Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 245

Thread: CCD Research

  1. #141
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    28,055

    Default Re: CCD Research

    WLC,
    Have you consideresd discussing this on Bee-L?
    Mark Berninghausen
    Squeak Creek Apiaries



  2. #142
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    No thanks.

    They're too partisan for my tastes.

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,704

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by sqkcrk View Post
    WLC,
    Have you consideresd discussing this on Bee-L?
    Mark, have you considered that he isn't really discussing it here? A discussion involves actually looking at the objections and _discussing_ them. Wholesale dismissal of very valid and very well thought out critique is not discussion.

    I posted a PDF of some of the powerpoint slides I've used when discussing this paper.

    When I gave a presentation on reading studies critically (The People's Homework), I used this one as an example....it was great that several phd scientists of various specialties attended, and at least a few of them had read the paper in advance so they knew what I was talking about. This same venue (Follow The Honey, a honey store in Harvard Square) hosted Dr. Lu (talking about this study specifically), and one of the other study authors (talking about queens, I think). I gave a brief version at our conference one year as well.

    I've received no negative feedback on my written critiques or my presentations on the subject from anyone that has read or attended them other than from the study authors and from WLC. One of the study authors did write me about some of my comments....WLC seems free to dismiss them wholesale.

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

  4. #144
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Dean:

    As I've said before, Alex Lu won.

    We've discussed the critique of the paper a while ago.

    I'm not sure why you can't let go of this whole 'unsavory' affair.

    Look at the bright side, when his new paper comes out, you can tear into that one all over again.

    But, uhhh, leave the character assassination part out.

    It made you guys look kinda unhinged.

  5. #145
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    28,055

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by deknow View Post
    Mark, have you considered that he isn't really discussing it here?

    deknow
    Yes, I was attempting to make a suggestion that he try to "discuss" this topic on Bee-L, where Randy posts. I'd love to see how Peter Borst would react to WLC's criticism of Randy Oliver.
    Mark Berninghausen
    Squeak Creek Apiaries



  6. #146
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Randy and Dean are going to have to stop bugging the Italians over at 'The Bulletin of Insectology'. Otherwise, they might think they're 'Pazzo'.

    I haven't emailed Peter in a while though.

  7. #147
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,704

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by WLC View Post
    But, uhhh, leave the character assassination part out.

    It made you guys look kinda unhinged.
    errrr, didn't I quote Dr. Lu trashing another study...on totally bogus grounds? In a public presentation? In a recording that he gave permission to put online?

    I'll also point out that if you look at the timeline, you will see (I think), that my comments here on the study predated anything on Bee-L.

    http://www.beesource.com/forums/show...435#post767435
    Hi all,

    I was also at this talk (doing sound) and have a video recording. Please be a bit patient, as I want to follow up with the researcher in question....but I will say that there were some serious flaws in the study, and in the researchers understanding of the technology involved. I can't comment on the study itself (as I haven't read it), but the presentation was ....let me say for the moment...."inaccurate in many ways"....more to come.
    The perils of benefactors; The blessings of parasites; Blindness blindness and sight -Joni Mitchell 'Shadows and Light'

  8. #148
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    28,055

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by WLC View Post
    I haven't emailed Peter in a while though.
    When was the last time? Did u talk about Lu's study or Oliver's comments?
    Mark Berninghausen
    Squeak Creek Apiaries



  9. #149
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Madonna...

    By the way, I had to clue Peter in to 'The Bulletin of Insectology'. He didn't know what it was.

  10. #150
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    The last time I emailed PLB, I was trying to warn Randy about Remebee. Dean remembers that.

    It didn't do any good, and my worst fears were confirmed.

  11. #151
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon USA
    Posts
    323

    Default Re: CCD Research

    deKnow,

    Just out of curiosity, is there a single study or paper that points to the negative impacts of neonics on bee health that you don't find fault with?

    Because there are dozens and dozens of research papers that DO point out potential negative impacts to bee health from neonics--are all of those researchers and all of the peer review panels just getting it wrong?

    For the record, this is the EXACT sane type of game that was played when reports of health issues from tobacco, Dioxin, PCB's, etc first became public. Industry "scientists" and industry apologists slammed the data sets, the methods, anything and everything they could to discredit the research and maintain the flow of profits.

    Do you find fault with these articles?

    "Multiple Routes of Pesticide Exposure for Honey Bees Living Near Agricultural Fields"
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...3/?tool=pubmed

    "Combined pesticide exposure severely affects individual- and colony-level traits in bees"
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495159/

    "Interactions between Nosema microspores and a neonicotinoid weaken honey bees."
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20050872

    "High levels of miticides and agrochemicals in North American apiaries: implications for honey bee health."
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20333298

    "Fatal powdering of bees in flight with particulates of neonicotinoids seed coating and humidity implication."
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...144106E.d01t03

    "Pesticide-laden dust emission and drift from treated seeds during seed drilling: a review"
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1....3485/abstract

    Are all of these studies flawed as well? If you think so, what is your explanation for why so many scientists are "getting it wrong" on neonics and honeybee health?

  12. #152
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sacramento, Calif. USA
    Posts
    272

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDawg View Post
    Are all of these studies flawed as well? If you think so, what is your explanation for why so many scientists are "getting it wrong" on neonics and honeybee health?
    They're not full field studies designed 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 and canola flowers) and then suffer acute or chronic health problems.

    There have been some full field studies like this $950,000 one - conducted by Cynthia Scott-Dupree, a professor in the University of Guelph’s School of Environmental Sciences - which found 'no link between seed treatments [canola] and bee deaths" http://www.producer.com/daily/ontari...ts-bee-deaths/

    "Scott-Dupree said she knows critics will say she’s in Bayer’s back pocket or focus on the study’s weaknesses when it is submitted for publication later this year, even though the EPA and PMRA verified the protocols and an independent quality assurance team supervised data collection and analysis."

  13. #153
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    BigDawg:

    Don't forget some of the newer studies by Goulson.

  14. #154
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon USA
    Posts
    323

    Default Re: CCD Research

    1. The study was funded by Bayer. 'Nuff said.

    2. The bees were only exposed to the canola fields for TWO WEEKS.

    3. The canola field they were exposed to were only 25% in bloom.

    4. The final insecticide residue analysis has not yet been released, and, given who paid for the study I wouldn't hold my breath....

    So, while you dismiss laboratory studies because they make neonics look bad, you trot out this study as somehow being more "real world?" Seriously? How many bees do you know that only visit a flowering field for 2 weeks when it's only 25% in bloom? Where else on the planet are bees in an agricultural area where neonics are used only going to be exposed to neonic-coated seed plants for only 2 weeks?

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueDiamond View Post
    They're not full field studies designed 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 and canola flowers) and then suffer acute or chronic health problems.

    There have been some full field studies like this $950,000 one - conducted by Cynthia Scott-Dupree, a professor in the University of Guelph’s School of Environmental Sciences - which found 'no link between seed treatments [canola] and bee deaths" http://www.producer.com/daily/ontari...ts-bee-deaths/

    "Scott-Dupree said she knows critics will say she’s in Bayer’s back pocket or focus on the study’s weaknesses when it is submitted for publication later this year, even though the EPA and PMRA verified the protocols and an independent quality assurance team supervised data collection and analysis."

  15. #155
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sacramento, Calif. USA
    Posts
    272

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by WLC View Post
    BigDawg:
    Don't forget some of the newer studies by Goulson.
    Goulson's studies are not full field studies either:

    Dave Goulson study:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/ea...cience.1215025

    GOULSON STUDY SUMMARY: "We exposed colonies of the bumble bee Bombus terrestris in the lab to field-realistic levels of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid, then allowed them to develop naturally under field conditions. Treated colonies had a significantly reduced growth rate and suffered an 85% reduction in production of new queens compared to control colonies. Given the scale of use of neonicotinoids, we suggest that they may be having a considerable negative impact on wild bumble bee populations across the developed world."

    BAYER CROPSCIENCE RESPONSE: Dr. Julian Little, spokesman for Bayer Cropscience, criticised Goulson's study because the bees were exposed to imidacloprid in the labaratory, before being placed outside in a natural field environment to feed. "All studies looking at the interaction of bees and pesticides must be done in a full field situation," he said. "This study does not demonstrate that current agricultural practices damage bee colonies." http://tinyurl.com/7n86thg

  16. #156
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon USA
    Posts
    323

    Default Re: CCD Research

    You say that field studies are important, and yet you referenced above to the Scott-Dupree study where the bees were only exposed to neonics in the field for TWO WEEKS to crops that were only 25% in bloom. Would you say that that low level of exposure is typical to what bees "in the field" would normally experience?

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueDiamond View Post
    Goulson's studies are not full field studies either:

    Dave Goulson study:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/ea...cience.1215025

    GOULSON STUDY SUMMARY: "We exposed colonies of the bumble bee Bombus terrestris in the lab to field-realistic levels of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid, then allowed them to develop naturally under field conditions. Treated colonies had a significantly reduced growth rate and suffered an 85% reduction in production of new queens compared to control colonies. Given the scale of use of neonicotinoids, we suggest that they may be having a considerable negative impact on wild bumble bee populations across the developed world."

    BAYER CROPSCIENCE RESPONSE: Dr. Julian Little, spokesman for Bayer Cropscience, criticised Goulson's study because the bees were exposed to imidacloprid in the labaratory, before being placed outside in a natural field environment to feed. "All studies looking at the interaction of bees and pesticides must be done in a full field situation," he said. "This study does not demonstrate that current agricultural practices damage bee colonies." http://tinyurl.com/7n86thg

  17. #157
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    I had this one in mind:

    http://www.sussex.ac.uk/lifesci/goul...n-2013-jae.pdf

    "An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides."

    'For the most commonly used seed treatments, reported half-lives in soil typically range from 200 to in excess of 1000 days (range 28–1250 days for imidacloprid; 7–3001 days for thiamethoxam; 148–6931 days for clothianidin; Table 1).'

    Yikes!

    That suggests to me that neonics can build up to very high levels in certain soils over the years.

    ...which makes the concentrations used in the Harvard study more realistic, and it can also explain what Steve Ellis is dealing with.

    ...An environmental pollutant.

  18. #158
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sacramento, Calif. USA
    Posts
    272

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDawg View Post
    You say that field studies are important, and yet you referenced above to the Scott-Dupree study where the bees were only exposed to neonics in the field for TWO WEEKS to crops that were only 25% in bloom. Would you say that that low level of exposure is typical to what bees "in the field" would normally experience?
    Two weeks = 1/2 the lifespan of a worker bee
    25% canola bloom is still a massive bloom: http://www.ablecrystals.com/images/canola1.jpg

  19. #159
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    BlueDiamond:

    What Goulson is describing is an Environmental 'time bomb'.

    By 2020, it will be too late.

    I'm not being dramatic.

    Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick.....

  20. #160
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    28,055

    Default Re: CCD Research

    So, WLC, do you think we can stop looking for the cause of CCD? And then can we concentrate on the things killing the other 25% of last year's 30%?
    Mark Berninghausen
    Squeak Creek Apiaries



Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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