisheries. In addition, there are market for the sharks themselves. Commercial fisheries catch some species for dinner-plate appearances. Shark fins, used in delicacies like shark fin soup, rake in profits on the Asian market.

Both the United States and Canada have recently banned finning, but that doesn't mean the shark fin trade has stopped. "There's really high incentive to keep them, because they're one of the most highly valued products," Baum said.

Saving Sharks

Fisheries managers have turned to fishing regulations and marine reserves to aid other ailing species. In July 2001, concern about the endangered leatherback sea turtle sparked the closure of a large fishing area off the coast of Newfoundland. The researchers used simulations of the fisheries data to see if closing this spot might change shark catches.

While blue sharks and mako sharks—species of lower conservation concern—appeared to be protected by the closure, the researchers' models predicted catches of other shark species would shoot up in the remaining open areas.

If fishermen have to go to new areas to catch the same amount of fish, they're going to affect other species, Baum said.

Designing protected areas for a single species leaves out the complicated web of creatures swimming under the waves, and could shift pressure to other threatened species, she said. "Single-species conservation isn't going to work."

Protected places that shelter several highly threatened species might help shelter species in trouble. "Reserves could play an important role," said Baum. "But what's really needed here is a reduction in fishing effort."

You don't have to like sharks, but they are an excellent gauge of the health of our oceans.

watermock
02-12-2007, 03:13 AM
This decline is possibly the scariest of all...plankton gives us most of our oxygen. The Amazon is also being devestated to this hour.

Plankton Declining in Oceans, Study Finds
Mike Toner
Atlanta Journal-Constitution

August 20, 2002
Satellite surveys have detected a sharp decline in plankton in several of the world's oceans—a situation that could threaten the marine food chain and undercut one of the world's natural buffers to global warming.

The decline in free-floating, microscopic plants called phytoplankton varies from ocean to ocean, scientists reported. The greatest decline was in the Northern Pacific Ocean, where summer levels have dropped by more than 30 percent since the 1980s.

Email to a Friend

"It's difficult to say what the implications are, but they could be pretty significant," said Watson Gregg, of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. "The whole marine food chain depends on the health and productivity of phytoplankton."

Plankton are as important to the long-term health of the atmosphere as the world's forests. The photosynthesis of the ocean's tiny green plants account for about half of the carbon dioxide that plants remove from the atmosphere each year.


Increases in carbon dioxide and other gases produced by cars, factories, and agriculture have been blamed for a gradual increase in global temperatures.

Scientists disagree over how much human-made sources contribute to the trend, but a long-term decline in the natural recycling of carbon dioxide by plankton and other green plants could exacerbate the problem.

"The less phytoplankton you have, the less carbon is taken up by the oceans," said Margarita Conkright of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

In a study reported in the August 8 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, the researchers compared sets of satellite data from early 1980 to the late 1990s. The data showed that the sharpest decreases in plankton were in the North Pacific and the North Atlantic, where their abundance decreased by 14 percent.

In equatorial regions plankton levels increased, but there was an overall global decline of more than 8 percent.

The researchers say they can't be sure whether the decline is part of a natural cycle in the oceans, a reflection of regional changes, or a result of a gradual warming of the globe that has been occurring since about 1980.

They did, however, find a close correlation between the decline in plankton and increasing ocean surface temperatures, which suggests that climate change could be a cause as well as an effect of plankton declines.

Plankton need two things to prosper: sunlight and nutrients. The researchers say warmer sea surface temperatures tend to interfere with the upwelling of cold, nutrient-rich water from the ocean depths, interrupting the "fertilizer" that plankton require.

Copyright 2002 The Atlanta Journal-Constituti

watermock
02-12-2007, 03:18 AM
http://www.mongabay.com/nasa_deforestation_imagery.html

Atlas
02-12-2007, 03:42 AM
As an agronomist, I can say that this truly terrifies me. This isn't about the price of honey, it's about famine. Maybe they don't like genetically engineered roundup ready soybeans...something is very bad and it's even more scary they don't know why it's happening. It's literally a birds and the bees metaphor in importance.

Here is another scary decline of critters that bite:

North Atlantic Sharks on Sharp Decline, Experts Say
By Cameron Walker
for National Geographic News

January 16, 2003
North Atlantic sharks are in serious trouble. Scientists searching through fifteen years of fishing logbooks have spotted a precipitous drop in shark populations.

Of the 17 shark species studied, all but two have seen their numbers slashed in half in less than two decades.

Email to a Friend

"These species are declining, and they're declining really rapidly," said Julia Baum, a biologist at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia and lead author of the study, which appears January 17 in the journal Science.

Hammerhead sharks showed the most serious decline with an 89 percent decrease in population since 1986.

To Catch a Shark

The U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has been following the decline of sharks spotted in North Atlantic fishing areas. But the state of several individual species, such as the hammerhead, has remained unclear. And sharks that range across the open ocean, known as oceanic or pelagic sharks, have been an even bigger mystery.


The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) puts out a "red list" of threatened species. Of the 21 shark species it assessed in the North Atlantic, 20 received question marks when it comes to population trends, Baum said.

To piece together the status of sharks, the team pored through fishing logbooks from the National Marine Fisheries Service. The boats of U.S. pelagic longline fleets, or boats that head to the open ocean, record the number and type of caught fish. These longlines, which dangle hundreds of hooks into the deep, are set to catch swordfish and tuna.

But sharks can rise to the bait as well. Fishermen record this accidental hooking, called bycatch, in their logbooks along with their regular hauls.

The researchers also looked at shark counts from trained shark observers that sail out on some fishing boats. After poring over 15 years' records, the team ran their shark counts through the wringer, considering under-reported shark catches in log books and checking seasonal changes and fishing conditions that might skew the statistics.

Now, these fishing records have started filling in the blanks. "It's the first time anything has been recorded for thresher sharks and oceanic white tips," Baum said. The numbers of sharks in these two groups, both oceanic, dropped by more than two-thirds.
The two species of Mako shark, an oceanic group, were the only ones that declined by less than 50 percent.

All sharks falling into the category of large coastal species also dwindled by more than half. "Coastal species are going downhill because fisheries are covering their entire range," Baum said.

Email to a Friend

The result: a gloomy forecast for sharks around the ocean. "We found they're declining at a phenomenal rate," said co-author Ransom Myers, a biologist at the University of Dalhousie, Nova Scotia.

Myers and other researchers are now comparing the current shark numbers to counts gathered from U.S. government fisheries surveys in the 1950s. This snapshot of the sharks' past provides an even bleaker view on their present state, Myers said. "When we go back, it's even worse."

The shark paper "packs quite a wallop and is very much to the point," said Mark Grace, a biologist at the National Marine Fisheries Service Laboratory in Pascagoula, Mississippi. Grace, who has conducted shark surveys in recent years for NMFS, said these findings are in line with many researchers' suspicions about sharks.

However, Grace said studies like these need to take into account how fishing gear is used and what environmental conditions might affect the catch, potentially swaying shark numbers.

Sharks Sensitive to Overfishing

Some people see sharks as the sea's scariest fish.

"We have this idea of sharks being really fierce predators—and they are. They're at the top of the food chain," Baum said. "But they're also really fragile."

These oft-feared sea creatures grow extremely slowly, taking years to reach maturity. A shark has only a few offspring during its lifetime, compared to other fish, making it difficult to jumpstart a dwindling population. While the sharks have survived as the kings of the ocean for millions of years, their slow-growing populations make them especially sensitive to a recently introduced predator—humans.

"Sharks are the most vulnerable species in the ocean," Myers said. "They're going to be the first thing you'll see eliminated."

Sharks get hooked as a byproduct of other fisheries. In addition, there are market for the sharks themselves. Commercial fisheries catch some species for dinner-plate appearances. Shark fins, used in delicacies like shark fin soup, rake in profits on the Asian market.

Both the United States and Canada have recently banned finning, but that doesn't mean the shark fin trade has stopped. "There's really high incentive to keep them, because they're one of the most highly valued products," Baum said.

Saving Sharks

Fisheries managers have turned to fishing regulations and marine reserves to aid other ailing species. In July 2001, concern about the endangered leatherback sea turtle sparked the closure of a large fishing area off the coast of Newfoundland. The researchers used simulations of the fisheries data to see if closing this spot might change shark catches.

While blue sharks and mako sharks—species of lower conservation concern—appeared to be protected by the closure, the researchers' models predicted catches of other shark species would shoot up in the remaining open areas.

If fishermen have to go to new areas to catch the same amount of fish, they're going to affect other species, Baum said.

Designing protected areas for a single species leaves out the complicated web of creatures swimming under the waves, and could shift pressure to other threatened species, she said. "Single-species conservation isn't going to work."

Protected places that shelter several highly threatened species might help shelter species in trouble. "Reserves could play an important role," said Baum. "But what's really needed here is a reduction in fishing effort."

You don't have to like sharks, but they are an excellent gauge of the health of our oceans.

That is scarey but look at the bright side with the ice caps melting all the polar bears are going to drown at least they can feed the sharks???

watermock
02-12-2007, 03:51 AM
Actually, Polar Bears are taking North Atlantic ice flows and migrating to Iceland to find food. It's been unusually cold in Greenland.

alkemical
02-12-2007, 09:28 AM
Mystery Ailment Strikes Honeybees (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2867049)


STATE COLLEGE, Pa. Feb 11, 2007 (AP)— A mysterious illness is killing tens of thousands of honeybee colonies across the country, threatening honey production, the livelihood of beekeepers and possibly crops that need bees for pollination.

Researchers are scrambling to find the cause of the ailment, called Colony Collapse Disorder.

Reports of unusual colony deaths have come from at least 22 states. Some affected commercial beekeepers who often keep thousands of colonies have reported losing more than 50 percent of their bees. A colony can have roughly 20,000 bees in the winter, and up to 60,000 in the summer.

Bronco_Beerslug
02-12-2007, 09:38 AM
Actually, Polar Bears are taking North Atlantic ice flows and migrating to Iceland to find food. It's been unusually cold in Greenland.

ROFL!

Where do you get this crap from? Hilarious!

There hasn't been a polar bear spotted in Iceland since the 80s (when global warming hadn't disrupted the ice flows yet).

rugbythug
02-12-2007, 10:29 AM
So this is different than the Veroa Mite? I know that was real bad in the late 90's.

As a former beekeeper 88-97 I wonder if this is not a problem with genetic diversity, as most Beekeepers buy packages and queens every year to replace lost ones. With a limited amount of companies producing these you could see a lack of genetic diversity causing much of these problems. Much like the corn blight in the 40's. Also so many of the beekeepers are moving their hives to pollination areas in the winter transmission of any disease is much faster.

uk bronco
02-12-2007, 02:09 PM
the state of world fisheries scares me we might not have any wild fish left from the oceans and that could really mess up the plankton levels leaving the ocean deoxygenated

alkemical
02-12-2007, 02:19 PM
I think all this was mentioned in a book.....

TailgateNut
02-12-2007, 02:24 PM
ROFL!

Where do you get this crap from? Hilarious!

There hasn't been a polar bear spotted in Iceland since the 80s (when global warming hadn't disrupted the ice flows yet).


They've learned to construct simple sails which they mount on icebergs, and they've mastered use of a sextant.

Archer81
02-12-2007, 02:33 PM
If its a disease, and its killing 3 out of every 4 bees, eventually you will be left with bees that cant be killed by the disease. So, in essence, a good thing.


:Broncos:

watermock
02-12-2007, 02:34 PM
Noone really knows why the plankton is dying either. It's all theoretical from Ozone layer to pollution to disease.

I really enjoy my Alaskan Walleye(Pollock)...it's so overfished it's absurd. It's a very nice clean tasting fish.

Garcia Bronco
02-12-2007, 02:35 PM
Nature will balances itself out. No need to worry

watermock
02-12-2007, 02:36 PM
The fjords have frozen up around greenland and yes, Polar Bears have been floating to Iceland. Not an invasion, and not unheard of recently.

Bronco_Beerslug
02-12-2007, 02:40 PM
Noone really knows why the plankton is dying either. It's all theoretical from Ozone layer to pollution to disease.

I really enjoy my Alaskan Walleye(Pollock)...it's so overfished it's absurd. It's a very nice clean tasting fish.Yummy!


http://www.pacseafood.com/images/Alaskapollock.jpg


The fjords have frozen up around greenland and yes, Polar Bears have been floating to Iceland. Not an invasion, and not unheard of recently.This would be the first they have heard about it.

alkemical
02-12-2007, 02:40 PM
Nature will balances itself out. No need to worry

Ænema - tool

Some say the end is near. Some say we'll see armageddon soon. I certainly hope we will. I sure could use a vacation from this bull**** three ring circus sideshow of Freaks here in this hopeless ****ing hole we call LA The only way to fix it is to flush it all away. Any ****ing time. Any ****ing day. Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona bay. Fret for your figure and Fret for your latte and Fret for your hairpiece and Fret for your lawsuit and Fret for your prozac and Fret for your pilot and Fret for your contract and Fret for your car. It's a bull**** three ring circus sideshow of freaks here in this hopeless ****ing hole we call LA The only way to fix it is to flush it all away. Any ****ing time. Any ****ing day. Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona bay. Some say a comet will fall from the sky. Followed by meteor showers and tidal waves. Followed by faultlines that cannot sit still. Followed by millions of dumbfounded dip****s. Some say the end is near. Some say we'll see armageddon soon. I certainly hope we will cuz I sure could use a vacation from this Silly ****, stupid ****... One great big festering neon distraction, I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied. Learn to swim. Mom's gonna fix it all soon. Mom's comin' round to put it back the way it ought to be. Learn to swim. **** L Ron Hubbard and **** all his clones. **** all those gun-toting Hip gangster wannabes. Learn to swim. **** retro anything. **** your tattoos. **** all you junkies and **** your short memory. Learn to swim. **** smiley glad-hands With hidden agendas. **** these dysfunctional, Insecure actresses. Learn to swim. Cuz I'm praying for rain and I'm praying for tidal waves I wanna see the ground give way. I wanna watch it all go down. Mom please flush it all away. I wanna watch it go right in and down. I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away. Time to bring it down again. Don't just call me pessimist. Try and read between the lines. I can't imagine why you wouldn't Welcome any change, my friend. I wanna see it all come down. suck it down. flush it down.

Stormontheplains
02-12-2007, 02:48 PM
Bush is killing the bees, we must get him out of office. You would think that the Bee population would have increased from 1992-2000 with clinton as president. Obviously someone didnt tell the bees a democrat was in office

Archer81
02-12-2007, 02:49 PM
uhh...ok. I am sure if Sharks are dying off in the north atlantic, the population of sharks in the south atlantic are probably at replacement level or booming. If plankton is dying in the indian ocean, maybe its booming in the pacific or arctic. Earth is not out of whack where all bees everywhere die all at once.

:Broncos:

KillerBronco#76
02-12-2007, 04:04 PM
This would be the first they have heard about it.


Actualy I remember reading about this, iceland and greenland have been bucking the trend of the rest of the world and have been consistantly getting colder. Its been a pretty big problem for the fishing industry in iceland they cant fish with the ice in the way.

Archer81
02-12-2007, 04:18 PM
Actualy I remember reading about this, iceland and greenland have been bucking the trend of the rest of the world and have been consistantly getting colder. Its been a pretty big problem for the fishing industry in iceland they cant fish with the ice in the way.


Remember reading something about the ice sheet on Antarctica getting thicker. Considering you can never get a straight answer on global warming, I look at it with a high amount of skepticism.


:Broncos:

Bronco_Beerslug
02-12-2007, 04:20 PM
Actualy I remember reading about this, iceland and greenland have been bucking the trend of the rest of the world and have been consistantly getting colder. Its been a pretty big problem for the fishing industry in iceland they cant fish with the ice in the way.Well, according to an Iceland newspaper (http://tinyurl.com/2b9yrm) it hasn't happened (polar bear sighting) since the late 80s and according to scientists (http://tinyurl.com/ygq7ke) Greenland is losing it's ice sheet at record pace.

Remember reading something about the ice sheet on Antarctica getting thicker. Considering you can never get a straight answer on global warming, I look at it with a high amount of skepticism.
:Broncos:In grade school?

Archer81
02-12-2007, 04:29 PM
Well, according to an Iceland newspaper (http://tinyurl.com/2b9yrm) it hasn't happened (polar bear sighting) since the late 80s and according to scientists (http://tinyurl.com/ygq7ke) Greenland is losing it's ice sheet at record pace.

In grade school?



NYPost. A month or so ago. You ever wonder why Al Gore runs around predicting floods of 20 feet or more on coasts, and the UN report only comes up with 17 inches?


:Broncos:

Archer81
02-12-2007, 04:32 PM
Not the article I read, but interesting.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1806


:Broncos:

Archer81
02-12-2007, 04:33 PM
Again, Interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4565935.stm


:Broncos:

uk bronco
02-12-2007, 04:35 PM
Iceland's fisheries will be fine cos they didnt join the EU so they still have control of their waters hence the cod wars with Norway (also not an EU state). The UK waters are open to some Spanish boats cos they bought UK fishing licences. Underreporting of catches in UK waters is estimated at 25-30% above the quota set by the EU. I'd imagine its about the same in the USA if you guys have catch quotas

Rock Chalk
02-12-2007, 04:54 PM
Hey, this just in, new evidence suggests maybe man isnt quite as completely and totally responsible for climate change after all.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/warming-climate-blamed-on-cosmic-rays/2007/02/12/1171128899045.html

Still early, but here's the point if you manage to read between the lines:

THEY STILL DONT KNOW.

Still, probably a good idea to start making changes anyway.

Bronx33
02-12-2007, 05:00 PM
All i want to know is will the price of honey go up?

Archer81
02-12-2007, 05:01 PM
Hey, this just in, new evidence suggests maybe man isnt quite as completely and totally responsible for climate change after all.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/warming-climate-blamed-on-cosmic-rays/2007/02/12/1171128899045.html

Still early, but here's the point if you manage to read between the lines:

THEY STILL DONT KNOW.

Still, probably a good idea to start making changes anyway.



Thats why I am leery of global warming. You can say 10,000 scientists agree global warming is the result of mankind. Another 10,000 will say mankind is not. We have only been watching the climate and weather for less then 60 years, and we get it wrong all the time. How can you legitimately trust people who comment or study weather? They cant get it right 2 days ahead of time, but we are going to listen to them on what will happen 100 years from now?


:Broncos:

alkemical
02-12-2007, 05:03 PM
Thats why I am leery of global warming. You can say 10,000 scientists agree global warming is the result of mankind. Another 10,000 will say mankind is not. We have only been watching the climate and weather for less then 60 years, and we get it wrong all the time. How can you legitimately trust people who comment or study weather? They cant get it right 2 days ahead of time, but we are going to listen to them on what will happen 100 years from now?


:Broncos:

exaclty

Bronx33
02-12-2007, 05:06 PM
Thats why I am leery of global warming. You can say 10,000 scientists agree global warming is the result of mankind. Another 10,000 will say mankind is not. We have only been watching the climate and weather for less then 60 years, and we get it wrong all the time. How can you legitimately trust people who comment or study weather? They cant get it right 2 days ahead of time, but we are going to listen to them on what will happen 100 years from now?


:Broncos:


Yep our weatherman has a 70% chance of being 30% wrong and that's no joke ;D

Bronco_Beerslug
02-12-2007, 05:09 PM
Again, Interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4565935.stm
:Broncos:Yeah it is interesting..

However, the scientists worry the overall mass of the Antarctic may be decreasing because ice near the coasts is melting, possibly at a greater rate.

Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Melting Rapidly (http://tinyurl.com/kewgu)
New Study Warns Of Rising Sea Levels

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 3, 2006; Page A01

The Antarctic ice sheet is losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice a year in a trend that scientists link to global warming, according to a new paper that provides the first evidence that the sheet's total mass is shrinking significantly.
CONT.

Archer81
02-12-2007, 05:27 PM
The Antarctic ice sheet is losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice a year in a trend that scientists link to global warming, according to a new paper that provides the first evidence that the sheet's total mass is shrinking significantly.
CONT.



So somewhere else another icesheet is gaining 36 cubic miles a year, leaving a net of 0, thats the point.


:Broncos:

Bronco_Beerslug
02-12-2007, 05:31 PM
So somewhere else another icesheet is gaining 36 cubic miles a year, leaving a net of 0, thats the point.
:Broncos:Mars maybe? I hear they think there is water there.

But no, not on our planet.

-------------------------------------------------------------
New climate report too rosy, experts say (http://tinyurl.com/385sk8)
The recent melting of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica means a global warming report due this week is missing the big picture, said some experts who warn its predictions should be even worse.
BY SETH BORENSTEIN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Later this week in Paris, climate scientists will issue a dire forecast for the planet that warns of slowly rising sea levels and higher temperatures.

But that may be the sugarcoated version.

Although early drafts of their upcoming authoritative report on climate change foresee smaller sea-level rises than were projected in the last report in 2001, many top U.S. scientists reject these rosier numbers. Those calculations don't include the recent, and dramatic, melt-off of big ice sheets in two crucial locations:
CONT.

Archer81
02-12-2007, 05:55 PM
Mars maybe? I hear they think there is water there.

You buy global warming as a legitimate science. I do not, not when you have every other scientist saying something different. One ice sheet melts, another thickens. Drought in mexico, increased rainfall in africa. Not a single climatologist has a single clue how anything works. If the earth is more polluted, wouldnt that increase the amount of particles in the air that acutally would reflect solar radiation and light, making the earth cooler?


:Broncos:

alkemical
03-21-2007, 12:49 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/6464531.stm

Beetle re-emerges after 60 years
A beetle thought to be extinct in the UK since the 1940s has been rediscovered in south Devon.
The short-necked oil beetle was found by an amateur entomologist during a wildlife survey on National Trust (NT) land between Bolt Head and Bolt Tail.

The beetles were last recorded at Chailey Common, Sussex in 1948.

Up to 40 of the insects, which survive by hitching rides on miner bees as larvae and then eating the bees' eggs, were found at the Devon site.
The beetle, which gets its name from the highly toxic oil secretions it produces when threatened, is also known as Meloe brevicollis.

The adult beetles, which live for about three months, lay up to 1,000 eggs in a burrow in soft or sandy soil and eggs hatch in the following spring.

Once they have hatched the young larvae crawl up on to vegetation, often lying in wait in flowers, for an unsuspecting mining bee to give them a lift to the bee's nest.

BroncoBuff
03-21-2007, 01:34 PM
Thats why I am leery of global warming. You can say 10,000 scientists agree global warming is the result of mankind. Another 10,000 will say mankind is not.
How could you be so wrong? Not just a wrong opinion, but 100 PERCENT WRONG on facts. There are no "10,000 scientists who disagree," and indeed there is no longer ANY DEBATE WHATSOEVER in the scientific community about whether man is the leading contributor to global warming.

February 7, 2006:
An international panel of climate scientists said yesterday that there is an overwhelming probability that human activities are warming the planet at a dangerous rate, with consequences that could soon take decades or centuries to reverse.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made up of hundreds of scientists from 113 countries, said that based on new research over the last six years, it is 90 percent certain that human-generated greenhouse gases account for most of the global rise in temperatures over the past half-century.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/02/AR2007020200192.html


I'm liberal/progressive, but I am NOT an environmentalist. I strongly advocate drilling in ANWaR ... starting yesterday. Stab a straw deep in the ground, and suck it dry. I'm also not a Gore "carbon footprint" wacko. Nothing anybody does in the USA, or in the West generally, matters much anymore. China and India are 10x our size, and they show zero inclination to put the brakes on the fastest industrialization in history. We'll be lucky if they agree to any environmental regulation.

I'll grant you that Sally Next-door and those like her buying hybrid cars for example, have ZERO afect on the problem. It's 99% about making Sally feel good about herself and looking good to her friends. But that does not mean global warming is a myth - or man is not responsible. It just means there's nothing we can really do about it.

Archer81
03-21-2007, 01:46 PM
How could you be so wrong? Not just a wrong opinion, but 100 PERCENT WRONG on facts. There are no "10,000 scientists who disagree," and indeed there is no longer ANY DEBATE WHATSOEVER in the scientific community about whether man is the leading contributor to global warming.

February 7, 2006:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/02/AR2007020200192.html


I'm liberal/progressive, but I am NOT an environmentalist. I strongly advocate drilling in ANWaR ... starting yesterday. Stab a straw deep in the ground, and suck it dry. I'm also not a Gore "carbon footprint" wacko. Nothing anybody does in the USA, or in the West generally, matters much anymore. China and India are 10x our size, and they show zero inclination to put the brakes on the fastest industrialization in history. We'll be lucky if they agree to any environmental regulation.

I'll grant you that Sally Next-door and those like her buying hybrid cars for example, have ZERO afect on the problem. It's 99% about making Sally feel good about herself and looking good to her friends. But that does not mean global warming is a myth - or man is not responsible. It just means there's nothing we can really do about it.


For every scientist that says man is the primary cause of climate change, you can find another who will say man is not. That is what I meant, and that is exactly the problem, there is NO consensus on what effect mankind has on climate. I am not saying man has no impact at all, but I find it hard to believe the oceans will rise 20 feet in the next 100 years, or that the north pole will become an expanse of open water simply because I choose a car that gets 10 mpg less then a hybrid. I dont think placing "greenhouse" caps on our industry will change anything, specifically because India and China are become industrial giants. Technology will find an answer, placing ridiculous limits on western economic and industrial growth because you dont want the temp to rise a .10th of a degree is ****ing stupid.



:Broncos:

Rohirrim
03-21-2007, 01:50 PM
If humanity would get on the same page about all of this, and realize that we must reduce the human population, we could cut it in half in just a few generations. And those people would be living in paradise.

Los Broncos
03-21-2007, 01:50 PM
I hate spiders, but bees are ok.

Bronco_Beerslug
03-21-2007, 01:51 PM
For every scientist that says man is the primary cause of climate change, you can find another who will say man is not.
:Broncos:No you can't because they (scientists) aren't disagreeing any more.

Archer81
03-21-2007, 01:54 PM
No you can't because they (scientists) aren't disagreeing any more.


Because al gore says so?


:Broncos:

BroncoBuff
03-21-2007, 01:56 PM
For every scientist that says man is the primary cause of climate change, you can find another who will say man is not.
WRONG! READ THE ARTICLE. It's just a month old ... it's NEWS!

You see, from time to time in this modern world, new information becomes known - information that sometimes concerns important topics, or at the very least, topics that people are interested in. When this kind of new information becomes known to media outlets, they publish it in papers, on TVs, radios and on the Internet. It's called NEWS.

NEWS was made about global warming on February 2, 2007, and it was reported in the Washington Post. Apparently there was a conference of scientists from 166 countries and they agreed unanimously. Maybe you're not up on the news, but here's how that conference changed their previous findings:

While the summary did not produce any groundbreaking observations -- it reflects a massive distillation of the peer-reviewed literature through the middle of 2006 -- it represents the definitive international scientific and political consensus on climate science. It provides much more definitive conclusions than the panel's previous report in 2001, which said only that it was "likely" -- meaning between 66 and 90 percent probability on a scale the panel adopted -- that human activity accounted for the warming recorded over the past 50 years.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/02/AR2007020200192.html

Bronco_Beerslug
03-21-2007, 02:00 PM
Because al gore says so?
:Broncos:
Because science and the scientists say so. It's in the news, check it out.

watermock
03-21-2007, 02:00 PM
The short-necked oil beetle

Beezer thinks that sounds tasty.

alkemical
03-21-2007, 02:02 PM
Beezer thinks that sounds tasty.

Admit it...there is no "watermock" - you really are beezer..... one of the Elder Ones aren't you.....

Archer81
03-21-2007, 02:05 PM
Because science and the scientists say so. It's in the news, check it out.


The same news that says scientists disagree about the exact causes of global warming...the proceed to simply ask the scientists who blame people for it? That news?


:Broncos:

BroncoBuff
03-21-2007, 02:08 PM
The same news that says scientists disagree about the exact causes of global warming...the proceed to simply ask the scientists who blame people for it? That news?

What "SAME NEWS"?

Bronco_Beerslug
03-21-2007, 02:10 PM
The same news that says scientists disagree about the exact causes of global warming...the proceed to simply ask the scientists who blame people for it? That news?
:Broncos:Huh? What same news?

Archer81
03-21-2007, 02:10 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

They dont agree on what causes global warming.


:Broncos:

Archer81
03-21-2007, 02:12 PM
What "SAME NEWS"?

CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CNN, Headline News...Have you ever watched a newscast?


:Broncos:

Bronco_Beerslug
03-21-2007, 02:12 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
They dont agree on what causes global warming.
:Broncos:You'll have to better than, Wiki hasn't been updated with the new world scientist's report 2007.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Report says global warming very likely man-made, to continue 'for centuries' (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-02-01-ipcc-report_x.htm)

A United Nations report issued today by the world's top climate scientists said global warning was "very likely" man-made and would bring higher temperatures and a steady rise in sea levels for centuries to come regardless of how much the world slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is made up of scientists from 113 countries, was created by the U.N. in 1988 and releases its assessments every five or six years.

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widspread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level," said the IPCC report.

The panel's bleak 21-page report (PDF), released officially in Paris, was aimed at laying out the how, what and why of global warming, but not to offer remedies.

The report said man-made emissions of greenhouse gases can already be blamed for fewer cold days, hotter nights, killer heat waves, floods and heavy rains, devastating droughts, and an increase in hurricane and tropical storm strength — particularly in the Atlantic Ocean.
CONT.

Archer81
03-21-2007, 02:14 PM
You'll have to better than, Wiki hasn't been updated with the new world scientist's report 2007.


and so? Scientists still dont agree on the causes of global warming. Thats the point. Not that global warming happens, but what is the primary generator of climate change.


:Broncos:

BroncoBuff
03-21-2007, 02:15 PM
You'll have to better than, Wiki hasn't been updated with the new world scientist's report 2007.

You're right, BBS. That might be because .... it's ... (wait for it) ... NEWS!

:~ohyah!:

C'mon, sirhcyen ... I conceded there's nothing we can do about it because of China/India, and I made fun of 'Sally Hybrid' ... why can't you give in to science?

Or is global warming part orf "Intelligent Design"? THAT'S IT! Gore and the rest of us, including the 116 nations atthat conference, we're just fossil-record-hugging evolutionary atheists .... is that it?

Bronco_Beerslug
03-21-2007, 02:18 PM
and so? Scientists still dont agree on the causes of global warming. Thats the point. Not that global warming happens, but what is the primary generator of climate change.
:Broncos:Exactly the point, they now do agree.

Archer81
03-21-2007, 02:21 PM
You're right, BBS. That might be because .... it's ... (wait for it) ... NEWS!

:~ohyah!:

C'mon, sirhcyen ... I conceded there's nothing we can do about it because of China/India, and I made fun of 'Sally Hybrid' ... why can't you give in to science?

Or is global warming part orf "Intelligent Design"? THAT'S IT! Gore and the rest of us, including the 116 nations atthat conference, we're just fossil-record-hugging evolutionary atheists .... is that it?


Simply because science has been, and continues to be, wrong. Thirty years ago, these same climate scientists were warning of a massive world wide iceage, due to global cooling. Now its global warming. I dont discount a legitimate approach by either side to prove it, but I wont accept it simply because 116 nations, al gore, ect says I must. The earth has been much warmer, and much colder then it is now, before the idea of man was in existance.

:Broncos:

Archer81
03-21-2007, 02:22 PM
Exactly the point, they now do agree.

No, they dont.


:Broncos:

Bronco_Beerslug
03-21-2007, 02:27 PM
No, they dont.
:Broncos:Yes they do. After the report came out last month Bush became an environmentalist. If that isn't enough for you I don't know what would be.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Report says global warming very likely man-made, to continue 'for centuries' (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-02-01-ipcc-report_x.htm)

A United Nations report issued today by the world's top climate scientists said global warning was "very likely" man-made and would bring higher temperatures and a steady rise in sea levels for centuries to come regardless of how much the world slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is made up of scientists from 113 countries, was created by the U.N. in 1988 and releases its assessments every five or six years.

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widspread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level," said the IPCC report.

The panel's bleak 21-page report (PDF), released officially in Paris, was aimed at laying out the how, what and why of global warming, but not to offer remedies.

The report said man-made emissions of greenhouse gases can already be blamed for fewer cold days, hotter nights, killer heat waves, floods and heavy rains, devastating droughts, and an increase in hurricane and tropical storm strength — particularly in the Atlantic Ocean.
CONT

alkemical
03-21-2007, 02:29 PM
I noticed that they say the sun contributes to global warming, since mars is even warming.....

Archer81
03-21-2007, 02:34 PM
Report says global warming very likely man-made, to continue 'for centuries'[/URL]


Very likely. Way to sound sure.


:Broncos:

TheDave
03-21-2007, 02:39 PM
Scientists agree smoking very likely to cause lung cancer

nope not sure enough for me... I'm going to need a little more proof here. :thumbs:

watermock
03-21-2007, 02:39 PM
I just made a fart that had to affect the global climate......wait...I feel another I had chili last night.

alkemical
04-12-2007, 12:26 AM
Killer plague of ladybirds (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007150399,00.html)


A NEW breed of killer ladybird is threatening to wipe out insects across the UK, experts warned yesterday.

The Harlequin — which has killed off other ladybirds across the world — was first found here three years ago and is spreading rapidly.

Scientists fear the bugs will annihilate native species and cover mainland Britain within a year.

They are also known to bite HUMANS.

Cambridge University ladybird expert Dr Michael Majerus said: “The warm weather has woken them up. They’re all over the place now.”

The Harlequin was taken to the US from Asia 25 years ago to control aphids, but has destroyed populations of native ladybirds and butterflies.

Britain’s first was found in Essex in 2004 and the orange bugs — bigger than normal ladybirds — have spread as far north as Durham.

Dr Majerus said one person had suffered an allergic reaction to a bite but added this was “very rare”.

alkemical
04-12-2007, 12:28 AM
Mysterious bee losses threaten several crops (http://www.cfbf.com/agalert/AgAlertStory.cfm?ID=798&ck=9E3CFC48ECCF81A0D57663E129AEF3CB)


By Ching Lee
Assistant Editor

Merced County beekeeper said bee losses over the winter cost him nearly $60.000.

Beekeepers nationwide are opening their hives and finding them empty, a baffling phenomenon that has researchers scratching their heads and farmers worrying about their crops.

The bees are mysteriously vanishing and no one is sure why. Instead of thriving colonies, beekeepers say they're typically finding only a queen and a few attendants left--but no trace of the other bees, not even their bodies.

Known as colony collapse disorder, the problem has affected beekeepers in 24 states and Canada, with some losing as much as 25 percent to more than 75 percent of their hives. The sudden unexplained losses have not only been a financial detriment to many beekeepers but could threaten billions of dollars worth of crops that depend on the insects for pollination.

In a legislative hearing before the House Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture in March, Gene Brandi, a Merced County beekeeper and chairman of the California State Beekeepers Association, told lawmakers that while bee losses are not uncommon, the current ailment plaguing bee colonies is much more serious.

He said about 40 percent of his colonies died over the winter, his greatest loss in 30 years of business. That equates to a loss of nearly $60,000 in pollination income and another $20,000 in bulk bee sales, plus a cost of $48,000 to restock the 800 dead hives.

"Even though my loss is substantial, other beekeepers throughout the country have suffered much great losses," he said. "Beekeepers who lost over 50 percent of their colonies will have difficulty making up their losses from their own colonies as I plan to do."

Bees pollination is involved in the production of a wide range of fruits, vegetables and forage crops, but it is perhaps most critical in the production of almonds. Nearly 1.4 million bee colonies are needed each year to help California's almond growers set nearly 600,000 acres of this crop, now worth more than $2.4 billion annually. California produces 80 percent of the world's almonds, according to the Almond Board of California.

Other crops dependent on honeybee pollination include apples, avocados, cherries, cranberries, cucumbers, melons and sunflowers.

But as California's almond acreage continues to increase, the nation's bee colonies are dwindling--from 3.2 million in 1986 to 2.4 million in 2006, according to the National Agricultural Statistics Service. In California, there were 380,000 bee colonies in 2006, compared to 520,000 in 1986.

To meet growers' demand, bees are brought in from all over the United States and even Australia to work the fields.

"Each year, as growers we worry about the supply of bees and what the weather is like during the critical pollination period," California Farm Bureau Federation First-Vice President Paul Wenger, a Stanislaus County almond grower, told the House panel. "Our crop fortunes rise or fall on what happens."

He noted that he currently pays $130 per hive to pollinate his crop, a steep price compared to the average rental price of $45 per hive in 2003.

The cause of colony collapse disorder is unknown, although poor nutrition, mites, diseases and pesticides have all been suspect. There is also concern that some genetically modified crops may be producing pollen or nectar that is problematic for the bees, said Brandi.

"Lesser known is the fact that some pesticides can also kill or deform immature bees, adversely affect queen and drone viability or may cause bees to lose their memory, which prevents them from flying back to their hive," he said.

The nation's supply of bees was already in danger before the colony collapse disorder came along. For many years, beekeepers have been trying to control the destructive varroa mite, a parasite that has dealt catastrophic losses to the bee industry.

Brandi and Wenger said research is the key to overcoming these current problems, noting the need for more scientists and bee experts at the University of Davis to study the insect's behavior, physiology and genetics. There are currently no active professors of apiculture on the campus, although one UC Extension apiculturist continues to serve the industry, Brandi said. The federal government currently spends less than $10 million a year on bee research.

"The need for additional bee research is obvious," said Brandi. "There are just too many unanswered questions that need to be addressed if the bee industry is to survive and perhaps thrive again."

(Ching Lee is a reporter for Ag Alert. She may be contacted at clee@cfbf.com.)

Permission for use is granted, however, credit must be made to the California Farm Bureau Federation when reprinting this item.

Crushaholic
04-12-2007, 02:21 AM
If humanity would get on the same page about all of this, and realize that we must reduce the human population, we could cut it in half in just a few generations. And those people would be living in paradise.

Who's going to determine who lives and who dies?

rubaiyat
04-12-2007, 02:51 AM
Nature will balances itself out. No need to worry

Hordes of genetically similar bees transported around a continent ain't natural.

Natural selection of agriculturally important species has long since become a nonfactor.

As such natural balances cannot be depended on, particularly when world food stores are the issue.

Though admittedly, the grains are not particularly vulnerable here.

rubaiyat
04-12-2007, 02:56 AM
Who's going to determine who lives and who dies?

Well if it's on the scale of a few generations the easy solution would be just to have two kids. That wouldn't completely replace losses and in several generations stabilize and eventually shrink populations...

You are getting that in developed countries now with a cylinder and soon to be inverted pyramid of age demographics (ie increasing number of old fogies and fewer youngins).

Its the developing world that hasn't cottoned on that children are a liability.

alkemical
04-12-2007, 08:37 AM
Who's going to determine who lives and who dies?

Just reduce the birthrate from here on out.

Dedhed
04-12-2007, 10:42 AM
Nature will balances itself out. No need to worry

Humans have been ignoring those rules for decades now. It's catching up to us.

Dedhed
04-12-2007, 10:50 AM
Because al gore says so?


:Broncos:You're one of those dolts who will defy the truth based on politics aren't you? Or do you fancy yourself a counter-culture individualist who makes his own rules? You're a real tough guy, you can handle this "global warming" charade. You're a bad-ass free-thinker, we get it.

clarkster
04-12-2007, 01:13 PM
They've learned to construct simple sails which they mount on icebergs, and they've mastered use of a sextant.

why you bull****ting, i was listening to a guy on th radio that claimed his oprganization was going to teach animals to use weapons to defend themselves. as detailed as "Navy SEALS training seals in armed and unarmed combat" i cant make this **** up.

El Minion
04-16-2007, 01:50 PM
Are mobile phones wiping out our bees? (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/wildlife/article2449968.ece)
Scientists claim radiation from handsets are to blame for mysterious 'colony collapse' of bees

By Geoffrey Lean and Harriet Shawcross
Published: 15 April 2007
It seems like the plot of a particularly far-fetched horror film. But some scientists suggest that our love of the mobile phone could cause massive food shortages, as the world's harvests fail.

They are putting forward the theory that radiation given off by mobile phones and other hi-tech gadgets is a possible answer to one of the more bizarre mysteries ever to happen in the natural world - the abrupt disappearance of the bees that pollinate crops. Late last week, some bee-keepers claimed that the phenomenon - which started in the US, then spread to continental Europe - was beginning to hit Britain as well.

The theory is that radiation from mobile phones interferes with bees' navigation systems, preventing the famously homeloving species from finding their way back to their hives. Improbable as it may seem, there is now evidence to back this up.

Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) occurs when a hive's inhabitants suddenly disappear, leaving only queens, eggs and a few immature workers, like so many apian Mary Celestes. The vanished bees are never found, but thought to die singly far from home. The parasites, wildlife and other bees that normally raid the honey and pollen left behind when a colony dies, refuse to go anywhere near the abandoned hives.

The alarm was first sounded last autumn, but has now hit half of all American states. The West Coast is thought to have lost 60 per cent of its commercial bee population, with 70 per cent missing on the East Coast.

CCD has since spread to Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. And last week John Chapple, one of London's biggest bee-keepers, announced that 23 of his 40 hives have been abruptly abandoned.

Other apiarists have recorded losses in Scotland, Wales and north-west England, but the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs insisted: "There is absolutely no evidence of CCD in the UK."

The implications of the spread are alarming. Most of the world's crops depend on pollination by bees. Albert Einstein once said that if the bees disappeared, "man would have only four years of life left".

No one knows why it is happening. Theories involving mites, pesticides, global warming and GM crops have been proposed, but all have drawbacks.

German research has long shown that bees' behaviour changes near power lines.

Now a limited study at Landau University has found that bees refuse to return to their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby. Dr Jochen Kuhn, who carried it out, said this could provide a "hint" to a possible cause.

Dr George Carlo, who headed a massive study by the US government and mobile phone industry of hazards from mobiles in the Nineties, said: "I am convinced the possibility is real."

The case against handsets

Evidence of dangers to people from mobile phones is increasing. But proof is still lacking, largely because many of the biggest perils, such as cancer, take decades to show up.

Most research on cancer has so far proved inconclusive. But an official Finnish study found that people who used the phones for more than 10 years were 40 per cent more likely to get a brain tumour on the same side as they held the handset.

Equally alarming, blue-chip Swedish research revealed that radiation from mobile phones killed off brain cells, suggesting that today's teenagers could go senile in the prime of their lives.

Studies in India and the US have raised the possibility that men who use mobile phones heavily have reduced sperm counts. And, more prosaically, doctors have identified the condition of "text thumb", a form of RSI from constant texting.

Professor Sir William Stewart, who has headed two official inquiries, warned that children under eight should not use mobiles and made a series of safety recommendations, largely ignored by ministers.

alkemical
04-16-2007, 02:08 PM
Yeah but if cell phone signals have been used for the better part of 10 years, then why now?

TailgateNut
04-16-2007, 02:58 PM
Yeah but if cell phone signals have been used for the better part of 10 years, then why now?


I think if you look back a decade, the areas of coverage were hit and miss, whereas now the areas which do not have coverage are limited to isolated areas.
Also the sheer number of cell phones today compared to ten years ago would make some sort of impact.

alkemical
04-16-2007, 03:06 PM
I think if you look back a decade, the areas of coverage were hit and miss, whereas now the areas which do not have coverage are limited to isolated areas.
Also the sheer number of cell phones today compared to ten years ago would make some sort of impact.

Ok some questions/points:

Cell phones use radio waves, but the atmosphere has been saturated with radio waves for over a century. Why now?

The cell bands are just a tiny portion of the radio spectrum and because of the cellular stricture are lower in power than other radio sources that have been around for decades such as AM/FM radio, VHF/UHF TV, amateur and citizens bands, VHF aircraft radios, short wave, VHF ground radios used by police, and fire, commercial band radios, and let us not forget the huge and powerful military radio systems including megawatt radars. These have all been operating for our entire lifetimes, yet the bee die-off has only occurred in the last year. So is radio the culprit?

TailgateNut
04-16-2007, 03:21 PM
Ok some questions/points:

Cell phones use radio waves, but the atmosphere has been saturated with radio waves for over a century. Why now?

The cell bands are just a tiny portion of the radio spectrum and because of the cellular stricture are lower in power than other radio sources that have been around for decades such as AM/FM radio, VHF/UHF TV, amateur and citizens bands, VHF aircraft radios, short wave, VHF ground radios used by police, and fire, commercial band radios, and let us not forget the huge and powerful military radio systems including megawatt radars. These have all been operating for our entire lifetimes, yet the bee die-off has only occurred in the last year. So is radio the culprit?


Just my 5 cents worth. I know in the Rocky Mtn Area the business of Cell tower erection and construction has been an gold mine. One of the managers who used to work for my company moved on to a company which specializes in Cell tower construction, and he has been busier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest!

alkemical
04-16-2007, 03:45 PM
Just my 5 cents worth. I know in the Rocky Mtn Area the business of Cell tower erection and construction has been an gold mine. One of the managers who used to work for my company moved on to a company which specializes in Cell tower construction, and he has been busier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest!

I just think it's too soon to pin it on one thing -

TailgateNut
04-16-2007, 03:51 PM
I just think it's too soon to pin it on one thing -


Better "pin" it on something fast, unless we have a "better" way of polinating in the works.

We are already exhibiting the classical "head in the sand response" to global warming, might as well do the same with this "minor" issue.

maher_tyler
04-16-2007, 03:55 PM
Thats why I am leery of global warming. You can say 10,000 scientists agree global warming is the result of mankind. Another 10,000 will say mankind is not. We have only been watching the climate and weather for less then 60 years, and we get it wrong all the time. How can you legitimately trust people who comment or study weather? They cant get it right 2 days ahead of time, but we are going to listen to them on what will happen 100 years from now?


:Broncos:
Good point...but we (humans) can't be helping things any!!

alkemical
04-16-2007, 04:22 PM
Better "pin" it on something fast, unless we have a "better" way of polinating in the works.

We are already exhibiting the classical "head in the sand response" to global warming, might as well do the same with this "minor" issue.

Ya, or maybe the missing bee issue is tied to the freaky weather. Or maybe it's tied to the mite that carry's a parisite that kills bees.....

rubaiyat
04-16-2007, 07:43 PM
Yeah but if cell phone signals have been used for the better part of 10 years, then why now?

I think it unlikely given Europe FOLLOWED the US here...if anything that should be the other way around given their generally higher degree of wireless access and higher populations, particularly the UK.

I guess Japan or South Korea would be the obvious candidates...do they have massively decreased bee populations?

rubaiyat
04-16-2007, 07:48 PM
Good point...but we (humans) can't be helping things any!!

I SINCERELY doubt an equal number of climatologists believe humans aren't a source of global warming.

And the straw man of not being able to predict weather 2 days ahead but climate 100 years from now is bogus.

You don't NEED to know what the weather is on any given day to affect the changes scientists are predicting...just as you don't NEED to predict the day a specific person will die from not wearing a seatbelt, just that someone will.

Atlas
04-16-2007, 08:04 PM
and so? Scientists still dont agree on the causes of global warming. Thats the point. Not that global warming happens, but what is the primary generator of climate change.


:Broncos:


Go ahead and put your head in the sand with the rest of the Fox newsers....anyway it isn't going to matter. It's too late and we are to slow acting. While all the other countries in the world are raising MPG for cars and cutting pollution The U.S. just says it's going to cost too much....yeah whatever, see you all in hell.

Atlas
04-16-2007, 08:06 PM
You're one of those dolts who will defy the truth based on politics aren't you? Or do you fancy yourself a counter-culture individualist who makes his own rules? You're a real tough guy, you can handle this "global warming" charade. You're a bad-ass free-thinker, we get it.


He is the most conservative gay man I have ever seen... errrr. read anyway.

No1BroncoFan
04-16-2007, 09:31 PM
Thats why I am leery of global warming. You can say 10,000 scientists agree global warming is the result of mankind. Another 10,000 will say mankind is not. We have only been watching the climate and weather for less then 60 years, and we get it wrong all the time. How can you legitimately trust people who comment or study weather? They cant get it right 2 days ahead of time, but we are going to listen to them on what will happen 100 years from now?


:Broncos:
Add to all that, not one of them can confirm or deny that any global warming is or isn't part of the natural cycle for the planet. There once was an ocean shoreline where Denver is today. Now it's all our fault.

Ben

alkemical
04-16-2007, 11:42 PM
I think it unlikely given Europe FOLLOWED the US here...if anything that should be the other way around given their generally higher degree of wireless access and higher populations, particularly the UK.

I guess Japan or South Korea would be the obvious candidates...do they have massively decreased bee populations?

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Europe+bee+population&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8


Europe's bee population seems hurt as well


But asia is the origin of a mite that is causing some problems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseases_of_the_honey_bee#Varroa_mites

footstepsfrom#27
04-17-2007, 02:14 AM
The implications of the spread are alarming. Most of the world's crops depend on pollination by bees. Albert Einstein once said that if the bees disappeared, "man would have only four years of life left".
Well that's nice. I guess we better win another Superbowl pretty quick. :saywhat:

Atlas
04-23-2007, 02:41 AM
I just think it's too soon to pin it on one thing -

We should just wait a year or so and see if all the bees die. Then we will know.

Here is another story. This is big. Bees are like the Corals of the land. If they go there will be a massive domino affect.

Vanishing honeybees mystify scientists

Billions of bees have mysteriously vanished since late last year in the U.S.
• Disappearing bees have also been reported in Europe and Brazil
• One-third of the U.S. diet depends on pollination, mostly by honeybees
• Some beekeepers are losing 50 percent of their bees to the disorder


WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Go to work, come home.

Go to work, come home.

Go to work -- and vanish without a trace.

Billions of bees have done just that, leaving the crop fields they are supposed to pollinate, and scientists are mystified about why.

The phenomenon was first noticed late last year in the United States, where honeybees are used to pollinate $15 billion worth of fruits, nuts and other crops annually. Disappearing bees have also been reported in Europe and Brazil.

Commercial beekeepers would set their bees near a crop field as usual and come back in two or three weeks to find the hives bereft of foraging worker bees, with only the queen and the immature insects remaining. Whatever worker bees survived were often too weak to perform their tasks.

If the bees were dying of pesticide poisoning or freezing, their bodies would be expected to lie around the hive. And if they were absconding because of some threat -- which they have been known to do -- they wouldn't leave without the queen.

Since about one-third of the U.S. diet depends on pollination and most of that is performed by honeybees, this constitutes a serious problem, according to Jeff Pettis of the U.S. Agricultural Research Service.

"They're the heavy lifters of agriculture," Pettis said of honeybees. "And the reason they are is they're so mobile and we can rear them in large numbers and move them to a crop when it's blooming."

Honeybees are used to pollinate some of the tastiest parts of the American diet, Pettis said, including cherries, blueberries, apples, almonds, asparagus and macadamia nuts.

"It's not the staples," he said. "If you can imagine eating a bowl of oatmeal every day with no fruit on it, that's what it would be like" without honeybee pollination.

Pettis and other experts are gathering outside Washington for a two-day workshop starting on Monday to pool their knowledge and come up with a plan of action to combat what they call colony collapse disorder.

"What we're describing as colony collapse disorder is the rapid loss of adult worker bees from the colony over a very short period of time, at a time in the season when we wouldn't expect a rapid die-off of workers: late fall and early spring," Pettis said.

Small workers in a supersize society
The problem has prompted a congressional hearing, a report by the National Research Council and a National Pollinator Week set for June 24-30 in Washington, but so far no clear idea of what is causing it.

"The main hypotheses are based on the interpretation that the disappearances represent disruptions in orientation behavior and navigation," said May Berenbaum, an insect ecologist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

There have been other fluctuations in the number of honeybees, going back to the 1880s, where there were "mysterious disappearances without bodies just as we're seeing now, but never at this magnitude," Berenbaum said in a telephone interview.

In some cases, beekeepers are losing 50 percent of their bees to the disorder, with some suffering even higher losses. One beekeeper alone lost 40,000 bees, Pettis said. Nationally, some 27 states have reported the disorder, with billions of bees simply gone.

Some beekeepers supplement their stocks with bees imported from Australia, said beekeeper Jeff Anderson, whose business keeps him and his bees traveling between Minnesota and California. Honeybee hives are rented out to growers to pollinate their crops, and beekeepers move around as the growing seasons change.

Honeybees are not the only pollinators whose numbers are dropping. Other animals that do this essential job -- non-honeybees, wasps, flies, beetles, birds and bats -- have decreasing populations as well. But honeybees are the big actors in commercial pollination efforts.

"One reason we're in this situation is this is a supersize society -- we tend to equate small with insignificant," Berenbaum said. "I'm sorry but that's not true in biology. You have to be small to get into the flower and deliver the pollen.

"Without that critical act, there's no fruit. And no technology has been invented that equals, much less surpasses, insect pollinators."

watermock
04-23-2007, 06:29 AM
My dad grew his teeth in the dirt, but he was self educated and knew about genetics.

He worried about the danger of genetic replication, especially in hybrid corn strains.

Bringing in a non specific genetic strain is always kinda dangerous. It's a matter of genetic diversity. If one breed of bees has a problem, another might not. I seriously doubt it's the genetically altered crops. It's possibble, but unlikely.

Pesticides and herbicides are not as widely used today. Bo Weevils in cotton and Aphids still are pests tho. They need to find the bees to see if they are diseased, or poisioned. Sounds like they vanish like some UFO abduction or something. I'm sure they check the field and aroud the hive. Damned if I know. I am thinking disease by genetic sigularity.

alkemical
04-23-2007, 08:33 AM
We should just wait a year or so and see if all the bees die. Then we will know.


The air waves have been saturated with radio waves - and i'm sure brazil has less radio infrastructure than we do - so guess what - i think the radio waves are a misnomer -

Or maybe this is what's going on for some reason:

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page1985.html?theme=light

TailgateNut
04-23-2007, 09:37 AM
-

Or maybe this is what's going on for some reason:

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page1985.html?theme=light


ROFL!

No, this has been going on for a long time, whereas the amount of radio wave saturation has increased exponentially with the increase in cell usage and coverage.

I'm not implying this is the reason, but some are pointing to it being a possible culprit.

Rohirrim
04-23-2007, 09:45 AM
What will happen next is that there will be no more human pregnancies. No more children will be born. Society will become more fascist. No child will be born for 18 years. And then, suddenly, secretly, some woman will become pregnant. Different revolutionary groups will try to claim her as their own to enhance their own images and political agendas... wait a minute. Have I heard this somewhere before?

Atlas
04-23-2007, 09:48 AM
What will happen next is that there will be no more human pregnancies. No more children will be born. Society will become more fascist. No child will be born for 18 years. And then, suddenly, secretly, some woman will become pregnant. Different revolutionary groups will try to claim her as their own to enhance their own images and political agendas... wait a minute. Have I heard this somewhere before?

I don't know but sounds like a hell of a movie!!

Atlas
04-23-2007, 09:54 AM
Ya, or maybe the missing bee issue is tied to the freaky weather. Or maybe it's tied to the mite that carry's a parisite that kills bees.....

No because if it was mites the bees would be dead in the hive. This is a case where there are no bees. They're missing, they're gone. If it was freaky weather the bee problem would probably be limited in certain areas but this is happening all over the U.S and all over Europe and South America.

Rohirrim
04-23-2007, 10:03 AM
No because if it was mites the bees would be dead in the hive. This is a case where there are no bees. They're missing, they're gone. If it was freaky weather the bee problem would probably be limited in certain areas but this is happening all over the U.S and all over Europe and South America.

Alien abductions.

alkemical
04-23-2007, 10:18 AM
No because if it was mites the bees would be dead in the hive. This is a case where there are no bees. They're missing, they're gone. If it was freaky weather the bee problem would probably be limited in certain areas but this is happening all over the U.S and all over Europe and South America.

Not if there's been an infection and they don't return to the hives.....

Geee - ya think that freaky world weather is causing freaky world wide changes in animal behaviour? Esp. for an insect?

Did you stop using your cellphone?

Rohirrim
04-24-2007, 06:27 PM
I've discovered why this is happening. Earth's polarity is reversing.

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/RevScience.html

Atlas
04-24-2007, 06:33 PM
Not if there's been an infection and they don't return to the hives.....

Geee - ya think that freaky world weather is causing freaky world wide changes in animal behaviour? Esp. for an insect?

Did you stop using your cellphone?


Cell phone??? What cell phone???

Houshyamama
04-24-2007, 08:01 PM
They've learned to construct simple sails which they mount on icebergs, and they've mastered use of a sextant.

LOL

Rascal
04-24-2007, 08:18 PM
Who's going to determine who lives and who dies?

We can start with chief and raider fans.

watermock
04-24-2007, 08:39 PM
We need to equip them with tiny cell phone/GPS systems if the earth is switching polarity. Nano engineers, get on it pronto.

watermock
04-24-2007, 08:49 PM
IMO, it's quite possible that all the airwaves saturating the skies may be confusing their radar. Another might be a lack of diversification genetically. It's not good that's for sure.

For some reason the Busy Bees can't find home.

alkemical
04-24-2007, 11:21 PM
I've discovered why this is happening. Earth's polarity is reversing.

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/RevScience.html

I've heard this before. With the sun shooting out some massive gamma flares, it could aid in this as well.

alkemical
04-25-2007, 03:44 PM
GM crop failure a warning, says US adviser (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1519962.htm)


GM crop failure a warning, says US adviser

A former agricultural adviser to US presidents says the failure of a genetically modified field pea trial should act as a warning for future GM crop testing.

The 10-year CSIRO trial was abandoned when tests found the peas were making mice seriously ill.

Dr Charles Benbrook, who advised presidents Carter, Bush senior, Reagan and Clinton says the field pea trial failure shows current GM crop testing is grossly inadequate.

"I don't believe that this new study proves that all genetically engineered food is posing a great threat to people but it certainly confirms the need to go back and look at the major food crops," he said.

He has called for changes to the Gene Technology Act, which is currently under review, to tighten GM crop regulation and increase scientific scrutiny of potential commercial varieties.

But the Grains Council's David Ginns says the failed field pea trial was an isolated case, and the fact health concerns were discovered shows current monitoring is adequate.

"It picked up a problem early and the project was terminated on the basis that there were concerns raised in the trial."

BigPlayShay
05-02-2008, 12:54 AM
Well, they found some of the bees:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/05/01/anderson.bees.in.wall.wrdw

alkemical
07-07-2008, 09:53 AM
http://warofillusions.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/the-6-hit-combo-that-kos-bee-colonies/

The 6 hit combo that KO’s bee colonies

Kaylore
07-07-2008, 10:15 AM
http://warofillusions.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/the-6-hit-combo-that-kos-bee-colonies/

The 6 hit combo that KO’s bee colonies

I still think the cell phone bit is bogus. There is no evidence that cell phones have any effect on a Bee's ability to find their colony.

alkemical
07-07-2008, 10:24 AM
I still think the cell phone bit is bogus. There is no evidence that cell phones have any effect on a Bee's ability to find their colony.

I think it's a "contributing" factor.

Kaylore
07-07-2008, 10:42 AM
I think it's a "contributing" factor.

All evidence to the contrary? Your own article says Bee die-offs are cyclical and the over-breeding raises some concerns. I posted an article earlier in this thread that totally destroys the cell-phone theory and the article you posted is from the same old and inaccurate test on the Bees.

I say again, there is no evidence that cell phones have any affect on bees. That's not even what the antennae are trying to pick up. This is one of those things where people look at an insect's antennae and then erroneously conclude that the antennae on our electronic devices work under the same principles because they look the same. I can understand why someone looking at a bee might lean that direction based on their own understanding of what we use an antenna for, but it's a good example of misplaced intuition leading to pseudo-science. Bee's don't work on a radio frequency.

alkemical
07-07-2008, 10:45 AM
All evidence to the contrary? Your own article says Bee die-offs are cyclical and the over-breeding raises some concerns. I posted an article earlier in this thread that totally destroys the cell-phone theory and the article you posted is from the same old and inaccurate test on the Bees.

I say again, there is no evidence that cell phones have any affect on bees. That's not even what the antennae are trying to pick up. This is one of those things where people look at an insect's antennae and then erroneously conclude that the antennae on our electronic devices work under the same principles because they look the same. I can understand why someone looking at a bee might lean that direction based on their own understanding of what we use an antenna for, but it's a good example of misplaced intuition leading to pseudo-science. Bee's don't work on a radio frequency.

You have no clue as to the environmental impact of power lines and cell towers. Maybe you should read up.

that article pointed out 6 possible factors - maybe you should go back and re-read the material as well as do some research to what i just listed for you.

Thanks!

Kaylore
07-07-2008, 10:59 AM
You have no clue as to the environmental impact of power lines and cell towers. Maybe you should read up.

that article pointed out 6 possible factors - maybe you should go back and re-read the material as well as do some research to what i just listed for you.

Thanks!

Actually I do have a clue and after reading what you posted I think you need to look deeper. Neither you nor the person in that article did their homework. The original study done in Germany (which again was one study that already has holes) wasn't even tested against radio waves, which is what Cell phones work off of. It was testing magnetic field (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/05/cell_phones_are.html) influence from cordless phones. This throws the entire premise for the warning out the window because it was a case where the author of the story misunderstood what the scientists were doing. So it's really just bad journalism. (Though I don't believe electromagnetic fields are killing bees either).

If this was really happening, then other insects that have anntenae would be dying off as well. They aren't.

alkemical
07-07-2008, 11:08 AM
Whatever man - believe what you what. I gave you enough to show you that EMF causes problems in environment. Only a fool believes there's no impact.

Kaylore
07-07-2008, 11:20 AM
Whatever man - believe what you what. I gave you enough to show you that EMF causes problems in environment. Only a fool believes there's no impact.

Now wait a minute amesj, the thread was about cell phones affecting bees, not EMF affecting the environment generally speaking. That's all I'm addressing here. The study, that by the scientists own insistence is too small to draw conclusions from, wasn't even testing cellular technology. So I think we can agree that there is no evidence that cell phones affect bees. Now you may have a hypothesis that they do, but to date no study has been conducted and no one of import is requesting we explore this as a cause for the bee die-off. I think we can agree that when it comes to cell phones killing bees the whole story is a good case of journalism gone wrong. EMF's affect on the environment overall is a totally different topic and I don't claim to be an expert there, nor was I speaking to that point.

FADERPROOF
07-07-2008, 11:21 AM
They've learned to construct simple sails which they mount on icebergs, and they've mastered use of a sextant.

I heard they roped themselves a couple of seaturtles that guided them over there.

Northman
07-07-2008, 11:26 AM
What will happen next is that there will be no more human pregnancies. No more children will be born. Society will become more fascist. No child will be born for 18 years. And then, suddenly, secretly, some woman will become pregnant. Different revolutionary groups will try to claim her as their own to enhance their own images and political agendas... wait a minute. Have I heard this somewhere before?

You saw that movie too eh? :giggle:

TheReverend
07-07-2008, 11:30 AM
I had absolutely no idea that I would enjoy an argument over cell phones and their effect on bees so much. Bravo Khan and Ames!

I call for an encore. This time with fists dipped in glass.

alkemical
07-07-2008, 11:35 AM
Now wait a minute amesj, the thread was about cell phones affecting bees, not EMF affecting the environment generally speaking. That's all I'm addressing here. The study, that by the scientists own insistence is too small to draw conclusions from, wasn't even testing cellular technology. So I think we can agree that there is no evidence that cell phones affect bees. Now you may have a hypothesis that they do, but to date no study has been conducted and no one of import is requesting we explore this as a cause for the bee die-off. I think we can agree that when it comes to cell phones killing bees the whole story is a good case of journalism gone wrong. EMF's affect on the environment overall is a totally different topic and I don't claim to be an expert there, nor was I speaking to that point.

All electronic devices emit an EMF field.

Kaylore
07-07-2008, 11:40 AM
All electronic devices emit an EMF field.

Yes they do. People do too. And I wish my EMF would kill stuff. How awesome would it be if flies and mosquitoes dropped dead when they came within a foot of me?

TheReverend
07-07-2008, 11:42 AM
Yes they do. People do too. And I wish my EMF would kill stuff. How awesome would it be if flies and mosquitoes dropped dead when they came within a foot of me?

False...

TheReverend
07-07-2008, 11:44 AM
I retract my statement.

Kaylore
07-07-2008, 11:49 AM
False...

No, it would be awesome.

Atlas
07-07-2008, 11:50 AM
Whatever man - believe what you what. I gave you enough to show you that EMF causes problems in environment. Only a fool believes there's no impact.

What's going to be real funny is in 15 years when all these 25-30 year old people will be coming down with brain cancer because they were on their cell phone 24-7 as a child. That will be a hoot.

BroncoBuff
07-07-2008, 12:11 PM
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/3454197/2/istockphoto_3454197_smiling_bumble_bee_cartoon.jpg
Can a brrrr..rother get a brrr...reak?

Dudeskey
07-07-2008, 12:13 PM
All electronic devices emit an EMF field.

you mean to say it isn't GM crops doing this?

alkemical
07-07-2008, 12:26 PM
Yes they do. People do too. And I wish my EMF would kill stuff. How awesome would it be if flies and mosquitoes dropped dead when they came within a foot of me?

People produce a Bio-Electric field - (see my radionics thread) :)

(that being said - it would technically be "possible" you could do this - )

alkemical
07-07-2008, 12:27 PM
you mean to say it isn't GM crops doing this?

No, i think it's a multiple causation type of scenario. I think there is a pattern of this happening "organically" in cycles. I also think that effects on the environment can accelerate, or push the results to one end or the other of a spectrum (worst case scenarios).

XYZ
07-07-2008, 12:59 PM
Um..actually a UK Independent article cited in the bee article specifically said it was mobile phones that were placed near the hives and that the bees refused to go near them.


http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/are-mobile-phones-wiping-out-our-bees-444768.html

Also, cellphones do not work off of radio waves, they work off of ELF (extremely low frequency) waves. If you have a preconcieved belief that is fine, just say that you do. But just to pretend like you are maintaining a debate on the science, wtf..

Kaylore
07-07-2008, 01:11 PM
Um..actually a UK Independent article cited in the bee article specifically said it was mobile phones that were placed near the hives and that the bees refused to go near them.


http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/are-mobile-phones-wiping-out-our-bees-444768.html

Also, cellphones do not work off of radio waves, they work off of ELF (extremely low frequency) waves. If you have a preconcieved belief that is fine, just say that you do. But just to pretend like you are maintaining a debate on the science, wtf..

:oyvey: That's the same article referencing the same study. This isn't new information! The article is wrong. In another three pages someone is going to post the same article referencing the same study.

Kaylore
07-07-2008, 01:14 PM
Um..actually a UK Independent article cited in the bee article specifically said it was mobile phones that were placed near the hives and that the bees refused to go near them.
By the way this is completely false. Neither the article you posted nor the study performed in Germany produced this result. The original theory was that the EMF from cordless phones was preventing bees from finding their way back the hive. It was never speculated that they were repelling the bugs outright. Why don't you read about what your arguing before you start defending it?

TheReverend
07-07-2008, 01:18 PM
It's the bees responsibility to adapt to the parasitic disease we are to this planet. If they can't **** em, we'll develop some mechanical pollinators once we let the 3rd world countries die off.

alkemical
07-07-2008, 01:20 PM
It's the bees responsibility to adapt to the parasitic disease we are to this planet. If they can't **** em, we'll develop some mechanical pollinators once we let the 3rd world countries die off.

Dripping with sarcasm.....

TheReverend
07-07-2008, 01:54 PM
Dripping with sarcasm.....

Sharp as a tack....

alkemical
07-07-2008, 01:58 PM
Sharp as a tack....

lol - no, just a pain in the ass like one :)

enjolras
07-07-2008, 03:37 PM
Um..actually a UK Independent article cited in the bee article specifically said it was mobile phones that were placed near the hives and that the bees refused to go near them.

While others have pointed out that the citation was incorrect, theres a big problem with the fact that the EMF surrounding your typical phone is VERY small. Your average phone produces very little current (compared to say your clock radio). In ideal conditions the EMF then falls-off at an inverse-cube rate, so your talking a few milimeters of any meaningful field. Even in sub-optimal conditions (poorly designed phones really) the EMF is going to be very small.

I believe that the prevailing theory had more to do with the radio frequency used by the phones. The idea is that the bees use some type of RF signal to get home, and that the phones where interfering with that. I don't think this ever held up under scientific scrutiny however.

alkemical
07-24-2008, 03:16 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN2232266420080723

"Greenhouse" bees spread disease to wild bees

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Disease spread to wild bees from commercially bred bees used for pollination in agriculture greenhouses may be playing a role in the mysterious decline in North American bee populations, researchers said on Tuesday.

Bees pollinate numerous crops, and scientists have been expressing alarm over their falling numbers in recent years in North America. Experts warn the bee disappearance eventually could harm agriculture and the food supply.

Scientists have been struggling to understand the recent decline in various bee populations in North America. For example, a virus brought from Australia has been implicated in massive honeybee deaths last year.

Canadian researchers studied another type of bee, the bumblebee, near two large greenhouse operations in southern Ontario where commercially reared pollination bees are used in the growing of crops such as tomatoes, bell peppers and cucumbers.

The researchers first observed that the commercial bumblebees regularly flew in and out of vents in the sides of the greenhouses, escaping from the facilities.

The researchers then devised a mathematical model to predict how disease might spread from this "spillover" of runaway commercial bees to their wild cousins.

The model predicted a relatively slow build-up of infection in nearby wild bumblebee populations over weeks or months culminating in a burst of transmission generating an epidemic wave that could affect nearly all of wild bees exposed.

The model also predicted a drop-off in infection rates as you get further from the greenhouses. Continued...

bronco militia
07-24-2008, 03:22 PM
wild bees need to quit beeeeeeeeeeing whores

Eldorado
07-24-2008, 03:22 PM
I'll bet its the aliens....

wolf754life
07-24-2008, 03:41 PM
shannahan.......................

dbfan4life
07-24-2008, 04:21 PM
All electronic devices emit an EMF field.

EMF....that's Unbelievable!

(sorry, had to do it!)

Guess Who
12-09-2013, 11:55 PM
Here is a theory of the bee die off as it had happened in Europe as well.

http://livefreelivenatural.com/37-million-bees-found-dead-elmwood-ontario-canada-large-planting-gmo-corn-seed-treated-neonicotinoid-pesticides/

“Once the corn started to get planted our bees died by the millions,” Schuit said. He and many others, including the European Union, are pointing the finger at a class of insecticides known as neonicotinoids, manufactured by Bayer CropScience Inc. Used in planting corn and some other crops. The European Union just recently voted to ban these insecticides for two years, beginning December 1, 2013, to be able to study how it relates to the large bee kill they are experiencing there also.

What seems to be deadly to bees is that the neonicotinoid pesticides are coating corn seed and with the use of new air seeders, are blowing the pesticide dust into the air when planted. The death of millions of pollinators was looked at by the American Purdue University. They found that, “Bees exhibited neurotoxic symptoms, analysis of dead bees revealed traces of thiamethoxam/clothianidin in each case. Seed treatments of field crops (primarily corn) are the only major source of these compounds.

UberBroncoMan
12-10-2013, 12:04 AM
Holy thread necro!..and a watermock infused one to boot!

TD4HOF
12-10-2013, 01:08 AM
Wow I remember this thread with a surprising clarity.

The lengths and depths that our society has gone to in the name of cheaper food is tragic and will be studied centuries from now.

HILife
12-10-2013, 06:26 AM
SAVE THE BEES!!! I love honey. I like to put it on my waffles.

Eldorado
12-10-2013, 06:47 AM
It was chemicals. No way anybody saw that one coming.

http://www.ironbodystudios.com/default/assets/Image/silentspring.jpg

Johnykbr
12-10-2013, 07:05 AM
It was pesticides that made them susceptible to parasites.

alkemical
12-10-2013, 08:39 AM
It was pesticides that made them susceptible to parasites.

BT Pollen is delicious!

Eldorado
12-10-2013, 08:39 AM
It was pesticides that made them susceptible to parasites.

Most pesticides, and this one in particular are man made chemicals.

alkemical
12-10-2013, 08:47 AM
Most pesticides, and this one in particular are man made chemicals.

Pfft, It's Nature Enhanced (TM)!

Eldorado
12-10-2013, 08:51 AM
Pfft, It's Nature Enhanced (TM)!

lol. okaaayyy.

alkemical
12-10-2013, 08:55 AM
lol. okaaayyy.

Mmmmm Mmmm! Who can resist Agent Orange Corn! Don't forget to Giddy up for Roundup Ready Corn either cowboys! It's the taste you can't resist! Who doesn't like the taste of cancer!

Johnykbr
12-10-2013, 08:56 AM
A chemical product sprayed all over plants to kill off insects is man made? You don't say. Point I was making was it's not the pesticide that is killing them, it's the parasites. The pesticide is making them vulnerable to the parasite. I'm not going to rag on all pesticides because they have saved millions of (human) lives and because the last time I purchased an organic salad I munched down on a living beetle and saw his friends looking back at me after I stopped retching. Yet the impact of the bees dying off could be catastrophic so perhaps better regulation or what not.

But I dunno, I'd like to think I could get by with my looks and not my thoughts so don't mind me.

Eldorado
12-10-2013, 08:57 AM
Mmmmm Mmmm! Who can resist Agent Orange Corn! Don't forget to Giddy up for Roundup Ready Corn either cowboys! It's the taste you can't resist! Who doesn't like the taste of cancer!

Well, now, that hasn't been proven.

alkemical
12-10-2013, 09:00 AM
Well, now, that hasn't been proven.

Eat up!

Eldorado
12-10-2013, 09:08 AM
Eat up!

Oh, no thank you.

ZONA
12-10-2013, 09:25 AM
Nature will balances itself out. No need to worry

Who are you, mother nature?

Eldorado
12-10-2013, 09:30 AM
SAVE THE BEES!!! I love honey. I like to put it on my waffles.

Hey Look! It's the guy who wants to use the spread in a pic em league! Missing the point again!!

IHaveALight
12-10-2013, 11:34 AM
The birds and the bees they are wise to the lies.
So they took to the trees and took to the skies.
On top of the chain and safe from the rain.
Whatcha' know about the ways of the underside?

broncosteven
12-10-2013, 01:06 PM
Is it true that there were no Bees in the New World until colonists brought them over from Europe?

I thought I read that somewheres like this one time, for reals.

If that is true then they are not native to the America's and it was Man who populated them here.

Can anyone back me up on that?

DenverDynamite
12-10-2013, 02:16 PM
Is it true that there were no Bees in the New World until colonists brought them over from Europe?

I thought I read that somewheres like this one time, for reals.

If that is true then they are not native to the America's and it was Man who populated them here.

Can anyone back me up on that?

Honey bees yes. Actually thanks for prompting the google search, I did not know any of this.

http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/honey-bees-a-history/?_r=0