>
> >What's special is the lack of an experience curve.
> Those "natural" toxic substances have been around long enough to have been
> proven by millions of years and millions of encounters to not be the cause
> of a ubiquitous problem.


I am not at all discounting that xenochemicals can be the cause of
environmental problems.  However, the synthetic pesticides typically have
modes of action that are not new--most if not all are based upon existing
"natural" toxins.  True that they are developed with slight tweaks to
binding chemistry.

But again we stray into supposition of "what could happen."  Such was
useful many years ago when neonics were first introduced.  But now we have
many years of experience which should clearly show any direct link between
measureable exposure to the products and subsequent colony health.

 There is now plenty of actual field data, as well the the results of
innumerable trials in which researchers have attempted to create colony
mortality by exposing bees to neonics.  Perhaps we can now move from
supposition to analysis of actual data.

For example, recent data suggests that neonics have a greater adverse
effects upon bumblebees than honey bees.  This is not a result of belief
systems or taking positions--the finding is the result of good scientific
studies.  May I suggest that we stick to such analyses?

-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

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