> ... do you destroy or irradiate all used equipment?

"Destroy" seems an overreaction, why suggest it?

There are some beekeepers who irradiate everything they can annually.
There are many more who irradiate everything they purchase from another
beekeeper.
Is there evidence that this is unwise?  Excessive?
I do not know of any specific cost/benefit analysis.

My point was that despite beekeeper impressions of "benign combs", there IS
considerable hard data showing that combs can support pathogens, even
viruses, in the absence of bees. 

We've always blamed varroa alone for spreading all the viruses that cause a
crash, but there simply is no data to rule out the combs "heavily infected"
by varroa as a vector for virus spread, and what data we have from caged-bee
studies seems to say that such comb CAN be a significant factor.

I've irradiated only once, with cobalt-60 gamma ray gear, but that was back
when I had hundreds of splits to do every spring, and a barn-full of honey
supers. I've more often set up a fumigation tent for acetic acid, as it was
less work than hauling gear to a facility.  

> Because if you don't you would be doing exactly 
> the same thing, putting "clean bees" onto "dirty equipment."

Yes, that was the exact point I made.  But the unanswered and crucial
questions go further:

a) Is there any such thing as "clean bees" any more, anywhere?  

b) How does one test for a virus-free queen at a cost less than 10x the
price of the queen?

c) What is the rate of infection of pathogen-free bees put onto combs from
crashed colonies "in the real world" as opposed to caged-bee studies, which
both have fewer bees and less chance for some of them to "clean up" the
problem, perhaps at the cost of becoming infected themselves.   

d) "Does it make a difference to actual hives?"  I don't think we have any
data from "the field" using "real combs in real hives".  Perhaps this work
has been done, but I cannot find any citations.

> As I said in a previous post, I had 400 or so hives 
> irradiated, put fresh bees into the equipment and
> they soon broke down with chalkbrood.

Do you see a connection between the two events?   Maybe you can give some
more detail. Do you think the irradiation was insufficient because the
chalkbrood was so bad afterwards, or if your gear might have been
cross-contaminated in the post-irradiation handling, or something else?  Who
did the irradiation, and if you remember, what was the beam and exposure
time?  Did your gear get combined with someone else's to make up a "full
load"?  What do you think happened?

> Honestly, are you interested in a discussion or 
> just picking apart other people's statements?

I'm not sure I understand the above. 

It seems itself to attempt to "pick apart" some unspecified statement of
mine by implying that a discussion participant should never address the
statements of others, or ask any questions about any statements of others.
Perhaps you can offer a specific example.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html