Massive Bee Deaths Solved? (GM Corn Is The Culprit)

reply to post by tgidkp



OK smart guy, let's hear your credentials.

I personally am a researcher in food science with a specialization in molecular biology. See, I'm not going to be a know-it-all without providing some background.


I see where you're coming from with the resource scarcity thing, but the truth is that you are misinformed. This is the propaganda that was used to promote GMOs 10-20 years ago. But it's funny how most of tese GMOs are grown in the U.S. Hmmm, maybe it has something to do with the fact that farmers in poor starving countries can't afford the seed, or that no varieties have been developed for their climate, or that they get no benefit from RoundUp ready plants, becasue they can't afford RoundUp.


Organic techniques to build soil, permaculture, water conservation techniques, and native food plants will solve world hunger, not the GMOs we have now. Heirloom varieties were bred over many generations to produce high quality fruits on plants that are adapted for the ecology (climate, soil conditions, pests, herbacious competitiors, etc.) of a given region. The GMOs we have now are designed to tolerate huge amounts of pesticides and to grow in nutritionally deficient soil with the addition of nutrients in the form of harsh petroleum derived chemical fertilizers.


I understand where your misperceptions come from. I too believed what the egotistical "scientists" in my university and my career afterward taught. But when you actually learn about the other way of doing things you will be astonished at the lie that is perpetuated in universities. The GMO companies promised better plants, but instead delivered the path to depleted soils, poisoned foods, and a monopoly on seeds. And they are the source of money for Ag and Food Science research at universities. You will not find research supporting permaculture or the development of multiple strains for various regions with different climates getting funding.


If GMO as it is, is so great, ask yourself why they are just now developing drought resistant varieties. (It has to do with global warming impact in the U.S., not the benefit of Africa) Why was it so important to develop pesticide producing and herbicide resistant varieties first? What benefits the starving countries - crops that are resistant to pesticides that farmers can't afford, or plants that outcompete weeds and survive better in arid conditions? Why are hungry countries like India fighting to keep Monsanto and GMOs OUT of their country? Who subsidizes the food crops which then artificially lowers the price on the world market, thereby putting farmers in developing countries out of business?


You cannot call yourself a critical thinker. And you cannot deny that the current model of GMO is driven solely by profit. The chemical companies and the GMO companies work hand in hand to increase each others profits. Did you read about the new "stacked" varieties that will be resistant to multiple herbicides? So it seems the scheme didn't work the first time - weeds developed resistance. So we repeat the same thing and expect different results? That is the definition of insanity, not science.


So please, keep it to yourself. You will never convince those of us who have done the research and seen through the lie. You only highlight your own ignorance by persisting in your argument.

reply to post by tgidkp

Publications on GM food toxicity are scarce. An article in Science magazine said it all: “Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods: Many Opinions but Few Data”.1 In fact, no peer-reviewed publications of clinical studies on the human health effects of GM food exist. Even animal studies are few and far between.

You're asking for something that doesn't exist.
At least i can't find any peer reviewed studies about the adverse effects on humans.

Yet it's in the food hain already.

Here's the Plos study

Somehow i wonder if you're really interested in this or you just calling people out.

It's good that you like your frankenfood but at the same time you need to respect others f

reply to post by tgidkp

Publications on GM food toxicity are scarce. An article in Science magazine said it all: “Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods: Many Opinions but Few Data”.1 In fact, no peer-reviewed publications of clinical studies on the human health effects of GM food exist. Even animal studies are few and far between.

You're asking for something that doesn't exist.
At least i can't find any peer reviewed studies about the adverse effects on humans.

Yet it's in the food hain already.

Here's the Plos study

Somehow i wonder if you're really interested in this or you just calling people out.

It's good that you like your frankenfood but at the same time you need to respect others for questioning

There are a lot of people that have a problem with GM food.

And those aren't only people who wear tinfoil hats.

300.000 organic farmers sue Monsanto in federeal court.

reply to post by kn0wh0w


Oh good thing you quoted Einstein now we can take your thread seriously.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by kn0wh0w

 

Oh good thing you quoted Einstein now we can take your thread seriously.

way to go!

nice fly-by post

i bet you didn't even look at the thread or have read any of the sources.

else you would have noticed this

also let us not forget the importance of the bee to our own survival. Einstein is often quoted saying: "If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live." wether he actually said that or not is often a higly debated topic. but that doesn't make the bee's any less important too us.

nice fly-by post.

now we can take your posts in the future seriously.

whut a fail

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by kn0wh0w

 

Oh good thing you quoted Einstein now we can take your thread seriously.

furthermore.

whose problem is it really if you refuse the look at the info provided?

if you feel confortable not looking at the information then that's fine.

but don't act like my thread is invalid because of that quote.

makes you look kinda silly.

One of my trees out front which is over 140 years old is loaded with honey bees, a few years back when this subject was really in the news big time about all the honey bees dying the ones here flourished here fine.

We at one point we called an exterminator the kids were getting stung if they got to close to the tree..... we were told it was against the law for them to kill them we had to get a bee keeper to take them.

We called the first one said they were to high in the tree about 10 feet and the hole was to small to get the queen....... the second and third said basically the same thing except the third one said for him to get them anad what it would involve would cost us a lot of money to just let them be, lol

I said you are the ones that are screaming to the news about the shortage I should charge you a fortune just to get them.

I was hold here in Pennsylvania they had come back so they aren't worried......imagine that. It's been a few years and they are still buzzing around we don't bother them and they haven't bothered us so far.

I do think it is interesting about this chemical they say is/was causing their die off only time will tell and I wonder will we ever know the real truths.

I watched a documentary on the subject on netflix some time ago, and I really recommend it. Its called "Vanishing of Bees". It explains CCD(colony collapse disorder) in depth, and explains why its a bigger problem then just dieing bees. Basically, the way almost all farms in America pollinate their crops is by hiring bee keepers to bring their bees. Thus, if the bees die we don't get food. Then it goes on to implicate that the probable cause is newer kinds of insecticide. One brand was the one in the op and another was called something like goucho. Apparently, Bayer produces one or the other or both. What makes these deadly to the bees is that they are so long lasting. In fact, i think its a one time thing. The insecticide is actually applied to the seeds and is designed to stay on the plant for its life. This seems like a terrible idea to me anyways, but whereas normally sprayed pesticides disappear overtime this kind is brought back to the bee hives and just builds up until it reaches a level that will kill the bees or cause them to abandon the hive.
Yea actually I'm going to watch it again here in a little bit. I'll correct myself if I made any mistakes, but as I said its pretty good. If you have netflix or another way to watch it, check it out

reply to post by Ariess


You nailed it brother.

And you probably mean 'poncho' not goucho.

But you're right though.

reply to post by Aliquandro


It's not all about saving money but specifically about controlling population.I have heirloom seeds that date back to the 1800's and I can keep growing as long as I keep seeds for next year.If you can control the food you control the people.

reply to post by kn0wh0w



you all have sorrowfully mistaken me...no doubt my own fault.

i do not "like my frankenfood", nor do i necessarily disbelieve that it is likely severely lacking in nutritional content....
.....but this has not been firmly established yet.

the reason that i am speaking so loudly ("over inflated ego") is that far too often the voice of opposition in this argument, being a scant minority on ATS, is often dismissed outright. and i want you to listen. because i believe it is very very important.

i know that most of you believe that you have done the "proper research". if you had, then you would not yet have decided. you would, like any rational being, acknowledge that we simply do not yet know. no. what you have done is let OTHERS (dubious blog sources) do the "research" for you....complete with their own conclusions about what it all means. in common parlance this is known as "propaganda" and "brainwashing".

c'mon guys. ATSers are smarter than that.

i am simply taking issue with the fact that many here are perpetrating their "feelings" "beliefs" and "opinions" into a very fragile (and potentially beneficial) emerging technology.

if you say: "i believe GMOs are dangerous and i hate monsanto."

Originally posted by ShockTruther
reply to post by tgidkp

 

And you cannot deny that the current model of GMO is driven solely by profit.

i do not deny this and i am no stranger to the "lies" of the establishment. believe it or not, i actually practice what i preach. i am not simply being a jerk. i am a jerk with a purpose. thanks for a rational perspective which actually adds to the discussion.

You only highlight your own ignorance by persisting in your argument.

....was that really necessary?

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


why did you bother with that obvious defensive mechanism?

are you a stranger to rational discussion? you will talk only with people who agree with and are nice to you?


whatever man.

reply to post by Aliquandro


thanks for the article.

no where in that research is the inference made connecting the bee deaths to GMOs. rather, it is connected to an increase of the toxin in their environment.

these two things MAY be linked. as such, it is a strong lead to some actual research which would firmly establish this connection. more study is needed.

we should note that the "authority" in the blog source has made the connection for you. and since it follows with your bias, then it must be correct? no.

you cannot avoid having a bias. but you ought not to let it interfere with the thinking process.


and, sorry for going so far off topic.

reply to post by tgidkp

you all have sorrowfully mistaken me...no doubt my own fault.

well at times you came off a bit harsh.

sure i did as well.

the reason that i am speaking so loudly ("over inflated ego") is that far too often the voice of opposition in this argument, being a scant minority on ATS, is often dismissed outright. and i want you to listen. because i believe it is very very important.

i listened and i respect everyone input.

except i thought you were just calling people out for the fun of it.

i know that most of you believe that you have done the "proper research". if you had, then you would not yet have decided. you would, like any rational being, acknowledge that we simply do not yet know. no.

no. what you have done is let OTHERS (dubious blog sources) do the "research" for you....complete with their own conclusions about what it all means. in common parlance this is known as "propaganda" and "brainwashing".

how do you do research then?

i mean..

i try to take in as much information as i can.

then i draw my own conclusion base on what i've read, experienced and find to be true.

so let me ask you.

what is the proper way to go about 'researching' something?

i am simply taking issue with the fact that many here are perpetrating their "feelings" "beliefs" and "opinions" into a very fragile (and potentially beneficial) emerging technology.

you did exactly the same.

you just admitted, like everyone else, we DON'T know for sure.

you had and also weren't affraid to voice your very strong opinion about the subject.

yet you just stated we don't know, so please explain how did you avoid perpetraiting 'feelings' 'opinions' and
'beliefs' in your post?

with regard to the actual science involved, i would LOVE to have a proper discussion about it. but until "you people" (love that generalization, dont you?) can open yourselfs to such a discussion, we will be forced to continue this pissing match

the pissing match you took part in without proper contribution yourself.

if GMO's aren't dangerous and these threads are all just fearmongering, SHOW us some links/research/articles wich highlights the other side of the coin.

yet all you did was call people out.

i even supplied you to PLOS study.

yet you haven't said anything about that anymore.

surprised i actually delivered??

with regard to why i believe you should listen to me (request for credentials): i am a senior undergraduate in biotechnology looking at graduate study in the area of biological and chemical computation (a thermodynamic approach to bioinformatics). if it interests you, we may also have a discussion about this in another thread.

i'm always in for a good discussion.


ETA:

i mistakenly used the ex-text tags instead of the quote tags.

sorry.

Originally posted by BBalazs

We have the technological capacity to produce....we could even produce....

So, NO, there is no scarcity....

so which is it?

there IS NO scarcity.
-or-
there COULD BE no scarcity?

the jury is not out yet on the "miracle" of biotech. we have only barely begun. and scarcity has not been resolved, as you believe it to be.


otherwise, you are preaching to the choir.

reply to post by tgidkp

the jury is not out yet on the "miracle" of biotech.

exactly the point!

the jury is not out yet.

not enough research done on the subject.

yet we're allready eating GMO food aren't we?

herein lies the problem.

reply to post by kn0wh0w

if GMO's aren't dangerous and these threads are all just fearmongering, SHOW us some links/research/articles wich highlights the other side of the coin.

it is not possible to prove a negative claim. statistic analysis is based on disproving the researcher's (stated as a positive) claim. the null hypothesis is a negative statement.....see below.

what is the proper way to go about 'researching' something?

given my above statement, i suppose the proper way would be to give a null hypothesis as:

H0: GMOs are not dangerous.

...and attempt to disprove the researcher's claim:

H1: GMOs are dangerous.


following this, you will set up experiments (or discover the findings of existing research) in which you will attemt to disprove H1. in your research, you will hope to find that "there is not sufficient data to disprove H1", and you will accept H1 as putatively true.

however, if your resarch turns up results showing that GMOs are not dangerous, calculated to a certain degree of statistical significance, you have disproven the researcher's claim and must accept the null hypothesis.

of course, you will have to be far more specific about what is meant by "dangerous".

i would venture to guess that there is already much data which disproves H1 as i have stated it. this is what you should be looking for. if you fail to find it, then you may have a case for accepting H1.

perhaps you could suggest a more specific claim suited to your OP and attempt to find (or not find) data supporting it?

you did exactly the same.

no, i did not. here is what i said:

reason #1: because gmo has the potential to permanently solve resource scarcity problems on a planetlwide scale.

not this nor anything else i have said contains a definitive claim.



thanks.

reply to post by kn0wh0w


i have already stated that i agree with this.

however, please consider that we might NEVER find sufficient data to not reject (accept) H1 as true.

nevertheless, how many activities do you participate in in life which have a certain degree of liability to your personal wellbeing? a great many. it is the nature of our "modern life" and as it stands, it is unfortunately futile to insist otherwise.

right off the top of my head: driving. huge risk there in which we are forced to accept the researchers claim that driving is indeed dangerous with a high degree of significance. should we now stop driving and forego the obvious benefits we receive from it?

that is an ethical question on which i decline to comment, because i am interested only in the science.


see how that works?

www.theregister.co.uk...

Parasites spark swarm of ZOMBIE BEES

alert
print
tweet

California infestation grave, declare buzz boffins

By Iain Thomson in San Francisco • Get more from this author

Posted in Biology, 5th January 2012 23:59 GMT

Free whitepaper – Assuring application service quality

Researchers have found a type of parasite that turns bees into zombies, causing them to exhibit strange behavior before dying.

The discovery was made by accident, after San Francisco State University professor of biology John Hafernik collected some bees he found outside his office so that he could feed them to a praying mantis he had collected on a recent field trip.

“Being an absent-minded professor, I left them in a vial on my desk and forgot about them. Then the next time I looked at the vial, there were all these fly pupae surrounding the bees," he told AFP.
Parasite burrows out of bee

After zombification, the bee dies and
its murderous parasite burrows free

The parasites were identified as Apocephalus borealis, a phorid fly native to North America, and they attack bees by injecting eggs into their abdomens. Once hatched, the parasites kill the bees within a couple of weeks and emerge from the body when they have finished feeding – but it’s the behavior they induce in bees that scientists have found fascinating.

Infected bees exhibit jerky limb movement and general weakness, then leave the hive and congregate around bright lights – behavior more akin to moths. The scientists are trying to determine whether the bees leave the hive of their own accord, or are forced out by healthy members of the swarm.

"When we observed the bees for some time – the ones that were alive - we found that they walked around in circles, often with no sense of direction," said Andrew Core, a graduate student in Hafernik's lab. "They kept stretching [their legs] out and then falling over. It really painted a picture of something like a zombie."

The zombie problem looks to be severe, with infected bees found in 77 per cent of the samples collected in the San Francisco Bay Area. The team suggests this might be one cause of the collapse in bee populations seen in the last five years. Mobile phones have been fingered as one culprit, but scientists are coming to the conclusion that more than one factor may be involved.