5 ms·

There's quite a few papers referenced on wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#Decline_in_bee_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonico

by mohawk 11y ago

There's quite a few papers referenced on wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#Decline_in_bee_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#Decline_in_bee_p...

torgoguys 11y ago
Thanks for the link. Yes, neonicotinoids are bad for bees, but so are lots of other things. Other than one special symptomatic consistency (aside from death), there still doesn't appear to be an especially good reason to peg most of the blame on them yet. Doesn't mean they aren't to blame in a large measure, but it doesn't appear there is any reason to think that YET. It's one of those annoying "more study is needed" situations. Several original hypothesises as to the cause of CCD have been ruled out by more study, but none confirmed yet. The linked wikipedia article says neonicotinoids' role is being studied as a cause if CCD, perhaps in combo with other factors, but doesn't draw a clear line from one to the other. However, it does, as the parent post mentions, provide some nice references for more info.
- mohawk 11y ago
  Well-documented neurotoxicity and bioaccumulation seem good reasons to me. Of course there will always be colony collapses without neonicotinoids too. How about we stop using them until we fully understand their effects? EU has banned their use for two years: http://ec.europa.eu/food/archive/animal/liveanimals/bees/neonicotinoids_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/food/archive/animal/liveanimals/bees/neo... http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/beehealth.htm?wtrl=01 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/beehealth.htm?wtrl...
  - torgoguys 11y ago
    > How about we stop using them until we fully understand their effects? Because doing so would ignore the benefits they provide. The reasons we started using them over the alternatives. Their effects are reasonably well understood, enough to use them in a likely safe manner. The EU experiment (the ban) will provide another data point to inform the cost-benefit calculus. Relying on complete knowledge of somethings effects before use is impractical. Do you know for certain that goat milk doesn't cause Alzheimer's? No? That doesn't mean we ban its production until it is better understood. Yes, this example is a a bad one, not exactly analogous, but only because I didn't take the time to think up something better. I think the point is clear enough.

by mohawk 11y ago

There's quite a few papers referenced on wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#Decline_in_bee_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#Decline_in_bee_p...

torgoguys 11y ago

Thanks for the link. Yes, neonicotinoids are bad for bees, but so are lots of other things. Other than one special symptomatic consistency (aside from death), there still doesn't appear to be an especially good reason to peg most of the blame on them yet. Doesn't mean they aren't to blame in a large measure, but it doesn't appear there is any reason to think that YET. It's one of those annoying "more study is needed" situations. Several original hypothesises as to the cause of CCD have been ruled out by more study, but none confirmed yet. The linked wikipedia article says neonicotinoids' role is being studied as a cause if CCD, perhaps in combo with other factors, but doesn't draw a clear line from one to the other. However, it does, as the parent post mentions, provide some nice references for more info.

mohawk 11y ago
Well-documented neurotoxicity and bioaccumulation seem good reasons to me. Of course there will always be colony collapses without neonicotinoids too. How about we stop using them until we fully understand their effects? EU has banned their use for two years: http://ec.europa.eu/food/archive/animal/liveanimals/bees/neonicotinoids_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/food/archive/animal/liveanimals/bees/neo... http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/beehealth.htm?wtrl=01 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/beehealth.htm?wtrl...
- torgoguys 11y ago
  > How about we stop using them until we fully understand their effects? Because doing so would ignore the benefits they provide. The reasons we started using them over the alternatives. Their effects are reasonably well understood, enough to use them in a likely safe manner. The EU experiment (the ban) will provide another data point to inform the cost-benefit calculus. Relying on complete knowledge of somethings effects before use is impractical. Do you know for certain that goat milk doesn't cause Alzheimer's? No? That doesn't mean we ban its production until it is better understood. Yes, this example is a a bad one, not exactly analogous, but only because I didn't take the time to think up something better. I think the point is clear enough.