pesticides

[Damnathius]

I apologize for getting "sorta" off topic.

I would be hesitant to subscribe to the idea that pests have developed an immunity to pesticides. Something we should remember is that the pesticides we use these days are far less effective than the ones we used in years past, (often due to unsubstantiated environmental "science", but occasionally based in fact) and it usually takes a larger dose on a particular insect to actually kill it. Of course, with less lethal insecticides, the purpose for "less lethal" is negated because we end up using more of it! Much like salt substitues which contain 1/7th the sodium of pure salt... We just use 7 times the amount.

Also, consider how immunities are developed. Some that spend a great deal of time handling rattlesnakes, for example, subject themselves to very small doses of venom over the course of time in hopes of surviving an accidental bite. With this in mind, I think that in order for a particular individual insect to develope an immunity to a pesticide, it must be treated in the same fashion as the keeper of deadly snakes. If you use an insecticide on a particular roach, and it survives due to a non-lethal dose, will it survive the next dose, and the next? I think it unlikely that circumstance would allow us to underdose a roach several times.

Even if we did...

Does the snake keeper pass on his immunity to his offspring? I don't think so. I also don't think insects (should they survive several doses) pass it on either. In order for this to happen, an individual's genetic code would have to be modified, thus passing on the modified code to offspring.

I think that all creatures have a certain ability to adapt to their environment, but I believe it takes a very long time for such adaptation to work itself into the genetic structure of offspring.

I'm sure that there are examples of rapid adaptation in some species, but I don't think it is even close to being the norm.

Dave

 

[Code Monkey]

Damnathius, please go back to high school and preferably college before trying to answer something in a technical manner again.

The pesticides used today are much more poisonous to their targets than past pesticides, and much less poisonous to vertebrate targets. The Fipronil mentioned above is a deadly contact poison to most inverts as a contact poison when sprayed in levels such as 0.06% but it effectively harmless to verterbrates (Frontline, which you put on your dog is a formulation of Fipronil).

As for your understanding of immunity and genetics, you might as well have said something about cosmic death rays and pyramid energy for all that made any sense. No insect *develops* immunity as a result of exposure. However, many insects will have natural immunity conferred by some particular genetic phenotype. When you kill off most/all of the insects in a population, the ones left to breed are those carrying the immunity phenotype, hence it is what gets passed to the next generations. It is such an incredibly simply mechanism that I'm genuinely surprised someone could get it quite as wrong as you did.

What makes fipronil and hydramethylon interesting is that so far there appears to be no natural immunity in cockroach populations (but some future random mutation could ruin all that). What is happening, which is incredibly interesting, is that a mutation has already occurred where the cockroach avoids glucose. Now, normally, avoiding glucose would be a very bad thing but when in an environment where the baits are used heavily, it keeps them alive because glucose is the sugar used in the bait matrix. They don't eat the bait, they live and breed. This is why it is also important for real German cockroach infestations to use a combination of fipronil/hydramethylon and Insect Growth Regulator (IGR). Any small number of cockroaches that might have immunity will then be sterilized by the IGR.

 

[skinheaddave]

Dave,

You are confusing two types of immunity. Those that are a result of genetic composition and those that are aquired. Your example of aquired rattlesnake immunity has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand. Your brief mention of rapid adaptation, on the other hand, is where the answer lies.

Lets re-examine your snake-handler analogy but make it more accurate. Forget aquired immunity and consider instead natural immunity. In any population of people, some are going to take rattlesnake bites better than others. Some may be larger or fitter. Others may have some quirk like an exceptionaly slow circulatory system, some quirk in their immune system -- whatever. At the moment, this natural variation means little or nothing, as very few people get bitten by rattlesnakes. Sure, some are fitter and survive, others die, but it really isn't a major selecting force in our society.

What if it were, though? What if there were millions of ticked off ratlers per square mile -- we're talking plague proportions here. What if there were so many rattlers that almost everyone was guaranteed to be bitten multiple times in their lifetime. Very few of us would survive for long, that's for sure. Kids and the elderly would be dropping like flies. People with low body mass would also be dead pretty soon. You would end up with only the individuals who were truly best suited to taking the bite left to reproduce. Assuming a significant number of the slecting factors (body mass, for example) were heritable, in one generation you would have effectively primed the population for life with rattlers. Now, there is a possibility the entire population could die if the conditions were bad enough. Also, with a small population, inbreeding might eventualy become a problem (not nearly as bad a problem in bugs, though). And, of course, other random factors could wipe a small population out (this is called stochasticity). If the population survived for a few generations, though, it would be probably be pretty well adapted.

What it boils down to is if the factor influencing survival is strong enough, it can create a very dramatic shift in the genetic composition of a population. There are numorous examples of rapid evolution, where organisms went through dramatic changes in a matter of a few generations. Needless to say, most of these examples involve insects or plants that have short generation times and high reproductive rates.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[skinheaddave]

Originally posted by Code Monkey
you might as well have said something about cosmic death rays and pyramid energy

Oh no, I forgot the bit in my explanation about the cosmic death rays ... one of the hazards of simultaneous posting, I suppose.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[Damnathius]

Code Monkey, Please don't be so assinine in your response if you wish to correct, or discuss something.

You have absolutely no idea as to my education, thought processes, or understanding of actuality. Perhaps you take for granted that ALL that is taught in schools is correct, or that all "studies" in science are the last word on a particular subject.

Don't talk to me again, dude, before growing up.

Dave, I appreciate your polite response as well as the additional information you have provided. Of course you are correct regarding natural immunities, and certainly it can, and does, extend into the animal kingdom.

 

[Code Monkey]

Originally posted by Damnathius
Code Monkey, Please don't be so assinine in your response if you wish to correct, or discuss something.

Why not? Your answer was ignorant at best.

You have absolutely no idea as to my education, thought processes, or understanding of actuality.

Sure I do, your post said it all.

Perhaps you take for granted that ALL that is taught in schools is correct, or that all "studies" in science are the last word on a particular subject.

I take nothing for granted, but I'm intelligent enough to analyze studies. And since I'm in an entomology department doing research on urban pest management, maybe, just maybe I've got a better grasp on this subject.

Besides, your putting "studies" in quotes tells me you're just another anti-science & tech twit who wants to sound like their pseudo BS somehow has merit.

Dave, I appreciate your polite response as well as the additional information you have provided. Of course you are correct regarding natural immunities, and certainly it can, and does, extend into the animal kingdom

It's amazing how me and Dave can tell you the exact same thing but you'll gripe at one of us and thank the other one. Of course your "can extend into the animal kingdom" is another telling phrase. We didn't determine how natural immunity conferred by random phenotype worked with us magnificient humans and extend it into the animal kingdom at all. We discovered it, studied it, and quantified it in the animal kingdom and extrapolated those theories into human medicine.

I'll tell you what, I'll grow up when you choose to stop spreading complete and utter nonsense as though it was technical knowledge. If you want to express an ignorant opinion, make sure it reads like one.

 

[Buspirone]

=D

 

[Jesse607]

What Code Monkey had to say about the insecticides and resistance IS indeed very factual, I can second that he knows what he is talking about. The chemicals used today for urban insecticides are far more effective AND safe than the ones used in the past.

 

[Damnathius]

If you had the capacity to absorb the written word, you would have made note of the "I believe..." and "I think..." qualifiers in my original post. Such statements define what follows as OPINION, which is open to discussion and countering opinions. However, you chose to accuse me of portraying my opinion as fact, instead of choosing to inform me otherwise in a civil manner.

You claim I am "spreading complete and utter nonsense as though it was technical knowledge". Refer to apove paragraph. This tells me a lot about you. It tells me that not only are you inattentive to what someone is actually saying, but also that you are so narrow minded that you are stuck in your own little tiny box of OPINION, incapable of thinking beyond that.

If you read carefully, you will perhaps understand that you and Dave did not say the same thing.

So, my putting "studies" in quotation makes makes me an "anti-science and tech twit"? Hardly. I am simply capable of examining what I read and see with a critical viewpoint, taking nothing for granted just because someone told me it is so. Obviously that is beyond you.

Finally, your usage of derogatory words in reference to me should draw a clear picture of your own mentality, which I'm sure reads:

"I am right, and everyone that disagrees with me is wrong, and the only way I can express that is to call them names due to my limited social skills."

Perhaps you could put it in your signature line, as it is right in line with your false bravado. It has been my observation (In just 41 years) that those that must put others down to raise themselves up have severe self-esteem problems. Anyone that must put "prince of nadkicking" in their profile fits the bill perfectly, since they are constantly in need of reminding others how "cool" or how "badass" they are. I know your type well, and in knowing you have no more time to waste on you. It's Saturday, after all, and arguing on the internet is a foolish pursuit.

 

[Code Monkey]

Originally posted by Damnathius
If you read carefully, you will perhaps understand that you and Dave did not say the same thing.

No, we did say the same thing, but we chose different ways to express the same points. I took my usual "thou shalt not suffer the fools gladly" approach, Dave took a more diplomatic "let's try not to step on any toes and educate the masses" approach.

Anyone that must put "prince of nadkicking" in their profile fits the bill perfectly, since they are constantly in need of reminding others how "cool" or how "badass" they are.

Didn't put it there, it was earned
I don't post to impress people with my diplomatic skills, which are sorely lacking as you are aware, or to look badass or cool, as I am definitely neither; I post to impart information. You can fixate on how I choose to deliver information, or you can learn from it. In your case I don't much care, I just wanted to ensure that no one might actually read what you phrased very well and think that just because it was well written that it actually resembled fact.

 

[skinheaddave]

Let's keep this civil, people. I think it is an issue of some importance to the invert keeping community and I would hate for it to be sidetracked by bickering.

Cheers,
Dave

P.S. Chip, get yourself some really heavy steel-capped boots. Should do wonders for your diplomacy.

 

[pelo]

Code monkey you're so full of yourself it's pathetic.So what now.Everyone has to be afraid to voice an opinion or make a post for fear of being corrected by the all knowing code monkey.Subtle but still a form of oppression and intimidation.Not my idea of learning.A good way to scare off potential or established members.You're very much lacking in tact and social skills.Here I thought this was a place to discuss and learn.."right or wrong"...Maybe I was wrong....peace...

 

[Code Monkey]

Originally posted by pelo
Code monkey you're so full of yourself it's pathetic.So what now.Everyone has to be afraid to voice an opinion or make a post for fear of being corrected by the all knowing code monkey.

If anyone is afraid of being corrected in general then they should spend a few minutes seeing if they can validate their info before they post it. If they're afraid of being corrected by me then I'm not the one full of myself. I'm just one poster on this board, read my posts or not, it's not going to change my life one bit nor my opinion of myself.

Subtle but still a form of oppression and intimidation.Not my idea of learning.

Yes, because our modern feel good approach has such a great track record for learning.

A good way to scare off potential or established members.

I'm reasonably certain the established posters either ignore me or look past my style. It's not really intended to be that serious, but some people are more concerned with false politeness and political correctness than exchanging info.

You're very much lacking in tact and social skills.

This is news for who? I discuss/debate/argue with passion and intensity, I don't worry about what my audience thinks. It's if they get my message, hooray. If they choose to worry about what a jackass I am, well, they're no worse off then they were before reading my posts and maybe they feel better because they're not such a curmudgeon as myself.

Here I thought this was a place to discuss and learn.."right or wrong"...Maybe I was wrong....peace...

Again, if you think that one person doling out factual information in a blunt manner changes that, that's strictly a personal problem.

 

[pelo]

Originally posted by Code Monkey
such a curmudgeon as myself

>well there's one thing we both agree on...lol.....peace..

 

[MrDeranged]

Time to Jump In

Hey Pete (Pelo) & Dave (Damnathius),

I can see you seem to have gotten a case of CM under the skin. Seeing as you haven't been here that long, it's entirely understandable. First off, he didn't give himself the title, I did as his response style is quite unorthodox and very much a "kick in the nads" to the uninitiated.

While his response style may not be the most diplomatic, his information is at least 98% good Take him with a grain of salt as he is meant to be. If that fails, there is always the ignore function. I would just take him with a grain of salt as once you get used to him, the good information outweighs the curmudgeon factor ;P

Scott

 

[Damnathius]

Scott,

It is an unfortunate limitation of mine that when I see words like "ignorance" and "fool" pointed in my direction, I tend to block out any information that might be present in my mad rush to respond in a similar, biting fashion.

I too have been known to be blunt, but I am trying to curtail that, as I think (read: my opinion) it is counter productive for the above mentioned reason.

I'm sure that he (CM) is full of valuable information regarding many things, but this does not mean that there is only one way to skin a cat, so to speak.

He is most likely correct regarding today's pesticides, but I just remember pesticides killing more quickly when I was a youngster than they seem to do today. This is what I based my statement on, and nothing more. It may be that I just purchase the wrong pesticides these days.

 

[Code Monkey]

Originally posted by Damnathius
He is most likely correct regarding today's pesticides, but I just remember pesticides killing more quickly when I was a youngster than they seem to do today. This is what I based my statement on, and nothing more. It may be that I just purchase the wrong pesticides these days.

No, but you are getting quickness confused with actual efficacy. Killing the bugs you see in front of you may make the little evil demon inside us laugh with glee, but it doesn't actually do much good from the point of view of control. That's been the biggest changeover in pesticides - they're not designed to just kill, but to kill effectively.

Something like Fipronil is a slow acting nerve poison but it's not repellent to the inverts so they happily continue to run about for up to 96 hours after exposure. During that time though, it's being transferred to other insects the primary victims come in contact with. The end result is that you don't just kill the roaches, ants, or termites you see, but the 90% of them you don't.

Old poisons were great for nuking the bugs right there and then, but the rest of the nest/colony continued unbothered.

This fascination with quickness amuses me because if you go to the grocery store and look at the roach baits you'll see one labed "Fast Killing" and one labeled "Slow Acting". Well, I'm sure most people grab the fast one because they want those dirty, nasty roaches gone NOW. Funny thing is that the stuff in the fast acting is something that most populations are resistant to, buy that and you probably just made them stronger if temporarily less in number. Conversely, the slow stuff uses hydramethylon which is a slow acting poison. For roaches, it's brilliant because a lot of it even passes through their system as roach crap before they die. Why is that important, you ask? Well, roach frass (crap) makes up the lion's share of their nymph's food source. You wind up killing many of the adults and almost all of the young which is the most important aspect of stopping an infestation.

 

[Botar]

Originally posted by Code Monkey
Didn't put it there, it was earned
I don't post to impress people with my diplomatic skills, which are sorely lacking as you are aware, or to look badass or cool, as I am definitely neither; I post to impart information.

I can vouch for him on these points as well. CM had the red check marks in the "plays well with others" category on his report card... and that was in high school. However, his info is usually dead on (not commenting on his political beliefs) and his arguments are most always well thought out. You can argue with him, and you may even be right, but you've got to have your ducks in line.

Botar