Eric said:
>> The problem with suggesting that neonics are the underlying
>> cause of CCD, having sublethal effects and combining with
>> other stresses/phenomena to create CCD symptoms has been
>> disproved by every kind of survey data to date.
Bob H. said:
> Sub lethal testing is not rocket science.
True! Which makes the lack of "sub-lethal levels" in
all the samples collected in all the survey work
mentioned by Eric a significant clue that the fear
and loathing that surrounds neonics is misplaced.
So, before you make accusations about "sub-lethal",
don't you first have to show some detectable level
of exposure, at least at the parts-per-trillion level?
Or are these "sub-lethal effects" going to be based
upon a claim that the hives suffer "sub-lethal effects"
from exposure levels below the detection threshold of
even the most sensitive equipment man can fabricate?
There is no question that neonics can kill bees, and there
is no question that less-than-fatal doses can have sub-lethal
effects, but this has nothing to do with CCD. In the recent
case in Germany, the pesticide kill was obvious, but it is
disingenuous in the extreme to confuse a very familiar
pesticide kill scenario with a new disease. The sets of
symptoms are not even similar.
But the interesting thing about the CCD samples is that
they also verify the mix of pesticides to which bees
are exposed in a very broad way. The analysis tends to
prove clearly that neonics are not generally present
even in trace amounts in colonies.
> My article in ABJ brought letters from beeks all over the
> world plus the U.S.
Is this a new phenomena for you? This is not unusual at all
in my experience. Even if only 10,000 subscribers read an
article, and only 1% of them are moved to write, that is
100 e-mails to answer. I make it a point to answer each
and every one I get, so I spend roughly 5 times as much
time answering letters about articles as I do writing the
articles themselves. If this is the first time this has
happened to you, it means that you have touched a nerve
or simply written better than in the past.
> Like David Hackenberg and CCD I have been pushed to the
> front of the fight of beeks against the neonicotinoids.
Who pushed you? Isn't more accurate to say that you
pushed yourself to wherever you are? And which beekeepers
are "fighting against" neonicotinoids? Why? Have you had
any recent pesticide kills? There really have not been
that many reported, and the ones that have occurred have been
cases of SPRAYED PESTICIDES. All we see from you is claims
about treated seed corn. What's that got to do with anything,
except for the Marx-Brothers Film Festival level of screw-up
in Germany?
> The leadership of both organizations are convinced after
> looking into the neonicotinoids that they are causing problems
> through sub lethal effects.
Then they need to listen to the qualified experts who are
doing the actual work, and stop listening to rumors and
unsupported accusations.
> Hence the first program to get funding was the grant for
> testing the sub lethal effects of Imidacloprid on honey bees
> ( paid for by Hagen das grant and I believe Mary Ann is
> doing the research).
No one doubts for a moment that bees, IF THEY ARE EXPOSED TO
AT LEAST MEASUREABLE LEVELS OF ANY PESTICIDE will suffer some
sort of tangible effect. But no one is finding any
neonicotinoids in the CCD samples of pollen, honey. brood,
comb, or adult bees, which tends to show that not only is
CCD not connected with neonicotinoids, but also shows that
there aren't detectable levels to be found in the generic
class of "migratory beekeepers" sampled.
So, if and when bees are exposed to pesticides, yes, they
do suffer. That's why systemics are so utterly kewl, as
they eliminate the spraying that is the proximate cause
of so much drift and so many pesticide kills.
> Why do you think Bill, LLoyd, Peter, Jim and the
> other beek the company does not want to see such a study?
I just sent an e-mail to Dr. Jack Boyne of Bayer CropScience.
I wonder what he has to say about your claims.
I do know that Bayer has likely spent more than $40K just
on time and travel expenses sending Dr. Allison Chalmers
to the various CCD meetings. She is a honeybee toxicologist.
If you may recall, my article on the initial meeting of the
CCD Working Group mentioned that the combined assets of "bee
research" in the US lacked a qualified toxicologist. Bayer
was nice enough to provide her expertise and quite a bit of
proprietary intellectual property for free to the effort.
Just to confirm, you accuse Bayer of:
a) Contacting you and "trying to act like beekeepers",
one presumes to find out what an influential person
like yourself "knows" of their secrets.
b) Declining to fund sublethal testing when you approached
Bayer yourself and asked for $40K
c) Admitting to you "off the record" that they [Bayer]
would denounce findings that sub-lethal effects hurt
bees on the grounds the study was funded by beekeepers
and the researchers were biased.
Why would they engage in nonsensical impersonations of
beekeepers on the phone, yet "admit" things to you
"off the record"?
I'm going to bet that Bayer has never heard of
"Bob Harrison", aside from being sent copies of some
of your more entertaining posts to Bee-L.
> Bayer will not even sit down with us and talk.
> Printed company positions have been sent to both groups.
If I were Bayer, I wouldn't talk with you either, given the
rabid and 100% fact-free nature of the claims being tossed around.
> In Europe they realize talking will not solve the issue
> so they are pushing for bans.
I covered the whole "ban" thing in Germany in my recent post:
"Neonicotinoids >>NOT<< Banned in Germany!". I covered the
actual situation in both France and Italy in prior posts.
I keep posting the hard facts, but you don't seem to pay
attention, or even talk to primary sources.
> Do not confuse neonicotinoid issues with CCD .
This discussion thread was about CCD, so your post might
confuse the two issues.
> Off label use of temik (Bayer) is killing many many hives
> in Orange in Florida. The situation is very serious to those beeks.
Doesn't sound very "sub-lethal" to me!
Off label use is clearly outside the law.
Everyone can agree that off-label uses are criminal
matters, and require harsh enforcement actions.
And they spray temik, don't they?
Spraying... bad.
Beekeeper angry!
Systemic... good.
Beekeeper happy!
****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm *
****************************************************
|
