>
> >Let's face it.  Most, if not _all studies are flawed to some extent


I'm in agreement!


>  but do I believe everything presented?
> Of course not -- unless they they fit with my preconceived notions


Actually, some of us seek out knowledge that frees us from our preconceived
notions.  I read a book this weekend for the intentional purpose of
challenging my preconceptions, and find myself better educated by doing so.

As a case in point, I've changed my opinion on a number of subjects in the
past few years:
1.  I originally accepted the circumstantial case against the neonics,
being an organic gardener myself.
2.. I orginally accepted research that screened bottom boards were
effective as a mite control measure.
3.  My early field observations did not support the case that Nosema
ceranae was a serious pathogen.

The above are only a few examples of subjects that further investigation
has swung my assessment 180 degrees.  Since I never locked myself into
taking a firm position on any, I feel comfortable adjusting my assessments
as additional evidence is brought to light.

But I see your point Allen--sadly, those with careers or positions to
support have a history of defending a lost cause to the bitter end.  It's
hard to see how Dave Hackenberg or Bob (for both of whom I have the
greatest respect) could back down on the public posture that they have
taken on the neonics, no matter what the evidence to the contrary.

That is not to say that neonics are harmless.  The evidence is quite clear
that certain applications should be restricted.  In addition, we are seeing
that the results of small "scientific" experiments often do not apply to
field situations.  To me, it is far too early to call for drastic measures,
and feel that the beekeeping community would be best served by focusing
upon calls for EPA action upon applications for which there is clear
evidence of documented or likely adverse effects (such as foliar
application of clothianidin upon cotton, which was recently revoked solely
as a result of applying a reasonable version of the precautionary
principle).
-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

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