>
> >The statement “.”Colonies are weakened by environmental
> pollution are more susceptible to pathogens” makes a perjorative
> comparison. If the statement is reversed, as Peter worded it, then
>  it would imply that it would be desireable to reduce the pathogens
>  first- never mind the consequences of environmental pollution.


It's desirable to reduce both!


> > The long lived systemics seem like a step in the wrong direction.


The neonic systemics have allowed the replacement of
extremely persistent organochlorines that bioaccumulated in carnivores.  The
neonics don't bioaccumulate.  Not perfect, but perhaps a step in the right
direction.

>Hasn't it
> been shown that there is a trade off of dose required to produce
> an effect with time of exposure- such that an acute LD50 of 8 nanograms
> per bee, for instance, would convert to a chronic LD50 of perhaps
> less than 1, or even 0.1, nanogram per bee ?
>

No, hasn't been shown to the best of my knowledge.  The two papers that I
know of that imply that they do (Suchail and Tennekes) both have serious
flaws.

Ernie, I'm not saying that there are not problems with neonics, but let's
stick to the facts!

Randy Oliver

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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm