"Suspended"Originally Posted by Oddmott
The anti-neonics crowd refers to the "ban being lifted".
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ious-harm-bees
"Suspended"
The anti-neonics crowd refers to the "ban being lifted".
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ious-harm-bees
Northern O.
When I read that, and thought about "unintended consequences". My thoughts were.
Wild bees would/are benefitting from mass produced canola. If untreated canola is being hammered by beetles and farmers are moving to something else.....akin to shooting yourself in the foot.
Not how it will impact the bee keepers, for whom it's a PITA, and who will just use something's else.
Last edited by JBen; July 24th, 2015 at 09:54 AM.
The EU ban, from what I understand (now) was only a 2 year ban to see what would happen.
"Yet, as activists continue to campaign to get neonics banned, news from Europe, where a two-year moratorium went into effect last year, suggests that farmers are unable to control pests without them. Partly in desperation, they are replacing neonics with pesticides that are older, less effective and demonstrably more harmful to humans and social insects, and farm yields are dropping."
I wouldn't bet on it being renewed.
...that's a old link from Jan/15
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.or...to-bee-health/
Here is a link to a very interesting article on why an Iowa farmer has reverted from GMO;d corn back to conventional on his 1,000 acres, explains why , he gets better yields and saves over $80.00 per acre , pls, read.
Link;http://modernfarmer.com/2013/12/post-gmo-economy/
From that link:
During the growing season, Huegerich sprays both his conventional and his GMO corn twice with herbicides and twice with pesticides, despite the GMO’s theoretical resistance to rootworm. “It gives me peace of mind,” Huegerich says.
So instead of using a bug resistant GMO, he sprays the hell out of it with pesticides??? Is that really better???
An exert from this study "Results
Biochemical analyses confirmed very significant chronic kidney deficiencies, for all treatments and both sexes; 76% of the altered parameters were kidney-related. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher. Marked and severe nephropathies were also generally 1.3 to 2.3 times greater.
link;http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14
And another ; Then, with no pyrotechnics, he offered his theory: "I think it's possible you've developed a reaction to genetically modified corn." from this study;
link;http://www.elle.com/beauty/health-fi...modified-corn/
Glyphosate is not breaking down as promised
In 1996, New York’s attorney general sued Monsanto over the company’s use of “false and misleading advertising” about RoundUp. That case ended with Monsanto agreeing to stop calling Roundup “biodegradable,” and to pull ads claiming that Roundup was “safer than table salt,” “practically nontoxic,” and “stayed where you put it.”
Two decades after the advent of “RoundUp Ready” crops and their dominance in the agricultural marketplace, the evidence of their falsehoods abound: multiple studies have found significant levels of glyphosate in streams, soil, air, rainwater, and groundwater
link;http://gmo-awareness.com/resources/glyphosate/
There are so many others, a report I read from a study by the U. of Calgary and York U. stated a study done on a slough out west that had roundup/glyphosate sprayed on the fields around it 5 years previously , still had residuals of roundup in it , it is not breaking down as Monasanto has been telling the public. This chemical is hanging around and getting into out food chain and we will be succumbing to it more sooner than later.
Here is another study that should scare everyone;Is Glyphosate Responsible for your Health Problems? - See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/is-....nBUVKS2b.dpuf
Link;http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/is-...alth-problems/
You do realize that enveurope.com study was retracted after it was published?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...78691512005637
It was republished by a non-scientific organization a couple of years later.
And when we start quoting www.elle.com beauty and womens magazine...seriously, are we really doing this?
[QUOTE] And when we start quoting www.elle.com beauty and womens magazine...seriously, are we really doing this? [/QUOTE ]
Werner , you have chosen to make fun of, denigrate a report because of the media it was published in.
However the originator of the study and report is, Stephanie Sennef, a " Senior Research Scientist " at MIT with so many degrees it looks like a confused alphabet who lately has been concentrating on Biology particularly on GMO and GLYPHOSATE relationship to many human disorders and diseases.
So you have any credentials that can counter her reports? I think not.
I also know many farmers who are reverting back to conventional farming and in particular a few of them are claiming their dairy herds are healthier with no loss at calving time , more and better quality milk.
[QUOTE=jaycee;913379]Jaycee - google "Stephanie Sennef" and see what the scientific community (not just the big Ag companies) think of her. "Controversial" seems to come up in every article about here.And when we start quoting www.elle.com beauty and womens magazine...seriously, are we really doing this? [/QUOTE ]
Werner , you have chosen to make fun of, denigrate a report because of the media it was published in.
However the originator of the study and report is, Stephanie Sennef, a " Senior Research Scientist " at MIT with so many degrees it looks like a confused alphabet who lately has been concentrating on Biology particularly on GMO and GLYPHOSATE relationship to many human disorders and diseases.
So you have any credentials that can counter her reports? I think not.
I also know many farmers who are reverting back to conventional farming and in particular a few of them are claiming their dairy herds are healthier with no loss at calving time , more and better quality milk.
Here's a quick synopsis of what you will find:
...Seneff, however, has not actually performed any research into glyphosate. She is “a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.” She is also an anti-GMO activist. That does not mean she is wrong – it just means it is misleading to cite her as a researcher and authority. She has published only speculations and gives many presentations, but has not created any new data."
That's from https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...-new-bogeyman/
The degrees she holds are in computer related fields and that's where she works, NOT in the biological research fields - although here 1968 degree - would have been useful half a century ago had she decided to enter that field (which she did not).
She received the B.S. degree in Biophysics in 1968, the M.S. and E.E. degrees in Electrical Engineering in 1980, and the Ph.D degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1985, all from MIT.
As far as "So you have any credentials that can counter her reports?", I'd say since we are both working in the Engineering and Computer science fields, our credentials in biological research are about equal - somewhere around zero. But at least I'm not publishing junk science.
Last edited by werner.reiche; July 29th, 2015 at 01:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
