Randy Oliver wrote:

> I'd have to agree with the Bayer rep (whom I've never
> heard of before) whenhe says that the doses were unrealistic. 
> Especially the 241 ppb dose, since anything above 50 ppb is
> generally considered to be acutely toxic.

Randy based on those unrealistic doses, here is how the
researcher in question (Prof. David Goulson) reasons:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHDNufaLZMg

"they're [neonics] are not having directly lethal effects on the
[bumble] bees but the problem is they seem to be having
subtle sublethal effects...we suspect might have something to
do with interfering with their navigational ability...any reduction
in their ability to navigate could be absolutely disasterous in
the natural situation."

Then based on that "seem to" speculation Dr. Goulson
further speculated: "Potentially the long term implications
[of using neonics] are pretty frightening. If you're knocking
out 85% of the reproductive individuals...the queens [bumblebees]
..in every generation and most bumblebee nests in agricultural
landscapes in Europe are probably exposed to these compounds,
then you can imagine year and year losing 85% of the queens
could result in a steady decline in [bumble] bee populations."

Then when asked: Are these chemicals affecting other organisms?
Goulson responded: "It's a big worry, we obviously focused
on bumblebees but lots of other things feed on flowering
crops such as oil seed rape [canola] and sunflowers..
hoverflies, solitary bees, butterflies...so they could
be being affected and it would obviously be important to
study that. Also these compounds when they are used as
seed treatments get into water and the soil and they've
been detected in wildflowers growing in field margins which
then means that all sorts of other creatures that might
feed on those plants of the flowers become exposed. So
the potential of other insects - beneficial insects
that we really wouldn't want to be poisoned to being
affected by these compounds is really rather large."

So we see a continuing pattern of the academics taking the
precautionary principle to an extreme; i.e. fantasizing there
could potentially be disasterous impacts on non-target beneficial
insects from treating the seed of flowering crops like canola and
sunflowers with neonics without first documenting that honeybees
are actually having unexplained health problems in those areas.
Or documenting that bumblebees, hoverflies, solitary bees and
butterflies are no longer abundant.

If they wanted, Bayer or a canola or sunflower grower could
pass out 100 videocameras to 100 farm kids in North Dakota
and ask them to ride down the farm roads on their bicycles and
videotape all the many honeybees, bumblebees, hoverflies,
solitary bees and butterflies they will see both on the canola
and sunflowers and on the wildflowers growing along the
field margins. Then post the videos to YouTube for the
world, the academics, their granting agencies and regulators
to see.

Paul Cherubini
El Dorado, Calif.

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