# us court of appeals on neonics



## johnwratcliff

So why aren't people. Making a bigger deal out of this? I thought I'd see more chat about it. 

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/1...tml?post_id=1959182950972883_1959182947639550


----------



## Gazelle

*Re: us court of appeals*

I too was suprised.


----------



## jwcarlson

*Re: us court of appeals*

Personal opinion from here from the middle of monoculture... neonics are a convenient excuse for losses when people are not taking care of their bees. Don't be fooled. Varroa is the number one issue facing bees today.

I think most people have a pretty good grip on that fact and they don't see this as a huge boon for the bees, because... well... it isn't. 

http://www.pollinator.org/PDFs/OPERAReport.pdf

Here are some snippets from the above link:


> So far, none of the pesticide-related
> bee monitoring approaches found a
> clear connection between bee colony
> mortality as a general phenomenon
> and the exposure of bees to pesticides.
> 
> *France*
> One of the most extensive monitoring approaches is
> being conducted in France to survey the bee safety of the
> thiamethoxam seed treatment in maize. The implemented
> survey is aimed at evaluating the potential side-effects of the
> use of coated seeds on pollinating insects, and more particularly
> on the honey bee.
> This survey was implemented over 3 years, covered 3 to 6 regions and involved several monitoring sites
> for each region. Sites had intensive maize cultivation grown from either treated or non-treated maize
> seeds. Apiaries were settled before sowing and remained until overwintering. Final data indicated a very
> low exposure of bees to residues of thiamethoxam over the entire growth period, and *highlighted no
> product-related effect on colonies, even after several years of cohabitation*





> 2001 is the turning point where better honey prices for European producers and the support program financed
> by the European Commission began to strongly influence the stocks. Prior to 2007 there was a strong increase
> in the total number of beehives. Since 2007, the lower price of honey has a negative influence on the profitability
> of beekeeping, generating a strong decrease in the number of beehives almost to the level of 2001.
> The data suggest that there is a strong correlation between the number of beehives and the prices
> of honey and other apicultural products.





> To date, the outcome of the reported multifactorial monitoring projects seems to suggest that the
> parasitic mite V. destructor is the main causative factor involved in honey bee colony mortality in Europe;
> about this conclusion there seems to be consensus in the vast majority of the scientific community


The scientific community understands, but Aunt Suzie who got two bee hives because she heard all the bees were dying blames neonics while not even knowing that varroa exists. Just because we hear more about neonics and we hear more noise from people like Aunt Suzie doesn't mean they're right.

They mention that US "CCD" was pretty much unique to the US, perhaps from early mite treatment methods?


----------



## LeifLiberty

*Re: us court of appeals*

Maybe they have not heard yet. This is great news! Thanks for posting John.


----------



## LeifLiberty

*Re: us court of appeals*



jwcarlson said:


> Personal opinion from here from the middle of monoculture... neonics are a convenient excuse for losses when people are not taking care of their bees. Don't be fooled. Varroa is the number one issue facing bees today.


Do we know that bees are not somehow weaker or more susceptible to all types of pests and pathogens as a result of exposure to pesticides on and in the plants they visit?


----------



## jwcarlson

*Re: us court of appeals*

LeifLiberty,
I added a link and some quotes in an above post (edited while you were posting).

I encourage you to read the report and form an opinion. I'm not saying that neonics aren't one of the thousand cuts honey bees face... but I think to act like it's the biggest cut or even a meaningful one, is to miss the real issue facing bees.


----------



## LeifLiberty

*Re: us court of appeals*

Thank you, I will check out the pdf also.


----------



## RayMarler

*Re: us court of appeals*

I agree jwcarlson. The biggest harm in beekeeping now is varroa. If you manage the varroa, the beehives will almost manage themselves, all you'll have to do is keep adding boxes.


----------



## jwcarlson

*Re: us court of appeals*

RayMarler, I've scuffed my knees a bit on the varroa management sidewalk... but it's starting to become apparent to me that the "good ole days" of beekeeping might actually be right now if you know what you're doing. What's sickening is when I talk to new beekeepers who know varroa exist but think that it isn't a problem. I suppose a small part of me wanted to believe that, but if you watch your bees it becomes readily apparent in very short order that varroa is indeed a problem if not THE problem. I think I've started getting my head screwed on straight in these first two years. 

I'll manage the varroa and raise the best queens I can from the colonies that show the most resistance. I'll also not fool myself into thinking my tiny speck on the global map that is apiculture will have an affect beyond the three miles surrounding my apiaries. I'm content letting people who know much more than I do figure out the varroa puzzle, which I have no doubt they eventually will. It just won't be some dude banging a couple boxes together in his backyard who does it.

That said... there is a whole lot of misinformation out there available here and most anywhere you can find bee stuff. We could all benefit ourselves from a little better vetting of our sources.


----------



## Beeathlon

*Re: us court of appeals*

About the OperaReport above: See who also contributed: Bayer and Syngenta! Do not take everything written on paper as the truth.


----------



## jwcarlson

*Re: us court of appeals*



Beeathlon said:


> About the OperaReport above: See who also contributed: Bayer and Syngenta! Do not take everything written on paper as the truth.


My colonies are nestled here in the Midwest where we have more GMO/Neonic corn and soybeans than we have grass. Maybe Bayer and Sygenta contributed because they're being crucified by soothsayers and charlatans who see 50 bees crawling on the ground and think "MONSANTO IS KILLING MY BEES!". It's sexy and in vogue to be against big this and big that... big oil, big pharma, big ag, etc. What we really need to be against is big ignorance, big hidden agendas, and big varroa populations in our hives.

Are pesticides killing bees? Absolutely.
However... Varroa are outkilling them 10,000:1... and probably way way more.

The sad/sick/disheartening part is that this little nugget will be forwarded all over the place and some new beekeeper is going to read the headline and think "Wow, I'm home free now!" That beekeeper's bees will die this winter, and they'll be on here or at their local meeting blaming it on their neighbor using pesticides off label or the local farmer for spraying while the sun was up months earlier or some other nonsense. They really need to step back and take a look at their bees.

According to our state apiarist: 56% of beekeepers in Iowa do not treat their colonies for varroa mites. These same beekeepers have been suffering losses ranging from 50-70%+ here over the last few winters. Meanwhile treating beekeepers are enjoying losses in the 5-10% range during the same nasty winters. I talked with one of these guys at the state fair a couple years ago (the year I had started keeping bees). He'd lost 100% for something like three years running. And about 10 colonies each time. Super nice guy... maybe not the best beekeeper to be leading a local club like he is, however.

I guess it takes all kinds. He's treating this year though. I suspect he'll have more bees than he knows what to do with in 2016.

I have met a good number of first year folks and I am consistently blown away about their lack of knowledge about bees. Hard to believe people will plop down hundreds of dollars and not read a single thing about them or formulate any sort of plan. Could you imagine if they got a rescue dog (which is what package bees are... they are going to need beekeeper help to survive) and then never even took it to the vet to see if it had worms, fleas, etc? Then wake up one morning covered in flea bites and blame it on the dog food manufacturer?


----------



## soarwitheagles

*Re: us court of appeals*

John, I am thankful you posted that article.

Since I am a total newbie, I should probably keep my mouth shut...but I couldn't resist...

Nearly every reliable source I have read appears to agree upon one major point: "No scientific cause for CCD _*has been proven*_."

What do I consider reliable sources?

1. Agricultural Research Service, USDA's internal research agency. http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/docs.htm?docid=15572
2. EPA also states there is still ongoing research to discover the true source of BCC. 

Here is their statement: There have been many theories about the cause of CCD, but the researchers who are leading the effort to find out why are now focused on these factors:
Increased losses due to the invasive varroa mite (a pest of honey bees).
New or emerging diseases such as Israeli Acute Paralysis virus and the gut parasite Nosema.
Pesticide poisoning through exposure to pesticides applied to crops or for in-hive insect or mite control.
Stress bees experience due to management practices such as transportation to multiple locations across the country for providing pollination services. 
Changes to the habitat where bees forage.
Inadequate forage/poor nutrition.
Potential immune-suppressing stress on bees caused by one or a combination of factors identified above.

3. Journal of Apicultural Research 

One of the most objective articles I have read so far...

You can find their article here 

file:///C:/Users/Pursue%20Him/Downloads/49%201%2001.pdf

4. plos.org

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0032151

I am less than a preschooler when it comes to keeping bees. Green horn, wet behind the ears, you name it, that's me.

But I saw a strange thing happen this spring...

We live 2 miles away from large walnut orchards. Commercial beekeepers truck in large numbers of beehives every year and place them right next to these large walnut orchards...

This spring, I was dropping my wife off in town early in the morning...and there was a crop duster plane spraying the orchards and/or grape vineyards...with a white powdery substance. I thought nothing of it, but we both made sure windows were up in the truck and vents were closed....

Fast forward a few hours later...

At our ranch, I began to notice bees flying erratically everywhere...it was so strange because I never noticed this before...

Within minutes, bees were crashing into the ground everywhere...and I am not talking hundreds...I am talking 1,000's. For the entire afternoon, I watched as bee after bee crashed into the ground and walk drunkenly around for a few minutes until every one of them died...

I have never seen that before or since...but I am fairly new to living out on a ranch [I grew up a city slicker]. I am convinced whatever insecticide that plane was spraying did a major number on those commercial bee hives...that plane sprayed within 50 feet of those hives...

At that time, we had no living bee hives at our property...now we have two beehives.

We just killed literally thousands of Varroa Mites in our hives using the Apivar in the last 42 days. I believe our hives may not have survived without killing the mites. I look forward to doing mite counts in Oct.-Nov. and also using the Ox vaporizer if necessary.

But to be honest with you, I have never ever seen thousands of bees bite the dust in just a few hours like I saw this last spring...

It's me,

The preschooler bee learner...

Soar


----------



## beepro

*Re: us court of appeals*



jwcarlson said:


> .... it becomes readily apparent in very short order that varroa is indeed a problem if not THE problem.
> I'm content letting people who know much more than I do figure out the varroa puzzle....It just won't be some dude banging a couple boxes together in his backyard who does it.



You wanna bet?
I'm a backyard dude banging a couple of boxes every year for the last 4 years ever since I started in beekeeping. Yes, composite particle
roof boards (siding) for the bee hives and top covers too. Convert that to make the stationary oav gadget. When you expand your horizon in beekeeping there is no limit to your creativity and imagination (invention.) Have you expanded your imagination yet? Yes, even to a backyard dude like myself. Maybe whoever owns this technology
will be the one to solve the mite issues in the future. Who knows, right?
Want to see my V2 version expanded oav hive coverage of the on demand stationary oav gadget on vid in action? It is still an ongoing
research and improvement for me. Let's see what V3 version will look like. Gotta be better than windows 8, eh. Hey, even Microsoft started from
the garage. You have not even seen what I have discovered in my backyard beekeeping yet.
So far giving me good result at controlling the mites in my bee operation. Like you said control the mites and
the bees will take care of themselves. This will lessen the needed treatment enabling the mite fighting genetics to establish itself over time.
How can there be a healthy mite fighting colony if every year it is plagued by the mites, right? Let's reverse it! Get rid of the mites and let the bees
thrive first. Let's see what the vsh genetics can do for me this time.
I anticipate no more colony loss due to the mites and less mite related diseases--EFB, dwv, etc.


See it for yourself:


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: us court of appeals*



johnwratcliff said:


> So why aren't people. Making a bigger deal out of this? I thought I'd see more chat about it.


There's a couple reasons why reaction may not have been as wild as you thought.

One is that if one poison is banned, the farmers have to use another poison. Result - nothing fundamentally solved.

Reason two is this has been getting argued around for years and there is a certain amount of "argument exhaustion", and cynicism around the 1/2 truths and untruths that have been circulated about this issue.

Couple examples of that, certain pesticides were banned in Europe to huge fanfare from save the bees greeny types in those parts. The predicted massive resurgence in bee numbers since, did not happen. Making it appear the banned pesticides were a non issue. Don't hear anything about that though.

The other, is that for years we have been getting told of a looming "beepocolypse" with alarmist articles talking about people who lost 60%, 70%, or 80% of their bees, and suggesting extinction is just around the corner. After years of this, these greeny activists have suddenly realised that beehive numbers in the USA have actually increased. So they've changed their story. If you look at the latest greeny save the bees literature, there has been a shift. They are now not bothered so much about domestic honeybees, it's all around native pollinators.

In fact the more extreme among them are now calling domestic honeybees the enemy.

Call me a cynic? Probably, a person can get that way.


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: us court of appeals*

Amen, OT. Would going back to Organophosphates and Pyrethroids be better? Sitting next to an Ag Chem Rep at a Pollinator Protection Task Force Meeting I asked him, "If neonics aren't used, what kind of chemical would be used?" and he answered, "Prior to neonics, OPs and Pyrethroids were used. Today neonics are used in combination with Bt(GMO) corn."

There is a study being done at Cornell University to determine what chemicals may be found in pollen in test hives. I wonder what will happen if no neonics are found or if found, found at low levels.


----------



## johnwratcliff

*Re: us court of appeals*

i'm glad my post sparked this discussion. JW and others, varroa is a huge problem. I don't like to treat myself but I have taken the position that using some methods like breaks in brood cycle and i'm also using EO's as well. varroa is a problem. I see the article that I attached as more of a bigger picture issue. you all are 100% correct. pesticides in any form are bad. but I think most have been dealing with pesticides for a long time. we will always be dealing with them. trust me I am not against big chemical companies. but i'm always interested when folks have to try something different. hopefully this will get some to look at other chemicals that are not as harmfully. anyway i'm glad we are at least talking about it.


----------



## jwcarlson

*Re: us court of appeals*

Glad to see OT and Sqkcrk chime in. The link I posted above talks about the apparent lack of benefit from neonic ban in the EU, particularly in France which was perhaps the most widely publicized. MSN isn't throwing stories about how thr bans didn't work up on their homepage and all the bee dying talk is "good for business" in a sense. It's kind of like people talking about local honey for allergies when zero evidence exists to say it does anything. But that doesn't fit the narrative.

If bees largely don't forage on GMO and neonic treated crops... When would there be any in the hive?


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: us court of appeals*

About bees foraging on neonicitinoid treated crops. Take corn for example, some beekeepers have bees among neonic treated corn and have no problems. My personal belief is that this is because corn pollen just is not that attractive to bees. If there are other crops around that are more attractive the corn won't get touched. Bees are only going to collect corn pollen if nothing else is happening for them.

But that can be when there are issues, if bees are forced to work neonic laced pollen due to nothing better available, that's when there can be problems.


----------



## kaizen

*Re: us court of appeals*

I'm not getting too excited about this HUGE victory because its not. No one is saying the product won't be back. the lawsuit is based on what I will call a technicality whereas they will have to do more testing and get more data to present to the epa. the win in the lawsuit imo just says someone made a mistake and lets do it al over. I didn't see anywhere that anyone has said that chemical will never be made or sold again.


----------



## jwcarlson

*Re: us court of appeals*



beepro said:


> You wanna bet?
> I'm a backyard dude banging a couple of boxes every year for the last 4 years ever since I started in beekeeping.


I'm talking about the silver bullet queens with a single little horn sprouting from their heads. They fart rainbows and everyone of their offspring chews mites in half for the first three days of their lives before taking up nurse bee duties.

Not about treating bees. It's pretty obvious most can treat bees and keep them alive.


----------



## Beeathlon

*Re: us court of appeals*

All I am saying is: Follow the money. If this was an "independent" booklet, it would be easier to buy the conclusions. Be wary of all sponsored articles. They are made for a reason. And no, Im no "hippy" person buying all the "natural" nonsense.


----------



## jwcarlson

*Re: us court of appeals*



Beeathlon said:


> All I am saying is: Follow the money. If this was an "independent" booklet, it would be easier to buy the conclusions. Be wary of all sponsored articles. They are made for a reason. And no, Im no "hippy" person buying all the "natural" nonsense.


So trust a booklet published by someone or some organization that may have a big beef with the people they're blaming. It cuts both ways, obviously. But for some reason people want to be blind to the fact that individuals and bee clubs and the like can be just as biased as any large company. Again... anyone who thinks neonics are the main reason... or even A main reason that bees are dying isn't paying enough attention.

I know bees get sprayed and die... it happens.


----------



## Nabber86

*Re: us court of appeals*



LeifLiberty said:


> Do we know that bees are not somehow weaker or more susceptible to all types of pests and pathogens as a result of exposure to pesticides on and in the plants they visit?


The onslaught of varroa being so complete across the country, taking pesticides out of the equation is not going to help much. The root problem needs to be addressed, not the pesticide rabbit hole.


----------



## AstroBee

*Re: us court of appeals*



sqkcrk said:


> Today neonics are used in combination with Bt(GMO) corn."


Actually, today in cotton country, it is all of the above. Seed coating, neonic foliar spray, Pyrethroids spray, and Organophosphates spray, and sometimes mixed in the same tank. Oh yeah, and Bt too. This is on one farm in one season. I'm really not against any of these pesticides, and if applied properly, according to label laws, I've seen minimal impact on my bees. However, when the farmer strays (even a little) off label, there is a much much bigger impact.


----------



## Beeathlon

*Re: us court of appeals*



jwcarlson said:


> So trust a booklet published by someone or some organization that may have a big beef with the people they're blaming. It cuts both ways, obviously. But for some reason people want to be blind to the fact that individuals and bee clubs and the like can be just as biased as any large company. Again... anyone who thinks neonics are the main reason... or even A main reason that bees are dying isn't paying enough attention.
> 
> I know bees get sprayed and die... it happens.


I do not trust any article or booklet. Authors tend to cherry pick results they find fall in line in what they already believe consciously or unconsciously. That being said I do not think neonicotinids is the main problem. As you say varroa is probably the main challenge. Still neoniconitids are insecticides with neurotoxic effect. I am pretty sure insecticides are harmful for honeybees under certain conditions as you suggest and they might be so without being directly sprayed.


----------



## aunt betty

*Re: us court of appeals*

Magazines are full of crap like this. 
I mean look up who owns the publication and see why they love product X so much in this month's issue.
They think we're stupid and believe stuff just because it was written down and printed on glossy paper. 

Once I read a big article in Fur-Fish-n-Game magazine that was all about how this "skunk stuff" masks your human scent and all you have to do is...go shoot a deer. I did a little research and found that the author owned the skunk stuff company and this beautifully subjective article...was an ad. 

It convinced me 100% that a deer's nose would say "skunky human" if I had tried the stuff. I don't even hunt deer but read the magazines for laughs. F-F-n G is a magazine about hunting trapping fishing waterfowl etc. Very good magazine but not so subjective.


----------



## aunt betty

*Re: us court of appeals*



AstroBee said:


> Actually, today in cotton country, it is all of the above. Seed coating, neonic foliar spray, Pyrethroids spray, and Organophosphates spray, and sometimes mixed in the same tank. Oh yeah, and Bt too. This is on one farm in one season. I'm really not against any of these pesticides, and if applied properly, according to label laws, I've seen minimal impact on my bees. However, when the farmer strays (even a little) off label, there is a much much bigger impact.


I am quite sure that each and every rice farmer in Arkansas follows directions to the letter. @ (sarcasm)
The cotton farmers in the bootheel of Missouri...same thing.


----------



## Arnie

*Re: us court of appeals*

I've watched the media, pop culture, and the educational system change over the last 45 years and one of the changes they have effected is to teach us, with constant repetition, to blame 'Big (insert corporation of choice here)' ..........'Big Tobacco gave me lung cancer'...'Big Beer made me an alcoholic'.... 'Big Pharma ruined my health'........'Big Banks are making me poor' ...................and so forth.

And so it is with beekeepers....."Monsanto, Bayer..... they killed my bees!!". It's easy, requires no thought and gives us comfort that it's not our fault. 

Except, it appears not to be true. It's more complicated than "Big Pesticide did it!!!"


----------



## Beeathlon

So "big tobacco" is looking out for the publics best interest and not their bottom line, interesting. All companies mentioned are looking out for their own best interest i.e. the interest of the share holders/owners. That is fine, but they must also be willing to be scrutinized and their intentions questioned when they all of a sudden become interested and caring about the flowers and the bees. They seem to be doing one thing and saying another. Its a PR stunt.


----------



## aunt betty

Beeathlon said:


> So "big tobacco" is looking out for the publics best interest and not their bottom line, interesting. All companies mentioned are looking out for their own best interest i.e. the interest of the share holders/owners. That is fine, but they must also be willing to be scrutinized and their intentions questioned when they all of a sudden become interested and caring about the flowers and the bees. They seem to be doing one thing and saying another. Its a PR stunt.


winner winner chicken dinner. I am skeptical when Big (whatever) decides to use the media to get the perception out there that they are nice guys. They are NOT nice guys unless you own 51% and then they are angels (to you).


----------



## jim lyon

I understand the skepticism many have about large corporations and the profits that many make. The problem, here, is that it's mostly a "fall back" argument used by those who don't wish to read and listen and try to make a reasonable judgement on a product.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Farmers are going to use pesticides to control pests that damage their crops. That is pretty much a 'given' and is not going to change. 

If 'neonics' are forced off the market, will the replacement pesticides be better for the bees? If you can't answer 'yes' to that that question, then making neonics illegal is counterproductive.


----------



## LeifLiberty

I do not know what pesticides are harmful or safe for use with bees. I know that farmers often need to eliminate pests that attack their crops and or livestock, the same way that bee keepers do. It would be useful to how a pesticide affects honey bees so that harm to the bees can be avoided or mitigated. If a farmer knows how to use a pesticide to minimize harm to pollinators, it is in his/her interest to do so. 

Perhaps all that is needed is to temporarily halt the use of neonics until an "on-label" use can be determined that minimizes harm to bees?

Something like GMOs are far more frightening to me because they are systemic and thus impossible to minimize pollinator exposure. Also GMOs often have the fecundity to transfer these toxic traits to wild-type organisms.


----------



## Nabber86

LeifLiberty said:


> Perhaps all that is needed is to temporarily halt the use of neonics until an "on-label" use can be determined that minimizes harm to bees..


The other fall back argument, "We need more testing!". With the exception of a few noisy deniers, the testing is done and there is a scientific consensus the neonics are safe for the environment. The game is over. 

With one caveat that has been posted hundreds of times on beesource: Don't fed your bees syrup laced with pesticides.


----------



## Nabber86

aunt betty said:


> winner winner chicken dinner. I am skeptical when Big (whatever) decides to use the media to get the perception out there that they are nice guys. They are NOT nice guys unless you own 51% and then they are angels (to you).


Please define what you consider "Big". Is it anyone who makes a profit or any company that you don't own 51% of the stock? Do you dislike Big Beekeeping (commercial outfits with 5,000+ hives)? How about Big Environmental (Siearra Club)? Big Internet? Where do you draw the line? I suspect the answer is a third fall back position: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.


----------



## Barry

http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/scotland-s-gmo-crop-ban-defies-science-economics-and-common-sense/



> The average Scottish potato will receive upward of ten chemical treatments to stave off potato blight (think Irish potato famine). Each treatment is a cost to farmers. Each treatment is an impact on the environment. Each application necessarily involves a tractor, fuel and labour costs, and it is repeated ten times.
> 
> 
> Traditional agriculture is heavily reliant on substantial chemical input to fertilise and protect from pests and disease. Now imagine a genetically modified, blight-resistant potato, no chemical treatments, no tractors, no fuel, no labour costs. Exactly which is the “clean and green” approach?


See post #32


----------



## sqkcrk

I was at a Pollinator Protection meeting yesterday at the Akwesasne Mohawk Reservation and one of the people there was from the EPA. She said that Neonics were developed for use because they are less harmful to mammals than organophospahtes and pyrethroids are.

So if neonics are done away with what will they be replaced with? That is always my question when people are in favor of getting rid of neonics. I haven't gotten an answer yet.

As far as reading reports on particular pesticides one should consider the source and the biases that are inherent and then read a number of different papers on the same material.

Let's not forget that not all neonics are created equal. There are a number of types.


----------



## Arnie

Beeathlon said:


> So "big tobacco" is looking out for the publics best interest and not their bottom line, interesting..


That's not what I said.

Of course, all businesses must look after their bottom line. That is obvious.

My point is that it has become a knee jerk reaction to simply blame Big Whomever instead of doing the homework to understand the problem fully. 

If I expected a business to have my best interest at heart I would be naive. By the same token, if I assume businesses are the bad guys all the time I would be equally naive.

Edit:
You can see what I am talking about when people are willing to accept any research that is critical of a big company, but automatically reject any research that is not critical of a big company. It's a clear bias and it's so difficult to get people to see it, partly because that bias is supported by media, pop culture, etc.


----------



## aunt betty

When it comes to science and business (big) the facts are not facts.
Most of us are not old enough to recall the fight that went on in the US congress over tetra-ethyl lead. 
According to DuPont it's completely 100% safe. (or was).

They spent gads of money trying to sway opinion on this and what ended it was a scientist who was studying something totally unrelated. He needed a 100% lead-free environment to runs some tests and he could not find anywhere (ANYWHERE) on the planet to do his testing so he attacked DuPont, and won. 

Now can you see why I am skeptical about anything scientific a corporation says? (they will lie and pay scientists to lie)

Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont...what's the difference?


----------



## Arnie

ab, you just proved my point. Thank you.

Of course we should be skeptical of science and scientists. They are human and have an agenda just like all the rest of us. But to be skeptical of only one side of the equation is, in my opinion, naive.


----------



## sqkcrk

:thumbsup:


----------



## aunt betty

Arnie said:


> ab, you just proved my point. Thank you.
> 
> Of course we should be skeptical of science and scientists. They are human and have an agenda just like all the rest of us. But to be skeptical of only one side of the equation is, in my opinion, naive.


Uh, I am a scientist. (to some ppl science is a religion) 
How it works

Purpose 
Procedure
Data
Analysis
Conclusion 

I think they added a sixth step since I got out of college. ???
Can I get an amen?


----------



## Nabber86

aunt betty said:


> Uh, I am a scientist. (to some ppl science is a religion)
> 
> Can I get an amen?



Christian Scientist? That would explain a lot.


----------



## Arnie

The 6th step..... Bias.
Everyone has a world view and it affects the conclusions we come to.

There are many scientists in our area. I know some of them and it is quite clear how their analysis of data is affected by their world view. It cannot be avoided. 

And so, yea, they reject or minimize the data that conflicts with their world view. It's human nature. Scientists are fallible humans.

So I think it is wise to take information through a filter.


----------



## Ian

When hives are dying , the urge to point fingers sometimes is overwhelming. 
Those unknown, odd things that happen in our hives keeps our attention towards this issue


----------



## kingd

I know an old beekeeper that that firmly believes that that mowing is the biggest problem,not the neonics.

Sorry if this is off topic a little but he believes that people are pointing their fingers at the wrong thing.


----------

