Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Forget About Biotech Crops in Bee Disappeances—It's Cellphones!
Last week, I analyzed the Sierra Club scare campaign that suggests that biotech crops might be responsible for colony collapse disorder in which bees are disappearing around the world. Now the Independent, one of Britain's leading newspapers, is reporting that another high tech culprit could be responsible--mobile phones. No, really they are! To wit:
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... Albert Einstein once said that if the bees disappeared, "man would have only four years of life left"...
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."
One problem with the biotech crop theory is that bees are also disappearing in Europe which plants very little in the way of biotech crops. Of course, Europe is chock-a-block with mobile phones. But why now? It's not as though cellphones have just started emitting bee-confusing radio waves in the last year.
Tuskegee University biologist C.S. Prakash wryly notes: As Sherlock Holmes said, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Anyway, whole Independent article here.
Kudos to Prakash.
|4.16.07 @ 6:45AM|#
And of course, because current generations are so special and
unique, it will matter not at all that bee die-offs happen
periodically.
No, the current events must be unprecedented and catastrophic and
must be, oh, whats the word, anthropogenic and illustrative of the
Evils of Technology.
Same old tune, in other words, history and facts be damned.
|4.16.07 @ 6:57AM|#
So, will the killer bees save us?
I welcome our African apian friends. Sting me! Oh!
Marc|4.16.07 @ 7:02AM|#
Why are they giving the bees mobile phones anyway? Don't they communicate through dancing, and not through sound?
|4.16.07 @ 8:06AM|#
Well, it's not totally out in left field. I remember hearing
something a while back about how locust swarms could be disrupted
by blasting them with certain EM frequencies, because they
apparently "coordinate" through something similar. Insects do all
sorts of weird stuff. Maybe the bees are afraid they'll get brain
cancer from cell phones.
Anyway, RC Dean is right. What's the history of bee populations?
This theory has the whiff of Luddism about it.
|4.16.07 @ 8:10AM|#
This is obviously sales propaganda put out by the telcos. They figure that people like me, who have resisted buying a cell phone until now, will be enticed by the possibility of bee reduction. Nice try.
edna|4.16.07 @ 8:11AM|#
albert einstein was a biologist? who knew? there really ought to
be a corollary to godwin's law, that when einstein is invoked for
anything outside of physics (and often with a totally false quote),
the citer is automatically presumed to be talking bullshit.
albionite, it's not just out in left field, it's over the fence.
brodeur's last stand.
|4.16.07 @ 8:18AM|#
edna
I think the bees might be invoking the precautionary principle.
They're thinking "zzzz...cell phones!...zzz...these might cause
brain tumors....zzzz...best avoid them altogether....zzzz."
Albert|4.16.07 @ 8:18AM|#
I don't play dice with the uni-, wait...God doesn't play roulette with...how does that go again? I'm so absent-minded.
s.m. koppelman|4.16.07 @ 8:31AM|#
Thanks, Ron, for bringing your usual derisive tone to coverage
of this phenomenon. You're absolutely right: the rapid collapse of
honeybee populations must be met with skepticism, and until there's
absolute certainty about the cause, no action whatsoever should be
taken.
There's no known precedent for what's happening now, is therr?
Unfortunately, the world isn't a tightly controlled experiement. In
recent years, humans have rolled out several new families of
pesticides, hundreds of transgenic GM crops, and deployed billions
of high-frequency low-power wireless devices. Those alone encompass
changes to many variables at once, and the culprit may be somewhere
else entirely -- a microorganism, changes in the Earth's magnetic
field, L. Ron Hubbard's engrams(TM), whatever. Heaven forbid there
be a moratorium on planting GM crops, or the latest generations of
cellphone towers in agricultural areas be shut down, for instance,
until they can be eliminated as causes.
If doctors put a patient on six medications at once and the patient
shows a life-threatening reaction, they don't calmly, methodically
try eliminating one medication at a time. They stop administering
all of the questionable ones and reintroduce them carefully.
Scientists are putting theories out there -- including some that
won't hold much water. This is true, especially since those most
knowledgeable about radio waves generally don't know much about
bees, and the ones who know the most about bees seldom have a
current and thorough knowledge of the nature of every GM crop
introduced in the past decade. But these theories need to be put
out there and given an adequate airing before they can be
eliminated. It seems as though you'd prefer that only the one
that's correct get a serious hearing. I'm sure actual scientists
would like it if the scientific process worked that way, too. It
would save them the trouble of all that tedious experimentation
stuff.
Lori|4.16.07 @ 8:35AM|#
This article needs to be posted on Armageddon Online! But hey....the 4 year's to live after the bees die, Einstein theory, correlates with the end of the Aztec calendar. 2012.
|4.16.07 @ 8:55AM|#
there are about 20,000 known species of bees in the world today.
Many of which do pollinate when the honeybee will not.(or in this
case cannot). Take of course into consideration that the
populations of wild bees has been severely depleted in past years,
but there are still enough to do the job of pollination. One such
bee is the blue orchard bee...orchard bees visit up to 1600 flowers
daily and pollinate about 90-99% of them. WHereas a honeybee visits
about half as many, and pollinates only a few dozen. Usda studies
suggest that 250-300 orchaed bees can do as much pollinating as a
hive of honeybees which numbers about 30-40,000. The trick is for
farmers to encourage these bees to the property.
At any rate in my experience I have seen a few different types of
bees pollinating my field and greenhouse crops including bumblebees
and sweat bees and those pesky cucumber beatles.... as well as the
honeybees whose colonies I rent from a local beekeeper.... I have
not heard any reports of colony collaspe in my neck of the woods,
but.... time will tell.
Source of info on the orchard bees: Rodale encyclopedia of organic
gardening...
Marc|4.16.07 @ 9:02AM|#
Somebody please explain to koppleman what a straw man is. I would, but I'm kind of sleepy today.
|4.16.07 @ 9:03AM|#
"those pesky cucumber beatles"
Are those the ones that live in octopus's gardens?
The Roving Reporter|4.16.07 @ 9:16AM|#
POLL: WHO HERE THINKS THAT RALPH-A-MINUTE SHOULD BE
UNDER THE SEA?
DATELINE: Bellingham, WA
The roving reporter has discovered that Ralph-a-Minute's Yellow
Submarine service has been damaged by Maxwell's Silver Hammer,
according to Michelle. The yellow submarine, which once served as a
meeting place for all the lonely people went helter skelter.
"Oh! Darling" cried Michelle out! "You'll have to carry that
weight! You're becoming a real nowhere man!"
This is the roving reporter signing off.
Dave W.|4.16.07 @ 9:28AM|#
Thanks, Ron, for bringing your usual derisive tone to
coverage of this phenomenon. You're absolutely right: the rapid
collapse of honeybee populations must be met with skepticism, and
until there's absolute certainty about the cause, no action
whatsoever should be taken.
I thought this was one of his better posts, better than his last
one about the bees. At least he took seriously the idea that gm
crops could possibly be responsible and gave some persuasive
reasoning of why they might not be(e). For Mr. Bailey, that is
progress.
Probably the next good step would be for a beekeeper to sue for the
environmental damage. Because cell phone tower providers are quite
consolidated (a "natural oligopoly" if you will), it should be
pretty easy to get them all in one suit and apportion the honey and
crop loss damages.
Sandy|4.16.07 @ 9:29AM|#
As Sherlock Holmes said, "When you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the
truth."
...if and only if you have considered every possibility.
|4.16.07 @ 9:57AM|#
the market has spoken.
if bees can't compete, well, that's tough nuts. they can go the way
of buggy-whip manufacturers.
or are you in favor of subsidies for BIG BEE?
big bees, plus extinction hier
|4.16.07 @ 10:19AM|#
Somehow there must be a way to pin this on George Bush? I'll just bet that stem cell research would help. Also, more taxes on the super-rich, those driving SUVs, and REASON subscribers.
|4.16.07 @ 10:19AM|#
There's no known precedent for what's happening now, is
therr?
Google is your friend, s.m. Bee populations worldwide collapsed in
the '70s (due, it is believed, to pesticide use).
Bees everywhere are vulnerable to harsh winters.
The current collapse is variously blamed on cell phones, bad
weather, genetically engineered crops, mites (but only if you
listen to what actual, you know, entomologists think), and a
virus.
Fluffy|4.16.07 @ 10:19AM|#
Koppelman, here's the problem:
At any particular moment in time, at least one "bad and unexplained
thing" will be going on. Bees may be dying, or frogs. Or there may
be too many bees or too many frogs. A river may be drying up, or a
river may be flooding. The weather may be getting warmer, or the
weather may be getting cooler. There may be more Yeti sightings and
less Loch Ness monster sightings, or even the reverse.
If we took your approach seriously and stopped doing anything new -
or anything of recent vintage - every time something unexplained
happened, we could never do anything new at all. Ever. Because even
if we demonstrate conclusively that cell phones aren't hurting
bees, next year there will be an algae bloom somewhere and someone
will claim that cell phones are causing THAT. And the year after
that, someone's breast implants will explode and someone will say
that cell phones are causing THAT.
|4.16.07 @ 10:20AM|#
'Tuskegee University biologist C.S. Prakash wryly notes: As
Sherlock Holmes said, "When you have eliminated the impossible,
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." '
There's a third possibility. Maybe Tuskegee guessed the real reason
bees are declining yet.
|4.16.07 @ 10:22AM|#
If true, it'll be a boon to the bee removal companies.
albert einstein was a biologist?
Albert Einstein once said that if the bees disappeared, "man
would have only four years of life left"
I doubt it; the supposed quote seems to be nuttin' more than MSM
scribblers parroting each other.
No, the current events must be unprecedented and catastrophic
and must be, oh, whats the word, anthropogenic and illustrative of
the Evils of Technology.
Bees won't return to a hive if they get a whiff of Al Gore's mighty
alpha-male pheromones (perfume).
|4.16.07 @ 10:23AM|#
I would like to check the correlation between EPA funding and varrious environmental problems.
|4.16.07 @ 10:28AM|#
But what about those near-dead hives with the few survivors badly diseased? Cell phones wouldn't cause that. I don't think we need to look further than the Bee smallpox/aids/ebola/whatever.
|4.16.07 @ 10:42AM|#
Mother nature is quite capable of wiping out a species all on her own. Human intervention may be sufficient in some cases, but it is not necessary for all cases.
thoreau|4.16.07 @ 10:54AM|#
Steven Crane-
But you see, the market for honey is not completely laissez-faire,
so this isn't a real market. So there's probably a law
that we can blame.
The one thing I know is that the disappearance o of bees is not
Matt Damon's fault.
Dave W.|4.16.07 @ 11:00AM|#
Exactly how much expertise with GM crops do you
have?
In this thread, I said that Mr. Bailey put forth some nice evidence
that GM crops are not killing the bees. Was it naive of me to say
that?
I did do a wee bit of research to try to determine whether cell
phone towers are shielded from liability in the case that it turns
out cell phone towers did in the bees. I seem to recall some
federal liability-shielding legislation for cell phone towers in
the 1990s, but (not being a tort lawyer) I can't remember for sure
and GOOGLE wasn't quickly helpful. If you know history, maybe you
can let us know if my memory is correct about the special law for
cell phone towers, Grotius.
Dave W.|4.16.07 @ 11:01AM|#
But what about those near-dead hives with the few survivors
badly diseased?
Maybe it takes a village to give a bee an immune system appropriate
for a bee. There is a reason that Utah puts beehives on the cop
cars, you know.
|4.16.07 @ 11:15AM|#
One thing that high honey prices do is drive up the price of
mead.
And that's a crying shame.
And where do you get your mead, Grotius? Anything in particular
that you can recommend?
|4.16.07 @ 11:24AM|#
They don't put much trust in natural selection. Somewhere there must be bees resistant to the effects of cellphones. They will have a survival advantage and replace all the other bees, right?
|4.16.07 @ 11:25AM|#
I've seen their website before, but have never tried their
products.
I started making mead about three years ago, so I don't buy
commercial products anymore. However, I have friends that
frequently ask where they can buy mead.
Grotius|4.16.07 @ 11:28AM|#
carrick,
Well, they have good stuff. You may be able to buy their products
locally as well. There is a store in my area that carries their
products (along with other mead producers).
Dave W.|4.16.07 @ 11:32AM|#
Exactly how much expertise with GM crops do you
have?
Far more than you and Mr. Bailey. Also, see my previous answer.
|4.16.07 @ 11:38AM|#
http://www.bienenarchiv.de/forschung/2004_lernprozesse/Electromagnetic%20Exposure_Learning%20Processes.doc.pdf
"How Electromagnetic Exposure can influence Leaning Processes -
Modelling Effects of Electromagnetic Exposure on Learnning
Processes." (Stever and Kuhn at 'Campus Landau').
...
Conclusion, Outlook
...
A first explorative study has not indicated a changing behaviour
when the bees have been irradiated.
|4.16.07 @ 11:44AM|#
Can we just get a whole buncha metsicans to do the job the bees
arent doing now?
Oh well, I am allergic to bees anyway
they give me hives
Dave W.|4.16.07 @ 11:45AM|#
Or any bench science in that area?
Grotius, I had some question on the table directed to you. You give
me good, thoughtful answers to mine and I will get around to your
new question.
Grotius|4.16.07 @ 11:49AM|#
Dave W.,
Both of Ron's posts on bees have been fine posts.
So, have you done any bench science in the arena of GM crops?
|4.16.07 @ 11:53AM|#
Has anybody here ever driven across vast expanses of farmland off an interstate or other divided highway? How was your cell signal in those places? I rarely get a signal, and when I do its from some strange provider I've never heard of. Bees in these areas shouldn't be hurt by signals.
Grotius|4.16.07 @ 11:55AM|#
Oh, the only qualifications I have for discussing GM crops is this one: I took an ecology course in which one of the main units of discussion was GM crops. We read, amongst other things, that 1999 paper on monarch butterflies.
Dave W.|4.16.07 @ 11:57AM|#
Both of Ron's posts on bees have been fine posts.
That wasn't the question. The questions were, to paraphrase:
1. Do you agree or disagree with my gm crop related comment on this
thread?
I suspect you agree, which is why this may not be the best thread
to have a discussion about why my knowledge and wisdom is superior.
If we agree, that simply don't matter here, and would seem to be
unnecessarily divisive just when we have found some nice common
ground.
2. Are there any special laws protecting cell phone tower providers
from tort liability?
Now, c'mon -- I know you can give me responsive answers to those
questions. You just have to focus hard on what I am asking and
direct your answer to the specific thing I am asking you. When you
get a responsive answer fixed in your mind, then just type it in
and hit "Submit Comment." Simple as pie!
Dave W.|4.16.07 @ 11:58AM|#
"knowledge and wisdom is superior"
should have been:
--knowledge and wisdom is superior--
(but really, that is a side issue)
Grotius|4.16.07 @ 12:01PM|#
Dave W.,
Do you agree or disagree with my gm crop related comment on
this thread?
Dave W.|4.16.07 @ 12:03PM|#
Dave W.,
Do you agree or disagree with my gm crop related comment on this
thread?
You forgot the part about typing the responsive answer. See,
Grotius, you have to do that before "Submit
Comment" or else I can't see your answer at this end. :)
Dave W.|4.16.07 @ 12:06PM|#
Do you agree or disagree with my gm crop related comment on
this thread?
I just realized that my question might be ambiguous for you. I want
you to respond either that you agree with what I said here, or,
alternatively, that you disagree with what I said about gm on this
thd.
Technically you could answer "yes" indicating that you do either
agree or disagree, without specifying which it is, but that is not
helpful.
Being a genius I probably should have phrased it more clearly for
you.
Grotius|4.16.07 @ 12:09PM|#
Dave W.,
Consider the context of your earlier statement on Ron's fine blog
posts on bees.
Being a genius I probably should have phrased it more clearly
for you.
Well, I don't debate geniuses. Too far above my level. So I'll bow
out now.
Dave W.|4.16.07 @ 12:10PM|#
I already gave you the answer I had in mind.
Oh, I hadn't realized that you are one of those who prefers
non-responsive answers. Well, my answer to your question about
bench science is: 42.
uncle sam|4.16.07 @ 12:15PM|#
There's this robin that attacks my office window every day...I think he may be after my cell phone. I never see him attacking the window when I take my cell phone with me.
Dave W.|4.16.07 @ 12:16PM|#
Consider the context of your earlier statement on Ron's fine
blog posts on bees.
Yes, let's. Mr. Bailey made an earlier blog post where he was being
cavalier about the possibility that gm was killing the bees. I
criticized him for being cavalier about that possibility. Then he
comes back with a second blog post, wherein he is not cavalier
about the possibility, but rather addresses it, and rejects it
because of the whole dead bees in Europe thing. Then I come on the
thread to say that Mr. Bailey did a creditable job in addressing my
concerns from the last thread. At this point, I am thinking that I
am happy to have had the opportunity to be a positive influence on
Mr. Bailey's rhetoric, that Mr. Bailey is happy that his rhetoric
is improved, and that you will be happy because you like Mr.
Bailey. But, still, you don't seem happy, Grotius. That is a
puzzlement even for a genius.
Grotius|4.16.07 @ 12:23PM|#
Dave W.,
Mr. Bailey made an earlier blog post where he was being
cavalier about the possibility that gm was killing the
bees.
Bailey wasn't being cavalier at all as anyone remotely familiar
with the literature on this subject should realize.
You are wrong and you remain wrong.
Grotius|4.16.07 @ 12:27PM|#
Dave W.,
Here's a question: have you actually read the monarch butterfly
study that received so much attention?
Did you know (before I pointed it out) that Bt was used by organic
farmers? Did you know that it was a naturally occuring bacteria
found in the soil as well as in some some insects?
Dave W.|4.16.07 @ 12:42PM|#
Here's a question: have you actually read the monarch
butterfly study that received so much attention?
I know better to assume that a butterfly study applies to
bumblebees. That is a "bench science" basic.
I know better than to assume that a study involving some GM crops,
previous known, applies to different GM crops now known or to be
developed in the future. That is another "bench science"
basic.
I know better than to assume that "Bt" is co-extensive with all the
crop modifications that can potentially hurt bees. Bench science
basic number 3.
I know that when carrick says that gm must be "closely monitored"
then he means closely monitored, and is not just whistlin' Dixie.
Replicating matter, and matter that shares a food / host with
replicating matter, requires close monitoring indeed. A jammed gun
or bomb can cause a couple extra dead soldiers, maybe even US
soldiers, if that happens to be the nation the armament was sold
to. However, this GM stuff can lead to much bigger catastrophes.
Cause of the replication. It doesn't mean that gm killed the bees.
it also means we shouldn't gloss over that possibility too quickly,
as Mr. Bailey was trying to do before accepting my gentle
correction with grace and verve.
|4.16.07 @ 12:49PM|#
You give me good, thoughtful answers to mine and I will get
around to your new question.
Always the mark of a BSer. Until you answer Grotius' question, we
have no reason to believe your outrageous claims.
Dave W.|4.16.07 @ 12:53PM|#
Misc corr dep't:
"I know better to assume"
--I know better than to assume--
"co-extensive"
--coterminous-- (shout out to Doherty)
"shares a food / host with"
--shares a food / host relationship with--
Grotius|4.16.07 @ 12:55PM|#
Dave W.,
I know better to assume that a butterfly study applies to
bumblebees. That is a "bench science" basic.
So, you've never read it?
It doesn't directly apply, of course, but no one ever claimed that
it did, so your point is off base. Indeed, since the discussion
specifically concerned in part the general issue of GM crops it was
important to bring up that particular study.
I know better than to assume that a study involving some GM
crops, previous known, applies to different GM crops now known or
to be developed in the future. That is another "bench science"
basic.
See my second comment above.
I know better than to assume that "Bt" is co-extensive with all
the crop modifications that can potentially hurt bees. Bench
science basic number 3.
See my second comment above.
I know that when carrick says that gm must be "closely
monitored" then he means closely monitored...
GM crops are very closely monitored and they pass rigorous testing
regimes prior to introduction. So what's your point exactly?
Grotius|4.16.07 @ 1:00PM|#
Dave W.,
Indeed, at least three federal agencies (that I know of) concern
themselves with the various aspects of GM crops.
Grotius|4.16.07 @ 1:02PM|#
Dave W.,
It also means we shouldn't gloss over that possibility too
quickly, as Mr. Bailey was trying to do before accepting my gentle
correction with grace and verve.
Ron didn't gloss over anything and that remains my point of
disagreement with you and why I answered the way I did.
Grotius|4.16.07 @ 1:08PM|#
Dave W.,
However, this GM stuff can lead to much bigger catastrophes.
Cause of the replication.
What are the exact dangers of GM crops?
In other words, what specific scenarios do you have in mind?
Dave W.|4.16.07 @ 1:15PM|#
GM crops are very closely monitored and they pass rigorous
testing regimes prior to introduction.
Supposedly the Flavr Savr tomatoes were withdrawn because they
failed to predict that the picking machines would smush the
tomatoes in the fields.
When I ask Mr. Bailey about Dolley's premature death, he suggests
that maybe she got arthritis due to an inactive lifestyle. Does he
support this conjecture by pointing to a hundred or thousand clones
that didn't prematurely die or get arthritis because they were
allowed decent exercise? No. because there ain't a study like
that.
True these are just anecdotes, but in light of anecdotes like
these, it is tough to believe your unsupported blanket assertions
of "rigorousness" and "monitoring." Citing us a butterfly study on
a bumblebee problem don't help establish confidence in the process
neither. Nor do the FDA's 1992 regulations specifying what kinds of
testing are required.
None of this means that gm killed the bees. But it does mean that
Bailey's second post reflects an attitudinal improvement over his
first.
Grotius|4.16.07 @ 1:16PM|#
crimethink,
One of the problems for anti-GM types is that non-Western nations
have gone forward vigorously in pursuing GMO technology, both in
its application and its development.
Grotius|4.16.07 @ 1:23PM|#
Dave W.,
True these are just anecdotes, but in light of anecdotes like
these, it is tough to believe your unsupported blanket assertions
of "rigorousness" and "monitoring."
(A) Dolly was never meant to be an animal for sale to the
public.
(B) The sort of testing we're talking about concerns health and
safety testing, not testing for whether a particular product
marries up well with picking machines.
Citing us a butterfly study on a bumblebee
problem...
I didn't do that and it isn't bumblebees that people are concerned
with. It is bees used in the production of honey.
Dave W.|4.16.07 @ 1:24PM|#
In other words, what specific scenarios do you have in
mind?
Glad you asked.
http://tinyurl.com/2psnl9
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0417-tina_butler.html
http://www.avert.org/origins.htm
These are what catastrophes involving replicating matter look
like.
Grotius|4.16.07 @ 1:26PM|#
Dave W.,
Indeed, to my knowledge Dolly was the result of an experiment to
see if cloning was possible and to determine issues related to
cloning.
Dave W.|4.16.07 @ 1:27PM|#
The sort of testing we're talking about concerns health and
safety testing, not testing for whether a particular product
marries up well with picking machines.
"Rigorous" testing using handpicked specimens. That is a joke,
right?
Dave W.|4.16.07 @ 1:28PM|#
Indeed, to my knowledge Dolly was the result of an
experiment to see if cloning was possible and to determine issues
related to cloning.
And what was supposed to happen if Dolley did not perform as
planned?
Grotius|4.16.07 @ 1:30PM|#
Dave W.,
Smallpox was not created via GM technology; it is a naturally
occurring disease. Furthermore, at best the issue concerns the
development of new viruses, not the enhancement of crops,
etc.
Cane toads? How about deer in New Zealand? Species have been and
will continue to travel across bioregions on the Earth with or
without the help of human beings.
HIV? So you're back to a naturally occuring virus again.
Grotius|4.16.07 @ 1:33PM|#
Dave W.,
The point of course is that Dolly was never meant for human
consumption, for introduction into the general population of sheep,
etc. It was the result of an experiment.
Grotius|4.16.07 @ 1:33PM|#
Dave W.,
Anyway, I'd like to see you come up with a specific threat
associated with GMO technology.
|4.16.07 @ 1:42PM|#
Dave, first of all Mr. Bailey was not ridiculing the idea that
GM products were causing CCD. He was ridiculing the Sierra Club for
jumping on CCD as a justification for halting GM.
While the hypothesis that GM products could cause CCD is generally
valid, it can easily be "disproven" because CCD is happening all
around the world including Europe where the prevailing animosity to
GM products dramaticaly limits it use. If you Google on CCD, you
will see that this idea has generally already been dismissed.
Therefore, the Sierra Club is using a disproven hypothesis to drum
up support for their political positions. For this, they deserve
every single bit of ridicule they get.
The cellphone hypothesis at least benefits from the fact that
cellular technology is ubiquitous. However, it still seems to be
easy enough to dismiss.
The key fact is that the abondoned hives are not being repopulated
by other honey bees or raided by other species. Since the honey in
the hives is a very valuable resource, this indicates there is a
"problem" with the abandoned hives.
So much more likely scenarios would include increased usage of new
pesticides which both slowly kill the bees and render the hive
unsuable. Alternatively would be a new microbe which has the same
effect.
The most frustrating "feature" of so many people in the green
movement is the quick acceptance of the most remote possibility of
some new technology causing problems in nature while disconting far
more likely natural causes.
Dave W.|4.16.07 @ 1:53PM|#
Smallpox was not created via GM technology; it is a
naturally occurring disease.
More generally, it was caused by a population shift that caused a
naturally occurring microbe to become prevalent in a place where it
was not prevalent before. However, a population shift is not the
only way to cause a microbe to become more prevalent than it was
before. The concern is that GM will cause a microbe to become more
prevalent it was before. One way is if a genetic change to an
animal cause that species to become a vector, when the species was
not a vector before.
Another possibility is that a gm change to a species food will
cause the species to become a vector. You may want to read up on
why hamburgers have more dangerous e coli than they used to. You
may also want to read about how trichonosis (sp?) was wiped out in
North America, and about ongoing efforts to prevent Mad Cow. True,
the dangerous e coli story, the trichonosis story and the Mad Cow
story do not necesarily* involve GM changes to the food, but they
do demonstrate more generally that changes to the diet, from any
source, can have unforeseeable microbe implications.
Some microbe implications are small, like the e coli problem.
Others can be big, like smallpox.
Cane toads? How about deer in New Zealand? Species have been
and will continue to travel across bioregions on the Earth with or
without the help of human beings.
Right, it depends upon how much DNA is being changed and how fast.
If DNA is shifted in sequence relatively slowly, then the
catastrophes tend to be infrequent and relatively small
scale.
As the pace of genetic manipulation picks up, the risk
increases.
HIV? So you're back to a naturally occuring virus
again.
One that existed for a long time before mankind decided to eat it
(or taint a test batch of a vaccine with it, not clear which).
Imagine a gm tweak that has us eating a species we didn't used to
eat -- a species that was not cost effective as food, but becomes
so. How many "naturally occurring" virii do you think mankind will
pick up that way? Do you think the new virii acquired in this
manner will be as bad as HIV, or more manageable like the bad e
coli?
FOOTNOTE:
* actually th e coli problem may implicate gm, because it may have
been gm which made the corn cost effective to feed to the cattle,
which in turn changes their digestive pH, which, in turn, causes
the bad e coli to flourish where it previously did not. Or maybe
cows would be fed corn these days irregardless of gm. Tough to
say.
|4.16.07 @ 2:11PM|#
You know, we wouldn't have all these super-bugs floating around
if Pasteur hadn't discovered penicillian.
F*cking scientists . . . who needs them anyway.
Dave W.|4.16.07 @ 2:17PM|#
it can easily be "disproven" because CCD is happening all
around the world including Europe where the prevailing animosity to
GM products dramaticaly limits it use.
Well, I am not sure this is necessarily the last word, but like I
said above, i thought it was good of Bailey to point this out,
especially if he is going to be derisive about people for
overplaying the risk.
Hypothetical questions for you though:
If CCD was happening substantially less in Europe than North
America, for reasons unknown, would you take that as evidence that
gm was to blame, or would you demand more proof? How much
more?
Further hypothetical: let's say, at that point, I was able to show
that a gm change to some plant caused the bees to eat pollen they
previous did not eat and that this toxic pollen compromised the
bees immune systems causing them to succumb in large numbers to
infection. Would you have the maker of the gm plant pay for the bee
die off because the gm plant caused the tragedy? Or would you have
the maker of the gm plant not pay because it could not have
foreseen the damage to the bees?
|4.16.07 @ 2:24PM|#
Hypothetical questions for you though:
What if the first nuclear device really did set the atmosphere on
fire? Where would we be then? Isn't this enough to justify a
moritorium on new nuclear plants?
If you want to discuss hypotheticals that explain why CCD is
happening, then bring it on. It should be amusing anyway. But there
is no point in postulating "what if" on topics that have already
been disproved.
VM|4.16.07 @ 3:11PM|#
Mr. Crane!
hilarious!
Perchance was that you that served as the scale model in the
"compare human size with giant bee"?
hmmmmm.
Hey Farces - just sit out a few plays, okay? People weren't ready
for Vizzini, either. Just hit the sidelines for a few
minutes....
Dave W.|4.16.07 @ 3:17PM|#
If you want to discuss hypotheticals that explain why CCD is
happening, then bring it on. It should be amusing anyway. But there
is no point in postulating "what if" on topics that have already
been disproved.
It is more interesting to know how you feel about tort liability
for gm mishaps before one happens rather than after.
I already know how you will feel, once we are in ex post mode, so
that is uninteresting to me. Ex ante, on the other hand, you might
have something interesting to say from a legal and/or economic
incentives standpoint.
Certainly in your engineering you don't limit your concerns to
problems that have come to pass. Same thing with the law.
|4.16.07 @ 3:31PM|#
Liablity for any new product that results in harm -- many
questions first.
How was it developed and tested?
Was an established processed followed? Did all the actors
participate in good faith? Was negligence invovled? Was deception
or fraud involved?
Was independent peer review involved (independent lab preferably;
government agency less-preferable)?
What went wrong? What was the scope of the problem? Was it
forseeable? Did some unexpected convergence of independent
activities occur?
GM is no different than any other product development. I have no
problem with civil damages assigned when products go wrong. The
magnitude of the damages should differentiate from wrongs that were
forseeable versus those that weren't.
|4.16.07 @ 3:37PM|#
FOOTNOTE:
* actually th e coli problem may implicate gm, because it may have
been gm which made the corn cost effective to feed to the cattle,
which in turn changes their digestive pH, which, in turn, causes
the bad e coli to flourish where it previously did not. Or maybe
cows would be fed corn these days irregardless of gm. Tough to
say.
More specifically, the developer of GM corn has no liability if
some toddler eats a hamburger from a chain resturant and dies from
e-coli.
Dave W.|4.16.07 @ 3:56PM|#
Liablity for any new product that results in harm -- many
questions first.. . . . Was it forseeable? Did some unexpected
convergence of independent activities occur?
Let's give you some answers then. Let's say that the gm plantmaker
spliced a gene from a plant A where bees do eat the pollen, into a
plant B where bees traditionally don't eat the pollen. Let's say
the gm engineers did this for the purpose of increasing insect
(other than bees) resistance of plant B. Let's say the gm'ing did
not cause plant B to secrete any new toxins or allergens or
anything like that, but rather that it subtly changed the scent of
plant B so that the bees now ate the pollen they had previously
avoided, being tricked by their sense of smell into eating
poison.
As far as what the gm plantmaker did, he tested the new plant B
(let's say plant B') to make sure that its fruit was not toxic to
humans. The gm plantmaker did no tests involving bees. The gm
plantmaker did read Grotius's butterfly study and relied on that
and similar studies to determine that it did not believe there
would be ecological damage.
The defendant gm plantmaker argues no liability because the damage
was unforeseeable. The plaintiff farmer, who lost his honey and
crops, argues for liability because testing was not "rigorous" (as
promised by Grotius) and that the damage was sufficiently
foreseeable because of the nature of plant replication, the eating
habits of bees and the role of bees in producing crops and
honey.
Put yourself in the guise of lawgiver. Liability in this case? What
else do you need to know? I can answer any questions about the
hypothetical facts you may have.
Dave W.|4.16.07 @ 4:03PM|#
More specifically, the developer of GM corn has no liability
if some toddler eats a hamburger from a chain resturant and dies
from e-coli.
well, that is an easy one because failure to cook the burger is an
intervening event. Hypothetical variation:
Let's say that feeding the cow a gm plant changed the pH in the
cow's tummy such that a different e coli strain emerged: one that
was both deadly and heat resistant.
Should there be any liability there, either on the part of the gm
plantmaker or on the cattle ranch who fed the corn? Let's say that
both the gm plantmaker and cattle rancher knew that the corn would
change the nature of the intestinal flora of the cattle, but did
not consider that a cooking resistant flora was a possibility.
Toddler's estate out of luck?
|4.16.07 @ 4:12PM|#
Dave, I do not share your fixation on GM. I don't have the time or energy to spend on your deeply involved hypotheticals.
Dave W.|4.16.07 @ 4:26PM|#
I don't have the time or energy to spend on your deeply
involved hypotheticals.
Fine, we will reconvene after an actual gm catastrophe, if one ever
occurs and if HnR chooses to cognize it, and then you can
tell me all the predictable arguments about why whatever happened
was completely unforeseeable. That will be less interesting, but it
will tax your time and brain less.
Believe it or not, I am not fixated with gm.
Being a lawyer, I am fixated with the tort law and labeling aspects
of gm. But that is not the same thing as being fixated with gm.
Dave W.|4.16.07 @ 5:32PM|#
This thread looks so cool with the filter!
But then how can you tell whether it is me or hak that is doing the
"trolling?"
I thought maybe my web page switch would mess up the filter, but I
guess not. There is a good picture of me at the new site for Stevo
to splice into that Time photo. Other than me, none of the other
Farceses live in Canada, tho.
|4.16.07 @ 11:17PM|#
That's not a bad photo, Dave. However, my tools are pretty poor, and I'd probably need a larger, higher rez photo to do you justice. Although I tried.
Kevin Carson|4.18.07 @ 1:23AM|#
Dave W.,
Aren't the cell phone towers indemnified from liability under U.S.
telecom law?
|4.21.07 @ 2:17PM|#
As Bill Maher stated on his show last night...
This is just natures way of saying
"CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?"
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245