# Bit scary this



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> _"This is certainly the worst die-off that I’ve seen in my experience working with honey bees. It may be the worst die-off that has ever occurred with honey bees since they’ve been introduced into the United States since the 1620s."
> - Maryann Frazier, Honey Bee Specialist, Penn State_














> February 23, 2007 Pennsylvania - Most people don’t realize that *honey bees pollinate about one-third of our food supply around the world]/b]*


*




The past year in America, at least 22 states have reported honey bee disappearances. Government and science authorities are calling it "Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD)." Beekeepers have reported losses ranging from 60% to 100% of their bee colonies. As winter changes to spring and beekeepers in the colder Northeast can open their hives again, it's expected there will be many more empty hives. 

Strangely, honey bees have also been disappearing in huge numbers in Spain and Poland. Adding to the European mystery is that Spain has very large commercial beekeeper operations with at least 3 million colonies of honey bees, similar to the United States. But Poland’s 400,000 hives are largely raised on individual farms where smaller bee colonies are separated from each other. If the answer were disease, you would not expect Poland’s separated hives to be plagued by large numbers of honey bee disappearances as in Spain and the United States.

Click to expand...

Complete article

http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=1214&category=Environment*


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Meh... Not too worried about the bees or other insects.

They will always be successful no matter what we do to the planet.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It's just a normal cycle. Kind of like Dion supporters.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

SINC said:


> It's just a normal cycle. Kind of like Dion supporters.


Speaking of Dion supporters...

http://www.ehmac.ca/gallery/data/500/toomanypeople.jpg

:lmao:


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

We need to bee careful here... beefore it is too late


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What classic ignorance. 



> Component III: Bees and Pollination
> 
> PART I: INTRODUCTION
> 
> *Managed bees are vital to the production of more than 90 crops, including almond, alfalfa and sunflower seed, apple, cherry, melon, and berries.* Honey bees (Apis) alone pollinate crops that have an added value of over $14 billion. *Only a few species of bees can be used for commercial pollination, *and their health and improved management are critical to agricultural production


You remind me of the clowns that didn't think there was any risk to vineyards.



> Remember what happened to Madeira during the powdery mildew disease? After phylloxera, Madeira was down to about 10% of its vineyards and its wine industry remains smaller than it once was.


http://vinofictions.com/category/californiaeurope/
It took a massive worldwide effort to reconstruct European vineyards. It's a fascinating and cautionary tale.

Now apply that to 90 food crops instead of one luxury crop and tell me again not to worry.
Bees ARE the canary in the food chain coal mine...and they ARE dying off in quantities that WILL impact food prices now.

Oh sure, bees have been around for millions of years and will be.......useful, handleable species - that's another story entirely.

Agriculture is highly dependent on bees that can be trucked around like this and handled with little danger.









Already the Africanizatio of NA honey bees has caused issues. Massive loss of key pollinators would have a very large impact on food crops.



> It is generally known that bees are needed to pollinate our crops but it is not well known that the economic value of bee pollination is several times more the value of the world-wide production of honey. *About 80 % of our food crops are pollinated by animal pollinators. These are mainly bees. It is estimated that one third of what we eat and drink is produced through service supplied by pollinators*
> Dr. Marinus J. Sommeijer, President (Curriculum vitae)
> APIMONDIA Standing Commission for Pollination and Bee Flora
> Bee Research Department, Utrecht University


http://www.bio.uu.nl/sommeijer/apimondia/index.html

Qtips anyone???.......... 


Sure there ARE other pollinator species but we've built the agro-industry on transportable bees that can be handled.
....and there's 50% more humans on the way to feed.
The threat to a keystone species in agricultural is no light topic.

This is not limited to North America but also in Europe.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> The threat to a keystone species in agricultural is no light topic.


Is that incandescent or fluorescent?


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

so is it parasitic problem or temperature one?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The major problem is that no one knows for sure and with no bees to examine it's very strange.

The puzzling part is the section about the complete disappearance of the swarm.
Also that abandoned hives were not being invaded normally by post occupancy organisms. Clearly there is something inside the hive environment that is keeping both bees and the associated organisms away.

Then when the hives are opened to the air the organisms that consume honey and wax etc come back into play.
Quite an odd phenomena and of course the northern states are not yet reporting in.

There are and have been identified issues with mites and other destructive agents and beekeepers have been in a long term battle ( which they appear to be losing ) against them. Always the issue with near mono culture species ( think bananas a 100 years ago ).

I'm quite sure alternative pollinators are being bred and identified and this might just be a wake up call rather than a full blown crisis.

Frogs have and are dying very quickly and that's a shame to lose some of the gorgeous specimens but commercial bees are a different issue for humans.

There would be likely less impact on human food production if all the cows died off than if the bees did 

No robot in the near term can ever do what a honeybee does in pollinating crops.

Get out the QTips.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I find the notion that we are fundamentally weakening much of our biological inputs through protective behaviour (like raising a kid in your safe basement and releasing them into the world at 18) fascinating. Does anyone have research on this written for someone who isn't an expert in biology?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think all you have to do is search on bio-diversity to get a lifetime of info on it.
Even take the area of maize and have a look.
There are many wonderful projects afoot to maintain diversity in food crops.
I purposefully buy Ancient Grain cereals to aid in that.
Pandas, tigers, whooping cranes - any threatened species also represents a challenge to biologists to keep a varied enough gene pool intact to regenerate numbers without risking a "single threat" collapse.

Monoculture is a huge risk tho it has enormous short term rewards.

The banana story is fascinating and is the vineyard story.

If you want a wonderful read about the vagaries of genes try The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins.

A superb overview - wonderful writer, very funny in places and I learn on every page despite a lifetime of science reading.
Most important he's readable.
•••

This is just in today



> Mysterious bee disappearances endanger crops
> 
> By Alexei Barrionuevo
> Published: February 26, 2007
> ...


http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/26/business/bees.php

Now 24 states. No bodies..... no post mortem.....just gone.... spooky.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Thanks. I was hoping for a "literature review" type thing, but a book sounds good. Written for the inexpert.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

This is likely as good an overview as I've seen - nicely laid out.
It goes from the general overview with tabs to go into more detail.

http://www.greenfacts.org/biodiversity/index.htm

Ancestor's Tale is more wide ranging.

THIS is the problem










and 50% more people to come


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Profile starting to spin up.

New York Times - bit more info

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/business/27bees.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

Just a wild idea. It could be an alien predator introduced to the environment.

If it is a disease/fungus, and large portions of the hive are survivng, the problem should disappear soon.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The hives are 100% empty - no dead bees and no post desertion critters that would normally feed on hives with no bees but with honey in them.

It's the totally empty aspect that is so spooky.
When they say losses are such and such a percentage what they mean is not bees per hive but hives that survive.

The reactions of the long time beekeepers to this says much.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There is a story on CBC right now on this in Canada.

Wow 90% losses for one commercial keeper in Ontario 
No answer as to cause.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I've got my little hammer on the chain ready to break the glass, but where's the GHG alarm?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ass.  Getting foolish and bitter in your dotage??
You can't defend your nonsense and just leave a trail of fecal garbage behind you.

Your canola growing neighbours would look askance at your attitude as well.



> *Will Alberta's bees be next to vanish mysteriously?*
> U.S. beekeepers puzzled by empty hives; Alberta industry alarmed that plea for extra provincial funding rejected
> David Finlayson, The Edmonton Journal; with files from the New York Times
> Published: Wednesday, March 07, 2007
> ...


http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourn....html?id=3a987c0c-09f3-42f9-8c22-e4d34fccbd70


----------



## Monkeyman eh? (Jul 26, 2005)

no mention of global warming yet?
they're empty because they've been forced to by temperature differences.


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

Monkeyman said:


> no mention of global warming yet?


Yes SINC just did (GHG=green house gas)


SINC said:


> I've got my little hammer on the chain ready to break the glass, but where's the GHG alarm?





Monkeyman said:


> they're empty because they've been forced to by temperature differences.


:lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Ass.  Getting foolish and bitter in your dotage??
> You can't defend your nonsense and just leave a trail of fecal garbage behind you.


I guess stodgy = no sense of humour? 

(I'd insert a little blue ball of anger here, but frankly, they're so over used they have no real effect anymore.)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Why are Niagara's bees dying?
> 
> HAMILTON SPECTATOR FILE
> 
> ...


TheStar.com - Business - Why are Niagara's bees dying?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

This posted on Magic:

"A German study conducted by Professor Jochen Kuhn of Landau University and reported in Britain's Telegraph newspaper this week offered another, less conventional, culprit: radiation from cellphones and cellphone towers.
To conduct the study, Kuhn placed cellphone handsets near hives and found the bees avoided their homes when the phones were radiating frequencies in a range from 900 to 1800 megahertz, the standard range for most cell phones."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Bees Vanish, and Scientists Race for Reasons*
> 
> BELTSVILLE, Md., April 23 — What is happening to the bees?
> 
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/24/science/24bees.html?em&ex=1177560000&en=f5ba22e773db984a&ei=5087


Good read.....given that 30% of food crops are bee dependent.....losing a 1/4 of the pollinators already is just mind bending


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It's the cell phones, stupid:

"A German study conducted by Professor Jochen Kuhn of Landau University and reported in Britain's Telegraph newspaper this week offered another, less conventional, culprit: radiation from cellphones and cellphone towers.
To conduct the study, Kuhn placed cellphone handsets near hives and found the bees avoided their homes when the phones were radiating frequencies in a range from 900 to 1800 megahertz, the standard range for most cell phones.
Whatever the cause, the disappearing honeybee populations pose a threat beyond honey production."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070417.CELLPHONE17/TPStory/National


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Update



> *As bees go missing, a $9.3B crisis lurks*
> The mysterious disappearance of millions of bees is fueling fears of an agricultural disaster, writes Fortune's David Stipp.
> FORTUNE Magazine
> By David Stipp, Fortune
> ...


more here

Fortune: Flight of the honeybees - September 3, 2007

Subsidized farmers.....now subsidized bees next


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Doc: I remember that Ronald Reagan was unable to get Congress to end a beeswax subsidy program enacted during WWII to provide some sort of material used in wartime. They're already on the dole!


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

No time to contribute much to the discussion, but there's an interesting article here:

Dept. of Entomology: Stung: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

Single-page version: Dept. of Entomology: Stung: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

Although cell phones may be a contributing cause, it seems likely there's much more going on...



> When the molecular tests were performed, by entomologists at Penn State, they confirmed van Engelsdorp’s initial impression. The bees were infected with just about every bee virus known, including deformed-wing virus, sac-brood virus, and black-queen-cell virus, and also by various fungi and bacteria. In addition, genetic analysis revealed the presence of new pathogens, never before sequenced. Such was the level of infection that van Engelsdorp and other researchers concluded that the bees’ immune systems had collapsed. It was as if an insect version of AIDS were sweeping through the hives.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

This is a nice little example of how our ignorance of basic biology, from the molecular and cellular level to the ecological level, can really cost us a lot.

Unfortunately, it's very difficult if not impossible to predict what direct value society will get from investing in basic research, making it a very attractive target for budget-cutting politicians (who are, not coincidentally, invariably scientifically illiterate). 

One of the major challenges facing our generation is to become a more educated society, in which basic scientific literacy provides the majority of citizens with the understanding necessary to reject short-term political solutions to long-term ecological problems.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

> It was as if an insect version of AIDS were sweeping through the hives


Maybe they're bad liberal, gay-loving, god-hating, terrorist-supporting, homosexual bees! That's it... those bees are all in a big same-sex relationship... they're all female... LESBIAN BEES OMG!!! We need some bees with proper family values to save our crops!

Cheers


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

I always laugh in the face of evolution...if animals (or BEES in this case) can take care of themselves through evolution then WHY is it that things are going extinct?? where are the new and better replacements??? This bee thing is a BEEG problem but no one really gives a SH!t because they can't live without thier blackberries or iphones or whatever else is causing the world problems....

Maybe the human race needs some replacing with better ones....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Honey bees are a non-native species in North America introduced by European immigrants. Ecologists willbe happy knowing that we're returning to a more pristine form of native ecology.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

imactheknife said:


> I always laugh in the face of evolution...if animals (or BEES in this case) can take care of themselves through evolution then WHY is it that things are going extinct?? where are the new and better replacements???


I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, but a common misconception is that evolution solves all problems equally well/equally rapidly. Organisms with short generation times (e.g. bacteria and viruses*) will evolve more rapidly than organisms with long generation times. However organisms with complex genomes have access to more evolutionary options (big complex genomes are more 'evolvable'). If the latter were not true, complex, multicellular organisms would not have evolved.

The problem with being a big, complex organism with a long generation time is that, if the environment changes too rapidly, your species doesn't have time to adapt. The problem with being a small, simple organism, is that there are many viable niches you can't exploit due to your lack of complexity. So it's a trade-off.

Both simple and complex organisms go extinct when they can't adapt to changes in their environment. New pathogens or predators are changes in the selective environment for the bees, and it seems likely that they'll adapt (especially if we help them with genetic engineering or selective breeding programs). But it's possible that the new viruses or whatever's causing this problem will prove an insurmountable challenge (due to the bee's inability to adapt and/or our inability to figure out what's going on fast enough to help the bees). If that happens, the susceptible species of honey bees will go extinct, and we'll have a big problem. Given enough time, other species will adapt to take advantage of this newly vacated niche, and the system will re-equilibrate. 

That's how evolution works. But it doesn't necessary work fast, and it certainly can't be relied on to work in our favor. Which is why we should be doing a lot more to understand the ecosystems we rely on for our food, air, water and economic prosperity, and why we should be putting a lot more resources towards protecting them and developing technologies that do less damage.

Cheers

* viruses are not organisms, strictly speaking, but the principles of evolution apply equally to them, as well as all replicating information systems.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

imactheknife said:


> I always laugh in the face of evolution...if animals (or BEES in this case)....


 Hate to break the news to you but bees are in the Kingdom of Animals. I know I know that the bees have a close symbiotic relationship with plants and this always comes to mind and the focus of the original story, of this thread, focuses on that relationship but bees aren't plants they're animals.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Honey bees are a non-native species in North America introduced by European immigrants. Ecologists willbe happy knowing that we're returning to a more pristine form of native ecology.


Good point MF but... wasps also pollinate flowers. They have a high energy need like bees and utilise nectar and pollen. 
They are also good at eating other bugs and stinging people.
Why bees are dying off? I hope we find out. It's kind of like the bee version of "Children of Men".


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

I was very concerned when I first read this, wondering what could have caused this, then one day I was talking to a friend and she said there was a cell phone theory. Apparently, they were saying it was all the radio waves that were killing them. This got me thinking, and remembering....

One year, about 15 years ago, I was visiting my parents in NW Ontario. They lived on a lake where there were many mice that liked to break into the house, so they bought something that they plugged into the wall. What it did was send off high frequency radio waves most humans can't hear. Unfortunately I have extremely good hearing and could hear the high pitch whenever i walked into the room. They had no mice.

Walking into the kitchen, where they had it plugged in, I found a big fluffy bumble bee. It was struggling. I wasn't sure what was wrong with it and fed it some sugar water then set it outside. It took 45 minutes, but it eventually regained its composure a few off. I knew then it was the radio frequency sent out by the device plugged into the wall.

So, conclusion? I believe the cell phone theory, but it's not just cell phones, it's routers, modems, and many other electronic devices used to make our lives as humans easier.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

singingcrow said:


> ... What it did was send off high frequency radio waves most humans can't hear. Unfortunately I have extremely good hearing and could hear the high pitch whenever i walked into the room.


No humans can hear radio waves. They're electromagnetic, not sound. Sound is the vibration of a medium (like air or water) and it is not electromagnetic. What you may be talking about is a high frequency sound generator, but then it's not radio (or any other form of electromagnetic radiation).

Saying you can hear radio waves is like you can hear 'green' or that you can see F-sharp.



> So, conclusion? I believe the cell phone theory, but it's not just cell phones, it's routers, modems, and many other electronic devices used to make our lives as humans easier.


Be careful what you believe on the basis of faulty understandings.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

nit pick Bryanc


> high frequency sound generator, but then it's not radio (or any other form of electromagnetic radiation).


If they were using a piezo crystal for the high frequency sound it would also emit radio frequencies as well I do believe - so it COULD be the same source but two different emissions.


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

bryanc said:


> No humans can hear radio waves. They're electromagnetic, not sound. Sound is the vibration of a medium (like air or water) and it is not electromagnetic. What you may be talking about is a high frequency sound generator, but then it's not radio (or any other form of electromagnetic radiation).


I was there when they took it out of the box. It clearly stated "radio waves". 



bryanc said:


> Saying you can hear radio waves is like you can hear 'green' or that you can see F-sharp.


I have exceptional hearing. In my physics class in high school, my teacher used a high frequency sound generator, turning it up, and with each increment asked who could hear it. Near the end, two of us kept putting up our hands, and the he got to the point where he said, "okay no one should be able to hear this" and something about dogs being able to, but I could hear it.

I find myself going insane with the sounds everyone else seems to be oblivious to, and always finding a source - and I don't have tinnitus, I just happen to be in tune with higher frequencies. So please, don't be so sure that just because you or the people you know can't do something, there isn't someone out there who can. 

BTW I can see F-sharp.



bryanc said:


> Be careful what you believe on the basis of faulty understandings.
> 
> Cheers


Perhaps it's not radio waves per say, but there are millions of devices around the world that send out a variety of frequencies. I don't think it's faulty understanding when I have witnessed it first hand.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

singingcrow said:


> I was there when they took it out of the box. It clearly stated "radio waves".
> ....
> Perhaps it's not radio waves per say, but there are millions of devices around the world that send out a variety of frequencies. I don't think it's faulty understanding when I have witnessed it first hand.


I'm not disputing your hearing, and MacDoc is right that the device may have generated both sound and radio emissions. I'm just saying that you can't have heard the radio waves, because they are electromagnetic.

As for the disruption caused to bees or other animals, I have no doubt that sound pollution (especially in high and low frequency ranges that are inaudible to humans) is a major problem. I am skeptical about the potential for microwave (electromagnetic) signals from cell phones causing problems, but I'm willing to be convinced if someone can produce reproducible data.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

SC - what you are hearing in most cases will be secondary harmonics generated by physical vibration of the electronics - light ballasts, monitor caps.
Some are intentional piezo based for things like keeping mice away others indicative of a failing device or poorly designed/constructed.

You are most often not hearing the direct sound generated but harmonics.
Transformers buzz - microwave ovens generate sounds -even teeth receive radio transmission - all interactions that transform electronic/radio/microwaves to vibrations in various materials we understand as sound.


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

Are you guys aware of the Cosmic Microwave Background? If microwaves can have a background noise, then why can't radio waves? It's possible it just hasn't been detected by our limited science here on earth.



bryanc said:


> As for the disruption caused to bees or other animals, I have no doubt that sound pollution (especially in high and low frequency ranges that are inaudible to humans) is a major problem. I am skeptical about the potential for microwave (electromagnetic) signals from cell phones causing problems, but I'm willing to be convinced if someone can produce reproducible data.


The Cosmic Microwave Background is very audible, and can cause great discomfort for the people hearing it. Imagine a tiny little entity that is sensitive enough to see ultra violet rays.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

HowEver said:


> My microwave makes noises at me all the time. It speaks and I listen.


that explains a lot


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

HowEver said:


> My microwave just said, "that explains a lot."


not funny, but fast


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Funny AND fast.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

A neighbor of mine, who teaches physics here at Memorial University, tried to explain CMB to me. Sadly, he lost me when he got to baryons and the thermal Planck spectrum. I did listen to him as he went off on a tangent trying to explain to me all about the Gaussian random field, his area of expertise.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

singingcrow said:


> ...The Cosmic Microwave Background is very audible, and can cause great discomfort for the people hearing it. Imagine a tiny little entity that is sensitive enough to see ultra violet rays.



What evidence is there that people can hear this? And why should we imagine a tiny entity sensitive enough to see ultra violet rays?


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

That tiny entity MacFury is called a *bee*.

For a very simplified description here's the Nasa site.



> In the 1960's a startling discovery was made quite by accident. A pair of scientists at Bell Laboratories detected background noise using a special low noise antenna. The strange thing about the noise was that it was coming from every direction and did not seem to vary in intensity much at all. If this static were from something on our world, like radio transmissions from a nearby airport control tower, it would only come from one direction, not everywhere. The scientists soon realized they had discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Singing crow - noise has several different meanings some of which have no relation to sound.

The use here is one of those.

When you SEE interference on a TV screen that is also termed "noise" even tho it has nothing to do with sound.



> Physics: A disturbance, especially a random and persistent disturbance, that obscures or reduces the clarity of a signal.


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

Then why was the noise heard on a radio transmitter?
Yes it comes down to harmonics as you were saying, but these waves, whatever type they are can carry sound, non?



> at the moment the photons were freed, some regions were contracting, heated by compression, and other, cooler regions were expanding; these motions imprinted temperature differences on the cosmic microwave background and recorded the harmonics of the sound wave


Cosmic Microwave Background: A Message from the Beginning of Time


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No - sound is pressure waves in a medium that is compressible.



> pressure oscillations were moving at the speed of sound through the dense hot blob. Gravity pulled in and radiation pressure pushed out, making the whole spherical mass ring like a bell; at the moment the photons were freed, some regions were contracting, heated by compression, and other, cooler regions were expanding; these motions imprinted temperature differences on the cosmic microwave background and recorded the harmonics of the sound wave.
> 
> The sound wave reveals the precise characteristics of its resonating chamber --


Ringing like a bell is a bit of a stretch for imagery - it's only correct in that pressure waves resonated within the "blob" that was the entire universe the way a bronze bell would have pressure waves moving through it if struck in a vacuum. ( The earth could be said to "ring" in a similar manner with earthquakes - which because of the atmosphere translates to rumbling we can perceive in the air.

On the moon you would have to be pressed to the lithosphere to "hear" a moonquake.

What is fascinating is that those internal resonances in the blob ended up as the "clumping" and absences of galaxies and matter as the universe expanded and cooled ceasing to be a "medium" where such resonances could continue tho we can still "perceive" the traces.










so the traces of that event still exist in the map of the left over microwave radiation.

The sun itself "resonates" as well internally as it's plasma is a medium.
Those pressure waves can then translate into electromagnetic radiation under various conditions.

Good video here of a resonating water globe in zero gravity.
Cookies Required


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SingingCrow: The bee's ability to see ultraviolet has less to do with sensitivity and more to do with the size of the bee's eyes I believe. I'm familiar with cosmic background radiation but there's no evidence that either bees or humans can perceive it without the aid of special tools.


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

*Lots of thoughts being thrown out here...*

LOL! Maybe you should write the websites MacDoc! Thank you, I now understand. This is interesting stuff....

In all seriousness though, when looking at these waves within our atmosphere, could they themselves not collided or rub together creating a different energy or shall we say force than intended? We create more and more frequencies, forces and waves, with every electrical device, every plane, car, person created, we are adding to the atmosphere creating what must look like chaos in comparison to before humans became so "productive".

Please keep in mind during the following, I am very sensitive to energy, which is why I work with it, but my specialty is in the human energetic system. I may not have the scientific words for it but I can describe what I experience.

Another example that's been coming to mind during all this discussion, is when I had my powermac. It was my first computer, and I found having the computer in my home draining, even while it was asleep. I could feel the pressure generated by the machine and a pulling caused by the energy needed by the machine itself. THEN I got the internet. Within the internet was all the loneliness and desperation of the people using it. They were swarming, pulling on it, whether in a negative need or simply to find and take information. I could feel it trying (for lack of a better word) to adjust my energy field in order to make it fit somehow, or take from it too feed the hungry. It was exhausting. Thank goodness I don't get head aches! Eventually, I had to sell my powermac and got my powerbook which has about a tenth of the affect of the powermac and one hundred times more portable. 

This may not make sense to a lot of people on this board, but pphft Oh well!

My point is if one computer can affect a human's energetic system so negatively, then what can millions be doing to a single bee, an animal who live through the sensory of energy in a more day to day conscious way? Why can not the larger scale of radio waves, planes breaking into the atmosphere, mp3 players and all the other noise we create, human emotions, microwaves.... all of it; why couldn't this kill an abundance of bees just like the one plug-in device I mentioned earlier?

If you have a way to explain what was going on with the computer MacDoc, which had nothing to do with the sound, then I think this could explain what I'm trying to get at and understand myself.

And if anyone questions why this is important? If this is happening to bees, it's happening to all of us, just at a slower rate, and with the death of one species, the balance of our existence is off. All species support one another in some way whether directly or indirectly. We will always notice the loss of one; it's when we have to make changes like pollinating our plants ourselves so we can eat.


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

Macfury said:


> SingingCrow: The bee's ability to see ultraviolet has less to do with sensitivity and more to do with the size of the bee's eyes I believe. I'm familiar with cosmic background radiation but there's no evidence that either bees or humans can perceive it without the aid of special tools.


Maybe not with the naked eye, no, but many can see it with their third eye. Besides, I'm not just talking about the physical selves but the energetic as well, which always affects the physical.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Crow: Those are an awflu lot of what-ifs. I don't have any problem with people describing their own experiences regarding the drain on a human being caused by the internet. But simple experiments could prove whether or not the idea had any validity. Having a "sensitive" person examine a series of Power Macs, some of which were connected to the internet and others which were not, for example. There are huge prizes available to people who can prove their psychic ability to do such things. Until then, you can't reasonably expect people to make a general case based on a yet-unproven specific one.


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Crow: Those are an awflu lot of what-ifs. I don't have any problem with people describing their own experiences regarding the drain on a human being caused by the internet. But simple experiments could prove whether or not the idea had any validity. Having a "sensitive" person examine a series of Power Macs, some of which were connected to the internet and others which were not, for example. There are huge prizes available to people who can prove their psychic ability to do such things. Until then, you can't reasonably expect people to make a general case based on a yet-unproven specific one.


They can try though, can't they? 

But the main drain was what the computer itself, without what the internet was doing, so maybe someone can focus on that.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> SingingCrow: The bee's ability to see ultraviolet has less to do with sensitivity and more to do with the size of the bee's eyes I believe. I'm familiar with cosmic background radiation but there's no evidence that either bees or humans can perceive it without the aid of special tools.


MF is right about not being able to detect the cosmic microwave background without special instrumentation... even if you had senses that could perceive electromagnetic radiation in that part of the spectrum (we don't), you'd need to travel into space or use massive arrays of linked ground-based detectors to be able to resolve it.

With respect to bee's vision, he's not quite right. Bees and many other insects (as well as many fish) can see in the ultraviolet. Many flowers reflect UV light quite differently (so a flower that looks quite plain to us may have vibrant colors in the UV spectrum, or a clearly marked 'landing pad' for a bee). But this has nothing to do with the size of their eyes. It's a function of the molecular structure of the pigment proteins in the light sensitive cells in their eyes.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc: Of course you're right. I lazily stopped at the first web site I could find regarding the bee's UV vision.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Receptor size MIGHT have a play as some sort of primary focusing ( ala the way the ear works to increase sensitivity in certain bands ) but the receptor band will be biochemical in nature refined by evolutionary pressures at work.
Polarization sensitivity also has a similar role as UV. Humans need visual aids to discern either.

SC ......can I suggest let the over-active imagination relax a bit and get the physical understanding of the wonders that ARE really there straight before attempting to ascertain ones that are extremely speculative.

Energy does transform into many forms and as with earthquakes, clearly some animals react to "disturbances" or precursors long before instruments make "sense" of the same information.

Still most such secondary "music of the spheres" is chaotic and our neural systems put the resulting inputs on ignore.....as background "noise"


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

That "over imagination" is called intuition MD. And just because you don't trust yours that doesn't mean I have to stop trusting mine.

I know you all like the scientific approach, you know... the one you call "REAL", so I did a little research on what I intuited.

1. This disappearance of bees also happened in 1915. No one figured out why.
See here"

2. In 1915, both radio and telephone started to go long distance, hence wires and a whole lot of electromagnetic energy newly being thrown around, affecting our atmosphere. See here

3. Yes investigators of the 2007 version of this phenomenon gave up on cell phone, but started focusing on cordless phones, due to the fact that "A cordless phone uses a different wavelength of electromagnetic energy than cellular phones do." See here

I really don't think I'm that far off. I just don't think it's limited to what we already know.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

If the increase in use of radio communication starting early in the 20th century was the cause of the problem, it would have continued to get worse (communication using EM has increased continuously and exponentially since its invention). But it got better, and has now suddenly started getting bad again. That suggests a different cause.

The great thing about intuition is that no one remembers when they're wrong, so it seems to work.

Cheers


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

They changed the way they transmitted the waves within a year. 

Bees adapt, after all, through evolution, their species has existed long beyond that of humans, and the great majority of animals, surviving many great disasters and changes. In fact, the bees will probably return next year.

In the meantime, I'll move on. I didn't come here for personal attacks on something you don't understand, I came here to discuss concerns about the disappearance of bees, and maybe delve a bit deeper into the possibilities as to why it's happening. This seems to be the limit of your ability to do so, so this will be my last post on this topic. 

Cheers.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

We might also ask if the bees are experiencing difficulty worldwide--since there are countries where EMR is as prolific or morseo than in the U.S.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You mean like Australia who is currently supplying bees to the US 

Yes die offs have occurred elsewhere and on a wide scale and often without a complete understanding of the factors involved.

Given how critical pollinators are to food production I'm quite pleased more than "intuition" is being applied to understand the issue.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Not a smoking gun, but there's more evidence for a biological cause:

globeandmail.com: Pathogen causing bee blight?

Seems an Australian virus (which started arriving with imported colonies in 2004) may be acting in combination with parasites found in North America but not down under -- either parasites weakening the bees enough to make the virus harmful, or the virus creating an opening for the parasites.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> February 21, 2008
> *Häagen-Dazs Funds Effort to Identify Why Honeybees are Disappearing Worldwide*
> 
> 
> ...


related
Are Bees the Next Mass-Extinction Species? | The Daily Galaxy: News from Planet Earth & Beyond
Cell Phones May Wipe Out World's Bee Population | The Daily Galaxy: News from Planet Earth & Beyond


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Here's another contributing factor (and demonstrates how little we know of things we take for granted).

Honey Bees Give Clues on Virus Spread


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Some answers

Pesticides indicted in bee deaths | Salon


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

Beej said:


> I find the notion that we are fundamentally weakening much of our biological inputs through protective behaviour (like raising a kid in your safe basement and releasing them into the world at 18) fascinating. Does anyone have research on this written for someone who isn't an expert in biology?


Personally I'm a bit curious about the effect of all these anti bacterial cleaners and such and how such a sterile environment may impact the immune systems of kids....


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Mason bees fly to the rescue of failing orchards*





> ...some fruit growers in North America are now turning to the indigenous mason bee as an orchard-pollinator. Not only are mason bees not affected by CCD, but they're better at pollinating than honeybees, you need less of them, and they have a more laidback personality, meaning less of those nasty stings.
> 
> Mason bees occur naturally in the North American woodlands, where they are also known as blue orchard or Osmia bees. Because they're fast fliers, and remain active in poor weather, they do a better job at pollination than the introduced European honeybees. Instead of living in colonies with assigned roles, each mason bee lives an independent existence, and all the females lay eggs. That said, they are very gregarious by nature, and like to live cheek-by-jowl with one another. This characteristic makes it possible to sort of domesticate them, as a great number of bees will gladly cohabitate in a relatively small beehouse.
> 
> Yes, a beehouse. Because they don't form societies, or produce wax, mason bees don't live in hives. Instead, each bee finds an already-existent tubular hole (Such as a wormhole in a tree) and moves in...


(Full story at GizMag)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Fears for crops as shock figures from America show scale of bee catastrophre*





> Disturbing evidence that honeybees are in terminal decline has emerged from the United States where, for the fourth year in a row, more than a third of colonies have failed to survive the winter.
> 
> The decline of the country's estimated 2.4 million beehives began in 2006, when a phenomenon dubbed colony collapse disorder (CCD) led to the disappearance of hundreds of thousands of colonies. Since then more than three million colonies in the US and billions of honeybees worldwide have died and scientists are no nearer to knowing what is causing the catastrophic fall in numbers.





> ...a third of everything we eat depends upon honeybee pollination, which means that bees contribute some £26bn to the global economy.


(TheGuardianUK)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_This story isn't going away.... _

*Bee Colony Collapse Spreading Around The World, Putting Global Food Supply At Possible Risk*



> Declines in managed bee colonies, seen increasingly in Europe and the US in the past decade, are also now being observed in China and Japan and there are the first signs of African collapses from Egypt, according to the report from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
> 
> The authors, who include some of the world's leading honey-bee experts, issue a stark warning about the disappearance of bees, which are increasingly important as crop pollinators around the globe. Without profound changes to the way human beings manage the planet, they say, declines in pollinators needed to feed a growing global population are likely to continue.


(Crooks & Liars)


----------

