4 ms·

> Honeybees and wild bees alike are mysteriously dying off all over the world. And scientists have long struggled to pinpoint why, exactly, that is. I really d

by burke 12y ago

> Honeybees and wild bees alike are mysteriously dying off all over the world. And scientists have long struggled to pinpoint why, exactly, that is. I really don't understand why there's debate over the notion that insecticide use is killing insects. This is incredibly obvious. Bees are dependent on flowering plants, which we have recently begun spraying with poison to prevent them being eaten by insects. Bees are also insects.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
dmix 12y ago
It would be helpful to know exactly what's killing them instead of just assuming the reason is obvious. Especially if we plan to reduce the damage to their ecosystem.
- Brakenshire 12y ago
  Hence the extensive research which has already been carried out, which has backed up that conclusion. Bit it is worth pointing out that it's hardly unlikely or improbable that insecticides damage a particular type of insect.
- pizza234 12y ago
  > It would be helpful to know exactly what's killing them instead of just assuming the reason is obvious. We will never know "exactly", as much as, conceptually, we'll never have "complete" security in computer systems. Especially when one of the big players is a corporation who's very glad to sell contaminated products. Do you really think that they're keen on finding the "truth" (a reasonable one) about neonicotinoids? I'm sure they're already very active in obfuscating research. Besides, in a context where pesticides usage is alarming (or extensive to say the list), why should should be allowed to use something until it's "exactly" proved as harmful, instead of preventing it until it's "exactly" proven as harmless? Of course, reality is more complex, but again, in context, the first option should not be obvious or granted.
randomdata 12y ago
> recently begun spraying The neonics in question are typically applied as a seed treatment, not sprayed. Unless the bees are burrowing into the ground to reach the treated seed, they theoretically should have no exposure at all. The thought is that particulates may still spread through pneumatic planter dust-off, and here in Canada, at least, rules have been implemented to address that.
- Brakenshire 12y ago
  I assumed the neonicotinoid concentrates in the pollen? Surely that it the mechanism by which a comparitively small amount applied to the seed can have a meaningful effect as an insecticide, are you suggesting it only had an effect on insects in the soil?
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    Plants can often fend for themselves once they are big enough, but the seeds have to be protected until then.
    - Brakenshire 12y ago
      Ah, I see.
  - randomdata 12y ago
    > are you suggesting it only had an effect on insects in the soil? That is the design, so theoretically, yes. Of course, as I'm sure everyone reading HN knows, even the best engineered plans can have unforeseen problems. The research I am familiar with indicates the treatment does not make it to the pollen, which means, if the bees are being exposed, it is most likely through some other mechanism. That is why the planting machinery is the prime suspect, and the early results from the aforementioned rule changes here in Canada do look promising, although it is probably too soon to reach any formal conclusions.
bhayden 12y ago
Is there a demonstrable increase in the use of insecticides? Or the increase of a certain type? It seems like they would be accounting for this.
- sogen 12y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9175290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9175290 see comment above
scott_s 12y ago
Because that's not the theory that the data supports? As I understand the current article, the data does not support a single explanation. It's a combination of many things, working in concert. The issue is not coming up with an explanation that makes sense. The issue is coming up with an explanation that actually explains as much of the data as possible.
jmhobbs 12y ago
I believe it's the manner in which these colonies are failing. CCD doesn't have the same appearance as outright insecticide application, thus the research.

by burke 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

dmix 12y ago

It would be helpful to know exactly what's killing them instead of just assuming the reason is obvious. Especially if we plan to reduce the damage to their ecosystem.

Brakenshire 12y ago
Hence the extensive research which has already been carried out, which has backed up that conclusion. Bit it is worth pointing out that it's hardly unlikely or improbable that insecticides damage a particular type of insect.
pizza234 12y ago
> It would be helpful to know exactly what's killing them instead of just assuming the reason is obvious. We will never know "exactly", as much as, conceptually, we'll never have "complete" security in computer systems. Especially when one of the big players is a corporation who's very glad to sell contaminated products. Do you really think that they're keen on finding the "truth" (a reasonable one) about neonicotinoids? I'm sure they're already very active in obfuscating research. Besides, in a context where pesticides usage is alarming (or extensive to say the list), why should should be allowed to use something until it's "exactly" proved as harmful, instead of preventing it until it's "exactly" proven as harmless? Of course, reality is more complex, but again, in context, the first option should not be obvious or granted.

randomdata 12y ago

> recently begun spraying The neonics in question are typically applied as a seed treatment, not sprayed. Unless the bees are burrowing into the ground to reach the treated seed, they theoretically should have no exposure at all. The thought is that particulates may still spread through pneumatic planter dust-off, and here in Canada, at least, rules have been implemented to address that.

Brakenshire 12y ago
I assumed the neonicotinoid concentrates in the pollen? Surely that it the mechanism by which a comparitively small amount applied to the seed can have a meaningful effect as an insecticide, are you suggesting it only had an effect on insects in the soil?
- nitrogen 12y ago
  Plants can often fend for themselves once they are big enough, but the seeds have to be protected until then.
  - Brakenshire 12y ago
    Ah, I see.
- randomdata 12y ago
  > are you suggesting it only had an effect on insects in the soil? That is the design, so theoretically, yes. Of course, as I'm sure everyone reading HN knows, even the best engineered plans can have unforeseen problems. The research I am familiar with indicates the treatment does not make it to the pollen, which means, if the bees are being exposed, it is most likely through some other mechanism. That is why the planting machinery is the prime suspect, and the early results from the aforementioned rule changes here in Canada do look promising, although it is probably too soon to reach any formal conclusions.

bhayden 12y ago

Is there a demonstrable increase in the use of insecticides? Or the increase of a certain type? It seems like they would be accounting for this.

sogen 12y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9175290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9175290 see comment above

scott_s 12y ago

Because that's not the theory that the data supports? As I understand the current article, the data does not support a single explanation. It's a combination of many things, working in concert. The issue is not coming up with an explanation that makes sense. The issue is coming up with an explanation that actually explains as much of the data as possible.

jmhobbs 12y ago

I believe it's the manner in which these colonies are failing. CCD doesn't have the same appearance as outright insecticide application, thus the research.