> The cited paper really stretches the facts in a lot of places.  For 
> example, it cites the action of neonics on termite susceptibility to 
> fungi, but the authors apparently never read the original 
> research--the neonics simply slowed their grooming of fungus spores 
> from their skin.  There was no immune suppression per say.

Maybe, but the article of cedric alaux shows a reduction in the activity of glucose oxidase (responsible for the sterilization of brood and food) and synergy with the opportunistic parasite nosema
        
> The authors refer to a study that showed neonic immune suppression in rates.
> In actuality, the paper states "Our results revealed that in 200 mg/kg 
> body treated rats, there were significant decrease in mean values of 
> total leukocyte count and relative lymphocyte count in rats."  But 
> look at the dosage!  200 mg/kg = 200,000 ppb dose to the entire rat body weight!
>  This is far more than the typical 2-4 ppb exposure in pollen or 
> nectar, so it is a stretch of the mind to consider it to be relevant.
        
Randy, don't you confuse a dose and a concentration?
Giving 200mg to 1 kg of rat is in fact giving 1-20ng to a bee (100mg) and if you look at the LD50 20ng/bee we have 90% mortality ... it is in the correct range of study

> The paper states that "The phenomena of insect and herbicide 
> resistance have locked US farmers into a pesticide treadmill."  This 
> is certainly true, but has little to do with their hypothesis.

this is not an argument but a position against an intensive system that pushes farmers into a vicious circle .... The same applies when the authors speak bitterly of the prophylactic use (treated before the disease) rather than reactive (treated when the plant is sick).

> 
> Then they make statements like: "The consequences of this novel mode 
> of insecticidal action are that insects die in droves, not only at the 
> time of application, but also weeks later due to chronic toxicity."
> But they say this with no supporting data, or even a reference!

hmmmm, should we really read again the studies on chronic toxicity?

> If you are interested, also refer to Suchail, S, et al (2004) In vivo 
> distribution and metabolisation of 14C-imidacloprid in different 
> compartments of Apis mellifera L. Pest Manag Sci 60(11):1056-62.  She 
> fed C14-labeled imidacloprid to honey bees and measured the amount of 
> residual
> C14 over time.  It quickly disappeared from the bees even in the 
> absence of defecation, implying that it was broken down into CO2 and exhaled!
        
gloups, so you can use any toxic, it can be detoxified ... a little bit short as argumentation, don't forget that pesticides fields are mixed with substances that block detoxification with the effect that 1 +1 = 10 .

Kind regards,

Ghislain De Roeck,
Belgium.

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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm