> Several papers are now out showing that bee 
> viruses are more virulent where environmental 
> chemicals like pesticides, fungicides, etc are 
> also present. 

I would think it more accurate to describe the claims as being that bees, having suffered from a toxin or mix thereof, are then more easily sickened or killed by one or more viruses.  I know of no specific claim that the action of any pesticide or fungicide has any impact on the viruses themselves, or might make the viruses more virulent than they were before. 

> What we now need to know is what levels 
> of these chemicals cause that heightened 
> susceptibility to viruses among the bees. 

The above is a much better way to say it.

> Presumably, there is a threshold below which 
> the damage isn't significant.

I'd sure like to hear the explanation you said you could imagine of the rationale behind using such ridiculously high doses of both fungicide and pesticide as I mentioned in the paper from Penn State claiming "synergy".  I see no value to making claims about "chronic exposure" when the testing used 10 times as much as the 95th percentile dose found in samples from what could have been hives subjected to a overt "pesticide kill" scenario.

To me, these "tests" seem like the actions of a guy who, despite the far cleaner air resulting from the low-sulfur diesel regulations implemented in the last decade, "proves" that the regs are "wrong" by sucking on the tailpipe of a tractor-trailer truck until the chrome comes off.  While the protester dies of heavy metal poisoning from the chromium, he still blames the significantly cleaner exhaust and cites a conspiracy between the government regulators, the oil industry, and the truck manufacturers.

And I'm only exaggerating a little tiny bit here.

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