> This may have been written by Bayer, but it appears objective 
> (or as objective as wiki can be).

The problem with the various "wiki"s about beekeeping is that
they tend to be "resistant" to correction on even simple issues 
of fact.  Go ahead, slog through an entry, and then try to edit
it to correct any one of the many obvious errors.

Within hours, it is re-edited, restoring the inaccurate 
information, and your edit is gone.  "Objective"?  It seems
that the egos are large and delicate over there.

So much for wikis.  :)

As for the experience in France, the blame placed upon 
Imidaclopid may have been misplaced.  The reason that 
the pesticide was "banned" was the "precautionary 
principle", which puts the burden of proof on the company 
making or selling a pesticide.  The ban was a political
decision, and may have not been supported by good science,
but the "precautionary principle" expects the company
that wants to make a profit selling poisons to provide the
"good science" proving that their products are harmless.

That said, tests on caged bees will not reveal many 
"behavioral problems", as bees in a cage have no ability 
to engage in the full range of their normal daily activities.  

Likewise, the widespread use of the pesticide implies 
that the pesticide alone, any pesticide alone, can't 
be the sole cause and trigger for CCD. A combination 
of factors seems to be required to trigger the appearance 
of CCD.

> I would love to see the study (uncited) after Imidaclopid 
> was banned in France that showed no difference in bee 
> mortality two years later.

The citation is below:

Faucon, Clément, Dajnudel, Mathieu, Ribière, Martel, Zeggane, 
Chauzat, Aubert (2005)
"Experimental study on the toxicity of imidacloprid given 
in syrup to honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies". 
Pest Management Science; 61 (2), 111-125.

In the study, they exposed bee colonies to 0.5 or 5 ppb 
imidacloprid in sugar syrup for a time period that would 
equal the bloom period of sunflowers, and tracked the 
gestalt "health" of the hives for the rest of the summer,
the winter, and the following spring. They saw no difference 
between untreated control colonies and the colonies fed the 
imidacloprid-laced "nectar".

The problem I have with the study is that they fed imidacloprid
itself, rather than the metabolites of imiadcloprid that would
result from plant metabolization of imiadcloprid, and appear in
nectar and pollen.  It would have been easier to plant some 
actual sunflower seed treated with the seed treatment(s), and 
keep the bees on those blooms with the usual large "greenhouse" 
covered with screening.

If you read the papers by Severine Suchail and his group, you
find that looking for imiadcloprid itself in bees is off-target.
Looking for the results of plant metabolization (olefin and 
5-hydroxyimidacloprid) in bees is something that can be done,
but only if one looks within mere hours of ingestion.  So it 
seems clear that the process here is:

1) Plant metabolization 
2) Bee ingestion

3a) Bee metabolization of plant metabolites 
or
3b) Bee non-metabolization of plant metabolites

...and no one has yet determined what "bee metabolization"
produces, or even if the chemicals "pass through" the bees!

We know that the olefin and 5-hydroxyimidacloprid breakdown
products of imiadcloprid are not found in bees only a few 
hours after ingestion, so the stuff either passes through 
the bee without being metabolized, or is further metabolized 
into other "breakdown chemicals". 

So, the stuff is either broken down in the bee (perhaps bad)
or the stuff appears in bee fecal matter unchanged (perhaps good).

But study after study was done where the sole "data"
recorded was the "observable effects".  As if bees in a 
1-foot-square "cage" are able to show any memory/navigational
problems!  

> "Many scientists now say the chief suspect is the most commonly 
> used insecticide on the planet: Imidacloprid."

The statement is at odds with the litany being intoned 
by the specific team working on the problem.  They have been
chanting "pathogen" for quite some time over at the MAAREC
website.  They have not changed their music or lyrics yet.

"The press" and "wikis" clearly are not going to add much
value, as both have an incentive to over-simplify, and are
written by people who not only lack first-hand knowledge, 
but also have apparently not even done their homework by 
reading the literature.

In science, step one is to read the existing literature
on the subject.  All of it.  

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************