Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 13 Dec 2010 12:23:54 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>- how do the farmers respond and get affected if the neonicotinoids
>removed from their available pesticides for use?
>- Do you think that a farmer will allow a beekeeper to place his bees on
>the farm?
Good points and they often get overlooked in the debate.
To my mind we need to separate the investigation and discussion of
effects experienced from the use of various chemicals from the automatic
conclusion that they must be banned if implicated in scattered losses of
varying degrees -- or even universal degradation of insect life in
developed countries.
Just because banning neonics is highly impracticable, and probably
undesirable at this point, does not mean, however, that we should stop
trying the understand what is happening and whether they are responsible
for some of the mysterious goings-on.
Knowledge is power, even if we can do nothing with that knowledge at
the moment.
For example, if we proved that neonics are having subtle and sub-lethal
effects on bees and other beneficial insects, then we would be in a better
position to decide how to mitigate that problem or arrange compensation
for losses instead of having arguments based on limited understanding.
Without that knowledge, we are just guessing and it comes down to
contests of opinion.
These are poisons. Is there an antidote? Are the poisons the problem,
or the method of application?
We know these poisons are being spread far and wide and have half-lives
ranging from days to much longer depending on the environment and
circumstances. they have been in use long enough that we should be
able to examine the actual accumulations and localized concentrations
and confirm or disprove the original projections made before they had
been widely deployed.
Also, the effects of poisons are usually considered to be dose-dependent.
Additionally, the effects of one poison alone may be known and predicted,
but these predictions may be high or low by large multiples in the differing
circumstances and in the presence or absence of other chemicals or
nutrients.
I think that we are a long ways from understanding all the implications of
using neonics.
I'm thinking that as we wrestle with these chemicals, which many find more
benign, or less harmful than previous or alternative solutions, that
chemists and biologists the world over are working on something to
replace them.
What will it be? Will it be more benign? Or will it carry some unexpected
payload that only becomes apparent after some time in use?
These are the same questions we are asking now about neonics.
***********************************************
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
Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm
|
|
|