GMO Tied To Bee Decline?

It gets tricky when one side has a massive financial interest, and the other doesn't.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/neonicotinoids-colony-collapse/

This insecticide moves throughout every part of the corn plant. The corn then becomes it's own insecticide. What seems crazy to me, is the argument that feeding low level doses of insectide to bees has a low or minimal effect. There is too much evidence to the contrary, and it comes from people that aren't motivated by money.

http://www.gmwatch.org/component/content/article/13603

More...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/29/149614689/studies-show-why-insecticides-are-bad-news-for-bees

It amazes me that anyone would attempt to argue that bees are immune from the insecticides that are found throughout the GM corn, and that it only kills bad bugs.

They have also found that bees feed directly on the pollen from this corn.

So in the end, are you simply trying to say that the particular method of modifying the corn caused this? That really does not implicate GMO wholesale any more than the fact that Ford had Firestone tires on Explorers and Boeing put Lithium batteries in 787s implicates SUV's as prone to tire introduced rollovers and airplanes to battery meltdowns. It appears in all of this evidence TENDS to show that the real culprit is the insecticide- a formulated chemical compound- which really is not a surprise since it so happens that bees are insects. It does not implicate the practice of Genetic Engineering.

In the first link above, the question "Why not GE and agroecology?" is asked- at which point the tone appears to move to a personal opinion that it likely wouldn't be necessary. What I find alarming about most of these discussions is that they seem to be as polarized as global warming, and tend to divert from identifying root causes- such as that perhaps Bayer et al need to conduct long term studies to quantify the impacts and how to mitigate them. Note that et al does NOT just mean those with a vested business interest, and that mitigate could range from "can't do this anymore" to "how can bees develop resistance to this stuff".

Now I'm beginning to wonder myself.

http://www.gmwatch.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13921

While it's true that farmers are being pushed into GM corn seed, and the seed is being treated with the Bt insecticide, the problem is looking like it's with the insecticide, and not the corn.

http://www.gmwatch.org/component/content/article/13603

The GMO connection is looking to be more indirect. GM corn was touted as a product that would greatly reduce the need for pesticides, which was a lie. Now that almost all corn is GM, it came along with a new class of pesticides that makes the entire plant poisonous. But I think the gene splicing was done so that they could spray higher and higher concentrations of Round Up on them, and not have them die.

I can't find anything that indicates that the spliced in Bt pesticides are causing any problems, except for possibly contributing to the workers not returning to the hives. The GMO corn is simply the delivery system of the pesticide.

It's all pretty much unregulated in the US, so new problems will be discovered as they occur. This is only a couple of months old, and could also play a role. Not sounding good.

http://independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/regulators-discover-a-hidden-viral-gene-in-commercial-gmo-crops/

Your note - by its unfounded polemics - worth only to be answered by the paragraph. 5min. reading of me and kramarat would enlighten you, that there is not a blessed thing "doctrinaire" there. Now, your propensities and inclinations I better not to be concerned about. But, since you raised the subiect, are you paid by the industry, straight, or indirectly?

You can bet your worthless behind, that I criticise shoddy engineering practices. I do not need NOW to pressure a company to do safety testing. That belong to the practices BEFORE any release. Polarizing, Yeah! The companies forgot to ask for input, conveniently. From the people, whose life are affected.

To the real science. The BP (bacillus Thuringiensis) gene in question. It gives leaf eating worms a big case of indigestion, and they die.

Now, a little science from the top of my head. A little worm's DNA is 45% is like ours. Mice, some 75%, apes some 97%. That means, a little worm's deadly indigestion means 50% chance for the same for me and you. You may not care, but these odds at the starting gate do not look acceptable to me. And when I think about grandchildren, I am really up in arms about the displayed cavalierly attitudes.

The "forget it" pesticide exist, proven enough. It works on you too, and on me too. I can live with the first, but that last fact really bothers me!

'...Now, a little science from the top of my head. A little worm's DNA is 45% is like ours. Mice, some 75%, apes some 97%. That means, a little worm's deadly indigestion means 50% chance for the same for me and you.....'

.

Good thing your took that off the top of your head....you could look pretty silly walking around with that type of idea on top of your head for everyone to see.

...you didn't put it back up there, did you?

.

You can't scale toxicity with genetic similarity.

Consider the house cat shares shares around 90% DNA with us, yet so many things are toxic to cats in far smaller amounts per body mass than as compared to humans....

acetaminophin, ibuprofen , salysilic acid, dayquil, nightquil, garlic, caffeine, onions and zylitol to name a few.

Now consider that dogs share closer to 80% DNA with us, but with only a couple exceptions, tolerate most substances most substances on a level comparable with humans on a per body weight analysis.

.

.

I do think creating toxins to spray into homes and onto crops is packed with landmines. This is something that really needs to be reigned in.

I don't think introducing questionable methods as 'science' add any credibility or aire of seriousness to a discussion of the important matters.

Great comment JNB.

GA from me.

It appears that GM corn is not only hurting bees, but may be harming humans as well.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jat.2712/abstract

Hallo Kramarat.

Pay little attention to Truth... I encountered him on other threads, and he was true to color negative and argumentative. Without the slightest contribution to the conversation.

To others, who still pay real attention, Science (writ large, that is) is still a wonderful, and meandering undertaking.

I pay a very close attention to the Alzheimer/Dementia/Parkinson ongoing research for a very good reason. Nonetheless, the turns and twists, when you read about them, makes you dizzy. That is, how real science develops.

Then there is the hunt for the Higgs Boson. What could be simpler, than finding a particle? Well, in my life a dozen attempts were mounted, none succeeded. Maybe this last one. It is a colorful story.

So, Kramarat, pay little attention to the professional anklebiters. Go with what you see right. State the observable error margins, the ifs, and the whens. In the unfolding of Science the retarders do not really matter. Unless you decide to pay attention, that is.

For biochemistry basics - that in my opinion as important as anything else - please go back to my note #17.

'...To others, who still pay real attention, Science (writ large, that is) is still a wonderful, and meandering undertaking....'

.

...and I suppose this Science includes drawing conclusions supposedly from a reference paper (and reporting such conclusions as if they are fact) about whatever vague associations one deems appropriate at the moment, despite the fact that the paper does not provide information on those whimsical associations (may not even mention the substance)....

...That 'meandering undertaking' you are labeling as 'Science', is anything but.

.

If you want to pretend that the statements made about those studies were not grossly misleading ^{(seemingly because your own baseless assertions in a previous post were shown so effectively to be flawed and utterly unsupportable; that the only rebuttal you could muster comes as this ad hominem attack, here in a nearly completely unrelated thread)} and call what I say into question, go ahead.

I encourage anyone interested, to review the statements made about the study that I specifically took issue with. Look at the problems I note, realize the mistakes are not trivial, and then look at the study.

If you have some problem with any of what I wrote after that, then tell me how you believe I erred.

.

Short of that, I don't give your criticism much weight. It is without substance. Much like your often made vague claim to expertise in biochemistry...there is nothing of substance there....only you, making your claim, with great deference to yourself, but no elucidation.

.

.

So besides having to eat your baseless claims in some previous post (or at least not being able to come up with anything resembling a sound rebuttal in defense of your fantasy conjecture), what specifically in this thread do you find fault with, that I have written?

.

I'll be happy to either backup my statements, or in the ^{(highly unlikely)} case that you provide a sound, well reasoned argument demonstrating I was mistaken ^{(the highly unlikely part isn't related to my being wrong, I make mistakes fairly regularly...the highly unlikely part has to do with the chances of a sound well reasoned argument coming from you....a winged pig, statistically speaking)}, then I will retract that portion and offer my apology for getting it wrong.

.

So once again, ball is in your court (oddly familiar, huh).

Well, on a related note about GMO, by 2018, (In USA and Canada) all whole foods are going to require GMO labeling........ I get the feeling this will be a long list.

Those, unwilling to learn from history are forced to repeat it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

MISTAKES WILL BE MADE.

That is the principe driven home in every engineering discipline.

Then it is followed by its corollary:

HOW DO YOU REVERSE, OR MITIGATE IT?

In the Science and Engineering disciplines nothing ever works out perfectly. And the disciplines learned to deal with them consistently, reliably. When somebody tells me, IT was proven to 3 sigma, well yeah, let's see later. When the assertion is 6 sigma, it is grand! Obviously, honest conversation is assumed. This talk is only about present results.

While engineers do not like to build railroad tracks, roads etc. to be dismantled at a later date, that is how life flows. All such endeavours can be reversed readily, with no lasting consequences. Also errors in the process need to be mitigated, or in the rare instances, reversed.

The Recombinant DNA research (See Wikipedia) coming up in the 70es promised to be a different beast altogether. Leading lights -voicing concerns real or simply publicly perceived - came together. At the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA such concerns were aired, and voluntary limits were agreed upon. Later, in extreme cases enforced internally. Full public support, full acceptance ever since. Until.....

Until (hold onto your pants) some british politicians got involved, and allowed some snake oil salesman to get moneys to create animal-human chimeras with the promise that it will be a treasure trove of solutions for human ills. It was a 3 ring circus, no foundation in anything, and the blatant display of the idiocy and greadyness of politicians. BUT, if such things were created and got out into the real world, what do you do?

Kill everybody with the suspect gene in the body?

Live with the consequences, hope and pray?!?

And all that, because some morons, IMHO, wanted their way?

The uproar was predictable, and loud. And as I expected the program died quietly (at least I think so).

In a roundabout way, it leads back to the present debate about GMO, etc.:

It failed to secure public support on real and perceived concerns.

It dropped genetic nuclear bombs on the world, that nobody I talked to have . even an idea, how to undo, if and when we would decide, that we want that.

Circumventing proper approval processes (onerous as they are), smart alecky shortcuts yield short term gain to some, long term trouble only for the rest.

There are present examples in the political (I would call public) process, that were shortcircuited some times ago. They did not go away for that effort, not at all. And did no favor to anybody involved.

This note is about the necessary principle of maintaining the way to reversibility, for when the sh*t hits the fan. Apply it, and keep applying it. It is an excellent BS filter.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not everything, that can be invented, should be invented. Chlorine gas for warfare comes to mind, unbidden, as an example.

I was busy yesterday and didn't get to do any CR4. This thread has drawn the response the kramarat anticipated, I think.

The thread is awash in links. I cringe to say I'm about to add to the fray in that regard. Since I don't have the time or energy to see if the few links I am about to post are duplicates that may be buried, I'll apologize ahead of time if they are duplicates.

Correlations aren't proof. But they lead to the research that can better substantiate the implied linkage.

The first link I found that attracted my attention looks to be from someone in the Zoology department at the University of Texas. (link address: http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/thoc/gmcrops_bees.pdf) Rather than imbed the link underneath a word or phrase, I've pasted it outright, as it implies that the information in the presentation is "endorsed" by a university science member; who isn't identified, that I can see. But further deciphering of the link address implies it is used as reference material in a "course." It looks like a slide presentation that is put together by a photographer named Reg Morrison -- not a scientist by training, AFAIK. But I found the presentation interesting as it is from the perspective that I would be asking the question: How do GMO crops affect surrounding living organisms, specifically in an epigenetic way? The link to Mr. Morrison's web site at the end of the presentation is no longer valid. I found Mr. Morrison's new internet home here. (I have noted that sometimes the page loads correctly, but other times it appears to be blank with the content way to the right. At my screen resolution, it appears blank when this happens.) There are a number of "other" interesting blogs by him that I will want to look at over time, just because I like the one he's done on the bee issue. His articles are at a web site for educational materials to be referenced. I assume this is how the University of Texas member discovered the linked article under their "courses" folder. Usually it is a faculty member posting "materials" in a course folder.

There are links here (in this thread) that support the idea behind the influence of GMO on bees and us. After all, we ingest the GM whole corn, as well as feed a by-product (HFCS) to the bees and us, too. I found another interesting link/article concerning what ingestion/influence the GMO might be having on bees. It is by Brit Amos. I could find no info. about him. It does have some assertions such as:

Lastly, "leaked documents seen by the Guardian show that Canada wants all governments to accept the testing and commercialization of "Terminator" crop varieties. These seeds are genetically engineered to produce only infertile seeds, which farmers cannot replant, also to mention that the bees that are trying to collect pollen, found to have their digestive tract diseases, such as amoeba and nosema disease. These diseases are mainly located in the digestive tract system. After studies of the autopsy, the most alarming trait is that the lower intestine and stinger have discolored to black vs. the normal opaque color, Synominus with colon cancer in humans. (The word is misspelled and is conjecture. But, clearly, there seems to be some alteration of the digestive tract.)

The citation after the first sentence about "leaked documents" leads to nothing. At least I couldn't get it to load after several attempts. So one has to use those search terms to try and figure out what is being referenced. This article is almost certainly what the intended reference is referring to. (And I was thinking that the Canadian gov. was more independent of corporate influences than the U.S. I guess not. Government, or corporation -- control/subservience is the issue.)

I think the article is asking questions concerning "correlations" that need to be asked -- and answered. It also casts uncertainty on some of the proposed causes that have been attributed to affecting bee populations.

Then there is this reported interesting incident. In what amounts to a war of your research vs. ours, acquiring a potential third-party enemy, does introduce the possibility that further "findings" by this research entity can be influenced by the parent company.

Also, an article of "articles" supplying hours of reading if one is inclined. (Indeed, this subject could provide days of "free time" reading.)

If one is of a conspiratorial bent, there is the anecdote, concerning a Dr Pusztai at this link to further complicate/aggravate discussion of the topic. (There is a video at the root link, which I don't have time to watch now, but might be interesting.) It is considered conspiratorial where I first found the story. I don't generally subscribe to conspiracy theories, but have no problems at all with accepting the idea of "good ol' boy networks." That is, usually, the mechanism for coordinated reaction, to threats against economic and political power. Phone calls very often demonstrate a "domino" effect. Our predilection for "gossip" is usually the reason. Gossip can be true and alarming. Monsanto is very strict and aggressive in its enforcement of its agreements that farmers have to sign when using their GM seeds.

The unfortunate fact is, that the cat is out of the bag. GMO's can't be recalled from Nature. Whatever the effect, as both an epigenetic influence, and/or a more direct influence, such as the pesticides used on seeds, it has been loosed many times over in the name of technological "progress" -- man's prowess in our "battle" with Nature.

I see that the kids have been busy knocking down GAs today. I'm down at least 10. I guess that's my warning.

Interesting stuff. I was just looking at the HFCS angle, but those darkened bodies don't look very good either. Hard to tell about the "Terminator" seeds. Someone would have to compare the pollen to normal pollen.

There seem to be more studies indicating that GMO is bad for humans, over studies about bees. I found one yesterday that said that GMO food messes up the good bacteria in the human gut.

There are arguments that the pesticides are used on other crops beside GMO crops, but since we have essentially created enterely new "unnatural" species of corn, soy, sugar beets, etc., I think it's dangerous to assume that the pesticides will react the same with GMO and non-GMO crops.

I also wasn't aware that Monsanto held joint patents with the US government. That doesn't sound right at all.

I wasn't aware of the joint patents, either. I didn't see it in the linked article. Did you find it on Monsanto's web site? And you're right, it doesn't seem right, unless the argument goes that the government is representing the people and a share becomes public money. Even so, I'd rather not have any money from these patents for John Q. Public's kitty.

You're probably right about more studies connecting GMO with human health issues as opposed to bees. But a shortage of bees will have severe consequences on food supply; especially in variety.

I believe strongly enough in the evidence that I hope I don't live to see the consequences. Well, I guess we may already be seeing them. Thank goodness cigarettes don't cause cancer.

(I was looking for info. on joint Monsanto-Government patents and found this really odd web site. For a site named BestMeal, it's odd that it takes advertising contrary to the name. Use its drop-down search for restaurants and names like KFC, Burger King, McDonalds, to name a few -- not the best meals to me. How strange. I wonder who's behind this site??)

I found a brief history on the joint patent, here. It's the patent on the "Terminator" seed. I have no idea why the government would spend our money on plants that produced sterile seeds. Monsanto appears to be using it to monopolize the food industry.

http://oilgeopolitics.net/GMO/Monsanto/monsanto.html

More...

http://rense.com/general12/terminator.htm

I think we were misled on the GMO story. On GMO fields, we are using far more insecticides and fungicides than we were before.

http://gmo-journal.com/2010/04/12/new-study-finds-widespread-pesticide-contamination-of-beehives/ (Sorry! Link no longer available.)

While many attribute the causes of CCD to many factors, or a combination of factors, such as pathogens, nutritional deficits and environmental pollution, it is becoming harder for nay-sayers to deny that pesticides and GMOs are a key contributing cause to the dramatic decline of overall bee health and a factor in CCD rise. Pesticides and GMOs go hand-in-hand. In fact, since GMOs were introduced, farmers applied 318 million more pounds of pesticides than compared to the amount of pesticide likely to have been applied in the absence of GM seeds. And this does not bode well for the bees.

I've always thought that GM was the way to go, and still do, if it's applied properly.

Unfortunately, it looks like profit has been the primary motivator. I can't find anything great about our current GM crops, besides that they produce sterile seeds and they can handle being sprayed with massive amounts of Round Up, and not die.

I'm more confused than ever; I don't understand why GM has caused a huge increase in pesticide use. It was supposed to be the opposite.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/327974

Do you really have no idea why the government would do what Monsanto wants?

It's not right.

This is one of those times that I have to join, what I often consider, to be the other side.

If nothing else, it's proof positive that government involvement can make an utter perversion out of free market capitalism.

Kramarat,

I think your assessment in this last comment is rock solid.

I realize your comments don't need my approval, but I've been pretty hard on what I viewed as unsubstantiated claims in other comments.

Your assertion in the previous comment is completely reasonable, well substantiated,...and difficult to disagree with.

.

I suspect you don't have any particularly positive feelings about me at the moment because I've been (perhaps too) persistent about pointing out important but not flattering details in your other recent comments.

.

This most recent comment shows me that I have been too quick to declare a lack of basic trust for what you write...that comment was excessive.

I still have a lot of problems with a number of things you have written, but I want to apologize for being disparaging about your comments and ideas.

Anyway, I'm giving your previous a GA.

Hi Kramarat,

Sychronisity? Or not? I am unsure. But I just found a link to this in my email this morning and remembered your post.

http://www.industrysearch.com.au/Honey-bee-brains-scrambled-by-pesticides-study/n/66486

More fuel for the fire? :)

Shoot. Just when I thought this thread had played out....

I wonder if anyone has looked at the affect that the herbicides have on the bees?

The annual increase in the herbicides required to deal with tougher-to-control weeds on cropland planted to GE cultivars has grown from 1.5 million pounds in 1999 to about 90 million pounds in 2011.

That's an incredible increase. It also amazes me that mother nature has been able to modify weeds to withstand Roundup.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002092839.htm

Glyphosate seems far from completely safe. Liver, kidney, and reproductive damage has been shown in humans. Maybe a closer look at what these high concentrations do to bees, is in order.

http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/reference-health-effects-of-glyphosate

http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/reference-health-effects-of-glyphosate

http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/65-health-risks

Looks like Glyphosate problems may be being kept under wraps:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/roundup-birth-defects-herbicide-regulators_n_872862.html

Jeez!!!

http://naturalsociety.com/monsantos-infertility-linked-roundup-found-in-all-urine-samples-tested/

I think maybe this topic plays a great deal of importance on our lives that we've been distracted from paying attention too. While everyone was hot on the Gay Marriage issue, nobody was paying attention to where the money was at and that was with Monsanto and bill was signed protecting Monsanto's interests.

There is at least some evidence that these massive increases in fungicide use, kills young bees. These are used specifically on Roundup Ready, GM crops.

EPA-Approved Fungicides Can Kill Brood and Young Bees

Another bee expert at the University of California in Davis has discovered that some EPA-approved fungicides that don't kill adult honey bees, do kill bee larvae and young bees. Eric Mussen, Ph.D., is an entomologist and Extension Apiculturist at UC-Davis. He is concerned that some EPA approval criteria only applies to adult honey bees and does not protect the larvae brood and young bees.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_4557.cfm

Lokks like a USDA scientist has let the cat out of the bag:

http://farmwars.info/?p=7718

Here is a published study from 2012, on the toxicity of both Roundup itself, and Roundup resistant maize:

http://farmandranchfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/seralini-roundup-herbicide-toxicity-2012.pdf

It is good to have friend at high places.

Both houses passed, and the prez. signed into law the "Monsanto protection act"

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/346620

See many more with that search expression.

First Monsanto raped the farmers because Monsanto GMO Grains contaminated the farmers feilds. And now they will be absolved from any type of damages that GMO may cause.

You have your cake, and eat it. American politics are Disgusting

'...And now they will be absolved from any type of damages that GMO may cause....'

.

Is this what the legislation says?

I was under this impression the legislation wasn't about civil or criminal liability for harm done.

I understand the legislation to be a moratorium (for 6 months, but possibly it could be extended) on the courts prohibiting the sale or planting of GMO seeds.

It certainly doesn't seem forthright, upstanding, honorable, honest, or admirable, so don't mistake this as a defense of the legislation. I can't think of a good reason any decent person would want this passed.

That said, I don't think it goes as far as relieve Monsanto of responsibility for any criminal wrongdoing or civil trespass, or otherwise leave Monsanto 'absolved from any type of damages that GMO may cause' .

.

Perhaps you have seen something I haven't? Please update me with a link if i have missed important parts of this development.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=401

What a bunch of damned snakes!!!!

I can't find anything good about GM crops. It looks to me that there were several goals.

1) Ability to patent new life forms.

2) Make Round Up resistant crops, to sell more Round Up.

3) Develop and exploit "Terminator" seeds, so that farmers got locked into an endless cycle of annual seed buying.

Both the use of herbicides and pesticides has increased 100s of times with GMO; and we were told that modified crops would stop or slow their use, which was a lie. It was about money from the start.

The only reason this would be slipped into a bill, is if they thought there was a good chance that people could become sick from GM crops, and sue. These people make me sick. Good find.

Limit the size and scope of government, and we can at least limit the damage that they are doing....at our expense.

This may help explain the increase in pesticide use. Bugs are becoming tolerant to GM crops:

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-02-13/national/35445664_1_monsanto-corn-bt-gene-seeds

'...The only reason this would be slipped into a bill, is if they thought there was a good chance that people could become sick from GM crops, and sue....'

.

Kramarat:

I don't like this legislation either, but my understanding of what it does differs from what you are saying. I haven't read anything about Monsanto being protected from anyone seeking to redress damages from their products.

My understanding is this restricts the court from putting an injunction on the sale or planting of GMO seeds for the next 6 months. Still not a good thing, definitely.

.

Can you show me what you are referring to?

I'm still trying to get my head around it. It looks like as far as being protected from lawsuits, it would be suits that would be attempting to prevent them from planting potentially dangerous crops.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036477_Monsanto_immunity_GM_crops.html

Somebody really doesn't like this thread. I'm not accusing you, but my GA count has gone from 327 to 314. Glad to know I'm having an impact.

http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-protection-act-5-terrifying-things-know-about-hr-933-provision-1156079

I have voted against comments that I don't feel are good answers on a few of yours and I don't think I'm doing anything wrong.

I also am careful to remember when things get a little heated that my judgement may not be the best, and so limit my comment rating.

I am certain that you have far more GAs from me than OTs overall...you even have some GAs from me in this very thread, though in this particular thread the OTs probably do outnumber the GAs.

I'm not your enemy.

I didn't think it was you. It doesn't matter; someone's going back in time and eliminating old ones. It's not the first time, and I doubt it will be the last.

I talked to my brother, (the organic farmer and beekeeper), this morning, and he told me that the organic growers are still having success with old fashioned breeding and cross pollination, to get the desired traits.

He also told me that the GMO corn varieties are getting into everything. The pollen drifts in the wind, and it is viable. If Monsanto finds any of their corn growing in someone else's, (non-GMO), field, due to cross pollination, they are able to sue and win.

It doesn't matter, there's too much money involved for GM to stop. There will be winners and losers; I'm not real hopeful that humans are ultimately going to end up being the winners.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/13/world/la-fg-mexico-butterflies-20130314

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/15/genetic-roulette-gmo-documentary.aspx

Relating to your last link, I ate several slices of French bread yesterday, and had a horrible evening. Gut ache and headache until after bedtime. I have suspected it before, but now it's almost certain. It getting difficult to find something to eat that doesn't cause a problem. If this doesn't change, we are doomed.

I'm as guilty as anyone. I've always written this stuff off as left wing fear mongering. I was wrong.

To shave calories, for at least a couple of years now, I've been drinking about a gallon a day of the flavored water that is sweetened with aspartame. I guess that's somehow tied into GMO also, and not healthy.

In the interest of time, and avoiding arguments, we also occasionally give our 5 year old, the processed, heat and eat meals. I knew they weren't great, but I didn't figure they were really bad.

You know what really pisses me off?

We've got a government that is comprised of multitudes of overlapping bureaucracies, that now spends $1.2 trillion a year, more than they bring in. There is no excuse for the US population to be consuming poison. Every grocery store in the country is stocked with identical stuff. Why do we have to depend on outside sources to do the testing on these things?

I don't know if I can afford to go fully organic, but I've read enough that I will spend the money to get my young daughter away from this stuff.

It sounds to me like you are having a problem with gluten. It's another one that is rapidly on the rise. Hopefully that's what it is; it's become enough of a problem that an entire industry has emerged, that offers gluten free food.

Let us know if it helps.

Aspartame is a whole other problem, but it IS a problem. My wife went on a gluten free diet for a while. Gluten free products are very expensive and don't taste good. We went to a cooking class at a different church where they fed us after the guy cooked. He made "burgers" out of pure gluten. My wife ate one, and had no problems. I'm convinced it's not the gluten that causes the problems, but the GMO wheat. I can eat all the bread I want of certain brands without any problems. I also ate some pistachio nuts yesterday. They could have been part of the problem. You try the eat healthy, and it sometimes backfires.

I also believe it's the GMO wheat.

It's becoming quite obvious that the human gut has not evolved to digest the genes that are incorporated into GMO products. A-K-A: Insecticides and herbicides.

It's screwing us up. We are messing around with things that we don't understand.

'....the human gut has not evolved to digest the genes that are incorporated into GMO products. A-K-A: Insecticides and herbicides....'

.

I really don't think the genes incorporated into GMO products are usually, typically, or probably ever 'herbicides' or 'pesticides'.

.

GMO products usually attempts to increase resistance in the plants, allowing them to thrive in conditions that would kill weeds....or at least that is the idea.

Back to wiki...

Bt corn is a variant of maize, genetically altered to express the bacterial Bt toxin, which is poisonous to insect pests. In the case of corn, the pest is the European corn borer. Over the past couple years they have added traits against Corn ear worm, and Root worm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_maize

I don't know man; we've got the Bt toxin spliced in, combined with whatever it is that makes plants not succumb to massive doses of glyphosate, combined with massive sprayings of glyphosate to kill the weeds, combined with heavy doses of systemic pesticide. I think we're over doing it.

As far as the aspartame, I think it's time to quit. I consume a lot of it. I actually started on it to get away from the calories and HFCS in the sports drinks.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

_{(Though when I sit down again, it becomes apparent that the pesticide is not in the genes. The genes merely cause the expression of the toxin.... so while your intended meaning is valid, I am technically not wrong.....which is after all, what matters, right? Don't want to loose sight of what is important.)}

That's right!

Kramarat,

Aspertame contains l-phenylalanine, it is a metabolic precursor of a few neurotransmitters and can inhibit the release of other neurotransmitters.

l-phenylalanine readily passes the blood-brain barrier. Large amounts are known to interfere with serotonin.

I think your concern is justified.

As far as the aspertame being related to anything generically modified: it is typically produced using genetically engineered e. coli bacteria. Though I think there might be more reason to be concerned about the e. coli bacteria themselves rather than the fact that they have been genetically engineered....

I don't think he was kidding.

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/e-numbers/102.aspartame.html

It appears much worse, than reported. It is collusion, forbidding federal courts to deal with it.this note is a testimony to the total disregard for us, in favor of covering their buddies asses. Is there still a single dimbulb in my hearing, not knowing what goes on?

This makes me sick. Our, (so called), representative government has become a cancerous tumor on the belly of America.

As this thread has progressed, here is my analysis...

1) GMO is tied to the bee decline, but not how I thought.

2) GMO was heralded as an answer, and it not only failed, it did worse than fail. Mother Nature was able to speed up evolution and create "super weeds" and "super bugs" that were able to burn through mankind's best efforts.

3) Aside from corn, sugar beets are also being pushed into GMO. I believe that this is due to the government's insistence on ethanol as a fuel to supplement gasoline. Monsanto promised huge yields, and the government bought it.

4) Rather than admit that the GMO crops weren't working as advertised, it came time to cover it up....enter Bayer. I believe that Bayer promised to deliver pesticides that would do the trick; all they needed was EPA approval, and they could start a very heavy regimen of pesticides, combined with Monsanto's herbicides, in ever stronger doses.

Nobody would be the wiser, and GMO would retain it's magic. The government agreed.

5) We are now putting such heavy doses of pesticides on GMO crops, (to prove that they work), that we are killing off the bees. The original amount of toxins that were to be created within the plant from GMO would not have hurt the bees, as studies show; but we have gone so far beyond that, (in our effort to thwart super bugs and weeds), that we are destroying the little pollen gatherers... perhaps altering our very future in the process.

6) the US government never admits fault.....ever. The signing of this bill is to give Monsanto and Bayer one more growing season to fix the problem; I suspect there will be massive amounts of pesticides used.

If they fail, the US government, (to keep us all safe), will throw Monsanto and Bayer under the bus, and portray them as evil capitalist companies that must be punished. A win /win for the government.

This makes me absolutely ill.

You did well until 5,. and 6,.

Real professionals knew well the problems with all sorts chemicals. They also knew the rapidity, with which organisms develop resistance.

If you take the more generally known story of antibioticum resistance in people and livestock. Newer and newer types are coming out, still some bacteria becomes resistant to everything. A nightmare, the CDC admitted to repeatedly. Biology =biology

You are mistaken on the last point. Buerocracy never ever admits to failures. Shove the dirt under the carpet, deny, then blame everybody in sight. Rewrite the whole story, etc. But never admit.

Walks away, and leaves the whole stinking pile for other people to clean up.

So the problem has been clearly defined - what are we going to do about it?

In regard to the bees, this bill isn't really a big deal. I think the "big deal" is the continued and increasing use of systemic pesticides and herbicides.

At some point, I think we're going to have to get back to old fashioned crop rotation and conventional insect control, on an "as needed" basis. The sooner the better.

As far as the long term affects of GM crops on humans, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. The entire country world is in an ongoing test to see what happens. So far we are seeing signs of kidney and liver damage, as well as potential problems with reproductive and digestive health. Time will tell.

Unfortunately, the "terminator" technology has been patented, but is not in use; which means that GM crops are cross pollinating with conventional crops. I can't say if that's good, bad, or insignificant, but GM traits are here to stay.

At some point, I think we're going to have to get back to old fashioned crop rotation and conventional insect control, on an "as needed" basis. The sooner the better.

Well, the world will be a hungrier place.......... Except in America, were we could lose a few pounds

I'm not sure about that.

With systemic herbicides creating super weeds, and systemic insectides creating super bugs, it seems better to slow down on their use.

I wonder if this is what the bill was intended to allow, or is included?

Seems like if we are ever able to create crops that are impervious to bugs and huge doses of glyphosate, they will be unfit for human consumption anyway.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/18/dow-biotech-idUSL1E9CIBN320130118

It sure looks like war to me.

What's new for 2013....

http://extension.psu.edu/plants/crops/news/2013/01/herbicide-resistant-crops

It's allot like a hole we dig, the faster we dig to dig us out of, the deeper the gets.

As far as getting back to nature, with more conventional means.......

One just has to look at the production increases in the last 50-75 years, sure I give allot to fertilizers, but remember, some of the earlier techniques was extremely hard on the soils......... as well as yields will drop signicantly.......

I don't have much time for this right now, I'll have to finish my post later.

I've seen estimates that the human population already diverts and or consumes in the range of 20% to 40% Global Net Primary Productivity and that our agriculture and pasture cover 20% of the land (and not all of the other 80% can be used in agriculture or as pasture).

.

With the human population growing to double roughly every 60 years, the feces looks to be hitting the fan in the not too distant future.

.

There are some strange paradoxes at work here too. For example, birthrates and offspring per couple, especially in rapidly growing less developed countries, tend to fall when nutrition is generally improved and food insecurity is generally minimized. The reverse could exacerbate any inadequacy in the Earth's carrying capacity.

Just found this story, that might be of interest. It is a about a lawsuit against Bayer:

http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/21/17404694-groups-sue-epa-over-honeybee-deaths-blame-some-insecticides?lite

Thanks ron. I went ahead and found the direct link.

http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/21/17404694-groups-sue-epa-over-honeybee-deaths-blame-some-insecticides?lite

I've learned more about this stuff than I ever thought I wanted to know.

Oh the irony.....

http://www.live-the-organic-life.com/michelle-obama.html

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2012/12/03/is-michelle-obamas-natural-food-campaign-designed-to-hide-the-white-house-attack-on-organic-food/

Let them eat cake!!!

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/03/201332813553729250.html - Shared via Al Jazeera English app

Pesticides 'damage brains of bees' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21958547

Perhaps it is a combination of stressors that are taking down the honeybee.

I am confident that even human social structure would disintegrate if put under multiple stressors of sufficient magnitude; with similar results in population and production.

Looking at the below drawing, and modeling the shown neural pathway as an electromagnetic resonator of fixed length; what would the frequency and polarization be for the highest induced voltage?

What types of environmental exposures could alter the variables and response of the shown neural structure?

For the honeybee nervous system; could electromagnetic radiation at common communication bandwidths become a species stressor?

Would a whole wave exposure (frequency = c/ʎ) have a higher induced voltage than half or quarter wave exposure?

What is the natural action potential of the honeybee's neural structure as shown when free from a near resonant stressor?

http://honeybee.drawwing.org/book/nervous-system

This kind of sums up what I was thinking:

http://magicstarer.hubpages.com/hub/GMO-Food-Allergies

Nothing to see here:

http://gmo-awareness.com/2011/05/12/monsanto-dirty-dozen/

I think there are multiple influences going on to disturb all forms of life. I just found a documentary on YouTube that is interesting and discusses another potentially disturbing influence on lifeforms. Bees are discussed as on case about 15 min. in. It is called, "Resonance: Beings of Frequency."

That video is a great example of sensationalist pseudoscience.

.

It doesn't just suggest connections based on loose coincidence, it misrepresents facts in order to create the illusion of coincidence.

.

The video states that human alpha waves aren't just close, but are exactly 7.8 Hz corresponding with the fundamental Shumann resonance.

.

That simply isn't the case. The frequency of human alpha waves varies somewhat, and is typically around 10 Hz, sometimes as low as 8 Hz, but certainly not exactly 7.8 Hz.

.

You might not want to put your trust in just anything you happen upon on the internet.

I'll plead guilty to posting the link without having watched the whole thing. I watched about 20 minutes and the subject of bees came up. My sense of the the video is that it is making the general case that electromagnetic fields, (cell phone towers, in particular, I THINK[?]), may be disrupting animal cryptochrome, disrupting possible navigation and other processes (immune systems is also mentioned in the article by Goldsworthy below) in animals and insects. Not having watched the whole video I can't comment on whether there is an attempt to link the exact frequency of 7.83 Hz with the main argument that these "sensors" in animals can be disrupted. I'll reserve final judgment until I've watched the whole video.

Sometimes people cut off their own noses to spite their faces by including assumptions and unrelated information that they shouldn't for whatever reason, stopping some viewers in their tracks. Tying 7.83 Hz to human alpha waves may be just that sort of faux pas. Surely you aren't dismissing potential effects of magnetic radiation on living organisms, are you? Whatever else might be erroneous in the video, the study of cryptochrome is not pseudo-science. (For examples, see 1, 2, 3, etc.) It's a burgeoning subject -- not dismissed nor explained, since it is little understood. There are pop-sci articles about the subject, too. Because these are often not detailed, they can give a false representation of degree of seriousness. Here is one non-scientist's overview/perspective, that I find an enjoyable read. A good, short, summary of the potential importance of cryptochrome, written by Andrew Goldsworthy, BSc PhD, is in this article as a contributor to the radiationresearch.org web site. Since we don't fully know how cryptochrome works, and/or how important it might be, the jury is still out. But precisely because we don't fully understand it, is the very reason not to remove it from the list of factors to consider.

(I found the video while browsing YouTube for full-length documentaries. I recently discovered that my Blu-Ray player will play mp4 files directly, apart from a DVD structure. I got excited about the possibility of being able to access these documentaries without needing a DVD copy, and also not have to sit in front of my computer.)

Thanks for the feedback, tinac. Despite how my response might be perceived, I appreciate anyone mentioning discrepancies in presentations. I didn't key on the 7.83 Hz as I watched the video, in the same way you did. What I saw is the possible relevance of man-mad electromagnetic radiation as one component to consider in bee decline, with cryptochrome being a proposed actor.

I didn't intend to ridicule you. Rereading it, I understand how it can be perceived as such.

.

I listen critically when new information is being presented, especially when it is being presented as scientific information. It may seem a little overboard, but I think critical review is vital.

.

Honest errors and things like reasonable variances in explanations of not well understood phenomena, are easy for me to overlook and continue reviewing whatever information is presented.

.

However, when the type of discrepancies indicate that either the presenter shows remarkable neglect in fact checking critical points, or that the presenter is willfully introducing fiction as fact, I find it difficult to invest time in further review.

.

I stopped listening when the presenter introduced the 'remarkable discovery' that human alpha waves and the earths fundamental electromagnetic resonant frequency in the ionosphere were exactly the same.

.

You must have missed it. Listen again starting at 6.10

.

The comment is presented as something that is vitally important; a remarkable discovery, and the characterization is not vague. Alpha waves and Shumann resonance are said to match frequency exactly.

"Shumann resonance wasn't just similar to the alpha waves of the human brain, it was identical"

.

At that point I stopped listening. I have no reason to trust anything in the remainder of the piece.

I'm not saying that I agree or that I disagree with the remainder of the piece. What I am saying is; having any confidence in what I might come across in the remainder of the video would require far more work in sorting out what untruths were introduced, than simply researching the topic on my own.

To me, watching the remainder is a bad investment.

If someone has something important to say, they should get their facts reasonably straight. If they believe their own conclusions, then they won't be tempted to skew the data to make a 'discovery' seem 'remarkable'.

.

I didn't mean to ridicule you for presenting the link. I have certainly recommended something offhand before, only to later realize I should have looked more closely before making the suggestion.

.

My ridicule was meant for the video. I'm sorry I wasn't more specific.

No real offense taken, tinac, as I tried to indicate. I suspected you were reacting to the first few minutes, which I, too, understood would be a turn-off to many. Without watching the rest of it, I think the subject of cryptochrome is the key point I would draw from a full viewing. Just a guess. And, yes, I've posted some less than bona fide links as you've mentioned; my feet are quite wet. (An indication of my naivete is that I had no idea the linked video would spark the discussion that it has.)

Instead of posting below, responding to individual comments following your response, I'll address the issues raised, here, and hope that folks will find them and sort them accordingly. They are offered for the sake of further discussion, if anyone thinks there is room for it; i.e., there is sufficient reason to consider some possible effect of electromagnetic radiation (at the radiated levels, not results from stronger applications) to alter chemical processes in living organisms. I hope we can all agree that none of us here totally understand the subject well enough to say, unequivocally, there isn't a possible pathway for such a reaction.

It was my impression from the links I posted about cryptochrome research that the "directional" sensor being proposed and investigated, is mediated in the retina. My comment summarizing what I took from the portion of video I did look at, (that the case being made was that cell phone towers were implicated in affecting physiological processes in bees, and other organisms) may have obscured that.

I will give my understanding of a line of reasoning based on my preliminary and shallow (which likely puts a target on me, for sure) understanding of the subject, for one reason cryptochrome is being investigated in labs by credentialed scientists, relating to this topic, as well as others.

leveles argues the power levels of cell phone tower radiation is too small to affect biological processes And Gavilan is arguing that frequency is more important in this case than power level. If the cryptochrome mechanism is visual; i.e., via the retina in visual systems, these arguments have to be considered differently.

We could easily become awash in links back and forth, but there may be no better way to flesh out what is being investigated. It is, also, easy to link to information that a lot of us don't follow completely. But the potential for better understanding outweighs that risk, to my way of thinking.

That cell-to-cell signaling occurs is a given. And there is enough there to make one's head spin, as leveles has aptly put it. What the signaling may result in is under investigation in many areas of biology because we are no where near identifying all of the proteins and molecules which may not be detected yet, due to short lifetimes, for instance.

This short abstract refers to the hypothetical explanation of "radical pair mechanism" which is dealt with at much more length in the first link about cryptochrome that I posted in post #174. The fact that cryptochrome is present in plants as well as animals, suggests that it is a fundamental mechanism in life processes. And the level of understanding needed and being sought is dizzying, to me, at least, as demonstrated in just a single paper about its role in plants, picked at semi-random. (My brain chooses for some reason.)

If it can or has been (??) demonstrated that cryptochrome activity can be influenced by low-level radiation (in the range of man-made frequencies), and if it resides in the retina of certain organisms, I would suggest that given the sea of man-made radiation that exists, transmission through the retina would be more efficient than a skin surface response. That low-levels of radiation (considered too low to be causal of any alterations of processes as currently known) can possibly affect this mechanism, is argued by a paper cited at this same site. The Introduction explains the intent to and reasoning to investigate the counter argument. Following the research results in detail can be daunting, though.

The cascading events in cellular communication are quite complex, even in the lowly fruit fly. The "system" in its vision is discussed in this paper. And it is concluded the "coupling" in the system may be very tight, which to me means more susceptible/senstivie to minor changes. Other papers related to cryptochrome and fly vision (as one specific case) is at the PNAS link here. I marvel at the complexity and preciseness of these varied systems. This Monarch butterfly system is dependent on and affected by photons and timing -- quite sophisticated; not a very energetic factor, as we normally assume in affecting biological processes. Almost certainly, these mechanisms are "wired" to the brain of insects in such a way that any disturbance in the system might change the "loop" behavior. One can also only marvel at the way these directional patterns get stored and recalled in insect brains to allow a bee, for instance, to "dance" the directions to a recently discovered source of pollen.

Most discussion about "low-level" radiation centers around it's "ionizing" effect; the energetic alteration and/or displacement of electrons. Generally, these effects are longer-term (effects such as cancer development and DNA mutation) than the proposed shorter-term effect on visual and/or direction sensing mechanisms. The proposed crytpochrome mechanism is hypothesized to be affected in such a manner. I would suggest that the lens of the eye is more efficient at transmitting/conducting radiation than other parts of the body.

Until we fully understand cryptochrome's role in, potentially, more than one biological "system," we can't discard the possibility of it being part of a "cascade" of events that might be affecting us and animals in ways we just don't understand yet. Thus the ongoing investigations. The last paragraph is the most relevant to this discussion. (For a historical context to past and current research, this IEEE global history web site has this overview.)

I would also suggest that there is a combined effect of GMOs, pesticides, and who knows what else, that might be influencing the overall health of bee populations. What if something is lowering their immune response to parasites, that they normally are protected against? The fact that they are disappearing isn't disputed.

Because much still needs to be learned and understood about how life works, I would suggest that we not close the door on low-level radiation being able to affect biological processes in living organisms, in a variety of ways. This also makes it very legitimate to disagree with hypotheses suggesting that there is any effect. We can agree to disagree until more is known. (On the contrary, maybe it will be easy to shoot this line of reasoning down. Please do. It won't hurt my feelings or offend me. It will just add to my education.)

I only have so much time to organizing a post like this. So forgive me if it is still lacking. I think I have supplied the gist of how I see a pathway for the influence of electromagnetic radiation at low levels to interact and possibly influence visual/directional "systems" in both insects and birds. There is no shortage of links when searching with the term "cryptochrome." Others may find more pertinent information, relating to either side of the argument, than I have cited here. If so, please post them. Also, if I have gotten embedded links messed up somehow, I apologize and will try to correct it if anyone points them out.

Thank you for taking the time to provide a great explanation of your positions/view.

Naturally, there are some things we don't agree on, but on those points I can still appreciate where you are coming from.

.

It seems like with either studies of where colony collapse occurs, or pretty simple experiments, could determine with a reasonable level of confidence, the likelihood of particular factors contributing significantly to the problem.

.

It doesn't seem like it would be that expensive.... which suggests I am misunderstand or am missing some vital piece of the puzzle.

Hi, again, tinac (and all),

I'm doing something that I don't recall ever doing -- posting on a day off. (I took this Friday and Monday off.) And I'm doing so because I decided to take the time to view the whole video (Resonance...) which has sparked an exchange of thoughts I didn't anticipate. It proved me wrong in my assumption as to the key component of the case made. From that perspective, I certainly found it worth my while to view the whole video. It got my brain active in such way that waiting until next Tuesday to post, might make the post more of a recollection as opposed to reaction. So, it's in the moment, that I want to record my thoughts. I'll wait to pick up and post to any reaction others might have to mine on Tuesday. I hope that is O.K. with all. And as is more the norm for me, I maybe make longer posts than people like to see, or think is necessary, but I do so to make whatever point I am trying to make, be placed against some background, which almost any subject can lend itself to.

To my surprise the real culmination of the intent of the video doesn't occur until a little after 1:07:xx. And the shoe that is dropped is, potentially, very profound. I'll wait to mention it because I want to put it in a context.

Some paintings are huge. If we were to stand very close to one of these paintings and describe what we see, it would be brush strokes of certain hues and colors. We could also note which direction they are in (relatively speaking, of course), how high off the canvass they appear... in short any number of qualitative and quantifiable observations. But the more we back away from the painting, the more we will now see (assuming it isn't modern art ), likely, an object wherein the brush strokes resided. If we back away far enough, we will see what the artist painted in total. Whether or not we "see" what the painting "meant" to the artist is debatable. Why does someone paint what they choose to paint?

Science has become so specialized that it is much like the viewing of a large painting, inspecting areas so close, that recognizing an overall pattern or correlation of significance happens less often. We think we already know the big picture. It's a large physical universe, with galaxies, stars and planets and sundry other objects. The picture of "us" we also think of as having been sketched out broadly enough that we are only filling in the details. I would disagree. We are easily as complex as the universe at large. Physics, considered the king of sciences, on which all other science rests, has discovered a 95% unknown in its landscape that we've labeled Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Oops. The large picture just got scrambled a bit.

Science has become a vehicle for our fascination with the unknown. We love a good mystery. We can devote our whole life to the study of any number of them. This video has value on that level. On one level it is just another video about the controversy surrounding cell phone radiation, both at the handset site (affecting our brain most directly) and the tower site (the possibility it might be interfering with other biological processes in Nature). I think it is best watched for the questions it raises, more so, than the questions it answers. The punch line for the video is melatonin, not cryptochrome, as I keyed on. Cryptochrome represents only a part of the picture. But is just an object in the larger painting. The 7.83 Hz plays a very minor role in the presentation; unnecessary in my opinion. (Now I'll have to add melatonin to my list of topics to research the research.)

Another way of viewing our search for understanding of phenomena we observe in the world, is as a group of dots on a sheet of paper. We "see" the dots as we know about them. Others may be there, but not visible to our vision at the moment. In the same way we, as children, look at clouds and "see" objects in the cloud formations, each of us might "see" a certain virtual connection of the dots on the sheet of paper. This is can be unsubstantiated, as an intuitive flash or epiphany, or a scientific speculation based on reasoning; not quite a hypothesis, yet like an embryo, based on some extrapolation of what we are convinced we know. Making the "actual" connections that our brains endorse, has come to fall within the activity of scientific investigation and validation, in today's world. (Personal experience can do the same.)

The other thing I found myself scrutinizing while watching the video is who are the speakers that are making statements and/or posing these speculations? I intend to follow up in that direction. I do note that Andrew Goldsworthy (sp?) was one of them. Some of the scientists participating are listed as being associated with universities or colleges, as far as I remember -- professors. Early on, it is noted that a Nobel prize-winning scientist had investigated some phenomena where a correlation between "frequencies" "seems" to exist. Because of the melatonin punch line, that "investigation" and it's results, conclusions, or further questions, made my memory of it not so strong. It's dot was fainter on the page. Maybe it shouldn't be.

I tend to key on certain statements according to what I am interested at the time. Because I have been reading more on vitamin C/ascorbic acid in the last couple of months, the statement that caught my attention in the introduction of melatonin in the video, is that it is ~5X more potent a scavenger of free radicals as is ascorbic acid. That really got my attention. I think we all tend to accept the paradigm that the body does do repairs while we sleep. (And now I'll have to look into that.) Connecting that dot with what I think I've learned about vitamin C, I can see a framework in my mind of how we made up the difference in our inability to synthesize vitamin C. Our bodies have other means to try to address oxidative stresses besides vitamin C. Our biology is based on a generic skeleton of biological processes, a thread you might say, that is in common with all cellular life. This means that vitamin C, as an antioxidant agent, is another substance like melatonin, or other vitamins and substances that exhibit that property. It can be used to make up for a shortage that might be needed in different disease states. Or could have prevented them, possibly. Another discussion.

Trying to pin the cause for any one disease on something like cell phone radiation is almost impossible. This is because we do live in a sea of so many factors that could affect our organism in negative ways. The set of scientific experiments we would need to devise would have to be able to eliminate all components except the one under study. And then, to be thorough, we would methodically measure levels of all known significant substances (hormones, enzymes, proteins, etc.) and the processes they are involved in, to note changes. It would be similar to trying to decode the human genome. We don't know all the processes going on in our bodies yet. We would need at least 2 data sets to compare these specific studies against; one within our normal living environment and one which is separated/shielded from it. Regarding electromagnetic effects, in the video, one attempt at filtering this environment was/is to use a shielded underground room. Just the study of the human organism in this way would provide plenty of fodder for the design of many experiments. The human body is constantly in a state of flux, centered around values considered "normal." That idea was mentioned in another thread. What is normal? As far as the human body goes, it depends on the environment, both internal and external. The complexity of answering basic questions like this is challenging to say the least. (I made a trip to the library to see what I had available to me on electromagnetic radiation and biological processes. I noted at least 3 books about the human body's adaptation to cold environments. We are adaptive -- up to a point. This, too, affects the definition of normal. In what environment/context?)

I do note the video points out that under the "operational" procedures mentioned in manuals for some cell phone devices, the distances suggested for operating, etc. are somewhat incriminating. Why would a manufacture list these, seemingly, impractical parameters in their operating procedures, if they were fully confident that there is absolutely no effect from their use, as normally used? I suspect the intimation that who funds studies tends to influence the outcome has much more truth than we would like to acknowledge. That applies to many industries, such as the pharmaceutical industry, which, if one looks at the subject has quite a black eye in that regard. Also, the WHO apparently revised their health warning in 2011 about cell phones, as potentially causing cancer. Adds to speculation. Another tidbit is the estimation that there are ~5,000,000 cell phone towers worldwide. It would be interesting to do the calculation of what that dispersion is per mile of habitable area; a map of where they exist and the concentration.

The video doesn't conclusively answer any questions at all. It points to possible connections of the dots we have on our sheet of paper. It presupposes there are connections. Since we live in a universe where all actions are causal (as is our daily experience), it is natural to see these potential connections. Designing experiments that might prove or disprove any one connection should be what makes science a "good" for our species. Recognizing which potential connections to investigate is individual. I see the possible connection of antioxidants, to health in general, as a basic underlying phenomena, as important. Others may not. I think the subject of oxidative stress is equally as profound a subject as epigenetics, in consideration of health of individuals as well as of our species.

As to the 7.83 Hz, I don't know why they chose to mention that specific frequency, as it really doesn't need to be given for the general purpose of the case being made. The overall hypothesis/speculation that life is tied to a "calculated" frequency, based on the earth and the ionosphere, called the Schumann resonance, and the more provable correlation that, life in general (cells on up) and, therefore, that our bodies, are synchronized with the exposure and disappearance of the electromagnetic radiation we call light, doesn't need 7.83 Hz as a data point to make a general, overall hypothesis. I suppose the director decided it parries the criticism of generality. But how knows? Literary license, I suppose.

In the context of its ability to raise interesting and potentially important questions, I give the video a thumbs up. Not for proof. But I suspect if one follows up on the scientists who participated in the video, look at what research they've done, they aren't fringe any more than Linus Pauling was. He chose to stick his neck out on vitamin C because the data pattern he saw wasn't seen, or acknowledged by others. I think his view is being more substantiated, than not. Truth often lies somewhere between the absolute yes and no. Many scientist were villified for their views in their lifetime and later vindicated. I think there is sincerity in their endeavors.

There is some point I wanted to add somewhere here, but I lost the thought. In spite of several re-readings it has now escaped me. If I think of it and it seems worthwhile I will add it as a P.S.

I really didn't intend to hijack the thread with the video link. It is not specifically about GMO effects on bee and/or any insect population. (my apologies, kramarat) I think if anyone thinks the subject worthy of any further discussion, we might want to continue it in a separate thread. Just a thought.

You have convinced me to give the video a 2nd chance.

I will likely have time later this weekend.

Good post. It kind of sums up my opening post, in that, I wasn't convinced of anything when I started, hence the question mark.

I'll let you guys carry on the cellphone angle, since I don't know enough about it to contribute. I'll just read along.

More on GM foods: I was at my brother in law's house over the weekend, and noticed that the cyst on his dog's back leg was substantially larger than it was a couple of weeks ago, so I decided to take a look at GMO and pet food.

From what I can find, pet food is chock full of GMO food; it's notable that cancer and other diseases are on the rise in our domestic pets as well. I found this site, and the links at the bottom all appear to be solid science. I'm genuinely becoming convinced that ingesting Roundup, as well as Bt toxins, is not a healthy thing for us to be doing.

http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/2009/08/consumers-beware-genetically-engineered-crop-ingredients-in-pet-foods-and-human-foods/

Often skin conditions in dogs are diet related; allergies, cysts, excess shedding, itching, etc.

.

Specifically, many dogs with skin problem improve rapidly when fed a diet that contains no corn or wheat. I don't know if this has anything to do with pesticides on the corn and wheat or what, but I know of numerous examples of skin condition improving markedly just by eliminating corn and wheat from the diet.

.

Corn and wheat aren't something a canine would ever really eat in the wild. Most dog food today is mostly corn. Thankfully many places have reasonably priced food without corn or wheat.

.

If the corn-free wheat-free dog food in your area is prohibitively expensive, cooking and freezing portions of food for your dog doesn't take much time and can be done very inexpensively.

We just got a new dog on Thursday, and he doesn't like the food I got for him....mostly corn.

This site was helpful, and fortunately, some of the highly rated brands are affordable.

http://www.dogfoodadvisor.com/dog-food-reviews/dry/

In the meantime, genetics continues into uncharted territory:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/apr/11/supreme-court-gene-patents-cancer

Thanks. Got him from the local shelter. White lab, with possibly a little dash of pit bull. 5-6 months old, and mellow as can be.

Smart too. I have an acre with no close neighbors; walked him around the perimeter of the yard with no leash, and he won't leave it. If I leave the house, he's waiting on the front porch when I get home.

I got him some grain/corn free food yesterday and he loves it.

I went back on topic, because the puppy chow that I first bought him is primarily corn, and he doesn't like it at all.

I think it's fair to assume that the corn/soy ingredients contain GM grown products. I'm running an experiment: Since the dog won't touch it, I put small mounds of the puppy chow on the red ant hills that are taking over my yard. It will be interesting to see if it affects them. I'll keep you posted.

You've added another question to my list: Has anyone tried to see if these sensitivities to corn and wheat have always been around? (And others, as there are quite a number now. Just last evening I heard an interview with a Dr. Kari Nadeau who has been studying allergies for several years, and they are on the rise.) One attempt to answer the question is in this article. Maybe the reasoning on corn could be the same.

If allergies are on the rise, that is a good indication to me it is "modern." Diabetes at an early age is on the rise, too. Hm-m-m? Seems like a "pattern" of susceptibility to disease states, to me. One angle on this would be to see if earlier medical writings in cultures where these items have been staples for generations, contain any disease description paralleling "allergies."

Again, we live in such a SEA of possible factors to alter or influence bodily processes, we may never pin any of this on one culprit. And, unfortunately, science methodically attacks subjects that way. Is there any other way for science to proceed? Dr. Michael Roizen popularized the "Real Age" quiz for assessing one's risk of different lifestyle factors. That there are multiple factors also provides cover for any one culprit, such that, the buck can be passed along -- "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

We seem to be too dumb a species to collectively and properly look for wisdom and then act on it. Trusting it resides with political leaders and profiteers is foolish. And, currently, we are at their mercy; i.e., Congress, mfgs. of processed food, Monsanto et al. We are also at the mercy of our own taste buds. There is some hope in science, but, the megaphone of the media is in the hands of the profiteers, and consolidated in such a way that getting counter data into the mainstream conversation is a struggle. Plus, there is that addictiveness which science also serves -- food "designers." -- our "dealers." As the saying goes...Cheetohs don't kill people, people eat Cheetohs.

It is going to be hard to separate other factors from the increase in corn as a percentage of diet.

Dog food in general was not of such ubiquitously high corn content a couple decades back. The changes that have been made to corn agriculture have vastly increased yields, lowering prices, and creating motive to make it part of human as well as animal food.

In addition to maladies associated while feeding corn and wheat laden food, there is strong indication that feeding high corn or high wheat diets to a young puppy increases the risk of the puppy developing allergies.

Since corn is so prevalent, very high corn content diets are fed more often to young puppies. So we are likely seeing an increase in allergies in dogs.

The problem is that because the changes to corn agriculture have increased yields, it will be very difficult to distinguish whether the effects are due to higher concentration of corn in the diet or due to the changes that enabled those higher concentrations.

.

I also find it interesting that most cat food is also now corn. It use to be that cat food was high protein, with much of that protein animal based. But apparently they have found a way to get cats to eat mostly corn. The funny thing is, domestic cats, along with all other felines, have lost their sweet receptors through a genetic mutation (which might have a lot to do with some of their tell tale traits).

Good points.

We are certainly all physically addicted to food (and a couple other things).....what are some of those questions asked when trying to ascertain addiction??

- Do you do it soon after waking? (yeah, I call it breakfast)

- Do you do it alone sometimes? (yeah, but I prefer good company)

- How often/when was the last time? (I've had food every day for at least a decade.....if you can see me (or even if you can't) I've almost certainly been fed within the last 12 hours.)

- Are you dependent on it? (What? Am I kidding? I'd died without it! I'm serious, I need food, don't even think about making me go cold turkey (mmmm, cold turkey).)

- Do you use this substance with other substances on a regular basis? (Yeah. I'm also really into breathing. I so hooked on air......Rehab is going to suck.)

.

All kidding aside, marketing is a highly refined effective tool working on many levels. It doesn't just shift our focus from one product to another, but shifts frames of perception to the point of creating novel 'needs'.

.

_{BTW, bread isn't an unprocessed food. It is probably the original processed food. While minimally processed bread can be baked or sometimes bought, most of it is heavily processed and often has less than desirable ingredients.}

I would think "Roundup" would probably outweigh ambient RF in terms of potential for ill effect at current levels- unlike RF where induced voltage can be roughly estimated at any scale; the stuff in our food and water is too scary to even think about. You can't "fix" an aquifer, "clean" an ocean, or take back genetic traits introduced into the common seed germ of our food crops.

I wonder how nations compare in cancer and neurological disease rates. I think it would be interesting to see accurate incident tables for prevalent cancer and neurological disease by nation.

I read some short blurb a year or more ago that mentioned a metric called -"Healthy Lifespan"; and then to went on to say it is decreasing in the Unites States. I see that as a very bad omen for the economic health of our culture given the impact this will have on future health care costs and productivity. Whats in our food and water is going to impact the variables in Health Care costs; which is probably the largest consumer of U.S. G.D.P.

I also believe stringent environmental regulations are advertised as anti-business and "bad for jobs."

I have come to the conclusion that we can't have HFCS and Corn Ethanol without current agricultural practices and the scaleists and deniers quickly point out that the cost of food would skyrocket if we don't drink our Roundup.

I see supporting the economic advantage of a healthy environment as being a hugely difficult task; largely because the only data available comes from a vast ocean of information designed to optimize the next fiscal quarter; and if the economic advantage can't be realized in that time frame; it really has no relevance.

More food for thought...

I think that government mandated ethanol has led to a sharp increase in the use of Roundup and GM use in general. It's notable, that after the corn has been made into ethanol, the waste products are used for animal feed. I would think that the waste products would have zero as far as nutritional value.

http://nebraskacorn.blogspot.com/2010/07/corn-carryout-stable-despite-increase.html

Day 2 of my experiment:

If I kick an ant mound that is laced with the dog food, there are about 1/3 the ants that respond to the kick, as respond on a "control" ant mound, with no dog food. They also seem less organized in their response to the attack.

I also find it odd that no other critters have tried to eat the exposed dog food...not even a fly will bother with it.

Well, it feels like killing Medusa: when most heads seem to be cut off, another pops up with the same nonsense. Andrew PhD is one of them, who wander off their reservation, and thinks having expertise in an entirely different field.

I have a simple test for people on such questions. If you do not know the difference between kiloWatt and nanoWatt, a kiloVolt and a microVolt, and have no sense of the differences, you have no place in the debate. Lean back, relax, and learn, if interested.

You would say, life (electrically or magnetically) is fragile. Really?

An average, insulating cell wall in you is some 50 nanoMeter thick. The potential differential between in and out is some 50 milliVolt (good enough for discussion). How much field strength does that represent?

Well, 50x10e^-3 / 50xe^-9 = 1 megaVolt/meter!!!!!

That is the field strenght -more on less - at which lightning breaks down air. Now, the fat walls of the cells are markedly better than air. But, what the body can do in a wet, salty environment is something amazing. And nothing fragile about it at all.

Now, take the magnetic side. There is a method applying a Tesla or stronger magnetic field to your brain. It is that strong, that anything beyond short pulses melts the coil. THAT, is what it takes to influence you mentally. Nothing fragile about that at all.

It is also obvious, that applying such strong fields nullify the sensing of the earth's magnetic lines, temporarily, I hope.

Now, I accept sensing in biological systems in a range of 1:1thousandth down.

A signal 1: 1millionth down is way down in the weeds. Impossible to retrieve with the best statistical methods. Anything even lower, that Andrew PhD asserts, is pure unadulterated fantasy.

Bees and cellphones? I would fail an xxx101 student for it without hesitation. Mostly on sloppy thinking and inanity.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Numerical illiteracy: Innumeracy is dangerous to your health.

This is a helping essay for people, who are not hardnosed engineers. Following the sage emanation from that peace supporter Clint Eastwood: "A man gotta know his limitations." I try to live up to it.

Excellent post. Great points.

Thank you.

'....I guess it IS ok for me to dry my cat in the microwave.....'

.

That does seem to go along with your assertion that energy density isn't really that important and that frequency is what we really have to worry about.

Cordless phones share the same frequency with consumer microwave ovens.

I'm sure your cat has been exposed to cordless phone frequency at least at some faint level. ....

....So if its nerves aren't already shot, and if, as you suggest, frequency is the important factor regardless of energy density;

shouldn't you be championing that idea instead of holding it up for ridicule?

I did not mean to suggest that field density inside my microwave wasn't a significant variable in thermally exciting water molecules, which compose a good part of my cat. Matter of fact; if I were to change the frequency to an extremely low frequency; and multiply the field density by many multiples - my cat would be just fine.

I only suggest that in resonant systems, input frequency can be a more significant variable than energy density.

Consider a kid on a swing as a resonant system. I can use very small inputs at the proper time to increase the energy of the system; but even if I use very high inputs, when applied at the wrong time, there will be no increase in amplitude of the cycle.

leveles, I wasn't ignoring your reaction to the post you responded to. I got side-tracked in a conversation with tinac.

I hope my posts in that exchange express my thinking better. (? I can think oddly at times; maybe naive in your view.)

I didn't mention considering life as fragile, although one could make that extension based on your reference to the power levels you mention and the cell wall thickness, etc. I will look around for research on non-ionizing biological effects, as that is where low-level effects would manifest, from what I know. It just may take some time. I do think long-term exposure to certain environmental factors can result in diseased states. (Cigarette smoking doesn't cause cancer right away.) If epigenetics is a force, I think there is room to consider low-level electromagnetic effects as one which might alter our adaptive mechanisms for better or worse, over long periods -- months, years, generations(??) as the case might prove to be. Still an open question.

I appreciate critiques and corresponding reactions, and try to integrate them into future investigation and posts.

Electromagnetic, Acoustic, and Kinetic Resonance are fundamental and universal principles.

That little neural pathway shown in the bee picture in post number 163 - If there is continuous conductivity or sheathing - it is a resonator my friend - as I suggest -- "is the (human) spinal cord. Beginning at the Foramen Magnum (extending from the brain stem) and continues down through the Vertebral Canal to the tapering point of the Conus Medullaris. The spinal cord alone presents a thin continuously conductive material. This component is further lengthened by the Brain Stem at one end and Cauda Equina at the other."" - http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/11748

You "see" because of resonant response; you hear because of resonant response (although a different fundamental type of energy is involved), and ALL of our free wave electronic communications systems operate as a result of "resonant response." Some of those frequencies are very close to the response frequencies of the human nervous system and others very close to that of the Honey Bee's. Our communications spectrum is that broad.

The frequency at which the human body absorbs RF energy can be found in the safety chapter of any good antenna design book.

When referencing resonant capable systems, frequency is a much greater factor than field density.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/11748 - ""---the human body absorbs RF energy more effectively at a frequency where body length is about .4 the wave length and the body's long axis is aligned with the incoming electric-field polarization. This condition is known as "whole-body resonance." Further - "for an average male adult weighing about 70 kilograms and about 1.75 meters tall, the maximum RF energy uptake would be at about 60 MHz, close to TV channel 2, and not far removed from the 6- meter band." (2)

The above gives the approximate values for the frequencies for "whole body resonance", which could be interpreted to mean a cylindrical object with some conductive value. However, the nervous system (or components thereof) could be viewed as a much less massive subsystem of significant different effective length and with a much higher Q value due to both structure and chemical composition. The "Q Value" being defined as the sharpness or reactivity of the system to field at or near specific resonant frequency.

Although field density is most commonly sited as the measurement of environmental exposure, frequency has a much greater impact on resonant capable systems. Again, a long thin conductor will react like a high inductance RLC circuit when exposed to near resonant frequency.

In computing values for a RLC circuit where the inductance is given as .1 Henry and solving for the capacitance to tune the circuit to an effective length of 68 inches; the tremendous effect frequency has on the induced power becomes clearly evident. First computing induced power at resonance and then changing the frequency of the exposing field by a value corresponding to just .001 inch, the induced power changes by over 8 fold. At 173 MHz this corresponds to a difference of about 2500 HZ. This is a relatively small difference in frequency, or length of the resonator, for such a significant change in induced power. Again, it is this effect (electrical resonance) that could explain why only a small number of people, out of a large population group, would be affected when exposed to the same electromagnetic environment.

The laws of physics are universal. If long thin membranes exist as part of the human nervous system, as indicated in my wife's nursing texts, then the potential for resonant effect exists. "

Mr. Faraday taught us that conductivity is a function of structure and valence; when we introduce chemicals that are incorporated into that structure; or expose resonant capable structures to near primary or harmonic frequencies - things are going to happen.

Sorry, Nye capiche. Really.

If you care to present them singly, maybe.

Right now, my head is spinning.

.

When you suggest that the nervous system has a much higher Q factor than the body as a whole, are you implying that the nervous system has a high Q factor?

I ask because I don't know what a representative Q factor value for the nervous system might be, and it is feasible that it could be much higher than that for the whole body and still have a value under 1/2....

.

.

On another note, I applaud your effort to link to references, but I can't help but snicker when I think about linking other CR4 threads as references to support ideas in this CR4 thread...