Bill T wrote:
> It is when you make the leap to CCD, which is still in the investigation mode, that problems arise, ergo, "A Spring without Bees".

Not only does the author attempt to build up a case that CCD = IMD
(imidacloprid), but he systematically attempts to undermine the
credibility of anyone who doubts the connection.

He writes that Dr. Pettis of the USDA says that if CCD is caused by a
virus, there isn't much we can do about that. Then Schacker rephrases
it like this:

> The beekeepers would thus have to learn how to cope with ever-increasing uses of IMD while the government-industry line would be "it's a virus, there's nothing we can do."

In the book, he has Pettis saying that CCD cannot be connected to
pesticides, that the science is inconclusive. "It's one myth. We can't
make the connection to disorientation," Pettis says. Pettis states
plainly that he thinks the answer lies in bee management issues.

Schacker mentions that Dennis van Englesdorp also does not believe in
the IMD CCD connection. Then he tries to undermine Dennis and Penn
State by saying that Bayer has its headquarters in Pennsylvania and
has "very close ties to Penn State."

> Bayer CropScience meanwhile integrates itself with the agricultural school, especially the Turfgrass Center and the Pesticide Research Lab. All this time, there has been no funded study by the Penn State CCD Working Group to see if IMD cause disorientation.

The implication being that Pettis and Penn State are somehow in
cahoots with Bayer. In his scenario only real beekeepers like Jim Doan
have the guts to go before congress and tell the IMD story. He
contrasts that brave act with the "weasel words" of Maryanne Frazier:

> "We are finding a number of things, but we don't know how they are yet connected to the CCD situation."

What else can she say? She works at Penn State and probably gets an
annual wall calendar from Bayer. Schacker writes:

> Are studies and interpretations of data on IMD by Penn State being influenced by a reluctance to go up against Bayer? The CCD Working Group would no doubt respond "absolutely not".

Schacker goes on to say that the group has suppressed the French
report which has all the proof we need.  Unfortunately, it's in French
so who knows what it says.

Comité Scientifique et Technique de l'Etude Multifactorielle des
Troubles des Abeilles (CST)
Imidaclopride utilisé en enrobage de semences (Gaucho(R)) et troubles
des abeilles
Rapport final
http://agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/rapportfin.pdf

It's a conspiracy, of course. Schacker writes:

> The chemical industry lobbyists have been given the key to the regulatory candy store, the EPA is politicized and compromised, the USDA is focusing on natural causes rather than man made ones, the universities have been privatized by chemical industry "largesse", the growers are mesmerized by the pesticide salesmen, and all the while the bees keep dying. Even the democrats in Congress have been led off the trail by scientific witnesses.

If that doesn't scare you, read Chapter Nine: "Civilization Collapse Disorder"

> the threat of a collapse of our own human hive is now so real -- and perhaps not far away. The missing bees truly appear as the beginning of the apocalyptic futures depicted in science fiction movies.

There's a movie in it, I am certain.

*******************************************************
* Search the BEE-L archives at:                       *
* http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l *
*******************************************************