The definition I had heard for autopsy was "examination of a cadaver to attempt to determine the cause of it's death". I guess you're saying that's wrong. What's the proper definition? I'm guessing it does have something to do with examining cadavers but there are restrictions. Is the restriction that the cadaver be human? Or that both the examiner and cadaver be human? Or possibly that both cadaver and examiner be intelligent creatures of the same kind in some sense (that's what "auto" sort of sounds like to me)?
It's not so much about the definition, as it is about historical usage. Autopsy and necropsy are basically synonyms, but the first is used for humans, while the latter is used for all other animals. That's just the way it is; as often, there isn't really any rational explanation for it.
How funny. Twenty years ago I worked for a summer for that guy at the University of Montana grinding up bees and writing data collection/analysis software.
edit: One of the projects I worked on looked at to what extent bees aggregated environmental pollutants into the hive. To prepare the bee samples for mass spectrometer, we ground them up, mixed them with aqua regia (mixture of nitric and hydrochloric acids) in a nonreactive teflon container (a teflon bombs) and then microwaved them! Science is awesome. One of the bombs exploded once and the acid gutted the inside of the microwave.
The last I had heard, researchers believed that cell phones were at least partially to blame, but the article doesn't seem to mention it at all. Does anybody know if that has been disproved?
I haven't read GMO as a possible culprit, but I have seen monoculture, made possible by pesticides and GMOs, as a possibility. Industrial agriculture is rather sterile, not really providing a balanced diet for bees (or us for that matter). The cell phone thing is just batty though.
Remarkable- that list supports your conclusion way more when you insert an item! Darn those irrational technophobic nature-romanticists, putting mobile phones into lists where they don't belong.
I've upvoted you, because I don't think being misinformed is worth -4. 0 or -1, maybe.
Do you have a source for the cell phone claim? I'm curious to know if there is a rational argument behind it, or just a speculative guess by a journalist.
>I don't think being misinformed is worth -4. 0 or -1, maybe.
They asked a useful question which should IMO have been at least a null hypothesis in some lab somewhere ("do hive deaths correlate with mobile phone use density or with mast locations"). Sure they assume something which appears slightly shaky in the process, but IMO they added to the post with their comment and deserve a +1 or +2 and a comment "that whilst it may have been an initial hypothesis it was quickly discarded, see {citation}".
Down-modding this sort of comment reduces the quality of the thread.
But they didn't ask it as a useful question, they made a statement without backing it up, but in such a way as to imply it was true. That statement was socially and scientifically useless. To be clear, they said:
> The last I had heard, researchers believed that cell phones were at least partially to blame,
No-one can claim that, since no credible research has ever even hinted that. Hence, they are stating an unfounded opinion passed off as a poorly remembered fact. Not just misinformed, but attempting to perpetuate a wrong idea -> downvote.
As to eliminating a null hypothesis, that's just applying the precautionary principal to things that are salient, which is foolish and just pandering to the "new technology X is killing us" crowd. Additionally, mobile phones have been widespread for years longer than colony collapse disorder, so why even suspect a link?
>Not just misinformed, but attempting to perpetuate a wrong idea
It is entirely possible that they read an article (even possibly in the national press of their country) saying that "researchers believed that cell phones were at least partially to blame". This makes your statement "no one can claim ..." false. Indeed it might have been a neighbour or friend that told them, they might even have doubted it.
In any case, reading the second part of the post "the article doesn't seem to mention it at all. Does anybody know if that has been disproved?" clearly labels this as a current genuine enquiry that can be answered without assuming bad faith on the questioners part.
>which is foolish and just pandering to the "new technology X is killing us" crowd
So, when there's a temporal correlation between the rise of a global new technology and the apparent threat of a globally required (for on going human existence at least) genus [not sure on my taxonomy there?] you don't think it even deserves us to ask the question whether that correlation hides a causal link? There aren't that many global phenomena showing this sort of change in magnitude of use are there?
As it happens I have a vague recollection of reading about something along these lines in New Scientist, possibly in terms of "scientists have considered many possible explanations, mobile phone signals, ... [long list of varying suggested causes]".
'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."'
Care to retract anything or are you going to continue in claiming these two studies (plus at least 2 more on Google Scholar link) are not credible research.
Okay, I may have gone off at the deep end, for which I apologise. The OP may have been making a good faith observation on the basis on media coverage of this. However, I stand by the fact that "mobile phones are bad for you" is an extremely irritating meme and I'd like to see it die.
As to a temporal correlation, no there isn't. Six years before CCD was observed (2000) there were about 100 million mobile phones in the USA. In 2006, 200 million. Granted that is a large rise, but if I was looking for a correlation, I'd look at 0 to 100 million, not 100 to 200 million.
The reason the popular press includes mobile phone signals as a possible cause, is that a) it's a common meme that people lap up, and b) as you point out, scientists have shown that if you put strong radio signals near hives, bees don't return there. But to me, that doesn't credibly imply CCD is caused by mobile phones.
To look at this another way, Facebook was launched to everyone in 2006. Maybe the bees get distracted by facebook and starve to death? To test this, I put a computer running facebook inside a beehive. The bees stopped going to that hive. QED, facebook caused CCD. That wouldn't be credible, even if I had run the experiment and got that result.
Anyway, you are right, the OP probably did genuinely think this was the explanation, which sucks for science journalism and more generally civil and technological society everywhere.
> However, I stand by the fact that "mobile phones are bad for you" is an extremely irritating meme and I'd like to see it die.
Mobile phones are good for you is extremely irritating as well, probably just as much. All there is is research and evidence, you don't draw your conclusions based on things being 'irritating'.
You could discard pretty much all of science because it is at least irritating to someone, so we agree to not pick and choose but to follow where ever facts and evidence lead us, even if that requires putting to rest links that are suggested and that turn out to be false, lest we throw out a real possibility.
It is interesting that you would apologize and then you say the same thing again but in different words.
Skimming through the paper ( http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna... ), I don't know that the mass spectrometry they did really required a military-academia connection, as the article seems to imply. While the machines certainly aren't everywhere, I would imagine that there are quite a few in the hands of researchers who aren't paid by the DoD.
I was going to post the same thing as the poster above you as I heard about this last year, but I wasn't sure if it was the combo or not. I know it involved fungus for sure though.
Research at the University of California, San Francisco, had already identified the fungus as part of the problem. And several RNA-based viruses had been detected as well. But the Army/Montana team, using a new software system developed by the military for analyzing proteins, uncovered a new DNA-based virus, and established a linkage to the fungus, called N. ceranae.
Very much a 'symptoms and not the causes' analysis. This doesn't really answer anything. It's like finding out a virus causes AIDS and not noticing it's spread through frequent promiscuous sexual contact.
What they should be reporting on is: if this is dietary in some way, what has changed the diets of bees? Why are they catching this disease now, and not 20 years ago? What has been changing regarding the environment of bees?
Yes, it does; it tells us what is actually killing the bees. We didn't even really know that with any certainty before hand. You're correct that there are some important "why"'s, and "how"'s that aren't known, but one thing at a time.
Sure. But what I'm saying is that finding the pathogen is not finding the 'cause', it's more like a symptom. I would have preferred if the article and headline took that attitude. That's all.
Checkout Michael Schacker's book 'A Spring Without Bees.' Though it is a bit one-sided, he makes a compelling case for the pesticide Imidacloprid (IMD) being a significant factor in the honey-bee decline (I don't have it on hand, but I think he cites a study that shows that IMD "intoxicates" bees at as low as 6 ppb).
French beekeepers have been saying it was IMD for years and even though the "official" studies (from Bayer, the manufacturer of IMD) say there is no negative effect on bees.
That said, since the French banned IMD in 1999 (for use on sunflowers and other crops) they've seen a decline in CCD.
I'm a part of a few online beekeeping groups and the general feeling about this NYT article is that yes, probably a fungus + virus is what is killing the bees, but why are they weakened to such a point that it is spreading so disastrously? And here pesticides, migratory stress (i.e. driving them all around the country to pollenate crops), feeding them large amounts of hfcs, and general overwork all seem to play a part in weakening colonies.
I became a beekeeper the end of August when I collected a swarm on the end of our block. I've since become keenly aware of the extent to which beekeeping has become "commercialized". Ignoring (external) factors like pesticides, etc., pollination activities subject them to intense pressures (monoculture, hive movement, sick bees from remote geographies, etc.). Varroa, for example, is pretty much endemic in hives throughout the US after having been "introduced" in the late 80s.
The University of Minnesota, known for the Minnesota Hygienic line, instructs fledgling beekeepers to follow a "two-year" plan. The first year involves lots of chemical treatments (routine use of "nasty" chemicals is now the norm in the hive), the second year more chemicals and (hopefully) lots of honey. After two years? Kill the hive.
The end-game in all of this seems unsustainable (highly-evolved diseases and highly-chemical-dependent hives). I've been trying to work out a better plan for myself: one that does not tolerate chemical treatments (but is willing to let weak hives die), works with the bees, and fosters reproduction of thriving stock. I'd appreciate any resources you'd be able to share to aid in this.
I'm not quite sure why this is being voted down. Anyone care to share the reason? Factual inaccuracies? Criticizing Bayer scientists? Vilifying HFCS? I'd love to get feedback on how the above post is out of line.
I'd like to point out that there is huge financial incentives for the chem-companies to prove it isn't chemicals. Case in point, take the book 'The Idiots Guide to Beekeeping'
In this book they suggest small-cell beekeeping as a way to help prevent the infection of mites. The chem companies and suppliers are furious that they would suggest this and are aggressively applying pressure to the publishers of the book. The publishers, who know little about beekeeping are in turn applying pressure to the authors to redact their stance on small-cell beekeeping.
I worked in a wetlab or for a bioinformatics company writing software for 4 years. One of the things that completely shocked me when I started working there, and I think most people don't appreciate, is that taking a liquid and figuring out what proteins are in there is a very hard thing to do. Then the next step -- how much does my sample have of the things I've identified -- is also hard to do. Doing either of them inexpensively is harder still. People still work hard on those two questions today, and there is still room for significant innovation around those two questions.
Also, CSI style science, where you drop a sample into the magic machine and an answer pops out is... nonsense. These are some of the most finicky machines you've ever encountered -- you always end up doing baselining / calibration runs, etc. Often they involve skilled lab work to set up, calibrate, run, and determine whether answers are significant.
I always had my suspicions about those machines they show on "House," where a vial of serum or blood is popped into the machine and out comes a printed checklist of tests run and positive or negative results.
It seems very doubtful that something like a rapid ELISA test for HIV can be done within a machine, in combination with many other tests.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-10-14/living/17265958_1_cali...
Great article on Almonds and Bees in case you weren't aware... over 50% of the bees in the US are shipped to California during growing season... pretty crazy. Wonder what the impact will be on almond prices.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone...