> What would likely be spoken of would the the NOAEL > --the "no observed adverse effects level." A synonym is "NOEC", the "No Observed Effect Concentration", and just in time for the holidays, the "NOEL", or "No Observable Effect Level" From what I've seen there are a number of papers that dosed bees below the official NOEC level, but still claimed harm. But I'm not worried about proving "no harm" or "harm". What I'm interested in is the signal-to-noise ratio of the set of papers that claim harm is done at sublethal levels, at doses that could be found (or accumulated) from actual foraging. >Many of us are very well acquainted with all the studies > that you are listing. Then please contribute to the graph! Here is the data entry form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1CGxVE5msC2PTtj-SL4oKhrxuUObkCL_U5IipdC_moT4 /viewform or http://tinyurl.com/l5m5gt2 And here is the spreadsheet of data entered, so anyone can graph away, or review the data. Read-only, but you can download and manipulate your own copy. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ag93GEEd2LAydDM4SzBRcU5OX21rdVI yaTktVGNVeFE&usp=sharing or http://tinyurl.com/lvlrb6f If anyone has any comments or critique, email me, and I will tweak the form. > However, I've yet to see compelling > on-the-ground evidence that the > neonics are the prime problem facing bees. And I would not look to beekeepers to be the ones to detect and report such subtle impact, except when a clear and compelling "pesticide kill" hits them. *********************************************** 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