I'd prefer to send this as private mail to Pedro, but his proclamations and
misinterpretations gather too many followers.
 
Pedro, chill-out.  Excellent piece of literary research?  A 5 minute
literature search?  No, I think you've misinterpreted the abstracts from
those papers to fit you beliefs.  Are you telling me that in less than 40
minutes you managed to track down those papers, translate the Russian ones
and come to these conclusions?
 
 
At 01:36 PM 2/14/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Hurray.   Excellent!
>So Mineral Oil is recognized as a valid acaricide!   I must thank Mr. King
for an
>excellent piece of literary research.  I must admit that I would have
loved to
>have had this information two or three yeas ago.  Regardless of the fact that
>Mineral Oil may been used in the past as an acaricide,  I haven't seen anyone
>explain the bilogic-physiologic reason why mineral oil is an effective
acaricide,
>Dr. Pedro Rodriguez did!
 
Because some were using it as a carrying agent.  The potent pesticides
probably weren't very soluble in water, thus they needed some way to
dissolve them for application, mineral oil was a logical choice.  None of
those studies, except for Shimanuki & Calderone's and Delaplane's had
anything to do with honeybees.  I included the others because SOME
acarcides can be used for different species of mites.  MAYBE what was used
for mites in citrus orchards can be used for varroa or tracheal mites on
bees, MAYBE NOT.  The application of oil in the work by Shimanuki &
Calderone and Delaplane had little similarity to the application of mineral
oil that you propose.  This is why thorough, UNBIASED, scientific testing
must be completed first.  I doubt the Russian papers are going to hold much
water with EPA based on what their focus was, although I would keep an eye
on what Delaplane and Shimanuki are researching.  Maybe they can add a
little of their expertise to this discussion.
 
  Dr. Pedro Rodriguez,
>through intensive analytical deduction proposed and tested the hypothesis
of how
>mineral oil effectively blocks the surface pores of the mites, thus
depriving the
>mites of oxygen and water necessary for the mites to live.    Thanks
again, Mr.
>King, for your valuable information.  Your report corroborates my hypothesis.
>Mineral oil does work as an acaricide!
 
I'm sure that DDT would also, but it worked a little too well and stuck
around a little too long.  Please reread my first post and review the EPA
pages on field trials for registration.  You have an interesting
hypothesis, why don't you take a trip up to the Beltsville USDA lab and
explain it to them so they can verify it?
 
>I never had any doubts!  Shortly, my
>work, together with that of many others now engaged in testing the
effectiveness
>of mineral oil for bee mites control will provide the means to every
beekeeper in
>the world to get rid of the pesky mites.  As previously announced on this
list
>service, I am now working on the final testing stage of application of
mineral
>oil for commercial beekeepers.
>      Mr. King's report should ease the minds of those who doubted the
veracity
>of my findings.  I am sure that other investigators with more financial
support
>and larger and better facilities than mine will have a "field day" testing
the
>efficacy of mineral oil for
>bee mites control.
>Thank the Lord Almighty for little favors.
>Joyful regards.
>Dr. Rodriguez
>Virginia Beach, VA
 
Seriously Pedro, take your time.  Wouldn't you rather take another year (or
5 or 6, which is more like what it will take to get registered) to verify
there are no side-effects of MO?  Rushing into something like this could
lead to avoidable (not unavoidable) tragedy.
 
Personally, I hope that mineral oil, or something as commonly available,
would work in controlling mite populations.  I don't like the idea that a
single company can control the manufacture and distribution of miticides,
but, if they invested the money in getting it passed, then it's theirs to
control.
 
I'm not trying to rain on your parade, Pedro, but instead maybe to warn you
to take an umbrella.  If you really want to get the scientists behind you,
show some patience, discretion and a willingness to listen to others.  I
understand that you've worked hard on this, but you will need help from
many people to get it passed.  Some of those people will have some new
insights, work WITH them and NOT AGAINST them.  Don't let your personal
beliefs influence your scientific reasoning.
 
I understand the excitement as well.  Last summer I got the chance to
install one of our electronic bee-monitoring systems.  Even though we had
three others working, this was the first one that I had been able to see
collecting data.  When I got all the computers running I stopped for about
2 minutes to hoot-n-holler (those bees must've thought I was weird).  I
then got back to the real job of making sure everything was working
properly, even though I was smiling from ear to ear for the following week.
 Good data is more important than repetitious proclamations.
 
I'm only helping out because I want to see this question answered once and
for all.  If your proposed mode of action is correct, great, everyone on
Bee-L will know.  But, if another mode of action is found to be
responsible, then you must be willing to agree with the data, because
everyone on Bee-L will know.  Science is not like the American legal system
where one is innocent until proven guilty, instead, a hypothesis is usually
considered to have very little support until proven correct (guilty until
proven innocent).
 
Counting the number of dead bees at the end of a season says absolutely
nothing about the mechanism behind how a chemical treatment worked.  I
suggest that you work with some scientists (USDA Beltsville, or Calderone
at Cornell) to determine the exact mode of action.  Verification with
controlled laboratory studies will show what the exact mechanism is.  Once
you have verified the mechanism, then you go to field studies.  Again, so
far you have not verified your proposed mechanism.
 
Any progress on contacting EPA/FDA?
 
I regret that you've managed to misinterpret my post in this way.  Please
take a little more time to read people's posts and give yourself at least
12 hours before responding in such a foolish manner.
 
________________________________________________________________
Bruce King                                              [log in to unmask]
Department of Chemistry                    phone: (406) 542-2993
University of Montana                           fax:   (406) 243-4227
Missoula, MT 59812
________________________________________________________________