-
June 9th, 2015, 04:45 PM
#51
Not that I'm sure it will mean anything to you oddmott as your mind is most obviously made up , but here is a very interesting article
http://www.country-guide.ca/2015/06/...ts-real/46788/
-
June 9th, 2015 04:45 PM
# ADS
-
June 9th, 2015, 04:58 PM
#52
Originally Posted by
trappermatt
Good article...
"
Who will be left to speak for me?Seeds of this debate go back to the days of the cosmetic pesticide ban, Denys believes. He says many in agriculture felt they could ignore that debate, for two key reasons. One, it was happening to the lawn care sector, not on farms. Two, few believed the Liberal government would last as long as it has.
“The reality is the exact same people who were involved in the cosmetic pesticide ban within the government are the ones leading the charge now,” Denys says.
Denys believes those government insiders have only got shrewder. He believes they’re telling farm groups outside the grain and oilseed sector to stay out of this issue, that it isn’t their fight, and if they do become embroiled, the government will do to them what it’s doing to row-crop farmers."
-
June 9th, 2015, 04:59 PM
#53
Originally Posted by
trappermatt
When Townsend pressed Bennett to divulge how much of the Sierra Club’s funds go to research pollinator health, Bennett’s reply was, “We do not fund any research, only promote awareness.”
Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
-
June 9th, 2015, 06:59 PM
#54
If neonics are not that destructfull, why are they banned by 27 countries in the EU.? link;http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-banned-europe
and another link;http://www.motherearthnews.com/natur...z1307zkin.aspx
another;http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/...des-are-a-huge
It is not only bees that are affected , neonics also destroy many other beneficial insects which are eaten as food by our songbirds which then are also affected, neonics have a far more destructive reaching affect than is presently known by most.
Last edited by jaycee; June 9th, 2015 at 07:03 PM.
-
June 9th, 2015, 07:18 PM
#55
Originally Posted by
jaycee
If neonics are not that destructfull, why are they banned by 27 countries in the EU.?
Well my goodness we should ban them because they are so destructfull !! lol
Don't want to spoil your time on the high stool, but did you look at the origins of your links?
I thought not.
-
June 9th, 2015, 07:23 PM
#56
Has too much time on their hands
Originally Posted by
Angus
Well my goodness we should ban them because they are so destructfull !! lol
Don't want to spoil your time on the high stool, but did you look at the origins of your links?
I thought not.
Well said Lol
-
June 10th, 2015, 07:30 AM
#57
Originally Posted by
jaycee
Jaycee - this isn't (or shouldn't be) an argument over neonics being harmful or not, it should be about whether they are less harmful that alternatives (which they are), and what the alternatives are (and no pesticide use is not a practical alternative). Neonics were introduced party because of their lesser effect on birds and small mammals.
Banning them in Europe may have been workable where the farms are small and subsidies are large (57B Euro), but that is not a practical solution for Canada. I can't find numbers for Canada, but...
europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-631_en.htm
"Europe has 12 million farmers and an average farm size of about 15 hectares (by way of comparison, the US has 2 million farmers and an average farm size of 180 hectares)."
A hectare is roughly 2.5 acres, so 38 acres in the EU vs 450 ac in the US.
So what you have in Europe is 12 million hobby farmers (by North American standards) whose hobbies are being financed by subsidies (read that taxpayers). The two are not at all comparable.
If Ontario wants to ban neonics and start subsidizing at a EU level, you can bet there would be a lot more farms in Ontario. But I don't see that happening - not with the province's current financial situation.
Last edited by werner.reiche; June 10th, 2015 at 07:35 AM.
-
June 10th, 2015, 07:58 AM
#58
Originally Posted by
werner.reiche
Jaycee - this isn't (or shouldn't be) an argument over neonics being harmful or not, it should be about whether they are less harmful that alternatives (which they are),
That is what this is about. Since the science was cheated in the first place, and nobody actually knows anything about how neonics affect land, humans & select livestock over longer periods of time... it's quite premature for you to announce anything about them, defacto.
All you know about neonics is that they are less harmful, in some ways, to some select species, over a specific period of time. You do NOT know if it's harmless to those same species over longer periods and after continued and cumulative exposure. You do NOT know a thing about how they affect non-tested species. You do NOT know their safety level, at all.
The EU is 8 years into a 25 yr effort of study. Canada is only in the 4th year of an open-ended study that may not be completed in our lifetimes, but the preliminary reports from the Canadian testing does not look favorable for those who claim neonics are all that.
-
June 10th, 2015, 08:02 AM
#59
Originally Posted by
Oddmott
That is what this is about. Since the science was cheated in the first place, and nobody actually knows anything about how neonics affect land, humans & select livestock over longer periods of time... it's quite premature for you to announce anything about them, defacto.
All you know about neonics is that they are less harmful, in some ways, to some select species, over a specific period of time. You do NOT know if it's harmless to those same species over longer periods and after continued and cumulative exposure. You do NOT know a thing about how they affect non-tested species. You do NOT know their safety level, at all.
The EU is 8 years into a 25 yr effort of study. Canada is only in the 4th year of an open-ended study that may not be completed in our lifetimes, but the preliminary reports from the Canadian testing does not look favorable for those who claim neonics are all that.
What we do know is that in the short term neonics appear to be less toxic to the environment, small mammals and birds than current alternatives. That is why they are in use today. The issue from is not "neonics or nothing" it's "neonics or previously approved pesticides". To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.
If the evaluation that neonics is being exposed to was applied to automobiles, we'd still be using horse and buggies. Those darn newfangled contraptions are dangerous, waste non-renewable resources, and pollute the air. The practical approach of cost/benefit which we apply to all other technology gets thrown out the window in the neonics discussion. "One bee killed is one to many" I believe I read on one website. Want to take a guess at how many bees get killed by automobiles. Lets ban those too to save the bees.
Last edited by werner.reiche; June 10th, 2015 at 08:08 AM.
-
June 10th, 2015, 08:16 AM
#60
I'll be honest, i find it extremely entertaining how someone who posted the thread title "Science Collapse Disorder", continues to defend and promote some of the worst scientific work ever performed.
In your eyes it's terrible for a gov't to move quickly to impose strict regulations on a product while further scientific studies are performed on it... but it's perfectly fine by you for that product to be rushed to market and widespread use, without any concrete knowledge about how it works or effects our ecosystem and food stocks.
That's... a special kind of logic.
Reply With Quote
