Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by GW150914 2819 days ago
Is this the study that's based on some extremely small amount of bees (45?) being completely submerged in glyohosate? "We found that babies, when submerged in 100% water for ONLY 5 MINUTES, had extremely averse reactions. We must ban water before it continues to hurt our children!"

Did you read the methods section? They did no such thing, and I’m curious as to why you claim that they did. At least have the intellectual honesty to yourself if no one else, to skim the study before posting nonsense.

Hundreds of late-stage pupae were removed from brood frames and allowed to emerge under sterile conditions in laboratory. (Experiment A) NEWs were exposed to bee gut homogenate for 5 d, then hand fed 1 mM glyphosate or sterile sugar syrup on 2 alternate days. Fifteen bees from each group were sampled 2 d after the last hand feeding. DNA was extracted from dissected guts, used as template for qPCR analyses, and submitted for Illumina sequencing at the GSAF, UT Austin. (Experiment B) NEWs were exposed to a bee gut homogenate or sterile sucrose syrup. Each group was divided into two subgroups and treated with 0.1 mM glyphosate or sterile sucrose syrup for 5 d. After that, half of the subgroups was exposed to the opportunistic pathogen S. marcescens kz19, whereas the other half was used as controls. Bees were exposed to similar amounts of glyphosate (∼1.7 µg) in experiments A and B.

NEWs were hand fed 5 µL sucrose syrup containing ∼105 cells of S. alvi wkB2 or wkB339 or sterile sucrose syrup as control.

Hand fed does not equal “immersed in for 5 minutes” by any means.

In Vitro Experiments with Bee Gut Bacterial Strains. Honey bee and bumble bee gut bacterial strains (SI Appendix, Table S1) were cultured in InsectaGro or MRS broth in the presence or absence of 10 mM glyphosate in a 96-well plate and incubated in a plate reader at 35 °C and 5% CO2 for 48 h. Optical density was measured at 600 nm every 6 h. Experiments were performed in triplicate.

Plasmid Construction and Transformation. The aroA, yhhS, and tetC genes from various bacterial strains were PCR amplified and cloned into the arabinose-inducible pBAD30 vector (45) by Gibson assembly (46) and then used to transform E. coli strain BW25113 or a derivative lacking the aroA gene by electroporation. Primer sequences are listed in SI Appendix, Table S2.

Growth Rate Analysis of Transformed E. coli. Transformed E. coli cells were cultured in duplicate in 24-well plates containing M9 minimal medium (47) with appropriate antibiotics, varying concentrations of glyphosate, and varying concentrations of arabinose. The plates were incubated in a plate reader at 37 °C for 24–96 h. Optical density was measured at 600 nm every hour.

All in all it’s a diverse and comprehensive methodology which still needs to be replicated, but not dismissed offhand by you.

1 comments

This comment, https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/9immmj/honey_bees_... , explains what I was referring to.

I wasn't directly saying that bees were submerged, just that the amounts they used were far higher than most real-world exposure scenarios.

I know it's sacrilege to try and defend Monsanto, Facebook, or Google on HN for any reason whatsoever, but it would be nice if people didn't go full-on "NaturalNews.com" mode whenever the topic comes up.

> I know it's sacrilege to try and defend Monsanto, Facebook, or Google on HN for any reason whatsoever, but it would be nice if people didn't go full-on "NaturalNews.com" mode whenever the topic comes up.

It would be equally nice if we were able to consider the science being explored, rather than have people deride any investigation at all.

The methodology is there to be replicated, and though you're free to disagree with it, throwing hyperbole that's clear false around:

> being completely submerged in glyohosate?

Isn't helpful to moving the conversation forward.