Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 49 of 49
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lee\'s Summit, MO
    Posts
    1,284

    Default Re: Imidacoprid linked to CCD

    Quote Originally Posted by Stromnessbees View Post
    ... in other words, you cannot back up your claim at all.
    Interesting how backing up claims is so important after your "Chemtrails" and "Pro pesticide shills" posts. It appears this claim was supported pretty thoroughly. For future posts how about giving the same consideration by supporting your claims equally as well.
    Ninja, is not in the dictionary. Well played Ninja's, well played...

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,543

    Default Re: Harvard study on neonics and bee deaths - download full text

    Quote Originally Posted by BoBn View Post
    Strange how caged bees can drift between colonies and go out to forage on crops.:
    Errr, it would make for a more interesting discussion if you actually read the study you are bringing up and defending. The exposure to imidacloprid was performed in free flying colonies. Bees were later collected (as brood? I don't remember, it's been a few months since I read the study) from the free flying colonies and placed in cages for some period of time. I believe that the nosema exposure was performed in the cages...again, I don't recall exactly, perhaps you will read the study and remind me.

    The bees that didn't die in the cages after X days were tested for nosema. The bees that did die before X days in the cages were not.

    How do you test for a substance that is known to be below detection limits of a testing procedure?
    Apologies, I may have misspoken. As I detailed above, it was nosema that was not screened in the bees that died prematurely (from control and experimental colonies). Again, the study isn't fresh in my head.

    deknow

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,543

    Default Re: Harvard study on neonics and bee deaths - download full text

    Quote Originally Posted by jonathan View Post
    The results of the field studies are what matters which is where the RFID studies may prove to be very helpful.
    Here lies another problem with the greater dialog.
    Someone (or some group) brings up study X, Y, and Z and claim they all support their position.

    Reading any of these studies, looking up the references, and giving a fair evaluation is a lot of work. If I've read "study Z", and I know that the claims are not supported, or that it has serious flaws, then I know a few things:

    1. The evidence isn't as strong as what is being claimed
    2. The person I'm talking to either hasn't read the study closely, or they are dishonest and hope that I will take their evidence at face value.

    ...in short, I know that the person I'm talking to has proven unwilling or unable to evaluate the available data competently.

    Of course, after study Z is discounted, the claim is, "but there is still studies X and Y".

    An important step is missing if those commenting on a study haven't read it closely enough to know what it says.

    I'm looking forward to reading the RFID studies closely...but thus far the same sources that have been promoting them have been promoting the Harvard study....and I know what the Harvard study says.

    deknow

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: Harvard study on neonics and bee deaths - download full text

    The only study that will ever count is one where the treatment produces CCD at will, and also provides detailed evidence for why the symptoms associated with CCD occur.

    The studies being discussed are pretty much peripheral to the CCD issue itself.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Belfast, Ireland
    Posts
    393

    Default Re: Harvard study on neonics and bee deaths - download full text

    Quote Originally Posted by deknow View Post

    2. The person I'm talking to either hasn't read the study closely, or they are dishonest and hope that I will take their evidence at face value.
    I think a lot of folk haven't read more than the abstracts. That's not good enough if you are arguing a position. To be fair though, some of the studies are not open access.

    Re the RFID studies, the Schneider et al study published at the start of the year did not detect neonicotinoid problems at field realistic levels.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ft Myers, Fl 33967
    Posts
    159

    Default Re: Harvard study on neonics and bee deaths - download full text

    if you want some straight talk about CCD watch
    http://mainebeekeepers.org/informati...nnual-meeting/
    Do a search on Dennis van Engelsdorp and listen to what he has to say. He cuts out a lot of the BS>
    Regards
    Joe

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Newport, New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    241

    Default Re: Harvard study on neonics and bee deaths - download full text

    Land invertebrates are difficult to study the effects of the exposure to contaminants. We have accepted standards for bioassays for aquatic Ceriodaphnia dubia, Pimephales promelas and Mercenaria mercenaria but, bioassays are not a requirement for introducing a new contaminant into the environment.

    Terrestrial vertebrate testing we have standards for mice, rats and dogs, but bioassays are rare and are not a requirement. Toxicity testing should also be performed on annelids, insects and birds. There must be a reason why we cannot reach a consensus on an acceptable standard for a bioassay of a land invertebrate.

    Oh yeah. . I forgot. It cost industry too much. Let the taxpayers pay for the cleanup years and decades later.

    Want to look at history repeating itself? There is an extensive chronology. We don't like to think about those things. We just palm it off someone else to take care of.
    Want to look at a resource map of a typical small town in the USA of known groundwater contamination? How about an overlay map of the same town from the CDC of pancreatic cancer cases? What about 300 maps of different towns in the USA?
    You can't prove it. All we can do is demonstrate that there are health effects associated with something.
    Mathematics itself is only a theory.
    “We wage a war to save civilization itself”
    --George w. Bush November 8, 2001

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Newport, New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    241

    Default Re: Harvard study on neonics and bee deaths - download full text

    Quote Originally Posted by deknow View Post
    .Jeff Pettis is quoted as saying that they did not see the same effect on free flying colonies.
    deknow
    I would be surprised if the same effect was found since the experimental control colonies likely had lower levels of contamination than are typically found in the field. This would be akin to doing an air pollution study in Toronto, Canada expecting to have the same results in Mexico citiy.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonathan View Post
    Exactly. If we consider a bee colony to be a superorganism with all its age dependent differentiation of tasks and functions carried out by each and every individual bee, what do we learn from holding a single bee in a little glass tube and feeding it some toxin or other until it dies.
    We find the assumed level of acute toxicity. That is the typical research done by labs to find the lethal dose of a contaminant. It is usually all that is done to evaluate the risks to honeybees.

    In many ways, honeybees are unique in that they do not easily fit in established research methods for chronic exposure.
    How do you measure average weight gain of the bees?
    How do you compare life span?
    What about 2nd and 3rd generation effects?
    Reproductivity? What about wax production, or royal jelly? What are the standards?

    The problem with field research is that there is an exponential increase in the cost of the research. By introducing dozens of new inherent variables then 100s of more replications are required. The more expensive the research, the less information that is available.

    It would make more sense to do most of the background chronic and long-term exposure research on a surrogate such as bumblebee from the same genetic source material, since it would be less expensive, more reproducible, and take less time.

    There should be some established long-term exposure health effect standards for honeybees.
    “We wage a war to save civilization itself”
    --George w. Bush November 8, 2001

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,543

    Default Re: Harvard study on neonics and bee deaths - download full text

    Quote Originally Posted by BoBn View Post
    ...since the experimental control colonies likely had lower levels of contamination than are typically found in the field.
    ...why would that be the case? What levels of contamination are typically found in the field? Which field...and when?

    Of course the control colonies were "in the field", and some imidacloprid was found in both the beebread and in randomly aged workers.

    In fact, one of the control groups had a large dieoff in the cage....there were not 20 bees left alive to sample, only 11. ...did individuals in this control group die from nosema? ...have a high concentration of imidacloprid metabolites? Wouldn't that be relevant to the results?
    It would make more sense to do most of the background chronic and long-term exposure research on a surrogate such as bumblebee from the same genetic source material, since it would be less expensive, more reproducible, and take less time.
    ...dumbing down an experiment to make it reproducible makes sense in some areas...but if what we want to know is how honeybees do things, we have to study honeybees. If results are only reproducible in bumblebees, how relevant are they to honeybees?

    There should be some established long-term exposure health effect standards for honeybees.
    I think that is putting the cart before the horse...we can't establish standards without first knowing risks and effects. To determine these, we need good research. Poor science only holds us back and prevents us from determining what standards should be in place.

    Trying to play "gotcha" without reading the study (in trying to show that I was wrong in calling the Pettis study a caged study) is nothing more than a time waster.

    deknow

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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