On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:07 AM, Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> * These water soluble compounds are not restricted to agricultural crops,
> instead permeating most parts of the agricultural environments in which
> they are used and in some cases reaching further afield via waterways and
> runoff water.
>
> Wood, Thomas James, and Dave Goulson. "The Environmental Risks of
> neonicotinoid pesticides: a review of the evidence post-2013." bioRxiv
> (2017): 098897.
>
>
I had the good fortune some 40 years ago to be part of some fantastic
research being done at that time wrt the Great Lakes and waterways with
Environment Canada.
This country shares those waterways with the USA and the waters from the US
that feed those lakes.
Just about 20 years ago I got into beekeeping ,eventually finding myself
back sorting through  this environmental debacle.

When I see the name Goulson, alarm bells ring and red flags come up.
 Numbers can be used in strange ways.
At least here in Canada the neonic residues as sampled by Env Canada
include all residues: bound and free. Bound residues stuck to sediment and
organic matter are not available to bugs. These 'field' samples were
compared to toxicity numbers developed in a lab, under pristine conditions,
with 100% available free residues.
Work done in mesocosms outdoors under 'real' environment conditions were
discounted by PMRA, but showed 25X lower toxicity.
Just this simple fact explains why their  sample numbers that should be
showing piles of dead bugs along the streams is not and has not happened!
Made up tox. 'factors' from a lab should always be trumped by field numbers!

Walter
littlewolfapiaries.com

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