>I live in Central PA where a young child died from a bacterial =
>infection.  The bacteria, according to the
>Department of Environmental Protection (PA division) came from a bee =
>sting.

I am a beekeeper but have a background in biology with a lot of college
background in bacteriology, etc.
With that in mind, I would suggest that the situation might be more
accurately described as one in which the "open wound" caused when the
bee stinger broke through the skin, open the person to the invasion of
bacteria from all sources.  This includes bacteria that normally reside
on the skin, as well as those which are in the air, or on bees.  When the
skin is broken, the bodies barrier against bacteria is breeched.  Like when
you get a mosquito bite (or fireant bite here in TX) and scratch until
you have an open wound.  All matter of organisms are free to invade.
Normally, ones immune system comes to the rescue.  Reddness and swelling
are the normal reaction as the body send white blood cells to the area.
Some of these cells are successful at "eating" or engulfing bacteria and
the "injury" is resolved.  In other cases, staph, strep, tetanus bacteria
are not eliminated at the wound site and an infection ensues.  I once
neglected a cut on my foot, until the reddness developed into streaks on
my leg.  Had I not received prompt medical care, I could have developed
a severe infection.  If the causitive agent (bacteria) had been one
that was severe, I might have had a worse situation.
  In summary, "bacteria from a bee" is an inaccurate over generalization.
In my opinion.
Carol

Carol K. Malcolm
[log in to unmask]