And THAT Charlie is the problem--we become the defacto lab rats for the pesticide companies, all without our consent.Real world testing is being done on a huge scale.. and unfortunatly the results are in... Mybees are fine, despite being in the most heavily chem treated areas... and CCD here in the midwest, is non existant.....
Yawn...yet another unrealistic bee poisoning by researcher study that will not answer key questions like: 1) What pathogen(s) cause CCD? 2) Why do many beekeepers in heavy neonic usage areas have little CCD and low winter losses? Why do many beekeepers in low neonic usage areas have considerable CCD and high winter losses?... were applied to healthy honey bees and proved toxic to some degree irrespective of dosage.
Another new wound to the anti-neonic crowd: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=BC70C83CBDE883F9E892EA6BE97724FF.d03t04I haven't seen anyone refute high neonics vs low ccd and the reverse. Obviously this seems like at least a serious wound if not a fatal blow to the anti neonic crowd.
And as we all remember, it worked quite nicely As for paper - it is important who wrote the article - some people have more credentials than other. In this case, it is even not a "paper" it is sort of interpretation of public data without any statistical analysis etc. I am surprised that it was accepted as a scientific paper. Make me think about reviewing process in that journal. It is also important to disclose any conflict of interest in the paper - apparently, David Drexler did not disclose that he was with Bayer 2006 – 2011. It is unethical in our communityUse your shoe for more emphasis!
Why do you repeatedly keep trying to link tobacco with bees when "most people are smart enough to understand ....."Of course it matters a great deal what/who the source of the information is, i.e. the Tobacco Industry "scientists" to this day insist that smoking doesn't cause cancer, and yet most people are smart enough to understand that they are paid by the tobacco industry to create and maintain a misinformation campaign designed to hide the truth about the harmful effects of their products....
It is not "missinformation", it is "interpretation" without using any scientific tool(s) to prove their interpretation. They claimed at the beginning of the "article" that data was very spotty, many fields were not filled up and approximations were used. They did conclusion, which is not originated from the data... for simple reason - there were not enough data for statistical analysis - only 100 partially reported cases.it doesn't seem like the report is full of misinformation ...
Actually, as far as I can tell the study just showed some fungicides impaired the bees' ability to fight off Nosema ceranae when the bees were FORCE FED field collected pollen samples containing fungicide.From the Quartz article: "The findings break new ground on why large numbers of bees are dying"
Tobacco companies, in my opinion, committed the crime and never were punished accordingly. The crime was - systematic purposely misrepresentation of the effects of tobacco smoke on human health. By intentionally doing that, yes, they lost credentials. It is up to every individual to decide in what to believe. Nobody limit you. Now, those tobacco "scientists" are still alive (not punished) and possible do "research" in another place - would you believe them?... That said we should believe no one and yet everyone if they have views similar to ours. GOT IT!!!!
The study's primary author, Jeffrey Pettis, has a PhD in Entomology and is currently the head scientist of the US Department of Agriculture's Bee Research Laboratory, so, I'm hoping he understands beekeeping pretty well.....I think the article is poorly written. I can't see that the author really understands beekeeping to properly digest the findings of the study. Is it plausible that ingesting a fungicide could impair a bees bowel system enough to make an existing pest become a real problem? That's the 24k question here. It seems plausible to me, but I think there would need to be further study on the matter.
Three weeks exposure followed by nearly a year's worth of health monitoring: https://dspace.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10214/2621/32546.pdf?sequence=12. Bees were only exposed to neonics for TWO WEEKS. Please explain how any bees, anywhere, in "full field situations" would only be exposed to neonics for two weeks out of the year? .
What "intensive ag areas" have crops that are in bloom for a whole year and so would cause bees to get exposed to neonics for an entire year?Why didn't they let them get exposed to neonics for the entire year like most bees in intensive ag areas are?
A big emphasis on the "routinely" part. I have seen some years where bees didn't touch the canola. I don't know if it is the variety or another variable. For example: this year, we have canola fields within 300m of the hives. After numerous checks, I've only seen one bee on the canola one time I checked. The clover on the other side of the road is loaded with bees.Its worth noting that canola is highly attractive to honeybees, intense flows and large honey crops are routinely seen.
Come on. This argument was introduced by Bayer and was heavily discussed on beesource. People from Australia testified that they do not keep bees in near proximity from treated fields. Even some official from agricultural ministry (?) provided an official letter on this regard - it is somewhere on beesource. Please, do not continue the tradition of BlueDiamond repeating old "arguments" again and again ... it is not fun to read the same stuff 10 times...In Australia, neonics have been used for around 20 years but, because it has no varroa, it is said to have the healthiest bees in the world....
I think we all should remember this:
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
in my original post, I am not talking about people. I merely presented the description of the "troll" from Wikipedia. I do not think that "troll" is a people Forgive my ESLwhich people do you think are "not familar with Internet ethics and need to be controlled"?