is very likely to have a causal link to the presence of the corn pollen
collected from the surrounding treated cornfields. "


I have to tell you,  After spending  over an hour on this,  I would have to
call hogwash.   You get 1% corn pollen  and you blame it for mite loads and
neonics causing BCQV???

If I was Dennis or Randy,  I would say there was a nearby mite bomb that
went off.




"But there wasn't any difference in mite loads to begin with. The error bars
in Figure 4 overlap for the first assessment (July). So they started with
the same overall mite loads."



Nonsense  you can't use standard deviation to make one claim,  and then
ignore it in your conclusion.


There is a difference in mite loads.  Play the games with statistics,  but
if you're  in science  and your mite testing skills are that bad,  you need
a new career.  PERIOD.  

ESPECIALY if your conclusion is based on it.



How do you get published with a sketch conclusion, Data the shows nothing,
and a 1% corn sample in 3 out of 32 hives???

Has science really stooped that low?  

My math skills are horrid,  but I can see there is huge problem with  this
study.

The weird thing is had then done some real work  its plausible that
Pesticide contamination could effect overall mite load.  Just not in the
time frame they allotted.  Do a little mite math and you see it doesn't
work.




Thanks for the explanation Christina,  I do appreciate it.....  I would say
that would be one other detriment to this work,  seems they didn't proof
their own charts.

Charles

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