Bumblebee Pupae Contain High Levels of Aluminium

Leifer

Senior Member.
bee.jpg
(Copyright © 2015 Discovery Communications, LLC)


This is not a debunk (or is it ?).

This study is being used by chemtrail believers for further validation of their suspicions of an aluminumo-toxic environment. They might call it "more proof".
I can't dispute what the study finds, but the study is not without it's problems....mostly in the form of curious and assumptive statements which are in-turn being repeated on social media.
And then there is the bias of it's first-named author. (more on that later)

Bumblebee Pupae Contain High Levels of Aluminium
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127665#authcontrib

(bold text, by me...)
"Aluminium is the most significant environmental contaminant of recent times"
....really ?....not CO2 gas ?.....not vehicle emissions ?.....not any other of these ??
Interestingly, the study does give a reference to that statement (ref. #5)....that being another study by this study's (same) author, C. Exely.....
"...and aluminium is a known neurotoxin with links, for example, to Alzheimer’s disease in humans."
Sure, in high enough doses AL can be a neurotoxin, but the scientific consensus is that AL is not significant cause of Alzheimer's. This study in question has a different opinion, probably because the first-named author of the study (Christopher Exley) wrote a book on it.....
Aluminium and Alzheimer's Disease


This study I suspect, will keep popping up as evidence-fodder by suspicious people, because it encapsulates a few controversial alternative media subjects.....
Alzheimer's
Bee decline (even though it's about bumblebees)
Chemtrails
.....even though the study reaches no definite conclusions.
It uses small sampling, no comparative studies, and the results themselves are "not significant".
The study (it's a small study, nearly an "article") affirms my above sentence....
I find it strange, to (even lightly) compare aluminum content of bumblebee pupae, to aluminum/Alzheimer's in humans. Since when are bumblebee brains >>>compared to human brains ?? by chance? or design ?
But they did, and the press is loving it, with eye-catching click-bait titles like....
"Are Bees Getting Dementia ?" (CNN)
"Are Bumblebees getting Alzheimer's ? (Discovery News)
What about those poor earthworms, who live in dirt, and will eat "aluminum contaminated" soil in order to burrow ? I wonder what the Alzheimer's rate in worms is ? :(

On the chemtrail front, Dane Wigington and Russ Tanner are hot on it, in their style, "we'll-quote-scientific-literature-only-when-it-agrees-with-our-opinion"....(and if it doesn't, "the science has been faked").....
http://globalskywatch.com/assets/mp3/gwradio/2015-06-09.mp3
(see 12:30 - 13:30 in the mp3)
When quoting the article, they both get the study's PPM and PPB results mixed-up, finally agreeing that this doesn't matter,
How can it not matter ?

Actually, the numbers in this study are in PPM, not PPB, so they are higher than what they "whatever-agreed" to (which was PPB).
The study uses dry-weight results, in the term ug/g, which is 1 ppm= 1 ug/g.
http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/ppmug_g.php




.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
I agree that this study seems rather odd. And as you say, there is no comparison. We don't know what aluminium levels in pupae where 10 years ago, or 50 years ago, or 100 years ago.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I agree that this study seems rather odd. And as you say, there is no comparison. We don't know what aluminium levels in pupae where 10 years ago, or 50 years ago, or 100 years ago.
I believe only 21 colonies and 72 pupae were tested. And only in the UK.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I believe only 21 colonies and 72 pupae were tested. And only in the UK.
how do i type these coordinants into Google Earth? (do i need a degree sign and where is it?)
I manually did the highest of the 6 rural areas, and i'm wondering why the area is all dirt vs the green all around it. so i'd like to look at the other areas but its hard to find manually.

urbanrural.PNG bees.PNG
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I manually did the highest of the 6 rural areas, and i'm wondering why the area is all dirt vs the green all around it.
it will just be part of crop or pasture management - being let lay fallow, or prepared for a crop that hasn't been sowed or hasn't grown much yet.

You can cut and paste co-ordinates in into Google Earth's search as they appear on the printout, including het E/W/N/S initial - it will make sense of them.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Email sent, and reply from Christopher Exley, the study's main author....

 

Leifer

Senior Member.
It's a fairly common method, for some suspicious people, to quote studies or other scientific research, and bend the gist (or topic) of those studies....in order to claim that that (quoted) science somehow supports their suspicious claims.....when really, it does not.
It may be just the title, or a phrase in the research that they grasp on to.

This is nothing new. This method is not only used by the conspiracy crowd, but by any number of agencies, politicians, lobbyists, companies, advertisers, (more), and the average person.
This Bumblebee study is a good example. People are using it to boost (prove) their claims that aluminum was found high somewhere, therefore it must be from the jet trails......even though the scientists fail to associate (or even mention) that idea in their findings. (in fact they mention completely different sources for Al)

As I have discovered with this one FB person (dialog above), this person claims, 'but they are not aware of the ongoing aluminum geoengineering' (paraphrased)...... or that the 'aluminum sources are not their specialty'.
When I mentioned that the lead author of the study is specially interested in aluminum, and that Exley has even written a book on the subject.....it falls on deaf ears, or defensive ears. (posted in subsequent dialog, not posted here)

This may be a case of someone so invested to prove him/herself correct in the original idea, that for them, to become open to a new perspective (or simply approach a reconsideration)......is expecting too much, too soon.
I'm trying to have a dialog with these people that leaves an open route for them to ponder evidence, and not pre-held beliefs.
Maybe my approach needs fine-tuning....not to corner them, but pose the ideas as a questions, rather than statements.
 
Last edited:

Marin B

Active Member
That paper was recently brought to my attention as chemtrail evidence. There is a comment in PLOS cricitical of the paper:
And Exley's (somewhat indignant) reply:
http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=86784

I did a little bit of searching and found that herbicides are often formulated as metal salts, including aluminum salt.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
And Exley's (somewhat indignant) reply:
http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=86784

I did a little bit of searching and found that herbicides are often formulated as metal salts, including aluminum salt.
[emphasis added]

Well, at least Exley doesn't seem to be attempting to invoke chemtrails. I did wonder if that was his motive.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Remember, Exely has always been a proponent of alumina-Alzheimer theory. He wrote a book on it.
(Gladly) he looks to other sources for the AL........not chemtrails.

His career is heavily based on searching for human exposure to AL and it's (theorized) toxicity, signs of toxicity, and relief from toxicity (silicic acid)

He's even looked for it in cannabis.
If he wants to test AL in any area, time, or situation......let him - AFAIC.

I would never call him a quack. He thoroughly believes it and he's scientifically motivated. It's been non-stop for him since his undergraduate thesis(s).....
I'm curious....why - if the authors suspected before-hand that pesticides/fungicides/herbicides (PFH) could be a reason for "any" high AL levels (or other anthropological source)........why didn't they also test for PFH while they had test subjects in-hand, and a method of collection (the study parameters)????
Where are the other significant elements, not tested for, in order to even mention 'anthropological' sources in the study ? To help rule-in/rule-out.


Flower (bee) pollen under a microscope, are generally a pimpled and pocketed/suckered, multi-conical pointed spheres (i made that up). This irritates the olfactory system in most mammals. In other words, it irritates me to even have typed it.
Ambient and present dirt-dust may adhere to (inside/within) the pollen cavities.......along with any other airborne particle of suitable size.
I don't know the static attraction that might make pollen more sticky, but is another possibility to explore.



This is pollen from a variety of plants.....

Misc_pollen.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Misc_pollen.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top