-- James Fischer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Not to worry though, your concerns are groundless in terms of
facts, educated interpretation, and expert data analysis.
The samples have all been from brood chambers, so of course 
the numbers will be much higher than in honey supers, and 
not at all relevant to the issue of honey super combs or honey.


jim, i'm curious what you think about the presence of coumaphos and fluvalinte in trapped pollen (found by the penn state team).  this pollen was never in the brood chamber, and only has contact with field bees, and with nectar/honey used to pack the pollen into the pollen baskets.  it seems to me that if the bees themselves are the source of contamination, it would be hard to imagine that honey, even in honey supers, would be free of such contamination.  if the source is the nectar/honey used to pack the pollen, then the honey isn't clean.

it's also worth noting that despite testing bees, comb, foundation, bee bread, trapped pollen (and all being contaminated by beekeeper applied chemicals), that the honey is not tested in these assays.

deknow 

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************