Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:One of many potential causes (Score 1) 90

by Rei (#49550329) Attached to: Bees Prefer Nectar Laced With Neonicotinoids

Yep. It's wierd because the symptoms can correspond with many different causes. For example, the climate change thing makes sense because bees can be tricked into thinking it's spring and start foraging or even swarming in the middle of winter when they really should stay in the winter cluster. The occasional warm day is good for them to be able to get out and void themselves, but longer periods of significantly fluctuating weather can be bad.

But it also matches other problems. Diseased or dying hives often lead to "desperate" swarming where bees start abandoning the hive to try to establish a new, safe place. Most of these swarms, however, will die. The behavior could be seen as a general "exteme stress" behavior. It could also be seen as a neurological disorder from pesticide exposure.

In short, it could match almost any possible cause. And probably is a result of many of them.

Comment: Re:The study was flawed (Score 4, Informative) 90

by Rei (#49550295) Attached to: Bees Prefer Nectar Laced With Neonicotinoids

I think it's important to ask questions because there's been literally "dozens" of different things "definitively linked" with CCD. The public likes to seize on neonicotinoids, but they're probably one of the least supported of these many different "definitively linked" reasons. Whole countries have gone so far as to outright ban neonicotinoids, with no effect on CCD. France, for example, banned them. The next year they largely switched to blaming the condition on Asian Hornets when the decline rates didn't decrease.

The problem is that when you ban a certain pesticide, people start using others. And going from neonicotinoids to organophosphates is a massive step backwards in terms of general safety, not just to pollinators, but especially to more complex animals as well. But the biggest problem with the neonicotinoid theory is that neonicotinoids are only used in a small fraction of the areas where CCD exists. Bees can only fly several kilometers from the hive, they're not going cross-country and picking up every pesticide in every farmer's arsenal. It even exists among people who are in places where no pesticides at all are used.

It's easy for the general public to latch onto a particular cause. But once you learn more about beekeeping you realize how incredibly much out there is that can utterly f* up a hive. And which have in history regularly collapsed bee populations, far worse than the collapses we have today. Trachael mites once nearly obliterated beekeeping in Europe, saved mainly by the development of the Buckfast bee. Check out this very inexhaustive list of bee pests and diseases. There's even some really counterintuitive effects in that small levels of some pesticides can actually increase hive survival rates, in that they're deadlier to bee pests like mites than to the bees themselves.

The public also tends to totally understand colony collapse disorder in the first place. Normal winter colony death levels are about 15% in most locations (though where I am it's higher). CCD raised the US average to about 30% at its peak. This is painful and expensive to beekeepers, but it has literally no impact on the ability to sustain bee populations. A new beehive can be started with just a queen and a handful of workers. Hives can be made to produce queens en masse through proper management. Hence people can mail order starter hives, and there's never going to be a threat to the ability to produce these starter hives - a single hive can make many dozens per year. Even normal hives not managed for breeding starter hives will naturally produce several swarms every year; beekeepers try to discourage and/or catch these swarms.

In all likelihood, neonicotinoids are one among many different stressors to bees in the modern era that causes CCD. Modern bees are much more "stressed" than bees in the past. We've created an environment where new bee pests and diseases have spread far and wide to bees that never would have encountered them in the wild. We raise them on corn syrup and sugar water in the winter (good for reducing dysintery and increasing honey yields, but robbing them of certain vitamins and minerals). We transport them on flatbed trucks hundreds or thousands of kilometers (these are animals that get confused if you move their hive a couple meters; their ability to navigate by sight is poor, they're best navigating by the sun and dead reckoning). And countless varieties of poisons, even unintentional ones, affect them every day of their lives. There's so many factors now that weaken hives that any "new" factor to an area can push them over the edge.

Comment: Re:The study was flawed (Score 2) 90

by Rei (#49550221) Attached to: Bees Prefer Nectar Laced With Neonicotinoids

I'd really like to read the paper but unfortunately it's down. But for example, do the neonicotinoids add a UV signature to the liquid not present in the sugar water? That would have little to no influence in the case of flowers in nature (where they're not looking at the nectar, and there's all sorts of other chemicals in the nectar). What other chemicals are in the neonicotinoid solution (they're rarely pure, they usually have all sorts of other chemicals to increase their effect)? What's their cleaning and handling procedure for preparing and filling the sample containers? I want to know how they controlled these experiments against factors that humans can't detect but bees absolutely can.

Just the very act of hooking electrodes up to bee neurons I'd have concerns about. Is there any induced electric field involved, or even rubbing against the bee hairs? Bees transfer information to one another via dances, such as the waggle dance. Bees build up an electrostatic charge on their body, and a waggling bee imposes an electrostatic force on the antennae and hairs of all adjacent bees, causing them to feel dance over a short distance. Their stereoscopic sense of the dance lets them know the direction, and that combined with the time allows them to work out a direction to a food source relative to the (moving) direction of the sun. It functions like transferring a memory from one be to another. There's also "negation" behaviors, by other bees who don't like the information giving out; they have a different frequency buzz to say "don't go there", and sometimes different bees may even fight with each other over what's good and what's bad information.

Also note that the linked articles refer to a second study published simultaneously which showed no effect on honeybees next to rapeseed fields sprayed with neonicotinoids versus an altogether unsprayed field. Which is pretty remarkable, because you expect almost *any* pesticide next to your hive to have a profoundly negative effect on it.

Comment: Re:The study was flawed (Score 1) 90

by Rei (#49550205) Attached to: Bees Prefer Nectar Laced With Neonicotinoids

I'm sorry, but calling flagging a "troll" because they misread an article is beyond the pale. None of their behavior was "trollish". Saying that a study is flawed is in no way shape or form engaging in "fraudulent research", aka, deliberately falsifying data to push an agenda.

The Nature article appears to be down. But I have to caution, studying bee behavior is very difficult. Many of our senses, bees lack or have only at low resolution. But they have a number of senses that we don't. They see UV. They see polarized light. They sense electric fields. They're sensitive to a lot of chemicals that we cannot detect. And so forth. It's very, very easy to accidentally give bees signals, which will alter their behavior, that you didn't realize you were giving. I'd like how they attempted to control for all of this, but unfortunately that's not possible now.

Comment: Re:You got it all backwards ... (Score 1) 297

RMS himself has said that he would only be okay with getting rid of copyright (and hence the basis on which GPL and its copyleft protection stands), if copyleft itself is written into law - i.e. if redistributing binaries without access to the code becomes illegal.

Comment: Re:"Full responsibilty?" (Score 1) 331

It's not a war when the other government doesn't mind you being there.

Really? So Vietnam war wasn't a war, and neither was the Soviet war in Afghanistan?

I have a very simple definition of war. If you have a "legitimate military operation" with "legitimate military objectives", then guess what, it's a war.

Comment: Re:Seems to be OK all around then (Score 1) 605

by shutdown -p now (#49533899) Attached to: Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California

Just as we can compel you to pay your income tax by force if needed, so we can compel you to get yourself vaccinated. You can protest as much as you want, and you're welcome to "fight us to the death", but judging by the fact that you're still alive, it seems that you have diligently filed your tax returns so far, so I'm going to file it as "just talk".

Comment: Re:Seems to be OK all around then (Score 1) 605

by shutdown -p now (#49533881) Attached to: Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California

You don't have a right to not catch diseases from infected people.

In my state, knowingly spreading disease (e.g. by going to the crowds) if you know that you're infected is against the law.

People do have a right to not submit themselves to injections they don't agree with.

No-one has an absolute right to anything. All rights are ultimately balanced against the good of society. That's why free speech does not preclude libel & slander laws, for example, and why RKBA doesn't mean that you have a right to own a cruise missile.

In this particular case, your right to control your body is overridden by the extreme degree of common good that results from mandatory vaccinations, combined with a very low degree of personal invasion that such a vaccination actually entails.

Comment: Re:A sane supreme court decision? (Score 1) 399

How is that any different than an X-ray/millimeter-wave/infrared device being used to determine the contents of the vehicles?

The basic idea there is that the dog can't tell anything other than whether you have drugs or not, and 4A is not deemed to be applicable to your criminal activity (i.e. you don't have the right to privacy to evidence of the crime). The reason why your right to privacy is violated in a regular warrantless search is because of all the other things that cops get to see that aren't related to a crime. But if they have a magic device that can only detect evidence and not anything else, then that doesn't affect anything other than evidence and hence is not an infringement. Cops claim that drug-sniffing dogs are such devices.

Comment: Re:A sane supreme court decision? (Score 1) 399

They can still use a dog, because that doesn't count as a search (for 4A purposes). But now it's only true if they have one at hand already, and do it as part of the traffic stop without extending your detention (because such an extension would be illegal).

Comment: Re:A sane supreme court decision? (Score 5, Interesting) 399

There is a lawyer who's doing some nice comics that explain all those intricacies - he has a strip covering dogs.

However, dogs are still BS, for the simple reason that a signal from the dog is considered to be probable cause, which is ridiculous because they can be conditioned quite easily to do so at the handler's signal (and often do it without the signal just to please the handler).

We don't know one millionth of one percent about anything.

Working...