>> Anyway, I do not want to reopen discussion on that admittedly very flawed
>> Harvard study.
>
> The only thing missing from the discussion was Dr. Lu.

He is most welcome to join in, and so is anyone associated with the study who 
wishes to defend it.

>To be honest only on BEE-L do I hear the Bayer position put
>forth so strongly.

What you hear on BEE-L is a variety of opinions and an examination of facts. If
it happens that the facts available at present lead to conclusions similar to what
Bayer says should not be surprising.  Nor should the fact that reservations and 
disagreement are also hear should not be surprising either.  The facts are hard 
organize and are not black and white.  The weighting that different people in 
different situations place on each fact or suspicion is bound to vary, too.

The fact that you do not seem to hear a balanced and thoughtful discussion 
elsewhere is a matter of concern for many of us who participate here.  We don't
feel comfortable watching a lynching, or malicious and uninformed attacks on 
aspects of the agriculture that feeds us, or which may prove to be more crucial to 
our well-being and civilization than (gasp!) our bees.

That said, I think you will find here an earnest search for clues that there is a 
basis to our longstanding fears of all pesticides and solutions to the problem of
co-existing with many powerful and sometimes conflicting interests.

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