??
> This argument seems to crop up whenever there is not enough evidence
> to support a theory. In essence, "even if we cannot or can barely
> detect it, it is the cause of the problem".

Or:

Because it is barely detectable we are not able to prove (based basically on
the  LD50 industry standard and there is no standard for sub lethal effects)
the chemical ( Imidacloprid  A-12 study  ) fed to the bees was the source of
the symptoms. However the test is repeatable in the lab (too many variables
in the field most researchers would agree) with the same result.
The only difference being one syrup only sucrose and the other tainted with
a small amount of neonicotinoid.

On another list made up of researchers and entomologists most found the part
from A-12 very compelling evidence.

I find the study as compelling as Stan does!

> This approach is wonderful for the arguer, since you are always right,
> not matter what is seen or not seen.


Please correct me if I am not understanding your position?

You seem to be
saying we should discount a repeatable experiment because it was done in a
lab (like the work of many of the worlds most renown bee researchers like
Bailey and others)  with *force feed * bees . What does  *force fed * mean?

 I
have observed lab tests with fresh hatched caged bees at the bee labs and
even done a few myself in my incubator. The bees are simply provided a
bottle ( like you would feed a hamster) for the bees to obtain the feed
needed to survive. feed EXACTLY like my observation hives are  fed.

Better control is had in the lab with what we are *trying* to find out. Not
even sure how a test could be done in the field with the same level of 
control. The idea
is to observe the effects when the bee ingests a certain level of the
chemical.

Important:
The results are repeatable and obvious.

>
> Also, field trials, not force feeding in labs, is the only true way to
> measure any effects on bees. Science is littered with lab results that
> did not translate to reality. That seems to be evident here.

  Please explain to the list a way to design such a test as bees travel up 
to 5 miles from the hive (especially when the area is congested with a high 
number of hives). How could you really gage or measure the amount of a 
neonicotinoid was ingested by the bees in the hive.? Even with *force 
feeding* ( a new term on the list?) the hives bees have access to a radius 
of miles ( some say 8000 acres) from the hive so might not choose to drink 
the Bayer koolaid.

There is a lack of control in the field which is why results vary and many 
studies need done to come to a realistic decision on the subject.

bob

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm