> Has there been proof provided in either of these claims?   

As I mentioned yesterday, the statement that the blocking is irreversible
comes from Bayer itself ("The biochemistry of imidacloprid" (1991) -
Planzenschutz - Nachrichten Bayer; Abbink. J. (Bayerwerk AG, Wuppertal -
Eberfeld, Germany). What worries me is that Randy writes in 'Trying to make
sens of the science - part 2': "The point is, that nicotine and neonics
appear to be so rapidly metabolized, that there is no buildup (as there is
in the case of DDT), the binding to the nerve receptors is reversible and
insects recover fully, and there is generally no increased mortality due to
low-level chronic exposure." 
So, the question is now: 'While the blocking is not reversible, and the
insects don't recover fully, can there be any increased mortality due to
low-level chronic exposure?' Of course, we don't speak here about CCD. It
would make me glad if Randy could give us his interpretation about this
communication from Bayer. Thanks, Randy, hope you can find time.

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