Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 245

Thread: CCD Research

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,490

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    ... our two week flea beetle coverage with the neonic treated seed was not long enough and the beetles were chewing our fields apart. So this beekeeper sprayed for bugs,
    Interesting, you have protection using neonics only for 2 weeks? So, basically, you use neonics AND on top of it other insecticides! Horrible!
    Серёжа, Sergey

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sacramento, Calif. USA
    Posts
    272

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by cerezha View Post
    Dave, could you specify, what is wrong in this study?
    Last year Bayer explained the profoundly serious problems with the Harvard study: http://www.croplife.com/article/2660...ly-flawed.html

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon USA
    Posts
    323

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Well, if Bayer says the study is flawed then.......I mean it's not like they would have a vested interest in the outcome, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueDiamond View Post
    Last year Bayer explained the profoundly serious problems with the Harvard study: http://www.croplife.com/article/2660...ly-flawed.html

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,490

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueDiamond View Post
    Last year Bayer explained the profoundly serious problems with the Harvard study: http://www.croplife.com/article/2660...ly-flawed.html
    I am sorry, Bayer is not a scientist. I was asking expert opinion from the scientist with 40 years expertise! It is different. I would also consider the scientific paper published in peer reviewed journal. If Bayer have something to say - they could publish an article.
    Серёжа, Sergey

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon USA
    Posts
    323

    Default Re: CCD Research

    As early as the 1950's, the Tobacco Industry knew that their products were carcinogenic--their own scientists told them so. Still, for decades they insisted that tobacco, and smoking in particular, did NOT cause cancer--and yet all along they KNEW that it did and they intentionally hid the truth in order to protect their profits.


    "We have one essential job -- which can be simply said: Stop public panic ... There is only one problem–confidence, and how to establish it; public assurance,
    and how to create it . . . And, most important, how to free millions of Americans from the guilty fear that is going to arise deep in their biological depths –
    regardless of any pooh-poohing logic - every time they light a cigarette."
    (Hill and Knowlton, 1953)

    Statement released by the Tobacco Industry in 1954 in order to address rising health concerns about tobacco:

    “Distinguished authorities point out:

    1. That medical research of recent years indicates many possible causes of lung cancer.
    2. That there is no agreement among the authorities regarding what the cause is.
    3. That there is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes.
    4. That statistics purporting to link smoking with the disease could apply with equal force to any one of many other aspects of modern life. Indeed the
    validity of the statistics themselves are questioned by numerous scientists.”
    (TIRC, 1954)

    http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/...oExplained.pdf

    Sound familiar?

    Try this on for size:

    "We have one essential job -- which can be simply said: Stop public panic ... There is only one problem–confidence, and how to establish it; public assurance,
    and how to create it . . . And, most important, how to free millions of Americans from the guilty fear that is going to arise deep in their biological depths –
    regardless of any pooh-poohing logic - every time they purchase a GMO product."

    Or

    Distinguished Bee authorities point out that:

    1. That entomological research of recent years indicates many possible causes of Colony Collapse Disorder.
    2. That there is no agreement among the authorities regarding what the cause is.
    3. That there is no proof that neonicotinoids is one of the causes.
    4. That statistics purporting to link neonicontinoids with CCD could apply with equal force to any one of many other aspects of modern agriculture. Indeed the
    validity of the statistics themselves are questioned by numerous scientists.”

    It worked for Big Tobacco for decades, you'd have to be pretty darned naive to think that the neonics industry isn't using the same tactics when it comes to bee health and CCD......

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sacramento, Calif. USA
    Posts
    272

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDawg View Post
    What's interesting to me is that while Bayer and Monsanto have made a big deal about their newly announced partnership to "tackle the varroa problem" why aren't they teaming up to investigate CCD? Maybe because A) they're afraid that the research will show their products are a big part of the cause and B) that they're trying to pin all the blame for CCD on varroa so as to keep the $3 billion a year in neonics sales.......
    I've never heard of a "newly announced partnership [between Bayer and Monsanto] to tackle the varroa problem".

    CCD prevalence doesn't correlate well with high vs low neonic usage areas in the USA, hence Bayer and Monsanto have no reason to believe neonics or GMO crops are associated with the prevalence of CCD. Both companies support efforts to improve bee health via planting flower strips in crop monocultural areas and finding new ways to lower varroa mite levels http://beecare.bayer.com/media-cente...t-varroa-mites And in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTJBvu6OlHo Randy Oliver states: "When we're talking about varroa and bee health what we're really talking about it virus management and if you can keep the varroa population down the virus's are not normally as much of an issue."

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    BD:

    I don't think that they're doing much of anything besides PR.

    They planted 450 acres of pollinator friendly plants in California. However, there are 80 million acres of corn, and 70 million acres of soybeans planted here in the U.S. .

    Who knows how many million acres were taken out of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) because it made more economic sense to plant GM crops.

    450 acres can't make up for all of the land that was previously CRP and a benefit to pollinators and wildlife.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Aberdeen, Idaho
    Posts
    445

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by cerezha View Post
    I am sorry, Bayer is not a scientist. I was asking expert opinion from the scientist with 40 years expertise! It is different. I would also consider the scientific paper published in peer reviewed journal. If Bayer have something to say - they could publish an article.
    Cerezha my critique of the study mirrors Randy Oliver's. Randy is a very good, conscientious researcher.
    Dave

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Randy is a good Honeybee, Science writer.

    However, he's not a professional scientist with institutional affiliations.

    He had no business, under any circumstances, interferring with the publication of Lu's paper in the Bulletin of Insectology.

    Randy is, for all intents and purposes, a Bayer spokesman.

    It's a conflict of interest.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Aberdeen, Idaho
    Posts
    445

    Default Re: CCD Research

    WLC I think your critique of Randy Oliver is biased and way off base. Randy's research techniques are very thorough. The fact that you are so blatantly against him makes your opinion worthless to me.
    Dave

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,585

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by cerezha View Post
    I am sorry, Bayer is not a scientist. I was asking expert opinion from the scientist with 40 years expertise! It is different. I would also consider the scientific paper published in peer reviewed journal. If Bayer have something to say - they could publish an article.
    Ive read the study carefully, it is trash. I know all 3 authors, and my direct questions were not answered. Dr Lu said he would be happy to answer the qustions through lettets to the editor of the journal that published the study.
    My email to the editor of the journal was answered with pointing out that the journal is only published.twice a year, and does not have a letter to the editor section.

    I would be happy to share some of my notes, but no one with a brain and a little bit of context could take this study seriously.

    Deknow
    The irony is free. It's the sarcasm you are paying for....ironically.
    -Felicity Jones in "Chalet Girl"

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    DuPage County, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,390

    Default Re: CCD Research

    I always take anything someone posts with a grain of salt who uses/hides behind a cryptic User Name, especially in discussions like these, where judgments of character are being made.
    Regards, Barry

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Herrick, SD USA
    Posts
    4,322

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Randy is a person with an opinion just like everyone else. He has a right to state that opinion anywhere he so chooses whether that be on his personal web site magazine publications or speaking engagements. His opinion does carry considerably more weight than, for example, folks posting on here. I think I know why that is. If this irks some in academia I doubt that he is losing any sleep over it.
    "People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    This thread is about the Harvard study.

    You know, the one that made big headlines and got a well deserved glowing write up in the Boston Globe?

    Randy's critique of the Harvard study is biased due to his Monsanto/Bayer ties.

    I'm simply pointing out that there's a conflict of interest, and that it's part of a PR campaign that has recently been termed 'Bee-Washing'.

    I think that we can do better.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,585

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Scientists have no business telling anyone they do or dont have business to read and critique a study.

    Deknow
    The irony is free. It's the sarcasm you are paying for....ironically.
    -Felicity Jones in "Chalet Girl"

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,585

    Default Re: CCD Research

    My critique of the study is not part of any pr campaign.

    Deknow
    The irony is free. It's the sarcasm you are paying for....ironically.
    -Felicity Jones in "Chalet Girl"

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Has anyone, besides myself, noticed that we've been completely deflected from the real issue?

    Why did the Harvard study have such a big impact, flaws and all?

    It was the hypothesis they were testing, and the overwintering mortality that resembled CCD (similar to the French studies).

    In light of the recent, continent wide, neonic seed ban in the EU,

    I'd say that Lu et al. were on the winning side.

    Can we say 'Sore Losers' at this time?

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Dean:

    Throw all the tomatoes you please. Just don't call up the folks at "The Bulletin of Insectology".

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,585

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by WLC View Post
    Unfortunately, he tried to do it before the study was published since he got hold of a copy of the paper. That's a big no, no.
    Errrr, Dr Lu was happy.to give presentations on the results and put out a press release as to the conclusions of the study before it was released.....and at the time the globe did a story based on the press release.

    So the author and the institution can publish their results and seek press, yet fatal flaws in procedure and conclusions are off limits?

    Its also a no no to present that the bt in bt corn is used, not for the bt toxin, but as a was to inject neonics into the dna of the plant.

    Deknow
    The irony is free. It's the sarcasm you are paying for....ironically.
    -Felicity Jones in "Chalet Girl"

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Dean:

    Please tell me that you didn't contact 'The Bulletin' to try and suppress the study.

    I'm picking up on a bias towards Dr. Lu here.

    When have any of you gone after a scientist before, like some of you did in the case of Dr. Lu?

    Who instigated the 'lynching' of a U.S. scientist?

    I don't think that it was you.

Page 4 of 13 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