Honeybees' ability to find flowers could be hampered by a chemical in diesel exhaust

[Stimw]

Everybody knows that global warming is causing the decline in bees! It's so warm that the bees are going to the beach and hanging out!
Cell phone signals are hurting them too, with all the texting going on they can't get any work done.

 

[dave1949]

Oh you science haters. :laughing:

Bees are not the only pollinators, thank goodness because there are hardly any bees in my garden. Since beehives are trucked around the country by the thousands, it is safe to assume having many of them around will increase the yields of some fruiting crops, but they aren't necessary for pollination. So, bees and roadside crops have a tenuous connection, and it is not one that was addressed by this experiment.

I guarantee you will die Dan if I put enough diesel fumes in your container long enough. A link to the original study would be interesting reading. What concentrations were used, what tests were made? You make it sound like they expected all the participants to die.

I thought the bee experiment was interesting and opens some windows of insight. I don't know what the goal was other than to find out if NOx can limit the olfactory abilities of honey bees in some demonstrable way. I don't think the authors are promoting any grand conclusions. It could be something that may be looked at more rigorously later.

People out there poking around is how things are discovered after all. I suspect it would not be nearly as exciting for some if diesel fuel were not involved. We all have our biases to deal with.

 

[jinman]

I remember back in the 70's when Texas Highway Dept. would plant (scatter) bluebonnets along the sides of the highways. They don't have time for that crap anymore....

Oh yes they do. The Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center is alive and well, getting better every year. Texas still scatters seeds, but the years of drought have caused some areas to thin. However, the native Indian Blanket was spectacular this year even if the bluebonnets were not so great. I don't mean this in a derogatory way, but all you have to do is drive across the Red River into Oklahoma to see the difference during wildflower season. I don't see many wildflowers there, but I'm very proud of the job done by the Texas DOT to keep Texas beautiful.

EDIT:

Oh you science haters.

Dave, I'm not a science hater, but most definitely a science skeptic. Now, lets see. . . is coffee good for us or bad for us this year?

 

[Sysop]

Yes, and I failed to say that this poor research has nothing whatsoever to do with Sysop. I'm thanking him for posting the link to the story because we won't get that detail on the 10 o'clock news. The news media will treat it as absolute fact and incite the public to go on a witchhunt against oil companies. But, then again, they haven't done that yet, so maybe it's not fair for me to jump the gun based on the media's track record.

I didn't take anyone's criticism of the article or the testing personally. It doesn't really apply to me in my corner of the world any more than any other "Average Joe". I do know they say there are issues with honeybees that haven't been experienced in all the time mankind has been eating honey. I don't personally think any one factor, much less that diesel fumes are the sole reason for whatever issues there are. I do like the fact they are testing, and while I don't think their testing is 100% conclusive proof of anything, I think it does provide some support to their argument.

The way it read to me, the "simulated flower odors" were makeups of chemicals found in various pollens and whatnot that are known in nature to cause a feeding response in bees. When the NOx was introduced it lessened the potency that creates the feeding response in the bees. That led them to another phase of testing where the "trained bees" were simply a sample of bees that showed the highest likelihood of having a feeding response when the "simulated flower odors" were introduced. Introducing the NOx exposed simulated flower odors created less feeding response than non-NOx exposed.

They could have done more direct testing, but they would have animal rights activists screaming about killing the poor defenseless honeybees. I think the testing was likely as complete as the lawyers would allow and they likely needed to jump through all sorts of hoops to prove that sniffing a little NOx treated simulated flower odors would have no long lasting effects on a bee or two before any further testing was allowed (they may have pointed at the UNC study Dan mentioned ). I'd bet the lawyers are the reason they used a pollen scent to induce feeding on clean sugar water instead of using real pollen that had been exposed to NOx. I'd be in agreement with the lawyers, the testing proves "good enough" in my mind there is at least some effect without the need of exposing the bees directly to more than a whiff of the chemicals.

As for what can be done? Who knows, perhaps we will all end up with electric tractors one day... I don't even know if anything can or should be done. If I was a bee-keeper or had producing orchards needing pollenated, I would likely stick with gassers for use around them or cut less often if I gave this research much weight.

I really didn't need research to tell me diesel fumes are bad for honeybees, I sort of thought it was common sense that chemicals not needed for normal life functions are generally all bad... Clean food, clean water, clean air, all the rest is "bad"...

 

[dave1949]

..........


Dave, I'm not a science hater, but most definitely a science skeptic. Now, lets see. . . is coffee good for us or bad for us this year?

I think it's good this year and most years. :laughing:

I know you aren't a science hater Jim, and skepticism is needed as long as we don't "skeptic" scientists out of existence.

Sometimes, given the reactions people have toward science in general, I fear we are headed into a new Dark Age.

 

[Sysop]

skepticism is needed as long as we don't "skeptic" scientists out of existence.

Sometimes, given the reactions people have toward science in general, I fear we are headed into a new Dark Age.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[ThomasH]

I couldn't agree more.

Well, isn't it understandable? Scientists that lie to us, such as the latest UN Report people, that couldn't defend global warming (since it's not) and now call it climate change. Much of so called science is co-mingled with left wing academics and politics and has taken on a religious fervor, coupled with government support so much of the scientific community is now for huge government marxism.

What I would like is for these same scientists to have to disclose where they got research money when they publish results. It's like the clowns that did research for the tobacco companies for years and claimed that cigarettes weren't harmful.

 

[Sysop]

Well, isn't it understandable? Scientists that lie to us, such as the latest UN Report people, that couldn't defend global warming (since it's not) and now call it climate change. Much of so called science is co-mingled with left wing academics and politics and has taken on a religious fervor, coupled with government support so much of the scientific community is now for huge government marxism.

What I would like is for these same scientists to have to disclose where they got research money when they publish results. It's like the clowns that did research for the tobacco companies for years and claimed that cigarettes weren't harmful.

Just talking science and politics in general; I agree everything should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism, but I'm not one to disbelieve someone who claims to have researched without having reason or research of my own to disprove them. Nobody should believe anything they're told 'hook, line, and sinker'. I think even when we see "proof", we should always still keep an open mind about more we don't see. Moreover I think that no actions should be taken that make massive fundamental changes to things that work mostly well just because a small research panel says "this is the best solution", these things need checked and rechecked independently. I think research like this is a very tiny piece of a much much larger puzzle. How significant it is, isn't fully available until all aspects of everything have been fully researched. The time and funds to research absolutely every aspect of all things fully doesn't exist, so any TRUE answers don't exist within our grasp. All we can do is our personal best with whatever information is available to us and either believe it or not.

I don't think the scientific research community has any more or less liars than the population as a whole. Politics on the other hand, well... ahem.. that's a whole other topic and rant... I'm sure politicians and evil large corporations go find equally evil scientists to sway results how they want and go tell lies on their behalf, but that is just typical politics. It doesn't matter the industry, when the politicians need something they go to the ones "they can work with"...

 

[dave1949]

Scientific knowledge is neither liberal nor conservative, and cannot be refuted with politics. When someone tries to refute science with political statements, I know they are biased.

I agree that absolute "truths" are expensive to come by, and realistically, not possible given all that would need to be 100% understood as facts build upon facts. That said, I don't believe in "buying kids books and sending them to school" and then disagreeing with the knowledge gained because we don't like the message it contains. That is a sure ticket to a new Dark Age.

Any man/woman "person on the street" interview you care to watch shows that many people have no fire in their belly for useful, relevant knowledge in general. They are ambivalent towards factual knowledge and apparently place very little personal value upon having it.

In the absence of true understanding, comforting illusions with political biases are easy to sell. It's like dangling a mental "Happy Meal" in front of a child.

 

[RobertBrown]

given the reactions people have toward science in general, I fear we are headed into a new Dark Age.

I think it's more a case of everyone now has voice and a soapbox to get their message out, or parrot the last message that was delivered to them from an agenda driven media or a "trusted source".
I'm pleased to see that the "science" was done in the U.K. so most likely it was not funded by my tax dollars.
Although I would not dispute the assertions of those conducting the research, that doesn't mean I'm going to sell my tractor and get more beehives.
Some will say that the work was not done properly, it's important to understand that this does not indicate diesel fumes are harmless to honey bees.
To many people, if it's not black it must be white. These people will use "common sense". All the while not realizing that "common sense' is using your powers of deduction. Deductions are built on a foundation of knowledge, the bigger your foundation is, the stronger your "powers of deduction" will be.
We once looked at the ground and said the earth was flat, common sense told us this, just as the sky is blue and lightning is an act of god.

I'm asked to consider if the climate is warming and if man is playing a role in same. I use my "common sense" and ask myself who is qualified to answer these questions as I certainly am not. Those with the highest level of education in the fields of climate and atmosphere are the people I would go to for answers...who else?
Thousands of highly trained, highly educated people are telling me that carbon in the atmosphere is causing our temperatures to rise. This carbon is what was ultimately responsible for making the planet inhabitable in the first place millions of years ago. They tell me that this process is not only the cause, but also the effect, more warming means more carbon or CO2 will be released by a number of sources, a snowball effect.

On the other hand, I have people telling me that all of these highly intelligent people are wrong. AGW is a hoax, a conspiracy for large financial gain. When I ask these people for proof of this hoax, I'm am bombarded with politics and labeled a greeny, tree hugging liberal for asking.
I ask myself when was the last time a large number of people agreed on anything let alone conspire to propagate falsehoods. And where is this financial gain? How does it work....I want in on this landslide of money.

That is what is happening, I don't need to ask anyone about that.
I'm not going to try to convince anyone of anything, but I'm not going believe that the cause of this warming, what ever it may be, has anything to do with politics.