> I don't make claims--I simply report on research.
But the reports clearly have a unique personal spin on them, and more often
than not, include interpretations that run counter to the plain conclusions
of the well-respected researchers who did the research themselves. As such,
they are often more opinion than fact.
In regard to "temporary bindings" specifically, the most recent contrast
between the stance claimed to be "simply report[ing] on research" and that
of those actually doing research on the issue at hand was here:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=BEE-L;b2c38fdb.1
306
http://tinyurl.com/pdl5jno
> "So I sought the opinion of a world expert
> on neonics, Dr. John Casida of Berkeley, who
> emphatically told me that the binding was
> not irreversible. This opinion has been
> experimentally supported by Cresswell, and
> by anyone who has watched an insect recover
> from IMI intoxication."
You can re-read the rebuttal offered to the use of the term "irreversible"
in the message to which I linked, but to me, "reversible binding" implies
that the bee is not harmed by the pesticide at low levels that can be
metabolized by P450 mechanisms. But now we are offered clarification:
> That said, there is every reason to suspect
> that the temporary binding could possibly
> have toxic or immunological effects, which
> could be cumulative. Without speaking for
> Christina, I understand that this is her quite
> legitimate concern, and am glad that she
> brought it up for discussion some time ago.
So, if now it is conceded that the "temporary binding could... have toxic or
immunological effects", this implies that the so-called "temporary binding"
has more than temporary impact, thus rendering the use of the term
"temporary" essentially meaningless in this context.
When even simple clear words like "temporary" need extensive qualification
and explanation, we have truly lost our way, having been tap-danced so far
off the path that we cannot even see it from there.
I started to say "off the Yellow Brick Road" in the above, but yellow seemed
to colorful for something so tedious and technical. But it does bring up an
excellent example of "opinion" vs "facts" and how they are presented.
I bet everyone thinks of Glinda, the Good Witch of The North in the Wizard
of Oz, as "good" rather than "evil". Using the same facts you have had for
years, allow me to show you how wrong you have been.
In the Wizard of Oz (movie), Dorothy meets the Good Witch of the North, and
the first question asked Dorothy is:
Glinda: "Are you a good witch, or a bad witch?"
Dorthy: "... I'm not a witch at all. Witches are old and ugly."
Glinda: "I'm Glinda, the Witch of the North."
Dorothy: "You are! I beg your pardon! But I've never heard of a beautiful
witch before."
Glinda: "Only bad witches are ugly."
Glinda thus reveals that even though she had all the facts, Glinda viewed
Dorothy as ugly enough to possibly be a bad witch.
No one ever notices this clear fact until I point it out, and then they
start to realize just what an incredibly mean and manipulative person
Glinda is, sending Dorothy to Oz, knowing that the ruby slippers made her a
target for Glinda's main rival, the Wicked Witch of the West. Worse yet,
Glinda later shows that she knew all along that the slippers could take
Dorothy back home at any time, yet withholding that crucial information.
Meanwhile the Wicked Witch merely wants to be left alone to mourn the death
of her sister, and the theft of her sister's property, the ruby slippers,
yet she is forced to deal with assassins sent by the Wizard of Oz, Dorothy
(her again!) and 3 stooges.
Who is good again? And who evil?
***********************************************
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
|
