Designer Creates Artificial Flowers to Feed Hungry Bees in Big Cities

iStock.com/schnuddel
iStock.com/schnuddel

Rebuilding the world's shrinking bee population will be a multi-level effort. Legislators and citizens are already doing what they can to conserve the pollinators, by planting the right things and banning some pesticides, and now a designer from the Netherlands is stepping up with a product made to help city bees. As Fast Company reports, Matilde Boelhouwer's project, called Food for Buzz, uses artificial flowers to feed bees in concrete jungles.

Boelhouwer's flowers are made from polyester "petals" pinned to a 3D-printed hollow receptacle. The receptacle connects to a stem attached to base filled with sugar. When it rains, water drips down the stem and collects in the sugar base, creating a sugar-water solution which is then pumped back up to the receptacle where insects can drink it.

To attract the most prevalent pollinators—bees, bumblebees, butterflies, hoverflies, and moths—Boelhouwer borrowed elements from real-life flowers. Her creations are colorful and symmetrical, which signal to insects that they're a good source of food. And while they may pass for the real thing with bees, Boelhouwer's flowers are all spins on flowers found in nature rather than exact copies of them.

Artificial bee snacks don't necessarily need to be beautiful to be effective. This Bee Saving Paper from Warsaw, for example, is covered in a biodegradable UV paint that's invisible to the human eye. But the flowers made for Food for Buzz can provide life-saving fuel to bees while beautifying urban spaces at the same time.

Boelhouwer tells Fast Company that her polyester flowers do succeed in attracting pollinators, but more research still needs to be done to determine how they compare to other artificial bee feeders.

[h/t Fast Company]

Kodak’s New Cameras Don't Just Take Photos—They Also Print Them

Your Instagram account wishes it had this clout.
Your Instagram account wishes it had this clout.
Kodak

Snapping a photo and immediately sharing it on social media is definitely convenient, but there’s still something so satisfying about having the printed photo—like you’re actually holding the memory in your hands. Kodak’s new STEP cameras now offer the best of both worlds.

As its name implies, the Kodak STEP Instant Print Digital Camera, available for $70 on Amazon, lets you take a picture and print it out on that very same device. Not only do you get to skip the irksome process of uploading photos to your computer and printing them on your bulky, non-portable printer (or worse yet, having to wait for your local pharmacy to print them for you), but you never need to bother with ink cartridges or toner, either. The Kodak STEP comes with special 2-inch-by-3-inch printing paper inlaid with color crystals that bring your image to life. There’s also an adhesive layer on the back, so you can easily stick your photos to laptop covers, scrapbooks, or whatever else could use a little adornment.

There's a 10-second self-timer, so you don't have to ask strangers to take your group photos.Kodak

For those of you who want to give your photos some added flair, you might like the Kodak STEP Touch, available for $130 from Amazon. It’s similar to the regular Kodak STEP, but the LCD touch screen allows you to edit your photos before you print them; you can also shoot short videos and even share your content straight to social media.

If you want to print photos from your smartphone gallery, there's the Kodak STEP Instant Mobile Photo Printer. This portable $80 printer connects to any iOS or Android device with Bluetooth capabilities and can print whatever photos you send to it.

The Kodak STEP Instant Mobile Photo Printer connects to an app that allows you to add filters and other effects to your photos. Kodak

All three Kodak STEP devices come with some of that magical printer paper, but you can order additional refills, too—a 20-sheet set costs $8 on Amazon.

This article contains affiliate links to products selected by our editors. Mental Floss may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.

Lead from the 2019 Notre-Dame Cathedral Fire Detected in Paris’s Beehives

Veronique de Viguerie/Stringer/Getty Images
Veronique de Viguerie/Stringer/Getty Images

It's been over a year since a fire destroyed Notre-Dame's iconic spire in April 2019, and we still haven't determined the blaze's full effect on the environment. As Smithsonian reports, evidence of pollution from the incident has been found in an unusual place: Paris's beehives.

A new study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters explains that hives located downwind from the Notre-Dame fire contained honey with high concentrations of lead. As the cathedral's roof and spire burned, 450 tons of lead melted in the extreme heat, releasing hazardous particles into the air. While lead had clearly settled into the structure itself—making it unsafe to reopen to the public even after it was renovated—the question remains of how far the toxic materials spread beyond the site.

The study shows that at least some lead managed to travel a few miles away from the church. Honey sampled three months after the blaze from hives downwind from the Notre-Dame fire contained four times as much lead as honey from the Parisian suburbs, and 3.5 times as much as Parisian honey collected before April 2019.

This doesn't mean that honey from certain Paris neighborhoods is unsafe to eat. The sample with the highest numbers, taken from a hive 3 miles west of the cathedral, contained 0.08 micrograms of lead per 1 gram of honey. The European Union allows honey to be sold with lead concentrations up to 0.10 micrograms per gram.

“The highest levels of lead that we detected were the equivalent of 80 drops of water in an Olympic sized swimming pool,” study co-author Dominique Weis, director of the University of British Columbia's Pacific Centre for Isotopic and Geochemical Research, said in a statement. But what the findings mean for homes and businesses in Notre-Dame's surrounding area-where environmental lead samples have exceeded the safety guidelines 20 times over in some spots—is still unclear.

[h/t Smithsonian]