• PATRONS: Did you know we've a chat function for you now? Look to the bottom of the screen, you can chat, set up rooms, talk to each other individually or in groups! Click 'Chat' at the right side of the chat window to open the chat up.
  • Love Gotmead and want to see it grow? Then consider supporting the site and becoming a Patron! If you're logged in, click on your username to the right of the menu to see how as little as $30/year can get you access to the patron areas and the patron Facebook group and to support Gotmead!
  • We now have a Patron-exclusive Facebook group! Patrons my join at The Gotmead Patron Group. You MUST answer the questions, providing your Patron membership, when you request to join so I can verify your Patron membership. If the questions aren't answered, the request will be turned down.

New study in UK finds neonics.....

zpeckler

NewBee
Registered Member
Mar 7, 2014
519
2
0
Newark, De
Yeah, neonics get the brunt of the blame because they're a single, man-made source that's easy to point the finger at. But like most things in science/nature the answer is significantly more complex.
 

Stasis

Honey Master
Registered Member
Jan 10, 2014
1,123
9
38
Malta
First report:
Neonics are only 1/5 of the problem. 1/5 is still a pretty big fraction. The fact that they're not too sure about which factors affect bees and that this study could not be carried out in best conditions also makes me hesitant to accept that it is 'only' 1/5.
The first study quotes Woodcock saying that:
"It needs to be taken in a very holistic perspective, you can't just say as long as we can save the bees everything else can go to hell, that's not where you want to be at,"

Second report: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-long-term-study-links-neonicotinoids-to-wild-bee-declines-2016-8
Another report about the same study says that neonics increases risk of population decline by 3 times. It quotes that:
"Woodcock's team said this should add to the body of evidence being considered in a review of neonicotinoid risks to bees..." So it seems to be saying neonics are bad and this study piles more evidence that they should be avoided.

So as usual, studies can be reported in whichever way sounds best for the writer's bias. I wonder what the result of the review of the neonics ban will be and what excuse they'll have for it