More misinterpreted science - watch out for the spin-fest

[Stromnessbees]

For your point of view it is not a debate - it is a campaign to get neonicotinoids banned.
You have already decided that is what you want, so the exercise from you point of view is to cherrypick, cut and paste, bold and highlight, post clips from youtube and links to websites which campaign against pesticides. In short, a low brow tabloid approach based on the idiosyncratic style of borderbeeman.

Fair enough, each to their own, but I think in a different way.
I am prepared to change my mind as evidence changes.
I have already moved from a position similar to the one you hold now, based on an impartial evaluation of the evidence, and I would be quite prepared to change position again should compelling evidence be presented that neonicotinoids are a big problem for bees.

I think they can be highly dangerous in certain situations and there is no doubt that planter dust is lethal to bees.
The overwhelming evidence around seed treatments is that they are not causing a major problem through pollen or nectar at the levels typically found and foraged by honeybees..
If insecticides from whatever class are used, it is critical to work out which are more dangerous than others to non target species - homo sapiens for example.

You clearly see this as a crusade whereas I see it as an exercise in gathering evidence. That's where we differ.

Jon, I used to be genuinely neutral in my attitude to these pesticides, as all my older forum posts will prove.
It's only the fierce reaction that I received on this forum when I voiced modest concerns about pesticides and GM that made me research the topic.

What I found is that especially on this forum, but also in other places, like BeeL, there is a huge campaign ongoing, downplaying the effects of these pesticides on bees.

In the light of that I have decided to speak out against the deception and to call for a ban of these products.


You claim to have read most of the relevant studies on neonicotinoid toxicity. This one has proven more than 10 years ago that neonics have detrimental effects on bees even in doses less than 1/1000th of the LD50 in chronic exposure of just a few days:

To test chronic toxicity, worker bees were fed sucrose solutions containing 0.1, 1, and 10 mg/L of imidacloprid and its metabolites for 10 d. Fifty percent mortality was reached at approximately 8 d.

Hence, considering that sucrose syrup was consumed at the mean rate of 12 ml/d and per bee, after an 8-d period the cumulated doses were approximately 0.01, 0.1, and 1 ng/bee (0.1, 1, and 10 mg/kg).

Thus, all tested compounds were toxic at doses 30 to 3,000 (olefin), 60 to 6,000 (imidacloprid), 200 to 20,000 (5-OH-imidacloprid), and over 1,000 to 100,000 (remaining metabolites) times lower than those required to produce the same effect in acute intoxication studies.

For all products tested, bee mortality was induced only 72 h after the onset of intoxication.

DISCREPANCY BETWEEN ACUTE AND CHRONIC TOXICITY INDUCED BY
IMIDACLOPRID AND ITS METABOLITES IN APIS MELLIFERA
SE´ VERINE SUCHAIL, DAVID GUEZ, and LUC P. BELZUNCES*


All the evidence is there, but you choose to ignore it.

Claiming to be neutral is not the same as being neutral.

[Stromnessbees]

Funny, when you read the bits you didn't highlight it appears to match what Gavin said. Even when you read the bits you did highlight but use the rest as context it still appears to match what Gavin said.

There's a self correcting mechanism in play here. Bees affected coming back to the hive don't dance as much as those who aren't affected. So the rest of the colony gets directed to forage that isn't treated.

Now the report says "24h after treatment". That's ambiguous as far as I'm concerned. Does it mean up to 24 hours, at least 24 hours? The wider context which you choose not to highlight states a temporary effect. Now I've not actually had the time to read this yet, I've been busy so I'm purely responding to what's been written here rather than the full study so if I take your interpretation at face value and simply respond to what you've written/quoted I'll do the same for Gavin who states the bees were given 20 times a field realistic dose. Yet they still only exhibited a temporary effect and part of that temporary effect was not communicating that forage to the rest of the colony.

Nellie, you had not answered my concerns either, instead you tried to muddy the waters more.

This question about the 24 hours is ridiculous. Either you can read a scientific study or you can't.
If you don't understand what's meant by 24 hours you should stay away from trying to interpret science for others.



Anyway, I am looking forward to Gavin's explanation of what he had in mind when he posted his twisted interpretation.

[Jon]

DISCREPANCY BETWEEN ACUTE AND CHRONIC TOXICITY INDUCED BY
IMIDACLOPRID AND ITS METABOLITES IN APIS MELLIFERA
SE´ VERINE SUCHAIL, DAVID GUEZ, and LUC P. BELZUNCES*

I read that study years ago. I have the PDF on my computer. One of borderbeeman's favourites. This is like a time warp getting all the cut and paste he did over the internet about 4 years ago.

Have you read it or have you just cut and pasted the abstract? That's a yes or no answer required.

The lab study fed individual bees sucrose spiked with Imidacloprid for 10 days and they died.

And your point is....

That study is 11 years old.
Noone disputes that neonicotinoids and some of their metabolites kill bees, especially at high concentrations. We all agree on that.
It is generally accepted that the way forward is field studies rather than lab studies - looking at what happens to bee colonies in real life under real foraging conditions. That is where the RFID transmitter work such as the recent studies by Whitehorn et al, Schneider et al and Henry et al are a promising way forward for further study.

Feeding toxin to individual bees in a lab tells very little other than poison is poisonous. Doris, please, we all know that already.

The link I posted to the Xerces report (2012) yesterday discusses the Suchail et al (2001) paper on page 19 with regard to a paper by Schmuck et al (2004) which failed to replicate these results. ie the science is not clear if it cannot be replicated by other independent investigators.

[Neils]

stuff not worth quoting.

Grow up.

[Stromnessbees]

Originally Posted by Stromnessbees
stuff not worth quoting.

Grow up.

Nellie, this is not what I said there, do not misquote me!

[Stromnessbees]

I read that study years ago. I have the PDF on my computer. One of borderbeeman's favourites. This is like a time warp getting all the cut and paste he did over the internet about 4 years ago.

Have you read it or have you just cut and pasted the abstract? That's a yes or no answer required.

The lab study fed individual bees sucrose spiked with Imidacloprid for 10 days and they died.

And your point is....

... that your argument of field realistic values is ridiculous in the light of this evidence.

Even minute amounts of these pesticides harm bees, 10 day exposure is fully realistic when you think of the flowering time of an OSR field.


And just as a reminder: scientific research doesn't die of old age!
If we dismissed every study that's older than 10 years we would have hardly any science left.


And by the way: yes, I have read that study and understood its implications, that's why I say we need to ban these pesticides.

[Jon]

And just as a reminder: scientific research doesn't die of old age!

Actually it does in many cases. Apparently the sun does not rotate around the earth and it is said by some that the earth is probably not flat.

And other investigators using the same methodology as Suchail have failed to replicate his findings. (Schmuck et al 2004)

[Stromnessbees]

Actually it does in many cases. Apparently the sun does not rotate around the earth and it is said by some that the earth is probably not flat.

And other investigators using the same methodology as Suchail have failed to replicate his findings. (Schmuck et al 2004)

That wasn't science, that was religious doctrine that was eventually superceded by science.

And you are welcome to link to the study you are quoting, I'm happy to evaluate it.


Anyway, with all these comments you are just trying to distract from the fact that Gavin has been caught red handed twisting science and to make these pesticides appear less harmful than they are.

You and Nellie failed to point out and correct the contradiction, even after I showed you what was going on. This makes you complicit in the deception.

May I ask for your motives for all this?

[Jon]

Doris. Keep your slurs to yourself.
People are sick of it.
You have not pointed out any contradictions and you have failed to show anyone 'what is going on'

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15499497

Shmuck et al (2004) had 4 independent labs replicate the study by Suchail et al., three in Germany and one in the UK.
They failed to replicate his findings.
The no observed effect level for Imidacloprid was 20 ppb.
The level of Imidacloprid found in pollen and nectar is 1-5 ppb.
Only at 50 ppb and 100 ppb was mortality greater than controls.

[Stromnessbees]

Doris. Keep your slurs to yourself.
People are sick of it.
You have not pointed out any contradictions and you have failed to show anyone 'what is going on'

Actually, slurs are your speciality:

Every time you mention somebody who disagrees with you, like Graham White (borderbeeman), Eric McArthur or even Walter Haefeker, the president of the German Professional Beekeepers's Association, you put on a nasty, discrediting tone, which is absolutely not fit for a decent forum and scientific discussion.

Either tidy up your act and try to be civil, or quit.