> Randy said:
>
> "If such opening of the channels were irreversible, then the sodium
> channels
> would remain open, and be cumulative, as you suggested when you started
> this discussion, citing Haber's Law.  Now you appear to be taking the
> reverse argument."
>

 Christina said

>
> Here is a "teachable moment".  The neuron is basically a battery.  If you
> aggressively discharge your battery, it wears out and is dead.  Same with
> neurons.  Batteries recharge if energy is applied.  Same with neurons.
>  They have sodium-potassium pumps which work to recharge (re-establish the
> negative resting potential) of the neuron.  The blocked AChR channels can
> be open and leak, and the Na-K pumps oppose the leak by moving the ions
> back out of the cytosol.  They are very efficient at this and under normal
> conditions can re-establish the resting potential in fractions of a second.
>

It sounds like it is reversible, based on your explanation, which was
Randy's original issue. So I am even more confused.

The argument you use, smoking, is not like the neonics since smoking is a
continuous injection of nicotine over many years while the neonics are only
at time of bloom over a short period. Plus, they are not at the levels that
a smoker gets, so the argument is not valid.

So, is the effect reversible or not?

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

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