Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:15:45 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Peter said:.
>. If someone knows where the smoking gun is, they had
better produce it. Otherwise it all boils down to finger pointing.
The smoking gun is spoke about on pages 100 and 101 of the book "A Spring
Without Bees" . Of course many of us had already done their homework on IMD
before the book was published.
The below from the EPA website:
From 1997 to 2001 there were 48 section 18's issued for IMD. The number
doubled to 115 section 18 requests from 2002 to 2007.
These old section 18's are important when looking at IMD because IMD can
accumulate in the soil.
The web provides access to the EPA's own section 18 database. so anyone can
see when the heavy buildup starts in a state. Don't take my word for the
above go look for yourselves.
The below states reported no CCD and also had no section 18's for IMD.
Consider the state of Vermont., with no reported cases of CCD, (according to
the published CCD survey) even though surrounded by the CCD states of New
York, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. The EPA section 18 database for
Vermont says no issued section 18's for Vermont.
Consider Maine with no reported CCD cases. EPA website says no approved
section 18's for Maine.
Consider New Mexico with no reported CCD cases. EPA website says no section
18's for IMD approved.
Consider Nebraska with no reported CCD cases. EPA website says no section
18's issued for Nebraska.
Consider Nevada with no CCD - no IMD section 18's
Consider Louisiana with no CCD -no section 18's for IMD
Consider Alabama with no CCD -no IMD
Consider Kansas with no CCD=no IMD
Consider Rhode island with no CCD -no IMD
Consider California which seemed to have the most CCD and was the state with
the most section 18's issued for IMD. When you look at the CCD survey and
then at the EPA website you easily see that the state with the section 18's
for IMD are also the states with the most reported CCD.
Simply a coincidence or a smoking gun?
Consider many beekeepers from out of state sent hives they had checked for
mites and strength into California and found those same hives dead or dying
within two weeks. Nothing new was found in those bees. So what killed those
hives? Many of us believe that only a pesticide could have killed a semi
load of strong hives so fast. However with the bees dead in the field proof
is hard to find. many of us see a pattern of losing bees when we enter areas
with the most section 18's for IMD. Now IMD has full registration.
Many on BEE-L ask the way IMD could be brought into our agriculture without
many tests done?
IMD was brought into use through a much abused loophole in the pesticide law
section 18.
the above quoted source material from page 100/101 of the book "A Spring
Without Bees" by Michael Schacker copyright May of 2008. Taken from the CCD
working group CCD survey and from the EPA section 18 database.
bob
***********************************************
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
|
|
|