Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 245

Thread: CCD Research

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,748

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDawg View Post
    Are there any issues with this peer-reviewed/published article on the sub-lethal effects of neonics as a factor in CCD?
    {url]http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6079/348.full?sid=7394420e-97e0-410c-99b1-f731e6d993eb[/url]
    Nonlethal exposure of honey bees to thiamethoxam (neonicotinoid systemic pesticide) causes high mortality due to homing failure at levels that could put a colony at risk of collapse. Simulated exposure events on free-ranging foragers labeled with a radio-frequency identification tag suggest that homing is impaired by thiamethoxam intoxication. These experiments offer new insights into the consequences of common neonicotinoid pesticides used worldwide.
    I don't have a problem with a study that claims things like "could put colony at risk", "simulated exposure events", and "suggest thiamethoxam intoxication".
    The study (at least the abstract you linked to) is only talking about posibilities...this is different from dr,. lu has done.

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

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,748

    Default Re: CCD Research

    ...and neither of those articles make any claims about imidacloprid in HFCS. I have already posted many problems with the LU study....if you want to understand the Lu study, you have to look at it carefully.

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

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon USA
    Posts
    323

    Default Re: CCD Research

    This article is a very nice summary of the neonics controversy and how corporate, political, and academic power structures are shaping the debate: "Be(e)coming experts: the controversy over insecticides in the honey bee colony collapse disorder."

    "We began with the observation that commercial beekeepers’ knowledge claims are subordinated to those of academic and agro-industry toxicologists in the CCD controversy."

    "Honey bee scientists’ practices, however, are characterized by a causally driven, single-factorial epistemic form that emphasizes rapid, lethal effects of insecticides on honey bees, and a preference for false-negative (over false-positive) conclusions. We traced the prevalence of this approach to the primacy of the agricultural research organizations such as the USDA and agroeconomic contexts within which early state entomologists and honey bee scientists practiced. Academic toxicologists’ preference for this agro-entomological approach reflects their career stakes and interests in enhancing their cultural capital and achieving intellectual distinction. The EPA’s regulators have come to adopt dominant academic forms, perspectives, and norms, such as false-negative standards, in judging whether a pesticide poses environmental harm to honey bees. This reflects a historical shift in regulatory assessments of prospective harm from being broadly precautionary to nonprecautionary, which was precipitated by a highly fragmented and adversarial political context where chemical policymaking became a key ground for battles between pro-regulatory and deregulatory forces.

    In sum, the primacy of toxicologists’ knowledge in the CCD controversy is not evidence of its inherent superiority. Rather, the dominance of toxicologists’ epistemic form reflects a particular history. In turn, the agrochemical industry has been able to draw on the epistemic form now institutionalized in regulatory policy and largely taken for granted in order to advance their interests and perspectives over and above those of commercial beekeepers in the CCD controversy. In this context, commercial beekeepers’ variety of expertise is characterized as merely ‘anecdotal’. The EPA, Bayer, and many academic scientists make it clear that beekeepers cannot make credible knowledge on their own and thus need to work with certified institutional environmental toxicologists and honey bee researchers, who are the experts. Doing so, however, means that the knowledge gets constructed in terms of the established agro-entomological form of expertise, and beekeepers’ influence is limited. At the same time, at a practical level, the governing standards and high expenditure required to comply with the EPA’s GLP means that investigations undertaken by beekeepers will tend to fail to meet those standards (Suryanarayanan and Kleinman, 2011).

    https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...JmMklKATQBAXYy

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,748

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Do you want to look at the specific study that you are claiming people are dismissing unfairly, or do you want to trot out text faster than you can read it?

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

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon USA
    Posts
    323

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Then, there is this article: "Field Research on Bees Raises Concern About Low-Dose Pesticides."

    "Foraging problems are exactly what Axel
    Decourtye of the Association for Techni-
    cal Coordination in Agriculture in Avignon,
    France, and his colleagues found in a fi eld
    study of honey bees. Decourtye’s team glued
    tiny radio-frequency tags to the backs of 653
    honey bees. Up to 43.2% of the bees given a
    sublethal dose of thiamethoxam didn’t return
    to the hive, depending on how far away the
    bees were released and how unfamiliar the
    terrain, compared with 16.9% of untreated
    bees.
    “We were quite surprised by the magni-
    tude of the effect,”
    co-author Mickaël Henry
    of the French National Institute for Agricul-
    tural Research in Avignon says."

    "Jeffrey Pettis of the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture in Beltsville, Maryland, doubts
    that the mortality rates would cause colony
    collapse disorder or other loss of hives, but
    says that he is a co-author of a study nearing
    publication that will strengthen the case that
    neonicotinoids can harm hives.
    Other unpub-
    lished work shows an impact on native, soli-
    tary bees, he says."

    http://www.whaleofatime.org/forms/Ed...ience-bees.pdf

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon USA
    Posts
    323

    Default Re: CCD Research

    "Research by Jeffrey Pettis of the US Department of Agriculture’s Bee Research Laboratory tested bees given doses of imidacloprid – one of these neo-nicotinoid chemicals, which is produced by Bayer CropScience.

    His findings are published in the German science journal Naturwissenschaften (CORR).

    The study shows that in a laboratory setting infections by the nosema parasite – which gives bees dysentery – increased significantly when they were fed pollen spiked with the imidacloprid and then fed a sugar solution containing the bug, compared to those who did not have the chemical.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...oney-bees.html

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,748

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Since all neonic labels will tell you that they will kill bees (all you ave to do is read them), I'm not sure how exciting a claim that "neonicotinoids can harm bees" is.

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

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon USA
    Posts
    323

    Default Re: CCD Research

    "Pettis’s study focused on imidacloprid, which like clothianidin is a neonicotinoid pesticide marketed by Bayer as a seed treatment. The findings are pretty damning for these nicotine-derived pesticides, according to McCarthy. He summarizes the study like this:

    The American study has demonstrated that the insects’ vulnerability to infection is increased by the presence of imidacloprid, even at the most microscopic doses. Dr. Pettis and his team found that increased disease infection happened even when the levels of the insecticide were so tiny that they could not subsequently be detected in the bees, although the researchers knew that they had been dosed with it."

    http://grist.org/article/2011-01-21-...icide-harmful/

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,748

    Default Re: CCD Research

    I'm familliar with this study. The bees exposed to nosema were in cages. Bees that died in the cages were not tested for nosema....and one of the controls had a lot of dead bees in the cage. If they died with a nosema infection or co-infection, it would change the results of the study. The bees that died (even from the control cage that had a very high death rate), were discarded and not tested.

    deknow


    Quote Originally Posted by BigDawg View Post
    "Research by Jeffrey Pettis of the US Department of Agriculture’s Bee Research Laboratory tested bees given doses of imidacloprid – one of these neo-nicotinoid chemicals, which is produced by Bayer CropScience.

    His findings are published in the German science journal Naturwissenschaften (CORR).

    The study shows that in a laboratory setting infections by the nosema parasite – which gives bees dysentery – increased significantly when they were fed pollen spiked with the imidacloprid and then fed a sugar solution containing the bug, compared to those who did not have the chemical.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...oney-bees.html
    The perils of benefactors; The blessings of parasites; Blindness blindness and sight -Joni Mitchell 'Shadows and Light'

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon USA
    Posts
    323

    Default Re: CCD Research

    There is a HUGE difference between incidental mortality of non-target insects from improper application technique vs systemic reductions in disease resistance from long-term exposure.

    Quote Originally Posted by deknow View Post
    Since all neonic labels will tell you that they will kill bees (all you ave to do is read them), I'm not sure how exciting a claim that "neonicotinoids can harm bees" is.

    deknow

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,748

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDawg View Post
    There is a HUGE difference between incidental mortality of non-target insects from improper application technique vs systemic reductions in disease resistance from long-term exposure.
    Sure there is...but the quote from Jeff that you cite says nothing about "non-target insects from improper application technique vs systemic reductions in disease resistance from long-term exposure....what you quote him saying is:
    he is a co-author of a study nearing
    publication that will strengthen the case that
    neonicotinoids can harm hives.
    The perils of benefactors; The blessings of parasites; Blindness blindness and sight -Joni Mitchell 'Shadows and Light'

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,748

    Default Re: CCD Research

    But any bees dying from nosema in this study were not counted. It's like talking about heart attacks, and dismissing anyone with a heart attack that died from it.

    You've asked if anyone has read these things...obviously some of us have, and some of us understand what was actually done vs what is claimed.

    deknow

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDawg View Post
    "Pettis’s study focused on imidacloprid, which like clothianidin is a neonicotinoid pesticide marketed by Bayer as a seed treatment. The findings are pretty damning for these nicotine-derived pesticides, according to McCarthy. He summarizes the study like this:

    The American study has demonstrated that the insects’ vulnerability to infection is increased by the presence of imidacloprid, even at the most microscopic doses. Dr. Pettis and his team found that increased disease infection happened even when the levels of the insecticide were so tiny that they could not subsequently be detected in the bees, although the researchers knew that they had been dosed with it."

    http://grist.org/article/2011-01-21-...icide-harmful/
    The perils of benefactors; The blessings of parasites; Blindness blindness and sight -Joni Mitchell 'Shadows and Light'

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon USA
    Posts
    323

    Default Re: CCD Research

    deKnow,

    Just to clarify then: all research studies to date done by scientists not on Bayer or Monsanto's payroll that suggest or allude to negative impacts from neonics on bee colonies are flawed, and, conversely, all research studies/white papers put out by "scientists" on Bayer, Monsanto, or Syngenta's payroll are perfectly ok.

    Does that about sum it up?

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,748

    Default Re: CCD Research

    How about reading the studies? How many of the actual studies (as opposed to media reports on the studies) have you actually read? Looked up the references?

    You want a simple summary, anyone with an agenda will be happy to offer you one.

    I'm happy to discuss the issues with the harvard study in detail here...but if you want to do so, I suggest you read the study, read Randy's critique, and read the powerpoint I posted earlier.

    If you want to discuss another study, name it and we can look at it. If you want to trot out soundbite after soundbite to studies you haven't read and don't understand, I'm not terribly interested.

    If you want me to make a statement about a buch of studies, some I've read, some I haven't, and only a few that you've named (I guess I'm supposed to have read every study?), tough....I can't talk to you about a study I haven't looked at....or all studies in general. Apparantly, in such matters, you have more skill than I.

    deknow

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDawg View Post
    deKnow,

    Just to clarify then: all research studies to date done by scientists not on Bayer or Monsanto's payroll that suggest or allude to negative impacts from neonics on bee colonies are flawed, and, conversely, all research studies/white papers put out by "scientists" on Bayer, Monsanto, or Syngenta's payroll are perfectly ok.

    Does that about sum it up?
    The perils of benefactors; The blessings of parasites; Blindness blindness and sight -Joni Mitchell 'Shadows and Light'

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon USA
    Posts
    323

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Supporters of neonics and GMO's often claim that their utilization results in less pesticide use which in turn is alleged to be better for bees and better for the environment. However, some folks question this assertion:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoff...cide-not-less/

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sacramento, Calif. USA
    Posts
    272

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDawg View Post
    Then, there is this article: Decourtye’s team glued tiny radio-frequency tags to the backs of 653 honey bees. Up to 43.2% of the bees given a sublethal dose of thiamethoxam didn’t return
    to the hive, depending on how far away the bees were released and how unfamiliar the terrain, compared with 16.9% of untreated bees.
    “We were quite surprised by the magni-
    tude of the effect,”
    co-author Mickaël Henry of the French National Institute for Agricultural Research in Avignon says."
    Bayer responded to that study back in the Spring of 2012: "The French honeybee study, though clever in the way it used microchips to follow the bees, is seriously flawed because the dose of pesticides given to the bees was "really way too high," says David Fischer, an ecotoxicologist at the company's U.S. headquarters in North Carolina. He says the bees were exposed to many times more pesticide than they would encounter in the real world."

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDawg View Post
    Just to clarify then: all research studies to date done by scientists not on Bayer or Monsanto's payroll that suggest or allude to negative impacts from neonics on bee colonies are flawed, and, conversely, all research studies/white papers put out by "scientists" on Bayer, Monsanto, or Syngenta's payroll are perfectly ok. Does that about sum it up?
    There's been a repeating pattern where most research studies done by scientists not on Bayer or Monsanto's payroll refuse to carry out real world field studies to see if free living bees pick up a neonic dose on their own (e.g. drink guttation water from corn or soybean leaves or gather pollen from field corn or drink alot of nectar from soybean flowers) and then suffer acute or chronic health problems.

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sacramento, Calif. USA
    Posts
    272

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDawg View Post
    Supporters of neonics and GMO's often claim that their utilization results in less pesticide use which in turn is alleged to be better for bees and better for the environment. However, some folks question this assertion:http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoff...cide-not-less/
    GMO corn and soybeans are sprayed with glyphosate or glufosinate herbicides which are non-toxic to bees at the dilutions and dosages used . Here's a video of the Roundup spraying (note all the birds singing in this corn monoculture setting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZqglw6EmFI

    Neonics are coated on the seed and bees are not exposed because bees don't drink hardly any guttation water, don't drink much soybean nectar and don't gather pollen from field corn. In cases of dry soil at planting time and windy weather, bees may be exposed to planter dust, but engineering solutions to prevent the problem will be implemented over the next few years.
    Last edited by BlueDiamond; 07-02-2013 at 04:59 PM.

  18. #138
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Flora,IL
    Posts
    2,644

    Default Re: CCD Research

    How about a quick reality check? argueing over dosages and testing is fun...and very interesting... but look at the maps, look where these chems are used and you should be able to point to no bees, or at least above average losses... and those guys in upstate NY and Main, and the fields in the dakotas with miles of Hat should be huge hives and no losses... and yet there is not the case.... lots of national forest that should be pretty free of these chems......and lots of areas like Mine we should not be able to keep a hive alive more than a week or two....... and yet Testing on a GRAND scale bears out the "we put them in a cage and dosed them" methods.....

  19. #139
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Flora,IL
    Posts
    2,644

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDawg View Post
    Supporters of neonics and GMO's often claim that their utilization results in less pesticide use which in turn is alleged to be better for bees and better for the environment. However, some folks question this assertion:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoff...cide-not-less/
    Sorry big Dawg, your article ismisleading.... , they are talking mainly about herbacides.... MISLEADING..... and yes, roundup is loosing its battle.....BUT its a different tune......

    And its posted by a group called Food and water watch?? hmmm would that be shills again??? Look at total sales of pesticides and applicator licenses, there down.....

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    So what if the Lu study was completely hypothetical? Spike the syrup, they won't overwinter well. Interesting. no?

    Why is the European experience so different than ours? They have a history of bans, with more than enough success to justify the continent wide ban.

    Let's not forget the objections of beekeepers like Steve Ellis. Is he delusional?

Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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