> But now we have many > years of experience which > should clearly show any > direct link between measureable > exposure to the products and > subsequent colony health. I disagree. Firmly. So do those who are publishing new work on this subject, such as the paper I mentioned that seems to have touched a nerve: "Neonicotinoid pesticides severely affect honey bee queens" http://nature.com/articles/srep14621 > This is not a result of belief systems > or taking positions--the finding is the > result of good scientific studies. > May I suggest that we stick to such analyses? The problem is that anyone pointing to such a "good" study, even one published by the prestigious "Nature" journals, can catch quite a bit of flack simply because that study contradicts the pre-conceived worldview of several of the more prolific posters to Bee-L. Regardless of how one wishes to rationalize their beliefs, we are forced to sum up our knowledge as a "belief" or "worldview". Otherwise, I'd have to start every morning with "I think therefore I am.", and it would take me at least until lunchtime to derive my way up to vector calculus and tensors so I could then get some actual work done. I guess the most basic difference here is that do not judge a study by the outcome. *********************************************** 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