I have no data to add to this discussion but do have a concern for when you start to run your statistical analysis.  This will not be as simple as comparing death rates before and after the incidence of AHB.  You will have to account for the changing demographics of the areas around the colonies.  Given the trends toward gentrification of once rural areas, any changes in death rates may simply be a reflection of changes in exposure patterns - more civilians in contact with bees of either type.

Alternatively, the reported downward trend in feral colonies and suburban beekeeping could be instead reducing civilian exposure leading to a theorized increased sensitivity and a more severe (that is, lethal) reaction when they finally do get stung.

The only control I can think of is to take your data from a single consistent time-period and select your datapoints across separate geographies - some AHB, some EHB.  If I remember the most recent statistics correctly, less than US 20 deaths per year are attributable to all forms of "bee" stings (including wasps, etc.).  Presumably, only a subset of that number are attributable to honeybees.  Given the very low numbers, I'm skeptical that a sufficiently large sample size exists to compensate for the simultaneous variances in exposure patterns.

I agree that we should challenge the "common knowledge" that AHB leads to an increase in stinging deaths.  However, I don't hold out much hope for a study proving it one way or the other.


Mike Rossander
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---