General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIllinois illegally seizes bees resistant to (Monsanto) Roundup; kills remaining queens
Last edited Sat May 26, 2012, 06:00 PM - Edit history (6)
http://www.pacc-news.com/5-2-12/heart_ingram5_2_12.htmlThe Illinois Ag Dept. illegally seized privately owned bees from renowned naturalist, Terrence Ingram, without providing him with a search warrant and before the court hearing on the matter, reports Prairie Advocate News.
Behind the obvious violations of his Constitutional rights is Monsanto. Ingram was researching Roundup’s effects on bees, which he’s raised for 58 years. “They ruined 15 years of my research,” he told Prairie Advocate, by stealing most of his stock.
---
Edit:
If you don't believe any of this, search about bee deaths, bayer, monsanto, GMO, food patents, seeds, Clarence Thomas...
Edit:
Roundup Birth Defects: Regulators Knew World's Best-Selling Herbicide Causes Problems, New Report Finds
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/roundup-birth-defects-herbicide-regulators_n_872862.html
WASHINGTON -- Industry regulators have known for years that Roundup, the world's best-selling herbicide produced by U.S. company Monsanto, causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday.
The report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?" found regulators knew as long ago as 1980 that glyphosate, the chemical on which Roundup is based, can cause birth defects in laboratory animals.
But despite such warnings, and although the European Commission has known that glyphosate causes malformations since at least 2002, the information was not made public.
(If it effects lab animals, maybe it effects bees. Thus, Monsanto have a direct profit motive to cover-up the story. Maybe they already know something we do not and are attempting to do damage control.
The majority of the people in this thread who are arguing on behalf of Monsanto or who are simply nit-picking are not paying attention to facts which are easily found on the internet. Please search Monsanto Clarence Thomas. I'm not posting any more links.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
xchrom
(108,903 posts)
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)
BeliQueen
(504 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)
NutmegYankee
(16,472 posts)
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)
Uncle Joe
(64,606 posts)Thanks for the thread, Fire Walk With Me.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)Apparently service is temporarily unavailable???
dixiegrrrrl
(60,152 posts)
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)The site linked in the OP is a birther, climate-change-denier site that linked to the story in the Prairie Advocate.
Sid
Aerows
(39,961 posts)That you don't like? Perhaps they could seize your mother, throwing her in Guantanamo, or perhaps they could bomb your home. I'm sure both would be A-okay with you.
You frustrate me at times because I know you are probably a decent person, but there seems to be no limit to the things you will justify.
I don't expect a reply because you never offer one, you just offer these drive by insults to posts you don't like attempting to cloud the issue but never coming back to actually discuss them.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)It's at the bottom of the thread. I link ot the law. The agriculture department did nothing illegal in this case.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)My apologies.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)It was the CCD of the early 20th century and wiped out a lot of apiaries. They discovered destroying the bees, burning everything, and the burying the ashes was the only effective way to keep it from spreading.
It was that experience that set up bee inspection sections of various state departments of agriculture and gave those sections quite a bit of power to insure the disease does not become widespread again.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)government action described in this thread.
My problem with this thread is that instead of directing us to the primary source, the OP directed us to a site run by a birther, climate change denier who gleefully calls Obama "Barry Soetoro" throughout his site.
Sid
Aerows
(39,961 posts)And after further review, I do tend to think this situation was not a problem. Excuse me for the knee-jerk reaction, but you DO have a tendency to defend anything, and I do mean anything, the Obama administration does.
I support President Obama, and hope that he has a second term, and I am a card carrying member of the Democratic party. That doesn't mean I have to be out of my mind supporting every damn thing either do.
You, Prosense, and a few others would support President Obama if he ate a live baby on TV, and that just annoys the hell out of me, because I don't like cheerleaders. Praise him for the good - I don't hold back. But criticize for the bad, because we are all human beings and even President Obama isn't perfect.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)The bee nut was claiming the Illinois department of agriculture was colluding with Monsanto.
Where does Obama enter into that conspiracy theory? Was he in the conservatory with the rope?
randome
(34,845 posts)You'll do well here. Seriously. 
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I meant to reply to Sid. In any case, I admitted that this was justifiable, not sure what more you want other than for me to say "Welcome to DU!"
And I mean that sincerely 
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)Have a good one!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)Is roundup supposed to kill bees???
Ian David
(69,059 posts)KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)It would seem that Monsanto would want bees to be resistant to roundup. Or they have self pollinating crops in the works or ??
Ian David
(69,059 posts)... then you can prove that their product has been killing-off all the OTHER bees, and then Monsanto can be sued for damages.
Plus, if it's proved they are harming bees, then the next question becomes, what ELSE is their product killing? And who can sue them for it?
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)Bees that aren't killed by Roundup would help Monsanto in such a suit.
I'm not trying be smart here, just trying to understand this story.
Ian David
(69,059 posts)
yellowcanine
(36,747 posts)The bees were seized and destroyed because state inspectors detected American foulbrood, a serious and highly contagious disease of bees. The beekeeper claims he was doing research on the effects of Roundup on the bees and that the bees were seized at the behest of Monsanto. But he offers no evidence to that effect.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)yellowcanine
(36,747 posts)Lots of research on it. But not by this guy as far as I can tell. I think he made up or exaggerated this part of it after the bees were taken by the inspectors - which happened because he refused to destroy them after the presence of foulbrood was confirmed by the USDA lab at Beltsville. A legitimate researcher would not have been so cavalier about the presence of foulbrood. And destroying the bees would not destroy his research - presumably he still has all of the data he collected. The only thing he doesn't have is the bees. And if he were a legitimate researcher he could quite easily replicate the experiments with another set of bees from the same sources where he got the original bees.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)They are attempting to utterly dominate the world's food supply and sources with GMOs, genetically modified organisms, which are very unhealthy. US and Canada are about the only two countries on Earth not requiring that these modified foods be labelled, perhaps due to heavy Monsanto presence and influence ($$$) in government. Monsanto spread their seeds in foreign countries and then sue farmers out of existence for patent infringement when Monsanto GMOs are then "discovered" in their fields. Entire countries have sued to remove Monsanto and their produkt (use of the industrial culture hard "k" is intentional and carries negative meaning). Supposedly healthy Kashi and similar products are being pulled in the US because the soy has been found to be GMO.
The are attempting to monopolize food. And they're doing a damn good job.
lame54
(39,346 posts)It is in line with the company store mentality.
crunch60
(1,412 posts)Link gives info on GMO products.
http://www.youcouldsavetheworld.com/fight_for_natural_food.html
snip;
Are these GMOs safe? Maybe not, according to some, and certainly they are not what
Monsanto has said they are. Take a look at this company, as what we buy and eat is very important,
both to your health, and the Earth!
Monsanto has patented their GMO seed, and now it makes up a huge amount of the food products
we buy today. Since Monsanto was able to patent their GMO seed, they now actively seek out and
sue any farmer with GMO-contaminated crops. Throughout 2004 and 2005, Monsanto filed lawsuits
against many farmers in Canada and the U.S. on the grounds of patent infringement, specifically the
farmers' sale of seed containing Monsanto's patented genes. In some cases, farmers claimed the
seed was unknowingly sown by wind carrying the seeds from neighboring crops, a claim rejected in
Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser.
----------------------------
Rachel
Carson and her book Silent Spring in 1962, which sought to inform the public of the side
effects associated with the insecticide.
I read this book many years ago, a real eye opener and a must read.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Monsanto is so powerful,
that they were able to seat their man on the White House cabinet as the
Secretary of Agriculture. Champagne corks were popping at Monsanto boardrooms THAT night.
Google: "Vilsack ties to Monsanto"
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)What happened to him?
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Monsanto along with the other Big Agri Concerns, has been buying up companies that hold seed banks. For instance, back in the late nineties, or early 2000's, Hartz Mountain was bought up by one of these firms. The firm's seed bank was then immediately incinerated!
A hundred years of seed cultivation and cataloguing and holding on to valuable heirloom seeds for future generations was vaporized as that happened.
Javaman
(65,446 posts)what monsanto is doing to seed savers. It's disgusting and destroying livelihoods.
wilsonbooks
(972 posts)
LiberalLoner
(11,467 posts)without bees, we have no food. So...Monsanto is trying to gain control of what food we can eat, right? No way to survive without Monsanto?
More and more I am seeing how they are culling the herd. They know we are in overshoot re population and they are trying to do a controlled die-off that will not affect them.
It's becoming more and more clear now. They are buying up water rights everywhere too. No food, no water, no life. Only for those they wish to survive.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Now control science. Who do you think offers up our universities the monies for their research? How long would some grad student last if he protests? How long would that grad students' research last if he or she does not make that research favorable tot he story that the Big Industry paying for the research wants to hear? ?
And people are so dumbed down it is incredible. Recently a panel of industry bought-and-paid of scientists decided that you no longer need to do scientific research on a matter - simply look over the publications in a certain field on a certain topic, and figure out how many articles and papers support Theory X, as opposed to how many support Theory Y. Whichever theory has the higher number of supporting articles wins! So that means that industry always wins - because industry always has more money, more paid for scientists,. more university labs, etc.
That is not science - that is rubbish! If that way of handling scientific research had been utilized by Governor Davis back when the MTBE gas additive issue was involving many activists day and night, we in California would not have had the Blue Ribbon Panel assembled to do real research and then determine that the gas additive presented more risk to the public than benefit.
Yet many here totally approve of the "count up the published paper" theories of science!
oldhippydude
(2,514 posts)curious how roundup could affect bees... now perhaps we will never know.. as one who has handled pesticides in the past, and an organic gardner.. im very curious
yellowcanine
(36,747 posts)Legitimate research at universities by researchers not working for Monsanto. It would be a real coup for any researcher to show a negative effect on bees by Roundup so there is no incentive not to do this research or report the findings.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)PS. Monsanto's own corporate cafeteria does not use any food products containing GMOs. What does that tell you?
yellowcanine
(36,747 posts)This is not a debate about the merits of Roundup. It is a debate about the merits of this story. Address that if you can. If you read all of the responses you will see that the bees were seized because they had foulbrood and the beekeeper refused to destroy them even after being given the laboratory confirmation.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)Roundup Birth Defects: Regulators Knew World's Best-Selling Herbicide Causes Problems, New Report Finds
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/roundup-birth-defects-herbicide-regulators_n_872862.html
WASHINGTON -- Industry regulators have known for years that Roundup, the world's best-selling herbicide produced by U.S. company Monsanto, causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday.
The report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?" found regulators knew as long ago as 1980 that glyphosate, the chemical on which Roundup is based, can cause birth defects in laboratory animals.
But despite such warnings, and although the European Commission has known that glyphosate causes malformations since at least 2002, the information was not made public.
(If it effect lab animals, maybe it effects bees. Please do some web research.The majority of the people in this thread who are arguing on behalf of Monsanto are not paying attention to the facts which are easily found on the internet.)
yellowcanine
(36,747 posts)case here. Stick to the debating points - if you can.
booley
(3,855 posts).. and years later we find out that atrazine is a hormone disrupter and accumalates in the water supply.
There has been research on Round Up. However, all the research i can find is from Monsanto.
yellowcanine
(36,747 posts)Glyphosate and triazine herbicides have different modes of action and behave very differently in the environment. Glyphosate is an aromatic amino acid inhibitor and is rapidly inactivated in the soil. Atrazine is a photosynthetic inhibitor and has a lot of soil activity and can persist in the soil a long time. Talking about what the nebulous "THEY" may have said or not said is not helpful to understanding what the data actually says. People say lots of stuff and often don't know what they are talking about. Lots of companies make glyphosate herbicides besides Monsanto (patent expired in 2000) and there is also lots of university research on glyphosate. You aren't looking very effectively if you can't find it. For starters, try searching on glyphosate rather than the trade name Round Up.
booley
(3,855 posts)and you seem to have missed my point...
Until recently, the scientific consensus was that atrizine was safe. It actually does break down in the soil because of bacterial action. (the bigger problem is when it gets in the water where these bacteria are not present and it accumulates).
And it's properties as a hormone disrupter didn't come to light until much later.
But until we learned this, atrizine was considered "safe"
And it doesn't help that research on glyphosate seems to almost all come from monsanto itself.
So how long before we find out glyphosate also has unintended side effects?
yellowcanine
(36,747 posts)Up to well over a year depending on organic matter content of the soil.
yellowcanine
(36,747 posts)by anyone except Monsanto is just wrong. USDA scientists have done research on it as well as multiple researchers at Land Grant universities and other universities.
You are also incorrect in your basic premise regarding atrazine - we have known for years that atrazine was getting into ground and surface water - regulation of atrazine in groundwater goes back to 1990 and regulation of atrazine in surface water goes back to 1996. If it was being regulated in the early 1990s as a water contaminant the problem was known about long before then. As for endocrine disruption the role of chemicals in the environment and endocrine disruption did not receive a lot of attention from researchers until the mid 1990s and atrazine was fairly quickly implicated soon after that around 2002. Even that is over 10 years ago, though, so by scientific research standards, hardly "recent."
booley
(3,855 posts)That atrizine was accumulating in the water didn't become an issue until the 2000s.
Atrizine's effect as a hormone disrupter was not studies until 2002. That's a 28 year gap. 28 years of no one noticing that atrizine was an endicrine disrupter. 28 years of people being exposed.
Certainly 2002 is more recent then 1974
So maybe we should not be so arrogant as to assume that science ever gives final answers on things, that we will never find out we were wrong.
http://www.temple.edu/law/tjstel/2005/fall/v24no2-Deb.pdf
yellowcanine
(36,747 posts)EPA promulgated regulations on groundwater and atrazine in 1990 and surface water in 1992.
History of regulating atrazine
Atrazine first registered in 1958
Groundwater mitigation (1990)
Surface water mitigation (1992)
Special Review initiated under FIFRA (1994)
Additional surface water mitigation (1996)
Revised cancer characterization (2000)
NRDC consent decree (2000 & 2001)
Preliminary risk assessments (2001)
Revised risk assessments (2002)
Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision (2003)
Amended IRED with consideration of ecological issues, including amphibians (scheduled for October 31, 2003)
The EPA can't act without solid evidence, and it takes time to do environmental studies.
Roundup was registered in 1974 so there has been time to determine how it reacts in the environment. But the measurement of environmental contaminants and their effects has improved tremendously since both Roundup and Atrazine were first registered, so counting years until **** was discovered is kind of pointless. Since both Roundup and Atrazine were around before modern methods of toxicology, one would expect just as much to be known about Roundup as Atrazine in terms of possible effects on ****. I have as much respect for the need for appropriate skepticism of scientific claims as you do, but hypothesizing about the potential risks of a particular product with very little evidence or knowledge of the chemistry involved does not serve the public interest any more than ignoring potential risks. Finally, glyphosate and atrazine are very different chemicals with different modes of action. It is not particularly instructive to compare them in terms of environmental effects.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)There is plenty of information about and against both Monsanto and their pesticide Roundup, out on the web.
crunch60
(1,412 posts)
Arkansas Granny
(32,264 posts)I followed the link to read the full report and it sound like all he has is suspicions that Roundup kills bees. I'm no fan of Monsanto, but he doesn't seem to have anything at all to back up his claim that Monsanto was involved in the seizure of his bees or that Roundup is responsible for colony collapse.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)Your source is a Birther or at least plays flirty games with Birthers:
http://www.dailybrian.com/brian-brown-on-birthers/
Your source really trashes Occupy Wall Street:
http://www.dailybrian.com/brian-brown-on-occupy-wall-street/
Your source called five of the last six US presidents Neo-Nazis while being apologetic about Timothy McVeigh's Neo-Nazi streak:
http://www.dailybrian.com/brian-brown-on-real-neo-nazism/
Over all, your source is a rightwing nutjob Paulite who makes Mitch McConnell seem liberal by comparison
Ian David
(69,059 posts)Ian David
(69,059 posts)GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)Natural News is anti-vaccine and promotes the use of frankincense as a cure for cancer.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)Please find it at the original link or in my post #22.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Why send us to racist, birther, climate-change denier Brian Brown?
Sid
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)I was trying gather links showing just how crazy the source is, but the idiot's site keeps freezing up.
If the OP wants us to see the story in the Prairie Advocate, why didn't they link to the story in the Prairie Advocate:
http://www.pacc-news.com/5-2-12/heart_ingram5_2_12.html
Why is the OP sending us to some crazy, racist, birther site?
Sid
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)It sounds to me like an ag agent mis-diagnosed foulbrood in hives.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)This guy's been researchin' for 15 years. Can't wait to see it.
I bet he drinks unpasturized, milk, too.....
yellowcanine
(36,747 posts)Thus it would not be an illegal seizure. Foulbrood is a highly infectious disease and state agriculture departments generally have the right to seize and destroy infected stock under the jurisdiction of the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. (APHIS) The beekeeper claims the bees did not have foulbrood but this is unlikely as the inspectors are able to do more reliable testing than can individual beekeepers. The title is also misleading. The seizure of the bees had nothing to do with Roundup. Apparently the beekeeper was studying the effects of Roundup on bees and he claims that the bees were seized at the behest of Monsanto but there is no evidence of that.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)and that he knows foulbrood when he sees it. And other hive keepers are going underground as a result of the seizure.
No one will tell him where his bees are, or prove that they found anything. Why will they not answer his questions? Smells awful from here...
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)Based upon what the talked about regarding foulbrood, the bees would have been destroyed and burned along with the hives they seized.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)and he's entitled to them.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)The evil gubamint gave him time to abate the problem, and when he didn't, they eventually destroyed the infected hives.
He claims their tests for foulbrood are wrong. Why did it take him months to challenge said tests?
yellowcanine
(36,747 posts)"He knows foulbrood when he sees it" and the state inspectors don't?
Sorry but I will take the expertise of state inspectors over some guy making wild charges about Monsanto seizing his bees - for what? - it doesn't make any sense at all. There are plenty of scientists doing research on the effects of Roundup on bees, it would do Monsanto absolutely no good to illegally try to stop one person from doing this research, on the contrary, they would have a lot to lose. Whatever you think of Monsanto, they are not stupid. And anyone who would make wild charges like that has little credibility imo so I would take everything else he says about this with about a pound of salt also.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)yellowcanine
(36,747 posts)And they were state inspectors, civil servants, not corporate hacks. The beekeeper is intentionally putting out false information to mitigate his culpability in not following state law. Foulbrood is a very contagious disease and any reputable beekeeper would have immediately complied with the requirement to destroy the bees once they got the lab results because they know how serious the disease is.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Like leaving infected hives all summer just to see what would happen. Anti vac (organic) can be good *IF* proper precautions are taken. This guy says the bees will quarantine foulbrood if left alone. That is horseshit and a disaster waiting to happen. The guy is a kook and a conspiracy theorist, not an expert.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)I agree.
I hope the '+1 thing is the appropriate way to respond. I've seen it in other threads.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Don't get me wrong, I do not love Monsanto. It is a despicable behemoth and my hope is that it will collapse under its own weight sometime in the near future. Unfounded stories such as this, though, undermine, not underline the problems that Monsanto introduces to our planet every day.
You were doing a fine job in the thread, but it bothers me how many will jump on the bandwagon supporting the narrative without considering that the featured beekeeper is a menace. But you know, any story to illustrate just how bad the big wolf really is will do. Just because some nutty guy says Monsanto did it, Monsanto did it. Nothing like making ourselves look stupid, is there?
And I appreciate the +1 response. It is shorthand for agreement (as in +1 rec).
+1 back at you.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)To properly fight Monsanto, though, only factual information with reliable data to back it up should be used. The moment activism slips into conspiracy theory mode, it loses.
It wouldn't surprise me if the bee guy in the OP was paid by Monsanto to put out nutty conspiracy theories to distract people from the real issues surrounding Roundup and the neonicotinoid coating of seeds. Of course, I have no evidence to say he was, but it would not surprise me. the most likely explanation is the bee guy is just your average conspiracy theory nut.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)Ian David
(69,059 posts)SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)Much better article and offers much from the ag officials.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)Last edited Wed May 23, 2012, 04:28 PM - Edit history (1)
and to discuss the issues presented instead of working to distract from them. Speaking generally, not against you.
Edit:
I am disabled with very little energy and I thankfully have little knowledge of nut-job sites.
I often do not have the capacity to fully vet every single link which passes my way. Sorry. Thank you for your full understanding and politeness.
NOW can we discuss the story? To what other detail must I now answer before we can discuss the story?
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)others as Nazi....
http://www1.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Bill+Clinton+George+H+W+Bush+Bush+Hosts+Obama+ZdZHiS1SMZ4l.jpg
caption
id I just call our last 5 Presidents neo-Nazis? You bet I did. Regardless of political affiliation, they all have several things in common.
They conspired to create a global economic system which allowed their Corporate controllers to export American jobs to third world countries for pennies on the dollar. They conspired to enact legislation which exported most manufacturing and technology occupations to other countries by oppressive taxation of domestic profits, lucrative tax incentives, unequal environmental policies, archaic employment laws, onerous workplace regulation, egregious regulation and just plain old foreign aid.
They conspired to incrementally erode the civil Liberties of Americans by restrictions on free speech, gun control legislation, and media consolidation.
They conspired to create artificial shortages in commodities such as petroleum, farm products and minerals by limiting domestic production through regulation.
And They allowed Corporate America to control their policies to their favor instead of the best interests if citizens who elected them.
So the next time you see the term neo-Nazi tell yourself: The real neo-Nazi is probably the one making the accusation.
I rest my case!
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)You have unlimited editing time. Find a legitimate news source for your story and quit driving traffic to people who refer the past three Democratic Presidents as neo-Nazis (among other nonsense).
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)I often do not have the capacity to fully vet every single link which passes my way. Sorry. Thank you for your full understanding and politeness.
NOW can we discuss the story? To what other detail must I now answer before we can discuss the story?
Ruby the Liberal
(26,618 posts)I am having some trouble wrapping my mind around this.
yellowcanine
(36,747 posts)Because the source is where the actual evidence is presented - or not presented.
yellowcanine
(36,747 posts)And on the face of it the story falls apart in several respects for anyone who knows even a little bit about the issues involved. So the source is suspect from the get go. Sorry, the credibility of the source is about all we have in cases like this and it is sorely wanting this time.
Ian David
(69,059 posts)I'm just sayin'
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)When people repeat nonsense they discredit themselves and the adjacent truth.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
Response to Fire Walk With Me (Original post)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #27)
marmar This message was self-deleted by its author.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)The guy says Monsanto is behind the seizure but offers no evidence, just allegations.
The ag department says the guy's hives had foulbrood. They've probably got lab test results to back that up.
If the guy could offer anything other than suspicions, there might be something to rebut or not rebut, but until then there's nothing to offer a rebuttal to.
Ian David
(69,059 posts)I'm just saying that the source is not appropriate.
An alternative source has been suggested, and the OP has chosen to ignore that.
marmar
(79,467 posts)nt
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)for some reason, and posted it myself in the OP.
I chose to ignore that? People chose to ignore the source link in the story. It's right there. Why should I be blamed because people won't click a visible, provided link in the story I posted? Why do I even have to waste my time pointing this out?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Brian Brown is a crackpot birther, who also trashes OWS, and Jimmy Carter.
Perhaps you could offer a less crazed source? An actual allegation?
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)Unless the story is true, that is to say, actually happened, and not made up by a paranoid or a jokester, we're pis*ing in the wind discussing it. That's a substantive rebuttal.
It's not the truth unless it's credibly demonstrated to have happened. Otherwise, it's known as a rumor.
And don't try to say nobody would make this up, or have it as a delusion. Liars and the insane exist in every faction, every ideology. That's why reporters and editors are required to check facts and verify sources.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)Deeply.
There are a few good Facebook pages with info against Monsanto, such as Monsatano! and others.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)Not that it happened. Plausible lies are the best ones.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)caseymoz
(5,763 posts)But it doesn't make the story bees seized by Monsanto or Illinois any better supported. Besides the fact that both stories are about Roundup, and appear in the same week, how is one even connected to the other? I don't understand smugness here.
And why would Monsanto be upset about Roundup Resistant Bees? Am I to believe Monsanto would be upset about something that mitigates a bad side effect to their product? That doesn't make any sense. It would make sense if they stole the patents to bees.
This story does nothing to bring credibility to your original post. The fact that you don't/can't see that detracts from your reliability and brings your stability into question is disturbing.
You think this new link is such news? Look, if a substance ends with -cide, it has bad effects, and is likely an extreme poison. Generally. On anything living. Count on it. News that it causes birth defects and is poisonous to people, too, doesn't shock me and shouldn't shock anybody. And unfortunately, we ingest some of it. That's probably the price we pay for not having many more people starving. Probably. It's like chlorine in water, which is not good for people. Why do we add it, because tainted water is worse.
The question should be how much lingers in food by the time it's brought to market, and how much damage it does on the way. There, Monsanto is in trouble, and should be.
I'm not defending Monsanto and I'm not nitpicking. That company does enough skullduggery to be considered evil, and making wild, insane charges against them only makes the reasonable ones sound crackpot, too.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)I was just waiting for someone to be the first to deride my latest, regardless of factual content. I love Trends. Good night, and good luck.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)That wasn't sarcasm.
The problem with it was relevance. But apparently, you don't know WTF I'm talking about.
randome
(34,845 posts)yellowcanine
(36,747 posts)has nothing to do with Roundup or Monsanto. What it is about is a beekeeper who refused to comply with a legitimate request to destroy bees infected with foulbrood, as determined definitively by the USDA lab at Beltsville, MD. The rest is smoke.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)Have you been paying attention to what Monsanto has been doing to heirloom seeds, farmers, entire nations? There is also a pesticide or two killing most of the bees, including one from Bayer. I believe Monsanto actually bought up a research company who were seeking answers on this subject.
Search Monsanto Bees and Monsanto government. Throw away the links you don't like and try even more searches.
yellowcanine
(36,747 posts)I guess that is not an assertion either. Come on. You are putting out unfounded assertions. I have no doubt I could google and find sites which support your nonsense. The one in the OP does. One can put anything on the internet. The fact that it is there proves nothing.
I am not a fan of Monsanto. I think they have made numerous mistakes in how they market products and are only concerned about the bottom line. But that doesn't mean that every wild ass accusation about them is true.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)yellowcanine
(36,747 posts)If you make a claim, it is your obligation to provide a reputable citation. Not someone else reading your claim. And your link proves nothing other than that Monsanto bought a company which does research on colony collapse disorder. So what? There are lots of people researching CCD. Most have no connection with Monsanto so it would be foolish of Monsanto to try to control the direction of the research by buying one company. And FWIW, Beeologics does research on the relationship of bee parasites and CCD, not Roundup.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)suffice to say, there WAS a story where I said there would be one. I've done internet posts providing every link and it took me hours upon hours, the most part of a day and more to fulfill. It is imperative that people use their research tools, just as you did...but to go further. Monsanto are copyrighting foods, and are attempting to force out all heirloom seeds. They are spreading their seeds in farmer's fields and then suing them for copyright infringement. They have been voted out of entire countries for their hellish intent.
Get the big picture on these monsters and you will quickly lose any possibility of perceiving anything they do as anything other than true, outright evil. Goes to intent, and even if we do not know exactly what they are doing here, it is nit-picking when faced with an intolerable overall situation. Please check my facts. They're out there, trust me. You may never think of another thing at all, once you've stuck your face into their particular furnace.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Means they think they will lose in court, so they are trying to get rid of the expert testimony.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Monsanto is an evil company.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)For introducing neonicotinoids causing colony collapse. As I've heard, there's really no doubt about that now.
yellowcanine
(36,747 posts)Not saying much of course, but that won't stop people from claiming that CCD is caused by Roundup and Monsanto is moving heaven and hell to cover up the fact.
To the point though, CCD likely is a result of multiple causes, including neonicotinoids, viruses, mites and stressful handling practices, among others.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts). . . were introduced. The poison has been shown to reduce the bees immune system along with causing convulsions and disorienting the bees so they can't find their way back to the nest.
No, it's neonicotinoids. There's really no doubt now. They had all the other things you listed before those insecticides were introduced. And they were probably the industry cover up. Insecticides should have been what they looked for first.
yellowcanine
(36,747 posts)There is one study which directly connects imidocloprid to CCD. Bee biologists agree the study is important but almost no one thinks it is conclusive. And one study is never conclusive. Pretty good analysis here:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/neonicotinoids-colony-collapse/
There are lots of biologists unconnected with the pesticide industry studying CCD so it is insulting and defamatory to suggest that they are all part of some industry coverup. Biologists attack a problem from lots of different angles. You wouldn't want everybody looking at the same thing. The obvious cause is not always the cause and for something as complex as CCD there rarely is only one cause. As one scientist noted in the link I provided, “If the relationship was as easy as that, we’d have noticed it long ago. There are areas where neonicotinoids are used, but you don’t have colony loss,” I am getting a little tired of people accusing hard working scientists of colluding with industry all the time just because their findings don't match with someone's belief.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)And I get tired of people misconstruing what I say. Some studies just weren't done. That doesn't take collusion, that's just failure to fund the studies. The ones got funded were the ones looking at causes other than pesticides.
But now that you've accused me of making just that point, why wouldn't some scientists do just that? I mean a few scientists did just that for Global Warming, and before that, tobacco. Industries have shown that they could confuse issues and stop change. They don't have to get many scientists, or people with science Ph. D's on their side. And don't say they wouldn't do it on an issue so important.
This link is pretty much makes the case irrefutable:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/19/1075695/-Pollinator-Decline-Colony-Collapse-Disorder-Timeline
Okay, the pesticide lowers the immune system. So, a virus or mite kills the bee. Was it the pesticide or the parasite that killed the bee? This compares to human auto-immune deficiency. If AIDS ravishes the person's immune system, and the person dies of normally harmless avian TB, was it AIDS of ATB that killed him?
Suppose AIDS researchers then concluded that disease bugs were getting stronger rather than something was destroying human immune systems? Would we have ever licked the disease? Even though all those diseases were in our environment before, because suddenly people began to die of them. However, the simpler solution was that some single factor was making all of those diseases fatal.
Saying there are multiple causes makes about as much sense as saying there are multiple causes of AIDS. Or suppose scientists had looked at other causes of lung cancer besides cigarettes?
I'll add, if we took this multifaceted approach with DDT, springs would be silent to the point of creepy by now. Sometimes more information simply confuses.
yellowcanine
(36,747 posts)Being part of an industry cover up is collusion. Yes, industry has their paid scientists, but the vast majority of university scientists studying things like CCD are not colluding. And they are saying the case is NOT irrefutable. Thanks but I will go with them rather than your misplaced comparisons to AIDS. AIDS is a human disease caused by a virus. There is no comparison other than a trivial one.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)And you cite a broken sentence, and editing error, out of everything I said, to make me look bad in the title.
Don't try present me as a paranoid. This is not like a birther or 9/11 conspiracy. What I'm saying is absolutely plausible. Have you looked into how far the chemical industry now underwrites university chemistry departments? "Who is they?" Duh, let's ignore your broken grammar and see. Bayer. Monsanto. Um, like, interested parties, with their hands in the right place? Some conspiracies are ridiculous. But when you know who underwrites and endows university science, you would be utterly irresponsible to not have some suspicions.
So, when I said irrefutable, what did you think I was referring to? That CCD originated when neonicotinoids were first introduced, or that the industry fought against results tooth and nail? (Scientists wouldn't be commenting on the latter, and the former is the first point the link made.) Whichever, you seem to have assumed the wrong one.
Doesn't the fact that many other pollinators are being wiped out, too, give you pause? Ones that don't keep hives where viruses and mites can spread through crowded populations? Ones that aren't domesticated and so don't suffer from transport shock? Such as the bumble bee went extinct in Britain? Or did you bother with the link? You certainly had nothing to say about any of the points it makes.
You say you're going to go with "them." (If you think I'm paranoid, you sound positively chummy whoever "they" are.) I take it before you do, you'll actually secure a poll demonstrating most university biology are saying the case about neonicotinoids is not irrefutable? I hope you checked on that fact? I take it that you also consider how carefully honest scientists might choose their words about CCD, even if they aren't working for the chemical industry? Yes, of course, you're diligent enough to do both.
You're right, AIDS was a trivial comparison, but a comparison doesn't have to be like the compared to be relevant, it simply has to be like it in the single detail being discussed. My point: disease and parasite infestations can be as much from lowered immune system as it can be from tougher diseases. "Oh, but AIDS isn't like CCD in every way." No kidding. A mouse isn't totally like a human being either, except for being like us enough to be our stand-ins for medical experiments.
But apparently, if the AIDS comparison lost you, that one will leave you adrift. Or will you now object that being lost and adrift have only a trivial comparison to being stupid?
Lastly, how about all the other comparisons I gave? Like DDT? Would it have ever been banned if we could study trachea mites and insect's immune systems then? Or like the tobacco industries work against lung cancer findings?
You're awfully silent about all of that. I'll take it that my points were made. They might not convince you, but the fact you don't mention them, says something.
Go with your imagined experts, but you just watch, their consensus is going to switch to what I'm telling you. It's gotten to the point where even Bayer can't defend their product.
yellowcanine
(36,747 posts)As for the rest of it, I have no responsibility to "refute" each and every "point" you make, particularly when you start out with a premise that is unsustainable, that somehow university scientists as a group are in the hock to chemical companies. Sorry, but I am not going to debate that. Science is complex. There rarely are "silver bullet" solutions. You don't seem to understand that so this is pointless. Sorry, I don't have to play by your rules. If you think that means you have somehow scored a point on me, so be it. Believe it if that helps you get through the day. Happy to be of service.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)And you refuse to accept any correction about it. I said they didn't need a large number of scientist on their side. Your premise is otherwise known as a straw man, and without that fallacy, it's your POV that's unsustainable.
Oh, you have a life. That one's a little shopworn. Is that an insult to me or to everyone who has posted more than you on DU? That's a lot of collateral insult damage.
My rules or rules of logic, empiricism and common sense? By not playing, do I sense correctly that you come to a discussion group to persuade and never give an inch? Sounds like a waste of your time to me. If I were you, I would commit it to your so-called life instead.
To reiterate: in two, three years tops, neonicotinoids will not even be disputed as the cause of CCD. Mark this day as when I told you, again.
Lastly, congratulations. You've convinced me that discussion with you is pointless. Goodbye.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Very interesting, but the article said that the inspectors found something called foulbrood. How could an experiment prove anything if the hives were contaminated by disease to begin with? Or was the idea that somehow Roundup caused the disease. How could that be possible?
The OP sounds more shocking than I think this really is.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)on this subject reveals mainly sites with "freedom" in their names (defendfreedomsite; foodfreedomgroup;freedomsphoenix; as well as the remarkably named "worldtruth"
. Some kind of bee militia movement? At any rate, no mainstream sources.
Best guess: this gentleman's bees had one of the several diseases plaguing Midwestern bee colonies, and the Illinois Dept. of Agriculture did what they were supposed to do to prevent the spread.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)Most of the experienced beekeepers seem to think the ag department did the right thing. Some people are pushing the "Roundup kills bees" thing but the experienced keepers seem to push back asking for any research to back it it.
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?268482-Terrence-Ingram-11-Hives-Destroyed-by-the-IDofA
Tunkamerica
(4,444 posts)
MattBaggins
(7,948 posts)There is not a lick of data from this guys so called research.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)But really doesn't. So, he gets somebody interested, but since he can't produce any evidence, his bees suddenly "disappear."
That happens a lot, a lot, with crackpot inventors.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)The ISBA is not part of the government but is a private entity:
-------
These are the facts concerning the AFB affected hives:
1) An Illinois State Bee Inspector inspected the hives and found the presence of American Foul Brood. The inspector reported these findings to Supervisor Steve Chard, Illinois Department of Agriculture, and the initial findings were also reported to to the hives' owner.
2) Mr. Chard sent another Bee Inspector to the apiary in question, along with original Inspector, who confirmed the presence of American Foul Brood.
3) Samples were taken from the hive and sent to the USDA Bee Research Laboratory in Beltsville Maryland. They confirmed that it was indeed American Foul Brood.
4) The owner was notified that he was in violation, was sent a copy of the USDA laboratory results and was told to destroy the hives in accordance with Illinois State statutes.
5) After numerous notices from the Illinois Department of Agriculture the owner refused to destroy the infected colonies.
6) The Department abated the nuisance, as specified by the Illinois Bees and Apiaries Act.
7) A hearing was held in Springfield. where the owner was present and was allowed to rebut any and all statements, plus allowed to ask any questions of Department staff present at the hearing. The State then issued a penalty to the owner for failure to abate the nuisance.
ISBA
------
Posted by an Illinois Beekeeper on BeeSource.com:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?268482-Terrence-Ingram-11-Hives-Destroyed-by-the-IDofA&p=801748#post801748
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)A new theory: a paranoid beekeeper with delusions of grandeur.
yellowcanine
(36,747 posts)tanjulio
(1 post)The bee keeper Terrence "Terry" Ingram, was just on Peter Schiff Show.
1; Ingram claims that he's been doing this for 58years and has every incentive to keep them healthy because it is his livelyhood.
2: Ingram claims that the inspector did not inspect the hives. During the hearing the state submitted photos as proof of inspection, yet there are vines ontop of lids and Ingram claims it proves that the hives were NOT inspected.
3: Ingram claims that He sent of samples of a frame to have them tested for chemicals. and that the inspector then claimed there were Foul Brood.
NOTE: Ingram then desputed this claim by stating that his queen could NOT have Foul Brood; infactd the queen bee had 3 years living in hive and was the only survivor of 'round up'. and wanted to know if he could breed more 'roundup resistant bees' .
4: Ingram claims that either inspectors don't have the legal authority to destroy the queen, lack the knowledge and probably didn't want him to continue his research.
Here is link:
http://www.schiffradio.com/site
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)All bees are 'Roundup resistant'. Roundup is an herbicide, not a pesticide.
And on Beesource, beekeepers who know this guy tell the story of wow he claims all of his colonies die each year and he has to start over with packaged bees every year.
Plus, a three year old queen is going to spawn a swarm. There's no way around it as she is too old to keep a colony together.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)I mean, weeds are now massively resistant to it, as anyone with even undergrad biology behind them would have predicted? That Monsanto is in massive crisis because it's happening all over at once?
Also, it's an herbicide, not a pesticide. While it's definitely nothing good for bees, it's not made to kill animal life.
Just offhand, I can't see why resistant bees would be any threat to Monsanto whatsoever, especially in the middle of this crisis their having with the brand.
Just little disconnects here and there tell me the story--- needs verification.
jannyk
(4,810 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)(510 ILCS 20/2-4)
Sec. 2-4. Right of entry. The Department shall have the power to inspect or cause to be inspected from time to time any bees, colonies, items of bee equipment or apiary. For the purpose of inspection, the Director is authorized during reasonable business hours to enter into or upon any property used for the purpose of beekeeping.
(Source: P.A. 88-138.)
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1707&ChapterID=41
Read the full thing. Everything the department of agriculture did was 100% within the law.
ET Awful
(24,788 posts)I don't see anything authorizing seizure for any reason other than disease and parasites, nor do I see anything authorizing destruction.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)510 ILCS 20/2-1)
Sec. 2-1. Nuisances. All bees, colonies, or items of bee equipment, where bee diseases, bee parasites or exotic strains of bees exist; or hives that cannot be readily inspected; or colonies that are not registered, are declared to be nuisances to be regulated as prescribed by the Department.
If the Department finds by inspection that any person is maintaining a nuisance as described in this Section, it shall proceed to regulate the nuisance by methods or procedures deemed necessary for control in accordance with rules and regulations of the Department.
If the owner or beekeeper cannot be found or will not consent to the terms for regulation of the nuisance, the Department shall notify in writing the owner or beekeeper, disclose the fact that nuisance exits and prescribe the method by which the nuisance may be abated. The notice declaring that a nuisance exists and ordering its abatement shall include:
(1) a statement of conditions constituting the
nuisance;
(2) establishment of the time period within which the
nuisance is to be abated;
(3) directions, written or printed, pointing out the
methods that shall be employed to abate the nuisance;
(4) a statement of the consequences should the owner
or beekeeper fail to comply.
The notice may be served personally or by certified mail with a return receipt requested. The directions for abatement of a nuisance may consist of a printed circular, bulletin or report of the Department, the United States Department of Agriculture or others, or an extract from such document.
If the person so notified refuses or fails to abate the nuisance in the manner and in the time prescribed in the notice, the Department may cause the nuisance to be abated. The Department shall certify, to the owner or beekeeper, the cost of the abatement. The owner or beekeeper shall pay to the Department any costs of that action, within 60 days after certification that the nuisance has been abated. If the costs of abatement are not remitted, the Department may recover the costs before any court in the State having competent jurisdiction.
(Source: P.A. 88-138.)
They gave him notice and told him the method of abatement was to destroy the bees and burn them along with all affected hives, then bury the ashes under at least six inches of topsoil. When he failed to comply within the period directed to do so, the Department took action to cause the nuisance to be abated.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)for this terrible environmental crime. Also, the Illinois Ag Dept was in on them crime.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)First, glyphosate is an herbicide, not an insecticide.
Second, it has been tested for whether it has an effect on bees, with negative results.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Scary, barely believable tagline + Monsanto + government collusion
"Fluoride put in drinking water by Monsanto causes autism in kittens. FDA aids in coverup"
Source: www.deathtomonsanto.org
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Right-wing Nutcase was in violation of Ag laws, those same laws that protect the health of animals in our food chain.
Blames Monsanto with exactly *zero* evidence thay had anything whatsoever to do with it.
DU'ers fall for it.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,618 posts)
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)for those who didn't read the article to find if there were any references.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)apparently is not well liked amongst his peers in the area per some of them posting on BeeSource.com.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)disease.
You will get a visit from a representative of your state Ag Dept. in one quick hurry.
And it isn't pretty when they condemn the animals.
That is what the jackass mentioned in the OP was doing, and used a paranoid fantasy as the reason instead of the real, actual one.
Typical right-wing anti-gubbamnit why can't I do what I want to do and be left alone I don't care who I hurt BULLSHIT.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)It's embarrassing.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)
reACTIONary
(7,072 posts)Response to Fire Walk With Me (Original post)
alfredo This message was self-deleted by its author.
rosesaylavee
(12,126 posts)“The significance of bees to agriculture cannot be underestimated,” says Lu. “And it apparently doesn’t take much of the pesticide to affect the bees. Our experiment included pesticide amounts below what is normally present in the environment.”
Pinpointing the cause of the problem is crucial because bees — beyond producing honey — are prime pollinators of roughly one-third of the crop species in the United States, including fruits, vegetables, nuts, and livestock feed such as alfalfa and clover. Massive loss of honeybees could result in billions of dollars in agricultural losses, experts estimate.
Lu and his co-authors hypothesized that the uptick in CCD resulted from the presence of imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid introduced in the early 1990s. Bees can be exposed in two ways: through nectar from plants or through high-fructose corn syrup beekeepers use to feed their bees. (Since most U.S.-grown corn has been treated with imidacloprid, it’s also found in corn syrup.)
In the summer of 2010, the researchers conducted an in situ study in Worcester County aimed at replicating how imidacloprid may have caused the CCD outbreak. Over a 23-week period, they monitored bees in four different bee yards; each yard had four hives treated with different levels of imidacloprid and one control hive. After 12 weeks of imidacloprid dosing, all the bees were alive. But after 23 weeks, 15 of the 16 imidacloprid-treated hives had perished. Those exposed to the highest levels of the pesticide died first.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)It is an herbicide.
rosesaylavee
(12,126 posts)Bees are effected by the toxin in roundup ... this particular herbicide is killing bees. I don't care that Bayer's intent was to kill only unwanted plants. The results are it kills a lot more than they created it for.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)OOPS, you can't. All studies reflect no effect from Roundup on bees.
Effects on bees from eating pollen generated by Monsanto GM corn that produces Bt, however, are well documented.
If you want to slam Monsanto for their effects on bees, get your facts straight and slam them for something legitimate. Supportting the OP story about the lying bee guy does nothing to help in the fight against Monsanto.
rosesaylavee
(12,126 posts)The study will appear in the June issue of the Bulletin of Insectology.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)[quote]Pesticide tied to bee colony collapse[/quote]
Nothing in that study about Roundup, so you fail. That study was about pesticides, not herbicides.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)A message from your Local Pollinators.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)And DUers are falling for it because of knee-jerk, froth-at-mouth reactions to the mere mention of Monsanto.
boppers
(16,588 posts)I hear Monsanto are trying to infiltrate OWS, too.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)They are attempting to copyright and own food itself, and are attempting to destroy all competing seeds in the process.
Kashi and other cereals are being recalled because it turns out they use GMO soy. We are a "first world" country yet we are nearly alone in not requiring labeling of GMO products. Clarence Thomas, among others, was a Monsanto lawyer and is now hearing a case on them in the US, a major case.
It all ties together, and it is evil. There is no other word for it.
Meanwhile, the DHS and FBI are doing a great job of infiltrating OWS.
Did the White House Direct the Police Crackdown on Occupy?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/14/did-the-white-house-direct-the-police-crackdown-on-occupy/
"The latest documents, reveal 'intense involvement' by the DHS’s so-called National Operations Center (NOC). In its own literature, the DHS describes the NOC as 'the primary national-level hub for domestic situational awareness, common operational picture, information fusion, information sharing, communications, and coordination pertaining to the prevention of terrorist attacks and domestic incident management.'
The DHS says that the NOC is 'the primary conduit for the White House Situation Room' and that it also 'facilitates information sharing and operational coordination with other federal, state, local, tribal, non-governmental operation centers and the private sector.'
A better description for a fascist police state network could not be written."
Has the FBI Launched a War of Entrapment Against the Occupy Movement?
Is the government unleashing the same methods of entrapment against OWS that it has used against left movements and Muslim-Americans?
http://www.alternet.org/rights/155581/has_the_fbi_launched_a_war_of_entrapment_against_the_occupy_movement/?page=entire
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)I've had my problems with Monsanto, but the more kooky conspiracy theories I hear about Monsanto, the more inclined I am to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Especially kooky stories claiming an herbicide is a pesticide. If it was some pesticide made by Monsanto, the allegations might be a little more believable, but the allegations made by Ingram are plain out conspiracy theory garbage
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)Companies never screw up, or even know and not care at all. (Ford knew about the dangers of the Pinto but determined the total cost of paying claims would be less than recalling them and fixing them all.)
http://www.wfu.edu/~palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Leggett-pinto.html
Goes to why Monsanto are buying up bees and bee study groups. If you =have= to have a smoking gun, when all around this particular company is laid waste, my suggestion is "wait".
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)A good percentage of their product lines are dependent upon honey bees for the production of food.
Monsanto is the bad guy in GMO foods, not in CCD.
Bayer is the bad guy in CCD.
And you analogy of the Ford Pinto being comparable to Roundup is laughable. I can't even say you're comparing apples to oranges because at least something between the two are comparable (both round) there is not a single thing comparable between the Ford Pinto and Roundup.
The problem with Roundup is the GMO 'Roundup Ready' food. Monsanto developed that gene and spliced into natural food. Their problem is once Roundup got overused, the weeds that Roundup was designed to destroy developed their own, natural, 'Roundup Ready' genes resulting in GMO food being forced on everybody with no benefits whatsoever.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)WASHINGTON -- Industry regulators have known for years that Roundup, the world's best-selling herbicide produced by U.S. company Monsanto, causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday.
The report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?" found regulators knew as long ago as 1980 that glyphosate, the chemical on which Roundup is based, can cause birth defects in laboratory animals.
But despite such warnings, and although the European Commission has known that glyphosate causes malformations since at least 2002, the information was not made public.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/roundup-birth-defects-herbicide-regulators_n_872862.html
---
It is entirely likely that I shall cease providing links, and also cease responding to any who will not use a simple internet search engine to scry readily-available references. I don't have the time.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)You detract from the credibility of this link by using it to support the conspiracy theory nuttiness of the bee guy.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)And seriously, linking legitimate concerns with nutty conspiracy theories always detracts from the credibility of the legitimate concerns.
boppers
(16,588 posts)Yeah.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)If I were dictator I would ban most of the pesticides they make. RoundUp is associated with lowered IQ and ADHD.
The anti-GMO fools are going after the wrong thing. It's the pesticides that are bad.
But that is no excuse for "evil big gummit" hysteria of the type spewed by the RW Libertarian types.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)George Imirie was considered one of the foremost authorities on bees, bee behavior, bee disease, and beekeeping. In addition to being a master beekeeper, Imirie was a nuclear scientist who, during World War II, worked on the Manhattan project.
This is from his Pink Pages (a newsletter he self published during his twilight years):
10) AMERICAN FOUL BROOD
Surely, you have heard about the "dreaded" disease of AMERICAN FOUL BROOD. What can you do about it? Thousands of people will tell you to treat with TERRAMYCIN, and I am going to tell you they are WRONG!
Let me explain. DOES TERRAMYCIN KILL AFB? It has always been a mystery to me, that bee inspectors, and particularly commercial honey producers will never come right out and say N0; but they "beat around the bush" and say, it controls the spread of AFB so the bees stay alive, can produce honey, and many beekeepers use Terramycin.
They never mention that Terramycin just HIDES the symptoms of AFB, and hence ALL of your wooden ware in your apiary, your hive tool, gloves, bee suit, honey house, and PARTICULARLY ALL YOUR HONEY is infected with AFB and the bees will die if you ever stop using Terramycin.
The only way that you can sterilize your wooden ware is by ETO fumigation in Maryland only, radiation, or boiling in lye.
TERRAMYCIN will control the vegetative state of bacillus larvae but will NOT kill the devilish spores that can stay alive as long as 80 years that we know. I don't know why the officials are reluctant to tell you what 1 just said, but they are. ASK THEM!
I have never used Terramycin in 72 years of beekeeping, and I destroy a colony the instant I see any symptom of AFB, so that it does not contaminate any of my other colonies or equipment; or infect my NEIGHBOR'S bee colonies
yellowcanine
(36,747 posts)profession AND the regulatory folks as well. Red Flag for me. Also it appears that he definitely did not practice what he preaches in this case. He didn't destroy the colonies despite having laboratory confirmation of AFB.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)George Imirie was not the guy in the OP. He was one of the foremost bee authorities in theworld until he passed.in 2007. I quoted him on the disease found in the hives of the guy in th OP.
yellowcanine
(36,747 posts)I did confuse them. Makes a little more sense in that Imirie is saying that the colonies must be destroyed and the guy in the OP apparently did not do that so the inspectors did it for him.
upi402
(16,854 posts)I want my country back, media first!
lunasun
(21,646 posts)less desire for their Frankenfood = less power for this corp.
yesphan
(1,604 posts)Response to Fire Walk With Me (Original post)
Post removed
jwirr
(39,215 posts)patent but also control anyone else who is researching in the area. In that case we would still be setting back in the 1700s. No one would have been able to find a better way.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)Ingram offered not a shred of evidence for his allegations. He simply floated a conspiracy theory and people bought into it.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)Had he claimed to be developing neonicotinoid resistant bees and that Bayer colluded with the Illinois department of agriculture in some conspiracy, at least there would be a shred of validity to his rantings.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)K & R
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)WASHINGTON -- Industry regulators have known for years that Roundup, the world's best-selling herbicide produced by U.S. company Monsanto, causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday.
The report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?" found regulators knew as long ago as 1980 that glyphosate, the chemical on which Roundup is based, can cause birth defects in laboratory animals.
But despite such warnings, and although the European Commission has known that glyphosate causes malformations since at least 2002, the information was not made public.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)probably half the replies in this thread are responding to something that's no longer there.
Sid
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)The OP has now inextricably linked the story of Roundup potentially causing birth defects to a story about a nut who made ludicrous claims about Monsanto because the Illinois Department of Agriculture had to destroy his bees because they were infected with American foulbrood.
On it's own, the story Roundup potentially causing birth defects is believable and causes one pause, but once you start linking real stories with conspiracy theory idiocy, you detract from the credibility of the real story.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I swear, Dr. Seuss is writing the god damn news, these days.