>It seems to me that there are certain issues that are emotionally charged
and that an honest person just simply reporting the facts as best as he sees
them is having motives impugned that simply aren't there.
Thank you, John, for your accurate and objective observations!
I do wish to apologize to the List, to Stan, and to Bob for getting swept up
in the fun of a vigorous discussion, and feel that I went to far at poking
fun at Bob.
I feel adamantly that Bee-L should be a "safe" forum where opposing ideas
can be discussed and debated without anyone being dissed.
For those of us wanting to inject our sense of humor, we must be careful
that we don't inadvertently sound disrespectful. Bob has publicly stated a
number of times that he considers himself to be a "pot stirrer," so that
makes him fair game to poke fun about that aspect of his posts.
However, let me make it clear that such poking is not about Bob, but only
about his words. I have absolutely no doubt that Bob (and Stan) are
motivated by trying to find the truth, and to work for the benefit of
beekeepers. Bob's pot-stirring posts often fire up vigorous debate, and
that is one thing that keeps this list dynamic and thought-provoking.
So I want the List to know how greatly I respect Bob (and Stan), and I
apologize for poking a bit too personally at Bob.
That said, this is supposed to be an "Informed Discussion Group." This
neonicotinoid discussion has been going on for some time. One thing that
bothers me is that Bob and Stan's posts about the neonics are largely based
upon innuendo, speculation, secrecy and other unverifiable statements. One
the other side is a large body of scientific data, practical field
experience, and positive reports by a large number of beekeepers.
It irks me when the motives of our best scientists are impugned simply
because the data that they collect does not support the prejudice of the
anti-neonic crowd. It rubs me wrong that the good research and data are
simply dismissed out of hand, and that we are kept being told that some
soon-to-be-released paper or insider report is going to blow the lid off
some sort of conspiracy to suppress data about the dangers of neonics.
May I please ask all to try to stick to reports that can actually be
substantiated? Again, I've asked beekeepers all over for verifiable
anecdotal reports of neonic problems. I've asked Bob for such, on list, and
have yet to receive a reply.
By verifiable, I mean that someone can go to the original source, whether
researcher or beekeeper, and eliminate other variables. What I find is that
when such reports are investigated, that the investigator often finds that
the colonies in question were either overrun by mites, overdosed with
miticides, undernourished, badly infested with nosema, or had some other
complicating factor other than exposure to neonics.
That said, let's continue the discussion in a respectful and civil manner.
Bob, you posted that:
>some studies have said when the above products [neonicotinoids] are mixed
with other chemical sprays the effects on bees can be increased 100 to a
1000 times.
Bob, I have read papers that refer to some fungicides being synergistic with
carbamates, but this did not apply to neonicotinoids. Would you be kind
enough to provide us with the source for the figure that you cited above?
Respectfully,
Randy Oliver
Back in the California foothills
***********************************************
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
Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L
|
