Stefan;
 
> >Who can guarantie that any of the following subsances isn't harmfull
> >to bees? Who will bring following substaces we don't know anything
> >about into the beehive?
 
> >Phytochemicals of Myrtus communis:
> >"1,8-CINEOLE
> >"2-BUTANOL
> >"2-BUTANONE
> >"2-METHYL-BUT-3-EN-2-OL
 
> From the scientifical point of view, you are right. Myrtle oil can
> be dangerous to the bees. So can be also rose oil, mint oil, pine
> oil, lavender oil and so on...
 
>  So, let's block any organic "movement" and continue to use happily
> Apistan et co. which brings slowly but sure varroa resistance to
> several (bio)chemical "weapons"...
 
DON'T CHANGE THE SUBJECT! We were talking about smoke and smokers
NOT Apistan!
 
> Let's continue to use the classical smokers which brings free
> radicals in our honey, free radicals which raises the risc to make
> cancer in our customers etc., etc.
 
Using smoke is 'natural'. Reaction on smoke is 'writen in the genes'
due to milions of year and forest fires. Bees are storing the honey
in the stomach which have a calming effect.
 
I can't see any reason to change a smoker which use bee's natural
reaction developed under milions of year against a mixture of
chemicals we know nothing about (at least 3 components as I could
see are causing cancer) which is only 'chasing' bees away, because
they probably have reason to 'run for live'. Withouth be calmed.
 
If the 'organic movement' means that uneducated and ignorant people
will dictate how to treat bees because it 'sounds good' in the ears
of other ingnorant and uneducated people, but when analysed is more
harmfull for bees, beekeeping and/or people - in that case this sort
of 'organic movement' must be stopped.
 
New methods must bring progress forward. Not stepping back to dark
ages there you promote schamans and praying.
 
\vov