If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Killer Bees could solve the population crisis. Yes, yes they could   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 64
    More: Misc, traffic congestions, University of Western Australia  
•       •       •

5258 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Aug 2013 at 11:58 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-19 02:09:25 AM

pellies: Kevin72: pellies: Kevin72: Anyway, try not to forget the 1950s where all the peer reviewed scientific studies said that smoking was good for your health.

Citation needed as this is a ridiculous statement. Not to mention it was 63 years ago. I'm glad nothing changes.

Like I say, the thing that has changed in 63 years is that big business has more stranglehold on reasearch funds. Here is your citation needed. Enjoy your smoking, hfcs, gmos, beeless agriculture, etc.

Medical Consensus Summarized
Perhaps the best and most judicious summary of the most generally accepted medical viewpoint is to be found in an editorial published a few years ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association. "Actual surveys indicate," it stated, "that the majority of physicians themselves smoke cigarettes. From a psychological point of view, more can be said in behalf of smoking as a form of escape from tension than against it. There does not seem to be a preponderance of evidence that would indicate the abolition of the use of tobacco as a substance contrary to the public health."To that authoritative statement it might be well to add the advice given me by a Washington physician after a long evening of discussing the pros and cons of smoking. Together with two cancer researchers and a statistician, we had all puffed away for hours while we analyzed the medical evidence for and against the cigarette. When we finally quit, at three in the morning, a deep blue haze filled the room."Summing it all up, Doctor," I asked, "would you advise me-an average, sedentary, moderately healthy character-to keep on smoking or to quit?"Cigarette in hand and glancing at the overloaded ash trays, he laughed.Then he leaned over and whispered, "I'm going to tell you exactly what I tell most of my patients. Don't smoke-unless you like it."Source: Albert Q. Maisel, "Don't Smoke-Unless You Like It, Collier's, November 4, 1950, 18.

Well that is all peer reviewed science. You win. Also there is no citatio ...


Colliers Magazine, JAMA. I'm not your mother. Go ahead and only believe only when peer reviewed science tells you. By then it's too late, as it will be for beeless agriculture, when it turns the pesticides kill the bees, not the parasite they're blaming it on. Just like it was too late for the smokers of the 50s and 60s when the real truth came out.
 
2013-08-19 02:14:06 AM
funnyasduck.net
 
2013-08-19 02:30:31 AM

jicon: Not so fast... B. Brian Blair and Jumping Jim Brunzel disagree.


Thank you.
 
2013-08-19 02:30:56 AM
www.metal-archives.com
 
2013-08-19 02:46:43 AM
These?
zeldawiki.org

/hot like a Link?
 
2013-08-19 03:42:31 AM

rubi_con_man: I wonder when the Klan will perfect their melatonin-and-catholic viral pandemic.

I'm pretty sure you are getting melanin and melatonin confused. Not a big deal but as someone who has undergone a pinealectomy I was a little concerned.
 
2013-08-19 04:10:56 AM
"Hello caller you're on the air, are you sane?!?"

"Absolutely Lazlow. Killer bees."
 
2013-08-19 04:18:19 AM
It may well be that Colony Collapse is due to Monsanto's fiddling with Round-up resistant plants (I kind of doubt it) or bees' unusual vulnerability to wing-crippling parasites...but in my never-ending search for unforeseen consequences, I've come up with another reason bees seem to be so distressingly absent from our suburbs and rural areas: OMFG ALLERGIES!!!!

Consider: a decade or so ago, the big scare was KILLER BEES ARE INVADING YOUR SUBURBS! As a result any time a swarm hit suburban or small-town America, it was presumed to be "killer bees" and never allowed to settle and build a hive, but was immediately "abated" and either destroyed or driven off. It may be that these swarms were in fact hybridized bees, but let's be realistic: Who usually did the determining? Why, those same "abatement companies" who had to make their money eradicating hives. Concurrent with the KILLER BEES! was the ARE YOU/YOUR KIDS ALLERGIC TO BEES?!? panic, and anyone who wasn't allergic to peanuts or shellfish could at least think they were allergic to bee stings, and eradicate bees in their neighborhoods for the same reason.

Bees swarm because they need new territory. They land in an area because there aren't any other hives to provide competition. So-called "killer bees" aren't any different in terms of bee-ness except for being more aggressive in protecting their hive--they do all the same pollinating, etc., as their non-killer cousins. Eradicate a "killer" hive without replacing it with a regular hive means no bees in the area for that season, since swarms only happen when the hive up the road needs to expand; NOT because that area needs more bees. But then when they do, suburbanites are awfully picky about where they want a hive to set up. Can't be under the eaves or too close to their nice houses, no; the bees have to accommodate US, please, and not set up housekeeping near the pool.

So not too surprisingly, the only bees left are over-bred, stressed, traveling apiaries and domestic honey-hives. Wild bees have been eradicated in the push to clear OMFG KILLER BEES out of the OMFG ALLERGIES! suburbs, and also because we don't like bees all over the place. If people would stop freaking out when a swarm settles in their park or whatever, we'd have bees again in a few seasons; but that won't happen because OMFG KILLER BEES AND MY KID MIGHT BE ALLERGIC SHIAT!!!! and that will be that. Hope you like fly-pollinated flowers, because that's all we'll have in another decade.
 
2013-08-19 04:24:11 AM

Kevin72: Colliers Magazine, JAMA. I'm not your mother. Go ahead and only believe only when peer reviewed science tells you. By then it's too late, as it will be for beeless agriculture, when it turns the pesticides kill the bees, not the parasite they're blaming it on. Just like it was too late for the smokers of the 50s and 60s when the real truth came out.


I found the actual editorial from Colliers online, but bear in mind it only cherry picks a few sentences from a JAMA editorial "from a few years" earlier which mentions surveys (not studies) that say most doctors smoke.

The JAMA editorial goes on to relate an amusing anecdote about 4 guys sitting around smoking until 3 AM (I'd be willing to bet they were drinking too, but it doesn't say) concluding that you shouldn't "smoke unless you like it".

The overall tone of the Colliers editorial seems to be quite pro-smoking and Colliers wasn't a scientific journal nor even a magazine focused on medicine.

It did however note that some that some people suspected smoking as the cause of many ills including heart disease and cancer.

Another quote from the same Colliers editorial:

Americans, most of all, have taken the cigarette to heart. More than three quarters of all our adult men, and more than 40 per cent of all women, now smoke. We consume almost 400,000,000,000 cigarettes each year. We average nearly a full pack each per day.

Recently, however, the ranks of the antitobacco forces have been swollen by new recruits. Serious scientists and physicians have solemnly reported the results of intensive research in authoritative medical journals. These studies, if only because of their source, cannot be laughed off as were the denunciations of "the filthy weed" by the wild-eyed soapboxers of generations past.
 
2013-08-19 05:13:26 AM
So let's not fix the underlying problem what ever it is?

So you breed some "africanized" bees into the gene pool..  that are more resistant to whatever is going wrong....   will they be able to continue to resist if the underlying problems are not addressed and get worse?

Might we be getting a cat to replace the canary in the coal mines because the canary dropped dead?
 
2013-08-19 06:09:12 AM
This isn't Colonization, this is spontaneous re-population!
 
2013-08-19 10:26:50 AM

mrlewish: So let's not fix the underlying problem what ever it is?

So you breed some "africanized" bees into the gene pool..  that are more resistant to whatever is going wrong....   will they be able to continue to resist if the underlying problems are not addressed and get worse?

Might we be getting a cat to replace the canary in the coal mines because the canary dropped dead?




I'm not an entomologist, but I believe that lack of genetic diversity caused by inbreeding is considered a possible contributing cause to colony collapse disorder. If that's true, then these hybrids would be addressing at least one of the causes.
 
2013-08-19 11:37:32 AM

Kraftwerk Orange: ...and what a  glorious form of population control Killer B's were!

[www.blogcdn.com image 450x338]

[www.autominded.com image 700x222]


I like you; you're not like the other people, here in the trailer-park.
 
2013-08-20 01:47:30 AM

gfid: Kevin72: Colliers Magazine, JAMA. I'm not your mother. Go ahead and only believe only when peer reviewed science tells you. By then it's too late, as it will be for beeless agriculture, when it turns the pesticides kill the bees, not the parasite they're blaming it on. Just like it was too late for the smokers of the 50s and 60s when the real truth came out.

I found the actual editorial from Colliers online, but bear in mind it only cherry picks a few sentences from a JAMA editorial "from a few years" earlier which mentions surveys (not studies) that say most doctors smoke.

The JAMA editorial goes on to relate an amusing anecdote about 4 guys sitting around smoking until 3 AM (I'd be willing to bet they were drinking too, but it doesn't say) concluding that you shouldn't "smoke unless you like it".

The overall tone of the Colliers editorial seems to be quite pro-smoking and Colliers wasn't a scientific journal nor even a magazine focused on medicine.

It did however note that some that some people suspected smoking as the cause of many ills including heart disease and cancer.

Another quote from the same Colliers editorial:

Americans, most of all, have taken the cigarette to heart. More than three quarters of all our adult men, and more than 40 per cent of all women, now smoke. We consume almost 400,000,000,000 cigarettes each year. We average nearly a full pack each per day.


For research above and beyond the call of duty, I now have you favorited.
Recently, however, the ranks of the antitobacco forces have been swollen by new recruits. Serious scientists and physicians have solemnly reported the results of intensive research in authoritative medical journals. These studies, if only because of their source, cannot be laughed off as were the denunciations of "the filthy weed" by the wild-eyed soapboxers of generations past.

 
Displayed 14 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report