I would recommend you read the book, rather than trying to interpret a single table on its own.Originally Posted by Neils
Maybe things will become a lot clearer to you then.
I would recommend you read the book, rather than trying to interpret a single table on its own.
Maybe things will become a lot clearer to you then.
The conspiracy as the last resort = no valid argument.The USDA is another one of those agencies that suffer from 'revolving doors':
Employees of the pesticide corporations work for a few years in senior positions at USDA an then go 'home' again.
You can't expect genuine results as long as such malpractice is allowed.
Our bees have no access to commercial crops so no access to neonics, nor do they have varroa. I have had a huge, prosperous colony collapse completely in a matter of a couple of weeks due to acarine. This was last autumn.
I also lost a complete colony this November (double brood, four full supers for three summers in a row - unusual for here) due to unsuccessful supersedure in August. I can blame an extra-long autumn holiday and weather on return too poor for proper inspection of brood boxes for this mishap. However, claiming CCD might cover up what was, in essence, poor beekeeping on my part. I read the signs, understood the signs, but was just too busy with other things to do anything about it.
In post 29 I listed about 10 factors which are known to cause dwindle or collapse, sometimes quite quickly.
Calling any dwindle or collapse CCD without clear evidence makes no sense especially as these things have been happening for decades before neonicotinoids were around.
It should be the easiest thing in the world to demonstrate.
Neoticotinoids used in an area = possibility of CCD in that area.
No neonicotinoids used in an area = no possibility of CCD
Yet we get neonicotinoid areas without CCD and neonicotinoid free areas with CCD present. I cited Dee Lusby's organic operation earlier.
Australia uses neonicotinoids and does not have CCD.
Australia has no varroa though.
What is happening here is that Doris is using dwindle as a synonym of CCD and that is not a valid position to take imho.
Last edited by Jon; 10-03-2013 at 09:28 PM.
Bromenshenk & Bayer funding
Unfortunately Mr. Bromenshenk is one of those scientist who has taken the pesticide industry's shilling, and worse, he forgot to mention it when he went public with his research:
What a scientist didn't tell the New York Times about his study on bee deaths
...
What the Times article did not explore -- nor did the study disclose -- was the relationship between the study's lead author, Montana bee researcher Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk, and Bayer Crop Science. In recent years Bromenshenk has received a significant research grant from Bayer to study bee pollination. Indeed, before receiving the Bayer funding, Bromenshenk was lined up on the opposite side: He had signed on to serve as an expert witness for beekeepers who brought a class-action lawsuit against Bayer in 2003. He then dropped out and received the grant.
Bromenshenk's company, Bee Alert Technology, which is developing hand-held acoustic scanners that use sound to detect various bee ailments, will profit more from a finding that disease, and not pesticides, is harming bees. Two years ago Bromenshenk acknowledged as much to me when I was reporting on the possible neonicotinoid/CCD connection for Conde Nast Portfolio magazine, which folded before I completed my reporting.
...
http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/08/news...tune/index.htm
That article is a disgrace and Jerry Bromenshenk considered litigation at the time.
This tactic of starting a smear campaign against any scientist whose findings do not fit the campaigner's prejudice is an obnoxious tactic and a sign of a lost argument.
You started this same stuff last week on the US Beesource forum and got pulled up for it.
So how does this invalidate his work?
Are you suggesting the results are falsified?
As Administrator of this forum and responsible to the SBA Executive I just want to add to Jon's post. That was an appalling smear and one I've said repeatedly I hope ended in court with the journalist responsible brought to account. Jerry had a small contract with a breeding company with was subsequently bought by Bayer as I understand it.
It is madness to persist in this character assassination whenever someone says (or in Jerry's case publishes) something that isn't on message as far as the pesticide zealots are concerned.
iridovirus failure
Bromenshenk obviously chose not to go for litigation as the claims of failure to disclose were correct.
In his research he 'discovered' that some iridovirus was behind CCD, a claim which couldn't be verified by anybody else and the idea was soon dropped.
I have no idea how he came to his conclusions.
Last edited by Stromnessbees; 10-03-2013 at 11:02 PM.
The technology wasn't that hard to understand.
We previously discussed this paper here, and although the excitement of having fully explained CCD now seems inappropriate, it was an interesting thread.
http://www.sbai.org.uk/sbai_forum/sh...-CCD-explained
Buried in there we have Doris saying this:
I don't think the iridovirus is likely to have much to do with CCD either as subsequent research found problems with his methodology but that is no excuse to start the smears against people who hold views different from your own.
If you want to debate the issue you need to leave behind the smears and the conspiracy.
Biobees welcomes conspiracy according to the site owner so maybe you could save it for that audience many of whom are quite happy to listen to unsubstantiated claims. Most places have a requirement for evidence.
If you want to convince people you have to put together a cogent argument rather than resorting to abuse.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks