Peter said:.
>. If someone knows where the smoking gun is, they had
better produce it. Otherwise it all boils down to finger pointing.

The smoking gun is spoke about on pages 100 and 101 of the book "A Spring 
Without Bees" . Of course many of us had already done their homework on IMD 
before the book was published.

The below from the EPA website:
From 1997 to 2001 there were 48 section 18's issued for IMD. The number 
doubled to 115 section 18 requests from 2002 to 2007.

 These old section 18's are important when looking at IMD because IMD can 
accumulate in the soil.

The web provides access to the EPA's own section 18 database. so anyone can 
see when the heavy buildup starts in a state. Don't take my word for the 
above go look for yourselves.

The below states reported no CCD and also had no section 18's for IMD.

Consider the state of Vermont., with no reported cases of CCD, (according to 
the published CCD survey) even though surrounded by the CCD states of New 
York, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. The EPA section 18 database for 
Vermont says no issued section 18's for Vermont.
Consider Maine with no  reported CCD cases. EPA website says no approved 
section 18's for Maine.
Consider New Mexico with no reported CCD cases. EPA website says no section 
18's for IMD approved.
Consider Nebraska with no reported CCD cases. EPA website says no section 
18's issued for Nebraska.
Consider Nevada with no CCD - no IMD section 18's
Consider Louisiana  with no CCD -no section 18's for IMD
Consider Alabama  with no CCD -no IMD
Consider Kansas with no CCD=no IMD
Consider Rhode island  with no CCD -no IMD

Consider California which seemed to have the most CCD and was the state with 
the most section 18's issued for IMD. When you look at the CCD survey and 
then at the EPA website you easily see that the state with the section 18's 
for IMD are also the states with the most reported CCD.

Simply a coincidence or a smoking gun?

Consider many beekeepers from out of state sent hives they had checked for 
mites and strength into California and found those same hives dead or dying 
within two weeks.  Nothing new was found in those bees. So what killed those 
hives? Many of us believe that only a pesticide could have killed a semi 
load of strong hives so fast. However with the bees dead in the field proof 
is hard to find. many of us see a pattern of losing bees when we enter areas 
with the most section 18's for IMD. Now IMD has full registration.

Many on BEE-L ask the way IMD could be brought into our agriculture without 
many tests done?

IMD was brought into use through a much abused loophole in the pesticide law 
section 18.

the above quoted source material from page 100/101 of the book "A Spring 
Without Bees" by Michael Schacker copyright May of 2008. Taken from the CCD 
working group CCD survey and from the EPA section 18 database.

bob

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