Thursday, 14 June 2012
Sygenta Put In Its Place
Reading: http://www.twincities.com/ci_20712618/syngenta-agrees-settle-herbicide-lawsuit
1. Many community water systems in Illinois have been trying to settle a lawsuit with Syngenta, wanting Syngenta to reimburse them for the money required to filter out a weedicide called atrazine, which has been circulated by Syngenta. The weedicide is potentially harmful to public health through runoff into drinking water supplies.
Syngenta's not winning this one.
2. As for personal reflection on the article, one need only look at the blog post title.
It's a start.
1. Many community water systems in Illinois have been trying to settle a lawsuit with Syngenta, wanting Syngenta to reimburse them for the money required to filter out a weedicide called atrazine, which has been circulated by Syngenta. The weedicide is potentially harmful to public health through runoff into drinking water supplies.
Syngenta's not winning this one.
2. As for personal reflection on the article, one need only look at the blog post title.
It's a start.
Picky Bees
Reading: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2149103/Pesticide-kills-bee-colonies-turning-insects-picky-eaters-crave-sweeter-nectar--ignore-nearby-food.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
1. It appears that pesticides (even miniscule amounts of pesticides) will make bees become "picky". The bees will eschew perfectly normal/good food, eating only very sweet nectar. This goes as well as you'd expect: bees begin to starve like a rich guy in a zombie apocalypse refusing to eat canned beans.
In addition, the pesticides affected the bee's ability to communicate, causing them to become less likely to perform their waggle dance. This makes sense, as a waggle dance is meant to recruit other bees to "good" food. Something in the pesticides makes the bees think that less food is "good" enough.
2. Well, that's certainly an unexpected way we're killing animals.
I've recently started watching Doctor Who, and just got to the episode where the Doctor finds out that one of his "world-saving" actions was actually devastating.
I'm feeling a little bit of that.
1. It appears that pesticides (even miniscule amounts of pesticides) will make bees become "picky". The bees will eschew perfectly normal/good food, eating only very sweet nectar. This goes as well as you'd expect: bees begin to starve like a rich guy in a zombie apocalypse refusing to eat canned beans.
This will be his fate.
In addition, the pesticides affected the bee's ability to communicate, causing them to become less likely to perform their waggle dance. This makes sense, as a waggle dance is meant to recruit other bees to "good" food. Something in the pesticides makes the bees think that less food is "good" enough.
2. Well, that's certainly an unexpected way we're killing animals.
I've recently started watching Doctor Who, and just got to the episode where the Doctor finds out that one of his "world-saving" actions was actually devastating.
I'm feeling a little bit of that.
Wednesday, 13 June 2012
Salmon Farm Quarantine
Reading: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/05/25/bc-third-fish-farm-quarantined.html
1. A salmon farm was recently forced to "cull" (presumably, that's newspaper for "kill"?) more than half a million fish due to a virus called IHN - the third facility to have to do so in the past ten days. Fortunately, the virus doesn't affect humans who happen to eat virally infected fish.
2. Man, William Shatner really should have been elected as Governor-General.
1. A salmon farm was recently forced to "cull" (presumably, that's newspaper for "kill"?) more than half a million fish due to a virus called IHN - the third facility to have to do so in the past ten days. Fortunately, the virus doesn't affect humans who happen to eat virally infected fish.
2. Man, William Shatner really should have been elected as Governor-General.
Cell Finishing Colonies
I'll be perfectly honest.
I've read this article over about four times now.
I still have no idea what it is saying.
It might be the time of day, or it might be that the writer and I have brains that work in completely different ways, or maybe I'm seriously out of practise in reading comprehension, but this isn't really making many licks of sense.
I'm going to look for different sources about "Finishing Colonies."
I'm so confused right now.
I've read this article over about four times now.
I still have no idea what it is saying.
It might be the time of day, or it might be that the writer and I have brains that work in completely different ways, or maybe I'm seriously out of practise in reading comprehension, but this isn't really making many licks of sense.
I'm going to look for different sources about "Finishing Colonies."
I'm so confused right now.
Clipping/Marking Queens
1. The article tells you how to mark the bees with paint (by holding them down in a Baldock Cage - something that looks like a medieval torture device), and how to clip the queen's wings.
2. No. No no no no no no no.
I read Trumpet of the Swan as a kid. If you've never read it, go get it. And all the other E.B. White books; if not for you, then for your child(ren).
In the story, a (mute) swan named Louis falls in love with another swan. At one point, both of these wild swans ended up in a zoo (temporarily), and the zookeepers are conspiring to pinion Louis's romantic interest in order to ensure that she never escape.
I won't spoil it, but suffice to say that I have been staunchly anti-clipping of any wings ever since.
This ... the article ... it just sounds awful. I think there's a difference between helping your bees along and dipping into their honey once in a while, and then just flat out exploiting your hive. I feel like this crosses the line immensely.
2. No. No no no no no no no.
I read Trumpet of the Swan as a kid. If you've never read it, go get it. And all the other E.B. White books; if not for you, then for your child(ren).
In the story, a (mute) swan named Louis falls in love with another swan. At one point, both of these wild swans ended up in a zoo (temporarily), and the zookeepers are conspiring to pinion Louis's romantic interest in order to ensure that she never escape.
I won't spoil it, but suffice to say that I have been staunchly anti-clipping of any wings ever since.
This ... the article ... it just sounds awful. I think there's a difference between helping your bees along and dipping into their honey once in a while, and then just flat out exploiting your hive. I feel like this crosses the line immensely.
Starting Queencells
Reading: http://www.dave-cushman.net/bee/cellstarting.html
1. The article introduces different methods of starting queencells. Among them are: the Miller Method (a frame contains either 1) triangular portions of new foundation or 2) used comb that is cut, both in order to produce a zig-zag on the bottom) and the Alley Method, which appears to be the method used by the FatBeeMan.
2. I seem to have read these out of order.
In any case, here comes another "whoa reflection on humanity" bit. Feel free to skip. Anyhow.
The tingly, cold feeling of wrongness came back again as I read about the Alley Method. "[E]very 2nd and 3rd larva is destroyed". Destroyed - that's rather cold, isn't it?
Except that's exactly what the FatBeeMan did. He took some comb and some larvae and then he stuck them onto a frame and then he killed 2/3 of the baby bees in there.
And what did I do?
I giggled and I thought he was awesome. To be exact, I said:
I liked him, and I didn't give a second thought to what he was doing.
Isn't that scary? That a kindly word, or a confident voice, or a warm presentation can take something that would normally be appalling and make the entire experience a lark? That I'd nod along just because the delivery was endearing, the deliverer charismatic?
Perhaps it's simply a part of human nature (for examples, see all demagogues everywhere throughout history). But it's a commonly ignored, easily exploited, and loosely guarded part.
And that's rather terrifying.
1. The article introduces different methods of starting queencells. Among them are: the Miller Method (a frame contains either 1) triangular portions of new foundation or 2) used comb that is cut, both in order to produce a zig-zag on the bottom) and the Alley Method, which appears to be the method used by the FatBeeMan.
2. I seem to have read these out of order.
In any case, here comes another "whoa reflection on humanity" bit. Feel free to skip. Anyhow.
The tingly, cold feeling of wrongness came back again as I read about the Alley Method. "[E]very 2nd and 3rd larva is destroyed". Destroyed - that's rather cold, isn't it?
Except that's exactly what the FatBeeMan did. He took some comb and some larvae and then he stuck them onto a frame and then he killed 2/3 of the baby bees in there.
And what did I do?
I giggled and I thought he was awesome. To be exact, I said:
I like this guy.I liked him. I liked him because of his snark, and I liked him because he seemed like the stereotype of a wizened old Southerner, just mindin' 'is own bidness, putting youngins in their place.
Is he Southern? He sounds Southern. He sounds like he ain't gonna take no young whipper-snappers' lip.
I looked it up. He's from Lula, so either Georgia or Mississippi.
Allow me to reiterate. I like this guy.
I liked him, and I didn't give a second thought to what he was doing.
Isn't that scary? That a kindly word, or a confident voice, or a warm presentation can take something that would normally be appalling and make the entire experience a lark? That I'd nod along just because the delivery was endearing, the deliverer charismatic?
Perhaps it's simply a part of human nature (for examples, see all demagogues everywhere throughout history). But it's a commonly ignored, easily exploited, and loosely guarded part.
And that's rather terrifying.
Using Queen Cells
Reading: http://www.dave-cushman.net/bee/usingqcells.html
1. This article explores what can be done with excess/spare queen cells. You could give them away, or "bank" them (storing mated queens) by getting them mated (have several in a mating nuc box, cage all but one, and then allow them to mate quickly in succession).
Lastly, and, to me, most strikingly, you could produce queen pheromone lure. In essence, you freeze the queen bees and stew them in an alcoholic mixture for several months. The liquid you get from this is, apparently, very luring to bees, and you can use it to lead swarms to where you want them.
2. You know, I've gotten to like these little creatures so much that I think of them as people. Unwise, yes, and a little heartbreaking. Every time we squish some for a "greater good" of the hive (or, more specifically and honestly, perhaps, for the farmed honey), a little bit of me retreats into a safe room and shuts the door tight. The mind recognises the point, but the little angel sitting on my shoulder gives a little sniffle.
This article very much brought out that discomfort. It read as something that was so calculated. Machine-like. Mechanical. Pragmatic, but having lost all consideration of the subjects as living beings.
The very last suggestion of the queen pheromone lure in particular struck me as incredibly cold. Perhaps I read one too many fairy tales as a child, but all I could imagine in my mind were helpless anthropomorphic queens being chilled and dropped, frightened, into a vat of alcohol. And then I couldn't help but wonder "what if?"
What if, instead of bees, this was an article written by evolutionarily advanced aliens about farming humans? Certainly, to us, it would seem excessively cruel, killing (in essence) pregnant women because they found that the "New Mom" scent would help them wield control. But to them? They would be so above humanity, so unaware of our level of consciousness, that they'd be oblivious to the pain.
But the bees aren't that smart. They'll get over it and probably won't even notice. Right? But just as our alien overlords wouldn't understand our consciousness, we'll never truly understand the consciousness of those little bumbling buzzy balls. Our line is purely arbitrary -- this group of life can feel such-and-such, and so it's not okay to do that. But this manifestation of life can't feel such-and-such, so it must be all right to do that.
Perhaps we look at it neurologically. "They couldn't possibly feel 1, 2, or 3, that's crazy talk. Don't worry so much about doing A, B, or C. "
But it's disingenuous to look at a brain and say that we can understand, completely, how things are experienced by everything (not just bees or other people). Complete empathy (absolutely knowing how it feels to be something that is not yourself)? I'd argue that that is impossible. We're too limited.
All this probably isn't what the writer had in mind when writing this guide, and certainly, it's meant as instructions, not something to trigger reflections on cruelty and humanity and consciousness, but there it is. Personal comments.
Also, it seems weird to me that the information at the bottom states that the page was "Generated" on 02 February 2002. "Generated", not "written" or "compiled". "Generated".
Like a machine spitting out a program.
Appropriate enough.
1. This article explores what can be done with excess/spare queen cells. You could give them away, or "bank" them (storing mated queens) by getting them mated (have several in a mating nuc box, cage all but one, and then allow them to mate quickly in succession).
Lastly, and, to me, most strikingly, you could produce queen pheromone lure. In essence, you freeze the queen bees and stew them in an alcoholic mixture for several months. The liquid you get from this is, apparently, very luring to bees, and you can use it to lead swarms to where you want them.
2. You know, I've gotten to like these little creatures so much that I think of them as people. Unwise, yes, and a little heartbreaking. Every time we squish some for a "greater good" of the hive (or, more specifically and honestly, perhaps, for the farmed honey), a little bit of me retreats into a safe room and shuts the door tight. The mind recognises the point, but the little angel sitting on my shoulder gives a little sniffle.
This article very much brought out that discomfort. It read as something that was so calculated. Machine-like. Mechanical. Pragmatic, but having lost all consideration of the subjects as living beings.
The very last suggestion of the queen pheromone lure in particular struck me as incredibly cold. Perhaps I read one too many fairy tales as a child, but all I could imagine in my mind were helpless anthropomorphic queens being chilled and dropped, frightened, into a vat of alcohol. And then I couldn't help but wonder "what if?"
What if, instead of bees, this was an article written by evolutionarily advanced aliens about farming humans? Certainly, to us, it would seem excessively cruel, killing (in essence) pregnant women because they found that the "New Mom" scent would help them wield control. But to them? They would be so above humanity, so unaware of our level of consciousness, that they'd be oblivious to the pain.
But the bees aren't that smart. They'll get over it and probably won't even notice. Right? But just as our alien overlords wouldn't understand our consciousness, we'll never truly understand the consciousness of those little bumbling buzzy balls. Our line is purely arbitrary -- this group of life can feel such-and-such, and so it's not okay to do that. But this manifestation of life can't feel such-and-such, so it must be all right to do that.
Perhaps we look at it neurologically. "They couldn't possibly feel 1, 2, or 3, that's crazy talk. Don't worry so much about doing A, B, or C. "
But it's disingenuous to look at a brain and say that we can understand, completely, how things are experienced by everything (not just bees or other people). Complete empathy (absolutely knowing how it feels to be something that is not yourself)? I'd argue that that is impossible. We're too limited.
All this probably isn't what the writer had in mind when writing this guide, and certainly, it's meant as instructions, not something to trigger reflections on cruelty and humanity and consciousness, but there it is. Personal comments.
Also, it seems weird to me that the information at the bottom states that the page was "Generated" on 02 February 2002. "Generated", not "written" or "compiled". "Generated".
Like a machine spitting out a program.
Appropriate enough.
Wednesday, 6 June 2012
Artificial Swarm
1.
2. This guy is a little difficult to understand. His voice is nice and soothing. Just ... difficult to digest the information.
It appears to be essentially the same stuff (just with more hives) as the Floridian video.
Hive Splitting
1. Splits are made in order to prevent swarming and creating more hives. Split healthy hives.
Things that the new hive will need (so look for frames that contain them):
- Pollen
- Honey
- Capped brood
Look for the Queen. When you find her, pull her out (not her frame) and dump her in the nuc box with the other frames that were pulled out. Seal up the nuc box so that they don't escape.
When you get the new Queen, wait for about three days so that the Queen-less hive will accept the new Queen more readily. Keep track of the hives.
Move the nook box at last 2 miles away for a couple weeks. If not, the worker bees will mosey back over to the parent hive.
2. Why are these guys all so awesome? Those accents! Picking up the Queen WITH HIS BARE HANDS. Whaaaaaaaaat.
They're like NPC's in a game on the South. What amazing people.
Queen Rearing
1. Take a frame with eggs/larvae. Take a bar that you can insert into a new frame. Cut out a row of eggs/larvae. Put hot wax on the bar. Squish the row of eggs/larvae into the wax so that you get vertical cells. Crush them every inch or so. Put it into the frame. Presumably, reinsert into the hive.
2. "There's no excuse for anybody not producing their own queens. I have macular degeneration. I have cataracts. I can still do it."
But of course, pronounced "Ay kin still dew it."
I like this guy.
Is he Southern? He sounds Southern. He sounds like he ain't gonna take no young whipper-snappers' lip.
I looked it up. He's from Lula, so either Georgia or Mississippi.
Allow me to reiterate. I like this guy.
DEADLY BACON
Reading Link: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/12/148457233/death-by-bacon-study-finds-eating-meat-is-risky
1. Everyone loves bacon! But it's probably even worse for us than we realise. Red meats raise mortality risks by 13%, and processed meats (like bacon and hot dogs) raise it by 20%.
Moderation is encouraged if we want to continue eating meats. In addition, we can replace our steaks with poultry, seafood, and legumes, and cut down on our bacon consumption to "occasionally".
Theories for why this is so include iron reacting with preservatives to form carcinogens, and (damnit) direct contact with flames (i.e., BBQ).
The American Meat Institute Foundation, however, disputes this and says that there isn't a lot of inherent risk in consuming/making processed foods like bacon, with the argument that meat is needed anyway in the body, and that it's overconsumption of all foods, not just meat.
2. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
ilovebacon ...
Well, you know, whatever the mortality risk, the mortality rate will always remain steady -- at 100%. We're all going to die from something, and to be honest, I'd rather die from bacon than, like, drowning.
(And really, it's not news that bacon isn't exactly great for you.)
The American Meat Institute Foundation kind of makes me laugh, though. Yeah, you need the proteins from meat. You certainly don't need the preservatives they put in bacon and hot dogs though.
Well, what would you expect from the Meat Institute Foundation? I guess it is slightly unfair to single out meat as a risk factor for cancer and heart disease -- oh wait, no, it's actually not. Because it's, you know, a legitimate risk factor.
1. Everyone loves bacon! But it's probably even worse for us than we realise. Red meats raise mortality risks by 13%, and processed meats (like bacon and hot dogs) raise it by 20%.
Moderation is encouraged if we want to continue eating meats. In addition, we can replace our steaks with poultry, seafood, and legumes, and cut down on our bacon consumption to "occasionally".
Theories for why this is so include iron reacting with preservatives to form carcinogens, and (damnit) direct contact with flames (i.e., BBQ).
The American Meat Institute Foundation, however, disputes this and says that there isn't a lot of inherent risk in consuming/making processed foods like bacon, with the argument that meat is needed anyway in the body, and that it's overconsumption of all foods, not just meat.
2. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
ilovebacon ...
Well, you know, whatever the mortality risk, the mortality rate will always remain steady -- at 100%. We're all going to die from something, and to be honest, I'd rather die from bacon than, like, drowning.
(And really, it's not news that bacon isn't exactly great for you.)
The American Meat Institute Foundation kind of makes me laugh, though. Yeah, you need the proteins from meat. You certainly don't need the preservatives they put in bacon and hot dogs though.
Well, what would you expect from the Meat Institute Foundation? I guess it is slightly unfair to single out meat as a risk factor for cancer and heart disease -- oh wait, no, it's actually not. Because it's, you know, a legitimate risk factor.
Hospital Food
Reading Link:
http://www.yorkregion.com/news/article/1316401--york-region-hospitals-focus-on-food
1. Hospital food has always been rather awful, and now they're trying to fix that.
York's hospitals are at the forefront of this movement, providing restaurant-style service and meals that can meet the patients' specific dietary needs and preferences. The food is cooked fresh every day, instead of re-heating pre-packaged portions. The patients are happy with the change.
At Southlake, they are looking to implement Steamplicity (essentially, steaming everything), which should provide more choice and more nutritious meals.
2. That's all well and good, and certainly when my own father was in the hospital, I felt that the food could definitely stand to be better: for one thing, they once accidentally gave him a fatty steak a couple days before his coronary artery bypass surgery. It's always bothered me that this is an issue at all -- hospitals are in the business of making people as well as they can be.
Certainly, the reason for many hospitals is probably a lack of funding. Hospitals are already always short on staff, equipment, and money. With funds going into keeping the place functioning as a hospital, the things that aren't seen as quite as important can often be shoved to the side, and certainly meals seem to have been relegated to the backseat. For the patients, though, it's obviously kind of awkward when a diabetic gets a fully sweetened Jell-O for dessert.
It's understandable, given the hectic pace of a hospital (although triage is used specifically only for the emergency room, it's not unreasonable to think that something similar is in use with prioritizing -- and food is probably not at the top of the list), but it's still kind of troubling. Hopefully the new system will help suss out the problems and deal with them.
Tuesday, 21 February 2012
Corn-Free Menu Challenge
All products claimed to be corn-free either according to respective websites or this list.
- Home-made bread using this simple flour+yeast+water recipe, using King Arthur yeast and Bob's Red Mill GF flour.
Lunch
- Pie, using Mother Nature's Goodies Pie Shells and this recipe, using organic ingredients and Bob's Red Mill flour as needed and replacing the puff pastry with the pie shell.
Snack
- Organic apple
Dinner
- One of the recipes from here. I'm particular to the pizza.
Dessert
- Baked Alaska made from Ben & Jerry's vanilla ice cream and organic fruits; sponge can be made from scratch with corn-free flours and raising agents mentioned before.
Sunday, 8 January 2012
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)