http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/display.php?id=1829

Did anyone know the French banned Imidacloprid in '99? When I think of how
many chemicals that have been removed from the market or had their label
changed to exclude greenhouse use and their recommended replacements
included imidacloprid it makes my head spin in a not very good way.

Pat

On Jun 15, 5:30 pm, "Pat Brennan" wrote:
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/display.php?id=1829

Did anyone know the French banned Imidacloprid in '99? When I think of how
many chemicals that have been removed from the market or had their label
changed to exclude greenhouse use and their recommended replacements
included imidacloprid it makes my head spin in a not very good way.

Pat

When I was working with the Virginia agriculture department to get the
certificate of compliance required by the state of Californina to ship
plants into their state, one of the requirements was that all openings
had to have insect screening and all door entrances had to be double
doors (one opening into a smaller area and then a second one opening
into the greenhouse) to prevent any flying insects or slugs on speed
from scooting on past when people came though doors. In most large
agriculture greenhouses this seems to be the norm, at least the normal
'requirement'. So theoretically anyway, I think most of the governing
bodies that work with pesticide usage labeling and laws believe there
shouldn't be any bees in a greenhouse anyway.

Many chemicals make an odd distinction now between commercial
greenhouse use and hobby/home greenhouse use, that doesn't make a lot
of sense to me from a human safety point of view, so this is one angle
I had not considered when looking at this question; environmental
impact on beneficial insects...

This bee thing is so odd. It has been going on for a while and only
recently has it started making it into the general public's
awareness. No bees and corn for fuel....what are we going to eat?
Orchids?

(Speaking as a space alien, I think earth people should run away from
the idea of using crop land to make fuel; even if it means no fuel.
It's a developmental phase in a planet bound civilization; an idea
that on first thought seems brilliant but turns out to be very very
bad. Go straight to hydrogen AND improve the conversation factors of
your solar cells quickly. QUICKLY! 17% to 24% is prehistoric; it's
like a square wheel in terms of usefulness and cost effectiveness.)

First of all, that was an interesting article. It makes sense that a
systemic insecticide would also be in the nectar and pollen.

Second, I would never think of the City Paper as a place to find real news.
That is where I used to go to read about the news of the wierd!

Imidacloprid worked for me to knock out the scale.

Gene



"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
ng.com...
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/display.php?id=1829

Did anyone know the French banned Imidacloprid in '99? When I think of
how many chemicals that have been removed from the market or had their
label changed to exclude greenhouse use and their recommended replacements
included imidacloprid it makes my head spin in a not very good way.

Pat

In article YUGci.979$015.888@trndny05,
"Gene Schurg" wrote:

First of all, that was an interesting article. It makes sense that a
systemic insecticide would also be in the nectar and pollen.

Second, I would never think of the City Paper as a place to find real news.
That is where I used to go to read about the news of the wierd!


they've undergone a makeover recently; lots of very short fluff "cover
stories" to the occasional big serious news cover story. this was
actually the 2d one in the past 3 issues--i was stunned. they used to
have a lot of very good journalists on that rag. they're leaning more
towards entertainment and food now. (they may also be putting more of
the serious news pieces on the website--i haven't looked.)

i haven't finished the article yet but it's next in the pile.

--j_a

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:19:16 -0700 in . com wrote:

This bee thing is so odd. It has been going on for a while and only
recently has it started making it into the general public's
awareness. No bees and corn for fuel....what are we going to eat?
Orchids?

Corn doesn't use bees for pollination.
And corn for fuel seems to be the next scam to handle the over abundance
of corn since everyone is now running away from high fructose corn syrup.

(Speaking as a space alien, I think earth people should run away from
the idea of using crop land to make fuel; even if it means no fuel.
It's a developmental phase in a planet bound civilization; an idea
that on first thought seems brilliant but turns out to be very very
bad. Go straight to hydrogen AND improve the conversation factors of
your solar cells quickly. QUICKLY! 17% to 24% is prehistoric; it's
like a square wheel in terms of usefulness and cost effectiveness.)

Hydrogen is okay when you have to provide the oxidizer, but its
energy density is a bit low when you can use atmospheric oxygen.
Canola and palm oil look interesting from the ratios of energy
to extract and energy extracted.
Unfortunately, better fuel cell technologies need to be developed to
improve energy extraction from such sources (Fuel cells must allow
atleast 5 orders of magnitude more on/off cycles).

(I keep looking at talking with my uncle about growing oil palms to cover
the fuel for his farming operations in south carolina.)


--
Chris Dukes
elfick willg: you can't use dell to beat people, it wouldn't stand up
to the strain... much like attacking a tank with a wiffle bat