# FDA Finds Monsanto’s Weed Killer In U.S. Honey



## NewbeeInNH (Jul 10, 2012)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-gillam/fda-finds-monsantos-weed_b_12008680.html


----------



## zonedar (May 14, 2015)

Just skimming the article they're measuring this in parts per billion. In the most extreme case it's 107PPB. That's .00000107%. Is there any evidence that in such low percentages that it means anything or have a causal effect? I believed for a while that our measurement systems increasing accuracy and resolutions might cause us to to worry about things that really don't matter. FWIW and JMHO...


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

zonedar - yes, it is a tiny amount, but . . . it is ubiquitous and in foods we eat every day, day-in and day-out. Not to mention that the amount glyphosate in foods will most likely continue to increase as Roundup is continued to be universally applied to our most basic crops.

I think the most troubling aspect is that we don't know what amount of glyphosate can be safely tolerated by people, yet it appears in a wide range of our foods, and apparently has been in our foods for years.

Maybe there is some truth to the idea that the historically recent rise of intolerance to gluten-containing foods is due to a near-constant exposure to low levels of glyphosate that starts at an early age.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Did they find sugar syrup in it?


----------



## cervus (May 8, 2016)

So much for "Pure" honey, huh?


----------



## zonedar (May 14, 2015)

Chasing “Zero” in Chemical Contaminant Analysis/


----------



## NewbeeInNH (Jul 10, 2012)

jwcarlson said:


> Did they find sugar syrup in it?


LOL! Yup, that's what we REALLY want to know.

Going with that, how many times are we selling pure honey that actually might be our neighbor's hive's sugar syrup??????? Hey, you never know.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

shinbone said:


> zonedar - yes, it is a tiny amount, but . . . it is ubiquitous and in foods we eat every day, day-in and day-out. Not to mention that the amount glyphosate in foods will most likely continue to increase as Roundup is continued to be universally applied to our most basic crops.
> 
> I think the most troubling aspect is that we don't know what amount of glyphosate can be safely tolerated by people, yet it appears in a wide range of our foods, and apparently has been in our foods for years.
> 
> Maybe there is some truth to the idea that the historically recent rise of intolerance to gluten-containing foods is due to a near-constant exposure to low levels of glyphosate that starts at an early age.


Shin, but this could be said about any pesticide/herbicide being sprayed and any number of other chemicals.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

JRG13 said:


> Shin, but this could be said about any pesticide/herbicide being sprayed and any number of other chemicals.


Yes, I know. I will continue to eat honey on toast, but I think we need to know more about how glyphosate affects the human body before we decide 50 ppb is not an issue.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

I agree, but also, the farmers don't even have to spray wheat with glyphosate, but it's common practice in the Midwest to help dry it down. California wheat doesn't get sprayed though, but we're a small market.


----------



## NewbeeInNH (Jul 10, 2012)

I'd love for them to test my honey. I don't live anywhere near a major farm, mostly it's just woods and neighborhoods here. Also, I keep a lot of bee forage on my property, dandelions, buckwheat, sumac, elderberry, smartweed, goldenrod, asters, etc. - I have a few acres of this, and right now I'm seeing bees on every single aster and goldenrod out there, so that I'll bet a number of my bees rarely even have to leave the grounds. I notice in one of the studies they mentioned TEN SAMPLES they tested. Ten?

If they wanted, they could ask us for honey samples, I'll bet we'd oblige them happily, might give them more info for their experiments. I'd love to know what exactly they'd find in mine.


----------



## Pondulinus (Jun 24, 2015)

I would not be too concerned about such low concentrations of glyphosate in honey. Its worse what shinbone says. Also, glyphosate weakens the next-years crop, reducing its resistance to fungi and other pests. The crop will therefore for instance contain more mycotoxins. This is a real problem in Norway where 30% of produced grain has to be used as animal feed each year because of fusarium infection.


----------



## SHAWHANBEEK (Feb 7, 2016)

Of course those concentrations aren't too troublesome for humans but what about our bees? How much smaller is their nervous system then ours? One millionth?

Residual chemicals in our soil are being brought up into the plants then bees collect chemicals with the nectar. Can't be good...


----------



## zonedar (May 14, 2015)

Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows? Could be worthy of study. 

What about botulism toxin's effect on bees? One of the most toxic substances in existence. Lowest concentrations found in all samples one study was 0.000000007142% (or 1.42bpB if I did the math correctly). 
Detection of botulinum neurotoxins in buffer and honey using a surface plasmon resonance (SPR) sensor

Just because its a 'man made' chemical, doesn't make it bad, good, or benign.


----------



## SS Auck (May 8, 2015)

i wonder how pure that organic honey in wal mart is? 
also newbeeinnh- do you think ten is enough to make there results significantly relevant? maybe they tested ten of the most likely to contain glyphosate or ten that shouldnt contain any. what if a drug company was testing a new drug on people and hand picked them to make there results look good and only picked ten people, do you think the FDA would be okay with that and allow the drug on the market?


----------



## tanksbees (Jun 16, 2014)

Roundup is probably the most studied herbicide ever. Environmental nut jobs have been trying to ban it for what, 40 years?

Keep in mind everything you eat is poison, and will kill you under the correct circumstances.

Roundup is no different. 



shinbone said:


> zonedar - yes, it is a tiny amount, but . . . it is ubiquitous and in foods we eat every day, day-in and day-out. Not to mention that the amount glyphosate in foods will most likely continue to increase as Roundup is continued to be universally applied to our most basic crops.
> 
> I think the most troubling aspect is that we don't know what amount of glyphosate can be safely tolerated by people, yet it appears in a wide range of our foods, and apparently has been in our foods for years.
> 
> Maybe there is some truth to the idea that the historically recent rise of intolerance to gluten-containing foods is due to a near-constant exposure to low levels of glyphosate that starts at an early age.


----------



## zonedar (May 14, 2015)

shinbone said:


> Maybe there is some truth to the idea that the historically recent rise of intolerance to gluten-containing foods is due to a near-constant exposure to low levels of glyphosate that starts at an early age.


I'd love to see a double blind study of gluten in people who claim to be 'gluten-intolerant'. BTW, are you gonna eat the pizza crust?


----------



## SS Auck (May 8, 2015)

zonedar said:


> I'd love to see a double blind study of gluten in people who claim to be 'gluten-intolerant'. BTW, are you gonna eat the pizza crust?]
> 
> Im with you on the gluten craze, that guys video on vegans is funny too.


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

> Of course those concentrations aren't too troublesome for humans but what about our bees? How much smaller is their nervous system then ours? One millionth?
> 
> Residual chemicals in our soil are being brought up into the plants then bees collect chemicals with the nectar. Can't be good...


Glyphosate is not a neuro toxin so it is unlikely to impact either nervous system. It has been thought that an inert ingredient in Roundup my be carcinogenic.

Technology has advanced our abilities to detect very minute quantities of substances. Our ability to understand the significance of these positive findings has lagged. Are the chemicals found in our food now more or less concerning than the chemicals found in our food fifty, or one hundred, years ago, even though we couldn't detect them?

Tom


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Don't they find sometimes thousands of different chemicals in food if they look hard enough?

Issue here is the Green movement has been able to turn the word Monsanto into a term that produces a psychotic reaction in a portion of the population. Nobody much interested in all the other stray chemicals in the food, but if one of them has the word Monsanto in front of it, the reaction is all shock, horror, conspiracy theories, blah blah.


----------



## bibbster (Jun 10, 2016)

zonedar said:


> I'd love to see a double blind study of gluten in people who claim to be 'gluten-intolerant'. BTW, are you gonna eat the pizza crust?


I agree. It's all about marketing. Fat free, sugar free, cane sugar, whole grain, organic...companies have to create new marketing tools to keep folks buying their product. One sure fire way is to market what is good/bad for us in our food.

Just like a toothbrush. It doesn't matter what the bristles are made of, what color they are, and what pattern they fall into in the handle, if you don't use one, well, maybe nothing will happen. lol

It's just another 'the sky is falling' issue IMHO.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Oldtimer said:


> Don't they find sometimes thousands of different chemicals in food if they look hard enough?


Indeed. 

How about finding trace amounts of (human) birth control pills in many urban and suburban tap water supplies around the US!

Read about it here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/birth-control-in-water-supply/


Who is going to be the first to now demand that _birth control pills_ be banned? 

:ws:


----------



## zonedar (May 14, 2015)

Buddy of mine did his graduate work on studying caffeine amounts in salmon in the Columbia river. Caffeine is excreted in urine. They found it. Didn't turn him off coffee. FWIW...


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Who is going to be the first to now demand that _birth control pills_ be banned?


There's plenty of people out there that want that.


----------



## Vectorjet (Feb 20, 2015)

I would always laugh at people who tried to convince me to eat foods just because the were all natural! To which I would reply that I know of many foods that are all natural, that will kill you. There is not a food or liquid that one eats that does not contain something that is harmful if you break it down and look close enough. I just try to consume a wide variety of foods and hope for the best.


----------



## SHAWHANBEEK (Feb 7, 2016)

TWall said:


> Glyphosate is not a neuro toxin so it is unlikely to impact either nervous system. It has been thought that an inert ingredient in Roundup my be carcinogenic.
> 
> Technology has advanced our abilities to detect very minute quantities of substances. Our ability to understand the significance of these positive findings has lagged. Are the chemicals found in our food now more or less concerning than the chemicals found in our food fifty, or one hundred, years ago, even though we couldn't detect them?
> Tom


With bees having the cards stacked against them I look at unnatural chemicals showing up in their honey concerning. If it's so many parts billion of course that seems insignificant. In my humble opinion there are multiple reasons the bees are suffering. There is more than likely a ****tail of chemicals, and reasons that are the cause.

Cancer rates, autism, all on the rise and no definitive answer why.

Yes the advances in technology have helped us to detect minute amounts but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to know that we are exposed to many more chemicals these days. Just look at your food labels.

There are studies that show the people who were exposed to harmful chemicals their decedent's DNA is more susceptible to diseases caused by those chemicals if they are also exposed. Maybe that happens in the animal kingdom too.


----------



## zonedar (May 14, 2015)

SHAWHANBEEK said:


> Yes the advances in technology have helped us to detect minute amounts but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to know that we are exposed to many more chemicals these days. Just look at your food labels.


We're also exposed to more RF/Low frequency/microwave EMI, artificial lighting, and reality TV shows. Yet we (first worlders) are living longer than at any time in human history. 

We simply don't know what causes autism. I suspect that a lot of it is due to broadening the autism spectrum to include SW and analog engineers as well as a significant number of people with Y chromosomes. 

Cancers are up mainly because we now live long enough to die from it (and we don't know the causes of about 60% of it). 

I do think we know what causes most self diagnosed gluten intolerance, so there is hope.


----------



## SS Auck (May 8, 2015)

zonedar said:


> We're also exposed to more RF/Low frequency/microwave EMI, artificial lighting, and reality TV shows. Yet we (first worlders) are living longer than at any time in human history.
> 
> We simply don't know what causes autism. I suspect that a lot of it is due to broadening the autism spectrum to include SW and analog engineers as well as a significant number of people with Y chromosomes.
> 
> ...


I would second that cancer is something that is happening because we live so long now and we know what to look for. alot of the cancers doctors would not even have known what to look for in the past. If you are looking for causes most of the elderly smoked or chewed tobacco for most of there life, took birth control, also a lot of the women did not nurse there children because it was thought that formula was better for the babies. asbestos and lead paint that had who knows what else. We all went to schools that had a layer of lead paint somewhere I would bet. Also plastics came to age while the older people here were growing up. The chemicals it takes to harden plastic is BPA, BPB, our plastic free of that for a reason. The insecticides we used were pretty bad too. I think there is a lot of places you can look and see carcinogens. 
I do believe that the study needs to be a little more broad and robust to prove anything other than it might be an issue.


----------



## Lburou (May 13, 2012)

Seems to me that finding 'residue' is not finding glyphosate. The residue of a hydrogen burning car is...water! I'd like to hear more about these 'residues.'


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

SHAWHANBEEK said:


> With bees having the cards stacked against them I look at unnatural chemicals showing up in their honey concerning. If it's so many parts billion of course that seems insignificant. In my humble opinion there are multiple reasons the bees are suffering. There is more than likely a ****tail of chemicals, and reasons that are the cause.



_Unnatural chemicals_. 

Good grief. What what exactly are those?


----------



## bucksbees (May 19, 2015)

There is a compound that kills over 350,000 people every year, and it is the third leading cause of unintentional injury death, accounting for 7% of all injury-related deaths worldwide.

In 2015 this same compound cost over 3 billion dollars in damage in the US.

It’s about time we regulated and outlawed this compound, for the sake of our planet, the sake of our country, and for the sake of the children. We must stand up and say no more.

What is this deadly compound you ask? Well if I told you the answer, that would be unfair.


----------



## zonedar (May 14, 2015)

bucksbees said:


> There is a compound that kills over 350,000 people every year, and it is the third leading cause of unintentional injury death, accounting for 7% of all injury-related deaths worldwide.
> 
> In 2015 this same compound cost over 3 billion dollars in damage in the US.
> 
> ...


Ummm... I'll take water for 200 Alex.


----------



## bucksbees (May 19, 2015)

lol, dang it man, well it was a daily double. You won the internet.


----------



## SS Auck (May 8, 2015)

dihydrogen monoxide is the technical name for it....


----------



## bucksbees (May 19, 2015)

SS Auck said:


> dihydrogen monoxide is the technical name for it....


 I am a sad panda for not thinking about using the technical name.


----------



## zonedar (May 14, 2015)

bucksbees said:


> lol, dang it man, well it was a daily double. You won the internet.


I didn't answer in the form of a question, so I'm disqualified. What are stupid martini's for 50 Alex?


----------



## bucksbees (May 19, 2015)

zonedar said:


> I didn't answer in the form of a question, so I'm disqualified. What are stupid martini's for 50 Alex?


How many martini's till you become a parent/again?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Pondulinus said:


> I would not be too concerned about such low concentrations of glyphosate in honey. Its worse what shinbone says. Also, glyphosate weakens the next-years crop, reducing its resistance to fungi and other pests. The crop will therefore for instance contain more mycotoxins. This is a real problem in Norway where 30% of produced grain has to be used as animal feed each year because of fusarium infection.


Wow... 
Nonsense


----------



## beecavalier (Jan 30, 2014)

When I was commercial and exported to Europe in the '80s and '90s, my honey was analyzed for traces of organochlorates (insecticides) and organophosphates (herbicides)...about 50 compounds total... as well as bee antibiotics, heavy metals, miticides, bee repellants, and even radioactivity (fallout from Chernobyl). At that time this buyer was testing to parts-per-billion...in Canada we were still at parts-per-million.

I got the analysis reports back from my buyer and found the whole process fascinating...it sure made me look at my surrounding environment differently.

So to be proactive I started to do my own testing on a limited scale using a lab in Edmonton...it was expensive so I targeted newer herbicides (as insecticides were seldom used in northern Alberta). This was in the days when Tordon (a systemic herbicide used for the control of thistle in canola) had shown up in dairy milk and had created quite a controversy in North America. Tordon was replaced by Lontrel...another systemic herbicide with a more acceptable LD. I tested for Lontrel (ppm) one year and sure enough it showed up in my honey samples...I immediately phoned my buyer (we had established a trusting relationship over the years). He was testing...I was testing...we knew that traces of agricultural pesticides were getting into the food chain...that was the new reality.

I read the article in the first post of this thread and thought to myself...finally government agencies are getting some base data...and the article states the European acceptable levels of glyphophosphate. Europe is a traditional market for Canadian honey so it is only prudent for beekeepers to be aware of the effects glyphophosphate residues may potentially have in marketing our honey internationally.

As I drive through the countryside this time of the year, I observe a new phenomenon. (photo taken in the last week)

View attachment 28047


The photo illustrates RoundUp being used as a dessicant in the fall...storage tanks and sprayer in the background...not on the occasional field of late maturing crop...not on the occasional wet and cold year impeding crop maturing that would justify it's use...but on a large scale with millions of acres sprayed routinely...it's the accepted norm. As a farmer relative of mine commented "Now I get decide when to harvest".

I must say that as a beekeeper...and with the experience I have had in the past...I don't know how this will play out.


----------



## DavidZ (Apr 9, 2016)

you did not upload a pic


----------



## beecavalier (Jan 30, 2014)

Let me try again


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Indeed.
> 
> How about finding trace amounts of (human) birth control pills in many urban and suburban tap water supplies around the US!
> 
> ...


Ban 100 dollar bills. Most of them have cocaine on them.


----------



## SHAWHANBEEK (Feb 7, 2016)

Nabber86 said:


> _Unnatural chemicals_.
> 
> Good grief. What what exactly are those?


A couple are insecticide and herbicide. Yes, I guess everything has its roots in the periodic table. When you use these "****tails" of elements to control the environment and then wonder why there are issues it's kind of ironic. 

To each his own. A fellow that I was helping get started beekeeping this spring was talking about prepping his hive location. His first thing was to roundup the area where the hives were going. I suggested not to use roundup. His response was that it becomes inert fairly soon after use. I'd rather manually control the grass and not expose bees to "unnatural" chemicals.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

SHAWHANBEEK said:


> His first thing was to roundup the area where the hives were going.


Exactly what I do. Just had another beekeeper work with me a while who said it was so nice to work hives not overgrown like the last beekeepers hives he worked for. Also commented how healthy my bees were compared to the other guy.

I don't think roundup does one bad thing to bees, other than if it's used enough it might show up in the honey. None has been found in mine yet though.


----------



## SHAWHANBEEK (Feb 7, 2016)

Oldtimer said:


> Exactly what I do. Just had another beekeeper work with me a while who said it was so nice to work hives not overgrown like the last beekeepers hives he worked for. Also commented how healthy my bees were compared to the other guy.
> 
> I don't think roundup does one bad thing to bees, other than if it's used enough it might show up in the honey. None has been found in mine yet though.


Like I said. To each his own.


----------



## DavidZ (Apr 9, 2016)

un natural...lol, round up stops plants cellular growth, all it does is inhibit an enzyme that stops the meristem from growing. so the plants dies back to the roots. 

harmless to bee's unless you believe all those fake news sites.

to each is there own for sure.

and on and on more neo hippe dready bs

stop drinking the kool aid and doing dips.


----------



## SHAWHANBEEK (Feb 7, 2016)

DavidZ said:


> un natural...lol, round up stops plants cellular growth, all it does is inhibit an enzyme that stops the meristem from growing. so the plants dies back to the roots.
> 
> harmless to bee's unless you believe all those fake news sites.
> 
> ...


When the label says "caution poison" that's exactly what you should be spraying around your hives. 

To each his own Einstein... I'll drink the cool aid you drink the roundup... It is great for your bees and you too... Don't forget to swallow...


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

SHAWHANBEEK said:


> A couple are insecticide and herbicide. Yes, I guess everything has its roots in the periodic table. When you use these "****tails" of elements to control the environment and then wonder why there are issues it's kind of ironic.


That is about the most nonsensical statement that I have ever heard. Everything is a ****tail of elements.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

The simple fact is that glyphosate is one of the least toxic of all farm chemicals to insects including honeybees. 
https://entomologytoday.org/2015/10/13/glyphosate-acetamiprid-low-toxicity-honey-bees-2/
Ironically what will kill bees is any of the many organic weed killer recipes containing soap.


----------



## bucksbees (May 19, 2015)

Nabber86 said:


> That is about the most nonsensical statement that I have ever heard. Everything is a ****tail of elements.


Dont bust the bubble, if they want to keep bees a certain way, then let them. 

Some people just need something to be the big bad evil.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

jim lyon said:


> The simple fact is that glyphosate is one of the least toxic of all farm chemicals to insects including honeybees.
> https://entomologytoday.org/2015/10/13/glyphosate-acetamiprid-low-toxicity-honey-bees-2/
> Ironically what will kill bees is any of the many organic weed killer recipes containing soap.


Exactly. I use insecticidal soap with pyrethrins in my garden. It is certified for use on "organic" produce. However it is deadly to bees. I wait until evening to spray to limit exposure. So far I haven't seen any bad effects on my hives, but who knows?


----------



## Dave Burrup (Jul 22, 2008)

No where on the roundup label does the word poison occur.


----------



## beecavalier (Jan 30, 2014)

I don't think roundup does one bad thing to bees, other than if it's used enough it might show up in the honey. None has been found in mine yet though.[/QUOTE]


Tend to agree with you Oldtimer...is there a residue testing program in kiwiland for exporters? The article states that it is quite pervasive in the US:

"In the records released by the FDA, one internal email describes trouble locating honey that doesn’t contain glyphosate: “It is difficult to find blank honey that does not contain residue. I collect about 10 samples of honey in the market and they all contain glyphosate,” states an FDA researcher. Even “organic mountain honey” contained low concentrations of glyphosate, the FDA documents show.

According to the FDA records, samples tested by FDA chemist Narong Chamkasem showed residue levels at 107 ppb in samples the FDA associated with Louisiana-based Carmichael’s Honey; 22 ppb in honey the FDA linked to Leighton’s Orange Blossom Honey in Florida and residues at 41 ppb in samples the FDA associated with Iowa-based Sue Bee Honey, which is marketed by a cooperative of American beekeepers as “pure, all-natural” and “America’s Honey.” Customers “can be assured that Sue Bee Honey is 100% pure, 100% all-natural and 100% American,” the Sioux Honey Association states."


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

beecavalier said:


> is there a residue testing program in kiwiland for exporters?


Yes there is but each country has their own requirements so something that doesn't qualify for one country will go to another. My own honey is processed by another commercial beekeeper because I don't have my own plant, so it goes through their testing procedures for their markets, I don't have to get too interested in just what they do with it but after being attacked locally by a bunch of one hive hippies for using roundup I did enquire about roundup in my honey and there was none detected.
Like all agricultural countries we do use a lot of glyphosate here, but my own bees are in areas where little is used.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> ...being attacked locally by a bunch of one hive hippies...


:lpf:

those degenerates obviously didn't know who they were dealing with, give 'em heck ot!

(and many thanks for the good laugh!)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Thanks Squarepeg.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

squarepeg said:


> :lpf:
> 
> those degenerates obviously didn't know who they were dealing with, give 'em heck ot!
> 
> (and many thanks for the good laugh!)


----------



## SHAWHANBEEK (Feb 7, 2016)

Dave Burrup said:


> No where on the roundup label does the word poison occur.


PMRA APPROVED LABEL
2014-03-06 .
GROUP 9 HERBICIDE
Roundup Ultra2® Liquid Herbicide
Solution
AGRICULTURAL and INDUSTRIAL
CAUTION POISON
WARNING - EYE AND SKIN IRRITANT
REGISTRATION NO. 28486 PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS ACT
GUARANTEE: Glyphosate, 540 grams acid equivalent per litre, present as potassium salt.
Water Soluble Herbicide for non-selective weed control
READ THE LABEL AND ATTACHED BROCHURE BEFORE USING.
NET CONTENTS: 10 LITRES to Bulk
MONSANTO CANADA INC.
900 – One Research Road
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 6E3
1-800-667-4944
2014


----------



## Dave Burrup (Jul 22, 2008)

Who is PMRA? I have never seen the word poison on any roundup label I have seen, and I would have to see the label you are referencing. The word Poison is restricted to Category 1 pesticides and cannot be used with the word caution. Caution is restricted to Cat 3 pesticides. Warning is for Cat 2. Again Poison and Danger cannot be used on anything not Category 1. At least that is what was taught to me in 30 years of pesticide training.


----------



## SHAWHANBEEK (Feb 7, 2016)

Have you heard of MSDS. That is for roundup... Calls it poison. I could care less what you use on your hives. You call me a hippie for not wanting that crap on my farm. Grow the hell up. You guys act like junior high girls... Thanks


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

PRMA is Canada's _Pest Management Regulatory Agency_.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/branch-dirgen/pmra-arla/index-eng.php

I will be surprised if one can find a USA glyphosate/Roundup label that describes the product as 'poison'.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Nabber86 said:


>


Hippies? There are still people who identify themselves as Hippies? Or is this just an easy put down of some certain group of people who another group of people looks down their nose at and laughs at for some reason. I was a Hippy at one time in my life. If I was going to be put on a Box that's the Box I saw myself fitting in the most. I don't know who the Hippies are now.


----------



## DavidZ (Apr 9, 2016)

neo-hippies the neo hippster facebook groupie
follow grateful dead aka the dead, phish, sci, and jam bands
it's a huge scene, known as lot trash
the never ending search for drugs

not the same as the BOL family from the 60's 70's
thread degeneration now


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

sqkcrk said:


> I was a Hippy at one time in my life.


in my high school graduation picture my hair is down well past the shoulders. my grandfather's nickname for me was 'hippy'. 

ot's description of the one hivers attacking him provoked an image in my mind that had me rolling on the floor laughing my guts out...

no disrepect toward anyone or any group in particular was intended, i just wanted to thank ot for bringing some humor into my life, that's all.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

SHAWHANBEEK said:


> Have you heard of MSDS. That is for roundup... Calls it poison. I could care less what you use on your hives. You call me a hippie for not wanting that crap on my farm. Grow the hell up. You guys act like junior high girls... Thanks


:thumbsup:


----------



## bucksbees (May 19, 2015)

SHAWHANBEEK said:


> Grow the hell up. You guys act like junior high girls... Thanks


And when you let emotion rule you, you have lost your stance.


----------



## NewbeeInNH (Jul 10, 2012)

The hippies lost their hair so it's kind of hard to tell them apart from anyone else. And how do you rebel against fashion when fashion is worn out and holey clothing straight from the manufacturer? In the old days you had to earn your faded Levi's. Nowadays they cheat.


----------



## larryh (Jul 28, 2014)

SHAWHANBEEK said:


> Have you heard of MSDS. That is for roundup... Calls it poison. I could care less what you use on your hives. You call me a hippie for not wanting that crap on my farm. Grow the hell up. You guys act like junior high girls... Thanks


Yep. Double thumbs up.


----------



## DavidZ (Apr 9, 2016)

funny...we are born into a poisonous chemical soup atmosphere worse than roundup.
the smog people breath 1000x worse.
think about the air from your ac vent or the smoke from a fire worse than roundup with all the toxins from the molds in the vents and more from fires, all worse. there's better things to argue about.
better start wearing a filtered mask if you want to ride that roundup bandwagon.
maybe use some common sense and really think about what's really a problem
just saying


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

DavidZ said:


> funny...we are born into a poisonous chemical soup atmosphere worse than roundup.
> the smog people breath 1000x worse.
> think about the air from your ac vent or the smoke from a fire worse than roundup with all the toxins from the molds in the vents and more from fires, all worse. there's better things to argue about.
> better start wearing a filtered mask if you want to ride that roundup bandwagon.
> ...


and give a good hard thought to that nice cold glass of water you drink as well.


----------



## NewbeeInNH (Jul 10, 2012)

Every generation probably gets dumber from all the toxins. But all the more reason to try to avoid toxins when you can.

(My well doesn't have fluoride. I dodged that bullet.  )


----------



## larryh (Jul 28, 2014)

Arguing that because there's already bad **** in our environment, more is not a problem.. makes you look like a G D fool.


----------



## bucksbees (May 19, 2015)

My bees have 99 problems, but roundup is not one of them.


----------



## cervus (May 8, 2016)

larryh said:


> Arguing that because there's already bad **** in our environment, more is not a problem.. makes you look like a G D fool.


Lot of truth in that statement. Harsh, but sometimes the truth hurts.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

larryh said:


> Arguing that because there's already bad **** in our environment, more is not a problem.. makes you look like a G D fool.


who argued that?
my take is that a point was being made about the levels and dangers of toxins and to prioritize them.

sometimes the fool is in the mirror.
_no one famous _


----------



## larryh (Jul 28, 2014)

clyderoad said:


> who argued that?
> my take is that a point was being made about the levels and dangers of toxins and to prioritize them.
> 
> sometimes the fool is in the mirror.
> _no one famous _


You don't know what anyone's priorities are. Even if you did.. what difference does it make? Should we all have the same priorities?


----------



## cervus (May 8, 2016)

DavidZ said:


> maybe use some common sense and really think about what's really a problem
> just saying


But don't you think that detectable levels of a herbicide in honey, and the FDA's inability to set acceptable, safe levels is a problem? I think it's a foregone conclusion that it's here, and here to stay. The rub is the government's inaction relating to it showing up in human food. It's the Food and Drug Administration for crying out loud. The GAO rightfully chastised that agency.


----------



## bucksbees (May 19, 2015)

I am here to help you, I am from the government.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

larryh said:


> You don't know what anyone's priorities are. Even if you did.. what difference does it make? Should we all have the same priorities?


I have not made any claims about what I think priorities should be or what other peoples priorities are or should be.
You are making too many assumptions about what is being said and what isn't. 
Are you even reading the posts?

To answer your question: radioactivity seems like one to prioritize, don't you think?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Barry never use to let topics stray as this one has  lol


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

If you want to rail about a common chemical in popular use, known carcinogen, biggest cause of birth defects, involved in most crime, you dont have to look far! It makes roundup look like a sunday school teacher.

Cheers!


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

SHAWHANBEEK said:


> Have you heard of MSDS. That is for roundup... Calls it poison. I could care less what you use on your hives. You call me a hippie for not wanting that crap on my farm. Grow the hell up. You guys act like junior high girls... Thanks



Whn you make claims that are false and have no backup, people are going to make fun of you.


----------



## larryh (Jul 28, 2014)

clyderoad said:


> I have not made any claims about what I think priorities should be or what other peoples priorities are or should be.
> You are making too many assumptions about what is being said and what isn't.


Mehh.




> Quote Originally Posted by DavidZ View Post
> funny...we are born into a poisonous chemical soup atmosphere worse than roundup.
> the smog people breath 1000x worse.
> think about the air from your ac vent or the smoke from a fire worse than roundup with all the toxins from the molds in the vents and more from fires, all worse. there's better things to argue about.
> ...





> and give a good hard thought to that nice cold glass of water you drink as well.


That is YOU, telling ME how to prioritize.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

larryh, the original quote is a statement from poster DavidZ. 
I responded to him, referring to drinking water as an issue too.
Please follow the order of the posts.

This is getting tiresome.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

larryh said:


> Mehh.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But you have to weigh the pros and cons of any chemical and decide which ones to go after first. It is called an environmental risk assessment. You prioritize and go after the worst first. There are thousands and thousands of chemicals that the government has set no limits for. Wasting time and effort on things that pose little or no risk doesn't get anything done. 

The government is starting to look at glyphosate now. I don't see that as a bad thing. Let them do their work and we will see what they come up with. Of course whatever levels they set we will have to live with. They are not going to ban glyphosate outright.


----------



## NewbeeInNH (Jul 10, 2012)

clyderoad said:


> This is getting tiresome.


I was hoping to derail this to a thread about fluoride.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

NewbeeInNH said:


> I was hoping to derail this to a thread about fluoride.


Is that still a thing?


----------



## NewbeeInNH (Jul 10, 2012)

Nabber86 said:


> Is that still a thing?


You could google it and see how many results you get.


----------



## larryh (Jul 28, 2014)

clyderoad said:


> larryh, the original quote is a statement from poster DavidZ.
> I responded to him, referring to drinking water as an issue too.
> Please follow the order of the posts.
> 
> This is getting tiresome.


Good grief... when you're responding to one particular comment, you need to say so. We can't read your mind. 

Also, since you obviously are not really paying attention, I'll point out that my original comment was clearly NOT directed at one particular person.. There were a few people that made that argument, DavidZ being one of them. I might have been writing it while you posted.

So tell me again, who's making assumptions?


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

larryh said:


> Good grief... when you're responding to one particular comment, you need to say so. We can't read your mind.
> 
> Also, since you obviously are not really paying attention, I'll point out that my original comment was clearly NOT directed at one particular person.. There were a few people that made that argument, DavidZ being one of them. I might have been writing it while you posted.
> 
> So tell me again, who's making assumptions?


I'm done with this, larryh.
You'll have to carry on without me.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I am disappointed that people cannot, do not, talk to each other respectfully. If you cannot conduct yourselves better, maybe you should go somewhere else and duke it out. I've been seeing this a lot on social media recently. Maybe it has always been there, and I know I have contributed to the uncomfortable discourse, but we don't have to be this way. Let's raise our conversations to a higher level of understanding of each other, where we are in life and where we come from.

Let's try better to talk to each other as if the person you are talking to is right there in front of you, across the table from you.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Ian said:


> Barry never use to let topics stray as this one has  lol


i'm guessing he's allowing the community to self moderate as best it can so long as a line is not crossed. nothing like a little peer pressure. 

i've said elsewhere that i believe the tone on the forum is improving and the discussions are maturing, or at least it seems like it to me.

good post mark. i regret now for using the term 'degenerate' and my apologies to any and all degenerates reading here. it was my attempt at responding with humor to something that struck me personally as very humorous. 

ot - i'm glad you were able to make those turkeys eat crow.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Ya the moderating work must get overwhelming.
Before if there was not a link to bees within the post or direction of conversation, it hit tailgate.  lol. ... that lingering threat of tailgate ha ha
I've been within many of those conversations


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Barry is not the Moderator of every Forum. The Forum in which this Thread exists is Moderated by someone, maybe Barry, but I am not sure who. And it's not like they don't have a life outside of beesource either.

We, the users of beesource, members of the beesource community, need to moderate ourselves. Post more positively. Stick to thoughts and opinions on the topic of discussion, not the person Posting. Call what someone says "foolish" if it is, and back it up with facts, but don't call the person who Posted a "fool". That would be an opinion, not a fact. There are rules against name calling on beesource.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

And, in case anyone is confused about anything, when someone Posts a Post following a previous Post, unless they include a window showing the Post they are replying to, their Post is in reply to the previous Post. I thought that was obvious.


----------



## cervus (May 8, 2016)

sqkcrk said:


> I am disappointed that people cannot, do not, talk to each other respectfully. If you cannot conduct yourselves better, maybe you should go somewhere else and duke it out. I've been seeing this a lot on social media recently. Maybe it has always been there, and I know I have contributed to the uncomfortable discourse, but we don't have to be this way. Let's raise our conversations to a higher level of understanding of each other, where we are in life and where we come from.
> 
> Let's try better to talk to each other as if the person you are talking to is right there in front of you, across the table from you.



Well said.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

sqkcrk said:


> Barry is not the Moderator of every Forum. The Forum in which this Thread exists is Moderated by someone, maybe Barry, but I am not sure who. And it's not like they don't have a life outside of beesource either.


Our little corner is getting crowded


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> And, in case anyone is confused about anything, when someone Posts a Post following a previous Post, unless they include a window showing the Post they are replying to, their Post is in reply to the previous Post. I thought that was obvious.


That is not obvious to *me*, at least. 

For instance, any given poster cannot control the position/sequence of their response to a previous post. It all depends on _who else_ decides to click the reply button while you are still composing your post. 

Someone else's post may end up between the post you are referring to and your response.

[hr] [/hr]
As for determing the moderator(s) of a particular forum, one can find that info by looking at the bottom of that sub-forum main page, below where all the threads are listed.

For instance, looking at the bottom of this page shows that _Barry _is the moderator of the _Bee Forum_.
http://www.beesource.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?240-Bee-Forum


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

"good night john boy..."

quoted from papa walton.

(my vain attempt at pointing out that the community here is in some sense one big sometimes happy/sometimes dysfunctional family. it's not much, but it is _our_ community i happen to think we're doing a pretty good job of it, jmho)


----------



## SHAWHANBEEK (Feb 7, 2016)

sqkcrk said:


> I am disappointed that people cannot, do not, talk to each other respectfully. If you cannot conduct yourselves better, maybe you should go somewhere else and duke it out. I've been seeing this a lot on social media recently. Maybe it has always been there, and I know I have contributed to the uncomfortable discourse, but we don't have to be this way. Let's raise our conversations to a higher level of understanding of each other, where we are in life and where we come from.
> 
> Let's try better to talk to each other as if the person you are talking to is right there in front of you, across the table from you.


Totally agree. Beesource is an amazing resource for beekeepers. There are many very helpful and very experienced beekeepers on here. My one and only local bee club meeting was a joke. Beekeepers yelling at each other criticizing each other. The guy running the meeting seemed to expect the drama. This thread unfortunately was reminiscent of that meeting. 

In my line of work it is the ****y guy who says he has all the answers and the experience that makes the biggest mistakes. I've learned it's best to listen and even to the greenhorn cause their fresh look my have valuable insight. The one thing that I do know is no matter what there is always a better way to do something no matter what it is.


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

NewbeeInNH said:


> LOL! Yup, that's what we REALLY want to know.
> 
> Going with that, how many times are we selling pure honey that actually might be our neighbor's hive's sugar syrup??????? Hey, you never know.


That is why when I used to open feed I added food color so if any neighborhood bees found their way, their owner woukd know


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

How many here want to complain about a little roundup in parts ber billion showing up in honey, but then intentionally place insecticides in their hives to treat for mites? ....raise your hand . To me this makes as much sense as wiping before you poop.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

Harley Craig said:


> How many here want to complain about a little roundup in parts ber billion showing up in honey, but then intentionally place insecticides in their hives to treat for mites? ....raise your hand . To me this makes as much sense as wiping before you poop.


do you mean to say that the treatments used by beekeepers all end up in the honey? and the sugar syrup too?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

What do the tests say??


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

clyderoad said:


> do you mean to say that the treatments used by beekeepers all end up in the honey? and the sugar syrup too?


It is well documented that the chemicals beekeepers use has contaminated our wax supply, if it's in the wax I'd bet a dollar to a horse turd it's in the honey too. I know most call for doing treatments when supers are not on but like someone once said it's like having a no peeing section in a swimming pool. Just because you don't put the chemicals in the supers directly doesn't mean they don't end up there....... for the record I'm not condemning people using treatments, people gotta do what they feel they have to do, but to then complain about someone else doing what they gotta do seems a little like the pot calling the kettle black


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

The study was not after Amitraz, it was after Glyphosate


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

Harley Craig said:


> It is well documented that the chemicals beekeepers use has contaminated our wax supply, if it's in the wax I'd bet a dollar to a horse turd it's in the honey too. I know most call for doing treatments when supers are not on but like someone once said it's like having a no peeing section in a swimming pool. Just because you don't put the chemicals in the supers directly doesn't mean they don't end up there....... for the record I'm not condemning people using treatments, people gotta do what they feel they have to do, but to then complain about someone else doing what they gotta do seems a little like the pot calling the kettle black


I believe some here on beesource have posted the results of their honey analysis', maybe Jim Lyon? can't remember exactly.
Anyway, using treatments doesn't necessarily mean it does end up in the honey either. Same with feeding syrup.
Maybe you have some information I am unaware of.


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

clyderoad said:


> I believe some here on beesource have posted the results of their honey analysis', maybe Jim Lyon? can't remember exactly.
> Anyway, using treatments doesn't necessarily mean it does end up in the honey either. Same with feeding syrup.
> Maybe you have some information I am unaware of.


That's a red herring, I don't think roundup makes its way in all samples either. Guys like Jim may have timing down to a science where there is enough lapse in time between treatments and supers for it to degrade, but how many pull treatments then slap supers on imediatly, how many people bother even reading the label? How many times do we see the recommendation that people slid a shim between their supers and brood box treat with OA then pill the shim 10 min later? ( although that one isnt that bad IMO because OA is naturally produced by some of our foods ) The simple fact is there has been evidence of these chemicals showing up in SOME honey


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I'm sure their testing would of found any of that


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

Ian said:


> I'm sure their testing would of found any of that


Well Google doesn't find Jims tesilts, but it found several, but I don't know how to link pdfs with my phone on the mobile platform so ya gonna have to look yourself, I can do links, and it's not in honey but I found it interesting none the less https://youtu.be/M8sgEhpHM4k


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

Harley Craig said:


> That's a red herring, I don't think roundup makes its way in all samples either. Guys like Jim may have timing down to a science where there is enough lapse in time between treatments and supers for it to degrade, but how many pull treatments then slap supers on imediatly, how many people bother even reading the label? How many times do we see the recommendation that people slid a shim between their supers and brood box treat with OA then pill the shim 10 min later? ( although that one isnt that bad IMO because OA is naturally produced by some of our foods ) The simple fact is there has been evidence of these chemicals showing up in SOME honey


I don't know the answers to all of your questions of how some people do some things.
All treatments are not the same, I agree, and
treatment residues in honey doesn't seem to be as cut and dry as you originally stated.


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

clyderoad said:


> I don't know the answers to all of your questions of how some people do some things.
> All treatments are not the same, I agree, and
> treatment residues in honey doesn't seem to be as cut and dry as you originally stated.


 I never said it was cut and dry. But we are getting bent over parts per billion here when it comes to roundup. Which ironically has a higher safe daily allowance than vitamin D


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

The study analyzed the honey reading parts per billion, I'm sure they would of identified more than glyphosate. But we only care about roundup


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

Ian said:


> The study analyzed the honey reading parts per billion, I'm sure they would of identified more than glyphosate. But we only care about roundup


Why is round up the only thing we care about? Caffeine has lower LD 50 than roundup, and we guzzle it by the gallon each yr


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Harley Craig said:


> Why is round up the only thing we care about? Caffeine has lower LD 50 than roundup, and we guzzle it by the gallon each yr


We only care about roundup because it's Monsanto, and relates to GM tech and the public can relate quickly and easily to it


----------



## DavidZ (Apr 9, 2016)

there's tons worse than RU that we all come in contact with everyday...your daily breath, water, coffee, alcohol, drugs, gasoline, solvents in plastics are 1000x worse, the basic foods you eat, the red meat you consume, fast foods.
Just being born insures you will die. 
It's the ultimate reality eventually.
just enjoy what you have.
thanks for the funny.


----------



## NewbeeInNH (Jul 10, 2012)

Harley Craig said:


> That is why when I used to open feed I added food color so if any neighborhood bees found their way, their owner woukd know


Wonder how much head scratching that has caused.

[ New thread on Beesource: "What kind of flower produces blue nectar?" ]


----------



## pinkpantherbeekeeper (Feb 10, 2016)

Harley Craig said:


> How many here want to complain about a little roundup in parts ber billion showing up in honey, but then intentionally place insecticides in their hives to treat for mites? ....raise your hand . To me this makes as much sense as wiping before you poop.


+1 Agree.


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

NewbeeInNH said:


> Wonder how much head scratching that has caused.
> 
> [ New thread on Beesource: "What kind of flower produces blue nectar?" ]


I don't know but I quit doing it,the only thing it taught me was those that needed it the least got the most


----------



## NewbeeInNH (Jul 10, 2012)

Harley Craig said:


> I don't know but I quit doing it,the only thing it taught me was those that needed it the least got the most


Interesting. Feeding is tough. The concept is right, but the logistics don't always work out. I'm in the dilemma now.


----------



## mgolden (Oct 26, 2011)

NewbeeInNH said:


> Interesting. Feeding is tough. The concept is right, but the logistics don't always work out. I'm in the dilemma now.


Use pail feeders, jar feeders, overhead feeders, ziploc baggies to target hives that need the feed.


----------



## NewbeeInNH (Jul 10, 2012)

> Use pail feeders, jar feeders, overhead feeders, ziploc baggies to target hives that need the feed.


Not to waylay the thread, but I'm having a problem with feeding right now. There's a terrible dearth due to drought, and filling feeders in the hive feels like being a bread vendor in Venezuela. But if I put open feeders then all the other desperate bees in the region are descending on us. I also suspect I am putting my bees in grave robbing danger by feeding inside their hives. I will admit that I have not put robbing screens on, altho I do have them in the house. I'll have to bite the bullet today and brave their mobs to refill the hive feeders. Just getting them out of the hive top feeders so you don't drown on refill is a prob. And I'm sure the nucs are plastered onto the jar lids. Gonna take a lot of smoke and a brush and some guts.

It's so much easier when they store up their own supplies.


----------



## NewbeeInNH (Jul 10, 2012)

Oops. Dup.


----------



## mgolden (Oct 26, 2011)

Personally, my frame feeders sit on the shelf mostly collecting dust.

IMHO, too many drownings with big hives(yes mine have the mesh ladders), too hard to fill and take up two frames positions.


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

NewbeeInNH said:


> Interesting. Feeding is tough. The concept is right, but the logistics don't always work out. I'm in the dilemma now.


Why is feeding tough? Back when I did feed on a regular basis it was time consuming but not tough


----------



## beecavalier (Jan 30, 2014)

Back to the Huffington Post article...and where may government policies go from here.

To give you an example of potential beekeepers' influence on environmental policy this example comes to mind.

In the early '70s Proctor and Gamble constructed a pulp mill along the pristine, blue/green mountain sourced Wapiti River near the City of Grande Prairie, Alberta, Canada. Unfortunately for them, it was located 30 miles up wind of beekeeper Henry Pirker. After a few years of heavy air and river water pollution, the provincial government forced the mill to clean up there act...due in large part to Henry's work. To this day there are several air monitoring stations active in the area named after him.









I hope you can read the print on the sign. Henry Pirker was an exceptional beekeeper...not only developing a method to winter honey bees in the far north...but actually producing spring packages for sale to beekeepers in the Yukon sub-arctic.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

NewbeeInNH said:


> Not to waylay the thread, but I'm having a problem with feeding right now. There's a terrible dearth due to drought, and filling feeders in the hive feels like being a bread vendor in Venezuela. But if I put open feeders then all the other desperate bees in the region are descending on us. I also suspect I am putting my bees in grave robbing danger by feeding inside their hives. I will admit that I have not put robbing screens on, altho I do have them in the house. I'll have to bite the bullet today and brave their mobs to refill the hive feeders. Just getting them out of the hive top feeders so you don't drown on refill is a prob. And I'm sure the nucs are plastered onto the jar lids. Gonna take a lot of smoke and a brush and some guts.
> 
> It's so much easier when they store up their own supplies.


I just got done feeding nucs in yards with triple deep production colonies in the middle of this 6-8 week dearth we've had that's just ended (or at least softened). Made a horrible mess of syrup in the yard because while my hives have over tripled in number this year, my feeding technique still needs some finesse. The only time I have ever had issues with robbing is when I had weak colonies to begin with and even then only in yards with package Italian queen (or descendants) in the same yard. In one of the nucs I actually had the bucket slip off the edge of the hive and I dumped at least a quart of syrup in one big gush down into the combs and it was rolling out of the front like a waterfall.

No robbing. And no robbing screens. Just reduced entrances year round (except when MAQS treatments are on). 

Personally, I think the BEST place to feed is INSIDE the hive, especially for us hobbiests. Put an open feeder out and when it goes dry the bees are going to look in that same area for more food... and guess what's right there? Your colonies.


----------



## NewbeeInNH (Jul 10, 2012)

Thanks for the feedback, the direction helps. Forget the open feeders then, anyways the college student is giving me dirty looks because he can't get into his car in the morning without taking along a passenger.  I hate filling those feeders tho, wish there were an easier way that didn't involve a lot of drowned, angry bees.

Today turned out beautiful. Of the 3 cleared acres here (the rest is woods), we're pretty much farming goldenrod and asters this year. Walking around the grounds, was nary a clump of asters that wasn't covered in bee hums. So I'm hoping they're kind of solving their own problem right now.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Harley Craig said:


> Well Google doesn't find Jims tesilts, but it found several, but I don't know how to link pdfs with my phone on the mobile platform so ya gonna have to look yourself, I can do links, and it's not in honey but I found it interesting none the less https://youtu.be/M8sgEhpHM4k


His discussion is spot on from a toxicology standpoint, but they switch the glass around 5:15 in the video.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

beecavalier said:


> In the early '70s Proctor and Gamble constructed a pulp mill along the pristine, blue/green mountain sourced Wapiti River near the City of Grande Prairie, Alberta, Canada. Unfortunately for them, it was located 30 miles up wind of beekeeper Henry Pirker. After a few years of heavy air and river water pollution, the provincial government forced the mill to clean up there act...due in large part to Henry's work. To this day there are several air monitoring stations active in the area named after him


Well paper mills stink to high heaven. It can be a major nuisance if you live by one, but they are not dangerous.


----------



## NewbeeInNH (Jul 10, 2012)

Nabber86 said:


> Well paper mills stink to high heaven. It can be a major nuisance if you live by one, but they are not dangerous.


They're not? I don't know about that. I used to live near a paper mill in North Carolina. They said it smelled like money. Anyway, polluted the river.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

NewbeeInNH said:


> They're not? I don't know about that. I used to live near a paper mill in North Carolina. They said it smelled like money. Anyway, polluted the river.



Oh it smells like money alright. Can you tell me what contaminants paper mills put out and why they are dangerous?


----------



## NewbeeInNH (Jul 10, 2012)

They discharged something into the river. What was it? I forget the chemical, if I ever knew it, but if it polluted the river you gotta think it would be atmospheric too, but I could be wrong. Sure stunk. As I recall I believe there was a higher cancer incidence in that town also.

P.S. Looking online, I believe it was dioxins. Whatever those are.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

NewbeeInNH said:


> They discharged something into the river. What was it? I forget the chemical, if I ever knew it, but if it polluted the river you gotta think it would be atmospheric too, but I could be wrong. Sure stunk. As I recall I believe there was a higher cancer incidence in that town also.
> 
> P.S. Looking online, I believe it was dioxins. Whatever those are.


The phrase "it smells like money" is what hard working men and women say when they work in a dump that smells bad.

Regarding all of the other so-called "modern" health crisis 'stuff'... this is my go-to article for people who think we're somehow wrecked because of the modern life with modern materials, chemicals, and healthcare we live with:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/health/30age.html?_r=0

So far as paper mills... I've never worked in one, but I believe they use sulfur in some part of their process. Likely sulfur dioxide.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Paper mills do in fact release bleach in their waste, used to bleach paper pulp from the natural color, to white. If released into rivers and it nearly always is, this bleach mimicks female hormone and makes male fish and even frogs grow female genetalia.

Googled but could not find a really excellent article on it, but found this, which gives some idea.
https://books.google.co.nz/books?id...ge&q=paper mill bleach female hormone&f=false

Wherever possible I only buy unbleached paper now so as not to support the process. For example, we don't need bleached toilet paper, unbleached does the same job LOL.


----------



## NewbeeInNH (Jul 10, 2012)

Modern translation: Plastic is the root of all evil.


----------

