>> artificial feeder and the hive. Fipronil was selected as test substance >Typical of the forced exposure studies we have come >to expect from the academic community and which will >be ignored by EPA pesticide regulators since they are >not representative of actual real world exposures. They may well be ignored, but if they are, it won't be because they are "not representative of actual real world exposures." It would be because they are inconvenient and conflict with the conclusions which have already beeen reached and incompatible and ongoing marketing and planting plans. Vast amounts of product is already in the pipeline. These studies are plausible analogs and should not be ignored, because they are controllable whereas any real world experiments I am aware of are flawed by their nature. Exposures are very difficult to control and monitor except on a gross level. Good science requires that dosages be controlled and that the effects be monitored. The ability to monitor the effects of measured doses on individual bees is very important and is bound to provide insight that may be elusive otherwise. There are numerous studies underway from what I hear and I am quite certain they will combine to show us what is really happening. If the EPA pesticide regulators choose to ignore such studies as you suggest, it will be a crime. If on the other hand, they do pay attention, and take these studies for what they are worth, and act according to what is shown -- whatever that turns out to be -- then they will be doing their job. *********************************************** 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