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:
Charles Linder <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 26 Oct 2015 15:20:41 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (46 lines)
The problem is that anyone pointing to such a "good" study, even one
published by the prestigious "Nature" journals, can catch quite a bit of
flack simply because that study contradicts the pre-conceived worldview of
several of the more prolific posters to Bee-L.  



This statement,  is simply not correct.  The term contradicts prolific
posters is intended to obfuscate the issue.

The real answer is that the "applied good study" contradicts both real world
research and correct queen breading and rearing, as well as the Scientific
principles.

It seems any fool can poison bees with a pesticide and get published.  What
we desperately need is serious work with real world dosages and exposures,
COMPARED to dosages and exposures of the alternatives.  Its not a perfect
world,  what we really need to know and understand is did we get better?

I can tell you with 100% certainty that queens that are subject to excessive
abdominal pressure during the developmental phase have a higher failure
rate.

This is a completely accurate,  and totally worthless statement.
Unfortunately its exactly like many research papers written today.  

It seems at times we have the preconceived notion that because someone with
a Dr. in the name published it, its true in the real world.  There is real,
accurate and relevant,  and most of the time the 3 do not overlap.  We need
to know only when they do.  Any pesticide applied to a beneficial is bad.
That's a given.  IF it's a problem at a very low level as this paper
suggest,  we need to keep looking, and confirm.  In this case there are some
holes in the study that need to be closed,  I may have missed it but I got
the impression Randy had already been discussing it with the authors.  That
is the correct tact,  and if the study is correct and duplicatable,  we need
to re-evaluate what are acceptable levels of exposure,  and then compare
that with real world data.


Charles

             ***********************************************
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