Talk:Colony collapse disorder

A poorly understood buzziness. Maybe it's just me but...

The article describes CCD as a "poorly understood phenomenon", but I'm wondering if it's a scientific phenomenon at all. Just heard it described on the BBC as 'not really an explanation, but a handy buzz phrase - Material World (radio programme) - and that in the UK bee-keepers would say 'we certainly don't have CCD, but (noticeably more prosaically) there are problems with the bees and it's likely to be different factors, in different combinations, in different locations). In other words is the observation that it is 'poorly understood' an indication that it's more hype than science or at least a journalistic convenience. More of a name than a thing. Thanks :) Hakluyt bean (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's actually why the researchers who are working on this chose the name "disorder" rather than "disease". They are using "disorder" in the medical sense with the strong connotation that no one yet knows what it is or even whether it's one thing or a combination of several things. What they do think is that there is a specific pattern in which the bees disappear which does not occur in other known circumstances. Rossami (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

EVDO Cellular Study: Where is it?

So Where is this Cellular EVDO study everyone keeps saying there is one. The University of Landau study only looked at Cellular frequencies only and not the underlying technology.

I have attached the disputed article here cause there is cause that there has been a study to discredit EVDO. I am awaiting proof from the those who say that there are proof that EVDO has been discredited and NOT Cellular frequencies by themselves. To this day, with the overwhelming evidence below that areas with EVDO services have higher than normal CCD deaths than non-EVDO areas show that this should be considered a potential cause.

Accordingly the Study was performed at the University of Landau IN GERMANY. Don't you guys know that EVDO services are NOT available there? According to the List of Evolution-Data Optimized service providers, Germany does not even have this technology there. Hence why there is less of a problem with CCD in Europe. Once a study is found within Canada and the USA, I still stand by the fact that EVDO is causing these deaths.

Until proof is provided here by the study that EVDO was tested, I will reinstate the below statement AND Facts at a later time. Cyberglobe (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Edited Cyberglobe (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Cellular EVDO service

Some say that the cellular theory has been discredited as a possible cause. However, the underlying technology, EVDO, has never been thoroughly tested within those Cellular tests. The Cellular tests have only been looking at the specific frequencies but not the underlying technology. Until a study is proven that specifically EVDO Rev 0 and Rev A has been cleared as a possible culprit, the below information seems to offer overwhelming evidence of a possible source of the problem.

Like the above chapter, Electromagnetic radiation from Cellular EVDO services may be a contributing factor in CCD. After locating several bee farms of confirmed CCD cases and comparing them to the Cellular EVDO or Enhanced high speed mobile network maps of the Cellular carriers, there may be some undeniable truth that EVDO may be causing CCD. For Example, in Canada's EVDO Network, Alberta has been hit hard with CCD yet in Manitobawhere there is no EVDO Service, not a scratch of a CCD case

Other Stories adding concrete evidence to the above are:
Canada: Honeybee deaths sting Ontario apiaries, a good portion of Southern Ontario is covered with EVDO. Vancouver Island bees die, The Alberni Valley is covered in Telus Mobility's EVDO network.

Worldwide: There has been a study between Cellphones and bees dying off however the study only looked at the frequency used and not the technology behind those frequencies. Therefore there could be inconclusive evidence for the link.

USA: In Winterset, IA, Bee colonies are dying off as per the article, accordingly to Sprint's EVDO Network Map, Pat Randol's land is covered with Sprint's EVDO network. In Bettendorf, IA Marvin Cotton's land is also in Sprint's EVDO Network. In Gateway, OR Mont Rouse has lost his bees too, however depending where his land is, there may be EVDO service in the area. Yet, to further strengthen the fact that non-EVDO areas are healthy for Bees, Prescott, AZ does not experience any CCD deaths as per Sally Bagby's testimony although she only had her bees for under 1 year.

Those who have apiaries, please verify if your colonies are within one of the following networks reach for EVDO/Broadband Wireless access via Cellular service. If you do find yourself within one of these Cellular networks EVDO service area, please inform your local Beekeeper's council and let them know that you have lost your bee colony and that you are within the Cellular EVDO network's zone.

In the USA Verizon's Coverage Maps in broadband and VCAST mode or Sprint's Coverage Maps for Data, Email and Multimedia mode for Sprint Mobile Broadband Network for the USA.
For Canada, check either Bell Mobility's Network Map looking for Enhanced high speed mobile network zones or Telus Mobility's Network Map looking for Wireless High Speed (EVDO Rev A)
Please note that these maps may be out of date and the only way to verify if EVDO service is available in your area is to either check your cell phone for EVDO service (IF your Cell phone supports EVDO), ask someone with an EVDO phone to come check to see if they have service in your area (Blackberry or PDA Phone) or talk to your Cell Phone Provider's Data Network department and request from them if EVDO is available in your area if the map is not up to date.

What is "EVDO" short for? Is there a wikilink for an article on it with refs etc? I think the section should stay out of the article until proof is available that it is the culprit. It is not up to editors wanting the information removed to prove a negative. The onus of proof is on the editor inserting the information. A good article like this requires every addition to be properly referenced.--Sting Buzz Me... 05:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

EVDO is a technology used in North America by Bell Canada, Telus Mobility, Verizon Wireless and Sprint to offer high speed Internet services wireless services. The issue that I have is that the initial article states probably causes. Anything that is considered probable cause can be included within the probable cause section. Anything that is probably cause can't be proven until a further study is conducted. To date, there has been no study of EVDO on bees only Cellular vs Bees. However the coincidence of the events unraveling above does offer some proof in the matter. The references that were included further backs up my preliminary research. If Beekeeper's association in North America offered maps that shows where CCD occurred across the North American continent, then and only then can we use this data determine if this is the case. Cyberglobe (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you work in the telecommunication/Internet sector?--Sting Buzz Me... 23:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do and therefore I know about this technology. This is why I included it as a possible cause. Can I now place the above comments into the article? Those who are beekeepers could help further determine if they are within their network zones and be able to report it back to their association. Cyberglobe (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(1) The Landau study was discredited BY THE RESEARCHERS THEMSELVES. They expicitly stated that the press had misinterpreted their work, and that it had nothing to do with CCD. (2) You have provided no references that indicate that anyone OTHER than you, personally, has proposed EVDO as a cause for CCD. You cannot include original research in Wikipedia, sorry. Dyanega (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I know of no bee researchers making the claim that EVDO has anything to do with CCD or that it has any effect on bees. Nor is it a notable fallacy like The Independent's cell phone fiasco. Until you can provide a cite showing that someone other than you credibly believes that there is a link, this discussion is original research and has no place in the encyclopedia.
Having said that, I will also tell you that this theory is discredited on the face of it by simply looking at the pattern of CCD losses which have been discussed by J Bromenshenk and others. Hobbyist beekeepers appear largely unaffected by CCD so far. Hobbyist beekeepers keep their bees in urban and suburban locations - locations well within EVDO coverage. If EVDO were the cause, hobbyist beekeepers would be more affected, not less.
EVDO would also not explain how this disorder seems to have occurred as far back as 1896, well before the advent of EVDO. Rossami (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My father is a Hobbyist beekeeper and his all died along with hundreds of other apiaries in our area. This all started happening AFTER Bell Canada had upgraded to EVDO services in the area. Obviously you are adamant on research and not at all on probable causes. Therefore you should rename the 'probable cause' section to 'Probable RESEARCHED Causes'.
1896, sounds familiar, when Nikola Tesla started testing the Tesla Coil. No direct link to it but it seems intriguing that it occurred at the same time none the less.
As for city EVDO vs Rural EVDO, City EVDO actually runs at lower power levels cause of the higher Cell concentration in a square km. In rural areas, the Cell towers can be up to 15km away and therefore the output powers are significantly higher. You can confirm this with your cell providers. However, I doubt you will and I know that there will never be documented information about this cause it is not what they would like to release to the public.
If you are such a high figure on this subject ready to discredit EVDO as a possible cause, why don't you ask the appropriate people to at least investigate on this issue and prove me wrong? You want the research as proof, ask the proper people for it to be produced. I can't produce the proof as I am not part of a government research facility to be able to conduct such research. Cyberglobe (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't YOU write to the researchers and ask them yourself, if you're so certain that they are wrong and you are right? In the meantime, it stays OUT of Wikipedia. It's really that simple. Dyanega (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I love the fact that you guys love to discredit EVDO cause the initial discreditably came when someone used a DECT Wireless station with the bees. This is like saying "since bees are not affected by oranges, all fruits are discredited." Either way, I am slowly working up the chain to get the study conducted. If ANYONE Else has access to a research group, please ask them to conduct a research pertaining to rural EVDO and Bee deaths.Cyberglobe (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No one here is "discrediting" EVDO. There is simply nothing in print suggesting it has any importance, so it can't be included here. There is no logical reason to expect any such publication to ever exist, since at present, everything is pointing to CCD being related to viral infection (so unless EVDO causes viral infections, it seems that you're likely headed down a very blind alley). GM crops, pesticides... all those "We're killing off the bees with technology" theories are starting to look worse and worse all the time. Dyanega (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Landau Study, DECT Analysis

The current article states:

"The team's 2004 exploratory study on non-thermal effects on learning did not find any change in behavior due to RF exposure from the DECT base station operating at 1880-1900 MHz"

Can someone provide the backing for this statement?

• In terms of behavior changes, the Landau study did in fact find a great contrast in bees' returning behavior between exposed and non-exposed groups: http://agbi.uni-landau.de/material_download/IAAS_2006.pdf. Compare only 0 and 6 bees returning in the exposed hives vs. 16 bees returning to the less-exposed hives (each one had 25 to start).

And as mentioned in the article the other noteworthy change is that amongst the 4 exposed and 4 non-exposed colonies, 3 of the exposed colonies vs only 1 of the non-exposed colonies broke down. Definitely worth further study of the wireless connection to CCD. Not so much mobile phones that are the concern which provide mainly transient radiation, but the base stations which operate 24/7. Pensees (talk) 09:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive?

Anyone object to having an archive bot get to work on this page? I'm sick of scrolling down to read all the time.--Sting Buzz Me... 13:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

GM crops to blame?

I keep hearing that GM crops deserve scrutiny, and that beneficial pollinators are being killed by toxic pollen containing pesticide genes. Are there any good studies that support this connection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.245.170 (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, no, not a single one. Lots of finger-pointing, and no evidence. It makes no sense, either - beneficial pollinators (99% of which are native bees) don't visit corn for pollen (corn is wind-pollinated, so most bees aside from honey bees don't ever gather corn pollen). Nearly all of the so-called "toxic pollen" out there is corn pollen, and therefore doesn't enter the pollinator food chain. As for honey bees, no one has yet found any effects or correlation between GM corn pollen and CCD. Plenty of colonies die off without ever going anywhere within 100 miles of GM corn, and other colonies smack dab in the middle of GM corn country are thriving. Blaming GM pollen for honey bee dieoff is a complete red herring. If there's anything "man-made" to be suspicious of, it's imidacloprid, and even that doesn't have much evidence supporting a link to CCD. Dyanega (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

See the next section. Not just imidacloprid, and not imidacloprid in its entirety. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Clothianidin

Very similar effects to CCD (honeybees not returning to the hive because they "lose their way" and die of exposure) have been observed in Gemany's Rhine valley following clothianidin treatment of maize.

Now, I cannot help to observe that clothianidin and imidacloprid are not very similar - except the nitroguanidyl chain (the guanidyl bit is mostly incorporated into the imidazole ring in imidacloprid).

We might want to keep our eyes peeled for new research, for it might all boil down to these 8 atoms (If I can spot it, a professional chemists can spot it too). Do not expect papers anytime soon (time from research to publication is likely to take one year at least); preliminary reports however would probably find their way to the media I'd guess. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW I just read that France apparently has curtailed use of clothianidin and imidacloprid when beehives are nearby, or even banned it outright. Ought to be checked. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Now, I cannot help to observe that clothianidin and imidacloprid are not very similar - except the nitroguanidyl chain (the guanidyl bit is mostly incorporated into the imidazole ring in imidacloprid)."

Clothianidine and imidaclopride are very similar, not just by their chemical structure (both are haloheteroarylmethylamine derivatives, developed out of 6-chloronicotine -- the chlorothiazolyl ring is isosteric with chloropyridine ring), but, and this is even more important in the context, both are acting the same way; they bind to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors to activate them first, later blocking them completly. To say that these "are not very similar" would be as to say, that e.g. parathion and azinphos-methyl are not very similar -- they are, even though their molecular structures differ somewhat.--84.163.115.227 (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Queen Present?

"Precursor symptoms that may arise before the final colony collapse are:

   * Insufficient workforce to maintain the brood that is present
   * Workforce seems to be made up of young adult bees
   * The Queen is present
   * The colony members are reluctant to consume provided feed, such as sugar syrup and protein supplement."

>> Shouldn't this read The Queen is not present ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.176.175 (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It is the COMBINATION of symptoms that is characteristic. It's trivial to find queenless colonies that have lost most of their workers - but a very rare thing to lose the workers when the queen is still alive. That's how you know something is WRONG. Dyanega (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

GM Foods, Again

Why does the GM crop section have nearly 10 times the material than the Nosema section? This seven more puzzling when one considers that there is an order of magnitude more information on the Nosema connection to CCS as opposed to the GM Crops. CENSEI (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, many Europeans seem to think GM crops are responsible for lots of things, and a few European editors have seen fit to include the CCD bit here, even though it is apparently solely via anti-GMO sources, which claim but do not demonstrate a link to CCD. Again, Wikipedia editors don't generally evaluate what's being said or published, they just report on it, though a little leeway is given with fringe theories, as to placing them in context. Since a LOT of people have made claims about GMO crops being linked to CCD, it gets a pretty thorough mention here. If you know LOTS of reliable sources that discuss the link between CCD and Nosema, then either go ahead and add them to the article, or link them here to the talk page and someone else can figure how best to work them in and expand that section. That's all it really needs - reliable sources. Dyanega (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that 1 or 2 high quality sources are worth more mention then 10 or 20 low quality sources. Just because one side screams louder doesnt mean that we have to be part of the echo chamber. WP:RS would seem to butress this. CENSEI (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I would concur that, like the section on global warming, the section on the speculation about connection to GM foods is in drastic need of pruning. Be bold. Rossami (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well,someone put alot of work into this, and I would hate to start an edit war over a pruning operation, so I think I will wait a few more days for some feedback. CENSEI (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of pruning, CENSEI removed about 95% of the section. His mutilation should be reverted and a thoughtful, neutral editor should edit the section. — goethean ॐ 19:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Goethian, thats no way to WP:AGF. You should be ashamed. CENSEI (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair to CENSEI, much of what was removed was either outdated or fairly speculative. I have restored the two paragraphs referring to the most recent research and statements on the topic - it was, in plain fact, rather contradictory for there to be material in this article referring to studies performed in 2005 and earlier, when CCD was not even recognized at the time. Yes, there is ongoing debate about what impacts GM crops have on honey bees, but that is NOT the topic of this article!! The topic of this article is CCD, and only those sources which explicitly explore the link (if any) between GM crops and CCD are truly appropriate for inclusion here. As such, most of what CENSEI removed was removed with justification. Dyanega (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Dyanega, thanks for restoring the relevant comment. To be honest, so much of what was there was either tangential or irrelevant and I had a tough time going through it all and separating the wheat and the chaff. CENSEI (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A QUESTION ABOUT REMEMDIES

I have a question, and am not sure of the best format to put it in, or if anyone will actually read this any time soon. Anyway. At the very end the article states: "When a collapsed colony is found, store the equipment where you can use preventive measures to ensure that bees will not have access to it." First, what is the equipment they are talking about. Is it the collapsed hive? Are they saying to separate the collapsed hive and kill the bees? Or is there some other peice of equipment? I'm sure someone out there knows what this is actually talking about (or someone out there will pretend to know). Anyway, I'm curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.112.107 (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The equipment in question is the beehive itself including the boxes (supers) and frames. In a colony that has succumbed to CCD, there will still be honey and pollen stored in the frames. Under normal conditions, when a colony is abandoned or goes below the strength needed to defend itself, other insects especially including other colonies of honeybees will invade and rob out the stored honey and take it back to their own hive. In fact, it is normal practice when a colony dies (for example, because of a varroa mite infestation), the beekeeper will stack the equipment from the dead colony on top of a healthy colony. That way, the healthy bees can move the stores down and have a better chance for surviving the winter. They will also clean out the wax moths and other parasites/pests who eat and destroy the combs and stores. So even if the bees clean out all the honey, at least the beekeeper will have salvaged some drawn comb that he/she can reuse next year.

When you stack equipment from a CCD-collapsed hive, the healthy colony dies, too. The point about that comment is that the CCD researchers are currently recommending that if you have a CCD-collapsed hive, don't combine the equipment. Keep it somewhere separate from your other bees. Let the wax moths have it because we don't yet know what CCD really is and therefore don't have a cure that would make it safe to reuse the equipment. Hope that helps. You can learn a lot more by reading the BEE-L archives on this topic. Rossami (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Agriculture Not Harmed by CCD, Says Nature

I'm in a bit of a rush this morning or I'd do it myself. Here's an article in Nature about CCD. It seems it isn't as harmful to humans as we thought (the bees are still upset, though): [1] Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Human interference as the chief cause of CCD

I note that nowhere on the main page of the CCD issue is there a heading that explores human interference in beehive life as a possible cause of the problem. As the Earth Vision project has been asserting for almost two years now, there are at very least 14 points of interference to consider:

- The raising of larva in separate quarters, arbitrary feeding of royal jelly to produce queens, then shipping by post to keepers.

- Selection of bee populations for docility, de-selecting for aggression.

- In contrast to the normal 5 or 6-year life span of a queen, “re-queening” after one or two years.

- The grafting of queens - moving larva to artificial cups, then cages for transport.

- Supplanting guard bees with protective measures by humans.

- Keeping hives hyper clean, to reduce production of “nuisance” propolis.

- Using chemical control agents for disease and pests.

- Providing ready-made combs in place of bee-constructed combs, to save work (production time) for the bees.

- In a similar vein, supplying sheets of wax, so bees don’t have to gather and secret their own wax.

- Use of ventilators so the bees don’t have to tend this.

- Use of queen excluders to prevent eggs being laid in inconvenient areas of the hive.

- Moving of hives over long distances at the will of human intention.

- Clipping of queens’ wings.

- Agricultural practices consisting of monocultures that wreak havoc on honeybee diets, and limiting options once the dominant crop is no longer flowering.

The foregoing list of strategies used to manipulate production demonstrates that mankind is capable of invention. In fact, we are able to wax clever, even to the point of genius. However, in this modern era (in which we find ourselves so often losing the perspective of overview, due to reductionism and specialization, among other things) it appears that when we fail to perceive the whole picture, our inventiveness falls short of the masterful way that a naturally developing hive proceeds.

For the whole presentation of this resolution to the CCD issue, please visit the article:

Why the Bees are Dying - and how to bring them back Or: http://www.evbooks.net/earth_vision_021.htm Josefgraf (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? Honeybees in North America were all introduced as a result of human influence - there's no native honeybee population. Furthermore, CCD is a recent phenomenon, whereas beekeeping (along with many of these techniques) has been around for thousands of years. Graft | talk 00:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like spam to me.--Sting Buzz Me... 06:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe native Americans and their native languages have something to say about whether there has ever been a native bee population in North America. Maybe CCD is like global warming in being a recent phenomenon resulting from the accumulation of human activities during thousands of years and from their intensification in recent years.

-- Wavelength (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

They can't have been European honey bees. Smartse (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

External link problems

The external link section has been tagged as having problems. Anyone have any opinions about whether this is still true, or whether we should remove the tag? I'd be bold and remove it but it's a policy area with which I'm not particularly familiar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle Maxwell (talk • contribs) 22:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible GM crop effects...paragraph now unscientific and article is locked?

It looks like significant changes were made to the GM crops section of the article by Smith609 in November 2008.

The section was well written with no bias, and had sources cited. The section is now a single paragraph that takes a conclusion for a specific type of GM crop and applies it to the entire question of the safety of GM crops to colonies, stating "Therefore GM crops can be ruled out as a contributor to CCD". There is certainly no definitive evidence that that statement is true, and the facts stated leading to this conclusion are vague and misleading.

Interestingly, the source cited for the statement "No experiments have found evidence of any negative effect whatsoever on honey bee populations" indicates exactly the opposite.

I created an account specifically to roll back these obviously biased edits, and it appears that now the page is locked, and the section cannot be edited to the pre-Smith609 content. Can anybody take a look at this, I see that this topic has had some attention in the past.

SBacker (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed a statement from line 594 in GMO section

For the record:: From line 594 in the section titled Genetically Modified Crops (GMO), pertaining to possible causes of CCD, I have removed the statement "Therefore GM crops can be ruled out as a contributor to CCD." On the one hand it is being stated that the cause(s) are not known, and that according to the information in this section there is not currently evidence the GMO crops have any form of causative relationship with CCD, yet this statement then draws a definite conclusion. I think that is logically inaccurate. Hence my reason for removing it. It would be more accurate to say "Therefore, with the evidence presently taken into account, it can be ruled out that GMO crops are the primary or sole cause of CCD". I have not added this in, as I question whether it's necessary to even go drawing a conclusion in a text which is at best only in a position to inconclusively explore and elucidate various possibilities. Jonathan Evatt (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)InspiredLight 17/01/2009

Mediation

In the past, a user has requested mediation on this issue. The dispute was resolved at 11 March 2009 by WhatisFeelings?. For more information, see the case page.

New

I made my first edit earlier today, and by this evening it was quickly removed.

I have done extensive research on this topic - and have to ask - why isn't there a balance between the independent science studies and the corporate lab studies that used Tier 1?

Even in Monsato's own corporate backed study, it was found many bee's that eat bt pollen lose their sense of direction (can't find the hive) and yet - this is downplayed in the article.

How about some balance, people. Report the science and let it stand on it's own. and that includes ALL the science studies.

Thank You, John

I have added ONE balanced edit to the article - or will this be erased also?

Again, thank you -

'learning by doing' wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.85.129 (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

okay - i've signed up. --KeepItEven (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)John

Hi John, whilst Bt toxin may affect bees there's no evidence that I've seen that this is causing CCD. For starters CCD is occuring throughout Europe where there are no Bt crops. If reporting science please add links to the actual papers and not to articles that have been written about them. Thanks Smartse (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Smartse, Okay - i have tried to find the evidence that CCD is occuring where there is no GMO - and so far - all i have found is CCD where bee's have been placed near GMO in Europe - so my simple question - where are the science articles that support the evidence that GMO isn't the cause (very important - ORIGINAL SOURCE - c'mon, you know - the 'gateway' - common in many scientific studies) that has opened a pandora's box on the bee's fragile immune system.

And an independent, unbiased science study would be nice - i don't see it in the article...

I do see everyone 'walking around the elephant in the room'...Why?

The source i provided is a respected Professor for goodness sake!!! Should i email him so that he can post the study himself here on wiki?

Thank you for responding Smartse - i know i have already pissed off Tim Vickers - but i feel it is unethical when good evidence is being provided - and that evidence is ignored. that's not science - that's politics...

Mr. Vickers erased my previous post with detailed and damning photos of bee's suffering from CCD in Canada. I then posted the University of Jen study as a valid source...here is the amazing part...

The guy in Canada's research MATCHES the University of Jen study. The guy in Canada has no clue of the University of Jen study. Go ahead - tell me it just a 'coincidence'...

Science doesn't work that why....

So to all those stuck on defending GMO (for who knows what reason) - look - it's time to get brutaly honest - and at least take a look at the hard and real evidence IN THE FIELD that is being presented to you (the caps are for emphasis - not yelling)

Is that too much to ask of some scientist? Is that 'too much like right'?

Let's start talking about the elephant in the room...it's the ethical thing to do.

Thank You --KeepItEven (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)John

Hi again. I changed the article back. Your post certainly doesn't belong in the upper part of the article and the citations you provided were poor (one was a dead link and the other did not exactly agree with your post). If you feel the need to repost please put it in the GMO section and provide accurate citations. Smartse (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again to you. I checked 'sources' for the info in the article - it's not a science article - it's the USDA action plan pdf. It has been copied verbatim - which is okay since gov't docs aren't copyrighted - but it's calling the kettle black when your using it and pretending its a source from a science study - as you admonished me for - and it isn't - that's not only unethical - it's being a hypocrite.

The citation i provided was better than the ones from the USDA CCD action plan pdf that make up most of this entry - so - i'm changing it back.

I will again provide it at the top (I'm aware as well as you that most people skim the tops of these wiki entrys) as it provides evidence backed by a scientific study - and i have already posted in the GMO section - also backed by science study. Everything that i have posted has been backed with evidence provided by studies using scientific method.

I see you aren't providing any evidence that CCD is caused where there is no GMO in Europe. I'm not really surprised...

As for the links - i am new at this so i will fix them -

NEXT time - please ask me to fix the link before you delete - and i will return the courtesy - or not - your choice.

And please cite - EXACTLY - what link did not agree with my post? Should i apply the same 'standard' to entrys that others have made here? I can do that, if you want....

--KeepItEven (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Notice - i have already checked the links - they all click right through to cited scientific sources.--KeepItEven (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: The previous reference cited to the sierraclub article about gmo and bee collapse(8). Please explain how that can be maintained at the top when the sources i cited from a Professor and his study (9) and (10) carry more weight??? Thank You. --KeepItEven (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC

---

Hi Smartse,

We'll do it your way - i had to remove the link to the bbs article titled "No Proof" based on your 'rule' as follows:

   "If reporting science please add links to the actual papers and not to articles that have been written about them."

Those are your own words - are you going to break your own 'rules'?

Also - you didn't move my post from the University of Jena study to the GMO section - please refrain from lying in the revision history. I went ahead and added it to the GMO section if that was your intent as stated in the revision history - maybe you just 'forgot'....

--99.155.85.129 (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Protection

If this continues, I'll have to request protection for the article. Mediation is open: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Colony_Collapse_Disorder WhatisFeelings? (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to lowercase. Aervanath (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

---

• Colony Collapse Disorder → Colony collapse disorder — caps, it's not a proper noun — Underpants 19:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Colony Collapse Disorder is a specific syndrome and so should have capitals. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't otherwise it would have a single cause which it clearly doesn't - I agree it should be ccd but the tea room should perhaps be consulted. Smartse (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Colony collapse disorder isn't a proper noun, so WP:MOSCAPS says it should be lowercase. Wiktionary has it as colony collapse disorder. If there really are questions about whether this is a proper noun, there are a lot of people at Wiktionary:Tea room who would be happy to confirm whether it is. --Underpants 15:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• comment AIDS intro paragraph is not capitalized. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• It seems to be a specific disorder that has not occurred before. It isn't just losing a colony, it is about all the adult bees flying away and not returning. IMHO, it doesn't matter whether there is a single cause or a combination. For what it is worth, USDA site capitalizes it. Paul Studier (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Compound nouns have more meaning than can be understood from the separate words. For instance, a given name is way more than just any name that someone gives someone else. Regarding USDA's site, it capitalizes almost every word in titles and summaries. Within the text, the site uses it in lowercase: "He lost 250 hives to colony collapse disorder this year." --Underpants 01:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• In any case, it's ridiculous to capitalize in the title if we're not going to capitalize the article. Move it. Circeus (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I actually just changed it at the same time I requested an admin to move it, because I had thought it was uncontroversial. --Underpants 20:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No single cause

I've been thinking of creating a section about the idea that there is no single cause of CCD and that it is in fact a compound effect of many reasons listed in the article. It seems to be(e) the general consensus at the moment from what I can gather. I'd use these two sources already mentioned in the article: [2] and [3]. Does anyone object to this? Also any other sources suggesting this would be appreciated. Smartse (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The description below "Possible cause - Design of artificial hives" provides a plausible reason for "no single cause" as unhygienic hives would create a breeding ground for many illnesses (just as damp, drafty houses do for humans) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kris van der merwe (talk • contribs) 22:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Worst of CCD over?

There are rumors that CCD was not as bad in the winter of 2008-2009 as previous years. Does anyone have a reliable source to confirm or refute this? Paul Studier (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This is anecdotal and original research, but I have seen more bees and bee trees in Orange County, California than I have seen in years. Paul Studier (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Interbreeding between Africanized bees and domestic bees

Africanized bee#History says: "Specifically (as compared with the European bee types), the Africanized bee: Is more likely to 'abscond'—the entire colony leaves the hive and relocates—in response to repeated intrusions by the beekeeper." Could CCD be a result of interbreeding between Africanized bees and domestic bees? -- Wavelength (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Who know's maybe? Not sure if they can even mate however. It would be original research unless you can find a reliable source. Smartse (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

They have been interbreeding with European bees for years, see Africanized bee. CCD is new, so I don't think the two are related. Paul Studier (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible cause - Design of artificial hives

Bee illnesses and parasites have become endemic recently, considering that bees have been around for many thousands of years. Domestication of bees has been the largest recent change in the bee environment. The design of domestic (artificial) bee hives make bees vulnerable to pests. ( illustrated at http://vandermerwe.co.nz/?p=8 )

Bees are hygienic, and when they clean their hives, organic and in-organic material finds its way to the bottom of the beehive. In most beehives this dirt accumulate near the hive entrance. Bees walk in and out over accumulated dirt, providing an ideal opportunity for pests and disease to spread.

The hive can be seen as an ecosystem that include bees and bee pests. The introduction of the artificial hive has changed this ecosystem, allowing pests to evolve their behavior to gain a competitive advantage.

Kris van der merwe (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Organic Bee Keepers Unaffected

ref [66] (http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=21912) cited for this statement isn't exactly a trusted source, and a poorly written, unscientific article citing no real sources itself, what's the protocol, add a fact tag and leave the citation in place? 82.24.241.9 (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)