The discussion seems to have turned from "pesticides" into an excellent
example of how to not have a civil and productive discussion. 

> When I said: "Occasional smoking is probably no more dangerous 
> than an occasional visit to New York City or Los Angeles" it was 
> not to say NYC is harmful but rather that occasional smoking is not. 

Disparagement of either city, when one has neither lived in, nor kept bees
in either, is unreasonable.
Comparing any act to smoking, even to occasional smoking, is a harsh
condemnation.

> A ten minute search of the literature produced ample evidence linking the
urban environment with health issues...

The use of the Google Confirmation Bias machine to find a single study of
unknown provenance and context is also unacceptable, as it is not an actual
honest effort to "survey the literature" on the subject, but instead, a
desperate keyword-driven attempt to support a rash statement or extreme
claim that was itself peripheral to the issue at hand.

Here is the rash statement that was being supported:

> The impact of smoking on non-smokers has been grossly exaggerated.

It is not just false, it is in direct contradiction to the well-established
scientific consensus:
For example, the statement of the World Health Organization:
http://www.who.int/features/qa/60/en/

and the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/heal
th_effects/
http://tinyurl.com/79poxjs

and the Office of the Surgeon General of the USA:
www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/secondhandsmoke/fullreport.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/lf3rlu5

and the European Agency for Safety and Health:
https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/e-facts/efact60-tobacco-advice-for-no
n-smokers-on-health-effects
http://tinyurl.com/ny2vxr6

and  everyone in any position of responsibility and authority over the issue
of health, anywhere.
There are zero health officials who think that second-hand smoke is anything
but bad enough to justify even draconian laws against smoking.
To put this into context, Spain banned all public smoking in 2011, but did
not ban bullfighting until 2012.

To get BACK to pesticides, the EPA's statement that seed treatments on
soybeans were of marginal value prompts one to wonder if seed treatments are

"oversold" as more than protection against root pests, such as the European
Corn Root Borer.  It prompts questions as to the amount of pesticide that
has to be deployed to combat invasive species, when noting is being done
about the underlying problem of invasive species being spread by all the
World Trade with which everyone continues to be enamored.

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