[dereklane]

"Newspapers with little better to print or radio shows to talk about, ran the story, and on its gone, anyone remember SARS, when we were all weeks away from armagedon, despite the fact that the disease wasnt that infectious and killed about 2% of the people it did manage to infect.."

Hi Dominic,

I think you may be confusing apples with oranges. SARS, if you remember (and bird flu) took up inordinate amounts of time in the mainstream media, CCD, however, has been merely a whisper around the edges. Whenever such stories reach the public domain it would do well to ask 2 questions:

1. How much air time comparative to potential threat is it taking up?
2. Who does it benefit to air such stories?

In the case of the more recent bird flu, it most obviously provided firstly a great big boost to the revenue of some pharmaceutical companies (particularly the provider of TAMIFLU), and an excuse for some countries (most notably the US) to take initiative to start funding research into the possibilities of H5N1 against those who 'might consider using such as biological weapons' (no prizes who might be most likely to use it there). When I saw this very tenuous link used as an excuse  it dumbfounded me. There was also a purported link between Rumsfeld, big shares and TAMIFLU, which coincidentally made him a packet when various western govts started to buy up the drug in response to the 'bird flu' crisis.

It also conveniently drowned out (I think) Blair's last embarassment regarding cash for honours long enough to make a safe exit (I could be wrong on this - there's been so many scandals its hard to keep track

...just looked it up and found this tongueincheek article on it:
http://www.deadbrain.co.uk/news/article_2007_02_06_0304.php

CCD, on the other hand, remains 'in the wings' - not every agricultural industry relies on bees - lots of plants are after all self-pollinating. Knock-on effects of widespread losses of bee populations probably factor into the commercial economic thinking about as much as the knock-on effects of widespread use of potent pesticides do, and the potentially bad effect of too much publicity (and funding to research) of CCD to such economic structures is probably considered much worse.

Therefore, it tends to sit quietly by, relegated by many in the media (and out of it) to offhand comments about there being no proof - a convenient catch-22 when people continue to ignore it.

cheers,

Derek

[poultrygeist]

I think the problem with the story is, until people see a real effect that inconveniences them, they tend to lack interest.
If honey doubled in price or fruit became scarce, it'd be headline news until 'something was done' but while ever it's only a few bee-keepers who are affected, who gives a damn ?  :roll:

And, presumably, the GM industry could always create self-fertile crops to overcome the shortfalls.  :?

Rob

[digital_biscuit]

Just because it isnt headline news, doesnt mean nothing is being done about it! Billions of $$/££ are spent on research, i am sure some of it is being spent on CCD. Having a quick look on a scientific publication database there are several recent publications on CCD with some being in one of the biggest journals out there.

[poultrygeist]

Hi DB
What I meant was, the tabloids and, consequently, the great British (world) public won't really be interested in the story until it starts to affect their pockets or inconvenience them in some other way.

I'm pleased that research is being carried out though I am cynical about action being taken if it turns out to be radio/phone signals or something equally useful and lucrative.

Rob

[dereklane]

cheers Digital_biscuit. Could you point me in the direction of some of these publications - I wouldn't mind reading them.

As Rob suggests, it seems that generally what gets done about research depends largely on whether results are potentially lucrative for somebody or not. Nevertheless, if there are serious studies going on, I wouldn't mind reading some of the data (it does, after all, affect my runner beans).

cheers,

Derek

[digital_biscuit]

Derek

Unfortunately you have to be a subscriber to the journals to be able to view them, i could send them via email if you wish. PM me your email address. This is of course provided my uni subscribes to the journals they are in.

DB

[Ruby Red]

Just because it isnt headline news, doesnt mean nothing is being done about it! Billions of $$/££ are spent on research, i am sure some of it is being spent on CCD. Having a quick look on a scientific publication database there are several recent publications on CCD with some being in one of the biggest journals out there.

 
   On the news article on the telly it was said that the government were already spending £200,000 on it. Wow big deal. Also that one bloke was responsible for checking the hives of thousands.

[digital_biscuit]

On the news article on the telly it was said that the government were already spending £200,000 on it. Wow big deal. Also that one bloke was responsible for checking the hives of thousands.

The government arent the only peope that fund research!! also, that will be £200k above any research grants which they wont know about as they dont decide who gets the money, thats the jobs of the research councils.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/19/ccd_research_funding/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070511210207.htm

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33938.pdf

http://www.honey.com/media/pressreleases/PR-Ind-020607-ColonyCollapse.pdf

These are a few examples of a few thousand to several million dollars of investment into the problem.

[Tinbasher]

Newspapers with little better to print or radio shows to talk about, ran the story, and on its gone, anyone remember SARS, when we were all weeks away from armagedon, despite the fact that the disease wasnt that infectious and killed about 2% of the people it did manage to infect..

Yes, food for thought and there's probably some merit in what you say.  Scaremongering, balanced against complacency. But us ordinary folk no longer know what to believe.

One thing's for definite - there aren't anywhere near as many wasps around these days as when I was a kid.  Remember litter bins back in those days (1970s)?  Every one was swarming with wasps every summer, they were a major annoyance on every street, park, holiday resort, etc.  Summers these days seem to have very few wasps in comparison, even hot summers as we have had in the last few years.

[dereklane]

thanks Digital_biscuit - I will look forward to that.

I found this:

http://www.nativeecosystems.org/critterthink/archive/2007/06/08/no-link-between-cell-phones-and-honeybee-colony-collapse-disorder

which talks about the German study in more depth, and while it didn't specifically cover mobiles (it actually used cordless phones, which I believe have a higher frequency than mobiles), it was still dealing with electro-magnnetic radiation.

What this author said and what I thought after reading about the report a couple of years ago, is that the report itself was neither in depth, nor covered a large enough set of hives to uncover wholly reliable (from a scientific perspective) set of data. But what it did do was uncover some, which should be a prelude to further and more indepth studies of the same nature, measuring electromagnetic radiation strength as well (which apparently it didn't).

The author puts it nicely:

"To me it suggests that a statistically robust study on the impacts of electromagnetic radiation on bee behavior is warranted."

[...]

"It also means that while I don’t need to carry around direct guilt about my cell phone for the moment, electromagnetic radiation may still be taking a toll on wildlife."

(This bearing in mind that electromagnetic radiation comes not just from mobiles and cordless phone, but from wifi, phone masts, high tension powerlines etc, etc). Measuring the effects of just the one source doesn't do justice to the amount of electromagnetic radiation about in the average western city.

Unless that one is discounted by a legitimate study it seems strange it would be ignored (simply, it seems, because the initial independent article equated cordless phones with mobiles when the strength of the radiation is significantly higher in the former), but the couple of pdfs digital_biscuit linked to suggested that scientists studying the problem currently are not even looking at that as a possibility. Perhaps since 2006 there has been another study which fully discounted electromagnetic radiation as a possible cause?

Either way, the disorder exists, and that's a problem. Its not just my runner beans, its also my apples (and apparently someone's icecream is at risk - I didn't even know bees pollinated icecream...)

cheers,

Derek