The supermarket tests were sensitive. I think that 1 ppb was mentioned but whether that was the Limit of Detection or the Limit of Quantification I don't remember. But certainly below the harmful to bee level and nowhere near the level likely to impact on humans.
Does that mean the supermarkets are employed by Bayer too? (sorry been sensible for too long)
I think it was worth asking though. I wouldn't necessarily expect a supermarket to look much past whatever the legal limit of something is.
Naw, I think that they're paranoid of being caught with something unsavoury in the jars on their shelves. Push the limits down to very low levels, insist that the producers both produce to very high standards *and* pay for the tests done by independent labs. Pass on the risk, dump their suppliers and find another if they can't do it.
While chugging through the phone photos, I did find this grab I managed to take on saturday showing the apparent observed performance reduction.
FR is the field realistic dose.
Interesting ... but not necessarily correct! I should read his paper, but am busy on other things at the moment. Did he take an average of all published data for this? There are some studies which show markedly different results than others for field realistic doses (in other words they are probably wrong) so if he's included these then there may be apparent small effects that are not justified. Or I may have got that wrong.
Centre line is the mean result, outside lines are the deviation as I understood it.
[edit] it's in the paper I linked on page 2, grab taken from that:
Actually maybe this does nothing more than illustrate the problem with just chucking charts at people without giving more explicit background detail of what they actually tell you
Last edited by Neils; 16-04-2012 at 11:50 PM.
For which product.Centre line is the mean result, outside lines are the deviation as I understood it.
If the graph refers to Imidacloprid field realistic is 1-2 ppb in pollen and nectar, occasionally 5 ppb which I think translates to 0.1-0.5 ugl so most of the graph is showing a massive dose of pesticide.
The discredited Harvard study was feeding up to 400ugl which not surprisingly killed the colonies eventually.
Last edited by Jon; 17-04-2012 at 10:18 AM.
Well the graph would appear to back up that at approximately 400ugl performance drops to 0, I take that to mean the subject is dead.
This is the harvard study.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7FC...21VRV9Bdw/edit
Page two materials and methods mentions the quantity of imidacloprid fed to the hapless bees.
The Harvard study had *all* treatments dying overwinter and surviving in the medium term. Not sure what James was using as an end point but most studies have been reasonably short-term. It remains an open question why the treated colonies died - the study didn't win any awards for its design.
And yes, the curves mean little given the error bars. No real sign as far as I am concerned that field realistic doses have an effect.
Last edited by gavin; 17-04-2012 at 12:26 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks