Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 86 posts

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#71

Post by derleth »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #44
0x12 wrote: post #15

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html Makes a good case for why eradicating mosquitoes will not be problematic. But every time there is a large scale intervention like this the side effects only become apparent decades after the fact. You mess with ecosystems at this scale at your peril. Even if we can't see any downside to this today that doesn't mean there isn't a downside. DDT looked pretty good…

> DDT looked pretty good once upon a time. It looks fantastic today if you have ever had malaria. What is the problem with DDT? It is completely non-toxic to humans and dirt cheap to make. It depresses birds of prey populations during the malaria eradication process, but that is a pretty small price to pay compared to getting malaria. Sure, it is inappropriate as an agricultural insecticide, but it is perfectly fine…

> It looks fantastic today

Unless the local mosquito populations are resistant to it, as a lot of them are. That's why it's barely used now. Seems a bit rude to point that out, given how enthusiastic some people are for the substance.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#73

Post by sk5t »

goombastic wrote: post #69
keenerd wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the problematic side, the cheap boric acid solution (pun!) will likely be the most used. And this will be bad. 1) Boric acid will kill any insect that ingests it. 2) If you leave rotting fruit out, every nectar lover will drink it. From experience, this will be at least 50% honeybees. So yeah, it will crash native honeybee populations too. If you are curious and want to see how effective it would be, mix up some b…

I thought about this as well. I am going to leave boric acid laced juice socks out at night. BTW this has worked as a solution for cockroaches terrifically well at my place for the last 20 years.

What is a 'juice sock'? Is it like a windsock? A size-12 tube sock soaked in Borax?

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#74

Post by Steko »

michaelkeenan wrote: post #65
Steko wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"proven through history to be correct" Pretty sure you mean partially correct. The wolrd has a long history of famines that show we quite often bump up against Malthusian limits. In the long run yes production can potentially keep pace with population but what's more relevant is the population growth rate itself will naturally fall once a certain quality of life is achieved.

> The world has a long history of famines that show we quite often bump up against Malthusian limits. Famine isn't caused by a lack of resources - it's a political problem. 87 million people died of famine in the 20th century, but none of those were in democracies. Source (though I haven't checked the numbers myself): http://markhumphrys.com/end.war.html

To say it's a political problem is to say that you can solve all famine just by just changing over to democracy which simply isn't the case (although it would help!).

That's an error in causation. What's more likely is you're seeing the fact that democracy helps but what helps more is the same societal characteristics that are salient for developing a strong democracy (e.g. a strong, educated middle class) also tend to insulate those societies from shocks to the food supply.

Certainly type of government is important but to say famine isn't also caused by lack of resources is silly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_famines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition_in_India

"Deaths from malnutrition on a large scale have continued across India into modern times. In Maharashtra alone, for example, there were around 45,000 childhood deaths due to mild or severe malnutrition in 2009, according to the Times of India.[145] Another Times of India report in 2010 has stated that 50% of childhood deaths in India are attributable to malnutrition.[146] Around 7.5 million people per year die of malnutrition in modern India, the largest death rate caused by malnutrition for any country."

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#75

Post by robchez »

Damn I should of applied for the grant. I use a similar system to kill fruit flys around my various fruit trees.

Quick How-to

1. Cut 600ml bottle.

2. Invert top into opening (see pic).

3. Tape with red and yellow (i read somewhere that fruit flys are attracted to it)

4. Fill with something 'sweet', some honey or even apple cider vinegar.

5. Add a dash of detergent. (maybe some white oil)

6. Hang on fruit tree near fruit.

The flys go in, they land on the mixture, detergent sticks to them and they drown.

I have never seen a bee in there.

http://imgur.com/EcyZM

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#76

Post by burgerbrain »

nate_meurer wrote: post #51
jcampbell1 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> DDT looked pretty good once upon a time. It looks fantastic today if you have ever had malaria. What is the problem with DDT? It is completely non-toxic to humans and dirt cheap to make. It depresses birds of prey populations during the malaria eradication process, but that is a pretty small price to pay compared to getting malaria. Sure, it is inappropriate as an agricultural insecticide, but it is perfectly fine…

> "If you could go back to the 1940's, and stop the DDT spraying to save the birds it killed, would you?" This is a bit of a non-sequitur. The problem was that whole species of raptors were threatened by the widespread use of DDT. Yes it absolutely would have been wise to restrict DDT earlier than they did. Or maybe we Americans just enjoy the thrill of nearly exterminating a species of bird. The result is the same:…

The reason Americans are currently able to cope with a DDT ban is mostly because the ban only went into effect after malaria had been effectively eradicated.

Ban it a few decades earlier, and people would not be "coping", they'd be getting sick as hell.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#77

Post by nunb »

sk5t wrote: post #73
goombastic wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought about this as well. I am going to leave boric acid laced juice socks out at night. BTW this has worked as a solution for cockroaches terrifically well at my place for the last 20 years.

What is a 'juice sock'? Is it like a windsock? A size-12 tube sock soaked in Borax?

It's an open container filled with toxic nectar suspended inside a tube sock which is in turn suspended from a hook.

A wick is added so that the contents of the container are pulled up by capillary action and suffuse the sock.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#78

Post by jcampbell1 »

nate_meurer wrote: post #50
paganel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Huh? What previous attempts at species destruction are you referring to? This one, maybe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign ?

I don't think so, since that too was ultimately aimed at preventing human casualties. gerggerg is claiming there's a big difference between this and previous deliberate attempts to wipe out a whole species. I'm asking, what are those previous attempts? I can think of none for which human welfare wasn't the main selling point. What I'm ultimately doing is disagreeing with the gerggerg; I'm saying that human welfare do…

> I'm saying that human welfare doesn't justify any attempt to wipe out an entire species.

You must see the irony in that statement. The whole point is to eradicate Plasmodium vivax, and five other species from the earth.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#79

Post by sliverstorm »

0x12 wrote: post #15

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html Makes a good case for why eradicating mosquitoes will not be problematic. But every time there is a large scale intervention like this the side effects only become apparent decades after the fact. You mess with ecosystems at this scale at your peril. Even if we can't see any downside to this today that doesn't mean there isn't a downside. DDT looked pretty good…

Makes a good case...

Really? Does it? Because I've read that article several times, and as far as I can tell, the "case" it makes for erradicating them consists entirely of the opinions of some scientists and the half-baked idea that "obviously something else would fill in the niche".

Heck, every time I read that article, considering the amount of time they devote to the impact of erradication, I am astounded at the conclusions they draw, which they seem to have been actively tearing down for the duration of the article.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#80

Post by qq66 »

0x12 wrote: post #15

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html Makes a good case for why eradicating mosquitoes will not be problematic. But every time there is a large scale intervention like this the side effects only become apparent decades after the fact. You mess with ecosystems at this scale at your peril. Even if we can't see any downside to this today that doesn't mean there isn't a downside. DDT looked pretty good…

Ecosystems are actually pretty robust. If mosquitoes are eradicated something else would come and fill the void. Humans are so flexible that while the eradication of mosquitoes will probably cause the extinction of several of their predators, we'll find a way around whatever few problems bubble up to our level.
Post reply on HN