Still not possible. Again, it's all about temperature. Again, the effect is completely negligible. From what I've been reading, at the moment it looks like disease is the primary culprit for colony collapse disorder.
WiFi Damages Trees
- Thread starter Arwin
- Start date
Last thing I saw on the bee issue was that although a shocking amount of almost all sorts of pollution was found in bees (including agricultural toxins, air pollution and all sorts of other stuff), and that they do suffer from parasites, the real reason that they're doing so bad is agricultural monoculture getting worse fast in many regions. Normal colonies can handle parasites and such fairly well, because they know how to detect them and infected bees either leave the nest themselves or are thrown out. But because of monoculture, although there can be a million flowers available in one year to the hive, they are all the same plant and therefore blossom in the span of mere weeks. That makes it much harder for bees to survive and stay healthy all year round, which makes them vulnerable.
One of the most important suggestions that this may be the case is that bees and beehives in cities actually do really well (this was in Britain), thanks to people wanting to make gardens and balcony pots that have flowers all throughout the year, which is perfect for bees.
This should be fairly easy to figure out if true - farmers just need to dedicate a small strip across their farmland to various flower types that cover most of the year, and see how much this improves matters in their beehives (as most farmers actually do need bees to pollinate their crops, there might be some motivation).
Will be interesting to see if we can see some results of these experiments next year.
One of the most important suggestions that this may be the case is that bees and beehives in cities actually do really well (this was in Britain), thanks to people wanting to make gardens and balcony pots that have flowers all throughout the year, which is perfect for bees.
This should be fairly easy to figure out if true - farmers just need to dedicate a small strip across their farmland to various flower types that cover most of the year, and see how much this improves matters in their beehives (as most farmers actually do need bees to pollinate their crops, there might be some motivation).
Will be interesting to see if we can see some results of these experiments next year.
This just further cements the fact that no matter how much we humans pat ourselves on our backs for being so effing smart, we just don't know enough about nature to properly control it. ...So we really shouldn't even attempt it. But economics really tempt us to try anyway, because of the short-term benefits it brings. Of course, that they're short-term isn't something anyone want to admit, or hell, even know about initially. Meh.
even though were smart, we are smart naturally. everything we do is a result of the nature of this planet. its out natural instinct to do what we do all the way to causing polution, were as natural as anything else on the planet, its just more like a natural catastrophe or something like a volcano creates land, destructive and productive at once.....unless were originally alien of course. If Wi Fi kills trees...well so do hurricanes, disease, animals....whats the difference?
There's choice, of course there is. We don't NEED to grow one kind of wheat all over the globe just to take one example. However, large-scale economics favors that, because major food companies have their product lines, and they use wheat in many of those products, and having reliable supply of ingredients means lower prices for them.
It's not neccessary however to have the same products available all over the globe, in every supermarket on the planet. Nor is it strictly desireable, except for the big multinationals, because bigger markets mean more money for them.
But we can't exist on money. We need our planet, and the planet needs its ecology. We're just going to have to adjust, sooner rather than later preferably.
so our intelligence and freedom of choice is unnatural? By that logic then when a Volcano erupts, i suppose its pollution of toxins and destruction of life is unnatural as well.
Everything we do and create is a product of our nature, we naturally evolved and behave as we do, it didn't happen overnight did it?
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Silent_Buddha
Legend
You've just stated quite well exactly why we "NEED" to grow the same product in vast quantities. It's the only way to produce food products cheap enough that the majority of people can actually afford to buy it. Especially when you start thinking of less economically well off countries where population growth is also the highest.
Heck, back before easy to grow and maintain strains of certain key food crops were created/bred, the average person could be expected to live approximately 40 years. Cheap mass production of key food products allowed the masses to have for the first time in history a broad and nutritionally diverse diet. Things like preservatives and refrigeration further allowed the masses to have balanced nutritional diets.
Things like organically grown vegetables, free range chickens, preservative free whatevers, are all well and good. But aren't enough to feed even a fraction of the world population. Population concentration on the planet is at a point where you can't stop growing the most efficient crops (and the most efficient strains of those crops) in the most efficient way possible. At which point you also need the most efficient way to preserve said products for storage and transportation.
Regards,
SB
HeheSure we do. Aggressive population control.Just have the death penalty for any law broken, even misdemenors like crossing the road at places other than crosswalks.
All jokes aside, birth control + comprehensive sex education is good enough.
Well, given the tremendous size of the farming industry, there is no reason why our crops should lack for variety. But in the US, the disproportionate subsidies for some crops over others (esp. corn) significantly reduces the health of the food products produced.
What a completely bizarre statement. You're totally confusing what is done intentionally through free will with what is "natural" (in the case of volcanoes, nuclear decay-driven thermal and geological processes).
Human-caused pollution and volcanoes are not comparable, on any level. They're entirely, completely different things, with entirely different causes. To say one is as "natural" as the other because humans are native to this planet is a travesty of logic and reasoning.
Or just pointing out that using "natural" to refer to something not caused by humans is a really crappy use of language in the first place.
different causes, not different things, Nature produces all kinds of pollution, even cow dung effects global warming. Trees die from many, many things besides just what we create. Wi Fi signals don't carry data by nature without us to create it, but the radio waves themselves are a product of nature and the data within it is a creation of our own nature.....it all goes hand in hand, but what i'm saying is the universe is full of far more destructive and disruptive things than what our technology can do. Prehistoric history shows that nature is very destructive, moreso than our technology.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Even there, Nature (as in naturally occuring geophysical forces) can and has been far more destructive, far more quickly. There have been multiple volcanic eruptions that have drastically altered global climate patterns for years after the eruptions. Far more than anything humans have thus far been accused of doing.
That isn't to say we aren't capable of significant localised impacts on the environment.
The oil spill in the gulf is a great example of that. But as with past "disasters" the long term impact will quite likely be far less than all the hysteria I've been hearing the past year. Just as it was with Chernobyl, Hanford, Three Mile Island, etc.Regards,
SB
Well, ostensibly this is true, as it is entirely possible for an asteroid impact to wipe out all life on Earth, and we couldn't do that even if we detonated every single nuclear weapon on the planet (though we could well make the planet uninhabitable for us).Even there, Nature (as in naturally occuring geophysical forces) can and has been far more destructive, far more quickly. There have been multiple volcanic eruptions that have drastically altered global climate patterns for years after the eruptions. Far more than anything humans have thus far been accused of doing.
That isn't to say we aren't capable of significant localised impacts on the environment.
As it stands, however, we are in the middle of one of the largest extinction events in Earth's history (on par with the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs), and this is due to human activity.