It’s springtime, and farmers throughout the Midwest and South are preparing to plant corn—and lots of it. The USDA projects this year’s corn crop will cover 94 million acres, the most in 68 years. (By comparison, the state of California occupies a land mass of about 101 million acres.) Nearly all of that immense stand of corn will be planted with seeds treated with neonicotinoid pesticides produced by the German chemical giant Bayer.
And that may be very bad news for honey bees, which remain in a dire state of health, riddled by large annual die-offs that have become known as “colony collapse disorder” (CCD).
In the past months, three separate studies—two of them just out in the prestigious journal Science—have added to a substantial body of literature linking widespread use of neonicotinoids to CCD. The latest research will renew pressure on the EPA to reconsider its registration of Bayer’s products. The EPA green-lighted Bayer’s products based largely on a study funded by the chemical giant itself—which was later discredited by the EPA’s own scientists, as this leaked memo shows.
When seeds are treated with neonics, the pesticides get absorbed by the plant’s vascular system and then “expressed” in the pollen and nectar, where they attack the nervous systems of insects. Bayer targeted its treatments at the most prolific US crop—corn—and since the late 1990s, corn farmers have been blanketing millions of acres of farmland with neonic-treated seeds.
And it’s not just corn. In addition to the vast corn crop mentioned above, Bayer’s neonics have worked their way into substantial portions of the soy, wheat, cotton, sorghum, and peanut seed markets. In 2010, according to research by the Pesticide Action Network of North America, at least 142 million total acres were planted in neonic-treated seeds—a trend that will continue if not increase in the 2012 growing season. That represents a landmass equal to the footprints of California and Washington State.
But even that’s not all. As I showed in this January post, Bayer’s neonics are also common in home-garden and landscaping products.
The ubiquitous pesticides appear to affect bees in two ways: in big lethal doses that occur at the time of seed planting, when neonic-infused dust wafts around in growing areas; and in tiny doses that happen when bees bring neonic-infused pollen into hives, which don’t kill them immediately but appears to damage their immune systems and homing abilities.
Here’s a quick snapshot of the new research.
• In a paper forthcoming in the peer-reviewed and highly respected journal Science—released Thursday on (subscription-required) ScienceExpress—researchers found that exposure to small, sublethal doses of a neonic called thiamethoxam significantly affects bees’ ability to find their way back to their hives—”at levels that could put a colony at risk of collapse.” The research team also found that previous impact studies “are likely to severely underestimate sublethal pesticide effects when they are conducted on honey bee colonies placed in the immediate proximity of treated crops.”
• The other forthcoming Science paper—also behind a paywall on ScienceExpress—looked at neonics’ effect on wild bumblebees, which are another critical pollinator that have gone into severe decline in recent years. In this study, researchers subjected bumblebee colonies to “field-realistic levels of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid” and then “allowed them to develop naturally under field conditions.” The result: “Treated colonies had a significantly reduced growth rate and suffered an 85% reduction in production of new queens.” Their conclusion: “Given the scale of use of neonicotinoids, we suggest that they may be having a considerable negative impact on wild bumble bee populations across the developed world.”
• The third recent study, published in the American Chemical Society’s Environmental Science & Technology journal, looked at what happens to bees when farmers plant treated seeds, when foraging bees are exposed to neonic-containing dust. The authors found “lethal effects compatible with colony losses phenomena observed by beekeepers.”
The latest burst of research follows on the heels of a study released in January by Purdue researchers (I summarized their results here). They determined that bees are exposed to “extremely high” levels of Bayer’s clothianidin in the fumes that rise up when farmers plant corn seed in the spring. They found the pesticide in dead bees “collected near hive entrances during the spring sampling period,” as well as in “pollen collected by bees and stored in the hive.”
These studies, combined with what we know of the the tortured, Bayer-influenced nature of neonics’ march through the regulatory process, paint a damning picture. As Pesticide Action Network’s Heather Pilatic put it on Huffington Post, “Wild pollinators and honeybees alike have been facing an increasingly toxic landscape since the introduction and rapid uptake of neonicotinoids in the late 1990s…these pesticides are prevalent, persistent, and more scientists confirm everyday that they are making bees sick (or dead) through a number of different mechanisms and routes of exposure.”
This accumulation of disturbing science raises a vital question: Does the Obama EPA have the backbone to take on the agrochemical industry during an election year and ban Bayer’s lucrative chemicals? The long-term status of the United States as a healthy habitat for bees, wild and cultivated alike, may hinge on the answer.
These are the allegedly the origin of the “ten commandments” attributed to Moses in the Old Testament of the bible. This may be evidence of plagiary on the part of the Jews, who were slaves in Egypt for many, many years before Moses (who lived in the house of Pharaoh) arranged their escape. It seems logical that Moses would teach his “children” the basic rules of morality he learned in as a member of the aristocracy in Egypt. These “42 Commandements of Egypt”, as MUCH more benevolent and egalitarian than the Hebrews ever imagined. (click image to enlarge)
“Just because we cannot perceive something, does not mean that it cannot exist.
Science cannot evolve without change, and there is a dire need for change in its fundamental philosophy. The Oxford Dictionary defines Materialism as “the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications”.
Materialism is the paradigm of scientific philosophy under which the vast majority of contemporary scientists operate. It is essentially the belief that everything can be explained in physical terms, and that there is no need to explore anything further.
Why are most scientists operating within this doctrine when science has already demonstrated many examples of non-physical phenomena? Well, our mainstream science culture certainly tends to reflect materialist values in media such as internet articles and websites, television shows and news, and especially the science curriculum in educational institutions. Since we are all, to a degree, products of our society, it stands to reason that many scientists would hold true to materialism. However, there are many examples of science going beyond the realm of physical reality.
Let’s start with the magnetic force. It cannot be denied that the magnetic force has physical applications and implications, but there is nothing physical about the actual force itself. You can see a magnet, or a magnetically charged metal, but you cannot see what charges it. We can see that a compass points in the north direction. But if the magnetic force itself appeared to us physically in its natural state, does it not stand to reason that the human race would never have had a use for a compass? It is an invisible and non-physical force which affects the physical world.
Light is another example. The light in which we are capable of seeing is just a very small portion of “the electromagnetic spectrum”, which is represented below. The area which is outlined in blue gives a representation of how small that portion is. Radio waves, microwaves, X-rays, UV rays, and gamma rays are all elements of this spectrum as well. Like light waves, we can only see their physical effects, not the radiation itself. For example, you cannot see the UV rays which give you a suntan, you can only see the tan itself. All that we can perceive from the visible light spectrum is the wavelength that it takes when it bounces off physical objects, and we experience this wavelength as a color. Therefore, there is nothing physical about light itself, it simply interacts with physical objects.
The force of gravity is another glaring example. We can see and feel how gravity affects us through its effect on physical objects, but we cannot actually see the force of gravity itself. If we could “see gravity”, then surely someone would have been credited with discovering gravity before Sir Isaac Newton in the 1600’s. Again, a force which in itself is not visible or physical, but has profound effects on the physical world surrounding us.
When you hear modern alternative philosophers use the term “energy” or assert that “everything is energy”, these are some of the types of energies that they are referring to. This theme of non-physical energy only being experienced through their ramifications on physical entities seems to be evident throughout science, yet the idea has little credibility in the scientific community.
The current paradigm of materialism tends to put the physical explanations first, while ignoring the super-physical. This is limiting our range of scientific inquiry. It limits us to only giving scientific due to physical effects, thereby potentially ignoring the cause or origin of a force or entity completely. For example, we do not know if the cause of magnetism, is physical or non-physical, but our current paradigm is only allowing us to explore one option with credibility. We need to open our minds and look at the potential of a non-materialist explanation of such forces.
One thing that bothers modern scientists, is that we have really vague explanations regarding the origins of gravity, magnetism, and light. The best explanation to date regarding the cause of the magnetic force and the photon is that these entities appeared shortly after the “Big Bang”, with all other matter. This is basically like saying, we know they exist, but we do not know why. And since gravity seems to be caused by a moving physical body, gravity would have had to appear when the first physical matter was set in motion in our universe, which is again close to the alleged “Big Bang”.
Materialist scientists, answer me this: How are we supposed to discover the cause or origin of a non-physical entity, like gravity and magnetism, when your fundamental philosophy does not permit you to believe that studying non-physical entities is worthwhile? How do we expect ourselves to advance science to the next paradigm without embracing the idea that more exists than our physical realm?
As mentioned, we have not been able to fully explain the effects of gravity, magnetism, and the photon under our current paradigm of thought. It is most certainly time for a new generation of forward-thinking scientists to take a less materialistic approach to explaining these entities instead of taking pages from the old playbook, which has not gotten us far since the time of Einstein.
Could this rationale also be why we have been so unsuccessful at explaining the existence and implications of black holes, as well as the entity that is consciousness?
What amazes me even further, is that materialist scientists, like the rest of us, use technologies which are operational because of these non-physical entities. Basically every one of us have all listened to a radio, had an x-ray done, operated some form of remote control, and used a cell phone or wireless internet. We need such non-physical entities in order to function in today’s society. When is the philosophy upon which our science is based going to catch up to this reality?
So if we change our mindsets and start to take non-physical entities seriously, as a scientific community, this will certainly allow for further exploration of the cause and implications of thoughts, consciousness, and what happens to us after we die. We must shed this outdated notion of materialism in order to maximize our potential in studying these areas of interest.
If you wish to explore the idea of why it is necessary to move past the scientific paradigm of materialism, let Dr. Rupert Sheldrake enlighten you with some theories regarding materialist science in the video below. The fact that his TED talk was not deemed to be “scientific’ enough for the TED indicates that there is a bias towards this methodology of thinking in the scientific world.”
Here’s an “old” story, but it’s good to remember the few people, like Benazir Bhutto – the assassinated former President of Pakistan — who gave their lives to defend truth and democracy. If you read or watch mainstream news about what’s “happening”, you might as well be watching Saturday morning cartoons….They have as much to do with reality as ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, etc.. The “Bin Laden Assassination” fantasy story is just another part of the cover-up of the REAL criminals behind the 9-11 attacks orchestrated by “the government” agencies: CIA, FBI, NSA, etc..
AND, DON’T FORGET THE SMOKING GUN OF THE DEMOLITION OF BUILDING 7 OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. HERE’S THE VIDEO EVIDENCE: