Mass honeybee deaths now occurring worldwide, says UN

[FooFa]

_{Originally published March 14 2011}

by Jonathan Benson, staff writer

(NaturalNews) For several decades, colony collapse disorder (CCD) -- a mysterious condition where entire bee colonies die for seemingly no obvious reason -- has been inflicting bee populations across both Europe and the US. But scientists from the United Nations (UN) say the phenomenon is now a global crisis, afflicting bees across China, Japan, and Africa, as well as in other places.

The report, issued by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), explains what many NaturalNews readers already know -- mainly that without bees, there will be no more food. Bees are one of nature's primary pollinators, and over 70 percent of the world's food supply relies on them to grow.

"Human beings have fabricated the illusion that in the 21st century they have the technological prowess to be independent of nature," said Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director. "Bees underline the reality that we are more, not less, dependent on nature's services in a world of close to seven billion people."

One such mode of "technological prowess" is the flagrant and irresponsible use of genetically-modified organisms (GMO). GMO technology is heavily reliant on the use of toxic pesticides and herbicides, which several recent studies have pinned to the widespread bee deaths (http://www.naturalnews.com/025287_b...).

In January, a leaked document revealed that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) actually knowingly approved a bee-killing pesticides known as clothianidin. This Bayer CropScience chemical has been identified as a primary instigator of CCD, and yet it has remained freely available on the market since 1993 when the EPA first approved it.

Pesticides use is obviously not reserved just for GMOs, either. The entire industrial agriculture system that dominates the majority of the US food supply is heavily reliant on toxic pesticides of all varieties, which reports say now pollute over 90 percent of the nation's rivers (http://www.naturalnews.com/027971_p...).

Sources for this story include:

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...

[ekg]

this was a pretty big 'story' last year that no one seemed to care about.. I just saw it pop up the other day again..

I know I'll fubar these numbers but something like 90% of the world food crop, is 80% 'bee-pollinated'.. and we can't 're-create' this type of pollination..  so in just a few years, common staples will be relative extinct because there will be no way to pollinated the flowers when the all bees are dead..


bees were a big 'X-files' also... so this isn't something that's new.. but it is something that many people say "eh, it's not like they are going to disappear'.. when that's exactly what they are doing and will do.. but, people from this country cant imagine a time where they have to 'ration' or 'do without'.. so this bee-thing is 'sci-fi' for them..

I do find it interesting though.. thanks for the new update fafa

[FooFa]

I'm not a big fan of GMO's or cloning but if ever there were something that it made sense to try and duplicate in a lab, this would be the one. It's possible that the pollination ability would be much different or not even work but I wonder why no one has thought of at least trying it. Other than maybe since they can't be patented or something, all the humongs will die because someone couldn't make a profit.

[ekg]

I'm not a big fan of GMO's or cloning but if ever there were something that it made sense to try and duplicate in a lab, this would be the one. It's possible that the pollination ability would be much different or not even work but I wonder why no one has thought of at least trying it. Other than maybe since they can't be patented or something, all the humongs will die because someone couldn't make a profit.

well, I don't know how cloning or gene mod would work since they don't know why they are dying off to begin with.. so any 'new' bees would probably die off just like the 'old' ones..

[FooFa]

True. One strong theory is cell phone/tower radio magnetic frequency/emission. I believe if you compared on a graph, the mass ownership of cells and the data on honey bee disappearance from say 1990 to 2000, we would see a direct correlation. Now cell's are going to become eventually satellite based more so on a grand scale eliminating the towers, which would take away the primary offender if true but it's too late.

"Thiruvananthapuram, Aug 31 (PTI) Mobile towers are posing a threat to honey bees in Kerala withe electromagnetic radiation from mobile towers and cell phones having the potential to kill worker bees that go out to collect nectar from flowers, says a study.

A plunge in beehive population has been reported from different parts of Kerala and if measures are not taken to check mushrooming of mobile powers, bees could be wiped out from Kerala within a decade, environmentalist and Reader in Zoology, Dr Sainudeen Pattazhy says in his study.

In one of his experiments he found that when a mobile phone was kept near a beehive it resulted in collapse of the colony in five to 10 days, with the worker bees failing to return home, leaving the hives with just queens, eggs and hive-bound immature bees."

Scientists claim radiation from handsets are to blame for mysterious 'colony collapse' of bees

_{Independent.co.uk
By Geoffrey Lean and Harriet Shawcross
Sunday, 15 April 2007}

It seems like the plot of a particularly far-fetched horror film. But some scientists suggest that our love of the mobile phone could cause massive food shortages, as the world's harvests fail.

They are putting forward the theory that radiation given off by mobile phones and other hi-tech gadgets is a possible answer to one of the more bizarre mysteries ever to happen in the natural world - the abrupt disappearance of the bees that pollinate crops. Late last week, some bee-keepers claimed that the phenomenon - which started in the US, then spread to continental Europe - was beginning to hit Britain as well.

The theory is that radiation from mobile phones interferes with bees' navigation systems, preventing the famously homeloving species from finding their way back to their hives. Improbable as it may seem, there is now evidence to back this up.

Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) occurs when a hive's inhabitants suddenly disappear, leaving only queens, eggs and a few immature workers, like so many apian Mary Celestes. The vanished bees are never found, but thought to die singly far from home. The parasites, wildlife and other bees that normally raid the honey and pollen left behind when a colony dies, refuse to go anywhere near the abandoned hives.

The alarm was first sounded last autumn, but has now hit half of all American states. The West Coast is thought to have lost 60 per cent of its commercial bee population, with 70 per cent missing on the East Coast.

CCD has since spread to Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. And last week John Chapple, one of London's biggest bee-keepers, announced that 23 of his 40 hives have been abruptly abandoned.

Other apiarists have recorded losses in Scotland, Wales and north-west England, but the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs insisted: "There is absolutely no evidence of CCD in the UK."

The implications of the spread are alarming. Most of the world's crops depend on pollination by bees. Albert Einstein once said that if the bees disappeared, "man would have only four years of life left".

No one knows why it is happening. Theories involving mites, pesticides, global warming and GM crops have been proposed, but all have drawbacks.

German research has long shown that bees' behaviour changes near power lines.

Now a limited study at Landau University has found that bees refuse to return to their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby. Dr Jochen Kuhn, who carried it out, said this could provide a "hint" to a possible cause.

Dr George Carlo, who headed a massive study by the US government and mobile phone industry of hazards from mobiles in the Nineties, said: "I am convinced the possibility is real."

The case against handsets

Evidence of dangers to people from mobile phones is increasing. But proof is still lacking, largely because many of the biggest perils, such as cancer, take decades to show up.

Most research on cancer has so far proved inconclusive. But an official Finnish study found that people who used the phones for more than 10 years were 40 per cent more likely to get a brain tumour on the same side as they held the handset.

Equally alarming, blue-chip Swedish research revealed that radiation from mobile phones killed off brain cells, suggesting that today's teenagers could go senile in the prime of their lives.

Studies in India and the US have raised the possibility that men who use mobile phones heavily have reduced sperm counts. And, more prosaically, doctors have identified the condition of "text thumb", a form of RSI from constant texting.

Professor Sir William Stewart, who has headed two official inquiries, warned that children under eight should not use mobiles and made a series of safety recommendations, largely ignored by ministers.

 

[ekg]

that's pretty cool.  (not in that the bees are dying).. I had heard that theory floated a long time ago when the die-offs were just being noticed, but hadn't heard that there was some pretty good direct links to  that theory.

it would almost be better if it was a pollutant if you think about it, that is something we could get people to stop using.. but cell phones? ain't no way people will give them up..

[FooFa]

that's pretty cool.  (not in that the bees are dying).. I had heard that theory floated a long time ago when the die-offs were just being noticed, but hadn't heard that there was some pretty good direct links to  that theory.

it would almost be better if it was a pollutant if you think about it, that is something we could get people to stop using.. but cell phones? ain't no way people will give them up..

Not so fast sparky  . Monsanto's Roundup kills everything but the crop and causes the plant itself to fight of pests which would be good in theory accept that we now have the science showing that it leaves soil useless in some cases. Worse than that, in countries where they grow soy beans and other things that go into cow feed as well as basic grains, the Roundup causes many birth defects and poopy water.

Monsanto is in the process of patenting and owning the very seeds themselves, forcing genetically modified food on the population. Germany and Europe have banned a number of these 'frankenfoods' that we just keep allowing.

The trouble with Monsanto and GMO – Dr David Suzuki spells it out – Red, Green, and Blue

I’ve been asked why we’re writing so much about Monsanto and genetically modified food. “It’s been tested,” they say. “It’s safe,” they say. “There’s nothing to fear. Why are you spreading disinformation?”

I’m not a geneticist. If I say “We don’t know enough about this,” I’m just one guy. So I’ll let a geneticist answer those questions.

David Suzuki is a geneticist. He’s one of the top scientists in Canada, his textbook is one of the most widely-used in the world, he’s published more than 30 books. As head of the David Suzuki Foundation, he’s both a promoter of science and a popularizer.

So when David Suzuki speaks, I listen (see the end of this article for a list of sources). And David Suzuki says,

“Because we aren’t certain about the effects of GMOs, we must consider one of the guiding principles in science, the precautionary principle. Under this principle, if a policy or action could harm human health or the environment, we must not proceed until we know for sure what the impact will be. And it is up to those proposing the action or policy to prove that it is not harmful.”

It’s complicated

One plus one equals two. That’s simple. But one gene inserted into a complex chromosome may not work in a simple, linear fashion.

Transgenic crops are not simple products like widgets, ipods or even automobiles. They are living organisms that can interact with other creatures in the environment in myriad ways. Nature is complicated. When you modify an organism at a genetic level, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the results are also complicated, and often unexpected.

…Science does not proceed in a linear fashion the way we write up our grant applications, you know—experiment A leads to experiment B to C to a cure for cancer. So all of the supposed benefits of our manipulations are purely speculative. We don’t know how it will all turn out. And then when we create new organisms, new products, and release them in the wild, in our food, in our drugs, we simply don’t know enough to anticipate what the consequences will be.

We don’t know…

The bottom line with GMO is very simple: We simply don’t have the science lined up to make any sort of blanket reassurances that GMO is really safe. Here’s Suzuki:

I’m a geneticist. What bothers me is we have governments that are supposed to be looking out for our health, for the safety of our environment, and they’re acting like cheerleaders for this technology, which… is in its infancy and we have no idea what the technology is going to do.

…At the cutting edge of scientific research, most of our ideas are far from the mark – wrong, in need of revision, or irrelevant. That’s not a derogation of science; it’s the way science advances. We take a set of observations or data, set up a hypothesis that makes sense of them, and then we test the hypothesis. The new insights and techniques we gain from this process are interpreted tentatively and liable to change, so any rush to apply them strikes me as downright dangerous.

…Because they won’t tell us

Not only have there not been enough studies done… when studies ARE performed, outside researchers often have to pry the data out of Monsanto via Freedom of Information filings and lawsuits. That’s a big concern concern as well.

Transgenic crops are, in many ways, radically new and should be subject to the greatest of scientific scrutiny, not suppressed by proprietary concerns.

So what is the rush to apply ideas that will prove to be irrelevant or wrong? Money, of course.

Unintended consequences

The history of science is the history of the unexpected.

…History informs us that though we love technology, there are always costs, and since our knowledge of how nature works is so limited, we can’t anticipate how those costs will manifest. We only have to reflect on DDT, nuclear power, and CFCs, which were hailed as wonderful creations but whose long-term detrimental effects were only found decades after their widespread use.

…As we learned from experience with DDT, nuclear power and CFCs, we only discover the costs of new technologies after they are extensively used. We should apply the Precautionary Principle with any new technology, asking whether it is needed and then demanding proof that it is not harmful. Nowhere is this more important than in biotechnology because it enables us to tamper with the very blueprint of life.
http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/02/01/the-trouble-with-monsanto-and-gmo-dr-david-suzuki-spells-it-out/

Viruses and the GM Insect "Flying Vaccine" Solution
 

[ekg]

heh.... I know I opened the door to that conspiracy, but you didn't need to walk thru it  DOH!

use a link to your section and the monsanto thread next time 

I take your point though..  we probably wouldn't stop using the pollutants either..

and I like Roundup.. it paints a great,long-lasting 'ASSHOLE' on an asshole neighbors lawn... HA!


(kidding.. )


(wait, no.. it really does work great, but I've never done it and would never.. but I've seen it done in  the neighborhood)

[FooFa]

it would almost be better if it was a pollutant if you think about it, that is something we could get people to stop using

Lemme try this again. I've been closely following the Monsanto bullying in politics. It has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of theory. You stated the above, as I would have also thought was true. It's not true. Anyone who has seen Food Inc or similar documentaries knows that W kept many of the same people as Clinton in high places including the FDA who have financial interests in the industry and propagated the lack of forthrightness in food labeling. There's nothing funny about Round Up to me because that is a subject that I've happened to make one of my area's of focus.

For the time being we may still have some choices of what we grow in our yards, it's about getting to the point where you have to get good seeds through an underground network.

It's in Iraq's constitution that the farmers have to use Monsanto products which is one example of why it's not a misstatement to say that both parties are extensions of corporations.

Health and Environmental Impacts of Monsanto's Roundup Pesticide
from http://www.jrussellshealth.com/pests24d.html
A recent study by eminent oncologists Dr. Leonard Hardell and Dr. Mikael Eriksson of Sweden, has revealed clear links between one of the world’s biggest selling herbicide, glyphosate (commonly known as Roundup, marketed by Monsanto), to non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a form of cancer - NHL. There are even requests for permits for higher residues on genetically engineered foods because they are highly resistant to herbicides, instead of reducing herbicide use, glyphosate resistant crops may result in increased residues. They are already on sale. Farmers knowing that their crop will tolerate or resist being killed off by the herbicides will tend to use them more liberally. There have been no risk/benefit analysis carried out, so the regulatory authorities have failed to implement the precautionary principle with respect to GMOs.
(“Herbicide Tolerance,” New Study Links Monsanto’s Roundup to cancer,” www.biotech-info.net/glyphosate_cancer.html - June 2001)

The Women’s Cancer Resource Center (WCRC) and CHOSE (Coalition for a Healthy Oakland School Environment), showed that chemicals such as Round-Up (glyphosate) can result in reproductive damage as well as damage to the kidney and liver, and some studies show a link between the chemical and cancer.
(Chemical Injury Network, June 2001)

Glyphosate (Roundup) is one of the most toxic herbicides, and is the third most commonly reported cause of pesticide related illness among agricultural workers. Products containing glyphosate also contain other compounds, which can be toxic. Glyphosate is technically extremely difficult to measure in environmental samples, which means that data is often lacking on residue levels in food and the environment, and existent data may not be reliable.
(“Greenpeace Report - Not ready for Roundup: Glyphosate Fact Sheet,” greenpeace.org - April 1997)

Glyphosate is found in weed killers and may cause cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, nerve, and respiratory damage.
(“Special Report: what you need to know about pest control,” Natural Health Magazine, May/June 2001)

Roundup: Label - Keep out of reach of children, harmful if swallowed, avoid contact with eyes or prolonged contact with skin. Remove clothing if contaminated. Spray solutions of this product should be mixed, stored and applied only in stainless steel, aluminum, fiberglass, plastic and plastic-lined steel containers. This product or spray solutions of this product react with such containers and tanks to produce hydrogen gas that may form a highly combustible gas mixture. This gas mixture could flash or explode, causing serious personal injury, if ignited by open flame, spark, welder’s torch, lighted cigarette or other ignition source. Avoid direct applications to any body of water. Do not contaminate water by disposal of waste or cleaning of equipment. Avoid contamination of seed, feed, and foodstuffs. Soak up a small amounts of spill with absorbent clay. Do not reuse container for any other purpose.
(Roundup - Label, farmcentral.com - June 2001)

organicconsumers.org

Weed killer kills human cells