I have been sent this by a friend who hasn't the time to lurk here.
 
Chris
 
 
"Interesting analysis. I believe it is not the technology that is at fault,  
as that simply operates functionally, objectively. The problem with everything 
 humans do is the practice. In practice, pesticides are formulated, tested,  
approved, licensed and sold for commercial reasons. Nothing wrong with  
commercial motivation per se. Except that in practice it means people (not  the 
'system') doing things for short term gain regardless. In practice,  pesticides 
have a shelf life of 20 - 80 years depending, so the manufacturers  push for as 
many approved applications as possible, naturally, it makes  commercial sense. 
In the hands of users, applications are then misused and  abused. Take 
beekeepers and pyretheroids for instance. The correct method of  application is 
short duration, high dose. How many beekeepers did it take,  leaving strips in for 
months at a time to develop resistance? The small cell  issue is a matter of 
practice. Beekeepers deliberately increased cell sizes in a  bid to boost 
honey production for commercial gain. 
 
One side is sticking up for the technology regardless, because it works at  
the  technical level and delivers profits. The other is arguing about the  
results of commercial motivation driving practice and the true costs we all  have 
to bear after manufacturers have reaped profits - contamination, loss of  
biodiversity etc etc."
 


*******************************************************
* Search the BEE-L archives at:                       *
* http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l *
*******************************************************