On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:31:54 +0200, Martin wrote:


'If' I've heard right, something called neonicotinoids (sp) are to be
banned. Does anyone know what products will disappear from garden centre
shelves?

Quite a lot will be banned or modified but, in my opinion, that won't
be such a bad thing. I have been gardening without pesticides for
years and I'm quite pleased with the results.

You don't grow 200 acres of rape seed or anything else for a living
do you?

I am sure you would agree that pressure should be maintained on Bayer
et al to design/manufacture pesticides that do not have potentially
adverse side effects on wildlife, particularly on something as
valuable to plant life as the bee.

Tests should be done in a scientific manner, not driven by the press
and ill informed TV programmes wanting something dramatic to report.

Absolutely. Is there any evidence that the tests are not being done
in a scientific manner? As far as I was aware the research into
neonicotinoid side effects was raised during research into bee colony
losses in Europe dating back at least 5 years and people like Neumann
have a sound reputation. Whilst the news media may have picked up on
various aspects of this more recently I really do not think that they
will have had much impact on the research - the politics are of course
a different matter.
--
rbel

On Monday, 22 April 2013 18:06:52 UTC+1, rbel wrote:
Absolutely. Is there any evidence that the tests are not being done

in a scientific manner? As far as I was aware the research into

neonicotinoid side effects was raised during research into bee colony

losses in Europe dating back at least 5 years and people like Neumann

have a sound reputation. Whilst the news media may have picked up on

various aspects of this more recently I really do not think that they

will have had much impact on the research - the politics are of course

a different matter.

--

rbel

We should ignore the utterances of politicians and the hysterical ill informed partial outpourings of the media (mmr should have taught us that)

Just find and read the science.

Rod

In article , Martin
writes
It didn't say that. It was typical BBC dumbed down science.

Whereas other channels don't do that? Sounds like another boring BBC
bashing.

[little snip]

The whole programme would be better if Countryfile didn't
constantly switch between topics and then have to recap what had been
said earlier. This is common in BBC programmes I find it very
irritating, the BBC probably think it is entertaining.

It is a peak time magzine programme with a Sunday pm audience profile -
and without time to go into depth on the science, I presume.

Even the dedicated science programmes have to take a balance between
people that know nothing of the subject and experts that will view it as
dumbed down.

Not that I'm disagreeing that a lot of it could still be called dumbed
down - but the nature of the programme/slot will vary this - and
moreover, I don't see much different on non-BBC programmes.

--
regards andyw

Unfortunately there are scientists working for groups such as Greenpeace and the WWF who have publicly stated that it's OK to lie if it's for the good of the planet, which means 'I will falsify the results of my research to further my personal beliefs'.

On 23/04/2013 10:33, news wrote:
In article , Martin
writes
It didn't say that. It was typical BBC dumbed down science.

Whereas other channels don't do that? Sounds like another boring BBC
bashing.

[little snip]

The whole programme would be better if Countryfile didn't
constantly switch between topics and then have to recap what had been
said earlier. This is common in BBC programmes I find it very
irritating, the BBC probably think it is entertaining.

It is a peak time magzine programme with a Sunday pm audience profile -
and without time to go into depth on the science, I presume.

Even the dedicated science programmes have to take a balance between
people that know nothing of the subject and experts that will view it as
dumbed down.

Not that I'm disagreeing that a lot of it could still be called dumbed
down - but the nature of the programme/slot will vary this - and
moreover, I don't see much different on non-BBC programmes.

Now there's a chance to use the Red button,
When topics like this crop up they could have "Click red button for more
information"
Or go to www.BBC........ etc for more info.

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:31:29 +0100, Jeff Layman
wrote:

If you did, and your food supply for the next year was decimated by
locusts, you might have a different view on pesticide use.

Or just eat the locusts!

In article , Martin
writes
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:33:56 +0100, news
wrote:

In article , Martin
writes
It didn't say that. It was typical BBC dumbed down science.

Whereas other channels don't do that? Sounds like another boring BBC
bashing.

Especially if you snip the context.

I saw no context that would explain why it should be 'typical BBC dumbed
down science' as opposed to 'typical TV dumbed down science'


[little snip]

The whole programme would be better if Countryfile didn't
constantly switch between topics and then have to recap what had been
said earlier. This is common in BBC programmes I find it very
irritating, the BBC probably think it is entertaining.

It is a peak time magzine programme with a Sunday pm audience profile -
and without time to go into depth on the science, I presume.

Even the dedicated science programmes have to take a balance between
people that know nothing of the subject and experts that will view it as
dumbed down.

Dedicated science programmes do not have to be for everybody.

But Countryfile does

Anyway, I was intending to refer to 'close to' peak time, often
science-based documentaries. Their presentation can run a gamut from
highly technical, the details of which may well be beyond the average
reasonably intelligent person - to technical that is presented in such a
way as to inform that same person. I've seen both.

Some programmes are made that do neither - although probably fewer of
them on BBC than elsewhere. Some programmes that ostensibly include
scientific explanations are dreadful, completely failing to set the
scene or address any reasonable doubts as to the conclusions. I think
they are more often bad programmes rather than dumbed down - and again,
I think you'll find more of them not on the BBC.

But it looks like we're not likely to agree on this.


Not that I'm disagreeing that a lot of it could still be called dumbed
down - but the nature of the programme/slot will vary this - and
moreover, I don't see much different on non-BBC programmes.

There isn't any difference. There should be. Commercial stations need
high viewing numbers otherwise they don't attract advertisers and
income. The BBC gets income whatever it shows.

Only in a very superfical way. If it doesn't get the viewers, it has
problems justifying the funding. And its usually under the sort of
pressure from BBC haters that means its damned whether it does or it
doesn't.

The BBC used to set
standards.

And what if you set the standards but everyone chooses to ignore them?
Would you still get the funding?

It is not obliged to target those with the lowest
intelligence or poor education.

I don't think it necessarily does but there are horses for courses.
Countryfile is a peaktime Sunday slot with a magazine style covering a
wide range of items. It might not get everything right, but what always
does?

80-90% of BBC programmes are repeats.
They have plenty of time to show serious science programmes.
Countryfile spent a lot of time on pesticides and bees, and recapping
what had been said earlier in the programme. It wouldn't have taken
much time to have given a more balanced view of the problem, but of
course saying that 5% of bees deaths can be attributed to pesticides
is neither dramatic nor entertaining. They might have least got the
facts right about the proposed EU Commissioners pesticide ban, which
was rejected by EU member states at the beginning of March

I don't deny that there is dumbed down science. But I do dispute the
impression given that it is the BBC that needs to be blamed for typical
dumbed down science.

--
regards andyw

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:08:29 +0200, Martin wrote:


There isn't any difference. There should be. Commercial stations need
high viewing numbers otherwise they don't attract advertisers and
income. The BBC gets income whatever it shows. The BBC used to set
standards. It is not obliged to target those with the lowest
intelligence or poor education. 80-90% of BBC programmes are repeats.
They have plenty of time to show serious science programmes.
Countryfile spent a lot of time on pesticides and bees, and recapping
what had been said earlier in the programme. It wouldn't have taken
much time to have given a more balanced view of the problem, but of
course saying that 5% of bees deaths can be attributed to pesticides
is neither dramatic nor entertaining. They might have least got the
facts right about the proposed EU Commissioners pesticide ban, which
was rejected by EU member states at the beginning of March

I agree entirely with your view that BBC tv documentaries have
declined dramatically in quality in recent years. I have not found
anything worth watching on BBC2 for at least a year. Thankfully there
are the occasional programmes by Al Khalili and Januszczak on BBC4
that are worth watching.

From memory the EC proposals to restrict the use of neonicotinoids
failed to get the necessary qualified majority in an EU vote but the
Commission have not dropped the proposition. I understood that they
were awaiting a response from Bayer et al before proceeding.
--
rbel

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:14:17 +0100, rbel wrote:

I am sure you would agree that pressure should be maintained on Bayer
et al to design/manufacture pesticides that do not have potentially
adverse side effects on wildlife, particularly on something as
valuable to plant life as the bee.

On that point we agree. OTOH, Bayer have replaced their Provado
Ultimate Bug Killer that contained imidacloprid with a new formulation
containing thiacloprid which is not as bad for bees and is not
mentioned in the EC's proposals. ISTR they made that change before the
hoo-haa blew up.

But much more will be achieved if those that simply pontificate start
to acknowledge that pesticides do exist and people do use them and,
instead of simply ignoring their existence, start to educate people
about pesticide implications and safer use.

I use Provado UBK when the lily beetle population here gets too big to
handle by squishing or feeding to the cat and I want the systemic
effect. But I spray late in the evening when beneficial insects are
not flying (and I check plants carefully for any resting ones). And I
remove the anthers (pollen being potentially fatal to cats) so there
is no pollen for bees to take and hence no risk to them. I never spray
more than twice in a season and usually only once.

--
Cheers, Jake
=======================================
Urgling from the East end of Swansea Bay where the
showers of April have arrived!

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:29:13 +0200, Martin wrote:



From memory the EC proposals to restrict the use of neonicotinoids
failed to get the necessary qualified majority in an EU vote but the
Commission have not dropped the proposition. I understood that they
were awaiting a response from Bayer et al before proceeding.

The EU Commissioners need to provide scientific proof that the
pesticides cause a problem to bees. The onus to provide proof is on
the EU Commissioners, not Bayer. The EU Commissioners can't impose a
ban without the agreement of member states.

From a practical perspective it is, of course, unlikely that Bayer
will provide anything that will be sufficient to mollify the
Commission (eg the suggestion of wider field margins - which could
well help but is not deliverable by the pesticide manufacturers unless
they pay the farmers to implement them). Given the Commission's
stance on this matter it is very likely to persuade just sufficient
member states to amend their previous position to achieve
implementation. It will be interesting to observe the machinations.
--
rbel

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:16:27 +0100, Jake
wrote:


In this case, the Soil Association and similar organisations have
quite effectively alerted the farming lobby to the issues. The farming
lobby has got at the Governments of Europe and they have reacted.

Whilst I have little time for the Soil Association and the rest of the
organics lobby (IMHO they are both misguided and ineffectual), in this
case the blame undoubtedly lays elsewhere.

In this country the NFU, CLA and TFA would have been rapidly alerted
to the potential problem by the Crop Protection Association (used to
be called the agri chemical association) years ago when the first
papers were being published. Since then the CPA have maintained a
steady stream of defensive news releases.

The NFU in particular is an effective lobbying organisation, one that
the government (of any persuasion) tends to listen to over and above
public opinion.
--
rbel

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:15:34 +0100, rbel wrote:

I agree entirely with your view that BBC tv documentaries have declined
dramatically in quality in recent years. I have not found anything
worth watching on BBC2 for at least a year. Thankfully there are the
occasional programmes by Al Khalili and Januszczak on BBC4 that are
worth watching.

I went off Al Khalili when he presented a programme on 'Muslim science' (whatever that means), when he
stated that the circumference of the Earth was eastimated in ~800AD by a Muslim scientist - completely
ignoring the previous measurements made in India 400 years previously and by the Greeks in 200BC.

--
Terry Fields

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:09:34 +0200, Martin wrote:

On 24 Apr 2013 09:47:36 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:15:34 +0100, rbel wrote:

I agree entirely with your view that BBC tv documentaries have
declined dramatically in quality in recent years. I have not found
anything worth watching on BBC2 for at least a year. Thankfully there
are the occasional programmes by Al Khalili and Januszczak on BBC4
that are worth watching.

I went off Al Khalili when he presented a programme on 'Muslim science'
(whatever that means)

It means that in terms of science and attitudes to science, the Muslim
world was hundreds of years ahead of the Christian world.

And a millennium behind the Greeks, and centuries behind the Indians

Blindingly obvious or what?

Is it?

It certainly isn't the scientific method - which, we are told, was invented by Muslims.

, when he stated that the circumference of the Earth was eastimated in
~800AD by a Muslim scientist - completely ignoring the previous
measurements made in India 400 years previously and by the Greeks in
200BC.

AFAIR he covered those in another programme. He even gave a
demonstration of how the Greeks measured the circumference of the world.

Well, the scientific method is to build on what went before.

--
Terry Fields

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:26:40 +0200, Martin wrote:

On 24 Apr 2013 13:11:36 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:09:34 +0200, Martin wrote:

On 24 Apr 2013 09:47:36 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:15:34 +0100, rbel wrote:

I agree entirely with your view that BBC tv documentaries have
declined dramatically in quality in recent years. I have not found
anything worth watching on BBC2 for at least a year. Thankfully
there are the occasional programmes by Al Khalili and Januszczak on
BBC4 that are worth watching.

I went off Al Khalili when he presented a programme on 'Muslim
science' (whatever that means)

It means that in terms of science and attitudes to science, the Muslim
world was hundreds of years ahead of the Christian world.

And a millennium behind the Greeks, and centuries behind the Indians

What does that say about Western civilisation and Christianity?

Who cares? The issue is the correct attribution of the work, in which 'muslim scientists' came third after the
Greeks and Indians.

Blindingly obvious or what?

Is it?

It was to others.

Ad populem.

Does it upset you that Arabs were a thousand years
ahead of Western European Christians?

The issue is the correct attribution of the work, in which 'muslim scientists' came third after the Greeks and
Indians.

It certainly isn't the scientific method - which, we are told, was
invented by Muslims.

, when he stated that the circumference of the Earth was eastimated in
~800AD by a Muslim scientist - completely ignoring the previous
measurements made in India 400 years previously and by the Greeks in
200BC.

AFAIR he covered those in another programme. He even gave a
demonstration of how the Greeks measured the circumference of the
world.

Well, the scientific method is to build on what went before.

They did.

Did they?

It never stopped Isaac Newton rediscovering things.

Did he steal Greek discoveries too?

--
Terry Fields