>OK, so what IS your current, umm... "claim" about irreversible binding?

Nice of you to ask before speaking for me--thank you.

I don't make claims--I simply report on research.  As far as irreversible
binding, you seem to think that the debate is a game with winners or
losers.  I am not of that mindset--science is not a contest.  I'm solely
interested in learning the truth of the matter.

As far as irreversible binding--that is indeed what I was referring to, and
took offense to having words put into my mouth.  I feel no need to keep
tormenting this dead horse--Richard Cryberg explained the concept very well
yesterday.  But it seems that perhaps I should elaborate for those who
didn't follow his reasoning (please correct me Richard if necessary).

In order to bind, a substance (the ligand) must have a certain molecular
shape to bind to a receptor site.  Researchers use a radioactively-labeled
form of the ligand to determine whether and where it remains in an
organism.  If the radioactive signature of the ligand disappears from the
organism, that is strong evidence that the ligand is no longer bound to any
sites.  Ergo, not irreversible.

That said, there is every reason to suspect that the temporary binding
could possibly have toxic or immunological effects, which could be
cumulative.  Without speaking for Christina, I understand that this is her
quite legitimate concern, and am glad that she brought it up for discussion
some time ago.

--
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