I seem to recall that evidence strongly points to pesticides as the root of the problem, in particular Bayer's clothianidin pesticide as being the primary cause of the huge outbreak of colony collapse disorder that popped up everywhere.
A leaked document from the EPA said that there was strong evidence of clothianidin causing issues with bees. The idea with the pesticide is that the seeds are protected, and when they grow up the pesticide wears off it and doesn't affect bees (and birds) when they come to gather pollen from the flower. There wasn't anything conclusively saying that the pesticide would still cause problems in plants that have been treated with the pesticide (there were issues with the research that makes it rather suspect, the researchers themselves were quite clear in saying this), but there were some strong hints that it might cause trouble with bees.
In spite of this, the EPA waved the pesticide through. That was in 2003, hard statistics are difficult to get, since there didn't used to be a lot of interest in bee populations until they all started dying. It was only around 2006 or 2007 that the issue became apparent. Bee health had been declining for a few years. It can't be said that bees started dying in the US after 2003, but it fits the profile.
In addition there's the issue of the bee genocide that happened in germany, which WAS conclusively due to clothianidin, though it's claimed that that was because of "inappropriate usage" by which I'm guessing they're talking about spray crops rather than just seeds.
Okay, I admit now that pesticides could be a primary or major cause, and the "number of factors combined" theory is sounding better and better rather than trying to blame it all on one or two sources. However I would like to note that bee populations have been declining for decades (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder#History) and it was only after the recent spike in colony deaths that CCD was coined and defined well.
Then there's the comparison between France and the UK. France had the pesticide banned, but the UK let it in, the UK has been losing bees in droves, while France hasn't.
France actually has been losing bees. Enough at least for their government to propose studying why their honey production is being reduced by about 1000 tons a year. (Same Wikipedia page, under pesticides)
Then there' imidacloprid, it's basically the predecessor to clothianidin, imidacloprid has been shown to kill off bees when used to treat seeds (it leaves a residue in pollen strong enough to kill them), although how strongly it kills off bees is debatable. In spite of this imidacloprid is still used in the US, and it can be linked to the earliest drops in US bee populations.
There's another interesting note, colonies that have CCD leave behind pollen and nectar stores. Other creatures are often hesitant to eat them, other bees don't like to raid them, and other insects don't seem very keen to eat them. In fact in some cases the stores simply rot. I'm not sure how to take that, but it doesn't seem to lend itself to cellphone towers being the cause.
I cant debate the toxicity of imidacloprid, however other animals being hesitant to enter a hive where bees have been driven off isn't exactly proof of pesticide. (Nor is it proof of anything) It's simply yet more evidence that there's something that's causing that hive to be unwelcoming, not only to bees but other animals as well. This could be for any number of reasons, radiation included.
So I decided to try gathering some more data, it's tricky, if there were more information of course, there wouldn't be an debate.
This is a report from the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) on information they gathered from various European member states:
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/doc/154r.pdf
It has some sketchy numbers about beekeepers, honey production, mortality rates. A lot of it is hit and miss, there's a lot of information about number of beekeepers, bees, and mortality rates that's unrecorded (even in the countries with the best records), which makes it all but useless in my book.
To nitpick something from it.
... Data prior to 2003 when the first reports of CCD arose would be especially valuable. ...
That correlates with what I said. Earlier, about CCD first popping up when clothianidin was released.
Again, CCD wasn't even well defined until this point. While the spike in CCD was around this time period. (Thus the need for the term arising) That does not mean that CCD did not happen, even in significant numbers before.
Then there's this report from the Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des aliments (French food safety agency) also known as the AFFSA.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/canpolin/Publications/AFSSA%20Report%20SANT-Ra-MortaliteAbeillesEN.pdf
151 pages, lengthy and contains a buttload of studies and data. They probably do a better job of studying this than I ever could, although it doesn't contain any information on ground/seed treatments for pesticides.
It has an interesting discovery in it though, they found certain viruses, IAPV in particular, which which correlated with CCD colonies:
IAPV emerged as being closely correlated with CCD: 83.3% of the affected colonies
(25/30) carried the virus, which was only detected in one colony not affected by the
syndrome (4.8%). As no “pathogenic” causality link has yet been established between
this virus (or any other pathogen) and the colony losses, lAPV is currently proposed by
authors as a “significant marker” of CCD with a positive predictive value of 96% (Cox-
Foster et al., 2007). This positive predictive value is the likelihood that a positive result
for a pathogen indicates a significant association with CCD.
Not disputing that a virus could be a major cause either, but at least one source I've looked at suggests that any number of things (that could also be responsible for CCD) could lower a colony's immune system, making them more susceptible to viruses of this type. Since it's not in every case that the colony is infected, I'd be more inclined to assume that this is simply another symptom, where the colony is more likely to be infected by a virus when it's on its way towards colony collapse.
Then there's cellphone radiation... Would it kill people to be less sensationalist and refer to it as radio?
No, however cell phones have their own specific frequency bands and cell phone transmissions are quite specific too, differing from most other radio spectrum transmissions with the possible exception of encrypted police/military transmissions and the much higher frequency digital signals around the 2.4 ghz range.
Anyway... So according to this study cellphone signals can emulate "worker piping" and tricks the bees into swarming. Which as you can imagine is quite disruptive. However what concerns me is how far away a cellphone has to be to cause this effect. I doubt it could cause any damage from anything further than 10 feet away, and cell phone towers don't produce a signal that is much stronger (remember, the connection has to go both ways). I don't see this as weakening bee hives very much, and it certainly doesn't justify colony collapse syndrome.
I also found this site, which provides a "heat map" of cellphone signal strength:
http://opensignalmaps.com/
As you can see, most of the developed world is more or less saturated the same amount.
Referencing it with the EFSA report, Estonia, Finland, Romania, and Norway have both low mortality rates, and poor coverage.
The Czech Republic, Germany, The United Kingdom, and France, have moderate to low mortality rates, and great coverage.
Italy, The Netherlands, and Sweden in descending order, have the most deaths. Sweden has poor coverage in most of the country, though just the more rural areas.
Of course, the data in the EFSA report is pretty suspect, and cell phone coverage would be directly linked to development, which links to a whole buttload of other factors like how easily figures can be reported. Also this doesn't take into account the amount of bees in the country. Without even mentioning the accuracy of the heat maps.
There does seem to be a link between the development of a country and it's mortality rates. Other than that there's not much to go on. What I think it is, it's a combination of factors. We've got a paralyzing virus, disruptive cellphone calls, and pesticides. That could all be part of the cause of CCD.
This information does kind of hurt the radio hypothesis, however, I'm curious as to whether the frequency bands of the radio transmitters have a significant effect. I know most of Europe uses GSM for their cell signals, it's widespread in the US too, however, I'm also aware that GSM uses at least two different frequency bands and while they're both in use in both areas, I believe that one is the primary one in the US while a different one is the primary one in Europe. What about the other choices, such as CDMA?
I'm tending to agree now with the number of factors thing, however, I don't think any of this could be ruled out as a partial or even primary cause.
Author
Topic: Bees: a Serious Discussion (Read 1940 times)