> <Or you could make the assumption that if the risk was severe and imminent
> (aka bordering on disaster) that the information would likely be more clear
> and proceed with monitoring and caution so that you can actually get more
> field data on a meaningful scale.>

This appears a non- sequitur  - how does the imminence of a disaster make the information more clear?   The crucial information is both how to estimate the likelihood of the disaster occurring and also how would the planet cope if the disaster did occur.  Ie how serous would be disaster be.  We cannot estimate the latter in the case of nuclear war so we apply the precautionary principle and avoid letting off bombs. Equally, we cannot properly estimate how much world food production would decrease if bee pollinators died out due to persistent and irreversible pollution by new insecticides so we should not just rush forward with new risks to bees on grounds of always welcoming new developments but also apply the precautionary principle until we know we could handle the consequences. 

Or do we think we do know the consequences?  All I have heard is that bumblebees do a lot of pollination, correct, but not enough surely to support the scale of industrial farming? 

Robin 

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