>> >As far as imidacloprid is concerned I say where there's smoke there's 
>> >fire.

> Problem is, where there is often a great deal of imidacloprid smoke, we 
> don't see any fire, in the form of colony collapses.

Collapse is an extreme instance and can bee seen in direct contact 
situations, so obviously the second writer has discounted them.

The problem we all suspect is that the damage is generally slight, but 
constant and ubiquitous, especially in agricultural situations.  It is a tax 
on bee fitness.

Although bee colonies may not be driven to collapse in most cases, many of 
us suspect that they are being weakened a little here, there, and 
everywhere.

The chemicals are found everywhere and they are advertised to weaken insects 
to the point where pathogens overtake them.  Why would we doubt the 
advertising?

By how much to they tax hives overall?  0.00001?, 0.0001%?, 0.001%?, 0.01%?, 
0.1%?, 1%?, 10%?

Obviously this effect is not evenly distributed, but many of us are sure it 
is there.

What does it take to weaken colonies to the point where they are vulnerable 
to other damage?

Nobody knows, except maybe the people who developed the insecticides.

At any rate the post was an expression of opinion, and thus really not 
debatable IMO.  We can argue with facts, but how can we argue with opinion? 

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