i've also seen studies that look at colored sugar water and colored wax, and shows that even after capping and drawing, these materials get moved throughout the hive. of course, it's a much more direct test to actually test the honey then to measure contamination in wax, bee bread, pollen, and brood and speculate about what might be in the honey....but no one wants to do the tests...can you guess why?
i'm not sure this is so untold...maryann alluded to this kind of thing in her talk. perhaps we are looking at "the worst of the worst" here....but they sell their honey and wax somewhere...and americans are buying the stuff. it's easy to get mad at china for contaminated pet food and lead paint in childrens toys, how will american consumers react when these "natural, domestic products" are found to be contaminated?the untold story in that video is that the feedlot beeks have been dumping jug mixes of fluvalinate and comouphos into there hives for over a decade or more. some Gomers even use multiple treatments in fall or over the course of a season.
these chronic off label abusers are a far cry from a hobbyist that used Apistan or checkmite a few times.
what do i know? i've never been around big honey packers...and i hope to keep it that way. btw, i thought you said, "there is data in research papers that suggest that honey in supers and super comb wax does not pick up much if any detectable traces of contamination in brood comb. the residues are chemically locked up in the comb not wandering molecules in the hive."? so where does the contamination come from if not from the wax? is it better contamination if it comes from a source other than wax?the big honey packers test honey every day and have internal specs for the residues that are below EPA values (many have lowered them recently or they would run out of honey). they even have specs for Amitraz which is not labeled for use in bees but is a common material used by the feedlot crowd. interestingly the EPA has a spec for Amitraz in honey. i wonder why?
is this supposed to be reassuring? i'm curious how you have knowledge of "contamination levels in brood comb from most of the hives in this country", and "the worst honey a packer might find"? do you really have enough data to know this, or is it speculation on your part?while brood comb is undoubtedly contaminated in most of the hives in our fine country. the levels are far more elevated then even the worst honey a packer might find.
yes, that is the questionwe all have to realize that science has intruments that have magnitudes of resolution lower then 10 years ago.
we live in a world where we inhale or absorbed chems all of the time. chem prescence is no big deal sometimes - the question is what levels.
perhaps for those that use the chems that are found in foundation anyways, it's not a big deal. for those of us who are not using treatments however, any level is problematic. as far as health hazards go, it would be foolish to ignore fluvalinate and cumaphos (and probably a host of other chems) as possible contributors to whatever "CCD" is. note that it isn't just me "implying"...the conclusion of the video was a recomendation to stop using fluvalinate and cumaphos.i highly doubt we will find the levels in foundation to be of concern other then an indicator of trends and whats wrong with American beekeeping.
to imply there is a health hazard to bees and humans I think is stretching it.
...but in the end, we will have to wait and see the published data to have a better idea what was found.