this post was submitted on 18 May 2024
21 points (100.0% liked)

World News

38188 readers
1978 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The insect glue, produced from edible oils, was inspired by plants such as sundews that use the strategy to capture their prey. A key advantage of physical pesticides over toxic pesticides is that pests are highly unlikely to evolve resistance, as this would require them to develop much larger and stronger bodies, while bigger beneficial insects, like bees, are not trapped by the drops.

The drops were tested on the western flower thrip, which are known to attack more than 500 species of vegetable, fruit and ornamental crops. More than 60% of the thrips were captured within the two days of the test, and the drops remained sticky for weeks.

Work on the sticky pesticide is continuing, but Dr Thomas Kodger at Wageningen University & Research, in the Netherlands, who is part of the self defence project doing the work, said: “We hope it will have not nearly as disastrous side-effects on the local environment or on accidental poisonings of humans. And the alternatives are much worse, which are potential starvation due to crop loss or the overuse of chemical pesticides, which are a known hazard.”

Link to the study

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

A key advantage of physical pesticides over toxic pesticides is that pests are highly unlikely to evolve resistance, as this would require them to develop much larger and stronger bodies.

Goddammit, stop playing with fire, scientists!!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Isn't that Lamarckism? If I recall correctly, that's an older model of evolution that is not commonly recognized anymore.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

slightly stronger ones survive to pass their genes to their offspring, that's the idea.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Natural selection is usually implied. So, in long form, smaller insects would have to be less reproductively successful, and that's hard when you're a pest that really benefits from being tiny, stealthy and energy-economical.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

In the Jurassic period there were giant insects like dragonflies with 4ft wingspan. Turns out THIS is how we get to Jurassic park

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Carboniferous period. Jurassic was about 100m years later.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Shit was fire (30% atmospheric oxygen levels)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

35%, even. It's more like 20% today, for comparison.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Let's make s movie!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

It was a wild guess and I was hoping someone smarter than me would correct me ❤️

In my defense the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park came from wildly different eras so Carboniferous super bugs can still fit in!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

I just asked ChatGPT because I knew something was off.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Not unless the level of oxygen in the air goes up dramatically, that's what allowed those big bodies when they had no lungs

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Insect body size is dictated by oxygen levels, and since they absorb oxygen through their skin if they get too large with too little oxygen they suffocate.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

How many oil plants to you have to mill up in order to have enough oil to coat a plant?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (6 children)

This is a really, really, bad idea.

The issue is that sticky traps are non-specific. Any insect the size of a trip can be trapped. Then when predators are attracted to all the free food, they are potentially stuck or damaged as well.

Thrips are also one of the easiest species to control using predatory species.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

"Without chemicals"

Okay, no need to take this seriously.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

A new non-toxic pesticide can be valuable regardless of the journalist who wrote an article.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

All jokes aside, this is another great example of a trend towards bio-inspired engineering.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

There are plenty of ways we shorten a specific phrase that renders it general but still understand it as the specific version.

The word “chemicals” is rarely misunderstood when used this way. Colloquially, many/most people mean “harmful chemicals” when they say it.

Is there room for misunderstanding? Yes. Is that a problem? Not any bigger than most problems with using spoken/written language to communicate.

You don’t come off as wise when you point this inaccuracy out, and It doesn’t invalidate the whole article.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I've watched chunks of society freak out over everything from basic food ingredients to vaccines because they contained polysyllabic words that people decried as "chemicals".

And I've spent my whole damn life listening to people abuse the word "theory" until the the Christofascists and neo-nazis managed to become mainstream.

People abuse technical words with a purpose. Don't play apologetics for them because you believe their understanding of words is more nuanced than they are.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

You don't understand, this new pesticide consists of tiny leaflets with stories so complelling the insects cannot stop reading them. They are literally (not literally) glued to the page.

edit: and yet the leaflets would be made of chemicals and in the long run would be harmful

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (4 children)

You don't serve the greater good by misusing words. A new sticky substance as an alternative to chemicals? If you want to educate people through your reporting, then you try to make it accurate and choose words carefully.

It doesn't invalidate the whole article, fair enough. But it does make a "wise" person question what else they got wrong.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Which is why it should be considered bad practice to use the word "chemicals" as a synonym for "poison."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yep. Cooking is a chemical reaction.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Beware of dihydrogen monoxide.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

You are correct, but having spent 7 years of my life learning general chemistry, biochemistry, and organic chemistry.... I will fight with my last breath that chemicals exist.

To play devils advocate, lets say we "agree" that "no chemicals" means no harmful chemicals.... now we have given corporations the weasel defense to say anything has "no chemicals" because they will define away any measure of harm.

Pointing out the incorrectness of the article doesn't mean it has no merit, but now the critical reader must be extra cautious because the author has demonstrated very poor domain knowledge, and their conclusions are suspect.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It just really feels weird to me to describe something as GLUE, but then also say that it doesn't use chemicals. One thing I take into consideration most times I'm using glue, is whether the item I'm gluing will be melted by the glue.

I get what they're trying to say, but glue is a description of a chemical compound in my mind.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

I doubt any kind of glue can be free of harmful chemicals, especially in the long run.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

The sticky drops will biodegrade but the team is investigating how long this takes.

They probably should have waited to write such a glowing article until after we find this out.

Because I'm thinking people aren't going to be all that into trying to pull apart grapes that have been glued together.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›