# Strip Mine Beekeeping



## Wilcoma (Feb 19, 2012)

Ran on to this today. Thought you guys might find it interesting.

http://news.yahoo.com/beekeepers-eye-appalachian-surface-mines-hives-162132891.html


----------



## Broglea (Jul 2, 2013)

I put some hives on some reclaimed mining land here in Indiana this year. I plan on adding some more in the spring. At this point I don't see much of a difference in production from my hives in the burbs. Still too early to draw any conclusions though.


----------



## Marysia2 (May 23, 2014)

Wilcoma said:


> Ran on to this today. Thought you guys might find it interesting.
> http://news.yahoo.com/beekeepers-eye-appalachian-surface-mines-hives-162132891.html


"Several also say re-purposing the land gives the industry a free pass to divert attention away from the harm being done."

Well, you can't please all the people all the time. I was encouraged to read that the mining associations have replanted trees and flora - even if it *is* just to cover up the scar they created in the past. And personally, I would rather see the land re-purposed specifically for beekeeping, creating jobs and income for the local community.

The only thing I would say is that they do need to test the honey being produced; if it's contaminated in some way that's harmful to humans, that would create another disaster in the not too distant future.

Thanks for posting this!


----------



## MJC417 (Jul 26, 2008)

Marysia2 said:


> "Several also say re-purposing the land gives the industry a free pass to divert attention away from the harm being done."
> 
> Well, you can't please all the people all the time. I was encouraged to read that the mining associations have replanted trees and flora - even if it *is* just to cover up the scar they created in the past. And personally, I would rather see the land re-purposed specifically for beekeeping, creating jobs and income for the local community.
> 
> ...


If you watch the related video, you should place your hives in NYC. The beekeeper claims the honey is much cleaner there.


----------



## burns375 (Jul 15, 2013)

Our new KY state aparaist is involved with a similar program in the eastern area of the state. Sounds like a great idea to me. Mix of hardwood and natural pasture. The elk love it too!


----------



## scorpionmain (Apr 17, 2012)

I live in the heart of Appalachia & Mining Country.
My community loves strip mining and the benefits that are brought to us because of it.
I always find it amusing when people who live outside of Coal Country comment on it.
Brainwashed by the media, you don't know what you are talking about. I live it.
We welcome it and don't like outsiders telling us what to do with our land.
We like it for many reasons.
It gives us employment.
It opens up land that was previously unusable & inaccessible.
We have ATV parks bringing in tourism from people many states away now.
Strip mining gives us land to build our homes on. Previously we built our homes on steep hillsides. Drive though sometime and you will see many of the older homes supported by poles on the slope side. 
Our towns were located in depressions & along rivers that were prone to flooding. Now we have flat land to get us out of the bottoms and build our homes and towns in safety.
Strip mining has opened up land to cattle farming, we used to could only do this along river beds.
We have Industrial parks for manufacturing springing up once the land is worked, leveled, and infrastructure like roads, bridges, and power have been laid.
It provides Elk land to forage on, attracting hunting and wildlife-watching revenue.

I see Marysia2 and MJC417 talking about "contamination" but that is foolish. The land is not contaminated. The soil is flipped and the coal underneath is removed and then the soil is placed back. Nothing is added to contaminate. If anything it improves the compacted earth and makes it possible to plant wild flowers, helps our sourwood tress to grow, and keeps us safe from pesticide-driven industrial agriculture.

I'll take this "awful strip job" over your New York City any day.


----------



## Marysia2 (May 23, 2014)

scorpionmain said:


> My community loves strip mining and the benefits that are brought to us because of it.
> I always find it amusing when people who live outside of Coal Country comment on it. Brainwashed by the media, you don't know what you are talking about. I live it. We welcome it and don't like outsiders telling us what to do with our land.
> I see Marysia2 and MJC417 talking about "contamination" but that is foolish


Hmmm...I didn't make any judgemental comments about strip mining and the communities who depend on it. The article cited was about reclaiming land that is no longer being used for strip mining. It suggests that when this avenue of employment has run its course, that the land can be reclaimed and provide a different type of employment. What does that have to do with the evil brainwashing media?

I would still suggest that the honey be tested just because there are always unknown factors (unknown even to you or anyone else living in the area). If there is no contamination, then there is no need for concern. I feel you are overly sensitive to criticism that was never broached.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Marysia2 said:


> I would still suggest that the honey be tested just because there are always unknown factors (unknown even to you or anyone else living in the area). If there is no contamination, then there is no need for concern. I feel you are overly sensitive to criticism that was never broached.


I am sensitive to the comments you have made about contamination. Contamination from buried rock? What exactly are you going to test it for? Pyrite? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?


----------



## UTvolshype (Nov 26, 2012)

Old stripmine areas in East Tn should be coming on strong with sourwood and other secondary forest trees and shrubs since they are 30-50+ years old from the hayday TVA supported mining that happen.
Old growth oak trees don't produce much honey after the tulip trees are done. Since these areas were logged too there not much basswood and other mid to late spring nectar flow going on up on the plateau except scrub sourwood and sumac.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

It depends on what you're mining as far as contamination goes. There could be natural occurring heavy metal deposits as well which aren't the best but probably not very common.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

I know a beekeeper in east Texas who has bees in reclaimed strip coal mining areas. He says they are the best locations he has with lots of favorable bee pasturage being replanted. All the topsoil is moved aside before mining begins and then replaced in the reclamation process.


----------



## Mountain Man (Aug 26, 2013)

Sourwood, Autumn Olive, Golden Rod, CLover and the list goes on and on. Our Bees here in Eastern Ky Love the reclaimed strips!


----------



## scorpionmain (Apr 17, 2012)

JRG13 said:


> It depends on what you're mining as far as contamination goes. There could be natural occurring heavy metal deposits as well which aren't the best but probably not very common.


I don't think it would be wise for me to state what I do for a living and who I work for on an open forum like this, but rest assured if any coal company was doing anything harmful to the environment or people we would put a stop to it.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

All of you questioning the value of reclaimed strip mines should inquire where the Killian "Kings of Combhoney" where located.


Crazy Roland


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Scorpion, I just think people have the impression of strip mining being like gold mining back in the day, erode everything and contaminate with mercury etc.... during the process. Obviously coal is different since you just need to remove the deposits mechanically. Obviously strip mining is good for turning soil and providing better habitat for certain types of growth.


----------



## Marysia2 (May 23, 2014)

Roland said:


> All of you questioning the value of reclaimed strip mines should inquire where the Killian "Kings of Combhoney" where located.
> 
> 
> Crazy Roland


Interesting but...I don't see any comments that question the value of reclaimed strip mines, not one. I personally made it clear that I think it's fantastic to put the reclaimed land to new use that will provide a renewed source of income for the local population. 

But personally, I'd still want a test done of the *honey*. And no, I have no idea what could contaminate it, and neither does anyone else...until it's tested.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Marysia2 said:


> Interesting but...I don't see any comments that question the value of reclaimed strip mines, not one. I personally made it clear that I think it's fantastic to put the reclaimed land to new use that will provide a renewed source of income for the local population.
> 
> But personally, I'd still want a test done of the *honey*. And no, I have no idea what could contaminate it, and neither does anyone else...until it's tested.


Of course, the _potential _for contaminated land/water exists at locations other than reclaimed former coal mines. For instance, one of those contaminated sites is near Cape Cod, MA ...



> The Toxics Program is investigating a wastewater plume in a shallow sand and gravel aquifer near Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The ground-water plume is about 2.5 miles long, and [HIGHLIGHT]contains chlorinated hydrocarbons, detergents, metals, nitrate, and microbes. [/HIGHLIGHT]Detailed sampling of the plume and large-scale tracer experiments have provided an opportunity to demonstrate a fundamental approach for characterizing the heterogeneous nature of subsurface contaminant plumes.
> 
> _More at this link:
> _http://toxics.usgs.gov/sites/cape_cod_page.html


Sounds like a reason for having your honey tested for contamination if your bees are anywhere near that site in the Cape Cod MA area. :lookout:


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Not sure I can ever recall hearing of a case where honey was found contaminated because of contamination of the ground the plants were growing in. I'm not saying it's never happened just that I don't recall ever hearing of a confirmed case.


----------



## Marysia2 (May 23, 2014)

Really odd how people who insist there can't be any kind of contamination are so resistant to the idea of testing. The more resistance put up, the more suspicious I would become. If there is nothing there, why are some of you so terrified that something will be found?

No one would know that honey from China is heavily contaminated with lead if it hadn't been tested. After all, how would lead get into honey? 

As for Cape Cod...yep, there is a suspiciously high incidence of childhood leukemia around the Pilgrim Power Plant, yet authorities say they can't find a connection. Nobody is buying that. Hmmm...maybe you guys should be *less* trusting of what the local and Fed government tells you. All kinds of testing goes on around here, but so far none of my bees glow in the dark.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Any honey contamination I am aware of is either through unsanitary handling procedures or equipment or because of the use of unapproved chemicals in the hive. If you have evidence of ground contamination affecting honey I would be interested in hearing about it.


----------



## Marysia2 (May 23, 2014)

jim lyon said:


> If you have evidence of ground contamination affecting honey I would be interested in hearing about it.


Me too, so let's test!!!!


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Test for what exactly? Tests must be specific. Each particular contaminant you are testing for will have a price tag attached to it. If you are aware that there is a particular contaminant in the ground that you are worried about, then, yes, I'm sure there is a test for it. My honey is already being tested for beekeeper applied pesticides and antibiotics. What else do you suggest I or anyone else should be testing for?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Marysia2 said:


> But personally, I'd still want a test done of the *honey*. And no, I have no idea what could contaminate it, and neither does anyone else...until it's tested.


I guess if you have really deep pockets, start testing for the unknown!


----------



## Marysia2 (May 23, 2014)

jim lyon said:


> Test for what exactly? Tests must be specific.


Again, interesting. Why would they test specifically for lead in Chinese honey? According to you, they would have had to. I just thought they did a general analysis of it and found lead and other interesting facts about the Chinese super-filtered yet contaminated, diluted honey. Which no one would have known about from looking at it. 

Is it because you guys are afraid the cost will be on you? Is that the reason for the big pushback? I would *assume* that some government agency should/would do it. 

I only stated that *I* would be suspicious of honey from reclaimed industrial areas, rightly or wrongly, and would want it cleared by some kind of analysis - but do you really think I'm the only one who would have that reaction? Carry on boys, you eat your honey, and I'll eat mine.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

> Carry on boys, you eat your honey, and I'll eat mine.

It doesn't sound as though you are planning on having *your* honey tested for contaminants, and yet you seem to feel that others should test *their* honey for contaminants.

Cognitive dissonance?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Lead is pretty commonly tested for because it is so prevalent in poor quality food handling systems and it is proven to cause health issues. If anyone is selling honey in the US be prepared for it to be tested for lead whether it's imported or not. Known antibiotics are tested for as well, some have zero tolerance some are allowed at certain limits. 
I'm all about honey purity but why would anyone be asked to spend a lot of money looking for unknowns? How do you decide what to test for and where do you draw the line? 
Your last statement implies that you feel your honey may be more pure than that raised by others. Do you have some basis for that assumption? With bees having a proven foraging range of as much as 4 miles have you ever stopped to consider that you would have to be aware of every chemical used in an area of nearly 50 square miles surrounding your hives? Are you prepared to test your honey for.......everything?


----------



## Marysia2 (May 23, 2014)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> It doesn't sound as though you are planning on having *your* honey tested for contaminants


Nope, but my hives are in a suburban backyard that was virgin forest until about 1966, when they started building houses on it.



> and yet you seem to feel that others should test *their* honey for contaminants.


Nope, just honey from hives built on reclaimed industrial land. But why do you keep beating this dead horse? It's your honey, you're selling it and if 10 years from now you find out you caused mutations and cancer in children...it's really not my concern. I guess I'm just thinking about what _I_ would do before going ahead with full scale marketing of that honey, but that's just me. And apparently none of you.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Marysia, I would truly be heartbroken if I felt honey that I sold would cause " mutations and cancer in children". Help us out with a solution so this can never happen. What specifically should everyone be testing for to prevent such an occurrence? If you know of something that has been found in honey that could cause such a thing then I, for one, will spare no expense in testing for it.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Marysia2 said:


> Nope, but my hives are in a suburban backyard that was virgin forest until about 1966, when they started building houses on it.


The contaminated area at Cape Cod MA that I linked in post #17 had nothing to do with any nuclear plant. The contamination (as described in the quote) appeared to be rather common *sewage*! You know, the kind of sewage that _every __residential development_ produces! 



_... contains chlorinated hydrocarbons, detergents, metals, nitrate, and microbes ... _


----------



## FollowtheHoney (Mar 31, 2014)

http://www.capecodbaywatch.org/2014/08/chronology-of-pilgrims-tritium-leak-whats-the-latest/

I think this is more in line with what Marysia is concerned about in regards to Cape water contamination. On the other side of the canal, Otis Airforce base has also contributed to some non sewage related water contamination and elevated cancer rates.


----------



## Sharpbees (Jun 26, 2012)

Here's my take on the whole testing idea. If you think testing should be done, I personally think it should be honey from urban areas. I have watched honeybees in urban areas getting water from greasy mud puddles, ditches where lawn chemical run off occurs. I've seen them working garbage cans and dumpsters to the point it looked like a swarm occurring. I've seen them getting water from sewage lagoons Not to mention the amount of sugar syrup the bees get from hummingbird feeders around most neighborhoods. IMO urban bees carry more of a risk for contaminating honey than bees on reclaimed coal strip mines, that are out in the middle of nowhere in many cases. Unfortunately, in todays world the risk of contaminants in the environment are everywhere that people are or have been, so if bees were contaminating honey from the environment I think it would already be known.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

scorpionmain said:


> . . . but rest assured if any coal company was doing anything harmful to the environment or people we would put a stop to it.


That's a joke, right . . . ? . . . 


"Mines with delinquent penalties since 2009 have an injury rate that is 50 percent higher than mines that paid their fines.":

http://www.kentucky.com/2014/11/23/3555978/six-owners-of-eastern-kentucky.html



"Coal Mines Keep Operating Despite Injuries, Violations And Millions In Fines":

http://www.npr.org/2014/11/12/36305...ite-injuries-violations-and-millions-in-fines



"In December 2008, a large swath of Tennessee was flooded with toxic coal ash when a containment pond ruptured"

http://www.manataka.org/page1329.html



"This is at least the third slurry incident since 2010 at the Kanawha Eagle cite.:"

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201402110032


The above is just a tiny fraction of the examples of coal mining behavior.


----------



## scorpionmain (Apr 17, 2012)

I typed out a response and then deleted it.
I don't want to get into the politics.
I could type out a dissertation & we could go around and around on the subject, but I know what your saying.


----------



## Marysia2 (May 23, 2014)

jim lyon said:


> Marysia, I would truly be heartbroken if I felt honey that I sold would cause " mutations and cancer in children". Help us out with a solution so this can never happen. What specifically should everyone be testing for to prevent such an occurrence? If you know of something that has been found in honey that could cause such a thing then I, for one, will spare no expense in testing for it.


The by-products and contaminants caused by strip coal mining are well known and documented. If you are unfamiliar with them, then you can easily Google them. Those would be what honey could be tested for. 

As I said from the beginning, I am not interested in criticizing any kind of mining or the people who rely on it for a livelihood. I am not happy about living near an antique nuclear power plant, but I know people who work there. We all do what we have to do to survive.

So *all* you anti-testing people are bee-keeping on reclaimed coal land? All of you? Because that was the very specific situation that was the focus of *my* opinion that I would want the honey to be tested before I ate it. It seems the lot of you went off on a tangent about no honey should ever be tested, for any reason.

Sort of like if the government said that honey from hives located near Chernobyl was ok to eat...even though it hadn't been tested for *known* contaminants. I bet the Chernobyl beeks would be anti-testing of their honey, too. So what if a jar of it sets a Geiger counter off from a mile away, right?


----------



## Marysia2 (May 23, 2014)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> The contamination (as described in the quote) appeared to be rather common *sewage*! You know, the kind of sewage that _every __residential development_ produces! _... contains chlorinated hydrocarbons, detergents, metals, nitrate, and microbes ... _


My bees don't forage in the ocean...do yours? And while you're rolling your eyes, please focus on the fact that we are talking about how much, if any, of those contaminants make their way into the honey - not just appear in the environment. There is not necessarily a correlation, but unless you test...you won't know. Or unless you're psychic...and I'm not.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Marysia2 said:


> The by-products and contaminants caused by strip coal mining are well known and documented. If you are unfamiliar with them, then you can easily Google them. Those would be what honey could be tested for.
> 
> As I said from the beginning, I am not interested in criticizing any kind of mining or the people who rely on it for a livelihood. I am not happy about living near an antique nuclear power plant, but I know people who work there. We all do what we have to do to survive.
> 
> ...


Now you're drawing a parallel with Chernobyl? I'm outta here.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Marysia2 said:


> The by-products and contaminants caused by strip coal mining are well known and documented. If you are unfamiliar with them, then you can easily Google them. Those would be what honey could be tested for.
> 
> 
> Sort of like if the government said that honey from hives located near Chernobyl was ok to eat...even though it hadn't been tested for *known* contaminants. I bet the Chernobyl beeks would be anti-testing of their honey, too. So what if a jar of it sets a Geiger counter off from a mile away, right?


You are making the claims, so it is up to you to provide the references. What *known* contaminants are found on the ground surface and are available for plant uptake at reclaimed coal mine sites? 

Nuclear honey? Do you know what a straw man argument is?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Marysia2 said:


> My bees don't forage in the ocean...do yours? And while you're rolling your eyes, please focus on the fact that we are talking about how much, if any, of those contaminants make their way into the honey - not just appear in the environment. There is not necessarily a correlation, but unless you test...you won't know. Or unless you're psychic...and I'm not.


Bees foraging in the ocean?? :scratch: What are you talking about? :s

Here is that quote _again _...



> The Toxics Program is investigating a wastewater plume in a [HIGHLIGHT] shallow sand and gravel aquifer [/HIGHLIGHT]near Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The ground-water plume is about 2.5 miles long, and contains chlorinated hydrocarbons, detergents, metals, nitrate, and microbes.
> 
> http://toxics.usgs.gov/sites/cape_cod_page.html


A "ground-water" plume of contaminants in a "shallow sand and gravel aquifer" is not referring to the ocean. It is all about _contaminated _water UNDER THE GROUND SURFACE. Otherwise referred to as dry land, not the ocean. _Dirt_, likely with plants growing in it - perhaps even plants with _nectar_!

And it is right there in *your *locale.  Now I'm going roll my eyes _TWICE_!   

And since you acknowledge that you _not _psychic, you should probably send off a sample of your honey to be _tested_.  


More on _groundwater _at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwater

.


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

Marysia2 said:


> I am not happy about living near an antique nuclear power plant


That's easy to fix, just move. I'd be more curious to know why somebody complaining about living near such a plant has not moved away from it.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

The quality of the reclamation, the control of acid mine drainage, and the landscape-scale impacts of mountain-top removal mining all have to be considered in this issue. 
I deal with selenium contaminated systems frequently. Selenium is highly toxic to bees (as in humans). Ref:1 Selenium is present any any marine sediment at trace levels -- when brought into solution this trace concentrates in the solution and exceeds the healthy limit (2-5 parts per billion). 
Coal mining mobilizes acid mine drainage (leachate) which is contaminated with trace elements (including selenium). Se is just below S on the periodic table, and any compound of Sulfur (abundant in coal beds) will contain Se as an atomic replacement. Well designed strip reclamation will cap the mine area with semipermeable clays, and provide surface drainage to avoid mobilizing solutes from the fractured rock. The ideal reclamation is often not achieved.

The Almond growing area of the southern San Joaquin overlays some of the most problematic selenium soils in the West. These are on west-side marine sediments from the Temblor range -- recent marine deposits. I think the possibility of selenium contaminated nectar from west-side Almonds should be seriously considered. Its not going to be a human issue (as the contribution from honey is too small) but just as Se in horses leads to "blind staggers", Se would be toxic to honeybees foraging on the same plants as the horses. Rancher's fireweed (Amsinkia spp.) are a known concentrator of the metal.

Portions of the west with granite derived or loess soils have chronic selenium deficiency -- leading to real issues in cattle (spontaneous abortion of calves). In one of my projects, we transported selenium-toxic hay from Ca to areas in NW Wa/Id with Se deficiency. Selenium is a micronutrient for all animals, but the range between deficiency and overdose is very narrow. I shudder when I see "health food" stores promoting Se supplements without warning of overdosage.




Citation:
1. Hladun KR, Smith BH, Mustard JA, Morton RR, Trumble JT (2012) Selenium Toxicity to Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.) Pollinators: Effects on Behaviors and Survival. PLoS ONE 7(4): e34137. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0034137


----------



## BigGun (Oct 27, 2011)

Marysia2 said:


> Nope, but my hives are in a suburban backyard that was virgin forest until about 1966, when they started building houses on it.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, just honey from hives built on reclaimed industrial land. But why do you keep beating this dead horse? It's your honey, you're selling it and if 10 years from now you find out you caused mutations and cancer in children...it's really not my concern. I guess I'm just thinking about what _I_ would do before going ahead with full scale marketing of that honey, but that's just me. And apparently none of you.



You talk like you believe strip mined areas are like abandoned chemical plants. That's just not how these areas are. The pic from one of the earlier posts is not a good example of most reclaimed mines in my opinion. Most are not that pretty. Some are. But still very clean. 

In all honesty we think we know about pollution problems from our areas. I would guess we are truly clueless. I wonder how many places had someone 50 years ago dump DDT or who knows what chemical.

I know both people in the article. Tammy I really don't know very well. They couldn't have found a better person to interview than Wade. Both a great beekeeper and great person. Wade is supposed to be our speaker tomorrow night at our December meeting. Heard rumor that Tammy may make an appearance.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

JWChesnut said:


> The quality of the reclamation, the control of acid mine drainage, and the landscape-scale impacts of mountain-top removal mining all have to be considered in this issue.
> I deal with selenium contaminated systems frequently. Selenium is highly toxic to bees (as in humans). Ref:1 Selenium is present any any marine sediment at trace levels -- when brought into solution this trace concentrates in the solution and exceeds the healthy limit (2-5 parts per billion).
> Coal mining mobilizes acid mine drainage (leachate) which is contaminated with trace elements (including selenium). Se is just below S on the periodic table, and any compound of Sulfur (abundant in coal beds) will contain Se as an atomic replacement. Well designed strip reclamation will cap the mine area with semipermeable clays, and provide surface drainage to avoid mobilizing solutes from the fractured rock. The ideal reclamation is often not achieved.
> 
> ...


you offer a convoluted shotgun pattern of unrelated selenium issues. Knowing what I know about environmental contamination, I will bet a years worth of salary that you will not find selenium contamination in honey from colonies that are placed on reclaimed coal mine land.

EDIT: if anyone wants to take me up on the offer, send me a sample of your honey and a check for $30 and I will take it to an analytical laboratory for selenium analysis and share the results with you.


----------



## Marysia2 (May 23, 2014)

Nabber86 said:


> You are making the claims, so it is up to you to provide the references.


???? What claims are you talking about? That mining produces by-products and contaminants? If you don't know that, or prefer not to believe that, then there is no basis for discussion. Again, I am not interested in vilifying coal mining.

And before someone else comes along and says, "But...but...lobster trapping produces contaminants! Suburban lawns have contaminants! Polishing your fingernails causes cancer!" try to stay focused. The subject of this thread, which was not introduced by me, was about using reclaimed mining land for beekeeping. 

The anti-testing/anti-analysis brigade's vehement claims that there couldn't *possibly* be any unforeseen pollutants, specific to industrial mining, would make me immediately suspicious. If you can't assure me that there's nothing funky in the honey, then I just won't buy the honey. Just like I don't buy honey from the super market, and not just because I have my own supply.


----------



## Marysia2 (May 23, 2014)

grozzie2 said:


> That's easy to fix, just move. I'd be more curious to know why somebody complaining about living near such a plant has not moved away from it.


Um...because other than that, it suits me to stay here? You know, like people who live near the fault lines in California, or live in Tornado Alley in the Mid-West. 

It's irrelevant, anyway, so try to stay on point, otherwise it makes you look desperate to divert attention away from the subject being discussed, which is simply: Is there anything funky in honey from hives located on reclaimed mining land?

Telling me (or other potential customers) that it doesn't matter because some other honey from some other place will have some kind of contaminants too is not a convincing argument to buy this honey.


----------



## Marysia2 (May 23, 2014)

Nabber86 said:


> EDIT: if anyone wants to take me up on the offer, send me a sample of your honey and a check for $30 and I will take it to an analytical laboratory for selenium analysis and share the results with you.


Apparently there are quite a few beeks commenting on this thread who keep hives on reclaimed mining land, so I imagine one of them could supply the honey sample. I doubt that I've ever been near a mine, let alone a reclaimed one, so I can't help there. Personally, I'd want you to test for something more exotic like radon or mercury...


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Marysia2 said:


> ???? What claims are you talking about? That mining produces by-products and contaminants? If you don't know that, or prefer not to believe that, then there is no basis for discussion..


The claims that there is some kind of unknown contamination that magically appears in honey from hives that are placed on reclaimed coal mine land. Nobody is claiming that mining does not produce wastes. Tell us how contamination, again undefined, would actually get into the honey. You can't tell us what contamination your are scared about, where the supposed contamination originates, how it is gets into the soil/water/air, how the plants uptake the supposed contamination of unknown materials, how the bees are exposed to these supposed contaminants, the route of entry of the supposed contamination to the honeybee population, and what if any ends up in the honey. You are completely missing these points as well as several other steps and pathways that I did not mention.

If you actually know something, let us know.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Marysia2 said:


> Apparently there are quite a few beeks commenting on this thread who keep hives on reclaimed mining land, so I imagine one of them could supply the honey sample. I doubt that I've ever been near a mine, let alone a reclaimed one, so I can't help there. Personally, I'd want you to test for something more exotic like radon or mercury...


I can get metals analysis for about $25 per individual metal. There is usually a $30 flat fee for digestion before the analysis, but I don't expect you to even begin understand this last bit of information.

Oh and radon is a gas. You won't find it in honey.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Whew, Nabber, I was worried for a minute there. We are on bedrock limestone, and known for high Radon levels. And with numerous limestone quarries around, i was sure our honey needed to be tested. A gas??? Dang, I hate it when fact and science gets in the way of our beliefs.

Some of the best comb honey was produced on reclaimed land by the Kiliians. Should I contact them and ask for a sample for testing? 

Like Mr. Lyon, our honey is tested for numerous things, and has always passed.

crazy Roland


----------



## Marysia2 (May 23, 2014)

Nabber86 said:


> The claims that there is some kind of unknown contamination that magically appears in honey from hives that are placed on reclaimed coal mine land.


Nope, never claimed any such thing. My very point was that_ I don't know,_ so I would be cautious without assurances of some kind from people other than the ones producing/selling it. You have imagined all sorts of things, read between lines that aren't there, and basically veered far off from my very simple sentence (some kind of testing should be done). Presumably beekeeping on reclaimed coal mine land is a new endeavor so the ramifications, _if any,_ are not known.

I am really surprised at all the animosity this has generated. People who will be your presumed customers for raw honey tend to be health concious if not actually health fanatics. They will question the source of this honey, just like I did. And generally speaking, I'm not a health-freak.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Roland said:


> Whew, Nabber, I was worried for a minute there. We are on bedrock limestone, and known for high Radon levels. And with numerous limestone quarries around, i was sure our honey needed to be tested. A gas??? Dang, I hate it when fact and science gets in the way of our beliefs.
> 
> Some of the best comb honey was produced on reclaimed land by the Kiliians. Should I contact them and ask for a sample for testing?
> 
> ...


Radon is only a problem only if your basement is excavated in bedrock that releases radon gas. It doesn't get into anything other than your lungs and only that if your basement is poorly ventilate and you spend a lot of time in your basement. You can buy a radon test kit for less than $50 at your local Home Depot. Finding radon in honey is physically impossible. You can install a radon remediation system in your house for less than $1000 iF you think it is a problem. Radon is an overblown issue, much like asbestos in the insulation and flooring of your house. There are plenty of people who will gladly take your money to test for and install a radon remediation system if you are so inclined.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Marysia2 said:


> My very point was that_ I don't know,_.


Exactly! It is obvious that you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Marysia2 (May 23, 2014)

Nabber86 said:


> Exactly! It is obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. Get some education before you make ignorant assumptions.


What assumptions did I make? Other than there *could* be something in the honey, I can't think of any. Please be specific and quote from my posts. And try to be polite...you've just about crossed that borderline already. Thanks.


----------



## BigGun (Oct 27, 2011)

Marysia2 said:


> What assumptions did I make? Other than there *could* be something in the honey, I can't think of any. Please be specific and quote from my posts. And try to be polite...you've just about crossed that borderline already. Thanks.


Marysia. You have made it clear you have problems with this part of the world. It's not the honey you have problems with its the people. And you try to act like your the reasonable one.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

"_Personally, I'd want you to test for something more exotic like radon or mercury..._"

Saying there could be radon in the honey shows you have no idea what you are talking about, but you still impugn the honey from beeks who keep hives on/near reclaimed land.



"_The only thing I would say is that they do need to test the honey being produced . . ._"

"_What assumptions did I make?_"

Saying the honey must be tested is assuming there is a chance of contamination.



"_Really odd how people who insist there can't be any kind of contamination are so resistant to the idea of testing. The more resistance put up, the more suspicious I would become. If there is nothing there, why are some of you so terrified that something will be found?_

Implying that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be hiding something is narrow minded as well as rude.



.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

I am wondering what makes radon and mercury more exotic than selenium. They are all naturally occurring. 

:scratch:


----------



## angel (Jul 23, 2013)

Nowadays it is rare for mine soil to be "contaminated". But historically, mine soil (called spoil) has sometimes been very acidic (with a low pH), causing acid mine drainage and causing some metallic elements to become readily available, such as iron and manganese. However it would not affect honey that came from a strip mine.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

I was working at a coal load out facility in Pikeville, KY in 1986. It was the first time that I ever saw bottled water. You couldn't drink the water where we were working because there was too much iron in it.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

This paper is a good summary of elemental contamination issues.
http://www.bee-hexagon.net/files/file/fileE/BeeProducts/ContaminationApidologie2006.pdf

Highly industrialized urban environments (such as shipyards in Massachusetts) are far more problematic than rural Appalachian coal fields. The paper notes that Pb is not transported in plants, and that bees actively filter it. The paper is far more concerned with Cd, which is a classic "urban" pollutant.

I brought up Se, because 1) total human exposure from honey would be far below MDL (and conceivably within the therapeutic range for this essential micronutrient). 2). Landscapes other than reclaimed coalfields present a far more likely route of exposure. I tend to get misunderstood when I make tangential observations on an issue, and the Se comments are tangential to Bees on Coalbeds in KY.

The first affected organisim in these contaminants would be the bees -- (see paper on how assays of bees are more reliable and higher loaded, than assays of honey). If the bees are healthy, then the risk of subsequent human exposure is inconsequential. 

Honey is an evaporated product, concentrated at 5x. This magnifies the effect of transported contaminants. 

Snip --
On average, the Pb concentration was low
and unproblematic in honey but the lead residues
found in propolis are often too high and
care should be taken to harvest it in areas that
are at least 3 km away from motor car traffic
and incinerators. Bee products are less suitable
to serve as indicators for the measurement of Pb
and Cd pollution due to considerable natural
variation. Bees themselves seem to be better
candidate for this purpose (Porrini et al., 2002).

Pollen and propolis are
considered to be better indicators for radioactive
contamination than honey (Alexenitser
and Bodnarchuk, 1999).... Radioactivity is not currently a problem for
honey and for other bee products. However,
after thermo-nuclear incidents, bee products
should be controlled before consumption.

Attached is an image drainage of a Superfund site in the Sierra Nevada I have been working on for several years. Very low ph (sub 3) that mobilizes metals (the color is iron bacteria, normal streamside vegetation surrounds the outflow - both good and bad, as the veg takes up elemental contaminants, but also demonstrates just how fast pH is buffered by intact natural systems.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Marysia2 said:


> It's your honey, you're selling it and if 10 years from now you find out you caused mutations and cancer in children...it's really not my concern. I guess I'm just thinking about what _I_ would do before going ahead with full scale marketing of that honey, but that's just me. And apparently none of you.


I remember back in the 60's when the mining business was very strong in Southeast Ohio there were strip mines and beehives on farms everywhere you looked. Many of those mines were abandoned when the coal business started to dry up and reclamation was not a priority, as it is today. 

Anyway, my point is that 50 years later I have yet to see anyone here with two heads, and don't know of any areas in Southeast Ohio with high percentages of children battling cancer. I think the tests have already been done.


----------



## Spark (Feb 24, 2011)

People here are getting a little over the top. Any "bad" contaminents from the soil would have to be absorbed by the plant and passed through it too it's pollen or nectar source for the bee to consume. There is a reason you can not plant certain vegetables against a house built before 1977 because of lead and plant absorption. Could a plant absorb the strip mine contaminents ... don't know I am not a scientist but maybe..possibly?

Radar Sidetrack better be careful after posting that sewerage comment hate to think he keeps bees by his neighbors septic system 
Eventually we will no longer be able to exist becuase of all the anti's .. everything is bad even recess for children is bad today now it's land you keep bees on even though they visit your chemically induced neighborhood garden! Lock your doors they are coming for you..


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Spark said:


> Radar Sidetrack better be careful after posting that sewerage comment hate to think he keeps bees by his neighbors septic system


I see that you used a smiley, but allow me to explain why I chose to focus on _that _particular site. 

There is _potential _for contaminated areas in virtually ANY area of the USA. Some of those "point source" problems might initially be from mining, some from industrial plants and some from simply aging infrastructure in residential areas (i.e, leaking or undersized sewer trunk lines). Aside from "point source" issues, there can be "non-point source" contamination as well (car/truck emissions is one example of that). So anyone that thinks the _potential _for land/water contamination is only something that happen to OTHER areas than where they are is mistaken.

My choice of that specific sewage plume was meant to drive home that there are potential "local" issues everywhere, including _next door_ to the one _pointing the finger_, but that point didn't seem to be accepted very well. 

One issue regarding mining that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is that mining coal/minerals/gravel etc does not bring any (potential) contamination into an area that wasn't already there before. If you think coal is "bad", well the whole point of coal mining is to take that coal and use it _elsewhere_. The worst that can be said about the mining itself is that it does potentially expose some minerals/potential contaminants that were originally buried. The act of mining is *not *bringing in new alleged contaminants. And a properly reclaimed mine area will have the overburden/top soil replaced so as to properly manage water runoff. If there is an area of mined ground to consider as "risky", I'd say that abandoned, _UN_-reclaimed areas are more likely to be a problem.

.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Spark said:


> Could a plant absorb the strip mine contaminents


Most plants do not absorb and transport Pb beyond the roots. It is toxic to plants, just as it is to the animal kingdom, and plants have active processes to prevent translocation and detoxify the lead (by chelation). Among the exceptions are the mustards (Canola, Cabbage, Broccoli) which actively hyper-accumulate Pb and many other nasty elements. Most heavy metals are not very soluble in organic soils, they require cation exchange or acids to become soluble. Se is not a metal and is easily dissolved, but methylates like the metals, furthermore since Se is an essential micronutrient most organisms accumulate it easily. Zn is also an essential micronutrient, and accumulates. Pb has no biological function.

The classic route of plant contamination is use of *urban* sewer solids as a land treatment. Urban sewer is a heavy metal hot-spot (one gas station with a pile of broken batteries by the oil/water sump connected to the sewer or a bumper plating operation can contaminate a whole system). 

I worked on the case of an organic Lettuce farm that established itself just downstream of a gold-rush era Hg (Mercury) mine. The Hg and As (Arsenic) levels in the salad greens were off the scale. The farm shut down overnight.

Smoke stack emissions of Hg, As, Pb from the coal fired power plants fed by coal are more likely routes of dispersal than the reclamation area -- as the spoil is substantially inert (and designed that way). The technology of cleaning stack emissions is constantly improving (and not my area of knowledge). 

Again, honey is just not a realistic route of exposure to humans for these elements. The bees might be good for assays at the landscape scale -- as the forage widely and bio-accumulate. I'd be way more cautious of the hobby hive set up in East Los Angeles, than in a Kentucky forest.


----------



## Spark (Feb 24, 2011)

JW maybe planting certain chemical absorbing plants could be a plus absorb and destroy the plants thus cleaning the soil..it's a stretch but hey may work.


----------



## angel (Jul 23, 2013)

I think we are missing the original post from the OP where beekeeping on strip mines can help create jobs for Appalachian strip mines, as well as help promote pollination of the torn down land into something useful, as well as the trees that are planted (black locust) is a major nectar source for the bees. As well as creating jobs for out of work coal ops and promoting the pollination task force that Obama pushed into effect in June for beekeepers and dairy farmers.


----------



## Spark (Feb 24, 2011)

Radar we are becoming a society where every little thing is bad for us. I doubt some people here remember cesspools and they had tons of wildflowers growing around them ..did you eat the honey??  Your parents would always keep you away from running through that lush vegetation and it wasn't to keep you from getting ticks! Bet even MP had some 200lb supers near a couple of "honey" holes. 

I logistically keep all my bees in near perfect utopian fields of organic vegetation never touched by human hands. My friend JRG13 will tell you I do not lie Monsanto has never been in my yard :no:.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

previously posted;

Presumably beekeeping on reclaimed coal mine land is a new endeavor 

wrong. To the best of my knowledge, the Killians where doing so in the 50's and 60's, and winning awards for their products. 
This is NOT an new thing. 

Crazy Roland


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Spark said:


> JW maybe planting certain chemical absorbing plants could be a plus absorb and destroy the plants thus cleaning the soil..it's a stretch but hey may work.


The term is "phytoremediation" and it has some very nice implementations. I've had my hand in a diverse set of these. 

Sort of a pipe dream is using Gold hyperaccumulators to extract Au from mining spoil. There have been some acre scale demonstration projects on the gold prospect.

It is old technology to do mineral prospecting by collecting the hyperaccumulators for assay, A lot of Uranium was located in the 50's in the mountain west by running a geiger counter over Astragalus.


----------

