PhDs are missing common sense in this case. We are losing a battle on
what I view as an important HELPFUL pesticide, and from where I stand, it's
a bunch of people arguing over minutia. I want to see studies that show
larvae is actually getting doses, and at what levels. Instead were
debating residual wax transfer rates.
I am well aware of and skilled at statistical analysis. I also no there is
a huge difference in the decision as to when it's required.
Point studies out to me to show me I am wrong. Show me where the base test
on this has been done. I am looking for what's the difference in
Neonicitoid loads between corn, and canola?
The Scientific minds are losing this battle of facts. The EU is a perfect
example. And from what I can see it's because you're missing the basic
information. I may be way off. So far I have only seen one study that
shows what chems are in the hive and at what levels.
There are DOZENS of studies that show the effects of dosages on bees and the
interactions of mites etc...
Duh... any layman can tell you a pesticide in the hive is bad. Levels
If we want to make a real difference in this battle and it is a battle. We
have to show what level of exposures the hives are really getting and how it
compares to the past and to alternatives.
I do not want to go back to indiscrimate spraying like we had.
I read all the "studies" and I think I am stuck in an episode of "the big
bang theory" debating Sheldon.
-----Original Message-----
From: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Christina Wahl
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:43 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [BEE-L] Am I missing something?
"No the base test for all this garbage is way simpler than that. You could
differentiat between capped and uncapped, but other than that is seems to
me the "great scientific minds" are making this way to abstract and
complicated."
I don't know who the great scientific minds are, but I do know the
scientific method. It works. The reason it works is that all known
variables are taken into account when the experiment is designed. If you
make your experimental design too simplistic then there will be too many
possible reasons for the observed outcome. In other words, you'll be doing
one of the experiments that people on this list love to beat up.
There is a reason we get PhDs in science. Not all PhDs are equal that is
true, but at least most of those who slog through understand, by the time
they finish, why it is important to be very careful about experimental
design.
In this case Jim is correct. How do you know why a hive is "sick"? You
don't, most of the time, because we all agree (I think) that it isn't Varroa
itself but Varroa-mediated diseases that actually kill your bees. If
chemicals are involved, Varroa are still there....so you can't accurately
say why any given hive is "sick"...was it predominantly Varroa-mediated, or
chemical induced? You can't say definitively, unless you see a carpet of
pollen-laden dead foragers outside your entrance, followed up by a chemical
analysis. You also cannot assume that because the hive is sick all the
larvae have a common symptom. If you want to examine whether wax
contaminants diffuse into larvae you have to design a completely different
approach. It is not easy and it will take lots of time and resources.
Sure, it can be done. But by whom, and who will pay?
Then, when you are done, all you will know is that a) yes, chemicals from
the wax get into larvae, or b) no, chemicals from the wax do not get into
larvae. You still won't be able to say what is killing those bees.
Christina
***********************************************
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
***********************************************
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
|
