>So is 2% retention of a couple of metabolites for several days (4% total
AChR binding potential) enough to explain delayed mortality?

Doubtful, since one of those metabolites was essentially nontoxic in
Suchail's acute toxicity tests, and the other about 6 times less toxic than
imidacloprid.  So your 4% of total AChR binding potential starts to seem
insignificant.  Also please note that no IMI nor metabolites were
detectable in the heads of the bees after 30 hours--so it is unlikely that
there would be lingering behavioral effects.

>
> >I think that a) all the metabolites are toxic enough (continuous binding
> to AChR receptors) when administered chronically at low doses to kill the
> neurons and then the bees by 72 hours


So then how do you explain studies by other researchers in which bees
survived fine for 8 days when fed IMI at far greater doses?  You can't just
pick and choose your studies, Christina, no matter what you "think"!  You
owe it to us to explain how you reconcile the findings of other chronic
toxicity studies, such as those by Decourtye and Cresswell.

And you have yet to answer my original question:  if 96% of the parent
compound and metabolites are broken down to CO2 in 72 hours, how can you
maintain that the binding is "irreversible"?  I don't understand,
Christina, why you continue to dance around this trenchant question.  You
are a neurophysiologist, and I am asking you a straightforward question
regarding neurochemistry.



-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

             ***********************************************
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