Dean ("deknow") said:

> the 2 studies cited discuss 2 different factors in mite attraction.

> the larger the cell, the more mites

As Peter has not repeated several times, No.
They later did a better study later which refuted that claim, in
"Giancarlo A. Piccirillo, David De Jong (2004)
Old honey bee brood combs are more infested  by
the mite Varroa destructor than are new brood combs"

This relentless cherry-picking of statements, studies, and tiny
snippets of quotes has, at this point, become nothing more than
simple and deliberate intellectual dishonesty.  One has no valid
"argument" or "point of view" when one must overtly and repeatedly
mislead in the process of offering one's views.  The traditional "benefit
of the doubt" we give of "inexperience" or being "misinformed" can
no longer apply.

The same sort of "selective hearing" has been applied to the
work of Jen Berry of UGA.  Even though her final analysis showed
that small-cell colonies had more mites per 100 brood cells than
colonies with traditional-sized cells, her earlier ("no statistical
difference") report is cited more often, and has become part
of the standard offerings of a certain small segment of
evangelistic beekeepers.

> the older the comb the more mites

Yes, that much seems consistent.

> one of the advantages of regressing is that you get new comb that
> attract less mites.

Everyone here renews old brood combs.  If we didn't, we wouldn't be
beekeepers much longer.

> the other is that the cells are smaller, and attract more mites.

Has to be a typo, as I don't think that attracting MORE mites
would be a goal of any beekeeper.  But not to worry, this
quote will be easy to cherry-pick and use  every time any hint of
selective reading appears in the future in regard to the discussion
of mite control.

> these studies talk about what comb attracts mites.  it could be that
> the old comb attracts mites because of it's age...but also affects
> varroa reproduction because of it's size.

No, repeating it won't make it true.
That's been disproven to the satisfaction of the same researchers
who made the statements you want to quote.

The use of deliberate misdirection, pointing to one quote, when it
does not represent the full dataset of the study (as in "Berry", above)
or when it represents speculation later retracted by the author in
light of more data (as in "DeJong", above) is yet another example
of the persistent and unrepentant Cherry-Picking.

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************