MOSQUITOS

[jix]

Help... the mosquitos are trying to steal my kobota... Should I get a bigger tractor?

 

[sseelhoff]

The answer to that question is always yes, regardless of the cause.:thumbsup:

 

[jix]

Today I learned that mosquito larvae are the root and basis of a lot of ecology. They feed a million kinds of little fish, which feed birds and mink, etc, and so on up the food chain, apparently including me.
Sort of means that my ancient and decrepit corpus is important in the grand scheme of things.
Wow, I had begun to think of myself as nearly completely useless, except to the tractor industry and the food stores in town, maybe to the gas stations, and of course, the government for taxes. MAYBE THAT IS WHY MOSQUITO BITES ANNOY ME SO MUCH!unch:

 

[Wagtail]

Count yourself fortunate, Mate. Without a lie, the mozzies here in Oz will bite through your clothing. ath:

I was out riding my horse when I felt that familiar 'sting' on my left thigh... through my jodhpurs! <SMACK>

 

[dave1949]

Mosquitoes pollinate flowers!

Aedes communis: The Pollinating Mosquito

I'm still thinking about the 14 grains of pollen needed to pollinate blueberries. I think bees cannot count past three, so how do they get 14? :laughing: Couldn't multiple black flies visit the same blueberry blossom and eventually get to 14? I dunno about that bit of research.

 

[jix]

Mosquitoes pollinate flowers!

Aedes communis: The Pollinating Mosquito

I'm still thinking about the 14 grains of pollen needed to pollinate blueberries. I think bees cannot count past three, so how do they get 14? :laughing: Couldn't multiple black flies visit the same blueberry blossom and eventually get to 14? I dunno about that bit of research.

Dave 1949..I dunno either Dave, but that is what says in a scientific citation from Google published by a blue berry boffin for the Blueberrie industry
NB is one of the largest producers of Canadian Blueberries and God knows we have a lotta mosquitos, but no snow lake mosquitos (not high enough in elevation in most parts). I think that the citation must be accurate, else why would blueberry farmers rent a lot of bee hives and bumble bee hives to put in their fields every summer?? I don't say that bluebewrries are never pollinated by blackflies, however, just that the blackfly is not a major pollinator Blue berries are a rhizome and do not need to be pollinated to spread their roots and start new clone plants, but must be pollinated by insects to produce good big sweet berries. Otherwise, they produce small berries with little juice which have very little commercial value and no seeds which will grow, since they are genetic clones of the bush that produces them if there is no cross pollination. Also, for this reason, cuitivated blueberry fields are located close to other blueberry fields from another rhizome ancestor, usually a large format blueberry field which produces very large blueberries. In my general area there are thousand acre blueberry fields, but you cannot get into them without breaking a fence.

My wife buys fresh berries in season and about 40 lbs of frozen berries for the winter. Frozen berries are about 15 bucks a ten pound box. we eat them on our cheerios every day. In Summer, I get the jumbo berries and eat them with heavy cream for a desert after dinner. Yummy!

 

[dave1949]

Dave 1949..I dunno either Dave, but that is what says in a scientific citation from Google published by a blue berry boffin for the Blueberrie industry
NB is one of the largest producers of Canadian Blueberries and God knows we have a lotta mosquitos, but no snow lake mosquitos (not high enough in elevation in most parts). I think that the citation must be accurate, else why would blueberry farmers rent a lot of bee hives and bumble bee hives to put in their fields every summer?? I don't say that bluebewrries are never pollinated by blackflies, however, just that the blackfly is not a major pollinator Blue berries are a rhizome and do not need to be pollinated to spread their roots and start new clone plants, but must be pollinated by insects to produce good big sweet berries. Otherwise, they produce small berries with little juice which have very little commercial value and no seeds which will grow, since they are genetic clones of the bush that produces them if there is no cross pollination. Also, for this reason, cuitivated blueberry fields are located close to other blueberry fields from another rhizome ancestor, usually a large format blueberry field which produces very large blueberries. In my general area there are thousand acre blueberry fields, but you cannot get into them without breaking a fence.

My wife buys fresh berries in season and about 40 lbs of frozen berries for the winter. Frozen berries are about 15 bucks a ten pound box. we eat them on our cheerios every day. In Summer, I get the jumbo berries and eat them with heavy cream for a desert after dinner. Yummy!

Just pulling your leg a bit. I agree they wouldn't import beehives if the black flies did a good job on their own.

Blueberry pie is my favorite. Blueberries on ice vanilla cream, on cereal. Yum. Supposed to be very good for health too--but blueberries can have a lot of pesticide residues. What?s On My Food :: Pesticides on Blueberries

Blueberries are #45 on this list of 50 worst foods for residues. Does washing remove the pesticides from foods? : Ask Dr. Gourmet

 

[jix]

dave1949: I have read your last post..every word of both of the links...It gave me heartburn... but the sky has not fallen.
For one thing, pesticides are a necessary evil if we shall succeed in feeding the planet....for another thing trace amounts of nasty chemicals are not nasty, really. My well water contains 7PPM of arsenic.. that is a quite low level of a quite poisonous chemical, and so it is unimportant.
The only perfectly pure water on this planet must be created by the electrolysis of hydrogen and oxygen. Perfectly pure water does not exist in nature. And even perfectly pure water is toxic, if you drink too much of it.
Even organic foods contain bad chemicals which fall out of the sky with rain, or come from packaging and processing.
The detection levels made possible with sophisticated laboratory instruments are so low (sensitive) that even the atmosphere contributes to readings.
Gas chromatography, magnetically coupled plasma spectrophotometers, mass spectrometers. magnetic resonators, ion polarimeters, et al, have such incredible sensitivity that it is necessary to ignore the lowest possible findings as meaningless.

In other words, Dave, we must decide if these kinds of tests do any good, or do they just scare us.
Fact is, we gotta eat. Fact is that chemicals exist. Fact is that, in most people there is no meaningful harm done, yes there is cancer, yes there are carcinogenic chemicals. Are these chemicals present in our foods? YES they are Would they be present if absolutely no chemical pesticides were ever used? YES they would...from industrial pollutants such as thermal energy plants, woo stoves, motor exhaust, garbage fires in dumps, etc, etc ,

Statistics can demonstrate that one of the most carcinogenic agents we are regularly exposed to is sunshine.. skin cancer is a leading type of cancer BTW.

Ok - so is it worth never eating blueberries to AVOID being hyper frightened by stuff that is not really very dangerous?

Its a free world, so they say. Nobody lives forever, so they say. If you don't eat you starve, so they say.

Dave, sometimes I wish THEY would shaddup.
I think we have gone too far with scaring the bejeepers out of each other, based upon misunderstood, misstated, non-significant information

I like blueberries and most other fruit, way too much to quaver about getting a lethal dose of chemicals in my food, and I do not want the planet to starve to death while the insects eat merrily through our food supply. I am gonna die anyway, from some cause. I am already 73 YO. and I have diabetes, which is genetic. I have had skin cancer from sunshine. My greatest threat now is old age. Blueberry-induced necrosis is way better, to me, than living forever as a dessicated liability to society in a death warehouse..

So dave...keep the worries you have, if you do, to yourself, please..and stop pulling my chain. That is mischief.

Now pass the toxic blueberries, straw berries, etc. I am in a race to eternity against about 8 billion other people, plus a gazillion bugs.. and I need my nourishment... Pax Vobiscum

 

[dave1949]

What fun would living be without a bit mischief? :laughing:

I didn't think those articles were intended to be scary, just informative. What is more basic than knowing what you are eating? The interesting take away is you can avoid or limit your exposure through careful choices and actions. For blueberries, domestic versus imported, and conventional versus organic growing, makes a huge difference in typical pesticide residue levels.

Do you think the exposure to carcinogens, hormone disruptors, or neurotoxins for examples, is additive? A little here, a little there adds up I think. The health safety tests for various discrete chemical compounds don't address that additive result in the human body and certainly not over a long period of years, or differentiated for older less healthy immune systems. I ain't scared , but I think we know less than we think we do about some of this stuff.

 

[jix]

What fun would living be without a bit mischief? :laughing:

I didn't think those articles were intended to be scary, just informative. What is more basic than knowing what you are eating? The interesting take away is you can avoid or limit your exposure through careful choices and actions. For blueberries, domestic versus imported, and conventional versus organic growing, makes a huge difference in typical pesticide residue levels.

Do you think the exposure to carcinogens, hormone disruptors, or neurotoxins for examples, is additive? A little here, a little there adds up I think. The health safety tests for various discrete chemical compounds don't address that additive result in the human body and certainly not over a long period of years, or differentiated for older less healthy immune systems. I ain't scared , but I think we know less than we think we do about some of this stuff.

HI dave1949:

Yes and No. Why? Read on, if you dare:

I was once involved heavil, as an agent of the Federal Gov't, with an organization in Canada called Sprayers Of Dioxin. Their brief was to extort money from the Gov't for supposed damages from the use of Agent Orange in vast tracts of land, public and private for exposure to high leverls of Dioxin, which they claimed were caused by exposure to Dioxin along the railraods, power lines and military artillery ranges in new Brunswick. The chiref proponents were, you guessed it, Tort Lawyers aqnd members of the executive of the SODA protestors. It was an obscene arrangement which, had it been successful would have raked off 75% of all of the damages awarded. They were not successful for several reasons:
1. there were no effects in the group of people claiming damages, even after twenty-five years, and ;
2. Ogent Orange (as used in Vietnam) was a herbicide called 2-4, D ( round-up) mfrd by Dow chemical.
There are two forms : 2, 4, 5,-D 1sobutyl Dioxin,which has butyl Dioxin, which is fat soluble in the human body, and the other was 2,4 D Isopropyl Dioxin, which is water soluble in the human body.

This is a key differentiation 2,4,5 -D Isobutyl Dioxin ACCUMULATES addidtively IN THE TISSUES, whereasas 2,4- D Isopropyl Dioxin does not accumulate additively. The SODA proponents lost in court and went bankrupt as result.
Differentiating between the solutes of toxins is difficult after they have been metabolised (Chelated) in the biological process is very difficult, if not impossible, by normal lab procedures, because both form identical chelates through the metabolic process. The only real test involves tissue analysis post-mortem or biopsy.
Because of this differention, no ill effects to SODA proponents could be shown and their case was dismissed.
Because of a production overlap between the two types, all 2,4-D and 2,4, 5 -Dioxin was banned in Canada, except for licenced professional users. It is not available here in stores in any form. Licensed sprayer may use 2,4,5-D in carefully mixed and applied dosage rates. Now we are knee deep in weeds in our lawns FWIW , all DIOXIN is a hormone effective toxin

The reason I relate all this is because other available insecticides are differentiated to be water soluable without additive properties, but their trace elements are not differentiated in this way, as for 2,4-D and 2,4,5-D dioxin, as to cumulative effects, so measuring the trace amounts on vegetables is a crude indicator only that it was used. It does not identify the isotopes in the chelated form, but no matter. All fat soluble insecticide is bannnd in Canada. None of them are therefore additive toxins. That does not mean that they are harmless, NO, it means that they are not additive over time. Cumulative dosages do play a part in toxicity, but only if successive dosages are taken relatively rapidly, which is to say, faster than the body can expel then by normal bodily processes. (24 hrs usually.) There are exceptions in certain classes of toxins, but these do not include accepted insecticides. Crop sprayers et al must try to prevent frequent exposures to toxins considered non-cumulative, however, because of the frequency of potential exposure.

Malathion is now illegal for use in Canada
for that reason While not additive, it is very persistent in the body because of the way that it chemically binds(chelates) to normal body fats. And it is also very toxic. Ditto, DDT

There now, Dave. You must decide if I am pulling your leg or not. Have at it and report back to me in not more than three days...and show your work. Extra points for neatness, of course:drink:
This is just such fun, ain't it?

Jix

 

[SPYDERLK]

HI dave1949:

Yes and No. Why? Read on, if you dare:

I was once involved heavil, as an agent of the Federal Gov't, with an organization in Canada called Sprayers Of Dioxin. Their brief was to extort money from the Gov't for supposed damages from the use of Agent Orange in vast tracts of land, public and private for exposure to high leverls of Dioxin, which they claimed were caused by exposure to Dioxin along the railraods, power lines and military artillery ranges in new Brunswick. The chiref proponents were, you guessed it, Tort Lawyers aqnd members of the executive of the SODA protestors. It was an obscene arrangement which, had it been successful would have raked off 75% of all of the damages awarded. They were not successful for several reasons:
1. there were no effects in the group of people claiming damages, even after twenty-five years, and ;
2. Ogent Orange (as used in Vietnam) was a herbicide called 2-4, D ( round-up) mfrd by Dow chemical.
There are two forms : 2, 4, 5,-D 1sobutyl Dioxin,which has butyl Dioxin, which is fat soluble in the human body, and the other was 2,4 D Isopropyl Dioxin, which is water soluble in the human body.

This is a key differentiation 2,4,5 -D Isobutyl Dioxin ACCUMULATES addidtively IN THE TISSUES, whereasas 2,4- D Isopropyl Dioxin does not accumulate additively. The SODA proponents lost in court and went bankrupt as result.
Differentiating between the solutes of toxins is difficult after they have been metabolised (Chelated) in the biological process is very difficult, if not impossible, by normal lab procedures, because both form identical chelates through the metabolic process. The only real test involves tissue analysis post-mortem or biopsy.
Because of this differention, no ill effects to SODA proponents could be shown and their case was dismissed.
Because of a production overlap between the two types, all 2,4-D and 2,4, 5 -Dioxin was banned in Canada, except for licenced professional users. It is not available here in stores in any form. Licensed sprayer may use 2,4,5-D in carefully mixed and applied dosage rates. Now we are knee deep in weeds in our lawns FWIW , all DIOXIN is a hormone effective toxin

The reason I relate all this is because other available insecticides are differentiated to be water soluable without additive properties, but their trace elements are not differentiated in this way, as for 2,4-D and 2,4,5-D dioxin, as to cumulative effects, so measuring the trace amounts on vegetables is a crude indicator only that it was used. It does not identify the isotopes in the chelated form, but no matter. All fat soluble insecticide is bannnd in Canada. None of them are therefore additive toxins. That does not mean that they are harmless, NO, it means that they are not additive over time. Cumulative dosages do play a part in toxicity, but only if successive dosages are taken relatively rapidly, which is to say, faster than the body can expel then by normal bodily processes. (24 hrs usually.) There are exceptions in certain classes of toxins, but these do not include accepted insecticides. Crop sprayers et al must try to prevent frequent exposures to toxins considered non-cumulative, however, because of the frequency of potential exposure.

Malathion is now illegal for use in Canada
for that reason While not additive, it is very persistent in the body because of the way that it chemically binds(chelates) to normal body fats. And it is also very toxic. Ditto, DDT

There now, Dave. You must decide if I am pulling your leg or not. Have at it and report back to me in not more than three days...and show your work. Extra points for neatness, of course:drink:
This is just such fun, ain't it?

Jix

2 4-D is not roundup.

 

[jix]

That is true, Dave: Roundup is glyphosate and it is mixed with POEA, which is a surfactant that makes water penetrate cells more easily. Thus it enhaces the weed killing effects of Glyphosate. Yes, it is a human toxin in that form. It kills fetal cells very effectively in unborn babies. It is also not an insecticide, it is an herbicide which kills all plants except those which have been hybridized to tolerate it. Farmers using herbicide sprays must have Glyphosate tolerant seeds., so yes, I was pulling your leg a bit on that. As for agent Orange, that very definitely, 2,4 D and 2,4,5 D I was not, ditto the differentiation as to fat and water solubility and it effect on human tissue in additive cases where fat solubility is a dominant concern Neither type is used on blueberries, it would kill them, as will RoundUp since blueberries have not been hybridized to tolerate it
The part about fat solubiliy is germane to insecticides also, for the same reasons. It is additive and cumulative. Poisoned insects are eaten by birds and that kills birds in forests which have been insecticide sprayed to control timber losses caused by a few insects such as the spruce budworm. There are very few songbirds in such places, you may notice BT Spray, which is an organic bacteria insecticide is now favoured in Canada but it is very difficult to use effectively and is also expensive. It controls mosquitos too...and blackflies.. but not fish or amphibians or people. It is not known to have any toxic effect upon mammals..at least, so far as we know now. I do not know if it is used purposely on blueberries, but it does kill insect pollinators, such as bees. CCD is now though to result from a new class of insecticides called nocotinoids. I have not read of how that one is working out, except for the dramatic loss of honeybees affected by it. Apparently nicotinoid posions cause healthy bees to become susceptible to the mites that actually kill the weakened honeybees and cause the so called colony collapse disorder currently of great concern. I know very little about nicotinoid poisons, earlier thought to be a non toxic substance.
I am tired of this subject now...too hard on my old brain.

I am still enjoying about two cups of frozen blueberries a day cuurently...and wild raspberries are coming on..\ I love them too, if they are wild berries[, not cultivated berries. I have a quarter acre place where they are prolific and where I fertilize them every year. They do attract bears, though. I use an acetylene cannon to scare the bears off. It goes boom about once every twenty minutes. If the bears get used to it, then I use a 30-30. They don't get used to that...birds like wild raspberries too. Gotta pick em early every morning. I get about a quart a day, and lots of prickle scatches and skitter bites which I treat with washing ammonia on a swab. Works for circle fly bites too. Ouch, it stings pretty good.. You did good on the test, Dave. Very Brief. 4 words., Cripes. you are no fun to kid.

Bedtime...

Jix

 

[dave1949]

You are a tough taskmaster Jix and much more learned than I in this area.

I will respond for now with this article: Environmental Factors and Parkinson's: What Have We Learned? - Parkinson's Disease Foundation (PDF) regarding the causes of Parkinson's Disease--which are not clearly understood. Approximately 1% of people over age 60 will experience some form of Parkinson's but only 0.001% under age 45 will.

The genetic variations, markers, and tags that people carry may influence their susceptibility to environmental factors, such as the ability to metabolize certain compounds. I like this paragraph:
"Scientists generally agree that most cases of Parkinson’s disease (PD) result from some combination of nature and nurture — the interaction between a person’s underlying genetic make-up and his or her life activities and environmental exposures. A simple way to describe this is that “genetics loads the gun and environment pulls the trigger.” In this formulation, “environment” has a very broad meaning — that is, it refers to any and all possible causes other than those that are genetic in origin."

So, suppose that 10% of a given population carries a certain genetic tag that either predisposes them to, or protects them from, a condition or disease--if they experience the needed environmental condition(s). That factor is not included in health safety tests. Unless the markers are known for a genetic disease predisposition (not that many are) the testing procedure has no way of differentiating within the test cohort. This is a list of genetic diseases and if known, the mutation and the chromosome involved: List of genetic disorders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetics are complex. The environmental factors are complex and very hard to nail down with great certainty but there are enough smoking guns for me to think we have much to learn.

I am just not agreeable with saying the levels of pesticide exposure (or a host of other man-made chemical compounds present in the environment with unknown exposure combination effects) are so low, water or fat soluble, rapidly metabolized, eliminated, etc. that they can be ignored given the lack of understanding surrounding these issues. I really doubt that Parkinson's is a unique case in this regard but it is common enough to attract research efforts and dollars.

What else is happening that is flying below our radar? The human genome was not completely sequenced until 2003, not very long ago. Agent Orange as a health threat was disputed for decades by Vietnam Veterans. It is a good example of people sincerely believing it harmed them while many said it couldn't have. I don't know the truth, but I know that thousands of Vets were exposed, and that they have genetic variances and widely variant environmental factors before and after their service.

Personally I don't think it is a matter of irrational fear or donning a hermetically sealed bubble suit. It is simply keeping an open mind along with some fascination about what has been and what remains to be learned.

 

[jix]

Hi Dave1949...I wonder about Autism and Glyphosate? My step grandson, who is now 17, has profound Autism Syndrome...Nobody knows what that is about.
Do you think that Roundup may be an issue in that , Dave?

 

[dave1949]

Hi Dave1949...I wonder about Autism and Glyphosate? My step grandson, who is now 17, has profound Autism Syndrome...Nobody knows what that is about.
Do you think that Roundup may be an issue in that , Dave?

I'm sorry your young man is in that position. Not any easy life for all involved.

As to Glysophate being a cause I have no idea. Lacking any real depth of knowledge about these things I am left with applying logic to form an opinion.

The first question that needs a solid answer; is the incidence rate of profound autism truly rising? There seems to be some uncertainty about that. I have a nephew who has some learning difficulties but is pretty much normal in all other ways. When he was a young child the doctors struggled to put a name to his condition but felt it was some very mild form of Asperger's Syndrome. Is he counted as an Asperger's child in a database somewhere? Possibly he is. Years ago he would have been called a slow learner and left at that.

Assuming the rate of profound autism incidence is truly increasing, then there must be a reason for that. Isolating the reason(s) seems to be akin to herding cats from what I have read. If I logically ask what all has changed in our lives that could be among the reasons, the answer is just about everything in our environment is changing and doing so at an increasing pace.

We don't eat the same food, breathe the same air, or drink the same water that was present in the past. We are exposed to more mutagens that alter our DNA. In addition we are now aware of epigenetic inheritance. We can now, through genetics, understand that sperm can be genetically defective and some of the causes of that are known. You can't bake a good cake with bad ingredients.


Epigenetics and Inheritance
We used to think that a new embryo's epigenome was completely erased and rebuilt from scratch. But this isn't completely true. Some epigenetic tags remain in place as genetic information passes from generation to generation, a process called epigenetic inheritance.

Epigenetic inheritance is an unconventional finding. It goes against the idea that inheritance happens only through the DNA code that passes from parent to offspring. It means that a parent's experiences, in the form of epigenetic tags, can be passed down to future generations.

As unconventional as it may be, there is little doubt that epigenetic inheritance is real. In fact, it explains some strange patterns of inheritance geneticists have been puzzling over for decades.



The environment, via mutagens and epigenetic inheritance, has a significant impact on our "genetic health" and genetic factors are one of the prime suspects in autism spectrum disorders. We are continually altering that environment with compounds that would never occur naturally that we have no evolutionary defense against. It would be highly illogical to assume that that scale of changes would happen without results--whether we can predict or understand those results or not.

So, to me it is a conundrum. There are increasing rates of disease while those who promote or benefit from environment altering substances all claim innocence and report non-consequential test results. Really? That just cannot be. Until more is known it makes sense to be skeptical.

 

[dave1949]

Another smoking gun: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150610111127.htm

Some excerpts:

Pyrethroids constitute a family of insecticides widely used in a variety of sectors: agriculture (various crops), veterinary (antiparasitics) and domestic (lice shampoo, mosquito products). Their mode of action involves blocking neurotransmission in insects, leading to paralysis. Because of their efficacy and relative safety for humans and mammals, they have replaced older compounds (organochorides, organophosphates, carbamate) considered more toxic.

Exposure of children to pyrethroids is common. It is different to adult exposure, due to the closer proximity of children to ground-level dust (which stores pollutants), more frequent hand-to-mouth contact, lice shampoos, etc. In children, pyrethroids are mainly absorbed via the digestive system, but are also absorbed through the skin. They are rapidly metabolised in the liver, and mainly eliminated in the urine as metabolites within 48 hours.

Given these elements and the mode of action (neurotoxicity) of pyrethroid insecticides, the researchers proposed the hypothesis of a possible effect of these contaminants on the nervous system and its development in children.


Exposure to pyrethroid insecticides was estimated by measuring levels of five metabolites (3-PBA, 4-F-3-PBA, cis-DCCA, trans-DCCA and cis-DBCA) in urine from the mother (collected between the 6th and 19th weeks of pregnancy) and from the child (collected on his/her 6th birthday).

A decrease observed in child cognitive performances

Results show that an increase in children's urinary levels of two metabolites (3 PBA and cis-DBCA) was associated with a significant decrease in cognitive performances, whereas no association was observed for the other three metabolites (4-F-3-PBA, cis-DCCA and trans-DCCA). With respect to metabolite concentrations during pregnancy, there was no demonstrable association with neurocognitive scores.

 

[jix]

Hi Dave...Interesting, but what if anything, is being done?

 

[sseelhoff]

 

[MacLawn]

sseel, that is almost a photo of me. Here's wha' happened: Two skeets grabbed me by the shoulders and started flying away with me. One on left yelled to one on right, "Hey Joe, should we eat him here or take him back to camp?" Joe said, "We'd better eat him here. If we take him to camp, the big'uns will take him away from us."

Skeets - Alaska helicopters.

 

[Thomas]

jix.
?Help... the mosquitos are trying to steal my kobota... Should I get a bigger tractor?"
........................................................................................

Yes indeed,be careful of those Deere ticks tho.