> Quit listening to the powers that be 

Never quit listening to anyone, especially 
to those who have credentials in science.
Look hard at the motivation of anyone who
demands that you ignore contrasting views.

> start looking deeper at the locations of your losses. 
> The plants in your area. 

Only days ago on Sept 30, in the "Fructose vs 
sucrose" discussion, the cause of all problems was
claimed to be "poison sugars" in HFCS. 
Now plants/pesticides are blamed.  Both
are presented as "cover-ups". Which is it?

> Even from the U.S. we see visible patterns emerging. 
> My friends in Europe see patterns in Canada.

Optical illusions and delusions. 
See this:

http://tinyurl.com/4myeyf
or
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/10/03/control-study.html


"People often see patterns where none 
exist in an attempt to give structure 
and security to unpredictable situations, 
a new study on loss of control suggests.

People turn to superstitions, rituals and 
conspiracy theories as a way to deal with 
complex or chaotic circumstances, according 
to the study, published in the journal 'Science'."

> In the U.S. the powers that be do not want to take 
> on the chemical companies.

EVERYONE is "taking on" the chemical companies, even 
when the actual data clearly points to the 
self-inflicted gunshot wound of beekeeper miticide
misuse as the factor that swamps out the tiny trace 
levels of crop pesticides.  

The pesticide-bashing is a distraction from the real
and tangible problems of invasive, exotic pathogens,
pests, and predators that continue to waltz through
our ports due to an utter lack of concern about 
biosecurity in international trade.  To make matters
worse, we have beekeepers openly advocating things
like their use of "Taktic" as a miticide, and
advocating the shipment of bees from overseas as
a solution to the problem of invasive exotic bee 
diseases and pests from overseas.  The disconnect
is that the best way to import more diseases and
pests is on live, uninspected bees of the sort
promoted by these same beekeepers.

> In Europe the hives keep crashing unless chemical 
> companies are reined in...

Not in the view of those who regulate pesticides
in Europe. (Read question here, click on "Answer"
button to read the answer of the European Parliament):

http://tinyurl.com/4tr56z
or  
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+E-2008-3
670+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN

> *If* you fund research into problems concerning chemicals make 
> sure those doing the research will be willing to follow the 
> evidence and not afraid to stand behind findings pointing in 
> the direction of chemical companies.

Far too much speculation is done in the face 
of data that tends to exonerate the pesticides.

> When certain chemicals are banned the situation improves. 

Specifically where?
And for who?  
And which specific chemicals?
Who, what, when, where, how?

What has happened over and over is that the European "Precautionary 
Principle" is used to temporarily suspend use of specific chemicals, 
but things do NOT improve, so the suspensions are lifted.  Yet people
with agendas cite these uses of the "Precautionary Principle" as 
if they were "proof" of something, rather than what they are, which 
is a preemptive suspension, specifically taken in the ABSENCE of proof.
(Why do you think they call it the "PRECAUTIONARY Principle", for
Pete's sake?)  

> Do not let people tell you otherwise. 

No, of course not!  Don't ever pay attention to new data, or 
consider findings that might challenge the preconceived 
notions of beekeepers.  That might prompt one to think for
oneself, and we can't have that, now can we?

> Do not let the chemical companies blame misapplication 
> as the *sole cause* of problems.

When one finds high levels of pesticide in pollen, how did it
get there, if not from spraying blooms?  Understand that the 
trace levels that might be carried to the pollen by the
plant's metabolism are well-understood, and easy to measure.
The EPA data often contains these tiny numbers.

Pesticide kills do happen, and the good news is that the
newer systemic pesticides reduce the incidence of pesticide
kills.  Why?  Simple - if the grower does not spray it, the
grower does not even have a chance to screw up. 

> Some even allowed while the bees are on the bloom.

Aside from "Assail", which is old news by now, are
there any others?  I don't think so.

> When beeks complain about a certain chemical the chemical 
> companies change the formula slightly and register under 
> a new name which is a smart tactic as causes problems for 
> beeks as then you have got 2 to many named products 
> to fight against instead of one.

Please cite an example.  The chemical companies 
aren't going to slog through the multi-year and 
multi-million-dollar-sort-of-expensive process of 
registering a new pesticide formulation with the EPA
just to be able to avoid "beekeeper complaints".
If we beekeepers had that sort of clout, it would
be a very different world.

> Those researching the bee die offs in Canada and the U.S. 
> ignore the facts about the areas and the crops being worked
> being involved in bee problems.

So all the researchers are stupid?  Blind?  Ignorant of the
basic concept of correlation?  Unaware of cause and effect?
Every single one of them in the USA and Canada?
Which is it?  Again, we need specifics to back up the claims.

> In the U.S. avoiding certain crops and areas using certain 
> chemicals is part of the key to survival.

Partly correct.  Avoiding certain CROPS could result in 
better "survival", but it is the low-protein pollen of 
the plant that is the root problem here, rather than 
the chemical use in the area.  Drought makes for even 
worse pollen than normal, so weather is also a factor. 
It is a nutrition issue.

> look at the areas hardest hit in Canada and oddly enough 
> they are the areas in Canada in which the chemicals I am 
> always talking about are used the most.

No surprise - the areas were agriculture is most
prevalent is where the most bees are kept and deployed,
so these are the areas that are "hit hardest".  By the
same logic, one can note that beekeepers west of the
Mississippi are "harder hit" than those East of the
Mississippi in the USA.  The reason is simple, operations
are hundreds of times bigger West of the Mississippi,
so they have more hives to examine. 

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************