There is a lot more.But it looks like someone had an agenda.


All the mentioned things may be correct,  but I see a much more disturbing trend.   In this report,  and 2 others I have read this summer,   they cite  "unknown sources" of neonics entering the picture.   All 3 say the same line.   " unknown sources assumed to be from prior years usage"  
2 major things bug me,  first,  the degradation and half life in crop ground shows that  the possibility of this happening at a level to contaminate bees is not only unlikely, but borderline impossible.  1000's of test have never shown this to happen at that sort of level,  think about it,  we coat the seed and most data sets show we barely get enough to detect, and very seldom get any levels to be problematic,  yet  seasons later enough has remained to contaminate non target plats which either A  were already mature and flowering,  or B,  we new seeds exposed to a rainwater rinse?

the Second deals with Science in general. Correct me if I am wrong,  but in real Science any cross contamination is cause for all results to be suspect and discarded?  which would mean that someone would need to figure out whats happening and where it comes from,  or the report is invalid.   If we follow these guidelines, there would need to be some effort put forth.
Lines like "we speculate it came from" should barr this from being anything more than an OpEd shouldn't it??


Charles   

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