Search:

Type: Posts; User: grondeau

Search: Search took 0.00 seconds.

  1. Replies
    157
    Views
    16,788

    Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

    It is unfair to the bees to assume that if they are consistently ingesting >~ 1ppb imidacloprid or similar concentrations of other neonics, that they are well. They may be surviving, however. It...
  2. Replies
    157
    Views
    16,788

    Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

    I suspect corn is not the first choice for bees. Krupke, in the middle of the corn belt, saw 45% of pollen coming in as corn pollen. I'm guessing if the bees have their choice between goldenrod and...
  3. Replies
    157
    Views
    16,788

    Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

    Michael, take a look at my post on the time-dependent effects of imidacloprid. We live in a grey zone, usually just below the toxic threshold. Healthy bees are fine even with a fair level of...
  4. Time-Dependent Toxicity of Imidacloprid in Bees and Ants

    I did a review of many papers on the toxicity of imidacloprid, since it is the best studied neonic, looking for data that could be interpreted in a time-to-effect manner. There are a couple of...
  5. Resolving the Imidacloprid Paradox and the CCD Connection

    I'm still going to harp on the Neonics. In the linked article, I look at the classic Bayer study that proved imidacloprid was safe for bees. I think it said something else...
    ...
  6. Replies
    42
    Views
    4,681

    Re: The Case Against Imidicloprid

    When Varroa first came on the scene, did any of you ever just sit and watch a colony go down? What I recall is MASSIVE numbers of mites - in the thousands, mulitple per bee - and YES the colony...
  7. Replies
    42
    Views
    4,681

    Re: The Case Against Imidicloprid

    One thing I'm still trying to puzzle out is why the big difference in toxicity between the two crustaceans in the Sanchez-Bayo paper. If this stuff acts on a nervous system, what's so different? ...
  8. Replies
    42
    Views
    4,681

    Re: The Case Against Imidicloprid

    Not true. NA=6x10^23 molecules/mole. Assume bees are mostly water --> molecular weight = ~20; lets use 60 so more numbers cancel... bee weighs 0.1 g --> N = 6e23 * .1 / 60 = 10^21 molecules in a...
  9. Replies
    42
    Views
    4,681

    Re: The Case Against Imidicloprid

    I know of one other study of low-level extended-time experiments. That was Shmuck. Of his four trials one showed similar results to Suchiel, the others did not. Shmuck was a Bayer scientist and...
  10. Replies
    42
    Views
    4,681

    Re: The Case Against Imidicloprid

    I actually stand corrected on this. Frankly I was so amazed that the data could be so well modeled by a simple power law that I couldn't resist the extrapolation. Nevertheless, I want my bees...
  11. Replies
    42
    Views
    4,681

    Re: The Case Against Imidicloprid

    Today monitoring and treating for mites might be enough to keep colonies healthy enough to overcome bee losses due to pesticides - sometimes. That used to be the case where I live. Seems less so...
  12. Replies
    42
    Views
    4,681

    Re: The Case Against Imidicloprid

    Hi Jim,
    We CAN detect residue in pollen in plants grown from treated seed. Typical levels are in the 1-10 ppb range. Problem is, the bees dilute this since they bring in pollen from other sources...
  13. Replies
    42
    Views
    4,681

    Re: The Case Against Imidicloprid

    This is not a theory. All I was doing is fitting existing data to a convenient toxicity model and extrapolating to the age that bees normally live. The fact the the model works well with the...
  14. Replies
    42
    Views
    4,681

    The Case Against Imidicloprid

    Please bee folk, I did a little playing with graphs and looked at various toxicity data on Imidacloprid and plotted on log-log graph to find the power law. It's disturbing to say the least. If you...
Results 1 to 14 of 14