yea, that would rule out leaving them under the car dash :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Solomon Parker
Printable View
yea, that would rule out leaving them under the car dash :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Solomon Parker
I'm serious. I never leave them out where the sun can get to them. They do warp. That's one of the complaints against the PF series frames specifically. I've seen it said over time that as many as 10% become near unusable. Personally, I've not owned them long enough to see such a large proportion have problems, but I have begun to see warping.
Photolysis in many cases creates active oxygen species from water and then these species will attack the chemical. But, anyway, all these reactions would require wavelength of 280 nm or less. 300 nm and above does not participate much in such type of chemical reactions since it is too long for chemical bond, photon just pass it. "Fading colors" in the house (from your link) is a different story since "color" itself adsorbs the light. Red color - adsorbs everything but red; blue - everything but blue and so on. Adsorption of light will deteriorate the color. These colors are in the visual part of the spectrum and would deteriorate even from visual light filtered through normal window glass. near-UV even in small amounts would accelerate this process. Chemistry of pigments are entirely different story - it normally involves the oxygen from the air - most materials lost/change color if oxidized. This reaction is less possible in wax.Quote:
Originally Posted by BayHighlandBees
As for plastic foundation - plastic itself will deteriorate as well as bad chemicals in the wax coat. First, plastificators will be attacked - they will deteriorate mostly by UV and once wax coat broken, by oxygen in the air. It will make plastic brittle. You could not promote one chemical reaction and stop by power of your will another. Good luck with backing frames and cooked wax. I like the idea of sun-treated foundation - nice business solution! It sounds very innocent. Sergey
Sergey,
so instead of keeping the window closed, use an open window. I'm sure the thin layer of wax will be cleansed of neonic pesticide well before the integrity of the frame is compromised (the frame is much thicker and has way much more mass than the wax coating).
If you are not satisfied with that, then place the frames under a black light inside your house.
There's a number of ways that this could feasibly be handled.
Seems like you are fine with the solution of using a solar wax melter on the hive wax harvested from the frames (so long as the melter uses a plexiglass top). Thats the main solution here. I really don't believe that pesticides found on the plastic foundation thin wax coating is really going to cause any consequences with hive health whatsoever. I was throwing that solution out to help satisfy the concerns of the 'tin foil' crowd.
Or and I know this is just crazy talk, you could just go foundationless and not have to worry about it. Besides I think the wax would melt and drain down to the bottom if left in direct sunlight on a hot enough day.
I am foundationless.Quote:
Originally Posted by BayHighlandBees
Not true. Read my post carefully - I stated that UV will penetrate only short distance in the wax, so even Plexiglas will not help if you have a massive thickness of the wax, more than 1 mm, I guess. Also - no water, no chemical reaction(s) you proposed. The best solution would be to dip somebody into solarly melted wax bath, put in direct sunlight for 10 days, periodically lightly spray with water. After 10 days change the sides. At the end collect very naturally treated wax and sell it as an "essence of ...name here..." - I am sure, it would be much more profitable business that what you have now.Quote:
Originally Posted by BayHighlandBees
Another option comes to mind - chocolate fountain (fondue) - instead chocolate, use recycled wax with chemicals; place fountain in direct sunlight and run for 10 days. Collect treated wax.
I personally think - fountain is the best. If decided to try - keep us posted. Sergey
Sergey,
if the wax melts down to nothing, why is thickness a problem? I'm not sure why you are resistent to neonics photodegrading in wax when there have been studies that prove it photodegrades in plant waxes.
http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:18690690
Photodegrade doesn't mean change into something better or inert. The indesired chemicals could degrade into something just as bad or worse, right?
I can't talk to whether or not the intermediate neonic degraded chemicals would be safe, but they'd be smaller. I believe it takes a small chain of chemical breakdowns before you reach the end result of CO2.
I've enjoyed WLC's (almost put your name here!:eek:) negative comments on the PF120's so much that I went and ordered some. Too late to get them in the hive this year (unless I get another swarm call), but I must say, they're a fine looking product and I can see why people have such good success with them. It looks like the cell walls are 3/32" high. One reason my bees don't draw out my 4.9 wax very well is the lack of any cell wall. Since I'm not a big fan of plastic, I plan to cut the foundation out from the frame and install it into wooden frames.
BTW, I took a good whiff of the wax and I didn't smell any contaminates, just the faint smell of plastic. :D
I love the smell of off-gassing plastic in the morning! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Barry
"Raw imidacloprid samples presented significant acute toxicity to Daphnia magna and genotoxic effects on Bacillus subtilis sp. Such toxic effects remained detectable even after significant pesticide removal had been achieved, due to the presence of toxic by-products". J Hazard Mater. 2008 Feb 11;150(3):679-86.Quote:
Originally Posted by sqkcrk
Imidacloprid oxidation by photo-Fenton reaction.
Segura C, Zaror C, Mansilla HD, Mondaca MA.
Now you have time to put them on open window under direct sunlight as BayHighlandBees suggested! I hope, as a moderator and owner, you enjoyed this very informative thread. Many thanks for not closing/relocating this thread and be patient with us. SergeyQuote:
Originally Posted by Barry
Daphnia? Aren't those microscopic bacteria? That isn't exactly apples to apples with bees
Simple, "Foundationless Hype" is a type of Hype that is Foundationless. :scratch:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayHighlandBees
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayHighlandBees
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayHighlandBees
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29Quote:
Originally Posted by BayHighlandBees
Don't think so Sergey. The daphnia point is valid, except for the part about them being bacteria.
You can't compare bees, insects who live in the open air, to daphnia, near microscopic crustaceans which live submersed in water.
If you're not using the term correctly, it's name-calling and it's not okay.
I'm familiar with the definition of a troll. Why is it that you think that I am one? I'm only replying to your posts. How is that extraneous? From your citing I am getting the idea that you don't think the german incident was an anomaly. If it was caused by a non-standard application what would you call it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid
"In 2008 Germany revoked the registration of clothianidin for use on seed corn after an incident that resulted in the death of hundreds of nearby honey bees.[19] Investigation of the incident revealed that it was caused by a combination of factors, among which were the failure to use a polymer seed coating known as a "sticker"; weather conditions that resulted in late planting when nearby canola crops were in bloom; a particular type of air-driven equipment used to sow the seeds which apparently blew clothianidin-laden dust off the seeds and into the air as the seeds were ejected from the machine into the ground; dry and windy conditions at the time of planting that blew the dust into the nearby canola fields where honey bees were foraging."
Quote:
Originally Posted by cerezha
"I've enjoyed WLC's (almost put your name here!) negative comments on the PF120's so much that I went and ordered some."
I also enjoy giving the small cell crowd the occassional 'goose'. :D
I've mixed PF 120s into my foundationless hives to examine how it influences comb cell size.
While perfection is impossible, is it wrong to demand excellence from small cell gurus?
I think not.
The bees are doing fine.
The problem remains one of a contaminated beeswax supply.
That's still the 'hype'.
A troll is in the eye of the betroller.Quote:
Originally Posted by BayHighlandBees