Infestations rarer among professional beekeepers
Hobby beekeeping is very common. A European Bee Health Report found that in many countries, the majority of beekeepers pursue the activity as a hobby. They give Germany as an example: 80% of beekeepers keep just 1–20 colonies, 18% keep 21–50 colonies and only about 2% keep more than 50 colonies. They note that improving expertise and education are likely good ways to improve honey bee health.
They may be on to something. In fact, in the past months two scientific publications – a large European surveillance study, and an essay in Journal of Economic Entomology – turn the spotlight on bee management, holding handling factors, like the lack of appropriate treatment, largely accountable for the spread of bee mites and diseases.
Bee epidemics have become a growing problem for both wild and cultivated bees thanks to the spread of the cultivated European honey bee. The Varroa Destructor mite is at the core of the problem, because it also passes on bee diseases (I have discussed this more at length in my earlier bee health piece).
In light of the current measles epidemics spreading in Europe, I wanted to visit some of the main concerns with the disease, and the reasons we very fervently want to put a stop to its spread. Seven reasons to make sure you protect yourself and your children from measles:
- Diarrhea, ear infection, and hearing loss. Common measles complications.
- Pneumonia. Occurs in about 1 in 20 children, most common cause of death from measles in young children.
- Encephalitis (swelling of the brain). About 1 out of every 1,000. Can lead to convulsions, deafness, or intellectual disability.
- Death. Estimated between 1-10 in every 5,000 cases of measles, or up to 1 in 10 where adequate nutrition and health care are lacking.
- Immune amnesia. Measles is associated with two years of increased susceptibility to, and mortality from other infectious disease. Studies suggest measles causes ‘immune amnesia’, wiping out previously developed immune memories.
- Delayed fatal inflammation of the brain (SSPE). Occurs 2-4 years after measles. May be much more common than thought, 1-2 per 10,000 – and a preliminary report warns of rates even higher, 1 in 600 for children under one year and, 1 in 1,400 in up to five-year-olds.
- Epidemics. Measles is one of the most contagious of all infectious diseases. It is infectious before symptoms appear and remains in the air two hours after infectious person has left. The sick and the very young and old, will always be easy victims of measles.
The Guardian recently published a piece, UN experts denounce ‘myth’ pesticides are necessary to feed the world, where they claim that pesticides are an unethical marketing ploy by chemical companies, that has lead to disastrous consequences.
Strong claims require strong evidence. The authors of this report unfortunately do the discussion on pesticide use a disservice by relying so much on hyperbole from activist organisations rather than focusing on peer-reviewed sources.
‘Un experts’ view or hyperbole?
There are valid discussions to be had about the inappropriate use of pesticides, especially in the developing world – but this type of rhetoric as displayed in the report and the Guardian piece, lacking a proper regard for evidence, does not help the situation of the farmers most in need of our help.
Let’s take a look at the report, and the perspectives of UN organisations on the topic. This report is published under the UN organisation that deals with human rights: United Nations Office of the Human Rights High Commissioner.
When Eerika Häkkinen was young, she used to carry a “Nuclear, No Thanks” -badge with her wherever she went. Later she began to study chemistry at the University of Helsinki, and thought that majoring in radiochemistry would be a great way to come up with more informed arguments against the technology – but by the time she finished her studies, her outlook on nuclear power, and radioactivity in general, had quite changed.
Eerika is a good friend of mine, and her story was influential in making me view nuclear power and radiation risks in a more nuanced way. I wished to share some of those perspectives with you, and Eerika kindly agreed for me to interview her. Continue reading
Rocket flower for my breakfast sandwich from my balcony garden. Eating beautiful things from nature is the epitome of ‘natural’.
Is something good because it’s natural? The word natural is often used when we want to convey something good, and imply that the object of discussion is not, in some way, the product of a humans-only process. To note, this common definition of the word makes the assumption that humans are something unnatural, which is an interesting starting point for reflection on its own right. The term natural, however, is rarely used when describing something with unwanted consequences – no matter how clearly they may also not be the result of any human intervention – instead it comes into the picture when talking of something that is wholesome, normal, healthful, or acceptable. You don’t hear people referring to a ‘natural food poisoning,’ say, or a ‘natural contamination with mold.’
This gives the word a skewed presentation, making ‘natural’ seem rosier than it may be.
For a contrast, consider this quote from the Daily Beast:
It is the natural course of type-1 diabetes for the patient to waste slowly to death, but nobody questions the benefits of exogenous insulin.
Considering recently published scientific reviews on the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) concerning their methods and overall mission, as well as their specific conclusion on glyphosate, I thought the topic deserved an update of its own. I have written about glyphosate, cancer, and the IARC earlier, in my series 17 Questions on Glyphosate.
Much media and public attention has followed after World Health Organisation subgroup IARC has declared things like processed meat to be in the same class of cancer hazard as plutonium and tobacco, and red meat and glyphosate in the class 2A, “probably carcinogenic,” same slot where also fall “work as a hairdresser” or “manufacturing glass”. Apart from many sensationalist headlines, there has also been a fair amount of media criticism, like this in-depth piece from Reuters. What is confusing to many, is that IARC does not actually look at risk: how big is the risk for said carcinogenic effects? What levels are safe and what aren’t?
Many expert toxicologists have weighed in on the lack of scientific justification for the simplistic division of substances (and a wide array of other circumstances, such as occupations) into non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic, without consideration for drastically different levels of potency and modes of action. On top of that, there are also several concerning aspects about how the IARC handled the specifics around the review of several cases, such as meat, or cellphone radiation, as brought up in the Reuters piece, and particularly concerning glyphosate: they excluded much available evidence from the review, and misinterpreted results of some of the studies they did include.