Bill Truesdell wrote:

> Interesting reading, but I am hesitant to accept the conclusions of an
> organization dedicated to eliminating pesticides from the environment.
> Too much agenda.

Just to reiterate what I said in my original post. I read the whole
article and it had some interesting comments, but I do question their
findings, mainly because of there starting point, which they do state
clearly.

And I appreciate Allen's comments. I really do not like the age we are
in where science is being used as a political weapon and we are getting
a lot of junk science.

For example, in the article the half life of imidacloprid is discusses
and it varies from reasonable to over a year. The half life of a
pesticide does vary depending on the application method and
when/where/how and the conditions under which it is applied. So you
could bias your findings to have either a long or short half-life. And
where is the pesticide after it has done its thing? Is it in a place
where it is still in the system to continue to cycle through its killing
or is it there but benign, even at half strength because it is tied up
in plant material/soil/whatever?

A pesticide applied in Florida will be out of the system much quicker
than one applied in Canada, especially if both were applied in the fall.
But if you wanted to show it was a good pesticide, take the Florida
data. If bad, take the Canadian.

We have conflicting data on imidacloprid. You have the anecdotal
evidence that it is bad from the French Beekeepers and reports from PEI.
You have "science" from the pesticide haters saying it is bad and
"science" from Bayer and others, including studies on canola in Canada,
saying it is fine.

I do not like it mainly because of the greenhouse studies that mirrored
the French beekeepers experience and Medhat Nzar"s speculation that it
may be cumulative. But the greenhouse growers have OK'ed it if applied
properly. One would hope an organization with that much self interest
would be circumspect in the use of pesticides, and apparently
imidacloprid is fine after a month's wait. Which does not track with a
year's half life. Something does not compute. Unless one looks at the
conditions inside a greenhouse compared to Canada in the winter.

Bottom line is the jury is still out. But, right now, the better science
is on the imidacloprid side. Emotion is not. And it never will be.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, ME