Allen, as I read your post, I'm sitting at a computer with several pages of notes, a copy of the paper with the things that require attention underlined (it's astounding how much is underlined), a couple of outline ideas on how to present all of this...and wondering why.

The problem is beyond "where to start".  I think most of us that read studies for fun and for work can poke a hole in some aspect of virtually any study...especially if it involves bees (if for no other reason that it didn't include enough bees).

We do often play "gotcha" here on bee-l, pointing out a single objection in a 7 page study (sometimes that single objection is very important, other times not).

The problem (it seems to me) is that there are dozens of problems...and the problematic outcomes are used to support the next flawed assumption or statement of fact.

I think there are problems with imidacloprid...and in cases where there is no good data (like the tree injections for ALB in my neck of the woods), or in cases where there is good data (like in the case of planter dust), I'm outspoken.

It is repugnant to me that I find myself spending my time (and a lot of it....when a beekeeper with a B.S. in saxophone performance gives a public talk criticizing a study by a phd harvard faculty member _right_ across the street from the Harvard University campus, the facts better be accurate and organized so that they speak for themselves) essentially defending the pesticide industry from a bogus attacks...but TRUTH demands it.

...more soon.

deknow

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