> Why the fuss over bees? Is the U.S. in the midst of a bee-pocalypse? The
> science says no. 
> 
> Yet there is only circumstantial or flawed experimental evidence of harm
> to bees by neonics. 
-----------------------------------------------

Sorry to be distrusting, but I do not know this gentleman.  I don't know
his credentials other than MD.  Does ne work well in a beeyard? Can he
spell APIS?  I am always distrustful of those who are so sure they know the
answers.  (Shakespeare wisely was also!)

I am a rather well formed beekeeper consumer with a reasonable background
in the sciences.  I read a lot on the bee problem.... or lack of problem. 
To me saying neonics are the problem with bees does not make sense.  Yet,
saying that neonics are not a part of the problem does not make sense
either.  I see little value in this essay because it simply says stop
looking and you won't find a problem.

As I recall OJ was found not guilty because the evidence was
circumstantial and Dr. Mudd went to jail on circumstantial evidence. Likely
most would wonder about both decisions.  Circumstantial means one needs to
look more to know the answer.  I reject that we should stop looking at our
bee situation because the evidence is circumstantial.  

Well, getting off the soap box I will return to my bees.

Larry Krengel 
Marengo, IL USA

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