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.
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
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.
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
Last edited by cerezha; 06-26-2012 at 03:23 PM.
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.
Photodegrade doesn't mean change into something better or inert. The indesired chemicals could degrade into something just as bad or worse, right?
Just because something is new to you, doesn't mean it is new, or revolutionary. Mark Berninghausen
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!) 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.
Imidacloprid oxidation by photo-Fenton reaction.
Segura C, Zaror C, Mansilla HD, Mondaca MA.
Last edited by cerezha; 06-26-2012 at 01:26 PM.
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.
Originally Posted by BayHighlandBeeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29Originally Posted by BayHighlandBees
Last edited by cerezha; 06-26-2012 at 03:32 PM.
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?
"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. 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."
"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'.
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'.