Saturday, June 28, 2008
skepticism
Hypnotherapy is a term to describe the use of hypnosis in a therapeutic context. Many hypnotherapists refer to their practice as "clinical work". http://Louis-J-Sheehan.deHypnotherapy can either be used as an addition to the work of licensed physicians or psychologists, or it can be used in a stand-alone environment where the hypnotherapist in question usually owns his or her own business. The majority of these stand-alone certified hypnotherapists (C.Hts in the U.S., Diploma. Hyp or DHP in the UK) today earn a large portion of their income through the cessation of smoking (often in a single session) and the aid of weight loss (body sculpting) and possibly anorexia[citation needed]. Psychologists and psychiatrists use hypnosis predominantly for the treatment of dissociative disorders, phobias, habit change, depression and post-traumatic syndromes.http://Louis-J-Sheehan.deThere is no evidence that 'incurable' diseases (such as cancer, diabetes, and arthritis) are curable with hypnosis, but pain and other bodily symptoms related to the diseases are controllable.Some of the treatments practiced by hypnotherapists, in particular so-called regression, have been viewed with skepticism.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
nova
ScienceNOW is NOVA for the short attention span: http://louis1j1sheehan1.blogspot.combite-size chunks of award-winning science television, jazzed up with goofy graphics and a gung-ho host and delivered at high speed. In just the first episode you’ll travel half a mile underground to a physics lab full of state-of-the-art instruments (and the occasional bat carcass) to learn that the universe is held together by invisible matter, see how a trip to the rodent version of Disney World helps brain-damaged mice regain lost memories, meet a Harley-riding computer scientist who doctors photos for a living, and hear a math-heavy song about the wisdom of crowds. Begun as an occasional change of pace for NOVA on PBS, the series gets its own time slot starting this summer. Tune in for host Neil deGrasse Tyson, the astrophysicist named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people of 2007—and by People as the Sexiest Astrophysicist Alive.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
pesticides
One of the more common general hypotheses concerns pesticides (or, more specifically, insecticides), though several studies have found no common environmental factors between unrelated outbreaks studied.http://Louis-J-Sheehan.de
It is particularly difficult to evaluate pesticide contributions to CCD for several reasons. First, the variety of pesticides in use in the different areas reporting CCD makes it difficult to test for all possible pesticides simultaneously. Second, many commercial beekeeping operations are mobile, transporting hives over large geographic distances over the course of a season, potentially exposing the colonies to different pesticides at each location. Third, the bees themselves place pollen and honey into long-term storage, effectively meaning that there may be a delay of anywhere from days to months before contaminated provisions are fed to the colony, negating any attempts to associate the appearance of symptoms with the actual time at which exposure to pesticides occurred. Pesticides used on bee forage are far more likely to enter the colony via the pollen stores rather than via nectar (because pollen is carried externally on the bees, while nectar is carried internally, and may kill the bee if too toxic), though not all potentially lethal chemicals, either natural or man-made, affect the adult bees — many primarily affect the brood, but brood die-off does not appear to be happening in CCD. Most significantly, brood are not fed honey, and adult bees consume relatively little pollen; accordingly, the pattern in CCD suggests that if contaminants or toxins from the environment are responsible, it is most likely to be via the honey, as it is the adults that are dying (or leaving), not the brood.
One recently published view is that bees are falling victim to new varieties of nicotine-based pesticides;[40][41] beekeepers in Canada are also losing their bees and are blaming neonicotinoid pesticides. http://Louis-J-Sheehan.deTo date, most of the evaluation of possible roles of pesticides in CCD have relied on the use of surveys submitted by beekeepers, but it seems likely that direct testing of samples from affected colonies will be needed, especially given the possible role of systemic insecticides such as the neonicotinoid imidacloprid (which are applied to the soil and taken up into the plant's tissues, including pollen and nectar), which may be applied to a crop when the beekeeper is not present. The known effects of imidacloprid on insects, including honey bees, are consistent with the symptoms of CCD;[42] for example, the effects of imidacloprid on termites include apparent failure of the immune system, and disorientation.[43] In Europe the interaction of the phenomenon of "dying bees" with imidacloprid, has been discussed for quite some time now.[44][45][46] It was a study from the "Comité Scientifique et Technique (CST)" which was in the center of discussion recently, which led to a partial ban of imidacloprid in France (known as Gaucho), primarily due to concern over potential effects on honey bees.[47][48][49] Consequently when fipronil, a phenylpyrazole insecticide and in Europe mainly labeled "Regent", was used as a replacement, it was also found to be toxic to bees, and banned partially in France in 2004.[50] In February 2007, about forty French deputies, led by UMP member Jacques Remiller, requested the creation of a Parliamentary Investigation Commission on Overmortality of Bees, underlining that the honey production was decreasing by 1,000 tons a year for a decade. As of August 2007, no investigations were yet opened.[31] The imidacloprid pesticide Gaucho was banned, however, in 1999 by the French Minister of Agriculture Jean Glavany. Five other insecticides based on fipronil were also accused of killing bees. However, the scientific committees of the European Union are still of the opinion "that the available monitoring studies were mainly performed in France and EU-member-states should consider the relevance of these studies for the circumstances in their country."[51]
In 2005, a team of scientists led by the National Institute of Beekeeping in Bologna, Italy, found that pollen obtained from seeds dressed with imidacloprid contains significant levels of the insecticide, and suggested that the polluted pollen might cause honey bee colony death.[52] Analysis of maize and sunflower crops originating from seeds dressed with imidacloprid suggest that large amounts of the insecticide will be carried back to honey bee colonies.[53] Sub-lethal doses of imidacloprid in sucrose solution have also been documented to affect homing and foraging activity of honeybees.[54] Imidacloprid in sucrose solution fed to bees in the laboratory impaired their communication for a few hours.[55] Sub-lethal doses of imidacloprid in laboratory and field experiment decreased flight activity and olfactory discrimination, and olfactory learning performance was impaired.[56] However, no detailed studies of toxicity or pesticide residue in remaining honey or pollen in CCD-affected colonies have been published so far, so, despite the similarity in symptoms, no connection of neonicotinoids to CCD has yet been confirmed.
Antibiotics and miticides
Most beekeepers affected by CCD report that they use antibiotics and miticides in their colonies, though the lack of uniformity as to which particular chemicals are used[14] makes it seem unlikely that any single such chemical is involved. However, it is possible that not all such chemicals in use have been tested for possible effects on honey bees, and could therefore potentially be contributing to the CCD phenomenon.[13] Some reports indicate that organic beekeepers (who do not use antibiotics or miticides) are not affected by CCD, despite proximity to non-organic beekeepers that have been affected.[57]
Genetically modified crops (GMO)
Further information: Genetically modified organism
Potential effects on honey bees of gathering pollen and nectar from genetically modified (GM) crops that produce Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin have been investigated, and there is scant evidence of deleterious effects on bees visiting such crops. Corn (maize), the major such crop, is not a preferred plant for honey bees, although beekeepers who keep bees near corn fields state that "corn is an excellent source of pollen when in tassel".[40] Cotton, the second important Bt crop, is highly subject to bee visitation for nectar (pollen is only consumed if there is no other pollen available),[58] but there is no credible evidence of toxicity of GM cotton, other than that from insecticides used during bloom.
The Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee recently published a letter to Senator Thomas Harkin on the web.[9] They are of the opinion that "highly respected scientists believe that exposure to genetically engineered crops and their plant-produced pesticides merit serious consideration as either the cause or a contributory factor to the development and spread of CCD." Nine literature references which might support this theory are cited.[9]
The primary effect of Bt on insects is in the larval stage. Thus the studies on Bt-toxins and effects on honey bees originally concentrated more on larvae and their development. However, as pollen is an important part of bee bread, which is also food for adult bees, some beekeepers think that adult bees may be more affected by ingredients of pollen, because adult bees are something like a filter for larvae. And as the CCD phenomenon involves the disappearance of the adult bees, some think there could be a direct connection[59] despite the absence of symptoms in the larvae, and despite any evidence that the bees experiencing CCD have ever been exposed to GM crops.
In 2005, Bt maize, which has been commercially planted in the U.S. since 1996, accounted for 35% (106,400 km²) of the total U.S. maize plantings. GM insect-resistant Bt cotton has also been grown commercially in the U.S. since 1996, and by 2005, was planted on 52% (28,000 km²) of total cotton plantings.[60] According to David Hackenberg, former president of the American Beekeeping Federation, and who has been leading the publicizing of information concerning CCD, "beekeepers that have been most affected so far have been close to corn, cotton, soybeans, canola, sunflowers, apples, vine crops and pumpkins", though he personally attributes CCD to neonicotinoid pesticides applied to these crops.[40] Thus, some Bt plants may have been visited by honey bees that later exhibited CCD. However, similar massive bee die-offs (or disappearances) have been recorded for decades prior to the introduction of these crops,[6] and also "have occurred in Europe and areas of Canada where Bt crops were not grown."[61] According to the European Union's GMO Compass, Bt maize is grown in Spain, France, Czech Republic, Portugal, Germany and Slovakia [4][5]. Various documents relating to U.S. risk assessment studies on Bt in relation to honey bees are published on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) homepage for Biopesticides Registration Action Documents;[62][63][64] there is no indication that any of these studies found effects of Bt pollen on honey bees.
In 2004, the knowledge of GMO authorization agencies was mainly based on a comprehensive review of the scientific literature published in Bee World[65] which examined the effects of various commercialized and uncommercialized transgenes on honey bees. The review concludes that "evidence available so far shows that none of the GM plants currently commercially available have significant impacts on honey bee health." However, in 2005 a new publication in the Journal Apidologie[66] indicated that foraging activity of bees fed with CRY1Ab may decline continuously through the treatment stages without any recovery between treatments (though in the treatment with CRY1Ab-enriched feed, no significant differences in bee mortality were found at different treatment stages). The European Union GMO Panel of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) did not share the view by the authors “that the above results were mainly CRY1Ab dependent.” The Panel was of the opinion that “negative effects on bees are likely not directly associated with exposure to the CRY1Ab protein because of the design of the experiment and lack of simultaneous controls or replication.[67]
A research study conducted in Germany suggested that rather than having a direct effect, exposure to Bt maize pollen may weaken the adult bees' defense against Nosema, though in the absence of such an infection, there were no detectable effects: "When the trial was repeated the colonies were treated prophylactically with antibiotics to prevent re-infection…This indicates that healthy bee colonies are not impaired in any way by the toxin in any of the tested vital functions of colony size, foraging activity, brood care activity or development, even when exposed to extreme levels of Bt maize pollen over a period of six weeks."[68] However, if "the bee colonies happened to be infested with parasites (microsporidia), this infestation led to a reduction in the number of bees and subsequently to reduced broods.... This effect was significantly more marked in the Bt-fed colonies." It has further been suggested that "genetically modified corn may have altered the surface of the bee's intestines, sufficiently weakening the bees to allow the parasites to gain entry—or perhaps it was the other way around", though it was also noted "Of course, the concentration of the toxin was ten times higher in the experiments than in normal Bt corn pollen. In addition, the bee feed was administered over a relatively lengthy six-week period."[69] Other more recent studies have failed to show any adverse effects of Bt pollen on healthy bee colonies,[61] but the possibility that Bt pollen weakens already unhealthy colonies has not been explored.
The preliminary report of the Colony Collapse Disorder Working Group[6] concerning "Fall Dwindle Disease"[14] indicated that "all PA samples were found to have Nosema spores in their rectal contents. The sting gland of many examined bees was obviously scarred with distinct black “marks”; this type of pin-point melanization or darkening is indicative of an immune response to some sort of pathogen." If the bees in Pennsylvania were gathering Bt-toxin-containing corn pollen, it could potentially have interacted with Nosema and thus contributed to CCD in those colonies; however, there is no evidence that these colonies were gathering corn pollen at any point prior to their deaths, nor has it been reported that colonies afflicted by CCD elsewhere had been collecting corn pollen. Many of the colonies reported to be dying from CCD occur in locations where GM corn is not grown (at least in the United States; also, 5 of the 10 states with the greatest amount of corn production, including GM corn -- Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska -- have had no reported cases of CCD[16][13]), nor have bees from other areas outside of Pennsylvania been reported to be significantly infected by Nosema (e.g.,[14]).
In 2006 the "Committee on Status and Trends of Pollinators" of the United States National Research Council published a report on the "Status of Pollinators in North America".[70] It suggested that GMO, besides other factors, might contribute to pollinator decline because, according to one scientific review of "the small literature on this topic, ... in some cases, there are negative but sublethal effects attributable to consumption of transgenic pollens." The report goes on to say that, "These effects varied with the identity of the transgene and the amount of its expression, but in no case have any effects of transgenic crops on honey bee populations been documented."[71]
On March 28, 2007, the "Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium"[72] published a new "Summary of Research on the Non-Target Effects of Bt Corn Pollen on Honeybees", which states that according to "a field study… (soon to be published in the bee journal Apidologie) there is no evidence thus far of any lethal or sub-lethal effects of the currently used Bt proteins on honey bees", and, specifically regarding the possible causal connections between Bt pollen and CCD, stated "While this possibility has not been ruled out, the weight of evidence reported here argues strongly that the current use of Bt crops is not associated with CCD."http://Louis-J-Sheehan.de
Bee rentals and migratory beekeeping
Further information: Beekeeping
Moving spring bees from South Carolina to Maine for blueberry pollination
Moving spring bees from South Carolina to Maine for blueberry pollination
Since US beekeeper Nephi Miller first began moving his hives to different areas of the country for the winter of 1908, migratory beekeeping has become widespread in America.
Bee rental for pollination is a crucial element of US agriculture, which could not produce anywhere near its current levels with native pollinators alone.[73] US beekeepers collectively earn much more from renting their bees out for pollination than they do from honey production.
Researchers are concerned that trucking colonies around the country to pollinate crops, where they intermingle with other bees from all over, helps spread viruses and mites among colonies. Additionally, such continuous movement and re-settlement is considered by some a strain and disruption for the entire hive, possibly rendering it less resistant to all sorts of systemic disorder.[74]
US bee rental travel extent
One major US beekeeper reports moving his hives from Idaho to California in January, then to apple orchards in Washington in March, to North Dakota two months later, and then back to Idaho by November -- a journey of several thousand kilometres. Others move from Florida to New Hampshire or to Texas; nearly all visit California for the almond bloom in January.
Beekeepers in Europe and Asia are generally far less mobile, with bee populations moving and mingling within a smaller geographic extent (although some keepers do move longer distances, it is much less common).
This wider spread and intermingling in the US has resulted in far greater losses from Varroa mite infections in recent years.[75]
Climate change
Some beekeepers think the culprit may be climate change, in which the earth as a whole is warming but regional and local temperatures may drop much lower or rise higher than normal. "Erratic weather patterns caused by global warming could play havoc with bees’ sensitive cycles. A lot of northeastern U.S. beekeepers say a late cold snap is what did the damage to them this year" [6]. Indeed an unusually dry and warm winter prevented the flowering of many plants, "If there is not a common thread, such as a pathogen seen in many of the affected colonies, Professor Eric Mussen of UC Davis said he is convinced that a nutritional deficit helps explain how the honeybees were weakened by the smorgasbord of potential causes of death. That is because dry conditions, certainly in California, did not produce flowers in which bees find their required mix of pollens, he said ... 'In many situations the bees were weakened by not being able to get a nice mix of nutrients that they needed from the pollens, and I think that weakened them,' he said. 'Under those circumstances you can take all the other (causes), and there are plenty of them, and combine them together and down go the bees'" [7].
"Dry conditions in many parts of the country last fall reduced good nectar flow, so fewer good fall pollens were taken into colonies. 'Bees rely on fall pollens to rear a brood and take them through the winter. It was a hard fall, followed by a warm winter, and bees were out flying. There weren’t any resources (food) out there, so the bees were burning up flight muscles'" [8]. "Well, you get this blast of hot temperature, which is about the time the flower buds are forming and the pollen grains are beginning to form. What does that do? You get sterile pollen. A beekeeper could look into the hive and say, "I've got all kinds of pollen in there and the bees disappeared." Well, right, you've got pollen grains, but do they have any nutrition in them? ... I think something happened at the end of last year in many places in the temperate climate around the world, not just here, and fouled up the bees' food supply. Unless somebody tells me differently, I'm blaming it on the weather ... for whatever reason, we are beginning to kind of move into a cycle where we are going to find more extremes than we used to have. The droughts may be hotter and longer, the storms and floods may be more severe. Things aren't going to be so nice in the future" [9]. In fact the first half of 2006 was the warmest on record in U.S.[10].
Some say that flowers are blooming earlier than in the past, "Climate change and earlier springs have also taken a toll. Plants like red maples and pussy willows, typically the first pollen sources for honeybees, have been blossoming weeks before the bees can fly in the spring, Conrad [author of Natural Beekeeping] said, so they miss out on that important source of pollen" [11]. Wayne Esaias, a NASA climatologist and beekeeper has been keeping tabs on the possible connection [12][13]. See also Bees, Pollination and Climate Change: A Guide to Selected Resources.
Electromagnetic radiation
Further information: Electromagnetic radiation and Mobile phone radiation and health
In April 2007, news of a University of Landau study appeared in major media, beginning with an article in The Independent that stated that the subject of the study was mobile phones and had related them to CCD.[76] Cellular phones were implicated by other media reports, but were in fact not covered in the study, and the researchers have since emphatically disavowed any connection between their research, cell phones, and CCD, specifically indicating that the Independent article had misinterpreted their results and created "a horror story".[77][78][79]
The 2006 University of Landau pilot study was looking for non-thermal effects of radio frequency ("RF") on honey bees (Apis mellifera carnica) and suggested that when bee hives have DECT cordless phone base stations embedded in them, the close-range electromagnetic field ("EMF") may reduce the ability of bees to return to their hive; they also noticed a slight reduction in honeycomb weight in treated colonies.[80] In the course of their study, one half of their colonies broke down, including some of their controls which did not have DECT base stations embedded in them.
The team's 2004 exploratory study on non-thermal effects on learning did not find any change in behavior due to RF exposure from the DECT base station operating at 1880-1900 MHz.[81]
Like the links to CCD from variants (herbicides, genetically modified crops, etc), the link of either cordless or cellular phones, cell towers, interference by the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) or Ground Wave Emergency Network (GWEN) to CCD is speculative.
Possible effects
The phenomenon is particularly important for crops such as almond growing in California, where honey bees are the predominant pollinator and the crop value in 2006 was $1.5 billion. In 2000, the total U.S. crop value that was wholly dependent on honey bee pollination was estimated to exceed $15 billion.[82]
Honey bees are not native to the Americas, therefore their necessity as pollinators in the US is limited to strictly agricultural/ornamental uses, as no native plants require honey bee pollination, except where concentrated in monoculture situations—where the pollination need is so great at bloom time that pollinators must be concentrated beyond the capacity of native bees (with current technology).
They are responsible for pollination of approximately one third of the United States' crop species, including such species as almonds, peaches, soybeans, apples, pears, cherries, raspberries, blackberries, cranberries, watermelons, cantaloupes, cucumbers and strawberries. Many but not all of these plants can be (and often are) pollinated by other insects in small holdings in the U.S., including other kinds of bees, but typically not on a commercial scale. While some farmers of a few kinds of native crops do bring in honey bees to help pollinate, none specifically need them, and when honey bees are absent from a region, there is a presumption that native pollinators may reclaim the niche, typically being better adapted to serve those plants (assuming that the plants normally occur in that specific area).
However, even though on a per-individual basis, many other species are actually more efficient at pollinating, on the 30% of crop types where honey bees are used, most native pollinators cannot be mass-utilized as easily or as effectively as honey bees—in many instances they will not visit the plants at all. Beehives can be moved from crop to crop as needed, and the bees will visit many plants in large numbers, compensating via sheer numbers for what they lack in efficiency. The commercial viability of these crops is therefore strongly tied to the beekeeping industry.
Remedies
As of March 1, 2007 MAAREC offers the following tentative recommendations for beekeepers noticing the symptoms of CCD:[39]
1. Do not combine collapsing colonies with strong colonies.
2. When a collapsed colony is found, store the equipment where you can use preventive measures to ensure that bees will not have access to it.
3. If you feed your bees sugar syrup, use Fumagillin.
4. If you are experiencing colony collapse and see a secondary infection, such as European Foulbrood, treat the colonies with Terramycin, not Tylan.
It is particularly difficult to evaluate pesticide contributions to CCD for several reasons. First, the variety of pesticides in use in the different areas reporting CCD makes it difficult to test for all possible pesticides simultaneously. Second, many commercial beekeeping operations are mobile, transporting hives over large geographic distances over the course of a season, potentially exposing the colonies to different pesticides at each location. Third, the bees themselves place pollen and honey into long-term storage, effectively meaning that there may be a delay of anywhere from days to months before contaminated provisions are fed to the colony, negating any attempts to associate the appearance of symptoms with the actual time at which exposure to pesticides occurred. Pesticides used on bee forage are far more likely to enter the colony via the pollen stores rather than via nectar (because pollen is carried externally on the bees, while nectar is carried internally, and may kill the bee if too toxic), though not all potentially lethal chemicals, either natural or man-made, affect the adult bees — many primarily affect the brood, but brood die-off does not appear to be happening in CCD. Most significantly, brood are not fed honey, and adult bees consume relatively little pollen; accordingly, the pattern in CCD suggests that if contaminants or toxins from the environment are responsible, it is most likely to be via the honey, as it is the adults that are dying (or leaving), not the brood.
One recently published view is that bees are falling victim to new varieties of nicotine-based pesticides;[40][41] beekeepers in Canada are also losing their bees and are blaming neonicotinoid pesticides. http://Louis-J-Sheehan.deTo date, most of the evaluation of possible roles of pesticides in CCD have relied on the use of surveys submitted by beekeepers, but it seems likely that direct testing of samples from affected colonies will be needed, especially given the possible role of systemic insecticides such as the neonicotinoid imidacloprid (which are applied to the soil and taken up into the plant's tissues, including pollen and nectar), which may be applied to a crop when the beekeeper is not present. The known effects of imidacloprid on insects, including honey bees, are consistent with the symptoms of CCD;[42] for example, the effects of imidacloprid on termites include apparent failure of the immune system, and disorientation.[43] In Europe the interaction of the phenomenon of "dying bees" with imidacloprid, has been discussed for quite some time now.[44][45][46] It was a study from the "Comité Scientifique et Technique (CST)" which was in the center of discussion recently, which led to a partial ban of imidacloprid in France (known as Gaucho), primarily due to concern over potential effects on honey bees.[47][48][49] Consequently when fipronil, a phenylpyrazole insecticide and in Europe mainly labeled "Regent", was used as a replacement, it was also found to be toxic to bees, and banned partially in France in 2004.[50] In February 2007, about forty French deputies, led by UMP member Jacques Remiller, requested the creation of a Parliamentary Investigation Commission on Overmortality of Bees, underlining that the honey production was decreasing by 1,000 tons a year for a decade. As of August 2007, no investigations were yet opened.[31] The imidacloprid pesticide Gaucho was banned, however, in 1999 by the French Minister of Agriculture Jean Glavany. Five other insecticides based on fipronil were also accused of killing bees. However, the scientific committees of the European Union are still of the opinion "that the available monitoring studies were mainly performed in France and EU-member-states should consider the relevance of these studies for the circumstances in their country."[51]
In 2005, a team of scientists led by the National Institute of Beekeeping in Bologna, Italy, found that pollen obtained from seeds dressed with imidacloprid contains significant levels of the insecticide, and suggested that the polluted pollen might cause honey bee colony death.[52] Analysis of maize and sunflower crops originating from seeds dressed with imidacloprid suggest that large amounts of the insecticide will be carried back to honey bee colonies.[53] Sub-lethal doses of imidacloprid in sucrose solution have also been documented to affect homing and foraging activity of honeybees.[54] Imidacloprid in sucrose solution fed to bees in the laboratory impaired their communication for a few hours.[55] Sub-lethal doses of imidacloprid in laboratory and field experiment decreased flight activity and olfactory discrimination, and olfactory learning performance was impaired.[56] However, no detailed studies of toxicity or pesticide residue in remaining honey or pollen in CCD-affected colonies have been published so far, so, despite the similarity in symptoms, no connection of neonicotinoids to CCD has yet been confirmed.
Antibiotics and miticides
Most beekeepers affected by CCD report that they use antibiotics and miticides in their colonies, though the lack of uniformity as to which particular chemicals are used[14] makes it seem unlikely that any single such chemical is involved. However, it is possible that not all such chemicals in use have been tested for possible effects on honey bees, and could therefore potentially be contributing to the CCD phenomenon.[13] Some reports indicate that organic beekeepers (who do not use antibiotics or miticides) are not affected by CCD, despite proximity to non-organic beekeepers that have been affected.[57]
Genetically modified crops (GMO)
Further information: Genetically modified organism
Potential effects on honey bees of gathering pollen and nectar from genetically modified (GM) crops that produce Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin have been investigated, and there is scant evidence of deleterious effects on bees visiting such crops. Corn (maize), the major such crop, is not a preferred plant for honey bees, although beekeepers who keep bees near corn fields state that "corn is an excellent source of pollen when in tassel".[40] Cotton, the second important Bt crop, is highly subject to bee visitation for nectar (pollen is only consumed if there is no other pollen available),[58] but there is no credible evidence of toxicity of GM cotton, other than that from insecticides used during bloom.
The Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee recently published a letter to Senator Thomas Harkin on the web.[9] They are of the opinion that "highly respected scientists believe that exposure to genetically engineered crops and their plant-produced pesticides merit serious consideration as either the cause or a contributory factor to the development and spread of CCD." Nine literature references which might support this theory are cited.[9]
The primary effect of Bt on insects is in the larval stage. Thus the studies on Bt-toxins and effects on honey bees originally concentrated more on larvae and their development. However, as pollen is an important part of bee bread, which is also food for adult bees, some beekeepers think that adult bees may be more affected by ingredients of pollen, because adult bees are something like a filter for larvae. And as the CCD phenomenon involves the disappearance of the adult bees, some think there could be a direct connection[59] despite the absence of symptoms in the larvae, and despite any evidence that the bees experiencing CCD have ever been exposed to GM crops.
In 2005, Bt maize, which has been commercially planted in the U.S. since 1996, accounted for 35% (106,400 km²) of the total U.S. maize plantings. GM insect-resistant Bt cotton has also been grown commercially in the U.S. since 1996, and by 2005, was planted on 52% (28,000 km²) of total cotton plantings.[60] According to David Hackenberg, former president of the American Beekeeping Federation, and who has been leading the publicizing of information concerning CCD, "beekeepers that have been most affected so far have been close to corn, cotton, soybeans, canola, sunflowers, apples, vine crops and pumpkins", though he personally attributes CCD to neonicotinoid pesticides applied to these crops.[40] Thus, some Bt plants may have been visited by honey bees that later exhibited CCD. However, similar massive bee die-offs (or disappearances) have been recorded for decades prior to the introduction of these crops,[6] and also "have occurred in Europe and areas of Canada where Bt crops were not grown."[61] According to the European Union's GMO Compass, Bt maize is grown in Spain, France, Czech Republic, Portugal, Germany and Slovakia [4][5]. Various documents relating to U.S. risk assessment studies on Bt in relation to honey bees are published on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) homepage for Biopesticides Registration Action Documents;[62][63][64] there is no indication that any of these studies found effects of Bt pollen on honey bees.
In 2004, the knowledge of GMO authorization agencies was mainly based on a comprehensive review of the scientific literature published in Bee World[65] which examined the effects of various commercialized and uncommercialized transgenes on honey bees. The review concludes that "evidence available so far shows that none of the GM plants currently commercially available have significant impacts on honey bee health." However, in 2005 a new publication in the Journal Apidologie[66] indicated that foraging activity of bees fed with CRY1Ab may decline continuously through the treatment stages without any recovery between treatments (though in the treatment with CRY1Ab-enriched feed, no significant differences in bee mortality were found at different treatment stages). The European Union GMO Panel of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) did not share the view by the authors “that the above results were mainly CRY1Ab dependent.” The Panel was of the opinion that “negative effects on bees are likely not directly associated with exposure to the CRY1Ab protein because of the design of the experiment and lack of simultaneous controls or replication.[67]
A research study conducted in Germany suggested that rather than having a direct effect, exposure to Bt maize pollen may weaken the adult bees' defense against Nosema, though in the absence of such an infection, there were no detectable effects: "When the trial was repeated the colonies were treated prophylactically with antibiotics to prevent re-infection…This indicates that healthy bee colonies are not impaired in any way by the toxin in any of the tested vital functions of colony size, foraging activity, brood care activity or development, even when exposed to extreme levels of Bt maize pollen over a period of six weeks."[68] However, if "the bee colonies happened to be infested with parasites (microsporidia), this infestation led to a reduction in the number of bees and subsequently to reduced broods.... This effect was significantly more marked in the Bt-fed colonies." It has further been suggested that "genetically modified corn may have altered the surface of the bee's intestines, sufficiently weakening the bees to allow the parasites to gain entry—or perhaps it was the other way around", though it was also noted "Of course, the concentration of the toxin was ten times higher in the experiments than in normal Bt corn pollen. In addition, the bee feed was administered over a relatively lengthy six-week period."[69] Other more recent studies have failed to show any adverse effects of Bt pollen on healthy bee colonies,[61] but the possibility that Bt pollen weakens already unhealthy colonies has not been explored.
The preliminary report of the Colony Collapse Disorder Working Group[6] concerning "Fall Dwindle Disease"[14] indicated that "all PA samples were found to have Nosema spores in their rectal contents. The sting gland of many examined bees was obviously scarred with distinct black “marks”; this type of pin-point melanization or darkening is indicative of an immune response to some sort of pathogen." If the bees in Pennsylvania were gathering Bt-toxin-containing corn pollen, it could potentially have interacted with Nosema and thus contributed to CCD in those colonies; however, there is no evidence that these colonies were gathering corn pollen at any point prior to their deaths, nor has it been reported that colonies afflicted by CCD elsewhere had been collecting corn pollen. Many of the colonies reported to be dying from CCD occur in locations where GM corn is not grown (at least in the United States; also, 5 of the 10 states with the greatest amount of corn production, including GM corn -- Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska -- have had no reported cases of CCD[16][13]), nor have bees from other areas outside of Pennsylvania been reported to be significantly infected by Nosema (e.g.,[14]).
In 2006 the "Committee on Status and Trends of Pollinators" of the United States National Research Council published a report on the "Status of Pollinators in North America".[70] It suggested that GMO, besides other factors, might contribute to pollinator decline because, according to one scientific review of "the small literature on this topic, ... in some cases, there are negative but sublethal effects attributable to consumption of transgenic pollens." The report goes on to say that, "These effects varied with the identity of the transgene and the amount of its expression, but in no case have any effects of transgenic crops on honey bee populations been documented."[71]
On March 28, 2007, the "Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium"[72] published a new "Summary of Research on the Non-Target Effects of Bt Corn Pollen on Honeybees", which states that according to "a field study… (soon to be published in the bee journal Apidologie) there is no evidence thus far of any lethal or sub-lethal effects of the currently used Bt proteins on honey bees", and, specifically regarding the possible causal connections between Bt pollen and CCD, stated "While this possibility has not been ruled out, the weight of evidence reported here argues strongly that the current use of Bt crops is not associated with CCD."http://Louis-J-Sheehan.de
Bee rentals and migratory beekeeping
Further information: Beekeeping
Moving spring bees from South Carolina to Maine for blueberry pollination
Moving spring bees from South Carolina to Maine for blueberry pollination
Since US beekeeper Nephi Miller first began moving his hives to different areas of the country for the winter of 1908, migratory beekeeping has become widespread in America.
Bee rental for pollination is a crucial element of US agriculture, which could not produce anywhere near its current levels with native pollinators alone.[73] US beekeepers collectively earn much more from renting their bees out for pollination than they do from honey production.
Researchers are concerned that trucking colonies around the country to pollinate crops, where they intermingle with other bees from all over, helps spread viruses and mites among colonies. Additionally, such continuous movement and re-settlement is considered by some a strain and disruption for the entire hive, possibly rendering it less resistant to all sorts of systemic disorder.[74]
US bee rental travel extent
One major US beekeeper reports moving his hives from Idaho to California in January, then to apple orchards in Washington in March, to North Dakota two months later, and then back to Idaho by November -- a journey of several thousand kilometres. Others move from Florida to New Hampshire or to Texas; nearly all visit California for the almond bloom in January.
Beekeepers in Europe and Asia are generally far less mobile, with bee populations moving and mingling within a smaller geographic extent (although some keepers do move longer distances, it is much less common).
This wider spread and intermingling in the US has resulted in far greater losses from Varroa mite infections in recent years.[75]
Climate change
Some beekeepers think the culprit may be climate change, in which the earth as a whole is warming but regional and local temperatures may drop much lower or rise higher than normal. "Erratic weather patterns caused by global warming could play havoc with bees’ sensitive cycles. A lot of northeastern U.S. beekeepers say a late cold snap is what did the damage to them this year" [6]. Indeed an unusually dry and warm winter prevented the flowering of many plants, "If there is not a common thread, such as a pathogen seen in many of the affected colonies, Professor Eric Mussen of UC Davis said he is convinced that a nutritional deficit helps explain how the honeybees were weakened by the smorgasbord of potential causes of death. That is because dry conditions, certainly in California, did not produce flowers in which bees find their required mix of pollens, he said ... 'In many situations the bees were weakened by not being able to get a nice mix of nutrients that they needed from the pollens, and I think that weakened them,' he said. 'Under those circumstances you can take all the other (causes), and there are plenty of them, and combine them together and down go the bees'" [7].
"Dry conditions in many parts of the country last fall reduced good nectar flow, so fewer good fall pollens were taken into colonies. 'Bees rely on fall pollens to rear a brood and take them through the winter. It was a hard fall, followed by a warm winter, and bees were out flying. There weren’t any resources (food) out there, so the bees were burning up flight muscles'" [8]. "Well, you get this blast of hot temperature, which is about the time the flower buds are forming and the pollen grains are beginning to form. What does that do? You get sterile pollen. A beekeeper could look into the hive and say, "I've got all kinds of pollen in there and the bees disappeared." Well, right, you've got pollen grains, but do they have any nutrition in them? ... I think something happened at the end of last year in many places in the temperate climate around the world, not just here, and fouled up the bees' food supply. Unless somebody tells me differently, I'm blaming it on the weather ... for whatever reason, we are beginning to kind of move into a cycle where we are going to find more extremes than we used to have. The droughts may be hotter and longer, the storms and floods may be more severe. Things aren't going to be so nice in the future" [9]. In fact the first half of 2006 was the warmest on record in U.S.[10].
Some say that flowers are blooming earlier than in the past, "Climate change and earlier springs have also taken a toll. Plants like red maples and pussy willows, typically the first pollen sources for honeybees, have been blossoming weeks before the bees can fly in the spring, Conrad [author of Natural Beekeeping] said, so they miss out on that important source of pollen" [11]. Wayne Esaias, a NASA climatologist and beekeeper has been keeping tabs on the possible connection [12][13]. See also Bees, Pollination and Climate Change: A Guide to Selected Resources.
Electromagnetic radiation
Further information: Electromagnetic radiation and Mobile phone radiation and health
In April 2007, news of a University of Landau study appeared in major media, beginning with an article in The Independent that stated that the subject of the study was mobile phones and had related them to CCD.[76] Cellular phones were implicated by other media reports, but were in fact not covered in the study, and the researchers have since emphatically disavowed any connection between their research, cell phones, and CCD, specifically indicating that the Independent article had misinterpreted their results and created "a horror story".[77][78][79]
The 2006 University of Landau pilot study was looking for non-thermal effects of radio frequency ("RF") on honey bees (Apis mellifera carnica) and suggested that when bee hives have DECT cordless phone base stations embedded in them, the close-range electromagnetic field ("EMF") may reduce the ability of bees to return to their hive; they also noticed a slight reduction in honeycomb weight in treated colonies.[80] In the course of their study, one half of their colonies broke down, including some of their controls which did not have DECT base stations embedded in them.
The team's 2004 exploratory study on non-thermal effects on learning did not find any change in behavior due to RF exposure from the DECT base station operating at 1880-1900 MHz.[81]
Like the links to CCD from variants (herbicides, genetically modified crops, etc), the link of either cordless or cellular phones, cell towers, interference by the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) or Ground Wave Emergency Network (GWEN) to CCD is speculative.
Possible effects
The phenomenon is particularly important for crops such as almond growing in California, where honey bees are the predominant pollinator and the crop value in 2006 was $1.5 billion. In 2000, the total U.S. crop value that was wholly dependent on honey bee pollination was estimated to exceed $15 billion.[82]
Honey bees are not native to the Americas, therefore their necessity as pollinators in the US is limited to strictly agricultural/ornamental uses, as no native plants require honey bee pollination, except where concentrated in monoculture situations—where the pollination need is so great at bloom time that pollinators must be concentrated beyond the capacity of native bees (with current technology).
They are responsible for pollination of approximately one third of the United States' crop species, including such species as almonds, peaches, soybeans, apples, pears, cherries, raspberries, blackberries, cranberries, watermelons, cantaloupes, cucumbers and strawberries. Many but not all of these plants can be (and often are) pollinated by other insects in small holdings in the U.S., including other kinds of bees, but typically not on a commercial scale. While some farmers of a few kinds of native crops do bring in honey bees to help pollinate, none specifically need them, and when honey bees are absent from a region, there is a presumption that native pollinators may reclaim the niche, typically being better adapted to serve those plants (assuming that the plants normally occur in that specific area).
However, even though on a per-individual basis, many other species are actually more efficient at pollinating, on the 30% of crop types where honey bees are used, most native pollinators cannot be mass-utilized as easily or as effectively as honey bees—in many instances they will not visit the plants at all. Beehives can be moved from crop to crop as needed, and the bees will visit many plants in large numbers, compensating via sheer numbers for what they lack in efficiency. The commercial viability of these crops is therefore strongly tied to the beekeeping industry.
Remedies
As of March 1, 2007 MAAREC offers the following tentative recommendations for beekeepers noticing the symptoms of CCD:[39]
1. Do not combine collapsing colonies with strong colonies.
2. When a collapsed colony is found, store the equipment where you can use preventive measures to ensure that bees will not have access to it.
3. If you feed your bees sugar syrup, use Fumagillin.
4. If you are experiencing colony collapse and see a secondary infection, such as European Foulbrood, treat the colonies with Terramycin, not Tylan.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
cosimo Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire http://louis1j1sheehan1.blogspot.com
Cosimo de Medici, became the first of the Medici to combine running the bank with leading the Republic in both government and philanthropy, spending an enormous portion of his fortune (he was one of the wealthiest men in all of Europe) on art and public works. Lorenzo's father, Pietro 'the Gouty' de' Medici, was also at the center of Florentine life, and extremely active as a patron and collector. His mother Lucrezia Tornabuoni was also a dilettante poet and friend to figures like Luigi Pulci or Agnolo Poliziano. http://louis1j1sheehan1.blogspot.com
He was considered the brightest of the five children. He was tutored by Gentile Becchi, a diplomat. He partook in jousting, hawking, hunting, and breeding horses for the palio, a horse race in Siena. His own horse was named Morello.
Piero sent Lorenzo on many important diplomatic missions when he was still a youth. These included trips to Rome to meet with the pope and other important religious and political figures. http://louis1j1sheehan1.blogspot.com
He was considered the brightest of the five children. He was tutored by Gentile Becchi, a diplomat. He partook in jousting, hawking, hunting, and breeding horses for the palio, a horse race in Siena. His own horse was named Morello.
Piero sent Lorenzo on many important diplomatic missions when he was still a youth. These included trips to Rome to meet with the pope and other important religious and political figures. http://louis1j1sheehan1.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
