Neonicotinoids and why they need to stay banned 🐝

#SciComm #ScienceTwitter #SaveTheBees #ClimateEmergency #ClimateCrisis

Neonicotinoids were banned by the EU in 2018 following multiple scientific studies which proved their severe detrimental impact on pollinators. Effects from neonics include reduced immune function, reduced foraging capabilities, and impaired cognition in bees.
The government has approved neonics for emergency use as a seed treatment on sugar beet. Yields have been impacted by beet yellows, transmitted by aphids. They argue that, because sugar beet does not flower and will not attract pollinators, the risk from neonics is acceptable.
Since the ban on neonics in 2018, the infection rate of beet yellows has increased year on year. Aphid populations have been proliferating due to mild winters, with no agrochemicals to solve the problem.

Sounds like a good case for neonics, right?
But this is the start of a vicious cycle. Climate change isn't going away. Winters will continue to get milder, resulting in the need for more and more pesticides to combat growing pest problems. Inevitably, this won't be the last time neonics are authorised for emergency use.
Although the use of neonics will be carefully controlled, the risk to wildlife is too high. Even if we discount bees, there are birds, small mammals, and other invertebrates in the soil and water that will inevitably suffer the effects of dangerous chemical run off.
Furthermore, although sugar beet does not flower and therefore won't attract bees, any surrounding flowering vegetation may contain harmful pesticide.
The government proposes to counter this with the use of herbicides on surrounding flowering 'weeds'. However, not only does this remove a food source for many species, but it adds yet more harmful chemicals into the ecosystem.
Finally, the government recently announced measures to
reduce consumption of sugary products from 2022. In the UK, we use 100,000 hectares of prime arable land to grow sugar. Not only is this crop terrible for our already damaged soil, but it is terrible for us!
Most UK adults consume at least double our recommended daily allowance of sugar, and more people than ever have diabetes.

If the government is serious about reducing the amount of sugar we eat, why are they risking the stability of our ecosystems to save it?
Thread on the recent decision to remove the ban on neonicotinoids! @DaveGoulson @GeorgeMonbiot @GretaThunberg

More from Science

1. I find it remarkable that some medics and scientists aren’t raising their voices to make children as safe as possible. The comment about children being less infectious than adults is unsupported by evidence.


2. @c_drosten has talked about this extensively and @dgurdasani1 and @DrZoeHyde have repeatedly pointed out flaws in the studies which have purported to show this. Now for the other assertion: children are very rarely ill with COVID19.

3. Children seem to suffer less with acute illness, but we have no idea of the long-term impact of infection. We do know #LongCovid affects some children. @LongCovidKids now speaks for 1,500 children struggling with a wide range of long-term symptoms.

4. 1,500 children whose parents found a small campaign group. How many more are out there? We don’t know. ONS data suggests there might be many, but the issue hasn’t been studied sufficiently well or long enough for a definitive answer.

5. Some people have talked about #COVID19 being this generation’s Polio. According to US CDC, Polio resulted in inapparent infection in more than 99% of people. Severe disease occurred in a tiny fraction of those infected. Source:
I want to share my thoughts, as someone who has been so alarmed by the so-called "dissident" scientists like Gupta, Heneghan, Kuldorff, Bhattacharya, & Ioannidis who consider themselves brave Galileos unfairly treated by "establishment scientists." I will try not to swear. 1/n


I want to talk about 3 things:
‼️Their fringe views are inhumane, unethical junk science that promotes harm
‼️They complain that they've been marginalized but this is simply untrue
‼️I am sick of people telling me we have to "listen to both sides." There aren't 2 sides here 2/n

These 'dissident' scientists have consistently downplayed COVID-19, urging policymakers not to take aggressive control measures. They claim it is not a serious threat. Gupta even went on TV saying people under 65 shouldn't worry about it!

RECEIPTS

They have consistently argued that policymakers should just let the virus rip, in an attempt to reach herd immunity by natural infection. Kuldorff *continues* to argue for this even now that we have many highly effective, safe vaccines.


We've never controlled a deadly, contagious pandemic before by just letting the virus spread, as this approach kills & disables too many people. In Manaus, Brazil, 66% of the city was infected & an astonishing *1 in 500* people died of COVID-19
Hugh Everett's birthday! Pioneer of the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Let us celebrate by thinking about ontological extravagance. I will do so by way of analogy, because I have found that everyone loves analogies and nobody ever willfully misconstrues them.


We look at the night sky and see photons arriving to us, emitted by distant stars. Let's contrast two different theories about how stars emit photons.

One theory says, we know how stars shine, and our equations predict that they emit photons roughly uniformly in all directions. Call this the "Many-Photons Interpretation" (MPI).

But! Others object. That is *so many photons*. Most of which we don't observe, and can't observe, since they're moving away at the speed of light. It's too ontologically extravagant to posit a huge number of unobservable things!

So they suggest a "Photon Collapse Interpretation." According to this theory, the photons emitted toward us actually exist. But photons that would be emitted in directions we will never observe simply collapse into utter non-existence.
JUST ONE PERSON—UK 🇬🇧 scientists think one immunocompromised person who cleared virus slowly & only partially wiped out an infection, leaving behind genetically-hardier viruses that rebound & learn how to survive better. That’s likely how #B117 started. 🧵 https://t.co/bMMjM8Hiuz


2) The leading hypothesis is that the new variant evolved within just one person, chronically infected with the virus for so long it was able to evolve into a new, more infectious form.

same thing happened in Boston in another immunocompromised person that was sick for 155 days.

3) What happened in Boston with one 45 year old man who was highly infectious for 155 days straight before he died... is exactly what scientists think happened in Kent, England that gave rise to #B117.


4) Doctors were shocked to find virus has evolved many different forms inside of this one immunocompromised man. 20 new mutations in one virus, akin to the #B117. This is possibly how #B1351 in South Africa 🇿🇦 and #P1 in Brazil 🇧🇷 also evolved.


5) “On its own, the appearance of a new variant in genomic databases doesn’t tell us much. “That’s just one genome amongst thousands every week. It wouldn’t necessarily stick out,” says Oliver Pybus, a professor of evolution and infectious disease at Oxford.

You May Also Like