> Todd writes:
> All I'm suggesting here is that we probably know a hell of a lot less than
> we think we do about effects of synthetic compounds on the world around
us,
> and the little we do know usually comes from painful realizations after
the
> fact.
>
> Of course. But we still have to eat, have to live. We go on limited
> information always. I would rather place my bet with scientific inquiry
and
> testing than fear mongering and superstition.
>
> We are so much better off now in regard to pure food than 100 years ago.
> Food then was aldulterated and contaminated. They used to put carbolic
acid
> in fresh milk to "disinfect it"!
>
> pb
>

I wouldn't personally call a general mistrust of agricultural chemicals
"superstition".  I suppose there were a few orchardists back a hundred years
or so who were laughed at because they thought lead arsenate wasn't the
smartest thing to put on apple crops year after year...the ground is still
poisoned to this day in many areas.  One hallmark of our over-reliance on
agri-chemicals is evidenced in a five minute visit to Agway.  Most of the
customers there seem to be buying stuff to kill something or other, with
*NO* regard to collateral damage.  Worse, they usually target something that
is of no real concern (like weeds or grubs).  End of soapbox.

I do agree that sometimes it seems that there is little to be done except
bite the bullet and use a chemical on a problem like varroa, until a real
solution presents itself (like breeding).   This, of course, is especially
true of pros like yourself, unlike hobbyists like me, who can afford to
experiment a bit.  The flipside, though, would appear to be that troubling
times like these actually create niches and opportunities for the creative.
In the end, I'm sure that nature's resolve will present itself either way.

Regards,

Todd.