> The statement by scientists that they were 
> "disappointed" suggests that...  they were 
> disappointed that actual data did not support 
> their preconceived bias.

They said in the abstract:

"firm conclusions cannot be made for the majority of the outcomes studied.
This observation is disappointing especially when one accounts for the large
volume of research in the area."

So, they were disappointed at the lack of "firm conclusions" of any sort,
not with a lack of conclusions that agreed with one view or another.

> I was also surprised...
> I fully expected to see a clear correlation.
> To my great surprise, there isn't.

This is what the authors found, a lack of any clear correlation.  

> [In one data set]m the [Calif] counties that have 
> the highest pesticide application rates have the lowest 
> rates of birth defects and cancer, and vice versa.

If this had consistently been the case in multiple studies, there would have
been a consistent INVERSE correlation.  That would have been very
unexpected.

But they did find some consistency in the post-2006 studies.  Again, quoting
the abstract:

"We also performed updated meta-analysis for major outcomes and for those
where a relevant meta-analysis published after 2006 was identified. This has
only been possible for childhood leukaemia and for Parkinson's disease. For
both these outcomes we found significant associations between pesticide
exposure and disease in line with previous evidence."

A basic problem with large population studies is that they ignore that the
guy who neglects to wash his fruits and vegetables is the one that gets the
highest dose of all, and he is only detected/counted if he has a
life-threatening allergic reaction.

The practical approach is to take samples of groundwater and test for
contamination.  For example, in the 1970s, aldicarb was discovered in 96
wells on Long Island and DBCP was found in more than 2,000 wells in
California.  Many modern pesticides are designed to break down in sunlight
and in moisture, so again, newer pesticides are inherently safer (to humans)
than the older ones they replace, but there's still a lot of monitoring
going on, and a lot of groundwater contamination and transport of even the
"modern" pesticides being detected:

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/suffolkdata.pdf
or
http://tinyurl.com/m6n6fhb
Is the Jan 2013 updated report for Long Island, which contains tables like
these:

"Identification of 61 Pesticide-Related Chemicals Detected in Long Island
Groundwater Between 1996 and 2010 and Associated with 47 Parent Active
Ingredients Currently Registered for Distribution and Use in Nassau and
Suffolk Counties, New York"

And the far more disturbing:

"Identification of 56 Pesticide-Related Chemicals Detected in Long Island
Groundwater Between 1996 and 2010 and Associated with 35 Active Ingredients
Not Currently Registered for Use In Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York"

So, groundwater and runoff sampling, mapped with good GIS is a good way to
look at tangible metrics that can lead to firm actionable conclusions.

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