Neonic facts

[jonathan]

Also, instead of fighting with the pesticide companies the beekeeping industry needs to get involved and work with them when testing new products and ensure meaningful studies are done so everyone can walk away happy.

The British Beekeepers Association tried this strategy, liaising with Bayer and Syngenta and taking sponsorship money. It became a PR disaster due to the perceived conflict of interest. Some things just don't sit well together.
I remember seeing a leaflet for a charity working with street children who abused solvents. It was part funded by the company which produced the glue they were sniffing. It leaves the organization vulnerable to those who have an axe to grind.

[Stromnessbees]

Hi Stromnessbees
I have read your thread. Since, neonics affected neuron's connections, irreversibly, there are bunch of different things may happen in bees. ...

From another hand, as another "we" stated correctly, other factors may also contribute to CCD. It is unwise to blame only on neonics - complex approach is necessary.

Thanks for looking it up, Cerezha.

In my experience CCD is caused by exposure to neonics on its own, you don't need other factors.

After the big poisoning event in Germany 2008 the Clothianidin treatement of maize got banned.
Unfortunately they had a huge unused stockpile of treated seed, which was apparently sold to Austria.
Austrian farmers were sold the banned stuff from Germany by their cooperative, and that's when the big bee die-off started.
Very tellingly, only apiaries next to maize were affected in my home valley. I spoke to lots of beekeepers there, the correlation was clear.
I inspected one of the dead apiaries myself, and it was classic CCD.
Nothing else had changed that season, the weather and varroa were no different from any other season.

That's why Austrian beekeepers started to campaign against these pesticides, and they managed to get the EU debate going after a query by their ombudsman.

I just wish, more beekeepers would realize how clear cut the connection is.

[camero7]

I inspected one of the dead apiaries myself, and it was classic CCD.

Curious what you deem to be "classic CCD."

[Barry]

Cam beat me to my first point!!

"I just wish, more beekeepers would realize how clear cut the connection is."

Wishing isn't going to make "it" more clear. If it's clear to you in your personal experience, fine. There has been adequate firsthand "realization" in this country that shows there isn't a clear connection. Why can't you accept that?

[gmcharlie]

Common sense regarding balance suggests that top level predators are missing and so rat populations spike; top level predators are missing likely due to loss of habitat, loss of habitat is likely due to clear-cutting and poor agricultural practices, poor agricultural practices come from a desire to count quantity rather than quality, quantity requires fast and easy methods to be profitable, it's necessary to be profitable to afford rat poison (something like that).

Boy is that a misleading statement. top level predotors? of rats??? you mean howks and owls?? we have more of them than ever before thanks to a ban on shooting the chicken stealing critters? how about coyotes? oh wait more that ever..... need to do some research and see how many RATS caused famine and plaque in europe...... what they would have done for some good ole decon in the 18th century!.... FYI we don't poisen rats for farming, we do it to live healthy....... rats in the house have been bad for 500 years, unless of course you live in a place they roast them to eat...... so lots not get sidetracked with some off the wall tangent... Point is these Chemicals, from cromium in the steel to neoinics in the corn, are in fact feeding the world.
Arsenic in the water=bad Arsenic in rats= good.... all about balance (and yes I know we don't use arsenic anymore)

[Rader Sidetrack]

In my experience CCD is caused by exposure to neonics on its own, you don't need other factors.

In your experience? What experience is that? Earlier you said ...

I have no losses to report.

Neonicotinoids are not used where I keep my bees, and with the exception of one small nuc which died of isloation starvation I have never lost a single colony during autumn, spring or winter, if a queen fails I unite with a nuc.

So you have no experience with neonicotinoids, and the rest is just conjecture .....

[jonathan]

And there is no varroa mite on the island either.

[Stromnessbees]

In your experience? What experience is that?
...
So you have no experience with neonicotinoids, and the rest is just conjecture .....

The fact that I have no neonic problems in my own hives doesn't mean that I can't go and work with other people that do.

I take up every opportunity possible to work with bees in the UK and abroad (Europe and Africa).

[gmcharlie]

interesting comment.. Plan a trip over. I will SHOW you healthy hives in the middle of the stew... and let you see for yourself.....

[Ian]

There has been adequate firsthand "realization" in this country that shows there isn't a clear connection. Why can't you accept that?

Just wanted to have that point repeated !

[cerezha]

.... Chlorine is a deadly chemical. So, under your proposal, chlorine should not be allowed in water treatment plants.....

Ooooo
Fun is beginning! Ok,let's talk about Chlorine. Yes, Chlorine, Cl2 is a deadly chemical. Cl2 was used as a chemical weapon in Europe during first world war. Another deadly (even worse) chemical is sodium, Na. Did they teach you some chemistry in school? Cl2 +2* Na = NaCl2

NaCl2 is a table salt and much-much less dangerous than individual chlorine and sodium... Did you follow? The idea is that when elements are combined, resulting "salt" has entirely different properties. In our case, "sodium chloride", table salt is eatable in reasonable quantities. Got it? Now - nobody in right mind would use a chemical weapon gas chlorine to disinfect your water supply, they used "sodium hypochlorite" - could you make a connection? It IS salt.

Sodium hypochlorite has a short life and disintegrates pretty quickly. The idea behind of using it to disinfect the drinking water was that chemical shall disintegrate in the pipes just before it reaches your faucet. In reality, many water=treatment plants broke the rules and add too much chemical. Since, chemical overdose become an everyday practice, people become concern and now, in most places they used fluoride salts instead chlorine. Fluoride salts are beneficial for your teeth. Also,most advanced water plants are using ozone,which is O3 and decompose creating short lived active oxygen species (not salt!!!!!) for disinfection. I believe, that all advanced countries including Europe and Japan (not US, sorry) banned ANY chlorine for water treatment at least 20 years ago.

So, the bottom line - learn chemistry and you will not ask stupid questions. Nothing personal, just friendly suggestion.

I do not mind to "educate" people at beesource, but it is so annoying to observe ignorance in very simple things. Just thinking that military chemical weapon banned 100 years ago in Europe may be used to treat drinking water... it must be very stressful living with such idea everyday life...

[Ian]

So, the bottom line - learn chemistry and you will not ask stupid questions. Nothing personal, just friendly suggestion.

I do not mind to "educate" people at beesource, but it is so annoying to observe ignorance in very simple things.

are you kidding me ! ? maybe you have the wrong forum Sergey, I dont think you belong here, nothing personal, just a friendly suggestion

[cerezha]

Here is his website, if anyone is interested

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/

cerezha, you should read some of what he is saying. Dont take this invite to his page as an attack on your philosophy, your entitled to your opinion
just read a bit about what Randy has to say

I am familiar with this.
I read this: http://scientificbeekeeping.com/neon...ense-of-it-all
Randy was trying to balance between two fundamentals, academic science and field experience. I have to admit, that in my opinion, he failed in both. My interpretation of his statements as following:
- he thinks that authorities do a reasonable good job accessing the danger of the neonics. "EPA and EPPO, with guidance from SETAC and The International Commission for Plant–Bee Relationships." must be in charge.
- he and FDA felt that "field" experiments must have more "weight" versus "lab". The idea is that pesticide acts differently in the field. Randy criticize most lab experiments on these grounds- that it is not possible to reproduce the "field" in the lab.
- he thinks that in most academic research, substance was overdosed or improperly admitted. He also find bunch of methodical flaws, which makes research data (in his opinion) irrelevant to the subject.
- his main argument is that "it was reported" (no reference) that bees in the "corn belt" and on canola in Canada are doing just fine - this argument over-weighted all research science in Randy's opinion.

So, my personal conclusion is:
- he is trying to balance two VERY different things, academic research and "the field" experience. They are not comparable because science is quantitative approach and "field experience" is more emotional, political and economical. As a result, his arguments are not impressive in both.
- Criticizing science, he used quantitative data from publications (stating that approach was wrong for some reason). As a counterweight, he was using this "corn belt" argument, that bees are doing well being exposed to neonics. It sounded pathetic, because he referred to unknown, unpublished source -no data, just emotions. This - makes his all construction unreliable.
- his citations are funny. Under the argument that he presented only "downloadable" papers, he created non-representative selection of the publications. I need to read all of them to see if there is any bias in his selection. I reluctant to do so. But, he is a scientist. His citation approach is not appropriate for scientist.

I feel sorry for him- he was trying to find a peaceful middle with little success (to me). I am sure, his intentions were good and he sincerely believe that his approach is (?) balanced.

My personal opinion is that Randy's approach to relay on EPA for "risk assessment" is a mistake. EPA and FDA did so many mistakes approving products and than few years later banning them, that I personally do not trust them. Just remember that derivative of "agent orange" was approved to use on the farmland! "Corn belt" argument may be a good one if confirmed by reputable source- but, in the way how it was presented - it may not be used in decision making process on neonics.

Final disclosure: In my posts, I had no intention to limit CCD cause only to neonics. Many other known and unknown factors could contribute to CCD. I personally have no experience with CCD. From another hand, I feel, that my expertise is sufficient to have educated opinion on harmful nature of neonics.

[cerezha]

are you kidding me ! ? maybe you have the wrong forum Sergey, I dont think you belong here, nothing personal, just a friendly suggestion

Of coarse not. What makes you think that I can be a part of this? I definitely from another planet... we have only one thing in common (if you agree) - we have bees.

[praxis178]

Ooooo
Fun is beginning! Ok,let's talk about Chlorine. Yes, Chlorine, Cl2 is a deadly chemical. Cl2 was used as a chemical weapon in Europe during first world war. Another deadly (even worse) chemical is sodium, Na. Did they teach you some chemistry in school? Cl2 +2* Na = NaCl2

NaCl2 is a table salt <large snip>

Table salt is NaCl *not* NaCl2 which would be electrically unstable and so unable to exist.

I have no ax to grind in this, (neonics aren't used where my bees are), but as I see it.....
1. neonics are systemic insecticides ergo they can and are found in *all* parts of the treated plant.
2. insecticides kill insects, bees are insects.
3. neonics are neurotoxic so the effects are hard to quantify in a species that tends to go of to die away from the colony.

Oh yeah as a researcher (my field is lateral gene transfer in microorganisms), it's hard to get funding for projects that go against the status quo, so in a field dominated by big chemical producers, it's hard to get a study going that might prove harmful to these interests, especially if they fund some part of the organisation under which the research is wanting to work.

Cheers, Thomas.

[Rader Sidetrack]

I do not mind to "educate" people at beesource, but it is so annoying to observe ignorance in very simple things. Just thinking that military chemical weapon banned 100 years ago in Europe may be used to treat drinking water... it must be very stressful living with such idea everyday life...

Well, you are confused. I made no mention of chlorine being used as a military weapon.

I simply pointed out that chlorine is used in municipal water treatment systems. You seem to believe that that statement is wrong. Well, the City of Muskogee OK is happy to tell you about their use of chlorine in their water system:

Disinfection of water supplies in the United States is almost always accomplished by using chlorine. Disinfection with chlorine, combined with the other surface water treatment processes has greatly reduced the incidence of water-borne disease among humans in the United States. It is this proven record and the familiarity with chlorine that makes chlorine the disinfecting agent used at most systems. There are three basic reasons that chlorine is usually the disinfectant of choice.

1. Chlorine is the most cost-effective disinfectant available considering its disinfecting power.
2. Chlorine is easily obtained through a variety of sources.
3. Chlorine produces a disinfecting residual. However, it should also be said that there are also two clear disadvantages or drawbacks to the use of chlorine.
4. Chlorine must be used and handled very carefully to prevent serious hazards to operators and the public.
5. Chlorine can sometimes form trihalomethanes (THMs) in water supples. Concentrations of THMs above the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) are suspected of causing cancer.

The complete page is here:
http://www.cityofmuskogee.com/shell.asp?pg=131

Its really good-hearted of you to take your valuable time to "educate" little old ignorant me. But it would be much better if you got your facts correct first.

Even the City of Santa Monica CA, where you say you live, has chlorine in its water system. You can read the report here:
http://www.smgov.net/departments/pub...WQR12Final.pdf

[hpm08161947]

Ooooo
Fun is beginning! Ok,let's talk about Chlorine. Yes, Chlorine, Cl2 is a deadly chemical. Cl2 was used as a chemical weapon in Europe during first world war. Another deadly (even worse) chemical is sodium, Na. Did they teach you some chemistry in school? Cl2 +2* Na = NaCl2

NaCl2 is a table salt and much-much less dangerous than individual chlorine and sodium... Did you follow?

NaCl..... not NaCL2, perhaps you are referring to another salt... CaCl2?

BTW... what type of research are you involved in? Nothing involving chemistry I gather.

[Ian]

Randy was trying to balance between two fundamentals, academic science and field experience. I have to admit, that in my opinion, he failed in both.

Well, thought youd say something like that,
that is about as far as I needed to read, Im sure you had something smart to say, I really am not interested anymore
good luck with all that Sergey , bye

[jim lyon]

Pretty weak hearing Randy getting critiqued by a rookie beekeeper thats struggling with basic chemistry. He did say, though, that the fun was just beginning. I guess he was right about that.

[squarepeg]

of course randy is trying to balance the science with the field work, the article you read was published in the 'american bee journal'. it was written to a beekeeping audience

here is the most recent review:

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick...ed-pesticides/