Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 123
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Stafford, VA
    Posts
    74

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Quote Originally Posted by JRG13 View Post
    Nice post Jonathan. I'm still trying to wrap my head why Monsanto gets mentioned in a Neonic thread... Just shows how confused people are on the subject. One other trend I see is people always link Neonics to GMO's which is pure folly. A lot of non gmo's are treated as well so people need to realize that as well. I for one would just like to see a meaningful study done and maybe Bayer funding some independent research done by 3rd parties.
    Then you too are confused on the subject. Nobody's claiming that the GMOs (which have their own sets of problems) are producing the Neonicotinoids. What is fact, however, is that Monsanto and Bayer are quite in bed with each other. Bayer producing the neonics that Monsanto covers its seeds with. Those seeds then grow, carrying the neonics through the plant and into the pollen. Over time, those neonics become concentrated enough in the hive to cause CCD, or so goes the theory.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Belfast, Ireland
    Posts
    458

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Quote Originally Posted by Javin007 View Post
    I'm re-reviewing the Harvard study now, and comparing it with your accusations that they used "massive" doses (as this is not what I saw from a cursory glance of the study at all) and will get back to you on that.
    I would not make bold claims having taken no more than 'a cursory glance' at a paper.
    I think Randy Oliver read it more carefully than that.

    This is very old news but neonicotinoid residue in pollen and nectar has been reported in many studies to generally be from 1-5 ppb.

    The Harvard study first of all looked at levels from 0.1 to 10 ppb and no effect was noted.

    In the second part of the study it switched to levels of 20-400 ppb
    there was no explanation for this but the speculation is that when no effects were noted in the field realistic range they upped the dose until an effect was noted

    The bees then died.

    This is not ccd.
    This is what happens when insects are exposed to high levels of insecticide

    This paper was discussed to death last year here and every other bee forum on the internet.

    Randy's review is on the front page here

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    jackson county, alabama, usa
    Posts
    4,738

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    >I'm re-reviewing the Harvard study now, and comparing it with your accusations that they used "massive" doses (as this is not what I saw from a cursory glance of the study at all) and will get back to you on that. I'm also reviewing Randy Oliver's rebuttal at the same time and will address it if I disagree with his rebuttal.

    thanks javin, i look forward to what you have to say about that.

    just curious, and not looking for anything too specific, but can you give us a general idea of what your scientific background is?
    journaling the growth of a treatment free apiary started in 2010. 20+/- hives

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Stafford, VA
    Posts
    74

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Quote Originally Posted by squarepeg View Post
    javin,

    here is a link to randy oliver's thorough critique of the harvard study:

    http://scientificbeekeeping.com/

    it's under 'news items' on his home page.

    what do you find objectionable about his review?
    Thanks, going over it now. And already, I can say that what he's reading from the study, and what I'm reading from the study seem to be quite conflicting. For instance:

    "When the investigators failed to prove their case after a month of feeding spiked syrup—they changed the protocol, and ramped up the doses of insecticide in the syrup to sky high and overtly toxic levels, and then made a series of compounding mistakes, notably by not performing the sort of necessary parasite management required for colonies to survive the winter. And then, even though the symptoms of the colonies when they died did not match the symptoms of CCD, yet the Harvard press agent claimed that they did!"

    I find nothing in the study to indicate that there was any change in the dosing protocol during the timeframe of the study. The lack of parasite management means zilch in this case since the people doing the study DID actually have a control group that also did not have parasite management. The study can be found here: http://stream.loe.org/images/120406/...al%20proof.pdf

    The argument that they "dumped a lot of pesticide" on the bees is asinine at the best, and perhaps someone should "do some basic research" before making that accusation.

    They used a range of levels of neonicitinoids from 20 MICRO-grams(ug) per kilogram concentrations up to 400ug/kg. The did not, as Randy Oliver accuses, change the protocol halfway through the study. Read the study yourself.

    Then there's the dosage levels. In 2008, a study was done to find out what concentration of imadocloprid (the neonicotinoid in question) was actually found in the guttation of corn to be around 47mg/L. If my admittedly shabby math is correct, this works out to very (very) roughly to 470,000 micrograms per kilogram. In other words, over a thousand times MORE pesticide could be found in corn's nectar than was actually used in this study.

    Then Randy Oliver states that no CCD was observed. Except that it was. CCD is the sudden absconding of the vast majority of live honey bees without bodies of the dead to be found, leaving the queen and a handful of very young bees behind. Now, if we want to change the definition of what we're calling CCD, then by all means let's do that before saying that they didn't experience any CCD in the study, since this was precisely the result they got. (And for those that don't like to read, they have pictures.)

    The only problem I have with the Harvard study is the incredibly small sample size that was tested, but even the scientists themselves state that. The entire point of these studies is to give us a basis for further investigation. This study shows a clear correlation between CCD and neonicotinoids. It does not necessarily show causality (correlation does not prove causation) but it most certainly is the ONLY study I've found to date that has given it an honest and unbiased try. I can't say the same for Randy Oliver's rebuttal if I'm understanding both his rebuttal and the study itself correctly. But again, don't take my word for it. Read the study yourself. That's why I've posted the links.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Stafford, VA
    Posts
    74

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Quote Originally Posted by squarepeg View Post
    >I'm re-reviewing the Harvard study now, and comparing it with your accusations that they used "massive" doses (as this is not what I saw from a cursory glance of the study at all) and will get back to you on that. I'm also reviewing Randy Oliver's rebuttal at the same time and will address it if I disagree with his rebuttal.

    thanks javin, i look forward to what you have to say about that.

    just curious, and not looking for anything too specific, but can you give us a general idea of what your scientific background is?
    Certainly. I was a 91T in the U.S. Army. I specialized in medical research and worked at the Naval Medical Research Lab #3 (NAMRU-3) in Cairo, Egypt until the year 2000 - mostly doing insect parasite and viral research. Since then I've gotten out of the field, opting for the higher paying world of computer programming, but I've never lost the research itch.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Belfast, Ireland
    Posts
    458

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    They used a range of levels of neonicitinoids from 20 MICRO-grams(ug) per kilogram concentrations up to 400ug/kg. The did not, as Randy Oliver accuses, change the protocol halfway through the study. Read the study yourself.
    Go read it again then, half way down the paragraph titled 'materials and methods'
    The initial part looked at 0.1 to 10ug/kg

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Stafford, VA
    Posts
    74

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Quote Originally Posted by jonathan View Post
    This is very old news but neonicotinoid residue in pollen and nectar has been reported in many studies to generally be from 1-5 ppb.
    Could you please link these studies? According to this study, the numbers exceed 500 ppb. Perhaps you're thinking 1-5 ppm? Which would actually be around the levels that they used in this study.

    The 20-400 number also seems to be a bit of confusion for you. This is 20ug /kg to 400 ug/kg. The concentration used in the HFCS. These numbers are still below the 5 ppm mark.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Belfast, Ireland
    Posts
    458

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    No it is 1-5 ppb.

    500ppb is way over the LD50

    that is why the harvard study is such dross

    This stuff is really basic.
    You are confused by a factor of 1000

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Stafford, VA
    Posts
    74

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Quote Originally Posted by jonathan View Post
    Go read it again then, half way down the paragraph titled 'materials and methods'
    The initial part looked at 0.1 to 10ug/kg
    And? Please read my statement that you quoted. You're saying that since they started the study with INCREDIBLY tiny doses, then switched the doses that this somehow invalidates the study? Except you fail to understand that this WAS the study. They were attempting to emulate the dosages as found in nature. In nature, the dosages wouldn't go from 0 to 20 (some hives received a max of 20 for the bulk of the study, some received a max of 40, 200, and 400). The reason for this was a.) In the "wild" they would not be exposed to no poison, and suddenly, a ton of it. The growth of the plants that had the imadocloprid covered seeds would cause a gradual increase in the environmental pesticide, and they were duplicating this pattern to eliminate the potential argument that the bees just died from the "shock" of the pesticide. If you want a pretty little snapshot of what was done in the study, simply scroll down to Figure 2 to see the results.

    The point of this study, in their own words, was not to prove that the pesticide kills bugs. We know it does. Duh. It was to prove that SUBLETHAL dosages over time could cause the pattern we call CCD. Which it did. Clearly.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Belfast, Ireland
    Posts
    458

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    In nature bees are typically exposed to values of 1-5ppb in pollen and nectar.
    That is why an experiment which exposed them to 20-400 ppb is pointless.
    It is way over field realistic levels.

    Do your research about levels in pollen and nectar.
    Google papers by Bonmatin for example.

    It was to prove that SUBLETHAL dosages over time could cause the pattern we call CCD. Which it did. Clearly.
    These are massive doses and clearly they will kill bees.
    Check your LD50s

    I don't know why you have started to argue this stuff without checking the most basic facts.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Stafford, VA
    Posts
    74

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Quote Originally Posted by jonathan View Post
    No it is 1-5 ppb.

    500ppb is way over the LD50

    that is why the harvard study is such dross

    This stuff is really basic.
    You are confused by a factor of 1000
    Yes, this stuff is really basic. I agree. Yet you seem to misunderstand it. Take a look at the following study:
    http://sverigesradio.se/diverse/appd...es/83/7239.pdf

    This is where they got their dosage levels for the study. I'm entirely unsure as to where you got yours.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Belfast, Ireland
    Posts
    458

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    HFCS samples from Tate and Lyle, Archer Daniels Midland,
    Roquette and Mann Lake were sent to the Carl Hayden Bee Research
    Center in Tucson, AZ, USA in 2008. These companies are among the largest commercial suppliers of HFCS to beekeepers. The HFCS was used in a study to investigate the relationship between temperature and HMF formation (LeBlanc et al., 2009). A 50ml sample of HFCS from each supplier was shipped on ice to the USDA-AMS-National Science Lab in (NSL) Gastonia, NC for pesticide analysis. The HFCS samples were extracted for analysis of agrochemicals using an official pesticide extraction method (AOAC 2007.01, also known as the QuEChERS method), and analyzed by gas chromatography and liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry detection (GC/MS, GC/MS/MS, LC/MS/MS). Samples were analyzed for the presence of 174 different agrochemicals including 17 neonicotinoids and their metabolites (Table 1). Quantification was performed using external calibration standards prepared from certified standard reference
    material. The National Science Laboratory is ISO 17025 accredited to perform pesticide residue analysis.
    There were no pesticides detected in any of the HFCS samples.
    Are agrochemicals present in High Fructose Corn
    Syrup fed to honey bees
    (Apis mellifera L.)?
    Gloria DeGrandi-Hoffman1*, Diana Sammataro1 and Roger Simonds2
    1Carl Hayden Bee Research Center, USDA-ARS, 2000 East Allen Road, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA.
    2National Science Laboratory, USDA-AMS, 801 Summit Crossing Pl. Ste. B, Gastonia, NC 28054, USA.

    Lets go back to basics here.
    The harvard study fed HFCS to bees with added Imidacloprid.
    This is in spite of the fact that corn in the US is treated with Clothianidin rather than Imidacloprid.

    The link above shows that HFCS does not contain pesticide residue anyway, either Imidacloprid or Clothianidin.

    leaving aside Corn syrup for the moment, there are various routes of exposure to pesticides, the main ones are via pollen, nectar or in the case of corn, planter dust during seed drilling.

    The Krupke et al paper discusses this.
    The biggest risk to bees is planter dust as this is highly toxic.
    Last edited by jonathan; 03-23-2013 at 03:21 PM. Reason: clarity

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Belfast, Ireland
    Posts
    458

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Quote Originally Posted by Javin007 View Post
    Yes, this stuff is really basic. I agree. Yet you seem to misunderstand it. Take a look at the following study:
    http://sverigesradio.se/diverse/appd...es/83/7239.pdf

    This is where they got their dosage levels for the study. I'm entirely unsure as to where you got yours.
    This link is to Girolami's guttation fluid experiment.
    HFCS is not made from guttation droplets!

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Manitoba Canada
    Posts
    6,436

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Quote Originally Posted by deknow View Post
    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
    ha ha ha ha
    Ian Steppler >> Canadian Beekeeper's Blog
    www.stepplerfarms.com

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    28,000

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Anybody want to discuss "Beekeepers suing EPA"? No? Then maybe the dualing Research Papers folk aught to get their own Thread.
    Mark Berninghausen
    Squeak Creek Apiaries



  16. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Manitoba Canada
    Posts
    6,436

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Mark, they should make you a moderator, . . . but then, a lot of stuff would get deleted ! ha ha
    Ian Steppler >> Canadian Beekeeper's Blog
    www.stepplerfarms.com

  17. #77
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Garland, Bladen County, NC, USA
    Posts
    3,121

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    Mark, they should make you a moderator, . . . but then, a lot of stuff would get deleted ! ha ha
    Mark used to be a moderator - but I do not think it fit his "style"......
    “Don’t tell me how educated you are, tell me how much you have travelled.” - The Quran

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    28,000

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    Guilty. Short lived. Ha,ha.
    Mark Berninghausen
    Squeak Creek Apiaries



  19. #79
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    DuPage County, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,588

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    But we're still friends!
    Regards, Barry

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    28,000

    Default Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

    At least that's what we tell the kids.
    Mark Berninghausen
    Squeak Creek Apiaries



Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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