>> Despite the absence of decisive experimental results, our analysis shows that while the proposition is a substantially justified conjecture in the context of current knowledge, it is also substantially contraindicated by a wide variety of circumstantial epidemiological evidence...

I wonder what inspired this group to stick their collective neck out while the jury is still out.  Doing so seems to me to be unnecessary and somewhat suicidal -- unless I am missing something.

Over time, we have moved from a point where researchers were quite certain that fairly high levels of the neonics were harmless to honey bees (Scott-Dupree) to the point where more careful work is discovering that vanishingly small amounts of these substances are being found to have various subtle effects that may be adding to the various burdens on bees and other pollinators.  

Given the widespread use and misuse of these chemicals and the previously unknown ways that they have been found to affect bees due to concentration in some plants, water bodies, soils, and dusts from seeding, I cannot see how anyone can make such a statement except in the most general of terms, which of course is meaningless since the proven neonic problems are real and being found to occur under quite specific circumstances.  

The suspected problems are more subtle, elusive and difficult to pin down, but it seems to me that I am seeing evidence accumulating to indicate the very widespread problem they hasten to discount.

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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm