Yet another study points to pesticides as cause of bee death disorder



A new study from Harvard [PDF] points to a class of agricultural pesticides called neonics as a primary cause of honeybee colony collapse disorder, or CCD.

Tom Philpott at Mother Jones:
Working with nearby beekeepers, Harvard researcher Chensheng Lu and his team treated 12 colonies with tiny levels of neonics and kept six control hives free of the popular chemicals. All 18 hives made it through summer without any apparent trouble. Come winter, though, the bees in six of the treated hives vanished, leaving behind empty colonies—the classic behavior of colony collapse disorder.
None of the six control hives experienced a colony collapse disorder "disappearing act." More at Mother Jones.

Notable Replies

  1. Impossible. The pesticide companies tell us that these chemicals are perfectly safe for bees.

  2. Power to the Beeple!

  3. I don't expect a species found on six continents is about to go completely extinct. That's not the same as dismissing the possibility of population collapse ruining agriculture, which is the narrative you find in actual reports. To decide about that, I'd rather trust experts who do show their work.

    It's not a question of gift wrapping; I'm capable of finding evidence on my own, it just happens to all suggest you're wrong. So I'm glad you're ok with not being believed, because combining arrogantly dismissing research and lazily refusing to provide any better makes it inevitable.

    Thank you, at least, for making it clear exactly how much your claims are worth even to you.

  4. I'll confess, I skipped it, in favor of the TLDR of the Mojo article, which turned out to be an excellent example of bee reporting that is filled with hysteria

    So, you didn't read the study, but also didn't fully read the article because it was too long.

    But I guess all of that doesn't matter if one has already positioned themselves as an advocate of the bees - Which surely must be a good thing!

    With all of that incoherent bumbling, I could mistake you for the bees. But maybe you're just for the birds.

    I'm already famliar with Dr. Lu's work

    By not reading it?

    CCD, if such a thing actually exists .... I would go so far as to suggest that the greatest single cause of CCD is non-beekeepers who have googled their way into a facade of expertise, misinterpreted studies, and then make grandiose claims about CCD

    Dr. Lu doesn't actually understand what CCD is... he's conflated it with garden variety hive loss.

    Right, and crazy Dr. Lu thinks CCD actually exists. That's very problematic right off the bat, obviously.

    Um, the study didn't conflate (imaginary?) CCD with garden variety hive loss. It says that sub-lethal exposure to neonicotinoids impaired the honey bees' winterization before proceeding to colony collapse disorder.

    Speaking of imaginary CCD...

    Goddamnit: There Are Colony Collapse Disorder Deniers

    his failed 2012 study, which also sucked pretty bad.

    Yes, the Bayer insecticide corporation really hated that study as well.

    It's funny how everyone's eager to weigh in on beekeeping issues, but no one is actually listening to beekeepers

    Well, here's an example of why actually reading things can lead to stronger stuff, like comprehension.

    Chensheng Lu worked with beekeepers. That was within the article you didn't fully read and within the study you didn't read at all. In fact, it was within Xeni's summary above you didn't obviously read either while you were bumbling along.

    I've seen enough of the article to know it's probably ...

    More bumbling I hear... bumble.. bumble...

    I don't need anyone to believe me.

    That's obviously a lie.

  5. Pick a citation, and let me know when you have any that disagree, instead of inventing the theoretical possibility some "real" expert might agree with you. Until then, I'll leave you to your art.

    Edit: link fixed. If you want a place to start, this and this are random examples others refer to, but there are obviously many more.

Continue the discussion

37 more replies