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 The book blames CCD directly on imidacloprid, a theory nearly as outdated as the "cell phone" theory promoted by the UK Newspaper "The Guardian" and promptly debunked by the German newspaper "Der Speigel".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