Well, I seem to have unwittingly provoked an International Incident.
Nothing was further from my mind.  I am surprised, and disappointed, at the
reaction.
        Perhaps it will help to allay misapprehensions, and to get the
discussion of AFB back on a scientific track, if I explain.

>Robert Post wrote:
>
>Our astonishment at Mr Mann's vehemence without completely reading the
>posting far
>surpasses anything he could experience.
> His lack of moderation also leaves much to
>be desired.

        Who are the plural accusers?
        I wasn't vehement; nor do I see anything immoderate in what I wrote.
        I was only pointing out some possible motives (such as I have
observed operating in comparable controversies); and have received direct
since my post some detailed comments  -  which I am not at liberty to
disclose  -  from S.A.  supporting my commentary on the possible role of
political interference in the matter we are discussing.


>This is not the first time that South African contributers have been
>answered in this vein.  To the extent that SA scientists (and perhaps
>others) now
>shun this DG.  Perhaps "Informed Discussion" does not describe what is
>happening
>here.

        Others will be even more puzzled than I am at this vague accusation.
Many will be unaware that my country was relatively active against the
apartheid regime which held sway in S.A. and  -  horror of horrors  -
denied us proper Rugby Union contests.  If we helped thru boycotts to end
the apartheid regime, I make no apology.  But I do not expect such
political background to affect this list.  It certainly doesn't affect my
participation.

        Now back to the science please.


>The point was simply this: even with decades of having imported and used
>beeswax
>foundation (unradurised) out of the USA, SA bees have never been diagnosed as
>having AFB.

        This approach, from sheer epidemiological fact, may seem conclusive
or at least very helpful.
To the extent that I gave it too litle weight, without explanation, I
apologise.
Let me now explain what I was after.
        I have campaigned publicly for 3 decades against allowing
unexamined hazards and waiting for the public to complain after a disease
or poisoning has become endemic.  I have advocated instead the prior
examination of the processes that may cause harm, and control if necessary.

        To that end, I expected that wax foundation would be directly
examined for viable AFB  -  by suitable microscopy, and by suitable
attempts to culture microbes from the fndn.  I had hoped some expert would
tell us of the results of such direct scrutiny.  I am sorry I failed to
make this clear when I made my first request weeks ago for info on this
topic, and when I lately remarked

>>   I remain astonished that this question of fact is so hard to get answered.

        I do not see how anyone in S.A. can have taken offence at anything
from me; but if they have, I regret that.   I have been involved with S.A.
citizens, both white and non-white, in scientific writing and even in what
might be interpreted as political activity.  I am startled & dismayed at Mr
Post's outburst.  I hope any misunderstanding is now cleared up.

R


-
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878   Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
                (9) 524 2949