I wrote

> But if it is so easy, why is there no evidence in the field that there is a
> major problem? All those beekeepers who suspect it could send samples for
> analysis and have a wonderful class action lawsuit. Easy.
>

Bil wrote:
 Traces at this level cannot be found “fairly easily”. (picograms and ppt
was the point)

The paper cited says:

> Once we were able to measure very low doses of imidacloprid in pollen,
> we saw that the concentration bio-available is of the order of
> one microgram per kg of pollen.
>

From that concentration the picogram dose was determined.

So the concentrations can be determined down to the microgram level (10E-6)
and even down to the nanogram level (10E-9)

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf904120n

The imid in the study is in ppm and from that interpolated down to
picograms, not ppt. Which gets us back to the main point that concentrations
of Imid at ppm can be found fairly easily (granted it requires the proper
lab equipment- you are not going to do it in your back yard, and it is
expensive). You can even find it at ppb.

There are other problems that need addressing, but my mind still resting
from all the twists to get nano, micro, pico and negative exponents
straight. Plus figuring out what volumes would have to be ingested to get
one ppt. Much easier when we find it was ppm.

With the study Randy dissected on pesticides in the hive, Imid does not seem
to be a major player.

Bill Truesdell (then again, I still may not have it straight.)
Bath, Maine

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

Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L