Bees: Maryland bans neonicotinoids

Sort of early to tell for this season, but I have been pleasantly surprised by the number of native pollinators showing up in my gardens over the past few years. Honeybee numbers have simply crashed.

The MD proposal (which still has to be signed by the Governor) does not affect commercial farmers, so it may be hard to see an effect. And a lot of plants are treated before being sold to consumers, so that too will blunt any outcomes, unfortunately.

 

nice to see some kind of action anyway. too many blind politicians.

 

Within the USA, Maryland may be leading in this. Europe has extensively banned many neonicotinoids (but not all). I find a lack of research directed at seeing whether bees (and other non-target invertebrates) are 'helped' by such bans. It would cost money, against which we are reminded of the very large economic benefit of accurate pollination.

Agriculture depends on killing the insects you want dead, while sparing those with direct utility. This seems very complicated.

 

"I find a lack of research directed at seeing whether bees (and other non-target invertebrates) are 'helped' by such bans. It would cost money, against which we are reminded of the very large economic benefit of accurate pollination."
If society werent wasting hundreds of billions $ studying fake climate science lies,there would be plenty of funds to do actual science."Agriculture depends on killing the insects you want dead, while sparing those with direct utility. This seems very complicated."
DDT was falsely maligned by the EPA.The science needs to be reevaluated and DDT should be used to control Zika immediately.
DDT doesn't cause cancer, doesn't cause egg thinning,and it doesnt collapse bees .
100 Things You Should Know About DDT | JunkScience.com

 

Agreed.The environmental movement is to blame for the banning.Only they used false science to push the meme.The result is tens or hundreds of millions of deaths due to malaria .Now the spread of Zika will devastate families and societies.

 

Bill Gates demonstrates why we should make DDT legal again in the US | Beaglescout

 

WHO | WHO gives indoor use of DDT a clean bill of health for controlling malaria[/urlGarden-Care Giant to Drop Chemicals Linked to Bee Declines - ABC News

 

yikes, i use a lot of those insecticides.

 

DDT again eh? I suppose a good-faith effort would begin with summarizing our earlier discussions on the topic. There may also have been recent reviews published to consider. Only third to examine 'motivated media' with a knowledge base to distinguish fluff from stuff. That of course would set a very high standard for discussions here...

It is timely now I suppose because mosquito-borne diseases (old and new) may expand if mosquito ranges increase. As they might with climate change. Hence a squirrel.

The way to know if DDT is a squirrel or not is to study the subject.

 

Four DDT reviews (date range 2009-2013) have appeared on this computer. First impression is that DDT as it is still being used now is an effective component of mosquito vector control. Might want to increase a bit. But 'spray everything everywhere' is never wise with broad-spectrum biocides.

Previous discussions here have included the notion that reducing earlier DDT use spiked malaria mortality. however, it was broad applications that led to mosquito resistance to DDT, rendering vector control much less effective. As this is subtle and appears a paradox, maybe little hope of getting the point across.

+++
Frankly, neonicotinoids seem like a better play than DDT or molecules with carbon-chlorine bonds in general. The former are modified from plants that (we could say) are limiting their herbivore load. The latter, carbon-chlorine bonds, are very rare in nature. Yet they are easy for chemists to make, and mess with ion channels like nobody's business.

Evolution is a laboratory operating on time and space scales that can scarcely be imagined. Here we have a (chemically easy) path that was never taken. You just gotta take a moment to reflect on why.

If you are Christian and revere the Book of Genesis, you have the idea there are things Man can do and yet ought not. So instead of DDT being a metaphorical squirrel, maybe it's the apple.

 

"Frankly, neonicotinoids seem like a better play than DDT"

Until they kill bees and destroy the worlds food supply.Even the chemical corporations realize they are killing the planet.
This is a teachable moment ,when the corporate chemical companies are smarter than the environmental scientists.

 

"Malaria was previously worldwide when the climate was cooler."

May we start with the second? When was climate cooler? This is important because you have told us that climate is not now hotter.

I am not aware of a time when malaria was worldwide, so I ask for help there. I do know that malaria was big in Washington DC area before swamps were drained. Surface standing water is mosquito friendly.

Where winter is long, mosquitoes persist as dormant eggs. I simply don't know if Plasmodium falciparum can survive in those eggs. The alternative is for P. f. to shelter through winter in vertebrate hosts.

What climate change would do is shorten winters in marginal mosquito habitat. What it might do, in some places, is to increase rainfall, and surface standing water, to the benefit of mosquitoes.

"...DDT ,until it was banned" And yet it was not globally banned. It is currently in use and I think mojo cited the World Health Organization above in support of that. I do not immediately find information about where and how much is being made. Does anyone here have that?

"...use science to actually help humanity." I can only agree. Mojo finds me on the wrong side of the ledger. You can make that stick, dude, by supporting your points with something more beefy than affinity website links.

Anything you want to say that might help humanity, we want to hear. My work is (sadly) not directly along these lines. I do cycling of carbon and other elements, and I train students to do similar. I find enough folks (like you) denigrating science and praising fossil-C burning. That niche seems filled. I look for another niche.

 

I agree with post 25. We have veered off topic here. Bring us back boss.

 

Many bee species get their protein from pollen. This new research relates to both bees and +CO2

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160413113420.htm

Note that it considers only one plant species, and it is not a bee-pollinated crop (which would be a very sensible thing to study). But I think in earlier +CO2 discussions it has been noted that increased plant growth rates are accompanied by lower protein levels. This may be a general phenomenon.

You can consider bees as living in a complex (abstract) world of resources and risks. Not just pesticides. So a big-picture perspective is probably optimal to see how our little (stingy) friends carry out their enterprise.

Please notice one other thing in the press release above. Pollen was examined from 1842! Some here may have taken botany courses in which they pressed plant specimens. This thing has been done for quite a long time, and some of the old stuff can still be found in museums and what not. I can assure you that no 1842 botanist thought " Many years later somebody can use my things for research on biology vs. environmental change". Plant pressings are being used in many fascinating ways now. A relative trickle of funding is required to maintain these collections, but in a recent news release (I did not post), funding cuts were being considered.

Naturally, eggheads complained about that. I try to make the case that odd little areas of earth system science can be of unanticipated general value.