I find it interesting that many posters are skeptical of the government and agencies, like the EPA and FDA, when they conduct studes when these agencies can and often are influenced by political agendas and mega money from big business. Likewise, some are skeptical of universities who supposedly conduct independent research that have accepted large sums of grant money and have a monetary incentive to maintain and increase their funding. I suppose some would ask who is associated with the funding and if they expect anything in return for it.
Yes, that is true. Another aspect is that before the surgeon general came out with the first statement that cigarette were bad for people lots of people already had a sense of that. The same with DDT. The same with dioxin. Just from the posts on WB the same can be said for deet.
About three decades ago I remember scientists and medical doctors, who were on the payrolls of big tobacco, testifying before Congressional Committees by presenting mounds of statistics, studies, and supposedly independent research that demonstrated there was no conclusive proof that tobacco was habit forming or cancer causing. Some politicians were also sympathetic to the tobacco industry. It took an act of Congress to finally have the tobacco industry place a warning label on tobacco products. 440,000 Americans die every year from first hand smoke. I wonder if any of those who died before the warning was mandated may be alive today if the warning had been in place earlier or if information about the dangers of tobacco had been fully realized earlier.
I'm not really sure about the safety of DEET but I certainly don't believe all the studies are conducted without alterior motives. And, isn't that precisely what someone who is profitting from the sale of DEET wants. To control the flow of information by providing disinformation to the point that you don't know what to believe is right.
I have ceased being amazed at what will be done for the love of money.
I grew up in town that used a DDT mosquito fogger to run all over town to kill mosquitoes. We followed the thing on our bikes. I probably glow in the dark already because of that. The deet I used kept the ticks off me this year.
I don't really trust anyone to tell me that something that kills or confuses bugs or melts plastic (DEET, permethrin) is safe for me... I assume that anything that nasty is toxic to some degree, and use it accordingly. In other words, a bath in DEET would likely do great harm, but a little spray now and then will likely do me less harm than the bugs will, and may save what's left of my sanity. All things are best in moderation. YMMV
When I was a kid in the 50s they used a tanker truck to spray the DDT on the fields. It was said to be safe until one day it wasn't. When I was about 15 or 16 I started smoking. Both my parents and most of the adults I knew smoked cigarettes. No one had a problem with it. When I was 18 I got to Vietnam in 1966. The jungle came right up to the dirt roads and too damn close to the basecamp. When they started spraying they sprayed everything...including us. The army gave me all the DEET I wanted but it irritated my skin too much so I saturated my towel with it. I wore the towel around my neck but when I wanted a breath of fresh air I had to set the towel off to the side. When I hiked the AT I didn't carry DEET. I only needed it in that town in NJ but I didn't have any. So, as I said earlier I'm hoping that one poison will cancel out another.
Been noticing lately that particular enzyme has been feeling inhibitedCorbel and his colleagues found that deet inhibits the acetylcholinesterase enzyme
WALK ON
eh I've been usin it for years and I'm still here. Besides I thought they were tellin us to use our bug spray to prevent west nile virus?!?
Some of them, possibly. But I wouldn't count on too many. The warning label has been in place for a long time now (bolstered by further research and evidence) and it still doesn't stop new smokers from picking up the habit in droves. The bottom line is, people do what they want to do and take the risks they want to take. And if they're not interfering with the rights of other people, that is their prerogative.
IMHO, the laws that make it increasingly difficult to smoke outside one's own home have a lot more to do with any decline in tobacco use than the warning labels or campaigns. Inconvenience is a powerful motivator.
You can put warning labels on DEET, but I doubt it would have much effect on usage anyway.
Deuteronomy 23:12-13 "Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. As part of your equipment have something to dig with… dig a hole and cover up your excrement."
Same news station that runs the same 2 specials every day....Early morning it's "How to make your own giant chocolate Easter Bunny" and at night their running "Obese in America, the New Disease"
Deet also helps prevents ticks, and theirs been numerous cases of Lyme already this year.
You bring up some valid points bernibush,
All I'm saying is that studies and statistics can be manipulated to achieve a pre-conceived outcome. They are rarely done without inherent biases. Just because a government agency, university, or supposedly independent reearcher attaches its lofty credentials to a study doesn't necessarily mean the research is not skewed in some way.
Sure, further research and evidence has developed concerning the dangers of tobacco use since the warning label was first mandated, but let's not forget that a large body of evidence existed at the time of those Congressional Committee hearings that demonstably illustrated the dangers of tobacco. Despite this medical research pointing to tobacco being a carcinogen and habit forming it did not deter big tobacco from launching its own campaign of disinformation, deceipt, and contradictory research.
I'm not saying that the situation with tobacco is exactly the same as with DEET. I'm saying there are often multiple players who are providing there own statistics and research that supports their own agendas. This can brought to the extereme when involving poltical agendas or mega profits in the business sector.
DEET what is it good for?
it can double as birth control
DEET what is it good for?
It can genetically give you a second butt hold
Would you be offended if I told you to
TAKE A HIKE!
CowHead
"If at first you don't succeed......Skydiving is not for you" Zen Isms
I once was lost, then I hike the trail
The Pesticide Information Project of Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University states that "Everglades National Park employees having extensive DEET exposure were more likely to have insomnia, mood disturbances and impaired cognitive function than were lesser exposed co-workers"....
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles.../deet-ext.html
Despite everything that I have read about possible side-effects of DEET useage, I will continue to use it.
I dislike bug bites more than insomnia, mood disturbances and impaired cognitive function
The above article says DEET was dicsovered in 1953 but another article says it was discovered in 1946. See below:Discovered in 1953, deet is still the most common ingredient in insect repellent preparations.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0818183942.htmDeveloped by scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and patented by the U.S. Army in 1946, DEET is considered the "gold standard" of insect repellents.
Panzer
I hear DEET is good for nasty dog bites.
Now, if only, we had a good dog repellent.