# Canadian Government Proposes Ban on Imidacloprid Neonicotinoid



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Nope. Not signing diddle. No link to the "environmental assessments" touted or who found/made them. "Potential risk to birds and small mammals"... of what? For what? Who found/made these claims too? This is exactly why I won't sign stuff like this. Huge sensationalistic smoking gun claims made yet nothing to support it. I'm not signing my name to something that I can't review to see if it's legit. 

I'd assume you've got to be Canadian for your signature to mean diddle too. I vaguely remember something like this running a few year ago as well. Does anyone else remember this?



McBain said:


> You can let your voice bee heard and stand up against the bee killing chemical companies.


 Your own bias is clearly showing here. Makes me think you'd sign and promote anything (without reviewing the legitimacy of the findings/claims) as long as they promised to fulfill your agenda. That should bring anyone who thinks for themselves great pause when reviewing something like this.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

D Coates>> yes I remember. And your response is much the same this time as last time too. :applause:

Didn't this same poster have some confusion regarding gmo's and neonics in a discussion a while back? I think so. 
Agenda? what agenda?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

If Imidacloprid is banned in Canada, what insecticide will be used in the place of Imidacloprid?? :scratch:

Surely one can not be _naive enough_ to believe that those that currently use Imidacloprid will simply abandon efforts to control the pests that are attacking their crops/plants. Is that new/alternative insecticide actually going to result in a '_better_' outcome? :s


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

Nice cut-and-paste McBain. I notice you did not post this little factoid that was also included in the assessment:

_"The health assessment did not identify human health concerns from any exposure route when used according to current label standards."_

You could not have missed it because it was in between the last sentence you posted and right before another section you posted. 

Then, you throw in another "save the bees" plea, but failed to post the following quote from the assessment.

"Risks to bees and other pollinators were not a part of this re-evaluation, as they are part of an ongoing pollinator risk assessment."

Hard to believe that one was missed too. 

Another nugget:

"Imidacloprid is not expected to pose a direct risk to fish, amphibians, algae or aquatic plants."

So this is what we have: Surface water in agricultural areas in Canada have tested higher for a pesticide than what Canadian authorities believe is a tolerable amount for some water insects. Notice that they have NOT determined that this finding has actually killed ANY water insects or depleted ANY insect populations. They have also determined that this elevation does not pose a risk to fish, amphibians, algae or aquatic plants -- or humans.

Also, the agency THEORIZES that treated seeds might be harmful to birds if they eat them. However, they have not determined that birds do or have eaten the seeds, nor do they have any evidence of sick or dead birds that have become sick or dead from eating these treated seeds that, to the agency's knowledge, have not been eaten by birds.

I am sure you are relieved by the findings of this assessment. Not only has Canada determined that this pesticide does not cause any harm to fish, amphibians, algae or aquatic plants, but Canada has also determined that it does NOT cause autism or cancer in humans. Good news.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

I found it too now. Wow. The cutting and pasting means McBain intentionally left out things that even he knew didn't fit his agenda. He hoped folks would swallow his bait hook line and sinker. Not thinking for themselves, they'd blindly click sign the petition helping him and his kind push an agenda. But what he's done here personally is basically outright lied via omission.

I sincerely appreciate him showing his true colors and how he'll suppress information to push his agenda. This is what I've found with "activists" who claim to know the "truth." They themselves are lying and it's EXACTLY why I won't sign garbage like this. I guess it's the "any means necessary" mentality.

Buyer beware of McBain or McLain or whatever his name is when he's making claims of the "truth."


----------



## McBain (Aug 23, 2016)

D Coates said:


> Nope. Not signing diddle. No link to the "environmental assessments" touted or who found/made them. "Potential risk to birds and small mammals"... of what? For what? Who found/made these claims too? This is exactly why I won't sign stuff like this. Huge sensationalistic smoking gun claims made yet nothing to support it. I'm not signing my name to something that I can't review to see if it's legit. I'd assume you've got to be Canadian for your signature to mean diddle too. I vaguely remember something like this running a few year ago as well. Does anyone else remember this?
> 
> Your own bias is clearly showing here. Makes me think you'd sign and promote anything (without reviewing the legitimacy of the findings/claims) as long as they promised to fulfill your agenda. That should bring anyone who thinks for themselves great pause when reviewing something like this.


Here is a direct link to the 'key findings' from the government website I already posted back in the original post: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/part/consultations/_prvd2016-20/prvd2016-20-eng.php#s4 

Down near the bottom under 'next steps' you can read: "Before making a final re-evaluation decision on imidacloprid, the PMRA will consider any comments received from the public in response to Proposed Re-evaluation Decision PRVD2016-20, Imidacloprid. The PMRA will then publish a Re-evaluation Decision, which will include the decision, the reasons for it, a summary of comments received on the proposed decision and the PMRA’s response to these comments." 

Any comments generally leads me to believe, any comment.



Rader Sidetrack said:


> If Imidacloprid is banned in Canada, what insecticide will be used in the place of Imidacloprid?? :scratch:
> 
> Surely one can not be _naive enough_ to believe that those that currently use Imidacloprid will simply abandon efforts to control the pests that are attacking their crops/plants. Is that new/alternative insecticide actually going to result in a '_better_' outcome? :s


First, I do not think any chemical bug killer is required on fields because there are thousands of fully organic farm operations across the US and Canada where no toxins are used on the crops. For thousands of years mankind has been growing crops without toxic chemicals so this is nothing new.

The reason I understand farmers suffer from pests in their fields is because the soil is nutrient deprived and thus, plants that grow are weak. Often farmers grow the same few items which include mostly corn and soybeans. The same crops year after year after year being sustained mostly by synthetic fertilizers and we can't figure out why we have problems with bugs. The organic farms that properly rotate crops and have revitalized the fields soil do not have the same problems with pests. The plants are stronger, and thus there is not such a big problem regarding pests. So, to answer your question, the new alternative will be the old traditional, tested and proven method of working with the soil to produce high quality plants and crops.





psm1212 said:


> Nice cut-and-paste McBain. I notice you did not post this little factoid that was also included in the assessment:
> 
> _"The health assessment did not identify human health concerns from any exposure route when used according to current label standards."_
> 
> ...


Quote: "*The environmental assessment showed that, in aquatic environments in Canada, imidacloprid is being measured at levels that are harmful to aquatic insects.*" "*The environmental assessment also found that there is a potential risk to birds and small mammals from feeding on seeds that are treated with imidacloprid, however, it is expected that good agricultural practices and equipment could reduce this type of exposure.*" http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/part/consultations/_prvd2016-20/prvd2016-20-eng.php#s4

Legally, you are correct, this ban is not for the sake of the bees. However, because we know "imidacloprid is being measured at levels that are harmful to aquatic insects" and all of us understand bees drink water, we now see that it actually does affect bees. In addition, if it harms water dwelling insects such as the water strider, why would it not affect bees?

"The health assessment did not identify human health concerns from any exposure route when used according to current label standards." 

Of course it didn't, that statement is irrelevant in context which is why I didn't include it. The study was done on small, water dwelling insects such as water striders which measure 0.2 inches or 5 mm in length. *As I've said before, there are no long-term experiments done on humans to see whether or not these products are safe. However, if during a short term test it is determined that this chemical does what it has been designed to do, kill living creatures, why would anyone think it does not affect living creatures? You cannot kill selective cells in certain organisms without damaging all organisms in the natural world. I have not been genetically engineered and neither have my bees. Thus, if neonics were sprayed into my hive, they would perish. *If they perish from direct exposure, will they not be harmed by the digestion of toxic chemicals? 

Again, I will point out, you have no long-term studies to support your 'case'. All the independent short-term studies (which I posted about in the Glyphosate discussion and you offered no answer to) show that there is potential danger associated with the use of such chemicals. 



D Coates said:


> I found it too now. Wow. The cutting and pasting means McBain intentionally left out things that even he knew didn't fit his agenda. He hoped folks would swallow his bait hook line and sinker. Not thinking for themselves, they'd blindly click sign the petition helping him and his kind push an agenda. But what he's done here personally is basically outright lied via omission.
> 
> I sincerely appreciate him showing his true colors and how he'll suppress information to push his agenda. This is what I've found with "activists" who claim to know the "truth." They themselves are lying and it's EXACTLY why I won't sign garbage like this. I guess it's the "any means necessary" mentality.
> 
> Buyer beware of McBain or McLain or whatever his name is when he's making claims of the "truth."


I would have embedded the entire page into my post, but I know how short _certain_ people's attention span can be... I am constantly reposting stuff I already said because of people who simply reply without reading everything stated. 

History tells us what happens to people who are so trusting of the government and close minded about facts that do not fit into their own ideas. The Japanese trusted their Emperor so much that they flew suicide missions for him against a country with nuclear weapons. Tell me how that ended? Hitler supported by the countrymen he brainwashed, started WWII. We all know how that ended. 

Today, somehow, millions of people have been brainwashed into believing factory farmed 'cattle' and glyphosate laced, neonic embedded 'corn' are completely safe without a shadow of a doubt. They believe this to the point that anyone who disagrees is considered a 'conspiracy theorist' or 'quack'. In reality, you people don't have a leg to stand on when you look at the research. Since you seem interested and willing to spend some time considering what you believe, I compiled a few of my thoughts that I have previously written for your convenience: 

Everything that is done has an effect. Here is what has changed and you can draw your own conclusion:

View attachment 29277


Source: http://streamdynamics.us/resource/glyphosate-usage-graphs-usgs

Fruit flie experiments give us a rough idea of what happens over generations on a certain diet: http://cssf.usc.edu/History/2013/Projects/J1730.pdf

"The 1st generation fruit flies which were fed organic papaya lived longer on average than the flies fed GMO papaya by 22%. The difference became more pronounced with the 2nd generation; the 2nd generation flies fed organic papaya lived longer by by 41% on average. Regarding dietary effects on reproductive rates, flies fed organic papaya produced more larvae than flies fed GMO papaya media by 12%." (View) 

Basically this tells us fruit flies on a GMO diet die 22% quicker than their potential lifespan in the first generation. The second generation died out 41% faster than their potential lifespan. 

All DNA does the same job, it tells the structure how to reproduce. When the DNA/genetics are modified the code tells the organism a different way to reproduce. 

That all sounds good in theory and we know it is possible because there are organisms with altered genetics today, but *we have no long-term studies showing us that any of it is safe. You can easily prove me wrong by showing everyone a long-term study of the effects of glyphosate, neonicotinoids and GMO's on mankind. *

*What is the job of both glyphosate and neonicotinoids? Their job is to destroy living organisms and they do that very well.* You seem to be missing my point here, so let me illustrate this way:

You inject a substance into a whale, it survives. As you continue this year after year, you discover that the first generation whale lives a life that is 22% shorter than average and it's offspring (that is also being injected) lives to only 41% of the average lifespan.

*Because no long-term studies have been done on the safety of this product, what can you assume about the safety? One can safely assume that it is not safe to continue injecting the whale, correct?* (view)

Are you seeing my point? *We don't have long-term studies and proper information, but we do have a lot of short-term information that shows the product is not safe.* We also do know the results of Agent Orange which is a similar compound produced by the same company.

Why would the government allow unsafe products, you may ask? First I don't think they *know* whether or not the products are safe. Second, who pays who? If you spend some time reading up on how many lobbyists and people in high places Monsanto/Bayer has, you can take a good guess as to why the government would allow an unsafe product on the market. There are so many people with conflicting interests in government that it isn't even funny.

*You may wonder why these reports are never highlighted in the mainstream media. I've wondered that too and found this very interesting:* "Concerns regarding vaccinations continue to increase exponentially in light of all of the information and documentation that has surfaced over the past few years. As a result, corporate media has responded to alternative media, stating that the increase of persons who are choosing to opt out of vaccines and the recommended vaccine schedule is a result of ‘fear mongering.’This may not be too surprising as the corporate media is owned by the major vaccine manufacturers, and the major vaccine manufacturers are owned by corporate media(1)(2)(3)(4). Given this fact, it’s easy to fathom the possibility that these institutions are desperately trying to protect the reputation of their product.

For example, if we take a look at GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer, they are owned by the same financial institutions and groups that own Time Warner (CNN, HBO etc.) and General Electric (NBC, Comcast, Universal Pictures etc.).(1)(2)(3)(4) This is seen throughout all of the major vaccine manufacturers and all of the 6 corporations that control our mainstream media. Keep in mind that these are the major funders of all ‘medical research’ that’s used to administer drugs and vaccinations. Despite these connections, medical research and documentation exists to show that vaccines might indeed be a cause for concern." (View)

Here are just a few other countries with longer average life expectancies than the U.S. that have GMO laws in place which vary from complete bans on GMO products to forced labeling:

Iceland

Switzerland

Luxembourg

Italy (View I. Introduction near the bottom)

Sweden

France

Norway

Netherlands

Germany




It is easy enough for the person with the vast majority of research on their side to make a case. It can be very difficult for people who believe what they want in spite of the evidence. 

*Anyone has the right to believe what they want to, but simply believing does not make a person's view right, nor does it make what that person believes true. * You can convince me of your beliefs, it's very easy. Show me evidence, so far I have seen none. The majority of responses presented have been ad hominem which will not convince me. Convince me with logic and evidence and explain to me how toxic chemicals that destroy creatures will not harm me or my bees. 

I look forward to hearing your arguments.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

I'm not even going to argue with what you claim to be "facts." You're asking a negative to be proven (which can't be done) and talking about injecting whales with GMO. ...uh, who's doing that? Then you go into a micro conspiracy that ties, media, financial institutions, and a couple drug companies and then tops it with a neat anti-vaccine bow. Woah, nutty as squirrel droppings. You're clearly waaaay too far down that path to ever consider anything other than what you've deemed the truth.

It's funny you bring up brainwashing and how anyone who doesn't follow your brand of brilliance is akin to the blind followers of Nazi's or a Kamakazi themselves. Linking the Nazis to the people you're conversing with is a sure sign that you've lost an argument. But, you don't see this blind following in yourself? You suppressed that which you knew wasn't in your favor so you do know the difference between right and wrong. Clearly it's not so simple as you claim otherwise you wouldn't be hiding info. Yet, you accuse others lying and being deceitful but you've proven you're no better.

I've got no need to waste any more time on your 1/2 baked truth diatribes further.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

Quote: "The environmental assessment showed that, in aquatic environments in Canada, imidacloprid is being measured at levels that are harmful to aquatic insects." "The environmental assessment also found that there is a potential risk to birds and small mammals from feeding on seeds that are treated with imidacloprid, however, it is expected that good agricultural practices and equipment could reduce this type of exposure." http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/...-20-eng.php#s4

Legally, you are correct, this ban is not for the sake of the bees. However, because we know "imidacloprid is being measured at levels that are harmful to aquatic insects" and all of us understand bees drink water, we now see that it actually does affect bees. In addition, if it harms water dwelling insects such as the water strider, why would it not affect bees? First, again, it has not been shown to actually affect aquatic insects. Read the finding. Second, are you suggesting that a chemical that is harmful to one organism is harmful to ALL organisms? That is not science. That is lunacy. We can name countless millions of compounds that affect (and even target) one organism while remaining harmless to others.

"The health assessment did not identify human health concerns from any exposure route when used according to current label standards." 

Of course it didn't, that statement is irrelevant in context which is why I didn't include it. The study was done on small, water dwelling insects such as water striders which measure 0.2 inches or 5 mm in length. You are wrong again McBain. The study was NOT exclusively performed on water dwelling insects. If the study did not measure affects against humans, IT WOULD NOT HAVE DECLARED THAT IT FAILED TO IDENTIFY health concerns from exposure to humans. It would have said,* as it did in the case of bees* that humans were not included in the assessmentAs I've said before, there are no long-term experiments done on humans to see whether or not these products are safe. However, if during a short term test it is determined that this chemical does what it has been designed to do, kill living creatures, why would anyone think it does not affect living creatures? You cannot kill selective cells in certain organisms without damaging all organisms in the natural world. Possibly the most absurd statement you have made. Of course we can and do. All the time. Every day. We have chemotherapies that selectively target cancer cells and leave normal cells alone. Just because you do not understand or do not believe that, does not make it untrue.I have not been genetically engineered and neither have my bees. Thus, if neonics were sprayed into my hive, they would perish. If they perish from direct exposure, will they not be harmed by the digestion of toxic chemicals? By this logic, humans should be dying. Fish should be dying. Algae should be dying. Aquatic plants should be dying. The assessment that YOU CITE states they are not affected. Your logic is horribly flawed.

Again, I will point out, you have no long-term studies to support your 'case'. You are the one making the case McBain. Where are your long term studies? You are the one calling for bans. Where is your justification?All the independent short-term studies (which I posted about in the Glyphosate discussion and you offered no answer to) show that there is potential danger associated with the use of such chemicals.It must be nice living in a world where you can fabricate things. Make up facts like "ALL independent studies support my agenda, even though they do not." There have been multiple long-term studies about the effects of Glyphosate. The World Health Organization, as recently as May of this year, published a long-term study stating that Glyophosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through diet even at 2000 mg per kilogram of body weight ingested orally. The European counterpart to the FDA concluded the same thing in 2015 after their long-term study.

The reality McBain is, that I have always had concerns about these chemicals. Like I have told you, I saw what DDT did to my home state. I will ALWAYS be suspicious. But I beg you to not declare falsities in these discussions. I hope the anti-GMO, anti-glyphosate crowd never stops questioning. But, please let's stick to the science and agree to go wherever that takes us. It makes for much better debate.


----------



## McBain (Aug 23, 2016)

D Coates said:


> I'm not even going to argue with what you claim to be "facts." You're asking a negative to be proven (which can't be done) and talking about injecting whales with GMO. ...uh, who's doing that? Then you go into a micro conspiracy that ties, media, financial institutions, and a couple drug companies and then tops it with a neat anti-vaccine bow. Woah, nutty as squirrel droppings. You're clearly waaaay too far down that path to ever consider anything other than what you've deemed the truth.
> 
> It's funny you bring up brainwashing and how anyone who doesn't follow your brand of brilliance is akin to the blind followers of Nazi's or a Kamakazi themselves. Linking the Nazis to the people you're conversing with is a sure sign that you've lost an argument. But, you don't see this blind following in yourself? You suppressed that which you knew wasn't in your favor so you do know the difference between right and wrong. Clearly it's not so simple as you claim otherwise you wouldn't be hiding info. Yet, you accuse others lying and being deceitful but you've proven you're no better.
> 
> I've got no need to waste any more time on your 1/2 baked truth diatribes further.


In the previous post I asked for arguments which support your beliefs, but instead of providing evidence you resorted to ad hominem. By attacking me rather than the issues, you have _not proven anything_ and certainly not convinced me of your beliefs (as it is a well known fact the last resort for the losing side of an argument is to simply attack the winning side). In addition, it is never possible to convince someone with a differing opinion about any topic by attacking them. The best way is to simply prove them wrong using arguments and evidence, not attacks.



D Coates said:


> You're clearly waaaay too far down that path to ever consider anything other than what you've deemed the truth.


 *Let me re-post this again: That is simply wrong.* Please present your arguments and stay away from personal attacks, as they prove nothing and help nobody. I am more than willing to invest the time and read about what you may post, as that is productive and helps everyone.

Now that we figured all that out, I'll share some more evidence supporting my views on the topic: 

http://phys.org/news/2016-12-pesticide-poisoning-bees.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/09/neonicotinoids-farmland-birds

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28216810





psm1212 said:


> Quote: "The environmental assessment showed that, in aquatic environments in Canada, imidacloprid is being measured at levels that are harmful to aquatic insects." "The environmental assessment also found that there is a potential risk to birds and small mammals from feeding on seeds that are treated with imidacloprid, however, it is expected that good agricultural practices and equipment could reduce this type of exposure." http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/...-20-eng.php#s4
> 
> Legally, you are correct, this ban is not for the sake of the bees. However, because we know "imidacloprid is being measured at levels that are harmful to aquatic insects" and all of us understand bees drink water, we now see that it actually does affect bees. In addition, if it harms water dwelling insects such as the water strider, why would it not affect bees? First, again, it has not been shown to actually affect aquatic insects. Read the finding. Second, are you suggesting that a chemical that is harmful to one organism is harmful to ALL organisms? That is not science. That is lunacy. We can name countless millions of compounds that affect (and even target) one organism while remaining harmless to others.
> 
> ...


First off, *thank you for presenting research and statements rather than using ad hominem in your arguments*. You have really challenged my presuppositions and caused me to think which I really enjoy. 

1) First, again, it has not been shown to actually affect aquatic insects. Read the finding. Second, are you suggesting that a chemical that is harmful to one organism is harmful to ALL organisms? That is not science. That is lunacy. We can name countless millions of compounds that affect (and even target) one organism while remaining harmless to others.

It is understood by all that neonicotinoids are a pesticide, meaning they _kill_ insects. I do not think it is unreasonable to say that something designed to kill insects, kills insects. If it kills whiteflies on corn, why will it not effect water skimmers that are in runoff from fields? I've heard it said that 90% of neonicotinoids runoff into the water supply so I don't think it is a stretch of the imagination that diluted bug killer still harms bugs in some way. http://www.natureworldnews.com/arti...icotinoid-pesticides-harm-more-honey-bees.htm Now obviously runoff isn't such a consintrated dose so damage should be deluted. 

I couldn't find the section in 'findings' that says there is no threat to aquatic insects but I did find this: "The environmental assessment showed that, in aquatic environments in Canada, *imidacloprid is being measured at levels that are harmful to aquatic insects.*" 

2) You are wrong again McBain. The study was NOT exclusively performed on water dwelling insects. If the study did not measure affects against humans, IT WOULD NOT HAVE DECLARED THAT IT FAILED TO IDENTIFY health concerns from exposure to humans. It would have said,* as it did in the case of bees* that humans were not included in the assessmentAs I've said before, there are no long-term experiments done on humans to see whether or not these products are safe. However, if during a short term test it is determined that this chemical does what it has been designed to do, kill living creatures, why would anyone think it does not affect living creatures? You cannot kill selective cells in certain organisms without damaging all organisms in the natural world. Possibly the most absurd statement you have made. Of course we can and do. All the time. Every day. We have chemotherapies that selectively target cancer cells and leave normal cells alone. Just because you do not understand or do not believe that, does not make it untrue.I have not been genetically engineered and neither have my bees. Thus, if neonics were sprayed into my hive, they would perish. If they perish from direct exposure, will they not be harmed by the digestion of toxic chemicals? By this logic, humans should be dying. Fish should be dying. Algae should be dying. Aquatic plants should be dying. The assessment that YOU CITE states they are not affected. Your logic is horribly flawed.

I understand the test was not only done exclusively on water dwelling creature. I'm sure the study tested all the creatures in the same way. So when you consider the fact that humans have close to 37,200,000,000,000 cells, I would never expect to see immediate damage from small doses like you should see in tiny creatures such as these insects. At the end of the day, however, the there are no fundamental differences between the cell of a human and that of a whitefly. The difference is mainly the size difference between humans and small bugs.

[/COLOR]As I've said before, there are no long-term experiments done on humans to see whether or not these products are safe. However, if during a short term test it is determined that this chemical does what it has been designed to do, kill living creatures, why would anyone think it does not affect living creatures? You cannot kill selective cells in certain organisms without damaging all organisms in the natural world. Possibly the most absurd statement you have made. Of course we can and do. All the time. Every day. We have chemotherapies that selectively target cancer cells and leave normal cells alone. Just because you do not understand or do not believe that, does not make it untrue.

*Really? Then why doesn't it actually work?* People being treated with chemotherapy and other 'selective' cancer targeting treatments die of the cancer that is supposedly being 'targeted' in their system. Check out the survival states on this site: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/survival#heading-Zero If these 'targated' treatments really do work, why do 50% of people die from these cancers?

Second, if chemotherapie only kills cancer cells, why do you think a persons hair generally falls out after treatments? Was the hair's roots cancerous? Why do you think people's white blood cell counts drop to 0 after treatment? Were all their white blood cells cancerous? Why do many patients experience memory loss? No, these cells were most likely fine, but they were killed by these 'targeted' treatments. 

I have not been genetically engineered and neither have my bees. Thus, if neonics were sprayed into my hive, they would perish. If they perish from direct exposure, will they not be harmed by the digestion of toxic chemicals? By this logic, humans should be dying. Fish should be dying. Algae should be dying. Aquatic plants should be dying. The assessment that YOU CITE states they are not affected. Your logic is horribly flawed.

If you research it you will find that there are actually are tons of animals dying all around our planet in unprecedented numbers. I don't believe it is caused by climate change either. ; ) A quick google search will pull up results such as this for you: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...ish-die-off-glimpse-climate-future-180960259/ "Earlier this month, the Yellowstone River made national headlines with the news of an unprecedented fish die-off in its usually healthy waters. Starting in mid-August, biologists counted 4,000 dead whitefish floating on the Yellowstone or washed ashore, but they estimate that the true number is in the tens of thousands. As if that wasn’t enough, they’ve recently spotted rainbow trout and Yellowstone cutthroat trout—both economically important species—go belly-up as well." "The culprit is a tiny, highly contagious parasite called Tetracalsula bryosalmonae, which exclusively attacks fish. It worms its way into fishes’ kidneys, where it causes proliferative kidney disease and can obliterate fish populations, according to state biologists. (Science writer Ed Yong explains how this scientifically elusive parasite evolved from a jellyfish-like creature at The Atlantic.)"

Why have these fish never had such an issue before? I believe it could be because they have been weakened - let me explain my thoughts about this and many other examples:

*Think about this: *If you have a weak colony of bees that has been affected by tracheal mites (which to my understanding, cannot be seen by the eye alone), you may attribute the death of the colony to a wax moth invasion, SHB invasion or many other things, when they really died because they were weakened by tracheal mites. Do we agree about this?

Is it not also _plausible_ that this die off of these fish, which appears to be caused by unprecedented amounts of parasites, may be caused because of an alternate force weakening the fish and allowing the parasite to have an advantage over the already weak fish? Similar to the bee scenario I just presented? 

Back to your statement about how people should be dying according to my logic. 

As I said earlier, humans are a very large organism with an estimated 37,200,000,000,000 cells. Currently the 'targeted' chemical doses used on plants are not substantial enough to cause an immediately noticeable effect on humans, which is why experiments on smaller mammals (such as rats/birds/etc.) [which all show these toxins to be toxic] are so important for us in our 'short term' understanding of the dangers of such chemicals. [Posted earlier] If there is absolutely no risk associated with neonic seeds, why is it potentially dangerous for birds to ingest the seeds? To my understanding, you aren't even supposed to touch these seeds with your bare hand... but I could be wrong about that part.


You are the one making the case McBain. Where are your long term studies? You are the one calling for bans. Where is your justification?All the independent short-term studies (which I posted about in the Glyphosate discussion and you offered no answer to) show that there is potential danger associated with the use of such chemicals.It must be nice living in a world where you can fabricate things. Make up facts like "ALL independent studies support my agenda, even though they do not." There have been multiple long-term studies about the effects of Glyphosate. The World Health Organization, as recently as May of this year, published a long-term study stating that Glyophosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through diet even at 2000 mg per kilogram of body weight ingested orally. The European counterpart to the FDA concluded the same thing in 2015 after their long-term study.

The reality McBain is, that I have always had concerns about these chemicals. Like I have told you, I saw what DDT did to my home state. I will ALWAYS be suspicious. But I beg you to not declare falsities in these discussions. I hope the anti-GMO, anti-glyphosate crowd never stops questioning. But, please let's stick to the science and agree to go wherever that takes us. It makes for much better debate.

As I said "ALL *independent* studies", I do not believe the WHO is without bias, do you honestly believe that they are? Perhaps I am wrong but I highly doubt it. On the other side of that coin, I don't think for a second that all independents are without bias either. If I believed everything the independents say, I would be believing GE ants are going to replace the honeybee. So we are left with three options; trust the system, trust the independents or draw a centerline. 

Where is my justification? The mainstreams controls the industry and verifies the safety of their own products. What reason do I have to trust them? They have proven in the past with products such as Agent Orange that they are willing to put profits before public safety by using improperly tested 'safe' products on a large scale, why should I believe they have changed? 

A third point is the word 'unlikely'. The use of the word 'unlikely' does not at all mean 'does not'. Ingesting even 1 mg of toxic plant killer is not a risk I am willing to take. I understand it is 'unlikely' that cancer would develop in my system from such exposure, but what about over the course of 10 years or 30 years? Has it been proven that these chemicals do not build up in the body and cause harm later down the road?

I would enjoy reading through the long-term studies you mentioned if you could post them for me. 

DDT is the unfortunate prime example. (It wouldn't surprise me if DDT was 'unlikely' to harm the environment back in the day, but I have never researched that, so I don't know) They had no idea what the long term effects of DDT were _until hawks and eagles and other birds of prey were almost extinct_.

I do agree with you on that final point and I will try harder to withhold my personal biases as we continue into this discussion. 

Happy New Year to all of you!


----------



## McBain (Aug 23, 2016)

Repeat of previous post... Sorry about that.


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

Mclain posts a long missive filled with irrelevant non bee crap and that is mainly idle speculation or made up facts. He also includes one total falsehood I just can not pass. He said "They had no idea what the long term effects of DDT were until hawks and eagles and other birds of prey were almost extinct." He appears to be totally unaware that the administrative law judge in charge of the hearings to ban DDT in the early 1970s concluded, based on lengthy testimony, that DDT had nothing at all to do with the drop in raptor populations. This finding by the judge is clearly recorded in the Federal Record. In fact the Audubon bird counts presented at those hearings showed clearly that DDT was not the problem with raptor population declines as for all raptors with the exception of peregrines population minimums happened in the 1950s barely after DDT became available to the public and by the time of the hearings populations had started to recover. Further, feeding studies Mclain clearly is unaware of that were conducted by USDA among others well after the DDT ban was in effect showed DDT did not cause egg shell thinning. This whole situation is really sad as there was without doubt something in the environment that was causing some egg shell thinning in a few places. Yet, the sustained made up facts by people like Mclain have resulted in no one determining to this day what was actually causing the problem. At this point we probably will never know with the result we could very easy repeat the problem again.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

Maybe the future in agriculture is some kind of mechanized permaculture using robots with artificial intelligence. 

I do know that my garden is very productive using organic methods, and I don't have the time to devote to get it fine tuned. Its also very rich in invertebrate life and helps sustain a diverse group of solitary bees. Compared to dead agricultural zones, I know what I prefer.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Richard Cryberg said:


> Mclain posts a long missive filled with irrelevant non bee crap and that is mainly idle speculation or made up facts. He also includes one total falsehood I just can not pass. He said "They had no idea what the long term effects of DDT were until hawks and eagles and other birds of prey were almost extinct." He appears to be totally unaware that the administrative law judge in charge of the hearings to ban DDT in the early 1970s concluded, based on lengthy testimony, that DDT had nothing at all to do with the drop in raptor populations. This finding by the judge is clearly recorded in the Federal Record. In fact the Audubon bird counts presented at those hearings showed clearly that DDT was not the problem with raptor population declines as for all raptors with the exception of peregrines population minimums happened in the 1950s barely after DDT became available to the public and by the time of the hearings populations had started to recover. Further, feeding studies Mclain clearly is unaware of that were conducted by USDA among others well after the DDT ban was in effect showed DDT did not cause egg shell thinning. This whole situation is really sad as there was without doubt something in the environment that was causing some egg shell thinning in a few places. Yet, the sustained made up facts by people like Mclain have resulted in no one determining to this day what was actually causing the problem. At this point we probably will never know with the result we could very easy repeat the problem again.


You forgot to mention all of the multiple countries that didn't stop using DDT didn't see the destruction of their raptor populations. Nonetheless, you've done it now. There will be another multicolored, multi paged screed heading to beesource "with irrelevant non bee crap and that is mainly idle speculation or made up facts." You said it so well I decided to copy it.



lharder said:


> Maybe the future in agriculture is some kind of mechanized permaculture using robots with artificial intelligence.
> 
> I do know that my garden is very productive using organic methods, and I don't have the time to devote to get it fine tuned. Its also very rich in invertebrate life and helps sustain a diverse group of solitary bees. Compared to dead agricultural zones, I know what I prefer.


And until then we'll need to use control methods of some form to minimize weed and insect competition. I'm happy you can do this with your garden. I do the same with my little 5"x15" but it's labor intensive and inefficient. How many folks make a living off of your garden or are fed by your garden? It's easy to degrade so called agricultural dead zones but the farmer who owns that land has to make a living off of it. He can't afford to wait (nor pay) for "some kind of mechanized permaculture using robots with artificial intelligence" to handle these challenges so he uses the most economical methods to control pests and weeds that has minimal impact upon non target species.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

One rant after another targeting anything 'established'- methods, big business, commercial ag, commercial beekeeping.........
Very few can see the forest for the trees anymore.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

This is the gist of a post clipped from another bee site: Oh so true! 

The bullcrap asymmetry: the amount of energy needed to refute bullcrap is an order of magnitude greater than to produce it.


----------



## SS Auck (May 8, 2015)

If they say a lie loud enough and long enough with out refute then to them it is admission of truth. but he is just a pot stirrer.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

D Coates said:


> You forgot to mention all of the multiple countries that didn't stop using DDT didn't see the destruction of their raptor populations. Nonetheless, you've done it now. There will be another multicolored, multi paged screed heading to beesource "with irrelevant non bee crap and that is mainly idle speculation or made up facts." You said it so well I decided to copy it.
> 
> 
> 
> And until then we'll need to use control methods of some form to minimize weed and insect competition. I'm happy you can do this with your garden. I do the same with my little 5"x15" but it's labor intensive and inefficient. How many folks make a living off of your garden or are fed by your garden? It's easy to degrade so called agricultural dead zones but the farmer who owns that land has to make a living off of it. He can't afford to wait (nor pay) for "some kind of mechanized permaculture using robots with artificial intelligence" to handle these challenges so he uses the most economical methods to control pests and weeds that has minimal impact upon non target species.


And yet my garden or a better garden out there is a much better model for long term sustainability and productivity on a per land unit basis. Why settle for mediocrity?


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

Close the books, turn off the computer and get out there. You've isolated yourself
and it shows.

The fairy tale dreams, theories and claims are comical.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

lharder said:


> And yet my garden or a better garden out there is a much better model for long term sustainability and productivity on a per land unit basis. Why settle for mediocrity?


Mediocrity?, who's settling for that? Have you ever walked rows, worked acres by foot or even baled hay? It's cool to dream of a organic utopia but if you've never done it you don't really know what you're talking about or what's actually involved. "Long term sustainability" by whose measure? "Productivity on a per land unit basis" where are the numbers that support this claim? If it was true everyone would be doing it. I worked for and grew up with a few farmers families. Farmers are financially frugal, not cheap, frugal. They don't spend money they don't have to and they are quick to improvise and make repairs to avoid additional costs. They are always looking for more efficient/effective ways to make profit. Those that aren't efficient are out of business. As a farmer, if you're not making enough money with the land to feed your family, keep the lights on, and cover taxes... it's not sustainable either.


----------

