> 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