Christina,

Thanks. The article does not live up to the headline, but that is not
unusual.In essence the article says that there are problems but it is a
mixed bag.

I read a separate review of the study that read like the black death had
arrived. It excoriated Norman Carreck because he said the jury was still
out- which you can also read into the article.The whole black death article
was mostly anti-chemical so this one- except for the misleading headline-
was a breath of fresh air.

I had problems with the study, as presented by the black death guy, because
they made a big deal over 24% fewer bees in spring from the bees near the
neonics. The nectar the bees brought in could have caused that easily and
the bees were remote from each other, so it was a variable that could have
made the difference. It was ironic that the English part of the study was
discounted since most all the bees died- both the neonics and the
untreated.

Truth is, the anti-neonic crowd is fighting for the wrong insect. Honeybees
seem to come out fairly well when you consider it is a pesticide designed
to kill insects. So you end up with an emotional issue rather than a
scientific one.

The bug that should be the issue is the Bumblebee. Every field study I have
seen has the bumblebees with issues from the neonics. But the problem with
that is, what if you treated with non-neonics? What happens to them then?

That was Carrecks point. If you get rid of the neonics, the replacement can
be worse than the neonics.

In Maine in recent years, there have been three major pesticide exposures
to bees, Not one involved neonics yet they are all over Maine.I would love
to see the same attention given to what might be the neonics replacement.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

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