EU being sued for saving bees.

[swannymere]

Chemical companies Bayer & Syngenta are suing the EU for saving Bees! Don't let them. That could mean no more Cider or Gin. Dickheads.

 

Save the Bees

[Pugwash]

Done

[Wes Tender]

I would happily sign the petition, but what exactly am I signing?

 

Bayer and Syngenta: Drop your lawsuits against the European Commission immediately."

 

Yes, there is all the explanation of what is proposed next to it, but the petition itself makes no reference to it directly. For all I know, there is another important lawsuit that Bayer are bringing against the EU which is using this petition as a subterfuge.

[Scummer]

I would happily sign the petition, but what exactly am I signing?

 

 

 

Yes, there is all the explanation of what is proposed next to it, but the petition itself makes no reference to it directly. For all I know, there is another important lawsuit that Bayer are bringing against the EU which is using this petition as a subterfuge.

 

Yeah it's a pretty ropey page. Accuses big business of using bad science and misinformation, but makes a number of claims itself which it doesn't backup with facts or sources (eg 5 million bees dead on one farm).

[swannymere]

Okay, fair point so i'm giving this link to Nature.com which is the website for Nature magazine a well respected scientific journal.

 

Nature magazine article

[Marsdinho]

Done, more people need to sign up to this, and spread the word via facebook / twitter.

[Viking Warrior]

I thought Brentford were on a sound financial footing

[swannymere]

I thought Brentford were on a sound financial footing

 

All those barmaids are a drain on resources.

[Guided Missile]

I would doubt any of you have a clue about the issues involved in the health of bee colonies and the ban on neonicotinoids will just delay the determination of the real reasons behind the decline in bee numbers, which the chemical companies involved, know far more about than the EU regulatory authorities and the academics relying on government funding. This is all just another example of the Luddites taking over Europe

 

Yet again, the left wing loonies, without the brains to carry out an objective review of the science, pressure the clueless public into objecting to things they are too lazy to inform themselves about.

 

The US profits from fracking for cheaper energy and GM crops and chemical control of crop pests for cheaper food. Meanwhile, Europe signs petitions and it's economy goes down the pan...

[swannymere]

I would doubt any of you have a clue about the issues involved in the health of bee colonies and the ban on neonicotinoids will just delay the determination of the real reasons behind the decline in bee numbers, which the chemical companies involved, know far more about than the EU regulatory authorities and the academics relying on government funding. This is all just another example of the Luddites taking over Europe

 

Yet again, the left wing loonies, without the brains to carry out an objective review of the science, pressure the clueless public into objecting to things they are too lazy to inform themselves about.

 

The US profits from fracking for cheaper energy and GM crops and chemical control of crop pests for cheaper food. Meanwhile, Europe signs petitions and it's economy goes down the pan...

 

So where do you stand? The cut and paste job you just posted doesn't really say anything. Are you Sarah Palin in disguise? Is it damp under the bridge?

[Guided Missile]

So where do you stand? The cut and paste job you just posted doesn't really say anything. Are you Sarah Palin in disguise? Is it damp under the bridge?

Cut and paste? No, just a research chemist who has spent 40 years developing agrochemicals that help put cheap healthy food on your plate. FFS, this isn't a political issue, it's a scientific issue, best left to the scientists, not lawyers or politicians. They have already screwed up the safety of our healthcare. Please, not the cost and safety of our food, as well...

[swannymere]

' date=' this isn't a political issue, it's a scientific issue, best left to the scientists, not lawyers or politicians.[/quote']

 

Seems to me its one set of scientists against another, an excerpt from the Nature article -

 

"A body of scientific evidence from laboratories studies shows that these chemicals can have a negative impact on bee health. A number of researchers have advocated that their use be restricted, according to the precautionary principle. But other scientists say that some of the laboratory research on the subject doesn’t necessarily reflect the real situation out in the field"

 

It seems odd that people would just decide that insecticides are bad whereas the chemical company scientists have a vested interest.

[Guided Missile]

I don't want to be patronising, but if you are trying to present a scientific argument based on a single article from a magazine, you obviously don't have a clue. Every new product I have been involved in developing requires a host of tests, carried out in a scientifically objective manner, to prove that the chemicals used on our crops to control pests are safe to human beings and the environment. You have no idea the number of tests that the authorities require. What they shouldn't base their decisions on is the number of random people that sign a petition, nor the whims of an environmental pressure group on it's latest misinformed crusade. The cause of bee colony collapse is a very complicated issue that only science can solve, not politicians, lawyers, or you. The prime candidate for colony collapse disorder, in my opinion, is a virus spread by the Varroa mite . Google it and learn. Also ponder why, in Australia, where there is widespread use of neonicotinoids, to control insect damage to crops (where they are not banned), but no incidence of the varroa mite, bee colonies are healthy.

 

Still, sign the petition. Buy a tee shirt. Write to your M.P.

 

I, and many scientists like me, can't wait to leave this continent to you and the rest of the Green's. But, when you need a new insecticide to control the Varroa mite that may be soon be proven to be the main culprit for poor bee health, please don't ask us to come up with one. I'll be in the US, playing golf, eating honey, buying cheap food and cheap energy. Oh, and enjoying the environment...

[Bearsy]

i agree with GM, it is very easy to blame chemical warfare cos of situation in Syria, but one musn't overlook the effect of bee aids.

[Marsdinho]

I don't want to be patronising, but if you are trying to present a scientific argument based on a single article from a magazine, you obviously don't have a clue. Every new product I have been involved in developing requires a host of tests, carried out in a scientifically objective manner, to prove that the chemicals used on our crops to control pests are safe to human beings and the environment. You have no idea the number of tests that the authorities require. What they shouldn't base their decisions on is the number of random people that sign a petition, nor the whims of an environmental pressure group on it's latest misinformed crusade. The cause of bee colony collapse is a very complicated issue that only science can solve, not politicians, lawyers, or you. The prime candidate for colony collapse disorder, in my opinion, is a virus spread by the Varroa mite . Google it and learn. Also ponder why, in Australia, where there is widespread use of neonicotinoids, to control insect damage to crops (where they are not banned), but no incidence of the varroa mite, bee colonies are healthy.

 

Still, sign the petition. Buy a tee shirt. Write to your M.P.

 

I, and many scientists like me, can't wait to leave this continent to you and the rest of the Green's. But, when you need a new insecticide to control the Varroa mite that may be soon be proven to be the main culprit for poor bee health, please don't ask us to come up with one. I'll be in the US, playing golf, eating honey, buying cheap food and cheap energy. Oh, and enjoying the environment...

 

Don't believe you, you'll still be stuck in the UK, in the same job....

[Viking Warrior]

Your right Guided I dont have a clue about keeping Bees , but an ex army medic friend has moaned about the lack of honey and Bees colonoy collapse this year.

 

I will take a proper read of his posts.

[Viking Warrior]

You can say alot about GM , but one thing he hasnt done is cut and pasted, He sounds extremely knowledgeable on this topic.

Just texted my bee keeping mate and he said GM is spot on.

[Maggie May]

It may sound far fetched, but huge conglomerates - such as Monsanto - are pushing with the eradication of bees to introduce their own methods of crop pollenation. Gold and minerals are not the future's global source of economy, it's food. And they're desperate to control it.

[Pugwash]

Absolute ****** GM. Of course you want to be patronising.

 

Notwithstanding your clear knowledge and understanding of the science, you're being extremely naive if you imagine that Bayer and the others are bringing the lawsuits for altruistic reasons arising from a genuine concern for the integrity of the food chain. You've already mentioned the word - profit.

 

The two-year EU moratorium on the three neonicotinoids concerned is surely a sensible course of action when their safety is brought into question by a learned body, is it not? The safety of these products is also being questioned by the US EPA, not just the EU. So surely caution should be the byword. Or are we to relax the controls (as we so often do in Europe and the UK) to allow indiscriminate use of these chemicals until they're discovered to be dangerous fifteen years down the line. DDT anyone? Or perhaps something like Dursban - prohibited for use in the US in 2000, but American companies continue to manufacture it for use abroad, including in Europe. Is that ethical?

 

I don't doubt the integrity and competence of most scientists. After all, science is all about questioning and testing things rigorously, is it not? Unfortunately, many corporate capitalists of the world are all too eager to massage the egos of the Self-Important and Opinionated of the scientific fraternity into lending support and credibility to their most profitable current cause.

[Guided Missile]

Absolute ****** GM. Of course you want to be patronising.

 

Notwithstanding your clear knowledge and understanding of the science, you're being extremely naive if you imagine that Bayer and the others are bringing the lawsuits for altruistic reasons arising from a genuine concern for the integrity of the food chain. You've already mentioned the word - profit.

When I used the word profit(s), it meant "the US benefits from...". But, of course the major companies involved seek to make profits from their technology. How else are they going to pay for the cost of research and the tests required to prove safety? They also have shareholders to think of. You know, your pension fund...

 

The two-year EU moratorium on the three neonicotinoids concerned is surely a sensible course of action when their safety is brought into question by a learned body, is it not? The safety of these products is also being questioned by the US EPA,

The EPA questions the safety of every chemical, they just don't ban everything without a good scientific reason, anymore, (see DDT below), unlike the EU.

So surely caution should be the byword. Or are we to relax the controls (as we so often do in Europe and the UK) to allow indiscriminate use of these chemicals until they're discovered to be dangerous fifteen years down the line. DDT anyone?

The ban on DDT, following that well known pseudo scientific work of fiction, "The Silent Spring" was responsible for millions of deaths from malaria.In fact, the book was the prequel to a story of triumph and tragedy. The triumph occurred in the middle part of the 20th century, when the larger part of mankind finally succeeded in overcoming the ravages of malaria, the deadly infectious disease that had afflicted the human race since the dawn of time (and which, by one estimate, had killed approximately half the people who had ever lived on earth).

 

The National Academy of Sciences summarized the efficacy of DDT as follows:

“To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. It is estimated that, in little more than two decades DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that would otherwise have been inevitable.”

But within three decades, the triumph would give way to tragedy when leftist ideologues, professing concern for the integrity of the natural environment, collaborated to ban the use of the pesticide best known by the acronym DDT—the very substance that had made it possible to vanquish malaria from vast portions of the globe. Worldwide more than 2,700 people will die today because of a bureaucratic regulation instituted during the Nixon administration in 1972. The same number died yesterday and will again tomorrow, in an ever-growing tally of victims of that catastrophic policy. The regulation imposed by Nixon’s newly formed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned DDT, an insecticide that had until then saved the lives of countless U.S. citizens. Over the course of the ensuing 30+ years, more than 50 million people would die needlessly of a disease that was entirely preventable.

Or perhaps something like Dursban - prohibited for use in the US in 2000, but American companies continue to manufacture it for use abroad, including in Europe. Is that ethical?

Total cr@p. Dursban, or the active ingredient in it, chlorpyrifos, is still used in the US. It is the most widely used of an old class of pesticides called “organophosphates,” but unlike some of those materials, this chemical is not all that toxic to mammals. It is almost exactly as toxic, gram-for-gram, as ibuprofen. It is many times less toxic than familiar natural chemicals like caffeine or capsaicin (e.g. in hot peppers). It is ~50% less toxic than certain copper-based fungicides that are approved for Organic production, and it is also used at lower rates than those materials. 38% of the total California use of chlorpyrifos is on tree nuts (Almonds, Walnuts, Pecans). In those crops it is used for the control of a caterpillar pest called the Navel Orange Worm. That particular pest not only causes damage on developing nuts, it carries with it a fungus called Aspergillus flavus which has the nasty habit of making an extremely toxic substance called Aflatoxin – one of the most potent toxins and carcinogens known. In the developing world this fungus and toxin are responsible for millions of liver cancer deaths every year through grain contamination. The US domestic nut industry does a fantastic job of protecting the consumers from this terrible toxin. Chlorpyrifos is an important tool to provide that protection. Read the latest update on the ongoing EPA safety review of chlorpyrifos here.

 

I don't doubt the integrity and competence of most scientists. After all, science is all about questioning and testing things rigorously, is it not? Unfortunately, many corporate capitalists of the world are all too eager to massage the egos of the Self-Important and Opinionated of the scientific fraternity into lending support and credibility to their most profitable current cause.

It is apparent is that your political opninions are more aligned with North Korea than the US. Take a look at how well they feed and maintain the health of their population, without access to modern agricultural technology.

[Verbal]

It is apparent is that your political opninions are more aligned with North Korea than the US. Take a look at how well they feed and maintain the health of their population, without access to modern agricultural technology.

 

I'm not qualified to comment on the science behind the EU's ban, but you might consider, at least, that your hysterical ranting may make you a tad less persuasive than you evidently think. For one thing, it's clear that Pugwash is not a closet Kim. In trying to pin this ridiculous label on him, it's also plainly false to argue that the absence of modern farming techniques is the cause of the many famines in North Korea. Famines are always associated with wars and extreme political upheavals, not the absence of pesticides. As the Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has said, no famine has ever occurred in a democracy (not that democracy solves the problem of hunger).

 

Your comments about DDT are also distinctly odd. You rant about "leftist ideologues" banning DDT - and then say that this ban was introduced by the US Environmental Protection Agency in 1972. This would be the "leftist ideologues" appointed by the famously Marxist Richard M Nixon? The actual head of the EPA at the time - the first one - was William D. Ruckelshaus, a very senior figure in the Republican Party, and recommended for the role by (Watergate conspirator) John Mitchell.

 

The tone of your response is a little nightmare for scientists in this country who take seriously the idea that they have a mission to explain their science to wider publics. Where they use a tone of patience and care, you've adopted the approach of petulant yelling, with some paranoid right-wing politics attached. As I say: nightmare.

 

Anyway, following this discussion, and your post in particular, I've signed the petition.

[Guided Missile]

I'm not qualified to comment on the science behind the EU's ban. Anyway, following this discussion, and your post in particular, I've signed the petition.

The above says it all, really...

 

...and I was in the industry when Ruckleshaus was director of the EPA. He was a lawyer by training. Read the following timeline, which I remember well and then you will understand why the EPA is reluctant to ban pesticides:

 

That ban was due, in large measure, to the influence of then-EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus, an attorney with close ties to the Environmental Defense Fund.

 

It is noteworthy that two years before he outlawed the pesticide, Ruckelshaus (in an August 31, 1970 U.S. Court of Appeals hearing) had stated unequivocally that “DDT has an amazing an exemplary record of safe use, does not cause a toxic response in man or other animals, and is not harmful. Carcinogenic claims regarding DDT are unproven speculation.”

 

 

Yet by the time he delivered a May 2, 1971 address to the Audubon Society, Ruckelshaus was professing considerable skepticism about the safety of DDT:

“As a member of the Society, myself, I was highly suspicious of this compound, to put it mildly. But I was compelled by the facts to temper my emotions ... because the best scientific evidence available did not warrant such a precipitate action. However, we in the EPA have streamlined our administrative procedures so we can now suspend registration of DDT and the other persistent pesticides at any time during the period of review.”

After the Environmental Defense Fund and the Audubon Society jointly filed a lawsuit demanding that the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the EPA place a ban on DDT, Ruckelshaus ordered a hearing to consider precisely that course of action.

 

 

After seven months of hearings in 1971, which produced 125 witnesses and 9,362 pages of testimony, EPA Judge Edmund Sweeney concluded that according to the evidence:

“DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man ... is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man ... [and the] use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.”

But Ruckelshaus, who had never attended even a day of the EPA hearings and had never (by his own admission) read any of the transcripts of those hearings, overruled Sweeney and formally banned DDT on January 1, 1972. His decision was chiefly a consequence of his close ties to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and others in the green movement.

 

 

The DDT ban was subsequently appealed, but to no avail, as Ruckelshaus had appointed himself as the appeal judge. After the appeal had been squelched, Ruckelshaus’ obvious partisanship was on display for all to see. He began soliciting, on his personal stationery, donations on behalf of EDF: “EDF’s scientists blew the whistle on DDT by showing it to be a cancer hazard,” he gloated, “and three years later, when the dust had cleared, EDF had won.”

 

 

In an April 26, 1979 letter to American Farm Bureau Federation President Allan Grant, Ruckelshaus acknowledged that his decision to ban DDT had been rooted in concerns that were more political than environmental:

“The ultimate judgment [on DDT] remains political. Decisions by the government involving the use of toxic substances are political with a small ‘p.’ In the case of pesticides in our country, the power to make this judgment has been delegated to the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.”

 

Meanwhile, back to the present, 50 million Africans, young and old, dead from malaria, due to the DDT ban and you wonder why I rant at small-minded, easily-led, ignoramus's like you...

 

...P.S. Paul Muller, the chemist who discovered of the insecticidal properties of DDT, won the Nobel Prize in 1948. The real hero forgotten in this sorry saga of misguided environmental activists who succeeded in causing mass genocide...

[Pugwash]

Thank you Verbal, you've pretty much said what I was going to say. In particular his little rant persuades me that he falls more into the category of fascist than into the category that I alluded to at the end of my last post.

 

GM - Perhaps you would care to comment on/discredit/rant about this article on Dursban:

 

http://www.bhopal.net/delhi-marchers/factsheets/Dursban.pdf

 

Or this article:

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2000/09/ban-wasnt

 

or:

 

http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/dursban

 

Not that you could ever make a persuasive argument against these without resorting to personal abuse, due to your clearly apparent lack of respect for other posters' opinions and views. And you wonder why people are signing this petition when the champion of the opposing viewpoint comes across as a raving loon?

[norwaysaint]

I don't want to be patronising, but if you are trying to present a scientific argument based on a single article from a magazine, you obviously don't have a clue.

 

I'm not commenting on the rest of the issue, but that comment shows quite a lot of ignorance in the scientific field. Nature isn't just some magazine, it's right at the top of its field as one of the very best and most prestigious scientific journals in the world. It's rating is far above its peers. All scientists dream of doing research that stands up to the intense scrutiny needed to be published. They maintain only the highest level of research and the checking is incredibly stringent. You can't just come up wit some theory and get it in there. If it's made it into Nature, an article has the highest level of credibility.

 

The rest of this issue I'm happy to claim ignorance of.

[Guided Missile]

Thank you Verbal, you've pretty much said what I was going to say. In particular his little rant persuades me that he falls more into the category of fascist than into the category that I alluded to at the end of my last post.

 

Find me some scientific articles in a peer reviewed journal, or a study accepted by and reviewed by the EPA supporting your position and I'd be glad to comment, but I think any words I post will be countered by random non-scientific bullsh! t, you have been able to google up. I must admit, arguing with two chimps, is not my idea of scientific debate...

 

...but anyhow, organophosphates like chlorpyrifos have largely been replaced by much safer alternatives based on a naturally occurring insecticide, nicotine. They are known as neonicotinoids.

Edited 3 September, 2013 by Guided Missile
typo

[Guided Missile]

I'm not commenting on the rest of the issue, but that comment shows quite a lot of ignorance in the scientific field. Nature isn't just some magazine, it's right at the top of its field as one of the very best and most prestigious scientific journals in the world. It's rating is far above its peers. All scientists dream of doing research that stands up to the intense scrutiny needed to be published. They maintain only the highest level of research and the checking is incredibly stringent. You can't just come up wit some theory and get it in there. If it's made it into Nature, an article has the highest level of credibility.

 

The rest of this issue I'm happy to claim ignorance of.

You obviously haven't followed the link to the article in Nature. It's a news article, not a peer-reviewed scientific paper, FFS. Read it, it is about as scientifically informative as the gibbon that started this thread is...

[View From The Top]

Despite GMs Tea Party style rants I would be interested to read his views regarding the collapse of the bee population and how biochemists and other assorted clever folk think it can be reversed?

[norwaysaint]

You obviously haven't followed the link to the article in Nature. It's a news article, not a peer-reviewed scientific paper, FFS. Read it, it is about as scientifically informative as the gibbon that started this thread is...

Oh, okay, my mistake.

[buctootim]

BBC story here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22335520

[Guided Missile]

Despite GMs Tea Party style rants I would be interested to read his views regarding the collapse of the bee population and how biochemists and other assorted clever folk think it can be reversed?

One way could be to replace all of the flowering crops that attract pollinators, with GM versions that express Bt, making them insect resistance and eliminating the need for insecticide sprays, if it is determined that insecticides are responsible for the reduction in bee population. The main problem with this approach is that the Government regulators in the EU have, under pressure from the environmentalists, made this technology unavailable and the companies spending billions on it's development, Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto, have pulled out of Europe in favour of continuing the development of the technology in North and South America and Asia, where the regulators have a some balls...

 

The other way is to control the diseases at the root of the problem, one caused by a fungus and the other by a mite. You could use chemical control agents in the hives, i.e. a fungicide and a miticide. The problem with this is that the regulatory authorities would demand data for any new chemicals, the cost of which would probably not provide a return for any company developing them. No environmental or academic organisations have the funds to do this, they can barely fund their tee shirt campaigns.

 

The last way is to breed or allow bees to develop an immunity to the diseases that cause the reduction in bee population. This will probably happen over the next couple years anyway, if we do nothing, in my opinion. They'll also develop immunity to any effect, sub-lethal doses of insecticides they are exposed to cause, even the imaginary ones that the academics dream up to attract research funding, in lieu of actually doing something useful in the world.

I can't wait for the solution the OP comes up with. I think it may be involve banning something...

[The9]

I don't want to be patronising...

 

..."it's"

..."Green's."

 

Please don't.

[Guided Missile]

This was the type of interesting research that was happening, before the environmentalists ******ed all over our chips...

[Guided Missile]

Please don't.

Its an easy mistake to make...

[Pugwash]

Find me some scientific articles in a peer reviewed journal, or a study accepted by and reviewed by the EPA supporting your position and I'd be glad to comment, but I think any words I post will be countered by random non-scientific bullsh! t, you have been able to google up. I must admit, arguing with two chimps, is not my idea of scientific debate...

 

...but anyhow, organophosphates like chlorpyrifos have largely been replaced by much safer alternatives based on a naturally occurring insecticide, nicotine. They are known as neonicotinoids.

 

I missed the link in your previous post, so I followed it and did a little more research on chlorpyrifos (Dursban) and its derivatives. I stand corrected in that Dursban was banned only for domestic use (in the US), not large-scale agricultural use. Clearly though the EPA review documents referred to by your link, whilst still inconclusive in many areas and recommending the continuation of the review process, do raise concerns particularly of Neurotoxicity at quite low exposure levels. I admit to having only studied the executive summaries and therefore must trust to their veracity. On this basis I fail to comprehend your inference that it is somehow a 'safe' product.

 

As it happens I don't buy into the 'GM is bad' (GM being Genetically-Modified, not you) argument. That's something I have researched in some depth, so don't make crass, indiscriminate judgements about people's knowledge, opinions or political persuasions.

 

And by the way, don't call me a chimp. I'm perfectly confident in my own intellect and am pretty certain you're further down the food chain.

[Jonnyboy]

Guided Missile is extremely unpleasant. Isn't he some sort of "reporter" not a scientist?

[buctootim]

Guided Missile is extremely unpleasant. Isn't he some sort of "reporter" not a scientist?

 

No he's even more objective than that, a pesticide salesman. agform.com

Edited 4 September, 2013 by buctootim

[Guided Missile]

And by the way, don't call me a chimp. I'm perfectly confident in my own intellect and am pretty certain you're further down the food chain.

Actually, you started the abuse, by referring to me as a "fascist" and a "raving loon". It is easy to confuse passion for an issue, with madness, but like you I am confident in my own intellect. Unlike you, that confidence doesn't extend to topics I know nothing about. You were totally wrong about chlorpyrifos and still try and claim the product is "unsafe", despite the EPA maintaining its approval for use in agriculture. The EPA has about 17,000 full-time employees and engages many more people on a contractual basis. More than half of EPA human resources are engineers, scientists, and environmental protection specialists; other groups include legal, public affairs, financial, and information technologists. Their purpose is defined by their name, the Environmental Protection Agency. I notice you have not mentioned DDT, nor the 50 million Africans that have died of malaria, due to the ban on the compound. I guess you chose to avoid that aspect of your argument, or maybe you don't really care about that.

 

No, my judgement that you have no useful knowledge on this issue is spot on and compared to the specialist scientists in this field, your intellect, is definitely on a par with a chimp.

 

Still, you won't be alone. I'm sure there will be a lot more jumping up and down with you, in your cage of ignorance and bigotry, this thread will become.

 

As for me, I'm leaving before you all start throwing bananas at me...

Edited 5 September, 2013 by Guided Missile

[Tamesaint]

 

No, my judgement that you have no useful knowledge on this issue is spot on and compared to the specialist scientists in this field, your intellect, is definitely on a par with a chimp.

 

Still, you won't be alone. I'm sure there will be a lot more jumping up and down with you, in your cage of ignorance and bigotry, this thread will become.

 

As for me, I'm leaving before you all start throwing bananas at me...

 

 

Have you ever opend up a hive of bees ?

[tpbury]

An interesting conversation, from an outsider's point of view. It may be hysterical that people are worried about DDT, Genetically modified, vaccines, fluoride in tap water, fracking, pylon tumours, wireless fertility, pharma-military-government influence, resource exhaustion, mobile phone ear cancer, coast erosion, bee death.

 

I would ask Guided Missle (non confrontationally) if there is anything he/she is not sure about on these topics? Where should we really stand on this?

 

Using DDT/nicotoxins (or whatever they're called) seems like treating the symptoms rather than the cause. Maybe this is the most practical option, but that just means putting plasters on plasters doesn't it?

 

So what is the cause? Well, certainly human nature, and human nature is to address an immediate problem rather than worry about the future. We're alll fkd, but hoping we die first before we have to deal with it!

[Pugwash]

Actually, you started the abuse, by referring to me as a "fascist" and a "raving loon". It is easy to confuse passion for an issue, with madness, but like you I am confident in my own intellect. Unlike you, that confidence doesn't extend to topics I know nothing about. You were totally wrong about chlorpyrifos and still try and claim the product is "unsafe", despite the EPA maintaining its approval for use in agriculture. The EPA has about 17,000 full-time employees and engages many more people on a contractual basis. More than half of EPA human resources are engineers, scientists, and environmental protection specialists; other groups include legal, public affairs, financial, and information technologists. Their purpose is defined by their name, the Environmental Protection Agency. I notice you have not mentioned DDT, nor the 50 million Africans that have died of malaria, due to the ban on the compound. I guess you chose to avoid that aspect of your argument, or maybe you don't really care about that.

 

No, my judgement that you have no useful knowledge on this issue is spot on and compared to the specialist scientists in this field, your intellect, is definitely on a par with a chimp.

 

Still, you won't be alone. I'm sure there will be a lot more jumping up and down with you, in your cage of ignorance and bigotry, this thread will become.

 

As for me, I'm leaving before you all start throwing bananas at me...

 

Sorry GM, been away for a few days, but did see your rant on my phone. Poor recall for a scientist haven't you? Let me remind you.

 

You started the abuse first:

 

It is apparent is that your political opninions (sic!) are more aligned with North Korea than the US.

 

Seems you were likening me to a ranting aggressive little dictator who has little respect for his own people. I'll come back to that point.

 

Chlorpyrifos: Exactly which parts of the EPA summaries don’t you agree with? Do you deny that the product has in fact been withdrawn from domestic use due to health concerns? Do you deny their conclusions that there is significant risk to foetal brain development? Have you actually read the reports yourself or are you just dissembling?

 

Okay, let’s address the DDT issue then. The malaria eradication campaign spawned in the fifties already knew about its highly-chronic toxicity, but considered the eradication of malaria to be more important. They also knew, as early as 1946 that regular use tended to produce widespread resistance within four to seven years – as has proven to be the case. Its persistence in the environment and diminishing effectiveness was the reason that the programme was abandoned in 1969 - THREE YEARS before it was banned. So to blame the deaths of 50m africans on the ban is misleading. Yes, it saved a lot of lives in the short term and eradicated the disease from 37 countries. However , its continuing (yes, continuing) use in certain West African countries as a simple insecticide has actually increased resistance in the local mosquito population.

 

So let's summarise:

 

- You can't spell or string a sentence together coherently.

 

- You don't research and read reports thoroughly.

 

- You lack objectivity and jump to conclusions.

 

- You can't admit when you're wrong.

 

- You're incapable of calm reasonable debate.

 

Exactly what kind of 'scientist' are you? Seems you're more like that Kim Jong-Un chap you referred to earlier. Frankly, it's a toss-up as to whose advice I would prefer to listen.

 

I would like to close with an apology to the OP for going off-topic. The plight of bees is certainly a subject that deserves further discussion, so I will withdraw from posting further on this thread in the hope that this will allow calm reasoned debate to be resumed.

[Joey-deacons-left-nut]

You lot are ****ing mental in the head!

[WindsorSaint]

Anyway, back to the bees...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24024634

[swannymere]

So people with nothing to gain like Friends of the Earth are wrong and the people who will gain financially are right? I see a few people in high places getting briefcases full of reddies.

[Tamesaint]

So people with nothing to gain like Friends of the Earth are wrong and the people who will gain financially are right? I see a few people in high places getting briefcases full of reddies.

 

Until very recently the British Beekeepers Association took money from Bayer .... and guess who has been sitting on the fence during the debate on neo - nics - yes that is right the British Beekeepers Association.

 

Never understimate the size of the cheque books of people like Bayer.

[Bearsy]

I feel like i don't see as many bees as i used to see when i was a kid. I ain't even seen v.many wasps this year.

 

Buttersflies, on the other hand is fucking everywhere! I'm seeing loads of buttersflies!

[Colinjb]

I feel like i don't see as many bees as i used to see when i was a kid. I ain't even seen v.many wasps this year.

 

Buttersflies, on the other hand is fucking everywhere! I'm seeing loads of buttersflies!

 

Ask your insectoid cousin Beesy if he has seen any.

[Tokyo-Saint]

I have thought this before bear. Wasps are definitely on the decline. When I was young, it was impossible to drink a can of coke without danger of a wasp having crawled into it when you weren't looking. Also the bins outside shops like M&Wds were pretty much impossible to use in the summer as they wasps had taken over. Now a days you can sit in a bear garden or have a BBQ and not see a wasp all day. Looks like pest control have won.

[buctootim]

I have thought this before bear. Wasps are definitely on the decline. When I was young, it was impossible to drink a can of coke without danger of a wasp having crawled into it when you weren't looking. Also the bins outside shops like M&Wds were pretty much impossible to use in the summer as they wasps had taken over. Now a days you can sit in a bear garden or have a BBQ and not see a wasp all day. Looks like pest control have won.

 

Scientists have directly linked the decline in wasp populations to the demise of Cresta drinks. Little known fact.

 

Edited 10 September, 2013 by buctootim

[View From The Top]

I have thought this before bear. Wasps are definitely on the decline. When I was young, it was impossible to drink a can of coke without danger of a wasp having crawled into it when you weren't looking. Also the bins outside shops like M&Wds were pretty much impossible to use in the summer as they wasps had taken over. Now a days you can sit in a bear garden or have a BBQ and not see a wasp all day. Looks like pest control have won.

 

I actually know, for once, the real reason why wasps have been on short supply this summer.

 

It's to do with a very warm period in Feb' lulling the queens out & then a prolonged snap killing them off and therefore colonies dying off.

 

T'was on some R5L program.