Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 114
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sylus p View Post
    Neonics have been found in 100% of CCD affected colonies.
    this is so well documented not to be true, that it makes this whole thread irrelevant.

    this isn't a matter of "my documentation vs your documentation", this is pure falsehood. even if you believe neonics are the cause of ccd, making up data (or reporting on made up data) is inexcusable.

    deknow

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Danbury,Ct. USA
    Posts
    1,966

    Default

    Sylus said,
    >>>>what do you think the chances are that you're going to get the facts <<<<

    Listen to folks like Kieck. nicotioids have been in heavy use for nearly 20 years. This is a cotton-picking fact! Pay attention to this fact! I read about bees for hours each day and I don't see anyone with a solution. The best we can do is control mites, nutrition and keep a breed of bees that shows resistance. Clean comb seems to be important.

    See "Die-off" in Point of View on this site. I wrote it in '07 after being on-site with the first CCD episodes. No-one knew then and no-one knows now. If I were to update it, I couldn't find much to add. Bees die. If you want to stay with the data, bees in big groups die. That's a fact, by the way. That's all we really know. I'm still wondering if it's not some sort of survival mechanism that lets the weak drop out and the strong survive. Sort of like the robbing instinct that concentrates the stores of an area in the stronger colonies.

    Is that clear? If too many of a given species overcome the available resources, some mechanism to keep this species from damaging the resource, kicks in.

    The last thing a fish would discover is water,

    Dickm
    Last edited by dickm; 12-14-2008 at 07:07 PM.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    College Station, Texas
    Posts
    6,973

    Default

    kieck writes:
    I'm not claiming that Florida is pristine

    tecumseh:
    only in a very slick marketing brochure.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Nomadland, NY, USA
    Posts
    157

    Default

    I do not believe that all of the samples that have been PROVIDED to the researchers in fact contain neo-nics. However, all of the samples from colonies suffering from actual ccd symptoms (few adult bees, colonies unrobbed, capped brood) have suffered acute pesticide poisoning.

    The provided samples have included colonies that are simply unhealthy as well as some colonies that are probably in perfect health.

    Even one corrupt sample taker would easily skew the results by including samples of perfectly healthy colonies, let alone two or three corrupt officials, or more. In addition there will be beekeepers who will include samples of bees that have dies from the typical bee diseases and pests.

    Factor in the enormous profits made by the pesticide biz (read billions of dollars) AND the past complicity of the corrupt EPA/USDA complex in approving chems not properly tested AND the fact that the samples and research are being collected and conducted by the USDA/EPA and you can see that the research data you may hold in high esteem as unbiased evidence is questionable at best.

    Therefore I repeat the claim the 100% of colonies actually effected by "ccd" have been poisoned by pesticides, namely neonics. This claim is backed up by the anectdotal evidence of so many beeks its ridiculous.

    These folks, in the trenches, already know the causes and consequences of exposure to these chems. But I guess the scientists and researchers operating under the USDA and EPA led conglomerate know better then they do whats killing their bees. And they keep saying, "Shut up, you don't know what you're talking about, and no, we don't have the answers either. But shut up anyways."

    "So when you run be sure you run,
    to something and not away from,
    because nothing happens here that doesn't happen there."

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Nomadland, NY, USA
    Posts
    157

    Default

    I do not believe that all of the samples that have been PROVIDED to the researchers in fact contain neo-nics. However, all of the samples from colonies suffering from actual ccd symptoms (few adult bees, colonies unrobbed, capped brood) have suffered acute pesticide poisoning.

    The provided samples have included colonies that are simply unhealthy as well as some colonies that are probably in perfect health.

    Even one corrupt sample taker would easily skew the results by including samples of perfectly healthy colonies, let alone two or three corrupt officials, or more. In addition there will be beekeepers who will include samples of bees that have died from the typical bee diseases and pests.

    Factor in the enormous profits made by the pesticide biz (read billions of dollars) AND the past complicity of the corrupt EPA/USDA complex in approving chems not properly tested AND the fact that the samples and research are being collected and conducted by the USDA/EPA and you can see that the research data you may hold in high esteem as unbiased evidence is questionable at best.

    Therefore I repeat that 100% of "ccd" affected colonies have been poisoned by pesticides, namely neonics. This claim is backed up by the anectdotal evidence of so many beeks its ridiculous.

    These folks, in the trenches, already know the causes and consequences of exposure to these chems, namely "ccd". But I guess the scientists and researchers operating under the USDA and EPA led conglomerate know better then they do whats killing their bees. And they keep saying, "Shut up, you don't know what you're talking about, and no, we don't have the answers either. But shut up anyways. You don't know what you're talking about."

    How insulting this has been.

    "So when you run be sure you run,
    to something and not away from
    because nothing happens here that doesn't happen there."

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sylus p View Post
    its ridiculous.
    Something here sure is.
    Dan www.boogerhillbee.com
    Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Auger Hole, MN
    Posts
    433

    Default

    Perhaps Sylus finds his/her so called "data" on this web site

    www.rense.com

    the posters insistence that the EPA and USDA are all corrupt and on the payroll of Bayer and the agrochem giants reeks of paranoia.

    in my former career I worked in R&D for a Fortune 500 company on an electric car battery project and we had a lot of contact with the DOE. All I can tell you is if you value your comfortable life with snazzy computer, IPOD, new car and fridge filled with food you owe your lifestyle to a scientist somewhere.

    scientists and government employees at DOE, EPA and USDA are just normal people who are usually very smart and have excelled in their careers.

    this notion that the whole complex is corrupt and there is a conspiracy afoot to decimate honeybees is just plain ridiculous and uninformed.

    sure we have ABF and several visible beekeepers railing about Bayer and the neonics. We also have people who believe in UFO's and bigfoot too. WHat Sylus and the rest of us are seeing is massive, massive denial from ABF and other large commercial outfits who claim Bayer is the boogie man while meanwhile back home at the ranch they mix up their own concoction of chemicals in which they contaminate their brood combs and poison their own bees. This is not paranoia this is documented fact. Not all commercial beekeepers still use shop rags and home brews and rail about Bayer just the less informed.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Nomadland, NY, USA
    Posts
    157

    Default

    I didn't say anything about ufo's!

    What I actually said is that a few bad apples spoil the bunch.

    Also I didn't say that it was a conspiracy to decimate the honeybees. I said that this was linked to corruption past and present in the form of major payoffs that people in high places are now covering up. This is an old old story, and a very human one.

    If CCD were the result of the commercial beeks overuse/abuse of pesticides, it would not have emerged "all at once" as it did, in 2006.

    Most commercial guys are feeling a little silly and sheepish and under the scope about this revelation and are taking steps to treat their bees differently. These guys are our bread and butter, literally, and they know it.

    Clothianidin in particular was approved for use in only 2003. Not that long ago. Factor in the timetable for mass production and mass distribution and this particularly nasty and reactive (ie volitile and binding) chem fits the bill for a 2006 emergence of "ccd".

    Its not about ufos and I would never claim that every single EPA/USDA official is corrupt. A FEW bad apples spoil the whole darn peck Bud. At the very least you must admit this is a possibility. Otherwise, how do we safegaurd ourselves from it?

    Oh and finally, and along the lines of keeping all possiblities on the table, there are wack-jobs in high places that wouldn't mind seeing the bees die and the resulting food shortages, there are people like that bud. It would make us all a heck of a lot easier to control, and for some folks, not all, but some, thats what its all about, controlling people.

    Let us all pray that that is not what we are seeing, and God help us if it is.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    North Bend, OH, USA
    Posts
    272

    Default

    I grow corn and soybeans AND I keep bees. My bees are healthy. IN fact this year has been a GREAT year for bees here in Ohio.

    Lots of beekeepers in Ohio and lots of corn in Ohio, yet I have heard of no massive die off that can be attributed to CCD in Ohio.
    Last edited by Durandal; 12-15-2008 at 07:07 PM.
    Richard
    Carriage House Farm, North Bend, Ohio

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Danbury,Ct. USA
    Posts
    1,966

    Default there are wack-jobs in high places

    and they are all around us. From the corrrupt scientists taking samples to the commmercial beeks who include simply sick bees in the count. Couple that with the corrupt USDA and EPA officials and what have you got? Small wonder we got trouble.

    dickm

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Amador County, Calif
    Posts
    3,191

    Big Grin

    I got to get me some popcorn.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    North Bend, OH, USA
    Posts
    272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Jarrett View Post
    I got to get me some popcorn.
    Watch out Keith the corn might get you too.
    Richard
    Carriage House Farm, North Bend, Ohio

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Nomadland, NY, USA
    Posts
    157

    Default

    Hope this doesn't ruin your appetite Keith but I just reread Bob Harrison's "Neonicitiniods, More Questions than Answers" which ran in the April ABJ this year 2008 and wanted to add to the list of very recently approved neonics which coincides with the recent "ccd" emergence.

    Thiamethoxam - Registerd in 2000
    Acetamiprid - Registered in March 2002
    Clothiadin - June 2003
    Thiacloprid - September 2003

    This is bad stuff friends. Not funny at all.

    To quote the article, "I have information from a source who also said his/her funding would be pulled if the institution followed the direction that some of the U.S. current be die-off could be related to the widespread use of the neonicitiniod insecticides."

    Funding pulled by who? The USDA.

    Why? You tell me.

    Eating popcorn I grew myself in Nomadland, NY. Watching PJ on youtube 60 minutes disapearing bees special just disgusted by the graft. Disgusted. "and we havent we don't have....."

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    College Station, Texas
    Posts
    6,973

    Default

    sylus p writes:
    To quote the article, "I have information from a source who also said his/her funding would be pulled if the institution followed the direction that some of the U.S. current be die-off could be related to the widespread use of the neonicitiniod insecticides."

    Funding pulled by who? The USDA.


    tecumseh replies:
    the first is called second hand information (rumor) and no it would not be the usda paying for the research. the company that wanted the producted licensed would be paying for the test.

    when the tax payer decided to no longer fund higher education and most especially began limiting monies to public universities for research, who do you think would be the logical entity that began controlling the strings that determined who's current and future research was funded? the SYSTEM is now constructed (has been for some time) quite a bit like you first sentence suggest, but most times it ain't that blatant.

    on occasion an upright academic will notice how the shell game has been rigged to produce ONE answer... if they are too upright and too honest likely 1) they will never even be considered for tenure and 2) in a very short while they will not be able to make a living in this or that town cleaning toilets. and that ain't second hand information or speculation.

    lastly (and I do think I am done here)... I have no doubt that neonic (plus a long list of insecticides) likely played some small part in the matter of ccd. however, there are those things you can do something about and there are those things that are almost totally out of an individuals control. I suspect there is a long list of likely suspects in the recent bout of bees just disappearing but I will chose to confront those that I can do something about . having read back thru a bunch of old literature has pretty much convinces me that at the head of the list is nosema (now two types), afb, nutrition and possibly a genetic component (likely a genetic line of bees highly subject to some virus associated with the above list). these are things I can DO when it comes to my bees.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Auger Hole, MN
    Posts
    433

    Default I respect

    Bob Harrison as a beekeeper. However I don't think Bob would tell you he is a scientist. His article is full of speculation like the rest of the beeks who drink the Bayer Kool Aid.

    Here is a dialogue indirectly between Bob Harrison and Dr. David Fisher from Bayer.

    The following is a copy of a post from a Bayer representative posted on BEE L. The author Dr. David Fisher lists several studies which support the notion that the Bayer systemics are not harming bees.

    I challenge Bee Novice to read these materials and report back in a few days with some more relevant questions and discussions.

    here is the link to this post for further educational reading!

    http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-...ail.com&P=1829

    Dear BEE-L readers,

    I’ve been following the discussion about neonics and CCD for some time and
    really appreciate the open exchange of opinions. In that spirit, I’d like
    to respond to some of the recent comments Bob Harrison has posted about
    neonics and Bayer CropScience. For those who do not know me, I’m the head
    of the Ecotoxicology unit in North America of Bayer CropScience.

    Bob wrote: “We are talking sub lethal effects. NOT LD50. ALL Bayer
    research is based on LD50.”

    Actually, Bayer’s research does address sub-lethal effects. Same is true of
    much non-Bayer sponsored research. Several summary papers by Bayer
    scientists have appeared over the years that discussed no observed adverse
    effect levels. These NOAELs are all based on sub-lethal effects. See
    Schmuck et al. (2001. Pest Manag Sci 57:225-238) and Maus et al. (2003,
    Bulletin of Insectology 56 (1): 51-58).

    Bob wrote: “They did no sub lethal research nor does Bayer labs own a
    single bee hive!”

    Bayer has a full time beekeeper on staff and owns many hives. We’ve had
    this in-house bee research capacity since before I joined the company 21
    years ago. We thoroughly research the bee safety of every product we
    develop.

    Bob wrote: “Until you post research saying the sub lethal effects of the
    neonicotinoids are not causing problems then expect a response from me.”
    and “Show me some sub lethal research?”

    There are scores of relevant studies. Sub-lethal endpoints that have been
    evaluated include foraging behavior, fecundity, brood development, honey
    production, hive performance and yes, the ability of foraging bees to
    return to the hive (more on this one later). Sub-lethal endpoints have
    been evaluated in special experiments as well as in semi-field (i.e.,
    tunnel or tent studies) and field studies. The review paper by Maus et al
    (2003) discussed results of 18 semi-field and 14 field studies with
    imidacloprid that were conducted between 1995 and 2001. The goal of these
    studies was to evaluate what happens when bees encounter crops treated with imidacloprid under conditions of practical use. In every case, no adverseeffects were observed. Not even once. There have been many more such studies on imidacloprid and other neonics in subsequent years. For example, Elzen et al. (2004, J. Econ Entomol 97(5) 1513-1516) studied the response of bee colonies to imidacloprid treatment of melon fields and
    Cutler et al. (2007, J. Econ. Entomol. 100(3):765-772) studied the response
    of bee colonies to clothianidin seed-treated canola fields.

    Another bit of relevant research on “sub-lethal effects” was presented at
    the 2006 EurBee meeting and the abstract was posted to this list by Randy
    Oliver on 30 September 2007. This study tested whether exposure to
    imidacloprid in combination with other stressors including Varroa and
    Nosema ceranae, caused effects greater than those of the individuals
    stressors alone. Here again is the title, author list and conclusion. The
    full abstract is in the BEE-L archives (and also obtainable from
    EurBee.org).

    INTOXICATION OF HONEYBEES – INTERACTIONS OF PLANT PROTECTION PRODUCTS AND OTHER FACTORS. Martina Wehling, Werner von der Ohe, Dietrich Brasse, Rolf Forster

    “From the findings of chronic feeding tests and semi-field test it can be
    concluded that imidacloprid used as standard seed dressing formulation will
    pose no risks to honeybees.”

    Bob wrote: “Proving a negative? In Italy the research testing sub lethal
    effects was straight forward. Each level of expose caused certain problems
    in the bees. Sub lethal testing is not rocket science.”

    While Lloyd’s original point that you can never prove a negative is
    correct, you can test whether predictions of an underlying hypothesis are
    consistent with observations either generally available or generated via
    experimentation. The “sub-lethal” adverse effects that are commonly
    mentioned as being of concern are (1) disorientation (foragers not
    returning to the hive) and (2) suppression of the immune system with the
    result that the hive succumbs to common pathogens. If either of these
    effects occurred, one should see a dwindling of the population of
    imidacloprid-exposed hives. This has been looked for in >30 experiments
    and field studies and it has NEVER happened. That’s pretty compelling
    evidence this hypothesis is not correct.

    But what about the “Italian study” which showed bees didn’t return to the
    hive when feeding on syrup containing imidacloprid? I assume Bob means the study of Bortolotti et al. (Bull. of Insectology 56(1):63-67, 2003). They
    tested three exposure concentrations, 100, 500 and 1000 ppb and the number of bees returning was greatly reduced at the two higher test levels (500 and 1000 ppb). But these are concentrations far greater than anything bees are likely to be exposed to, and in fact it could be argued they aren’t
    even sub-lethal. Take the lowest published oral LD50 value for
    imidacloprid (3.7 ng/bee) and convert it to an equivalent food
    concentration (you do this by dividing by the amount of food (26 mg) bees
    ingest on average during acute oral tests). 3.7 ng / 26 mg = a
    concentration of 142 ppb. Looking at all available data, the threshold for
    knock-down and lethal effects in Bayer studies is about 100 ppb. With this
    perspective, the finding by Bortolotti et al. that bees don’t return to the
    hive when exposed to 500 and 1000 ppb is hardly a surprise. Nor does it
    support a conclusion that use of neonics will cause a problem.

    Bob said: “Bayer first fought French beeks by blaming varroa! At the time
    the French beeks had a excellent varroa control to use. Sorry Bayer.”

    A comprehensive multiyear study of the factors that caused the famous bee
    losses in France was made by the AFFSA (French Food Safety Agency) bee
    research unit. It concluded varroa was indeed a major factor. Their
    report was released in April and is accessible at

    http://www.afssa.fr/index.htm

    Search the news archives for the press release from April 2, 2008. There
    is a link to the full report (in French) in the press release.

    The AFFSA bee research team has also weighed in on the hypothesis that
    imidacloprid was responsible for the massive bee losses experienced by
    French beekeepers. Again, Randy Oliver posted an abstract on 30 Sept 2007
    of this group’s presentation to the EurBee 96 meeting. You can check the
    BEE-L archives to get the whole thing. I’ve repeated the title, author
    list and main conclusion here.

    IMIDACLOPRID AND BEE MORTALITY IN FRANCE
    M. Aubert, J.-P.Faucon, A.-C. Martel and M.-P.Chauzat
    “We conclude that, if contamination by imidacloprid from sunflower
    cultures issued from treated seeds may have occurred simultaneously with a
    period of colony losses as described by several French bee-keepers, such
    occurrence has not been observed systematically, and no negative impact on
    bee colonies of the use of Gaucho® has been experimentally demonstrated in the field.”

    You may also want to read the following publication.
    Faucon, J.-P.; Clément, A.; Drajnudel, P.; Mathieu, L.; Ribière,
    M.; Martel, A.-C.; Zeggane, S.; Chauzat, M.-P.; Aubert, M. F. (2005):
    Experimental study on the toxicity of imidacloprid given in syrup to honey
    bee (Apis mellifera) colonies. Pest Management Science; 61 (2), 111-125

    Bob said: “I approached Bayer about funding sub lethal testing of
    imidacloprid on bees but the company declined. The national organizations
    tried! forty grand to Penn State to settle the issue seemed like chump
    change but the company declined.”

    I find this a very hard to believe. Who did you approach at Bayer? I’ve
    asked around the company and nobody has any recollection of such a
    request. Such requests should get forwarded to me. Yours did not. I’m
    not impossible to reach. David Mendes has gotten through and I sent him a
    bunch of information. Others who post regularly to this list have talked
    to me on the phone as well. Also, nobody from the national organizations
    approach Bayer with any proposal.

    Bayer has never been asked to contribute funds to any of the Penn State
    work. When they were first getting started, they asked for analytical
    standards and advice on analytical methodology which we provided.

    Bob wrote: “So now the study is coming. A company rep said off the record
    that they would denounce findings that sub lethal effects hurt bees on the
    grounds the study was funded by beekeepers and the researchers were
    biased.”

    Any technical opinion from Bayer would come from my team. Our comments would be based on the scientific merits of the work. I find it very hard to believe a Bayer rep said what you claim.

    Bob wrote: “All the beekeepers in the U.S. are asking for is some label
    changes. Bayer will not even sit down with us and talk. Printed company
    positions have been sent to both groups.”

    Again, I checked around the company and no such meeting has been proposed to Bayer CropScience. If asked, and assuming the request came from the leadership of one of the beekeeping organizations, I’d be very surprised if Bayer wouldn’t agree to meet. We do however stand behind our labels as wehave extensive research that shows our products are safe when used as directed.

    Maybe the label changes Bob seeks are for the product ASSAIL (acetamiprid)
    since the following is mentioned in a string of posts on July 9 about this
    product.

    “All beeks are asking for is a few label changes. If Bayer would meet and
    discuss then the tension would ease in my opinion.”

    Bayer does not sell ASSAIL or any other products containing acetamiprid. I
    do know quite a bit about this chemical however. It (along with
    thiacloprid) are the two neonics that are not very toxic to bees. They are
    1000 times less toxic than the nitroguanidines (imidacloprid, thiamethoxam,
    etc.). If I was a beekeeper, rather than pressuring growers to use
    something else, this is a product I would be encouraging them to use. You
    aren’t going to find many alternative insecticide treatments safer to honey
    bees than ASSAIL. To comply with the label restriction, the application
    can be made late in the day or at night.

    Want more information on Neonics and honey bees? Bayer has a technical FAQ
    document on neonics and bees. It has much more info and citations than I
    have space for here. We sent it around to the CCD research community last
    year but I'm not sure if it was passed on. If anyone on the list wants a
    copy, drop me an e-mail and I’ll send it to you.

    Best regards to all,

    Dave Fischer
    Director, Ecotoxicology
    Research and Development Department
    Bayer CropScience LP
    2 T.W. Alexander Drive
    PO Box 12014
    Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
    david.fischer@bayercropscience.com

  16. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tecumseh View Post
    when the tax payer decided to no longer fund higher education and most especially began limiting monies to public universities for research, who do you think would be the logical entity that began controlling the strings that determined who's current and future research was funded?
    Dr t, I'm not sure which funding you're referring to here but much of the agricultural research conducted in this country is funded by the USDA. $4.1 million grant recently awarded to fund CCD research......awarded to the University of GA by the USDA.


    stylus p, I know a number of USDA research folks personally and they are honest and every bit as concerned about the environment as you. I don't know a single one that I wouldn't trust explicitly to publish their results accurately regardless of who might be unhappy with them. The suggestion that they would falsify results, without a shred of evidence, is personally offensive.
    Dan www.boogerhillbee.com
    Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    325

    Default

    Interesting how these chemical threads are popular and some people demanding scientific proof and what not while thread about GM food research made by austrian scientists went away quietly.

    I see a pattern here....similar people all around the world (internet) demanded proof and defended GM food couple of months ago saying all is good. Now they are quiet.

    Scientists 50 years ago thought lots of things are harmless. There were commercials saying : look it is safe...we can even spray people. Today there is different story.

    So what and how it will be for our children ?

    Go test your pollen and propolis and go listen to heavy metal Some will get it...others not....
    Sig

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    North Bend, OH, USA
    Posts
    272

    Default

    Now we are claiming GM crops are responsible for CCD?

    ALL of my crops are GM be they Round-Up Ready or the organic seed I use for my market produce. GM crops have been big for hundreds of years.
    Richard
    Carriage House Farm, North Bend, Ohio

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Nomadland, NY, USA
    Posts
    157

    Default

    budingler - Everything you posted came from the head of Bayer's Ecotoxicology unit in North America!! And it largely conflicts with other third party independent research. So yeah... anyways...

    beemandan writes "Dr t, I'm not sure which funding you're referring to here but much of the agricultural research conducted in this country is funded by the USDA. $4.1 million grant recently awarded to fund CCD research......awarded to the University of GA by the USDA."

    Maybe I should have been more specific tec, so here goes.... The ccd research is being funded largely by the USDA... and according to Bob's article that funding is contingent on NOT looking too closely at the neo nics. Look too close... and they pull the plug.

    and to me beemandan wrote, "stylus p, I know a number of USDA research folks personally and they are honest and every bit as concerned about the environment as you. I don't know a single one that I wouldn't trust explicitly to publish their results accurately regardless of who might be unhappy with them. The suggestion that they would falsify results, without a shred of evidence, is personally offensive. "

    Please don't take offense at my suggestion beemandan. You don't know EVERY USDA research folk, right? I never named names and I never claimed that every person in the USDA is a stooge.

    I DID and DO point out the ease with which a few bad apples could spoil the whole batch, thereby keeping a lot of folks asking a question which actually has has an easy answer. I supported this theory very simply by pointing to human greed and human shame. Greed takes the payoff, shame tries to cover it up.

    What offends me is to be fed to a snake just because its hungry all the time. "My snake is hungry, so your gonna feed it, with your legs."

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Auger Hole, MN
    Posts
    433

    Default incorrect again

    Stylus says:

    "The ccd research is being funded largely by the USDA."

    The CCD working group is a varied group of researchers from several universities andf government entities. Some of the key people are Dianna Cox Foster and Maryann Frazier, Jeff Pettis. Most of the funding has come from various bee organizations and companies like Hagen Daaz etc. So you and Bob's conspiracy theories are fantasies I'm afraid. Please get informed, go to a bee meeting and meet some of these scary researchers who you claim are on the agribusiness payroll.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Ads