> The amounts calculated are so much above the sub
> lethal doses that they cite four papers for that they 
> felt they could still make the conclusions they did

The amounts calculated were the result of adding
up theoretical accumulated exposure over lengthy 
periods of time.

But imidacloprid DOES NOT bio-accumulate in bees.

This is a crucial point.  
It invalidates the conclusions completely.

This adding up of theoretical accumulated exposure 
is thereby inherently invalid, as bees can metabolize
imidaclopird.  Suchail et all (2003, ("Metabolism 
of Imidacloprid in Apis mellifera" Pest Mnmgt Science;
60, 291-296)) found that the metabolism half-life of 
imidacloprid in honey bees was 4.5 to 5 hours with no 
detectable residues found in bees 24 hours after exposure 

I hope that I am being clear here - very basic
assumptions made were wrong.  The math was wrong,
as it assumed bio-accumulation.

>> bees will always hedge their bets, foraging
>> for BOTH pollen and nectar from multiple 
>> sources at all times

> Hives in canola have hundreds of acres of 
> canola surrounding them 

The example crop used in the paper was Sunflowers.
There aren't any Sunflower plantings in France
anywhere near the size of Canadian canola fields,
so there certainly would be other blooms for bees
to choose instead of Sunflowers.

The uniquely massive Canadian canola fields would 
make the foraging times for both nectar and pollen 
both much shorter than the paper's estimates, so 
for canola, the nectar forager food consumption 
would be far lower, and any presumed contamination 
also lower.

But none of the "math" matters, as any adding up
of exposure over periods greater than a few hours
was inherently invalid.

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************