> As I saw it, the issue was the Harvard study did not and
> could not identify what the actual dose was for the bees in the colony.

That is merely one point, but the original discussions here highlighted 
a long list of flaws and fallacies.  We did not begin to cover them all. 
  There are simply too many to discuss intelligently and what is the 
point  It boggles the mind. Where to start?

If this 'study' did not have the Harvard name attached, it would have 
never merited discussion and IMO would never have received any attention 
except, possibly, on some fringe websites.  If this stunt accomplished 
anything, it highlighted the valid question of how seriously we should 
take any work coming out of Harvard institutions or published papers now 
that we have had a glimpse of the quality control on a topic we know a 
little about?

There are many dedicated, well-equipped and informed bee scientists 
working long and hard on the issues this paper purports to examine. 
They are examining and testing in detail these very difficult fine 
points, avoiding rash announcements -- and they do not get a tenth the 
attention that this publicity stunt did.  Pity.  Double pity.

IMO, that is the real issue. It appears to me that someone with no deep 
understanding of the issue did a quick and dirty, and somewhat ad hoc 
stunt, then claimed a spotlight and announced a bogus proof to the 
gullible media while the real work by real bee scientists progresses 
slowly and methodically with integrity and little publicity.

If I understand correctly, and correct me if I am wrong because I am 
doing my best to forget this sad episode -- the authors of the paper 
claim or imply they have established a proof of a cause of CCD when all 
they did was poison some bees with a massive dose of a product that 
everyone knows will kill bees when administered directly to them.

Apparently all they proved was that it takes a lot more of the product 
to kill the colony when administered the way they did it than they 
expected -- and more than most of us would have thought.

IMO, picking on one of the obviously questionable assumptions among that 
tangled mess is a distraction from the fact that this is a textbook 
example of claiming to prove a hypothesis without actually doing so.

There is no doubt that knowing how insecticides are encountered and 
experienced by individual bees is central to understanding if and how 
the pesticides are having more impact that their proponents want us to 
believe, but the sooner we forget this distraction and the attending 
publicity and direct our attention to the serious and informed work that 
is progressing on these matters, the better -- IMO.

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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm