BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:39:15 -0600
Reply-To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
<00c401d0575a$89c274c0$9d475e40$@com>
Subject:
Re: Saving America's Pollinators Act
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From:
Charles Linder <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (9 lines) 
Steve,  (and all)   With all due respect,  that’s the wrong question.   Neonics, and any other pesticide, and many other chemicals used daily are bad for bees.   Really bad.

The real question is what is the real exposure levels of Neonics??  And I would add personally compared to the alternatives??   THAT is the only real question that matters.  All this testing in the lab like Lu's is pure noise.     I would certainly concede ongoing work an what levels were actually seeing, and how those levels effect long term is certainly good work. With the caveat that it needs to be compared to the options.

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2