BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Steve Noble <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 6 Jul 2009 11:42:27 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (36 lines)
“Should be looking for sub lethal effects as Peter suggested.  Sub lethals
are stresses that can add up to colony mortality when additional stresses
and hardships come along.”

     What exactly would constitute a sub lethal effect that would be
observable and identifiable as such?  Then, assuming you could observe such
a thing, how would you attribute it to a specific cause?  It just seems to
me that while the existence of sub lethal effects is undeniable, as a
practical matter the whole subject seems pretty nebulous and almost
impossible to pin down.  It may not be all that difficult to pinpoint when
something becomes lethal, but how would you know when an effect crosses over
from being absolutely harmless to sub lethal?  There are just too many
variables in operation to be able to isolate a single one when you can’t
even control or accurately measure any of the others.  
     It seems like we are stuck with making assumptions about Imidacloprid.
 You either assume, like Bayer and the government do, that because no sub
lethal effects have been proven there aren’t any, or you assume like some
who have posted extensively on the subject here, that because they can find
no other explanation, Imidacloprid must be the culprit.  From a beekeeper’s
perspective it makes sense to assume the latter.  After all what would it
cost the beekeeper to have neonics removed?  The motivating forces for the
chemical company are a little more complicated because of the possibility of
a class action law suit if their product is proven by a preponderance of the
evidence to have caused harm to innocent bystanders.  Be that as it may,
without being foolishly cavalier about it, the chemical company would stand
to benefit financially by making a reasonably safe assumption that even if
there are unintended, harmful, sub lethal effects from the use of their
product, no one is ever going to prove it.

Steve Noble     

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned 
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2