> ["sub lethal" accumulation]... then isn't the 
> slate wiped clean at the onset of every new 
> generation?  

No I think that there is a scenario painted where the sub-lethal doses cause
behavioral problems, but not death.

> if we can not in the field or lab , measure 
> a shortening of life span at realistic 
> exposure levels,  then isn't the point totally moot?  

If the behavior problem affects the overall colony performance, then the
lifespan of any one bee does not have to be shorter for the eventual fate of
the colony to be affected.  Less successful navigation, less foraging, less
brood reared, and then the hive fails to overwinter, or is combined in fall,
as it just did not seem to "thrive".

I was mostly ignored back when I was evangelizing the near-immediate payback
of spring fumagillin for nosema apis, as one had to look at things like
yield per hive on an annualized basis to see the stark difference between
colonies with untreated nosema vs treated nosema.  It was a performance
issue, not a survival issue.  There was no solid impact on bee lifespan, but
the overall colony performances was clearly hurt by untreated nosema.

> doesn't the next generation raised on
> clean pollen  negate all cumulative effects??

I'd like to say yes, but then we will be endlessly lectured about
epigenetics. 

>> several publications concerning the 
>> "irreversible binding of neonics" 
>> and find them totally unconvincing 
>> when the rest of the metabolism 
>> data known for this class of 
>> substance is also considered.

A solid grasp of this issue still eludes the group as a whole.
If you have the time, please add some detail, as the details of this biochem
are complex.

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