>
> >Most reading studies can make up their own mind about if the study was
> done correctly with controls etc.


I doubt that Bob!  Funny, but I just finished sending off a correspondence
with a researcher who has a study in press that I pointed out a serious flaw
in.  None of the five authors, nor the reviewers caught the flaw.

I will soon be publishing an article pointing out serious flaws in several
of the studies on the neonics.  These flaws work both ways--both in studies
purportedly finding problems due to neonic exposure, and also in those not
concluding that there were toxic effects.  It is no wonder that the subject
is so confusing!

>Always wonder what effect queens and colony differences play in the
results.

These effects are only the tip of the iceberg!  Recent findings about the
bee immune response, viruses, nosema, etc make me question many of the
findings in bee research, simply because researchers didn't have any way of
knowing about variables that they should be controlling for.

Randy Oliver
Sierra Foothills

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