BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Allen Dick <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 2 Nov 2002 07:18:19 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (63 lines)
> Polystyrene would have to be rejected on any environmental grounds.

I notice that the discussion has shifted here from the beekeeping benefits
to environmental concerns.  In many environmental issues, there is a a
large measure of speculation and necessary injection of personal biases.
There are many, many imponderables, but that does not stop people from
pondering, and reaching conclusions and presenting those conclusions as
fact.  Reasonable people regarding the same sparse facts often reach
opposing conclusions.  Others suspend judgement where so many conflicting
points are present.

Without attempting to rebut the points made -- they are good ones -- I'll
try to balance the issue a bit here and try also to get back to beekeeping
considerations.  I think we need to be aware of the possible environmental
impacts, but I am not sure we can reach valid conclusions on that front.

Polystyrene is a legal substance, and even if it is widely abused in
packaging, in beekeeping use the benefits may outweight the darker aspects.
Substituting polystyrene for wood may reduce other polluting practices
associated with or arising out of using wood for supers.  I just don't
know, but can speculate that the process of cutting wood reduces the
beneficial effect of forest and that the transporting, processing and
preserving of wood present negative environmental loads as well. The
additional load of transporting the relatively heavy weight of wood boxes
back and forth to the honey house many times over the life of the wood, in
terms of additional fuel consumed and the byproducts of that combustion,
are not negligible.  I would assume that many times the mass of polystyrene
supers would be consumed in fossil fuel.  Possibly using polystyrene boxes
might actually reduce overall petroleum stock consumption quite massively
compared to the small amount of petroleum used in manufacturing them.

While we are discussing the disposal aspects od bee equipment, I should say
that I like Pierco frames much better than wood and wax, but I really have
no idea of how to get rid of them after they have done their time, except
to bury them somewhere, or burn them.  I agree that burning makes produces
many unattractive and toxic products.

Interestingly enough burning wool -- a 'natural' product -- has the same
problem.  For that matter, wood, especially after use in construction or
being painted, is not as innocent as many of us assume.  In many cases,
wood is not permitted to be burnt, but is buried for disposal.

Assuming that the environmental aspect is being managed somehow, expanded
polystrene boxes do offer reduced weight and also, in areas where wrapping
is practised, reduce or eliminate the need for wrapping materials.  The
purchase and handing of wrapping materials is costly and labour
intensive -- and for those who are still adament that styro boxes are a
threat to the environment -- wraps utilize tars and papers and plastics
that are in the same class as polystyrene for impact on the environment and
workers.

Moreover, polystyrene, unlike wood -- requires only one quality coat of
paint once in its life, not the ous oil-based paints that wood needs
periodically to stand up.

You see, expanded polystyrene does decompose.  If it is left unprotected
fromm the sun, the surface turns to powder and in a few years it
disintegrates and turns to dust.

Anyhow, back to the beekeeping...

allen

ATOM RSS1 RSS2