Comments: Philip Chandler

Lessons From Hallsands: A Warning to Slapton Ley

Yes indeed - the destruction of Hallsands was a man-made disaster, caused by the dredging of gravel from the seabed in Start Bay.

"Following the idea from Sir John Jackson in the 1890s, a decision was made to expand the naval dockyard at Keyham, near Plymouth, dredging began offshore from Hallsands to provide material for construction. The Board of Trade agreed to establish a local inquiry in response to protests from villagers, who feared that the dredging might destabilise the beach and thereby threaten the village. The inquiry found that the activity was not likely to pose a significant threat to the village, so dredging continued.

By 1900, however, the level of the beach had started to fall. In the autumn storms that year, part of the sea wall was washed away. In November 1900, villagers petitioned their Member of Parliament complaining of damage to their houses, and in March 1901 Kingsbridge Rural District Council wrote to the Board of Trade complaining of damage to the road. In September 1901 a new Board of Trade inspector concluded that further severe storms could cause serious damage and recommended that dredging be stopped. On 8 January 1902 the dredging licence was revoked. During 1902 the level of the beach recovered; however the winter of 1902 brought more storms and damage.

On 26 January 1917, a combination of easterly gales and exceptionally high tides breached Hallsands' defences, and by the end of that year only one house remained habitable. The villagers' fight for compensation took seven years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallsands

Feed the Bees, Feed the World

Feeding the bees is obviously important, but in fact the lack of food is not the problem.

The real problem faced by bees is the massive quantity of pesticides - particularly Bayer's neo-nicotinoids - being applied to farm crops and in domestic gardens as seed dressings and sprays.

This family of insecticides is extremely toxic to insects, and because they are systemic, they are present in all parts of the plant. So, if you plant a sunflower that has had its seed coated in Clothianidin (a neonicotinoid seed treatment) it is very possible - even probable that the pollen of your mature sunflower will contain enough toxin to kill bees. This very thing happened in France on a large scale, before the French beekeepers managed to have Bayer's licence to sell their seed treatment product (Gaucho) in France.

In May of this year, something like half a BILLION bees were killed in Germany by Bayer's Clothianidin seed dressing, after treated maize seeds were sown over a large area using badly-adjusted seed drills. 7000 beekeepers were wiped out.

Neonicotinoids have been used in the USA and Canada since about 2004, just when so-called Colony Collapse Disorder began to appear. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Neonicotinoids are lethal to bees in concentrations as low as around 5 parts per billion. That is equivalent to ONE TEASPOON of pesticide in ONE THOUSAND METRIC TONNES of water or feed syrup.

Look out for hidden or disguised pesticides in garden products. Some brands of potting compost now contain 'vine weevil treatment', which is Imidacloprid - another neonicotinoid with similar toxicity. If you put such compost on your garden, it has the potential to kill virtually all the living things in your soil, including earthworms.

So, the best thing you can do for bees is not to feed them, but to STOP using pesticides and tell all your friends to do the same - especially anything that contains Imidacloprid or Clothianidin or any of the other neonicotinoids.

There is plenty of information on the wen about neonicotinoids - check the Wikipedia entry for a start.

Phil Chandler
www.biobees.com

Lessons From Hallsands: A Warning to Slapton Ley

Notwithstanding your comments about second homes, there is, nevertheless a genuine local community at Torcross and Beesands and Slapton itself, which depend to some extent on the road that separates the Ley from the sea for their livelihood and for local communications.

Are you saying that they should be abandoned to their fate? What makes this community less important than many others around the coast, who will also be in increasing danger from erosion?

If your case is that nature should, at all times and in all circumstances, be allowed to run amok, then I assume you will not be supporting any schemes to protect London from inevitable inundation?