Hi Randy,

"The new plant protection chemistries indeed appear to be improvements over the old. "

There are a lot of questions I could ask about your entire statement, but I'll pick this one.

So some old chemistries are persistent in the environment (like DDT, some organophosphates, etc.)

Others are acute and transient.

Most data on neonics shows that they are persistent and harmful at sublethal levels.

Using the traditional methods that are still being employed, we don't have a good metric
 for looking at the overall harm caused by pesticides that have subacute, sublethal, and
persistent effects.

So...what are the data showing that the new plant protection chemistries are better?
There is argument over whether short-lived queens, less-productive colonies, and heavier
IPM needs indicate that our bees are in distress, or not, and why.  How can you say that
the new chemistries aren't a key problem here?

How and why are they better than short-lived acute pesticides that kill everything immediately?

Christina








Christina Wahl, Ph.D.
Department of Biomedical Sciences
Cornell College of Veterinary Medicine
Ithaca, NY 14853

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