> Therefore, I nominate the Harvard study for a Rotten Tomatoe  award.  Any suggestions as to an appropriate  tomatoe score?

Maybe a 20%, "Despite boasting a stellar cast, [it] is just tedious, dull and predictable melodrama. Instantly forgettable."

To me, the most appalling aspect of the so-called study was the ridiculous lack of references to key work on the topic. It is almost as if they didn't want to find anything that would contradict their intentions, which was to prove neonics are bad for bees. Did they bother even to look at this 164 page document:

Hazards of pesticides to bees
10th International Symposium of the ICP-BR Bee Protection Group
Bucharest (Romania), October 8-10, 2008

> The importance of this book is amply illustrated through the overarching and global concerns of The Convention on Biological Diversity that recognizes that pollinators and pollination are crucial to global productivity in agriculture and nature and are under serious environmental stresses. The Bee Protection Working Group of the ICPBR is a vibrant and effective model that offers world leadership. 

Peter G. Kevan, Ph. D., FRES, FIBiol
Chairman, ICPBR & Scientific Director, Canadian Pollination Initiative

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