Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 61
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Medfield, MA, USA
    Posts
    44

    Default Re: "...Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Wetlands of Canada." Paper in PLOSOne.

    It is a measure of weight (actually, mass, if you want to be hard-line about it). And yeah, it is quite a small amount of mass, usually measured as a concentration in solution (nanograms per microliter, for instance, ng/uL). I occasionally get down into the picogram range, when dealing with very small things like siRNAs and PCR primers, and some of the guys upstairs deal with attograms (1 millionth of a nanogram).

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Skiff, Alberta, CA
    Posts
    585

    Default Re: "...Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Wetlands of Canada." Paper in PLOSOne.

    I don't think a gram is a volume measurement.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    brownwood, TX, USA
    Posts
    859

    Default Re: "...Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Wetlands of Canada." Paper in PLOSOne.

    I assume one doesn't measure nanograms on a balance scale.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Medfield, MA, USA
    Posts
    44

    Default Re: "...Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Wetlands of Canada." Paper in PLOSOne.

    No, if it's in solution the easiest way is using a device called a nanodrop, which measures, I believe, light diffraction. And I apologize, I forgot the lowly femtogram in between pico and atto, so the guys upstairs are dealing with masses 1 Billionth the size of a single nanogram. This is a write-up on how they manage that, if you're interested:
    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2014/w...cale-0113.html

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Stilwell, KS
    Posts
    1,892

    Default Re: "...Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Wetlands of Canada." Paper in PLOSOne.

    Quote Originally Posted by nschomer View Post
    It is a measure of weight (actually, mass, if you want to be hard-line about it). And yeah, it is quite a small amount of mass, usually measured as a concentration in solution (nanograms per microliter, for instance, ng/uL). I occasionally get down into the picogram range, when dealing with very small things like siRNAs and PCR primers, and some of the guys upstairs deal with attograms (1 millionth of a nanogram).
    I see from you profile that you are in the medical research field and as you said, measure very small things. Environmental testing laboratories are completely different and are not equipped to get to that level of accuracy ($$). Microgram (g) levels are the best that you can hope for. I typically see results reported as < 5 g/L E (E = estimated qualifier) or ND (not detected) with a 5 g/L reporting limit. That is kind of bad when the regulatory limit is 2 g/L, as is the MCL for vinyl chloride. I have seen nanogram levels reported for dioxin testing and the QC is all over the place. After a thorough QC check by one of our chemists, the data is unusable. Percent recoveries, split samples, duplicates, MS and MSDs are all out of spec. And these would be EPA CPL (Contract Laboratory Program) environmental laboratories.

    That is why I laugh when I see environmental results reported that are 3 orders of magnitude below the microgram level.

    Not to offend anybody posting on this thread, but I also have to laugh when I see comments from people that do not know what the difference between milligram, microgram, and nanogram is; that they are all units of mass; and that concentration is reported in mass/volume.
    Honey Badger Don't Care ಠ_ಠ ~=[,,_,,]:3

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Stilwell, KS
    Posts
    1,892

    Default Re: "...Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Wetlands of Canada." Paper in PLOSOne.

    Quote Originally Posted by lazy shooter View Post
    I assume one doesn't measure nanograms on a balance scale.

    Heisenberg could do it. It's just chemistry, yo.
    Honey Badger Don't Care ಠ_ಠ ~=[,,_,,]:3

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.
    Posts
    922

    Default Re: "...Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Wetlands of Canada." Paper in PLOSOne.

    Just seems kind'a broad to assume someone can't work at the nanogram level when you don't really know whether they can work at the nanogram level.

    JMHO
    --shinbone
    (3rd year, 12 hives, Zone 5b, 5400 ft, 15.8" annual rainfall)

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    brownwood, TX, USA
    Posts
    859

    Default Re: "...Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Wetlands of Canada." Paper in PLOSOne.

    Well my remarks were made "tongue in cheek." I've had that two semesters of chemistry that all the petroleum engineers and other science majors had to take in college, ant that was about 50 years ago. Compared to the average dog, I'm a pretty good at math and physic, but chemistry is not my thing. We have mud engineers and service companies to handle our chemistry needs.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Stilwell, KS
    Posts
    1,892

    Default Re: "...Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Wetlands of Canada." Paper in PLOSOne.

    Quote Originally Posted by shinbone View Post
    Just seems kind'a broad to assume someone can't work at the nanogram level when you don't really know whether they can work at the nanogram level.JMHO
    It's not an assumption. It is based on 25 years of interpreting hundreds of thousands of pages of environmental lab results. What people think should be and the reality of the situation are to very different things. This happens way to offen when it comes to environmental issues.
    Honey Badger Don't Care ಠ_ಠ ~=[,,_,,]:3

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    brownwood, TX, USA
    Posts
    859

    Default Re: "...Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Wetlands of Canada." Paper in PLOSOne.

    A large portion of science is influenced by internal politics, but environmental science is much more dictated by politics. So many environmental scientist are hired to prove a political view rather than pure science.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.
    Posts
    922

    Default Re: "...Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Wetlands of Canada." Paper in PLOSOne.

    lazy shooter - so you also don't believe the nanogram numbers?
    --shinbone
    (3rd year, 12 hives, Zone 5b, 5400 ft, 15.8" annual rainfall)

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Lansdowne, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    16

    Default Re: "...Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Wetlands of Canada." Paper in PLOSOne.

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/ontar...-off-1.1354729

    Food for thought

    Important quote

    "Last year, Health Canadas Pest Management Regulatory Agency took samples from dead bees in Ontario and Quebec and found clothianidin, a type of neonicotinoid, in 70 per cent of the Ontario samples."
    start of 2nd year - soon to be 3 hives - zone 5a according to new USDA stats, but feels like 4a

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    brownwood, TX, USA
    Posts
    859

    Default Re: "...Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Wetlands of Canada." Paper in PLOSOne.

    Quote Originally Posted by shinbone View Post
    lazy shooter - so you also don't believe the nanogram numbers?
    No, that is not what I stated. If you read my posts, I said many environmental studies are tainted with politics. Can you say, "global warming" of "climate control?" Also, from my previous posts it's apparent that I don't know enough about nanograms to make a meaningful comment. Remember that my career has been in the oil field, and we work in barrels. Sometimes we go to quarts, and that is a delicate measure for us. I probably know less about neonicontinoids.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: "...Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Wetlands of Canada." Paper in PLOSOne.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabber86 View Post
    ...That is why I laugh when I see environmental results reported that are 3 orders of magnitude below the microgram level...
    Nabber,

    I would not only question the precision and accuracy of her (Morrissey's) results, I would also question her judgement.

    There's going to be a lot of angry folks out there, on both sides of the aisle, who don't like it when someone yells 'fire!', and there isn't one.

    I hope that it really is just a false alarm, for everyone's sake, but her results need independent corroboration at this point.

    I wouldn't trust those numbers either.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.
    Posts
    922

    Default Re: "...Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Wetlands of Canada." Paper in PLOSOne.

    A few people in this thread are saying Christy Morrissey's data is wrong, but offer no real justification why. I have no opinion on the accuracy of the results, and I am trying to get an explanation why the results are criticized by some, but no one can explain their position with any real scientific critic. Due to the lack of real justification, it seems like these people don't like the results simply because the numbers don't comport with how they wish the world to be.

    jus say'n
    --shinbone
    (3rd year, 12 hives, Zone 5b, 5400 ft, 15.8" annual rainfall)

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Manitoba Canada
    Posts
    6,450

    Default Re: "...Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Wetlands of Canada." Paper in PLOSOne.

    Quote Originally Posted by WLC View Post
    There's going to be a lot of angry folks out there, on both sides of the aisle, who don't like it when someone yells 'fire!', and there isn't one.

    I hope that it really is just a false alarm, for everyone's sake, but her results need independent corroboration at this point.
    Exactly exactly exactly , couldnt agree with you more WLC
    Ian Steppler >> Canadian Beekeeper's Blog
    www.stepplerfarms.com

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Stilwell, KS
    Posts
    1,892

    Default Re: "...Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Wetlands of Canada." Paper in PLOSOne.

    Quote Originally Posted by shinbone View Post
    A few people in this thread are saying Christy Morrissey's data is wrong, but offer no real justification why. I have no opinion on the accuracy of the results, and I am trying to get an explanation why the results are criticized by some, but no one can explain their position with any real scientific critic. Due to the lack of real justification, it seems like these people don't like the results simply because the numbers don't comport with how they wish the world to be.

    jus say'n
    Unless the raw lab data is provided in its entirety with all the QC assessments it is worthless to anyone, especially to people who know how to evaluate the results. If you don't know this, you have no business offering an uninformed opinion of data that is summarized in a table. Period. I have justification because I do this for a living. You are the one that can not explain your position without scientific critic.

    You simply do not have the knowledge and experience to comment on the subject.

    just sayin.
    Honey Badger Don't Care ಠ_ಠ ~=[,,_,,]:3

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.
    Posts
    922

    Default Re: "...Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Wetlands of Canada." Paper in PLOSOne.

    Attack me all you want, you still offer no reason beyond vague generalities on why the data is bad.
    --shinbone
    (3rd year, 12 hives, Zone 5b, 5400 ft, 15.8" annual rainfall)

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Belfast, Ireland
    Posts
    458

    Default Re: "...Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Wetlands of Canada." Paper in PLOSOne.

    Quote Originally Posted by muusu View Post
    http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/ontar...-off-1.1354729

    Food for thought

    Important quote

    "Last year, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency took samples from dead bees in Ontario and Quebec and found clothianidin, a type of neonicotinoid, in 70 per cent of the Ontario samples."
    This is describing the incident where hundreds of colonies were killed by planter dust during corn planting. Noone disputes that planter dust is highly toxic. The main issue is whether these products cause problems for bees and other pollinators at field realistic levers under normal usage. The pesticide companies have a group set up to look at this planter dust issue with regard to the seed binding agents, lubricants and mechanical modifications of the planter. This has nothing to do with measuring incredibly small amounts of clothianidin in the environment as it is more like old fashioned spray kill.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: "...Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Wetlands of Canada." Paper in PLOSOne.

    shinbone:

    The critique of the accuracy and precision of the measurements has to do with the inherent noise in the sensor technology.

    Any reading below 10 ug/L (10ppb) is suspect. The measurements reported are in the 10ng/L (0.01ppb) range, that's a thousandth of 10ug/L.

    Government agencies are almost certainly going to ask for the raw data since they're going to have to spend a lot of resources chasing down possible freshwater contamination.

Page 2 of 4 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