>Despite the large volume of available data and the large number (>6,000)
of analyses

> available, firm conclusions cannot be made for the majority of the outcomes
> studied. This observation is disappointing especially when one accounts for
> the large volume of research in the area.
>

Thanks Ghislain.  I was also surprised when I went through California
data.  The State tracks pesticide application by county, as well as birth
defect rates and cancer rates by county.  I fully expected to see a clear
correlation.

To my great surprise, there isn't.  Indeed, in general, the counties that
have the highest pesticide application rates have the lowest rates of birth
defects and cancer, and vice versa.

This really made me question my previous assumption that there were clear
linkages.  So perhaps instead of the the authors finding their analysis to
be "disappointing," they should change their assumption that pesticides are
indeed the cause of our health problems.  By my revised thinking, if they
were indeed the main cause, the analysis of 6000 studies would have been
expected to clearly show it.

The statement by scientists that they were "disappointed" suggests that
they were applying deductive reasoning--since they "knew" that pesticides
"had to be" a problem, they were disappointed that actual data did not
support their preconceived bias.

Now don't go thinking that I am some sort of pesticide salesman--I'm still
an organic gardener, and natural treatment beekeeper.  But I also want my
opinions to be based upon real world observation, rather than preconceived
notions.
-- 
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