Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 82
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    San Mateo, Ca, USA
    Posts
    403

    Default Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

    cerezha,
    we had a whole thread on this a while back that you also partook in that I don't want to rehash but to summarize:

    sun + water = half life of hours
    sun and no water = half live of days

    most soil surface has water in it every day except deserts (rain, dew, ambient moisture in the humus, etc).
    again the soil gets buried wont photodegrade, but then again it's not directly accessable to the bees (not that any neonic on the surface is that accessible anyway)
    Farmers tilling the soil? Depends on if they are going with a 'till' or 'no till' approach. I'm about 20 years removed from my parents farm but I thought most farmers were going with 'no till' these days to minimize erosion (hence the need to eradicate all the existing weeds with herbacide)

    top of the grain exposed / bottom of the grain not exposed - not completely accurate, but ground isn't completely flat, nor is all of its components completely opaque. (and most farmers don't farm in sand).

    Sergey,
    the details you are pointing out seem awfully minor and I don't see how they really add up to a significant issue.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Posts
    223

    Default Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

    Beekeeping is unique among agricultural pursuits in that beekeepers "farm" the surrounding 15,000 acres for honey, but almost never do they own that land. Since bees are generally beneficial this practice is accepted. Unfortunately then, the beekeeper must also accept the loss incurred due to bee-harmful activities within their foraging area, and there isn't much legal recourse. Nor should there be, I would argue, particularly if the landowners have no real need of the bees (as is true with corn, pasture, and all crops outside of their pollination window).

    This sort of wild-farming, unrestricted by property boundaries, has no modern parallels. Think of it as if deer were owned by keepers, who became angry whenever one was killed on a road or inadvertently poisoned.

    What cannot be solved with rules, then, can sometimes be solved with incentives. Certainly beekeepers have incentive to keep bees away from pesticide-heavy areas, and that is something I would always consider when choosing a home or an outyard. The next step would be to create financial incentives (bee easements?) for landowners in particular areas to limit use of bee-toxic products.

    Think of it as a land trust for bees. The goal would be to create foraging circles of roughly three-mile radius in which all properties carried a bee-safe certification, rather like the salmon-safe and other labels currently in use. Just an idea...

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,449

    Default Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

    Quote Originally Posted by BayHighlandBees View Post
    ...Sergey,
    the details you are pointing out seem awfully minor and I don't see how they really add up to a significant issue.
    Exactly! But this approach (distraction from the main point by criticizing minor details or imperfections) is widely used here to diminish the important substance - I used this approach just to show how primitive it is and how it just distracts from important issue and does not create any useful conclusion. Look at the title of the thread: "Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams." Visualizing! Nothing else! To me the essence of this particular thread was how little is needed to kill so many bees. It is educational for me because I never did such estimates and I am thankful to jeb532 for such interesting look on known thing.
    Серёжа, Sergey

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Stilwell, KS
    Posts
    1,578

    Default Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

    Quote Originally Posted by jeb532 View Post

    Boils down to a really simple question....Do I really want that around my bees? Uh......NO.

    Lets see if I can really fire up Nabber and mention the soil latency issue...which I have seen stated as 1,300 plus days depending on the soil type.

    Looks like bioaccumlulation to me. OK so lets say its not 60% degradation per year, but 30%...still doesn't matter....the only way it wouldn't bioaccumulate is if it degrades completely before the year's next application...

    Ok Nabber...you're on...
    OK, two points:

    1- neonics are not "around" your bees in the context of exposure.

    2- last time I checked, bees don't eat dirt.


    I don't even have to check your calculations to know that your conclusions are wrong (again in the context of exposure) because you got two primary assumptions incorrect.
    Honey Badger Don't Care ಠ_ಠ ~=[,,_,,]:3

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    San Mateo, Ca, USA
    Posts
    403

    Default Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

    Sergey, honestly the subject title is a sensational topic name. It's a great technique to propagandize a topic. Seems like that is the new scientific approach these days (replacing the old approach of the scientific method).

    Here we go again, another distraction from you on the science of all this

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Stilwell, KS
    Posts
    1,578

    Default Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

    Quote Originally Posted by cerezha View Post
    Exactly! But this approach (distraction from the main point by criticizing minor details or imperfections) is widely used here to diminish the important substance - I used this approach just to show how primitive it is and how it just distracts from important issue and does not create any useful conclusion. Look at the title of the thread: "Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams." Visualizing! Nothing else! To me the essence of this particular thread was how little is needed to kill so many bees. It is educational for me because I never did such estimates and I am thankful to jeb532 for such interesting look on known thing.
    The "visualization" is meaningless except for providing a sensational effect. Nothing else!

    It is not even remotely "educational". Education implies the use of knowledge and science to learn and solve problems.

    Providing math and what appears to be scientific data in post in an attempt to back up a meaningless visualization is sensationalism.

    Including erroneous math, premises, data, and twisted logic is not trivial. It is horribly wrong and completely unacceptable.
    Honey Badger Don't Care ಠ_ಠ ~=[,,_,,]:3

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Stilwell, KS
    Posts
    1,578

    Default Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

    Quote Originally Posted by BayHighlandBees View Post
    Sergey, honestly the subject title is a sensational topic name. It's a great technique to propagandize ...

    Here we go again, another distraction from you on the science of all this
    From other posts, I gather that serg has a scientific background. I am completely baffled as to why anyone that claims to be a scientist continues to discuss the toxicity of neonics based on non-science (nonsense).
    Honey Badger Don't Care ಠ_ಠ ~=[,,_,,]:3

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,449

    Default Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabber86 View Post
    The "visualization" is meaningless except for providing a sensational effect. Nothing else!
    Well, it is my job as a scientist to do a "visualization" - it is my specialty and I published more than 50 research papers on this very subject. I am glad that my employer thinks differently from you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabber86 View Post
    It is not even remotely "educational". Education implies the use of knowledge and science to learn and solve problems.
    Again, 20 years of teaching... thanks God you are not around!
    Серёжа, Sergey

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    San Mateo, Ca, USA
    Posts
    403

    Default Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

    teaching + writing books + visualizing != scientist

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,449

    Default Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabber86 View Post
    From other posts, I gather that serg has a scientific background. I am completely baffled as to why anyone that claims to be a scientist continues to discuss the toxicity of neonics based on non-science (nonsense).
    Yes, if I am supporting this - I have a REASON for this based on my expertise. But in order to talk scientifically, you need to be at my level. Talking "science" to ignorant people is very frustrating to me and just waste of time. Beesource is not place for science - for science I have a different forum.

    From another hand, I am not expert in beekeeping, thus - beesource is very educational to me. Also - there are such characters here - I learned more about Americans (mostly) on beesource than from real life in US. From time to time I am trying to "contribute" to beesource. Usually it has a bad ending because I could not find a proper approach how to deliver the message to ignorant people (who is not ignorant - those got the message, no problem). I am really bad at this... sorry
    Серёжа, Sergey

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    San Mateo, Ca, USA
    Posts
    403

    Default Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

    Sergey,
    the best way to get students to understand a concept is to use an example that exaggerate the concept's effects to make it stand out visually (ie. 'using liquid nitrogen and a balloon to demonstrate the thermal dynamics of air' , 'using a solid glass barrier to demonstrate the principle of greenhouse gases', etc). In that capacity I think you do well.

    That said, what is your technique that you would personally use to visualize a measurement or proportion or or an equation where exaggeration will not be an effective tool.
    Examples would be:

    'the poison is in the dosage'
    'how much neonic can a bee consume safely and at what rate can metabolize it'?

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,449

    Default Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

    Quote Originally Posted by BayHighlandBees View Post
    Sergey,
    the best way to get students to understand a concept is to use an example that exaggerate the concept's effects to make it stand out visually...
    It is American way. It did not work in real science... Normally, a math or chemical formula/equation is to visualize the concept in many cases. For instance, how you could visualize 5th dimension? Just math formula. Or how you could imagine the principle of electron's uncertainly (electron may be in two points at the same time)?

    Quote Originally Posted by BayHighlandBees View Post
    'the poison is in the dosage'
    'how much neonic can a bee consume safely and at what rate can metabolize it'?
    It is interesting topic and we could discuss it off-line on better scientific level. But, one need to keep in mind that evil of neonics is their mechanism of action - they irreversibly binds to receptor - thus, they do not metabolize and just accumulate. In such situation, it is very difficult to determine the "dosage" because even sublethal amount may cause a problem.

    The visualization for that would be - neurons could not talk to each-other it means that muscles are not coordinated, memory lost ... is it enough?
    Серёжа, Sergey

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,449

    Default Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

    Quote Originally Posted by BayHighlandBees View Post
    ... visualizing != scientist
    I guess so
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Серёжа, Sergey

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Springfield, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    286

    Default Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

    The original post was aimed at developing a visualization, and I think that this has been accomplished: neonicitinoids have the potential to be very toxic to bees in what seem to be very small amounts.

    What's happening here is that three separate discussions are taking place. One conversation is aimed at honing the visualization through application of better math, a second attempts to illustrate how the visualization is based on a variety of assumptions and the last attempts to demonstrate how the visualization would not be accepted as peer-reviewed scientific theory. Everyone is correct.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Rader, Greene County, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    4,940

    Default Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

    Quote Originally Posted by cerezha View Post
    But, one need to keep in mind that evil of neonics is their mechanism of action
    Is this a scientific term? Perhaps you could quantify how "evil" fits in the context of a scientific discussion ...

    Is 0.000000002 grams of "evil" really sinful, or just a little bad?

    Graham
    USDA Zone 7A Elevation 1400 ft

  16. #56
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Flora,IL
    Posts
    2,674

    Default Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

    Quote Originally Posted by cerezha View Post
    It is American way. It did not work in real science... Normally, a math or chemical formula/equation is to visualize the concept in many cases. For instance, how you could visualize 5th dimension? Just math formula. Or how you could imagine the principle of electron's uncertainly (electron may be in two points at the same time)?
    Interesting you pick these two to make your point, Both issues are totally non relevant to anything in the real world, and cannot be proven by anything but a bunch of theoretical math..... A fifth dimension...theres something to hang your educational hat on.... right next to time travel.....

    Can you provide links to some of your published documents, I would love to take a look.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Stilwell, KS
    Posts
    1,578

    Default Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

    Quote Originally Posted by cerezha View Post
    Well, it is my job as a scientist to do a "visualization" - it is my specialty and I published more than 50 research papers on this very subject. I am glad that my employer thinks differently from you.

    Again, 20 years of teaching... thanks God you are not around!
    30 years as an environmental engineer specializing in the fate and transport of contaminants in environmental media. Working with teams of engineers, hydrogeologists, toxicologists, biologists (both mico and bugs & bunny types), air specialists, chemists, health and safety experts, and risk assessors, to name a few. Hell, we even have a group of archeologists on staff to make sure that we don’t disturb an ancient Indian burial ground if we punch a hole to collect a sample.

    We investigate the problem, study the data, and then develop the designs and plans on how to clean the messes up. And yes, my employer expects me to clean things up, not sit around contemplating my navel all day and visualizing new uses for bellybutton lint.

    Tell me serg how many hundreds of thousands of tons of solvent contaminated soil have you cleaned up, or millions of gallons of groundwater? How many water treatment plants have you designed and operated? How often do you use bioremediation. How about phyto remediation, ever use that? Have much experience do you have working directly with PCPs, dioxin, dioxane, 2,4-D, chlorinated solvents, BTEX, diesel fuel, jet fuel, bunker oil and even UXO. Or do you just sit around visualizing new and innovative ways of telling professionals that they are doing their job wrong.

    Thank god there are people around that actually do something about environmental problems.
    Honey Badger Don't Care ಠ_ಠ ~=[,,_,,]:3

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Stilwell, KS
    Posts
    1,578

    Default Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

    Quote Originally Posted by Chemguy View Post
    Everyone is correct.
    Except for the insidious math, logic, and context errors that permeate this thread.
    Honey Badger Don't Care ಠ_ಠ ~=[,,_,,]:3

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Stilwell, KS
    Posts
    1,578

    Default Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

    Quote Originally Posted by cerezha View Post
    I guess so

    Here is a visualization for you, or as we prefer to call them, cartoons.

    The figure was used in a presentation to Region 9 EPA so that they could visualize how we were going to estimate the transport of chlorinated solvents (tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene) downward through the soil column and then horizontally in groundwater. The picture looks simple, but it represents 3 different models, SESOIL (soil transport), the USGS MODFLOW groundwater flow model, and the MT3D transport interface to MODFLOW. The input parameters for these models include such things as advection, diffusion, dispersion, first-order decay constants, any many, many others. (note some the parameters are listed on the figure). The MODLOW model itself was a 3-layer, 1000 by 1000 finite difference grid. Each cell has at least 10 different parameters assigned to it. That is a 3-D array with 30,000,000 values (For visualization purposes if that were grams of cyanide, it would be enough to kill the population of the world ). I spent over 3,000 man-hours working on the models alone and that was just a small part of the overall project.

    The source was from a manufacturing process that used solvents to clean parts and the receptor was the San Francisco Bay. We estimated how the contamination would affect receptors such as recreational users of the bay (people who fell off their kayaks) taking into account oral ingestion (swallowing water) and dermal contact. We argued with the EPA for weeks on how much skin area is exposed with a wet-suit and how long the person would be floating in the water. We also looked at every biological receptor that anyone from the Mother’s for the Bay action group and the Sierra Club could think of.

    Anyway the end result of all this was the removal of over 10,000 pounds of PCE that had the potential to impact the bay.

    Sorry if it is not as shiny as your computer generated graphics, but my clients prefer to spend their money solving problems, not creating pretty pictures.

    Besides artistic aesthetics, what was the purpose of your cartoons?
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Honey Badger Don't Care ಠ_ಠ ~=[,,_,,]:3

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Belfast, Ireland
    Posts
    358

    Default Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

    I do enjoy your posts nabber.
    Got any chemtrail work on your CV!

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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