> so what happens is that readings that at first appear to
> represent "slow linear growth" start to increase at an
> accelerated rate, and "go exponential".

You answered your own question!  "At first appear" is your phrase. 
Appearance of linear growth is solely the  result of scale.



Why try to defend something that encourages
> complacency?  Why not encourage data collection and thinking?

You really ought to try actually reading my series of articles, Jim!  That 
is exactly what I recommend, and do myself.



> When, exactly do you start being "thoughtful"?  :)
Actually, I wake up thoughtful, but by this time of morning feel exhausted 
by your silly trolling.
I ran a series of experiments yesterday collecting DATA on a preservative 
for sugar syrup.
I'm currently collecting DATA on a long-term small cell experiment--weighing 
test and control groups, taking mite counts, and strength counts.
I have an employee outside as we speak prepping 200 sticky boards to collect 
more DATA on the efficacy of sugar dusting, and the time curve for mite 
knockdown post treatment.
I am apparently the only person who has taken time to sacrifice colonies and 
count every mite and bee in order to determine sugar dusting efficacy, and 
to develop a mathematical model to explain the observed DATA.
I'm a DATA kind of guy--just received data by special request from Chile, 
New Zealand, Florida.
How about spending less time trolling, Jim, and more time looking at the 
DATA?



> but you aren't really making any treatment decisions, are  you?
Yes, I am, actually!


 You are just treating everything in sight with powdered sugar, and knocking 
down as many mites as you can.
Hardly--I've only started dusting this week, since my montitoring all spring 
indicated that treatments up til now would largely be a waste of time and 
money.  Kind of like wasting time trying to explain things to you.  : )
>
>> Mite treatment can be effective at any point, and gets more
>> bang for the buck earlier.


 (Should I go back further in the litany of things that
> had what appeared to be impressive knock-down rates, but failed
> to be effective when tested under controlled conditions?)

Exactly why I carefully analyzed DATA of two year's of results from several 
people who had sugar dusted before even entertaining that it might actually 
work!  Then tested myself to confirm.  Helped set up several trials this 
year with cooperators.  I have let everyone know that this is experimental, 
and that I'm fine tuning it.


> Here's the basic problem with your approach to powdered sugar.
Jim, you don't even know what my approach is!  I'm no one-trick pony.  I've 
been keeping my bees healthy without any powdered sugar!  Sugar dusting is 
just another option that I've been researching amoung a plethora of methods 
and treatments.  Jim, again, try actually reading my articles.  The next two 
months I will have articles coming out on formic acid, thymol, and the 
essential oils.  I'm slowly posting all to www.randyoliver.com as I find 
time.  Clearly, the time I'm spending responding to your silly questions and 
challenges would have been better spent uploading photos to my website!


> a) The powdered sugar to even the majority of bees with your
>   brushing over the top-bars approach.

Read the dang article--look at the dang photographs!


> b) Enough of the correct particle sizes to dislodge a majority  of the 
> phoretic mites.
Actually, as I published, I have sacrificed three colonies 1 hr post 
dusting, and found that the dusting dislodged approx 33% of the phoretic 
mites in the first hour.  Jim, if you can't afford the $5 to log onto my 
website, I publicly offer you a free subscription--just ask.  Then you won't 
be wasting the List's time by asking silly questions that have already been 
answered in print!


> Don't let your ego write checks that your ability can't cash.
Go trolling for someone else Jim, I'm not going to bite!


> I know you work hard, but your research in regard to the  sugar dusting is 
> lacking a few things, like controls, like  valid and consistent 
> measurements.
That's what we're collecting right now.


> As I have made clear, thresholds are nonsense.
If I put a sticky under a colony for a week, and zero mites drop, I wouldn't 
treat that colony.
If I do the same, and 1000 mites drop, I would.
The reason I would, is that the count exceeded the "threshold" with which I 
was comfortable.
You can certainly argue about what that number would be, but to argue that 
thresholds are nonsense, is nonsense.

> So don't get your hackles up at me.
Jim, you live for trying to get people's hackles up.  It's not likely that 
I'm the first on the List to notice this.
I'm not trying to sell anything to anyone.  IF YOU WOULD ACTUALLY READ MY 
ARTICLES you would see that I repeatedly suggest that people look at the 
science and then make their own management decisions.

I've got work to do...
Randy Oliver 

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************