4 ms·

I wonder what the effect of neonicotinoids on humans is... it can’t be good

by baxtr 9y ago

goatlover 9y ago
Well, It does help keep our windshields clean from all that bug splatter.
- titzer 9y ago
  Indeed. [http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/where-have-all-insects-gone http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/where-have-all-insect...]
  - ccozan 9y ago
    Start travelling from West Europe towards East Europe. Until you reach Romania/Slovakia/Serbia/Ukraine, your car is clean. Over these borders, after 10km of night ( or even day) drive your car will be splatted with insects. No idea why, but the vegetation is incredibly varied/wild compared with West Europe.
    - pjc50 9y ago
      That sounds like the boundary between the regions where herbicide/insecticide is economically viable and where food prices are low enough that it's not worth it.
      - tpm 9y ago
        More likely there are lower agricultural subsidies.
    - tpm 9y ago
      Slovakia here. Not sure about the eastern part of our country as I don't travel there very often, but as for the western part, we are fully integrated into the ecological disasters of western Europe. Meaning almost no insects this summer. Even mosquitoes were far from their usual numbers.
    - goatlover 9y ago
      I drove 400 miles in Florida at all times of day and night between Daytona Beach and Tampa, including a couple national parks along the coasts, and I only had about 2 bug splatters. But the mosquitoes north of Cape Canaveral were on to me the moment I got out to take a short hike. Did similar driving Eastern Kansas/Western Missouri below Kansas City, and no bug splatters. Doesn't matter time of day, traffic, countryside, just nothing.
      - FiatLuxDave 9y ago
        The water north of the Cape is called the Mosquito Lagoon for a reason... If you want to see serious bug splatters, try Okeechobee during love-bug season. I drove through that once about eight years ago, and the marks are still visible on the car.
a_bonobo 9y ago
The NIH has a metastudy here: https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp515/ https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp515/ >As reviewed here, four studies reported low rates of adverse health effects from acute neonic exposure. Even the most severe outcomes, including two fatalities, may have been mediated by other factors (age, underlying health conditions, undetected coexposures). The acute poisoning studies did, however, elucidate clinical findings important for the diagnosis and treatment of acute neonic exposures, including a better understanding of neonic toxicokinetics in humans.
- Karnickel 9y ago
  Keyword here: "acute". Nothing about chronic exposure, which is what is relevant here. Even if they did have a long-term study of low-dose exposure, it would be an extremely limited one (rats, mice, controlled conditions) missing the mix of much more stuff we are exposed to all the time. Having suffered from (finally clinically diagnosed and clinically treated with chelators DMPS and DMSA - with great results) low-dose long-term heavy metal poisoning I had to find out, both myself (studying as much as I could) and from the doctors, that there basically exists next to zero clinically relevant research for a) low-dose exposure, b) long-term, c) (and this one is by far the worst) a mix of chemicals rather than examining just one or two at a time in isolation. The last one is very relevant - mixing stuff often dramatically changes the effect. I once found an LD (lethal dose) heavy metal poisoning study on rats where mixing lead and mercury was about a thousand times more lethal (i.e. 1/1000th the dose of both) compared to poisoning the rats with only one of them. The reason isn't a conspiracy of course, it's just impractical to impossible to study anything but acute poisonings and only of one or very few chemicals at a time. Also, each time somebody recites officially allowed values I cringe - for example, the medical science opinion about the desirable lead exposure is zero. However, of course this isn't practical - and this is what all those official limits are: Administrative practical values, considering what can be done, where the research stands (always erring on the opposite side of caution - you have to prove the bad effect before the limits are lowered) and at what cost. So no, science does not have the answer about any of this. The internal medicine + environmental medicine research doctor that was my main doc is pretty pessimistic about the stuff we (humans) do, and this guy lives with the research, always citing this or that new study when we meet. Maybe I should add that there indeed are lots and lots of studies. However, they are incredibly specific, they won't be the basis for tougher legislation/lower official limits, because even if you take a hundred (good) studies of that kind you did not prove that the specific effect observed in the lab is relevant "in the world setting", and/or on humans, and/or what the combined net effect of "everything" might be. Which is, at least today, pretty much impossible.
gerbilly 9y ago
It's effects pretty bad but indirect. Your question is interesting but might be better restated as: "What is the effect on humans if there is a drastic decline in flying insects?" [1] http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/19/europe/insect-decline-germany/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/19/europe/insect-decline-germany/...

I wonder what the effect of neonicotinoids on humans is... it can’t be good

by baxtr 9y ago

I wonder what the effect of neonicotinoids on humans is... it can’t be good

goatlover 9y ago

Well, It does help keep our windshields clean from all that bug splatter.

titzer 9y ago
Indeed. [http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/where-have-all-insects-gone http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/where-have-all-insect...]
- ccozan 9y ago
  Start travelling from West Europe towards East Europe. Until you reach Romania/Slovakia/Serbia/Ukraine, your car is clean. Over these borders, after 10km of night ( or even day) drive your car will be splatted with insects. No idea why, but the vegetation is incredibly varied/wild compared with West Europe.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    That sounds like the boundary between the regions where herbicide/insecticide is economically viable and where food prices are low enough that it's not worth it.
    - tpm 9y ago
      More likely there are lower agricultural subsidies.
  - tpm 9y ago
    Slovakia here. Not sure about the eastern part of our country as I don't travel there very often, but as for the western part, we are fully integrated into the ecological disasters of western Europe. Meaning almost no insects this summer. Even mosquitoes were far from their usual numbers.
  - goatlover 9y ago
    I drove 400 miles in Florida at all times of day and night between Daytona Beach and Tampa, including a couple national parks along the coasts, and I only had about 2 bug splatters. But the mosquitoes north of Cape Canaveral were on to me the moment I got out to take a short hike. Did similar driving Eastern Kansas/Western Missouri below Kansas City, and no bug splatters. Doesn't matter time of day, traffic, countryside, just nothing.
    - FiatLuxDave 9y ago
      The water north of the Cape is called the Mosquito Lagoon for a reason... If you want to see serious bug splatters, try Okeechobee during love-bug season. I drove through that once about eight years ago, and the marks are still visible on the car.

a_bonobo 9y ago

The NIH has a metastudy here: https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp515/ https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp515/ >As reviewed here, four studies reported low rates of adverse health effects from acute neonic exposure. Even the most severe outcomes, including two fatalities, may have been mediated by other factors (age, underlying health conditions, undetected coexposures). The acute poisoning studies did, however, elucidate clinical findings important for the diagnosis and treatment of acute neonic exposures, including a better understanding of neonic toxicokinetics in humans.

Karnickel 9y ago
Keyword here: "acute". Nothing about chronic exposure, which is what is relevant here. Even if they did have a long-term study of low-dose exposure, it would be an extremely limited one (rats, mice, controlled conditions) missing the mix of much more stuff we are exposed to all the time. Having suffered from (finally clinically diagnosed and clinically treated with chelators DMPS and DMSA - with great results) low-dose long-term heavy metal poisoning I had to find out, both myself (studying as much as I could) and from the doctors, that there basically exists next to zero clinically relevant research for a) low-dose exposure, b) long-term, c) (and this one is by far the worst) a mix of chemicals rather than examining just one or two at a time in isolation. The last one is very relevant - mixing stuff often dramatically changes the effect. I once found an LD (lethal dose) heavy metal poisoning study on rats where mixing lead and mercury was about a thousand times more lethal (i.e. 1/1000th the dose of both) compared to poisoning the rats with only one of them. The reason isn't a conspiracy of course, it's just impractical to impossible to study anything but acute poisonings and only of one or very few chemicals at a time. Also, each time somebody recites officially allowed values I cringe - for example, the medical science opinion about the desirable lead exposure is zero. However, of course this isn't practical - and this is what all those official limits are: Administrative practical values, considering what can be done, where the research stands (always erring on the opposite side of caution - you have to prove the bad effect before the limits are lowered) and at what cost. So no, science does not have the answer about any of this. The internal medicine + environmental medicine research doctor that was my main doc is pretty pessimistic about the stuff we (humans) do, and this guy lives with the research, always citing this or that new study when we meet. Maybe I should add that there indeed are lots and lots of studies. However, they are incredibly specific, they won't be the basis for tougher legislation/lower official limits, because even if you take a hundred (good) studies of that kind you did not prove that the specific effect observed in the lab is relevant "in the world setting", and/or on humans, and/or what the combined net effect of "everything" might be. Which is, at least today, pretty much impossible.

gerbilly 9y ago

It's effects pretty bad but indirect. Your question is interesting but might be better restated as: "What is the effect on humans if there is a drastic decline in flying insects?" [1] http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/19/europe/insect-decline-germany/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/19/europe/insect-decline-germany/...