"Another critical factor is how high were the planes flying during application?  It makes a big difference if the planes were 20 feet off the canopy or 200 feet."

You are right, Dick.  The pilots were interviewed.  According to the transcript, vol. 3 p. 948:

"Q,  Did you know of any information which was obtained from any of the airports in the vicinity of the areas sprayed as to the wind velocity or the temperature on the days that spraying was accomplished?

A.  No, we didn't get any.

(skipping here over more similar testimony)

Q.  And do your have any present recollection as to those conditions now, with reference to Wellesley or Grindstone Island?

A.  I remember what the wind conditions were on those two islands on those two days in question.

Q. Do you remember wind velocities?

A.  No, not exactly.

Q.  Do you remember ground temperature?

A.  I had no way of measuring the ground temperature of Wellesley Island when I was a hundred feet above it.


That is all I could find referencing altitude, so I assume they were at 100 feet.  There was quite a bit of info on turbulence due to temperatures, upwelling, upper atmospheric wind patterns, and drift.   All the court was willing to consider as valid evidence, however, was direct spray of the bee yards.  The fact that bees fly some distance to forage, and bring back whatever they are collecting to the hives, was not considered relevant or even explored, as far as I can tell.  This is reflected in the court summary.

I submit that the court summary is not representational of the evidence that was presented.  The judge formed his own opinion, accepting or dismissing evidence as he saw fit.  Summaries are not objective, so anyone who relies on a summary as objective is seriously misled.  Yes, it is work to read all that evidence.  But only if you read it will you really see ALL of what was discussed and presented.


Pete:  Obviously, I am very interested in this case, and I did read a lot of it.  I did quote selections here, but we cannot have the whole 10 volumes on Bee-L, especially considering how much of it is irrelevant lawyer/court/procedural material.   It is freely available online.  When YOU read this case in its entirety, you can show me/us how my excerpting is "biased".  Until then, you are just offering your opinion.  Quote from the transcript yourself.  Prove that I am biased, and don't just use the court summary to do that.  Roger Morse was one of your mentors, so you cannot claim that you are neutral either.

Christina



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