Brian said:
> Wow the author must have drank heavily as I see several glaring pieces of
> speculation and
> misinformation and its just a promo piece.

I have not read the book but have to wonder what the glaring pieces of
speculation and misinformation are in your *opinion?*

Please explain your opinion.

I guess I will take the bait and make a few comments as I think after my
many days of recent research on the subject I might understand the position
and thoughts of the author.

 To understand the promo I am going to have to leave the promo basically
intact and hope the moderators will make an exception because of the
importance to the discussion.

> A century after the birth of Rachel Carson, the world faces a new
> environmental disaster, from a
> chemical similar to DDT.

Rachael Carson predicted many of today's problems. Chemical companies of the
day tried hard to discredit her. Very hard! I know because I was around back 
then and
bought her book. DDT was a hard chemical to get label changes. The reason is
in my opinion similar to imidacloprid as the product was very effective as
intended but was causing sub lethal damage in certain areas. The products
safety was hugely misstated by the chemical companies .

 I had two relatives
which died of a rare form of cancer. The doctors told me he suspected
handling DDT without protection could possibly have been a cause as he had
read of other cases. The chemical company reps said DDT was safe enough you
could drink a glass. These adds ran on TV at the time.

Much of the research provided to
the government to get DDT registered was later proven inaccurate and parts 
of
research which might have made the label different was left out on the final
research presented for registration. All information available on the net if
you want to do a Google search.


>This time the culprit appears to be IMD, or imidacloprid, a relatively new
but
> widely used insecticide in the United States.

What's wrong with saying *appears to be*?

 The numbers of people and researchers starting to look in the direction of
the new neonicotinoids is growing. What I see wrong with the above is that
imidacloprid is only one of six sub classes and close to 200 products which
are all toxic to bees. The reason imidacloprid is being singled out I have
been told is the insecticide has a long history of being blamed for problems
and some research has already been done. Also the insecticide which opened
the door for the others.

Many beekeepers and researchers blame IMD for Colony
> Collapse Disorder

I have listened to all but around six of the CD's of the National convention
and the above is true. Both segments are getting very vocal and have been
able to get sub lethal private testing approved and paid for for
imidacloprid. A baby step in my opinion of what is needed but each journey
begins with a first step. We need testing of common pesticide mixes which
can make the effects of neonicotinoids many times more toxic to bees.



, . Even trace amounts make bees
> unable to fly back to their hive.

The tests ran in Italy have confirmed the above in many minds and many of us
believe the new testing will also.

Since honeybees are essential to the production of most major food
> crops, their demise could spell catastrophe.
>

The author points out the value of bees and gives his opinion that the loss
of the worlds bees could spell catastrophe.
The author did not say the world would come to an end. The wording is done
carefully.


Finally the promo might not have been done by the author. Again I have not
read or even thumbed through the book. I will next time I visit a book
seller.

Again the problem with finding the new neonicotinoids *might* be at the root
of CCD ( main cause , trigger or simply last straw to a taxed immune system)
is clear to many of us.

Researchers are very excited about all the money being poured into bee
research. All areas are getting long needed funding ( for which I am
grateful).  Funding would dry up fast if pesticides were at the root of the
problem.  I remind the list that the word pesticides has NEVER been
eliminated as the cause of CCD and one of four most often thought of 
possible causes
for CCD.

Brian blames CCD on beekeeper self contamination but the science does not 
prove such. A concern but as the CCD team has said some beekeepers with off 
the chart levels of mitacide contaminated comb have got the best bees in 
years and some beekeepers with all hives on new combs have got hives 
crashing.


I look at the new neonicotinoids very different than most people. The CCD
issue is helping the chemical companies in trying to prove the
neonicotinoids are not causing bee problems. CCD provides plenty of areas
the chemical companies can point their finger in the direction of. In France
all they had was basically the mites to point to.

 Even if CCD had never happened I see the new systemic pesticides as a
future problem for beekeepers unless we get some label changes. All are
toxic to bees and can be found in all the plant parts ALL THE TIME. The
systemic pesticides  build in the soil and farmers in my area are starting
to plant corn over and over in the same field . Each planting uses a
systemic pesticide treated seed.

Areas I feel their use are causing the most problems for beekeepers  are 
soybeans, pumpkins, apples, corn and oranges.

Sincerely,
Bob Harrison



-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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