On Wed, 2 Aug 1995, John E III Taylor wrote:
 
> > replacement cost.  I have used decontaminated equipment successfully.
> >  Hopefully Florida has such a chamber (if not, you should lobby the state
> > Dept. of Agriculture.   You can tell them it will make the State some money
> > (and beekeepers will be glad to pay it).
 
We had a large and costly ETO chamber here in Alberta many years ago and
even before that I lugged some purchased boxes to Manitoba to use theirs.
 
Frankly I found that it doesn't work because the only equipment that can
be decontaminated is equipment with no honey or pollen.
 
Additionally, ETO is a highly reactive substance which is not approved
for contact with honey because of the potentially numerous toxic byproducts.
 
Consequently, we in Alberta sold our $250,000 chamber years ago  -- and
last I heard, it was used to deal sucessfully with a moth infestation in a
museum.  This resulted in good press for beekeepers, but as far as I
know, it was cut up for scrap.
 
As for the treated equipment, it broke down again immediately with AFB.
 
It was only then that I learned how to properly use TM and since then we
seldom see any AFB. Thar same equipment is still in use some 15 years
later and never breaks down, in spite of the fact that we medicate only
for a few months in the spring and again once (if we remember) in the fall.
 
FWIW
 
Allen
 
 
 
W. Allen Dick, Beekeeper                        VE6CFK
Rural Route One   Swalwell   Alberta   Canada  T0M 1Y0
Email:   [log in to unmask]    or   [log in to unmask]
Futures, Art & Honey:http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~dicka