-- The real problem is not precise language, it's clear language. - Richard Feynman
Watch out for Graham, we don't call him the Resident Archiver for nothing!
Cerez; you have just confused me. I thought the discussion was the study. Blue is just quoteing from it, not from the outside. Now if the study contradicts itself that tells me it is flawed or not explained properly by the authors.
Yeah, after 2 weeks of possible exposure to neonics (the study's authors never bothered to check the dna from the pollen samples collected from the hives to make sure the bees were actually foraging on the neonic canola....) apparently the bees did ok. But where are the real life studies from Bayer, Monsanto, and Syngenta? Neonics have been a suspected culprit in CCD for nearly 7 years now threatening the $3 billion a year neonics industry, and you mean to tell me that the industry hasn't done any long-term exposure studies?
I'm betting that they have, and that they weren't happy with the results and so they are keeping the studies to themselves.....
canola blooms for 3 weeks
as mentioned earlier: 3 weeks is ~33% of a bee's life, and 100% of its childhood. Isn't that enough?
Also if the canola bloom only normally lasts 3 weeks, isn't the test a normal experience for bees (at least for bees living in neonic canola fields)?
I'm not aware of a single incidence where a beek put a new (i.e. previously unexposed to neonics) hive on a neonics crop for two weeks, and then had that hive develop CCD and die out. If you've seen a report like that, please let me know.....So therefore, testing under those parameters seems, well, pretty much useless--unless of course to want to try and show that neonics don't harm bees...
Where are the long-term, real world, studies that actually mimic the exposure levels that the hives developing CCD have been exposed to?
forums despite the fact the Corn Belt is the heart neonic country:
Uploaded with ImageShack.com
Canola grows for 6 months, blooms for 3 weeks.
Corn grows for 6 months and actively produces pollen for only 8 days.
sounds like you've just endorsed neonic treatments.
Talking about hives that HAVEN'T got CCD is pretty much pointless. Millions of people who smoke cigarettes don't get lung cancer, that doesn't in any way mean that smoking doesn't cause cancer......
BTW, I've seen the pro-neonics crowd state several times that there has been no CCD in Illinois--what about long term beekeeper Steve Mayes who has been looking at 55% and 60% losses over the past few years?
"Steve Mayes said it was another bad winter for his bees.
The owner of Mackinaw Valley Apiaries said he lost 55 percent of the bees he had in 320 hives across central Illinois.
“That’s better than last year when 60 percent died,” Mayes said. Mayes said it may be coincidence, but the problems of disappearing bees came to light at about the same time that synthetic pesticides using neonicotinoid chemicals came into wider use. Citing a study by the federal government, Mayes said that exposure to the pesticide at a dose of two or three parts per billion was enough to throw off the bees.
“It doesn’t kill them, but they can’t find their way home,” he said.
That's something else the pro-neonics folks don't want to talk about--the fact that a lot of the beeks reporting CCD losses are long-time beekeepers with many years experience. These aren't newbies or hobbyists, these are people who have been working with bees for decades, and yet they are suffering major losses due to CCD. Beeks like Steve Mayes, Bret Adee, Steve Ellis, Bill Dahle, Jim Doan, the list goes on and on. Combined, these beeks have decades and decades of experience, and yet the neonics industry would like us to believe that the only problem is PPBK......
3rd generation beekeeper Bret Adee gets it:
"What's causing CCD? Experts say nobody knows. But Mr. Adee, who said he had long scorned environmentalists’ hand-wringing about such issues, said he was starting to wonder whether they had a point.
Of the “environmentalist” label, Mr. Adee said: “I would have been insulted if you had called me that a few years ago. But what you would have called extreme — a light comes on, and you think, ‘These guys really have something. Maybe they were just ahead of the bell curve.’”
how do you know these aren't longtime beekeepers with hives coated with years of miticide treatments?
Nothing here points to neonics causing CCD, and nether does your smoking, PCB, and dioxin analogies
"Surveys have been done that report on the severity of bee losses by location, by state. The U.S. Department of Agriculture generates maps of how big the losses have been in different parts of the country. There’s no strong geographic pattern. This is because CCD losses occur in places where the most commercial beekeeping occurs and commercial beekeeping in general is on wheels – beehives are trucked throughout the country for pollination purposes.
There are several migratory routes that these hives follow. As many as two-thirds of the commercial honey bee colonies in America are moved to northern California for a period of two to three weeks just for almond pollination. CCD losses are greater in commercial beekeeping operations areas.
In addition to pathogens, parasites and poor nutrition, pesticides are also implicated. The newer pesticides are much safer for humans. They also are being applied in ways that make them safer to humans, but they also have negative effects on beneficial insects."
"In a bizarre political twist, in their zeal to target neonics or any chemical for that matter, the Center for Food Safety and other advocacy groups have forged pacts with some of the most notorious and worst performing commercial beekeeping operations, who believe they can ride the activist outrage to a large legal settlement."
Lol, and of course the industry claiming that neonics don't harm bees isn't about money, right? They're just trying to "feed the world?" Lol, umm, ok.....
I named several prominent beekeepers above who have experienced CCD and at least partially attribute CCD to neonics. Please provide your proof that those beekeepers are lying about neonics in order to get a big cash settlement.....
ask a question to a bunch of beekeepers get a bunch of answers. It's not surprising some out there would consider neonics as a possibility. Then again they aren't scientists.
of course then there is this Randy Oliver who is a biologist and a beekeeper who was able to model CCD (as monitored by Dr Mussen):
Thanks for the link BD: http://illinois.edu/lb/article/72/73513
It's actually quite thoughtful and in my mind pretty much on the mark and which mostly contradicts everything BD has been claiming for quite some time. If neonics were the sole cause of CCD (as the title of this thread claims) then there wouldn't be such variation between bee operations and the million plus hives they constitute which summer in areas surrounded by Neonic treated crops. One must look for VARIABLES and there are many. Forage in a given year, when they are moved to summer pasturage, when they are moved back out and where bees are wintered, what type of feed they are wintered on, pollen substitues, mite levels, mite treatments, nucing/brood break practices, nosema levels, nosema treatments, pesticide/fungicide exposure, bee types, age and history of comb.....just to name some of the most prominent. To single out neonics is just refusal to see that it dosent dovetail with the overwhelming body of evidence. I would be a fool to suggest that I have never had bees suffer any detrimental effects from them but then again I have no evidence that they have either and neither do their critics, only suspicions....like the title of this thread. Look at the big picture folks, try to see it all.
i make no comment about the motives of other beekeepers except to say that anytime you choose to be included in lawsuits one must expect your motives to be questioned, rightly or wrongly.
"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney