> It would be helpful to know exactly what's killing them instead of just assuming the reason is obvious. We will never know "exactly", as much as, conceptual

> It would be helpful to know exactly what's killing them instead of just assuming the reason is obvious. We will never know "exactly", as much as, conceptually, we'll never have "complete" security in computer systems. Especially when one of the big players is a corporation who's very glad to sell contaminated products. Do you really think that they're keen on finding the "truth" (a reasonable one) about neonicotinoids? I'm sure they're already very active in obfuscating research. Besides, in a context where pesticides usage is alarming (or extensive to say the list), why should should be allowed to use something until it's "exactly" proved as harmful, instead of preventing it until it's "exactly" proven as harmless? Of course, reality is more complex, but again, in context, the first option should not be obvious or granted.