As always, you give us lots to think about, Bob.

>> Also please explain why beekeepers which have NEVER used fluvalinate or 
>> coumaphos report CCD? CCD is still being seen in hives which have never 
>> had those legal chemicals used.

I've lost track, but I think this is correct.

> We know the LD50 of those LEGAL approved chemicals on bees in beeswax. 
> From reading study results few wax samples reached LD50 levels (some did) 
> and I can say from my experience unless LD50 is reached the bees seem to 
> do fine in many of those boxes.

I am not sure what you mean by LD50.  I thought I had better review my 
understanding and went to Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_lethal_dose

---
" In toxicology, the median lethal dose, LD50 (abbreviation for "Lethal 
Dose, 50%"), LC50 (Lethal Concentration, 50%) or LCt50 (Lethal Concentration 
& Time) of a toxic substance or radiation is the dose required to kill half 
the members of a tested population after a specified test duration. LD50 
figures are frequently used as a general indicator of a substance's acute 
toxicity. The test was created by J.W. Trevan in 1927.[1] It is being phased 
out in some jurisdictions in favor of tests such as the Fixed Dose 
Procedure;[2] however the concept, and calculation of the median lethal dose 
for comparison purposes, is still widely used.

"As a measure of toxicity, LD50 is somewhat unreliable and results may vary 
greatly between testing facilities due to factors such as the genetic 
characteristics of the sample population, animal species tested, 
environmental factors and mode of administration.[3] Another weakness is 
that it measures acute toxicity only (as opposed to chronic toxicity at 
lower doses), and does not take into account toxic effects that do not 
result in death but are nonetheless serious (e.g. brain damage).
---

Looking at what you say and what the common understanding of LD50, I need 
more clarification before I can parse your comments and suggestions.

> It appears i wasted a bunch of money. Although our brilliant handlers of 
> the millions in CCD research money were not receptive to my idea of 
> research *on a simple test easy to use field test*  which the commercial 
> beekeeper could do to test the levels of those chemicals in brood wax I 
> think such a test would be helpful.

I have also been sceptical about high levels of comb replacement as a 
solution in cases where chemical use has not been excessive, particularly in 
the north where drawn and dark brood comb is more expensive and difficult to 
produce.

> However the money was given to  Harvard (4 million dollars) to *try* to 
> build a hive of robotic bees!

I don't think the goal of that particular research was to find solutions for 
current beekeeping problems.  I think that the fact that bees were the model 
was somewhat coincidental and the budgets were unrelated.  Nonetheless, 
there is only so  much money.  (At least that was until Greenspan, Bernanke 
and the helicopters).

Even the Honey Bee Genome Project was about far more than just management of 
honey bees.  The fact that bees were chosen was just very lucky for us, and 
due partially due to the social nature of bees.   Of course, lobbying by 
some influential beekeepers did not hurt, but the research was part of a 
much larger project with far more important and wide-ranging goals (sorry) 
than merely assisting bee management.

Although I may be picking over some of your points, I am not necessarily 
disagreeing with your interesting and provocative comments, so I hope you 
can flesh them out a bit. 

             ***********************************************
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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm