?From the study:
>... Colonies were placed in the middle of 1-ha clothianidin seed-treated or
>control canola fields for 3 wk during bloom, and thereafter they were moved to
>a fall apiary... Overall, no differences in bee mortality, worker longevity,
>or brood development occurred between control and treatment groups... Little
>alternative forage was available to workers while in canola fields, and
>workers actively foraged on the canola.
I wonder about the words, "little" and Overall". I also wonder how the data
was statistically analysed. I have grown increasingly suspicious of the use of
statistical analysis to tease meaning from seemingly chaotic data. I also
wonder what data was selected and the reasons for the selections. Data from
such experiments *always* contains flaws due to method, omissions, oversights,
errors, accidents, etc. For example, and without speculating further about
more complex dilemmas, how are simple exceptions like queenlessness and colony
disease or death handled?
Seems to me, also, that by limiting the time in the contact zone and using such
a small zone on one specific soil with no history known for the soil -- or the
bees, that there is a lot we do not know, and that although this is a good
quick-and-dirty test, all it proves is that these , at this time, under these
conditions, did not demonstrate any adverse effects gross enough for these
researchers to ascertain.
Then there is this:
> Exposure to Clothianidin Seed-Treated Canola Has No Long-Term Impact on Honey
> Bees.
If this was a direct quote from the study summary, it is a dead giveaway that
this is PR, not science.
No real scientist would ever make a categorical claim like that.
***********************************************
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
Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm
|
