> >Allen Dick wrote:
> >>
> >> This came over the transom.  It is a MUST READ:
> >> ---
> >> Thought you might be interested in this nice summary of imidacloprid. You
> >> can view it at www.pesticide.org/imidacloprid.pdf
> >
> >Interesting reading, but I am hesitant to accept the conclusions of an
> >organization dedicated to eliminating pesticides from the environment.
> >Too much agenda.
>
> This is crazy.  Should we also suspect the motives of organizations like
> the Kidney Association, the Multiple Sclerosis Association, the Heart
> Association?  ... The objectives of organizations trying
> to protect (cure/prevent) planetary 'disease' (pollution) should be
> suspect because they have an 'agenda'?

Well, since I rather innocently started this, maybe I should comment.

Frankly, I hadn't really read the article very critically when I recommended it.
It looked okay to me.  It had nice typography, some nice graphs, and a big
bibliography.  It seemed of great potential interest to beekeepers.  It did not
seem to say anything false or defamatory, and it collected some information into
what was an obviously critical view and was signed by a group that has adopted a
name that does not appear to conceal its agenda.

I didn't think anyone would expect the article to be a puff piece for
pesticides, but I did think that it could offer a treasure trove of sources for
those who are interesting in looking farther into imidacloprid and its effects.
Since we seldom have any shortage of cheery words from the proponents of
chemical warfare against bugs or denial about the collateral damage they do, and
since good representation from the other side is scarcer, I thought that this
august assemblage of insect admirers would appreciate the moderating effect of a
few words from the disenchanted.

I initially appreciated the comments from both Bill and Sharon, since they
seemed quite sensible and I read past the language to the meaning.  However
Sharon used a few words like 'crazy' and 'Earth Destroyer' in her otherwise well
reasoned and useful reply and, it seems, after that, these are the only words of
hers that readers remember.  I guess there is a lesson for those of us who want
to be understood.  These types of words are called 'stoppers' by professional ad
writers.  It is well known that when certain trigger words are used, the
majority of readers stop reading when they encounter one and react.  Even the
most careful reasoning after that point in the text is lost on many, if not most
people because they shift into an emotional state.  Moreover, they tend to
discard anything they may have accepted before that point too.

Let's go back and read the posts again and cross out the fighting words and get
on with our normally sedate discussions.  BEE_L is here for the civil and
informed discussion of bees and bee-related topics.  The BEE-L rules are that
you check your guns at the door and that any violators get killfiled if they
fail to heed a polite warning.  (Naturally the sheriff and his deputies get to
wear a gun, but there is a lot of pressure not to use it often -- and hell to
pay when it is used).

After the weekend, after a number of posts that seemed to drift farther and
farther from the topic of bees (as does this one), I sat down and read through
the original imidacloprid article I recommended more carefully.  I'd still
recommend it.  It still seems to me that it does not make any claims, but merely
seems to select material from reports that are not AFAIK particularly hotly
debated.  My impression is that the data came from government and pesticide
industry sources.  The article does not seem to me twist facts.

Even most proponents of sprays readily admit that insecticides are poisons and
can be dangerous when mishandled.  The debate begins when we try to draw a line
between safe, beneficial, and reasonable use and gratuitous, harmful use.  Some
say no use is safe and others at the other end of the spectrum say that the
stuff is harmless.  Most of us consider these positions to be extreme and try to
position ourselves comfortably somewhere in the middle.  Those at the end
positions know this and try to move the end points of reasonableness outwards by
making extreme statements so that the 'middle' moves towards their true
position.  That's fair enough.  We're grownups and hopefully literate enough to
know when we are being played and smart enough to do the critical thinking
necessary to decide what we want to believe.

I hope we continue to carry diverse and provocative points of view on BEE-L and
that no one thinks that it is the duty of the list's maintainers to limit valid
debate or discussion to Politically Correct viewpoints.  I also hope that when
we write, we will all be careful not to insult those who disagree with us and
thus wind up in a discussion that has more to do with procedure and manners and
language and hurt feelings than bees.

allen