# Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams



## jeb532 (Feb 16, 2011)

2 nanograms is how much neonicotinoid poison it takes to kill a honey bee. Hard to visualize isn't it. So... maybe the follwing would be a better perspective.

Assume a healthy hive has 60,000 bees. In Texas, there are about 80,000 hives, so thats 4.8 billion bees (60,000*80,000 = 4,800,000,000).

4.8 billion x 2 nanograms = 9.6 grams (4,800,000,000 * 0.000000002 = 9.6)....and that just about fills 2 tablespoons...

Get it....2 tablespoons of a neonicotinoid could kill every bee in the state of Texas...


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

You could also see it from this prospective:
it kills bees at molecular level. 
1 mole contains 6*10^23 molecules, Imidacloprid, MW=256, 256g/liter==> 1M imidacloprid; 2 ng of imidacloprid ==> 1.28*10^-12M === > 7*10^(23-12) ==> 7*10^11 -->> 70000000000 molecules per bee. 

Honey bee has 960000 neurons, so EACH neuron in bee's tiny brain would be "poisoned" by 70000 molecules of Imidacloprid.

Note - I am horrible at arithmetic, please excuse me if I made any mistake in simple multiplication/division. I would gladly correct my calculation if somebody will find an error. BUT scale of "disaster" is right!


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

jeb532 said:


> 2 nanograms is how much neonicotinoid poison it takes to kill a honey bee. Hard to visualize isn't it. So... maybe the follwing would be a better perspective.
> ...


You do realize that neonicotinoids are a class of chemical compounds and that there is no leathal dose for a class of chemicals? 

Strike 1

If you are talking about the most used neonicotinoid, you do realize that you are incorrect in your figures? 
From Wiki:


> Like most insecticides, imidacloprid is highly toxic to bees, with a contact acute LD50 = 0.078 μg a.i./bee and an acute oral LD50 = 0.0039 μg a.i./bee.


Strike 2

You do realize that ther are 1,000 nanograms in a µg? Strike 3... You're outta here! Already.

Oh and you didnt take specific gravity into account for your tablespoon calculation. 

Strike 4 

Get it? (obviously not)


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Nabber86 said:


> From Wiki:
> Like most insecticides, imidacloprid is highly toxic to bees, with a contact acute LD50 = 0.078 μg a.i./bee and an acute oral LD50 = 0.0039 μg a.i./bee.


 Well, 0.078 μg x 1000=78 ng and 0.0039 μg x 1000 = 3.9 ng, which is 2x more than in original post, but it could not change the picture - the bottom line is that it is *VERY small amount! *I do not like your aggressive tone - you sounded rude and uneducated...  If you so knowledgeable - just do all right calculations, determine the specific gravity of imidacloprid powder (I want to see how you could do it) and give us YOUR estimate and we'll see how it is different from original post. Be friendly...


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

cerezha said:


> Well, 0.078 μg x 1000=78 ng and 0.0039 μg x 1000 = 3.9 ng, which is 2x more than in original post, but it could not change the picture - the bottom line is that it is *VERY small amount! *I do not like your aggressive tone - you sounded rude and uneducated...  If you so knowledgeable - just do all right calculations, determine the specific gravity of imidacloprid powder (I want to see how you could do it) and give us YOUR estimate and we'll see how it is different from original post. Be friendly...


So a 100 percent error is acceptable? To whom? 

Including 4 completey erroneous items (at least 4) in the OP is acceptable? To whom?

And as far as doing the clacs. I pointed out that there is no way to figure out the volume w/o using the SG, so the appraoch was wrong to begin with, besides the value selected for one of the input variables, and the math. It's not up to me to figure out _what_ the OP was trying to present, _how_ he was trying to present it, and then fix it for him. Everything about the post is wrong, period. 

Only the uneducated would allow the unacceptable presentaion of data such as this (and I cringe to use the word data) and that offends me.

Sensationalism, faulty data, and faulty appliaction of data is no way to solve a problem. Never has and never will be.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

cerezha said:


> Well, 0.078 μg x 1000=78 ng and 0.0039 μg x 1000 = 3.9 ng, which is 2x more than in original post...



In the context of killing *all* of the bees in Texas…… 

By definition of LD50, 0.0039 μg of imidacloprid would kill only 50% of the bees. So there exists a 100 percent error in your approach. This is unacceptable.

The LD100 of imidacloprid would be much higher than the LD50, so there is a compound error of *over* 100% in your approach. This is unacceptable. 

I have provided everything that you need to calculate how much imidacloprid that it would take to kill all of the honeybees in Texas (on a volume basis). The only 2 missing variables are the SG of imidacloprid and the LD100 of imidacloprid and then to do the calculations correctly this time. I am not going to do this for you.

Sensationalism, faulty data, and faulty appliaction of data is no way to solve a problem. Never has and never will be.


----------



## Luterra (Sep 7, 2011)

The calculations are not hard, and it is interesting (and maybe useful?) to be able to visualize these things.

There are many estimates of LD50 for imidacloprid on honey bees, but let's take a published value of 0.008 µg (8 ng) per bee. (http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/fatememo/Imidclprdfate2.pdf)

A worker bee weighs about 100 mg. Thus the toxicity of imidacloprid to honey bees is 8 ng/100 mg = 0.08 mg/kg, if we use the same units as LD50 for mammals. This is about 600 times more toxic than nicotine, 80 times more toxic than cyanide, 20 times less toxic than ricin, and 8000 times less toxic than botulinum, the most human-toxic compound known. Not quite snake venom, but at the same time no compound with this level of toxicity to humans would be allowed to be freely dispersed into the environment. 

The LD50 of imidacloprid to rats (the best proxy for humans) has been estimated at 450 mg/kg. Thus the chemical is over 5000 times more toxic to bees than it is to us. Of course that level of specificity is desirable in an insecticide, but when your livestock happen to be insects that is a problem.

It's not easy for me to visualize 80,000 hives, so I'll stick with one. One hive with 60,000 bees. Killing half the bees in a hive would thus require 480,000 ng, or 0.48 mg of imidacloprid. Seed corn is treated at rates of 0.25 to 1.25 mg per kernel. (http://www.extension.iastate.edu/CropNews/2012/0406hodgson.htm) At the higher rate, one kernel contains enough imidacloprid to kill half the bees in two full strength hives. At the lower rate it would take two kernels to kill half the bees in one hive.

This analysis of course ignores the fact that bees are affected at dosages much lower than the LD50, and it makes the assumption that the chemical would somehow be distributed equally to all bees in the hive, which is false. But still, corn is planted at the rate of 35,000 seeds per acre, and one or two seeds contain enough imidacloprid to kill a whole hive. Corn planting is a dusty endeavor, and not all of that imidacloprid stays on the seed. That would be enough to scare me if I kept bees in corn country, or at least convince me to move my hives well away from fields during planting time. 

I don't know that we need to ban imidacloprid and its related neonic cousins, but we need to realize that from a bee's perspective we are dispensing a chemical 80 times more toxic than cyanide across wide expanses of ag lands adjacent to hives. We definitely need rules (isolation distances and times) to improve coexistence.

Mark


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

> A worker bee weighs about 100 mg. Thus the toxicity of imidacloprid to honey bees is 8 ng/100 mg = 0.08 mg/kg, if we use the same units as LD50 for mammals. This is about 600 times more toxic than nicotine, 80 times more toxic than cyanide, 20 times less toxic than ricin, and 8000 times less toxic than botulinum, the most human-toxic compound known. Not quite snake venom, but at the same time no compound with this level of toxicity to humans would be allowed to be freely dispersed into the environment.


Using rats as a proxy for humans is an acceptable practice. Comparing mammals to insects in toxicology analysis is unacceptable and downright ludicrous. (In case you didnt know, they use rat proxy for humans because they can't test humans. They regularly do tests any bees, rats, and fat head minnows). Why not save the contorted argument and look up the LD50 for nicotine, cyanide, ricin, bot toxin for honeybees directly? 



> but we need to realize that from a bee's perspective we are dispensing a chemical 80 times more toxic than cyanide across wide expanses of ag lands adjacent to hives.


Uh, you might want to check and see if cyanide is actually toxic to honeybees before you throw statements like that out there.


But anyway you missed the whole question…

How many tablespoons? 
:lpf:


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

I have to agree with Nabber - you say it only would take 2 tablespoons full of really toxic stuff to kill all of the bees in Texas and he proves you you are so so wrong - it would take at least 4 tablespoons - probably heaping tablespoons at that - to kill all of the bees in Texas. You completely lose all credibility and Nabber proves it. Good Job Nabber.

Clearly if it takes ANY MORE than 2 tablespoons of this stuff then it just isn't a problem. Unless they use more than 4 heaping tablespoons in the entire state of Texas - which they don't. Right?

Or was it teaspoons? My head hurts.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

David LaFerney said:


> My head hurts.


As it should because you have no concept of exposure pathway(s). One simply does not round up the entire bee population of Texas and make them eat 2 tablespoons of imidacloprid. How exactly would that be accomplished?

Just as if I collected all the cyanide in the world, rounded up the entire world population, and made them eat it (party in Jonestown anybody?), it would kill all of the people in the world. Big deal.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

David LaFerney said:


> I have to agree with Nabber - you say it only would take 2 tablespoons full of really toxic stuff to kill all of the bees in Texas and he proves you you are so so wrong - it would take at least 4 tablespoons....


 To be safe (from Nabbler insinuations) I would propose *8* tablespoons and I would add 2 more to make sure that specific gravity of the powder would not affect the final result. So, 10 tablespoons shall kill for sure all bees in Texas! Yes, horrible, 500% error! Now, there is a problem- how we could evenly distribute 10 tablespoons of nasty stuff over entire Texas to kill ALL bees in our virtual (really?) experiment?


----------



## Luterra (Sep 7, 2011)

> Comparing mammals to insects in toxicology analysis is unacceptable and downright ludicrous.


All I did was to convert the LD50 for bees (8 ng/bee) into per weight units (0.08 mg per kilogram of bee weight) using the known weight of an average worker bee. Thus IF imidacloprid were as toxic to mammals as it is to bees, it would have an LD50 of 0.08 mg/kg, which can be compared to other mammal-specific LD50's. Clearly it isn't that toxic to mammals (as I clearly pointed out), but I'm using the comparison to make the valid point that from a bee's perspective imidacloprid is a very toxic chemical, right up there with ricin and cyanide.

And if you must know, imidacloprid has a density of 1.543 g/cm3 
(http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/haloxyfop-methylparathion/imidacloprid-ext.html)

Thus the 0.48 mg required to kill 50% of the bees in one strong 60,000-bee hive would occupy a volume of 0.00031 cm3. One tablespoon is 14.79 cm3, so one full tablespoon of imidacloprid could deliver an LD50 dose to 47,700 of our 60,000-bee hives.

If you want to be really picky that is for crystalline imidacloprid. Powder has a lower packing density, so the volume would be slightly different.

I'm not trying to fear-monger and say that neonics are responsible for all of our bee problems. Just pointing out that there is no chemical with anywhere near this level of toxicity to humans that is in widespread use. 

One kilogram of cyanide (rat LD50: 6.4 mg/kg) could theoretically kill 1040 75-kilogram humans.
One kilogram of imidacloprid (bee LD50: 8 ng/bee = 0.08 mg/bee kg) could theoretically kill 83,000 75-kilogram bee-masses. That's about 63 billion bees, or one million strong hives. 

I realize that neonics are a hot political topic these days, with lots of misinformation on both sides. But we can't lose sight of the fact that these chemicals are exceptionally toxic to bees, and that any guidelines that minimize bee exposure can only help beekeepers.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

cerezha said:


> Now, there is a problem- how we could evenly distribute 10 tablespoons of nasty stuff over entire Texas to kill ALL bees in our virtual (really?) experiment?


You forgot the part were you would have to make the eat it.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Luterra said:


> Thus *IF imidacloprid were as toxic to mammals as it is to bees*, it would have an LD50 of 0.08 mg/kg, which can be compared to other mammal-specific LD50's.


Then why on earth are you making that comparison? You are not even going across species of mammals (rats to mammals), you are crossing from arthropods to mammals.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Nabber86 said:


> You forgot the part were you would have to make the eat it.


I am sorry -* it is YOUR part.* You need to read... the original post just intended to *illustrate *the toxicity of stuff in everyday "units"... it has no intention to do any scientific conclusions... and you are just trolling here in aggressive manner...


----------



## Luterra (Sep 7, 2011)

Nabber86 said:


> Then why on earth are you making that comparison? You are not even going across species of mammals (rats to mammals), you are crossing from arthropods to mammals.


It's not a perfect comparison, but neither is it entirely invalid. Some toxins, like cyanide, are more or less equally toxic to all life. Cyanide in particular blocks cells' ability to use oxygen, and as this oxygen requirement is ubiquitous across plants, animals, and fungi, the killing dose is primarily dependent on body mass. Other toxins, like imidacloprid or herbicides, bind specifically to proteins found in particular organisms, rendering them thousands of times more toxic to target organisms than to non-target organisms. Neonicotinoids are insect-specific. Bees, being insects, are members of their target group. Imidacloprid is approximately as toxic to bees as ricin is to humans. Both are neurotoxins that respectively target insect and mammalian nerve receptors.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

Nabber86 said:


> As it should because you have no concept of exposure pathway(s).


golly, you've exposed me - I'm an ignorant son of a bee keeper. Along with everyone else it would seem. Would you please enlighten us further? Then we can all quibble about the maths of what really is a little or a lot. 

You know, personally I don't know if the issue is neonics or not. Clearly you think not. There are both shrill and reputable voices on both sides. But I do know this - it does not matter if it takes two teaspoons or two truckloads of chemicals to kill all of the bees in Texas. But something is doing it. And either Amt would not be very much in the big picture. 

Texas is a big state you know.

Do you by any chance work for Bayer?


----------



## julysun (Apr 25, 2012)

*" Hard to visualize isn't it."* No, not particularly. We know the problem, how can we help you solve it?


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

David LaFerney said:


> Would you please enlighten us further? Then we can all quibble about the maths of what really is a little or a lot.
> 
> You know, personally I don't know if the issue is neonics or not. Clearly you think not?


"Route of exposure" is how a toxic substance gets into an organism; ingestion, dermal, contact, inhalation.

"Exposure Pathway" is how the toxic substance travels to the organism; air , water, sediment. 

We all know that neonics are highly toxic to bees, through the route of direct ingestion. A study proving this has been posted numerous times on beesource and is not disputed by anyone, including myself. So we know one thing: bees have to eat neonics to die. Ingestion is the route of exposure. As far as I know, spraying bees with neonic (direct contact) has not been proven to be toxic, but it is probably safe to assume that it is so. So assume for now that bees have to eat neonics or be directly sprayed with them to die (gave you a gimme there). As a side note, please be aware that the LD 50 is different for different routes of exposure and can vary widely. 

The only "exposure pathway" that has thus been demonstrated so far is mixing neonics with some type of food that the bees will eat. The study used HFCS as a pathway. You could say that the pathway included humans purchasing neonics, mixing it with HFCS, and hand carrying over to the bees. The pathway in the study was very short and really defaults to bees eating neonics. As a side note, the more complicated and tortuous the pathway the less valid.

In short, what does all of the data show? Neonics are highly toxic to bees and if ingested, they die. Nothing more nothing less. _*Stating that x mass of neonics can kill y number of bees is completely meaningless outside of the context of exposure routes and pathways. *_Please note also that this *is the only point that I am trying to make in the context of this thread!*

Do I think that neonics are the cause of CCD? Could be, but the the available data says no. Show me the route and exposure pathway of neonics as they are used in modern agriculture. As far as I am concerned it doesn't exist. Argue all you want, but the facts do not support you.


----------



## Luterra (Sep 7, 2011)

> As a side note, the more complicated and tortuous the pathway the less valid.


I wasn't aware exactly how incredibly toxic neonics are to bees until I did these calculations today. With this level of toxicity, complicated/tortuous pathways must be considered. 

If 1/35,000th of the amount of neonics in an acre planted with treated corn seed is enough to kill 60,000 bees, then we need to consider not only direct routes of exposure, but also more complicated ones (e.g. bees picking up imidacloprid dust while in the air, planting dust settling on adjacent blooms, bees collecting pollen from corn plants grown from treated seed, etc.). If neonics were 10- or 100-fold less toxic, these pathways wouldn't be of concern. 

It's hard to accidentally ingest enough cyanide to die, but if you had a bottle of ricin all it would take is one breath of wind to send a few particles into the air. And that's unfortunately the level of toxicity we have with neonics and bees.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

I don't know nabber. The op said that it would take a tiny amount to kill a whole bunch of bees, then you twisted it up by saying that if it was the particular chemical that YOU chose then it would take a lot more of it, and you would have to make them eat it first anyway, so strike three. Nabber wins. I would ask if I got any of that wrong, but I already re read it, and I didn't. 

And yes I understand that toxicity was measured by mixing the poison with syrup and feeding it to the bees, and farmers don't do that, so it must be harmless if you follow the directions. 

I also understand that these chemicals are insecticides, and bees are insects. Some of them act systemically, by making the entire plant more or less an insecticide - thus killing pests that try to eat those plants. Whether it is true or not it makes sense that bees which gather pollen or nectar from such a plant could be carrying tiny doses of poison back to the colony. And true or not it also makes sense that when that hive ingests that poison while also under seasonal stress, that it could cause winter colony collapse. 

Neonicitinoids may not have a thing to do with the high percent of colony loss we have seen this year. I certainly can not prove that they do, but you can't prove that they don't. And no one who is in any position to do anything about it cares one bit about what either one of us thinks.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

David LaFerney said:


> Nabber wins.


You got that right holmes. 



David LaFerney said:


> I would ask if I got any of that wrong, but I already re read it, and I didn't.


Not sure how to respond to that because it isnt a coherent sentence, but I think that my response is that you you did indeed, get it wrong.

You asked and I tried to help. I can't do any more than that.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Nabber86 said:


> ... So assume for now that bees have to eat neonics ...


 I was under impression that bees sometime actually eat pollen (pollen cakes?)... if pollen contaminated .... 

As for ricin - don't tell me. It is evil thing. I worked with it. One single molecule (yes!) kills a cell! 

Mark, many thanks for interesting analysis - very educational! I did not think, it is so bad! 

*jeb532 *- thank you for initiating this thread - I learned something new here!


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Luterra said:


> If 1/35,000th of the amount of neonics in an acre planted with treated corn seed is enough to kill 60,000 bees, then we need to consider not only direct routes of exposure, but also more complicated ones (e.g. bees picking up imidacloprid dust while in the air, planting dust settling on adjacent blooms, bees collecting pollen from corn plants grown from treated seed, etc.). If neonics were 10- or 100-fold less toxic, these pathways wouldn't be of concern. .


I suppose that I could go on to explain how to quantify the probability of completing a pathway and how to assess the risk of any particular pathway being completed, but I am growing weary of this tedious exchange. Yaaaawn. Good night and sweet dreams.


----------



## julysun (Apr 25, 2012)

Here is a new (to me) article on the subject.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/o...-for-our-most-beneficent-insect.html?src=recg


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

cerezha said:


> I was under impression that bees sometime actually eat pollen (pollen cakes?)... if pollen contaminated ....


 One last answer because this is a question that is marginally worth responding to. 

Bees actually may, at sometimes, eat some pollen that may be contaminated, but the probability and occurrence of this route of exposure being completed is extremely low; based on the available data. Certainly not enough to cause CCD (whatever the heck that is).


----------



## Luterra (Sep 7, 2011)

cerezha said:


> I was under impression that bees sometime actually eat pollen (pollen cakes?)... if pollen contaminated ....
> 
> As for ricin - don't tell me. It is evil thing. I worked with it. One single molecule (yes!) kills a cell!
> 
> ...


To be fair, ricin is about 20-fold more human-toxic than imidacloprid is bee-toxic, but they are in the same general range. If you can treat a seed and have the resulting plant be toxic to insects, you are working with a potent poison.


----------



## BayHighlandBees (Feb 13, 2012)

it also ignores the fact that bees don't eat corn kernels


----------



## BayHighlandBees (Feb 13, 2012)

in california they do a lot of testing of neonic pesticide on bees. At low doses it affects bees the same as nicotine (which it is derived from) does to humans. In that form it is a stimulant and actually makes bees more productive (smarter, more alert, quicker). 

At higher doses approaching toxic level it then slows bees down.

here's a good link that describes the effect on bees

http://www.americanbeejournal.com/site/epage/132573_828.htm

1. The dose makes the poison—field doses from seed treatments are typically (except in the case of planting dust) very low. They are intentionally designed to be so.
2. Bees metabolize neonicotinoids quickly[11], similar to the manner in which humans quickly metabolize nicotine, so that they appear to tolerate small doses well.
3. Bees appear to find neonicotinoid residues distasteful[12], and avoid drinking highly contaminated nectar. However, they may well bring home highly contaminated pollen or dust.
4. Just because an insecticide goes systemic in a plant, that doesn’t mean that bees are constantly exposed to that product. Treated plants only produce contaminated nectar or pollen for a relatively short period of time each season. The rest of the season the bees would ignore those plants. 
5. Several surveys of trapped pollen found that bees in agricultural areas often mainly collect pollen from plant species other than the treated crops. These findings suggest that bees may be avoiding the treated crops, and that nectar and pollen from the untreated plants would tend to dilute the insecticide residues. However, if the treated crop is the only plant in bloom, then the colony would be exposed to a greater degree (note, however, that colonies foraging on virtually undiluted treated canola appear to do fine).
6. The above factors would lead to the dilution of the insecticide within the hive.
7. Then there is the “colony effect.” Even when fed extremely high doses of imidacloprid over a period of weeks or months, colonies may continue to thrive (Pettis 2012; Lu 2012; Galen Dively, pers comm). 
8. This is not to say that exposure to high levels of planting dust can’t result in sudden loss of a large portion of a colony’s adult population!







David LaFerney said:


> I don't know nabber. The op said that it would take a tiny amount to kill a whole bunch of bees, then you twisted it up by saying that if it was the particular chemical that YOU chose then it would take a lot more of it, and you would have to make them eat it first anyway, so strike three. Nabber wins. I would ask if I got any of that wrong, but I already re read it, and I didn't.
> 
> And yes I understand that toxicity was measured by mixing the poison with syrup and feeding it to the bees, and farmers don't do that, so it must be harmless if you follow the directions.
> 
> ...


----------



## schmism (Feb 7, 2009)

Nabber86 said:


> In short, what does all of the data show? Neonics are highly toxic to bees and if ingested, they die. Nothing more nothing less. _*Stating that x mass of neonics can kill y number of bees is completely meaningless outside of the context of exposure routes and pathways. *_Please note also that this *is the only point that I am trying to make in the context of this thread!*


+1


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Nabber86 said:


> ....Bees actually may, at sometimes, eat some pollen that may be contaminated, but the probability and occurrence ...


 Could you provide estimate? What is the probability that bee could eat contaminated pollen? You are using flashy words but have nothing behind.


----------



## Bee Whisperer (Mar 24, 2013)

And here is where the paralysis of analysis becomes a tactic to avoid accountability. 

We cannot afford to cloud over for a problem that needs to be addressed. Nabber86; your desire to raise awareness of inappropriate calculations, although cloaked is cynicism and contempt, is quite impressive. I also admire your desire to preserve the fidelity of the scientific method and the purity of the “Hard Science.” We all could stand to embrace more precision so the facts are truly facts, and not just sensationalized speculations. 

Fact – These chemicals exist, are used where bees frequent, and are highly toxic when ingested by bees. 
Fact – Bees eat, and bees feed other bees.
Question – Do the toxins exist on food sources that bees eat . . . most likely. 
Question – Do bees eat items on which the toxins are present . . . most likely.
Question – Are bees ingesting the toxins . . . most likely.
Fact – A very, very, very small measure of these toxins can kill a bee when ingested. 
Fact – The toxins are made to kill insects
Fact – Bees are insects.
Question – How much toxin is UNHEALTHY for bees . . . not certain
Question – How much toxin is actually ingested by bees . . . not certain

However, no matter what variables exist in the study, measure, and calculation of this enormous problem, at least people are thinking deeply and willing to search out the etiology. The set of causes, or manner of causation, of this condition deserves some sensationalism in order to awaken the minds of humanity. Just like you are raising the awareness of others to calculation errors, raising the awareness of people to this very serious pandemic is also worthy; more than worthy of theater. Drama draws attention. Yes, this drama must be based on accurate fact. However, instead of plowing down others in what appears to be apathetic arrogance, how about utilizing your prowess to assist the goal at hand; to stop CCD and preserve the honey bee? Isn’t that what this is really about? In short, we can either be part of the problem, or part of the solution. Choose wisely.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

BW: While I agree with much of what you are saying, it's important to note that aside from some confirmed cases of bee losses from planter dust (a problem that has supposedly been solved) bees have no direct exposure to these seed coatings. Yet all these threads seem to start with the underlying assumption that neonics are the cause of massive bee deaths despite the fact that the evidence proving this is virtually nonexistent. These are all still theories. The fact that these chemicals are so wide spread in their use yet many beekeepers still have great success in building strong bees says to me that bee health is a very, very complex issue.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

You are right Jim - it is clearly a complex issue. Mites, 2 kinds of nosema, all manner of chemicals, pollution, SHB, viruses that we haven't even heard of, monoculture ag, heat, drought, and dearth - most, if not all - of these things are probably involved in high colony loss numbers. It's too complex to say that any one thing *is the cause*, or that any one thing *is not a factor*. But we will probably quibble about the details from now on - cause that's what people do.

If the internet has taught us anything it is that when someone says "my thing isn't what's at fault in this broad issue it's everything else that is the problem" to take that with a grain of salt at least. The same goes for those who blame big problems on one person, or one group of people.

Most likely all of these things are going to continue to affect bees and bee keepers for the foreseeable future. Our options are very limited in what *we* can do to adapt - but most likely adapt we will. 

I hope so anyway.


----------



## gmcharlie (May 9, 2009)

Wow this was an interesting thread, hats off to nabber for picking on the math and not rolling over and ignoring it!!!
AND the others who are pointing out errors...

We also want to point out neonics being leathal, but that is not even close to the only "poisen" spread on a huge basis daily. from spraying mosquitoes for west nile to anhydrous for corn.....we as humans do spread chemicals. BUT we look closely at the impacts.. spraying mosquitoes doesn't effect bees because we take due care. same for corn seeds... due care and tons of math have been done to study what really matters The UPTAKE of the chem in question..... Doing silly math to point out it takes less than a lb (being generous) to kill all the bees is a moot point...... getting it to them is another matter. As mention... how much Rican would it take to kill all the humans?? small amount also.. but worthless math as its not going to happen.....


----------



## jeb532 (Feb 16, 2011)

Well....looks like I accomplished exactly what I started out to do....get some serious discussion going. So I remembered the toxicity quantity wrong by a factor of 2 or 4...or even 10.....

What if I'm really off by a factor of 1000 and it doesn't take 2 tablespoons of a neonic to kill all the bees in Texas...but 20 POUNDS.

Boils down to a really simple question....Do I really want that around my bees? Uh......NO.

Lets see if I can really fire up Nabber and mention the soil latency issue...which I have seen stated as 1,300 plus days depending on the soil type. 

I've recently seen a figure quoted for degradation in the soil of 60% per year.....i.e....of what ever percentage makes it to the soil, 60% is still there a year later....36% two years later...22% three years later...etc.

Assuming the same field and dose rate per year, the second year you get another 100% dose...so now you have 160% soil level (100% year 2 +60% of year 1)

Year three would be 100% (year 3) +60% (year 2) + 36% (year 3) = 196%

Year four would be 100% (year 4)+ 60% (year 3) +36% (year 2) +22% (year 1) = 218%.

Looks like bioaccumlulation to me. OK so lets say its not 60% degradation per year, but 30%...still doesn't matter....the only way it wouldn't bioaccumulate is if it degrades completely before the year's next application....

Ok Nabber...you're on...


----------



## jeb532 (Feb 16, 2011)

Gee...scientists had to mix poison in sugar to get bees to eat it....DUH!:lpf:


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

jeb532 said:


> Boils down to a really simple question....Do I really want that around my bees? Uh......NO.
> 
> Lets see if I can really fire up Nabber and mention the soil latency issue...which I have seen stated as 1,300 plus days depending on the soil type.
> 
> ...


So, keep your bees off other peoples property. Do you think that just because you have bees you can tell other people how to use their land?

Most farmers tend to rotate the crops grown in a field. So, a field may not have the same pesticides applied to it year after year.

If you are successful in getting neonics banned what is going to replace them? Do you think the carbamates, organophosphates, pyrethrins, etc. of the past are a better option?

Exaggeration to get a discussion started is planting false premisses. The uninformed will take the exaggerations as fact and multiply them. It also detracts from the bigger picture. While neonics have the potential for killing bees no one has linked them to supposed CCD colony deaths. There are other threats to bee colony that them get diminished because people believe the neonics HAS to be the cause.

Tom


----------



## BayHighlandBees (Feb 13, 2012)

soil latency is funny issue. In buried soil that has no biotic effects it takes up to 1,300 days to degrade but in soil exposed to sun and water neonic based chemicals photo-degrade and hydro-degrade with a half life measured in hours (not years). That's one of the little factoids that always seems to get forgotten in the standard sensational articles on neonic pesticides.

So the exposed pesticide degrades rapidly and the entombed pesticide stays resident for long periods of time. Of course I fail to understand how the neonic pesticide buried in the soil will get to the bees in ways where photo-degrading and hydro-degrading wil not occur. all this and the observation observed in the Randy Oliver article linked previously that bees don't much like neonic flavored nectar or pollen and will avoid eating it (when given a choice).


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

BayHighlandBees said:


> soil latency is funny issue.....


 Yes. Sun would work only if it is direct sun - top of the sand's grain would be exposed to sun, the bottom - no. Also, water. I would imagine that water will be where there is no direct sun due to evaporation. So ether sun or water... it means that decomposition on the sun, will be much less that you think. For photochemical decomposition usually water is required. Also, grown plants will block sun on the soil - again, less decomposition. Farmers I guess, turn or mix soil at the end of the season in preparation for spring - it will bury some chemicals... Bees will bring some chemicals inside the hive - it is dark inside and water, perhaps, is limited... beehive itself is a perfect storage for pesticides etc.

All these arguments that nasty chemical(s) regularly spread in environment may be harmless for numerous reasons is just showing how little many people at beesource do care about environment they live... 

I really like Bee Whispers sentence:
"In short, we can either be part of the problem, or part of the solution. Choose wisely. "


----------



## BayHighlandBees (Feb 13, 2012)

cerezha, 
we had a whole thread on this a while back that you also partook in that I don't want to rehash but to summarize:

sun + water = half life of hours
sun and no water = half live of days

most soil surface has water in it every day except deserts (rain, dew, ambient moisture in the humus, etc).
again the soil gets buried wont photodegrade, but then again it's not directly accessable to the bees (not that any neonic on the surface is that accessible anyway) 
Farmers tilling the soil? Depends on if they are going with a 'till' or 'no till' approach. I'm about 20 years removed from my parents farm but I thought most farmers were going with 'no till' these days to minimize erosion (hence the need to eradicate all the existing weeds with herbacide)

top of the grain exposed / bottom of the grain not exposed - not completely accurate, but ground isn't completely flat, nor is all of its components completely opaque. (and most farmers don't farm in sand).

Sergey,
the details you are pointing out seem awfully minor and I don't see how they really add up to a significant issue.


----------



## Luterra (Sep 7, 2011)

Beekeeping is unique among agricultural pursuits in that beekeepers "farm" the surrounding 15,000 acres for honey, but almost never do they own that land. Since bees are generally beneficial this practice is accepted. Unfortunately then, the beekeeper must also accept the loss incurred due to bee-harmful activities within their foraging area, and there isn't much legal recourse. Nor should there be, I would argue, particularly if the landowners have no real need of the bees (as is true with corn, pasture, and all crops outside of their pollination window). 

This sort of wild-farming, unrestricted by property boundaries, has no modern parallels. Think of it as if deer were owned by keepers, who became angry whenever one was killed on a road or inadvertently poisoned.

What cannot be solved with rules, then, can sometimes be solved with incentives. Certainly beekeepers have incentive to keep bees away from pesticide-heavy areas, and that is something I would always consider when choosing a home or an outyard. The next step would be to create financial incentives (bee easements?) for landowners in particular areas to limit use of bee-toxic products.

Think of it as a land trust for bees. The goal would be to create foraging circles of roughly three-mile radius in which all properties carried a bee-safe certification, rather like the salmon-safe and other labels currently in use. Just an idea...


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

BayHighlandBees said:


> ...Sergey,
> the details you are pointing out seem awfully minor and I don't see how they really add up to a significant issue.


 Exactly! But this approach (distraction from the main point by criticizing minor details or imperfections) is widely used here to diminish the important substance - I used this approach just to show how primitive it is and how it just distracts from important issue and does not create any useful conclusion. Look at the title of the thread: *"Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams." * Visualizing! Nothing else! To me the essence of this particular thread was how little is needed to kill so many bees. It is educational for me because I never did such estimates and I am thankful to _jeb532 _ for such interesting look on known thing.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

jeb532 said:


> Boils down to a really simple question....Do I really want that around my bees? Uh......NO.
> 
> Lets see if I can really fire up Nabber and mention the soil latency issue...which I have seen stated as 1,300 plus days depending on the soil type.
> 
> ...


OK, two points:

1- neonics are not "around" your bees in the context of exposure.

2- last time I checked, bees don't eat dirt. 


I don't even have to check your calculations to know that your conclusions are wrong (again in the context of exposure) because you got two primary assumptions incorrect.


----------



## BayHighlandBees (Feb 13, 2012)

Sergey, honestly the subject title is a sensational topic name. It's a great technique to propagandize a topic. Seems like that is the new scientific approach these days (replacing the old approach of the scientific method).

Here we go again, another distraction from you on the science of all this


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

cerezha said:


> Exactly! But this approach (distraction from the main point by criticizing minor details or imperfections) is widely used here to diminish the important substance - I used this approach just to show how primitive it is and how it just distracts from important issue and does not create any useful conclusion. Look at the title of the thread: *"Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams." * Visualizing! Nothing else! To me the essence of this particular thread was how little is needed to kill so many bees. It is educational for me because I never did such estimates and I am thankful to _jeb532 _ for such interesting look on known thing.


The "visualization" is meaningless except for providing a sensational effect. Nothing else!

It is not even remotely "educational". Education implies the use of knowledge and science to learn and solve problems.

Providing math and what appears to be scientific data in post in an attempt to back up a meaningless visualization is sensationalism.

Including *erroneous* math, premises, data, and twisted logic is not trivial. It is horribly wrong and completely unacceptable.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

BayHighlandBees said:


> Sergey, honestly the subject title is a sensational topic name. It's a great technique to propagandize ...
> 
> Here we go again, another distraction from you on the science of all this


From other posts, I gather that serg has a scientific background. I am completely baffled as to why anyone that claims to be a scientist continues to discuss the toxicity of neonics based on non-science (nonsense).


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Nabber86 said:


> The "visualization" is meaningless except for providing a sensational effect. Nothing else!


 Well, it is my job as a scientist to do a "visualization" - it is my specialty and I published more than 50 research papers on this very subject. I am glad that my employer thinks differently from you.



Nabber86 said:


> It is not even remotely "educational". Education implies the use of knowledge and science to learn and solve problems.


 Again, 20 years of teaching... thanks God you are not around!


----------



## BayHighlandBees (Feb 13, 2012)

teaching + writing books + visualizing != scientist


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Nabber86 said:


> From other posts, I gather that serg has a scientific background. I am completely baffled as to why anyone that claims to be a scientist continues to discuss the toxicity of neonics based on non-science (nonsense).


 Yes, if I am supporting this - I have a REASON for this based on my expertise. But in order to talk scientifically, you need to be at my level. Talking "science" to ignorant people is very frustrating to me and just waste of time. _Beesource_ is not place for science - for science I have a different forum. 

From another hand, I am not expert in beekeeping, thus - _beesource_ is very educational to me. Also - there are such characters here - I learned more about Americans (mostly) on _beesource_ than from real life in US. From time to time I am trying to "contribute" to _beesource_. Usually it has a bad ending because I could not find a proper approach how to deliver the message to ignorant people (who is not ignorant - those got the message, no problem). I am really bad at this... sorry


----------



## BayHighlandBees (Feb 13, 2012)

Sergey,
the best way to get students to understand a concept is to use an example that exaggerate the concept's effects to make it stand out visually (ie. 'using liquid nitrogen and a balloon to demonstrate the thermal dynamics of air' , 'using a solid glass barrier to demonstrate the principle of greenhouse gases', etc). In that capacity I think you do well. 

That said, what is your technique that you would personally use to visualize a measurement or proportion or or an equation where exaggeration will not be an effective tool. 
Examples would be:

'the poison is in the dosage'
'how much neonic can a bee consume safely and at what rate can metabolize it'?


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

BayHighlandBees said:


> Sergey,
> the best way to get students to understand a concept is to use an example that exaggerate the concept's effects to make it stand out visually...


It is American way. It did not work in real science... Normally, a math or chemical formula/equation is to visualize the concept in many cases. For instance, how you could visualize 5th dimension? Just math formula. Or how you could imagine the principle of electron's uncertainly (electron may be in two points at the same time)?



BayHighlandBees said:


> 'the poison is in the dosage'
> 'how much neonic can a bee consume safely and at what rate can metabolize it'?


 It is interesting topic and we could discuss it off-line on better scientific level. But, one need to keep in mind that evil of neonics is their mechanism of action - they irreversibly binds to receptor - thus, they do not metabolize and just accumulate. In such situation, it is very difficult to determine the "dosage" because even sublethal amount may cause a problem. 

The visualization for that would be - neurons could not talk to each-other it means that muscles are not coordinated, memory lost ... is it enough?


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

BayHighlandBees said:


> ... visualizing != scientist


 I guess so


----------



## Chemguy (Nov 26, 2012)

The original post was aimed at developing a visualization, and I think that this has been accomplished: neonicitinoids have the potential to be very toxic to bees in what seem to be very small amounts.

What's happening here is that three separate discussions are taking place. One conversation is aimed at honing the visualization through application of better math, a second attempts to illustrate how the visualization is based on a variety of assumptions and the last attempts to demonstrate how the visualization would not be accepted as peer-reviewed scientific theory. Everyone is correct.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

cerezha said:


> But, one need to keep in mind that *evil *of neonics is their mechanism of action


Is this a scientific term? :scratch: Perhaps you could quantify how "evil" fits in the context of a scientific discussion ...

Is 0.000000002 grams of "evil" _really sinful_, or just a little bad?

:ws:


----------



## gmcharlie (May 9, 2009)

cerezha said:


> It is American way. It did not work in real science... Normally, a math or chemical formula/equation is to visualize the concept in many cases. For instance, how you could visualize 5th dimension? Just math formula. Or how you could imagine the principle of electron's uncertainly (electron may be in two points at the same time)?


Interesting you pick these two to make your point, Both issues are totally non relevant to anything in the real world, and cannot be proven by anything but a bunch of theoretical math..... A fifth dimension...theres something to hang your educational hat on.... right next to time travel.....

Can you provide links to some of your published documents, I would love to take a look.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

cerezha said:


> Well, it is my job as a scientist to do a "visualization" - it is my specialty and I published more than 50 research papers on this very subject. I am glad that my employer thinks differently from you.
> 
> Again, 20 years of teaching... thanks God you are not around!


30 years as an environmental engineer specializing in the fate and transport of contaminants in environmental media. Working with teams of engineers, hydrogeologists, toxicologists, biologists (both mico and bugs & bunny types), air specialists, chemists, health and safety experts, and risk assessors, to name a few. Hell, we even have a group of archeologists on staff to make sure that we don’t disturb an ancient Indian burial ground if we punch a hole to collect a sample. 

We investigate the problem, study the data, and then develop the designs and plans on how to clean the messes up. And yes, my employer expects me to clean things up, not sit around contemplating my navel all day and visualizing new uses for bellybutton lint.

Tell me serg how many hundreds of thousands of tons of solvent contaminated soil have you cleaned up, or millions of gallons of groundwater? How many water treatment plants have you designed and operated? How often do you use bioremediation. How about phyto remediation, ever use that? Have much experience do you have working directly with PCPs, dioxin, dioxane, 2,4-D, chlorinated solvents, BTEX, diesel fuel, jet fuel, bunker oil and even UXO. Or do you just sit around visualizing new and innovative ways of telling professionals that they are doing their job wrong.

Thank god there are people around that actually do something about environmental problems.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Chemguy said:


> Everyone is correct.


Except for the insidious math, logic, and context errors that permeate this thread.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

cerezha said:


> I guess so



Here is a visualization for you, or as we prefer to call them, cartoons. 

The figure was used in a presentation to Region 9 EPA so that they could visualize how we were going to estimate the transport of chlorinated solvents (tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene) downward through the soil column and then horizontally in groundwater. The picture looks simple, but it represents 3 different models, SESOIL (soil transport), the USGS MODFLOW groundwater flow model, and the MT3D transport interface to MODFLOW. The input parameters for these models include such things as advection, diffusion, dispersion, first-order decay constants, any many, many others. (note some the parameters are listed on the figure). The MODLOW model itself was a 3-layer, 1000 by 1000 finite difference grid. Each cell has at least 10 different parameters assigned to it. That is a 3-D array with 30,000,000 values (For visualization purposes if that were grams of cyanide, it would be enough to kill the population of the world ). I spent over 3,000 man-hours working on the models alone and that was just a small part of the overall project.

The source was from a manufacturing process that used solvents to clean parts and the receptor was the San Francisco Bay. We estimated how the contamination would affect receptors such as recreational users of the bay (people who fell off their kayaks) taking into account oral ingestion (swallowing water) and dermal contact. We argued with the EPA for weeks on how much skin area is exposed with a wet-suit and how long the person would be floating in the water. We also looked at every biological receptor that anyone from the Mother’s for the Bay action group and the Sierra Club could think of.

Anyway the end result of all this was the removal of over 10,000 pounds of PCE that had the potential to impact the bay. 

Sorry if it is not as shiny as your computer generated graphics, but my clients prefer to spend their money solving problems, not creating pretty pictures. 

Besides artistic aesthetics, what was the purpose of your cartoons?


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

I do enjoy your posts nabber.
Got any chemtrail work on your CV!


----------



## Luterra (Sep 7, 2011)

Scientists and engineers are very different types, though both are generally good at math and logic. Engineers have a greater tendency to carry on long discussions explaining why some approach or idea is wrong, ludicrous, silly, or otherwise not worthy of serious thought. Right Acebird?

Oh wait, I'm about to get an engineering degree myself. I'll admit I have some of the same tendencies....


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

cerezha said:


> I guess so


I guess that I gave you too much credit for saying that the images that you posted were yours. I did a web search for the tag (lower right corner) in that scary looking calculus image that you posted (FourierTransformMod_gr_52.gif) and got several hits that were the identical image. 

You need to remove the tags from stock images that you borrow from the internet. Plagiarism is not the hallmark of a scientist or a teacher. 

http://math.fullerton.edu/mathews/c2003/fouriertransform/FourierTransformMod/Images/*FourierTransformMod_gr_52.gif*

http://math.fullerton.edu/mathews/c2003/FourierTransformMod.html


----------



## BayHighlandBees (Feb 13, 2012)

I didn't realize that scientists look at the world in black and white. You're already exposing a prejudice by calling neonics 'evil'.

I do notice a dichotomy between your assertion that neonics don't metabolize and scientific studies that claim they do.


----------



## Luterra (Sep 7, 2011)

Posting in this thread is rather like stepping in between children throwing rocks at each other. Please stop trying to smear each other's professional reputations. I'm sure you're all well qualified in your respective careers.

I originally tried to perfect the visualization, mainly as a learning exercise to examine the toxicity of neonics. I discovered that they are more toxic than I originally thought, though of course this doesn't mean much on its own. As Nabber so cynically (though accurately) pointed out, we need to consider exposure pathways, degradation times, etc. Then I tried to steer the discussion toward solutions, ways that we might be able to minimize contact between neonics and bees without taking a very human-safe and effective pesticide away from farmers. That was thoroughly ignored by the rock-throwers.

Go on and fight if you will, I'm bowing out. I'll come back when the rocks stop flying.

Mark


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Nabber86 said:


> (FourierTransformMod_gr_52.gif) and got several hits that were the identical image. ..
> 
> http://math.fullerton.edu/mathews/c2003/FourierTransformMod.html


 Fourier transform is our very common tool and it could be illustrated by formula. Formula itself is a public domain. Image is not - thus I left all tags to trace the image to its original site. I did not claim that this is my image. You should notice that all other images have tags also. I do not understand,what is your point? Do you want to compromise my scientific credentials - luckily to me it is not in your power, I hope. 
The purpose of all images was to illustrate the visualization approach.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I'm not qualified to make comments on the scientific lingo being thrown around in this thread, but I am equipped with a "civility meter" making me qualified to comment on words used in some posts. Let's stop with the underhand remarks.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

BayHighlandBees said:


> ...I do notice a dichotomy between your assertion that neonics don't metabolize and scientific studies that claim they do.


I guess, it depends from the definition. Do you use "metabolize" in the sense that chemical disappeared from the bloodstream (common definition in human physiology), in case of bees, lymph ? From this prospective, the chemical disappears from the lyph and accumulates on neurons. Once attached to the receptor, it may not be destroyed by ordinary biochemistry. So, the chemical leave the body fluids and in this sense - disappears. But in reality it accumulates in other body parts, brain in particular. This accumulation is difficult to measure because it is happened at molecular level and our equipment is not sensitive enough. 

As for "evil" - scientists do use such expressions. Most famous example is "Maxwell's devil/demon"
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Maxwell's+devil


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Nabber86 said:


> ...Tell me serg how many hundreds of thousands of tons of solvent contaminated soil have you cleaned up, or millions of gallons of groundwater? How many water treatment plants have you designed and operated?...


I have full respect to your efforts to keep our environment clean. But I think,the problem is that we are at different sides of the barricade: you manipulates thousands of tons and I manipulate individual atoms, molecules and cells. My scale is "nano". I guess, it is difficult to believe that there is something substantial on nano-level if you are preoccupied with all these thousands tons. Please, have all my respect for your hard work to protect the environment at your level.


----------



## BayHighlandBees (Feb 13, 2012)

Sergey,
you've mentioned that Neonic is the 'evil' pesticide. If you had your way, what pesticide would you replace it with that is less 'evil'?


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

BayHighlandBees said:


> Sergey,
> you've mentioned that Neonic is the 'evil' pesticide. If you had your way, what pesticide would you replace it with that is less 'evil'?


 Well, I mean that the mechanism of action is evil. Forgive my poor English: "keep in mind that evil of neonics is their mechanism of action - they irreversibly binds to receptor - thus, they do not metabolize and just accumulate. In such situation, it is very difficult to determine the "dosage" because even sublethal amount may cause a problem." 

As for replacement with something less evil. I could refer you to the story I read in NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/s...ed-bedbugs-in-their-tracks.html?src=recg&_r=0
"Generations of Eastern European housewives doing battle against bedbugs spread bean leaves around the floor of an infested room at night. In the morning, the leaves would be covered with bedbugs that had somehow been trapped there. The leaves, and the pests, were collected and burned — by the pound, in extreme infestations. " Using chemicals to kill insects is a dead end because, insects have tremendous plasticity and very quickly adapt to most horrible stuff including DDT etc. In this battle - we always losers. Look at the mites - how many chemicals are ineffective with mites these days? Look at antibiotics - we have bugs now, who is not sensitive to ANY antibiotic. Ironically, the bugs, which are not treated by chemicals (antibiotics) - now, successfully treated with propolis.

My personal way - I do not use chemicals in my garden and on my bees. I have fruits, vegetables, honey - everything withing tiny piece of land in Santa Monica. The rest we got from the local farmers market. But, it does not mean that my plants and bees are doing well by magic. They have proper nutrition, care and protected from stress. It pays back with good crop if there is no interference from "chemical" people.


----------



## BayHighlandBees (Feb 13, 2012)

so basically you are saying that all pesticides are evil and that the United States should be completely pesticide free.

since that is not going to happen, isn't the next best thing to use a pesticide that is designed to target invertebrates (and spare vertebrates)?


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

BayHighlandBees said:


> so basically you are saying that all pesticides are evil and that the United States should be completely pesticide free.
> 
> since that is not going to happen, isn't the next best thing to use a pesticide that is designed to target invertebrates (and spare vertebrates)?


I think that it also says that it is impossible for some scientists to perform un-biased research because they are preoccupied with preconceived notions. 

I thought that kind of thinking was reserved for the scientists that are paid under the table by Bayer.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

BayHighlandBees said:


> so basically you are saying that all pesticides are evil and that the United States should be completely pesticide free.


No, I am not saying so. But strong "organic" movement shows that many consumers are interested in organic food, which essentially is pesticide-free. So, pesticide-free is already happening at substantial scale.


BayHighlandBees said:


> since that is not going to happen, isn't the next best thing to use a pesticide that is designed to target invertebrates (and spare vertebrates)?


Why? Pest-icide, it is not only against insects. Orange oil is registered EPA pesticide to repel cats and dogs. "Targeting" is flashy word - there are massive evidence on neonics effect on vertebrates nervous system (ooops). Than - what is the point in targeting if they missed? In my opinion, the real problem for US is the absence of reliable mechanism of public health and environmental protection. Wild and domesticated species needs to be under protection as well. Than,may be we would not need _nabber_ to move million tons of contaminated soil...


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

cerezha said:


> Than,may be we would not need _nabber_ to move million tons of contaminated soil...


Hey man, don't be taking pesticide contaminated food off of my plate. I'm in it for the money.


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

cerezha said:


> No, I am not saying so. But strong "organic" movement shows that many consumers are interested in organic food, which essentially is pesticide-free.



I think most of the 'organic' growth comes from marketing and a perception which often does not match reality. The idea that 'organic' is pesticide free is false. There are 'organic' approved pesticides. 

'Organic' products are marketed as a 'value-added' product so there is the potential for more profit throughout the marketing stream.

I think locally, sustainably produced food is closer to what many percieve 'organic' food.

Tom


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

On the organic/green scale neonics are far better for the environment than earlier pesticides such as organochlorine and organophosphate compounds. Ah, the good all days when you could indiscriminately saturate thousands upon thousands of acres with deadly poisons; resulting in widespread contamination of sensitive ecological habitats, killing bald eagles, and harming farm workers. All thanks to the likes of DDT, endosulfan, chlordane, heptachlor, and toxaphene.


----------



## BayHighlandBees (Feb 13, 2012)

Sergey,
that's great that you offer the solution of 'old ladies and sticks' to get rid of bed bugs. But how will that technique be used to quell the mass 'Stink bug' infestation, a non-native pest that has no native predators. This bug is literally decimates entire fields at a time (like locusts)!

When the starving masses of Americans come to your gate with pichforks demanding food (due to your callous idea of doing 'nothing' detroying America's supply of food), i suggest that you tell them that they can eat cake!


----------



## BayHighlandBees (Feb 13, 2012)

if you like organic food, think of it this way:
if Marin county weren't completely surrounded by ocean and neonic crops, would it really be able to survive as an organic haven? 

All it takes is a couple of organisms to make it past that barrier and organic food as we know it is either done or is limited to greenhouses and hydroponics.

It's an awful lot like vaccinations. If enough people get vaccinated, it even helps protect / shield those that don't.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

TWall said:


> ...I think locally, sustainably produced food is closer to what many percieve 'organic' food.
> 
> Tom


 Absolutely agree.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

BayHighlandBees said:


> ....
> When the starving masses of Americans come to your gate with pichforks demanding food (due to your callous idea of doing 'nothing' detroying America's supply of food), i suggest that you tell them that they can eat cake!


 Well, I am sorry, nothing personal - but Americans need to eat 2x less to be less fat and healthier!


----------



## BayHighlandBees (Feb 13, 2012)

i take it you didn't get the reference to Marie Antoinette


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Chemtrails Cerezha, that'll spread it right, sorry, I only read the first page, couldn't resist.


----------

