> What would likely be spoken of would the the NOAEL
> --the "no observed adverse effects level."

A synonym is "NOEC", the "No Observed Effect Concentration", and just in
time for the holidays, the "NOEL", or "No Observable Effect Level"
From what I've seen there are a number of papers that dosed bees below the
official NOEC level, but still claimed harm.

But I'm not worried about proving "no harm" or "harm".  What I'm interested
in is the signal-to-noise ratio of the set of papers that claim harm is done
at sublethal levels, at doses that could be found (or accumulated) from
actual foraging.

>Many of us are very well acquainted with all the studies 
> that you are listing.  

Then please contribute to the graph!

Here is the data entry form:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1CGxVE5msC2PTtj-SL4oKhrxuUObkCL_U5IipdC_moT4
/viewform
or
http://tinyurl.com/l5m5gt2

And here is the spreadsheet of data entered, so anyone can graph away, or
review the data.  Read-only, but you can download and manipulate your own
copy.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ag93GEEd2LAydDM4SzBRcU5OX21rdVI
yaTktVGNVeFE&usp=sharing
or
http://tinyurl.com/lvlrb6f

If anyone has any comments or critique, email me, and I will tweak the form.

> However, I've yet to see compelling 
> on-the-ground evidence that the 
> neonics are the prime problem facing bees.

And I would not look to beekeepers to be the ones to detect and report such
subtle impact, except when a clear and compelling "pesticide kill" hits
them.



	

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