Bedbugs!!!!

[W1GUH]

Bedbugs (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100830/ap_on_re_us/us_bedbug_conundrum)

So far, I'm lucky - especially so with all the travel I've done the last few years. Anybody unfortunate enough to have those little buggers hitch a stealthy ride into your home?

I know two people who have. The guy living under me had 'em (sure glad they don't spread!), and another friend picked them up, she thinks, on a flight.

And here I thought "Don't let the bedbugs bite" was an ancient thing.

[w3bny]

Alas...poor DDT.

[n2ize]

DDT would be the single best way to exterminate a lot of these pests. It is safe and relatively non-toxic to humans. Unfortunately the big environmentalism scare put the whammy on DDT and made it into public enemy No. 1. DDT was good stuff. If it were on the market today I'd buy it and use it.

[w3bny]

Actually, its THE pesticide to eradicate bed bugs period! Now if the EPA would allow its LICENSED (not for homeowner/public use) use for this pest we could be done with them.

[KC2UGV]

Actually, its THE pesticide to eradicate bed bugs period! Now if the EPA would allow its LICENSED (not for homeowner/public use) use for this pest we could be done with them.

This would be the key here. Licensed (ie only used by licensed exterminators) use only. The environmental impact came from every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Sally dousing their grass with it to get rid of grubs. If it were limited to use by licensed exterminators, the issue wouldn't be nearly as bad.

[N8YX]

Rats on the west side; bedbugs uptown!

...don't mind the maggots...

[WX7P]

Rats on the west side; bedbugs uptown!

...don't mind the maggots...

my brains be splattered...

[kc7jty]

DDT would be the single best way to exterminate a lot of these pests. It is safe and relatively non-toxic to humans. Unfortunately the big environmentalism scare put the whammy on DDT and made it into public enemy No. 1. DDT was good stuff. If it were on the market today I'd buy it and use it.

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/animals/images/primary/peregrine-falcon.jpghttp://www.theus50.com/images/state-quarters/idaho-quarter.jpg
this is the most amazing bird in the world, it can travel at 230 mph. I had the privilege of walking up on one in the Seattle area while it was eating a pigeon, I'll never forget it. I got within 12 feet. I froze and after a 10 second stare down it flew off without it's meal.
DDT causes the egg shells of these and other birds to become so thin they break under the weight of the sitting bird. Peregrine Falcon.

http://www.extremescience.com/zoom/index.php/videos/180-peregrine-falcon-video

[n2ize]

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/animals/images/primary/peregrine-falcon.jpg
this is the most amazing bird in the world, it can travel at 230 mph. I had the privilege of walking up on one in the Seattle area while it was eating a pigeon, I'll never forget it. I got within 12 feet of it. I froze and after a 10 second stare down it flew off without it's meal.
DDT causes the egg shells of these and other birds to become so thin they break under the weight of the sitting bird. Peregrine Falcon.

The problem is that happens when DDT is used in excess. Even Rachael Carlson didn't feel that DDT should be banned. She did feel that it should be used with greater caution and not be used to such excess where it runs off into ground water, river, stream and lake water. With proper guidelines DDT can be used effectively such that it kills unwanted pests yet does not harm the ecosystem. Problem was that back in the 50's they were using DDT like water,

[n2ize]

This would be the key here. Licensed (ie only used by licensed exterminators) use only. The environmental impact came from every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Sally dousing their grass with it to get rid of grubs. If it were limited to use by licensed exterminators, the issue wouldn't be nearly as bad.

I disagree. I feel it should be allowed to be used as a household pesticide. DDT is not nearly as harmful to the environment as it has been made out to be. Matter of fact, some of the chemicals which replaced DDT after it was banned were far more toxic and dangerous than DDT. Matter of fact there is a noted lecturer on the benefits of DDT. Just before beginning each lecture he takes a teaspoonful of DDT just to show how harmless it is to humans.

[kc7jty]

While spending the winter in Yuma a few years back something bit me on the top of my right foot while asleep. It wasn't that painful but it was quite a sight (large red area around the bite mark) and took months to finally disappear completely.

[w3bny]

While spending the winter in Yuma a few years back something bit me on the top of my right foot while asleep. It wasn't that painful but it was quite a sight (large red area around the bite mark) and took months to finally disappear completely.

That would be a scorpion...or your room mate with a toe fetish and a pair of Klein lineman pliers

[W1GUH]

That would be a scorpion...or your room mate with a toe fetish and a pair of Klein lineman pliers

Really? I'm not that knowledgable about scorpoins but a freind of mine got bit on the fingertip (reaching into his dryer) and his description of the pain was very, very intense. He said he could just feel the pain and paralysis move up his arm. Went to the emergency room where the doctor told him that it's not fatal...he'll be OK...but there's nothing to do about it except take valium and chill.

Or does this vary by the particular species of scorpion?

[NQ6U]

While spending the winter in Yuma a few years back something bit me on the top of my right foot while asleep. It wasn't that painful but it was quite a sight (large red area around the bite mark) and took months to finally disappear completely.

Might have been one of these, commonly known as Kissing Bugs:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_87JvzE0dnXk/SNCWL3NVmfI/AAAAAAAAARA/l6FLiaTw7go/s320/Kissing+Bugs+008.JPG

They're common in desert areas like Yuma and can spread Chigas Disease, which is pretty nasty.

[w3bny]

Might have been one of these, commonly known as Kissing Bugs:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_87JvzE0dnXk/SNCWL3NVmfI/AAAAAAAAARA/l6FLiaTw7go/s320/Kissing+Bugs+008.JPG

They're common in desert areas like Yuma and can spread Chigas Disease, which is pretty nasty.


Go with the toe fetish roomie and the Klein's

[kc7jty]

and can spread Chigas Disease, which is pretty nasty.
Are you sure it's not chingas disease?

[NQ6U]

Are you sure it's not chingas disease?

That's the worst!

(Actually, it's Chagas. My bad.)

[w3bny]

Are you sure it's not chingas disease?

No te chingas!

[n2ize]

Really? I'm not that knowledgable about scorpoins but a freind of mine got bit on the fingertip (reaching into his dryer) and his description of the pain was very, very intense. He said he could just feel the pain and paralysis move up his arm. Went to the emergency room where the doctor told him that it's not fatal...he'll be OK...but there's nothing to do about it except take valium and chill.

Or does this vary by the particular species of scorpion?

Most are relatively harmless to humans. But there are some species where the venom is dangerous to humans.

The bigger issue is infections at and around the site of the bite. The venom kills the tissues at the center of the bite causing necrosis. This can sometimes become infected resulting in nasty, painful, and potentially dangerous spreading infections. In people with poor circulation, diabetes, this can sometimes result in loss of a limb if the infection is allowed to get out of control and gangrene sets in. However, this is rare and most people that get bitten tend to recover.... so they say.

[NQ6U]

No te chingas!

This guy would disagree.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Carlos_chagas_2.jpg

[KG4CGC]

Just before beginning each lecture he takes a teaspoonful of DDT just to show how harmless it is to humans.
Either that was not DDT or this story is full of holes.


Acute toxicityDDT is moderately to slightly toxic to mammals. The acute oral LD50 ranges from 113-118 mg/kg in rats; 150-300 mg/kg in mice; 300 mg/kg in rabbits; 500-750 mg/kg in dogs; and >1,000 mg/kg in sheep and goats. DDT is less toxic to test animals exposed via the skin. The acute dermal LD50 for female rats is 2,510 mg/kg(10). DDT is categorised by the World Health Organisation as Class II "moderately hazardous"(11).
It mainly affects the central and peripheral nervous systems, and the liver. Acute effects in humans exposed to low to moderate levels may include nausea, diarrhoea, increased liver enzyme activity, irritation of the eyes, nose and/or throat. At higher doses, tremors and convulsions are possible(12). Deaths from exposure to DDT are rare. Even in developing countries there have been few reported cases, especially when compared with organophosphate insecticides (see PN34 pp20-21). In 1994, one fatal poisoning was reported in the US involving a child who ingested one ounce (28g) of a 5% DDT and kerosene solution(13).
Chronic effectsDDT has caused chronic effects on the nervous system, liver, kidneys, and immune systems in experimental animals. Dose levels at which effects were observed are at very much higher levels than those which may be typically encountered in humans(14). However they may be at, or even below, levels found in body fat (see below).
Reproductive effectsDDT causes adverse reproductive effects in test animals. In one rat study, oral doses of 7.5 mg/kg/day for 36 weeks resulted in sterility. In rabbits, doses of 1 mg/kg/day administered on gestation days 4-7 resulted in decreased foetal weights. In mice, doses of 1.67 mg/kg/day resulted in decreased embryo implantation and irregularities in the oestrus cycle over 28 weeks(15). Many of these observations may be the result of disruptions to the endocrine (hormonal) system.
Available epidemiological studies involving exposure to DDT have not confirmed adverse effects in humans. One study did report a significant association between maternal DDT blood levels and miscarriage, but the presence of other organochlorines in maternal blood, make it difficult to attribute the effect solely to DDT(16).
Teratogenic effects (birth defects)
Again there is evidence that DDT causes teratogenic effects in test animals. In mice, maternal doses of 26 mg/kg/day DDT from gestation through to lactation resulted in impaired learning in maze tests(17). Epidemiological studies involving humans are unavailable(18).
CancerThe evidence relating to DDT and carcinogenicity provides uncertain conclusions. It has increased tumour production, mainly in the liver and lungs, in test animals such as rats, mice and hamsters in some studies, but not in others. In rats, liver tumours were induced in three studies at doses of 12.5 mg/kg/day over periods of 78 weeks to life, and thyroid tumours were induced at doses of 85 mg/kg/day over 78 weeks. Tests have shown laboratory mice were more sensitive to DDT. Life time doses of 0.4 mg/kg/day resulted in lung tumours in the second generation and leukaemia in the third generation, and liver tumours were induced at oral doses of 0.26 mg/kg/day in two separate studies over several generations(19).
The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that 'DDT may reasonably be anticipated to be a human carcinogen'. DHHS has not classified DDE and DDD, but the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that they are probable human carcinogens(20).
Work carried out by the US National Cancer Institute correlates breast cancer in women with increased levels of DDE in blood serum. From 14,290 women monitored in the New York University Women's Health Study, researchers selected 58 women who had developed breast cancer and 171 matched controls without cancer. After adjusting for participants' childbearing and breast feeding histories, and for family history of breast cancer, researchers found a four-fold increase in relative risk of breast cancer for women with elevated levels of DDE in the blood(21).

http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/ddt.htm




http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/newscience/human/humepi.htm




Here is one that say that DDT is safe but look at who published it.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts35.html

DDT affects the nervous system. People who accidentally swallowed large amounts of DDT became excitable and had tremors and seizures. These effects went away after the exposure stopped. No effects were seen in people who took small daily doses of DDT by capsule for 18 months.
A study in humans showed that women who had high amounts of a form of DDE in their breast milk were unable to breast feed their babies for as long as women who had little DDE in the breast milk. Another study in humans showed that women who had high amounts of DDE in breast milk had an increased chance of having premature babies.
In animals, short-term exposure to large amounts of DDT in food affected the nervous system, while long-term exposure to smaller amounts affected the liver. Also in animals, short-term oral exposure to small amounts of DDT or its breakdown products may also have harmful effects on reproduction.

[KC2UGV]

I disagree. I feel it should be allowed to be used as a household pesticide. DDT is not nearly as harmful to the environment as it has been made out to be. Matter of fact, some of the chemicals which replaced DDT after it was banned were far more toxic and dangerous than DDT. Matter of fact there is a noted lecturer on the benefits of DDT. Just before beginning each lecture he takes a teaspoonful of DDT just to show how harmless it is to humans.

It's not so much the toxicity to humans that was the problem. It was the environment impact of such widespread usage. Almost causing the extinction of our nation's national bird, among other species.

[W1GUH]

It's not so much the toxicity to humans that was the problem. It was the environment impact of such widespread usage. Almost causing the extinction of our nation's national bird, among other species.

Which brings up the difficult question....

Where do we stop pampering lesser species before it totally messes up our lives?

[n2ize]

Which brings up the difficult question....

Where do we stop pampering lesser species before it totally messes up our lives?

There has to be a "get tough" point somewhere. Unfortunately the radical environmentalism of the 60's and 70's left us in such a pansy state that we no longer kick ass anymore. All the good chemicals are gone. The bugs attack us and we tolerate it. It's time that we, as a nation, start growing a pair and start kicking butt once again. We need to kick ass. Back in the 1950's people knew how to kick butt. Farmers.. industry leaders, homeowners, housewives, and even little kids wouldn't hesitate to splatter the varmints with enough DDT to get the job done and squash the little buggers. They knew how to get tough. These day's we've set the "get tough" bar so high that it's unreachable. Time to stop being pansies and start acting like MEN!

[W1GUH]

There has to be a "get tough" point somewhere. Unfortunately the radical environmentalism of the 60's and 70's left us in such a pansy state that we no longer kick ass anymore. All the good chemicals are gone. The bugs attack us and we tolerate it. It's time that we, as a nation, start growing a pair and start kicking butt once again. We need to kick ass. Back in the 1950's people knew how to kick butt. Farmers.. industry leaders, homeowners, housewives, and even little kids wouldn't hesitate to splatter the varmints with enough DDT to get the job done and squash the little buggers. They knew how to get tough. These day's we've set the "get tough" bar so high that it's unreachable. Time to stop being pansies and start acting like MEN!

I don't know about you John, but I can't say for sure whether or not I was being sarcastic. It's true that we DO have to worry about the environment, but there are times when ya gotta wonder when too much is too much. IMHO, with this crisis, it'd be reasonable to bring back DDT on an ad hoc basis to deal with it. Presumably, in the right hands and in limited situation (e.g. bedbug infestations) there'd be minimal environmental impact.

[KC2UGV]

Which brings up the difficult question....

Where do we stop pampering lesser species before it totally messes up our lives?

I'm not really sure what your definition of "lesser species" is. All species exists as parts of the entire whole. It's impossible to damage another species' survival without impacting our own.


I don't know about you John, but I can't say for sure whether or not I was being sarcastic. It's true that we DO have to worry about the environment, but there are times when ya gotta wonder when too much is too much. IMHO, with this crisis, it'd be reasonable to bring back DDT on an ad hoc basis to deal with it. Presumably, in the right hands and in limited situation (e.g. bedbug infestations) there'd be minimal environmental impact.

And with this I agree. DDT in the hands of licensed exterminators = Good thing. DDT in the hands of every swinging dick = Bad thing.

[n2ize]

I don't know about you John, but I can't say for sure whether or not I was being sarcastic. It's true that we DO have to worry about the environment, but there are times when ya gotta wonder when too much is too much. IMHO, with this crisis, it'd be reasonable to bring back DDT on an ad hoc basis to deal with it. Presumably, in the right hands and in limited situation (e.g. bedbug infestations) there'd be minimal environmental impact.

I agree. We've become wimps in the sense that we are so petrified to do anything that someone might say is "environmentally incorrect". We have become pansies in that we are afraid to just say, "we need the damned DDT and we're gonna use it, like it or not". In the old days people weren't afraid like we are today. They were tough, we're the pansies.

[w3bny]

There's always the popular line and will work every time...


Kill it with FIRE!

[n2ize]

I'm not really sure what your definition of "lesser species" is. All species exists as parts of the entire whole. It's impossible to damage another species' survival without impacting our own.



And with this I agree. DDT in the hands of licensed exterminators = Good thing. DDT in the hands of every swinging dick = Bad thing.

The only bad thing is if we allow DDT to be used the way they did years ago where they used it to excess. Farmers were spraying it right and left and it was ending up in streams, rivers, lakes. Home owners using it to keep the moths off their clothes or to keep the roaches at bay weren't hurting the lakes. Legalize it for everybody but restrict it's widespread use in places where it can easily end up in the water.

[KC2UGV]

The only bad thing is if we allow DDT to be used the way they did years ago where they used it to excess. Farmers were spraying it right and left and it was ending up in streams, rivers, lakes. Home owners using it to keep the moths off their clothes or to keep the roaches at bay weren't hurting the lakes. Legalize it for everybody but restrict it's widespread use in places where it can easily end up in the water.

What do you think happens when clothing treated with DDT get laundered?

[w3bny]

What do you think happens when clothing treated with DDT get laundered?

They get clean and smell april fresh?

[KC2UGV]

They get clean and smell april fresh?

And, the DDT goes...

[ab1ga]

Matter of fact there is a noted lecturer on the benefits of DDT. Just before beginning each lecture he takes a teaspoonful of DDT just to show how harmless it is to humans.

The next morning he lays an egg with a thin shell....

[N7YA]

my brains be splattered...


....huh....shadoobay....

[kf0rt]

And, the DDT goes...

Down the drain, where it's cleaned out of the water by a treatment plant?

[N7YA]

Or, according to John, its perfectly safe, we can drink it and put it in our babys bottles because its totally unfair that anyone was concerned about it to begin with. :lol:

[n2ize]

Or, according to John, its perfectly safe, we can drink it and put it in our babys bottles because its totally unfair that anyone was concerned about it to begin with. :lol:

No, but its less toxic to humans than some of the pesticides that replaced it like Chlordane (R), Lindane / IsoTox (R). The main concern about DDT, even according to Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring (the signature work for the hippie environmental movement of the 70's) was regarding the overuse of DDT. The hippies (and I have nothing against hippies) latched onto this with hysteria (as they often do) and took it to mean that DDT was destroying the environment. DDT got an unfair shake and was banned.

DDT is not perfectly safe, but it is safe when used sensible, i.e. to control bedbugs, to kill household pests, and for limited discrete use outdoors.

I think DDT should be legal for indoor use by consumers but it's use outdoors should be confined to specific guidelines.

[N7YA]

John....buddy.....embrace the John within!!

[KG4CGC]

I think DDT should be legal for indoor use by consumers but it's use outdoors should be confined to specific guidelines.
No.

[WX7P]

....huh....shadoobay....

Don't you know the prime rates going up up up UP!

[KC2UGV]

Down the drain, where it's cleaned out of the water by a treatment plant?

Because that works out so great with phosphates too, huh?

[W1GUH]

No, but its less toxic to humans than some of the pesticides that replaced it like Chlordane (R), Lindane / IsoTox (R). The main concern about DDT, even according to Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring (the signature work for the hippie environmental movement of the 70's) was regarding the overuse of DDT. The hippies (and I have nothing against hippies) latched onto this with hysteria (as they often do) and took it to mean that DDT was destroying the environment. DDT got an unfair shake and was banned.

DDT is not perfectly safe, but it is safe when used sensible, i.e. to control bedbugs, to kill household pests, and for limited discrete use outdoors.

I think DDT should be legal for indoor use by consumers but it's use outdoors should be confined to specific guidelines.

I do, too, but the problem with that is how many consumers are actually going to follow the guidelines? OTOH...licensed (well, with a code test! :-P ) use by professionals - kinda like R-12 - seems reasonable.

[n2ize]

Since we banned DDT we might as well ban ALL insecticides because virtually all of them are as bad or worst than DDT. Malathion is very bad stuff, and most likely carcinogenic and very widely used. . Lindane, worst than DDT, more toxic to humans than DDT and very likely a carcinogen. Pyrethrins, also quite dangerous, toxic to humans. ALL are EXTREMELY toxic to aquatic life. I fail to see the point of disallowing DDT while allowing all these other poisons that are just as bad or worst. Why not ban them all ?

[n2ize]

I do, too, but the problem with that is how many consumers are actually going to follow the guidelines?

Because you'll be selling it to consumers in small quantities, i.e. spray cans, etc for indoor spraying. If they dump the whole thing outside its effects would be negligible and no worst than any of the pesticides on the market now.


OTOH...licensed (well, with a code test! :-P ) use by professionals - kinda like R-12 - seems reasonable.

Whats the point in limiting DDT to only professionals when the consumer can simply buy products that are just as toxic to humans, wild life, aquatic life ?

See above, you really have to ban them all.

[W1GUH]

Because you'll be selling it to consumers in small quantities, i.e. spray cans, etc for indoor spraying. If they dump the whole thing outside its effects would be negligible and no worst than any of the pesticides on the market now.



Whats the point in limiting DDT to only professionals when the consumer can simply buy products that are just as toxic to humans, wild life, aquatic life ?

See above, you really have to ban them all.

Good points.