>> artificial feeder and the hive. Fipronil was selected as 
test substance

>Typical of the forced exposure studies we have come
>to expect from the academic community and which will
>be ignored by EPA pesticide regulators since they are
>not representative of actual real world exposures.

They may well be ignored, but if they are, it won't be because
they are "not representative of actual real world exposures." 
It would be because they are inconvenient and conflict with 
the conclusions which have already beeen reached and
incompatible and ongoing marketing and planting plans.  
Vast amounts of product is already in the pipeline.

These studies are plausible analogs and should not be 
ignored, because they are controllable whereas any real 
world experiments I am aware of are flawed by their nature.
Exposures are very difficult to control and monitor except 
on a gross level.  

Good science requires that dosages be controlled and 
that the effects be monitored.  The ability to monitor 
the effects of measured doses on individual bees is very
important and is bound to provide insight that may be 
elusive otherwise.

There are numerous studies underway from what I hear
and I am quite certain they will combine to show us 
what is really happening.

If the EPA pesticide regulators choose to ignore such 
studies as you suggest, it will be a crime.

If on the other hand, they do pay attention, and take
these studies for what they are worth, and act according 
to what is shown -- whatever that turns out to be -- then 
they will be doing their job.

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