> I now begin to understand why some on the list only find errors in the
> research of scientists who are warning against the dangers of
> neonicotinoids
> and never in those of the pro's.
>

Actually, I do not know any that advocate for the use but most of the
studies are what level of harm they cause specifically to bees.

If you consider a study, like a recent one that found harm to bees but only
from corn dust during the planting, that study has been seen to be true in
the field, but, in both the field and study, if the machinery is modified,
then the problem goes away or is minimized. Colonies close to the fields
are fine, especiallly after the planting is complete.

I would consider that a "warning against the dangers", especially since it
was quoted by many environmentalists - but it would have fit your
definition of "pro" because it did not find any harm after the problem was
corrected. All of that was pointed out on this list.

You have been around long enough to know that any study that has flaws will
be chewed to death by this group. The only thing I see on this list is a
pro good studies and anti bad ones and it does not matter whose ox is
gored.

For me, if it can be proved that the neonics are as bad as the agitprop
suggests, then welcome me to the bandwagon. So far I am not convinced.

Beekeepers are stewards of their bees. We all want want what is best for
them.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

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