> Did you even read the paper at the url I posted?  

Yes.
The paper said, very clearly: "In the first 
experiment, a worker (donor) was topically 
applied with a droplet containing a mixture 
of 500 ppm radioactive imidacloprid..."

> Your posting in reply to mine was full of rhetoric

I was trying to be gentle, and give a hint about
the massive scale of difference between "not
detectable at the parts-per-billion or parts-per-
trillion" level, which is what we are finding in 
samples taken from CCD cases, and a whopping 
massive dose of 500 ppm (parts-per-million) directly 
applied to a termite.

You didn't take my hint, so you said:

> but did not actually address anything in my post 
> with facts

So I'll be less subtle - you described the dose 
given the termites as:

> the tiny dosage they received (so tiny it is frightening)

How could anyone call a 500 ppm dose applied 
directly to a single termite "tiny"?

To go further, the scheme where "Premise" kills a termite
colony requires a crucial step to never fail.  The termites 
that pick up the stuff have to BRING IT BACK TO THE COLONY.  
This means that the pesticide would be found in EVERY colony 
of termites killed by the pesticide.

It also means that the pesticide had better not cause any
navigation problems or create any tendency for termites 
to abandon their nest, as they want the maximum number of
foragers to complete their foraging missions and deliver the
poison to the nest.  Does this sound like "CCD" to anyone?  
It sure doesn't to me.


But let's go on - let me provide some more facts.
Please recall that you demanded facts.  :)

For those who didn't pay attention at the time, Stan is a 
beekeeper from Prince Edward Island, where the sailing is 
wonderful once the fog lifts at about 10am every morning, 
and the steamed clams are cheap enough to feast upon every night.

Stan petitioned for the ban of "Admire" (imidacloprid used in
a ground drench on potatoes) in the 2001 timeframe.

Jim Kemp of U of PEI and Dick Rogers of Wildwood Labs did a 
residue study that found "no exposure" (residues below the
detection limit, which at that time was 0.3 parts-per-billion) 
for bees foraging in fields rotated from potatoes where Admire 
had been used.  

They did a follow up multifactor study of what was actually
affecting bee health and cited a long list of management 
issues impacting Stan's bees, which in sum offered a much 
more plausible explanation of the problems Stan was having
than any sort of pesticide kill from ground drench sprayed
on potato fields.

Sharon Labchuk, the person who spread the oft-repeated
misinformed and incorrect claims that "organic beekeepers"
weren't suffering from CCD also comes from PEI, so it seems
fairly clear that there are a number of people on PEI who
feel that they have unsettled business with growers over
their choices of pesticides, yet lack any data other than
data that undercuts their claims.

There's the facts as they stand - I am happy to offer what I can.

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************