Another example of the distortion of science has recently come to my attention. It's odd how these minor studies are grasped upon by that subset of society that seeks to gain credibility and find supposed authoritative support for their preconceived biases. A very weak and insignificant piece of research is suddenly touted as:
It's Official - Cell Phones are Killing Bees!
Lo and behold, something has actually been published in the scientific literature that SEEMS to support our somewhat wacky fears of modern technology!
In this case it's a study by Favre in Switzerland that showed that if you put active cell phones in honeybee hives they will react.
What a surprise.
Did any bees die?
No.
Did any bees abscond?
No.
Were any ill effects upon the bees observed?
No.
They merely 'piped', meaning they were agitated by the obvious intrusion.
Honeybees don't use cell phones, and bee keepers are not in the habit of rigging their hives with cell phones. This study has been actively promoted as demonstrating that cell phone radiation is the cause of colony collapse disorder, a phenomenon that has worried and baffled beekeepers and researchers for the past decade or so. There are many possible causes of this problem but this study in NO WAY says anything about it.
All it says is that if you put cell phones in honeybee hives they will react.
NOTHING ELSE.
That is as far as you can go with these data.
Of course, knowing the limitations of one's data is a hallmark of a good scientist, and Favre himself didn't go too far overboard (maybe a bit too far).
It's a damn shame that people who don't know their asses from a hole in the ground have highly visible venues where their ignorance can be perpetuated and reverberated across the public consciousness.
Read it yourself:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13592-011-0016-x
Beth Warner and I have both read articles about pesticides used on corn crops in the midwest, that have alledgedly "caused" reductiions in local bee populations. The article points to mankinds increasing over use of fertilizers, as the main reason for bee population decline. What do you think, Oh professeur du bugs?
ReplyDeleteI assume this is JB. I'll reply here instead of there...just because.
ReplyDeleteYou're confusing two very different things - pesticides and fertilizers. They are very different. Fertilizers promote growth, pesticides kill. The problem with fertilizers is that they get in surface water and ground water and promote growth of select organisms more than others, which tends to lead to conditions that can kill or inhibit many species - eutrophication. All the nutrients washing ouut of the Mississippi into the Gulf of Mexico being an example.
Fertilizers are applied to the soil usually. Honeybees are not gnerally associated with soil, or surface waters, and definately not groundwater. It's hard to see how fertilizers can be having any impact on honeybee decline.
Pesticides are another story entirely. Insecticides are meant to kill insects and honeybees are closely associated with crops that are treated with insecticides. Obviously they could be impacted.
Does pesticide exposure explain colony collapse disorder? Many people think so, including many beekeepers. Trouble is, pesticides have been used around bee colonies long before the recent declines and peculiar phenomenom of CCD. In fact, the more recent pesticdes are a bit less toxic than what's been used previously. But, different modes of axction could lead to unforseen consequences. It's hard to rule out.
It's complicated and any attempt to find a single answer is likely an oversimplification. Colonies with symptoms of CCD have been shown to have higher levels of parasitism (viruses, mostly) but maybe that's a consequence and not a cause.
Trying to find a Bugbear may not be the most productive way to go.
Excuse the typos in that reply.
ReplyDelete