Suicide By Pesticide

All,
If you want more to read on this subject there is a report "The Impact of the Nation's Most Widely Used Insecticides an Birds". I have snipped out some relative bits below.

Depending on the specific insecticide, we have found that EPA underestimates toxicity by 1.5 -10 fold if the intent of the exercise is to protect most potentially exposed bird species, and not merely mallards and bobwhites, the two test species.

The chronic/reproductive toxicity of neonicotinoids to birds is high.

Indeed, we believe that imidacloprid is too acutely toxic to be used as a seed treatment insecticide on any seed type based on our assessment of its use in cereals and oilseeds.

A publication currently in press advances the hypothesis that the neonicotinoids are a contributory factor to many wildlife diseases through immune suppression.

Unfortunately, North American regulators have greatly underestimated the toxicity of imidacloprid and other neonicotinoids to aquatic invertebrates.

European regulators acknowledge that acute effects are likely at levels exceeding 0.5 ug/l. In contrast, the EPA’s regulatory and non-regulatory reference levels are set at 35 ug/l.

the mode of action of neonicotinoids, which entails a cumulative irreversible action and delayed effects in invertebrates, as well as their persistence in the environment, makes them particularly worrisome.

Does anyone else find it concerning that the EPA's regulatory levels for acute toxicity in waterborne imidacloprid (the most common neonocotinoid) is 70 times higher than what is acceptable in Europe? Incidentally, in the report they recommend 0.2 ug/l which is 2.5 times lower than Europe's standard (170 times lower than the US). I sure am glad the EPA is looking out for my health... 

Mark

 

It's sad that this clip is so funny.  It would just seem plain old idiotic if there weren't so many people with just such an approach to discussion all around us.

As for slugs, I hear that Eliot Coleman sets ducks loose in the garden in the fall to control slugs.  I don't know if you can  have them on your property, but maybe you could borrow some each autumn.

Steve

I certainly do.  Let's find a way to get exactly what 0.5 ug/l. is.  That's 0.5 micrograms per liter or one 2 millionth of a gram per liter or 0.5 parts per billion. Imagine a 1 liter water bottle.  Now, let's assume that imidacloprid is about as dense as water.  A half a microgram would fill a little box 0.1 millimeters on two sides and 0.05 millimeters on the third.  0.05 millimeters, or 50 microns or about the diameter of a human hair.  So take that box that is 2 hair diameters by 2 hair diameters by one hair diameter and dump it into the 1 liter of water.  Can your fingers manage something so small?  Imagine how quickly it disappears in the water.  To get 0.2 ug/l. we have 1 hair diameter by 1 hair diameter by 1.6 hair diameters.  Maybe the size of a speck of dust.  Anything more than that in your water bottle is dangerous!

YtBHs[quote=LesPhelps]
We live in a society of self inflicted walking deadheads.

[/quote]
By 'deadheads', I'm assuming (hoping) you don't mean 'Dead heads'
Although some of them are some of them…skip ahead to 3:38 for Exhibit A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLeGuHzs5WE

Bellinghamster - WA state I'm assuming?  We loved it out there…was stationed over on the Kitsap side in Silverdale while my submarine was going through a refueling overhaul in Bremerton…I digress.
There are a few threads floating around that have broached the topic of your concern.
As you would expect, some posts are short on fact and long on belief/emotion.  You've probably seen the video clip of the plane "spraying something" from the trailing edge of its wings.  Even after a pilot came in and explained that it was wingtip vortices from that flaps he was dismissed as being on the dark side.  People see what they want to see.
As long as the discussion and exchanges are respectful and reasonably polite, I wouldn't worry about being marginalized.  Many end up in an "agree to disagree" status.
To answer your question, looking at your profile pic, I see what happens when the water vapor in jet exhaust mixes with -60 degree air at 34,000 feet.  From that standpoint it is not a "natural" cirrus cloud, but it is, simply, ice.

 

 

The following links to a NASA site showing where conditions are favorable for contrail formation.
http://cloudsgate2.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/site/showdoc?docid=33&cmd=latest
This link goes to a NOAA site showing satellite water vapor imagery.
http://contrailscience.com/contrail-forecast/
Combining the two you can see that the Kansas-Oklahoma-Missouri-Arkansas region has conditions favoring contrail formation between 225-150 mb, which is an altitude range of 36,200 - 44,300 feet.  Add in the water vapor map and what you end up with is favorable conditions for formation of contrails that will linger and spread due to higher water vapor in the air and cooling from the formation of cirrus clouds (ice) from the water in the jet exhaust.

Here are the links to the existing threads…you may find them helpful.  There's an expected mix of science, psuedoscience, fact and belief/emotion.

https://peakprosperity.com/forum/what-world-are-they-spraying/39897

https://peakprosperity.com/forum/84763/chemtrails-real

I'm off the grid for the rest of the week, but will check back when I return.  Nothing like a week in the Shenandoahs to reflect on Memorial Day and my fellow brothers and sisters in arms who didn't come home.

An excellent article in the Guardian that echoes Chris' article:

It bluntly states:

"But the plan announced on Tuesday falls short in one capacity that has environmental groups up in arms. It does not ban the use of any form of toxic pesticides, despite a large body of scientific research showing many of them – specifically neonicotinoids, or “neonics” – to be closely linked to widespread bee life loss."
And notice that the only support for Obama's plan comes from the chemical industry:
"the Associated Press reported that CropLife America, a trade association representing the pesticide industry, had praised the strategy for its “multi-pronged coordinated approach”."
And notably the article singles out treated or coated seeds as an important hidden danger:
"A recent study published in Environmental Science and Technology suggested pesticide prevalence, specifically of the neonicotinoid kind, had been grossly underestimated because previous counts (including those undertaken by governmental agencies) failed to include seed treatment – a new prophylactic method introduced at the beginning of last decade that ensures seeds are sprayed before they are even planted.
At least 79% of American maize fields have been planted with preemptively treated seeds, the study found.

Traditional farmers who are conscious to the survival of bees and who want to avoid neonics are finding it difficult to obtain uncoated seeds in the marketplace, Tiffany Finck-Haynes, a food futures campaigner with Friends of the Earth, said."

All the articles I saw in the US press just gave one anti paragraph followed by one pro paragraph creating absolutely no clarity at all. This is the false fairness issue that supposedly gives each side of a controversy equal weight - no matter which side has the facts on their side. Facts and opinions are equal in America. Europeans give more weight to the facts. 

Jandeligans said:

Facts and opinions are equal in America.
You have put your finger on the very nature of so many problems that are emanating from the United States. When exactly did reality go out of vogue? Who are you going to believe, the corporate/government propaganda or your lying eyes? We are sleepwalking into oblivion...

Mark

The article refers to "bees per square meter".  Last year, with 2 hives on my 1/2 acre parcel, you might see a dozen bees representing 3 different species in a one meter square of flowering plants on a warm, sunny day.  This year, with both hives having failed to over winter, I have seen 2 bees on the 1/2 acre, so far this spring.  One honey bee, one bumble bee, no mason bees.  I have a large Lilac out side my back door.  Last year, with 2 active hives, the thing literally hummed with activity, this year, no bees at all. 
Obviously my observations are anecdotal and not scientific, but it is unsettling to think that all the bees I've gotten used to seeing over the past several years may have been my own.  I never occurred to me that there might not be any more wild bees in my area.

From my middle of North America perspective, the collapse of ocean ecosystems is sort of academic.  To realize that the ecosystems in my own back yard my be collapsing makes it very real.

John G

"Sleep walking into oblivion!"
obtw, "not this white boy"  my mare is being settled

I'm seeing lots of bumblebees this spring on my city lot in Wisconsin. They love all the perennials. I suppose we're now in a Kunslterian world where the farms are a monocultural-industrial complex, the suburbs are Monsanto-friendly districts, and the last refuges for birds and butterflies are within city blocks. I'm exaggerating, of course. But the powers that be are paving the way for it.
 

This year I have seen one bumble bee, two other bees and one hummingbird.  Four pollinators.  It has been unseasonably warm and sunny with blossoms of all kinds everywhere.  The silence is horrifying.  Even the wasp nest over my door, whose inhabitants were so gentle I had not brought myself to destroy their nest, has gone lifeless.  I think they are gone for good. 
I am still mostly working on building enough soil to garden and other infrastructure projects.  I thought I'd figure out how to support pollinators later.  Looks like later is already gone.  Will my baby fruit trees (loaded with blossoms this year) be able to set anything? 

Mason bees next spring.  Bee-food plants now, if I can find any annuals that will flower starting so late.

Good to be in such company as yourselves, with people who will let the pain of this register within us and provoke deeper insight and action.

Susan

 

 

Loads of lilacs and other flowers but a dearth of insects even on the warm days so far. I planted the tomatoes in the garden today but I am wondering if we will have to hand pollinate this year…
One of the hardest hit birds is the ring-necked pheasant. In my county the numbers were down 80% over the 10 year average in 2013 and 'recovered' to be only 70% down last year. I wonder what this year will bring?

Mark

 

This was posted on Google+ by Barb MacMaster
 

Are Scientists Exposing Bee Death Epidemic Facing Censorship and Threats? http://b4in.org/tKlo A formal letter to the United States Department of Agriculture reports that scientists are being harassed and their research on bee-killing pesticides is being censored or suppressed by the Monsanto-infiltrated agency (the USDA). Surprised, anyone? At least we are organizing formally against a scourge that has been painfully obvious for years now. A broad coalition of farmers, environmentalists, fisheries and food-safety organizations (over 25 citizens’ groups) urged an investigation into the USDA’s support of the chemical industry over the American public in a May 5 letter sent to Phyllis K. Fong, USDA Inspector General. It states: “The possibility that the USDA is prioritizing the interests of the chemical industry over those of the American public is unacceptable.” Hear. Hear. (“Hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!” ) The group is concerned that a forthcoming report by the White House Task Force on Pollinator Health, which is co-chaired by the USDA, is compromised. The signatories of the letter to the USDA include the American Bird Conservancy, Avaaz, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Farmworkers Association of Florida, Food and Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Green America, Organic Consumers Association and Sierra Club. Could it be? Yes, it certainly could be – here’s why: More ttp://b4in.org/tKlo

We will never be as efficient as the bees… They deserve our commitment to protect them.

(Image source here)

And when scientists are muzzled… CBC News… population in general is misinformed by the crooks who can speak.

 

    -May Berenbaum, PhD, Entomologist. From Silence of the Bees, PBS Nature.

    -Albert Einstein

[quote]To a Honey Bee Who Hath Drunk Too Much Wine and Drowned

Thou born to sip the lake or spring,
Or quaff the waters of the stream,
Why hither come on vagrant wing?—
Does Bacchus tempting seem—
Did he, for you, the glass prepare?—
Will I admit you to a share?
Did storms harass or foes perplex,
Did wasps or king-birds bring dismay—
Did wars distress, or labours vex,
Or did you miss your way?—
A better seat you could not take
Than on the margin of this lake.[/quote]

    -Philip Morin Freneau, 1806 

A formal letter to the United States Department of Agriculture reports that scientists are being harassed and their research on bee-killing pesticides is being censored or suppressed by the Monsanto-infiltrated agency.
A hard stone forms in my heart chakra on reading your words, Blade. I do hope the pasty faced desk jockeys who are driving the harassment have considered all the consequences carefully.

Pol Pot may have been a bit ahead of his time when he emptied the cities and consigned the bureaucrats to till the fields. The Limits to Growth curves imply that he was.

Do they wish to add "pollen vector" to their resumes?

EDIT: You don't like the question? I don't like having to pose it.

On Kangaroo Island.

 

The Ligurian bees on Kangaroo Island are believed to be the last remaining pure stock of this bee found anywhere in the world.
 
 In the early 1880's Ligurian bees were imported by the South Australian Chamber of Manufacturers. The Ligurian bee was named for its origin in the Ligurian Alps in the days of the Roman Empire. Roman historians praised its docility and productivity. The scientific name of this species is Apis mellifera ligustica.
http://www.users.on.net/~hogbay/hogbay2.htm
 
Better get yours now before "you know who" sees a $10 profit over there.

Just wait till eating organic is made illegal and deemed a terrorist act for being antisocial to the Borg collective. That'll probably come about the same time using cash will be made illegal.
On a positive note I arrived at my mom's house on Vancouver Island yesterday in the Pacific Northwest and right away saw 2 honeybees on the raspberries! I guess an ocean of weather from the west tends to clean out the pesticides a bit.

Just another example of the failure of modern economics to deal with the most basic of challenges. I always harp on this, but at its root all money (and thus profit) is a claim on ecological production. It is illogical to destroy the ecosystem in the pursuit of profit which is actually just a claim on that very ecosystem's functions. There is a parallel with the imminent demise of the US dollar. Soon any dollar profits you make won't buy you much of anything because the ecosystem they currently lay claim to is being (has been) destroyed.

But according to mainstream economics there is no ecosystem, just "producers" and "consumers". The ecosystem is deemed to be an "externality", an afterthought that some person in power might take pity on and decide to tweak things a little bit to protect in the interests of Smokey the Bear and summer vacationers desiring a pretty place to go camping. Mainstream economics has barely advanced in a century and any advances it has made have taken us in the wrong direction, further entrenching the Keynesian model's denial of the real world outside of textbooks.

At least in ecological economics there is an ecosystem that provides essential services to the economy but it's still separate from the economy. In thermo-economics the economy is actually a part of the ecosystem. It is so obvious that when you destroy the ecosystem you inevitably destroy the economy; I don't understand how any moderately awake person could deny this. Money is a social construct and without a functioning ecosystem money and people will cease to exist; seems to be the way we're headed. When the dollar dies so too will the USA. Both are now inevitable.

I like following Dave Kranzler of Investment Research Dynamics because back in the 90's he was also a Wall Street scumbag and he admits it and openly talks about how money corrupts. But he realized it, got out, and now criticizes it.

[quote=Chris Martenson]

As long as people are kept fed, entertained, and told that everything is awesome, then practically nobody bothers to lift their head and look around.

[/quote]

And that's only made possible because of the US trade deficit and reserve status of the dollar. You can understand why TPTB fight so hard to prop this system up since when the dollar goes a lot of people aren't going to be fed anymore or be entertained with the latest gadgets from China and then questions might start being asked by the average Joe.

It's been lamented by so many here, but it is truly amazing to see in people I know, nice intelligent people who want to do the right thing, the pathological resistance to even looking at evidence or narratives that might call into question their faith in the mainstream. It is just so addictive to them, I guess you could say comforting, they just will not open up to the possibility. One of my best friends thinks I'm a crazy about 9/11. For years they've told me I'm crazy yet they refuse to look at the evidence, but they're certain I'm wrong. He suggested I watch the Southpark episode which he believes debunks the 9/11 truthers… I of course did that and yet months later now he refuses to spend half an hour looking at a basic youtube video on 9/11. He always comes up with an excuse: "not today". I suggest that it's because he's afraid the evidence will be undeniable and he'll have to change his world view, which he then vehemently denies. Then why won't you spend half an hour, Mike? I did it for you. It's because deep down he knows I'm right but doesn't want to admit it, plus he'd rather go on denying the sky is blue than admit that I was right all along regardless of what I'm saying… No one likes a told'ya so.

To Time2Helps link above as well as Chris' comments, why IS it so hard to simply get factual information on these very important issues?  The Organics article in LA Times is one example (why is it so hard to quantify the benefits of Organics)?  If we were to prioritize our food budget (and holistically consider the potential savings in medical costs), which foods should we preferentially focus on to buy the organic version?  What in the world is wrong with our media and our government agencies and our educational institutions?   Producing fact based info should be their primary product/benefit to society (ie simply insure we have accurate unbiased info so we can make rational informed decisions AND insure we have incentives aligned with the common good). Clearly we have to make the effort to educate ourselves as it's obvious our educational system and media and govt will not do that for us. I personally rely on the private sector (folks like Chris and PP and other sources I trust) to help ferritt through all the noise and BS to pull together fact based info in a meaningful way. Maybe instead of relying on the EPA and USDA etc to "protect" our health interests, some type of private rating agencies might evolve based on a market need for holistic factual info that can give us guidance about what products/services to buy or avoid.   
P.S.  Love the idea of a new narrative and a new Constitution Chris…our money & value systems are clearly not oriented toward "Peak Prosperity" or a world worth inheriting.  Sorry I missed that part of the side conversation at Rowe but hope to be part of the next one. 

Here is some info from "The Organic Center". They have scientists on staff and are trying to present factual info about the benefits of Organic Foods. https://www.organic-center.org/organic-fact-sheets/top-12-reasons-to-go-organic/