61–70 of 180 posts
Don't know which is worse - - contracting Lyme disease, or Parkinson's disease from Permethrin and other pesticide exposure: https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2009/09/occupatio... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27756609/
A healthy wolf population is the proper (trophic cascading) solution to the tick epidemic.
Can you expand on this provide me pointer to research for this? I am not an expert in the fields but it seems very interesting
Wolves' impact on the spread of chronic wasting disease (CWD) in deer has also been studied(2). “CWD prevalence could be halved within a decade and eliminated within the century if a pack of wolves consistently and selectively removed 15% of deer in a closed population” (Waldner, 2016)
I don't know if wolves' impact on tick populations has been explicitly studied, but you can find research on habitat diversity reducing ticks(3); and it follows that the lack of predators contributes to deer population explosion, which in turn provides an unbounded vector for the tick epidemic.
1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235198942...
2. https://wildlifecoexistence.org/blog/wolves-and-chronic-wast...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the length and depth of cold days in the winter that can potentially limit their breeding populations, is my understanding. So the issue is that more northerly areas are getting much more variance in temperature and lacking long deep consistent cold periods. Up and down cycles in temperature have always been a thing on the North American continent but climate change has made it even more variable. We will still…
> So the issue is that more northerly areas are getting much more variance in temperature and lacking long deep consistent cold periods. It impacts the population, but even a couple solid weeks of -20C weather doesn't seem to be enough to eradicate them.
Insects lay eggs, and also go dormant under fallen leaves typically. The snow + leaves insulates them, it's how live insects survive the winter.
If you watch robins in the spring, before the ground thaws, you'll see them flipping over leaves. They're eating loads of insects hiding, most still torpid from the cold.
-40C isn't a problem for ticks to live through in this way.
In terms of population, everything follows predator/prey cycles. Nothing is static. It's normal for populations to "explode", eventually predators will grow in numbers too.
I see it with noseeums here, and dragonflies. There are almost no noseeums this year, but loads of dragonflies, which means the dragonfly population will collapse, and soon (couple of years) the noseemums will be relentless. But then the dragonflies will grow in numbers, with plentiful food, and the cycle will repeat.
It's natural.
Global warming may shift habitats, but these ticks are normally here. They're not new.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of drugs work for dogs and cats because they don't live longer than 25yrs. A human has 3-4x the lifespan during which side effects can be worse than the disease.
Is that true? I don't know of really any medicine that has side effects 25 years down the line. Would we even know? We don't test new meds that long before release. Isn't it more because meds are cheaper to test on animals and liability is much lower?
But prions were the cause, and those are slow acting.
The new, safer vaccine is only recommended if you're going to Japan or surrounding areas, and planning to going outside the city.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don’t like heat? That seems incorrect. If true, Then why are they a huge problem in TX and other southerly areas, and are only now spreading north?
It's the length and depth of cold days in the winter that can potentially limit their breeding populations, is my understanding. So the issue is that more northerly areas are getting much more variance in temperature and lacking long deep consistent cold periods. Up and down cycles in temperature have always been a thing on the North American continent but climate change has made it even more variable. We will still…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of drugs work for dogs and cats because they don't live longer than 25yrs. A human has 3-4x the lifespan during which side effects can be worse than the disease.
Is that true? I don't know of really any medicine that has side effects 25 years down the line. Would we even know? We don't test new meds that long before release. Isn't it more because meds are cheaper to test on animals and liability is much lower?