neonics - science collapse disorder

[werner.reiche]

I'll be honest, i find it extremely entertaining how someone who posted the thread title "Science Collapse Disorder", continues to defend and promote some of the worst scientific work ever performed.

In your eyes it's terrible for a gov't to move quickly to impose strict regulations on a product while further scientific studies are performed on it... but it's perfectly fine by you for that product to be rushed to market and widespread use, without any concrete knowledge about how it works or effects our ecosystem and food stocks.

That's... a special kind of logic.

That's that the best response you can come up with for the pretty valid points I raised. Most guys value their dignity to go away quietly after they've been beaten into the ground.

Through with this thread if the best you can come up with is that.

[Oddmott]

That's that the best response you can come up with for the pretty valid points I raised. Most guys value their dignity to go away quietly after they've been beaten into the ground.

Through with this thread if the best you can come up with is that.

What valid points? Your last paragraph essentially states that we shouldn't bother to expect proper science if it means impeding man's progression to ultimate laziness.

Let's keep dumping chemicals into our food... because it's easier than asking the producers (agri-chem corps) to employ actual science to ensure it won't kill us down the road.

What exactly do you think is valid about that outlook?

[JBen]

Semantics all around imo.

M: If "knee jerk" products are rushed to market, but work and serve a purpose.

Care to explain why a knee jerk reaction removing them is any better, especially when, as Werner is pointing out. The only existing alternatives are proven to be far worse. And the fall back of nothing is utterly unworkable, impractical. Utter nonsense.

Rock meet hard place.
In short, your argument about diving head first into the pool without plumbing the depths first can be mirrored right back at you. And worse, not only are they jumping in with both feet, ........................you admit theres no plan (same old song from this crew isn't it?????)

Hypocrisy?

6 of one, half dozen of another imo.

last edit.
Gee M, why not regulate all fossil fuels and oil by products be reduced by 80% in 2018.
You good with that? Sounds a lot like the GEA doesn't it?

[Oddmott]

Semantics all around imo.

M: If "knee jerk" products are rushed to market, but work and serve a purpose.

Care to explain why a knee jerk reaction removing them is any better, especially when, as Werner is pointing.

Where's the kneejerk reaction of removing them? After 5 years of their mass-use in Canada, associated issues began arising in Ontario in Quebec. 7 - SEVEN! - years after those first issues, sufficient data had been accumulated to say definitively that neonics are more dangerous than their producers claimed.

Eight years after those first issues (13 years after their mass-use started across Canada), the govt of ON says "okay, we're going to restrict and reduce their use, as further studies are compiled".

13 years... and they're still not banned, just restricted. Where exactly is this kneejerk reaction you mentioned?

[JBen]

What's the fall back M.
DDT?

Only a fool would pull the plug on something that's as critical as something like this. Our crops/food/Agriculture industry.

With no soft place to land. That's a "knee-jerk"...by definition.

[jaycee]

Well my goodness we should ban them because they are so destructfull !! lol

Don't want to spoil your time on the high stool, but did you look at the origins of your links?
I thought not.

Most definitely looked at the origins .
If you didn't like the origins of those articles , try this one ,from "Harvard School of Public Health" , http://peakenergy.blogspot.ca/2014/0...k-between.html

Here is another one by Stefanie Seneff, who is a senior Research Scientist at MIT with so many degrees after her name it looks like a confused alphabet ;http://hercolano2.blogspot.ca/2014/0...-its-dark.html
scroll down to where it starts -thurs. July 3/2014.

[mooboy76]

Most definitely looked at the origins .
If you didn't like the origins of those articles , try this one ,from "Harvard School of Public Health" , http://peakenergy.blogspot.ca/2014/0...k-between.html

Here is another one by Stefanie Seneff, who is a senior Research Scientist at MIT with so many degrees after her name it looks like a confused alphabet ;http://hercolano2.blogspot.ca/2014/0...-its-dark.html
scroll down to where it starts -thurs. July 3/2014.

With regards to the second post. Yes , Stefanie Seneff has a few degress (Biophysics B.Sc, and both an M.Sc and Ph.D in Electrical Engineering), and is a senior researcher at MIT, in their Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory; she specializes in language algorithms, and natural language processing with human-computer interactions. I do not doubt that she is brilliant in her work.

I do not know the academic background of her co-author, but he has been running his own environmental consultant businesses since 1972. I have read Dr. in front of his name, but I don't know what field his PhD might be in. He is also someone who publicly denounces GMO use, not to say that invalidates any of his research, but his impartiality may be suspect.

I read the article published in Entropy, the one the blog post is referring to. I claim no expert knowledge, but I can see why that paper was sent to a 'pay to publish' journal from a Chinese Open Access Publisher. It almost comes across as a review article, but then makes new claims, that should each have their own study, thrown in for good measure.

I read a few of the referenced materials, and on some points the Entropy article is technically correct, but then slaps grand conjectures on those facts. On the whole, it reads like a shoddy literature review with a clear intention: find ways to prove glyphosate is responsible for the obesity epidemic, Alzheimer's Disease, the rise in Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnoses, and other stuff. For the length of it, there is not much meat to each section.

Although the subject matter is physiological in nature, the authors do not attempt to frame their conclusions within physiologically relevant concentrations or conditions. Not uncommon to see, but with the claims the authors are making, it should be a prerequisite. With the resources they had, I have to wonder why they did not present this as a series of meta-analyses on the different subjects within their paper, while toning down the conclusions/soapbox parts. It would have been better received that way; either the associations are there, or they are not.

There may be some valid points in the paper, but they are drowned out by the writing style and assertions. I would have to read all of the referenced material for each section to trust that those papers claim what these two authors say they do.

Perhaps relevant; the authors also have published about the dangers of Aluminum, and how it should not be used in Society. Dr. Seneff has also recently published a paper with a sports concussion nutritionist. In it, they seem to blame glyphosate for increases in sports concussions. Their abstract has a huge, glaring, error in it, so I'm not sure how it got published. There is a difference between microbial and human physiology, and I would think they should know that before they write a paper. Then again, I didn't read the full paper, so maybe they clear that up somewhere.

[mooboy76]

All that said, I definitely support research into the effects of these different pesticides. Put the companies' products through the wringer, and test all of the company scientists' claims. They are not as free to publish as the academic community at large, so they need help to scrub off some of the sunshine and rainbows.

It is important that the studies are done. It is also important that the published research is not garbage.

There is surprisingly little oversight on scientific research, and nobody likes to point fingers at their 'peers' for doing a crap job.

[Angus]

MHere is another one by Stefanie Seneff, who is a senior Research Scientist at MIT with so many degrees after her name it looks like a confused alphabet

Looking at her alphabet soup means nothing. Auditing her bank account and revenue sources would be more revealing. Also her political and environmental leanings.

[Sharon]

Ontario is the first place in North America to put restrictions on the use of neonics starting July 1.

http://www.lfpress.com/2015/06/09/on...des-by-farmers