Point 2: Field observations of colonies chronically exposed to neonics
either by foraging on canola or experimentally fed neonics over the long
term (such as by Diveley, Wu, or a number of others).

If the "cumulative effect" hypothesis is true, then bees consuming
neonic-tainted food for their entire lives should simply not survive for
long, or exhibit clear adverse effects.

But any number of field studies, especially those in which colonies foraged
for both nectar and pollen on treated canola, or in which colonies were fed
spiked food continually, simply don't exhibit measurable adverse effects
until, for example, IMI is given at around 50 ppb.

The above field and experimental observations also appear to refute the
hypothesis of cumulative effects.  Can anyone please give a clear
explanation as to why this is a wrong conclusion?

-
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

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