Bayer: Low level neonicotinoids kill colonies by interference with grooming behaviour

[tonybloke]

Question 1.
If this is the patented method of irradicating termites; by low- level introduction of neonics into their colonies and thereby reducing their resistance to all their natural challenges, how could the same thing not happen to their close cousins - bees?

Question 2.
As for scientific evidence, should we believe Suchail et al. who confirmed Bayer's claims of the remarkable toxicity of Imidacloprid; or Schmuck et al. who found no deleterious effects of chronic low-level poisoning by neonics on bee colonies ?(Schmuck is Bayer's in-house scientist.)

Question 3.
Why has nobody on this forum, so far, commented on how a pesticide, lethal to termites, has little or no effect on bees?

1, bees are not close cousins of termites, no more than you are.
2, believe who you will.
3, you answered your own question, with your comment.

[Calum]

I think there is a question here around what is wanted from this site.

Should we also allow the anti mobile phone and anti power line crew who've also tried to expand into "Dying bees!!!!!" Evangelise unchallenged on here? have a look on another forum where new beekeepers asking sensible questions are being told that pesticides are the root cause of whatever problem it is they're asking about and seeing their question disintegrate into the standard argument as a result. Should we accept that "Let your bees swarm" is a valid position to hold as a responsible beekeeper? What about non treatment? Where's the line to be drawn on what is supposed to be a sensible beekeeping forum? Should SBAi be synonymous with whatever cause du jour is currently doing the rounds because we'll just sit back and let people claim any old tosh?

The line is drawn where there is no data/studies/logic to support the argument. I think that it is ok to talk about any flaky ideas - better to debunk them than ban the idea of discussing ideas.

Is it acceptable to slander, insult and belittle anyone who dares challenge those views?

No as a group we should talk to each other and treat each other with the respect and politeness we would like others to treats us with. If someone chooses to slander insult or belittle other people, thats the way they would like to be treated themselves.

And as I know someone shouting "What about free speech" can't be far behind, here's a little secret, every single forum on the internet except one has rules about what you can and can't post, whether about general conduct, being work suitable, being nice to each other etc. and this one is no different. The rules have always been generally lax and as a member I'd really like them to stay that way and unwritten. Sadly I think the views expressed that aren't agreed with have to be challenged, because to ignore them is to passively agree their validity. It remains a constant source of annoyance that to challenge the view is to constantly put yourself in the firing line.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
~Edmund Burke

[Bumble]

I think there is a question here around what is wanted from this site.

I'm fairly new to this site, not an SBA member, but I hope you don't mind me adding what I think - which is that I think it should be SBA-related, and a place where poeple can discuss their bee-keeping problems and successes as well as having a bit of a chuckle or a moan now and then.

Should we also allow the anti mobile phone and anti power line crew who've also tried to expand into "Dying bees!!!!!" Evangelise unchallenged on here? have a look on another forum where new beekeepers asking sensible questions are being told that pesticides are the root cause of whatever problem it is they're asking about and seeing their question disintegrate into the standard argument as a result. Should we accept that "Let your bees swarm" is a valid position to hold as a responsible beekeeper? What about non treatment? Where's the line to be drawn on what is supposed to be a sensible beekeeping forum?

I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing any, or all, of those things. Discussion and freely exchanging ideas being the key. People don't always agree with each other, but there's always something to be learned if things are presented rationally, without rancour, and without belittling those who disagree with whatever the current new idea might be.

Is it acceptable to slander, insult and belittle anyone who dares challenge those views?

It's never reasonable to do that. There's also the 'if you disagree with me you're wrong, or an idiot, or in the pay of x-company'. There's no answer to that sort of discussion-killing stuff.

here's a little secret, every single forum on the internet except one has rules about what you can and can't post, whether about general conduct, being work suitable, being nice to each other etc. and this one is no different.

Some internet forums just disappear unwelcome 'guests'. No discussion, no debate. They, and their posts, just vanish if the site owners and moderators don't want them there. The piper and the tune, sort of thing - the one who pays the bills and runs the site has the right to choose what happens on their site.

And as I know someone shouting "What about free speech"

Nobody should think they can use somebody else's site as a personal soapbox and expect to be able to do, or say, whatever they want without being challenged. It's bad manners. The only way that can happen is to have your own site, where you set your own rules and the parameters of any discussion and do your own work to raise the search engine rankings. Blogger, for example, is free and it's dead easy to use.

[gavin]

Thanks everyone.

Just to be clear - don't expect any real change in the way the forum operates. We're still friendly, open folk who appreciate that a light touch is the best way to manage a forum like this one.

But you've all seen what has been happening here, and I hope that you appreciate that some moving of posts and a little restricting here and there will make it a better place.

[Jon]

I think that within this unreferenced, speculative, stream of consciousness garbage which is being posted, perhaps the most ridiculous assertion is this one, and I quote:

Shills use mainly the following strategies...

A third strategy is to continually ask for proof.....

Let me get that straight then, asking someone to back up their claims with proof is part of a strategy to derail the argument and makes you a shill and part of the 'Big Ag' lickspittle 50 cent army.

The problem here is we have two diametrically opposed ways of thinking.
It is a mirror of science vs religion.
One camp is interested in sifting through all the available evidence and taking a position based upon that evidence. The other camp has had a 'calling' and will use science when it appears to support the preconceived notion about pesticide carnage, but will accuse genuine researchers of being fully paid up members of team Bayer when the results suggest otherwise.
I think Calum hit the nail on the head twice, once with the flow chart and a second time with the talk about chess strategies.

[Neils]

I'm fairly new to this site, not an SBA member, but I hope you don't mind me adding what I think - which is that I think it should be SBA-related, and a place where poeple can discuss their bee-keeping problems and successes as well as having a bit of a chuckle or a moan now and then.

I certainly don't mind, you post here, you're a member of this community, your opinions are as welcome as anyone else's.

I think we're largely in agreement over the rest

[Bumble]

I certainly don't mind, you post here, you're a member of this community, your opinions are as welcome as anyone else's.

I think we're largely in agreement over the rest

Thank you, and thanks Gavin for removing the thumb.

[Calum]

I think Calum hit the nail on the head twice, once with the flow chart and a second time with the talk about chess strategies.

oooh thanks, that was like a big electronic hug.
So we are all in agreement. Rosie works for Bayer, pesticides are responsible for global warming and (as they were invented by Bayer in Germany) through release in drinking water caused the personality cult in Germany and Austria that lead to the second world war. (there I did it, finally the final defense in any online argument). Oh and some forum members have been touched, presumably by Jesus or any other deity of your choice.
All those in agreement say 'bovine flatulence on a stick'

[gavin]

Bovine flatulence on a stick.

The agreement was particularly with the big electronic hug.

[Johnthefarmer]

1, bees are not close cousins of termites, no more than you are.
2, believe who you will.
3, you answered your own question, with your comment.

1. I'm fairly confident, even without a qualification in taxonomy, that termites are 'closer' to bees than me, but yes,closer to cockroaches than bees.O.K.

2. I have looked at several of R.Schmuck's papers, and not one is critical of his employer's products.

3. When Bayer launched' Premise+Nature' Tm. on the grounds that its most effective mode of action was not high-toxicity/ kill on contact, which would only kill the individual termite, but instead the lower,chronic effects on termites returning to their colony who then were unable to do grooming , thereby allowing parasitic dominance, did they (Bayer) make sure ,by trials, research etc that the same thing would not happen to bees?