> we don't know what caused the "widespread losses" 
> [in the 60s and 70s] for sure 

The overt symptoms were the same as those we now call "CCD".
Not just "similar", but precisely the same.  

These symptoms are unique from everything else we have seen 
in the way of pesticide effects, diseases, pests, you name 
it, and we have seen these exact same symptoms before, long 
before things like Imidacloprid.  As luck would have it, we 
have eyewitnesses to the 1960s and 1970s incidents who can 
verify the details with firsthand accounts, and those 
contacted have verified such details.   (If anyone has a 
copy of "The Encyclopedia Of Beekeeping" by Roger Morse, 
and Hooper, this book may provide details about the circa 
1915 rash of "disappearing disease" cases sufficient to say 
if similar symptoms were seen back then.  I dunno, I can't 
seem to find a copy anywhere.  Anyone got a copy?)

> There were some really nasty pesticides in use in the 1970s...

But what are the odds of the very different pesticides used
in the 70s versus today resulting in the same exact symptoms?  
Yes, the pesticides were "nasty" in the 1970s and also in the 
1960s, but the key point is that the entire set of pesticides 
used then are no longer in use now and were based on different 
chemical families, elegantly illustrating to us that the 
problem at hand is hard to pin on "pesticides" both then and now.

Another point is that all these outbreaks have been short-lived.
If any one of the outbreaks had been caused by any pesticide,
why would we only see sporadic, yet widespread outbreaks,
decades apart?  Why wouldn't we see it every year, or at least 
5 years in a row?

> Don't know about the sixties. 

See above.  You don't need details, all you need to know is
that agricultural technology has advanced since then, and that
the set of pesticides available now is very different from 
those available then.  Also, what are the odds now that we
would have THREE well-documented "outbreaks", all of them
short-lived?  Could it be "pesticides" every time, and 
maintain consistent symptoms?  

> One thing is for sure, pesticides inside the beehive or out 
> are bad for bees, and have to be watched closely.  Moreover, 
> this one attacks by stealth and leaves Little evidence behind.

What sort of reasoning is employed above?  
We have zero evidence of any pesticide(s) being behind "CCD" 
despite extensive analysis using modern technology.  How can
we be expected to conclude from this that a pesticide "leaves 
no evidence"? It seems that the sole reason would be to allow
us to continue to "blame" pesticides, despite a lack of ANY
actual residues that would support such a claim.  

If you are speaking of Imidacloprid (and I suspect you are), 
have you any idea what an actual pesticide kill from sprayed
Imidacloprid even looks like to a beekeeper?  It is easy to 
see, as one sees the bees get "the shakes".  The other 
important difference is that hives can and do recover from 
even "heavy" Imidacloprid spray kills. 

If an overt "pesticide kill" from Imidacloprid being
sprayed on a crop near hives results in symptoms very different 
from what we have seen with "CCD", how have all the hives been
"lucky" enough to avoid a dose that is acutely toxic or fatal 
to at least SOME of the bees, yet all hives are consistently 
unlucky enough to get just enough of a dose to cause symptoms
very different from an Imidacloprid spray kill?  Also, how
would it be possible for all to have consistent symptoms?
Where is the bell curve of different levels of exposure?
Where are the bees that would fit into that bell curve at
a point where they show something akin to pesticide kill
symptoms?

To me, pesticides seem to be the "Dog that did NOT bark 
in the night" ("Silver Blaze", Sherlock Holmes).

> If one of the two unique observations associated with CCD is a
> lingering unfriendliness of the deadout equipment to bees, moths,
> and SHB, then this is a very characteristic of chemical contamination,
> assuming that it is not caused  by an alien force field, or a test of
> such by Jerry's friends at DARPA.

Let's look at these "observations".  How come we don't have any
sort of volatile compounds doing all of this repelling?  I know
more than a bit about repelling bees, and one needs a highly 
active volatile compound to get bees to merely move a few inches 
down within a hive.  Something that somehow repels bees from an 
entire hive, and keeps repelling them for days should be easy for 
even an untrained human nose to smell, and would have a peak that 
looks like Mt. Everest on a GC or Mass-Spec of some comb.  You
simply can't have an odorless, undetectable long-lasting volatile 
compound, and it MUST be volatile for bees to detect it from a 
distance and "stay away" from combs and hives.

So where is that peak?  There has been more than enough time to
grab some comb from a recently-collapsed "CCD" hive and get it
analyzed.  Why has nothing been found?  Are we to believe that
there is a substance that bees can detect that we can't? 
Or are we to think that no one has done this basic forensic
work?

I just don't "buy" this "symptom", as it is such an obvious
starting point, one that would provide a "smoking gun" in
short order with even cursory examination.  We haven't heard
squat about this, and we know that multiple teams started out
their work on CCD by looking for some sort of contamination,
as even they naturally thought "pesticide kill" off the top
of their heads.

> Beekeepers are more than happy to point fingers at outside 
> pesticide applications, but fall almost entirely silent when 
> it comes to some of the amazing things some beekeepers do 
> inside the hives to deal with mites, diseases, SHB, and moths.

This is yet even more fuzzy thinking.
How could a large number of beekeepers all stumble upon the
exact same "unfortunate cocktail" of pesticides, all in the
same season, spread hither and yon across the landscape, 
and all somehow avoid leaving any detectable residues in the
hives so (mis)treated?

How could these same symptoms pop up so briefly in the 1960s, 
1970s, and again today, given that there was no need for any 
sort of "desperate measures" in the 60s and 70s?

> Since some beekeepers are highly creative, is it inconceivable 
> that some may have used Imidacloprid in their hives, say, to 
> control beetles?  They have tried everything else.

If this were the case, they would have found Imidacloprid on
the combs, in the bees, and so on.  They haven't.

> Some of the reports -- bees flying away never to return -- sure looks
> like the work of Imidacloprid, or its near relatives. 

It is understandable that the French blamed Imidacloprid for their woes,
as they had a specific bloom period (Sunflower), a specific crop (again,
Sunflower), they had hives "on" or "near" Sunflower dying and hives
far away from them NOT DYING.  They also had Imidacloprid residues of 
"0.09 mg/kg in the hives and 0.35 mg/kg in the bees".
http://www.bbka.org.uk/freefiles/imidacloprid/Imidacloprid-inked-to-french-b
ee-deaths.pdf

They had a consistent and clear set of evidence.
Their evidence "made sense".
Their overt symptoms does not match what we are calling "CCD",
except for the loss of adult bees.

By comparison, we seem to still have "no evidence".

If we had anything like "0.09 mg/kg in the hives and 0.35 mg/kg in the
bees",
do you think that the multiple teams involved in looking at CCD would miss
it?

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************