Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Ban Bee Poison 2,500,000 have signed already!

18K views 49 replies 16 participants last post by  mac 
#1 ·
This post has been deleted
#7 ·
They are banning Bee poison! ;)

But seriously. I'm for banning it all, not just because of Bees but all that crap can't be good for anything, water, land, air, animals, people... ALL OF IT is meant to KILL something. It can't be good, the only good it might have is that we eat cheaper food because the insects die from being sprayed and more crop is available but I am willing to bet they could find better ways if they were forced to. IMO.
 
#15 · (Edited by Moderator)
I am new to this site, but I have to say, Trance, people like you scare me to death.

One way or another, chemicals -- in one form or another, antibiotics, soap, medications, fertilizer, etc., are the reason we have thrived and prospered.

I would agree that we should try to find better ways, and as we continue to learn and understand our environement and the chemicals we use, we might -- but in no way would we be able to feed ourselves and the world without pesticides.

As suggested by others, I would strongly recommend you educate yourself and read about the subject -- maybe starting at scientificbeekeeping.com

To run around signing petitions, when you don't have clue about what you signing for, makes no sense whatsoever.
 
#17 ·
I'm not that freaking extreme. I believe in less Chemicals, do we need them, sure. Do we need all of them and so much, probably not. Heck we treat so much IMO we are doing more harm than good IMO. Look at all the drug resistant organisms that are now immune to penicillin. Isn't the same going on with Varroa mites? We just keep jumping to the next strongest stuff but in some cases we can't as that would do more harm to what we are trying to help/fix.

I'll ignore the assuming of other comments made towards me and supposedly my other beliefs and what I stand for and don't. You don't know me and you assume because I feel one way about something I must feel that way about other things. Kind of rude. I've never bashed anyone on here or slammed them, even if I didn't agree with them. For those who want to to sign the above , that's up to them. If they don't fine. I'm not here to fight over who is right and who is wrong. I did ask why just incase I over looked something. Thanks for the reply. And have a good day!
 
#21 ·
trance, here is oliver's latest paper on colony losses in general including a review on what is know about neonics as it relates to bees:

http://gallery.mailchimp.com/5fd2b1..._Happened_to_the_Bees_This_Spring2013_opt.pdf

i find oliver's objectivity refreshing. some have questioned his objectivity as being suspect since he receives research dollars from big companies. here's how he responds to that (quoted with permission):

"I've personally wrestled with this aspect of publicity of proprietary data.

In the case of Bayer Cropscience, Bayer set up a dedicated website for the members of the original Bayer-Beekeeper Dialog Group set up by Jerry Bromenshenk and David Fischer of Bayer. The only limitation placed upon us what that we couldn't copy and forward the actual data to their competitors, who could have then used that data to register competing products. I commend Bayer on their openness. I have yet to find Bayer to withhold any information that I have ever requested, even when such information may appear to involve potential negative aspects of their products.

I recently asked the manufacturer of Dimilin insecticide to review their proprietary data, and was granted a conference call a few days ago with their lead scientists in Europe. The plan is for me to sign an NDA and be given access to that data, so that I can summarize the results for the benefit of the beekeeping community (I will work in conjunction with Drs Eric Mussen and Reed Johnson).

Trickier is when I get paid to run a field trial for a company with a product to sell to beekeepers. My agreement with Beeologics was that I would be free to publish the results of the trials, good, bad, or indifferent--which I have or are in the process of. Luckily for them, the product was clearly effective!

When Beeologics was acquired by Monsanto, I only agreed to continue if they agreed in writing to give me access to the data from the control group--again potentially to the great benefit of the bee scientific community.

I've also run trials for products in development. In this case, I feel that the data can remain proprietary, since the product is not on the market. Trust me, if it later came to market and I knew something negative about it, I would then run my own independent trial, funded by donations to my website, to bring that fact to the beekeeping community's attention!

The situation is different for products on the market. I do not want to be put into the position of finding that a product is mere snake oil (or harmful to colonies) and not be able to say so! I am currently in negotiation with a company to run an expensive year-long trial of their product, which is already on the market. We are currently working out whether they will accept my condition of freedom to publish the results should they be negative.

The beauty of my position is that I don't care about the money, since I make more from the hives if I don't engage them in trials. Running a proper field trial is a real pain, and finding time for data collection this week when my other hives cry for attention has forced us to work long hours six or seven days a week--who looks forward to weighing and grading
150 hives in a trial when the rest of your colonies are about to swarm!

So no manufacturer has any leverage over me, since I have no financial interest. The only reason that I run field trials is for the benefit of beekeepers who trust in my to give them accurate information. I take that trust very seriously."

he has earned my trust, and i value the contribution he has made to beekeeping.
 
#22 · (Edited)
SqPeg. Thanks. That's what I started reading just a bit ago thanks to Orthoman and you for that link. I'm a bit skeptical to be honest but that is my nature. I guess I am frustrated about things I have no control over to a point. I have started a garden, early stages... I can't control everything but I can control some things. If I could raise my own cows and chickens I would but mostly for the fun of doing so.
 
#23 ·
understood trance, i think a lot of us feel the same way.

i'm not a very politcal person and i don't have any agendas. i would like to think i have an open mind on this issue and try to consider the facts as they are known for now.

i do get a little perturbed when i read comments here about neonics being responsible for this and that, and i have pretty much pulled myself out of the discussion.

i hope i don't sound arrogant when i say that i think the petition for a ban seems kinda foolish.

i commend you for asking good questions and searching for the answers. :)
 
#24 ·
Nice post SP. Randy's paper is certainly worth a read and is pretty much spot on with my thinking as well. I well remember the foliar spraying that went on years ago and regularly decimated our bees particularly on alfalfa seed and sunflowers. It's easy to just take a stand against poisons in general. To do it, though, without considering the economic problems that insects cause and how best to deal with them is simply to ignore the complexity of the situation. We run well over 100 locations in areas that have seen dramatic increases in corn and soybean plantings and have not seen any corresponding degradation in bee health. If neonics are actually causing some bee health problems then in my mind they are of secondary significance and far behind the most obvious and prominent issues of loss of forage, varroa, viruses, fungicides and the many other pesticides still in use particularly on sunflowers. Though I dont question the motives of beekeepers who are quite passionate in their beliefs I really believe that the beekeeper has become a logical and believable face to be employed at the forefront of a much larger ongoing battle that has raged for quite some time between environmental movements and large agribusinesses such as Monsanto and Bayer.
 
#30 ·
It's definitely a confusing battle. I honestly must have read everything bad. The only good I ever read was from the Horses mouth that I never believe just for the simple fact no company is going to slam themselves. Everyones comments has opened my eyes a bit. I'm still not a fan of things that are meant to kill in our food or the impact it has on the environment (some better than others). As I said, it's sort of like an awaking and refreshing that other people (Bee keepers at that) have a different view of some of these products. That doesn't mean I have changed sides just like that but it has opened the door for me to read and study these newer products a bit more.

Having said that, I'm stepping away from this conversation.
 
#33 ·
Back in the day... before the advent of systemic pesticides the beekeeper never knew for sure what was going to happen, with farmers running up and down the fields spraying all kind of pesticides on all kind of little worms and bugs. Now the only real worry is those aerial applications and you will usually get significant notification about them. I just don't understand why if these nics/imids are as vile as some say they are, I have not seen any major bee kills. It begins to smell of politics and not science...
 
#38 · (Edited)
well if anybody wants it here is my humble opinion on the matter:

it's another case of 'it depends'.

humans started chemistry experiments when they learned how to control fire.

humans started environmental experiments when they started clearing the forests and other wild lands.

when it comes to using chemicals human's synthesize (pesticides and others), it's not an either/or but rather a both/and proposition.

the proposition is not that either the chemicals are greatest thing since sliced bread or that the chemicals are the curse of the land,

but instead it's a little of both.

it depends on your point of view which is shaped by your objectives.

for one person sliced bread never had any appeal anyway, and for the another that sliced bread looks pretty good.

part of me wishes that all i have to do is stand in solidarity with enough like-minded people and we can make the risks associated with standard practices (not perfect but the best we have right now) disappear.

but my other side knows that it's just a pipe dream, because eliminating the risk has the greater likelihood of bringing on even greater challenges, and i'm not sure we as a species have that choice anyway.

it's a matter of coming up with an acceptable risk/benefit ratio, and that's hard to agree on as a society, especially when each person has a right to their opinion of risk and to their opinion of benefit.

but it make for good forum fodder. (that's ff beepro)
 
#41 ·
Vinegar has a MSDS sheet. You can read the whole document here:
http://images.pcmac.org/Uploads/Ons.../DocumentsSubCategories/Documents/Vinegar.pdf

Part of that MSDS sheet says:
V. HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION

SKIN CONTACT: Contact may cause mild injury and burns from vinegars of 11% acetic acid and greater. Dilute solutions may cause dermatitis in some individuals.

EYE CONTACT: May cause severe burns and permanent corneal injury from concentrated vinegars. May be followed by blindness. High vapor concentrations may result in conjunctivitis.

INGESTION: Concentrated vinegars may cause pain, irritation and burns in mouth, gullet and stomach.

.....

SPECIAL FIRE FIGHTING PROCEDURES: Water may be used to dilute spills and reduce flammability.
UNUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS: Toxic gasses and vapors may be released in a fire involving concentrated vinegar.
:eek: :eek:


I hope you don't mind if I just stick to ranch salad dressing!
:lookout:
 
#43 ·
#47 ·
As I stated above it is used as one but is not classified as one. You can use a hammer to kill insects but I doubt anyone would call it an insecticide. Would you? And what’s your point anyway. You seem to beeeee tilting at windmills.
 
#48 ·
no big deal mac, i guess i was just reinforcing what i had already pointed out that it seems arbitrary to me to look at some 'chemicals' as good and others as bad. whether 'synthesized' or not, it makes more sense to look at risks/benefits instead. sorry for getting repetitive.

"and that's all i have to say about that" forest, forest gump
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top