Hi:  I appreciated Ted's defense of our activities.  Despite Andy's
implications, we have no connection, no have we ever conducted any
research for the manufacturer or distributors of Apistan.
 
Personally, I don't like the use of any chemical in the hive - but until
something better comes along, Apistan is about all that we have.
 
Using cotton balls and cardboard and all kinds of untested ways of
releasing chemicals in the  hives is playing with dynamite. Despite Andy's
claims, the residue chemistry work has not been done for these methods -
whether one gets any kind of controlled release or not is unknown.
 
At least the Apistan strip was tested and the release dynamics followed
and documented.
 
My extensive comments on chemicals were not intended to display our
superior facilities or talent.  I could care less about degrees, etc.
Some of the best information that I have about bees came from people
without degrees.  As an old Montana dairy and feedlot cattle farmer, I
know where most of my real education occurred.
 
What I am saying is that we have probably looked at more types of
chemicals in more forms and routes of entry than anyone else (after 22 yrs
we have looked at tens of thousands of samples).  We also have some of the
best equipment around for doing this. Therefore, we have the hard data,
which has been quality assurred via independent audits.  I am not guessing
or speculating, we have the world's most extensive database about
chemicals and their dynamics inside a beehive.  Fact, not speculation or
opinion.
 
We also do not pretend to be the watchdog of the potential for consumption
of toxic materials in honey or pollen.  Our clients have another interest,
how to effectively and at the lowest cost identify areas where the use of
hazardous chemicals has or may lead to ecological damage or threaten human
health.  Granted, our research is not inexpensive, but the resultant
methods are far less expensive than traditional methods.  For example, it
cost EPA and the industry in the Anaconda smelter area over $40 million
analyzing yet another soil sample.  It took CDC three years longer than us
to find an area where kids were exposed to too much arsenic and lead.
 
Our local beekeeper first found that area when his bees died.  Our
analysis confirmed the cause of the beekills.  The bees pointed to the
area of the valley where the real problem was, the $40 million was mainly
spent in the wrong end of the valley.
 
None of our research has ever been funded by traditional sources.  All of
our work has been the result of competitive contracts and grants with
agencies and industries that do not typically fund bee research.
 
Somehow, I don't understand the antagonism and dislike for "scientists"
expressed by some beekeepers.  I have the unmost respect for anyone who
enjoys bees and even more so for anyone struggling to make a living from
beekeeping.  Seems to me we are all trying to work towards the common good
for the industry.
 
Also seems like the same people who express a distrust of scientists are
the same ones who complain that we publish in obscure journals and never
share our information.
 
Enough of this tirade.  End of discussion from my end.
 
Jerry Bromenshenk
The University of Montana-Missoula