>> >As far as imidacloprid is concerned I say where there's smoke there's
>> >fire.
> Problem is, where there is often a great deal of imidacloprid smoke, we
> don't see any fire, in the form of colony collapses.
Collapse is an extreme instance and can bee seen in direct contact
situations, so obviously the second writer has discounted them.
The problem we all suspect is that the damage is generally slight, but
constant and ubiquitous, especially in agricultural situations. It is a tax
on bee fitness.
Although bee colonies may not be driven to collapse in most cases, many of
us suspect that they are being weakened a little here, there, and
everywhere.
The chemicals are found everywhere and they are advertised to weaken insects
to the point where pathogens overtake them. Why would we doubt the
advertising?
By how much to they tax hives overall? 0.00001?, 0.0001%?, 0.001%?, 0.01%?,
0.1%?, 1%?, 10%?
Obviously this effect is not evenly distributed, but many of us are sure it
is there.
What does it take to weaken colonies to the point where they are vulnerable
to other damage?
Nobody knows, except maybe the people who developed the insecticides.
At any rate the post was an expression of opinion, and thus really not
debatable IMO. We can argue with facts, but how can we argue with opinion?
***********************************************
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
|