Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 121
  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,675

    Default Re: NY Times Editorial: "Risking Another Silent Spring".

    ...speaking as someone who's academic credentials consist of a degree in saxophone, I think credentials have nothing to do with any of it.

    It isn't very often that I can't understand a study that I am interested in...with the exception of the statistics that attempt to use a set of data to (statistically?) determine the accuracy of data by using only the data itself. It's clear that increasingly the authors of the papers don't understand the statistics they are using...one often imagines someone adjusting parameters in a software package (that they don't understand) until they have a curve that appears to mean something.

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

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: NY Times Editorial: "Risking Another Silent Spring".

    The editorial mentions the report, the EU ban, and the president's task force.

    I do not have my hands on the report.

    What statistics are you complaining about?

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: NY Times Editorial: "Risking Another Silent Spring".

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabber86 View Post
    Thanks for summarizing what I was trying to say. Anyone can claim credentials on the internet including myself (Post 65). People can believe me or not, just as they can believe WLC or not. In the end it really doesn't matter because someone with real credentials can tell by the content of the posting whether or not somebody knows what they are talking about. If one claims to be highly educated yet continually posts basic errors such as:


    • Poorly design experiments



    • Cherry picking data to an extreme degree (the highest value that can be found)



    • Focusing on one parameter and ignoring many other parameters that intertwine



    • Not being able to do anything with the data (analysis) after posting



    • Demonstrating a poor understanding of math; especially statistics



    • Spewing out catch phrases



    • Stating the obvious facts like it is some kind of revelation (i.e. There are currently over 80 million acres of soybean and 90 million acres of corn in production in the U.S.; most of that is clothianidin coated seed).



    • Self aggrandization



    • Sensationalism



    • Hyperbole



    • Evasion of direct questions



    • Drifting to change the topic when in trouble



    • Context dropping



    One may be highly educated, but this style shows very little intelligence and a poor scientific ethic. It does not help solve the problem at hand.
    Definitely not allowed by the forum rules Goober.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Stilwell, KS
    Posts
    1,852

    Default Re: NY Times Editorial: "Risking Another Silent Spring".

    Victor, Victor, Victor. When will you ever learn?
    Honey Badger Don't Care ಠ_ಠ ~=[,,_,,]:3

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: NY Times Editorial: "Risking Another Silent Spring".

    You need a time out.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Stilwell, KS
    Posts
    1,852

    Default Re: NY Times Editorial: "Risking Another Silent Spring".

    Quote Originally Posted by WLC View Post
    You need a time out.
    Yup. I am taking the rest of the week off to do some yard work, tend my bees, gardening, cook some BBQ, drink beer, and blow sh*t up in the back yard (here, hold my beer while I light this fuse).

    Have fun in your apartment over the weekend being an internet warrior.

    Catch you Monday morning.

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

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    jackson county, alabama, usa
    Posts
    4,639

    Default Re: NY Times Editorial: "Risking Another Silent Spring".

    appreciate the good info you presented on the subject nabber. happy 4th to you and yours!
    journaling the growth of a treatment free apiary started in 2010. 20+/- hives

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: NY Times Editorial: "Risking Another Silent Spring".

    Today is still the second fellas.

    Don't light the fuse and throw the beer Nabber.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Tineo, Asturias, SPAIN
    Posts
    184

    Default Re: NY Times Editorial: "Risking Another Silent Spring".

    Real productive conversation.

    As always.


  10. #90
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    jackson county, alabama, usa
    Posts
    4,639

    Default Re: NY Times Editorial: "Risking Another Silent Spring".

    from sqkcrk's post on bee-l:





    By Reps. Tom Rooney and David Valadao
    July 1, 2014, 10:18 a.m.




    "For some time now, the media has been issuing dire warnings of the coming “bee- pocalypse.” Time magazine ran a cover story titled, “A World Without Bees.” A headline in the London Telegraph proclaimed “Honey bees in US facing extinction.” CBS warned of the drastic threat to our food supply if these essential pollinators are lost. Yet reports of bees’ catastrophic demise are greatly exaggerated.

    Activists with an anti-pesticide agenda have noticed the issue and are using it to call for a ban on neonicotiniod insecticides — “neonics” for short — which they claim are responsible for bee health problems. The most factual science does not support these allegations. Neither do the facts on the ground. Such a ban would damage entire sectors of U.S. agriculture and do more harm than good for bees. Despite this fact, legislation was recently introduced in Congress to prohibit this critical crop protection technology.

    Members of Congress should consider the facts rather than the headlines. We are far from facing a world without bees. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, the number of honeybee hives has remained more or less constant for the past 14 years, slightly increasing from 2.63 million colonies in 2000 to 2.64 million colonies in 2013.

    Across the globe, there’s more good news. Surveys by the United Nations show Europe’s colonies have increased slightly since 2001. Canada’s government reports the largest numbers since the 1980s. Worldwide, the managed bee population has risen dramatically, from about 40 million in the early 1960s to more than 60 million today.

    While the overall picture is much more optimistic than what is portrayed in the media, some beekeepers have experienced problems maintaining the health of their hives.

    Higher-than-normal losses of bees over the winter in some years have resulted in economic setbacks for some beekeepers, though the USDA found last year’s loss rate much lower. In reporting on these numbers, many journalists fail to recognize that worker bees only live for six weeks in the summer and hive strength can quickly regenerate to compensate for losses.

    The USDA cites many factors afflicting bees, but the primary one is the epidemic spread of the varroa mite and the crippling diseases it vectors into the bee. Additional problems include lack of forage and the stresses of the transcontinental pollination business. As for pesticides, the USDA places them near the bottom of the list. In fact, the USDA is concerned about the miticides beekeepers themselves use to control varroa.

    It’s clear from real world experience and extensive field studies that neonics are not a significant factor. Bees thrive in the millions of acres of neonic-treated canola grown in Western Canada and the pesticides are used extensively in Australia, a continent that has some of the healthiest bees in the world.

    But while bees aren’t harmed by these popular pesticides, farmers — and consumers — would be if they were banned. Neonics are all that is saving the U.S. citrus industry from destruction by “citrus greening” disease. Without them, rice and cotton farming would become economically unviable throughout much of the U.S. Leafhoppers would devastate vineyards in California and the Pacific Northwest. Neonics are one of the most critical pesticides used in modern agriculture and safely utilized in the production of numerous crops, from corn and soy to vegetables of all kinds.

    We must understand why activist organizations have decided to target neonics for elimination. They won the day in Europe, where the EU overrode the doubts of its own scientists and pushed through a political ban. As a matter of fact, the EU just conducted a survey to find out how bad the losses really are and were clearly taken aback by the findings. Seventy-five percent of the bee population experienced overwinter losses of 15 percent or less — a rate considered completely normal in the United States. High overwinter losses occurred among 5 percent of the bee population in the very cold north.

    Summertime losses were insignificant. The biggest danger to bees in the EU are the older classes of pesticides, especially the pyrethroids now used as a result of the neonic ban.

    The activists want us to ban first and ask questions later. We should not legislate based on sensationalist and fallacious press accounts. The facts clearly don’t support the calls for a ban.

    Reps. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., and David Valadao, R-Calif., are members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture."
    journaling the growth of a treatment free apiary started in 2010. 20+/- hives

  11. #91
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    27,588

    Default Re: NY Times Editorial: "Risking Another Silent Spring".

    squarepeg,
    I copied it from a beesource.com Thread by AmericasBeekeeper.
    Mark Berninghausen #youmatter

  12. #92
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    jackson county, alabama, usa
    Posts
    4,639

    Default Re: NY Times Editorial: "Risking Another Silent Spring".

    duh. thanks to you both for the relevent contribution.
    journaling the growth of a treatment free apiary started in 2010. 20+/- hives

  13. #93
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    27,588

    Default Re: NY Times Editorial: "Risking Another Silent Spring".

    sure, no problem.
    Mark Berninghausen #youmatter

  14. #94
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Rader, Greene County, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    6,320

    Default Re: NY Times Editorial: "Risking Another Silent Spring".

    I suspect this is the original source: http://www.rollcall.com/news/Cutting...dczone=opinion

    And here is the thread where AmericasBeekeeper posted it to Beesource:
    http://www.beesource.com/forums/show...75#post1132475
    Graham
    -- The real problem is not precise language, it's clear language. - Richard Feynman

  15. #95
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    jackson county, alabama, usa
    Posts
    4,639

    Default Re: NY Times Editorial: "Risking Another Silent Spring".

    awesome rader. and many thanks for your assistance early in the volley.
    journaling the growth of a treatment free apiary started in 2010. 20+/- hives

  16. #96
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Hephzibah, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    16

    Default Re: NY Times Editorial: "Risking Another Silent Spring".

    To RaderSidetrack' comment
    If that is really true, why is it that farmers are still spending all that extra money for GMO/neonic licensing fees? Do you think farmers waste money just for the fun of it?
    Numerous scholarly studies have not found any link to feeding antibiotic supplements and increased livestock/ poultry weight gain yet farmer's continue to buty tons of antibiotic for feed supplemennt. Old habits die hard especially when supported by self serving salesmen and corporations.

  17. #97
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Rader, Greene County, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    6,320

    Default Re: NY Times Editorial: "Risking Another Silent Spring".

    Quote Originally Posted by Matsuri View Post
    Numerous scholarly studies have not found any link to feeding antibiotic supplements and increased livestock/ poultry weight gain yet farmer's continue to buty tons of antibiotic for feed supplemennt.
    Antibiotics in poultry feed is another controversial topic. However, efficiency of feed conversion in food animals is a highly monitored issue. Its not hard to find a study that does show a poultry weight gain when the birds have a level of antibiotics as part of their feed. For instance, here is one:
    http://vi-cor.com/pdf/Aviator%20RB%20P22.pdf

    Note that while this study is linked from an animal feed supplement seller, antibiotics is not what they are trying to sell here - they are promoting 'Aviator', a prebiotic feed supplement.

    I'm not promoting the use of antibiotics in animal feed, but simply saying that you can find studies on the issue that each side can point to.

    .
    Last edited by Rader Sidetrack; 07-04-2014 at 05:16 PM.
    Graham
    -- The real problem is not precise language, it's clear language. - Richard Feynman

  18. #98
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    jackson county, alabama, usa
    Posts
    4,639

    Default Re: NY Times Editorial: "Risking Another Silent Spring".

    Quote Originally Posted by WLC View Post
    I like sustainable.
    "I'm in agreement with you. I'm not in any way promoting that we give up high tech, or go to all organic or slash and burn. My point is that any system that requires major change is by definition not sustainable.

    That said, there are current and will be future agricultural practices that are both highly productive and sustainable in the long run. And I don't have a problem with short-term solutions. But I wouldn't call them sustainable. By my definition, if you don't expect them to work for your great grandchildrens' generation, then they can't be considered as sustainable. I don't mean to put any negative connotation on nonsustainable."

    looks like somebody agrees with you wlc.

    from:

    http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/w...tel.net&P=8833
    journaling the growth of a treatment free apiary started in 2010. 20+/- hives

  19. #99
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Lancaster, Ky. / Frostproof Fl.
    Posts
    985

    Default Re: NY Times Editorial: "Risking Another Silent Spring".

    I wonder if Americans chemical companies have contributed to me Rooney and Mr Jackson's campaign. Saving the citrus industry...very funny...the trees look awful. Besides the there is a lot of science showing the nics have Sublethal effects and some science is starting to show it goes thru the food chair to humans, we had mites since the late 80's and never had the issues we have had since these systemic pesticides came about. For the past three years I have marked hives to trace where they were during the summer....THoSE around a lot of nics I had big losses while those in the woods had over 85% survival. As a Florida resident Mr Rooney will get a phone call Monday...and it won't be nice. I'll guarantee someone's ears will be red.. The article he wrote is a big piece of garbage...since I can't use other language.

  20. #100
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: NY Times Editorial: "Risking Another Silent Spring".

    There are a minority of experts/scientists, usually associated with industry, who are working to obscure the impact that products are having on the environment and human health. They're the 'Merchants of Doubt'.

    Honeybees are both an indicator and a keystone species.

    Clearly, we do need to take steps to protect our pollinators and our environment.

    "President Obama recognized the urgent need for action when, on June 20, he ordered the establishment of a Pollinator Health Task Force charged with creating a national strategy to protect pollinators. The president’s memorandum cites the potentially serious impact of pollinator loss on the United States economy, and calls for increasing pollinator habitat and raising public awareness. His directive comes not a moment too soon. "

    I agree whole heartedly.

    As for those responsible for the personal attacks against me every time I post up one of these links to a current issue, I hold Randy Oliver, and his 'minions', responsible for spreading disinformation with regards to the impact of neonicotinoids on Honeybees.

    So do the 'Friends of the Earth'.

    Simply put, the evidence in the peer reviewed scientific literature is fast becoming overwhelming with regards to the impact that neonicotinoid pesticides are having on our environment.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 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