Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 123
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Millbury, MA, USA
    Posts
    1,890

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Quote Originally Posted by FlowerPlanter View Post
    Apparently they have enough facts, at least enough to bring them to court.

    Imagine what this will mean if they are found liable.
    And how many bees have you lost to the neomics? You need to demonstrate losses to collect.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    28,084

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Do y'all think we might aught to be careful about suing the EPA or anybody? Are we going to find ourselves w/out farmers that allow us to use their land?
    Mark Berninghausen
    Squeak Creek Apiaries



  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Millbury, MA, USA
    Posts
    1,890

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Quote Originally Posted by sqkcrk View Post
    Do y'all think we might aught to be careful about suing the EPA or anybody? Are we going to find ourselves w/out farmers that allow us to use their land?
    Good question! I suspect the biggest complainers are those who don't have bees or bee losses. I have bees beside field corn. No problems to date. I have no complaints about neonics. I remember the organophosphates and the crop dusters. Maybe the complainers and the litigiousness should revisit those days!

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Mark, not a prayer. farmers would never link the removal of pesticides from the market to beekeepers. Most would never realize the product was removed. In all likely hood the product would be reformulated and still marketed under the same name anyway. Keep in mind company's spend a fortune to get a name recognized.

    How many people are aware that after being originally developed produced and market. Armour all was sold to another company that completely changed what is in the bottle. You cannot even buy the original Armour All today.
    Stand for what you believe, even if you stand alone.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Manitoba Canada
    Posts
    6,507

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Quote Originally Posted by sqkcrk View Post
    Do y'all think we might aught to be careful about suing the EPA or anybody? Are we going to find ourselves w/out farmers that allow us to use their land?
    I wish there was a "like" button on this forum !
    Ian Steppler >> Canadian Beekeeper's Blog
    www.stepplerfarms.com

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Litchfield, CT, USA
    Posts
    430

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Very slippery slope!
    "Someday we will look back and realize someone was right...and conveniently forget we were the ones that were wrong."

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Stafford, VA
    Posts
    74

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Quote Originally Posted by camero7 View Post
    This is from Randy Oliver's site:


    Germany: “As expected, the results show that pollen [from 210 hives sampled over 3 years] is contaminated with a plethora of chemical substances originating from the agricultural practice of using pesticides but also from the apicultural necessity of using acaricides… Accordingly, no relation between contamination of pollen and colony development or winter losses could be demonstrated in the course of the project although special emphasis was put into this aspect” [13].
    France: “Several cases of mortality of honey bee colonies (varying from 38 to 100%) were observed in France during the winter of 2005-6. In order to explain the causes of these mortalities, a case control study was conducted on a limited area, together with a larger survey in 18 other apiaries located in 13 sites over the entire country…No pesticide residues of agricultural origin were found in the samples of beebread, beeswax, honey and dead honey bees, with the exception of imidacloprid…found in one apiary [and] not considered to be able to cause honey bee acute mortality” [14].
    France: “A 3-yr field survey was carried out in France, from 2002 to 2005, to study honey bee … colony health in relation to pesticide residues found in the colonies… No statistical relationship was found between colony mortality and pesticide residues” [15].
    Italy: “The data obtained from the winter 2009-2010 inspections were used as the basis for chemical analyses on bee and wax samples, to test for residues of organophosphate, organochlorurate, carbamate and neonicotinoid pesticides, but no significant presence of these substances was detected” [16].
    Spain: “The present data [beebread samples from 12 apiaries] are in agreement with studies showing no negative effects of seed-treated crops. Some pesticide residues were found here, in particular several varroacides and insecticides, but no significant differences were observed between the different sunflower crop samples and those from the sites of wild vegetation. This fact not only implies environmental contamination but also supports the theory that, most of the time, inadequate [read that “unapproved”] treatments are the main source of residues that might weaken bee colonies and make them more sensitive to other factors” [17].
    Spain: “This study was set out to evaluate the pesticide residues in stored pollen from honey bee colonies and their possible impact on honey bee losses in Spain. In total, 1,021 professional apiaries were randomly selected… A direct relation between pesticide residues found in stored pollen samples and colony losses was not evident accordingly to the obtained results” [18].
    Europe (thorough review): “Currently there is no clear evidence from field based studies that exposure of colonies to pesticides results in increased susceptibility to disease or that there is a link between colony loss due to disease and pesticide residues in monitoring studies” [19].
    USA (CCD Descriptive Study): “This study found no evidence that the presence or amount of any individual pesticide occurred more frequently or abundantly in affected apiaries or colonies” [20].
    USA (2012 CCD Progress Report): “When pesticides are viewed in aggregate on a national scale, residues of pyrethroids …pose a threefold greater hazard to bee colonies than neonicotinoids, based on mean and frequency of detection in pollen samples and relative acute toxicity. The synthetic pyrethroid detected in the highest quantity and frequency in honey bee colonies that is used by beekeepers to control Varroa mite is tau fluvalinate” [21].
    USA (Stationary Hive Project) : “We did not find any relationship with any of our measures of pesticide contamination and colony loss rate at the apiary level for either 2009 or 2010” [22].
    I'm not sure who Randy Oliver works for, or what his bias is, but this is mostly a load of bunk. I've spent the day reviewing the reports that you have quoted here.

    The Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and Europe "studies" were nothing more than studies to see if enough pesticides had accumulated in the hives to be testable. None of those "studies" had any intention of showing any link to colony collapse, and if anything are being used completely out of context in order to "prove" that there's "no evidence." The fact that countries that haven't seen CCD in the numbers we have in the U.S. (many of these countries having already banned many of the pesticides and fungicides that we still have legalized in the U.S.) means that these studies mean absolutely zilch. That Randy Oliver is quoting them as any sort of "proof" or lack thereof is not only incredibly bad "science" but on the verge of outright falsification of information.

    Let's then take a look at the three that actually came from studies in the United States:

    The first study (found here: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0006481) is my favorite.
    The quote by Mr. Oliver taken from the study is as follows: "This study found no evidence that the presence or amount of any individual pesticide occurred more frequently or abundantly in affected apiaries or colonies." A carefully worded statement to be sure, but the truth is, it didn't even need to be that carefully worded. By looking at the pesticides that were tested for (found in Table 9.) you'll see that, curiously, the very pesticides that are getting the finger pointed at them (neonicotinoids) are suspiciously absent. Let me make this very clear. They did not even TEST for the pesticides that are the most likely culprit for CCD. They did, however, confirm what other tests have shown, that the bees (having had their immune systems weakened by "something") show an increase in viral or bacterial infection.

    This becomes even more damning (for Mr. Oliver) with the "USA (2012 CCD Progress Report)" quote, which is taken completely out of context of the actual report (which can be read here: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/sur...report2012.pdf.

    The quote SEEMS to indicate that the pyrethroids are a "larger threat" than the neonicotinoids when in fact, this is a case of "look at my left hand so you can ignore what my right hand is doing." While they are finding higher CONCENTRATIONS of the medications that the bee keepers apply directly to their hives (um... duh?) than they are of the pesticides used on crops, this has absolutely zero indication that this means the neonicotinoids are somehow "safer." Let me show you another quote from this very same report: "In particular, exposure to pesticide-contaminated dust from abrasion of certain pesticide-treated seed (e.g., corn) during spring plantings appears to have negative effects on individual honey bees in experimental (laboratory and field) settings." Despite this report having been put together by the USDA and the EPA, two groups that (call me a conspiracy theorist) have a history of suspect practices anyway, from allowing Monsanto and its untested GMOs to run wild, to the EPA who is even listed in the lawsuit - they still had to admit that testing had shown that the pesticides from "pesticide-treated seed" (this is most likely the neonicotinoid coated seeds from the marriage of Monsanto and Bayer being referenced) did, in fact, show negative effects. Yet Mr. Oliver chose to ignore THIS quote, and instead take one that paited a rosier picture out of context.

    Finally, there's the "USA (Stationary Hive Project)" (found here: http://www.beeccdcap.uga.edu/documen...umnDec2012.pdf)
    To say that this study was "bad science" would be the understatement of the year. It appears to be a project that was put on by a bunch of fifth graders. (They claim to be from a college, but I really hope this isn't what's passing for "science" now days.) No controls, no blind studies, HUNDREDS of confounding variables, NO actual "colony collapse disorder" indicators, and a grand total of 210 hives studied in 7 locations. (a total of 30 hives per site over the span of 3 years). The bees were dumped in as packages in 2009, and then they just watched them die out as they did nothing *at all* to treat/prevent ANY sort of parasites. All the while having the amateur students do the "inspections" of the hives, even in the middle of winter! Then when the vast majority of the hives didn't survive the winter, they tried to use this as a datapoint? There's not even a mention in the "study" as to whether or not they harvested honey from the bees, or how much they had going into the winter! Quoting this "study" at all makes me seriously question Randy Oliver's motives.

    Particularly in the light of two REAL studies being done that HAVE shown a strong correlation between neonicotinoids and CCD, (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...dies-find?lite) I have to seriously, seriously question whether or not one Mr. Randy Oliver doesn't have a reason for his incredible bias. "Science" and synthetic treatment is not the solution here, it's the problem. Yet on his website he repeatedly touts his "experiments" as showing that we need to synthetically screw with something as natural as the honey bee. This is precisely how we got here in the first place.

    Randy's going to have to do better than quoting "studies" that show pesticide rates in comb in other countries that don't have our same collapse problems, and either pulling quotes out of context from U.S. studies, or quoting really, really, REALLY bad "studies" done by a bunch of kids without so much as a control to be seen to convince me that the real studies that HAVE found a correlation aren't on to something.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    syracuse n.y.
    Posts
    2,031

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Quote Originally Posted by Javin007 View Post
    I'm not sure who Randy Oliver works for, or what his bias is, but this is mostly a load of bunk. I've spent the day reviewing the reports that you have quoted here.
    do have to admire a beek that is posting on beesource and doesn't have a clue who Mr. Oliver is and what he does.
    mike syracuse ny
    I went to bed mean, and woke up meaner. Marshal Dillon

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Javin, thank you. you saved me a lot of background work that I really don't have the time to do right now. But your post is consistent with what I have been finding when I look deeper into these issues.

    Wildbranch. Right,... so much for any expectation that you will be keeping up. Jut in case you or anyone else really is confused. Javin was not saying he does not know who randy is or what he does. He is saying he does not know why he is doing it. I know, I know it was wickedly deceitful for him to intentionally confuse you like that.
    Stand for what you believe, even if you stand alone.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Millbury, MA, USA
    Posts
    1,890

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Randy's going to have to do better than quoting "studies" that show pesticide rates in comb in other countries that don't have our same collapse problems, and either pulling quotes out of context from U.S. studies, or quoting really, really, REALLY bad "studies" done by a bunch of kids without so much as a control to be seen to convince me that the real studies that HAVE found a correlation aren't on to something.
    Why don't you go over to Bee-L and confront him? That would be very interesting. Personally his credentials are pretty good and his science is excellent.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    28,084

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Y View Post
    Javin, thank you. you saved me a lot of background work that I really don't have the time to do right now. But your post is consistent with what I have been finding when I look deeper into these issues.

    Wildbranch. Right,... so much for any expectation that you will be keeping up. Jut in case you or anyone else really is confused. Javin was not saying he does not know who randy is or what he does. He is saying he does not know why he is doing it. I know, I know it was wickedly deceitful for him to intentionally confuse you like that.
    Do you have anything to say which would support Javin's comments beyond what you wrote? Maybe some intelligent rebuttal to what Randy Oliver wrote? I don't claim to understand everything Randy Oliver writes or says, but I find him a credible and highly intelligent and thoughtful person. I have enjoyed meeting him and sharing a drink or two talking bees and the maladies of modern beekeeping.

    Maybe your knowledge and Javin's knowledge is equally as credible and well thought out as Randy Oliver's, but I haven't seen enough to know.
    Mark Berninghausen
    Squeak Creek Apiaries



  12. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,715

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Particularly in the light of two REAL studies being done that HAVE shown a strong correlation between neonicotinoids and CCD,
    As long as we are being precise, I'm not sure how you show a correlation between anything and "ccd" without actually being able to reliably cause CCD by doing the thing you think is causing it, or by showing a very, very strong correlation between CCD symptoms and circumstances surrounding the hives. I don't believe that either of the studies that you cite indirectly via NBC "shows a strong correlation between neonicotinioids and CCD". They explore some of the impacts of neonics, but they haven't shown they can cause CCD under any circumstance the bees are actually exposed to, and they haven't shown that CCD is restricted to bees exposed to neonics.

    I'd be happy to hear quotes from the studies in question that do show a strong correlation between neonics and CCD...but probably should come from the studies and not from NBC.

    deknow
    The perils of benefactors; The blessings of parasites; Blindness blindness and sight -Joni Mitchell 'Shadows and Light'

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    First of all. nobody is suing anyone for a settlement. they are suing the EPA for not doing their job. Could that result in a settlement? when it is all said and done maybe. But not in this case. what they are suing for is that the EPA can no longer allow these lax approvals of chemicals to continue. And those chemicals that are being used due to these lax approvals will be removed from the market.

    You all just sort of build an entire universe to live in around the simplest things. All they have to demonstrate is that these quick path approval methods the EPA uses are not reliable and are in fact a failure on the EPA's part to do what they exist for. Way have an EPA we can just set a gal behind a desk to collect the exemption applications.

    Basically what it looks like to me is that the EPA put an exception to the approval process. most likely for things that had little chance of being a danger and with the idea that full approval would have to be carried out. Business being what it is and loop holes being what they are. it turns out that this exception now becomes a way that companies can put products on the market for years and never actually go through the entire approval process. They simply file for the exemption again.

    Meeting the exemption requirements may for example require far fewer tests at far less expense than full approval. So it may be nothing more than a matter of is is cheap and easier for a company to operate year after year under the exception. than to ever file for full approval. There may not be anything at all wrong with the product it is just making smart business decisions. Plus the studies needed for full approval are long and complex. who is to say it does not take 20 years to complete them? As a person who has work for the government for a long time I am telling you noone will tell someone how long they can take in regard to these matters. we will say you have to test these products. but would never tell them how long that takes.

    No chemical in my department is allowed to be used unless I have an MSDS on it. Once I have it anyone can use it. That the MSDS says the product can be fatal is not used properly is not my concern. I do not read an MSDS and say. oh this product cannot be used. All I do is possess the MSDS. that is my job. the use of the product is someone elses job. Yes it is complex, ridiculous and extraordinarily ineffective. but it is the way it is done.

    So over their is the EPA. and they all know that for a product to be approved the manufacturer bust do this that and the other thing. or they can, by the rules file for an exemption. They do not care that an exemption exists. or if it is abused or if it is used in accordance with it's intent. it exists and it can in fact be used. it is the rules. rules made by someone else somewhere else.

    Now beekeepers come along ans say, Hey you are not using this exemption the way it was intended to be used. the EPA reads the rules and says "Ho so" the rules are right here and we are following them. The beekeepers say but it is not protecting us when you use it that way. The EPA says sorry but those are the rules. Now the beekeeprs are taking the EPA to court so that a judge can tell them how the rule works. and that is about all that is happening. And whatever the judge says is how the EPA will treat the rule in the future. There is noone anywhere even remotely associated with the EPA that really gives a dry crusty turd about weather Bayer makes money. beekeepers keep bees or anything else. What they care is that there cabinets are all nicely filled with all the proper paperwork. And as of right now according to their files they have done nothing wrong. never have. If tomorrow the rules change so will the paperwork. and they could care less if even one bee survives as a result. They could not care less if Bayer goes belly up as a result. Nobody is beign bought. no corruption is goign on. it is just your standard every day government managment.

    Now do you really want these people in charge of your health care? it ain't gonna get any better folks. It does not get important enough for them to do it any better. You and everyone dear to you can rot and die and they will not care. They will be far to busy arranging their paper work and looking for their bag of chips.

    If you really thin that government cannot be that useless. try this real example. Two carpenters over three days where able to put up three pieces of metal siding. I know I watched it happen. One of those carpenters is now the supervisor of the department. Cause he is one of their best. o there was nothing complex about this siding . no unusual reason for it to take so long. How they did it I am not completely sure and I was there. It was a lot like trying to watch grass grow and then being asked to make a report of it's progress.

    So you all may wonder how the EPA could fail to protect beekeepers. My question is more like how can they ever succeed.
    Stand for what you believe, even if you stand alone.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Manitoba Canada
    Posts
    6,507

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    IF this actually works, and the EPA figures they will indeed pull neonics from commercial use, is the action going to stop there? How about every other pesticide used on crops that kills bees? They are all documented to damage honey bee health, and how about fungicides? Lots of stuff coming down the pipe on that.

    Do we actually think agriculture is going to turn the clock back 50 years? I grant you this action is a bold move, but I doubt the courts will open up this can of worms
    Ian Steppler >> Canadian Beekeeper's Blog
    www.stepplerfarms.com

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    jackson county, alabama, usa
    Posts
    4,768

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Quote Originally Posted by camero7 View Post
    Why don't you go over to Bee-L and confront him? That would be very interesting. Personally his credentials are pretty good and his science is excellent.
    i heartedly agree with cam on this javin.

    you seem to have a sufficient background in the science behind all of this to join the 'informed discussion' that is taking place on bee-l.

    randy does not shy away from challenges to his conclusions when they are more intellectually rather than emotionally directed, which is why he no longer participates here.

    please, join the bee-l list and lodge your criticism directly to randy. i would also be very interested in his response.
    journaling the growth of a treatment free apiary started in 2010. 20+/- hives

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,715

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    What a bunch of cop outs! Read the darn studies yourself...they are written in english.

    Even a cursory reading of the post reveals:
    "In particular, exposure to pesticide-contaminated dust from abrasion of certain pesticide-treated seed (e.g., corn) during spring plantings appears to have negative effects on individual honey bees in experimental (laboratory and field) settings." Despite this report having been put together by the USDA and the EPA, two groups that (call me a conspiracy theorist) have a history of suspect practices anyway, from allowing Monsanto and its untested GMOs to run wild, to the EPA who is even listed in the lawsuit - they still had to admit that testing had shown that the pesticides from "pesticide-treated seed" (this is most likely the neonicotinoid coated seeds from the marriage of Monsanto and Bayer being referenced) did, in fact, show negative effects. Yet Mr. Oliver chose to ignore THIS quote, and instead take one that paited a rosier picture out of context.
    ...so Randy is being accused of not equating clear cut cases of pesticide poisoning as CCD? Yes, we know that there are issues with the dust.....but these incidents are obvious pesticide poisoning (as evidenced by the fact that they were testing piles of dead bees), and hardly fit any definition of CCD. Do some reading folks...it's much more fun (and informative) than letting other people digest it all for you.

    deknow
    The perils of benefactors; The blessings of parasites; Blindness blindness and sight -Joni Mitchell 'Shadows and Light'

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Manitoba Canada
    Posts
    6,507

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Quote Originally Posted by deknow View Post
    Do some reading folks...it's much more fun (and informative) than letting other people digest it all for you.

    deknow
    thats the problem, a lot of the reading is pretty heavy stuff, I do not have a research back ground so sifting through the studdies does me little good. Thats the reason why many beekeepers are looking for someone to help translate all the research and give us the jist.

    I find Randy very easy to relate to, as do many others. It is very important we have people criticize his work, as that is what science is all about,
    Ian Steppler >> Canadian Beekeeper's Blog
    www.stepplerfarms.com

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Manitoba Canada
    Posts
    6,507

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Quote Originally Posted by squarepeg View Post
    please, join the bee-l list and lodge your criticism directly to randy. i would also be very interested in his response.
    I think as long as javin keeps the conversation as an 'informed discussion' the input would be welcome
    they dont take kindly to personal attacks
    Ian Steppler >> Canadian Beekeeper's Blog
    www.stepplerfarms.com

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Quote Originally Posted by sqkcrk View Post
    Do you have anything to say which would support Javin's comments beyond what you wrote? Maybe some intelligent rebuttal to what Randy Oliver wrote? I don't claim to understand everything Randy Oliver writes or says, but I find him a credible and highly intelligent and thoughtful person. I have enjoyed meeting him and sharing a drink or two talking bees and the maladies of modern beekeeping.

    Maybe your knowledge and Javin's knowledge is equally as credible and well thought out as Randy Oliver's, but I haven't seen enough to know.
    I thought I had posted a reply to Cameros comment about Randy's science being Excellent. I write stuff and then delete it though so maybe it didn't get posted.

    No insult to Camero and I will take him at his word for what he considers excellent. I also tend to like Randy Oliver. But at beast Randy is a laid back go between of science and the layman. In fact that is what I think Randy wants to be. But Excellent science? I suppose you woudl have to ask in comparison to what? ow keep in mind I hob nob around the halls of a leading medical research facility for a living. So my idea of excellence in science might be a little different than Cameros. I figure if you can understand the title of the study it probably is not to deep into excellence. Science and it's reports are not for general public consumption. Most of it requires a degree to even understand. You have to study the reports not just read them. Even the stuff that is commonly linked to on this site in regard to studies findings etc. are casual in comparison. That is how I woudl describe Randy. Casual. as for his credentials. I have no idea.
    Stand for what you believe, even if you stand alone.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,715

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Religions (and cults) always run more smoothly when "the people" have to have the holy books read or interpreted by the priests.....at least it runs more smoothly for the priests!

    deknow
    The perils of benefactors; The blessings of parasites; Blindness blindness and sight -Joni Mitchell 'Shadows and Light'

Page 2 of 7 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