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:
randy oliver <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 19 Apr 2012 21:25:36 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (73 lines)
>
> >can we trust the business ethics or research conducted by the major
> companies putting agrichemicals into the marketplace?


Why should we?  We should trust our regulatory agencies to regulate.


> >After all, Dow must have(or should have) known about the potential for
> this problem before the product went to market.


"Thalidomide, launched by Grünenthal on 1 October 1957, was found to act as
an effective tranquilizer and painkiller, and was proclaimed a "wonder
drug" for insomnia, coughs, colds and headaches. It was also found to be an
effective antiemetic that has an inhibitory effect on morning sickness, so
thousands of pregnant women took the drug to relieve their symptoms. At the
time of the drug's development, scientists did not believe any drug taken
by a pregnant woman could pass across the placental barrier and harm the
developing fetus."

Peter, sometimes it is simply impossible to foresee all possible things
that could go wrong in the future (how's your record?).  I sincerely doubt
that the manufacturer thought that no one would notice babies being born
without limbs.


> >It may not be fair but it paints them all with the same brush.
>

If you look at current registration for pesticides, they go into great
detail on environmental fate.

>
> >Despite all the research supporting the safety of todays neonics with
> respect to bees, which has been discussed here, I am still doubtful.


Research cannot prove safety, it can only test for measurable adverse
effects. So reasonable doubt is wise.


> >There is more to this problem than we yet understand.


Which problem is that?


> >I know that the circumstantial evidence is not enough to convict


Do you think that it should be?


> >but there are just too many adverse experiences in too many places from
> too many experienced operators to ignore.


Peter, who do you think is ignoring them?  Certainly not dozens of
scientists, nor the EPA!

Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2