OAV, putting the risk in perspective
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Aylett, Virginia
    Posts
    4,130

    Default OAV, putting the risk in perspective

    The following was posted by Dr. Richard Cryberg on Bee-L. I received his permission to repost it in it's entirety here. You may draw your own conclusions, but I personally agree with the premise. The cough from chlorine gas exposure is way worse ( see reference below). Imagine trying to cough up a lung while an elephant is sitting on your chest...JWP.


    "The toxicity of oxalic acid is quite low; minimal lethal dose for humans is
    considered to be about 5 g for an adult. For example, an excessive consumption
    of rhubarb (more than 100 g) can represent a tenth of the minimal lethal dose
    [1]. On the other hand, one of these plants, Rumex crispus L., has caused fatal
    poisoning through ingestion of the plant material. Among the pathological
    findings were centrolobular hepatic necrosis and birefringent crystals in the
    liver and kidneys [2, 3]."
    Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 51: 99–107, 1997

    "Oxalic acid is found in high concentrations in some plants consumed by ruminants and may cause renal toxicity. To determine whether exposure to oxalic acid affects the capacity of the rumen of sheep and goats to degrade the compound, 20 animals (10 sheep and 10 goats) were dosed with free oxalic acid by gelatin capsule twice daily for 3 weeks at one of five levels (0·0, 0·3, 0·6, 0·9 and 1·2 mmol/kg live weight (M) per day). Rumen samples were collected by stomach tube in the week prior to the start of dosing and in each week of the 3-week experiment. Oxalic acid degradation capacity was measured by adding uC-labelled oxalic acid to rumen fluid in vitro and capturing evolved 14CO2. Rates of degradation increased with increasing level of administration (2·30, 4·71, 6·74, 9·83 and 13·90 mmol of oxalic acid degraded per I rumen fluid per day for doses 0·0, 0·3, 0·6, 0·9 and 1·2 mmol/kg M per day, respectively; P < 0·001). Rates of degradation increased during the dosing period (P < 0·001) with the largest increases occurring in the 1st week of dosing. Goats showed a greater response than sheep, with a higher mean oxalic acid degradation capacity (9·04 v. 5·95 mmol of oxalic acid degraded per I rumen fluid, P < 0·05). Oxalic acid administration did not influence plasma calcium concentration or cause renal function impairment as measured by plasma creatinine concentrations. The experiment demonstrated adaptation in the rumen to potential toxins in the host diet and suggests that the rumen micro-organisms of goats may have been more adapted to degrading oxalic acid than sheep."
    AJ Duncan, P Frutos, SA Young - Animal Science, 1997 - cambridge.org

    Foods high in oxalate (100–900 mg per serving) include:

    Beet greens
    Rhubarb
    Spinach
    Beets
    Swiss chard
    Endive
    Cocoa powder
    Kale
    Sweet potatoes
    Peanuts
    Turnip greens
    Star fruit
    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition...r-bad#section7

    "Acute oral toxicity : Acute toxicity estimate : 378.79 mg/kg
    Acute inhalation toxicity : 4 h Acute toxicity estimate : 5.3 mg/l"
    https://safetydata.ecolab.com/svc/Ge...ID_English.pdf

    "Acute oral toxicity (LD50): 375 mg/kg [Rat]."
    http://www.hmdb.ca/system/metabolite...pdf?1358462206

    The last two citations are both Material Safety Data Sheets. These documents are written by lawyers which explains the ridiculous number of significant figures shown. This data overall suggests the LD50 for adult humans would be someplace around 20 grams even thou someone died from only eating five grams. However LD50s are notorious for giving data with far outliers. The problem is acute metabolism can vary widely from one test animal or one human to the next. The result is a lethal dose to one rat may be two or three or more times the lethal dose to the next rat. The same is true of humans. The reasons can range from slight differences in liver function to how well the particular individuals kidneys are working. So, I do not find the first citation that someone died from a dose of five grams either surprising nor alarming.

    The first MSDS also lists an inhalation hazard. This hazard has been widely talked about in the bee community. The lethal dose listed is 5.3 mg/liter of air breathed over a period of four hours. A person at rest will breath about 7 liters of air per minute. So, to breath a lethal dose you would need to breath in 7 l/min times 60 min/hour times 4 hours times 5 mg/l. That translates to breathing in a total of 80 grams of oxalic acid. As you only treat a double with two grams you would need to treat an awful lot of hives to breath in 80 grams of oxalic acid escaping thru cracks in the hive. However, far less than that will give you the worst cough you have ever had in your life (unless you have worked around chlorine gas). I suppose that cough could even be lethal if you happened to have heart issues as the cough could trigger a heart attack. The good news is very inexpensive and highly effective breathing protection is easy to find at any of the big box lumber and hardware stores. I find that even with my full beard I have yet to detect the slightest amount of oxalic acid particles getting past and I know it is impossible to get a good seal between the respirator and my face with the beard. I conclude that the compressed beard is a decently effective filter that stops the particles in the air that leaks by due to the poor seal. I also conclude that the bee keeper is not running any significant risk of harming him or herself if they use decent sense and spend the few bucks on breathing protection. All you need is a real good dust mask althou one rated for acid gasses was the one I picked. It was $20.

    So what does all this mean in terms of using it on bees? The normal dose for a full sized hive by vaporization application is 2 grams. It rapidly gets spread thru the whole hive. I have done experiments with a double deep with three empty honey supers on top and using the Provap applicator a two gram dose will cause fog to come out of cracks under the top cover. It is also coming out any cracks around the bottom board in much larger amounts than at the top based on visual density of the fog. So, it gets spread thru the whole hive in seconds. If I treated with honey supers on, as is common practice in Europe, perhaps one gram at most might end up in the supers dissolved in honey. I am assuming three medium supers and two full depth boxes for the brood chamber. Let's assume it is a modest honey year and those three supers end up yielding 75 pounds of honey because they are not stuffed full. I now have one gram of oxalic acid in 75 pounds of honey. So, even if you turn out to be an outlier and extremely sensitive to oxalic acid you need to eat 375 pounds of honey in one sitting to get to the five gram lethal dose. That is physically impossible. Or perhaps I treated that hive with oxalic acid ten times and put ten grams in my honey. Now the person has to eat 35 pounds of honey to get his five gram lethal dose. That is still physically impossible. I conclude the Europeans are not dumb and running any measurable risk of producing toxic honey by treating with honey supers on.

    In fact oxalic acid is a normal component of a human's diet. As it is a normal component of the human diet I think we can safely not worry very much about cumulative effects of smaller daily doses in spite of the fact that cumulative smaller doses of many chemicals are very harmful or even deadly. The third citation above lists a number of foods which contain from 0.1 grams to 0.9 grams of oxalic acid per serving. Even thou some of these single servings contain nearly 20% of a lethal dose we do not hear about anyone dying from eating too much spinach or chocolate or beets. I will be more than happy to eat two helpings of spinach if someone else will eat my helping of beets. I am very willing to bet that five grams is not my lethal dose based on the amount of spinach I have eaten at one sitting a number of times. Besides, I am pretty sure the carcinogens in the mushrooms I eat will get me before the oxalic acid I eat gets me. After all, the damage from the carcinogens is cumulative in contrast to oxalic which either kills you or is metabolized and eliminated. Or, maybe the raw beans I eat will kill me first? Life sure is dangerous.

    Dick
    PS it would appear that Dick is rather fond of the beet tops as my offer to take the beets, tops and all, was met with some resistance.

    Cheers!
    Last edited by JWPalmer; 11-28-2019 at 08:03 PM.
    Thankfully, the bees are smarter than I am. They are doing well, in spite of my efforts to help them.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    BeeSource.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Enfield,Ct.
    Posts
    604

    Default Re: OAV, putting the risk in perspective

    Always enjoy reading Dick's post on BEE-L and usually learn something new.Rather than trying to glean information from" the opinions of others",it is best to know of and listen to the experts.

    Here is a brief bio from a talk he gave at Greater Cleveland B.A.

    Dr. Richard Cryberg, Organic Chemist, Researcher, Beekeeper

    Dr. Richard Cryberg received his BS in Chemistry from Iowa State University and his PhD in Organic Chemistry from The Ohio State University. He had a long career in research and development with Diamond Shamrock Crop. and successor companies.

    Dr. Cryberg was a beekeeper for a decade in the 1970’s and returned to beekeeping in 2005. He comments, “The difference between my first experience and today is striking due to the massive impact varroa mites have on what is required to keep a hive alive today.”

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Dane County, WI, USA
    Posts
    3,474

    Default Re: OAV, putting the risk in perspective

    I would not bother talking of lethality of the OA if consumed internally.
    OA-containing veg are a staple in my house.
    So, next....

    However, incremental damage to your air ways is a consideration.
    So, I worked with harsh chems (acids and caustics and bleach) - cleaning the food plant equipment, while getting through college.
    In all I worked with the chems 1-2 nights per week. Usually two nights.
    We used industrial-grade protection. It was required by OSHA.
    The entire gig lasted between one and two years.

    So now, more than 20 years later I maybe feeling it.
    It appears those marginal damages I incurred to my air ways are catching up with me.
    This is very unpleasant and the longer term outcome is not known.
    This is impossible to prove - of course, and very convenient so to those potentially responsible (not to me; to me the issues are rather inconvenient).

    Pretty much, if the thing does not kill you on the spot - it very well may kill you 20 years later and slowly.
    So, that is a consideration for those practicing fumigation.
    Do protect yourself in the best possible ways.
    Do question the practice itself too - is it worth it to you.
    No one will give you any guaranties and take enforceable responsibilities onto themselves (let them be PhD in chem).
    Last edited by GregV; 11-29-2019 at 11:28 AM.
    Former "smoker boy". Classic, square 12 frame Dadants >> Long hive/Short frame/chemical-free experimentations.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    jackson county, alabama, usa
    Posts
    10,220

    Default Re: OAV, putting the risk in perspective

    i noticed this correction posted in that same thread today by a belgium beekeeper:

    "I'm sorry but it isn't so that in Europe 'everyone treats his/her colonies freely with OAV in the presence of honey to harvest', on the contrary it is strongly discouraged by all official authorities!"

    https://community.lsoft.com/scripts/...D=0&P=70822961

    perhaps the u.s. label regarding oav will change some day but for now the law is clear that honey supers are to be 'removed'.
    'no wise man has the power to reason away what a fool believes' - the doobies

  6. #5
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Vauxhall, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    340

    Default Re: OAV, putting the risk in perspective

    Personal safety is no accident! Be careful Ladies & Gentlemen!

    Treating with the supers off should be a standard, why risk problems if it can be easily avoided.
    Summ Summ Bienchen summ herum

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Aylett, Virginia
    Posts
    4,130

    Default Re: OAV, putting the risk in perspective

    My point in posting this was not to open the supers on/ supers off debate, AGAIN. Rather, to alleviate the fears of those who do treat with OA. It is almost impossible to get a lethal dose of OA from treating, whether by inhalation of the OA during treatment, or by ingestion of honey that perhaps was in the brood comb and later harvested for your own PERSONAL consumption.

    The current law is to remove supers and is not "optional".
    Thankfully, the bees are smarter than I am. They are doing well, in spite of my efforts to help them.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    jackson county, alabama, usa
    Posts
    10,220

    Default Re: OAV, putting the risk in perspective

    with respect to inhalation the problem is not so much achieving a lethal dose but rather the extreme corrosive nature of the acid and it's ability to instantly damage lung tissue.

    i.e. no skimping on having a quality respirator and goggles or consider following randy oliver's lead on not risking exposure to the vapor and utilize alternative delivery methods instead.

    https://www.ontariobee.com/sites/ont...A%20safety.pdf
    'no wise man has the power to reason away what a fool believes' - the doobies

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Salem, Oregon
    Posts
    1,800

    Default Re: OAV, putting the risk in perspective

    Grainger has a sale on OG / acid gas canisters for Honeywell North respirators for $11.70 a pair.
    I bought 8 pair.
    Seems like my lungs are worth at least that much.
    I have exactly ONE more hive than you.
    That makes my opinion beyond dispute!

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    Wakefield, Rhode Island, USA
    Posts
    157

    Default Re: OAV, putting the risk in perspective

    JWPalmer, Couple of points worth noting, I think, based on my research efforts:

    1. US EPA approval is based on the Canadian Label. After an extensive search I gave up on trying to find the basis or why for the "super off". Best I can tell it was simply added without explanation for risk avoidance. The Canadians had a lot of EU data, especially From Germany and Italy to support an alternate decision. Yet no explanation was provided that I could find. The EU, I believe, controls organic acid treatment affects on honey by measuring total acidity unlike the USA which has no technical standard for honey. One testing problem it seems is the organic acid data is swamped by Formic acid effects. Treating with "supers off" for any OA treatment simply avoids the issue contamination possibilities.

    2. I have yet to see any US or Canadian analytical data based on half life characteristics of oxalic acid, rather short, nor how ubiquitous it is in the environment and it's use by the farming community. One only has to ask who is using all that oxalic acid produced yearly. How does it affect us as notd by the EPA fiel data related to the approval

    3. What should really be highlighted when handling oxalic acid, I think, is the risk to your eyes. I worked in a chemical plant, 50% caustic ( NaOH), phosphoric pentoxide, chlorine generating reactions, mild acids, strong acids, pippet sampling, etcetera when I was in high school and several periods when I was in college. I have used oxalic acid since I was about 11 or 12 as a cleaning solution. Thus I learned to use OAV with caution and no fear. I also keep a bucket of water with me at all times (missing from the label) with a wet wrag. I also use it to clean of granular OA if it should get on my skin or hive as I would for any significant acidic or caustic product. I follow the EPA label and have a IPM program that works well for me and meets the EPA requirements. I admit to forgetting my "official" 1/2 face mask filter often but I do have a hood on and do know how to hold my breath

    4. What I found interesting is the lack of specified requirements for a "1/2 mask filter" specified by the EPA. A handkerchief? A wet handkerchief? Selection is left up to the user, most of whom are not corporations with "safety experts", thus do not have a clue. Try pulling that thread and reading the OSHA requirements to get a derived answer. I do my bring my filter with me, when I remember, my 1/2 face-mask filter, which I use religiously for cutting wood and other projects. I like to multi-purpose everything.

    5. I give my honey to my grandchildren.
    Last edited by Robert Holcombe; 11-30-2019 at 10:43 AM.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    1,635

    Default Re: OAV, putting the risk in perspective

    Just want to add my 2 penn'orth to this ...

    The figures often cited (X mg/litre of air etc) by Health & Safety organisations may be appropriate inside a building, where any contamination will be constant enough to take a reasonably representative measurement. (although undoubtedly when measuring airborne dust there will be variations at different heights and at different distances from the source, as well as at different times of day)

    But I'm going to suggest that H&S figures for Oxalic Acid are inappropriate as a reference when the substance is being used outdoors by beekeepers, as the volume of air which the dust momentarily contaminates is - for all intents and purposes - infinite.

    If a sensor were to be placed into a plume of OA dust exiting a hive, then the readings would dramatically exceed those of the legislation, whereas if a sensor were to be placed a foot or two to one side of the plume, or upwind, it would most likely register a complete absence of OA dust in the atmosphere.

    The presence of OA dust during VOA treatment is both transitory and directional - and yet people will keep banging on about safe H&S limits - and recommended mask types - which are intended for guidance within a confined working area.

    To be sure, Oxalic Acid is a dangerous substance if used without due respect - but then so are many other chemicals we use in our everyday lives. Far more people drown in water every year than are even mildly affected by airborne Oxalic Acid dust, and yet I bet there's no MSDS data sheet for water ...

    LJ
    A Heretics Guide to Beekeeping http://heretics-guide.atwebpages.com/

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    Wakefield, Rhode Island, USA
    Posts
    157

    Default Re: OAV, putting the risk in perspective

    LJ, Love the reply's logic! With a touch of sanity added. I believe there is a German safety report out for just that application, OAV outdoors. I believe it concluded that it was "safe" or within risk standards. Unfortunately, maybe fortunately for some, there are different legal and liability standards in England, EU and the USA.

    Do you have a reference for calling the escaping OAV product leaking from a hive is "Oxalic Acid dust"?

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Denver Metro Area CO, USA
    Posts
    1,990

    Default Re: OAV, putting the risk in perspective

    yet I bet there's no MSDS data sheet for water
    https://www.spectrumchemical.com/MSDS/LC26750.pdf


    The presence of OA dust during VOA treatment is both transitory and directional - and yet people will keep banging on about safe H&S limits - and recommended mask types - which are intended for guidance within a confined working area
    Well the exposure limits are advraged... they work out to 3.3 mg per shift(1mg per M3, 7 L of air breathed per min, 8 hours)
    the shorut term limit is 2mg per M3...
    with a band heater type set up your putting out 4,000 mg a min!
    not hard to go over the limits and then some with even a quick breath, and yes as the cloud is well over the STEL you should be following the safety recommendations. We are dealing in constrations massively about the safety limits


    this is less of an issue with a wand type that is placed cold, turned on and you walk away. But with hand held units its quite possibly to take a face full

    Do you have a reference for calling the escaping OAV product leaking from a hive is "Oxalic Acid dust"
    why would it not be?
    you heated a solid and it sublimed in to a gas, as soon as it cools below sublime temp it forms a sold again.
    Last edited by msl; 11-30-2019 at 11:21 AM.

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Aylett, Virginia
    Posts
    4,130

    Default Re: OAV, putting the risk in perspective

    From the above referenced safety data sheet for water. Another example of the lunacy sometimes found in a SDS.

    First-aid measures after skin contact :

    Remove affected clothing and wash all exposed skin area with mild soap and water, followed by
    warm water rinse. Adverse effects not expected from this product.
    Where else would you find the first aid for exposure to a product to be to liberally drench yourself with more of the same product?
    Thankfully, the bees are smarter than I am. They are doing well, in spite of my efforts to help them.

  15. #14
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Algoma District Northern Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    4,980

    Default Re: OAV, putting the risk in perspective

    Quote Originally Posted by JWPalmer View Post
    From the above referenced safety data sheet for water. Another example of the lunacy sometimes found in a SDS.



    Where else would you find the first aid for exposure to a product to be to liberally drench yourself with more of the same product?
    Oh that one is well known. We used to call it "hair of the dog that bit you"
    Frank

  16. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    1,635

    Default Re: OAV, putting the risk in perspective

    Quote Originally Posted by JWPalmer View Post
    Where else would you find the first aid for exposure to a product to be to liberally drench yourself with more of the same product?
    Along a similar line ...

    One of the most common 'magic bullets' these days for headaches is Ibuprofen ... but one of Ibuprofen's side effects is ... yes, you've guessed: headaches.

    So you have a headache. Take a Ibuprofen tablet and get another headache - and so take yet another tablet ... and so on. Crazy.
    LJ
    A Heretics Guide to Beekeeping http://heretics-guide.atwebpages.com/

  17. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Northeast PA
    Posts
    299

    Default Re: OAV, putting the risk in perspective

    Quote Originally Posted by JWPalmer View Post
    The following was posted by Dr. Richard Cryberg on Bee-L. I received his permission to repost it in it's entirety here. You may draw your own conclusions, but I personally agree with the premise. The cough from chlorine gas exposure is way worse ( see reference below). Imagine trying to cough up a lung while an elephant is sitting on your chest...JWP.




    PS it would appear that Dick is rather fond of the beet tops as my offer to take the beets, tops and all, was met with some resistance.

    Cheers!
    Sounds similar to a previous thread here on beesource which did similar math, indicating that OAV is perfectly safe to use with honey supers present.


    https://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...y-calculations

    IIRC there was quite a bit of good discussion, and other members offering their own calculations, coming to similar conclusions about the harmlessness of OAV to honey.

    Eventually, that thread was censored, as a result of quite a bit of hubbub from the "lawfully minded".
    Last edited by username00101; 11-30-2019 at 05:57 PM.

  18. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Catskills, Delaware Cty, New York, USA
    Posts
    1,688

    Default Re: OAV, putting the risk in perspective

    Quote Originally Posted by JWPalmer View Post
    My point in posting this was not to open the supers on/ supers off debate, AGAIN. Rather, to alleviate the fears of those who do treat with OA. It is almost impossible to get a lethal dose of OA from treating, whether by inhalation of the OA during treatment, or by ingestion of honey that perhaps was in the brood comb and later harvested for your own PERSONAL consumption.

    The current law is to remove supers and is not "optional".
    As you stated on bee-l on why you wanted to post this, at least you tried!
    Deb
    Proverbs 16:24

  19. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Northeast PA
    Posts
    299

    Default Re: OAV, putting the risk in perspective

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloverdale View Post
    As you stated on bee-l on why you wanted to post this, at least you tried!
    Deb
    The current "law" only exists in the US and Canada.

    Elsewhere, OAV with honey supers present isn't against the law. It's only "discouraged".

    I feel that it's important to make that clear.

  20. #19

    Default Re: OAV, putting the risk in perspective

    For the beekeeper, it seems to me the danger from oxalic acid is due to direct chemical damage to tissues, as opposed to chemical toxicity.

    Mostly, this is the eyes and the lungs.

    It is hard to get the relatively large amounts needed to cause a toxicity problem. A good sized helping of spinach has more oxalic acid that you put in your vaporizer, and only a very small part of what goes in the vaporizer is likely to end up in your lungs.

    I don't know how well lungs recover from chemical burns. I do know that if you breathe a little of that "smoke" it is unpleasant and you can feel it for at least a day or two afterward.

    Having relatives who experienced diminished lung capacity as they grew older, I think it is a good idea to protect my lungs

    I would like to see data on oxalic acid absorption in honey supers when hives are treated with supers on. I suspect it would be quite low.

    I read on Randy Oliver's page (or a link to a link from there) that

    if there is 400 mg/Kg oxalic acid in honey, you can just taste it.

    Oxalic acid in honey is naturally occurring, and ranges from 5 to 300 mg/Kg. Honeydew honeys tend to be higher in oxalic acid than floral honeys.

    The median value of oxalic acid in honey is about 20 mg/kg. (not sure about that number)

    I suspect that honey in the hive gains very little oxalic acid due to vaporization.

    Oxalic acid crystals precipitate out of the air on surfaces in the hive. If they do this uniformly, a typical hive (2 deeps, 2 supers) has about 14000 square inches of internal surface area. about 3000 of that is the comb area in the two supers. (those are my calculations, you can check it to see if it seems accurate).

    Any acid which precipitates on way is likely to be cleaned out of the hive by the bees. This is my understanding of how it works. So the only area of interest is where there are combs full of honey or nectar which are not capped. I will guess that is about half of the 3000 square inches of comb surface in the supers.

    This neglects the surface area of the bees themselves, which is considerable. a honeybee is hairy, and as a result has a surface area of about 16 square inches (between 10 and 25). the 30000 bees in a typical hive have a surface area of probably 480000 square inches. (has anyone else seen the slightly white bees that I see sometimes after vaporizing?) Forgetting about that (and it is significant) The amount of oxalic acid in the honey after a vaporization is probably not more than 2g * 3000 * (1/2)/14000 = .21g = 210 mg.

    The two supers in this case should yield about 30 kg of honey. So the concentration increase should be 210 mg/30 kg = 7 mg/kg.

    Compared to the amount of oxalic acid in honey already, this increase would not be significant.

    This of course is armchair science, not the sort used to make decisions; except what sorts of things to investigate.

    It is likely that most of the oxalic acid crystals are on the bees themselves - how much of the crystals from the bees end up in the honey is anyone's guess.

    However, it looks to me like some research related to oxalic acid in honey as a result of vaporization would be useful. Not being able to use OA (practically speaking) during the honey flow is a real limitation.

    In the short term, don't use OA vaporizers with supers on. It is not legal. However, if I had some honey from a brood chamber, and wasn't really sure if it was vaped or not, I might consider it for my personal use.

    My rationale would be that if it tasted sour I wouldn't eat it. If it didn't taste sour, it has less oxalic acid than other common foods, like spinach (1500 mg in 1 cup cooked spinach) or baked potatoes (97 mg in 1 baked potato with the skin) or almonds (122 mg in 1 ounce). Two tablespoons of honey which had 1000 mg/kg (2.5x the level where you could taste it) would have only 42 mg of oxalic acid. Check my math, but I think there are about 47 Tablespoons in a kg of honey. Since I don't eat much more than that at one sitting, I think it would be OK for me. Of course, you need to decide what is OK for yourself. At the 400 mg/kg rate, 2 tablespoons of honey would contain about 17 mg of oxalic acid, which is not much compared to a lot of other foods.

    Oxalic acid is common in a lot of foods.

    A list of 122 foods containing oxalic acid, and the typical amount in each can be found at the following link:
    https://www.nutritionadvance.com/high-oxalate-foods/

  21. #20
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    54

    Default Re: OAV, putting the risk in perspective

    Opening myself up to flames, but after a couple years of extreme protection, I've settled into a route where I don't use any eye protection or mask when applying OAV. I have the luxury of keeping only 4 hives and an OAV rig on a digital timer. So I start a treatment and then leave for 20 minutes. I come back after 5 minutes of OAV and 15 minutes of cooling/dissipation and repeat the process for the remaining hives. Protection is a wonderful thing, but logic and common sense can also go a very long way to protecting your health both long and short term IMHO.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •