> You provided us with multiple references.

At first glance, it seems I have incorrectly cited random papers from a set of related papers.  
I may have a major problem with citations and my own notes within the application "Qiqqa". 
It may take me some time to trace down which of my notes go with which appropriate papers, as I am going out of town soon.
Sorry for the incorrect cites.

> I don't agree with you that there is no proof of cumulative effects.

If you feel that there is clear proof, please point it out.  
This is a very important issue to many beekeepers, and, as I said, it is very hard slogging through the papers.

I did have time to look at Nauen et al (2001), about which you said:

> They found that the LD50 at 48 hours was about the same as the acute oral/contact dose.
> This tells me that IMI builds up in the system as the bees ingest it over time.

In the above you are pointing out the overlap in the ranges.
Chronic (48-h oral LD50) between 41 to >81 ng per bee
Actue (Contact LD50) between 49 and 102 ng per bee

Is it fair to draw any conclusion from the overlap between ranges of multiple studies?  
I'd expect a wider range of results from seven different sets of tests than from any single test.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to look at the delta between the chronic and the acute in each study and compare the sizes of the various deltas?

I noticed you had no comment on the Tennekes paper that started this thread, or my attempt to critique it.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html