# randy oliver reviews a new Dr. Lu paper



## wildbranch2007

Harvard Medical School's Dr. Alex Lu has another paper out. I was asked by
some extension horticulturists to comment on it. You can read my review at

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/a-review-of-dr-lus-paper-on-neonics-in-massachusetts/

--
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com


http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=ind1508&L=bee-l&F=&S=&P=87393


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm

All I can say is WOW!

Oliver does know his stuff.

Rusty


----------



## jim lyon

The irony is that bad science can potentially be more damaging to pollinators in the real world of pest control than what is being currently done. I'm a bit confused though. Has Dr. Lu's gobbledygook v2.0 actually been peer reviewed and published and if so in what? My understanding is that his initial findings didn't pass muster with most experts and were only accepted in a lesser publication.


----------



## wildbranch2007

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/pr...ollected-from-foraging-bees-in-massachusetts/



> The study will be published online July 23, 2015 in the Journal of Environmental Chemistry.



the only place I can find it cost $25.00 to read it. not worth the money for me, randies evaluation has more value than that.
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/EN15064.htm


----------



## Dan the bee guy

If there was only one toxin to worry about I would say no problem but how much junk have we dumped into the environment. Just one more straw on the camels back.


----------



## Sky

Randy, 

Thanks for the analysis/review of the paper and the references.

I am not extensively trained in science - and like most of the population have been lulled into believing much of the nonsense in "published" papers must obviously be true because the paper is full of terms and procedures I don't understand, can't relate to, and/or are endorsed by/associated with a well known and respected name or publication. What we assume to be true, becomes true in our own minds.

I do want to thank you for taking the time to share your extensive knowledge in this field to respond to this (and calling it out for what it is - misleading at best) publicly. 

The errors, assumptions, and leaps of faith made in the document you pointed out seem pretty significant (even to me)... Thanks for calling those out, translating so we understand, and providing backup references for each. The translation of some of the values presented into real-world examples was extremely helpful... (PPM and mg/kg/day are great measurements for science I am sure - but no idea what that actually means to me though from a practical standpoint ....10,000 lbs of apples - now that I understand).

Just wanted to say thanks for sharing this and I appreciate the effort (and hours) it must have taken for you to respond to the source article.

Well written.... 

Sky


----------



## tim8557

For many academics, it is the quantity of published artcles, not the quality that counts. The old adage, "Publish or Perish".


----------



## Barry Digman

Sky said:


> Randy,
> 
> Thanks for the analysis/review of the paper and the references.



To clarify, the original post is only a link to Oliver's article on his homepage, and not actually his own post here on Beesource. If you want to reach him you'll need to go to his page.


----------



## lemmje

Barry Digman said:


> If you want to reach him you'll need to go to his page.


And consider donating to his efforts. Right side of the page you can keep help finance his work.


----------



## sqkcrk

lemmje said:


> And consider donating to his efforts. Right side of the page you can keep help finance his work.


Actually if you want to e-mail him, and expect a reply, don't you have to donate to his efforts?


----------



## Andrew Dewey

I'm happy to support Randy as I can as once upon a time I was happy to help BeeSource.


----------



## Ian

jim lyon said:


> The irony is that bad science can potentially be more damaging to pollinators in the real world of pest control than what is being currently done. I'm a bit confused though. Has Dr. Lu's gobbledygook v2.0 actually been peer reviewed and published and if so in what? My understanding is that his initial findings didn't pass muster with most experts and were only accepted in a lesser publication.


Yet he took his findings to the press, before he actually finished his garbage study, in which the media ate it all up. Reminds me of the Cristy Morran study that was brought to the press before peer reviewed. That one hit headlines too


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Good cop - bad cop...

One who writes garbage, another to proof him wrong. And of course, if one guy is wrong, all others are wrong as well.

Good ol' propaganda.


----------



## camero7

sqkcrk said:


> Actually if you want to e-mail him, and expect a reply, don't you have to donate to his efforts?


Actually I wrote him before I ever contributed and got a reply. He even checked some dysentery for nosema at no charge for me.


----------



## jim lyon

Main stream scientists without an agenda are pretty much unanimous in their condemnation of his studies. I understand you start any scientific experiment with a hypothesis but it's apparent by his background that he has more of an agenda than a hypothesis. He should have used a larger sample size and given them field realistic dosages......or better yet monitored large groups of hives in the real world. This 18 hive study proves little more than if you force feed a hive enough pesticide that you will eventually kill it. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8761_b_6323626.html


----------



## Ian

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Good cop - bad cop...
> 
> One who writes garbage, another to proof him wrong. And of course, if one guy is wrong, all others are wrong as well.
> 
> Good ol' propaganda.


as all those "others" pat the garbage maker on the back... 
Makes me think , YUP


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Unfortunately science became too political and there are too much inter-relations into the business world. 

For example, there is heaps of activity of Bayer at German universities. They have "secret contracts" with major universities. Some NGOs tried to get those contracts open to the public, since the universities are public, but the contracts remain secret.
https://translate.google.de/transla...uni-koeln-und-bayer-a-1048618.html&edit-text=



> _Every fourth Euro comes from the industry_
> _It is estimated that in Germany more than a thousand endowed chairs at universities: professors who are often not paid by the state but by companies. And already in 2011 the universities and polytechnics were given Federal Statistical Office at least 6.3 billion euros from private financing, and rising. Other sources such as the business-related Donors' Association for German Science even go out of well over ten billion euros per year, the company put into the research at universities._


I myself once held a presentation about neonics at a national entomologist meeting, where lots of professors met. After the presentation some professors came to me and said to me, that I am very bold to publically speak about neonics. I guess, I was rather naive... But what I found, they were very cowardly. Too many of them depend on their income and as I found, there is some mechanism of kicking out scientists out of their job, when they start to talk unpopularily things.

Guess what, Bayer people were present there, too. They never took part at a entomologists meeting, since those insect people are rather bizarre at times. Some guy stood up after my presentation and started to give his own lecture on the subject. Turned out, it was the Chief Scientist of Bayer in the plant protection departement: Dr. Maus. Although my presentation wasn't publically announced, they turned up.  

Since then I saw many things I would not have thought it could be possible. They seem to be everywhere. 

For example at dinners:



> Over the course of the day-long tour and dinner, all parties involved—the Bayer scientists, the government regulators, the seed companies, the growers, and the beekeepers—had ample opportunity to openly discuss issues and solutions. We were able to speak candidly with a number of Bayer environmental scientists from Germany, Canada, and the U.S., who all confirmed the high interest that Bayer has in developing bee-friendly products. Over dinner, I asked Dr. Christian Maus (Global Pollinator Safety Manager for Bayer CropScience)


http://scientificbeekeeping.com/a-new-large-scale-trial-of-clothianidin/

Whatever. 

Never trust a study you didn't fake yourself. :lookout:


----------



## Ian

That illusion of power and might exhibited from big chem definitely is worrying. Our chem dependence has been deliberate and built up over decades. To turn this around involves more effort than simply crying at a loud speaker and marching the streets about how much we dislike chem agriculture. It involves answers and actions. 
This study is one example of the activist movement pushing agendas. We need efforts that give is direction and answers to all those underlying problems.

My neighbour is organic. He needs 3 times the price to make a go out of his production. Bottom line never lies. As a beekeeper I love his as his weeds are my profits


----------



## deknow

Bernhard, I share many of your concerns....and also find myself at odds with various interests....which can be interesting, and expensive (a lawsuit can be filed without a lawyer and for minimal expense that one would not want to deal with without hiring a lawyer).

With that said, a free dinner (especially capping a full days tour and over continued discussions) hardly seems the kind of corruption that I would worry about. Dinner is dinner, unlikey to cost more than $150 even with drinks and a fancy presentation....but mostly it only lasts for one meal...hardly the same thing as a salary, a job, or even a freezer full of food.....or a proper bribe.


----------



## deknow

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Good cop - bad cop...
> 
> One who writes garbage, another to proof him wrong. And of course, if one guy is wrong, all others are wrong as well.
> 
> Good ol' propaganda.


.....and what kind of cop is the activist or beekeeper (or British MP) who uses such a study (that you classify as 'garbage') to support their position?

Ignorant cop? Gullible cop? Wishful thinking cop? Ends justify the means cop?

Anyone that wants to make a case against neonics would have a stronger case of they were outspoken about poorly done studies who's conclusions are not supported by the work. 

Anyone who cites such work because the conclusions support their agenda and does not take a critical look at it harms their own cause.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

deknow said:


> ...free dinner...


Oh, that shiny and tidy and clean World the Bayer people present at such dinners...I sat down with Dr. Maus myself. Oh his wise words. His very kind words. His brilliant logic. The many studies he presents. The crystall clear science his scientists do. 

Didn't impress me much. But a many people follow those very very logic words. But something being logical doesn't say anything about it being true or not. 

It doesn't need bribes to catch people. Just repeat the same over and over again. Mix in some logic, mix in some studies. Mix in some hearsay (mostly from the other side of the planet, so you can't verify/falsify it). Keep everything shiny and bright. Bee care center here. Bee health center there. 

Easy catch.

Both camps don't play fair. Only one makes billion $ with it. And spends a lot of $ to keep it that way.


----------



## deknow

...so it isn't about a free dinner...it's that out of principle no one should listen to a presentation if it's d9ne by Bayer?

At WAS last year, Bayer had a rep from the Canadian bee research facility. In a pannel discussion someone asked him if Bayer would be developing anything to help progress IPM approaches.

The reps answer was that he felt that neonic seed treatment was such a contribution...because it reduced the need for pesticides.

Another pannel member (I can't remember who) was right on point....and called him on it. Ubiquitous seed treatments are the exact opposite of IPM. 

it should have been an easy answer...nothing about IPM contraindicates any number of pesticides....he could have talked about all the non systemic products that contribute to any IPM scheme in a crisis (when 'softer' approaches fail).

I'm not sure how I could come to a genuine understanding of where this guy from Bayer is coming from (instead of just assuming that he is evil by default) if I didn't listen to him talk.


----------



## wildbranch2007

one of the references Randy Oliver uses in his rebuttal is really interesting.



> Whiting, SA, et al (2014) A multi-year field study to evaluate the environmental fate and agronomic effects of insecticide mixtures


and what he had to say about it.



> Important fact: the neonics are not DDT. They don’t bioaccumulate, nor do they appear to build up in the soil to any appreciable extent despite repeated use [[2]].


and the paper seems to say that is true after running a 3 year study.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Yes, there is the well known wording: "to any appreciable extent"...which is used or better: overused by Bayer spokesman. 

Fact is, no one knows where it accumulates and to what extent. Because it runs off, it pools here but not there. Take a sample here and you get another result as you get a couple of foot further down. That's why you get different results. Not only in soils, but in bee hives as well. 

At least it started accumulating in our drinking water. You get neonic pesticides for free - right from the tap. I asked our local water supplier for the laboratory results and yes, there is imidacloprid in our drinking water. Of course in very very tiny dosages...All I want in my morning coffee is a pinch of salt. Cheerio, to your health. 

However. It is not worth to discuss neonics anymore. No reason to get excited. This cash cow is dead and the next new cash cows are already invented and awaiting entry into the markets. They are not neonics, but still systemic, they are fat soluble and neurotoxins. Just like neonics, but they are no neonics. Until beekeepers understand where the next wave of death is coming from, ten or more years will pass. Same ol' story. We will be too late to prevent this. As always. :scratch:


----------



## j.kuder

we didn't learn nothing from DDT. we almost lost the raptors and now its the pollinators. like the lady from the health department said to me as they were spraying the field across the rd. from my farm. "we all need our sweet potatoes for thanks giving" as the spray was drifting across my property.
AT WHAT COST!


----------



## jim lyon

j.kuder said:


> we didn't learn nothing from DDT. we almost lost the raptors and now its the pollinators. like the lady from the health department said to me as they were spraying the field across the rd. from my farm. "we all need our sweet potatoes for thanks giving" as the spray was drifting across my property.
> AT WHAT COST!


This type of foliar spraying which kills all insects it contacts, both good and bad, is exactly what systemic pesticides are designed to replace. This is the irony I'm trying to point out. If a bad study plays some part in bringing us back to the bad old days of foliar spraying then all pollinators suffer.


----------



## j.kuder

and for what purpose. to get a bigger crop so the price falls and then we can feed the world and just who are we feeding again. oh yea that's right russia, north korea, china, and all the countries that hate us. and who is making all the money corporations and wall street. the whole system is motivated by greed. instead of spraying it on the plant we are putting it into the plant systemic means every part of the plant absorbs the poison including the pollen, nectar and fruit or seed. I don't want any amount of poison in anything I eat or drink. and what happens to the dust from planting and harvest as that drifts beyond the fields. poison does not discriminate it is an equal opportunity killer. it has to be good for us right that's what the corporations say and they would never lie to us. yea right. sorry for being ignorant


----------



## camero7

the trolls are out today


----------



## jim lyon

j.kuder said:


> poison does not discriminate it is an equal opportunity killer.


I'm not going to get into the social implications as this thread is about the Lu study. 
Aside from some well documented planter dust issues in past years the fact is that systemic insecticides DO discriminate. Systemics kill only insects that feed on the plant so in that regard they are a marked improvement over foliar spraying which kills pretty much every insect that it contacts. Perhaps you needed to experience what I have first hand in the past. I had whole apiaries literally wiped out by foliar spraying (including,in some cases, a few birds and small animals). It left an indelible impression on me as a young beekeeper attempting to make a living. 
Believe me, as a beekeeper, I'm no proponent of pesticides just a realist that understands that in the real world of food production, farmers will always be allowed to control the pests that are feeding on their crops. I can't say with absolute certainty that neonics haven't had a hidden cost to me but I do know that our hives in recent years appear quite strong and healthy and they pretty much all sit in close proximity to crops that are grown with systemic seed treatments and so far this year doesn't seem to be any different. I wish Dr. Lu would come out and look at our hives. I've come to the conclusion if I control varroa, have young queens and get decent late summer to fall forage that the result is almost always strong hives.


----------



## Ian

Now that's not the catchy jargan most look for Jim...


----------



## sqkcrk

I had a guy at the State Fair yesterday ask me if the State was going to reimburse beekeepers for loss due to CCD since Cornell has figured out what the cause is. He didn't like my answer and wanted to know who I represented when I replied "No, why should they? And I wasn't aware that anyone had figured out what the cause of CCD was anyway, least of all Cornell." He seemed to be somewhat pissed off at that reply. Because he was sure that Cornell had determined that Neonicotinoid pesticides were the cause of CCD. I'm often amazed what other people know which I have no idea of.

On an NPR report I did hear that Neonics are being found in water in streams and rivers. So, whereas it may not be accumulating in the soil, it appears to be showing up in water.


----------



## Dan the bee guy

camero7 said:


> the trolls are out today


And who are the trolls?


----------



## j.kuder

Dan the bee guy said:


> And who are the trolls?


I believe that would be me:lookout:


----------



## Dan the bee guy

j.kuder said:


> I believe that would be me:lookout:


No you actually made sense :ws:


----------



## Dan the bee guy

j.kuder said:


> I believe that would be me:lookout:


No you actually made sense :ws:


----------



## D Coates

Dan the bee guy said:


> No you actually made sense :ws:


It did? It was a standard issue anti-neonic greed rant that blamed corporations and Wall Street. It even ended with


j.kuder said:


> sorry for being ignorant


 Heck, even the tag line is "Warning, I could be an idiot." There was nothing actually discussed regarding the paper, it's findings or Randy Oliver's review. Just a rant where a couple points (see above) made sense....


----------



## camero7

troll 
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument


----------



## Dan the bee guy

Calling someone a troll itself is provocative it's like saying your opinion doesn't matter. And some of you don't understand humor.


----------



## D Coates

Dan the bee guy said:


> And some of you don't understand humor.


Nope understand it perfectly. I was even using it a bit myself in an ironic manner via direct quotes.


----------



## broodhead

You mentioned the application of systemics as targeting only those insects feeding on that plant. The bigger problem is that systemics are being applied by ground blast applications as well. The application of these pesticides is staggering here in Florida, with applications taking place every 21 days or so. Recent applications of these and other pesticides have been well documented to have direct impact on honeybees. The EPA needs to adopt more stringent applications for these types of pesticides.


----------



## jim lyon

I would say a "ground blast" application of neonics (or any insecticide) wouldn't be the same as the systemic action of a seed coating. Yes, I would be very concerned if my bees were exposed to any pesticide application that could result in drift.


----------



## deknow

...it really depends on the amount of insecticide involved. I've been shocked by the amount of actual pesticide used on each individual seed...I'm not sure if ground drench or soil injection is applying more pesticide per square foot as seed coatings.....but I certainly don't know for sure.


----------

