Live data from Hacker News

A Low-Tech Mosquito Deterrent

nytimes.com

91–100 of 195 posts

Re: A Low-Tech Mosquito Deterrent

#91
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_laser Oddly enough, Intellectual Ventures invented this.

They actually invented something? I thought all they did was sue people.

Does it count as "invented" if they don't bring an actual product to market at all? If anything, that sounds like they anti-invented it - no one else can create one without their permission.

Re: A Low-Tech Mosquito Deterrent

#92

Although it isn't common knowledge, the recommended best practice for avoiding ticks and other bugs is soaking your clothes in Permethrin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3sGvZE3rh4 It isn't very well absorbed through the skin so it has an extremely low toxicity when used in this way, as long as you don't breathe it in or let it get on your skin while it's still wet. It's much more effective and less toxic than DEET,…

> Also don't ever mix [permethrin] with DEET, because the combination is neurotoxic. Do you have a citation for that? It's well known that permethrin is a neurotoxin to fish and cats, but I've never heard of this DEET+permethrin combination.

Not beyond the studies that come up when you Google it.

Re: A Low-Tech Mosquito Deterrent

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would releasing sterile mosquitoes help erase the population? Do they eat each other or something?

Sterilize & release programs for feral cats work; the sterilized cats compete for the same resources as unsterilized ones, but are more effective and longer-lived because they don't have to support reproduction. This not only means that the sterilized cats won't reproduce, but the unsterilized ones will have a harder time, and reproduce less. It works better than trapping & killing.

Very interesting. That's what we're also doing to human populations.

Re: A Low-Tech Mosquito Deterrent

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would releasing sterile mosquitoes help erase the population? Do they eat each other or something?

Sterilize & release programs for feral cats work; the sterilized cats compete for the same resources as unsterilized ones, but are more effective and longer-lived because they don't have to support reproduction. This not only means that the sterilized cats won't reproduce, but the unsterilized ones will have a harder time, and reproduce less. It works better than trapping & killing.

it has to be said - if non-sterile mosquitos are having a hard time surviving because sterile mosquitos drank up all the blood - we're probably going to suffer more than they will

Re: A Low-Tech Mosquito Deterrent

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would releasing sterile mosquitoes help erase the population? Do they eat each other or something?

Sterilize & release programs for feral cats work; the sterilized cats compete for the same resources as unsterilized ones, but are more effective and longer-lived because they don't have to support reproduction. This not only means that the sterilized cats won't reproduce, but the unsterilized ones will have a harder time, and reproduce less. It works better than trapping & killing.

It seems likely that capturing cats, sterilizing them, and releasing them would have a larger impact than simply releasing a large number of sterile cats. It's also much easier to do in appreciable numbers, relative to the wild population, and it doesn't actually lead to extinction, just some additional population control. I don't think it is a good fit for mosquitos.

I once heard a modified version of the plan, where you release male mosquitos with a "driving Y chromisome" - that is, a Y chromisome with a mutation that leads to male offspring. Supposedly this should spread in a population even when but eventually leads to extinction.

Re: A Low-Tech Mosquito Deterrent

#97
This thing works amazingly well. It's basically just adding a net to the box fan. I seriously think that it could fight malaria around the world.

http://skeeterbag.com/

I bought a mosquito magnet that cost hundreds of dollars, and it basically did nothing. The skeeterbag started catching mosquitos in minutes.

I am not a shill, and have no affiliation with that company.

Re: A Low-Tech Mosquito Deterrent

#98

I've just used vanilla extract before.. it doesn't take much, treat it like cologne. It smells much better than bug sprays and you don't have any weird residue.

I always assumed mosquitoes are going by the IR/heat emissions, but apparently they follow smell. They also have very rudimentary olfactory system, which is easy to confuse by filling the area with a smell "override". It could be a bug spray or a citrus smell (citronella, etc) or it could be a smell that humans don't even pick up. Latter is weird, but it works really well - it's a small plastic dispenser bottle with…

what is "Latter?" in your post above? not being pedantic - trying to work out what this thing is to see if i can buy it...

Re: A Low-Tech Mosquito Deterrent

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've emailed three times, and have called leaving numerous voicemails asking to license this technology. Not once have I ever been called or emailed back. #PatentTrolls

You emailed? Well, I'm afraid that's just a form of backing up a text file over the internet, so you're already infringing their portfolio. EDIT: You may want to watch it - leaving a voicemail is a form of podcasting. You're really opening yourself up to liability here.

Dare I say we need a patent super hero, like Captain Patent.

Re: A Low-Tech Mosquito Deterrent

#100
post #3

This has been fairly common knowledge, at least here in India, where mosquito menace is common. Another really popular product is what is known as mosquito bats (swatters) like here: http://www.hunterbat.com/mosquito-swatters.html#rechargeable...

The electric swatters are the bee's knees! They work great. Popular in Puerto Rico.
Post reply on HN