Okay, so carefully I'll weigh in with questions once more.
NOTE please that I am a beek by hobby, not by scientific qualification, so
if I step on toes, it is out of ignorance, not malice.

I am wondering, emphasis on the word 'wondering' about a couple of things:
1. in researching 'water quality issues' I notice that tadpoles and fish fry
exhibit ADHD behavior and intersex/infertility problems. Also, reduced
immune systems and aberrations in feeding/prey evasion behaviors suggesting
neurological impairment.
2. it appears, by direct lab testing over a period of months/years, that
these symptoms are at least correlational to increased herbicides
application (atrazine family), even at more minute levels than previously
though relevant. It is the 'sustained' that seems to be 'causally linked'.
Causality is yet to be conclusively established, however, other compounds in
the study are screened for and eliminated, so it appears that causality can
be at least suggested.
3. I read a report a year or two ago that hives situated at the periphery of
Berlin airport and exposed to air polution do not seem to transfer chems to
honey, but do seem to concentrate chems in the bodies of bees....i.e. bees
seem to act as filters for chemicals
4. I am curious about the insistence to isolate to one causality, i.e.
pathogen vs chemical, hormone vs. synthetic hormone, etc, etc.
Why would one not view an organism as influenced by many externalities
(Robert Sapolski, Stanford has a great book to this effect..Why Zebras Don't
Get Ulcers)?
Is it not probable that systems operate based on a supposition of
homeostasis, and that any change in that a system would drive to allostasis,
at which point the system might have to readjust and self-correct? Is it not
possible that the process of creating this allostasis undermines a critical
ability to ward off pathogens, and that 'selection' then must pass through
crisis in order to recreate stability?
5. What does a debate about causality actually achieve in 'real time'? It is
not clear to me that one will ever be able to definitively isolate the
causes, note I say 'causes' with an 's', of CCD. Jerry's article is a key
piece to the puzzle, but the puzzle may not as yet be completed. What should
matter is that one use reasonable best management practices to make hives as
impervious to ANY threat, regardless of possible causes. In other words, IF
I am told that a food additive might have an impact on my child's health, I
am not going to wait for that to be conclusively proven, I am going to
eliminate the potential threat from my family food sources. I feel no
loyalty to chemical companies, medical companies, preventative distributers,
etc.  The only loyalty I feel is to my family, my beeyard. If I have a
reasonable thought that something will help or harm it, I will act to either
use, or protect against such a product. I tend to err on the side of
prevention and chem free. Others believe this is a bunch of hooey. The
empirical evidence may never be definitively found, BUT the fact that my
hive survival rate during the 4 years that I have been chem free is at 70%
consistently over 4 seasons leads me to believe that something in what I am
doing works. Note that the prior survival rate was 30%...coincidence.
Perhaps. But one that seems to have some consistent result for me.

I cannot weigh in on 'pathogen' vs 'chemical'. I have NO idea which is the
correct thread to pull to unravel this dilemma...my best guess is that there
are multiple threads. What I can share with you is that studies on other
organisms, including humans, indicate that chemicals, especially synthetic
chemicals, do play a transformative role, often negative, in the
reproductive, endocrine, feeding, and prey-evasion systems of young. Impacts
on breeding age adults also appears to be negative. What I can also share is
that there is growing evidence that pathogens develop immunities or
resistence to 'positive' chemicals, such as antibiotics and steroids. I do
not view any of these developments as 'good'.

What does this mean for CCD, my bees, agriculture, life in general, global
warming?...who the heck knows, other than it will change.

I guess we'll all have to Monday morning quarterback from the perspective we
each use to define our 'reality'.

I write this from a place which asks that we celebrate any new information,
yet keep minds open so that we can question, tweak, build on, verify,
refute, research and grow though inquiry. Jerry's research and article are
super, and should be celebrated as such. The next discovery may be equally
super and equally deserving of celebration. EACH will be a starting point
for new inquiry, not, in my opinion, the final word on CCD.

Respectfully, and without any intent to anger or offend.
:)Andrea






On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Peter L Borst
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> > Pesticide poisoning in its various degrees is a separate topic and an
> > important one, but one which people insist in confusing with collapse.
> They
> > are not the same.
>
>

             ***********************************************
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