Talk:Colony collapse disorder

A poorly understood buzziness. Maybe it's just me but...

The article describes CCD as a "poorly understood phenomenon", but I'm wondering if it's a scientific phenomenon at all. Just heard it described on the BBC as 'not really an explanation, but a handy buzz phrase - Material World (radio programme) - and that in the UK bee-keepers would say 'we certainly don't have CCD, but (noticeably more prosaically) there are problems with the bees and it's likely to be different factors, in different combinations, in different locations). In other words is the observation that it is 'poorly understood' an indication that it's more hype than science or at least a journalistic convenience. More of a name than a thing. Thanks :) Hakluyt bean (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's actually why the researchers who are working on this chose the name "disorder" rather than "disease". They are using "disorder" in the medical sense with the strong connotation that no one yet knows what it is or even whether it's one thing or a combination of several things. What they do think is that there is a specific pattern in which the bees disappear which does not occur in other known circumstances. Rossami (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

EVDO Cellular Study: Where is it?

So Where is this Cellular EVDO study everyone keeps saying there is one. The University of Landau study only looked at Cellular frequencies only and not the underlying technology.

I have attached the disputed article here cause there is cause that there has been a study to discredit EVDO. I am awaiting proof from the those who say that there are proof that EVDO has been discredited and NOT Cellular frequencies by themselves. To this day, with the overwhelming evidence below that areas with EVDO services have higher than normal CCD deaths than non-EVDO areas show that this should be considered a potential cause.

Accordingly the Study was performed at the University of Landau IN GERMANY. Don't you guys know that EVDO services are NOT available there? According to the List of Evolution-Data Optimized service providers, Germany does not even have this technology there. Hence why there is less of a problem with CCD in Europe. Once a study is found within Canada and the USA, I still stand by the fact that EVDO is causing these deaths.

Until proof is provided here by the study that EVDO was tested, I will reinstate the below statement AND Facts at a later time. Cyberglobe (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Edited Cyberglobe (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Cellular EVDO service

Some say that the cellular theory has been discredited as a possible cause. However, the underlying technology, EVDO, has never been thoroughly tested within those Cellular tests. The Cellular tests have only been looking at the specific frequencies but not the underlying technology. Until a study is proven that specifically EVDO Rev 0 and Rev A has been cleared as a possible culprit, the below information seems to offer overwhelming evidence of a possible source of the problem.

Like the above chapter, Electromagnetic radiation from Cellular EVDO services may be a contributing factor in CCD. After locating several bee farms of confirmed CCD cases and comparing them to the Cellular EVDO or Enhanced high speed mobile network maps of the Cellular carriers, there may be some undeniable truth that EVDO may be causing CCD. For Example, in Canada's EVDO Network, Alberta has been hit hard with CCD yet in Manitobawhere there is no EVDO Service, not a scratch of a CCD case

Other Stories adding concrete evidence to the above are:
Canada: Honeybee deaths sting Ontario apiaries, a good portion of Southern Ontario is covered with EVDO. Vancouver Island bees die, The Alberni Valley is covered in Telus Mobility's EVDO network.

Worldwide: There has been a study between Cellphones and bees dying off however the study only looked at the frequency used and not the technology behind those frequencies. Therefore there could be inconclusive evidence for the link.

USA: In Winterset, IA, Bee colonies are dying off as per the article, accordingly to Sprint's EVDO Network Map, Pat Randol's land is covered with Sprint's EVDO network. In Bettendorf, IA Marvin Cotton's land is also in Sprint's EVDO Network. In Gateway, OR Mont Rouse has lost his bees too, however depending where his land is, there may be EVDO service in the area. Yet, to further strengthen the fact that non-EVDO areas are healthy for Bees, Prescott, AZ does not experience any CCD deaths as per Sally Bagby's testimony although she only had her bees for under 1 year.

Those who have apiaries, please verify if your colonies are within one of the following networks reach for EVDO/Broadband Wireless access via Cellular service. If you do find yourself within one of these Cellular networks EVDO service area, please inform your local Beekeeper's council and let them know that you have lost your bee colony and that you are within the Cellular EVDO network's zone.

In the USA Verizon's Coverage Maps in broadband and VCAST mode or Sprint's Coverage Maps for Data, Email and Multimedia mode for Sprint Mobile Broadband Network for the USA.
For Canada, check either Bell Mobility's Network Map looking for Enhanced high speed mobile network zones or Telus Mobility's Network Map looking for Wireless High Speed (EVDO Rev A)
Please note that these maps may be out of date and the only way to verify if EVDO service is available in your area is to either check your cell phone for EVDO service (IF your Cell phone supports EVDO), ask someone with an EVDO phone to come check to see if they have service in your area (Blackberry or PDA Phone) or talk to your Cell Phone Provider's Data Network department and request from them if EVDO is available in your area if the map is not up to date.

What is "EVDO" short for? Is there a wikilink for an article on it with refs etc? I think the section should stay out of the article until proof is available that it is the culprit. It is not up to editors wanting the information removed to prove a negative. The onus of proof is on the editor inserting the information. A good article like this requires every addition to be properly referenced.--Sting Buzz Me... 05:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

EVDO is a technology used in North America by Bell Canada, Telus Mobility, Verizon Wireless and Sprint to offer high speed Internet services wireless services. The issue that I have is that the initial article states probably causes. Anything that is considered probable cause can be included within the probable cause section. Anything that is probably cause can't be proven until a further study is conducted. To date, there has been no study of EVDO on bees only Cellular vs Bees. However the coincidence of the events unraveling above does offer some proof in the matter. The references that were included further backs up my preliminary research. If Beekeeper's association in North America offered maps that shows where CCD occurred across the North American continent, then and only then can we use this data determine if this is the case. Cyberglobe (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you work in the telecommunication/Internet sector?--Sting Buzz Me... 23:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do and therefore I know about this technology. This is why I included it as a possible cause. Can I now place the above comments into the article? Those who are beekeepers could help further determine if they are within their network zones and be able to report it back to their association. Cyberglobe (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(1) The Landau study was discredited BY THE RESEARCHERS THEMSELVES. They expicitly stated that the press had misinterpreted their work, and that it had nothing to do with CCD. (2) You have provided no references that indicate that anyone OTHER than you, personally, has proposed EVDO as a cause for CCD. You cannot include original research in Wikipedia, sorry. Dyanega (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I know of no bee researchers making the claim that EVDO has anything to do with CCD or that it has any effect on bees. Nor is it a notable fallacy like The Independent's cell phone fiasco. Until you can provide a cite showing that someone other than you credibly believes that there is a link, this discussion is original research and has no place in the encyclopedia.
Having said that, I will also tell you that this theory is discredited on the face of it by simply looking at the pattern of CCD losses which have been discussed by J Bromenshenk and others. Hobbyist beekeepers appear largely unaffected by CCD so far. Hobbyist beekeepers keep their bees in urban and suburban locations - locations well within EVDO coverage. If EVDO were the cause, hobbyist beekeepers would be more affected, not less.
EVDO would also not explain how this disorder seems to have occurred as far back as 1896, well before the advent of EVDO. Rossami (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My father is a Hobbyist beekeeper and his all died along with hundreds of other apiaries in our area. This all started happening AFTER Bell Canada had upgraded to EVDO services in the area. Obviously you are adamant on research and not at all on probable causes. Therefore you should rename the 'probable cause' section to 'Probable RESEARCHED Causes'.
1896, sounds familiar, when Nikola Tesla started testing the Tesla Coil. No direct link to it but it seems intriguing that it occurred at the same time none the less.
As for city EVDO vs Rural EVDO, City EVDO actually runs at lower power levels cause of the higher Cell concentration in a square km. In rural areas, the Cell towers can be up to 15km away and therefore the output powers are significantly higher. You can confirm this with your cell providers. However, I doubt you will and I know that there will never be documented information about this cause it is not what they would like to release to the public.
If you are such a high figure on this subject ready to discredit EVDO as a possible cause, why don't you ask the appropriate people to at least investigate on this issue and prove me wrong? You want the research as proof, ask the proper people for it to be produced. I can't produce the proof as I am not part of a government research facility to be able to conduct such research. Cyberglobe (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't YOU write to the researchers and ask them yourself, if you're so certain that they are wrong and you are right? In the meantime, it stays OUT of Wikipedia. It's really that simple. Dyanega (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I love the fact that you guys love to discredit EVDO cause the initial discreditably came when someone used a DECT Wireless station with the bees. This is like saying "since bees are not affected by oranges, all fruits are discredited." Either way, I am slowly working up the chain to get the study conducted. If ANYONE Else has access to a research group, please ask them to conduct a research pertaining to rural EVDO and Bee deaths.Cyberglobe (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No one here is "discrediting" EVDO. There is simply nothing in print suggesting it has any importance, so it can't be included here. There is no logical reason to expect any such publication to ever exist, since at present, everything is pointing to CCD being related to viral infection (so unless EVDO causes viral infections, it seems that you're likely headed down a very blind alley). GM crops, pesticides... all those "We're killing off the bees with technology" theories are starting to look worse and worse all the time. Dyanega (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Landau Study, DECT Analysis

The current article states:

"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"

Can someone provide the backing for this statement?

• In terms of behavior changes, the Landau study did in fact find a great contrast in bees' returning behavior between exposed and non-exposed groups: http://agbi.uni-landau.de/material_download/IAAS_2006.pdf. Compare only 0 and 6 bees returning in the exposed hives vs. 16 bees returning to the less-exposed hives (each one had 25 to start).

And as mentioned in the article the other noteworthy change is that amongst the 4 exposed and 4 non-exposed colonies, 3 of the exposed colonies vs only 1 of the non-exposed colonies broke down. Definitely worth further study of the wireless connection to CCD. Not so much mobile phones that are the concern which provide mainly transient radiation, but the base stations which operate 24/7. Pensees (talk) 09:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive?

Anyone object to having an archive bot get to work on this page? I'm sick of scrolling down to read all the time.--Sting Buzz Me... 13:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

GM crops to blame?

I keep hearing that GM crops deserve scrutiny, and that beneficial pollinators are being killed by toxic pollen containing pesticide genes. Are there any good studies that support this connection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.245.170 (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, no, not a single one. Lots of finger-pointing, and no evidence. It makes no sense, either - beneficial pollinators (99% of which are native bees) don't visit corn for pollen (corn is wind-pollinated, so most bees aside from honey bees don't ever gather corn pollen). Nearly all of the so-called "toxic pollen" out there is corn pollen, and therefore doesn't enter the pollinator food chain. As for honey bees, no one has yet found any effects or correlation between GM corn pollen and CCD. Plenty of colonies die off without ever going anywhere within 100 miles of GM corn, and other colonies smack dab in the middle of GM corn country are thriving. Blaming GM pollen for honey bee dieoff is a complete red herring. If there's anything "man-made" to be suspicious of, it's imidacloprid, and even that doesn't have much evidence supporting a link to CCD. Dyanega (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

See the next section. Not just imidacloprid, and not imidacloprid in its entirety. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Clothianidin

Very similar effects to CCD (honeybees not returning to the hive because they "lose their way" and die of exposure) have been observed in Gemany's Rhine valley following clothianidin treatment of maize.

Now, I cannot help to observe that clothianidin and imidacloprid are not very similar - except the nitroguanidyl chain (the guanidyl bit is mostly incorporated into the imidazole ring in imidacloprid).

We might want to keep our eyes peeled for new research, for it might all boil down to these 8 atoms (If I can spot it, a professional chemists can spot it too). Do not expect papers anytime soon (time from research to publication is likely to take one year at least); preliminary reports however would probably find their way to the media I'd guess. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW I just read that France apparently has curtailed use of clothianidin and imidacloprid when beehives are nearby, or even banned it outright. Ought to be checked. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Now, I cannot help to observe that clothianidin and imidacloprid are not very similar - except the nitroguanidyl chain (the guanidyl bit is mostly incorporated into the imidazole ring in imidacloprid)."

Clothianidine and imidaclopride are very similar, not just by their chemical structure (both are haloheteroarylmethylamine derivatives, developed out of 6-chloronicotine -- the chlorothiazolyl ring is isosteric with chloropyridine ring), but, and this is even more important in the context, both are acting the same way; they bind to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors to activate them first, later blocking them completly. To say that these "are not very similar" would be as to say, that e.g. parathion and azinphos-methyl are not very similar -- they are, even though their molecular structures differ somewhat.--84.163.115.227 (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Queen Present?

"Precursor symptoms that may arise before the final colony collapse are:

   * Insufficient workforce to maintain the brood that is present
   * Workforce seems to be made up of young adult bees
   * The Queen is present
   * The colony members are reluctant to consume provided feed, such as sugar syrup and protein supplement."

>> Shouldn't this read The Queen is not present ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.176.175 (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It is the COMBINATION of symptoms that is characteristic. It's trivial to find queenless colonies that have lost most of their workers - but a very rare thing to lose the workers when the queen is still alive. That's how you know something is WRONG. Dyanega (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

GM Foods, Again

Why does the GM crop section have nearly 10 times the material than the Nosema section? This seven more puzzling when one considers that there is an order of magnitude more information on the Nosema connection to CCS as opposed to the GM Crops. CENSEI (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, many Europeans seem to think GM crops are responsible for lots of things, and a few European editors have seen fit to include the CCD bit here, even though it is apparently solely via anti-GMO sources, which claim but do not demonstrate a link to CCD. Again, Wikipedia editors don't generally evaluate what's being said or published, they just report on it, though a little leeway is given with fringe theories, as to placing them in context. Since a LOT of people have made claims about GMO crops being linked to CCD, it gets a pretty thorough mention here. If you know LOTS of reliable sources that discuss the link between CCD and Nosema, then either go ahead and add them to the article, or link them here to the talk page and someone else can figure how best to work them in and expand that section. That's all it really needs - reliable sources. Dyanega (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that 1 or 2 high quality sources are worth more mention then 10 or 20 low quality sources. Just because one side screams louder doesnt mean that we have to be part of the echo chamber. WP:RS would seem to butress this. CENSEI (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I would concur that, like the section on global warming, the section on the speculation about connection to GM foods is in drastic need of pruning. Be bold. Rossami (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well,someone put alot of work into this, and I would hate to start an edit war over a pruning operation, so I think I will wait a few more days for some feedback. CENSEI (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of pruning, CENSEI removed about 95% of the section. His mutilation should be reverted and a thoughtful, neutral editor should edit the section. — goethean ॐ 19:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Goethian, thats no way to WP:AGF. You should be ashamed. CENSEI (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair to CENSEI, much of what was removed was either outdated or fairly speculative. I have restored the two paragraphs referring to the most recent research and statements on the topic - it was, in plain fact, rather contradictory for there to be material in this article referring to studies performed in 2005 and earlier, when CCD was not even recognized at the time. Yes, there is ongoing debate about what impacts GM crops have on honey bees, but that is NOT the topic of this article!! The topic of this article is CCD, and only those sources which explicitly explore the link (if any) between GM crops and CCD are truly appropriate for inclusion here. As such, most of what CENSEI removed was removed with justification. Dyanega (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Dyanega, thanks for restoring the relevant comment. To be honest, so much of what was there was either tangential or irrelevant and I had a tough time going through it all and separating the wheat and the chaff. CENSEI (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A QUESTION ABOUT REMEMDIES

I have a question, and am not sure of the best format to put it in, or if anyone will actually read this any time soon. Anyway. At the very end the article states: "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." First, what is the equipment they are talking about. Is it the collapsed hive? Are they saying to separate the collapsed hive and kill the bees? Or is there some other peice of equipment? I'm sure someone out there knows what this is actually talking about (or someone out there will pretend to know). Anyway, I'm curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.112.107 (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The equipment in question is the beehive itself including the boxes (supers) and frames. In a colony that has succumbed to CCD, there will still be honey and pollen stored in the frames. Under normal conditions, when a colony is abandoned or goes below the strength needed to defend itself, other insects especially including other colonies of honeybees will invade and rob out the stored honey and take it back to their own hive. In fact, it is normal practice when a colony dies (for example, because of a varroa mite infestation), the beekeeper will stack the equipment from the dead colony on top of a healthy colony. That way, the healthy bees can move the stores down and have a better chance for surviving the winter. They will also clean out the wax moths and other parasites/pests who eat and destroy the combs and stores. So even if the bees clean out all the honey, at least the beekeeper will have salvaged some drawn comb that he/she can reuse next year.

When you stack equipment from a CCD-collapsed hive, the healthy colony dies, too. The point about that comment is that the CCD researchers are currently recommending that if you have a CCD-collapsed hive, don't combine the equipment. Keep it somewhere separate from your other bees. Let the wax moths have it because we don't yet know what CCD really is and therefore don't have a cure that would make it safe to reuse the equipment. Hope that helps. You can learn a lot more by reading the BEE-L archives on this topic. Rossami (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Agriculture Not Harmed by CCD, Says Nature

I'm in a bit of a rush this morning or I'd do it myself. Here's an article in Nature about CCD. It seems it isn't as harmful to humans as we thought (the bees are still upset, though): [1] Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Human interference as the chief cause of CCD

I note that nowhere on the main page of the CCD issue is there a heading that explores human interference in beehive life as a possible cause of the problem. As the Earth Vision project has been asserting for almost two years now, there are at very least 14 points of interference to consider:

- The raising of larva in separate quarters, arbitrary feeding of royal jelly to produce queens, then shipping by post to keepers.

- Selection of bee populations for docility, de-selecting for aggression.

- In contrast to the normal 5 or 6-year life span of a queen, “re-queening” after one or two years.

- The grafting of queens - moving larva to artificial cups, then cages for transport.

- Supplanting guard bees with protective measures by humans.

- Keeping hives hyper clean, to reduce production of “nuisance” propolis.

- Using chemical control agents for disease and pests.

- Providing ready-made combs in place of bee-constructed combs, to save work (production time) for the bees.

- In a similar vein, supplying sheets of wax, so bees don’t have to gather and secret their own wax.

- Use of ventilators so the bees don’t have to tend this.

- Use of queen excluders to prevent eggs being laid in inconvenient areas of the hive.

- Moving of hives over long distances at the will of human intention.

- Clipping of queens’ wings.

- Agricultural practices consisting of monocultures that wreak havoc on honeybee diets, and limiting options once the dominant crop is no longer flowering.

The foregoing list of strategies used to manipulate production demonstrates that mankind is capable of invention. In fact, we are able to wax clever, even to the point of genius. However, in this modern era (in which we find ourselves so often losing the perspective of overview, due to reductionism and specialization, among other things) it appears that when we fail to perceive the whole picture, our inventiveness falls short of the masterful way that a naturally developing hive proceeds.

For the whole presentation of this resolution to the CCD issue, please visit the article:

Why the Bees are Dying - and how to bring them back Or: http://www.evbooks.net/earth_vision_021.htm Josefgraf (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? Honeybees in North America were all introduced as a result of human influence - there's no native honeybee population. Furthermore, CCD is a recent phenomenon, whereas beekeeping (along with many of these techniques) has been around for thousands of years. Graft | talk 00:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like spam to me.--Sting Buzz Me... 06:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe native Americans and their native languages have something to say about whether there has ever been a native bee population in North America. Maybe CCD is like global warming in being a recent phenomenon resulting from the accumulation of human activities during thousands of years and from their intensification in recent years.

-- Wavelength (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

They can't have been European honey bees. Smartse (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

External link problems

The external link section has been tagged as having problems. Anyone have any opinions about whether this is still true, or whether we should remove the tag? I'd be bold and remove it but it's a policy area with which I'm not particularly familiar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle Maxwell (talk • contribs) 22:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible GM crop effects...paragraph now unscientific and article is locked?

It looks like significant changes were made to the GM crops section of the article by Smith609 in November 2008.

The section was well written with no bias, and had sources cited. The section is now a single paragraph that takes a conclusion for a specific type of GM crop and applies it to the entire question of the safety of GM crops to colonies, stating "Therefore GM crops can be ruled out as a contributor to CCD". There is certainly no definitive evidence that that statement is true, and the facts stated leading to this conclusion are vague and misleading.

Interestingly, the source cited for the statement "No experiments have found evidence of any negative effect whatsoever on honey bee populations" indicates exactly the opposite.

I created an account specifically to roll back these obviously biased edits, and it appears that now the page is locked, and the section cannot be edited to the pre-Smith609 content. Can anybody take a look at this, I see that this topic has had some attention in the past.

SBacker (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed a statement from line 594 in GMO section

For the record:: From line 594 in the section titled Genetically Modified Crops (GMO), pertaining to possible causes of CCD, I have removed the statement "Therefore GM crops can be ruled out as a contributor to CCD." On the one hand it is being stated that the cause(s) are not known, and that according to the information in this section there is not currently evidence the GMO crops have any form of causative relationship with CCD, yet this statement then draws a definite conclusion. I think that is logically inaccurate. Hence my reason for removing it. It would be more accurate to say "Therefore, with the evidence presently taken into account, it can be ruled out that GMO crops are the primary or sole cause of CCD". I have not added this in, as I question whether it's necessary to even go drawing a conclusion in a text which is at best only in a position to inconclusively explore and elucidate various possibilities. Jonathan Evatt (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)InspiredLight 17/01/2009

Mediation

In the past, a user has requested mediation on this issue. The dispute was resolved at 11 March 2009 by WhatisFeelings?. For more information, see the case page.

New

I made my first edit earlier today, and by this evening it was quickly removed.

I have done extensive research on this topic - and have to ask - why isn't there a balance between the independent science studies and the corporate lab studies that used Tier 1?

Even in Monsato's own corporate backed study, it was found many bee's that eat bt pollen lose their sense of direction (can't find the hive) and yet - this is downplayed in the article.

How about some balance, people. Report the science and let it stand on it's own. and that includes ALL the science studies.

Thank You, John

I have added ONE balanced edit to the article - or will this be erased also?

Again, thank you -

'learning by doing' wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.85.129 (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

okay - i've signed up. --KeepItEven (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)John

Hi John, whilst Bt toxin may affect bees there's no evidence that I've seen that this is causing CCD. For starters CCD is occuring throughout Europe where there are no Bt crops. If reporting science please add links to the actual papers and not to articles that have been written about them. Thanks Smartse (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Smartse, Okay - i have tried to find the evidence that CCD is occuring where there is no GMO - and so far - all i have found is CCD where bee's have been placed near GMO in Europe - so my simple question - where are the science articles that support the evidence that GMO isn't the cause (very important - ORIGINAL SOURCE - c'mon, you know - the 'gateway' - common in many scientific studies) that has opened a pandora's box on the bee's fragile immune system.

And an independent, unbiased science study would be nice - i don't see it in the article...

I do see everyone 'walking around the elephant in the room'...Why?

The source i provided is a respected Professor for goodness sake!!! Should i email him so that he can post the study himself here on wiki?

Thank you for responding Smartse - i know i have already pissed off Tim Vickers - but i feel it is unethical when good evidence is being provided - and that evidence is ignored. that's not science - that's politics...

Mr. Vickers erased my previous post with detailed and damning photos of bee's suffering from CCD in Canada. I then posted the University of Jen study as a valid source...here is the amazing part...

The guy in Canada's research MATCHES the University of Jen study. The guy in Canada has no clue of the University of Jen study. Go ahead - tell me it just a 'coincidence'...

Science doesn't work that why....

So to all those stuck on defending GMO (for who knows what reason) - look - it's time to get brutaly honest - and at least take a look at the hard and real evidence IN THE FIELD that is being presented to you (the caps are for emphasis - not yelling)

Is that too much to ask of some scientist? Is that 'too much like right'?

Let's start talking about the elephant in the room...it's the ethical thing to do.

Thank You --KeepItEven (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)John

Hi again. I changed the article back. Your post certainly doesn't belong in the upper part of the article and the citations you provided were poor (one was a dead link and the other did not exactly agree with your post). If you feel the need to repost please put it in the GMO section and provide accurate citations. Smartse (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again to you. I checked 'sources' for the info in the article - it's not a science article - it's the USDA action plan pdf. It has been copied verbatim - which is okay since gov't docs aren't copyrighted - but it's calling the kettle black when your using it and pretending its a source from a science study - as you admonished me for - and it isn't - that's not only unethical - it's being a hypocrite.

The citation i provided was better than the ones from the USDA CCD action plan pdf that make up most of this entry - so - i'm changing it back.

I will again provide it at the top (I'm aware as well as you that most people skim the tops of these wiki entrys) as it provides evidence backed by a scientific study - and i have already posted in the GMO section - also backed by science study. Everything that i have posted has been backed with evidence provided by studies using scientific method.

I see you aren't providing any evidence that CCD is caused where there is no GMO in Europe. I'm not really surprised...

As for the links - i am new at this so i will fix them -

NEXT time - please ask me to fix the link before you delete - and i will return the courtesy - or not - your choice.

And please cite - EXACTLY - what link did not agree with my post? Should i apply the same 'standard' to entrys that others have made here? I can do that, if you want....

--KeepItEven (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Notice - i have already checked the links - they all click right through to cited scientific sources.--KeepItEven (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: The previous reference cited to the sierraclub article about gmo and bee collapse(8). Please explain how that can be maintained at the top when the sources i cited from a Professor and his study (9) and (10) carry more weight??? Thank You. --KeepItEven (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC

---

Hi Smartse,

We'll do it your way - i had to remove the link to the bbs article titled "No Proof" based on your 'rule' as follows:

   "If reporting science please add links to the actual papers and not to articles that have been written about them."

Those are your own words - are you going to break your own 'rules'?

Also - you didn't move my post from the University of Jena study to the GMO section - please refrain from lying in the revision history. I went ahead and added it to the GMO section if that was your intent as stated in the revision history - maybe you just 'forgot'....

--99.155.85.129 (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Protection

If this continues, I'll have to request protection for the article. Mediation is open: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Colony_Collapse_Disorder WhatisFeelings? (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to lowercase. Aervanath (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

---

• Colony Collapse Disorder → Colony collapse disorder — caps, it's not a proper noun — Underpants 19:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Colony Collapse Disorder is a specific syndrome and so should have capitals. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't otherwise it would have a single cause which it clearly doesn't - I agree it should be ccd but the tea room should perhaps be consulted. Smartse (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Colony collapse disorder isn't a proper noun, so WP:MOSCAPS says it should be lowercase. Wiktionary has it as colony collapse disorder. If there really are questions about whether this is a proper noun, there are a lot of people at Wiktionary:Tea room who would be happy to confirm whether it is. --Underpants 15:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• comment AIDS intro paragraph is not capitalized. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• It seems to be a specific disorder that has not occurred before. It isn't just losing a colony, it is about all the adult bees flying away and not returning. IMHO, it doesn't matter whether there is a single cause or a combination. For what it is worth, USDA site capitalizes it. Paul Studier (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Compound nouns have more meaning than can be understood from the separate words. For instance, a given name is way more than just any name that someone gives someone else. Regarding USDA's site, it capitalizes almost every word in titles and summaries. Within the text, the site uses it in lowercase: "He lost 250 hives to colony collapse disorder this year." --Underpants 01:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• In any case, it's ridiculous to capitalize in the title if we're not going to capitalize the article. Move it. Circeus (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I actually just changed it at the same time I requested an admin to move it, because I had thought it was uncontroversial. --Underpants 20:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No single cause

I've been thinking of creating a section about the idea that there is no single cause of CCD and that it is in fact a compound effect of many reasons listed in the article. It seems to be(e) the general consensus at the moment from what I can gather. I'd use these two sources already mentioned in the article: [2] and [3]. Does anyone object to this? Also any other sources suggesting this would be appreciated. Smartse (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The description below "Possible cause - Design of artificial hives" provides a plausible reason for "no single cause" as unhygienic hives would create a breeding ground for many illnesses (just as damp, drafty houses do for humans) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kris van der merwe (talk • contribs) 22:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Worst of CCD over?

There are rumors that CCD was not as bad in the winter of 2008-2009 as previous years. Does anyone have a reliable source to confirm or refute this? Paul Studier (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This is anecdotal and original research, but I have seen more bees and bee trees in Orange County, California than I have seen in years. Paul Studier (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Interbreeding between Africanized bees and domestic bees

Africanized bee#History says: "Specifically (as compared with the European bee types), the Africanized bee: Is more likely to 'abscond'—the entire colony leaves the hive and relocates—in response to repeated intrusions by the beekeeper." Could CCD be a result of interbreeding between Africanized bees and domestic bees? -- Wavelength (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Who know's maybe? Not sure if they can even mate however. It would be original research unless you can find a reliable source. Smartse (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

They have been interbreeding with European bees for years, see Africanized bee. CCD is new, so I don't think the two are related. Paul Studier (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Africanization can be tested for using either morphological or genetic analysis. The map of CCD-affected areas published by the CCD Working Group shows CCD occuring both in areas with and without africanized bees. There is no correlation.
Furthermore, the behavior seen when a colony absconds is different from the symptoms of CCD. In an absconding, the entire adult population leaves at once, including the queen. In CCD, the queen is generally still found in the hive. In an absconding, whatever stress is triggering the relocation will often (though not always) have caused the queen to stop laying eggs weeks ago. That means that by the time the colony actually leaves, there are relatively few eggs or larvae left behind. In CCD, there are unusually large amounts of eggs and larvae. Rossami (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible cause - Design of artificial hives

Bee illnesses and parasites have become endemic recently, considering that bees have been around for many thousands of years. Domestication of bees has been the largest recent change in the bee environment. The design of domestic (artificial) bee hives make bees vulnerable to pests. ( illustrated at http://vandermerwe.co.nz/?p=8 )

Bees are hygienic, and when they clean their hives, organic and in-organic material finds its way to the bottom of the beehive. In most beehives this dirt accumulate near the hive entrance. Bees walk in and out over accumulated dirt, providing an ideal opportunity for pests and disease to spread.

The hive can be seen as an ecosystem that include bees and bee pests. The introduction of the artificial hive has changed this ecosystem, allowing pests to evolve their behavior to gain a competitive advantage.

Kris van der merwe (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This should not be included as the source presented is a (self-published) blog, and no WP:RS is given. Verbal chat 12:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Organic Bee Keepers Unaffected

ref [66] (http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=21912) cited for this statement isn't exactly a trusted source, and a poorly written, unscientific article citing no real sources itself, what's the protocol, add a fact tag and leave the citation in place? 82.24.241.9 (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that as it definitely isn't a reliable source. If anyone can find a new source please feel free to add it back. Smartse (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Misleading Statement

In the section on GM crops is this statement: "Further, CCD cases are known in areas of Europe and Canada where Bt crops are not grown." Long ago this misleading statement was balanced with sources that show that biotech companies often plant GM crops in secret.

Note these comments from non-industry scientists: "Even if people knew where the field trials were, in most cases they would not know what was being grown there. This is because the identity and/or source of the biopharmaceutical or biochemical gene(s) is almost always claimed as 'confidential business information' (CBI) of the applicant ... This excessive secrecy was criticized by an expert committee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that recently reviewed the USDA’s performance at regulating transgenic plants (NAS 2002, p. 177). The committee found that the broad use of CBI not only impairs the public’s right to know, but also hampers scientific peer review of APHIS decisions: 'The committee finds that the extent of confidential business information (CBI) in registrant documents sent to APHIS hampers external review and transparency of the decision-making process. Indeed, the committee often found it difficult to gather the information needed to write this report due to inaccessible CBI'. (NAS 2002, Exec. Summ., p. 11).... Even the size of a field trial is often kept secret on the grounds that it provides a clue as to how close the company is to commercialization (personal communication, James White, USDA)" [4]. The site mentions over 300 secret trials nationwide.

And this from twenty six corn-insect specialists in a complaint to the EPA that excessive secrecy is preventing them from studying GM crops: "Technology/stewardship agreements required for the purchase of genetically modified seed explicitly prohibit research. These agreements inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry. As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology, its performance, its management implications, IRM, and its interactions with insect biology. Consequently, data flowing to an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel from the public sector is unduly limited" [5]. More MPs 'astonished' by hushed-up GM sites[6].

Yet these facts have been repeatedly removed by a person or persons who apparently have an interest in protecting the biotech industry and the misleading statement kept. Obviously if there are untold numbers of secret plantings of GM crops going on then their connection to cases of CCD cannot be ruled out. 63.196.193.239 (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a RS that these practices are still continuing, not just confined to the UK, and that CCD researchers haven't taken these sites into account? Verbal chat 09:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The inflated content alleging a connection to GM crops keeps getting removed because, whether or not the practice occurs, there are no credible sources arguing that GM is a cause of colony collapse disorder. There are no serious bee researchers pursuing this theory. The CCD Working Group briefly considered the possibility but quickly ruled it out. Not only are there areas with CCD which do have no known sources of GM crops, there are many areas free of CCD which have high concentrations of GM crops. Regardless of your position on GM, the evidence is that it has no bearing either way on CCD. Rossami (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What is clear to me is that GM is not out of the woods on CCD especially since there is still no one definitive cause known, much as Monsanto and it's apologists here insist that it is. For example here's a study called Bee learning behaviour affected by consumption of Bt Cry1Ab toxin (note the sources below). And yes, these crops are still being planted in secret all over the world, perhaps more than ever before, that is standard business operations for biotech plantings. The original information included several more more recent articles from various places around the globe but they have all disappeared from the net [7]. This article in Counterpunch says: "The most recent US Department of Agriculture Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS) data we have obtained show that as of January 2005 it had authorized 1,330 field releases for experimental GM crops in the island, which resulted in 3,483 field tests. Of the field releases, 944 were for corn, 262 for soy, 99 for cotton, 15 for rice, 8 for tomato, 1 for papaya and 1 for tobacco. According to the documentation, these releases were being authorized as early as 1987, almost a full decade before US authorities permitted GM foods for human consumption. Where in Puerto Rico exactly? What traits have been tested? The BRS says it's all "confidential business information". But again, read the comments from the twenty six corn-insect specialists above. "As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology, its performance, its management implications, IRM, and its interactions with insect biology. Consequently, data flowing to an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel from the public sector is unduly limited". Those are comments from this year.

Am I saying GM crops are absolutely to blame? No. But they could have something to do with it. The timing of the introduction and growth of GM crops and CCD are suspeciously close IMO. The biotech industry is notorious for its dishonesty [8][9], also [10]. It's simply misleading to leave the sentence in as is. 4.246.204.103 (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No, they could not have anything to do with it. Neither the timing nor the location match. 1) GM crops have been around for several decades. CCD occurred in 2006/7. 2) Many hives in high-GM crop areas did not show signs of CCD. There is no credible hypothesis that explains why "secret" GM locations would cause CCD yet have no measurable effect on hives in known GM areas nor that explains the timing.
You are certainly entitled to your personal opinion. And if you are a bee researcher, I would encourage you to conduct a careful, repeatable study to prove or disprove your hypothesis. Or if you're not a bee researcher, contribute to an actual study. But until there are credible scientific evidence, the alleged GM connection remains a fringe theory. Rossami (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No Rossami, GM crops have not been around for several decades. Though some minor experimentation existed previous, the first crop was the Flavor Savr Tomato introduced commercially in 1994. It was a failure and removed from the market. Monsanto, by far the largest agricultural biotech company, introduced their first biotech crops, RR soybeans, in 1996, after which their growth took off. Additionally the very report the Wikipedia CCD article cites in the GM crops section as evidence that there is no connection between GM Bt crops and CCD [11] states: "Yes, the increase in bee loss has somewhat paralleled the increase in Bt crops in the U.S."

By leaving in the statement in as is, "Further, CCD cases are known in areas of Europe and Canada where Bt crops are not grown" as is you are knowingly perpretrating an inaccuracy. First, there is the implication by the wording here that Bt crops are not grown in Europe or Canada. Yes they have been obviously[12][13]. Second we now know that these crops are grown secretly, so secretly that even researchers cannot find out where they are being grown. Thus since even researchers don't even know where they are being grown much of the time the statement is not reliable. Why do you insist on it? It is not our place as Wikipedia editors to render judgement and declare that this issue is solved with regard to GM crops when it is clear that scientists are still searching for the answers, and when there are still unanswered issues remaining (e.g. [14]). In fact, the above mentioned link discussing the possibility of a connection to Bt crops itself states a possible connection to Bt crops "has not been ruled out" [15]. I trust that since this statement is from the same article that the Wiki CCD article references you won't have any problem with my including it, correct? It also says in its final paragraph, "Although there is no evidence thus far of any lethal or sub-lethal effects of the currently used Bt proteins on honey bees, insecticidal products expressed by other transgenes may need extended field testing on a case-by-case basis to assess the longer term consequences of sub-lethal changes in colonies and subtle modifications in bee behavior." If Science has not fully ruled out a relation neither can we. Period.

Bee learning behaviour affected by consumption of Bt Cry1Ab toxin also calls into question another statement made in this Wiki article's GM crops section just above the one in question here. The other statement is "No experiments have found evidence of any negative effect whatsoever on honey bee populations". That's the thing about science, it makes statements based on current thought but it is always subject to revision with further study. I find it particularly egregious when an editor or cabal of editors on Wikipedia conspire to hide or twist information. Unfortunately it seem to occur quite frequently in Wikipedia which is why it's not a reliable source. We are not here to be apologists for corporations.

Now, isn't it about time to archive this talk page so that no one else can see this discussion? 63.196.193.222 (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not to be a mouthpiece for corporate apologists but neither is it a mouthpiece for anti-corporate conspiracy theorists. Neither science nor anyone else can ever prove a negative. What we can say is that the evidence available to date is inconsistent with the hypothesis that GM causes CCD. The point that your repeated posts keep ignoring is that CCD is sometimes not found in areas that, as someone else elegantly said, are saturated in GM crops. If there were a GM/CCD connection, colonies in those areas would be wiped out. They're not. That's clearly documented in the Working Group's conclusions.
The other point that you continue to ignore is that BT crops have been around for a long time. (Yes, I rounded 15 years to "decades". I'll try to be more precise in the future. Regardless, it is far longer than CCD has been around. GM crops also continued yet CCD appears to have been unique to the 2006/7 season. Colony loss reports from subsequent years have been far lower. (The recent BeeCulture survey documents the most recent year's estimated losses. Any GM/CCD connection would also have to explain that sudden change in timing.
Should someone keep researching this? Of course they should. And as a private citizen, I'm doing what I can to help fund that research. But no bee researchers I know of are continuing to pursue that hypothesis. It just doesn't fit the evidence. And until there's something credible and independently verifiable to say, it does not belong in the encyclopedia.
By the way, this constitutes the third revert for both of us. It's time to step back and wait until someone else joins the discussion. Rossami (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Rossami, it is simply dishonest to quote a sentence from the Working Group that states "Further, CCD cases are known in areas of Europe and Canada where Bt crops are not grown" but leave out a sentence from the very same report that states that a possible connection to CCD "has not been ruled out" and that further research is needed. In fact this comment specifically demonstrates the falsity of your above claim that "The CCD Working Group briefly considered the possibility but quickly ruled it out." Also why do you accuse me of being an "anti-corporate conspiracy theorist" simply because I am trying to add some factual accuracy and balance to the section. Note, I am not removing comments about the evidence is against it.

Further, your comments "Regardless of your position on GM, the evidence is that it has no bearing either way on CCD", "No, they could not have anything to do with it", "It just doesn't fit the evidence" shows that you have set yourself up as judge and jury by stating that there is absolutely NO connection when science itself has not definitively ruled so. That is simply not our role. We don't know all the details about the possible role of GM Bt crops on CCD. Could that be because, as the Bioscience Resource Project says, "such studies have been rare. Particularly lacking are studies on sub-lethal effects of Bt toxins on bees"? Note that this is precisely what the Working Group calls for when they speak of the need "to assess the longer term consequences of sub-lethal changes in colonies and subtle modifications in bee behavior" as caused by transgenes. Could this lack of data also be because so much about GM crops are kept secret?

You also say, "no bee researchers I know of are continuing to pursue that hypothesis". Did you even look at the paper I submitted with sources [16]? By leaving in only the comments that say that there is no evidence of a role you are distorting the picture, that is definitively not NPOV. Understand that I am not claiming that GM crops cause CCD, just that scientists have not ruled out a possible connection and that it's possible that Bt toxin does have a role in affecting bee behaviour which may have a role in CCD. 4.246.207.246 (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, here's some additional information from those 26 corn-insect specialists. Researchers "must seek permission from the seed companies [for research]. And sometimes that permission is denied or the company insists on reviewing any findings before they can be published, they say. Such agreements have long been a problem, the scientists said, but they are going public now because frustration has been building. 'If a company can control the research that appears in the public domain, they can reduce the potential negatives that can come out of any research,' said Ken Ostlie, an entomologist at the University of Minnesota". "The companies 'have the potential to launder the data, the information that is submitted to E.P.A.,' said Elson J. Shields, a professor of entomology at Cornell". Unfortunately though, the climate is such that most of "the researchers ... withheld their names because they feared being cut off from research by the companies" ... "'People are afraid of being blacklisted ... 'If your sole job is to work on corn insects and you need the latest corn varieties and the companies decide not to give it to you, you can’t do your job'" [17]. 4.246.203.10 (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not seeing any other objection in two days I am once again attempting to add some accuracy and balance to the GM section by adding related information including five words from the very same Working Group report as that already included in the section. Also quoting the exact words from the reference Status of Pollinators in North America which are somewhat different than their paraphrase in the Wiki CCD article. For the sake of editorial honesty I ask that you please leave it in this time. Thank you. 4.246.201.41 (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And I reverted. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a place for advocating your opinion or WP:THETRUTH. The changes were also very poorly written. Verbal chat 16:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In an attempt at compromise, would you be satisfied if we struck the sentence reading "Further, CCD cases are known in areas of Europe and Canada where Bt crops are not grown." That would leave a very short paragraph which, if I may paraphrase, would say "GM was proposed as a hypothesis but no evidence to-date confirms that theory." That, I believe, would be an accurate summation of the situation so far and would not put undue weight on the theory either way. Rossami (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's what you have right now (with comments):

Some genetically modified (GM) crops produce the natural insecticide Bt toxin, which was hypothesised to affect bees. No experiments have found evidence of any negative effect whatsoever on honey bee populations,[67]

This statement is NOT what is found at the link (67). What it actually says is "In no case have any effects of transgenic crops on honey bee populations been documented" which is what I added - that's quite a bit different than the paraphrase "No experiments have found evidence of any negative effect whatsoever on honey bee populations"

"and while research on GM crops is still ongoing, new results continue to suggest that GM crops have no negative effect on bee populations.[5][68]

Link #5 is broken. Link #68 goes to the MAAREC home page and which does not have comments on GM. The References section at the bottom that 68 goes to contains the comment from [18] that "there is no evidence thus far of any lethal or sub-lethal effects of the currently used Bt proteins on honey bees" yet inexplicably leaves out the rest of the sentence which says, "insecticidal products expressed by other transgenes may need extended field testing on a case-by-case basis to assess the longer term consequences of sub-lethal changes in colonies and subtle modifications in bee behavior". It also leaves out the comment from the very same report that Bt toxin's possible link to CCD "has not been ruled out". That's a classic example of biased, non-NPOV editing. Further there is evidence that Bt affects the behavior of honey bees as demonstrated by the study Bee learning behaviour affected by consumption of Bt Cry1Ab toxin and studies that it is based on.

Further, CCD cases are known in areas of Europe and Canada where Bt crops are not grown.[69]

I have already pointed out in abundance that these crops are often grown in secret and/or that even corn (the main Bt crop) insect researchers cannot gain data from them to properly do their study (and they have publically said so in the national media so it is not OR). Thus any conclusions right now as to GM food's possible relation to CCD are premature. If this is not an example of poor editing Verbal I don't know what is. While I appreciate the slight acknowledgement with the removal of the out of context comment it is clear that further clarification is necessary. After waiting further comment I will once again resubmit some clarification. If it continues to be deleted than I suggest that Rossami ask for a mediator. 4.246.204.6 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's take your concerns one by one. First, you have expressed concerns about the "no evidence" sentence. Let's look at the disputed clause side-by-side:

"In no case have any effects of transgenic crops on honey bee populations been documented"

"No experiments have found evidence of any negative effect whatsoever on honey bee populations"

Those two clauses appear semantically identical to me. If anything, the version on the right is more restrictive since it only says that no negative effects have been documented. Please how you see those two phrases as "quite a bit different".

Second, you seem very concerned over the editorial decision to leave out the disclaimers about "more research may be needed". Writers for technical journals include those disclaimers so routinely that it approaches weasel-wording. Granted, they have to because of the culture and expectations of the publication but we don't have to fall into the same trap. We're writing an encyclopedia, not a technical journal. Frankly, we can't afford to include all those disclaimers. If you tried to put ever single disclaimer in all our science articles, they would become even less readable than they already are. We have to exercise some editorial discretion and provide links to readers who really want the excruciating detail.

Arguably, the claim of "no evidence" is countered by your Bee learning site. I personally don't find that sufficiently compelling to overturn the CCD Working Group's stated conclusions of "no evidence thus far", especially since the authors of the study that article was based on explicitly said that "bees are unlikely to be exposed to the quantity of Cry1Ab that led to the defects in behaviour they observed". The blog writer commenting on the article is less convinced but the unsigned opinions of the blog writer have no bearing on the discussion.

The rest of your comments about "secret GM facilities" are irrelevant until and unless someone with credentials in the field of CCD publishes the assertion that the CCD Working Group's conclusions are wrong for that reason.

Further, the existence or non-existence of these facilities is irrelevant to the core conclusion. We don't need to find a perfectly GM-free area to test for a lack of effect. It is sufficient to say that there is a lack of measurable effect in known high-GM areas. I don't, for example, have to put people in a vacumn chamber before I can say that oxygen is not harmful to humans. Yes, there is are implicit assumptions in that analysis that the exposure in known high-GM areas will have significantly greater that the exposure in areas of unknown GM content and that more of the possibly-bad thing will be worse than less of it. Personally, I think those are reasonable assumptions. The fact that CCD was reported at no higher levels in areas which have been described as "saturated in GM" is, in my opinion, strong evidence against the GM theory. Rossami (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

First Rossami, you did not address my concerns "one by one", you ignored several. Next, there is a difference between the two statements discussed if you look at them carefully. One is saying that there is no evidence of any negative effects whatsoever. The other says that no negative effects on honey bees has been DOCUMENTED. Do you really not see the difference? IOW, there could be effects but they have not been documented for whatever reason. It could be for lack of study. Your link above says in its first sentence, "Genetically modified Bt crops are increasingly used worldwide but side effects and especially sublethal effects on beneficial insects remain poorly studied". Or they could be undocumented because access to them is severely restricted and/or the results of the studies are being filtered by the agbiotech companies. Or they may not be documented because the tests plots themselves are being kept completely secret. By the way, could you provide a link that states that there is no CCD in areas "saturated" with Bt crops? And in areas where both Bt toxin and imidacloprid (which apparently magnifies the effect) together are used?

Next, your contention that the comment that possible connection between CCD and GM crops "has not been ruled out" is just a throwaway disclaimer. That's perhaps wishful thinking on your part. No, they said it because they meant it; it has not been ruled out. Simply put, until there is more study science has not, nor can we, definitively claim that there is no connection. We are talking about a pesticide that is genetically engineered to be present in every cell of the corn plant. That can and does kill other insects, as it was designed to do. A possible connection is not quite as ridiculous as you claim.

Next, the Bioscience Resource Project site is not a blog. Here's a definition of blog that I read in Wikitionary: "(Internet) website that allows users to reflect, share opinions, and discuss various topics in the form of an online journal while readers may comment on posts. Entries typically appear in reverse chronological order." I do not see that happening on this site. Do you? Wikipedia on blog says, "Entries are commonly displayed in reverse-chronological order ... The ability for readers to leave comments in an interactive format is an important part of many blogs". Do you see that on the Bioscience site? Then it's not a blog. If you want to find out who they are you can on the About Us page. I think their credentials are notable.

Next, your comment from the sciencedirect site that bees are unlikely to be exposed to the quantity of Bt that leads to the defects in behavior observed is answered by the Bioscience page.

The authors propose that bees are unlikely to be exposed to the quantity of Cry1Ab that led to the defects in behaviour they observed. However, this conclusion seems premature since Bt concentrations in plants are highly variable (Lorch and Then 2007). It is also probable that in real situations bees may be exposed earlier in their development and over longer periods. Bt Researcher Angelika Hilbeck believes that experiments simulating real-world bee experiences are still lacking 'What really needs to be looked at are combinations of both the Bt toxin AND imidacloprid and not Bt toxin OR imidacloprid, and in a form that simulates the exposure routes in the field'.

The is no way around it, by insisting on keeping in only the comments that say that there is no evidence thus far while selectively leaving out those from the same report that say that say that a possible connection has not been ruled out and that more study is needed you are slanting the article. I ask that you request a mediator to look at this issue. 4.246.203.117 (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the source (and this is an organisation consisting of two scientists) it is clearly not accepted that Bt is causing CCD and it should therefore not be included. It says in the article (and I think this is the most convincing evidence) that CCD is happening in Europe where there aren't any Bt crops. Even if the old reference for GM sites being covered up is still relevant, GM crops are not being planted on mass in secret. It is true that more research needs to be done in this area but until this is done we can't change what is already in the article. Smartse (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Smartse, no sorry your wrong [19]. But I don't blame you as anyone reading the selective statements in the main article is probably also getting the wrong impression, which is my point. Note, it's not just secret plantings that are at question here, I use that as one glaring example. We can't say that CCD is occuring in areas where Bt crops are not grown if we don't even know where they are a lot of the time. But there are a host of factors affecting settlement of the issue including CBI and free flow of data, which those twenty-six corn-insect specialists complain about, and further studies. It is acknowledged all around that the studies here are lacking. So it's simply premature to claim that the issue is settled. I don't know how much clearer that can be.

But once again, I am not claiming that GM crops are causing CCD, only that it's not outlandish to wonder if there may be a connection since we are talking about a toxin genetically engineered into every cell of the plant for the specific purpose of killing insects. Though based on current, limited, knowledge scientists are leaning away from them as an explanation Bt crops have not been definitively ruled out by science, and they say so, they can't be until the above issues have been adequately addressed so we shouldn't be making definitive statements either. Why is that so hard to get across? I would settle for the statement from the Working Group report that tBt crops 'have not been ruled out'. That's five words from the same report the main article already cites. That and softening language that give the impression that the issue IS settled. That is simply misleading. But I swear I'm ready to give up. It shouldn't be this hard to add a tiny bit of factual accuracy and balance to an article. 63.196.193.250 (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

More info on Bt and harm to other non-target insects.

Lacewings: Another View on Bt Proteins – How Specific are They and What Else Might They Do?

"Discussing our findings in the context of current molecular studies, we argue firstly that the evidence for adverse effects in non-target organisms is compelling enough that it would merit more research ... we find that the key experiments explaining the mode of action not only in this particular affected

non-target species but also in most other affected non-target species are still missing. Considering the steadily increasing global production area of Bt crops, it seems prudent to thoroughly

understand how Bt toxins might affect non-target organisms."

Caddisflies: Transgenic Corn Found to Damage Stream Ecosystems

"'Every new technology comes with some benefits and some risks,' he said. 'I think probably the risks associated with widespread planting of Bt corn were not fully assessed' ... When proponents of Bt technology list the benefits, they often say the Bt proteins in the crops will not kill beneficial insects. Royer and his team showed that claim is not accurate in the case of caddisflies."

Butterflies: The effects of pollen consumption of transgenic Bt maize on the common swallowtail

"Uptake of Bt maize pollen led to a reduced plant consumption, to a lower body weight, and to a longer development time of larvae. Effects on pupal weight and duration of the pupal period were present but less pronounced and smaller than effects on larvae. Larvae having consumed Bt-maize pollen as first instars had a lower body weight as adult females and smaller forewings as adult males. We conclude that possible effects of Bt maize on European butterflies and moths must be evaluated more rigorously before Bt maize should be cultivated over large areas".

63.196.193.215 (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

: While interesting, none of it is relevant to this article about CCD, an affliction solely to European honey bees.  17:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course not, and oil could not possibly have any relevance whatsoever to global warming. To spell it out, these insects are also non-target, inintended causalties in the cultivation of Bt crops. CCD and Bt crops are "poorly studied". Which is why their possible link, which is not outrageous, has "not been ruled out". It is ridiculous to insist on a positive link before you can even add the words from the very same Working Group report as already cited in the article that the CCD/Bt connection "has not been ruled out". Yet the other possible causes of CCD in the article do not contain a positive link either. Yet there they are. Specifically look at the section just above the GM crops section. "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". That's really definitive right? And yet there it is with a single link. Additionally the other issues I mentioned, the broken link, pages that don't say what the article says they say remain. The GM crops section is a joke, and the bias of the editors here blatant. 4.246.204.252 (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. It is not a forum for general discussion or personal beliefs and conspiracy theories. Further off topic discussion on this topic will be removed per WP:TALK. Verbal chat 20:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In what universe are my comments "off topic"? What you're saying is that you will remove the comments of anyone who does not toe your philosophical line. Is that about right? By the way, the page you refer to says in bold "The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission ... Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: If you have their permission" You do not have my permission Mr verbal to remove or edit my comments. The one comment about removing others comments that you are probably citing says "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)." There it says, "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." Note that I am not talking about the article's subject in general nor am I wondering off into other subjects. I have been discussing a specific point that I believe would improve the article. 4.246.200.21 (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)