Disapearing Bees

[Karol]

The Harvard Study -if anyone has read it - was regarded by many as a joke. (See Scientific Beekeeping). It concluded that if the bees don't die in field realistic doses then you up the dose and give them doses that far exceed that amount so the conclusion is that insecticides kill insects. From what I remember the aim of the study was to prove that neonics killed bees. They succeeded by overdose.

The footer here

"Every forum reader should know The Gentleperson’s Guide to Forum Spies !- I recommend you keep a list of suspect posters and the strategies they use". Says everything about the mindset of the poster. We must all be in the pay of Beyer and the other chemical manufacturers and we are all liars. And the more you explain the truth the more conspiracy theorists believe their own imagination.
Elvis was a space lizzard. Sadam Hussein was abducted by mutuant chimpanzees etc etc.

I haven't put much store by the Harvard report in isolation. However, if you're going to be objective then the purpose of the study was NOT to kill bees but to see if it was possible to replicate CCD. That's a completely different matter. The dose required in many respects is not as relevant as the 'map' of poisoning that was replicated.

You have to bear in mind that there are significant differences in what constitutes a toxic dose depending on route of absorption. So, there is a 20 fold difference in LD50 oral vs LD50 contact for bees. Under test conditions I would suggest that it is/would be difficult to 'persuade' bees to ingest the toxin (to achieve a lethal dose of LD50 oral of 2.7ng per bee) and therefore, the only option may be to 'dust' the bees to replicate the same level of toxicity that would be achieved if the bees ingested the toxin, i.e. a contact dose of approaching 45ng per bee. In case you haven't noticed, that's about 20 times the level of neonics expressed in certain field conditions.

If you don't understand the science then don't be too quick to shout it down otherwise there might be a lot of humble pie to be consumed later.

 

[mbc]

If you don't understand the science then don't be too quick to shout it down otherwise there might be a lot of humble pie to be consumed later.

If you dont understand that many of us are genuinely concerned about our bees and will have perused this paper and dismissed it as ***** long ago, then you shouldnt be so quick to defend some of the worst research ever published IMPO ( in many peoples opinion !)

 

[PBee]

If you dont understand that many of us are genuinely concerned about our bees and will have perused this paper and dismissed it as ***** long ago, then you shouldnt be so quick to defend some of the worst research ever published IMPO ( in many peoples opinion !)

No bad language please

 

[Karol]

If you dont understand that many of us are genuinely concerned about our bees and will have perused this paper and dismissed it as ***** long ago, then you shouldnt be so quick to defend some of the worst research ever published IMPO ( in many peoples opinion !)

I didn't realise that I was defending it. I'm just not prepared to dismiss it out of hand in the wider context.

Anyway, given that this is a public forum, I wonder if the authors would view your comments as defamatory? I take it you have robust and strong scientific reasoning for making the statement that you did. That being the case I'd dearly like to be enlightened as to that reasoning!

 

[Hebeegeebee]

You have to bear in mind that there are significant differences in what constitutes a toxic dose depending on route of absorption. So, there is a 20 fold difference in LD50 oral vs LD50 contact for bees. Under test conditions I would suggest that it is/would be difficult to 'persuade' bees to ingest the toxin (to achieve a lethal dose of LD50 oral of 2.7ng per bee) and therefore, the only option may be to 'dust' the bees to replicate the same level of toxicity that would be achieved if the bees ingested the toxin, i.e. a contact dose of approaching 45ng per bee. In case you haven't noticed, that's about 20 times the level of neonics expressed in certain field conditions.

So you're saying that the conclusion was that bees didn't die as a result of field realistic doses of an insecticide.
If the trial had stopped then, the study would have proved that neonics are not harmful to bees. Not the result some people are looking for I might suggest.
.
.
.
.

And then they did die when given artificially high doses 20x what they would have ever received naturally.

Ho Hum.

 

[mbc]

Anyway, given that this is a public forum, I wonder if the authors would view your comments as defamatory? I take it you have robust and strong scientific reasoning for making the statement that you did. That being the case I'd dearly like to be enlightened as to that reasoning!

By their own admission they changed the parameters of the study when the first data didnt show what they'd hoped for. I'm sure when these kids grow up they will look back at this bit of "sensational" work and feel deeply embarrassed.

 

[madasafish]

I didn't realise that I was defending it. I'm just not prepared to dismiss it out of hand in the wider context.

Anyway, given that this is a public forum, I wonder if the authors would view your comments as defamatory? I take it you have robust and strong scientific reasoning for making the statement that you did. That being the case I'd dearly like to be enlightened as to that reasoning!

Sorry but defamation is defined as " a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual"
http://tinyurl.com/y9pla6


Saying "If you dont understand that many of us are genuinely concerned about our bees and will have perused this paper and dismissed it as ***** long ago, " is an expression of opinion.. and therefore not defamatory.

Besides: you defame a person: and the comment is about a paper.. not the authors...

 

[Karol]

So you're saying that the conclusion was that bees didn't die as a result of field realistic doses of an insecticide.

I'm not making any conclusions. I think there are too many variables to be addressed by one study in isolation. In other research, when dead bees were collected in the field in response to a field based incidence of CCD and tested, the dose found (was from memory) about 1.8ng/bee. (You'll have to ask PBee for the reference - I can't be bothered to trawl back through all the references that have been posted on the forum).

If the trial had stopped then, the study would have proved that neonics are not harmful to bees.

No - it would have proved that the conditions of the test were not harmful to the bees under test. Ever heard the saying that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink? That's the difference between LD50 oral and LD50 contact.

Not the result some people are looking for I might suggest.

Don't look won't find - but does it make you any the wiser?

And then they did die when given artificially high doses 20x what they would have ever received naturally.

Interesting that you haven't linked the 20x difference between LD50 oral and LD50 contact to the 'artificially high doses 20x what they would have ever received naturally' especially because as stated above, when dead bees were tested (as opposed to live bees remaining in affected colonies) the dose found was 1.8ng/bee, i.e. less that the 2.7ng/bee LD50 oral dose.

Ho Hum.

Indeed. You know, I really don't know why I bother. Afterall they're not my bees so why should I waste my time trying to point out the complexities of the research and the abject deficiencies in the safety research of neonics.

Anyway, let's hope next year the weather is better and queens get back to mating properly again. If the weather is fine and they don't get back to mating properly, that's when things might become a little more challenging.

 

[Karol]

Sorry but defamation is defined as " a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual"
http://tinyurl.com/y9pla6


Saying "If you dont understand that many of us are genuinely concerned about our bees and will have perused this paper and dismissed it as ***** long ago, " is an expression of opinion.. and therefore not defamatory.

Besides: you defame a person: and the comment is about a paper.. not the authors...

In my time I have sought legal counsel on what should and should not be said to avoid litigation and based on that counsel let's just say I'm not so confident the law would see it your way.

 

[Swarm]

......and on to page 12.

 

[Poly Hive]

Complete waste of sever space.

PH