Todd wrote:

> I'm much more worried about synergistic
>possibilities resulting from synthetic pesticides than I am from natural
>sources.

        This is only a crude rule of thumb; some natural poisons e.g
aflatoxins are much worse than some synthetics.
        Another rule of thumb is that halogen (chlorine or bromine or
fluorine) atoms bonded to carbon should be treated as a warning flag.

...

>Time and again, synthetics previously thought to be "absolutely
>safe" have been found to have very tragic effects.  A few notables to come
>to mind:  Thalidamide, DDT, etc.

        I agree fully.


> we probably know a hell of a lot less
>than we think we do about effects of synthetic compounds on the world around
>us, and the little we do know usually comes from painful realizations after
>the fact.

        After 3 decades of teaching, campaigning, & advising NZ govts, I
couldn't put it better.
        Bees are almost certainly more susceptible to infections, parasites
etc because they're weakened by sub-lethal dosages of numerous chemicals.
I believe synergism is the rule rather than the exception, so toxicity
measurements on one chemical will in general be only a v loose guide to
what it will do to bees that are taking in a cocktail of other chemicals (
+ radiations).
        If these principles were properly implemented, bee carcasses would
be assayed routinely for a suite of chemicals (the list being revised from
time to time), in much the way truck oils are analysed for copper, iron,
etc as indices of wear.
        But the threatened bee labs will not, on past trends, get funded to
measure potential evidence against the powerful companies of what Goldsmith
calls "a criminal industry".

R