Author Topic: Home Depot plants kill honeybees (Read 8701 times)

Tommy · « **on:** April 13, 2015, 08:17:27 pm »

I noticed this weekend that all the plants in the garden center at my local Home Depot in Hattiesburg, MS have a tag in the top of the pot that states this plant is resistant to certain kinds of insects. They contain Neonicotinoids and it states it is EPA approved. What they don't say is that this pesticide is confimed by scientists to kill honeybees. The manager wasn't particular concerned about it, nor was a customer who was loading up plants into her car. Another person took their plants back and wanted a refund. I'm telling everyone I can to steer clear of Home Depot plants, and plants anywhere else that contain this pestiside.

Michael Bush · « **Reply #1 on:** April 14, 2015, 09:55:00 am »

Honeybees will sting you right? So why wouldn't you want to kill them? ;) Be glad they are at least labeling them. They didn't use to.

D Coates · « **Reply #2 on:** April 14, 2015, 10:32:30 am »

Quote from: Tommy on April 13, 2015, 08:17:27 pm

I noticed this weekend that all the plants in the garden center at my local Home Depot in Hattiesburg, MS have a tag in the top of the pot that states this plant is resistant to certain kinds of insects. They contain Neonicotinoids and it states it is EPA approved. What they don't say is that this pesticide is confimed by scientists to kill honeybees. The manager wasn't particular concerned about it, nor was a customer who was loading up plants into her car. Another person took their plants back and wanted a refund. I'm telling everyone I can to steer clear of Home Depot plants, and plants anywhere else that contain this pestiside.

Neonics are indeed scientifically confirmed to kill bees when they are directly fed it in syrup in high doses. The trouble with that finding is, they don't normally directly eat it in the real world, even less in the high quantities of the test.

What pesticide are you going to use instead of this? How deadly to bees and other insects are they? Do you expect everyone else to use the same too or are they going reach for the old school seven dust that'll kill just about any insect in comes into contact with? Or will it be even worse stuff? It's a slippery slope especially when pointing out scientific findings that only tell 1/2 of the story.

ggileau · « **Reply #3 on:** April 14, 2015, 07:36:12 pm »

Quote from: D Coates on April 14, 2015, 10:32:30 am

Quote from: Tommy on April 13, 2015, 08:17:27 pm
I noticed this weekend that all the plants in the garden center at my local Home Depot in Hattiesburg, MS have a tag in the top of the pot that states this plant is resistant to certain kinds of insects. They contain Neonicotinoids and it states it is EPA approved. What they don't say is that this pesticide is confimed by scientists to kill honeybees. The manager wasn't particular concerned about it, nor was a customer who was loading up plants into her car. Another person took their plants back and wanted a refund. I'm telling everyone I can to steer clear of Home Depot plants, and plants anywhere else that contain this pestiside.

Neonics are indeed scientifically confirmed to kill bees when they are directly fed it in syrup in high doses. The trouble with that finding is, they don't normally directly eat it in the real world, even less in the high quantities of the test.

What pesticide are you going to use instead of this? How deadly to bees and other insects are they? Do you expect everyone else to use the same too or are they going reach for the old school seven dust that'll kill just about any insect in comes into contact with? Or will it be even worse stuff? It's a slippery slope especially when pointing out scientific findings that only tell 1/2 of the story.

So true! I'm certainly not smart enough to know all the answers but as you say about seven dust. What is the answer? Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. It seems as though that if neonics were that lethal that the Varoa mites would be in jeopardy as well, wouldn't the honey be virtually extinct in the farm belt? Some studied say that the answer is in management of the colonies. I'm not trying to start a dispute but more like devils advocate. I'm always trying to look at both sides.

I do agree with Michael Bush and I tip my hat to The Home Depot for being up front with us. I understand the the company is sensitive to the concerns of Neonicotinoids. Most big companies could care less as long as they are following guidelines. They have my business.

Kathyp · « **Reply #4 on:** April 14, 2015, 09:09:43 pm »

and what were the plants? if they are not plants that attract pollinators anyway, what difference does it make? if i buy a box hedge and it's treated with something that kills the chewing pests, that's a good thing. keeps me from having to spray the thing.

i don't care that they caved to pressure and started labeling. it's in the same category as labeling in the grocery store. few people read, even fewer care, it makes the tree huggers happy. as long as they don't label each leaf as they do each tomato, i'm good with it.

Tommy · « **Reply #5 on:** April 14, 2015, 09:28:51 pm »

EPA Restricts Use of Pesticides Suspected of Killing BeesThe EPA has issued a moratorium on use of a type of pesticide theorized to be responsible for plummeting bee populations. Neonicotinoids are a class of common pesticides that recent research has pointed to as being harmful to birds, bees and other animals. The EPA previously approved their use, but outcry over the damage being done has caused the agency to reverse course while more studies are done. On Thursday, the EPA sent letters to people and companies that have applied for outdoor use of the pesticide, saying that new use permits won't be issued.

New uses of neonicotinoids will no long be approved "until the data on pollinator health have been received and appropriate risk assessments completed," the EPA letter reads. Existing permits to use them, however, will not be rescinded ? something wildlife and environmental advocacy groups are unhappy with.

"If EPA is unable to assess the safety of new uses, the agency similarly is not able to assess the safety of the close to 100 outdoor uses already approved," said the Center for Food Safety's Peter Jenkins in a statement criticizing the EPA's actions. Other organizations of beekeepers, environmentalists, and farmers echoed the sentiment.

Though it isn't calling an end to all uses of neonicotinoids, the EPA says in its letter that it is taking the problem seriously: "EPA considers the completion of the new pollinator risk assessments for these chemicals to be an agency priority."

This Video Player Requires JavaScript. It has come to our attention that the browser you are using is either not running JavaScript or out of date. Please enable javascript and/or update your browser if possible.

Tommy · « **Reply #6 on:** April 14, 2015, 09:46:55 pm »

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-pesticides-bees-biologist.html

For the beekeepers who would like to know the 2nd half of the story about what neonicontinoids does to the bees, soil, birds, water and aquatic life, go here for more info. And for the people that don't care about it or that is smarter than me no comment needed . Thank you. And have a nice day.

Kathyp · « **Reply #7 on:** April 14, 2015, 10:33:59 pm »

ah yes....the "theory". the THEORY!!!!!

I LOVE THE theory. everything should be based on it....or one. what we eat, what we do, how we do it, when we do it........

D Coates · « **Reply #8 on:** April 15, 2015, 11:16:56 am »

Theory vs. Reality

A son comes in and asks his dad for the difference between theory and reality. The father asks him to separately ask his mother and his sister if they'd have biblical relations with any man for $1,000,000. Both the mother and sister separately debate the pros and cons and both decide that their respective answer was "yes." The son reports to the father his findings.

The Dad pauses and replies, "In theory, we're multimillionaires. In reality, we've got a couple freelance orgasmatitions living under our roof."

Theory is exactly that. It's unproven and can be molded to fit whomevers agenda. If it's a good theory, then it'll end up being proven eventually but until then I don't make any life decisions on it. To this point the neonic/bee issue is merely another theory that appears to have trouble getting any traction in real word scientifically based studies. Without any quality supporting documentation it's still getting publicity because there's a bit of the tree hugger, anti-"Big-Ag" agenda being pushed here too.

I'm a huge outdoors person. I hunt, fish, bird watch, camp, works bees and basically just love being outdoors. But of course wildlife and environmental advocacy groups are unhappy with the decision to not rescind. They make their money from pointing out the next "epidemic" or "environmental catastrophe" and how your donations will help stop XYZ. The day they're ALL happy scares the heck out of me. We'll be living in mud huts practicing hunter gathering food acquisition techniques if some of those groups had their way.

The link posted had this link attached at the bottom of the page http://phys.org/news/2012-09-pesticides-proven-guilty-honeybee-declines.html#nRlv The headline reads, "Pesticides not yet proven guilty of causing honeybee declines, new study says."

ggileau · « **Reply #9 on:** April 15, 2015, 12:18:05 pm »

Quote from: D Coates on April 15, 2015, 11:16:56 am

Theory vs. Reality

A son comes in and asks his dad for the difference between theory and reality. The father asks him to separately ask his mother and his sister if they'd have biblical relations with any man for $1,000,000. Both the mother and sister separately debate the pros and cons and both decide that their respective answer was "yes." The son reports to the father his findings.

The Dad pauses and replies, "In theory, we're multimillionaires. In reality, we've got a couple freelance orgasmatitions living under our roof."

Theory is exactly that. It's unproven and can be molded to fit whomevers agenda. If it's a good theory, then it'll end up being proven
eventually but until then I don't make any life decisions on it. To this point the neonic/bee issue is merely another theory that appears to have trouble getting any traction in real word scientifically based studies. Without any quality supporting documentation it's still getting publicity because there's a bit of the tree hugger, anti-"Big-Ag" agenda being pushed here too.

I'm a huge outdoors person. I hunt, fish, bird watch, camp, works bees and basically just love being outdoors. But of course wildlife and environmental advocacy groups are unhappy with the decision to not rescind. They make their money from pointing out the next "epidemic" or "environmental catastrophe" and how your donations will help stop XYZ. The day they're ALL happy scares the heck out of me. We'll be living in mud huts practicing hunter gathering food acquisition techniques if some of those groups had their way.

The link posted had this link attached at the bottom of the page http://phys.org/news/2012-09-pesticides-proven-guilty-honeybee-declines.html#nRlv The headline reads, "Pesticides not yet proven guilty of causing honeybee declines, new study says."

Amen! It is why I like to play devils advocate. What you state holds true for everything from race relations to global climate change. Jackasses make make a ton of money promoting the negative issues.

Tommy · « **Reply #10 on:** April 15, 2015, 09:10:48 pm »

This is an update to the post you put on here that is dated 09-2012. The info below is from the same website as your post. Read and take away what you want to from this. If anyone has a more updated version of this, I would love to see it.

Pesticides harm more than bees, says biologist's study

Jun 14, 2013 by Maggie Clune

Pollinators such as bumblebees might not be the only wildlife affected by neonicotinoids, says new research.

(Phys.org) ?Soil organisms, aquatic life and farmland birds may all be harmed by neonicotinoid insecticides, according to a new study by University of Sussex biologist Professor Dave Goulson.

Neonicotinoid insecticides have been in the news because of growing concern that they are linked to serious declines in bee species ? resulting in a two-year EU ban in April 2013 of three neonicotinoids commonly used in Europe.

But Professor Goulson's study ? 'An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides'1 ? published this week (Friday 14 June 2013) in the Journal of Applied Ecology and which draws together data from diverse sources including the agrochemical industry's own research, reveals that harm to bees may be just the tip of the iceberg.

Neonicotinoids are mostly applied as seed dressings, intended to be absorbed by the crop, but well over 90 per cent of the active ingredient goes into the soil and leaches into groundwater, where it persists for years.

Data from agrochemical manufacturer Bayer on the persistence of neonicotinoids in soil are made widely available for the first time in Professor Goulson's study. The data first came to light during investigations by the UK Parliament's Environmental Audit Committee.

According to the data neonicotinoids, if used regularly, accumulate in soil to concentrations far higher than those that kill bees, posing a risk to soil invertebrates and soil health.

Professor Goulson says: "Any pesticide that can persist for many years, build up in soil, and leach into waterways is likely to have effects far beyond the pest insects it intends to target. This is particularly so when the pesticide is highly toxic to non-target organisms. For example, less than one part per billion of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid in streams is enough to kill mayflies."

The study also highlights risks for grain-eating birds such as partridge, which need eat only a few neonicotinoid-treated grains of crop to receive a lethal dose.

This latest evidence calls into question the effectiveness of the recent two-year EU moratorium on use of some neonicotinoids on flowering crops. Professor Goulson says: "Neonicotinoids will still be widely used on cereals, so the broader environmental impacts are likely to continue. Given the longevity of these compounds, they would be in our soils for years to come even under an absolute ban, so two years is far too short to produce any benefit, even if there were any clear plan to monitor such benefits ? which there is not. It is entirely unclear what this two-year moratorium is meant to achieve".

Professor Goulson also draws attention to the lack of publicly-available evidence on the effectiveness of neonicotinoids. He says: "Studies from the US suggest that neonicotinoid seed dressings may be either entirely ineffective or cost more than the benefit in crop yield gained from their use. We seem to be in a situation where farmers are advised primarily by agronomists involved in selling them pesticides."

Michael Bush · « **Reply #11 on:** April 16, 2015, 08:15:14 am »

>"...harm more than bees..."

I think we need to be concerned about the effect on people... but no one seems to care about that.

D Coates · « **Reply #12 on:** April 16, 2015, 10:52:05 am »

Quote from: Michael Bush on April 16, 2015, 08:15:14 am

>"...harm more than bees..."

I think we need to be concerned about the effect on people... but no one seems to care about that.

I concur, but until there's believable evidence, I'm one of those who doesn't care. There are plenty of actual known things that adversely affect me and my family that I focus on. The theories? Nope, my life is too short to worry about the "what ifs" and I ignore them.

Tommy, I find it interesting that of your 6 posts 4 of them are on neonics. When it's questioned as to what plants are these treatments are on and do they attract bees, it's ignored. When the claims are shown to have serious questions, it's ignored. When it's pointed out that an attached article to one you linked reads, "Pesticides not yet proven guilty of causing honeybee declines, new study says", it's ignored. Then what's quoted are "findings" of how neonics could be affecting other species and how more time is needed to see if the UE ban is going to be effective (i.e. there's no evidence it's working but let's keep doing it). Isn't a "lack of publicly-available evidence on the effectiveness of neonicotinoids" what he laments? Yet, if he had his druthers he'd ban neonics. (i.e. there's no evidence it's working but let's ban it)

I also find his insinuation that farmers are too stupid to know if they need neonics and they're only doing what the agronomists are telling them to somewhat insulting. Farmers are independent business people. They make their own decisions and are a heck of a lot more in touch with what makes them money and what doesn't than Professor Goulson. I grew up with many farming families and if there was one thing I learned from them it's, if they don't need it they don't buy it, if it doesn't make them money they don't do it. They're also very smart. Dumb farmers don't stay farmers.

Going back to "Home Depot plants kill honeybees". It appears no more so than my car heading down the highway. But it appears that's not the axe being ground here.

Tommy · « **Reply #13 on:** April 16, 2015, 02:17:06 pm »

426 days Business It's estimated that between $20 billion and $30 billion in American agriculture production depends on honey bees and other pollinators.
 Home Depot, Lowe's Swarmed by Bee ActivistsBy Mark Koba

It's estimated that between $20 billion and $30 billion in American agriculture production depends on honey bees and other pollinators.It's estimated that between $20 billion and $30 billion in American agriculture production depends on honey bees and other pollinators.
Home Depot and Lowe's are under fire for selling pesticides that some believe are partly to blame for killing billions of the nation's honey bees.

Petitions with thousands of signatures are being delivered to the home-improvement retailers this week, demanding they stop selling the pesticides?called neonicotinoids?along with any plants in the stores that have been treated with them. Neonicotinoids are the most widely used class of pesticides in the world.

"There's a growing body of science indicating that the pesticides are a key factor in recent global bee deaths," said Lisa Archer, director of the food and technology program at the environmental group, Friends of the Earth.

Archer said her group, which is leading the petition effort, tested plants for sale at Lowe's and Home Depot and more than half had the pesticides. She said because there were no labels on the plants or pesticides that they could be harmful to bees, consumers were left in the dark about the dangers.

Home Depot was aware of the pesticide issue before the petition effort began, said Ron Jarvis, vice president of merchandising and sustainability at the retailer.

"We've been in contact for months with several environmental groups about neonicotinoids," Jarvis told CNBC by phone. "Now we've been in contact with Friends of the Earth."

Jarvis said Home Depot has been working on an alternative to neonicotinoids for some time and several of the retailer's suppliers are already using the replacements.

Lowe's has not made any public statements or responded to meeting requests from Friends of the Earth, said Archer. (Calls to the company's corporate offices were not returned in time for this story.)

First published February 14 2014, 8:29 AM
    Mark Koba Mark Koba is a senior editor at CNBC.com. Topics for his feature story writing include the business of politics, health care, employment and the economy.

Before working at CNBC.com, he spent 11 years at Bloomberg LP, where among various duties, he was program producer for the award-winning "Bloomberg Small Business" television show.

Koba's background includes a decade of news writing and show producing at CNN, E! Entertainment Television, ABC's "World News Now," "Good Morning America" and CBS' "This Morning."
... Expand Bio

Kathyp · « **Reply #14 on:** April 16, 2015, 02:27:32 pm »

Ah yes. Friends of the Earth.

I would venture a guess that a rather large amount of agricultural production depends on it not being eaten by insects.

Let me share something with you that might explain why many of us are not happy to jump on every bandwagon of the "environmentalists".

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1259

There are a number of links in this if you care to do further research. To this day, the accepted narrative is wrong, and this action is held up as a great success for the environment. In reality, it was a great and needless tragedy for millions of people.....but hey, those environmentalists....they meant well, didn't they?

D Coates · « **Reply #15 on:** April 16, 2015, 04:12:47 pm »

Quote from: Tommy on April 13, 2015, 08:17:27 pm

I noticed this weekend that all the plants in the garden center at my local Home Depot in ...

Just happened to notice? But then all of these quotes start showing up that conveniently mentioning Home Depot and Lowes and deeper in a petition drive. Is this what's been driving this "discussion" all along? Trying to gin up a "ground swell of support" to support a anti-neonic petition drive on Beemaster?

Quotes from Koba and his resume' of working for CNBC, CNN and CBS et. al. merely means he knows how to work the media system. "Friends of Earth"... wholly molly... there's a bastion of socialist tree huggers. Quotes from these characters don't prove diddle. Petitions? They mean even less. "Sign this if you want to save the Honeybees!" Almost everyone would sign this because it's the cause de jour without even reviewing what it's actually about much less reviewing the research and understanding other implications.

D Coates · « **Reply #16 on:** April 16, 2015, 04:41:19 pm »

As long as folks are quoting stuff here's the findings of a recent study on how imidacloprid (a type of neonic) affects honeybees.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118748

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine the chronic sublethal effects on whole honey bee colonies subjected to worse-case scenarios as well as normal dietary exposure (5μg/kg) to imidacloprid. We used spiked diet patties placed within colonies to deliver continuous direct exposure over multiple brood cycles to imidacloprid residues that were generally higher than levels found in bee-collected pollen and nectar under field conditions. Our results provide evidence that imidacloprid exposure doses up to 100 μg/kg had no significant effects on foraging activity or colony performance during and shortly after 12 weeks of exposure. However, several colony performance endpoints showed dose-response patterns, particularly higher Varroa infestations with increased dose, though not all patterns were statistically significant. The major finding was the higher rates of queen replacement and resulting broodless periods during the late summer in colonies exposed to 20 and 100 μg/kg of imidacloprid, which led to weaker colonies going into the winter. These exposure regimes sublethally affected colony health and significantly reduced overwintering success. However, the question remains as to whether doses of 100 or even 20 μg/kg exposed for 12 continuous weeks realistically represent imidacloprid residues in bee-collected food under agriculture settings. In certain field situations, residues of imidacloprid can reach or exceed 100 μg/kg in pollen of treated crops during several weeks of flowering [35] or in guttation droplets exuded from treated corn seedlings [45,46]. However, it is uncommon for honey bees to be exposed to these doses for extended periods. Furthermore, bees generally forage on different water and floral sources simultaneously and not all sources will contain residues; thus their foraging behavior tends to reduce the concentration of imidacloprid in food stored in the colony. The within-hive fate experiment demonstrated that imidacloprid residues of 100 μg/kg in diet patties or 20 μg/kg in sucrose syrup became diluted or non-detectable due to the processing of beebread and honey and the rapid metabolism of the chemical by bees. Given the weight of evidence presented here, we conclude that chronic exposure to imidacloprid at the higher range of field doses (20 to 100 μg/kg) in the pollen of certain treated crops could contribute to reduced overwintering success but the most likely encountered field doses of 5 μg/kg, especially relevant for seed-treated crops, have negligible effects on honey bee colony health. Currently there is wide agreement that sublethal exposure to imidacloprid can cause adverse effects on honey bees in laboratory studies [77] but no evidence that this widely used insecticide is the major stressor causing colony declines. Our findings agree with a causal analysis by Staveley et al. [37] that judged neonicotinoid pesticides to be an unlikely sole cause of colony declines. Finally, this study makes evident the importance of conducting risk assessment studies on honey bee colonies over longer periods to reveal the chronic sublethal effects on queen health and bee behaviors that can ultimately impair colony performance

MDavid · « **Reply #17 on:** April 16, 2015, 04:51:41 pm »

Quote from: D Coates on April 16, 2015, 04:41:19 pm

As long as folks are quoting stuff here's the findings of a recent study on how imidacloprid (a type of neonic) affects honeybees.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118748

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine the chronic sublethal effects on whole honey bee colonies subjected to worse-case scenarios as well as normal dietary exposure (5μg/kg) to imidacloprid. We used spiked diet patties placed within colonies to deliver continuous direct exposure over multiple brood cycles to imidacloprid residues that were generally higher than levels found in bee-collected pollen and nectar under field conditions. Our results provide evidence that imidacloprid exposure doses up to 100 μg/kg had no significant effects on foraging activity or colony performance during and shortly after 12 weeks of exposure. However, several colony performance endpoints showed dose-response patterns, particularly higher Varroa infestations with increased dose, though not all patterns were statistically significant. The major finding was the higher rates of queen replacement and resulting broodless periods during the late summer in colonies exposed to 20 and 100 μg/kg of imidacloprid, which led to weaker colonies going into the winter. These exposure regimes sublethally affected colony health and significantly reduced overwintering success. However, the question remains as to whether doses of 100 or even 20 μg/kg exposed for 12 continuous weeks realistically represent imidacloprid residues in bee-collected food under agriculture settings. In certain field situations, residues of imidacloprid can reach or exceed 100 μg/kg in pollen of treated crops during several weeks of flowering [35] or in guttation droplets exuded from treated corn seedlings [45,46]. However, it is uncommon for honey bees to be exposed to these doses for extended periods. Furthermore, bees generally forage on different water and floral sources simultaneously and not all sources will contain residues; thus their foraging behavior tends to reduce the concentration of imidacloprid in food stored in the colony. The within-hive fate experiment demonstrated that imidacloprid residues of 100 μg/kg in diet patties or 20 μg/kg in sucrose syrup became diluted or non-detectable due to the processing of beebread and honey and the rapid metabolism of the chemical by bees. Given the weight of evidence presented here, we conclude that chronic exposure to imidacloprid at the higher range of field doses (20 to 100 μg/kg) in the pollen of certain treated crops could contribute to reduced overwintering success but the most likely encountered field doses of 5 μg/kg, especially relevant for seed-treated crops, have negligible effects on honey bee colony health. Currently there is wide agreement that sublethal exposure to imidacloprid can cause adverse effects on honey bees in laboratory studies [77] but no evidence that this widely used insecticide is the major stressor causing colony declines. Our findings agree with a causal analysis by Staveley et al. [37] that judged neonicotinoid pesticides to be an unlikely sole cause of colony declines. Finally, this study makes evident the importance of conducting risk assessment studies on honey bee colonies over longer periods to reveal the chronic sublethal effects on queen health and bee behaviors that can ultimately impair colony performance

My analogy...eating fast food daily may not kill you but your general health will decline which may result in fewer winters above ground; But do not fear as nobody eats fast food daily.

Maggiesdad · « **Reply #18 on:** April 16, 2015, 05:45:36 pm »

I knew a troll named Tommy once... he smoked a lot and got lung cancer.

MDavid · « **Reply #19 on:** April 16, 2015, 06:18:04 pm »

Quote from: Maggiesdad on April 16, 2015, 05:45:36 pm

I knew a troll named Tommy once... he smoked a lot and got lung cancer.

LoL...good one...you have "A" point...after all the bees are old enough to make their own dumb descisions...no need to outlaw tobacco...

GSF · « **Reply #20 on:** April 17, 2015, 07:11:13 am »

One year it was found that the decline in bee populations correlated exactly with the divorce rates in South Carolina. The years of higher divorce rates was also the years that there were a higher loss rate in colonies. If the divorce rates were low the colony losses were low. To save the bees we need to help keep marriages together in S. Carolina.

"Correlation does not equal Causation"

(I don't know why I post stupid stuff like that)

CapnChkn · « **Reply #21 on:** April 17, 2015, 07:18:54 am »

Quote

ah yes....the "theory". the THEORY!!!!!

I LOVE THE theory. everything should be based on it....or one. what we eat, what we do, how we do it, when we do it........

Quote

Theory is exactly that. It's unproven and can be molded to fit whomevers agenda. If it's a good theory, then it'll end up being proven

Um...

Everything IS based on theory. In science, a working abstract is what is used. For example, gravitational theory. I mentioned that in the now defunct Skype chatrooms once, and was told directly that "Gravity is REAL! Let's get something from someone who at least has a High School education..."

Hypothesis is speculation, conjecture, or otherwise something you pluck out of a thesaurus. Theory is the working model. 3000 years ago, the theory was the "Flat World." The information discovered by the Greeks, and then proven by Eratosthenes changed the theory to a round world. Today we all "know" worlds are spherical, but the information may change again, showing the flaws in our understanding. There may be some quirky physics that allows for a doughnut shape (torus) or what?

Kathyp · « **Reply #22 on:** April 17, 2015, 10:24:05 am »

Yes. But theory is not fact. Theory IS what you work from. You work to prove or disprove the theory. until you can prove it its not a fact. I think we can all find ways to prove gravity.

My objection is to jumping into action based on unproved theory. If they wanted to jump at everything they have torn down the cell towers. This has more to do with hating pesticides of any kind.

OldMech · « **Reply #23 on:** April 17, 2015, 11:10:52 am »

I have to stand with D Coates and others..
I live in SE Iowa.. I have corn and beans growing within feet of my hives. The seeds are treated with systemic pesticides. And yet.. my bees thrive.
There was a time, years ago, when I saw the planes spraying fields, and I knew I would have dead hives to contend with. Often, My mentor would lose 60% of his hives, and we would struggle the rest of the year to replace them.

So which is worse? Having a hive dead RIGHT NOW, or having the time to rotate out the comb that slowly gets contaminated?
Neonics dont kill bees instantly.. So the way I see it, the bees WILL eventually become immune, just like the mites become immune to the treatments we use.

What people are throwing a fit about, is their food source. We all eat this stuff, just like the bees do. so as Mr. Bush mentioned.. why are we not worried about us?
The next worry, is that there is money involved.. so you have FOOD and MONEY in the same problem.. when that happens, your not going to start yelling and have anyone take you seriously.. In fact, if your one vote DID have the power to end the use of neonics and pesticides instantly, you would die so you could not vote. Thats how much money is involved.
Pesticides WILL be used.. make neonics illegal and they will be spraying again. I prefer to stick with something I can take the time to deal with.

I live in the heart of farm country. I help farmers every spring and fall. I can state, that Every one of them understands what they are using. But they are being pushed into a corner, and will be forced to take sides. With Monsanto Sueing farmers that are using beans that have their "round up ready" Gene... even though they have been saving, and using their own seed for 80+ years, their neighbors beans have cross pollinated with theirs, so Monsanto puts them out of business.... To the banning of DDT and now the controversy with Neonics.. what are they supposed to plant? you cant save your own seed anymore, you have to buy it.. is it posible to BUY corn or bean seed that is not treated? If you can, will you even get a crop after the bugs are done? Oh yeah, they can claim the loss and go on welfare so the taxpayers can support them and their families...

MDavid · « **Reply #24 on:** April 17, 2015, 02:31:47 pm »

If you like theory then you'll love mythology:

Once there was a boy named Troy.

Who grew and grew a war.

No time did he take,

To throw open his gate,

With a gift horse he was destroyed.

D Coates · « **Reply #25 on:** April 17, 2015, 03:36:18 pm »

Quote from: kathyp on April 17, 2015, 10:24:05 am

This has more to do with hating pesticides of any kind.

This and resorting to completely unproven theories, innuendos, distortions, and conspiracies in efforts to discredit these pesticides. I'd love to see what folks of this ilk would resort to if their domiciles got infested with fleas, lice, ticks, etc. I'd bet those treatments if fed directly to bees in syrup would kill them. Bee murderers....

MDavid · « **Reply #26 on:** April 17, 2015, 05:16:53 pm »

Quote from: D Coates on April 17, 2015, 03:36:18 pm

Quote from: kathyp on April 17, 2015, 10:24:05 am
This has more to do with hating pesticides of any kind.

This and resorting to completely unproven theories, innuendos, distortions, and conspiracies in efforts to discredit these pesticides. I'd love to see what folks of this ilk would resort to if their domiciles got infested with fleas, lice, ticks, etc. I'd bet those treatments if fed directly to bees in syrup would kill them. Bee murderers....

I know, I know...I long for the good o'l days before hate and domiciles were never infested with fleas, lice, ticks, etc...In those days, people could run around as free as the day they were born...no wurrying 'bout nuc clear raidiation or toilets and the only chemistry was between people....ahhhh, them were the days.

MDavid · « **Reply #27 on:** April 17, 2015, 05:26:23 pm »

Quote from: GSF on April 17, 2015, 07:11:13 am

One year it was found that the decline in bee populations correlated exactly with the divorce rates in South Carolina. The years of higher divorce rates was also the years that there were a higher loss rate in colonies. If the divorce rates were low the colony losses were low. To save the bees we need to help keep marriages together in S. Carolina.

"Correlation does not equal Causation"

(I don't know why I post stupid stuff like that)

"Correlation does not imply Causation"

Like 1+1 does not equal 3 because it's just stupid, but 1+1 does not imply 11, because there are rules...

In other news: S. Carolines' beekeepers now have new and improved ways to make money...

Dallasbeek · « **Reply #28 on:** April 17, 2015, 07:30:38 pm »

My hero is an Iowa farm boy who went off to college and studied forestry. Norman Borlaug became the father of the Green Revolution and took home a Nobel Prize for doing a whole lot more than some of the more recent prize winners (Yasser Arafat and a guy named Obama come to mind), because he probably saved the lives of more people than anybody in history. His work resulted in food production that avoided the "Population Bomb" predicted by Paul Erlich and others who said the earth could not sustain the population that it had produced.

There are always Chicken Littles spouting off about terrible things humanity is facing. Most of the time the sky isn't falling at all, but when we follow them, calamity usually awaits and the law of unintended consequences kicks in.

GMOs? Bring them on. That's what we've been doing for 10,000 years in agriculture, isn't it? Insecticides? Beats the heck out of smashing critters between two rocks. Just use all things judiciously. I'm with D. Coates.

swflcpl · « **Reply #29 on:** April 18, 2015, 11:36:37 pm »

No, GMOs are NOT what we've been doing for 10,000 years.

YpsiBee2015 · « **Reply #30 on:** April 19, 2015, 12:39:02 pm »

What we have been doing for thousands of years is breeding plants, not in a lab though. did anyone ever learn about Pundit Squares and the snapdragons or pea plants? lol

I draw the line between GMO and naturally bread.

Kathyp · « **Reply #31 on:** April 19, 2015, 01:04:34 pm »

I'll date myself and say that I remember when there was a debate about IVF for women and how unnatural that was. Now they talk about genetic manipulation to cure or prevent diseases. who could be against that. of course there will be people who use the new tech to choose eye color or gender, or any number of other things...but in the main, it's all good right?

Until it's not.

but once the tech is out there, it's out there. GMO for crops has allowed many to grow what they could not before. No doubt it is going to be the same for livestock unless the EPA decides we should not eat meat and makes it illegal.

It has increased disease, insect, and drought resistance, and fed millions. There is potential for abuse for sure. The evil is not in the technology, but in the hands of the developers and users. so far, other than some questionable business practices, all the evil has been rumor. The business practices might be distasteful, but they are the same with all large companies. Re: Google and the outcry in Europe over their practices.

Dallasbeek · « **Reply #32 on:** April 19, 2015, 02:26:30 pm »

Many plants today are propagated in labs by use of small amounts of tissue culture in petri dishes. Christmas tree farms where all the trees look identical are an example. They are all clones of one particularly well-shaped tree. I know an orchid dealer who will pay $20,000 for a prize orchid, send it to a lab and get back hundreds of "baby" plants that he then sells for $100 each.

Even Europe is starting to accept GMO vegetables and fruit. Some things, like a tomato that was introduced 10 or 15 years ago that refused to get rotten, have failed, because people wouldn't accept them, but because they didn't meet the demands of the marketplace. In the case of the tomato, it had almost no flavor.

Kathy, you're right about corporate practces. Isn't it odd that Google's motto is something like "don't do evil"?

Dallasbeek · « **Reply #33 on:** April 19, 2015, 02:41:43 pm »

IVF -- in vitro fertilization. I had to Google it to find out, Kathy. And yes, I'd have to say it's a little bit unnatural at times. I heard on the radio the other day that a 65-year-old woman in Germany is pregnant with quadruplets, because her youngest of about 15 children wanted a little brother. That strikes me as more than a little strange.

Now what all this has to do with neonic plants at Home Depot is beyond me. i still miss the nice emojis and messages like the sign told us to stay on topic.

Kathyp · « **Reply #34 on:** April 19, 2015, 02:50:38 pm »

Justification for wandering subject: Natural vs. unnatural, and how far do we want to take that?

CapnChkn · « **Reply #35 on:** April 21, 2015, 07:50:22 am »

Quote

Yes. But theory is not fact. Theory IS what you work from. You work to prove or disprove the theory. until you can prove it its not a fact. I think we can all find ways to prove gravity.

Yes, there are two general definitions for Theory.

One is the common usage, as in, "Well, it will work in theory..." This is the misunderstood concept. Because the implication is the concept is workable but we aren't sure, but the inference is that it works, but anything is possible. It's correct usage because it's common usage.

The second and original meaning of theory is it's intended usage. Since logically one cannot determine something to be an absolute fact due to not having all the information, there is a theory behind everything. "There's always something new." I. E. there's no end to data. Once something continuously shows itself as an immutable and recurring "thing," it's then described as a "law."

Theory is an abstract, not a speculation. Theories are actually fact. Saying things "aren't real," because it has the label theory added to it, is ignoring the measurable, observable truths that make it what it is.

Here's the history of Gravitational theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gravitational_theory

This is more in the layman's terms.
http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law

As for pesticides, I use organics, like BT. Neonics are destructive in my estimation. Chemicals have too much potential for abuse, like my new next door neighbor who blows Sevin dust all around, willy-nilly, to kill mosquitoes. When I got him to turn off his leaf blower, or whatever that machine was, and pointed to the hive of bees going on about their business 10 feet from where he was standing, he declared, "I didn't even know they were there!"

Kathyp · « **Reply #36 on:** April 21, 2015, 11:06:57 am »

Quote

Theory is an abstract, not a speculation. Theories are actually fact.

Theories are abstracts usually developed from facts. they are not facts until you can consistently prove them.

You might develop the theory of gravity based on observations. Your observation that things fall down when you drop them is a good one, but without testing to see if things fall down consistently, under almost all conditions, you can't determine that gravity is a fact.

I often to back to the DDT thing because it's a fantastic example of jumping on the theory without proving it. The theory was good, just wrong.

Dallasbeek · « **Reply #37 on:** April 21, 2015, 11:39:20 am »

Using Wikipedia to "prove" a position is nonsense. Most of what is on the internet is nonsense. Any crackpot can write an article and "publish" it on the internet, in Wikipedia or wherever, but it has about as much basis in fact as the jabber of the village idiot.

Dallasbeek · « **Reply #38 on:** April 21, 2015, 11:56:16 am »

I'll temper my last posting just a little. Wiki is a pretty good starting point, but you have to have some skepticism about anything you find on the internet.

CapnChkn · « **Reply #39 on:** April 24, 2015, 12:27:54 am »

Quote

I'll temper my last posting just a little. Wiki is a pretty good starting point, but you have to have some skepticism about anything you find on the internet.

LOL! What you find on the Internet is, in fact, Beemaster.com! My friend, I am old enough, now, to be a great grandfather. I learned all this stuff before there were answering machines! I actually got my information from Comic Books, and the Encyclopedia Britannica!

I'm not proving anything. "Proving" denotes there is a right way and a wrong way. That's generalizing. I'm making an observation that the term theory is being used incorrectly in this context.

Quote

Theories are abstracts usually developed from facts. they are not facts until you can consistently prove them.

Remember, I said there are two accepted general definitions. The theory you see in the police show about what the "unsub" did, and the theory put forth by a team of scientists are two completely different things.

As an example, Money is not real. I can make observations there is a tangible, actual, thing. But I cannot actually get "money." I can get symbols: gold, paper money, or even plastic. But money is such an abstract that Bankers a decade ago spent a lot of time creating it out of thin air, one reason the economy went in a downward spiral.

We work with it, we determine the value of friends, mates, social positions, other cultures, administrations, etc. , on the amount they are making, made, or will make. If we simply didn't agree that a Dollar was actually worth anything, it would be a cute idea, concept, or something really weird.

See, I'm actually defining what a theory is, and I'm being told, "Yes, well.. The truth is..." using the same criteria. First question I need to ask when I hear "theory," is "Is this an actual theory, or is this a hypothesis?" The second question I have to always ask myself when I hear the word is, "Which kind of theory is this?"

A hypothesis isn't a fact until you find observable "facts" to support it. Then it becomes a theory.

CapnChkn · « **Reply #40 on:** September 20, 2016, 01:11:57 am »

So!

Yeah, I know this topic is over a year old now. I just found this article through Kim Flottum's newsletter, "Catch the Buzz." It seems that there is Purdy good evidence that Neonics are harming bee colonies in many ways. In this case, as little as 20 parts per billion can cause the queen's laying ability to drop as much as 33%. In larger doses, the decrease in egg laying can be as much as 66%.

This is the same stuff you put in between the shoulder blades of your kitty or doggie to dose them for fleas, and the most widely used Neonicotinoid in the world. Imidacloprid. The study done by Judy Wu-smart of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln is published in Nature Journal's website at the "Scientific Reports" section.

"Sub-lethal effects of dietary neonicotinoid insecticide exposure on honey bee queen fecundity and colony development." http://www.nature.com/articles/srep32108

"Less well studied are the potential effects of neonicotinoids on queen bees, which may be exposed indirectly through trophallaxis, or food-sharing. To assess effects on queen productivity, small colonies of different sizes (1500, 3000, and 7000 bees) were fed imidacloprid (0, 10, 20, 50, and 100 ppb) in syrup for three weeks. We found adverse effects of imidacloprid on queens (egg-laying and locomotor activity), worker bees (foraging and hygienic activities), and colony development (brood production and pollen stores) in all treated colonies."

bwallace23350 · « **Reply #41 on:** September 20, 2016, 11:41:16 am »

Does it hurt bumblebees and other bees. At my parents house they have tones of other bees but no honey bees. I find that odd since they are surrounded by lots of woods and wildlife but in our pasture where I have my bees I know of feral bees but no plants with neonecticides or any such thing are ever planted tehre.

Dallasbeek · « **Reply #42 on:** September 20, 2016, 01:57:01 pm »

Quote from: bwallace23350 on September 20, 2016, 11:41:16 am

Does it hurt bumblebees and other bees. At my parents house they have tones of other bees but no honey bees. I find that odd since they are surrounded by lots of woods and wildlife but in our pasture where I have my bees I know of feral bees but no plants with neonecticides or any such thing are ever planted tehre.

Honeybees can travel two miles or more, so do you really know there are no neonics that they are feeding on? You'd have to be in a very large pesticide-free nature preserve or somehting to know for sure.