# scientist studies on gmo and roundup



## Richard Cryberg

dennis crutchfield said:


> i am looking for factual studies on gmo and roundup ready products in relation to bees. can anyone point me the right direction. my personal studies having concluded they will cause harm. but without a degree or government backing.. no one listens. thanks in advance. dennis


The very best evidence is from commercial bee keepers who make their living in the middle of neonic, Roundup and GMO country. They will pretty much all tell you it has never in their life been as good as it is today for making honey. Specific to GMOs and Roundup they have all kinds of spring flowers in those treated fields today that they did not have before GMOs and Roundup and the result is spring build ups that are the best they have ever seen. I am talking about guys whose hives are surrounded by tens of thousands of acres of corn and beans in places like Ill and IA. So, not only is Roundup ready corn and beans an absolute boon for preserving and building soil quality and increasing the water storage capacity of soils there is no field evidence of harm to bees or humans. Everyone who works on farms knows this. The problem is only a couple of % of our population works on farms and has the slightest clue of how much better the environment is today versus only 20 years ago. A significant problem in farm country is our government going hog wild mowing and sometimes spraying ditches to make them look like lawns. This is recent and has destroyed a lot of wonderful honey bee capacity, not to mention the total disaster it has been for monarch butterflies. I will remind you that monarchs are 100% dependent on milk weeds. Milk weed never grew in fields to any significant extent. Try digging some and transplanting it and you will learn real fast why cultivation is simply death to milk weed. It has always been a ditch and fence row plant. The fence rows went away 50 years ago, way before Roundup and GMOs.


----------



## dennis crutchfield

I am not wanting monstanto garbage. I live in a farming area and found out that round up and gmo does kill. if you haven't got a place for real studies don't answer with mosanto garbage. thanks


----------



## Richard Cryberg

dennis crutchfield said:


> I am not wanting monstanto garbage. I live in a farming area and found out that round up and gmo does kill. if you haven't got a place for real studies don't answer with mosanto garbage. thanks


That is really funny. You have no idea how much I dislike Monsanto, nor that I have disliked them this much since likely before you were even born.

Exactly what do you think Roundup and GMOs kill? Roundup is very good at killing annuals and non woody perennials that have fairly short root systems. In fact the formulation additives in Roundup are more toxic to insects and mammals than the active ingredient. The active is roughly as toxic on an acute basis as table salt. The GMO corn that includes the BT genes is pretty good at killing insects that feed on that corn. Feeding studies have clearly shown that the toxin has for practical purposes no toxicity to humans. To humans it is simply another protein source.

But, as long as your mind is made up there is there any purpose in talking about the real world? Just for the record I am a real scientist. Like PhD and a life time doing R&D on all kinds of products the vast majority having nothing to do with GMOs or Monsanto. I have authored a whole bunch of professional papers and have a couple of patents. I am retired now but still doing science with my own money and have a professional publication in the works right now. I have never worked for Monsanto and would never in my life even consider working for them personally. I have hired scientists away from Monsanto and that is as close as my association to the company has ever been. What are your credentials to make you an expert?

Just for the record most anything will kill you if you abuse it. Cars kill a bunch of people every single year. Pesticides kill zero people every year except for suicides. Did you know it is perfectly possible to sit down and drink enough water to kill yourself? It is possible and people have done it.

If I use the standard definition for GMO, namely an organism that has DNA incorporated into its chromosomes that did not come from its parents but came from some other species, did you know that YOU are a GMO product. As is every other person over age two or three. Did you know that some 25% or 30% of the DNA in cattle was transferred directly from snakes to cattle and therefore every steak you ever eat is partly snake and by any definition cattle are all GMO? Nature has been in the GMO business now for well over 3 billion years. Every food you eat is GMO and always has been. So get used to it.


----------



## AR1

Not as emphatic as Mr. Cryberg, but in general I agree. GMO beans and corn surround me where I sit now. Pretty much all of the corn and beans around here are GMO. Bees don't seem to mind. Last year my bees did a lot of work in the nearest soybean field.


----------



## dennis crutchfield

I am wanting studies done. not what everyone thinks.. they are like arm pits everyone has them but they all stink.. please no comments other than what was asked for. please.


----------



## dennis crutchfield

how many hives do you have and how many years have you been in the bee business?


----------



## dennis crutchfield

I am looking for studies on round up ready gmo products. I am not a sheeple as you seem to be. so if you don't have the reports please go some where else


Richard Cryberg said:


> That is really funny. You have no idea how much I dislike Monsanto, nor that I have disliked them this much since likely before you were even born.
> 
> Exactly what do you think Roundup and GMOs kill? Roundup is very good at killing annuals and non woody perennials that have fairly short root systems. In fact the formulation additives in Roundup are more toxic to insects and mammals than the active ingredient. The active is roughly as toxic on an acute basis as table salt. The GMO corn that includes the BT genes is pretty good at killing insects that feed on that corn. Feeding studies have clearly shown that the toxin has for practical purposes no toxicity to humans. To humans it is simply another protein source.
> 
> But, as long as your mind is made up there is there any purpose in talking about the real world? Just for the record I am a real scientist. Like PhD and a life time doing R&D on all kinds of products the vast majority having nothing to do with GMOs or Monsanto. I have authored a whole bunch of professional papers and have a couple of patents. I am retired now but still doing science with my own money and have a professional publication in the works right now. I have never worked for Monsanto and would never in my life even consider working for them personally. I have hired scientists away from Monsanto and that is as close as my association to the company has ever been. What are your credentials to make you an expert?
> 
> Just for the record most anything will kill you if you abuse it. Cars kill a bunch of people every single year. Pesticides kill zero people every year except for suicides. Did you know it is perfectly possible to sit down and drink enough water to kill yourself? It is possible and people have done it.
> 
> If I use the standard definition for GMO, namely an organism that has DNA incorporated into its chromosomes that did not come from its parents but came from some other species, did you know that YOU are a GMO product. As is every other person over age two or three. Did you know that some 25% or 30% of the DNA in cattle was transferred directly from snakes to cattle and therefore every steak you ever eat is partly snake and by any definition cattle are all GMO? Nature has been in the GMO business now for well over 3 billion years. Every food you eat is GMO and always has been. So get used to it.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

dennis crutchfield said:


> I am looking for studies on round up ready gmo products. I am not a sheeple as you seem to be. so if you don't have the reports please go some where else


You have adequately demonstrated already just by posting your question you do not know enough science to understand the truth anyhow. If you knew that much you would know how to search the literature on you puter and get real scientific publications on any topic you are interested in. You obviously do not know how to do such searches.

How do you feel now that you know you are a GMO? Does it bother you at all? How do you feel now that you know all cattle are GMO and every other food you have ever eaten is GMO? What is wrong with GMO in your mind? How is it harming you? Are you so prone to believe conspiracy nonsense you are anti vaccine also? How about that guy on the grassy knoll?


----------



## clyderoad

Crutchfield>> if you don't want any dialog, which usually leads to the studies you seek, then do the research yourself.


----------



## Greeny

Richard Cryberg said:


> Did you know that some 25% or 30% of the DNA in cattle was transferred directly from snakes to cattle and therefore every steak you ever eat is partly snake and by any definition cattle are all GMO?




Don't tell my daughters, they'll become permanent vegans.


----------



## wildbranch2007

clyderoad said:


> Crutchfield>> if you don't want any dialog, which usually leads to the studies you seek, then do the research yourself.


I'll help him on his journey

https://scholar.google.com/


----------



## frustrateddrone

Monsanto is a leading producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed and Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide. Monsanto has agreed to accept Bayer's offer to purchase the company for $66 billion ($128/share) in September 2016, and the deal is currently pending regulatory approval.https://actions.sumofus.org/a/bayer-bees-lawsuit Bayer sueing "Save the Bees org"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-30/bayer-and-syngenta-face-pressure-over-pesticides-after-bee-study Bayer facing pressure over pesicides after bee study. 

Realistically can we fight big companies and actually win? Some say yes and some say no. What matters I believe is that we don't sit on the sidelines. Be pro active if that's your wish. I personally never looked at the chemical market as "HOLY COW" that's a lot of pesticides at the big box stores until I was a bee keeper. The most good that I have done as a pro active bee keeper not going after the source of the problem being the large corporations is that my voice says a lot in educating anyone that cares to listen. That being that just putting any fertilizer or spraying anything poisonous has it's problems. Neighbor puts fertilizer, weed killer and poison on grass. Then sprays poison for general purpose for bugs. Overwaters in the AM. Bees drink that water and later on a bee hive dies from the poisoned water. I am not saying it happened to me personally, but I have known this is possible. Just one instance of a possibility. It all starts with educating the general public. I believe that just with a little bit of information that the general public will understand that nature is indeed in balance and when you turn the balance to either side more problems occur.


----------



## WilliamsHoneyBees

dennis crutchfield said:


> how many hives do you have and how many years have you been in the bee business?


600 give or take. Bee yards I have in/near ag fields do better then bees I have in the hills. You can look at satellite imagery of my location and see that everything south of Frankfort is mostly hills and woods, north is beans and corn. North of Frankfort yards do better then southern yards every year on productivity and winter survivability. Doing my own study and research I have found that GMO and round-up actually benefits honey bees. I literally loaded up bees from the hills this year to purposely move them into soybean fields. I have never seen a pesticide kill or colony collapse disorder.


----------



## Ian

lol, think he's only interested in the anti Monsanto studies


----------



## 1102009

> A significant problem in farm country is our government going hog wild mowing and sometimes spraying ditches to make them look like lawns.


Dick ( Richard Cryberg) this is the problem here making many species extinct.

I remember posting a link which explained that the chemicals are accumulating in the flowers nearby a sprayed field via air drifting , the amount of chemicals being much higher there.

Do you have any experience concerning this? If you are a farmer in germany law says to provide such blooming field stripes near your fields as a compensation.


----------



## 220

Is this the sort of thing your after

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/11/03/glyphosate-is-no-bee-killer/


----------



## 1102009

220 said:


> Is this the sort of thing your after
> 
> https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/11/03/glyphosate-is-no-bee-killer/


Not really. I know about the pro and cons and IMHO it´s the mixtures and the doses of chemicals which are probably dangerous. 

What interests me more are the buffer zones. 

For many years now I collected weeds and wild plants to eat or make tea of. They were always easy to find, even without being near a sprayed field. All this weeds in rural areas they were blooming and always I saw bees on them.
Now the rural areas are "managed" which means they are mowed or sprayed. You are happy to find some goldenrod.

The compensation are the planted buffer zones. And I read that these have a much higher chemical input than the fields, or, maybe they bloom and the bees are on them not on the fields.

Our fields are harvested ( clover) mostly before blooming, they are used for silage. The blooming fields are an exception, but rape and some fertilization plants are still there.

Some people argue, with roundup used the wild bees have more open soil for nesting. Kind of cynical, if the flow is killed and the wild bees starve.

To CCD:


> Indeed, most experts agree that the cause was likely multifactoral, citing a combination of stressors that include pests and pathogens, disease, nutrition, genetics, environmental exposures and commercial bee hive management practices.


Glyphosat could be more dangerous to humans than insects. Let´s see what future brings.


----------



## dennis crutchfield

i looked at it , and yes I want factual stuff to look at pro and con. but you couldn't trace much back from what he said. thanks anyway


----------



## dennis crutchfield

when I hear someone brag about being a scientist, I laugh... they are the ones promoting global warming... delusional at best. I did find some studies on what I was looking for without the private studies promoted by Monsanto.


----------



## Oldtimer

dennis crutchfield said:


> I live in a farming area and found out that round up and gmo does kill.


Roundup kills would be correct, it is a herbicide, ie, designed to kill plants. 

GMO kills? Could you expand on your statement, ie, how in your farming area you found GMO kills?

Sorry I don't, as you asked, have a study to prove it. But since you made the statement....


----------



## Richard Cryberg

SiWolKe said:


> Dick ( Richard Cryberg) this is the problem here making many species extinct.
> 
> I remember posting a link which explained that the chemicals are accumulating in the flowers nearby a sprayed field via air drifting , the amount of chemicals being much higher there.
> 
> Do you have any experience concerning this? If you are a farmer in germany law says to provide such blooming field stripes near your fields as a compensation.


Sybil, Drift can be a problem. But, the real question is what is drifting? Some of the older pesticides were far more persistent than most of what is used today as well as being far more toxic to non target species. Things like paraquat were simply horrid. Going from paraquat to Roundup to dry down crops was a major step in protecting not only the environment but also people. We have a ways to go yet. For instance many of the dicamba formulations have drift/volitility issues that are not good and are causing problems. Personally I can not get a bit bothered by the levels of things like neonics and Roundup, phenoxys and Garlon found in drift situations. They simply are no place close to high enough to ever be a human health issue.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

dennis crutchfield said:


> when I hear someone brag about being a scientist, I laugh... they are the ones promoting global warming... delusional at best. I did find some studies on what I was looking for without the private studies promoted by Monsanto.


Do you know enough about global warming to even have a right to have an opinion? I doubt it. Did you know for instance that the models on global warming all say that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere below an altitude of about 15,000 meters has zero impact on temperatures? I bet you did not know that. Do you understand the equation dI/(dC x dL) = kI? If you do not understand that equation you know exactly zero about global warming. For the record I can understand things like the theory of relativity as it is so simple even a high school kid can understand it. I can do much of the math involved in quantum mechanics and understand why the math says a small object can be in two places at the same time just like experiment shows. But, global warming is much too hard for me to understand so I have no opinion if the observed warming is man driven or not. But, anyone who denies the world has warmed over the last 50 years is truly delusional. It would be hard to randomly pick a 50 year period in the last 10,000 years and not see some warming or cooling.


----------



## Delta Bay

I would think location and what is grown makes a difference in ones experience. Statements of what one sees in their yards doesn't mean the same is seen in a completely different. I see that moving my bees from an agricultural area to a more natural setting the bees do better. Not enough food due to the over use of herbicides.


----------



## 1102009

After this event,

https://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/ar...fuer-mysterioeses-Bienensterben-geklaert.html

when a nicotinoid was used in a wrong way with wrong technique .

The farmers and beekeepers try to be co-workers now.
This means that fruit trees and fields are sprayed when no hives are near and no bees foraging and a new technique is used for sowing. 
Since then the beekeepers have less losses and the farmers more harvest. So there must be an impact on the bees.
I´m talking about my location, I´m not aware what happens in the rest of germany.

Here the bees starve in a more natural setting, they need the agricultural environment.

Dick, you are right about the chemicals once used. DDT or other insecticides were used extensively and today the chemicals are much more controlled.


----------



## Oldtimer

For many years now, daily temperatures have been recorded at most places on the globe. So for most people, if they know where to look, would be able to see what daily temperatures where they live have been, going back the last 30 years, or in many cases a lot longer than that.

So establishing global warming has not been difficult. With a big enough computer, temperature data can be collected from thousands of places all over the globe, added up and averaged, and shows the average temperature of the planet is getting warmer. This is not in doubt it is simple maths.

The debate, if one can call it that, is not if the world is getting hotter, but the why. Is it just cyclical as has happened in the past, or is it man made? To attempt to answer this question, data is collected on the things man can influence, such as atmospheric gases that trap warmth from the sun, and how much of that is there because humans made it by mining and burning fossil fuels. Various types of scientific geeks collect and analyse this data, look for correlations, and do a bunch of other stuff, then attempt to determine how much of global warming is down to us.

Some big business, such as oil and coal, can do better in the short term if they can convince enough people that global warming is "fake news". Some politicians can also get better results short term by denying the need to do anything that might cost, to protect the planet. Some of them knowingly, and there are some who probably just don't get it themselves.


----------



## 220

Getting off topic but here in Aus there has been a bit of a uproar about the Bureau Meteorology modifying historical temperature records. Some of these records go back over 100 years and were lowered because they were outside what was expected as normal max temp. In the last few weeks we have discovered the BoM system has been disregarding temperatures this winter below a certain point as they fall outside what is expected as the normal minimum range for the location.


----------



## clyderoad

220>> why would they alter these records? the explanation does not sound plausible. who gave the directive to do this?


----------



## Richard Cryberg

clyderoad said:


> 220>> why would they alter these records? the explanation does not sound plausible. who gave the directive to do this?


Why is a good question. Who gave the directive is a good question. I have not seen answers to either. But, what is absolutely 100% clear is what 220 posted is correct and a matter of public record. The data was flat out fudged. It may not sound plausible to you but it is a fact anyhow. I do not see why you do not find it plausible. Lots of bee research has been fudged and still gets published. Just a month ago there was all kinds of discussion on a publication where less than 10 cherry picked observations out of some 250 total observations were used to draw a conclusion that was statistical nonsense. The authors used experimental noise in the data to get the conclusion they wanted to get from the experiments. Or was it 150 total observations? Thing was such a joke I have forgotten the details.

Dick


----------



## 220

I have no idea who authorised the changes, most of those revised down were from the late 18th early 19th century. The explaination as I understand it is that they are outside the statistical norm and that changes in the way temperature is read means they could be out by a degree or 2c so they were revised down.
My understanding of the current disregarding of low temps is that it was due to automation of most weather stations. The programs they run have a built in min/max temp range and anything outside the pre decided temps is disregarded as an error.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Looking from Europe and saying what people here think is that USA is acting pretty recklessly when not signing the Paris climate accord.

Why would there not be such fast warming in the past if it were not man made?


----------



## 1102009

In earth history these climate changes were always happening and there is no evidence that it´s man made now.

But in a short time man used so many resources that we will have to change our attitudes or change our way of living ( or need another planet).

Since the population of the world still increases and no one wants to downshift I see a possibility of change in technology or science.

Still, it will not be enough. Pests and disease or natural catastrophes must eliminate mankind to save the earth.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


----------



## 1102009

A NASA consens? Interesting.

The governments invented a CO2 problem, which is very profitable.

But all other factors of climate change are ignored. Sun activity? Rain forests extinct? Radiowaves of cellphones and computers? Airplane traffic? Agriculture technologies?.........


----------



## Juhani Lunden

SiWolKe said:


> A NASA consens? Interesting.
> 
> The governments invented a CO2 problem, which is very profitable.?.........


Wow. 
You surely have some strange ideas. Not only in beekeeping.



SiWolKe said:


> But all other factors of climate change are ignored. Rain forests extinct? Radiowaves of cellphones and computers? Airplane traffic? Agriculture technologies?.........


I thought those were man made.


----------



## dennis crutchfield

in our area, if there is a drought going on the bee's will gather corn pollen and and they will die


----------



## dennis crutchfield

you have proved my point lol.. most scientist are used to milk out more money for socialist programs .. global warming is a hoax and a lot of real scientist are coming out and telling the truth on it now. no such thing.. and you wonder why I question all studies done by scientist on phophates... if it doesn't make cents their is a buck in it.. those who promote global warming have bats in their belfry.. one brick shy of a load... retards.... lol


----------



## Richard Cryberg

Juhani Lunden said:


> Why would there not be such fast warming in the past if it were not man made?


There are numerous periods where earth's temperatures changed faster and more than has happened in the last 40 years. About 1000 years ago it was also warmer than it is today by a couple of degrees and 250 years ago it was a couple of degrees colder than it is today. We have excellent temp records year by year for the last 10,000 years and can see numerous times of sudden temperature change world wide. In fact, the head climate guy at East Anglia, Phil Jones, said in a public presentation to the BBC that the rate of warming for the periods of 1860 to 1880, 1920 to 1940 and 1975 to 2005 all had identical slopes.

Does any of this mean carbon dioxide does not matter? Of course not. But, I do think when people talk about the history of global temperatures they really should tell the truth and admit that by itself the last 40 years are well within the normal range for both absolute temperature as well as rate of change in temperature compared to history. I also thing Australia and others including the US should stop fudging the data to make it show some desired conclusion. I think the US leaving the Paris accord was really stupid. Why leave when staying costs you zero and keeps the conversation going smoothly? Besides, we all know no one is going to cut carbon dioxide emissions anyhow. Things like electric cars and solar power generate more carbon dioxide than simply burning fossil fuels to get around or to light your home. And do not even get me started on the negative consequences of burning ethanol as fuel. From an environmental standpoint this is about the dumbest idea ever dreamed up.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Richard Cryberg said:


> There are numerous periods where earth's temperatures changed faster and more than has happened in the last 40 years. .


Maybe I remember wrong. Have you a curve to show is the present CO2 rise anything special, or is there similar, as fast, rises in the past?


----------



## Juhani Lunden

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

Nasa, isn´t it a US Company, I suppose you say lots of loonatics there too...or maybe 400 000 years isn´t enough ?


----------



## 1102009

I think we are off topic, but nice discussion. 

Dick, how much carbon dioxid goes into the air with forests burning and vulcano activity?


----------



## cervus

And while we are off topic...it's hardly a leap of faith to acknowledge that over a billion motor vehicles' exhaust is contributing to the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. That has not happened ever before, regardless of natural cyclic temperature fluctuations. When the scientific process becomes so political and polarizing as this has, the facts always take a back seat to perception. 


_The US publisher Ward's, estimates that as of 2010 there were 1.015 billion motor vehicles in use in the world. This figure represents the number of cars; light, medium and heavy duty trucks; and buses, but does not include off-road vehicles or heavy construction equipment._


----------



## Juhani Lunden

SiWolKe said:


> A NASA consens?


18 scientific associations say together: "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. "

But don´t worry, listen to Richard Cryberg, he is way more intelligent than all of them together. But hey, maybe it is a conspiracy, they never went to moon!


----------



## Lburou

Juhani Lunden said:


> ...But don´t worry, listen to Richard Cryberg, he is way more intelligent than all of them together...


 That works for me 

Consensus is NOT science. Noone I know will deny Earth has been coming out of an ice age for 10,000 years. There have been well documented temporary climate changes in recorded history, such as the Little Ice Age during the years 1645-1715. There is plenty of evidence in the record showing fits and starts prior to recorded history, and many cycles of warm and cold cycles over millions of years before mankind appeared on this Earth. I do not believe the sky is falling because of GMO plants, Roundup or Climate Change.


----------



## Oldtimer

So the positions so far are -

1. Global warming is a hoax and is not happening. Anyone who thinks it is, is a retard.

2. Global warming is happening but is a natural cycle and is not our fault.

3. Global warming is happening and human activity is contributing to it.

4. Co2 levels are rising 

5. Co2 levels are not rising, it is a plot invented by governments and is very profitable.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

Juhani Lunden said:


> 18 scientific associations say together: "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. "
> 
> But don´t worry, listen to Richard Cryberg, he is way more intelligent than all of them together. But hey, maybe it is a conspiracy, they never went to moon!


Over earth's life time carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up and down periodically. But, the general trend has been down and today it is as low as it has been over the last 4 billion years. It used to be several thousand parts per million as recently as when the dinosaurs lived and fell to 275 ppm about 1900 and today is 400 ppm.

By, the way, I think I have been very careful to never say I do not believe in AWG (man caused global warming). I have no idea if AWG is right or a total fabrication. There are things I do know such as carbon dioxide in the bottom part of the atmosphere has zero impact of global warming just like all the climate models say. I understand why the models say this. It is actually quite simple to understand why this must be. But, over all the models are very complicated and the people who put the models together refuse to disclose what they did in enough detail to allow me to make any kind of judgement as to are they right or wrong. Plus, these models totally ignore things like clouds which can have a major impact of temperatures. They also seriously misrepresent the nature of thermals as the grid system used is way too big to model reality. So, I simply am not smart enough to be able to understand the models well enough to make any kind of judgement. Most of the scientists I know who have bothered to take a hard look at the subject say the same thing I say. In short increasing carbon dioxide may or may not be causing earth to warm up. However the data does show we had a warming period from roughly 1975 to perhaps 2005, with little or no change since then.


----------



## Oldtimer

Richard Cryberg said:


> By, the way, I think I have been very careful to never say I do not believe in AWG (man caused global warming).


Very wise.



Richard Cryberg said:


> There are things I do know such as carbon dioxide in the bottom part of the atmosphere has zero impact of global warming just like all the climate models say.


Oversimplistic in my view. Co2 at the bottom of the atmosphere is causing the acidification of the oceans, which may in turn affect climate. You are correct in that all the interactions are extremely complex and hard to model.


----------



## Lburou

Oldtimer said:


> ...extremely complex and hard to model.


I think we would agree it is easy to model, but hard to be accurate...at best, a model is a 'best guess' after knowing certain facts, estimating others, and not knowing how many unknown variables are actually involved.


----------



## johno

Just remember you must trust your government, they tell you they can take care of all our problems if we will just do as they say and pay more taxes. We have caused all these problems with the climate as we all live to well and use too much energy. Funny thing all these guys telling us folks that we are living too high on the hog are flitting around the world in their gulf stars, wining and dining on the best the world can offer and driving around in their convoys of SUV's with the aircon going full blast, their homes using 6 times the energy of the average American home one of the biggest perpetrators ol Al Gore comes to mind. Remember you must trust what these wizards of smart tell you, like if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. Been there and done that so don't do stupid anymore.
Johno


----------



## FL_Ranger

dennis crutchfield said:


> you have proved my point lol.. most scientist are used to milk out more money for socialist programs .. global warming is a hoax and a lot of real scientist are coming out and telling the truth on it now. no such thing.. and you wonder why I question all studies done by scientist on phophates... if it doesn't make cents their is a buck in it.. those who promote global warming have bats in their belfry.. one brick shy of a load... retards.... lol


That's some good peer-reviewed objective science right there!


----------



## dennis crutchfield

http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/mi...-half-of-all-children-to-have-autism-by-2025/... but scientist don't care as long as they get funding


----------



## Richard Cryberg

dennis crutchfield said:


> http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/mi...-half-of-all-children-to-have-autism-by-2025/... but scientist don't care as long as they get funding


What you cited is not science. At best it is unsubstantiated opinion. Science is published in peer reviewed journals. Who do you think turned Craven in to the EPA? Monsanto turned him in. Had Monsanto not turned him in there is no telling how many more years he would have dry labbed experiments before EPA caught up with what he was doing. Just like the SEC could not catch Madoff even after being told how he was cheating by a person in industry.

Did you know there is a direct relationship between the % of cloudy weather where a kid lives and his or her odds of being autistic? Correlation does not prove causation. I can conclude that water is the cause of opium addiction because everyone addicted to opium drank water before he became addicted. Perfect correlation and perfect nonsense.

There is zero scientific evidence that Roundup has anything at all to do with autism. Further, there is a mountain of scientific evidence that Roundup does not cause autism. That goes for every other pesticide on the market in the US and their non-relationship to autism. The multi generation feeding studies required as part of the registration package would clearly show any such relationship.

If you want to talk science please submit scientific papers, not nonsense like you cited.

I fully expected you to cite non science sources and you met my expectations.


----------



## gww

I don't know about corralation and cause and effect but do think that it is hard for experts and layman to really come to any conclusion of what is really going on.

I think that sometimes the diffinitions of what something is called may change so things that in the old days that may not have been given a name now meet a critirea to be called autism that may not have been counted that way in the past. 

It is like blaming for the health care rise in cost with out taking into count all the new things that used to not be able to be treated for but now can.

The picture changes and to me (not a smart guy or one that keeps up) it seems that finding a way to compare apples with apples would be half the battle.

It is like knowing how much booze was sold during proabition compared to how much was sold before. 

Is there really an increase in things like autism or is it more of a case of more people getting diagnosed now and more things falling under the umbrella now.

I don't know but these are some of the things that circle around in my head when I hear all the numbers that get thrown around. I don't even know if it has anything to do with anything but is what I think.
Cheers
gww


----------



## Richard Cryberg

gww said:


> I don't know about corralation and cause and effect but do think that it is hard for experts and layman to really come to any conclusion of what is really going on.
> 
> I think that sometimes the diffinitions of what something is called may change so things that in the old days that may not have been given a name now meet a critirea to be called autism that may not have been counted that way in the past.
> 
> It is like blaming for the health care rise in cost with out taking into count all the new things that used to not be able to be treated for but now can.
> 
> The picture changes and to me (not a smart guy or one that keeps up) it seems that finding a way to compare apples with apples would be half the battle.
> 
> It is like knowing how much booze was sold during proabition compared to how much was sold before.
> 
> Is there really an increase in things like autism or is it more of a case of more people getting diagnosed now and more things falling under the umbrella now.
> 
> I don't know but these are some of the things that circle around in my head when I hear all the numbers that get thrown around. I don't even know if it has anything to do with anything but is what I think.
> Cheers
> gww


There is no question at all that many cases are now diagnosed as autism that would never have been diagnosed as such even 20 years ago. It is entirely unclear if there has been a real increase in incidence or not. What is 100% clear is vaccines have absolutely nothing at all to do with causing autism. I do believe in freedom to the extent that if a parent wishes to not vaccinate their kid I am ok with that. But, I also think society should be protected from such kids so the kids should be confined to the parents lot of land 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. If for some reason they need medical attention the parents should either be required to get the kid vaccinated immediately or they can find a doctor that will make a home call. Those kids should not be allowed to have unvaccinated guests visit, they should not be allowed to go to school or the mall or movies or disney land. If the parents feel this is ok I am fine with them not vaccinating their kid.

The idea that half of all kids will be autistic in 25 years is simply flat out nuts. No one with a brain thinks anything like that will happen.


----------



## dennis crutchfield

Richard Cryberg said:


> What you cited is not science. At best it is unsubstantiated opinion. Science is published in peer reviewed journals. Who do you think turned Craven in to the EPA? Monsanto turned him in. Had Monsanto not turned him in there is no telling how many more years he would have dry labbed experiments before EPA caught up with what he was doing. Just like the SEC could not catch Madoff even after being told how he was cheating by a person in industry.
> 
> Did you know there is a direct relationship between the % of cloudy weather where a kid lives and his or her odds of being autistic? Correlation does not prove causation. I can conclude that water is the cause of opium addiction because everyone addicted to opium drank water before he became addicted. Perfect correlation and perfect nonsense.
> 
> There is zero scientific evidence that Roundup has anything at all to do with autism. Further, there is a mountain of scientific evidence that Roundup does not cause autism. That goes for every other pesticide on the market in the US and their non-relationship to autism. The multi generation feeding studies required as part of the registration package would clearly show any such relationship.
> 
> Richard cry berg.. fitting name. you have high jacked a thread and I believe you are a troll. as far as prove. no holist doctors studies scientist or the medical field will approve. because their is big money in mosanto and health related problems. BIG MONEY .. I have been sent scientific information that I needed. all you all is an ego maniac. now go somewhere else . you have done nothing to prove your point but debate . your stuck on yourself. bye


----------



## Barry

This thread is going way off base. If one wants to discuss autism, that has to be done in Tailgater. Autism and health of bees are not on the same plane. Thank you.


----------



## johno

Trying to reason with someone who has a closed mind is akin to administering medicine to a dead person.
Johno


----------



## aunt betty

Officially the official story on most anything is officially correct. You can be a doubter of the official story but you will be labeled as a crack-pot loonie. 

Officially roundup is not carcinogenic (yet) and is safe to drink. (try and get someone to officially drink some) 

Officially GMO products are so safe that they need not be labeled and separated from the rest of the food we buy in a market. 
(or are they?) 

Roundup is a herbicide that doesn't kill bugs BUT the GMO plants that are not affected by roundup have their own insecticide built into the plants. The two are related when it comes to gathering nectar and pollen for a bee colony. That is the source of much of the confusion among beekeepers about what is bad for bees. The whole system is bad for bees but you can not prove what directly affects them (bees) the most so it's not worth the trouble of discussing (officially) 
Officially you have to be officially crazy to go after the people in charge of manufacturing the food we eat. 
"It's safe and there's tons of it (food) so quit belly-aching" is the official stance on this topic.


----------



## Oldtimer

dennis crutchfield said:


> Richard cry berg.. fitting name. you have high jacked a thread and I believe you are a troll. as far as prove. no holist doctors studies scientist or the medical field will approve. because their is big money in mosanto and health related problems. BIG MONEY .. I have been sent scientific information that I needed. all you all is an ego maniac. now go somewhere else . you have done nothing to prove your point but debate . your stuck on yourself. bye


LOL Dennis, must be tough being the only right thinking person in a world full of retards and bat infested bellfrys'


----------



## Brad Bee

opcorn: Just here for the ride.


----------



## Oldtimer

After reading the valuable information presented here I've just figured it out. Monsanto is secretly feeding everyone roundup to turn them into retards, so they are too dumb to know better and keep buying more roundup. Which suits perfectly the doctors cos they want everyone to be sick so they can make more money. 

One world view


----------



## Ian

Who are you calling retards .... lol


----------



## 1102009

This persecution mania will lead nowhere because the world is like it is.

But don´t call people who care retards. Science is not one sided, science can be helpful to find better ways. If there are no studies about the negative aspects of chemicals we would all be at the mercy of chemical industry profits.

Watch the scandal about fipronil we have in germany and europe just now. We are fed what we don´t want and it´s dangerous for the newborn.

I´m of the "contergan" generation. Thank the lord my mother never used this medicamentation when she was with child.
It was declared harmless.
I would probably not have any arms or legs to work the bees.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Officially roundup is not carcinogenic (yet) 

Actually I believe it "officially" is a likely cause of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. It has been classified as "probably carcinogenic to humans" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and Monsanto is being sued by people who have been exposed to Glyphosate and gotten non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

http://www.brownandcrouppen.com/defective-products/roundup-non-hodgkin-lymphoma/

And several other cancers are being linked to it:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27058477
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170

Agent orange and DDT were other chemicals that used to be "officially" harmless and were also produced by Monsanto... and I think we know how that worked out...


----------



## MimbresBees

thanks for the morning funnies, at least there is one poster who understands scientific truths, thanks RC.
thanks for the funnies. what a great laugh today!!!


----------



## Michael Bush

Here is the study on Glyphosate and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24762670


----------



## Richard Cryberg

Michael Bush said:


> Agent orange and DDT were other chemicals that used to be "officially" harmless and were also produced by Monsanto... and I think we know how that worked out...


Agent Orange was a mix of 2,4D and 2,4,5T. This was a very effective herbicide and also both these components were quite safe to use. You can buy 2,4D at most any store that sells any kind of pesticides today. The problem was simple. During manufacture of 2,4,5T you made very tiny amounts of a byproduct named 2,3,7,8 tetrachloro dioxin. This tiny amount of byproduct was horribly toxic and accumulates badly in biological organisms and is very difficult to remove from the 2,4,5T. Its primary effect is to cause very severe chlor-acne. Industry has a lot of experience with worker exposure issues with this dioxin and had no interest in making the 2,4,5T as a result. The government did not give industry a choice. Quite a few companies in addition to Monsanto were ordered by the Government to produce agent orange for the war effort. You younger people do not have a clue what the government can and has done in the past to force industry to support various war efforts. I will give you one hint. Go and try to find a 1944 Ford or General Motors or American Motors or Studebaker car to buy. They do not exist for the simple reason that during the war the Government ordered all car companies to stop making cars and make stuff the Government wanted for the war. Anyone who holds Monsanto in a negative light because they and many other chemical companies were ordered by the government to make agent orange is simply totally ignorant of reality and needs to grow up.

DDT is still widely used in some parts of the world and is causing no environmental issues. The lies that Carson told in her book about DDT are legion. Of course now we know they were lies as studies such as feeding studies done by the government to birds have shown that egg shell thinning by DDT was a myth. Even the Audubon Society during the hearings to ban DDT in 1972 admitted there was no evidence at all that DDT was the cause of the decline in raptor populations during the 1930s and 1940s as DDT was not even known then and they also admitted that their own bird count data showed most raptor populations were starting to recover by about 1960 when DDT use was at its greatest. All of this is a matter of public record as it all came out during the hearings to ban DDT held by the government. So, if you do not believe me go look it up and stop making up facts.


----------



## TWall

The big problem with DDT was the amount that was used and its persistence in the environment. It led to development of resistance in insects relatively quickly which made it ineffective.

This will happen with glyphosate and other pesticides if they are overused. Look at miticide use on honey bees.

Products used in the past were often worse for bees than ones currently used. 

Tom


----------



## 220

TWall said:


> This will happen with glyphosate and other pesticides if they are overused.


Maybe I am pedantic but it annoys me when glyphosate is called a pesticide, it is a herbicide designed to kill grasses and some broad leaf plants.
Glyphosate has been in widespread use for nearly 50 years, there has been resistance to it in some grasses for decades.


----------



## TWall

220 said:


> Maybe I am pedantic but it annoys me when glyphosate is called a pesticide, it is a herbicide designed to kill grasses and some broad leaf plants.
> Glyphosate has been in widespread use for nearly 50 years, there has been resistance to it in some grasses for decades.


Herbicides are pesticides. Pesticide is a broad term that includes things like herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, etc. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pesticide?s=t

Tom


----------



## dennis crutchfield

Michael Bush said:


> Here is the study on Glyphosate and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma:
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24762670


thanks .. isn't it nice to hear all this scientific studies by scientist to convince us chemicals are ok.. sounds like some bee mags.lol


----------



## dennis crutchfield

I have been fighting for a year now 6 cancers, two which should of killed me within weeks or months. how am I alive... diet and non gmo products . clean foods. If you eat any roundup ready foods get ready for it too shorten your life. now the big pharms will say its not true because they are making the money from it , and the scientist.lol


----------



## Richard Cryberg

TWall said:


> The big problem with DDT was the amount that was used and its persistence in the environment. It led to development of resistance in insects relatively quickly which made it ineffective.
> 
> This will happen with glyphosate and other pesticides if they are overused. Look at miticide use on honey bees.
> 
> Products used in the past were often worse for bees than ones currently used.
> 
> Tom


After 70 years of use resistance is an insignificant problem in mosquitoes. Now why do you suppose that is the case when resistance happened in ten years for flies? The answer turns out to be dirt simple. Flies had a metabolic pathway before DDT came along that allowed them to strip chlorine atoms off aromatic rings. DDT has chlorines attached to aromatic rings. Removal of those chlorines makes the metabolites non toxic to flies. So, all the fly had to do was take existing genetics that controlled this metabolic pathway and up regulate the pathway. No mutations required at all. Just minor changes in the control function for the gene and you have instant resistance.

So, why after all these years have mosquitoes not developed a high degree of resistance just like flies did? Mosquitoes lack that dechlorination metabolic pathway. They have no starting point. Now, it will happen at some point. Mom nature will move the genetics from flies or some other insect or bacteria that has this pathway into mosquitoes making the mosquitoes a brand new GMO species. Nothing new there at all.

Resistance does not happen because of over use. Resistance happens when some pre existing metabolic path can be re-optimized to degrade or stop the transport of the toxin. A lot degree of use simply slows the development of resistance. That is why when you use a pesticide you really should generally not attempt to get more than about a 70% kill rate on the target. This low kill will leave lots of wild types available so any resistant individuals will have their genetics diluted every generation.

It also turns out that most of the claims about how persistent DDT was in the environment were flat out lies that were the result of the poor ability to do analytical chemistry at sub ppm levels until way after the DDT was banned in the US.

Just as a matter of interest, the last time I checked, which was a number of years ago, DDT was still registered in the US as a human use pharmaceutical drug. It turns out you can register chemicals as a drug that are far too dangerous to register as a pesticide. Practically every drug you are likely to get prescribed by your doctor for your whole life could not be registered as a pesticide because it is too dangerous. For example, the law forbids any pesticide from being registered that causes cancer in any test animal unless that test animal can be shown to have a metabolic pathway that allows the cancer and that pathway does not exist in humans. No such law exists for drugs your doctor gives you. Many of them are proven to cause cancer in test animals. Millions and millions of people take a statin to control blood cholesterol. Every single statin on the market causes cancer in mice at plasma drug levels about equal to what doctors want to see in treated humans.


----------



## 1102009

None of the studies has an influence about how they are used and how the are mixed with other chemicals in practical use by farmers and what the result of this is.

The extensive use of chemicals is like throwing waste into the ocean and believing it went away because it´s not here anymore before your eyes.


> Resistance does not happen because of over use. Resistance happens when some pre existing metabolic path can be re-optimized to degrade or stop the transport of the toxin. A lot degree of use simply slows the development of resistance. That is why when you use a pesticide you really should generally not attempt to get more than about a 70% kill rate on the target. This low kill will leave lots of wild types available so any resistant individuals will have their genetics diluted every generation.


This started a new kind of use with antibiotics, if I get that right. First antibiotics ( for humans) were used prophylactically ( like they are still used with animals for food), then you should have used them until all bacteria was dead, now you use them until you have no symptoms anymore. Needed years to find out, the science. Now many bacteria are resistant.

Please correct me if I do not understand, dick, I´m no scientist.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

SiWolKe said:


> This started a new kind of use with antibiotics, if I get that right. First antibiotics ( for humans) were used prophylactically ( like they are still used with animals for food), then you should have used them until all bacteria was dead, now you use them until you have no symptoms anymore. Needed years to find out, the science. Now many bacteria are resistant.
> 
> Please correct me if I do not understand, dick, I´m no scientist.


At the doses used in treatments many antibiotics never kill any bacteria at all. Instead what they do is slow the growth rate of the bacteria way down and in the process give you several days for your immune system to engage and actually clear the bacteria from your body. For many diseases this is the whole objective. So, how long you need to treat depends greatly on the particular bacteria and how fast your immune system will respond. That can range from two or three days for some diseases to months for things like TB. Like many things there is no one rule fits all.

Stopping as soon as you feel better can be highly risky. For instance I have responded dramatically to antibiotic treatment in as little as eight hours and I have seen my wife and kids do the same. Eight hours is no place close to the time needed to activate your immune system. In general stopping before a minimum of four days is risky regardless of how great you feel and the most likely result will be the disease symptoms will be back 48 or 72 hours after you stopped. Actually, if you do not get a response within 36 hours you most likely do not even have a bacterial problem and it is a virus instead. In that case you are wasting the antibiotics as they are not going to help you other than perhaps stop a secondary infection from establishing.


----------



## 1102009

Many thanks. How interesting!

Then how do the bacteria become resistant?

As to vaccination my husband developed polio when he was vaccinated and nearly died as a child. Then living stuff was used. Now it´s not as dangerous with prepared stuff.

But back to bees.


----------



## 220

Livestock drenches are a classic example of resistance developing.
For years there were only 2 basic families of drench, white & clear. Poor use be it under dosing, putting stock back into contaminated pastures, drenching to frequently, using only one type etc lead to resistance. Once there is some resistance then the only option is to drench more frequently and resistance builds even faster.

The ivermectin family of drenches were a god send when they became available not only where they a new family for which there was no existing resistance the fact they continue to work for 3 weeks or so after administration increases their effectiveness.
Still it only took a short while before resistance started to be noticed in isolated pockets due to the same poor practises that had lead to resistance to the other families.


----------



## gww

It was reported on TV that the inventer of penicillin had said (as I remember and maby not right) that his invention would not last for long due to humans not using enough. I took that to mean that if you were using it and did not go far enough to kill all the stuff you were trying to kill, some would be left to grow resistance.
Just mentioned this due to apparrently the last research company has quit working on antibodies due to the profit margin potential compared to other things they could put their research dollars toward.
Cheers
gww


----------



## TWall

This is a little off-topic but has already become part of the thread. Mosquito's and house flies grab the headlines with searches on DDT resistance. There are other pests of crops that quickly became resistant and now have other products/methods for control. One of the classic ones was San Jose scale on citrus. Mode of action and life cycles can be key to development of resistance. The fog of time has made me a little shaky on details. I took Biological Control if Insects close to 30 years ago.

Tom


----------



## Oldtimer

An interesting aside. Here in NZ we got varroa mites in year 2000, or at least that's when they were first identified and treatment programs started.

The treatments used were apistan and bayvarol, (synthetic pyrethroid), a little later apivar (amitraz) became available. These worked well but there was a sense of foreboding because the overseas experience was that mites develop resistance to apistan and bayvarol in sometimes just a few seasons.
Yet 17 years later, all these products are working fine. Every now and then somebody claims they treated and it failed, but seems there may have been other factors at play because in following seasons there has not been resistance.

The very interesting thing, would be a research project to discover why in some countries resistance has developed so fast, and here it has not. This could be a more useful use of time for all those scientists who run constant studies based on the theme of force feeding poison to bees, to prove it hurts them. Which any reasonably intelligent person already knows.


----------



## Michael Palmer

Oldtimer said:


> Yet 17 years later, all these products are working fine. Every now and then somebody claims they treated and it failed, but seems there may have been other factors at play because in following seasons there has not been resistance.


I don't really know OT, but my friends in Otorohanga and Wellington are both facing Bayvarol resistance...according to them. One lost half his bees and the other couple lost lots and their colonies were above the mite threshold to be able to send packages to Canada (1%). 200-500 colony operations. You met the couple when they dropped Lesley and I at the War Museum. Are they wrong? Is it something else?


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes I know of it, and others have claimed bayvarol resistance.

But even quite a few years ago some commercial beekeepers were finding apistan or bayvarol resistance, yet a few years later they'll be back using it again, the resistance seems to have gone.

My own hives were treated with bayvarol last fall, and now during the spring round I have found maybe a 1/2 dozen hives with mite damage and had to re treat them with apivar before the normal time. But I'm rotating a number of treatment types and I'll bet next time they get treated with bayvarol it will work.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

Resistance has a metabolic price that typically makes the resistant organism somewhat less fit than wild type. So, when resistance happens a few generations without exposure and it is not uncommon to find the organism to once again be susceptible. When you rotate toxins that differ in the critical metabolic paths resistance to one does not in any way make it easier to become resistant to the second or third. And better yet, those individuals resistant to one are likely to be among the first killed by the second or third erasing resistance even faster than non exposure would erase it. The exception to these general rules would be when resistance is the result of horizontal gene transfer. In such cases resistance tends to be persistent. But, a great many cases of resistance are just due to up regulation of some metabolic pathway that stops toxicity and changing the regulatory genetics is generally very easy compared to changing a coding gene.


----------



## Oldtimer

A question Richard, because a lot of mite reproduction is incestuous, do you see this as a problem in terms of them losing resistance to a control chemical? IE, let's say an animal of some kind was resistant to something, but reproduced sexually, you might expect the resistant genetics to be diluted. But a lot of mite sexual reproduction is within the family, so could retain a particular gene more?


----------



## Richard Cryberg

Good question. I do not think anyone really knows the answer to your question. For sure I do not. Their mode of reproduction forces a lot of brother sister matings so I would expect mites to carry very few recessives that are deleterious. But, they also sure try for outcrosses when the mite population builds and from what I have read they do this on purpose, not just as a mater of statistics due to lack of enough drone cells. So, they make some positive attempt to get non incestuous matings as I understand the situation. Resistance may go away a bit slower than in a species that relied mainly on total out crosses but should still go away given enough time. One of these days someone is going to make some GMO mites involving a gene drive that makes use of this stuff and results in less viable mites I suspect. It will likely be turned loose illegally as no one is going to pay all the money to get them approved when no one can make a buck off the GMO product. You do not need to knock down their reproductive capacity very much to make a huge difference in how much of a problem they are to us bee keepers. To optimize the value of such a GMO you do not want something totally lethal or it would not spontaneously spread in the mite population. You want something that cuts reproduction by 50% or maybe even less. If you look at Randy Oliver's mite population models it is clear a pretty small change in reproduction rate makes a real big difference in mite population in a few months. One approach would be to put some genetics in them that makes them weakened by some virus such as DWV and use the disease to our benefit.


----------



## 1102009

Richard Cryberg said:


> But, they also sure try for outcrosses when the mite population builds and from what I have read they do this on purpose, not just as a mater of statistics due to lack of enough drone cells. So, they make some positive attempt to get non incestuous matings as I understand the situation.


How? Can you elaborate on this a little more?


----------



## Oldtimer

More than one mother mite goes into the same drone cell, so the offspring can interbreed.


----------



## 1102009

Understood.
Thanks, OT.


----------



## Baja

Here are 2 scientific studies that show a possible long term negative impact of Roundup on honey bee colonies. The first study shows the effect on appetite https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx7DrOGMiXtlSjVtVXVsZ0hGdlk/view?usp=sharing
"we speculate that successful forager bees could become a source of constant inflow of nectar with GLY traces that could then be distributed among nest mates, stored in the hive and have long-term negative consequences on colony performance." The second study shows the effect on navigation https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx7DrOGMiXtlb0JEckRkU1hTbEk/view?usp=sharing
"*in honey bees, exposure to levels of GLY commonly found in agricultural settings impairs the cognitive capacities needed to retrieve and integrate spatial information for a successful return to the hive. Therefore, honey bee navigation is affected by ingesting traces of the most widely used herbicide worldwide, with potential long-term negative consequences for colony foraging success."


----------



## johno

Glyphosate reduction in appetite would not appear to effect humans as can be judged by the increase in obesity in the Western world.
Johno


----------



## Baja

johno said:


> Glyphosate reduction in appetite would not appear to effect humans as can be judged by the increase in obesity in the Western world.
> Johno


Very true. Maybe it has a reverse effect on humans.


----------

