# NY Times Editorial: "Risking Another Silent Spring".



## WLC

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/opinion/risking-another-silent-spring.html

"The conclusion of the most comprehensive assessment to date of a class of systemic pesticides called neonicotinoids indicates that these chemicals are wreaking much more environmental havoc than previously thought."


----------



## deknow

Given what you are quoting, am I to assume that you consider the NYT editorial page a reliable place for science news AND analysis?


----------



## WLC

Look, this trend happens pretty much every summer around this time.

It seems to be happening in 3's.

There's the Home Depot announcement about neonics in their plants. There's the POTUS setting up a task force and helping pollinators.

Then there's this recent meta study by a task force of scientists.

By the way, it isn't a matter of the news outlet. It's a matter of the task force findings.

Having read quite a few of the studies over the years, I'm in agreement.

What's your issue Dean?


----------



## squarepeg

let's assume that you and those who share your sentiments have it your way and neonics are outlawed. what is your vision for life beyond them? what takes their place? how likely is the replacement technology or the absence of a replacement going to allow agriculture to keep up with the increasing population's demand for food. can you direct me to any of those numerous studies that you have read that address these questions?


----------



## taxonomy

squarepeg said:


> let's assume that you and those who share your sentiments have it your way and neonics are outlawed. what is your vision for life beyond them? what takes their place? how likely is the replacement technology or the absence of a replacement going to allow agriculture to keep up with the increasing population's demand for food. can you direct me to any of those numerous studies that you have read that address these questions?


God forbid that we should have to change anything about the way we live. So, what's your vision if we just crank it up to 11 and just keep on cranking out new pesticides, drugs and nail polish removers? Let's roll, mine the deep ocean methane too when the the second it's cheaper than oil. Never, ever let the lights go on on this party! 19 cent per pound peppers in winter New England, flown in from Holland, forever. 

Population increase is the same as compound interest. It's not that long before these already big numbers start doubling. We're also, going to have to get a handle on that and the fact that we take stuff from deep out of the ground (oil, metals, minerals) and turn the into intense poisons in the thin crust we live on. The whole industrial revolution and fossil fuel epoch will look like a very destructive blip in the mirror in 1000 years. 

Nope, we should be able to go on living just like this, having lots of babies and driving around in ever bigger cars, making up new pesticides as we go along. No problem. Bees'll just need to suck it up.


----------



## WLC

I've already stated that I think that RNAi technology needs to be developed and implemented as a replacement technology.

My issue with the current technology is this: why would anyone think that if every seed is coated with the same systemic pesticide, and every field is treated with the same herbicide, every time someone grows a crop, that we aren't impacting the environment?

It's prophylactic! It's also unsustainable.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

_squarepeg _has a valid point. Eliminating neonics through political action doesn't mean that insecticides are going to go away, it just means that some other insecticide will be used instead.

The real issue is will that alternative insecticide be less harmful to pollinators, or not. 

WLC certainly hasn't proposed any solution to _that _issue.


----------



## squarepeg

i like your sarcasm adam.

may God help us use the good brains that He has given us to come up with the appropriate changes necessary to adapt and overcome these serious challenges, let we fall by the wayside like so many other great civilizations of the past that got too big for their britches.

neonics are the current change in strategy, many would say an improvement over what we had. perfect? no. a better alternative? hopefully those who know more than wlc or i are working on it.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> I've already stated that I think that RNAi technology needs to be developed and implemented as a replacement technology.


and when do you expect that to be ready for roll out?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

And what happens if RNAi technology doesn't work out exactly as WLC thinks it will? 




... how could _that _possibly happen ....


----------



## WLC

Rader Sidetrack said:


> _squarepeg _has a valid point. Eliminating neonics through political action doesn't mean that insecticides are going to go away, it just means that some other insecticide will be used instead.
> 
> The real issue is will that alternative insecticide be less harmful to pollinators or not.
> 
> WLC certainly hasn't proposed any solution to _that _issue.


Ahhh! The same old, same old, strawman argument.

How about choice in what kind of seed you buy? With or with out a coat for example. Most farmers can do a better job of crop protection by spraying.

You get more of it on the crop, when you need it, and less of it goes into the soil when compared to neonic seed coats (over 90%).

There's are studies showing that non GMO/non neonic farming can get the same yields.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> Most farmers can do a better job of crop protection by spraying.


Spraying with what? What is the _WLC approved_ insecticide? :scratch:



> There's are studies showing that non GMO/non neonic farming can get the same yields.


If that is _*really true*_, why is it that farmers are still spending all that extra money for GMO/neonic licensing fees? :s Do you think farmers waste money just for the fun of it? :lpf:


----------



## ForrestB

Here we go again.










People who don't like neonicotinoids aren't going to persuade those who love them, and vice versa. Doesn't matter how many studies, who does them, what results, people will keep on with their views, so what exactly is the point of this endless debate?


----------



## taxonomy

squarepeg said:


> i like your sarcasm adam.


Plenty more where that came from. 



squarepeg said:


> neonics are the current change in strategy


Neonics are not a change in strategy, they're a tactical change at most. It's a refining or adjustment of something we've been doing for a long time, but it's not substantially different. "poison A no longer seems to work, let's try poison b" 

A strategic move would be to try and get less food spoiled by fungus after it leaves the field, currently about 50% is lost before it's consumed. Changing this would be strategic. Population reduction would be strategic. Moving away from meat would be strategic. International deep water fishing treaties would be strategic. Ameliorating wealth disparity or educating girls. That's strategic. 

Well, that's all just too hard, isn't it? Just, you know, too complicated and hard. Nobody is going to want to do that! So, the choice is we do it on our own terms or those terms will be forced on us. My guess? The latter, but don't worry too much. It's mostly your kids and grand kids that will deal with the mass migrations, the resource wars and the flooded coastal cities where, increasingly, everyone lives. 

We, the beekeepers, we'll be remembered as those who saw the effects first, and protested mildly.


----------



## Nabber86

taxonomy said:


> God forbid that we should have to change anything about the way we live. So, what's your vision if we just crank it up to 11 and just keep on cranking out new pesticides, drugs and nail polish removers? Let's roll, mine the deep ocean methane too when the the second it's cheaper than oil. Never, ever let the lights go on on this party! 19 cent per pound peppers in winter New England, flown in from Holland, forever.


Straw man alert!!!

Here is a list of 65 pesticides that have been banned since the good ol' days: 

http://scorecard.goodguide.com/chemical-groups/one-list.tcl?short_list_name=brpest


We had it cranked up in the middle part of the 20th century when the Cuyahoga River caught fire in Cleveland, they were still dumping in Love Canal, landfills were open dumps, and every gas station in the US had was leaking petroleum into the groundwater. ALL of those things have been cleaned up.


----------



## D Semple

taxonomy said:


> A strategic move would be to try and get less food spoiled by fungus after it leaves the field, currently about 50% is lost before it's consumed.
> 
> 
> Ameliorating


Adam, where are you getting the 50% figure from? 

Ameliorating - cool, learned a new word.

Also, glad to see another liberal 


Don


----------



## WLC

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/s...ter-emerald-ash-borers-destroy-them.html?_r=0

This is also one of the uses of neonics that is confounding.


----------



## jim lyon

Nabber86 said:


> Straw man alert!!!
> 
> Here is a list of 65 pesticides that have been banned since the good ol' days:
> 
> http://scorecard.goodguide.com/chemical-groups/one-list.tcl?short_list_name=brpest


Ah yes, I see Parathion made the list, a real golden oldie. I remember having bees wiped out with that stuff and seeing lots of dead birds around as well. Talk about a silent spring. Of course that was one of those "selective" sprays......


----------



## WLC

Are you saying you've never seen 'bird kills' from neonic coated seeds?


----------



## spreerider

seed not coated is available all over, if your vendor doesnt sell it change vendors there are plenty of organic suppliers out there for those that want organics, why force everyone to switch to organic when you are the one wanting to switch.


----------



## WLC

Pioneer started offering uncoated seeds in Canada AFTER the big Honeybee kills.

Not the case in the U.S. .


----------



## spreerider

try a different vendor, where do organic farms get seed because they cannot use coated so it has to be available through someone.


----------



## WLC

I do know where to get organic seed.

That's not what we're discussing really.

This is about the industrial Ag/Pharma seed that these outfits are using.


----------



## psfred

There are a number of problems with neonics and their use, notably that they are prophylactic, not targeted (which means they get used when there is no problem or a minor one, without being "aimed" at an insect). Along with that they were inadequately tested in Europe, and that inadequate testing was used to justify skipping the usually more stringent testing required for certification in the US. 

Another "surprise" was that the neonics do not break down in soil as was "anticipated" by Bayer. Why any half-way intelligent organic chemist thought a chlorinated compound would break down readily in soil after the disasters with DDT, Endrin, Aldrin, Toxaphene, and all the other "nasty" chlorinated chemicals that persist for centuries is beyond my poor power to comprehend, but we are stuck with neonics. They do degrade readily when exposed to UV radiation, but then so does DDT. UV penetrates fractions of a millimeter into soils, and not at all if there is organic matter on top.

Neonics are VERY toxic to aquatic life, and since they don't "vanish" in the soil like they were supposed to, every time it rains some leaches out and into the waterways. They also build up to much higher concentrations than expected -- if I remember correctly, more than half of what is applied as seed coating is still there the next spring. 

Dust from the seed coatings and planting equipment spread neonic powder everywhere, and when it settles on blossoms, particularly dandelions which are typically in bloom here when corn is planted, the bees collect neonics with the pollen and take it home with them. Bad mojo.

Inappropriate applications have killed vast numbers of bees -- spraying neonics while things like sunflowers are in bloom results in highly toxic nectar in short order.

I had not thought about soil organisms, but if neonics are accumulating in soils, they will be killing of soil insects, which is not a good thing at all. Most agricultural soils are pretty dreadful to start with.

Very annoying we cannot get oxalic acid certified for use against varroa mites in the US while it is very commonly (and safely) used in Europe, but an un-needed insecticide that wasn't very well tested and has proven to behave quite differently than claimed is certified without serious testing.

All in all we need a rational examination to see if a "convenience" chemical should be used by the megaton when we don't know all the costs of doing so. After all, it's sold to "enhance stand", not to prevent a defined problem.

Peter


----------



## Nabber86

psfred said:


> Another "surprise" was that the neonics do not break down in soil as was "anticipated" by Bayer. Why any half-way intelligent organic chemist thought a chlorinated compound would break down readily in soil after the disasters with DDT, Endrin, Aldrin, Toxaphene, and all the other "nasty" chlorinated chemicals that persist for centuries is beyond my poor power to comprehend, but we are stuck with neonics. They do degrade readily when exposed to UV radiation, but then so does DDT. UV penetrates fractions of a millimeter into soils, and not at all if there is organic matter on top.


Chlorinated compound are broken down by bacteria in the soil through a process called reductive dechlorination. It can be measured in the field and it is a good way to clean up sites that are contaminated with chlorinated compounds. We use it all the time as a remediation measure. 

DDT has a half-life of 22 days to 30 years, depending on what reference you are looking at. The geometric mean of those extremes is 490 days. Using the exponential decay equation, if you start with 100 mg/kg DDT at t=0, you would have 9.5E-05 mg/kg at t = 28 years; so no, the stuff does not lay around for centuries as you claim. 

Where are you getting that neonics do not break down in soil as was "anticipated"? Source please.


----------



## WLC

http://www.ontariobee.com/sites/ontariobee.com/files/Goulson's_review_June_2013_J_appl_Ecol.pdf


Nabber, you keep asking for the exact same information. You keep getting the reference, yet you don't remember getting it.

Perhaps it's time you get your own references since you clearly don't bother reading or filing them.

What the 'pesticide apologists' are doing is deflect, delay, deny.

Same old, same old.

Here's a winner:

Clothianidin 6931 (days) Laboratory Fuquay loamy sand USA Rexrode et al. (2003)

This one's worse but never referenced:

Clothianidin Negligible dissipation in 25 months... !!! Field Silty clay loam Saskatchewan Reported in De Cant & Barrett (2010)


----------



## Nabber86

WLC said:


> http://www.ontariobee.com/sites/ontariobee.com/files/Goulson's_review_June_2013_J_appl_Ecol.pdf
> 
> 
> Nabber, you keep asking for the exact same information. You keep getting the reference, yet you don't remember getting it.
> 
> Perhaps it's time you get your own references since you clearly don't bother reading or filing them.



Peter said _neonics do not break down in soil as was "anticipated". _That was what I was questioning. Not that they don't have a range of half lives that typically span 3 orders of magnitude, or more. Anyone who studies / works in contaminant fate and transport knows this, you clearly do not. 

You cherry picked the highest number from a table of values. A frequency - distribution analysis of the data would certainly identify the 6931 days as an outlier, as is the very low values. If you take the geometric mean of the values in your reference you get 61.5 days. That is your starting value and you go from there with risk analysis. You also have to look at organic carbon binding, diffusion, and dispersion as the contamination makes it way to the receptor. You claim to be some kind of scientist, yet you ignore the very basics of scientific analysis.:no:

There are lots of sources for half-life. I tend to stick with quality references (except for the last 2)
*
The National Institute of health (TOXNET Database)  - *Imidacloprid half-lives of 48 and 190 days were determined in experiments with and without vegetation, respectively. A half-life of 34 days was reported for imidacloprid in a field experiment using soil where citrus products are grown extensively.
* 
USDA - *Vegetation increased the rate of dissipation of imidacloprid, yielding a range of half-lives from 42 to 129 days.
* 
State of California - *Anaerobic half-life 27.1 days; Aerobic half-life 997 days
* 
Chemical Watch fact sheet - *soil half-lives have been reported for imidacloprid under various soil conditions ranging from 27-229 days
　

*Heck, there is even a reference from Greenpeace *:lpf::lpf:- Imidacloprid is known to have a half-life period in soils of up to 229 days in field studies and 997 days in laboratory studies [11], while clothianidin’s half-life in soils is up to 1,155 days. Their highest value is about 1/6th number that you picked.

The highest values in all of these references don't come close to the number that you picked (the highest value that can be found on the internet). That is deplorable science on your part.


----------



## WLC

19 years is a long time.

No dissipation is worse.

The EPA's own studies found 1/2 life values of well over 6 months, yet they approved clothianidin regardless.

It's a 'bad' product.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Nice work, _Nabber86_!


----------



## WLC

Rader, Nabber is being lazy about references again.

He only had to scroll down the Goulson paper to find the citations that came from EPA scientists themselves.

This is the crux of the issue: EPA scientists find problems with a pesticide, and it gets approved anyway.

This was the subject of a recent 'wiki leak' if you recall.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

In a _perfect _world, pesticides would not be necessary. But we live in an imperfect world, and pesticides, including insecticides at times, are necessary. 

And where insecticides are necessary, tradeoffs are made. An imperfect insecticide that causes _less _non-target damage than a general, poorly targeted insecticide is a GOOD THING. 


Perhaps WLC could identify which insecticides are on his _approved _list? :scratch: Any?? :s


----------



## Nabber86

WLC said:


> 19 years is a long time.
> 
> No dissipation is worse.
> 
> The EPA's own studies found 1/2 life values of well over 6 months, yet they approved clothianidin regardless.


You cannot choose the highest possible value that you can find on the internet. The studies yielding the half-life data are bench scale and field studies that look at aerobic and anaerobic conditions as well as photolysis, hydrolysis, and aquatic conditions, amongst a few. Hence the range of reported values. 

The value that you continually select (Rexrode et al. 2003) is 11 years old. It is so old that you cannot even find the original paper on the internet. You can as you have, find many modern references to it. Since we cant find the original paper, we don't know what conditions were being studied to get the number. Without the original paper, the value is worthless. All we know is that it was a laboratory study on the Fuquay loamy sand. (How does one pronounce Fuquay anyway? It sounds somewhat pornographic).


Half-rates are always reported as a range of values. You don't see me choosing the lowest possible value that I can find. I always report a range. Do you always choose the highest number that you can find for a given parameter? Do you know what a bell-shaped curve is? 


do an analysis that includes:


Half-life (γ)
Soil sorption (based on foc or Kow)
Diffusion Coefficient
Dispersion (along the x,y,and z axes)
Advection
Hank's Law (volatilization)

Do you know how to work with any of these terms? Let me help you out: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/pubs/episuite.htm and get back to me when you figure it out. 

The EPA found 1/2 life values of well over 6 months. Does this mean that you accept this number? 

19 years is a lot shorter period of time than I have been doing this type of analysis.


----------



## Nabber86

WLC said:


> Rader, Nabber is being lazy about references again.
> 
> He only had to scroll down the Goulson paper to find the citations that came from EPA scientists themselves.
> 
> This is the crux of the issue: EPA scientists find problems with a pesticide, and it gets approved anyway.
> 
> This was the subject of a recent 'wiki leak' if you recall.


Lazy? I just gave you this: 



> *The National Institute of health (TOXNET Database)** - *Imidacloprid half-lives of 48 and 190 days were determined in experiments with and without vegetation, respectively. A half-life of 34 days was reported for imidacloprid in a field experiment using soil where citrus products are grown extensively.
> *
> USDA - *Vegetation increased the rate of dissipation of imidacloprid, yielding a range of half-lives from 42 to 129 days.
> *
> State of California - *Anaerobic half-life 27.1 days; Aerobic half-life 997 days
> *
> Chemical Watch fact sheet - *soil half-lives have been reported for imidacloprid under various soil conditions ranging from 27-229 days
> 
> 
> *Heck, there is even a reference from Greenpeace *:lpf::lpf:- Imidacloprid is known to have a half-life period in soils of up to 229 days in field studies and 997 days in laboratory studies [11], while clothianidin’s half-life in soils is up to 1,155 days. Their highest value is about 1/6th number that you picked.


It is you that is being lazy by picking the highest possible value for half-life that you can find on the internet and not doing any kind of analysis of the data.

I am not arguing the EPA references. They fit well within the range that I have provided to you.

wiki leaks are not references 

Why don't you stick to the subject and stop throwing out red herrings? I thought we were talking about chemical transport, not EPA policy and wiki leaks. Nice tactic - context dropping and changing the subject when you get backed up into a corner.


----------



## Nabber86

Rader Sidetrack said:


> In a _perfect _world, pesticides would not be necessary. But we live in an imperfect world, and pesticides, including insecticides at times, are necessary.


Very true and for the record, I am not a proponent of pesticides. 

I do however, have a huge problem with cherry picking data, shoddy analysis (or worse yet, no analyses) of the data, bad science in general, people claiming to be scientists yet continue to demonstrate a poor understanding of the scientific method, sensationalism, hyperbole, and outright lying. Also evasion, drifting, and contest dropping used as a debating technique. 

None of the above is going to solve the problems that we are facing.


----------



## justusflynns

Why do some of you people think you don't have a choice? You have choices. What it seems that you want is to *force your choice on someone else* to supply what you want. Why should Home Depot, Lowe's, or Wal-Mart be forced to offer what you deem acceptable? You can get it elsewhere. If I want fried chicken I go to KFC of Roy Rogers. I don't go to Burger King and harass them about not making what I want more widely available. Better yet, if the market for organic seed is so under-served, why aren't you selling organic seed?

http://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/best-vegetable-seed-companies-zm0z11zsto.aspx


----------



## WLC

Those were terrible food choices if you're advocating for organic.

Me, of course I'll eat all of the animal products that were raised on (guess what?) GMO neonic corn, soy, etc. .

What I'm agreeing with is the NY Times editorial.


----------



## justusflynns

WLC said:


> How about choice in what kind of seed you buy? With or with out a coat for example.


This


----------



## WLC

Agreed.

There are currently over 80 million acres of soybean and 90 million acres of corn in production in the U.S. .

Most of that is clothianidin coated seed.


----------



## justusflynns

I'm not advocating for organic. I'm pointing out that you have choices (apparently, now, they aren't good enough?), and your demand that others supply you with a product you desire infringes on their choice of offering whatever they prefer and expect to provide the most profit. So, again, if it's important, and apparently the choices aren't good enough right now, why aren't you setting up shop and promoting a solution instead of complaining about what others don't want to sell?


----------



## WLC

Pardon me for agreeing with a NY Times editorial.

I like sustainable.


----------



## justusflynns

Add human intelligence and it's all sustainable. No need to tell others what they have to provide for you. Let me know when you open up your shop.


----------



## WLC

Like wise chum.


----------



## justusflynns

Little testy there for a yankee. Thought you folks could handle the pressure a little better than that. Just curious, are you ever going to explain by what logic others should be expected to provide for all of the choices you wish to make? What do you plan to call your shop, btw?


----------



## justusflynns

Maybe you and Acebird could go in together. You could call it No Coat Seed & Hurricane Bucket Company.


----------



## justusflynns

Your first 50 customers could get complimentary subscriptions to the NYT.


----------



## WLC

Of course, you know what you can do.


----------



## justusflynns

Don't want to answer, do ya?


----------



## WLC

Watching the game.


----------



## justusflynns

convenient


----------



## WLC

Put it on, then you'll know.


----------



## justusflynns

So, as soon as it's over, you'll explain the logic. Correct?


----------



## WLC

Sure, why not?


----------



## StevenG

If it's the soccer game, game over. Now what? opcorn:


----------



## spreerider

WLC said:


> Ahhh! The same old, same old, strawman argument.
> 
> How about choice in what kind of seed you buy? With or with out a coat for example. Most farmers can do a better job of crop protection by spraying.
> 
> You get more of it on the crop, when you need it, and less of it goes into the soil when compared to neonic seed coats (over 90%).
> 
> There's are studies showing that non GMO/non neonic farming can get the same yields.





WLC said:


> I do know where to get organic seed.
> 
> That's not what we're discussing really.
> 
> This is about the industrial Ag/Pharma seed that these outfits are using.


at first you say you want a choice in what seed you can buy then suddenly you already know you had a choice but still your complaining about not having a choice.


----------



## WLC

justusflynns said:


> I'm not advocating for organic. I'm pointing out that you have choices (apparently, now, they aren't good enough?), and your demand that others supply you with a product you desire infringes on their choice of offering whatever they prefer and expect to provide the most profit. So, again, if it's important, and apparently the choices aren't good enough right now, why aren't you setting up shop and promoting a solution instead of complaining about what others don't want to sell?


Hey, I've figured it out!

It's a riddle!


----------



## justusflynns

In other words, you have no answer.


----------



## WLC

To your above statement?

The answer is, 'Woody Woodpecker'.


----------



## Nabber86

You to love birds need to get a room.'


----------



## WLC

Nabber, here's the thing, Home Depot is responding to petitions.

I've got nothing to do with that (I never signed a single one concerning neonics).

I simply agree with Home Depot's neonic proposal, the president's actions, and the findings of the international task force of scientists.

I didn't limit anyone's choices.


----------



## Oldtimer

Thanks Nabber. For a long time I've been trying to figure if WLC really is a scientist, or not. Now I know.


----------



## WLC

I put up a thread on a NY Times editorial, and the usual suspects show up with the same old routine.

Predictable.


----------



## Oldtimer

I think you are the usual suspect with the same old routine LOL.


----------



## Nabber86

Oldtimer said:


> Thanks Nabber. For a long time I've been trying to figure if WLC really is a scientist, or not. Now I know.




He was doxed a while back. The best I can tell is that he is a high school special ed. teacher.


----------



## WLC

Same old, same old. Discredit the messenger.

Of course, I didn't write the editorial, do the Worldwide assessment, form a task force, or have anything to do with Home Depot's upcoming action on neonics in its garden plants.

I've got my Master's in Biology, taught as a lab instructor in college, etc. .

I have no objections if you're an exterminator, work in a pesticide plant, or have pesticide applicator credentials.

I just object to the usual antics.

Here in the U.S., people want a change in how we're currently overusing certain pesticides.

Simply put, I agree.


----------



## Nabber86

WLC said:


> I've got my Master's in Biology, taught as a lab instructor in college, etc. .
> 
> I have no objections if you're an exterminator, work in a pesticide plant, or have pesticide applicator credentials.


Are you not a high school teacher? Seems like I read that on your CV. Not that that is a bad thing, but it hardly qualifies as a research scientist.

Just about anyone with a masters degree in a science field teaches a lab. You have never demonstrated any knowledge of the scientific method, except for sprinkling your posts with scientific terms like diploid and saying that you are running "experiments". When you described your experiment with soybeans it was seriously flawed on many levels. Your antics do not project you as a scientist.


FWIW. I am not an exterminator, nor am I a research scientist. I have just spent the better part of 25 years working running complex chemical transport models for groundwater and vertical migration through the soil column. I also work with air dispersion of contaminants. I routinely search through scientific publications to keep up with the newest research. I spend hours on end evaluating and interpreting laboratory data and qualifying it. I work with a team (environmental scientists, chemists, toxicologists, remediation engineers, environmental risk assessors, and yes even biologists) to come up with real solutions to real world problems. We just don't sit around saying that a chemical has a long half-life, therefore it is bad. I as said higher up in the thread, there is a whole lot more to it than that.


----------



## D Semple

Nabber86 said:


> He was doxed a while back. The best I can tell is that he is a high school special ed. teacher.





WLC said:


> *Same old, same old. Discredit the messenger*.
> 
> I've got my Master's in Biology, taught as a lab instructor in college, etc. .
> 
> I just object to the usual antics.



WLC not much difference then your discrediting Randy and Peter's (and others) hard life work based on their lack of a Phd.


----------



## Beelosopher

My opinion on much of what has been said here can be summarized witht he comment below:



WLC said:


> Here in the U.S., people want a change in how we're currently overusing certain pesticides.


I agree with this statement. Companies can use coated seeds if they want, unless they are deemed illegal. However, as the consumer I had no idea they used coated seeds until it hit the news and petitions. People are becoming more knowledgeable and informed about pesticides, neonics, GMO's etc. Largely people I talk to learn about this because of the all the media related to the so called bee crisis. Frankly I think many people are knocked back a bit by the widespread usage. 

As a business you have every right to use pesticides/coated seeds if they are legal. However, if they cause no harm, then why are businesses so reluctant to label conspicuously, accordingly? As the consumer I believe I have a right to know what I am buying. I don't think there should be anything incredibly controversial about asking for transparency.


----------



## WLC

Although the editorial is about a broader issue, neonic drenched, pollinator friendly, plants being sold at Home Depot, etc., is just way too cynical to tolerate.

You buy some plants for your Honeybees, and you wonder why they're not doing so well.


----------



## Nabber86

Beelosopher said:


> As a business you have every right to use pesticides/coated seeds if they are legal. However, if they cause no harm, then why are businesses so reluctant to label conspicuously, accordingly? As the consumer I believe I have a right to know what I am buying. I don't think there should be anything incredibly controversial about asking for transparency.


Are you saying that you cannot tell if the seeds that you buy have been treated with pesticides? The typical ones that I have seen (sweet corn) are dyed hot pink and they are labeled as "treated"; it's pretty easy to tell. 

Someone else mention several organic seed suppliers. I use Seeds of Change as a source. I even see seeds that are labeled as "organic" at home depot.


----------



## Beelosopher

Nabber86 said:


> Are you saying that you cannot tell if the seeds that you buy have been treated with pesticides? The typical ones that I have seen (sweet corn) are dyed hot pink and they are labeled as "treated"; it's pretty easy to tell.
> 
> Someone else mention several organic seed suppliers. I use Seeds of Change as a source. I even see seeds that are labeled as "organic" at home depot.


Sorry nabber, I should have been more clear. I was more referring to the plants they sell at Home Depot (have read these are neonic seeds and there is no labeling to that effect when you buy them); as well as the GMO seeds used to ultimately raise crops that are manufactured into processed foods like corn chips, etc., which are unlabeled when they are resold as a processed food. I believe everything utilizing these technologies should be labeled as such so the consumer has an informed choice (like they do in several other nations). I believe that when you read this on the label you will go google it and then, maybe avoid most of those foods except the really awesome Cheetos or other product you can't quit. 

No I don't know if Cheetos use gmo products, but I can't quit them!

We raise virtually all our own seedlings for our garden. However I was unaware that many of the pregrown plants for gardens at home depot are neonics (or at least that is what I have been reading.)

The reason the FDA and special interests don't want GMO labeling is because they wanted to avoid question asking (IMO). As these technologies have started to become under scrutiny, it is only now that people are becoming informed about the widespread use. I had no idea what GMOs were several years ago, yet they have been around a long time. I think many people were like me and started to question if these were the sort of experiments we wanted to take on our selves and our children. I have no problem with people who want to do that, or don't perceive a risk. I just want a choice.

It is impossible for me to believe that these products have the risk level that their producers claim.


----------



## zhiv9

My understanding of untreated seed availability here in Ontario, was that you had to special order it last fall if you wanted it for this spring. Prior to this, the best corn and soybean hybrids/strains weren't even offered untreated. If an organic farmer wanted untreated seed they had to settle for an inferior variety.


----------



## Nabber86

Beelosopher said:


> Sorry nabber, I should have been more clear. I was more referring to the plants they sell at Home Depot (have read these are neonic seeds and there is no labeling to that effect when you buy them); as well as the GMO seeds used to ultimately raise crops that are manufactured into processed foods like corn chips, etc., which are unlabeled when they are resold as a processed food. I believe everything utilizing these technologies should be labeled as such so the consumer has an informed choice (like they do in several other nations). I believe that when you read this on the label you will go google it and then, maybe avoid most of those foods except the really awesome Cheetos or other product you can't quit.


I grow my garden plants from seed. I always assumed that all plants that you buy from HD, and just about any nursery, are treated with pesticides. If you are running a large nursery and have a aphid infestation you will loose a lot of money. 

I don't have a problem with GMOs, but I do think that they should be labeled. That way people can avoid GMOs if they want to. Who knows? If enough people stop buying GMO foods, maybe they will stop using them. I don't have a problem with that either,


----------



## Beelosopher

Nabber86 said:


> I grow my garden plants from seed. I always assumed that all plants that you buy from HD, and just about any nursery, are treated with pesticides. If you are running a large nursery and have a aphid infestation you will loose a lot of money.
> 
> I don't have a problem with GMOs, but I do think that they should be labeled. That way people can avoid GMOs if they want to. Who knows? If enough people stop buying GMO foods, maybe they will stop using them. I don't have a problem with that either,


Sounds like you have a good head on your shoulders nabber. Finally an agreement on beesource haha!

I have grown from seed for the past five years, but the years before that we sometimes grabbed from HD in a pinch. 5 years ago I didn't know what a neonic was or GMO. Not completely sure how bad they are. But not completely sure how good they are.


----------



## WLC

Fellas, it's not the GMOs that are the issue.

It's the pervasive use of neonicotinoids.

If we cultivate 170 million acres of corn and soybeans, and most of that is clothianidin coated seeds, then we need to question the practice.

That's the issue, in my opinion.

I don't think that we have over 100 million acres that require clothianidin pesticide treatment.

According to the media, the WIA report is saying that neonicotinoids are causing planet wide environmental contamination.


----------



## Nabber86

Beelosopher said:


> Sounds like you have a good head on your shoulders nabber. Finally an agreement on beesource haha!


Everyone thinks I am a shill for Mansanto, Bayer, or whomever is the next target of the eco-warriors is. I really don't care one way or the other. I just don't like bad science, bad reporting, bad data sourcing, no independent analysis, hype, and sensationalism. I am also not a conspiracy theorist so as it stands now, WLC and people like him are losing the battle by making their movement look silly. Silliness does not help in serious discussion.


----------



## WLC

Nabber86 said:


> Everyone thinks I am a shill for Mansanto, Bayer, or whomever is the next target of the eco-warriors is. I really don't care one way or the other. I just don't like bad science, bad reporting, bad data sourcing, no independent analysis, hype, and sensationalism. I am also not a conspiracy theorist so as it stands now, WLC and people like him are losing the battle by making their movement look silly. Silliness does not help in serious discussion.


That's trolling. And, it's pointless.

If you think that the WAI report is bad science, address it appropriately.

"WLC and people like him...'? :scratch:

Do you mean highly educated professionals?


----------



## deknow

...and if you have to tell people how highly educated you are because it isn't apparent by your words and actions?

You've chosen to start a thread...not about the report, but the fact that the NYT editorial page invoked the name of Rachel Carson.

If you think the document has merit then discuss the document. What does the NYT editorial page bring to the analysis of the document? It seems to me that to are leaning on the Times to provide credibility for a scientific document....where in your vast education did you learn to trust the times for critical science analysis?


----------



## justusflynns

I know just about every profile says the same thing. Regardless, this was good for a chuckle.


----------



## deknow

I agree with near 100% of this. Neonics are certainly a problem....and certainly not the problem.


WLC said:


> Fellas, it's not the GMOs that are the issue.
> 
> It's the pervasive use of neonicotinoids.
> 
> If we cultivate 170 million acres of corn and soybeans, and most of that is clothianidin coated seeds, then we need to question the practice.
> 
> That's the issue, in my opinion.
> 
> I don't think that we have over 100 million acres that require clothianidin pesticide treatment.
> 
> According to the media, the WIA report is saying that neonicotinoids are causing planet wide environmental contamination.


----------



## Nabber86

deknow said:


> ...and if you have to tell people how highly educated you are because it isn't apparent by your words and actions?


Thanks for summarizing what I was trying to say. Anyone can claim credentials on the internet including myself (Post 65). People can believe me or not, just as they can believe WLC or not. In the end it really doesn't matter because someone with real credentials can tell by the content of the posting whether or not somebody knows what they are talking about. If one claims to be highly educated yet continually posts basic errors such as:



Poorly design experiments
 


Cherry picking data to an extreme degree (the highest value that can be found)
 


Focusing on one parameter and ignoring many other parameters that intertwine
 


Not being able to do anything with the data (analysis) after posting
 


Demonstrating a poor understanding of math; especially statistics
 


Spewing out catch phrases
 


Stating the obvious facts like it is some kind of revelation _(i.e. There are currently over 80 million acres of soybean and 90 million acres of corn in production in the U.S.; most of that is clothianidin coated seed_).
 


Self aggrandization
 


Sensationalism
 


Hyperbole
 


Evasion of direct questions
 


Drifting to change the topic when in trouble
 


Context dropping
 

One may be highly educated, but this style shows very little intelligence and a poor scientific ethic. It does not help solve the problem at hand.


----------



## deknow

...speaking as someone who's academic credentials consist of a degree in saxophone, I think credentials have nothing to do with any of it.

It isn't very often that I can't understand a study that I am interested in...with the exception of the statistics that attempt to use a set of data to (statistically?) determine the accuracy of data by using only the data itself. It's clear that increasingly the authors of the papers don't understand the statistics they are using...one often imagines someone adjusting parameters in a software package (that they don't understand) until they have a curve that appears to mean something.

deknow


----------



## WLC

The editorial mentions the report, the EU ban, and the president's task force.

I do not have my hands on the report.

What statistics are you complaining about?


----------



## WLC

Nabber86 said:


> Thanks for summarizing what I was trying to say. Anyone can claim credentials on the internet including myself (Post 65). People can believe me or not, just as they can believe WLC or not. In the end it really doesn't matter because someone with real credentials can tell by the content of the posting whether or not somebody knows what they are talking about. If one claims to be highly educated yet continually posts basic errors such as:
> 
> 
> 
> Poorly design experiments
> 
> 
> 
> Cherry picking data to an extreme degree (the highest value that can be found)
> 
> 
> 
> Focusing on one parameter and ignoring many other parameters that intertwine
> 
> 
> 
> Not being able to do anything with the data (analysis) after posting
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrating a poor understanding of math; especially statistics
> 
> 
> 
> Spewing out catch phrases
> 
> 
> 
> Stating the obvious facts like it is some kind of revelation _(i.e. There are currently over 80 million acres of soybean and 90 million acres of corn in production in the U.S.; most of that is clothianidin coated seed_).
> 
> 
> 
> Self aggrandization
> 
> 
> 
> Sensationalism
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbole
> 
> 
> 
> Evasion of direct questions
> 
> 
> 
> Drifting to change the topic when in trouble
> 
> 
> 
> Context dropping
> 
> 
> One may be highly educated, but this style shows very little intelligence and a poor scientific ethic. It does not help solve the problem at hand.


Definitely not allowed by the forum rules Goober.


----------



## Nabber86

Victor, Victor, Victor. When will you ever learn?


----------



## WLC

You need a time out.


----------



## Nabber86

WLC said:


> You need a time out.


Yup. I am taking the rest of the week off to do some yard work, tend my bees, gardening, cook some BBQ, drink beer, and blow sh*t up in the back yard (here, hold my beer while I light this fuse).

Have fun in your apartment over the weekend being an internet warrior. 

Catch you Monday morning.

Nabber out.


----------



## squarepeg

appreciate the good info you presented on the subject nabber. happy 4th to you and yours!


----------



## WLC

Today is still the second fellas.

Don't light the fuse and throw the beer Nabber.


----------



## ForrestB

Real productive conversation. 

As always.


----------



## squarepeg

from sqkcrk's post on bee-l:





By Reps. Tom Rooney and David Valadao
July 1, 2014, 10:18 a.m.




"For some time now, the media has been issuing dire warnings of the coming “bee- pocalypse.” Time magazine ran a cover story titled, “A World Without Bees.” A headline in the London Telegraph proclaimed “Honey bees in US facing extinction.” CBS warned of the drastic threat to our food supply if these essential pollinators are lost. Yet reports of bees’ catastrophic demise are greatly exaggerated.

Activists with an anti-pesticide agenda have noticed the issue and are using it to call for a ban on neonicotiniod insecticides — “neonics” for short — which they claim are responsible for bee health problems. The most factual science does not support these allegations. Neither do the facts on the ground. Such a ban would damage entire sectors of U.S. agriculture and do more harm than good for bees. Despite this fact, legislation was recently introduced in Congress to prohibit this critical crop protection technology.

Members of Congress should consider the facts rather than the headlines. We are far from facing a world without bees. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, the number of honeybee hives has remained more or less constant for the past 14 years, slightly increasing from 2.63 million colonies in 2000 to 2.64 million colonies in 2013.

Across the globe, there’s more good news. Surveys by the United Nations show Europe’s colonies have increased slightly since 2001. Canada’s government reports the largest numbers since the 1980s. Worldwide, the managed bee population has risen dramatically, from about 40 million in the early 1960s to more than 60 million today.

While the overall picture is much more optimistic than what is portrayed in the media, some beekeepers have experienced problems maintaining the health of their hives.

Higher-than-normal losses of bees over the winter in some years have resulted in economic setbacks for some beekeepers, though the USDA found last year’s loss rate much lower. In reporting on these numbers, many journalists fail to recognize that worker bees only live for six weeks in the summer and hive strength can quickly regenerate to compensate for losses.

The USDA cites many factors afflicting bees, but the primary one is the epidemic spread of the varroa mite and the crippling diseases it vectors into the bee. Additional problems include lack of forage and the stresses of the transcontinental pollination business. As for pesticides, the USDA places them near the bottom of the list. In fact, the USDA is concerned about the miticides beekeepers themselves use to control varroa.

It’s clear from real world experience and extensive field studies that neonics are not a significant factor. Bees thrive in the millions of acres of neonic-treated canola grown in Western Canada and the pesticides are used extensively in Australia, a continent that has some of the healthiest bees in the world.

But while bees aren’t harmed by these popular pesticides, farmers — and consumers — would be if they were banned. Neonics are all that is saving the U.S. citrus industry from destruction by “citrus greening” disease. Without them, rice and cotton farming would become economically unviable throughout much of the U.S. Leafhoppers would devastate vineyards in California and the Pacific Northwest. Neonics are one of the most critical pesticides used in modern agriculture and safely utilized in the production of numerous crops, from corn and soy to vegetables of all kinds.

We must understand why activist organizations have decided to target neonics for elimination. They won the day in Europe, where the EU overrode the doubts of its own scientists and pushed through a political ban. As a matter of fact, the EU just conducted a survey to find out how bad the losses really are and were clearly taken aback by the findings. Seventy-five percent of the bee population experienced overwinter losses of 15 percent or less — a rate considered completely normal in the United States. High overwinter losses occurred among 5 percent of the bee population in the very cold north.

Summertime losses were insignificant. The biggest danger to bees in the EU are the older classes of pesticides, especially the pyrethroids now used as a result of the neonic ban.

The activists want us to ban first and ask questions later. We should not legislate based on sensationalist and fallacious press accounts. The facts clearly don’t support the calls for a ban.

Reps. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., and David Valadao, R-Calif., are members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture."


----------



## sqkcrk

squarepeg,
I copied it from a beesource.com Thread by AmericasBeekeeper.


----------



## squarepeg

duh. thanks to you both for the relevent contribution.


----------



## sqkcrk

sure, no problem.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

I suspect this is the original source: http://www.rollcall.com/news/Cuttin...bers-Are-Up-234383-1.html?pg=2&dczone=opinion

And here is the thread where _AmericasBeekeeper _posted it to Beesource: 
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...llinator-Numbers-are-Up&p=1132475#post1132475


----------



## squarepeg

awesome rader. and many thanks for your assistance early in the volley.


----------



## Matsuri

To RaderSidetrack' comment


> If that is really true, why is it that farmers are still spending all that extra money for GMO/neonic licensing fees? Do you think farmers waste money just for the fun of it?


 Numerous scholarly studies have not found any link to feeding antibiotic supplements and increased livestock/ poultry weight gain yet farmer's continue to buty tons of antibiotic for feed supplemennt. Old habits die hard especially when supported by self serving salesmen and corporations.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Matsuri said:


> Numerous scholarly studies have not found any link to feeding antibiotic supplements and increased livestock/ poultry weight gain yet farmer's continue to buty tons of antibiotic for feed supplemennt.


Antibiotics in poultry feed is another controversial topic. However, efficiency of feed conversion in food animals is a highly monitored issue. Its not hard to find a study that _*does *_show a poultry weight gain when the birds have a level of antibiotics as part of their feed. For instance, here is one:
http://vi-cor.com/pdf/Aviator RB P22.pdf

Note that while this study is linked from an animal feed supplement seller, antibiotics is not what they are trying to sell here - they are promoting 'Aviator', a prebiotic feed supplement.

I'm not promoting the use of antibiotics in animal feed, but simply saying that you can find studies on the issue that each side can point to.

.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> I like sustainable.


"I'm in agreement with you. I'm not in any way promoting that we give up high tech, or go to all organic or slash and burn. My point is that any system that requires major change is by definition not sustainable.

That said, there are current and will be future agricultural practices that are both highly productive and sustainable in the long run. And I don't have a problem with short-term solutions. But I wouldn't call them sustainable. By my definition, if you don't expect them to work for your great grandchildrens' generation, then they can't be considered as sustainable. I don't mean to put any negative connotation on nonsustainable."

looks like somebody agrees with you wlc.

from:

http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/...525F1F55&[email protected]&P=8833


----------



## suttonbeeman

I wonder if Americans chemical companies have contributed to me Rooney and Mr Jackson's campaign. Saving the citrus industry...very funny...the trees look awful. Besides the there is a lot of science showing the nics have Sublethal effects and some science is starting to show it goes thru the food chair to humans, we had mites since the late 80's and never had the issues we have had since these systemic pesticides came about. For the past three years I have marked hives to trace where they were during the summer....THoSE around a lot of nics I had big losses while those in the woods had over 85% survival. As a Florida resident Mr Rooney will get a phone call Monday...and it won't be nice. I'll guarantee someone's ears will be red.. The article he wrote is a big piece of garbage...since I can't use other language.


----------



## WLC

There are a minority of experts/scientists, usually associated with industry, who are working to obscure the impact that products are having on the environment and human health. They're the 'Merchants of Doubt'.

Honeybees are both an indicator and a keystone species.

Clearly, we do need to take steps to protect our pollinators and our environment.

"President Obama recognized the urgent need for action when, on June 20, he ordered the establishment of a Pollinator Health Task Force charged with creating a national strategy to protect pollinators. The president’s memorandum cites the potentially serious impact of pollinator loss on the United States economy, and calls for increasing pollinator habitat and raising public awareness. His directive comes not a moment too soon. "

I agree whole heartedly.

As for those responsible for the personal attacks against me every time I post up one of these links to a current issue, I hold Randy Oliver, and his 'minions', responsible for spreading disinformation with regards to the impact of neonicotinoids on Honeybees.

So do the 'Friends of the Earth'.

Simply put, the evidence in the peer reviewed scientific literature is fast becoming overwhelming with regards to the impact that neonicotinoid pesticides are having on our environment.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> There are a *minority* of experts/scientists, usually associated with industry, who are working to obscure the impact that products are having on the environment and human health...


(emphasis mine)

true enough wlc. and their views are offset with the *minority* of scientists (i.e. dr. lu et.al) who misrepresent the perils of these products particularly with respect to honey bee mortality.

outliers on the fringe of both sides of the issue don't add much to advance understanding, jmho.


----------



## peterloringborst

WLC said:


> I hold Randy Oliver, and his 'minions', responsible for spreading disinformation with regards to the impact of neonicotinoids on Honeybees.


Probably you haven't read what he has written on the subject:



> My personal assessment of our state of knowledge on the neonics:
> 
> The Good
> 
> Neonics are unquestionably reduced-risk insecticides as far as humans and wildlife are concerned, and their use as seed treatments appears to be an environmentally-friendlier way to put the pesticide exactly where it is needed. Bees and other pollinators appear to be able to thrive on the pollen and nectar of seed-treated plants.
> 
> The Bad
> 
> There are clearly documented sublethal behavioral effects, but they do not appear to affect bees at field-relevant doses, and appear to be greatly mitigated at the colony level.
> Misapplication by homeowners and nurseries can result in unacceptably high residues in nectar or pollen, as can chemigation (as in vine crops).
> There is the possibility of residue buildup in soil, which should be monitored.
> Landscape and ornamental use can result in runoff into aquatic ecosystems, as documented by Henk Tennkes.
> I suggest that beekeepers work closely with regulators on these issues.
> 
> The Ugly
> 
> Foliar (spray) applications are less well studied than seed treatments, and have greater potential for inadvertent impact on pollinators. Applications to flowering (or soon to be flowering) plants could cause serious bee mortality, and should be carefully regulated.
> Injections of, or root application to, nectar-producing trees. For the sake of pollinators these applications must be closely investigated and monitored.
> Planting dust from sowing of corn. Although significant planting dust kills are rare, they are ugly. This issue is a bleeding wound to the beekeeping community, and needs to be addressed by the EPA and the registrants. Beekeepers should not be forced to suffer mortality to their livestock due to unregulated pneumatic planter dust. France and Germany have models that we can follow. Beekeepers rightfully feel strongly that the registrants should step forward and compensate beekeepers for their losses until the issue is resolved.
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> _There is no conclusion. _Neonics have only been on the market for about a decade, and we are learning how best to use and regulate them. There is plenty of current research and monitoring being done, and the world’s main regulatory agencies are currently carefully reviewing their registrations.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> I like sustainable.


What is that? When did we ever have it? Seems to me that the only thing sustainable is change.


----------



## Dave Burrup

WLC I have asked you this before as have others, and I have never seen you answer the question. If the neonics are banned what are we going to use instead?
Dave


----------



## WLC

You need to specify the pest first.

Then talk to your ag. extension agent.

The day is fast approaching when every seed planted is going to have a neonicotinoid coat on it, whether or not it's needed.

That's one issue bought up in the editorial.

The other one is just as important, conserving pollinators.

I would say that it is the overarching issue.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Dave, he is not going to answer the question - just talk around it! :lpf:


----------



## Dave Burrup

I know he won't answer the question. I have asked it many times before. He does not have a clue what the answer would be or the consequences of getting his way. I have listen to environmental zealots for 40 plus years and it is all the same. Gloom and doom prophecies that never come true. Cherry picking the data for the worst possible scenario. After all the prophets of the 70s said we would be out of oil by the 90s and the human race would cease to exist by the turn of the century. Fortunately for use we are adaptable.
Dave


----------



## sqkcrk

Dave Burrup said:


> Cherry picking the data for the worst possible scenario.


That's a great idea, and probably sustainable too. Because we seem to have an ever growing World population. Cherry pickers. Every person must spend time each year working for farmers who raise food crops, picking bugs and chopping weeds. When I was a kid, back in the 1950s and 60s, my Dad paid my Sister, my Brother, and I to pick Japanese beetles and drop them in a cup of gasoline. Picture that three kids walking around the grape arbor, each w/ an empty tin can w/ gasoline in it picking beetles off the chewed leaves of the grape plants. 

Later that year we would pick cocoons off of the cedar tree. Dandelions were dug w/ a dandelion tool.

There are lots of unemployed people, despite the figures the way they are presented. And we have a lot of Welfare recipients that could use some exercise. The State and Federal Government could foot the bill for transportation from home to field, bring a bag lunch.

That's a brilliant idea. I don't think I want anyone picking varroa off of my bees, but someone trained well enough could go through all of my hives scratching drone brood.

Whatya think? Practical? Feasible? Sustainable?


----------



## Dave Burrup

We picked potato beetles, and dug dandelions. Since imidicloprid came out I have not even seen a potato beetle in more than 10 years. Before imid they sprayed organophospates and carbamates every week to 10 days to stop the beetles from defoliating the fields. That sounds like progress to me. They also treated the potatoes with Temick at planting. That killed anything that ate the emerging weeds in the spring. I used to find dead and dying Morning doves every spring in the potato fields.
Dave


----------



## WLC

When ecotoxicologists and other scientists tell you that the evidence overwhelmingly shows that neonicotinoids are acting as environmental contaminants, some type of action needs to be taken.

I'll leave the details up to the task force for now.

However, if neonic technology needs to go, so be it.

It has it never been 'my job' to replace defective products.

That's what industry does.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Gasoline is an "_environmental contaminant_", as are a host of other common products in everyday use. Why aren't they banned?:s The answer is that, on balance after considering _all _factors, they are the best _compromise _available.

Promoting the banning of any given product is plain _foolish_ if you don't consider what will replace the banned product. _That _is what WLC has refused to discuss. :lpf:


----------



## WLC

Dave Burrup said:


> WLC I have asked you this before as have others, and I have never seen you answer the question. If the neonics are banned what are we going to use instead?
> Dave


Don't get yourself all worked up.

I've answered the question: my first choice would be RNAi based technology.

For example, a company like Monsanto has assembled everything they need to go forward.

I know because I've followed it in the 'trades'.

It also has a very short turn around time.

They can respond almost immediately to any problem.

So, don't tell me I haven't responded when I do so repeatedly and consistently.

But, it's still not my job, or my problem.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Of course, RNAi based technology is not available in the pesticide replacement marketplace, unless WLC can point to some commercially available product. 



And who is to say that RNAi based technology is going to work out exactly how WLC thinks it will, without ... uhh ... _unexpected problems_?


----------



## WLC

There was that recent FIFRA committee meeting for putting together a regulatory framework for RNAi technology.

So, it's not like there isn't a replacement technology being readied while the issue is being debated and studied.

YOU try to make it seem as if the only choice available should neonicotinoids be restricted are older technologies.

That's the same old strawman argument.

I'm surprised no one is mentioning a more IPM approach.

The solution to the overuse of neonicotinoids doesn't have to be a total ban, just better regulation.


----------



## squarepeg

good points wlc, are we moderating a bit? 

randy has been advocating for more ipm for some time now.

where are we with rnai technology?


----------



## WLC

I've always been reasonable and moderate. 

Currently, we're still waiting for the regulatory framework for the application of RNAi technology to be put in place.

Monsanto is ready to go.

I don't think that the EPA, etc., is up to speed though.

The advances in RNAi technology, and biotechnology in general, have essentially outstripped the government's ability to regulate it.

It's moving so quickly, that there are dozens of webinars that I simply can't make the time to follow.

I still regularly get emails about new kits and services becoming available for example.


----------



## sqkcrk

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Gasoline is an "_environmental contaminant_", as are a host of other common products in everyday use. Why aren't they banned?:s The answer is that, on balance after considering _all _factors, they are the best _compromise _available.
> 
> Promoting the banning of any given product is plain _foolish_ if you don't consider what will replace the banned product. _That _is what WLC has refused to discuss. :lpf:


We threw the beetles into the can w/ the gasoline. In case I didn't make that clear. I don't recall what happened to the gas once we got finished picking beetle.


----------



## Oldtimer

Prolly went into the moonshine?


----------



## squarepeg

Oldtimer said:


> Prolly went into the moonshine?


 waste not, want not.


----------



## broodhead

I will take this opportunity to give you some first hand info on Imidicloprids and their impact on honeybees. During this past twelve months I have lost over 100 colonies as a direct result of Neonic spraying. The State Of Florida has allowed citrus growers to increase the frequency of their spraying to combat citrus greening. These are being sprayed every 21 days and even the University Of Florida bee experts have come up with a document called True Bloom that confuses the issue as to a timetable for spraying. Only after I complained was the document rewritten to include that the label instructions for the chemical being sprayed must be followed. 
I have moved forward with legal action to recover my losses, the grower in question was give the opportunity to settle the claim at a reasonable payout, but chose to present me with a settlement agreement that would basically put me out of the bee business and wanted for me to agree to held harmless stipulations on future claims even resulting from their negligence.
So when test results came back at rates of 100 times the lethal dose you have to ask a few questions. Is everything really being done to protect the honeybee and humans, how long will take before these chemicals being sprayed at these alarming frequencies to show up in fruits and vegetables. 
Don't take me wrong, I am not a tree hugging type of guy, but reality speaks volumes.


----------

