Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Mosquitoes Bother Some And Not Others

Posted by michael on from the itchy-and-scratchy dept.

antipode writes "The BBC reports that scientists may have a better clue why mosquitoes prefer biting some people to others. This may lead to formulating a next generation of mosquito repellent that would suppress the smells attracting the blood sucking insects. According to the article, such repellent would be odor-less by itself. Wonder whether it's going to be more evil than Deet-based repellents, which, while being the only type that actually works, dissolve plastic and are believed by some to be carcinogenic."

7 of 61 comments (clear)

  1. It's a Natural Repellant by AllMightyPaul · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Wonder whether it's going to be more evil than Deet-based repellents, which, while being the only type that actually works, dissolve plastic and are believed by some to be carcinogenic."

    If the poster actually did read the article, he would have noticed that it says that it's a natural repellant made from chemicals already produced by the body. This leads to a high likelihood that it's not dangerous.

  2. Needless Editorializing by stienman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...and are believed by some to be carcinogenic.

    I love this type of statement. It just reeks with the type of FUD that flies back and forth in the OS war.

    If it's a belief, then it has no place in the introduction - it's a myth or rumor.

    If, however, there are studies which cast doubt on its safety then it's well and good to show that with a statement like, "and are shown to be carcinogenic in some studies."

    Gah. I realize I'm being pedantic, but can we please stop the rumors and FUD in general? Or are we merely being hypocritical by letting our own FUD be published while decrying FUD used against us?

    -Adam

    1. Re:Needless Editorializing by thesp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, here at Oxford, if we want to use this stuff we have to go by the MSDS, given here. It states: Safety (MSDS) data for N,N-diethyl-N-toluamide "Toxicology Toxic if swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through the skin. May cause systemic effects. Experimental reproductive effects. Mutagenic data. May cause CNS disturbances. Toxicity data SKN-HMN TDLO 35 mg kg-1 ORL-WMN LDLO 950 mg kg-1 ORL-MAN LDLO 679 mg kg-1 ORL-RAT LD50 1950 mg kg-1 SKN-RBT LD50 3180 mg kg-1" Furthermore "Personal protection: Safety glasses, gloves, adequate ventilation."
      So, the "...are believed by some" tag is entirely valid...

    2. Re:Needless Editorializing by NorthDude · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here is a glossary for reading msds : http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/glossary/GLOSSARY.h tml

      There is no TDLO, but you can extrapolate by reading LD50, LDLO and TD50...

      --


      I'd rather be sailing...
  3. Carbon Dioxide by digitalchinky · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A biologist friend of mine studying ross-river-virus explained that it was related to our emission of carbon dioxide. They 'smell' it.

    At least, that's what I think was said - I was pretty drunk at the time...

  4. B-complex by cbiffle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wish the article had provided a bit more info on what the specific chemicals were.

    In my family, we've traditionally used B-complex to ward off mosquitos. If you take a certain amount (more than usual, not enough to stink and turn orange), mosquitos ignore you completely.

    Wonder if it's related.

  5. From someone who probably knows... by b00m3rang · · Score: 3, Informative

    A park ranger told me that what they all use is Avon Skin So Soft. It's not designed as a bug repellant, but apparently it works the best.

    I haven't tried it myself.