Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
October 02, 2014, 10:20:30 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: ATTENTION ALL NEW MEMBERS
PLEASE READ THIS OR YOUR ACCOUNT MAY BE DELETED - CLICK HERE
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Toxins in foundation  (Read 7235 times)
Michael Bush
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 13694


Location: Nehawka, NE


WWW
« Reply #60 on: December 10, 2010, 08:44:51 PM »

As I pointed out when I first posted it and again after that, it's about half way through the video... but IMO it seems well worth the listen to hear the whole thing.
Logged

Michael Bush
My website:  bushfarms.com/bees.htm
My book:  ThePracticalBeekeeper.com
-------------------
"Everything works if you let it."--Rick Nielsen
deknow
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 747


Location: Massachusetts


WWW
« Reply #61 on: December 10, 2010, 08:57:37 PM »

bjorn, i'd also be interested to hear what cattle dip residues were found in your pollen samples.

deknow
Logged
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #62 on: December 10, 2010, 09:43:37 PM »

As I pointed out when I first posted it and again after that, it's about half way through the video... but IMO it seems well worth the listen to hear the whole thing.

I'm completely lost MB.

She mentions finding chems in foundation. She makes no assumption, statement, or claims that chems in foundation are killing or harming bees.

Quit playing games.

In circumstances like this, many times a person can state the exact second the comments were made. Please post the exact timeframe on the video...or quit jerking people around. It's that simple.
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #63 on: December 10, 2010, 09:45:03 PM »

bjorn, i'd also be interested to hear what cattle dip residues were found in your pollen samples.

deknow

No problem. It is all listed.
Just give me some time to get the information and post.
Hopefully by Sunday.
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
Michael Bush
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 13694


Location: Nehawka, NE


WWW
« Reply #64 on: December 11, 2010, 12:20:38 AM »

>Quit playing games.

I wasn't, but I'm done with this...
Logged

Michael Bush
My website:  bushfarms.com/bees.htm
My book:  ThePracticalBeekeeper.com
-------------------
"Everything works if you let it."--Rick Nielsen
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #65 on: December 11, 2010, 08:33:03 AM »

>Quit playing games.

I wasn't, but I'm done with this...


Ah....two different requests for the timeframe of what you wanted all to hear, and your only response was nothing except something about everyone should see the whole thing. Very nice. And when I suggest you are playing games by ignoring the fact that another member is requesting a simply reply, and hopefully will save others vast amounts of time looking for something that is obviously NOT in the video, you get upset.

We have a discussion on the impacts of foundation. One where everyone here has agreed that there are chemicals foundation.

You then make a post of a video that could only be assumed to include support for the backing of proof that chemicals are harming bees. But that is not what the video is about or claims. I asked two different times for clarification of what you were suggesting by posting the video, coupled with your comment that you were surprised to "hear of the denials". Denials of what?

That video is a dated talk on research in conjunction with CDD. Yes they found chemicals. Yes, it includes foundation. Most of the talk was centered (as stated in the video) around collected comb samples of commercial hives, some with CCD and some not. Maryann made reference that chemicals were found in foundation from 5 suppliers. It didn't take a study to tell me that.

But to post this video suggesting you were making a point to the discussion at hand, and then when asked about your comments or requests to what exactly you meant, you leave taking your ball with you.

I'll ask again concerning the discussion at hand....

What  comments were you referring when you stated some were in denial?

What exact comments from the video were you referring? And to what point must of been in doubt in your mind as to what others were saying? What did Maryann state that was so important or in conflict to the discussion?

I watched the entire video. And I did not hear what you were referring. Or what I thought you were referring. And I have been asking you to provide a time stamp as to the comments in question. And you provide nothing. Thanks anyway.

Sorry for you making me feel like your playing some game. But was I so unreasonable to ask repeatedly for the timeframe of the comments, while you stand back and keep suggesting that "It's in there". Yeah, right.  rolleyes
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
Acebird
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 955


Location: Utica, NY

Just getting started


« Reply #66 on: December 11, 2010, 08:49:11 AM »

Quote
it's about half way through the video...


I think the first time you said it was about half way through her speech.  That could be anywhere.  I am new and I am not up on all the chemistry so I don't want to spend over an hour with my fingers down my throat and my eyes drooping only to miss the important part.  If it is there then please point it out.  Just read off the footage counter when you find it.

thanks.
Logged

Never thought I would do it!
Bee-Bop
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 689


Location: Southern Missouri


« Reply #67 on: December 11, 2010, 09:16:30 AM »

I'm bailing out of this thread, The Three Stooges make more sense !

Bee-Bop
Logged

" If Your not part of the genetic solution of breeding mite-free bees, then You're part of the problem "
Acebird
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 955


Location: Utica, NY

Just getting started


« Reply #68 on: December 11, 2010, 09:42:24 AM »


So road kill is safe to eat?  Come on, not all bugs are good and not all chemicals are bad.  You can't make blanket statements like that.  Ever bitten into a peach with fruit fly maggots in it?  I have, pretty gross.  How about , broccoli with aphids and caterpillars after a steaming?  Embarrassing with dinner guests.

Crap, I'm trying to bathe a cat...  tongue


I suppose if you are into eating road kill then your chances are better if the bugs will eat it than if they won't.

Broccoli ... you betcha.  Aphids you rinse off with water.  caterpillars you pick off before you steam or after you steam.  What is the worse that could happen you mistakenly eat one?  They are full of broccoli!  In all seriousness if your parents were born around 1920 then they served you this same broccoli that they got from the big named grocery store with the possibility of bugs but no chemicals.  It wasn't a problem then it is only a problem now because the chemical companies  have effectively  brain washed our thinking that everything has to be sterile.  In the long run that is going to kill us because in a sterile environment we do not progressively build an immunity to anything.  You can play their game but I am not going to.

My parents lived longer than their parents.  My generation is already starting to see a decline in longevity.  My children’s generation will see a further decline as a result of all the poison they unknowingly ingest and living in a sterile environment that was thought to be a good idea compounded by a sedentary lifestyle.

I am sorry for being off topic but toxins in the bee hive are no different than toxins on our dinner plate.  They won’t kill everybody initially but over a long time they will take their toll.  Many people don’t realize that insects will never be eradicated by toxins where as humans could very easily be eradicated by toxins.  Oh, as long as I have gone off the deep end it is exactly the same for weeds for anyone that gardens.  Get you’re a$$ out there and mechanically remove them.  It will do you good long before the fruits and flowers come.







Logged

Never thought I would do it!
deknow
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 747


Location: Massachusetts


WWW
« Reply #69 on: December 11, 2010, 10:39:10 AM »

since we seem to be calling one another to the carpet for every comment:

from bjorn's first post in this thread:

Quote
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).

Quote
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):

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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

deknow
Logged
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #70 on: December 11, 2010, 11:29:07 AM »

deknow, I have been truthfull of my own thoughts.
And you have already nitpicked items such as I did not test the foundation ahead of time.
Sorry I went on other suggestions that all foundation was tainted. And to date, it all has been.

No matter what, I'm sure you would have something to pick at.
Now, it's just going round and round at this point.

I said what I did, and what I didn't.
The rest is my own thoughts on the observations and what I have experienced.
I could care less what you think is adequate or inadequate.
I'm not out to write a book on the matter.  Wink

Going back to the beginning and dragging out points you already made, is becoming old.

That's the problem with beekeepers in the field who are trying to make a difference. Doing small tests, making observations known, and trying to pass along information, will always be seen as inadequate because some larger and more expensive approach was not taken or feasible.

I said I would post the results of my testing on what I can only assume to be tainted foundation, and too which every other sample ever tested has been shown to be...tainted.

Throw some money my way and help me out. I'll test the foundation next time.  grin

Sorry if I don't respond to your posts from this point forward. I have a problem with "academia types" who sit and pick others who are trying to make a difference.

No offense intended. I realize there are all types.
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #71 on: December 11, 2010, 11:48:02 AM »

a recap for those following.....

MaryAnn 3 years ago found chemicals in foundation.

All samples tested to date on foundation have been tainted with chemicals.

For three years, some have been running around using this video and her statements to suggest that bees are being harmed or killed by being on commercial wax foundation. She said no such thing.

In the past three years, NOBODY has taken clean bees and placed them on tainted foundation to see what crossover tainting could be established.

I paid for my own testing, and tested what I was told was a reliable method of finding the internal level of chemical levels of bees, that being trapped pollen.

I found no beekeeper chemical residue on bees living on commercial wax foundation. (and some would suggest that I may perhaps could of bought completely clean wax.....give me a break.)

Nobody else had done a thing to establish, prove, or show whether bees are being tainted by commercial wax. But the comments have been circulating for years with absolutely NO PROOF, to promote a particular style or approach to beekeeping.

And I'm being told that what I did was not good enough.

Thanks for nothing.
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
deknow
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 747


Location: Massachusetts


WWW
« Reply #72 on: December 11, 2010, 12:31:37 PM »

deknow, I have been truthfull of my own thoughts.

yes, you have been.  unfortunately, you have also been making large baseless assumptions, basing your thoughts upon them, and then presenting your conclusions as fact.

this is exactly what you have been hounding others about.  one has to assume that either contaminants in foundation have or don't have an effect on bees.  we don't have a lot of data on which to base this assumption.  on one hand, there is irrefutable evidence that these substances (miticides) negatively affect bees when comb is contaminated.  on the other hand, you have had trapped pollen analyzed, and tell us that this somehow correlates directly with contamination in all parts and functions of the hive, and ultimately shows that this kind of exposure doesn't negatively impact bees.

Quote
And you have already nitpicked items such as I did not test the foundation ahead of time.
Sorry I went on other suggestions that all foundation was tainted. And to date, it all has been.
i'm not sure why i have to point this out to you....it seems like the kind of thing you would tell others.
earlier in this thread, you were looking for numbers...for the amount of miticides found in foundation (the penn state data doesn't appear to show this separate from other wax samples).  jennifer berry had a hard time finding "clean wax" even from foundationless comb.  is it likely that all foundation is contaminated to the same extent?  is it likely that a more heavily contaminated sample would have a greater impact on the bees?  is it reasonable to assume that the foundation you used was "typical" in it's contamination level?  (i'll answer that...no, it's not.  you can't even cite the contamination level of one single sheet of foundation, you certainly cannot have enough data to even guess at what is typical, what the range might be, and where your sample was on the continuum).
Quote
No matter what, I'm sure you would have something to pick at.
Now, it's just going round and round at this point.
are you suggesting that your "study" was perfect?  are you suggesting that we shouldn't take a critical look at the basis of your claims?  are you suggesting that you can find a single person with knowledge of bees and science that will agree with your conclusions (if all the facts are presented to them).
Quote
I said what I did, and what I didn't.
The rest is my own thoughts on the observations and what I have experienced.
I could care less what you think is adequate or inadequate.
I'm not out to write a book on the matter.  Wink
i think it's excelent that you have done these tests, and even better that you have posted the details.  what i find surprising is that you are willing to "live with" the assumptions you made, and still go on to claim things like that you tested transfer from the foundation to the bees.  my own opinion is irrelevant....can you find one knowledgable person to agree with you?

Quote
Going back to the beginning and dragging out points you already made, is becoming old.
i went "back to the beginning" because you were harping on others about the assumptions they were making.

Quote
That's the problem with beekeepers in the field who are trying to make a difference. Doing small tests, making observations known, and trying to pass along information, will always be seen as inadequate because some larger and more expensive approach was not taken or feasible.
oh please!  i applaud your efforts, but the inadequacies of the data you collected wrt the conclusions you have drawn (and presented as fact) are obvious and real.

Quote
Throw some money my way and help me out. I'll test the foundation next time.  grin
check's in the mail...



Quote
Sorry if I don't respond to your posts from this point forward. I have a problem with "academia types" who sit and pick others who are trying to make a difference.
what a whiny copout.  i'm picking on your assumptions, not you.

deknow
Logged
Scadsobees
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3198


Location: Jenison, MI

Best use of smileys in a post award.


« Reply #73 on: December 11, 2010, 01:53:08 PM »

I must have toxins in my foundation because there isn't any bugs on it.

Aphids on lettuce; not so bad.
Bugs in meat; bad!! grin
Logged

Rick
Bee-Bop
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 689


Location: Southern Missouri


« Reply #74 on: December 11, 2010, 02:12:21 PM »

FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH;

" The Hive and the Honey Bee " revised edition 1975
" Injuries to honey bees by poisoning "
"by E. Lawrence Arkins, B.S., M.S. Specialist in Entomology and Apiology, U.of Cal. Riverside "

pg. 683 par.3
----" Chlordane used  for ants will be absorbed into wax foundation, drawn comb and brood comb. When this happens, the absorbed chlordane may kill bees in colonies on which the equipment is placed  for several weeks or months. " ----

pg.684 par.1
---- "Lindane or DDVP ---Vapoa [DDVP dichlorvos ] ---- they give off fumes which are readily absorbed into bees wax and will kill all bees placed in the contaminated equipment for several months."

Of course what would Mr. Arkins know, compared to the many experts we have today. [ definition of experts -- ex, a has been, like ex wife ex husband -- sperts, little drips that come out of a faucet ]

BeeBop
Logged

" If Your not part of the genetic solution of breeding mite-free bees, then You're part of the problem "
edward
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1195


Location: BÖNAN SWEDEN

FEED ME HONEY or I`ll smash your screen !


« Reply #75 on: December 11, 2010, 02:24:33 PM »

Bee careful when you cross the bridge  beat a dead horse

http://curezone.com/forums/troll.asp

mvh edward  tongue
Logged
Acebird
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 955


Location: Utica, NY

Just getting started


« Reply #76 on: December 11, 2010, 06:50:05 PM »

Quote
Aphids on lettuce; not so bad.
Bugs in meat; bad!!

You honestly believe that there are no bugs in meat?  The meat you buy in the grocery store has had a life of antibiotics among other disease preventative regiments, then butchered, washed down with Clorox, colored so you don't know what it really looks like and may even be radiated.  The whole purpose of that regiment is to eliminate most of the bugs.  Right now the only thing that gets them all is radiation (if it is done right).  Even still, give it some time and the bugs will return.

Now about chlordane, I know from experience that chlordane will kill just about everything.  In my case it was used for termite infestation.  At the time you could not purchase it but it was available to licensed pest control companies.  Previously it was available to everyone at any lawn and garden shop.  My first born was stricken with T cell leukemia. Was it the chlordane?  Good luck proving that, but I can guarantee you it wasn’t the bugs in the broccoli.  He went through hell and then was saved by a bone marrow transplant from his brother.  We thank God every day for the miracle.  He is now 32, contracted the disease when he was 8.

Do I have a biased opinion about chemicals, you betcha.

Laugh and make jokes all you want.  God forbid it should happen to you.
Logged

Never thought I would do it!
edward
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1195


Location: BÖNAN SWEDEN

FEED ME HONEY or I`ll smash your screen !


« Reply #77 on: December 11, 2010, 07:23:50 PM »

Happy to hear that your sons OK Smiley

There are bugs and mold/fungus in or on everything.

All they are waiting for is the right surroundings/ecosystem that lets them thrive. Its all they want to do/live for. If you store things in an improper way/environment they will come  Lips Sealed

mvh edward  tongue
Logged
Acebird
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 955


Location: Utica, NY

Just getting started


« Reply #78 on: December 11, 2010, 07:28:33 PM »

Exactly. Smiley
Logged

Never thought I would do it!
rdy-b
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2219


Location: clayton ca


« Reply #79 on: December 11, 2010, 07:37:31 PM »

http://www.gaiaresearch.co.za/organics.html
 cheesy cool RDY-B


Excerpts follow:

Organically grown plants may each produce a minimum of 50 such natural
pesticides. Prof Bruce Ames is quoted as saying that the average person
consumes 1500mg of pesticides a day, of which 1499.91mg are endogenous
toxins, the remaining 0.09mg being synthetic pesticides applied to the
produce by the farmer.

“Anticarcinogenic phytochemicals in the diet protect humans equally well
against synthetic and natural carcinogens. Multiple hazard chemical
synergisms occur from both natural and synthetic sources. These
anticarcinogens do not distinguish whether carcinogens are synthetic or
natural in origin.”

Crop protection chemicals reduce plant stress, yet there is no pesticide
risk management program that evaluates the risk versus benefit equation to
balance the risk from crop protection chemicals (which are extensively
tested and heavily regulated) against the benefit of decreased risk from
natural plant and fungal toxicants (which are only sporadically tested and
regulated).

“The human diet has changed drastically in the last few thousand years, and
most humans are eating many recently introduced plants that their ancestors
did not. Natural selection works far too slowly for humans to have evolved
specific resistance to the food toxins in these newly introduced plants.”

“It is possible that every plant in the supermarket contains natural
carcinogens (legumes, cereals, fungi, herbs, spices and beverages included
with the fruits and vegetables) at levels commonly measured in the (highest)
parts per thousand ranges, ie. thousands of times higher than from man-made
pesticides.”
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 2.807 seconds with 22 queries.

Google visited last this page July 23, 2014, 04:18:25 AM
anything