Olda Vancata wrote:
 
>Who can guarantie that any of the following subsances isn't harmfull
>to bees? Who will bring following substaces we don't know anything
>about into the beehive?
>
>(see:
http://probe.nal.usda.gov:8300/cgi-bin/table-maker?db=phytochemdb&defi
>nition+file=chems-in-taxon&arg1=Myrtus+communis )
>
>
>Phytochemicals of Myrtus communis:
>
>"1,8-CINEOLE"   "Plant"         135     2065
>"2-BUTANOL"     "Plant"
>"2-BUTANONE"    "Plant"
>"2-METHYL-BUT-3-EN-2-OL"        "Plant"         200     710
 
 
 
 
        Hi all,
 
    Isn't it wonderful this Bee-L?
 
    We can get so fast a lot of excellent information!!
 
    Yes, your point, dear friend, is very good.
 
    What you are requesting is correctly to be done. It will take probably
10-15 years until the classical "chemical related labs" (no offense!) will
approve it, and probably several million dollars.
 
    Not to complicate this issue, just for a new sight of this problematic,
has anybody from FDA tested on humans what happens with somebody which uses
raw propolis or tincture, or bee bread, royal jelly from bee hives treated
with Apistan and other chemical varroacids...?
 
    From the scientifical point of view, you are right. Myrtle oil can be
dangerous to the bees.
 
    So can be also rose oil, mint oil, pine oil, lavender oil and so on...
 
    So, let's block any organic "movement" and continue to use happily
Apistan et co. which brings slowly but sure varroa resistance to several
(bio)chemical "weapons"...
 
    Let's continue to use the classical smokers which brings free radicals
in our honey, free radicals which raises the risc to make cancer in our
customers etc., etc.
 
 
    Friendly and not ironically as you may think,
 
        Stefan Stangaciu, MD, LAcup.
       Constanta, Romania
         [log in to unmask]