Hacker News Reader

Comment by peterwwillis | Hacker News Reader

That statement also has no supporting evidence. So no, it's not worth noting.

Specifically the statement says one kind of pesticide "could be" an important "contributing factor". It's no smoking gun.

View on HN

I submitted a story yesterday: (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5454528)

There have been calls for some restrictions of neonicitinoid use (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21277933) but research is ongoing and it's important to take evidence based action. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21793365)

Being careful with the science is a very different position from 'the science is bunk'.

Thing is, while the research is ongoing we are taking the default dangerous route of letting neonicitinoid still be used which seems totally back-to-front to me when the consequences could be so severe.

With new chemicals that have concerns like this I would have thought a "guilty until proven innocent" approach would be more advisable.

Last thing we want is "Oh yes it was that stuff, sorry about that, any bees left?"

FWIW the EU is proposing to ban neonicotinoids. This article from Salon gives the history and supporting evidence: http://www.salon.com/2013/03/21/without_honeybees_we_may_cea...

It's the second paragraph of a NY Times article. Such things don't tend to embed supporting evidence along with claims, but it's usually a good indicator that there is supporting evidence.

We do known that Clothianidin caused the bee deaths in Baden-Württemberg (Germany) in 2008[1], which led to a ban for corn seeds[2].

[1] http://idw-online.de/pages/de/news264587 (press release by Julius Kühn institute, German)

[2] http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/maispflschmv/BJNR502300009... (neonicotinoid ban for corn seeds, German)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com