# Beekeepers take action



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

The reports are in and we know what is killing our bees. Please take action today and tell em to stop now!
http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/whatsnew/whatsnew_2009-11-10.asp


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Ummm, I think it's a stretch to call this a report. Perhaps a news report.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Barry...I know bud will disagree, while anything the serria club reports must be taken with a grain of salt, it does make a alot of sence. If you really look at it the serria club and chemical companies are both extremist on opposite ends. One is extremely pro environment(you can go overboard on anything) and the other $$$$ with little regard to the long term effects on the enviroment. I am convinced that neonictinoids are the big problem along with other contributing causes!


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

Just once I would like to see the reporters state something along the lines of "According to a study released by....." when making statements about how much of our food is actually pollinated by honeybees and how many bees are wiped out by CCD. 






> One out of every three bites of food that we consume is due to the work of honeybees, serving as crucial pollinators. Yet our food supply may be severely impacted by the recently identified Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) syndrome that has annually wiped out more than 30% of all honeybees from 2005 to today!


----------



## earthchild (Jun 30, 2009)

I can appreciate the intentions of this article, but I would have liked to see more facts along with credible sources. It's not new news that neonicotinoids are highly toxic to bees. It would have been nice to review more information regarding these pesticides and their impact on our environment.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

To me the toxic neonicotinoid pesticide evidence makes a_ lot_ more sense than the theory blaming cell phones, which lay people love to keep spreading around even now.


----------



## Rohe Bee Ranch (Feb 12, 2008)

What was around 60 years ago that people wanted to get rid of when they just called it "Disappearing Disease" before they gave it the catchy name of CCD?


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

> What was around 60 years ago that people wanted to get rid of


They called those "hippies, I think.

Oops, my bad, that was 40 years ago.

Big Bear


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

This is why nothing gets done in this country. Am I on the beekeepers forum? Y'all need to watch NICOTINE BEES. It is made by real people. Its time to stop letting the big companies take over everything. OUr economy, our food, our lives.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Let me introduce you to this idea called precautionary principle:

The Science and Environmental Health Network is working to implement the precautionary principle as a basis for environmental and public health policy. The principle and the main components of its implementation are stated this way in the 1998 Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle:
"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action." - Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, Jan. 1998


----------



## Sam-Smith (Jul 26, 2009)

honeylove said:


> The reports are in and we know what is killing our bees. Please take action today and tell em to stop now!
> http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/whatsnew/whatsnew_2009-11-10.asp


This is interesting I have read about the same conclusions reached by researchers in France and that nations beekeepers struggles to get that pesticide banned, they even went on strike and marched on the capitol. What I was reading was that ccd would present every season at very specific times of the year and when the sunflower crops were late one year so was ccd, farmers were puting this pesticide on the ground around the roots, but since its systemic the stuff gets into nectar pollen and the ground, nasty stuff!

Sam.


----------



## Trevor Mansell (Jan 16, 2005)

Its easy to blame big evil corporations when something goes wrong. I dont know what the answer to CCD is, but if it was a pesticide I would think it would have shown up alot earlier in one of the thousands of test that have been done so far. 
Most of these groups have an agenda they will bend the truth and spin the facts to get you to believe what they are selling.


----------



## CentralPAguy (Feb 8, 2009)

Sam-Smith said:


> when the sunflower crops were late one year so was ccd, farmers were puting this pesticide on the ground around the roots, but since its systemic the stuff gets into nectar pollen and the ground, nasty stuff!


Interesting, but why do the big honey crops continue to occur in the Dakotas where they Grow Millions of Sunflowers. Are the hives collapsing in the Dakotas or after they have migrated to Calif for Almond Pollination?


----------



## NDnewbeek (Jul 4, 2008)

I know three commercial guys in my town. They are all pulling out for California right now. We had a TON of sunflowers this year in western ND and I haven't heard any of them say anything about CCD. CCD isn't new - it has occurred in the past at least twice before. That is an important point to keep in mind when wanting to establish the premise that it is caused by only recently developed pesticides.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

NDnewbeek said:


> I know three commercial guys in my town. They are all pulling out for California right now. We had a TON of sunflowers this year in western ND and I haven't heard any of them say anything about CCD. CCD isn't new - it has occurred in the past at least twice before. That is an important point to keep in mind when wanting to establish the premise that it is caused by only recently developed pesticides.


could also be the addition of several pesticides and each time the bees have to deal with it. this time we may not be so lucky.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

suttonbeeman said:


> Barry...I know bud will disagree, while anything the serria club reports must be taken with a grain of salt, it does make a alot of sence. If you really look at it the serria club and chemical companies are both extremist on opposite ends. One is extremely pro environment(you can go overboard on anything) and the other $$$$ with little regard to the long term effects on the enviroment. I am convinced that neonictinoids are the big problem along with other contributing causes!


In Europe beekeepers banded together and got a precautionary ban on the neonics & I beleive the iminacloprids.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

honeylove said:


> In Europe beekeepers banded together and got a precautionary ban on the neonics & I beleive the iminacloprids.


Imidacloprid is a neonicotinoid


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Trevor Mansell said:


> Its easy to blame big evil corporations when something goes wrong. I dont know what the answer to CCD is, but if it was a pesticide I would think it would have shown up alot earlier in one of the thousands of test that have been done so far.
> Most of these groups have an agenda they will bend the truth and spin the facts to get you to believe what they are selling.


Groups like NRDC have not approached any beekeepers for any monetary help. THey do this work out of a sense of great committment to protect us from the carlessness of folks whose priorities are not the same as ours. If it were not for the work of these organizations, indeed many species would be extinct right now. FIrst the frogs, (danger danger) then the bats (are you listening) then the bees. This is no coincidence. Just once, we should pay attention to what the bees are telling US, sentinels of the problem we now are facing with so many toxic substances being introduced into our environment. The EPA maybe maybe is closing one eye, we need to trust our instincts. Go ahead and listen to your bees. You may be surprised.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Michael Palmer said:


> Imidacloprid is a neonicotinoid


whatever! its still on my bad list! thanks!


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

the time line of prior 'ccd' type events goes back to the early 1960. other similar events would follow at about/approximately a 10 year interval. I do suspect there is a common and lethal combination with these prior events which is pesticides (of various forms) and nosema. the prior seasons 'conditions' also seem to have played a significant role in these prior events. 

in the prior events the pesticide was primarily from sources external to beekeeping... now it seems a good part of the problem is that beekeeper can shoulder part of the responsibility for encouraging their own hive's demise.

I personally don't pay much heed to the Sierra Club 'tin cup country club set'. as a better reference read page 9, vol 38, no 3 of the Speedy Bee and read what has been reported out of Washington State University.

humm... precautionary priciple sounds a bit like guilty until proven innocent (or prove to us this can't happen)? evidently someone needs to learn something about science and hypothesis testing.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Well, I am trying to feel out the bee community, if you will, to see where we stand on banning pesticides and working together as a group as was done in Europe. I feel that pesticides play some role in our bees health and ours. It would certainly benefit all to remove toxins we don't need and are harmful. I just want to tell folks there is something we can do to be heard. Currently I am working on a letter to Michelle Obama with some of my collegues.We all know Michelle has a bee hive (I'm goin straight to the top!). If this is not momentum for us I don't know what is. I am kinda tired of hearing about ccd and test and whatnot, I just want to get something done about it.I am reading and researching and in general driving my family nuts, but the stuff out there is beyond nasty. It is indeed dangerous. THe bees are trying to tell us something.


----------



## Sam-Smith (Jul 26, 2009)

CentralPAguy said:


> Interesting, but why do the big honey crops continue to occur in the Dakotas where they Grow Millions of Sunflowers. Are the hives collapsing in the Dakotas or after they have migrated to Calif for Almond Pollination?


I don't think it was nation wide, it would depend on how the farmer is treating his crops. Another troubling thing is beet seeds are treated with this systemic insecticide, so trace amounts of it can then be found in beet sugar. 


Sam.


----------



## Sam-Smith (Jul 26, 2009)

honeylove said:


> Well, I am trying to feel out the bee community, if you will, to see where we stand on banning pesticides and working together as a group as was done in Europe.


I think that is an excellent idea, even though I am not from the US anything they do is usually followed by Canada  Let me know how it goes, if you need me/us to sign a petition ect

Sam.


----------



## alpha6 (May 12, 2008)

The main problem about accurate studies is....that the chemical companies can out spend anything anyone else can come up with. Speaking from my section of the country (it could be different in others) beekeepers are some of the cheapest people I know as far as supporting organizations. Groups like the American Honey Producers Association, that actually lobby for the beekeepers are having to really push to get beekeepers to join. Everyone who keeps bees should be a member of this group that is looking out for the beekeepers instead of groups like the bought off National Honey Board that is in bed with the packers.

Universities do studies based on grants. No matter what the intentions are, if the grant is being funded by a chemical company and the studies find the chemical is at fault, then the study will not be accurate as the University knows it will lose any future grants. This was just evident in a recent study with Fum B. The study found that bees that were fed just 1:1 did as well if not better then bees fed Fum B. But since Fum B paid for the study the presentation of the study was given to show that Fum B helps bees more then nothing at all. When I looked at the chart and pointed out to the presenter that his studies indicated that 1:1 worked better then the Fum B fed bees he became embarrassed and stated that the study was about if Fum B helped bees and it does and couldn't comment on the 1:1 issue as it wasn't the "focus" of the study. 

So unless beekeepers want to raise money for grants to conduct unbiased studies then you can't really expect to get any good studies. That also being said if a study does come out and show that neonicotodes do kill bees and the study was funded by beekeepers then the chemical companies will say that because the beekeepers funded the study the study is biased in favor of the beekeepers...so we have that ol catch 22 thing going....


----------



## Sam-Smith (Jul 26, 2009)

That is the problem with much research pesticide or otherwise. I found the French research to be fairly unbiased, the chem company Bayer did their own research and of course it concluded the stuff was safe. Then the people got involved and the gov invested $ to do research on the subject, the results were remarkable, they found sub lethal doses were enough to mess up the bees ability to function properly causing them to starve in the field dying away from home. I would have to go digging around the Internet again this is from memory.


Sam.


----------



## earthchild (Jun 30, 2009)

Here is some more information on neonicotinoids and other issues. If you have time to read this, it's very informative. If not, you can always bookmark it and finish it later. I found it pretty interesting. 

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/saving-bees-what-we-know-now/#may


----------



## PCM (Sep 18, 2007)

Remeber one thing about researchers !

They too are after the God Almighty dollar, euro, yen, what ever !
That's the way they make their living.
University's have people hired to search for private and govt. Grant monies, as a matter of fact one of the major U.S. university currently has adds, searching for a individual well versed in finding Grant money. :shhhh:

PCM


----------



## EastSideBuzz (Apr 12, 2009)

honeylove said:


> I am working on a letter to Michelle Obama with some of my collegues.We all know Michelle has a bee hive (I'm goin straight to the top!). If this is not momentum for us I don't know what is.


I don't think that she has a hive. But, it might be nice to send her a hive. Just box one up and send it to the white house. Maybe they will put it on the rotunda for all the people to see. Make sure it is painted white. So it is the bee white house. They would be called the "first colony".

Maybe they will appoint a "Bee Czar" there are 37 of them so far. Here is a list of the current Czars. http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29391/

All kidding aside I hope that you can get some exposure from the current administration. Heck even some stimulus dollars for the bee keepers would be nice. If I could figure out a way to buy equip and packages cheaper I would have more hives. I am planning to add 25+ plus packages next year I would add a hundred hives if Obama would finance it.

So if anyone figures out a way to tap into the stimulus to fund our sidelining that would be great. Please share.


----------



## J-Bees (Jul 12, 2008)

bigbearomaha said:


> They called those "hippies, I think.
> 
> Oops, my bad, that was 40 years ago.
> 
> Big Bear


and the sign said long haired freeakie people need not apply:


----------



## J-Bees (Jul 12, 2008)

EastSideBuzz said:


> I don't think that she has a hive. But, it might be nice to send her a hive. Just box one up and send it to the white house. Maybe they will put it on the rotunda for all the people to see. Make sure it is painted white. So it is the bee white house. They would be called the "first colony".
> .


they already have a hive :}:}http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=234933&highlight=white+house+hive


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

a honeylove snip followed by (>) tecumseh response...

Well, I am trying to feel out the bee community, 
> beekeepers disagree on EVERYTHING and the older we get the more prickley we become. therefore beekeeper are first not likely to just go along and secondly we are such a small and insignificant group that really no one pays us much mind anyway. 

I feel that pesticides play some role in our bees health and ours. It would certainly benefit all to remove toxins we don't need and are harmful.
>need would be the key word here... who gets to define that? but yea I largely feel the same way. I would add to your sentence.... short sighted and wasteful. 

I just want to tell folks there is something we can do to be heard.
>I thought that's what you were doing here?

Currently I am working on a letter to Michelle Obama with some of my collegues.We all know Michelle has a bee hive (I'm goin straight to the top!). If this is not momentum for us I don't know what is.
>that sounds like a good start and Mrs Obama is an wonderful role model for a lot of folks. I do often worry that a majority of folks really have little concern as to where their food comes from or how it's produced. ag policy over quite a long period of time has always emphasized that it first and foremost be CHEAP... and that's what the consuming public is getting. CHEAP food is also largely depopulating farm communities and plays right into the strenghts of corporations. 

I am kinda tired of hearing about ccd and test and whatnot, I just want to get something done about it.
>what I think perhaps is at least a small piece of ccd I have see here to some small degree. so as an issue ccd hasn't been such a large problem here. for me it is a challange to learn to recognize these new problems and hopefully adapt to the new situation. if nothing else historically beekeeper are constantly adjusting and adapting to the new enviornment (a historical list...wax worms, fire ants, nosema, africantized bee, trachael mite, varroa mites, nosema c). beekeepers can also look forward to adding another nasty to this list about every decade. 

I am reading and researching and in general driving my family nuts, but the stuff out there is beyond nasty. It is indeed dangerous.
>well yea some of it is designed to be lethal, but don't drive your family nuts. nothing to be gained there.

THe bees are trying to tell us something.
>yea the girls sing to me every day. some days their song is happy and sometime angry. I do know when I am away from the girls long enough I miss them greatly. the honeybee is also an excellent 'canary in a coal mine' species since a hive will tend to collect whatever is in the local environment (air, soil and water).

>good luck in your endeavor


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

honeylove said:


> I am kinda tired of hearing about ccd and test and whatnot, I just want to get something done about it.


Seeing as NO ONE knows for sure what causes CCD, that would make getting something done about it a little difficult, wouldn't it? :scratch:


----------



## EastSideBuzz (Apr 12, 2009)

J-Bees said:


> they already have a hive :}:}http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=234933&highlight=white+house+hive


I am wrong they do have a hive. Sorry for that. That thread is a riot leave it to Obama's people to exaggerate about the amount of honey produced. Maybe that is where he get his numbers on workers created or saved. Never thought the workers save or created would be honey bee's. But, with a politician you really need to lock them down to exacts.


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

Charlie Brandts, the White House Beekeeper, is also the White House Carpenter and is not one of Obama's people. He's a permanent employee of the White House and has worked there through multiple presidents. I think he was hired by the White House when Ronald Reagan was president, but I'm not absolutely certain of that, it was either Reagan or Bush Sr. Either way, it definately wasn't Obama. Anyway, his position, like the White House chef, is not a political position, and in fact I think they both keep politics out of the jobs they do.

I'd wager that it was the media that screwed up the numbers... probably mixing up their words... instead of pounds they said gallons, that sort of thing, either that or by mistaking Charlie's total harvest (he has more hives at his home, so who knows, maybe in total he did get 100 gals between all of his hives)... the media does that sort of thing all the time with other stories, why expect any different about this story? I'd be surprised if the reporter knew the difference between honey bees and bumble bees.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Sam-Smith said:


> I don't think it was nation wide, it would depend on how the farmer is treating his crops. Another troubling thing is beet seeds are treated with this systemic insecticide, so trace amounts of it can then be found in beet sugar.
> 
> 
> Sam.


THe sugar beets are GMO.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Sam-Smith said:


> I think that is an excellent idea, even though I am not from the US anything they do is usually followed by Canada  Let me know how it goes, if you need me/us to sign a petition ect
> 
> Sam.


Thank you Sam. I will for sure!


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

EastSideBuzz said:


> I don't think that she has a hive. But, it might be nice to send her a hive. Just box one up and send it to the white house. Maybe they will put it on the rotunda for all the people to see. Make sure it is painted white. So it is the bee white house. They would be called the "first colony".
> 
> Maybe they will appoint a "Bee Czar" there are 37 of them so far. Here is a list of the current Czars. http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29391/
> 
> ...


You can build your own top bar hives. The White House Beekeeper was featured in Bee Culture his name is Charlie her is a link http://citybees.blogspot.com/2009/03/excellent-white-house-bee-adventure.html


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

alpha6 said:


> The main problem about accurate studies is....that the chemical companies can out spend anything anyone else can come up with. Speaking from my section of the country (it could be different in others) beekeepers are some of the cheapest people I know as far as supporting organizations. Groups like the American Honey Producers Association, that actually lobby for the beekeepers are having to really push to get beekeepers to join. Everyone who keeps bees should be a member of this group that is looking out for the beekeepers instead of groups like the bought off National Honey Board that is in bed with the packers.
> 
> Universities do studies based on grants. No matter what the intentions are, if the grant is being funded by a chemical company and the studies find the chemical is at fault, then the study will not be accurate as the University knows it will lose any future grants. This was just evident in a recent study with Fum B. The study found that bees that were fed just 1:1 did as well if not better then bees fed Fum B. But since Fum B paid for the study the presentation of the study was given to show that Fum B helps bees more then nothing at all. When I looked at the chart and pointed out to the presenter that his studies indicated that 1:1 worked better then the Fum B fed bees he became embarrassed and stated that the study was about if Fum B helped bees and it does and couldn't comment on the 1:1 issue as it wasn't the "focus" of the study.
> 
> So unless beekeepers want to raise money for grants to conduct unbiased studies then you can't really expect to get any good studies. That also being said if a study does come out and show that neonicotodes do kill bees and the study was funded by beekeepers then the chemical companies will say that because the beekeepers funded the study the study is biased in favor of the beekeepers...so we have that ol catch 22 thing going....


agreed! my point is enough talk, we want some action. Groups like ours get much attention especially these days. Im tired of the "research" I want to help my bees now!


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

PCM said:


> Remeber one thing about researchers !
> 
> They too are after the God Almighty dollar, euro, yen, what ever !
> That's the way they make their living.
> ...


Thats right!


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Bear with my folks, I promise I will not get on my soapbox (lol) I am a regular shmo, I do not want to talk about politics, just bees. I love mine the same way you do. But everyone must admit something is amiss. The government, monsanto, bayer...all we want is a clean environment for our girls, right? I have two links, one in english and the other in italian, but you can get the idea since italians all talk with their hands mostly! But this is what THEY did and what they got accomplished by banding together: The italian video is: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ryw1opDdejw
and some reading info is (in english)
[PDF] Farmers' Guide to GMOs Sorry i could not get this to copy, but some interesting stuff. Farmers are our allies...


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

honeylove said:


> THe sugar beets are GMO.


http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS155778+08-Oct-2009+PRN20091008


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

one more to ponder this is by Dr Eric Mussen

> Guttation New Pesticide Concern?
> What is guttation? It is a mechanism by which a plant can secrete
> water, taken up by the roots, which is excess to the plants immediate
> needs for growth and biochem-ical processing. Guttation is not pure
> water, but is mixed with materials we refer to as plant sap, often
> containing sugar. Guttation normally occurs over night, but it can be
> a daytime phenomenon.
> The secreted droplets form along the edges and tips of leaves through
> pores called hydathodes. To the casual observer, this might look like
> dew. However, dew forms by condensation, all over the surface of the
> leaf.
> Guttation droplets can be collected and analyzed for presence of
> systemic agricultural chemicals, such as herbicides, fungicides,
> and/or insecticides.
> Recent colony collapse disorder (CCD) problems have led to various
> studies as to possible causes. In this case V. Giro-lami and eight
> other researchers in Italy teamed up to determine the amount of
> neonicotinoid that would be found in young corn plant guttation
> secretions from plants germinated from thiamethoxam, clothianidin and
> imidacloprid coated seeds and from untreated controls.
> Seeds were planted in the field and in greenhouse pots. Guttation
> droplets were collected over three weeks and divided into two groups:
> one for chemical analysis and one for feeding to bees.
> Bees in cages were fed known quantities of the insecticides in 15%
> honey syrup to determine the effects on the bees. Intoxication was
> observed at three successive levels. Least affected bees showed a
> "jerky inward arching of the abdomen." Second was paralysis of the
> thoracic muscles, inhibiting flight. Finally, the bees died.
> Imidacloprid moved into the field and lab droplets in the highest
> concentration, followed by clothianidin, then thiamethox-am.
> Interestingly, toxic effects of consum-ing the guttation liquid
> developed in the exact opposite order, thiamethoxam paralyz-ing the
> bees quickest and imidacloprid slowest. All residues were lethal.
> Since newer varieties of corn can be planted early in the season, the
> corn plants and guttation droplets are available before flowers come
> into bloom. Water-foraging bees may collect that liquid (not analyzed
> for sugar content in this study). So, the authors concluded:
> "Regardless, the presence of a source of water carrying in solution
> neonicotinoid concentrations up to the levels shown in the current
> study, and persisting for weeks on more that a million hectares in the
> sole northern Italy, is a threatening scenario that does not comply
> with an ecologically acceptable situation."
> For details see: "Translocation of Neonicotinoid Insecticides from
> Coated Seeds to Seedling Guttation Drops: A Novel Way of Intoxication
> for Bees," Journal of Economic Entomology 102(5): 1808-1815, 2009.
> In a separate study on rapeseed treated with a
> chlorpyriphos/cypermethrin mix in the Czech Republic it was
> deter-mined that the secreted guttation droplets did not contain
> enough of the chemicals to damage the bees acutely, or enough to be
> detected by instrumental residue analysis. But, guttation fluid put
> into the sugar syrup reduced syrup consumption significantly.


----------



## waynesgarden (Jan 3, 2009)

honeylove said:


> In Europe beekeepers banded together and got a precautionary ban on the neonics & I beleive the iminacloprids.


True, at least France did. On the flip side, the early accounts I've heard were that CCD did not decrease as a result.

I agree with others that this may be just part of a bigger problem. 

(As an organic gardener and former organic farmer, I have no love of those chemicals.)

Wayne


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

That's exactly what I was thinking while reading this whole thread. 

France banned the bad pesticides, yet they still have CCD. Guess it wasnt the chemicals afterall......


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

Both France and Germany banned them, but CCD hadn't even been discovered yet when France banned them in 1999... and they listed as their reason for banning them that they were having a detrimental effect on bee populations. But CCD hadn't even been discovered until 2006, so CCD wasn't a factor in France's decision to ban that class of pesticide.

Nevertheless, it is a ****ing peice of evidence against the claim that CCD is caused by this class of pesticide. My only point here being that pesticides don't necessarily have to cause CCD to be bad for the bees anyway. That doesn't necessarily mean they should be banned though. Perhaps regulated in terms of when they can be used, how, and possibly on what crops they can be used on... or possibly just better educating growers on their effects on bees might be enough. It's hard to say, and my suggestion would be to start with the least limiting option and work our way up if it's shown to not be enough.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

I keep goin to the italians for help. 

http://www.youris.com/Environment/Bees/Italy_keeps_ban_on_neonicotinoid_seed_coating_to_save_bees.kl


----------



## indypartridge (Nov 18, 2004)

honeylove said:


> my point is enough talk, we want some action. ... Im tired of the "research" I want to help my bees now!


What action do you take if you don't have any research to guide your actions? "Shoot first, ask questions later" is bound to have a bad outcome. 

As a beekeeper, I've followed the CCD research fairly closely, and I haven't seen any of the Bee Labs or major universities make an announcement that the cause of CCD has been positively identified. On the contrary, the research seems to indicate a combination of factors. And while neonicotinoids may play a part, it's important to understand _what_ part so that a wise course of action can be planned.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

I am not shooting first. I have done EXTENSIVE research on this, not the same as a scientist but as a investigator. The US and Canada seem to be the only ones who are not placing precautionary bans on the neonics. Most european reports indicate these are the substances present in most cases of heavy bee loss. Italy has been experiencing a reflux in the bee population since the ban. Many studies here are also pointing in the same direction EXCEPT, who is funding the studies, who is running the show here, we have to ask many questions why nothing has been done and it is not because we do not know that the neonics are not harmful. Look who is at EPA, they all seem to be walking a double edged sword. I would like the US to follow suit with a precautionary ban and see how things go. IF it does not make a difference, then we have if anything, come together as a group and heard about a very important topic and perhaps have some voice in the future in the health of our bees. (& ourselves) Watch Nicotine Bees. I just ordered in the mail. Watch Food Inc. Watch the World According to Monsanto. IF not for a brave group of people who have the guts to talk about the truth then for sure we are all in a lot of hot water. The US has placed their trust in the hands of individuals who really don't give a crap. I'm not saying all, but just look around. Look what has been done in the food industry, it is revolting. We thought the gov was looking out for us, but our economy almost collapsed because of greed. We should not let this happen to our most important and fragile system of all, agriculture. The big guys (Monsanto) are making it impossible for farmers with intergrity and dignity to farm. In the name of science and technology and the greater good they are forcing them to their knees and taking their livliehood away from them if they do not comply. I am straying a bit, but it is all connected. Many of you may be skeptical, but if you have time, go out there and talk to some folks and see what is going on. Europe has banned GMO seed and Africa has burned them in protest. We are too compliant. We are taking the easy way out. If you let them do this by staying put and silent then that will be the outcome of the lives of our granchildren and generations to come. Please watch Food INc. It will change the way you see things. IF you don't beleive them, then you can call the big CEOs who make all the money while they are poisoning our food supply. See if they will take your call, answer any of your questions. Take your money, in a heartbeat. They are harming the bees with their arrogance. Since I started beekeeping I am paying more attention to what is around me. I do not like what I see or hear. If we cannot agree that there is a crisis if you are at all skeptical that everything is fine and it is all gonna blow over, then go ahead and dream on. We all know something is up and we need to do something. Neonicatinoids are harming the bees, they certainly are not something that are bees should be in contact with, ever. Nor should we. Where do our loyalties lie?


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

I have said it before (in the genetic breeding thread) and I will say it again , 

If only it were that easy...................


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

honeylove said:


> We all know something is up and we need to do something.


This approach is just too broad and general for me. It's kind of like the global warming issue and CCD. Sure, something is happening, but to make decisions on how to best deal with it requires a certain level of certainty as to the cause of the problem.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Barry, It is all connected. Just begin in one place and follow the dots. You will begin to see things for yourself. I am one of those very obstinate people who do not accept things as they seem. If you listen to your bees, you will see what I mean. Think about what you eat. Do you want your chicken to have led a healthy happy life? One where it is not stuck from the day it is born in a dark tunnel without EVER SEEING THE LIGHT OF DAY? Surely this is a crime. Chickens need light and they need to run around. Look at the conditions the factories raise these poor creatures. I eat the chicken, and I think about what it went through. IF that chicken was happy and running around (free range) and not pumped with antibiotics to ward off salmonella because of its horrible conditions being stuck in a feed lot in the dark with thousands of chickens all around so it cant even move, then I feel good about eating the happy well raised chicken, raised by someone with a heart and the well being of the person who is eating it, not his or her own pocket and who cares if folks die and get sick, all they want is money. Same with beef. Or pork. Just look what has happened by our not paying attention. You are a vegetarian? You are not getting off easy cause of that either. The bees forage on the plants. They bring it back to the hive. It goes into the honey. Even if our bees are mystical and wonderful, they cannot do magic and remove the toxins they find all they time. When they do find toxins, they seem to not be able to find their way back home, an altruistic survival behavior we see in honeybees. They do not bring the toxin into the hive if they can avoid it. Perhaps this is what this time this "ccd' or whatever we want to call it is. So, our honey stays uncontaminated (unless we contaminate it with pesticides we use within) until our very last honeybee has tried to tell us what is wrong. As beekeepers we can see that our bees troubles are connected to what is going on around them.


----------



## Rohe Bee Ranch (Feb 12, 2008)

I agree with what Barry said. I think a shotgun approach to the problem of CCD by banning substances that "might" be the cause at this time is foolish. There is a reason that these products are being used right now, usually for a specific solution to a known problem. Until it is known that something is causing or contributing to CCD I think banning a substance out of fear or the fact that people just don't like it is the wrong way to react. We need to make truly informed decisions and not jump to irresponsible conclusions.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

I feel the beekeepers have an opportunity right now to help, the farmers regain their livelihoods with their dignity intact, help our bees and agriculture in general. One small step for beekeepers, a great step for everyone! There is great momentum for us and as a group we can make a difference instead of waiting around for others to do what they are not going to do anyhow. I will be posting our letter to Michelle Obama and a petition. If anyone wants to sign that would be great. THe groundwork has been set, now beekeepers need to decide to take a stand for what we beelieve in. Enough is enough.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

For the price of a movie ticket in most states right now you can buy this movie, I highly reccommend this to be viewed if you are a beekeeper or a farmer. Well done! Answers all, or most, anyway of our questions and there is no denying that neonics are playing the role of the villain here!If you dont want to spend the $14 to purchase, maybe your bee club can buy in together and watch. Must see this. THese are real beekeepers, I even met Jim Bobb, well done. Looking forward to meeting David Hackenberg and looking forward to his signing the petition to ban pesticides as well!


----------



## ScadsOBees (Oct 2, 2003)

honeylove said:


> Think about what you eat. Do you want your chicken to have led a healthy happy life? One where it is not stuck from the day it is born in a dark tunnel without EVER SEEING THE LIGHT OF DAY? Surely this is a crime. Chickens need light and they need to run around. Look at the conditions the factories raise these poor creatures. I eat the chicken, and I think about what it went through. IF that chicken was happy and running around (free range) and not pumped with antibiotics to ward off salmonella because of its horrible conditions being stuck in a feed lot in the dark with thousands of chickens all around so it cant even move, then I feel good about eating the happy well raised chicken, raised by someone with a heart and the well being of the person who is eating it


I guess I would think that killing a happy chicken would be more of a crime. Having cut off the heads of a few happy free range chickens, I can say honestly that I did NOT enjoy thinking about their happy life while eating them.

I find that when there is only one solution to a big problem that is absolutely correct and we have to get that solution done right now, that the solution will probably be worse than the problem.

Been hearing about a few of those types of solutions lately.:waiting:


----------



## waynesgarden (Jan 3, 2009)

honeylove said:


> Italy has been experiencing a reflux in the bee population since the ban.


(I skipped over your digressions into chickens since the waters are muddied already.)

I know you don't claim to be a scientist (and neither do I,) but how can you be so certain that it was the ban on neonics in Italy that caused the decrease in CCD there?

My reading tells me that in the US, the incidence of dead hives attributed to CCD have also dropped over the past year (2008/2009) from the high levels since 2006. We haven't banned anything here that I can think of that would explain it. Perhaps, the same, unexplained fluctuation exists in the statistics you are seeing of Italian CCD, caused by substances, pathogens, conditions or other external forces of which you (and the rest of us) are unware.

Not saying you are wrong, just that you haven't convinced me that you have identified the single cause upon which we can intellegently "take action." I don't know of anyone here that wouldn't do what they could to solve the problem but, unfortunately, the scientists that will ultimately solve this problem have not found the "smoking gun." When they do, I'll sign any petition you post to insure action is taken. 

Until then, best of luck with your petition.

Wayne


----------



## carbide (Nov 21, 2004)

Sam-Smith said:


> I don't think it was nation wide, it would depend on how the farmer is treating his crops. Another troubling thing is beet seeds are treated with this systemic insecticide, so trace amounts of it can then be found in beet sugar.
> 
> 
> Sam.


I've been feeding my bees beet sugar (the cheap stuff) for years and I've never had any indication of CCD in my hives. As a matter of fact, last Fall I had to feed all of my bees a significant amount of beet sugar due to a lack of stores. I lost two hives due to starvation and none due to CCD.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

For you skeptics out there, please watch "Nicotine Bees". Help has arrived to make my ranting easier! THe studies from our neck of the woods and from overseas. Then get back to me.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

ScadsOBees said:


> I guess I would think that killing a happy chicken would be more of a crime. Having cut off the heads of a few happy free range chickens, I can say honestly that I did NOT enjoy thinking about their happy life while eating them.
> 
> I find that when there is only one solution to a big problem that is absolutely correct and we have to get that solution done right now, that the solution will probably be worse than the problem.
> 
> Been hearing about a few of those types of solutions lately.:waiting:



perhaps the happy free range chicken did not deserve to die, but at least there is good karma in eating them! why do you raise your chickens free range?think about it! 

i disagree with you however, the solution to this problem is the solution, or beginning solution , to many of our problems.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

honeylove said:


> For you skeptics out there, please watch "Nicotine Bees". Help has arrived to make my ranting easier! THe studies from our neck of the woods and from overseas. Then get back to me.


Now why would I spend $14 of my hard earned money to watch a propaganda film?

Also - if it were true that these nicotine pesticides were the cause of CCD, it seems awfully shamefull that someone would try to profit the giving up the information rather just letting us all all know the story.

Kinda like, "Hey, I have the answer to global wraming. Just send me $14 and I will provide all the answers". 

Again, if it were only that easy...............


----------



## doc25 (Mar 9, 2007)

Rohe Bee Ranch said:


> I agree with what Barry said. I think a shotgun approach to the problem of CCD by banning substances that "might" be the cause at this time is foolish.



It is sad that the stuff they spray our food with is not checked out as thouroughly as drugs (the legal stuff from a pharmacy) are. Personally I think if there is a "might" there it should never have received approval for use in the first place.

It really is shocking the amount of pesticides and herbicides that are used in farming these days all in search of the mighty $.(WARNING! I'm going to rant here a bit) Farmers are more or less obliged to use all this stuff in order to produce enough to make a living. If they all stopped using it prices would go up, then some greedy guy would start using it again to produce more, then their neighbour would ....


----------



## Beeslave (Feb 6, 2009)

Rohe Bee Ranch said:


> There is a reason that these products are being used right now, usually for a specific solution to a known problem.QUOTE]
> 
> Neonicotinoids are not used to treat a pest problem. They are used to prevent a "possible" pest problem. Year after year planting the same crop in the same location creates the problem. Self sufficient farmers of the past provided themselves, their land, and their livestock with a variety. They knew what happened with crop rotation in the prevention of pests and if they did acquire a problem then they treated. Our money crops are corn and soybeans. The rest are imported because everyone is to cheap to pay for local quality food (Walmart Nation!!!). Or is it that we aren't to cheap but it is our cheap employers paying us and our goverment RAPING us(trying to compete with slave laboring CHINA). Blah, Blah, Blah etc. You get my point!


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Nabber 86 well, if you don't watch it you won't know! I believe this film was made to dispel the notion that we should just wait around for "them" to do something for us. Some dedicated beekeepers and researchers are speaking out, their time is worth something , no? They know they won't make money on us, beekeepers are notorious for being cheap, aren't we? That's why we should circulate it among us. Send me your address and I'll send you my copy! Will you send it back to me?


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

doc25 said:


> It is sad that the stuff they spray our food with is not checked out as thouroughly as drugs (the legal stuff from a pharmacy) are. Personally I think if there is a "might" there it should never have received approval for use in the first place.
> 
> It really is shocking the amount of pesticides and herbicides that are used in farming these days all in search of the mighty $.(WARNING! I'm going to rant here a bit) Farmers are more or less obliged to use all this stuff in order to produce enough to make a living. If they all stopped using it prices would go up, then some greedy guy would start using it again to produce more, then their neighbour would ....


(you should watch Food Inc. Talk about getting mad. then follow with life according to monsanto. the way farmers, animals and factory employees are treated is deplorable)


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Question. Does anyone participating in this thread actually making a living by farming? And I am not talking about selling a hundred dollars a week at the local farmers market. I am talking about making a living at farming.


----------



## Beeslave (Feb 6, 2009)

Yes I do, beekeeping/honey production, and I don't think it's right for someone to use something that increases the dollars in their pocket while it takes from mine!!!


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

honeylove said:


> I am not shooting first.





honeylove said:


> I would like the US to follow suit with a precautionary ban and see how things go.


How is this not shooting first?


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

honeylove said:


> (you should watch Food Inc. Talk about getting mad. then follow with life according to monsanto. the way farmers, animals and factory employees are treated is deplorable)


Don't take everything you see on TV as gospel. That film used similar tactics to the ACORN videos... that is, the film-makers spent months and in some cases years filming in multiple locations, and at the end of it, after they edited out anything that didn't support the cause of the film-maker, they were left with about 5-10 minutes of film that they're willing to show you, which they then mis-represent as being the norm.


----------



## beedeetee (Nov 27, 2004)

The root of our problem is our population. We couldn't possibly feed everyone without monoculture. Planting that many of any species in one place is not natural and the only way to keep diseases from running rampant through monoculture farming is pesticides.

I grew up with pesticides on a cherry orchard. I can pretty much guarantee that I have ingested more pesticide on one spraying of our orchard (1.5 days of spraying) that a ordinary person would get from supermarket food in 100 lifetimes. I started spraying at age 12.

We sold all of our cherries to Dole and had to prove that we followed a strict spray schedule. Dole washed the cherries before selling them. I just wiped them off with my hand because washing seemed to change and soften them and I was pretty picky about eating cherries.

We had 40 honey bee hives within 30 feet of the rows of trees.


----------



## NDnewbeek (Jul 4, 2008)

honeylove said:


> I am not shooting first. I have done EXTENSIVE research on this, not the same as a scientist but as a investigator. The US and Canada seem to be the only ones who are not placing precautionary bans on the neonics.


What is your background? And what exactly comprises your research? Do you understand statistical procedures, the normal distribution, and their effects on analysis? How can we, as a group evaluate your opinion without knowing your qualifications? Do you have academic experience, practical experience (as a farmer or comm. beek.), etc.?



honeylove said:


> Many studies here are also pointing in the same direction


What studies? Can you give references from peer-reviewed scientific journals that you have read and used to form your opinions?



honeylove said:


> I would like the US to follow suit with a precautionary ban and see how things go.


Look, I am not arguing in favor of neonic. pesticides necessarily - but I am arguing against knee-jerk reactions. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread (and demonstrated throughout ecological history - see "Hawaiian Islands" as just one example), the actual cause of CCD has not been established. There is an opportunity cost to your proposed actions whether you recognize it or not, in terms of lost resources (money, crops that might have otherwise been produced, research opportunity and effort, etc.). In other words, your remedy will come at some price - perhaps heretofore unseen. Often, these costs aren't discovered until AFTER they have been borne. Often as well, these costs are more detrimental than the original problem.



honeylove said:


> We thought the gov was looking out for us


I have NEVER thought that!


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

What does it matter what my background is, I'm a beekeeper for cryin out loud and I am trying to help the bees!The problem is if agriculture continues the way it is right now, we may not have any choices in the future. If the chem ag folks convince us that they are doing this for the greater good then we are s....d. We are in a crisis and just as our economic system crashed so will our most fragile and important system of all, agriculture. Then who is going to "bail" us out? Organic farmers and farmers who have not sold their souls to "the bad guys" should have our highest respect and support right now. It is indeed possible to retain our intergrity and heeding what is right, but we have to be in this together. As Kirk Webster said, We have lost our ability to take care of living things...Farmers have a hard time, I know this, I have worked on a farm,but there are more ways than one to "kill a bug". Look what Mr. Webster did. He did not treat his hives for varroa for 5 years and his bees regained thier resiliance while the varroa lost theirs. He no longer considers them a threat and no longer needs to control them. All because he bit the bullet and did it the hard way. We are too used to taking the easy way out. If we continue to use pesticides with wild abandon ( that by the way were never clearly tested) and use methods like irridiation and cloning and gentically modifying, we will surely lose our ability to continue raising our food supply in a sustainable wholesome way. The neonicotinoids are dangerous and toxic to many of the good bugs, honeybees, butterflies, ladybugs, and the decline of bats, notice that, they too eat many bugs for us, and we should demand to ban them right away. Scientists around the world have agreed that the neonicotinoids are affecting our bees. Once the good bugs are all gone and even the bad ones, we can no longer sustain the balance that has been going on for centuries and centuries long before these CEOs with their arrogance began to envision a takeover of nature. Monoculture is not the answer . In the Living Soil, they explain how an experiment was done in that they tilled two fields, one with pesticides and one organically. The organic field of course was the one that proved to benefit economically and financially. Many farmers have been treated wrongly and have been led to beleive that if they dont "get with it" they will lose thier livelihoods and some have becuase of the greed and arrogance of the chem ag people. Failure is sure when can no longer take care of living things in a way that will benefit all of nature, not just the pockets of the CEOs. Beekeepers and farmers are allies, and we should respect & support one another and work together to find better ways to revitalize agriculture. Toxic chemicals and questionable practices are not the answer.


----------



## NDnewbeek (Jul 4, 2008)

honeylove said:


> What does it matter what my background is, I'm a beekeeper for cryin out loud and I am trying to help the bees!


Being a beekeeper doesn't necessarily qualify you to evaluate the scientific process. If you don't understand the scientific method and have no experience with statistics, then you lack the basic skills for determining whether or not published material is actually good science. I also notice that you haven't provided the source material for the basis of your opinion yet. Your lack of background (and its effect on your opinions) is evidenced in your own words below:



honeylove said:


> The neonicotinoids are dangerous and toxic to many of the good bugs, honeybees, butterflies, ladybugs, and the decline of bats, notice that, they too eat many bugs for us, and we should demand to ban them right away. Scientists around the world have agreed that the neonicotinoids are affecting our bees.


Since I have made an issue of backgrounds, here is mine. I am a scientist. I hold a Ph. D. from the University of Oklahoma in Zoology (that includes the study of both vertebrates (bats) and invertebrates (bees)). My research focus is mammals and mammalian ecology. I have published book chapters on carnivores and papers on mammalian ecology and landscape modeling. Your statements above reflect exactly the kind of problems associated with 'doing something to help the bees' that I am trying to point out. SOME bats are in decline. Other bats are not (for instance, _Tadarida brasiliensis _and many of the _Myotis_ species). To issue a blanket statement that, first - they are ALL in decline and second, that it is because of ONE cause is grossly irresponsible and naive. It demonstrates precisely the problems that I have pointed out with your lack of background and/or experience. Your second assertion - that scientists around the world have agreed - is even worse. I have NEVER known scientists to agree on anything. In fact, disagreement is fundamental to the scientific method. It is how we advance knowledge in an honest way. 



honeylove said:


> Once the good bugs are all gone and even the bad ones, we can no longer sustain the balance that has been going on for centuries and centuries long before these CEOs with their arrogance began to envision a takeover of nature.


How in the world do you define a 'good' bug vs. a 'bad' bug? And what exactly is this 'balance' you are talking about? Can it be measured, described, quantified or qualified in any way? Populations rise, fall, crash, go extinct - often without any (to date) understood reason. The ecology of the Earth is, and always has been, in a constant state of change. There is no 'balance' - that is a purely artificial human concept. Again, your lack of experience and a scientific background is on display and is probably why response to your call (at least in my reading of the thread) has been tepid.



honeylove said:


> In the Living Soil, they explain how an experiment was done in that they tilled two fields, one with pesticides and one organically. The organic field of course was the one that proved to benefit economically and financially.


Is this a trade magazine, peer reviewed journal, etc.? Do you have a reference?

Beekeepers like Mike Palmer, Kirk Webster, John and Sheri, Tom L, Bjorn, etc. (don't mean to leave anyone out) have the depth of experience to evaluate the state of bee biology and ecology. Those with science backgrounds (like Ross (I think)) myself, and others have the training to assess and evaluate the state of research and apply that to the state of bee biology. Everyone's opinion has value. We must also recognize, though, our limitations in fields in which we lack sufficient training and experience.

For instance, in matters of hive management, queen rearing, feeding bees, etc. I happily defer to those mentioned above and others because their experiences provide them with an expertise FAR beyond my own. 

You, however, are flinging blanket statements about processes that you can not possibly fully understand (as highlighted above) and demand action based upon that partial understanding. This is irresponsible. It is not only irresponsible, history has shown us that it can also be detrimental to the overall scientific process and even dangerous.

I think it is safe to say that nobody wants to see bees (or any other organisms) declining. But, it is important that proposed remedies NOT be worse than the problem itself in terms of their unforeseen costs. This is why it is important to be patient and permit the scientific (and field managerial) processes time to work and be completed before rushing to action.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

of course i knew you were a scientist & thank you for pointing that out. What do you have against banning the neonics? are you a scientist for bayer or monsanto? One of the beekeepers you mention knows all about our letter/petition to Michelle Obama & thinks it is a good & practical idea. My original inquiry was how many beekeepers would be interested in forming a group to represent our concerns about the pesticides that have been cited in causing our bees to behave not normally (ccd) & seems I have strayed from there cause of my big mouth but my heart is in the right place & I am too backed by the science community in my convictions regarding the neonicotinoids... may I retrieve some studies for you? Also, Italy has seen improvement in their bee populations since, especially in the areas where the neonic maize was planted previously which is where the worst die outs occurred. I know of a beekeeper in NJ who lost 80% of his hives when a field of maize was planted in proximity to his apiary. So, my experiment was to see, would beekeepers band together as a group to be heard by the companies that are producing toxins that are harming our apiaries. The american scientific community is reluctant to let this happen!


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

If action is never taken and we stand back passively, then we will not have time to ever have our bees recover. Action, and I am not talking shooting anyone here, in terms of having a voice for our bees and what we feel should be done. Many scientific studies have cited neonics, they seem to appear in the forefront of many studies, therefor, I beelieve it is safe to say, we can demand a precautionary ban on such pesticide.


----------



## NDnewbeek (Jul 4, 2008)

As previously stated in this thread, and as I have pointed out - the cause of the reduction of CCD, if it is real - has not been positively correlated with a ban on neonic. pesticides. That is the root of my point - which you don't seem to grasp. It is irresponsible to take action without complete information because the unforeseen costs are often worse than the initial problems.



honeylove said:


> If action is never taken and we stand back passively, then we will not have time to ever have our bees recover.


How do you know ANY of this, with ANY level of certainty, when professional scientists and beekeepers can't even reach agreement on points like this?

You continue to state that you have supporting evidence but never provide it. I can not accurately evaluate your position without being able to evaluate the veracity of the reference material.

Kirk Webster is a fantastic beekeeper for whom I have tremendous respect. Yet he is the only one you can cite and represents only one opinion. A sample size of 1 does not a consensus make.

I am an ecologist and vertebrate biologist. Chemical companies do not support research in my field. It is an affront that you suggest that my principles and ethics are compromised through some professional association that YOU imagined. Your responses only continue to illustrate my main points. 

I am not against banning harmful chemicals per se. I am merely opposed to irresponsible actions in the name of science by individuals who are grossly unqualified, motivated by a need to 'do something' and using tidbits of science to support their position - it damages real science.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

What is irresponsible is the acts of the EPA, and the chemical companies that inundate the market with these products that are not even proven to be safe.I can sleep at night cause I know I have good intentions by proposing a cautionary ban (see precautionary law/principle. How can they sleep knowing they have caused devastation and disastrous results all over the world with their irresponsibility? How many times do we hear about what irresponsiblity does to us? Poultry (here we go with the chickens again!) with salmonella, mad cow disease, ecoli, bees dying, all because of irresponsible practices in the agricultural field...responsible by the chemical companies posing as agricultural companies.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

http://www.sehn.org/precaution.html


----------



## JonEdangerousli (May 8, 2007)

***calls broker to increase Alcoa holdings***


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

Honeylove,

I don't think the current honeybee decline is due to only one factor (not implying that you do either), but I do believe that pesticide overuse is likely to be a very significant part of the problem. We don't have to go that far back in time to note that it took alarming die-offs of birds to make a previous generation realize that the spraying of DDT on America's food crops was a bad thing for our entire eco-system. DDT only got banned after much damage had been done.

I don't agree with everything you are suggesting, but I do agree with many of your points, and it's good to hear various other viewpoints too, as long as they do not deteriorate into ridicule and personal attacks. Thank you for bringing up some very serious and relevant issues for discussion.


----------



## NDnewbeek (Jul 4, 2008)

This is precisely what I am trying to point out. This is NOT a science based site. The articles and information are not peer-reviewed. Scientifically, that makes their value minimal at best. It is an opinion/activist site - not science, so any information their is going to be skewed to suit their goals. The authors for the few bee articles are not scientists. The scientists they do cite are biochemists who are speaking about organic farming. 

Because you do not have a science background, you don't have an appreciation for how broad a field biochemistry is. There is nothing to indicate that the referenced scientists are even authoritatively speaking to matters in their own field. Further, you also don't understand the scientific distinction between popular articles and peer-reviewed work. Quoting a scientist in TIME magazine is NOT the same as publishing an article in _The American Midland Naturalist_. 

Further, the citations in support of the 'Precautionary Principle' do not list one scientific article and only a single peer-reviewed Journal (the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health - hardly a core scientific field in the study of pesticides, insects or ecology). 

Finally, I found almost nothing on the site regarding CCD or any of the information you base your opinions on. A search of the site for 'CCD', and 'Colony Collapse Disorder' produced no hits. A search of the site for 'honeybee, pesticide' produced 63 hits. None that I could find detailed any scientific relationship between CCD and pesticides. Most were either written by the editors of this site or by researchers in the field of Environmental Health. Environmental Health is a field that examines human health events only (I teach Epidemiology for our Env. Health program). As such, it is not a field equipped to address or make assertions with regards to pesticide effects on INSECTS.

But I give up - you don't seem to understand or care about the concepts of 'opportunity costs' and 'unforeseen consequences' of proactive decisions and the greater harm that they can inflict. You also don't seem able to recognize that you MIGHT not have complete information (since nobody does) or how detrimental making decisions without complete information can be. You are too convinced that 'action must be taken now' regardless of the multiple, ancillary, unpredictable impacts that the action might have.


----------



## JonEdangerousli (May 8, 2007)

NDnewbeek said:


> ...the concepts of 'opportunity costs' and 'unforeseen consequences' of proactive decisions and the greater harm that they can inflict.


Someone mentioned DDT. Not to open a big debate about it, but how many people have died world-wide because of the ban on DDT?

Unintended consequences...


----------



## NDnewbeek (Jul 4, 2008)

Omie brings up a good point regarding DDT and illustrates just the kind of unforeseen costs that I am talking about. DDT was a chemical used to kill (primarily) mosquitoes. DDT was banned because it caused egg-shell thinning in raptors. Raptor populations declined while DDT was in use because it lowered reproductive success and rebounded after the ban. Happy story, right?

Sure, unless you live in tropical Africa where DDT was used to kill malarial mosquitoes. DDT production fell from over 800 million tons produced worldwide (with the US being the main producer) before the ban to less the 4-5000 tons now. The unforeseen effect was a precipitous increase in malarial deaths among the HUMAN African population.

This from EIR Science:

"In Kenya, the DDT fight is still on, with the director of Kenya's premier research institute, KEMRI, taking a strong stand for the use of DDT, and another research institute, the International Center of Insect Physiology and Ecology, taking the anti-DDT, environmentalist view. Malaria now kills 700 Kenyans a day, and as KEMRI director Davy Koech told the opposition,

"Anything that can reduce malaria deaths by 80% should be given another thought."

Kenya had a terrible outbreak of malaria after heavy rains in 2002, with hundreds of deaths. "

"After one year of DDT use, the incidence of malaria in the worst-hit province, KwaZulu Natal, fell by 80%."

And from the World Health Organization:

"Today, DDT remains on the WHO's list of insecticides recommended for IRS. Since the appointment of Arata Kochi as head of its anti-malaria division, WHO's policy has shifted from recommending IRS only in areas of seasonal or episodic transmission of malaria, to also advocating it in areas of continuous, intense transmission."

Now I am not suggesting that we go back to producing or using DDT, nor do I have a solution to the problem - I am just using this to illustrate that the unforeseen consequences can be severe when decisions are made with incomplete information. In this case, a decision was made quickly to ban the pesticide and if you lived in equatorial Africa, you might have paid for that decision with your life.


----------



## JonEdangerousli (May 8, 2007)

Great minds...


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

JonEdangerousli said:


> Someone mentioned DDT. Not to open a big debate about it, but how many people have died world-wide because of the ban on DDT?
> Unintended consequences...


Hard to evaluate. 
Maybe as many as would have died if DDT hadn't ever been invented? Maybe more, because our food growing system was allowed to become dependent on DDT in order to produce more?
And how can we know how many people would have died if rampant use of DDT had continued? We do know that some species of animals or birds would have likely become extinct. Birds like the bald eagle were already becoming sterile and showing multiple fatal birth deformities. Surely humans would have become effected as well after decades of eating actual DDT-sprayed foods.
But this is speculation, since DDT spraying was discontinued, and bird species recovered as a result.


----------



## JonEdangerousli (May 8, 2007)

25 species become extinct every day.

*source George Carlin


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

An activist, of any stripe, who wants to do "something" that may or may not solve the problem they are championing (assuming the problem actually exists) makes me VERY leery. Actually they usually seem a little kooky to me.

From my view, nothing's been banned and yet it appears CCD is disappearing as quickly as it arrived. If anything it should be getting worse shouldn't it? Short of black helicopter theorist why would a "Corporation" want to do damage to their own planet? Don't say "greed or money". The people who work in these chemical corporations have kids, grandkids, and eat, drink, breath and live here too. Corportaions are made up of people. They intentionally poison us?, they poison themselves as well. I don't know any sane people who would do that.


----------



## NDnewbeek (Jul 4, 2008)

Omie said:


> Hard to evaluate.


Actually, it isn't. The reality is that DDT was invented and its discontinued use resulted in unforeseen, elevated malaria associated deaths in Africa. Those are just facts.



Omie said:


> Maybe as many as would have died if DDT hadn't ever been invented? Maybe more, because our food growing system was allowed to become dependent on DDT in order to produce more?
> And how can we know how many people would have died if rampant use of DDT had continued?


This is all speculation and not suitable for scientific consideration because none of these things actually happened - therefore, they are not part of our considered reality. 

The point is - the discontinuation of DDT (whether right or wrong) had the unforeseen effect of elevating human mortality.



Omie said:


> We do know that some species of animals or birds would have likely become extinct.


No we don't. We know that some species populations were negatively effected. We also know that their population trajectory indicated that they were at risk. We know nothing about how likely an extinction event would have been though.



Omie said:


> Birds like the bald eagle were already becoming sterile and showing multiple fatal birth deformities.


DDT did none of these things. It caused birds to produce eggs with thin shells, so thin that when they attempted to incubate the otherwise fertile eggs, the weight of the incubating bird crushed the egg. DDT caused a significant drop in nesting success and reproduction.



Omie said:


> Surely humans would have become effected as well after decades of eating actual DDT-sprayed foods.


No scientific study (to my knowledge) has ever suggested this. There are some studies that suggest that DDT increases infant mortality among mothers who have been exposed to it and it may be an endocrine interrupter - but nothing regarding the effects of ingesting it. As you state though, this is speculation - and once again, this is my overriding point. Speculation is NOT science. Nothing we have learned about CCD has pointed to any single, definitive cause. To agitate for action against one perceived, speculative threat is not responsible because of the unforeseen and unpredictable ancillary outcomes, which in some cases have cost people their lives (DDT is just one example of that).

Look, I am no fan of DDT or DDD, DDE, Dieldrin or any of the other ****tails produced after the DDT ban. But decisions about what to ban, discontinue, alter, etc. should be made based upon sound, considered science, not speculation or emotion - no matter how convinced we are that we are right.


----------



## Hambone (Mar 17, 2008)

I thought DDT was a wrestling move that the great Jake "The Snake" Roberts used as his finishing move back in the 80's.

I learn something new everyday.

As you were...


----------



## JonEdangerousli (May 8, 2007)

Hambone said:


> Jake "The Snake"


I had a roommate in the AF that nicknamed me that. When we were introduced he thought my name was Jake, not Jon. About two weeks later I thought to ask him why he nicknamed me that. He was shocked that he'd gotten my name wrong.

/end threadjack


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

NDnewbeek said:


> Actually, it isn't. The reality is that DDT was invented and its discontinued use resulted in unforeseen, elevated malaria associated deaths in Africa. Those are just facts.


Interesting perspective. I would say it was _malaria_ that _caused_ those deaths. The rate of malaria deaths was temporarily lowered by using DDT, but the damaging toxic effects of DDT to our environment were then deemed unacceptable and DDT was discontinued. Malaria deaths then resumed as before. Obviously, finding new safe ways of combating malaria is necessary. 




> DDT did none of these things. It caused birds to produce eggs with thin shells, so thin that when they attempted to incubate the otherwise fertile eggs, the weight of the incubating bird crushed the egg. DDT caused a significant drop in nesting success and reproduction.


Yes indeed. When I said they were becoming 'sterile', I meant in a broader layman's sense, as in being unable to reproduce. 



> Speculation is NOT science. Nothing we have learned about CCD has pointed to any single, definitive cause.


I agree.




> Look, I am no fan of DDT or DDD, DDE, Dieldrin or any of the other ****tails produced after the DDT ban. But decisions about what to ban, discontinue, alter, etc. should be made based upon sound, considered science, not speculation or emotion - no matter how convinced we are that we are right.


I think that if proof of the longterm safety of such chemicals and substances were more strictly required _before_ they were allowed into widespread use in our food system, then there would be less suspicion concerning their safety, and less demand for discontinuing them. I think the safety requirements (not just on people, but on the environment, birds, insects, water, etc) of pesticides and genetic manipulation of food plants, etc, need to be more stringently applied. It seems to me that the current policy is more leaning towards 'use first, discontinue later if toxic effects are proven' in favoring corporate profit.

China is a good example of what happens when corporate greed is allowed to take precedence over environmental pollution and human safety concerns. Oh boy, now there's a whole hundred threads all by itself.


----------



## NDnewbeek (Jul 4, 2008)

Omie said:


> Interesting perspective. I would say it was _malaria_ that _caused_ those deaths. The rate of malaria deaths was temporarily lowered by using DDT, but the damaging toxic effects of DDT to our environment were then deemed unacceptable and DDT was discontinued. Malaria deaths then resumed as before. Obviously, finding new safe ways of combating malaria is necessary.


In either view, the unforeseen consequence of banning DDT was elevated deaths due to malaria. My point was only that actions have unforeseen consequences.



Omie said:


> I think that if proof of the longterm safety of such chemicals and substances were more strictly required _before_ they were allowed into widespread use in our food system, then there would be less suspicion concerning their safety, and less demand for discontinuing them. I think the safety requirements (not just on people, but on the environment, birds, insects, water, etc) of pesticides and genetic manipulation of food plants, etc, need to be more stringently applied. It seems to me that the current policy is more leaning towards 'use first, discontinue later if toxic effects are proven' in favoring corporate profit.


Certainly, and in a perfect world, that is what we would do. How do you propose we do this though? Do you appreciate how long 'long term' studies are? And what do we do in the meantime? A good example of what you propose can be found in the pharmaceutical industry. It takes decades and millions upon millions of dollars to bring a new drug through the design, analysis and government tests. The result is extremely high costs of drugs (as pharma. companies try to make back on their investment) and long waits for the release of new and possibly life saving drugs. 

Is this really the paradigm that a nation of 365 million wants for their food production? How do you feed 365 million people using only organic methods anyway? We can't even completely agree on what the term 'organic' should mean with respect to food production.

I don't know what the answers to these questions are, but you make another good point about China - and you are right! But here is the thing - we aren't China and we do a heck of a lot better right now with these issues than China does. Shouldn't that count for something in the 'corporate greed' matrix?

I am with others in the view that corporations are in business to make money and increase the value of their stock. They don't do that by intentionally killing their customers. Corporations are led by, staffed with and employ people. People are fallible and make mistakes. I have a friend with a Ph.D. in Chemistry and another with his degree in seed genomics. They both work for seed companies (in Iowa). Neither are trying to kill people. One spends his time trying to design better (tasting and nutritious) foods from plants that can be grown in wider varieties of habitats. The other designs chemicals to protect those plants - and environmental concerns are at the forefront of both of their research, so I just don't see the conspiracy. They aren't motivated by greed - they are motivated by a love of their field and a desire to improve people's lives.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Malaria is a tragic disease and I believe they are working on a vaccine. I read an article in National Geographic and the ddt ban has been lifted in areas. I am not against using pesticides to erradicate diseases, until a vaccine has been found, but ddt use was being abused and rendered it dangerous and in some circumstances the parasite developed immunity to it as well. That is what happens with pesticide overuse. Let's get back to the NEONICOTINOIDS which is what this is all about. THey appear in many forms and are being overused and have been proven by scientists around the world to negatively affect bees (they die when they are exposed to the pollen and nectar of treated plants). What is key here as well is fixing the soil. Farmers require good dirt! There are some promising green technologies that would do for farming what Obama is trying to do for the health care system! I am exaggerating, but I feel there needs to be some kind of reform in agriculture as well!
(a great article in National Geographic again about soil restoration & terra petra Sept. 2008)
Focusing on eradicating the pests by less toxic means is probably a better way to go. THere is biological p c and other organic practices that are in use that have proven effective.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Yes, indeed. BY all means, I am not saying the folks working there are evil or trying to kill us, they have every good intention of saving lives and making lives better. We need to explore the greener technologies and less invasive (on the environment) ways of doing these things. They do exist and progress is being made every day towards applying these natural less toxic principles to our environment. If we can agree the notion that the more powerful stuff (synthetic man made chemicals) is the most harmful in many ways. Sevin, cabaryl, all these lethal to honeybees, and so that affects us. Our scientists and researchers are dedicated folks I'm sure. Its the behind the scenes I'm not so sure about.


----------



## indypartridge (Nov 18, 2004)

honeylove said:


> ... technologies that would do for farming what Obama is trying to do for the health care system!


Now that's a frightening image!


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

If those "promising green technologies" actually work in the real world, they will survive in the marketplace as farmers and beeks see their advantages and adopt them.

The last thing we need is Obama screwing up the agriculture sector, as he wants to do the health care sector. He's already driving the country into bankruptcy with his deficits. sigh... I'm not going to continue, this is depressing.


----------



## NDnewbeek (Jul 4, 2008)

So, just what do you think happens at these companies? In the majority of cases, the CEO's and corporate boards have little to no background in science. They can only market, sell and promote what the scientists (like my colleagues) produce . They do not possess the education, skills or background to modify anything produced. Do you suppose that they go down to the lab and direct the scientists to produce 'harmful' products?

Humans are REALLY good at leaping before looking. The case can even be made that this happens with pesticides. Human history is filled with instances where people, motivated by good intentions whose 'hearts were in the right place', acted without full information and created greater disasters that were already in place. 

For example:
The importation of the mongoose to control rats in Hawaii
The importation of the Gypsy moth to NYC to provide jobs in the silk industry
The complete ban on DDT worldwide
The importation of the starling to NYC
The importation of Africanized bees to South America to increase honey production

We are still dealing with all of these actions (some of which have resulted in human life lost, and some of which occurred over 100 years ago) today.

Neonic. pesticides may be terrible - but they also increase food production yields in the US. Do you know how much food production will be affected by a ban on these pesticides? I don't. Presently, the entire world depends on US food production in some way. Italy has the luxury of banning these things because Italy doesn't provide food for the world - so the impact of the ban is restricted to Italy and relatively minor. 

At a minimum, a pesticide ban could depress food production and cause an increase in prices (who knows how much). At most, a ban could depress yields to the point that people around the world won't have food and will suffer and die of starvation. In the extreme, famines could grip the poorest nations and certain foods could become unaffordable in the developed world. No one can predict where along this continuum the reality of a ban might fall.

Additionally, nobody knows with any certainty what causes CCD or what the magnitude of the role of pesticides is. Yet, you want to gamble with the lives of people you don't even know - so that you can go to bed at night knowing that your heart is in the right place. 

Arguments about how we should be organically farming, we wouldn't have this level of food production if we just didn't make the pesticides in the first place and our population is too big anyway are great - but they are semantic, because the reality is that the population is what it is and we feed it through our current farming practices. Turning off those practices abruptly, as egregious and objectionable as we may find them now, can only result in human suffering.

I want bees to be protected from harmful chemicals too, but let me ask one final question: How many human lives in the immediate future are worth this precautionary action that may or may not help bees? Especially, in the light of reports that CCD is diminishing? Because that question will be answered if action is taken without a clear understanding of the CCD and pesticide problem, when we find out how much US agricultural yields depend upon these chemicals. Lives lost can not be recovered, families can not be repaired and those lives are referred to by economists as the 'unforeseen costs' of action.

You won't ever hear about those lives, but at least you will be able to sleep at night because you will know that you 'have done something' to help bees.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

indypartridge said:


> Now that's a frightening image!


I mean reform.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Beegeek. Your statement about the us providing food for the world is what hit the nail on the head. Really? When we tried to send "contaminated' GMO seed to Africa, they burned it rather than use it! Why do we think the US supplies food for the world. Perhaps this is the root of the problem. Have you considered the problem of the poor condition of the soil? Our soil is so contaminated, our water supply gets contaminated...of course we are going to go on forever like this, we just do not agree and I agree with you on that!


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

hmmm agent orange, bhopul...


----------



## NDnewbeek (Jul 4, 2008)

honeylove said:


> Beegeek.


?Do you even read what I write? You just don't get it.

Ban the neonics. Sleep well.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

NDnewbeek said:


> Neonic. pesticides may be terrible - but they also increase food production yields in the US. Do you know how much food production will be affected by a ban on these pesticides?


It would be logical to presume that food production levels would be similar to what they were before the recent introduction of these new neonic. pesticides.


----------



## NDnewbeek (Jul 4, 2008)

Omie said:


> It would be logical to presume that food production levels would be similar to what they were before the recent introduction of these new neonic. pesticides.


Perhaps - but the population may be larger (perhaps much larger) since then. Again though, that is a presumption that potentially bears significant costs and is dependent upon a number of variables, including but not limited to:

What is the difference in population between pre- and post- neonic. food prod.?
What is the difference in food yield between pre- and post- neonic. food prod?

But that has been my point all along. It is not responsible to make decisions or take actions like this based upon presumption, assumption, good intentions, gut feelings, etc.

The science isn't settled, the causes (of CCD) are not clear and the total costs are not known. Agitating for a total ban like this is in keeping with the long, sad history of preemptive poor decision making that gave us the pesticides in the first place.


----------



## peacekeeperapiaries (Jun 23, 2009)

NDnewbeek, thanks for your INFORMED and EDUCATED responses to this thread, as you stated there have been so many "knee jerk" reactions, and "personal causes" that have led us down the wrong path. I agree bee health is a priority, I have a lot of $$$ tied up in mine, but until the SCIENTISTS conclusively determine the cause of CCD which can be reviewed by EDUCATED persons such as yourself I will have to stand firm in not supporting this "cause" or any like it.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

NDnewbeek said:


> But that has been my point all along. It is not responsible to make decisions or take actions like this based upon presumption, assumption, good intentions, gut feelings, etc.


And yet chemical pesticide producers are basically making decisions for all of us every day. They are making the _big bucks_ promoting and selling the latest arsenal of patented chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, and patented genetically modified crops. (I do patent drawings for a living) _Not saying none of these chemicals are good and helpful_, just saying there are huge profits to be made every time they can sell their newest products on a mass basis, thus creating a blatantly obvious incentive for them to keep farmers buying and applying more and newer chemical products to the food crops, to the soil, to the seeds... it's something that should be kept in mind when evaluating the objectivity of decisions that get made for us within the food industry.

I feel your point is fairly similar to my point- Decisions that significantly effect our environment, our health, and our food supply (not to mention the wellbeing of bees and animals) should not be allowed to proceed without thorough _and objective_ safety testing.
Don't we agree on that?


----------



## NDnewbeek (Jul 4, 2008)

Omie said:


> I feel your point is fairly similar to my point- Decisions that significantly effect our environment, our health, and our food supply (not to mention the wellbeing of bees and animals) should not be allowed to proceed without thorough _and objective_ safety testing.
> Don't we agree on that?


(Also, Please see post #91.) In a perfect world, sure, we agree. Now define 'safety'. Should a chemical applied to a plant have zero adverse effects before it is made available? Produce only 3 instances of cancer among 100,000 people? What is an acceptable level of safety? Keep in mind, no substance is completely safe. Oxygen is toxic at high concentrations. How long do you research this before you decide that a product is safe? And at what cost?

What you suggest is the ideal - and sure, that would be great. It isn't feasible in reality, because food has to be grown (and grown successfully) today. 

I am not concerned with safety per se - my focus is on knowledge. Only through the attainment of complete and accurate knowledge can we make sound decisions (of which then reasonable safety would be a part).


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Italians don't feed the world? It is their vigilance which has kept their food supply intact and not industrialized and contaminated. It is this feeding the world business under the guise of goodwill, the colonization and invasion of the "lesser" people of the world, that we take advantage of for our own economic interests. Monsanto doesn't want to feed the world, it wants to change food so that it can be controlled by them alone. Monoculture is not a solution. We need diversity in order for our food stock to continue to be viable and intact. Continuing to pollute our atmosphere, our water supply and our soil is not in our best interest, ya think? I am not a scientist, just a stupid dumbass, but it does not take a rocket scientist to see the devastating effects our disregard to taking care of living things has brought to our current situation. As a scientist surely you can tell me what effects pesticides and toxins dispersed in our ecosystem have on all living organisms?


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

My intentions are not to discuss world politics, heaven knows, I know nothing about that. So, clean slate.
I would like to discuss whether any beekeepers out there who have lost any of their bees due to exposure to certain pesticides would like to pursue a precautionary ban on such pesticide. Scientists are citing neonicotinoids as being present in the autopsies done in these studies.


----------



## NDnewbeek (Jul 4, 2008)

honeylove said:


> As a scientist surely you can tell me what effects pesticides and toxins dispersed in our ecosystem have on all living organisms?


No, I can't. And neither can anyone else (honestly) with any acceptable level of certainty. And that is entirely the point.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

So perhaps the precautionary principle could be of some benefit?


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

honeylove said:


> I would like to discuss whether any beekeepers out there who have lost any of their bees due to exposure to certain pesticides would like to pursue a precautionary ban on such pesticide.


I would think the responses you gotten so far would have lead you to conclude "No." But that does fit what you're looking for so the questions keeps being reposed. Bottom line, it has NOT been conclusively established what has caused die offs. However, the axe continues to be ground requesting people sign a petition and watch propaganda. By your own admission you're driving your family crazy with this. I'm only getting little doses here but I want nothing to do with watching something that will get me acting like that.



honeylove said:


> Scientists are citing neonicotinoids as being present in the autopsies done in these studies.


When an autopsy is done on me (hopefully not in a long time) you'll undoubtedly find all kinds of legal but possibly lethal things. Does that mean they killed me? Nope. Should we ban all of those potentially lethal things that could have possibly killed me that were in my system? Nope. 

Aim, Aim, Aim, then fire not fire, then aim, aim, aim. There's no interest in taking the actions you're requesting. Respectfully, move on.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

So you have taken upon yourself to speak for all beekeepers out there?


----------



## JonEdangerousli (May 8, 2007)

Given the choice between the two sides, at least from what I've seen in this thread, he pretty much speaks for me.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

I was warned that beekeepers do not stick together when the going gets tough. I was warned not to waste my breath, but what I am saying is coming from conviction and I am dedicated to this cause as are many other hard working selfless individuals out there who think fighting for what we beleive in . I am not twisting anyone's arm. Just scratching my head right now as to why I am continuing to beat a dead horse, as you so kindly reminded me. Could be I wonder what kind of world it will be for my children & grandchildren.


----------



## NDnewbeek (Jul 4, 2008)

honeylove said:


> So perhaps the precautionary principle could be of some benefit?


From D Coates:
Don\'t wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty, but the pig likes it


----------



## NasalSponge (Jul 22, 2008)

The problem with threads like this is the way they leave me feeling so....unedumacated!! This has been a interesting read for me and I have enjoyed it.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

D Coates said:


> There's no interest in taking the actions you're requesting. Respectfully, move on.


Not true that 'there is no interest'. It's a subject that interests me, anyway.
I never would presume to tell someone in an open forum to 'move on'. I would simply 'move on' _myself_ and stop reading and contributing to a thread if I didn't want to read anymore about it. 

Truly offensive posted material is another matter of course, and should be reported to the forum moderators.


----------



## JonEdangerousli (May 8, 2007)

NasalSponge said:


> The problem with threads like this is the way they leave me feeling so....unedumacated!!


Maybe you could get a college degree in computer networking?


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

honeylove said:


> Scientists are citing neonicotinoids as being present in the autopsies done in these studies.


Which scientists and what studies?


----------



## NDnewbeek (Jul 4, 2008)

When I asked that question, all that she produced were activist cites, the sierra club, etc. Nothing that approximated peer-reviewed science. 

When I pointed this out, she accused me of working for Bayer or Monsanto (as if that mere fact were enough to discredit my opinion if I did?).

When other beekeepers on this site voiced skepticism about her cause, she slandered all beekeepers:



honeylove said:


> I was warned that beekeepers do not stick together when the going gets tough.


Slander and accusation are the modus operandi of agitators and extremists. Linear thought and logical arguments are their enemies.

I would suggest that the skepticism and diversity of opinions exhibited here by beekeepers (I cite Omie's posts in particular, which were civil, logical and well-thought out, even though we didn't see exactly eye-to-eye) to be an indication instead, of beekeepers being independent, critical thinkers. 

Certainly nothing to be ashamed of or to try to change.

Good luck overwintering all.

Mike


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Mike. How is that slander? I was introducing the novel idea of beekeepers working as a group toward having a voice for our bees as they do in Europe and was warned by some other colleagues that I would meet some resistance. I deeply respect and admire every single person out there who is beekeeping, especially with all the challenges we are facing. I feel a connection will all beekeepers around the world. We all do this because we are fascinated by the honeybees (& maybe we are a little whacky to love a bug so much!)
I support The Sierra Club and other environmental advocate groups as they are deeply committed to restoring and repairing the environment with no ulterior motives, and I am sure they have their scientific experts to defer to..I agree my remark regarding where you work (monsanto) was uncalled for and I apologize. I am getting off the soap box, but not without leaving some "peer reviewed" studies and articles. SOme of us have access to the really good articles but for the mere mortals as myself, this is what I have to work with without spending $50 to read each one. If you can suggest another place to get some really good information, that would be very helpful. http://www.isba.us/index.ccd_files/downloads/4_24_07_NYT_CCD_Article.pdf 
http://wildlife-conservation.suite101.com/article.cfm/update_on_bee_colony_collapse_disorde
http://www.madge.org.au/Docs/isis-pressrealease.pdf
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1603/029.102.0511
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-1
http://maarec.psu.edu/CCDPpt/RecgrowersUsingNeonics1.pdf


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Just out of curiousity Honeylove, how long have you been keeping bees? and how many hives do you have?
Regards,
Steven


----------



## peacekeeperapiaries (Jun 23, 2009)

I might suggest whether this or another cause you not RAM your ideas and direction down everyone elses throat. Your request was met not with opostion but with inquiry as to where your information came from. The answers you recieved were respectful and cautious however it is evident that they were not the answers you WANTED to hear. You then took it upon yourself to demean and berate the beeks on this forum because they did not want to jump on your bandwagon. Of course you met some resistance did you really think that the thousands of beeks on this forum would throw caution to the wind and join your crusade without proper information. On a daily basis WE debate, inform, and educate ourselves and others in all aspects of beekeeping both good and bad. Yours is not the first thread on pesticides and certainly won't be the last. I can appreciate you enthusiasm and gumption (we are all consumed by our bees) but your tactics to gain a following leave much to be desired.


----------



## NDnewbeek (Jul 4, 2008)

This is my last post on this subject. My point is that we don't know enough to insist on a ban because we do not know what the unforeseen consequences might be. We simply do NOT have enough information - and this is highlighted in some of the source material provided. 

Peer-reviewed scientific work consists of information that originates from an _a priori_ tested hypothesis, a complete statistical design and is reviewed, edited and approved for methodology and interpretation by at least three other peer professionals in the same field (I review for two journals in my field).


honeylove said:


> http://www.isba.us/index.ccd_files/downloads/4_24_07_NYT_CCD_Article.pdf


NOT a peer reviewed source - this is a NY TIMES article!?



honeylove said:


> http://wildlife-conservation.suite101.com/article.cfm/update_on_bee_colony_collapse_disorde


NOT a source for peer reviewed science



honeylove said:


> http://www.madge.org.au/Docs/isis-pressrealease.pdf


NOT a peer reviewed source - this is a press release. The seven references the paper references do not cite a single peer-reviewed SCIENTIFIC journal (Science and Society is not a scientific journal)



honeylove said:


> http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1603/029.102.0511


This actually IS a peer reviewed reference from the Journal of Economic Entomology. And they state in their own abstract, "Although neonicotinoid systemic insecticides used for seed coating of agricultural crops were suspected as possible reason, *studies so far have not shown the existence of unquestionable sources capable of delivering directly intoxicating doses in the fields.*" - and the paper was published THIS YEAR.

They go on (in the abstract - the entire paper is not available on that site) to state that they DID document neonic. pesticides in the guttation of leaves. Even the authors recognize though that their data is only one paper in many contradicting papers and that further work is required to determine if this happens in the field (theirs was a laboratory experiment - field and laboratory results are very often HIGHLY variable and NOT comparable). Yet, you are comfortable basing unilateral decisions on this?!



honeylove said:


> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-1


This site is not accessible



honeylove said:


> http://maarec.psu.edu/CCDPpt/RecgrowersUsingNeonics1.pdf


This is NOT a peer reviewed paper - it is a position/opinion paper from MAAREC. It sites five other references that appear to be peer reviewed - so this paper has some value as a summary document, but it is laden with the opinions of the authors as well. 

So what you have here is a collection of maybe 6 legitimate references that you have based your view on. How many papers do you suppose are published on this topic each year? One of your own references admitted that theirs was the first work to document the direct delivery of pesticides to bees. Do you understand anything about confounding errors, bias, Type I error, control variables, or statistical significance? If not, then you can't appreciate how small a sample this actually is. Shouldn't there be room in your calculus for the possibility that you might be 'jumping the gun' a bit with this? If there isn't, why do you suppose that is?

All of this continues to highlight my original point - there is not enough information available on this subject to make an informed, intelligent decision about whether or not to ban completely these pesticides immediately. The unforeseen and unpredictable costs may be greater and more harmful than the pesticides themselves at this point.

As a last example - hackers recently broke into the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit in Britain. This is one of the few, leading climate research groups studying global warming. We have been flooded with actual peer-reviewed scientific papers documenting global warming. The hackers downloaded over 1000 emails between scientists and over 60 papers. The downloaded information provided rampant evidence of 'collusion and manipulation of data' for the purposes of supporting the global warming agenda.

How many people have been screaming for years that we should be 'doing something' about global warming? The 'somethings' include radical lifestyle changes, repressive taxes and costs, losses of freedoms, etc. Now, we find out that at least one highly respected group of scientists has been systematically faking the data for years. THIS is why it is important to be patient and NOT make rash decisions until the science is COMPLETE. 

Those who won't wait for this process to be completed in an honest way either serve an agenda or are so convinced of their infallibility that they can not imagine that they COULD be wrong and that their mistake may serve only to increase human suffering.

Finally,


honeylove said:


> I support The Sierra Club and other environmental advocate groups as they are deeply committed to restoring and repairing the environment with no ulterior motives


You might check your assumptions on this. The Sierra Club and other environmental advocacy groups have PLENTY invested in the outcomes of these issues - both monetarily and publicly. And so do the scientists they support - it is often difficult to get future funding and sometimes even a career-ender if you don't produce significant results that support your funding institution's goals. The pressures to deliver 'positive' results for advocacy group funded scientists are no different from the pressures on the chemical company researchers that you malign so freely.

But this is my last post on this topic. I can not spend anymore time on this - I have provided at least a half dozen examples now from ACTUAL mistakes people have made rushing to take action. If you can't see the dangers associated with your actions because you are so blinded by your cause, then you never will.


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

honeylove said:


> I was introducing the novel idea of beekeepers working as a group toward having a voice for our bees as they do in Europe


Would it surprise you to learn that the BBKA (British BeeKeepers Association) gave Bayer their endorsement?




honeylove said:


> http://www.isba.us/index.ccd_files/downloads/4_24_07_NYT_CCD_Article.pdf
> http://wildlife-conservation.suite101.com/article.cfm/update_on_bee_colony_collapse_disorde
> http://www.madge.org.au/Docs/isis-pressrealease.pdf
> http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1603/029.102.0511
> ...


Most of your links are outdated and discuss possible links to CCD, but it has been conclusively proven in recent years that there is no connection between CCD and neonics. Though possibly the most ****ing piece of evidence against the theory that neonics are a factor in CCD is the anecdotal evidence that France has had a ban on neonics since prior to the discovery of CCD, and yet has still suffered losses from CCD. 

Now the madge.org link discusses normal pesticide losses: "Beekeepers in the region started finding piles of dead bees at the entrance of hives in early May"

That description of course, rules out CCD as the primary indicator of CCD is few live bees, lots of brood, and no dead bees in or near the affected hive. Nevertheless, those pesticide kills were a major problem for Germany, who prior to that time did not even have any restrictions at all on the use of that class of pesticide. However, in the US we have not had pesticide kills anywhere near that level, and that may be attributable to the fact that the US also already has restrictions on the use of that class of pesticide, that may largely prevent pesticide kills in the US. 

But you're asking for further restrictions against them, and the evidence does not at this time appear to warrant further restrictions since we aren't seeing 50-60% annual pesticide kills, and we know that this class of pesticide is not a factor in CCD. So you need to show that banning this class of pesticide would have a significant benefit to US honey bee colonies before we can even begin to consider getting on board with banning them. 

I suspect though that you are more or less against the use of any type of non-organic pesticide, petro-chemical fertilizers, herbicides, or monoculture farming. But the reality of having a world population of this size is that those things are necessary to feed the world. While it's fairly easy for some of us to say that some people will simply have to starve to death while we still have plenty of food for ourselves, but it's quite another thing to be one of those that starves because of the loss of productivity by changing proven agricultural practices. So I would suggest that before making major changes to agriculture, that you first concentrate on reducing the world population to a level that we would be capable of feeding with the proposed changes. And I do with you good luck with that, it's not an easy thing to do, offering education and birth control to women in impoverished countries will only get so far, and with the changes you're proposing, you would need to lower the total world population by a few (2 to 3) billion.


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

NDnewbeek said:


> As a last example - hackers recently broke into the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit in Britain. This is one of the few, leading climate research groups studying global warming. We have been flooded with actual peer-reviewed scientific papers documenting global warming. The hackers downloaded over 1000 emails between scientists and over 60 papers. The downloaded information provided rampant evidence of 'collusion and manipulation of data' for the purposes of supporting the global warming agenda.
> 
> How many people have been screaming for years that we should be 'doing something' about global warming? The 'somethings' include radical lifestyle changes, repressive taxes and costs, losses of freedoms, etc. Now, we find out that at least one highly respected group of scientists has been systematically faking the data for years. THIS is why it is important to be patient and NOT make rash decisions until the science is COMPLETE.


I've been trying to keep up with this story, and so far, the only specific thing that has been pointed out from those emails that I have seen is one where a student suggested no longer considering a particular journal to be a credible source anymore, but there was no real context as to what had transpired previous to that email that caused him to make that statement (for all I know that journal may have published something absolutely ridiculous just prior to that). I wouldn't exactly go so far as to call that rampant evidence of 'collusion and manipulation of data', unless more has come out from this story than I am aware of, which is by all means possible.



NDnewbeek said:


> The pressures to deliver 'positive' results for advocacy group funded scientists are no different from the pressures on the chemical company researchers.


This bears repeating. There needs to be a new saying that goes something like, "if the results follow the money, question them."


----------



## ArtD (Oct 21, 2009)

> what was around 60 years ago


ddt


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

StevenG said:


> Just out of curiousity Honeylove, how long have you been keeping bees? and how many hives do you have?
> Regards,
> Steven


Good morning Steven. I currently am guarding over 5 hives and I have been actively doing so for just 2 years now. A beginner! I know nothing! Although a very experienced wise beekeeper told me he had to unlearn much of what he had learned over the years, so I guess you can say experienced in my unexperience. I am going to build a top bar hive this winter while my girls are overwintering (actually my husband is) and will take my lessons directly from the bees from then on I suppose. I live in suburbia and it is daunting at times. I talk about bees at the library, do presentations to educate folks about bees and what to do to help them (plant plants they like) and to not use pesticides in their gardens. One of my hives is in a yard directly behind a golf course (bee hosts are hard to come by, but with a little more work I will convince more people to have them) and one day I go there and find a handful of dead bees in front of the hive. Was it spraying from the golf course? I just helped a friend set up a hive at a public garden and we will have ample opportunities to tell more folks about honeybees. I always emphasize, kids, tell your parents not to spray pesticides! Am I doing something wrong? Should I be telling them to spray and not worry, the bees will be OK, they will just shrug it off? I'm sorry, I will not get defensive, I am just wondering why some members of the bee community are so offended that I am being cautious. I know Mike thinks I can't understand, must be all the pesticides I have been ingesting and breathing in all these years! I'm just kidding, but what I can't understand is why I am being pinata-ed. I am not a scientist, not an experienced beekeeper but I do have much experience in taking care of living things (my family, my pets, my community, my bees) and when I go to the supermarket to buy food I make decisions based on my beliefs -I buy organic because I believe in everything that organic stands for ..healthy, eco conscious, sustainable agriculture) and I use these standards in my household generally. You know, recycle, reuse, not pollute the whole shmeil..so now you have an idea of who I am. I am not ramming anything down anyone's throat, by the way, it was Mike who said I am incapable of comprehension! I guess we just disagree and I said I agree with that. My environmental activism is peaceful and well meaning and I disagree with many things said here. But I also agree that more work needs to be done in finding what is up with our girls. Has anyone seen Nicotine Bees yet? I thought it was pretty good and I just love Dave Hackenberg. Some of my friends and mentors attended the bee seminars this summer and got to meet him and I look forward to doing so in the future. I am sorry things got out of hand on this thread and I see what a touchy subject this is, but if we could work together, that would be helpful in benefitting the bees.


----------



## JPK (May 24, 2008)

honeylove said:


> This is why nothing gets done in this country. Am I on the beekeepers forum? Y'all need to watch NICOTINE BEES. It is made by real people. Its time to stop letting the big companies take over everything. OUr economy, our food, our lives.


You're advocating massive action with huge economic consequences to Farmers, Seed Produces, Food Retail etc based upon incomplete or poor evidence?

This is almost as bad as what is going on with the claim of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

I canceled my subscription to Sierra Club about a decade ago when it became clear that they had stopped pushing for Environmental Conservation but rather had become a part of the radical left pushing a social agenda.


----------



## mac (May 1, 2005)

Honeylove, keep it up. You’re on the right path. Science caused the problem it ain’t likely it’s going to fix it any time soon.


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

Actually, I love this thread. The ability of knowledgeable and constant self educating people digging up and providing as much 'real' information' in order to support their position is eye opening and cannot help but to improve the general education of everyone reading it.

I applaud everyone here for making use of the tools and resources to make credible arguments and digging up information that individually might take a much longer time to pull together into one place.

This is why I like debate so much. As long as the emotions gt left at home, lot's of knowledge can come from it.


Sorry, I kind of 'geek out' over learning and teaching opportunities (debate) 

Big Bear


----------



## doc25 (Mar 9, 2007)

Wow! I'm so shocked I don't know how to word things. If big companies really worried about whether something was poisonous or not do you really think cigarettes would still be legal. Look at your own government, we know cigarettes are bad yet everyone is making money off of them regardless of health. Maybe we should just put warning labels on the insecticides and fertilizers etc. "Warning may damage the environment and cause erectile difficulty". That should make everyone stop.

If the scientific community has not found a cause of something who are they to say "allow this to continue until we decide it is bad." Have any of you fixed anything by trial and error before? Wheather it be a car, toaster or a software issue? By the time science decides something is going wrong they will have to study the repercussions of removing said product from use before discontinuing it's use. Fills me with confidence.

Ever go to a Doctors office and say "Oh, I think I have tennis elbow" and the first thing that comes out of his mouth is "Are you a Doctor?"


----------



## JPK (May 24, 2008)

doc25 said:


> If the scientific community has not found a cause of something who are they to say "allow this to continue until we decide it is bad." Have any of you fixed anything by trial and error before? Wheather it be a car, toaster or a software issue? By the time science decides something is going wrong they will have to study the repercussions of removing said product from use before discontinuing it's use. Fills me with confidence.


Have you considered the repercussions of the alternative being advocated by Honeylove and others?

lets look at that knee jerk approach and consider what would happen to society if we were to ban the use of antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, pesticides (all regardless of origin) and anything else that MIGHT POSSIBLY cause harm to someone or something.

The unintended consequences would be devastating.

This is the same thing that happened with DDT a couple of decades back with the Rachel Carson/Silent Spring knee jerk hysteria.

30+ years later and between 300 and 500 million cases of Malaria EACH YEAR could have been prevented (Mostly in Africa) had people used common sense and not listened to the radical leftist environmentalist.

Consider for a moment that ~2.5 MILLION people die of Malaria each year.....thats on the order of 75 MILLION deaths that are directly attributed to the environmental hysteria surrounding DDT.

http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.442/healthissue_detail.asp

How many people would die each year if we were to eliminate use of petroleum or fertilizers or any number of advancements that allow us to be the breadbasket of the world.

Apply the same argument to modern medicine.....Government Controlled Medicine is going to decimate drug development and new innovative procedures. Look to Canada or the EU as proof of this.

Knee jerk reactions like the ones being advocated kill people......lots of them. 



doc25 said:


> Ever go to a Doctors office and say "Oh, I think I have tennis elbow" and the first thing that comes out of his mouth is "Are you a Doctor?"


Yes, here in the US the Dr usually agrees with me.

Now, if I walk in claiming that I have Pericarditis then I might get a different response.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

Discussions are most effective when people stick to _stating their own ideas and thoughts_ on a subject. 
Effective communication is not about telling others what they said and what they think. They already _said_ what they said and said what they think- it doesn't need to be reinterpreted and regurgitated back by someone else in a new distorted form. Changing the meaning of what others say and then stating that's what they think is a road that goes nowhere but downhill, as demonstrated here.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

mac said:


> Honeylove, keep it up. You’re on the right path. Science caused the problem it ain’t likely it’s going to fix it any time soon.


Thank you for the encouraging words. I seen to have stumbled upon a rally of some sort! I will continue to try to keep the world safe for future generations!


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

When I joined this forum recently I was initially impressed by what seemed like a spirit of warmth, mutual respect, and open helpfulness. I read that if a person loved bees and beekeeping, then everyone's ideas could be expressed here without fear of being ridiculed, even if others disagreed.

I am very disappointed.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

http://www.thehoneybeeconservancy.org/The_Hive.html


----------



## devdog108 (May 7, 2009)

Omie said:


> Discussions are most effective when people stick to _stating their own ideas and thoughts_ on a subject.
> .


Hence the problem with forums......It's hard to get across what you really mean. Heck, I have been married for 11 years, and when I talk about the bees, her eyes glaze over. We were IM'ing the other day(me downstairs cooking, her upstairs working, and yes, its the fastest way feasible) and I told her something and it SET HER OFF. BUT, when she came back dowstairs, and let me explain, we were all good and she understood. Here in this forum, I listen to all, and quite enjoy the ideas put across by this forum and its members.....although I do not deal with stupidity very well, but misunderstandings...sure. Everyone here speaks from knowledge which they have gained,learned or it's been past down to them, and when it comes to CCD, I think the book is still wide open. It's an interesting topic nevertheless, but my thoughts and views are that just as our immune systems had to adjust to the swine flu, which my entire family has had, the bees have to adjust as well. Is it right....no, but do you think humans created the varroa, the SHB's, wax moths and so on and so on that could be potentially bringing things into these hives? The bees, and us, had to learn to deal with them. Politics doesn't belong here in this particular forum, BUT, because of poilitcs, I think that we are not further along than we could be when it comes to a solution. It's sad really.......85 million of the stimulus $$ went to the revamping of ATV TRAILS....and it's very possible our food sources and supplies could be in real danger, all for a small little creature that, for as far as I am concerned, has WOW'ed me every day since i got them......


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

http://www.biobees.com/


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

peacekeeperapiaries said:


> I might suggest whether this or another cause you not RAM your ideas and direction down everyone elses throat. Your request was met not with opostion but with inquiry as to where your information came from.


are you talkin to me? first of all I don't want a bandwagon and this is not a crusade. I started with inviting beekeepers to take action and then all hell broke loose, not because of what I ever said, but because obviously some folks are really against things like this for whatever reason. If I ever said something wrong I did apologize. I am not asking anyone to throw caution to the wind! The opposite! I am talkin precautionary here. If anyone has any other studies or information to enlighten me, please do. I have a weeks worth of material to go through, just toss it on the pile & I will have a look. Thank you.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Barry I am sorry we have been keeping you so busy. 
I would like to call a truce.
We can all shake hands and agree to disagree and let me all buy you fellas a beer...
I will be continuing my investigations and urge everyone to do the same and if anyone comes across some really good news, post it right here. 
The good news for now is we can all stop arguing.


----------



## JonEdangerousli (May 8, 2007)

honeylove said:


> are you talkin to me?


Am I the only one who read that as if it were Al Pacino?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

honeylove said:


> http://www.biobees.com/


i believe you will have much more luck over at biobees than you will here. phil and company have clearly demonstrated that they are willing to lie to the public and to beekeepers in order to advance the "no pesticides ever" agenda.

specifically, phil posted an article about ccd. the original article was a fairly balanced view of things...but the version that phil posted had been edited so as to remove the entire one side of the story, making it a hatchet job.

unfortunately, phil is more interested in his agenda than he is in being factual and honest. he claimed not to have done the editing, but wouldn't say who did (someone "high up" is as specific as he would get).

you will have lots of fun over there talking to people that agree with you and who aren't terribly concerned about the facts.

deknow


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

NPR Right now! Michael Spekter(?) author of Denialism has brought this thread to the radio waves!!!! ITs spooky!!! Not exactly this thread, but what we are discussing here!! WEird!!!Leonard Lopate is the interviewer,


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Thank you deknow. I do pay attention to facts. I will be more careful from now on. I will read Biobees thoroughly, it was sent to me just recently and i did not read it all. I don't want to have fun. I am listening to an interview on NPR that is EXACTLY what we are discussing here....a farmer is now commenting & she is upset ...


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

I like talking and reading about all this stuff- it's all interesting to me, whether I agree with it or not. I agree with some thoughts expressed here and maybe not with others.

I feel this subject is just as relevant as the _many_ ongoing discussions here about avoiding the overuse pesticides, antibiotics, and chemical treatments on our bees because of the likely end result of encouraging more resistant strains of pests and viruses, etc. To me, such things are in some ways related and are relevant to beekeeping discussions.

I'd like to think there is room here for many points of view. 

I have been to Biobees.com site simply because it's a good source of info for those investigating top bar hives. I am considering adding a TBH in my backyard. I really LOVE comb honey, for one thing. 
I am fortunate enough to live near a BK named Sam Comfort who runs about 300 TBH...in fact, he helped me by moving my first hive 27 miles (a gift, a 4 yr old three-deep Lang. hive) in his pickup truck to my house. He also went through the whole hive with me and consolidated it down to 2 deeps for the winter. All he wanted in exchange was gas money! He was very kind and generous, and needless to say I gave him some extra 'sugar money' for his bees.  If I ever need more bees i will be getting them from him, he has some nice mite-resistant Russian mix bees I believe. 
His bees (and mine too) seem to have very low counts of varroa mites, yet have not been treated for years. I am waiting to see if the mites increase a lot in my hive this Spring. If not, I will not treat them. If the mite population explodes, I might treat them with formic acid. We'll see. My bees were left pretty much on their own over the past 3-4 years, and they seem quite healthy. (needless to say the frames/boxes are pretty gummed up at this point, but I'm leaving them as is for the winter.)
I'll spend this winter reading and learning about all aspects of beekeeping, even though I'll likely always remain a small 'hobby' bk.
Sorry to digress a bit.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Omie, you are very lucky, I heard Sam is great! We are trying to get him to come speak at our bee club. I am also building my TBH this winter & I can't wait to get started. I will go read biobees asap, right now I am following Michael Bush's advice with the TBH, but I have a great plans that were graciously sent to me by Michael Thomas.Good luck to you!


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

deknow, what are some of the inconsistancies that you speak of? just curious. could be it is just a different way of doing things. ask a room of 10 beekeepers how they do things & chances are you will get 10 different answerrs!


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Kim Flottum perhaps? I know he is the editor of Bee Culture to which I have a subscription, now available paperless! I want my paper! OH well, if its better for the trees, then I will go online...


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

i can't point you to specific threads because i asked norm to remove my account.

1. on this specific topic, the major posters on the forum were against actually testing for imidacloprid in bees.....they wanted to ban imidacloprid, and saw no reason to put any effort into actually collecting data at all.

2. there was a specific thread where phil posted an article that "proved" that ccd was caused by imidacloprid. the copy of the article posted to the forum had been edited, aparantly by the person who sent it to phil (phil would not identify who sent him the edited article). the problem is, if you read the original article, it made no such conclusions, and in fact, covered both sides of the issue...everything that pointed out the studies that showed no correlation between imidacloprid and ccd was simply removed. phil (and those on the forum) saw no problem with this wholesale 'quoting out of context' and making it look like the author of the original article was implicating imidacloprid when they were not.

this is essentially lying in order to make people agree with a specific point of view...i've got no room for that kind of b.s. if you can't find the thread over there, just pm phil, and i'm sure he will point it out for you. i've got no way of knowing if any of my (or anyone else's) posts were edited, or deleted...i've canceled my account. when you deal with people that openly lie, you get what you deserve.

deknow

deknow


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

While a lot of time is spent huffing and puffing making claims that some other entity other then beekeepers are responsible for killing the bees the \ facts are that starting in the 1990's beekeepers in North America started intentionally dumping lots of chemicals into hives for a variety of reasons. 

Prior to this time few keeper of the bees would ever consider intentionally putting materials that at some level would be lethal or sublethal. 

Fast forward to 2008 and we have Mary Ann Fraziers work from Penn State that CLEARLY shows that the top 3 chemicals found in hives in quantities many times over the other Ag sourced materials found in hives is beekeeper applied miticides. 

All the huffing and puffing you got won't convince many older and wiser beekeepers and scientists that some how some part per billion trace of some farm chem is killing the bees when micrograms of beekeeper applied chems are showing up in the brood comb and even in the bees themselves. These beekeeper applied materials have been found at levels known to be lethal. 

Common sense tells you its no surprise that the intentionally dumped materials completely overwhelm the data......duh.......not some trace brought in by a few bees. Keep in mind the most lethal materials bees pick up OUTSIDE the hive will kill the bees outright and they never return to the hive. 

But railing about miticides is not as glamourous as railing against Bayer


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Um, ya , maybe, it seems inconsistent to me though by the large amount of bees that die all of a sudden. The bees that died here in NJ were not treated with chemicals, just happened that a nearby farmer had used "smoked" corn seed. Also, In Italy, beekeepers noticed the big die offs right after the corn seed was planted, plus it all started happening at the same time that the neonics came on the scene. Around 2005-2006, right? Coincidence....that was the year they tossed the old stuff and started using this new stuff (the "n" chemical).
I do believe that beekeepers do have some responsiblity with abusing the girls a bit with all the miticides, and whatnot. Again, Kirk Webster has succeeded in the war against mites by using biological warfare...long live the russians! I am getting me some of those russian girls if i can.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

JonEdangerousli said:


> Am I the only one who read that as if it were Al Pacino?


No, Pumba in the Lion King..


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

honeylove said:


> Again, Kirk Webster has succeeded in the war against mites by using biological warfare...long live the russians! I am getting me some of those russian girls if i can.


We must assume that the mites, if presented with more and more Russian bees on the scene, will evolve as well for their own survival and will slowly find a way to thrive on the Russian bees, don't you think? I kind of imagine natural dramas like this have been going on for centuries.


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

honeylove said:


> plus it all started happening at the same time that the neonics came on the scene. Around 2005-2006, right?


No, neonics have been around since the late '80's.

Actually, they've been around since 1970, but were not made commercially available until 1987.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

but the neonics were not used in monoculture & not as widespread & not in as potent doses...


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

Oh yes they were. Neonics have been used in monoculture farming since 1987, and have been the #1 most widely used class of pesticides in the entire world since the early '90's.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Omie, what does Sam do for mites? I think what KW has done is found a way to have them coexist without dire consequences for the bees. There was an article I read somewhere about how feral bees are regaining their numbers & perhaps due to their mite resistance. I will post if I find it.. If you can get your hands on Mr. Webster's talk about Russian bees it's very interesting. 
http://www.conferencerecording.com/a....asp?CID=NBC28
theres a thread on this forum about this recording as well...

When you see Sam tell him we need him here asap!!
A freind of mine who met him this summer was very impressed with him. She is trying to get him over here.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

OK S M. Got you. Something must have happened to the doses between those times in which the stuff was rendered pretty lethal.


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

No, not really... it's been lethal enough since the time it went commercial that when it's sprayed on bees, or flowers that the bees visit within the duration of toxicity, that the bees which come in contact with it, die.

But pesticide kills, which have always happened as long as there have been pesticides to use, are not the same as CCD.

Also, recent genetic research into CCD has uncovered some strong evidence that point to a picorna-like virus (think flu or cold) being the culprit.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

So applications have remained consistent since it was used intitially...how about iminacloprid, poncho, gaucho etc. wahtever its called...
I have been reading about all the precautions one must take in using this stuff. Maybe some got a little heavy handed and as the targeted insects developed resistance, the doses got a little bigger and so on,
Coffee break! Sorry my addiction to caffeine is calling me right now..
From the time of the advent of the neconics and its "cousins" it was all smooth sailing?


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

There have always been farmers that have mis-applied pesticides... but it hasn't been the cause of CCD.

iminacloprid, poncho and gaucho have all been around since neonics went commercial. 

I'm sorry, but when the facts are in direct disagreement with your position, you should be re-examining your position, not trying to re-write the facts in order to fit your position. Don't get me wrong, pesticides have their problems... they are toxins after all. But that doesn't mean you can blame them for everything in the world... including CCD.

PS - the reason you have to take precautions when applying or working with these pesticides is that they are also toxic to humans in high concentrations... in fact, some bush ranchers in Africa have been using Iminacloprid to kill lions by poisoning their water holes with it (illegally, but the laws havn't stopped them from doing it).


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

I agree with you on some points.
alas, I will never run with the idea that pesticides used as primary insect control is a good way to grow our food. when science and green measures work together,now thats my idea of a happy marriage.
I have turkey related stuff to do and I with you all a very happy thanksgiving...
to be continued.....
here are some links if you would like, I am assuming you are a farmer, I am a consumer and this is how I make my choices to shop for food. It looks good to me! Tell me the downside!
http://attra.ncat.org/organic.htm
http://ofrf.org/index.html this comes with a video, a little long, but I enjoyed it, hope some of you will as well.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

one more...
http://www.rafiusa.org/pubs/Farmers_Guide_to_GMOs.pdf
just reading this one makes my brain numb but I am doing it for my research... a lot of legalese in there. 
Bayer must have something similar for the nics...


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

honeylove said:


> Omie, what does Sam do for mites?...There was an article I read somewhere about how feral bees are regaining their numbers & perhaps due to their mite resistance. ...
> 
> When you see Sam tell him we need him here asap!!
> A freind of mine who met him this summer was very impressed with him. She is trying to get him over here.


He is very impressive, especially for someone so young!
I will ask him what he does for mites. I suspect certain answers, but we'll see what he says.


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

honeylove said:


> I am assuming you are a farmer


No, I actually work for a large defense contractor for my day job, though I'm working on doing the beekeeping thing commercially. I just know about this because I've looked into it before. At one time I also thought neonics were partly to blame for CCD, but I discovered that I was wrong.



honeylove said:


> I will never run with the idea that pesticides used as primary insect control is a good way to grow our food. when science and green measures work together,now thats my idea of a happy marriage.


Mine too, but realistically, with the little amount of arable land that's left, we can't come anywhere close to feeding the current world population if all farms were organic (organic farms have lower per-acre yields, hence the higher prices for organic foods). The UN says there are already a billion starving or dangerously malnourished people in the world, so converting more farms to organic right now could only increase that number, which would be a pretty callous thing for those of us that live in the first world nations where we don't have to worry about starvation, to want to do to the rest of the world that does have to worry about it. So in my opinion, it's irresponsible to address modern agricultural techniques without first reducing the world population to a level that can be fed using organic, non-monoculture farming practices.


----------



## doc25 (Mar 9, 2007)

SgtMaj;480094
Mine too said:


> I don't know if anyone knows the long term effect of what we are doing to the land right now. I don't think the world population is decreasing (I could be wrong). Maybe we should help the third world get a start and leave them alone to do their own thing, let them pollute their land. What I'm trying to get at here is when all our resources are gone who will we turn to?


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

honeylove said:


> I have turkey related stuff to do and I with you all a very happy thanksgiving...
> to be continued.....
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Brilliant! Thank you! I really dig what he's wearing! 
Humans are very very warped beings. 
One of my very favorite books is Lord of the Rings. He reminds me a bit of Tolkien...
So, in other words, we are s...d no matter what? sure sure, become one with nature, so hard at this point as we have lost so much along the way...
We are egotistical even when we are trying to do the right thing..
perhaps, but I think that this could work and some folks may say I am kidding myself but I find myself doing things automatically in the direction of shedding what my human nature naturally wants to do (conquer nature). Although losing ourselves to nature or in nature would require great sacrifice for some, I see in the long run, we can only benefit from finding balance in our human nature and the natural world. In fact, its the only way cause we are heading for one big train wreck. I am reading "The world without us" & long after we are gone nature will reclaim her place ...when we (re)start to nurture what is precious and what is necessary then we will make a tiny step towards refinding who we are....phew, this philosophy stuff is exhausting...aren't we all philosophers? I think the greatest beekeeper philosopher we have right now is Kirk Webster. (have I mentioned him 100X?) We don't have much time though....


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

also, S M I don't know about there not being enuff food, I think there is even a surplus, what we should be worrying about is the water (uh oh here comes another one)
the parts of the world who don't get food is often due to genocide, war & politics. also the chopping down of all the forests (Haiti) contributing to drought & famine...bad soil, bad soil, pollution...we gotta clean up the mess...reminds me of DR. Suess ..but this mess is so big and so deep & so tall, we can't pick it up there is no way at all! and lets not forget The Lorax...sorry if I am quoting childrens books but they are after all to educate and send a message to the most important crowd of all, our kids..


----------



## Rohe Bee Ranch (Feb 12, 2008)

I think you worry too much. :no: Stop and enjoy the world around you that we have.


----------



## mtbe (May 28, 2009)

Our beekeeper's association had a presentation last year by a researcher/professor from a university in the MidWest who also indicated the same things posed in this article.

Sounds like there could be some meat behind it. She did say they didn't know if this was causing CCD, but that it definitely is cause for alarm.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

More vague anecdotal evidence:scratch:


----------



## xen (Jun 12, 2003)

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/saving-bees-what-we-know-now/#may


----------



## trapperbob (May 27, 2007)

Even though I agree with the basic idea of what they are suggesting, no way would I align myself with the sierra club. At times they are way too radical and I believe have gone way too far, far too often. I have had too many friends and relatives pushed out of their logging jobs all because of an owl they later on found out was nesting somewhere else anyway. This is not the only example I can think of, but it's one of the best. I believe that the bees definitely need some help, but I do not believe that bee keepers need to align themselves with radical activists groups. Just my two cents, many I'm sure will not agree with me. But, we must be very careful and vigilant as to the way we go about solving our problems or they will just think we are a bunch of nuts. And it will take much longer to solve our problems.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Thank you xen for the very thoughtful article on ccd...as I said before our bees are trying to tell us something. As beekeepers we ought to know to listen up and pay attention.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Rohe Bee Ranch said:


> I think you worry too much. :no: Stop and enjoy the world around you that we have.


Thanks RBH. I do worry but not to worry I do enjoy & have fun I'm Italian after all! Well, I do worry because if I don;t I worry there will be no world left to enjoy!


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

honeylove said:


> Omie, what does Sam do for mites?


Honeylove....Just to answer your question-

I spoke with Sam Comfort on the phone today and I remembered to ask him about whether he uses any treatments for varroa mites. He said he never uses any treatments- no formic acid, or essential oils either.
He does have mostly TBH (about 300) and does not use any foundation at all- lets the bees build their own comb completely and he says he has no problems with high varroa numbers.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

The current issue (December) of ABJ has a rather interesting article reporting on the latest scientific examinations of the neonic controversy. Seems like that pesticide may not be the smoking gun some folks have thought. And is in fact an improvement over previous chemicals. Of course, the caveat is if used correctly. Check it out.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

StevenG,

I read and enjoyed that article. It is obviously influenced or sponsored by "Big Chemical".  Nonetheless it does not fit the "act now!" crowd and will be dismissed because they've already worked themselves into a frenzy that something, anything, even if it's unproven and scientifically unsupported, must be done.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Hi Omie. Thanks for verifying that for me. I know Sam is a rising star and he puts a lot of thought into his technique. Less is more! We are waiting for him! I can't wait to see the look on the beegeezers in our club when Sam tells them do nothing! PS, The beegeezers are aware of this affectionate nickname by the Radical valley Branch as we call the "other" school of thought. However, changing how we beekeep will be very effective in the bees health along with expanding their forage area and using less toxic methods of controlling bugs considered pests and/or biological control. Hope the bees are warm up there & are wisely using their stores!


----------

