Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 206
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    San Mateo, Ca, USA
    Posts
    408

    Default Re: 600 Hives Lost in Ontario--CCD/Neonics Suspected Cause

    Dog,
    its awfully hard to prove a negative.

    for example, Coffee has never been proven to be carcinogenic, but its never been proven to not be carcinogenic and therefore its listed by the United Nations (we know how scientific they are) as a possible carcinogen. If we follow your advise, we should ban the use of coffee until we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it or any of its components (pre and post roasting, water used in making it, soil nutrients of the soil it's grown in, etc) do in fact not cause cancer. Only after exploring and exhausting every hypothetical possibility can the coffee be allowed to be grown and consumed.

    If you went with that approach everything would be banned.

    That being said, the leading (and obvious) indicator that Neonic pesticides do not contribute to CCD (also observed by Richard above) is that the footprint for neonic pesticide use does not correspond to CCD impacted areas. On top of that some of the heaviest use areas of neonic applications (such as miles and miles of Canola fields in North Dakota) have thriving bees.



    Quote Originally Posted by BigDawg View Post
    True, but neither has the case been made that they are not contributing to CCD.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    San Mateo, Ca, USA
    Posts
    408

    Default Re: 600 Hives Lost in Ontario--CCD/Neonics Suspected Cause

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDawg View Post
    Given the growing body of scientific evidence clearly demonstrating harm to human health, harm to pollinators, and harm to feedlot animals from exposure to GMO's.
    what evidence was that? Is there anything that you can site?

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    San Mateo, Ca, USA
    Posts
    408

    Default Re: 600 Hives Lost in Ontario--CCD/Neonics Suspected Cause

    Dog,
    what is your concern about GMO? What is it that GMO plants are going to do to us or do to the world that you are worried about? No one has ever really answered that question.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    pomfret, ct,USA
    Posts
    163

    Default Re: 600 Hives Lost in Ontario--CCD/Neonics Suspected Cause

    Quote Originally Posted by BayHighlandBees View Post
    Dog,
    what is your concern about GMO? What is it that GMO plants are going to do to us or do to the world that you are worried about? No one has ever really answered that question.
    That's the problem who the heck knows what these GMO products are doing to humans, animals, insects etc. But the companies still get to market & sell the seeds and change the face of agriculture.

    Based on passed claims from "those in the know" who years ago said eggs are bad for you too much cholesterol RED alert stop eating eggs to ..fast forward eggs are super good for you or margarine is good for you fast forward...hyrdro fats are not good for you. Are we to believe anything a company like Monsanto says and for that matter anything the USDA, EPA or FDA claims?

    In my opinion, contrary to what many humans think, we don't know how it should be (tweaking nature creating GMO's for our reasons) nature knows / is what's best and in my opinion it's not a seed created in a petri dish or test tube.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    27,069

    Default Re: 600 Hives Lost in Ontario--CCD/Neonics Suspected Cause

    600? Is that all? I had a call from a guy from AZ who lost half of his 400 hives to the heat. He told me about another beekeeper who lost thousands. Why can't someone do something about these record temperatures?
    Mark Berninghausen #youmatter

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,496

    Default Re: 600 Hives Lost in Ontario--CCD/Neonics Suspected Cause

    Absolutely true - I am from another planet. But, you guys just contradict to themselves - the point was that insecticide in fact kills people and it kills other beneficial creatures (human is not beneficial, I am sorry). Comparison to the cars is absolute bogus - I wish pesticides would be tested for safety so vigorously as cars! Did you witness how many cars manufacturers re-called when any safety issue discovered? Why pesticides are different? They have to be called back, re-tested and returned to the market if proven safe. Why it is such problem? On my planet, we do not understand this. Sorry.
    Last edited by Barry; 07-18-2013 at 06:53 AM.
    Серёжа, Sergey

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Chardon, Ohio
    Posts
    86

    Default Re: 600 Hives Lost in Ontario--CCD/Neonics Suspected Cause

    Sergey says "I wish pesticides would be tested for safety so vigorously as cars!"

    No, you are not from another planet. Simply uneducated on Ag topics.

    Pesticides are tested for safety far more rigorously than cars. Cars only need to pass a few crash tests before marketing. Go read the US code of federal regulations and learn what the pesticide registration laws are in this country. In fact pesticides marketed in the US are tested far more rigorously for safety than pharmaceuticals marketed in the US. How many on here take a statin to lower cholesterol for instance? If statins were pesticides the US EPA would not register them for use on any crop. They are way too dangerous to use as a pesticide based on what the limited safety testing needed to register a pharma product turned up. An Ag candidate with those findings would never even be submitted for registration. An Ag product with problems like statins have would have been killed early in development. That said, remember that every chemical is a poison. All it takes is a high enough dose. That includes water and oxygen.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon USA
    Posts
    323

    Default Re: 600 Hives Lost in Ontario--CCD/Neonics Suspected Cause

    Richard this is an oft-repeated claim: that pesticides are heavily tested, have passed those tests/safety guidelines, and therefore are safe.

    And yet every single harmful substance that has been pulled from the market was once declared to be "safe" as well.

    They told us PCB's were safe. They told us tobacco was safe. They told us Dioxin was safe. They told us DDT was safe. And yet years later, we now know that NONE of those products are in fact, safe. AND, we also know, through lawsuits and the discovery process, that in ALL of those cases the companies making the claims to the public and to govt regulators that those products were safe, KNEW, for DECADES, that those products were in fact NOT safe but they LIED in order to keep them on the market and keep the profits rolling in.

    Specifically regarding neonics and CCD, as I understand it, in order to get approval for a new pesticide, manufacturers and NOT required to do long-term, (in the field testing or even the lab) relative to harm to non-target pollinators from sub-lethal exposure to pesticide products. Of COURSE we know that insecticides kill insects--one of the key questions in CCD research is at what level do all of these systemic pesticides build up in the comb, bee pollen, etc. At what level of exposure over time, at sub-lethal levels, do neonics weaken/impact bee health so that they become more succeptible to viruses, pathogens, etc. Those kinds of studies SHOULD be required, but they are not, in no small part due to heavy lobbying from pesticide manufacturers who constantly deride the "heavy hand of government and over-burdensome regulation."

    In addition to not being required to test sub-lethal effects, they are also not required to study the impacts of their pesticides on bee larvae, nor or they required to study the impacts of their poisons on the colony as a whole--a living, breathing super-organism.

    So, until REALISTIC studies and research are conducted that really examine the potential harm from pesticides in a meaningful way, excuse me if I don't take the industry's word for it that their product is safe because they have a long and well-documented history of lying through their teeth and only meeting the barest minimum of scientific research--and in several cases these same people have been caught FALSIFYING documents and BRIBING government officials in order to get their products into the marketplace.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Manitoba, Canada, North of the 50th Parallel
    Posts
    217

    Default Re: 600 Hives Lost in Ontario--CCD/Neonics Suspected Cause

    Quote Originally Posted by cerezha View Post
    Absolutely true - I am from another planet.
    I would like to personally commend the positive attitude Sergey has demonstrated on this forum. In numerous posts and threads, I have read where people have rudely posted references to his intelligence and understanding. Without saying whether they were right or wrong, there must be other ways of "educating" someone without telling them that they have "no clue", "completely clueless", "completely missed the mark" etc.

    Once again, kudos to Sergey for not letting this affect him. I am surprised that the moderators tolerate such rudeness directed towards a poster on this forum.


    JH
    Happiness comes from within

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Nacogdoches,TX,USA
    Posts
    77

    Default Re: 600 Hives Lost in Ontario--CCD/Neonics Suspected Cause

    Don't forget Herbicides I lost 5 nucs to 2,4-d when a farmer where I had placed some bees for pollination treated for pig weed he didn't think it would hurt the bees since 2,4-d is not and insecticide
    I had thought that since not much row crops are grown in my area I would have no problem from chemicals but it turns out they use herbicides real regular to keep brush from growing in pastures

    David

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sacramento, Calif. USA
    Posts
    272

    Default Re: 600 Hives Lost in Ontario--CCD/Neonics Suspected Cause

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDawg View Post
    They told us PCB's were safe. They told us tobacco was safe. They told us Dioxin was safe. They told us DDT was safe.
    That's ancient history - 1960's and earlier decades - before there was an EPA - before there was extensive testing.

    What major product mistakes did the ag chemical and biotech industries made in the 1980's - 2010's?

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon USA
    Posts
    323

    Default Re: 600 Hives Lost in Ontario--CCD/Neonics Suspected Cause

    Quote Originally Posted by BayHighlandBees View Post
    Dog,
    its awfully hard to prove a negative.
    Well, science doesn't ever "prove" anything-it merely tests hypotheses. In the case of neonics and CCD, it's my understanding that A) the pesticide companies themselves often do most, if not all, of the testing and B) they are not required to do long-term testing to measure the cumulative effects of sub-lethal exposures on pollinators.

    for example, Coffee has never been proven to be carcinogenic, but its never been proven to not be carcinogenic and therefore its listed by the United Nations (we know how scientific they are) as a possible carcinogen. If we follow your advise, we should ban the use of coffee until we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it or any of its components (pre and post roasting, water used in making it, soil nutrients of the soil it's grown in, etc) do in fact not cause cancer. Only after exploring and exhausting every hypothetical possibility can the coffee be allowed to be grown and consumed.

    If you went with that approach everything would be banned.
    You're using extreme, hypothetical arguments to make your point.

    Did you know that the GMO industry claims that they don't need to do human testing on GMO crops because they are a "known product?" Their logic is that humans have been eating corn for hundreds of years with no ill effect, and, they claim that their GMO corn is really just plain old corn with a little bit of "genetic tinkering", and therefore they should not have to do human studies on the health consequences of eating GMO corn because corn is a "known product."

    Of course they tell a dramatically different story to the patent office and when in court suing for patent infringement--then all of the sudden the GMO corn they sell is highy unique and unlike any other corn in existence.....

    That being said, the leading (and obvious) indicator that Neonic pesticides do not contribute to CCD (also observed by Richard above) is that the footprint for neonic pesticide use does not correspond to CCD impacted areas. On top of that some of the heaviest use areas of neonic applications (such as miles and miles of Canola fields in North Dakota) have thriving bees.
    The absence of evidence is NEVER the same thing as evidence of absence. Do you know that less than 1 in 10 smokers will get lung cancer? So, therefore the other 9 smokers can say "hey, I smoke all the time and I didn't get lung cancer, therefore smoking does not cause lung cancer--I'm living proof."

    Of course, this is faulty logic. So is saying that many hives near neonic crops don't suffer from CCD, therefore neonics don't cause CCD. This is basic logic and scientific method we're talking about here--it's not rocket science.

    Is it possible that neonics have no role whatsoever in CCD? Sure it is. But there is a growing body of literature and real life examples that strongly suggest that neonics ARE having an impact upon CCD, and I think we owe it to ourselves to REALLY find out what's going on instead of just listening to the self-serving claims of the pesticide industry who swear their products are safe--just like they told us that PCB's, Dioxin, DDT, etc were safe.....

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon USA
    Posts
    323

    Default Re: 600 Hives Lost in Ontario--CCD/Neonics Suspected Cause

    Several scientists are now acknowledging that current testing protocols may be not thorough enough to really understand the long-term consequences of newer, genetic-based technologies.

    For example, there are new pesticides and insect-resistant crops close to coming to market that are based upon RNA interference. However, current testing parameters and protocols are not sufficient to really understand the long-term consequences of their use, and scientists are calling for more stringent testing protocols:

    "The safety concern, as with other types of genetic modification and with pesticides generally, is that the artificial interfering RNAs will also harm desirable insects or other animals. And the way interfering RNA works means that simply testing for lethality might not detect important damaging effects. For example, an interfering RNA might have the unintended effect of suppressing the action of a gene needed for reproduction in a beneficial species. Standard laboratory testing would detect no harm, but there could be ecological disruption in fields because of the effects on reproduction."

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0716080026.htm

    I believe we currently have the same problem with neonics--that current testing protocols only require testing for lethality, while there is no requirement for data on the cumulative effects of sub-lethal exposure.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    San Mateo, Ca, USA
    Posts
    408

    Default Re: 600 Hives Lost in Ontario--CCD/Neonics Suspected Cause

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDawg View Post
    They told us PCB's were safe. They told us tobacco was safe. They told us Dioxin was safe. They told us DDT was safe.
    of course these were all examples during the early 1900's before any regulation or testing was put into place. Not really relevant to compare to the pre and post EPA and FDA eras

  15. #35
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Plymouth County, MA, USA
    Posts
    123

    Default Re: 600 Hives Lost in Ontario--CCD/Neonics Suspected Cause

    FenFen, aspertame, rBGH...

    Heck, just last year coke and pepsi had to pull a coloring they used in their colas because it's a carcinogen.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    San Mateo, Ca, USA
    Posts
    408

    Default Re: 600 Hives Lost in Ontario--CCD/Neonics Suspected Cause

    I expect GMO's will get much more acceptance when a new version of soy is inevitably developed that contains no natural isoflavone phytoestrogen toxins in them. isoflavones are found in all soybeans and is part of the plant natural defense against pests. Most people in the US don't eat enough soy for the toxins in them to become a concern, but if you are a vegetarian and soy is your favorite protein then the phytoestrogens in soy set you up for a lot of late in life diseases (alzheimers, thyroid diseases, parkinsons, dimentia, brain shrinkage etc). The Japanese centuries ago were aware of the toxins in soybeans and tofu and found ways to reduce the isoflavones via fermentation (the fermentation used to make soy sauce, miso, natto), but the non-fermented soy products (edamame, tofu, soy milk) still have the toxins in them.

    Now if all these vegetarian GMO protesters get access to a genetically modified soybean that contains no phytoestrogens in them where they could eat soy daily without any adverse toxic effects then I think all of this silly Luddite protest movement goes away.

    http://rense.com/general3/soy.htm

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    San Mateo, Ca, USA
    Posts
    408

    Default Re: 600 Hives Lost in Ontario--CCD/Neonics Suspected Cause

    Quote Originally Posted by hedges View Post
    FenFen, aspertame, rBGH...

    Heck, just last year coke and pepsi had to pull a coloring they used in their colas because it's a carcinogen.
    the carcinogen in pepsi: burnt sugar
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...tt/eBCL_LqcqpM

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    San Mateo, Ca, USA
    Posts
    408

    Default Re: 600 Hives Lost in Ontario--CCD/Neonics Suspected Cause

    for those interested in reading Randy Oliver's perspective on GMO plants:
    http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick...dified-plants/

  19. #39
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Plymouth County, MA, USA
    Posts
    123

    Default Re: 600 Hives Lost in Ontario--CCD/Neonics Suspected Cause

    I'm not a Luddite to expect a more vetted and objectively critical conversation about the various vectors for disease in bees' lives and in my own, without obstructionist, deflecting crap from some agro-lobby.

    But yeah, the biggest problem for Americans (as far as I can see it) about the soy is the fact that hydrolyzed soy protein is getting included in more and more things. I mean, we could probably sit here and talk for days about all the bad things in fast food, but it's all loaded with this crap...which has concentrated levels of those phytoestrogens.

    But even if they created some wonder soy without these things, it would still be warranted to have an involved and ongoing conversation about the potential dangers and health risks associated with that new plant.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,496

    Default Re: 600 Hives Lost in Ontario--CCD/Neonics Suspected Cause

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Cryberg View Post
    ... Go read the US code of federal regulations and learn what the pesticide registration laws are in this country. ...
    It is sort of custom there at beesource, which you probably missed being new here - for statements such as above, we normally ask the reference(s) - a link to particular article, law etc. or just citation of the original with proper reference. If you feel you could educate me, than, please, provide sources to support your statements. I would appreciate if you pointed to particular laws etc with reference numbers etc. Many than ks for cooperation I love education!
    Серёжа, Sergey

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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