[log in to unmask] (mailto:[log in to unmask])
writes:
I have read the book a couple times and have referred to the book as
Christina did on BEE-L before but I think Jerry will remember when I
suggested the book needed a new edition as the book was written 23 years
ago. Still excellent information.
Dan and I will both agree. It needs updating, Couple years ago, there
was a group talking to Dan about an update. (FYI - Dan retired to live in MT
just up the valley from where I'm at and he's still involved with bees).
What's missing from the book is the type of tests that may be appropriate
in light of current chemicals being used - and I don't necessarily just the
neonics. The information in the book is based on solid information which
is still relevant, and the book clearly illustrates the complexity of the
issue, as well as a tiered approach to testing, and lots of other things.
Also, far as I'm concerned, the acute toxicity LD50 approach was a
reflection of what was possible in the 70s. New technologies make lots of new end
points accessible - question is, which are most suitable?
Also, since Carter/Reagan pushed pesticide label registration out of
academia and into private labs, no one today has ready access to the information
that would allow the updating of the risk levels (comparative toxicities,
etc.) such as are published in the appendices of the book.
Dan, Carl, and Larry Atkins used to test most of the chemicals that were
eventually registered, and they in turn put out frequent updates through
extension publications. Now, one has to go through Freedom of Information to
get much of the data, and that's only accessible if you can specify the
EXACT formulation - or at least, that's what I'm told. Ready access to
comparative tables for beekeepers and growers to reference regarding newer
chemicals just isn't there - so even though some of these products may be more
'safe' in terms of human and/or bees, it is hard to find a list.
Basic difference - information dissemination is a key component of
university research. Private companies, on the other hand, often specialize in
proprietary information. Moving testing out of academia and into the private
sector has had a downside in terms of information availability. And, EPA
used to fund some of the testing.
Unfortunately, it takes time and money to re-do a technical book like that
of Mayer and Johansen. I'm reasonably sure Dan would be up for it, if the
resources were there. Might be fun to produce the book by Mayer and
Bromenshenk - before one or both of us passes away of old age. In the
meantime, I'm heading off next Saturday for three weeks in New Zealand to pursue
some new research interests.
Jerry
***********************************************
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
|