Steve Noble offered:

> ...you might want to consider the possibility that the 
> bacterial or viral or fungal pathogen is transmitted by 
> a parasite such as Varroa or tracheal mites, which would 
> make controlling mites the key to controlling CCD.

If any of those possibilities were the case, then, colonies 
from packages on irradiated combs would have fared no better 
than colonies from packages put on non-irradiated combs.  

I feel that it is very clear that we can specifically eliminate
parasites from the equation as a result of this little test,
as parasites must be stipulated to have been equal across both 
irradiated and non-irradiated hives.


Waldemar offered:

> But if the immune system is weakened by chemicals, pesticides,
stress.... 
> (feel free to fill in the blanks), the bees can succumb to relatively 
> benign organisms.

Hold on there - we are talking about NEW PACKAGES, installed on
irradiated or non-irradiated comb, and then treated "exactly the 
same" (as best as could be asked).  The irradiated combs directly 
resulted in colonies with a significantly better survival rate.  
We don't need to conjure up imaginary and inherently unquantifiable 
factors like "stress", as any "stress" was EQUAL across the 
different colonies in the study.

As for "pesticides", again, any exposure to pesticides would be 
equal, with both irradiated and non-irradiated hives exposed to 
the same stuff. (As I explained, the gamma radiation is not 
going to impact pesticides on the combs at all.)

Waldemar said:

> But if you fix the real root cause - eliminate the factors whose
presence 
> has caused the compromised immune system - and you should fairly
assured 
> you have prevented reoccurrence of the disease in a sustainable :))
way.

I have yet to see any data that would lead any reasonable observer
to speculate about a two-stage process, where immune systems are 
compromised by some "root cause" and an otherwise non-fatal pathogen 
delivers the coup de grace.  

I'm really getting a little tired of speculation about a "root cause" 
that does nothing but allow those with an agenda to condemn "modern
beekeeping" or "modern agriculture" as "misguided".  We have a specific 
subset of hives that have died from a unique problem with very unique
symptoms, so if you want to condemn "commercial beekeeping" in general, 
you'd first have to show us that all hives, or at least the majority in 
"commercial beekeeping" are suffering from the problem, and showing the
same symptoms.  

The majority aren't suffering, so the speculation is utterly baseless.
(And please stop condemning modern apiculture with your mouth full.)

> I would resort to irradiation only as the last ditch effort after 
> having done all that can be done in bringing back the immune system 
> to its top level.

There's only one little problem here.  You have no way to measure
"the immune system", nor do you have any way to make even a relative
qualitative comparison between one hive and another, or one bee and
another in terms of "immune system".  I've said it before, 
and I'll repeat again:

You Cannot Control That Which You Don't Measure!

So, if you can't measure it, don't pretend that we can somehow "bring
it back" to ANY level.  The use of the term "level" presumes that
there is a metric somewhere, but all that has been offered has been
vague adjectives.  Phrases like "bringing back the immune system" 
are the language of the snake oil salesman, and the late-night 
infomercial peddlers of herbal nutritional supplements. 

The irradiation is simply a R&D tool anyway.  I don't see this as
a viable "treatment", as it can only be done AFTER a hive dies.
We need to prevent this, not just clean up after it.

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