Author Topic: Pollen chemical levels - Input needed (Read 5361 times)

BjornBee · « **on:** January 23, 2009, 04:44:44 pm »

I have chemical breakdowns for two separate pollen samples. These are samples I sent in for analysis. They are from two separate operations. I am seeking comments, information and any help in determining what sprays use the chemicals listed, opinion on levels that are present, and which of the two samples would be considered better or worse than the other. Any information or comments welcome. The following are a list of the found chemicals in each sample.

Pollen sample #1

2,4 Dimethyphenyl formamide (DMPF) 9.8 (PPB)
DDT 6.0 (PPB)
Fluvalinate 52.5 (PPB)

Pollen Sample #2

Atrazine 4.7 (PPB)
Azinphos Methyl 7.8 (PPB)
Phenothrin 83.9 (PPB)

KONASDAD · « **Reply #1 on:** January 23, 2009, 05:00:20 pm »

Can't answer you're actual question, BUT DDT? When did we stop using that garbage? Yikes! I also have a question, Might some of those compounds be matabolites? Chems they ate digested and found there way into the pollen?

Fluvalinate, I am sure you know is apistan, so we know how that got there.

jdpro5010 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 23, 2009, 05:10:45 pm »

2-4d is a very common broadleaf weed killer. It is used alot in weedfeed type deals for the lawns of homeowners. Also it may be used in corn and oats fields in the agriculture section. Atrazine is the number one weed killer used in corn fields. It is sprayed alot in the spring as a pre emergence herbicide. Mainly being sprayed as the corn is planted. DDT is a banned insecticide, although it may still be allowed to be used in some chemicals in very low doses. It's main problem was that it takes forever to break down and sticks around for decades after being used. Not real sure on amounts at which the chemicals are "acceptable" levels. The atrazine and 2-4d are going to be in everything is my quess, the closer to spring the higher the atrazine levels and the closer to summer the higher the 2-4d levels.

jdpro5010 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 23, 2009, 05:12:13 pm »

Fluavinate is also used alot in agriculture as a flea, lice, and tick kind of deal if I remember right.

tlynn · « **Reply #4 on:** January 23, 2009, 05:16:00 pm »

DDT was banned in 1972, with probably excess stocks used for a few more years, much like asbestos was. That would really be incredible if it's still showing up like that, especially in pollen.

BjornBee · « **Reply #5 on:** January 23, 2009, 05:50:24 pm »

Thank you so far for the information.

Does anyone know if there is any levels or testing done in regards to DDT and bee kill? I know from hearing some of the researchers talk on CCD, that some of the systemics had kill rates as low as 4 PBB. I'm interested in what level would be lethal for DDT.

tlynn,
I think that would be incredible also. I'm more inclined to think that it is still being used. ;)

BjornBee · « **Reply #6 on:** January 23, 2009, 10:51:33 pm »

Quote from: KONASDAD on January 23, 2009, 05:00:20 pm

Can't answer you're actual question, BUT DDT? When did we stop using that garbage? Yikes! I also have a question, Might some of those compounds be matabolites? Chems they ate digested and found there way into the pollen?

Fluvalinate, I am sure you know is apistan, so we know how that got there.

Yes, I would think so.

The one that is baffling is the DDT. I understand DDT has a half-life of anywhere between 2 and 15 years depending upon many environmental factors. But DDT does not translocate into plants very easily. And most recorded data suggest that areas replanted in DDT areas of past use, DDT is collected by most plants and stored in the root systems. Which makes me ask "What levels of DDT are present, if it still shows in pollen?" and what levels would relate to honey?

BTW, DDT was banned in the U.S. in 1973, but still is used around the world in other countries.

Brian D. Bray · « **Reply #7 on:** January 23, 2009, 11:10:52 pm »

Just a side note on the DDT: Here in the Puget Sound area we have been experiencing unusual deaths in our young (1-5 years0 Orca Whales plus and accileration of old whale deaths. One interesting point is that Necrolepsies performed on the dead whales (when located) have turned up high concentrations of DDT. Scientist are of the opinion that every time we have large fooding (like we did this year) a new batch of land bound DDT gets washed into the sound and eventually ends up in the salmon and seals the Orcas feed on.

That would mean, since DDT was outlawed in 1972 and supposedly not been applied since 1975 in this area, that the half-life, as given, on DDT was grossly understated and is more likely 2-3 times that long. That could put it as being over 50 years to work out of the environment.

Now apply that to land bound DDT that is ending up in present day crops and see what you come up with.

rdy-b · « **Reply #8 on:** January 23, 2009, 11:12:22 pm »

how did you collect these samples-from in the hive- or coming in the front door?-RDY-B

BjornBee · « **Reply #9 on:** January 23, 2009, 11:15:05 pm »

Quote from: rdy-b on January 23, 2009, 11:12:22 pm

how did you collect these samples-from in the hive- or coming in the front door?-RDY-B

Collected with pollen traps as they entered.

rdy-b · « **Reply #10 on:** January 23, 2009, 11:26:13 pm »

phenothrin-growth regulator for insects not good
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenothrin
RDY-B

rdy-b · « **Reply #11 on:** January 23, 2009, 11:29:35 pm »

Azinphos-ORGANOPHOSPHATE-not good-RDY-B

rdy-b · « **Reply #12 on:** January 23, 2009, 11:34:21 pm »

I gusse another question could be which one is not a restricted use chem-RDY-B

BjornBee · « **Reply #13 on:** January 24, 2009, 07:53:12 am »

Quote from: rdy-b on January 23, 2009, 11:34:21 pm

I gusse another question could be which one is not a restricted use chem-RDY-B

The phenothrin and azinphos is concerning. Sample #2, came from one of my yards. The phenothrin is a mystery of how it is showing up in those levels. The yard is close to a beef production herd, and grazing area. I wonder if the animals are being treated for flea/ticks, and the powder or whatever application being used, is running off (rain) the animals and into soil. It's been a beef place for many years. I wanted to show that no chemicals were being added into the hives by beekeeper introduction (coumaphos or fluvalinate). Which is a good thing, since 100% of CCD samples were positive for these chemicals.) I suspect it will be hard to find places where bees will not drag in stuff from "down the street".

I will let you know, that sample #1, is a commercial bought pollen, originating from what I gather, from China. It was sold as "bee feed" and NOT for human consumption. Which begs to question "If the pollen is not to be consumed by humans, why would it be sold to be used IN hives, that produce food for humans?"

Many questions.

bugleman · « **Reply #14 on:** January 24, 2009, 02:40:25 pm »

[/quote]

Which begs to question "If the pollen is not to be consumed by humans, why would it be sold to be used IN hives, that produce food for humans?"

Many questions.
[/quote]

My bet guess would be avoidance of food regulations. Vrs livestock regulations.

tig · « **Reply #15 on:** January 25, 2009, 07:56:34 am »

who did the testing? was it a university or a private laboratory?

Robo · « **Reply #16 on:** January 25, 2009, 08:24:41 am »

Quote from: KONASDAD on January 23, 2009, 05:00:20 pm

Can't answer you're actual question, BUT DDT? When did we stop using that garbage?

First let me say by no means am I a proponent of man synthesized insecticides/herbicides nor am I looking to start a debate. But, I have read/heard many times that the banning of DDT was a political statement made to give the environmentalists power. I am just looking for anyone who may have more information on this. While I'm not a chemist, I do live in a watershed area and have first hand experience with the wacko tree-huggers getting on a mission to pass laws irregardless of what the evidence shows.

Here is a link I found with a quick google search -> http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

BjornBee · « **Reply #17 on:** January 25, 2009, 09:23:58 am »

Robo. I agree.

The problem I see is many...

1) Who do we believe with such items as DDT. Seems the government bans one chemical, and passes another without much more than a signature.

2) Do we believe the university researchers as some have suggested being on the take from chemical chemicals.

3)Much of the argument of DDT, seems very dated in regards to the data on both sides. In just a product such as fluvalinate, we know the half-life and damage is way beyond anything approved or realized when the product hit the market. And I bet it is such with many approved products, and with dated information.

On the surface, I have two things of concern about buying a product such as this pollen that has DDT.

One, how can we ever decide for ourselves which product to buy and use, when such information is so hard to come by.

Two, How can we ever be sure that damage is not happening in the hives?

One of the things I am looking at, is the multiplication factor of chemicals in hives. Keep in mind, these levels are the amounts that were in pollen. So it was in the pollen from the plants itself, or from the bees internal stores being passed as they formed the pollen in their baskets using saliva.

I personally have no problems with DDT in malaria countries. I do have a problems when it it passed on in the food chain, and sold in products that are not labeled as containing DDT.

This pollen tested is probably going on two years old. So some degradation of chemical levels may have occurred. Were the levels higher previously? Was there a higher multiplication factor of chemicals in the hives from using such products?

Keep in mind, this pollen was brought over by the shipload, and used from what I can imagine, everything from straight product sales, to pollen patties. And it ticks me off when I am paying the price every year trying to better my bees through natural means. And to find out that I basically was dumping in beekeeper induced chemicals, fluvalinate. And then to find out I am placing DDT in my hives on top of that.

I do not know the "safe" levels in regards to such chemicals. And are you to believe the government in regards to such information anyways?

I know I for one, have not read or heard ANYTHING about chemical levels of fluvalinate in commercially available pollen or patties. And I know I have never heard "DDT" mentioned once.

I want to know what goes in my hives. I want to make the decision of what my family eats.

Robo,
I actually read that DDT was tested, and found rather safe for bees. Although, again, the data is rather dated. And there is conflicting reports to the contrary, as it seems with everything. But when DDT is mixed with other chemicals, that is where the true danger is. You can list safe products all day long, but as soon as you mix one with another one, they become a deadly mixture. That is what we do not know, and where the biggest danger lies.

tlynn · « **Reply #18 on:** January 25, 2009, 10:07:47 am »

As a scientist by training I learned through the use of statistics you can pretty much prove anything you want. Industry and its advocates have a way of concluding chemicals and drugs in which they have an interest are safe. Remember fen-phen? If your goal is to find DDT at fault for eggshell thinning (or not) you can manipulate the data either way. Plus if you are looking to advance a point you can simply cite studies in your favor and ignore those against. Taking a look at that site, the studies about eggshells all date from the mid 70s to before. Our national symbol was heading toward extinction at that time until DDT stopped flooding into the food chain and then they recovered dramatically. Ditto for peregrine falcon. DDT was proven to restrict calcium absorption so when mom sat on the eggs they were too fragile to support the weight. It was a perfect cause and effect after seeing the recovery, something the 60s and 70s studies couldn't have seen.

It's all about money and lobbies and getting re-elected.

DDT might well have been responsible for eliminating malaria in the US and lowering it elsewhere, though at what cost? Wiping out multiple species of birds among others? Bladder cancer for us 25 years later? I have read that in 3rd world countries malaria rates drop significantly in areas where mosquito nets are used when sleeping. I lived in a place for years where others around me got malaria and not one night I missed sleeping under my net, and I never got it. There always is another solution.

Show me one man-made drug, herbicide, or pesticide that's good for you. How often do we hear the words of the beekeepers here who have strong healthy hives and never use chemicals? It's simple - chemicals go against the laws of nature so they do wierd things to living creatures.

If the environmentalists had a hand in stopping DDT, then god bless them.

Robo · « **Reply #19 on:** January 25, 2009, 10:40:14 am »

Quote from: tlynn on January 25, 2009, 10:07:47 am

If the environmentalists had a hand in stopping DDT, then god bless them.

Be careful when you fall into the ends justify the means scenarios. It tends to lead towards more power and more headaches. Around here there are certain areas that can no longer put in traditional in the ground septic tanks, but are forced in 10s of thousands of dollars above ground systems, can't cut down trees on their own property, can't move/remove rock walls from their property, etc, etc all because the environmentalist have acquired so much power. It is easy to accept the ends justify the means until the powers go after something that effects you. Not to get off on a tangent, but that is one of the biggest reasons our country is in such a poor state, too many regulations that other country don't have to deal with.