Bob said:

> I find it very interesting Jim considers the 
> book fiction without ever reading the book.

Ah Bob, YOU may not have a copy yet, but 
review copies have been distributed to "the 
press", and I am a member of "the press".

The book blames CCD directly on imidacloprid,
a theory nearly as outdated as the "cell phone"
theory promoted by the UK Newspaper "The
Guardian" and promptly debunked by the 
German newspaper "Der Speigel".

The book promotes ignorant nonsense.
It may doom some amount of funding that would
otherwise be provided to find the ACTUAL cause(s)
of CCD.  As such, it is not merely nonsense,
it is an insult to responsible beekeepers and
ethical researchers everywhere.

But no, as it happens, I've not yet read the book.  
My spies and informants are legion and are 
everywhere, including some who got review copies. 
These are people I trust, people with experience, 
education, skills, and judgment.  They have 
read the book cover to cover.  I'll likely read 
it when one of them sends me their copy, so
I'll still read it before you.  :)

> If Jim believes...

Jim does not "believe" anything.  "Belief" and 
"faith" are not appropriate modes of thought 
in this area of inquiry, or in any area of 
inquiry undertaken outside of Sunday school.  

What we need here is conclusions based upon hard 
data, and the actual data on CCD points us AWAY 
from pesticides and towards pathogens.

> We need some relief from sub lethal problems 
> from neonicotinoids.

Funny how absolutely no one with any credentials
at all agrees with this view, isn't it?  Here's
a typical quote: 

"Pesticides can't be an explanation for why 
organic beekeepers are losing their colonies." 
(Dr. May Berenbaum in "Science", May 18 2007)

Note that the quote is from a year ago.
Old news. Very common knowledge by now,
even among the least well-read of us.

> Hives were killed in neonicotinoid treated 
> pumpkins (2006)...

I don't doubt for a moment that pesticide kills
have happened, and will continue to happen with
every possible pesticide, including the forms
of neonicotinoids that are sprayed by the
grower.  But symptoms of neonicotinoid pesticide 
exposure, even low-level exposure from which the
hives can recover, include cases of "the shakes",
something never seen in CCD colonies.

Let me quote the same article again.  
Recall that this was written a year ago, and 
published in "Science", which tends to be read 
closely by scientists of all stripes and loyalties,
including a large number with an axe to grind
about pesticides in general.

"There are few data that imidacloprid harms bees 
in fields, however. And other lines of evidence 
argue against blaming these pesticides. In 1999, 
France banned imidacloprid after beekeepers 
complained that it was causing up to 40% of 
their colonies to die. Yet the colonies don't 
seem to be doing much better now, notes Yves 
Le Conte of the Laboratoire Biologie et 
Protection de L'Abeille, INRA, in Avignon, 
France.  And in the United States, there has 
been no spike in imidacloprid usage that might 
account for the recent colony collapse."

So, despite all the attention focused on
imidacloprid, no one has found even a vague
correlation between it and CCD.  If they 
would have, headlines would have resulted.
Big headlines.

> Thanks for the support Stan as speaking out
> is never a popular position.

That's one of the really neat things about 
science - it is not a popularity contest.  
One either has data or one does not.  

People can drone on and on about "lowered 
immune response" until they are blue in the 
face, but they must first address the fact 
that honey bees don't have much of an 
"immune system" to weaken. The honey bee 
genome project revealed that bees have fewer 
known immune system genes than the much 
simpler fruit fly or malaria mosquito do.

> Jim Fischer and the research community are 
> not seeing the bottom line shrink due to losses. 

Yes, it is interesting that no one in the 
"research community" has pointed any accusing
fingers in Bayer's direction, isn't it? 

While I have been very critical of much of the 
CCD work done to date, and likely have been 
crossed off a few Christmas card lists as a 
result, everyone with the education and 
experience to be able to evaluate the data 
tends to agree that, much as we'd like to 
find an easy answer related to pesticides,
we can't find more than trace levels, and 
inconsistent sets of trace levels, providing 
no correlation with incidence of CCD.  

You don't have to trust my word, you can ask 
Mary Ann Fraizer, who is riding heard
on the pesticide testing.  Sure, she wants to
continue looking, and she'll need cash to do it,
but she hasn't pointed any fingers yet, and she
has run more toxicology samples than anyone
through some very complex tests.

And since you want to get "call me out by name",
I'll point out that the only fingers being pointed 
at Bayer are fingers that also mix up homebrew 
potions for varroa that are much less-than legal.
The stuff that Mary Ann >>IS<< finding includes
a disgusting list of stuff that only a large
beekeeper with a very small and underdeveloped
sense of ethics would use.  "Judge that ye be
judged" is the appropriate warning here.
(Matthew 7:1...  [and Mets 12, Reds 6 today!])

But not to worry, even the home-brew potions and
chemical cocktails don't correlate with CCD.

CCD seems to be caused by a mix of exotic invasive 
pathogens that came to our shores in the
same "world trade" that has turned our once
powerful nation into a pauper state.  

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************