since we seem to be calling one another to the carpet for every comment:
from bjorn's first post in this thread:
And while the chemicals could be found in foundation, there seems to not be enough to harm the bees.
really? no one but you seems to be making that claim, and your data, while interesting, shows no such thing. can you cite one researcher, one study that shows that the amount of miticides found in foundation is not enough to harm bees (hint: since you don't seem to know the levels or range of levels found in foundation, it would be difficult show that it isn't enough to harm bees).
whatever chemicals there are in foundation, a good bit is en-capsulized.
can you qualify what you mean by encapsulated, and more importantly, what the implications are for "encapsulated miticides" (hint: your own data doesn't address this at all given that you have no idea if there were any encapsulated miticides....please cite something publihsed and/or insightful...and let's stay away from the AFB spores, they are orders of magnitude larger than molecules of miticides, and AFB spores are not volitile).
from bjorn's link to his thoughts on this topic (on his website...given also in his first post in this thread):
This once visited topic of what was causing CCD quickly moved on to other areas of interest.
...yet, last time i spoke with Marryann (the one who originally "visited" this topic), she said it was probably time to do more foundation testing to see if things had improved. this is hardly "moving on"....it remains a subject of interest.
If commercial wax was tainted enough to make bees sick and even die, that internal levels of chemicals would certainly be seen in such things as bee spit, which is used to help form the balls of pollen as they collect from the field.
perhaps...and perhaps not. do you have any research, any data to support the above?
And while we could further test the comb, just in case we actually purchased what could be only suggested as the only "Clean" commercial wax on the market, that would of been very unlikely.
really? in 2008 (when you did this test), the team at penn state had tested 5 samples of foundation from 5 different suppliers. this is certainly enough evidence to be concerned...but certainly not enough evidence to collect the data you collected and reasonably assume that the foundation you are starting with is contaminated, or contaminated at low, average, or high levels compared with what is generally available. this is the kind of assumption that you would blast others for making, and you seem to have built a rather large structure over this flawed foundation.
After all, we were told that any chemical enough to effect bees, would be seen internally, and would show in testing of bee spit via collected pollen. None was found.
who told you this? where did you read this? was there a relevant context?
We have found that any small amounts of chemicals encased in wax and used for foundation, is not contaminating brood or bees.
first, you don't know if there was any, a small amount, or large amount of miticides in the wax used in the foundation you tested.
second, do you really find it inconceivable that brood could be negatively affected by miticides in the wax (as they are raised in very close proximity and/or contact with wax, and fed by house bees that are surrounded with wax, producing wax, and presumably working with already produced wax) and, at the same time, these miticides are not present in measurable amounts in "bee spit" of pollen foragers? if your assumptions here are accurate, then all the studies being done can be more efficient by only testing the pollen, and assuming that levels found there will accurately correlate with what is found in bees, brood, brood food, wax, etc. ...you've just saved the bee research industry millions of dollars.....NOT