>
> >The point I tried to make was that there is the respectful opinion of
> yours and
> others and the opinion of men as Henry, Tennekes, Whithehorn, Bonmatin, ...
> which results you always reject.


Ghislain, may I respectfully say that you could not be more wrong!  It is
patently untrue for you to say that I "always reject" the opinions of those
researchers.

I read all of their papers with great interest and an open mind.  With many
of them, I then engage in lengthy correspondence to go over their data,
methods, and conclusions.  For example, months prior to the recent
publication by Tennekes and Sanchez-Bayo, the author forwarded me an
advance copy of the paper, and we discussed it at length.

Your example of Henry's paper is good to look at.  It was impartially
reviewed by EFFSA and found to be deficient.  I found his data to be of
great interest, but had problems with his conclusions.  His model is
completely unsupported by the simple field observation that colonies
foraging upon treated canola produce large crops of honey!  That fact
falsifies his hypothesis.  Nevertheless, his findings should be kept in
mind that neonics at some dose rate will affect foraging behavior.

Re Whitehorn, I wrote in my review:
"Whitehorn (2012) found that bumblebee colonies fed realistic doses of
imidacloprid gained less weight and produced fewer queens.  This finding is
of great interest, since solitary- and bumblebee colonies are more likely
to be affected by pesticides than would be honey bees (due to the
population reserve in the honey bee colony).  This is of special concern,
since native pollinators are already suffering greatly from habitat
disturbance and introduced pathogens."

Ghislain, do my words above sound like I "rejected" his opinion?

Re Bonmatin, I've cited his findings accurately, since he collected
excellent residue data.  Yet his own data do not support the conclusion
that residues in pollen are above the no observed effects level.

On the other hand, I do reject any pro-pesticide opinions that are not
supported by facts.  I recently wrote about the apparent problems with
diflubenzuron and bee brood, and am currently engaged in fact-checking the
manufacturer's data.

I agree with many authors who criticize the pro-pesticide camp, and am
citing Krupke's criticism of seed treatment in my current article in prep.
 I've come out strongly against the problems with planting dust.  I've come
out strongly against the problems with bee kills from pesticide application.

Ghislain, rather that painting me as someone who "rejects" others'
opinions, you'd be more accurate as painting me as someone who actually
checks and double checks the facts.  What surprises me is that those on the
anti-neonic bandwagon don't bother to look at the lethal and sublethal
effects of the other insecticides to which bees are commonly exposed (note
this omission in the recent study on aquatic invertebrates, in which the
authors completely ignored all the other pesticide data that they had at
hand, and which would have likely been much more meaningful).

Ghislain, I respect your efforts to bring every possible anti-neonic
"opinion" to our attention.  However, may I suggest that you broaden your
horizons and realize that bees are suffering from many pesticides and
pollutants.  The single-minded focus solely upon the neonics distracts us
from the bigger picture.

-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

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