>   But I find Bill's arguments about point
> source application completely specious.  Water, tillage, and crop residue
> all move long lasting materials around in the soil.
>

Obviously you did not understand my post as my point (pun intended) was the
amount of pesticide in the soil which was addressed incorrectly in the
spreadsheet computations on half life. The spreadsheets treated the neonics
as uniformly distributed at the concentration of the seed, which would have
meant literally hundreds of seeds per square foot or hundreds of times the
concentration.

I really do not mind being called out when I am wrong, but please read my
post first. Especially since I did address all of what you said. Obviously,
you still do not understand the difference between adding a seed covered
with pesticide compared to a spray and what that difference makes in the
amount of pesticide in the soil.

That point is crucial to any discussion. Arsenic is in my well water and in
many aquifers. At different concentrations it can kill or heal (believe it
or not!), so concentration is everything. Hence, you are arguing on the
wrong side if your intent is to show how bad neonics are as they are less
concentrated per square foot than prior pesticides by a large factor.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

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