Slashdot Mirror
EPA Knowingly Allowed Pesticide That Kills Bees
hether writes "The mystery of the disappearing bees has been baffling scientists for years and now we get another big piece in the puzzle. From Fast Company: 'A number of theories have popped up as to why the North American honey bee population has declined — electromagnetic radiation, malnutrition, and climate change have all been pinpointed. Now a leaked EPA document reveals that the agency allowed the widespread use of a bee-toxic pesticide, despite warnings from EPA scientists.' Now environmentalists and bee keepers are calling for an immediate ban of the pesticide clothianidin, sold by Bayer Crop Science under the brand name Poncho."
Treason. Execute everyone involved.
Hmmm and i thought the "P" stood for Protection, but clearly its something to do with Profits and or Pressure.... what a freakin sellout i bet they were pressured to allow more profits by the big agribusiness lobbyists... i guess agribusiness will be the first to cry foul when their crops no longer get fertilised....
It could be that North American bees are also in contact with other chemicals or plants that Eurobees aren't. It may be the interaction with these and the clothianidin that are causing a different reaction on different continents... if there is a different reaction.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Most of your questions are answered in TFA, and those that aren't, are thoroughly covered in the linked PDF (except for the political ones.) The short version is that the stuff propagates very easily through the environment and is toxic to bees even in very low doses.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Well, see, you can live in your little Randroid free-market fantasyland all you want. But when you start poisoning the land, air, and water we all have to share, the rest of us will organize to stop you. We will call this organization "the government." We will give this organization the power to fine you, imprison you, or even kill you if you refuse to mend your ways, and you can't stop us. There are more of us than there are of you, we're smarter, and we're better than you in every conceivable way.
Don't like it? Move to Somalia. There are a bunch of people there who have taken your ideology to its logical extreme. Let's see how long you last.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Didn't they recently announce discovery of the primary cause for the bee-deaths?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I don't know about this "science" stuff, but I thought I would get straight to the root of the issue. To this end, I found a nearby hibernating honey bee and I asked the little fellow what his thoughts were on the matter. At first I couldn't quite make out what he was saying (bee sized and all) so I held him close to my face. Do you know what the little guy told me? Kill everyone, make the rivers flow with their blood and fill the skies with their screams.
Surprisingly, this is exactly what the article said too.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
I work in seed enhancement, fortunately, I don't order clothianidin (Poncho) from Bayer Crop Science. However I do order Thiram, Captan and Allegiance (aka Apron FL) from Bayer. Most of these chemicals are used to control pythium, however I've always wondered if these were responsible for the bee hive die offs.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
> I'm not a fan of pesticides but I won't deny that they increase food and crop yield.
Prove it. I don't believe this whatsoever.
There has been a growing of evidence showing that the overuse of pesticides has led to a *decline* in crop yields, not an increase.
See:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_5995.cfm
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/June/04060701.asp
Unless you are familiar with changes in farming techniques over time it's very very hard to have a substantive position on this. Since about 1960-1970 there has been a *huuuge* increase in the use of nitrogen fertilizers that essentially parallels the use of pesticides. Sadly there was a limit to how much nitrogen fixation can actually take place in the presence of pesticides. Keep in mind that nitrogen is required for plants to grow, nitrogen fixation is required for plants to use nitrogen and... research has now shown that pesticides interferes with nitrogen fixation.
I'm not making a broad claim one way or another, but the government clearly isn't researching the things they should be.
Curses.... foiled again by people who read.
The villains fall for that trick every time.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
There was an article posted on /. a while back that showed a two pronged attack on the bees by I think a mite and a pathogen that caused the death of whole hives.
This sounds like some anti-pesticide religious fanatic trying to whip up hysteria while trying to make the FDA and the pesticide industry look bad.
The FDA screens pesticides for how they will be used, how mobile the pesticide is and how long the residue lasts. If this was not done then cry foul.
This is what I could find in a few minutes searching http://www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2006-12-13-E6-20898 I have not found the application for use as a seed coating but Bayer would have needed to go through a process to get that approved by the EPA.
Ah, here is the fact sheet http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/factsheets/clothianidin.pdf
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
It's just like the BP Gulf oil spill and the coal mine explosion in West Virginia. There are systems in place to protect people and the environment, but when the Republicans gain control they stop all oversight. It takes five to fifteen years to see all the failures, and by then everyone forgets who turned over control to the crooks and lairs.
They just wave the flag, blame everything on the government bureaucrats and illegal aliens, scream about the war on terror, and then lie and deny when the shit hits the fan. I guess as long as these morons continue to lie and cheat their way into power we deserve to have poisoned gulf seafood and the end of flowering crops.
Don't worry, you can just consume more high fructose processed food and get diabetes. The corn/agribusiness lobby will continue to do just fine with their massive tax breaks and government subsidies, and they're so rich that they can afford imported fruits and vegetables. If you get sick and loose your health care you can crawl off and die, and that will solve them problem.
Why is Snark Required?
There was a horizon program on the BBC here called "what's killing our bees?", which suggested that the only country not really affected (yet) was Australia, who have a roaring trade selling bees now.
That was 2 years ago. Yes, the UK is affected.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
how did this stay hidden so long
warning pointless sig
Come again ?
North american bee population has been declining, scientists estimated that in a few decades this would affect everything in agriculture (pollination), and trying to solve it. it was even dubbed end of mankind. it was that serious.
Now it turns out that, your government has allowed bee-killing pesticides. noone heard about it. no journalist made news of it. no ngo was warned of it. NOONE KNEW. if wikileaks didnt leak it, you would not know about it, still.
tell me now, who are the real terrorists ? the ones letting you know that your entire ecosystem and agriculture is being killed by corporations which have been allowed by your government, or, those corporations and the government themselves ?
wise up. support wikileaks. it is giving you the control over your government that was taken away from you.
Read radical news here
So when anything bad happens involving some private enterprise, someone on here usually has some stupid comment like "I thought the free market would make life perfect."
Well, let me be the one to offer a hypothesis: people are no good and there is no perfect system because of people. Or if we want to be sarcastic too "I thought government regulators were going to make life perfect."
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
The pesticide is a seed coating?
Some are sprays. There are actually dozens of different types, mostly due to the pharmaceutical companies' vast experience in slightly modifying known drugs in order to maintain patent coverage. This also means that, every time they create a new one, they get several years to sell it and pretend that it has no ill-effects before studies are done and it is either banned or the lawsuits start rolling in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid
And, yes, that name means these drugs are similar to nicotine. They are literally spraying our food with drugs that are known to be harmful and addictive to humans, and calling it "pesticide". George W. Bush hamstrung the EPA and tried to cover the whole thing up because he was a blatant whore for the pharma-chemi-troleum industry along with being the single most completely worthless president in US history.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
The Green Revolution, heralded by former USAID director William Gaud, is a Malthusian population control mechanism. Oh. USAID? An operational front for the CIA
It was designed to create maximum crop yield for a 20-50 year period, with a maximum of industrialization and a minimization of farm labour.
The result of which was to create a vacuum of occupational opportunity in the rural communities, which in the 1960's were still the hubs of livelihood for much of the population in the US, Canada and Western Europe.
A migrational trend to urban population centers - abetted by making college/university education cheap and widely available - resulted in a generation transferring from rural existence to urban dwelling. With the former were left behind strong community ties, and the possibility for reasonable self-sufficiency. These were exchanged for "upwardly mobile' creature comforts, that also isolated the individual from his peers, and rendered him an entirely dependent creature - entirely divorced from the skills and capability to feed, clothe and shelter himself and his family. Instead, this ability was replaced through complex commercial abstractions - herded into urban and suburban enclaves.
There never needed to be FEMA camps. The urban existance of late-20th century "modern" life was a honeypot, into which a society hurled itself, with little regard to the consequences for its prized independence and the foundation of its liberty.
Now, what are you going to do, when the collection of rainwater is enforced as a felony? Did you know that Detroit just suspended garbage collection and police patrolling in 20% of the city?
The bad Science Fiction dystopia is real.
The bees? Just a late stage of this sad, intentional collapse...
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
You've insinuated gross incompetence on the part of the researchers. Have you actually gone out and tried to find the answers to these questions? Are you qualified in the field to question the research? Or are you just going off the article, which is a summary of research that was almost undoubtedly much more in-depth than a journalists' summary?
I consider myself a strong skeptic, but one of the duties of a skeptic is to realize their limits. I don't attend a graduate-level lecture and start asking questions - I'd be asked to leave, or at least laughed at. So when I'm confronted with something that doesn't seem right, I seek more information. You're not. You're just throwing out questions. Rather slanted ones.
I see this often, and I suspect it is an actual class of logical fallacy...
1)A slashdotter posts a series of slanted questions and wondering-alouds that are very FUD-ish.
2)The questions aren't (properly) answered, because the audience (jokes about parent's basements aside) doesn't have much knowledge on the subject. Or, the answers that are qualified aren't noticed by moderators.
3)The questions, which are more a challenge to refute a contrary viewpoint to the article than anything else, appear to be valid because there's no response visible. And thus what was probably perfectly legitimate research gets shot down by someone with no background in the subject. Probably not even a mild background in research.
Lastly: the burden of proof no longer rests on the shoulders of the public. After decades of the chemical industry producing toxins and marketing them for uses which were harmful, then doing everything to cover it all up...they are no longer entitled to public trust. If you want to manufacture a chemical and spray it on thousands of square miles of farmland, you better prove first that it doesn't cause problems.
This is especially so, given that research shows that old farming techniques and organic practices are equally or more effective, and cause no permanent damage to people or the environment. Virtually none of the artificial stuff spread on the farmlands of the world are *necessary*, even if one's sole criteria is increased yield.
If anyone wants to see another scary example of this "what, me worry?" attitude, check out methyl iodide, a known toxin, which was just approved for use by California:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2010%2F12%2F01%2Fnational%2Fa143424S98.DTL&tsp=1
"Hey, it's okay to spread this toxic crap all over the ground, because we'll only use what we think is just enough, and people want pretty strawberries."
Please help metamoderate.
Your argument for limited government controls to prevent a tragedy of the commons is not also an argument for strong government controls like massive redistribution of wealth and the destruction of the dollar as a valuable entity. Furthermore, your suggestion that Somalia is a form of free market is ludicrous.
You should actually try to understand what you're arguing against. Capitalism is a philosophy of private ownership, pacifism, and protection of property rights. Somalia, by contrast, is what happens when you make a point of not respecting private property. It is no more the logical extreme of Capitalism than Soviet Russia was the logical extreme of communism. They're both good examples of what happens when you believe that might and the majority are all it takes to make right.
You can pretend to be smarter than us, but your asinine suggestion that government shouldn't represent us because we don't adhere to your philosophy is abhorrent and anti-democratic. Furthermore, any intelligent person should be able to see the damage being caused by this particular pesticide. Why do you assume that we wouldn't acknowledge that there is a problem and move to stop it? Are you arguing that we should have predicted this in advance? Are there not errors in your life that you wish you could have prevented?
A good capitalist would admit that he or she fucked up and do something about it. What would you do in the same situation, other than point fingers or beg the Government to come save you?
So, villian's are everybody that don't post to /. ?
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
I think it's time to consider banning EPA itself. Seriously, those fuckers are a joke. Kill it with fire and replace with something that has more teeth. Do the same to FDA as well.
er
So, villains' are everybody that doesn't post to /. ?
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
This sounds bad, and I admit that this is the first I've heard about this particular pesticide being especially toxic to bees, but let's not get carried away. The longstanding mystery of Colony Collapse Disorder in bees has pretty much been solved. A few months ago, it was published that a double whammy of a fungus and a virus acting at the same time are almost certainly what have decimated bee populations around the world. A bee colony can usually survive either of the two pathogens, and it will recover, but being hit by both at the same time is deadly. The science behind this conclusion looked sound, and most experts have agreed. Sure, this pesticide has clearly not helped bees, and perhaps a ban is in order, but it is not the main factor behind all the recent hubbub about honeybees.
I don't want to hear anything about evil electromagnetic radiation, cell phones, wifi, government conspiracies, aliens, a grassy knoll, or malnutrition induced by an exploding pooh bear population. The answer is simple and makes sense. Bee populations have suffered around the world, including where there is neither ubiquitous wifi nor this pesticide, and the virus/fungus combo has been found everywhere anyone has looked. Now, maybe aliens brought the virus and communists spread the fungus, but...
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
Before you go all tinfoil-hat on us, maybe you should get some points straight. Among them is that the Detroit idea is a proposal, is contingent on approvals at multiple levels and securing funding to move people from neighborhoods that would no longer receive full services, and is simply reflective of the reality that Detroit, once a bustling city of 1.85 million people in 1950, is now under half of that, with nearly 35,000 empty homes.
Besides, urbanization has been happening for centuries. It's picked up the pace in recent decades, but I bet most of the people around in even the 1950s would have been hard pressed to provide entirely for themselves had the need arisen.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
My father is an entomologist for a university Extension Service. For those who don't know (non-Americans), the Extension Services are outreach arms of the universities set up to provide advice to the public. His main job is to advise farmers on pest control measures for crops, mostly cotton; the advice is often "if you spray to kill pest A, you'll also kill predator B, which eats pest C which is resistant to insecticide, and C will eat your cotton. So don't do anything and put up with A, they won't eat that much."
Many of the meetings are sponsored by chemical companies. There are responsible uses of insecticides; used wisely, some insecticides can provide a cost-effective way to increase yields with very minimal long-term environmental harm. But the chemical companies are corrupt as hell. They try to bribe the scientists with lavish gifts to publish studies that favor their products, and encourage farmers (and scientists) to use too much insecticide, or use it when it's not really appropriate. It's sham science done for the sake of greed, and it is disgusting.
On the flip side, there are "studies" that show environmental harm where there really isn't any -- either by misguided "everything must be grown organically" types, or by people pushing back against the chemical company propaganda.
It's hard to tell a damn thing from "studies" on this sort of thing, because everyone is so busy grinding axes that who's right and who's wrong gets completely lost. This makes me, as a scientist in another field where there is far less of that, rather angry.
The issue is that there are three points of view: strong government controls (a la Europe), weak government controls (what you're calling "capitalism"), and fascism. We have the latter right now.
The FDA screens pesticides for how they will be used, how mobile the pesticide is and how long the residue lasts. If this was not done then cry foul.
...
I have not found the application for use as a seed coating but Bayer would have needed to go through a process to get that approved by the EPA.
Did you RTFA?
"...Bayer was granted a 'conditional registration' while the Environmental Protection Agency waited for them to conduct further field studies on the pesticides impact on bee colonies."
Long story short: The original study was crap, the EPA allowed it, and Bayer knew that the pesticide was a bee killer.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
While I agree with the sentiment of your post, you misrepresent the neonicotinoids. Nicotine evolved as a natural insecticide; it's only logical that we use it too if we want to kill insects. (When insects should be killed, of course, is not the question here.)
There are pretty stringent controls on how recently food can be sprayed before it's harvested; I'd worry far more about environmental degradation from the stuff than harm to food consumers.
Bayer: the people who gave us Heroin.
really
How we know is more important than what we know.
Which pesticides?
There is a /huge/ spectrum of different chemicals to kill different sorts of pests, used in different ways, and with different mechanisms of action. Saying that "pesticides" affect nitrogen fixation is an overbroad statement.
A few years ago there was a bee scare in which there were a lot of places where you could find piles of dead bees wherever you went. It caused a lot of fear for the agricultural industry because bees pollinate a lot of the crops and a pesticide which gets rid of the bees is highly counter-productive in that regard.
Insects' nervous system works a lot differently from mammals, which is how pesticides can be made to be so devastating to bugs yet effectively harmless to humans. This means it's also a challenge to avoid killing non-pests, which is one thing the EPA is supposed to be on the lookout for.
You need to relax. It's quite simple if you understand Friedmannite economics. Cutting corporate taxes and deregulation will resolve all of our problems. The Free Market will come up with a cheaper, better solution to bee pollination.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I'm trying to understand why the fuss over this particular bee killing insecticide. The article reads as if it's the only EPA approved, bee-toxic pesticide. It's not. Carbaryl (trade name Sevin) is a VERY widely used insecticide that's toxic to honey bees. Worse, the bees tend not to die before they carry the stuff back to their hives, so it tends to build up there and kill large numbers of them.
There's a good chance you have some Carbaryl in your house. It's very popular as a lawn and garden insecticide. It's also commonly used in flea powders and collars.
It's also relatively toxic to cats.
why is the above post modded down ?
Probably it says "loose your healthcare".
Try again.
The EPA as a whole isn't the problem. It's that thin, but corrupt as hell, veneer between the scientists and the policy makers that is the problem. There are so many stories of corruption (like the administrator who edited a climate change report then went to work for Big Oil) like this. But, no substantial changes will ever occur since our country has gone over the Fascism cliff. We are totally at the beck and call of corporate interests now. Yes, I'm saying our country is on its death bed.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I modded it off-topic because it has nothing to add to the dicussion of pesticides and their effect on bees. Nor does it offer any real discussion about the EPA approval prrocess. In fact, the entire pesticide/bee story is merely cited as an example of something else entirely that the poster is just itching to tell us about.
And if it wasn't off-topic, calling your political opponents asshats, morons and cheaters is just flaming. It's barely on-topic as a mindless political screed, which is a pretty low standard. But "uncomfortable truth"? Partisan ranting is certainly one of those two things.
Always looking out for corporate interests.
These leaks MUST be stopped immediately, and those responsible must go to jail for life, and execution may even be warranted. I am sure the EPA will be acting quickly to ensure those responsible for the leaks are rapidly brought to justice.
This is a clear and dire threat to national security, and the leakers are traitors; think of what will happen when the Bees find out the nature of the pesticide, and the informants who formulated it!
This will only serve to cause more incidents of bee attacks against us, costing precious human lives.
Lives are at stake; and the leakers are enemy combatants performing an act of terrorism
<sarcasm>
I'm not much of a grammar nazi and make my fair share of grammatical mistakes, but you went through the trouble of correcting yourself so here goes:
villian's
villains'
villains - Grocers' apostrophe
You don't need an apostrophe to pluralize.
don't
doesn't
You were right the first time.
I don't
you don't
he doesn't
she doesn't
it doesn't
we don't
->they don't
Apologies if you were being facetious.
Also, it's apparently used in the UK. Are only North American bees susceptible to this? The article says:
Of course not. The better question would be has the UK had a problem with colony collapse as well? The answer to that would be yes, it has.
Read TFA and your questions are answered, but long story short this stuff spreads through the environment quite easily and even tiny doses kills bees dead. I don't know how often (if ever) you get to step onto a farm but I live in the south and I can tell you the megafarms run by the megacorps are VERY irresponsible with regards to chemicals.
The smaller family farms I've been on generally try to limit the use of chemicals whenever possible simply because the stuff is not only toxic but expensive so when they spray they tend to use any chemicals sparingly and as a last resort. Like instead of using fertilizers which end up polluting the drinking water they will simply buy manure or trade for it from the local ranchers and use that instead. Contrast this to the megafarms which frankly drown the ground in chemicals so thick you can't even breathe driving by one of the things. I don't know if it is corporate policy, or if since the guys working the farm don't own the land they just don't care or what, but they really go overboard with it.
And frankly it isn't just the bees affected either, as those of us allergic to bee and wasp stings can tell you the reaction you get thanks to the pesticides getting into the sting is SERIOUSLY nasty, and according to my doc the last time I saw him over being stung he says more and more are developing severe allergic reactions to stings thanks to the "toxic wasps and bees" as he calls them. and considering how much we need bees to pollinate the crops the chemical in TFA is giving a small short term gain for REALLY big long term losses.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
this issue is about a govt. agency enabling a corporation to cause phenomenal ecological damage by letting go of rules. the cause-effect relationship, is as thus.
the GP post you modded down, practically lays out not only HOW this happened, but also WHY this happened.
But "uncomfortable truth"? Partisan ranting is certainly one of those two things.
so is conveniently missing the major causation leading to the event being discussed and then modding a post down. maybe too convenient indeed ...
Read radical news here
Sepp Hasslberger, Millions of bees dead - Bayer's Gaucho blamed, started November 26, 2003:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/11/26/millions_of_bees_dead_bayers_gaucho_blamed.htm
Technically, they weren't finding piles of dead bees. The initial presentation was often that the bees were simply missing.
But yeah, pedanticism aside, your main point still stands. Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is a pretty serious problem facing beekeeping and any agriculture that relies heavily on bees for fertilization, such as almonds. There are many many possibilities on what causes CCD. I personally have a feeling that it's going to end up being something like cancer where there isn't one type of CCD, but there are many different disorders with a similarly presenting outcome. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the collapses are multivariate, such as bee colony transport and exposure to crop pesticides reducing the bees immune system, which leads to infestation of mites, which is treated with more pesticides further stressing the bees to the point where they get a viral infection which then opens the door for secondary fungal or bacterial infections which actually kill the bees. It is thought that the hives are often found empty because if a bee "realizes" that it's sick, it will try to get away from the hive to prevent spread, but the widespread immune system impairment causes a full blown epidemic out of what would have been a couple of sick bees. Basically any of the individual stresses wouldn't be enough for the entire colony to collapse, but added up the bees don't stand a chance. Large problems like this never seem to have one magic pill that just fixes everything.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
I have mod points but I'm also a biochemist so I thought I'd answer a few of your questions.
The pesticide in question is also found in pollen. Since Bees come into frequent contact with said pollen, it's not too much of a surprise that at certain levels, it can be harmful to them.
In short, no, they are not the only ones susceptible. The LD50 for bees is in the ppm range but there is concern that bees show abnormal behavior at ~20 ppb. Different plant components contain different concentrations of the insecticide. Mostly in the leaves which can have up to 20x the amount of insecticide shown to change bee behavior.
The pesticide its self is designed to mimic Nicotine in that it works against the neurological systems of many species of insects.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Use != overuse
Detroit, once a bustling city of 1.85 million people in 1950, is now under half of that, with nearly 35,000 empty homes.
Well, at least Detroit is exporting something again...
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
let me get this straight... a branch (no matter how lousily connected) of our (speaking as an American) government... approved something that has a negative impact? wake up and smell the beans, our government has been doing this for about 30~ years (as much history i care to read at 24, i already know humanity is fucked).. gotta love this: """That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.""" --- go ahead, try it, so i can laugh at you being labeled a terrorist or defamed, or "blackballed"... our government has grown so big that its impossible to stop, we will pass up china soon and when that point comes... well fill in the blank... the US WILL become worse then China, I guarantee it (totally influenced by a mens warehouse commercial)
Here we are. When they released the locations of targets, they became terrorists.
rest of the world doesnt give a flying fsck about american cia operatives who participated in kidnapping ,or american soldiers who have participated voluntarily in occupations, are being targeted or not. its their choice, their life. they should ask themselves, what are they doing there, in the first place.
what is appalling is that, there are people who are basically saying that we should be sorry for cia operatives who kidnapped german citizens or other nationals from the middle of europe, took them to bases in client countries in middle east, and tortured them. and, anyone revealing the location of these people, are 'terrorists'.
the real terrorists are people who kidnap others, and torture them. the world doesnt give a flying fuck about the 'lives' endangered by wikileaks' leaks as such. they are the terrorists which should have been hunted for that long time. they have even violated constitutions and sovereignty of ALLIED countries.
To recap. get a fucking clue. you dont know right from wrong.
Read radical news here
I was reading just yesterday that the bee population was being affected by a combination of a virus and a fungus and that this is the main reason for the decline.
You might want to rethink what you use for news sources. Next thing you know you'll be predicting earthquakes in Turkey.
Hmm, is that why we had an INSANE amount of bees here in Finland this summer? They were literally everywhere, and in large colonies. They were even out at sea and in the archipelago, which is somewhat rare.
Somehow I am not surprised.
It is also the only country to go against the flow and invest on a crazy scale into government sponsored agricultural research.
Why do you thing Australian wines are marching victoriously even across old wine producing countries? Why do you think 100+ year old vineries in Europe are throwing out their traditional tech and using Australian? In fact a lot of the ones we think as "traditional" are actually now aussie tech and even part-owned by them. It is because they have spent a colossal amount on government sponsored research into this over the last 50 odd years.
Same with everything else. It is a textbook example that there are cases where pinko commie government intervention actually works and when it works - when it is an investment into foundations and infrastructure through R&D while leaving the private enterprises utilise it after that.
On the subject of bees - they have long invested into research in pesticide minimisation techniques at a government level and they have spent a shedload of money on it. As a result, I am not surprised that they are laughing madly Kookaburra sitting on an old gum tree style while the rest of the developed world is running around like headless chickins.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
While WikiLeaks is a current and exciting topic, the clothianidin/EPA leak has nothing to do with WikiLeaks.
Quoting a prominent secondary story linked from TFA:
I'm a marketer, you insensitive clod
right...
While WikiLeaks is a current and exciting topic, the clothianidin/EPA leak has nothing to do with WikiLeaks.
Thank you!
Somebody probably got confused because TFA is titled, "Wik-Bee Leaks: EPA Document Shows It Knowingly Allowed Pesticide That Kills Honey Bees"
Here is the EU data on the pesticide.
Some highlights: It is an insecticide, so it should not really surprise that it kills bees. The toxitity to honey bees is well known (LD50 = 0.004 ug/bee, which the document interpret as "high" risk). And it is approved for use in most EU countries, including Italy and Germany.
So let's say we all rise up in a cultural revolution and go back to the fields where we can do an honest days labour side-by-side with our families, and then what happens Mr Mao?
"The bad Science Fiction dystopia is real. The bees? Just a late stage of this sad, intentional collapse..."
No, the reality is that nobody could have guessed our current social norms back in the 50's, let alone planned them! The idillic picture of the past you paint is just the misplaced nostalgia of a bunch of semi-senile people from my generation.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The FDA? The FDA is extremely aggressive and restrictive compared to European regulators for instance. This results in drugs reaching the U.S. market much later. One can argue that this delay causes more damage than by introducing drugs a bit earlier.
Enough with the crazy doomsaying.
Capitalism will solve this problem as all the others. Soon Monsanto will be announcing genetically modified bees that will resist to the pesticide.
All will be well, except that these bees will somehow kill all cows. At which point Monsanto will give us those better, iron-skinned OGM cows they are working on *right* *now*.
They are incredibly strong and resistant, so much that your head will explode when you try to chew their meat. Enter the OGM humans. They can shoot laser beams and fly and have two dicks. All is well but Monsanto does not produce females to avoid stealing their patented DNA. The human race will last other 30 years in masturbation and vanish.
As you can see everything will work out perfectly.
Actually large scale farms tend to use less chemicals per acre specifically because they are such a large input into their cost structure. They also tend to be early adopters of things like satellite based growth tracking so they can target the use of chemicals only to those areas that need them. They may be to blame in not accounting for external costs (like killing off bees with insecticides) but blaming them for the overuse of chemicals flies in the face of the economic reality of large scale farming.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
"The pesticide is a seed coating? How frequently do bees come into contact with seeds that are planted?"
It'll be systemic, in that the plant absorbs it through it's life and any pest eating the plant gets a dose of it. The problem with these systemic insecticides is that they carry through even to the pollen, so Mr Bee plays around with the flower, gets some pollen on him, takes it back to his hive stuck to his legs and then you have pollen infected with systemic insecticide that kills the bees in the hive.
"Also, it's apparently used in the UK. Are only North American bees susceptible to this?"
No, Europe has the same problem with heavy bee decline.
"I'm not a fan of pesticides but I won't deny that they increase food and crop yield."
Even if they do, is it necessary? Here in the UK we have farmers complaining about how crop prices have been forced lower and lower, so many complaining they can't afford to compete each year, we have fields of cabbages and so forth that are just left to rot. In my mind with this kind of evidence we have too much food, perhaps if farmers moved back to organic methods then they may get smaller yeilds but it'd push the prices up for them and yeah, the end customers will probably have to pay more too, but it's not like paying unsustainably low prices in the first place is a good thing, it just means folks will have to give up their chelsea tractors, or get a 40" TV instead of a 50". It aint going to be the end of the world. There's also many health concerns caused by pesticides, we're not immune to any effect from these pesticides, in larger doses they're just as harmful to us, we just don't get them in those doses from crops. The problem is, we don't know what effect small doses have in the longer term.
Interestingly I used to live in the south of the UK and we eventually moved up to Yorkshire, since moving up here my dogs have developed lumps, they're not cancerous but they're quite large all the same and oddly, all the dogs around here have grown lumps- this isn't something that happened to anyone's pets I knew down south, and the difference here is we're surrounded by more fields and the dogs run through the fields. I do wonder if perhaps pesticides are to blame, the lumps don't seem to hurt the dogs, but they are large- the size of a fist in some cases.
Despite all this, as someone who grows cacti in his spare time, I also know the flip side of it- amateur gardeners have lost access to a lot of pesticides over the years and that has led to immunity to the small range (Imidacloprid, Thiadacloprid) of insecticides that are available to amateur gardener amongst invasive species such as non-native Mealy Bugs and Red Spider Mites. As always though, the reason they've been removed for amateur use is due to abuse of farmers- there's a big difference spraying thousands of gallons of the stuff, to an amateur using half a pint to spray a few plants which are kept in a closed environment such as a greenhouse.
I don't really know what the answer is, large scale use of pesticides simply is not good, I think in many ways even GM foods are a better option, because at least you're not introducing poisons that kill things like bees, and have potentially harmful effects on people and pets. Current regulation seems to let farmers get away with murder, whilst not providing pesticides that amateurs could use to abolish invasive species in small quantities in a closed environment where they don't effect the outside world.
I think the only solution is a massive overhaul of regulation from the ground up, but companies like Bayer are massive, and seem to have a near worldwide control of national and international pesticide regulations. I was quite shocked to see a note from Bayer in a garden centre the other week withdrawing one of their named pesticides to be replaced with a new one that was based on the same mix, but had just been rebranded and the price increased- the bit that shocked me is that this meant their old product, was now illegal to use beca
Im not surprised. 26.43 people per household is just too much.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
That should be "pharma-chemi-baseball-troleum"
this issue is about a govt. agency enabling a corporation to cause phenomenal ecological damage by letting go of rules. the cause-effect relationship, is as thus.
Actually, it's not. It's about a government agency ignoring a possible contributing factor to a serious matter of national interest. The pesticide might cause phenomenal ecological damage, though that hasn't been established.
You want to be careful posting quotes about kookaburras and old gum trees, apparently there are some copyright issues :-)
You need to relax. It's quite simple if you understand Friedmannite economics. Cutting corporate taxes and deregulation will resolve all of our problems. The Free Market will come up with a cheaper, better solution to bee pollination.
Actually large-scale farms which want everything pollinated and thus ready for harvest in one go purchase the services of large-scale beekeepers, which drive farmed bees to the area in hive trucks and leave them there while they pollinate. By the time they die off it's mission accomplished, and growing bees artificially wherever you want isn't under threat like the naturally occurring bees that pollinate wild flowers.
The "free market (i.e. people earning a living) have already figured out the pollination of food crops, it's an environmental issue. (And not a calamitous one, but one that justifies some good research and reevaluation of the rules, which is a process of improvement that this article and discussion form a part of.)
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
Bayer had a press release in 2008 after the loss of bees in Baden-Württemberg. Notice that they do not deny that the loss was caused by clothianidine, though they do blame process issues leading to higher concentrations in the environment. So it would appear that caution should have already been in order.
It was never that serious. It is a sad thing to see the Bees go, but others will take their place. Birds, bumble bees, and many other insects / animals carry out pollination already. Bees were the main pollinators but if they go something else will rise up and take its place in the food chain.
Something else will take their place in the food chain, sure - but it's very likely to be something that doesn't help pollinate flowers. Most things don't.
Assassinate that traitorous whistleblower!
Wait, what? You think we have fascism? I hope that was just a typo.
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
The arbitrary goalpost of preserving the flora? You are extremely out of touch.
Actually large-scale farms which want everything pollinated and thus ready for harvest in one go purchase the services of large-scale beekeepers, which drive farmed bees to the area in hive trucks and leave them there while they pollinate. By the time they die off it's mission accomplished, and growing bees artificially wherever you want isn't under threat like the naturally occurring bees that pollinate wild flowers.
Except that it's the colonies used by commercial beekeepers that are among the hardest-hit by CCD, and their replenishment programs can't keep up with the loss. If a cure for CCD can't be found, in a few years the supply of hives will be lower than the demand for pollination services.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Could I please have some of what you are smoking? I promise I won't inhale.
So, what you are suggesting is that the bee deaths were an Australian plot? I never really trusted those Australians, the funny not-quite-English accent, the hats, the occasional crocodile hunter that gets stabbed to death by a stingray...and now this plot to take over the world's bee markets. I think we must finally admit that England sent a fair amount of loonies to Australia mixed in with the criminals.
Now it turns out that, your government has allowed bee-killing pesticides.
And that's not even the half of it. What kind of idiot company would bother to sell bee-lethal pesticides?! No bees no crops, no crops, no need to buy more pesticide!
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
The study you are referencing was made by Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk, who has economical ties to Bayer (The producer of the pesticide cited). Ref: NYT via http://www.ktradionetwork.com/tag/dr-jerry-bromenshenk/
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
How much may some of our "safe" foods degrade our environment? An almost empty coffee cup with a cigarette butt in it may be an attractive and deadly nuisance to a bee. WOW, what a sweet buzz! Where was I? The odor might get them rejected at the entrance to the hive. Multiply that by the daily output of all the little corner stores and gas stations. Some may develop a tolerance for nicotine and be real grouchy until their first cup every day.
It was some months back, but it was posted here on Slashdot. Wasn't there some discussion about combinations of chemicals and infection that was at the root? That one of the two individually wouldn't harm a bee? I guess I need to search this out. But what if this chemical is part of the insecticide? I guess then it would all start to make sense.
And the market wins again.
When demand outstrips supply the suppliers can up their prices. They'll make a lot more money.
Now, since the food growers can't get enough bees to pollinate their crops, the supply of food will dwindle - more expensive food, meaning more money for the growers.
This means that regular workers have to work more to buy the same amount and kinds of food. That means the supply of workers will outstrip demand and salaries can be cut. That's another win for the market and the companies in particular.
It's Win/Win/Win for the market economy - what's not to like?
What government=good???? What part of "the agency allowed the widespread use of a bee-toxic pesticide, despite warnings from EPA scientists" made you think that government is good? Yes, some industry is bad. Some is good. Same goes for parts of government.
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
*you are eaten by a grue*
People, what a bunch of bastards
And that's exactly why it's called "organic". Think of it this way: "all-natural" only means all-natural AFTER the harvest. But "organic" means all-natural before AND after the harvest. They needed a way to differentiate, to adapt to changing market conditions, and that's precisely why the term "organic" came into widespread use. It's not just marketing; it's necessary terminology.
Organic farmers may use only organic pest control (which does exist), never chemical pesticides. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to use the organic label, and if they do, they are breaking the law.
Then this bugger needs to pay for his crimes!
"...butt... buttt.. butt the Poncho!" - Honer Jay Simpson
of what happens when we let the foxes guard the hen house. i would think the people here would learn by now with the half dozen other examples..
End Use Products
This product is toxic to aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply directly to water or to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas below the mean high-water mark. Do not contaminate water when cleaning equipment or disposing of equipment washwaters. Do not apply where runoff is likely to occur. Runoff from treated areas may be hazardous to aquatic organisms in neighboring areas. Apply this product only as specified on the label. This chemical has properties and characteristics associated with chemicals detected in ground water. The use of this chemical in areas where soils are permeable, particularly where the water table is shallow, may result in ground water contamination.
This compound is toxic to birds and mammals. Treated clothianidin seeds exposed on soil surface may be hazardous to birds and mammals. Cover or collect clothianidin seeds spilled during loading.
This compound is toxic to honey bees. The persistence of residues and potential residual toxicity of Clothianidin in nectar and pollen suggests the possibility of chronic toxic risk to honey bee larvae and the eventual instability of the hive.
Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
Capitalism is a philosophy of private ownership, pacifism, and protection of property rights.
The only problem is that your argument relies on a sort of "enlightened dictator" in the role of the supreme capitalist. In the history of the world, this has never happened for any significant length of time.
Look at the history of the labor movement. The mega-companies at the turn of the century had de-facto private armies that beat and killed workers who protested horrendous working conditions.
Capitalism in its pure form as as rare as any theory; too many people are avaricious bastards who will screw their own mother for a dime. Capitalism without a strong government will not lead to "respect of property rights"; rather it will lead to theft, murder, and destruction of anyone who is less powerful than you.
Look at the history of the American West; a lot of "pure capitalists" look at that as some sort of proof of superiority of pure american capitalism personified by the immigrants. In fact, those who became wealthy often did so by cheating, killing, and stealing the property of others. It's not a pretty story, and it goes on to this day.
In Soviet USA the bees kill firs...
...ok, I'll show myself out.
i came from Pontiac mi.and i can tell you i saw this coming and moved years ago. i think most people with the means to get out did by now. so what you got left behind are the very rich or very poor. if you ever where to visit there you would see so many houses for sale per city block. i sold my house at a huge lose just to get out. but many other houses never sold. mi went to hell when they lost there only means of jobs and money the automotive industry. the unions killed off that by offering people insane pay rates driving up everything else and it eventually collapsed on its-self when car sales slowed. then when other business tried to open up shop there they would hit them with insane tax rates. i can tell you from having a business there unless you bribe every city official they close you down. so that states downfall was there own doing.
and the school are not any better my school had a 98% dropout rate. the place was ran like a prison and none wanted to be there. i didn't finishes school until i left mi.
I saw a documentary where the bees went on a sorta strike - I really couldn't follow the details - something about ownership of their honey. It nearly crippled the planet, and made everybody very sad.
Bees are pretty scary too, apparently they can lift a whole airbus! I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it.
Destroy the corn. Starve the people. Save the earth
are government dubbed them that i don't think the people ever said anything like that bought wikileaks. personalty i support them. hopefully it gets the sheep to stop voting for these ass-hats messing up everything. of curse i will admit oboma played the sheep big time he promised to sake up everything and wound up worse then bush in terms of being a puppet.
Well, then what about Germany, France, Italy and Slovenia that have banned this pesticide. If countires that have banned/never allowed this pesticide are showing the same bee death patterns as those that have allowed it, this pesticide is obviously not the cause.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
"Your argument for limited government controls to prevent a tragedy of the commons is not also an argument for strong government controls like massive redistribution of wealth and the destruction of the dollar as a valuable entity. "
If you'd see the more or less equitable distribution of wealth as a common good, which it is, then the argument for wealth re-distribution by the government, or rather, for foiling the natural tendency for wealth to be redistributed to a tiny, powerful class of people, is sound. The US has been structured in part from the beginning to redistribute wealth downward as a response to the perceived evils of the British aristocratic system. Even so, most parts of the American system work to distribute wealth upward, and I never hear libertarians or Republicans complain about that!
There's never been a time when the value of currency is not government business, and to argue that it shouldn't be is to argue that a government should have no power whatsoever. The arguments that it's somehow unjust or overreaching for the government to devalue the dollar (as opposed to arguments that a more valuable dollar is better) are nothing more than baseless whining by rich people who think their own personal bottom line is more important than the US defending itself in the ongoing global trade war.
Play Command HQ online
From TFS: Now environmentalists and bee keepers are calling for an immediate ban of the pesticide clothianidin, sold by Bayer Crop Science under the brand name Poncho
Sold in Europe under the brand name dondurun, which is why Paul McCartney wrote a song in favor of banning it!
Ban dondurun, it's toxic to bees!
Free Martian Whores!
What? A Slasdot article that says government=good, private industry=bad. This is so out of character. /sarcasm-off
I think the meme is more like:
government=easily bribed
industry=willing to bribe
So, villian's [sic]are everybody that don't post to /. ?
No, villians are illiterate.
Free Martian Whores!
"Capitalism is a philosophy of private ownership, pacifism, and protection of property rights."
What happens in your capitalist utopia when Smith is broke and starving, and Jones is wealthy and has surplus food, so Smith tries to steal food from Jones? Smith is desperate enough that he's going to do whatever he needs to to get that food, because he either steals or he dies. That means that ultimately Jones has to use violence (either directly or via an intermediary like the police) to prevent Smith from getting that food if he wants to protect his property rights and private ownership. We could play out this exact scenario with other essentials, such as water and housing.
And this isn't purely a hypothetical, either. For instance, consider the Cochabamba water protests, which were a reaction to access to water becoming both privatized and too expensive for most city's residents to pay for it. When you have that sort of situation, it would be unreasonable to expect that the folks who couldn't pay for water were going to simply sit around dehydrating themselves out of respect for property rights.
I am officially gone from
And if the authorities let Assange go, I'm sure the free market will find a cheaper and better way to silence him.
The pesticide is a seed coating? How frequently do bees come into contact with seeds that are planted? Is this one of those studies where they drench a bee in a thousand times its normal exposure and the bee dies? Or does this residue actually stay on the plant through its entire life and affect the bee?
You raise some excellent points which few people are smart enough to ask. Context is everything in these studies. As an example, Saccharin is often maligned but people frequently fail to point out the majority of its research was indirectly sponsored by sugar farmers and that massive doses were required to cause the negative affects. Likewise, they fail to point out that far, far worse aliments are associated with equal doses of processed cane sugar. In fact, history clearly shows, without fail, everywhere cane sugar is introduced, diseases go through the roof; not to mention, on average, a shorter life span.
Not to mention, uranium is naturally occurring but is typically not a health issue simply because we don't typically come into contact. And then again, we have other products, such as some lines of G.E. corn (wasn't really clear how prevalent it is) which some studies clearly indicate are toxic to mammals when consumed. And yet, its still in our food chain.
gletsjer==glacier
I'm not a fan of pesticides but I won't deny that they increase <strikeout>food and</strikeout> crop yield.
In this case, wrt corn in the USA, pretty much only crop yield since most of the corn grown here is used to make ethanol to put in your gas tank. The cost of this is tremendous whether measured by ecological impact, or by increased use of petrochemical products (estimate of over 10+ calories petroleum burned for every 1 cal delivered to your car's engine), or by dollar cost through government subsidies.
Will
Parent post offers a couple of misleading statements.
Will
Now it turns out that, your government has allowed bee-killing pesticides. noone heard about it.
Yes, clothianidin is something people didn't knew. But just going to the hardware store I could point out half a dozen bee-killing insecticides. The hint: if the advertisement says something about killing 2000 different bugs, it probably kills bees.
One problem with insecticides is that they are too broad in their range, the other problem is however their use. Some states prohibit use of pyrethrins near lakes. But almost about anywhere can you buy attachments for your garden hose to treat the whole lawn.
All because the lawn has to be pristine, and as extension of our living room as bug free and uniform as a carpet. If one could change that view a lot fewer chemicals would end up in the environment.
I use pyrethrin around the house as a perimeter spray to keep ants out in the Spring. But I use it on the foundation wall and on the ground away from plants, especially flowering plants. To treat ants, one can wash it into the ground. I wouldn't use it on my lawn, if not for the bees, then at least not to kill all of the pavement ants and create a bug-wasteland that has room for other -more problematic- ants to move in.
This sin't the cause. The disappear from area that don't uuse this, so stop the fuckluing knee jerl reaction now.
This is the same type of knee jerk reaction that lead to DDT banning, even thought the only evidence it was doing in harm was a very weak correlation to condor egg shells.
So now people dye, parasite are coming back, but it's hard as hell to get the OK to manufacture.
This is the same damn thing. No one will report on the actual facts and data and a bunch of bone headed environmentalist will get all the air time.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Before you go all tinfoil-hat on us...
Too late.
I've helped more people in my position of marketer than you could possibly imagine. I'm proud of my profession and I won't hesitate to defend it from douchebags who think they know it all.
Ahhh, that's how you sleep at night.
I don't know... maybe the explosion of the frigging Internet? You might not be aware of it, but once an online presence is built, people don't exactly tend to flock to it. It's more like building a mall in the middle of the desert: The land is dirt cheap, but you will have problems finding customers. Marketing is a vital tool in this regard.
And you might not be aware of the fact that the internet is not just a big shopping mall, you unutterable oaf.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Thanks, this is one of those cases where a misspelling makes a pos actually unintelligible.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Quite correct. But even non-commercial sites need visitors. Or do you think that only Walmart and Amazon employ this "highly controversial" tool called marketing?
right...
Jerry, is that you?
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
Maybe we should ban people who don't know jack shit about the agencys that want to ban and only read headline and make gross assumption about conclusion? The internet would be far better off without you fuckers on it.
It's a insecticide, and ti kills an insect? I'm shocked I tell you, simply shocked.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Even if they do, is it necessary? Here in the UK we have farmers complaining about how crop prices have been forced lower and lower, so many complaining they can't afford to compete each year, we have fields of cabbages and so forth that are just left to rot. In my mind with this kind of evidence we have too much food, perhaps if farmers moved back to organic methods then they may get smaller yeilds but it'd push the prices up for them and yeah, the end customers will probably have to pay more too, but it's not like paying unsustainably low prices in the first place is a good thing, it just means folks will have to give up their chelsea tractors, or get a 40" TV instead of a 50".
I'm sorry, but this sentiment makes very little sense. If they'd already grown them, they'd sell them - unless your suggesting that shipping alone is more expensive than the supermarket price, and if that was the case how does any one sell anything? In fact, if a farmer is unable to finance growing crops, the land will lie fallow, the ground will improve, and it will be of benefit to hedgerow and native wildlife.
It seems to me a single cause is quite likely for virtually all cases of CCD. That would fit a well-established historical pattern of environmental disruption.
Suggest re-reading Rachel Carson's book, The Silent Spring, published in 1962. It documents events remarkably similar to CCD, when aerial spraying of DDT to control mosquitoes began, and subsequently was found to be causing the widespread death of song birds. And also the presence of DDT in human breast milk, although that did not gain recognition until later. Wikipedia has a brief description of Carson's later work.
What has been found to be true time and again is that some aspect of a new technology has had immense unintended consequences on ecosystems when adopted on large scales. Such as mechanized plowing in the Plains states leading to the Dust Bowl, the proliferation of pleasure boat trailers in the USA leading to the introduction of invasive aquatic species into pristine lakes, etc.
Will
>Fruity Loops sucks.
It either sucks or it's the best value in audio software. I've heard it both ways.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
The short version is that the stuff propagates very easily through the environment and is toxic to bees even in very low doses.
Could be compared to Rotenone which is an absolutely fantastic spectacular garden beetle pesticide that is mostly harmless to humans and biodegrades nicely and promptly and is even vaguely "green" and "natural" depending on how crosseyed you look at it. Oh, except for that annoying little trivia fact that it is quite water soluble and utterly slaughters fish if even a tiny amount gets in their water before it biodegrades. Big Ooops.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
wiki-leaks din't leak it. It was an anonymous phone call from someone claiming they work for the EPA. Hell, it wasn't even the nefarious. Someone asked the EPA for the study and the EPA gave it to them. ohhh... real evil their!!
Of course, there sin't a link between this and CCD, but lets not let facts stand in your way.
AN example how the government is pretty transparent, and makes a lot of data available to a lot of people. It's a good thing.
But no, someone twists it into the end of the world and the nefarious EPA uare twisting the moustaches and laughing at us.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
There was an article posted on /. a while back that showed a two pronged attack on the bees by I think a mite and a pathogen that caused the death of whole hives.
This sounds like some anti-pesticide religious fanatic trying to whip up hysteria while trying to make the FDA and the pesticide industry look bad.
Perhaps the mite and the pathogen could have been fought off by the bees if their immune systems weren't already compromised by this obnoxious chemical.
Its an insecticide. Of course it kills bees. The fact that it kills bees is NOT a reason to pull it from the amrket. What is ti's impact on bees with proper use? What's it's half life? those are the questions that matter.
You know what else kills bees? my shoe. perhaps we should outlaw shoes?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Haha you are funny if you think that the free market will simply mean growers make more money. The reality is that growers are price takers, not price setters. And they don't get to take the price that the end consumer is willing to pay either. They get the price the large food companies are willing to pay. And because of farm subsidies, food companies are always guaranteed to find commodities elsewhere if the producer doesn't want to sell. The only leverage against this kind of market behavior is to have farms enter into cooperatives, as they have in times past.
The price of commodity goods does track the price of the final food products, but not very closely and always on the low side. High commodity prices immediately leads to high food prices, but when commodity prices drop, food prices do not fall very quickly. So what food scarcity really means is the middle food companies get really fat while the consumers and producers get shafted.
Offtopic? Someone please fix that moderation, it is on topic and informative. This comment (mine), otoh, IS offtopic.
Free Martian Whores!
A good capitalist would admit that he or she fucked up and do something about it.
Nope, a good capitalist would try to game the system, which almost always has a better cost/benefit ratio than admiting to a screw-up.
This is just a fact: it is almost always "better"--for some widely accepted standard of "better"--to lie, distract, bully and corrupt than it is to admit the truth, take responsibility for it, and move on.
I used to believe otherwise, but too many years of watching "good capitalists" make exactly that kind of rational economic calculation proved me wrong, and as a rational empiricist I changed my mind about the question.
The only stable, sane society is one in which various interests are maintained in a balance of power, and to balance the huge interests of dishonest, corrupt capitalists we need a large, democratic, transparent and relatively powerful government. The transparency and democracy are key, of course, as otherwise it will fall into all the well-known bad behaviour that humans get up to when given unchecked power.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Probably because, rather than making an articulated, insightful point backed up with some citations and historical examples of the abuses the OP was talking about, the post contains a lot of insulting, flamebaiting, politically biased asshattery that does little more than point a finger and say, "Nah nah nah nah nah nah! Your leaders suck!"
Quite honestly, I think posts like this deserve to be modded flamebait, even if they do have some seeds of truth in them (the lobbying and all that jazz), because they do not contribute to a conversation in an intelligent or rational manner. They are just pissy rants posted by people too immature to accept the fact that the real world is an ugly place, and more often than not, blame doesn't lie with one group of "thems" verses the "us."
Don't worry though, it appears that, despite some downmodding, the post was modded back up to insightful because, just like some commentators, some moderators are too juvenile to recognize flambait when they agree with the point of the rant being posted. So you and the OP can go back to your smug little world where you see things along black and white lines and there are always "bad guys" that always fall under some easily recognizable label like Republicans, assuring yourselves with every breathe that, "at least we're not like them."
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Fuck you and fuck every single subhuman sociopathic manipulator in the advertising and marketing fields. You know what has changed in the last twenty years? You mindfuckers have gotten even better at your mindfuckery. Now fuck off and die like Bill Hicks suggested. You are all worthless wastes of human talent. Do you understand that? You're pretty smart and creative and you could have given something wonderful back to humanity. Instead, you chose to worship at the idol of greed and manipulation.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Quite correct. But even non-commercial sites need visitors. Or do you think that only Walmart and Amazon employ this "highly controversial" tool called marketing?
Nearly everyone employs the highly controversial tool called "the toilet," but few over the age of two are particularly proud of what they do with it.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I dunno.. we actually sent more to America, and a few generations later we get Glen Beck :-)
I mean.. wtf is that asshole? Don't get me wrong.. here at home we have our own fair share of assholes, but America has managed to create some kind of new breed of super-asshole! It's like you had some sort of military experiment in asshole-warfare which went wrong and a few of them escaped.
I watch the daily show to see how many more you manage to catch.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
There are more of us and we're smarter. . . until they start spending billions of dollars to advertise opposing viewpoints on cable news stations. Then, there are more of them.
Though, I'd really like to see the fuckers all just move to Somalia.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The article never said it was the cause. It just said that the EPA ignored warnings that it might make things worse. The cause as far as I'm aware is still looking at mobile FM radio transmission.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
A nerve you've hit. You directly attacked the integrity of myself and my profession.I know that to some people this might not mean much, but to me it does.
Not the person you were talking to originally, but: This is the point. Most people are completely SICK of being marketed to constantly, and thus you should expect some flack for it. Advertising HAS, uncontroversially, gotten completely out of hand, and some people in your profession are at fault for this. You might even be, don't take that as an insult, I don't know you so can't judge. People are also sick of being dehumanized by advertisers (you are a demographic, not a person), and sick of being manipulated by stupid psychological tricks, and worse outright lied to. I think they are justified in these feelings, since most advertising deserves to die.
I don't think most advertisers deserve to die, mind you, since that is just a bit immature and possibly creepy. My grandfather was in the field (though mostly on the creative/design end), and I obviously had nothing against him. I'm sure there are other nice people in the field, but ultimately I wouldn't feel too bad if all of them were stuck trying to find new work. If we chopped the amount of marketing down by 50%, there still would be too much. If there was a law allowing most marketers to drug us and implant ads on our eye balls, against out will, they would do it and sleep easily at night. Advertising has become completely non-consensual, and people don't like having stuff forced on them, with good reason.
I understand, there is a need to raise consciousness about new products and services, especially now that there are so many alternatives. This is fine. But forcing me to watch these advertisements isn't good, and then peppering them on every single public space, then trying to stick them in every pleasurable pursuit I have just so I have to know that "Happy Soap makes me virile and popular!". Not that "Happy Soap cleans 30% better than Sad Soap", that would be a fair bit information that might be useful, no "Happy Soap makes your penis grow 30 feet longer, and makes Russian supermodels rain down from the heavens. Plus it makes your family really love you, since they all hate you now!" This is just obnoxious and dishonest.
The nicely stated goal of advertising is to "raise awareness", and actual goal, often times, is to try to manipulate us into buying something that we do not want, need, or would otherwise buy. This is NOT a noble goal, this is an obnoxious and morally dubious thing. This is the other thing people hate about your profession, outside of trying to force themselves on us constantly.
Your profession used to be decent, then moved into the annoying but tolerated as necessary category. Thanks to abuses, it has now moved into the pure hatred category. This is pretty much a justified reclassification, if you ask me, since a world completely free from your profession wouldn't be optimal, but would be much better than the world today, and where we're trending towards in the future. Also, a world without professional advertisers wouldn't be free from advertising, people might have to actually make a decent goddamn product and have to live up to their stated quality, instead of making absolute crap and using their marketing budget to cover it up, this way genuine (not seeded) word of mouth would be useful.
Sorry for the rant. I probably could go on for awhile, but won't. But you see why you get hate? You should, your profession is probably as reviled as politics or law. And really you should be getting some hate for it, since you are guilty by association, and share some blame in completely valid problems. Shame is a strong tool to force people to go fix problems.
But I really don't wish you dead, no matter if you're one of the (seemingly) few good guys, or even if you are the idiot that invented pop-under-with-sound flash ads.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Lobbyists get to speak to government officials every day. Citizens only get to speak on election day. The lobbies pay for the advertising that gets lawmakers elected. While we pay their salaries we get little attention. Bad legislation gets passed. Regulations are modified waiving what little safeguards get written. Business trumps consumers every time and consumers are kept in the dark by proprietary business secrets and national security. Well, when the bees are gone and the beef industry can't keep their livestock standing by feeding them more antibiotics there will always be Soylent Green.
I can tell.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
From the blurb: Now a leaked EPA document reveals that the agency allowed the widespread use of a bee-toxic pesticide, despite warnings from EPA scientists.
You've already disproven your own theory on how things work.
Ha!
All this shows is that sometimes government regulation fails to prevent the damage that would have happened anyway in the absence of any government regulation. Which is hardly surprising, unless you subscribe to the false dichotomy that private and public entities must be entirely good or bad and opposite of each other.
To actually disprove the thesis, you would have to demonstrate something completely contrary to every fact: That situations without environmental regulations (or, in some cases, the threat of regulation) are better for the environment than with. The entire history of the EPA and similar organizations, including all of their missteps, contradicts that idea. Your vehicles, your air, your water, all are measurably and demonstrably cleaner because of government regulation.
As if Bayer would have never released a dangerous pesticide justified by a shoddy study if the EPA didn't exist. Well, perhaps not, because they would have had no reason to conduct a study. So more likely the contribution of this chemical to hive collapse would continue to be unknown.
But this discussion does not actually hinge on hypothetical situations. The reality of unregulated industry can be compared to the reality of the regulated. This comparison is not favorable to the unregulated situation at all. Yes regulation can fail to do its job, it can even make things worse in the case of particularly misguided rules, yet the overall trend is not even close to a tough call. History is flagrantly clear on what happens when industry is allowed to run free.
I've seen the likes of you before and none of you have ever let facts or logic
Your concept of facts and logic are hilarious.
By not complaining that the EPA is flawed and should be improved (very true), but rather that this example disproves the entire thesis that environmental regulation is necessary or that we are better off because of it, you're just spitting in the face of logic and reality for the sake of an ideology.
The enemies of Democracy are
rest of the world doesnt give a flying fsck about american cia operatives who participated in kidnapping
These aren't the targets to which I was referring. I should have been more specific. I was referring to things like our sole source of snakebit antivenom, sensitive comm facilities, and other targets (as in what a missile can hit, not a human target). You can't justify disseminating that information. It is not a leak. It's just giving a headache and forcing us taxpayers to move facilities, add security, or build redundant facilities.
If they want to release information regarding misconduct in war, violations of Geneva, etc., great; but when they actually start aiding and abetting the enemy; fsck them!
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Nearly everyone employs the highly controversial tool called "the toilet," but few over the age of two are particularly proud of what they do with it.
Should I understand that you have a bias against plumbers?
right...
Bayer was a suspect in Europe right from the beginning of colony collapse disorder. Not news. And even if guilty as charged, unlikely to be the sole culprit in a complex Orient Express style murder mystery.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
No. I have a bias against people who are proud of their crap. And by "crap" I mean advertising and marketing. I thought that was pretty clear.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
In light of the fact that clothiandidin was approved under not a Republican but Democratic President and Congress the grandparent post could be modified accordingly:
One more example of how Obama and his greedy incompetent Democrat asshats have screwed everybody. This stuff is used because of a regulatory approval that was granted in 2010, against the scientific advices of the experts.
It's just like Obama's handling of the BP Gulf oil spill and the coal mine explosion in West Virginia. There are systems in place to protect people and the environment, but when the Democrats gain control they selectively revoke oversight in return for campaign donations and other political favors. It takes five to fifteen years to see all the failures, and by then everyone forgets who turned over control to the crooks and lairs.
They just wave the flag, blame everything on the free market and greedy capitalists, scream about denying rights to terrorists, and then lie and deny when the
shit hits the fan. I guess as long as these morons continue to lie and cheat their way into power we deserve to have poisoned gulf seafood and the end of flowering crops.
Don't worry, you can just consume more high fructose processed food and get diabetes.
The corn/agribusiness lobby will continue to do just fine with their massive tax breaks and government subsidies, and they're so rich that they can afford imported fruits and vegetables. If you get sick the dysfunctional socialized medical care system can not save you, and that will solve them[sic] problem.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
"Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy."
When pestisides are approved by the government to increase corporate profits despite evidence of strong risk to the environment, it looks like fascism.
When corporations withdraw their services from someone the government does not like, it looks like fascism too.
There is no evidence connecting it to radio transmission of any kind (ok there was that study where they put cellphones inside a hive and observed a negative impact, but how beehives have some kind of radio transmitter actually inside them?).
The best explanation I have seen has to do with a fungus and a parasite invading hives at the same time.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Now let me guess, this is your idea of a rational argument.
Alright, let's switch to troll mod.
I'm smart and creative enough to realize that the world has no heroes, only people who refuse to adapt to the world and try to make the world adapt to them.
I am one of those people. At one point I had to make a choice between a life of virtual slavery as a cubicle hamster and a risky, independent life as a freelancer. I chose the latter.
If that makes me a subhuman sociopathic manipulator then I accept this badge with pride.
And speaking of manipulation, marketers don't deal with that. It's called persuasion and it's a very different beast. I could try to explain the difference, but that would require you to think and not spew preconceived garbage. Kind of an useless effort, you must agree.
Now crawl back under that rock, you poor, unhappy soul.
right...
The problem is that good marketing does the job and goes virtually unnoticed while the crappy type, well, you've just described it.
What people perceive as marketing is actually only a fraction of what the field truly encompasses.
Take this very site for instance: I can detect at least 7 marketing techniques used right now. They work as intended, yet they don't seem conspicuous at all.
As for the good guy / bad guy thing, I'm no saint. I just prefer to focus on methods that work. The truth is that this entire shitstorm in advertising is not caused by a sudden explosion in the number of marketers, but rather by the lack of professional ones.
This entire internet revolution led to such a high demand for marketing services that most online entrepreneurs employ the DIY route. This, as you very well noted, has some absolutely horrifying results.
right...
Keep telling yourself that the world has no heroes. Those guys who gave their lives rescuing people on 9/11 were just people who refuse to adapt and tried to make the world adapt to them. They didn't want innocent people to die, what hubris!
There is a reason people hate your profession. There is a reason Bill Hicks wanted you all to kill yourselves. You call it compromise, and dismiss those who refuse to make that compromise as being ones who "refuse to adapt and try to make the world adapt to them."
All real progress comes from courageous people who take risks and try to make the world adapt to them. Martin Luther King, for instance. You are not one of those courageous people. Although there are heroes in the world, you are not one of them. Perhaps you could have been, but you chose comfort and security
I am truly shocked to find that marketers, a group that sells dishonesty, have a dishonest term for what they do. Shocked, I tell you.
Basically, what you do is to attempt to get people to act against their own interests, and in the interests of the immoral assholes who hire you. You take money that could have gone into improving a product or service, and use it to give the illusion of improvement. You attempt to get people to believe things that are not true, but worse, you manipulate their emotions, to get them to feel as if a company is their friend. No company is anyone's friend. You attempt to put that company into a person's "in-group." It is not. You attempt to make people feel insecure, and then tout the company and product as a source of security. I could go on, illustrating all the underhanded and psychologically damaging techniques that are taught in marketing and advertising, right in the open no less! But I won't, as you already know them, don't you?
What you do is disgusting. It is worse than a waste of your talent and creativity, what you do is actually harmful to humanity.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"If they'd already grown them, they'd sell them"
They can't, that's the point. They grow more than they can sell because it's such a competitive market, a farmer can't always guarantee he'll be the one who gets the deal with the stores, and if he isn't then his field of crops is just left to rot. There's any number of fields around here that end up like that (I live in rural Yorkshire).
If each farmer had a smaller yield, stores, particularly the big supermarkets, would have to shop around to more farmers, and because they'd not be able to pick and choose the farmers would get better prices.
I'm not sure what country you're in but quite a few EU countries end up with food just being left to waste, this is a particular problem in France where farming is heavily subsidised, such that farmers get paid to plant crops whether they have any hope of ever selling them or not.
Things would be much better if we only grew what we needed and there was more land left to naturalise as a result, but it's just not that way- hedges are removed to make farmer bigger fields easier, and crops are left to rot, it's quite sad.
That IS evidence. Needs further investigation. The varroa mite which came from African bees (who have evolved the ability to scratch them off) has not been found in many cases of colony collapse disorder, and has been known to invade the European species of bee for the last 50 years.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
Oh FFS, get off your high horse. To switch to an hominem attack, how exactly are YOU a hero? If you have the courage of your convictions, tell me how did you make this world a better place.
Speaking of compromise though, that was actually a fairly insightful observation. I am indeed a moderatist, in the Norberto Bobbio acception. I believe that virtually every catastrophic clusterfuck in human history has been caused by people claiming to hold the absolute truth. If everyone would just mind his damn business, we'd all be better off.
But I digress. The techniques you highlight are mostly employed in direct response marketing, a very US centric approach. Personally I avoid using such tricks. Not because I'm the "good guy", but because they are self defeating. In the long run, a business will make most of its money through repeat customers. Deceiving them is the quickest way to shoot yourself in the foot. Ethical behavior in marketing is actually the pragmatic approach and before you jump, yes, there is such a thing.
right...
Government that is controled by the corporations IS one definition of facism.
Free Martian Whores!
I'm not Marxist. I'm using dialectic in the sense of the classical Greek method of reaching truth; through critical dialogue, in which each participant proposes a statement that's possibly true, and offers the opportunity for others to question it critically.
(This response isn't for the AC -- it's for others who might get sucked into his ignorance and presuppose things about my ideas which aren't remotely true.)
You say that like it is a bad thing ...
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
No. I have a bias against people who are proud of their crap. And by "crap" I mean advertising and marketing. I thought that was pretty clear.
Don't be too hard on him. If he's proud to be in marketing, his lack of reading comprehension skills is the least of his problems.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
It should be modded down because it places all the blame on the Republicans, when the blame can be shared equally between both parties (which are really just subparties of one giant party).
As another poster noted, this started back in Clinton's term. Moreover, the Democrats have had control of Congress since 2007 and both Congress and the White House since 2009, and what have they done to fix things? Nothing. They're too busy bending over for their corporate masters, just like the Republicans. The two parties are the same. Right now, Mr. Hope n' Change is trying to push through a giant tax break for billionaires, while he tries to prevent any more government transparency (one of his campaign promises) by attacking Julian Assange and his leaks, and vowing to prosecute him for espionage.
looking from outside objectively, i see republicans as rabid as berserk dogs. republicans had the congress and senate up until 2007. 'what have they done to fix things' does not put both parties in the same basket. for, one COMMITTED those crimes, the other, didnt fix it.
Read radical news here
Well the article said,
"Some 30 pesticides are known to disrupt SNF; the most widely used pesticide in the United States, glyphosate (Roundup) is known to be toxic to nitrogen fixing bacteria."
Regardless, I'd be more curious about what level of reduction they are talking about.
If chemical free farming = 10 units of whatever harvested.
Does nitrogen+pesticides = 20 units of whatever, however
Does nitrogen+overuse of pesticides = 17 units of whatever?
What about the crimes committed by the Democrats? Such as Clinton signing the bill that overturned the Glass-Steagal Act and caused the Mortgage Meltdown?
And if the Democrats don't even lift a finger to fix anything, then why bother electing them? What good are they?
(I seem to be wading into choppy waters, but here goes...)
While not literally describing it as "perfect", Friedrich Hayek and other adherents to the Austrian School of economics appear to come close to viewing the market mechanism as the be-all and end-all foundation of workable economies, depending on how much you include in your definition of economic activity.
That said, I'm under the growing impression that the Austrian School authors are often misquoted -- no real surprise there, as anyone who's read Adam Smith will be aware. I also think it's vital to look at the historic context. Hayek and Mises were in large part reacting against the extreme state-run economic ideas of the Soviet Union; in fact, reading brief excerpts from the authors, it's apparent that their use of the term "socialism" very specifically meant the Soviet variety, decidedly not of the kind seen now in most of Western Europe. Hayek himself was a proponent of some of Western European-style socialism, in terms of social safety nets, welfare, and insurance -- quite at odds with what seems to be the general trend in US public policy of late. The money quote:
There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained [that] the first kind of security [security against severe physical privation, the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all] should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. ... there can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured for everybody. Indeed, for a considerable part of the population of England this sort of security has long been achieved.
Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamaties nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance -- where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks -- the case of the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. ... there is no incompatibility in principle between the state's providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom. To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state's rendering assistance to the victims of such "acts of God" as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.
From page 148, early in Chapter 9, of Hayek's The Road to Serfdom .
tl;dr version: Public insurance is a good idea, and is no inherent threat to individual liberty.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Nope! It's shaped like a burrito!
Bonus points for those who get the reference. :)
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Have a look here -- search for the phrase "non-addictive" and read the few paragraphs after that. It sounds like heroin was aggressively marketed as non-addictive / non-habit-forming, and as an effective cough suppressant. Whee. Makes Robitussin look wimpy, that's for sure.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
The actual history of the labor movement shows that these "private armies" were used to defend replacement workers against unionists who were assaulting and/or murdering them. Such was the case, for instance, at Homestead.
You should have gotten modded funny, I thought. I guess people don't sound out words anymore.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Damn man, that post is so Flamebait that it could heat my house for a week.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
What's your point? Clearly in this case they are completely different kinds of bad. If the government fails to regulate properly for whatever reason then yes this is bad. If a company knowingly releases a product it knows is damaging to the environment then this also is bad. However, in no sense are they equal or even comparable.
In this case, the government is only failing to prevent a industry from creating a problem. They aren't directly creating the problem. In fact, it's reasonable to assume that without any regulation even more companies would get away with similar abuses. It's even reasonable to assume that no regulation is perfect and some problems will always be missed, but we can't compare against Utopia.
Chris Mesterharm
Well, given that these were cables from the people that could do something about it... the people that could DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT already knew.
The fact that our infrastructure is decaying is generally known. The specifics of what's decaying, and choke-points of vulernability? Not so well known.
One more voice urging us to secure this or that wouldn't make a positive diff at this point, whereas specific information on vulnerabilities just makes the jobs of those who undeniably are terrorists that much easier.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
A nerve you've hit. You directly attacked the integrity of myself and my profession.
I agree with him. Die in a fire, you fucking douchebag.
> I'm not a fan of pesticides but I won't deny that they increase food and crop yield.
Prove it. I don't believe this whatsoever.
There has been a growing of evidence showing that the overuse of pesticides has led to a *decline* in crop yields, not an increase.
I'm not a fan of pesticides either. And, I'm not sure exactly how yield is defined. Assuming that it is defined as harvestable food that doesn't have to be thrown away instead of how much a plant puts out irrespective of whether or not it is spoiled by pests, it does increase yields.
The only evidence I have to back it up is personal experience with home gardening. And, I'll definitely concede that it might be different in the industrial context rather than my mostly potted fruits and vegetables. However, during this last season, whenever we skipped a pesticide treatment, we'd end up throwing out most of the food that was anywhere near ripe. We really wanted to go completely organic, but it just wasn't working. I'm not saying it's impossible to do. I'm just saying that for me, the chemical compromise made sense.
Ah, it's all these kids. "Who's Paul McCartney?"
Free Martian Whores!
I wouldn't be surprised to have my suspicion proven wrong... it's just my gut feeling that there are several different issues. I think we're getting closer to the point where we are altering natural systems to the point that a tiny nudge that would otherwise have no measurable impact on a healthy population ends up toppling some parts over the edge. We're getting better at identifying "safe and effective" levels in the lab, but those levels are only "safe and effective" in a controlled laboratory environment. Just like DDT was likely "proven" safe and effective, except we neglected the purely environmental reality of bioaccumulation.
The supposed fact (I haven't seen any published studies, so it's all hearsay and anecdotes so far) that organic bee farms don't experience CCD is quite important, except it doesn't tell which one of us is right. But it does suggest a course of action we would probably both agree on.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
What's wrong with "capacity: 120 liters" as a reason to buy a damn bathtub?
Honey bees don't hibernate. They overwinter, but they stay awake the entire time, clustering together to keep the queen warm.
Oh, and you'll only find females in the winter; in the fall, all of the males are forcefully ejected from the hive, left to freeze (or starve) to death in the elements.
I realize your post was humor, but as a beekeeper, I'm allowed to be pedantic when people say incorrect things about honey bees. :p
The pesticide is a seed coating? How frequently do bees come into contact with seeds that are planted? Is this one of those studies where they drench a bee in a thousand times its normal exposure and the bee dies? Or does this residue actually stay on the plant through its entire life and affect the bee?
The pesticide in question is called a "systemic pesticide". Those are a new class of pesticides that are taken up into the plant itself (rather than simply coating the outside of the plant). Insects die as they eat the plant that contains this pesticide. Of course, the pesticide doesn't just get into the leaves and stem; it gets into the nectar and pollen as well. Honeybees (and other pollinator insects) drink the nectar, and feed the pollen to their developing young. In this way, they consume the pesticide. It not only affects adult bees, but larvae that are being fed the pollen.
Clothianidin is a neonicotinoid insecticide that is both persistent and systemic.
Oh.. I always thought it's what you call a deaf Ranger.
Ironically enough, you answered your own question. 140 liters is a number I simply picked from thin air. I googled a bit and found out that a typical bathtub actually has roughly double this capacity.
Numbers and parameters don't say anything without a context. People buy stuff because they need to fulfill a need, at least in theory. Spelling out what needs a particular product solves is simply more efficient.
And by the way, this translation act also has some tangible consumer benefits. Let's presume that you do buy the damn bathtub, advertised only through its capacity and you get it delivered. You can't blame the company for anything since the product is exactly as advertised, although it doesn't fulfill your needs. If on the other hand, it advertises the benefits as well, you can now legitimately claim that the company misled you. See the mechanism?
right...
I essentially agree with the people you were arguing against, but before I saw your comments, it simply never occurred to me that there might be people who thought of marketing as a good thing. I'm replying again because I'm honestly curious about your reasoning, not trying to be rude or sarcastic.
I don't buy a lot of things, because I don't have a ton of money. But whenever I do buy something that costs more than $50 or so, I tend to put a good amount of thought into it before making the purchase. I've never bought a bathtub, so of course I have no idea what a normal capacity is. But if your example were about a digital camera, a type of product I am familiar with, I would have immediately recognized "1 megapixel sensor" as absurdly low, relative to the current market - and no amount of marketing prose would convince me otherwise. Even if I couldn't recognize that immediately based on my own knowledge, my research would show me pretty quickly that I don't want the product. I don't want the company to provide the context for me - I want to understand it independently.
Admittedly, there are a lot of people in this world, and they all have different shopping habits. But the only effect I can see from marketing similar to your example, is to make purchases easier for consumers, in the extremely short term, by directly lying to them. If you disagree, can you explain what other effects it has? If you agree, can you explain why you don't believe that behavior to be unethical?
I don't quite follow your second point. Are you saying that companies WANT to be held accountable for false advertising, so they provide more text in the product description, to increase their liability?