James Fischer wrote:
 >In case any one is wondering, "micrograms per kilogram" is

>"parts per billion".
>

And let us remember, should we have forgotten our metric, that 1
microgram is 1 millionth of a gram, and a kilogram is 1000 grams.  A
paperclip, or a raisin weigh about a gram.  A kilo is about 2.2 pounds
so we are talking 1 million of a raisin dissolved in 2.2 pounds of cake
batter.  Wouldn't call it raisin cake.

>>B.) the proven harmful dose for those individuals
>>    who are susceptible to developing aplastic anemia
>>    from the drug.
>>
>>
>
>Well, I think we can all see from the numbers that 400-500
>pounds of honey would have to be consumed to get even
>1 milligram of chloramphenicol, and there simply is no
>effect from 1 mg of anything except certain deadly poisons
>and neurotoxins.  Dunno about cumulative effects, but I can't
>see how the human body could "store" the stuff.
>
Chloramphenicol is not stored to any degree in the body and is
eliminated by hepatic (liver) metabolism in most species. Gernerally
only a small portion gets excreted in the urine unchanged as most is
removed by the liver.  Livers doing what livers should do.  The problem
of bone marrow suppression that has most folks atwitter is not a an
issue of building toxic levels - it is an individual sensitivity issue.

Is the stuff toxic to bone marrow - yes, under the right circumstances.
 Long term dose dependant bone marrow suppression (reversable) is seen
in most species that have beens studied, but this is not the disease
most are concerned about as this would not happen with the chinese
honey.  The thing that really has people upset, amonst other things that
keep humans upset, is that in humans there is an idiosyncratic
drug-induced aplastic anemia associated with administration of this
substance. (It happens in other animals but with far, far lower
frequency near as anyone can tell).   This phenomenon is considered to
be "relatively dose independant" , in reality this means that it appears
to occur randomly at a variety of clinically acceptable levels.  Some
people given low clinical doses got the drug as did some who got higher
clinically relevant dosages.  There are problems with taking this
interpretation too far and stating that this material is going to cause
disease at *any* level.  No physician would have bothered to have
administered micro doses of the material (since it would not work as
intended), and standard dosages are multiple orders of magnitude higher
than the figures cited by the fine folks at farmaggedon as having been
present in the chinese honey.  What am I trying to say?  Everything has
a dose dependance - but the difference between the dose that causes
aplastic anemia (in miniscule number of patients susceptable to it) and
one that doesn't is likely never to be identified as it is probably well
below clinically relevant levels.  Is the Chinese honey unsafe?  No one
*knows.*  I suspect it is, but I have zero data to back up the claim.
 There is also more to this than merely a few molecules of Chloro - but
I am also not a political adept and will not wade where the water is
clearly over my head.

Keith "reporting from the shallow end of the pool" Benson

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::