> The study indicated that paraquat exhibited toxic effects 
> at even lower concentrations than the neonics.  

I guess I need to offer more detail.  (I honestly try not to bore the gang
with 100% of what runs through my mind, as I suspect that much of would be
obvious to even the casual observer.)

The first point I'd make in refutation of the reasoning above is that on a
per-acre basis, far less neonics are needed than herbicides like paraquat
(and older non-systemic pesticides), so far less would be used.  Perhaps it
would be useful to talk about "acres treated" instead.  I'm not comparing
relative toxicity yet, just pointing out that "pounds per state" is a
meaningless number, and is useful only to those who want to mislead and
influence-peddle, including at least regulators and politicians.

The second point I'd make in refutation would be that there are a wide and
divergent range of views on the actual toxicity of the systemics. These
views are held by people with more credentials in the field of things like
"toxicology" than the members of Bee-L can summon up, and all of them can't
constantly be making basic and massive errors that somehow consistently
escape notice in peer review, yet are caught by the sharp-eyed subscribers
to Bee-L.  

Counting on fingers, at least Jerry B, Christina, and myself participate in
such reviews, and I doubt that any of us have ever seen a major faux-pas of
the type that are often claimed to exist when papers are critiqued here on
Bee-L.  It follows that there may be occasional misunderstandings that
result in the Bee-L critiques, and as the authors are never asked, they
never correct the misconceptions.  (That said, I think that lots of bees
have been killed in "caged bee studies" by various methodologies, rather
than the chemicals at issue, so we do have the occasional low-hanging
fruit.)

> That is specifically why I compared the poundage, and erroneously thought
my reasoning was clear.

I don't think that anyone has claimed that systemics are as toxic as
paraquat suddenly appears to be in light of the cited study, but it seems to
me that there is an amount used "per acre", and a concentration "as
applied", and then there is a "residual toxicity" at some time interval
after the stuff is sprayed, and most important, there is a PURPOSE to each
use of the chemical, and understanding the intent, helps to gauge risk.

So, I'd like to know why anyone wanting to kill weeds would wait to spray an
herbicide until the weeds bloom.  That just seems stupid.  

Alternatively why would a beekeeper place hives to forage on weeds that were
being eradicated by use of herbicides or anywhere near the use of
herbicides, given the potential for drift, and the potential for a
herbicide/insecticide cocktail being used?

Alternatively from yet another angle, why would a weed sprayed with the
correct application of paraquat survive and bloom to attract bees, and have
toxic pollen and/or nectar some number of days after being sprayed?  Why
wouldn't the herbicide kill the plant dead, so it would never bloom?

My experience working with growers of apples and other tree fruits is that a
tree-fruit grower will reach for the spray rig in reaction to almost any
situation, but I've never seen them spray too late, too much, too little, or
too often, as chemicals are costly, and are only useful when following the
complex advice and updates from the chemical maker, the local extension
agent, and the local land-grand school.  They also value pollination, hence
the phone calls, always after dinner, saying "You wanna move your bees out
tomorrow night? The king bloom is done, and we want to thin the bloom."  

And what do apple growers spray to thin blossoms?  They use Carbaryl or
Sevin!  Insecticides! Crazy as it may seem, these are the most effective
ways to thin the blooms and get the nice-sized apples. 

So this is the long version of why I questioned the statement about
paraquat.
I still do.
Yes, its nasty, and I agree it is a relic that should be discontinued, but I
don't see how it could be killing bees in significant numbers.

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