I'm enjoying this discussion immensely. The occasional pricklishness is unfortunate.  May I suggest that participants invoke the principle of charity, whereby one assumes that the correspondents of the discussion may mean something other than what one (pricklishly) suspects?

eg, the semiotics of the passage wherein Jim says that we were told that bees metabolize Imi completely, and that it would never build up to a toxic dose, and Randy then replies that this is the case. Seems clear to me, in the context of the discussion, that he means that assertion to apply to the second clause and not the first. 

I would however like to look at this more. Jim seems to be suggesting that it is building up to a toxic dose. Randy is denying it. Are different things meant here? 

Is it a toxic dose if the Imi and its metabolites persist in the synapses for a period of time such that the bees normal behaviours are compromised, which results in a shortening of its life? Not quite what's meant normally by a toxic dose, I guess. The bee doesn't die soon after, but eventually. And it doesn't die as a direct result of the Imi, but indirectly as a result of the behavioural modifications of the neuronal binding.

As probably shows, this is way outside my field of expertise.  Please bear that in mind in your remonstrations.

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