Community | August 10, 2009 | 70 comments

Study: Popular insect repellent DEET is neurotoxic

source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090804193230.htm

Image
JanforGore
The active ingredient in many insect repellents, deet, has been found to be toxic to the central nervous system. Researchers say that more investigations are urgently needed to confirm or dismiss any potential neurotoxicity to humans, especially when deet-based repellents are used in combination with other neurotoxic insecticides.

Vincent Corbel from the Institut de Recherche pour le Développement in Montpellier, and Bruno Lapied from the University of Angers, France, led a team of researchers who investigated the mode of action and toxicity of deet (N,N-Diethyl-3-methylbenzamide). Corbel said, "We've found that deet is not simply a behavior-modifying chemical but also inhibits the activity of a key central nervous system enzyme, acetycholinesterase, in both insects and mammals".

snip

These insecticides are often used in combination with deet, and the researchers also found that deet interacts with carbamate insecticides to increase their toxicity. Corbel concludes, "These findings question the safety of deet, particularly in combination with other chemicals, and they highlight the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to the development of safer insect repellents for use in public health".

Link to study:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/imedia/5277085962613386_article.pdf?random=455930
  1. groups:
    Community,   Green,   Earth and Science,   Max and Jason: Still Up,   3 more
  2. tags:
    Environment,  Health,  Medicine,  Disease,  8 more
  3.     
    |

70 comments // Study: Popular insect repellent DEET is neurotoxic

  • artemis6
  • ayashe
    • 0
      ayashe  

    • They're going to kill us all. Poison food, poison plastic, poison toothpaste, what do they make nowadays that ISN'T toxic?

    • 2 years ago
  • msumonica
    • 0
      msumonica  

    • wait, is deet the same thing as ddt? i think you all were thinking of ddt, when rachel carson wrote about it's dangers (i want to think back in the 60s). We treat those warnings like we do with aspartame or ephedra, we wait until it kills enough people, panic, and then switch to the lesser evil so that the chemical companies can continue to make money. when are we gonna start opting out and adopt safer, more natural methods of pest control? it's not like they don't exist. they just don't make those companies money

    • 2 years ago
  • msumonica
    • 0
      msumonica  

    • i'm not sure why people are surprised. any time you introduce chemical neurotoxins into a living system and animals (including pests) are repelled by it, there's probably a good reason for it. there a better methods of pest control that don't rely on poisoning our bodies and the ecosystem (ie permaculture), we just don't take the initiative to use them... for whatever reason.

    • 2 years ago
  • artemis6
  • sue4e3
    • 0
      sue4e3  

    • now see this is the kind of post that makes me say why even read all the other posts about cancer/toxic causing foods ,chemicals ect...... because you almost have to be mental to not know that deet is poison and to act like this is urgent in some way is just silly.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • sue4e3:

      Well hey, you have a wide array of useless information and gossip/celebrity news to take your time up with if you feel that way. People thought it was "silly" to report on DDT as well.

    • 2 years ago
  • sue4e3
    • 0
      sue4e3  
    • sue4e3:

      janforgore i have no use for gossip news .and to tell you the truth i am always saying how you post stories about gloom and doom that i can't do any thing about so i suppose i should be happy .JUST DO NOT USE BUG SPRAY .happy post

    • 2 years ago
  • krispychicken
    • 0
      krispychicken  

    • This is scary stuff considering it's being sold to the public practically everywhere. The problem is that a lot of people out there are clueless to the harms of the products they use every day, insect repellent included. Sure, many people have known for a while that it wasn't good for you but they still need to do research like this to show the effects and the exact degree of severity to then decide whether or not it should be on the store shelves. Personally, I think it should have been off a long time ago.

    • 2 years ago
  • lucidstone
    • 0
      lucidstone  
    • krispychicken:

      Sure, many people have known for a while that it wasn't good for you but they still need to do research like this to show the effects and the exact degree of severity to then decide whether or not it should be on the store shelves. Personally, I think it should have been off a long time ago.

      . . . .

      If it was up to you, you would take a product that has been proven highly effective over FIFTY years to keep very dangerous/deadly diseases from spreading rampantly across the tropical world . . . just because there's a "possibility" that there "may" be some adverse side effects with extreme misuse of the product?

      Oh logic, why have you forsaken thee?

    • 2 years ago
  • krispychicken
    • 0
      krispychicken  
    • krispychicken:

      lucidstone,

      There are other alternatives out there that are just as effective if not more effective that are not as dangerous. Obviously in certain cases it's worth the risk to have certain products that "may" be dangerous because the consequences of not using/having them are worse. But in this case, since there are other safer options, we shouldn't have the DEET products especially since we know that they ARE dangerous not just "may" be dangerous.

    • 2 years ago
  • lucidstone
    • 0
      lucidstone  
    • krispychicken:

      The thing is, the other alternatives "aren't" more effective or even as effective. Hence why this study itself acknowledges DEET as the "gold standard" of bug repellents.

      If you want to insist that there are chemicals more potent than DEET, which ones? And where's the evidence to that claim of efficacy?

      And tell me exactly, how exactly is DEET when used properly dangerous? It does not cause nerve damage, but can possibly in insanely high doses of exposure, that no one has ever in 50 years have been reported to come into contact with, could theoretically act as a temporary inhibitor that could cause seizures like nerve gas (which would be pretty effing obvious if this did happen).

      Given the widespread usage over the past 60+ years . . . it is clear that it has been safe to use among the human population.

      So, in the most polite way I can say this . . . you are talking out of your ass.

    • 2 years ago
  • lucidstone
    • 0
      lucidstone  

    • DEET is a harsh chemical, that much is obvious, and it should only be used as directed. That said DEET has been applied in over 8 billion doses over 50 years . . . and despite the headline of this thread and the ScienceDaily article, it is NOT a neurotoxin . . . it does NOT cause nerve damage.

      The study shows, and needs to still be confirmed, that DEET can act as an ACh (a neurotransmitter) inhibitor that could possibly be dangerous in insanely high doses.

      Great links by MilchMann, I particularly liked the link within to the blog that explained very clearly and concisely:
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

      So it would be massive news if DEET was found to be dangerous. But it hasn't. What's been found is that, in animals and in test-tubes, DEET is a cholinesterase inhibitor. Cholinesterase is an enzyme which breaks down acetylcholine (ACh), a neurotransmitter. If you inhibit cholinesterase, ACh levels rapidly increase. This can cause problems because ACh is the transmitter that your nerves use to communicate with your muscles. As ACh builds up, your muscles don't stop contracting, and you suffer paralysis, until you can't breathe. This is how "nerve gas" works.

      But we know DEET isn't a strong cholinesterase inhibitor, when used normally, because people don't get cholinergic effects after using it. The toxicity of cholinesterase inhibitors is acute. You get paralyzed, and suffer other symptoms like uncontrollable salivation, crying, vomiting, and incontinence. You'd know if this happened to you.

      Cholinesterase inhibitors are not, as various media reports have said about DEET, "neurotoxic" , they do not cause "neural damage". They act on the nerves, but they do not damage the nerves. In fact people with Alzheimer's take them (in low doses!), as do people with the nerve disease myasthenia gravis.

      /end_excerpt
      http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2009/08/science-journalism-and-bug-spray.html

      DEET, under proper usage, is NOT dangerous . . . in fact it saves lives in tropical climates on a daily basis where the alternative is to be bitten by mosquitos that carry deadly diseases.

      Malaria and the variety of other diseases are far far more dangerous than DEET could ever be . . . and if you bring Lemon Eucalyptus or Citronella on your backpacking trek through SE Asia . . . then you deserve to be slapped.

    • 2 years ago
  • MilchMann
    • 0
      MilchMann  
    • lucidstone:

      Indeed, thanks for backing me up.

      On another note, I am having a hard time with cholinesterase inhibitors being used in Alzheimer's treatments... I ran across that earlier too, and I am just not seeing how that would help with plaqueing at all... do you see it?

    • 2 years ago
  • lucidstone
    • 0
      lucidstone  
    • lucidstone:

      Cholinesterase (KOH-luh-NES-ter-ays) inhibitors prevent the breakdown of acetylcholine (a-SEA-til-KOH-lean), a chemical messenger important for learning and memory.

      These drugs:

      * Support communication among nerve cells by keeping acetylcholine levels high.
      * On average, delay worsening of symptoms for 6 to 12 months for about half the people who take them. Some experts believe a small percentage of people may benefit more dramatically.

      http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_standard_prescriptions.asp

      Like you, I'm educating myself as I go with google . . . but from what I'm gathering is that Alzheimer's patients suffer from a lack of production of the vital ACh neurotransmitter . . . and the level of these neurotransmitters in the body seem to be regulated by the cholinesterase enzyme, which breaks down the neurotransmitter.

      By inhibiting this enzyme to do its work, we would be able to get a higher concentration of the ACh neurotransmitter . . . which would be desired by Alzheimer's patients.

      There is a hypothesis that Alzheimer's is caused by lack of ACh production, but this seems to be not very well supported since the drugs prescribed to inhibit cholinesterase are not very effective and only briefly stall the disease.

      It seems that plaques are made up of broken down APP proteins that are responsible for maintaining healthy neurons. So I think we're talking about 3 different events here so far:

      -The breaking down of neurons
      -The building up of plaques
      -The reduction of the ACh neurotransmitter

      I think it sounds like that ACh levels are reduced due to the degradation of the neurons, so that by inhibiting the cholinesterase, we would be able to artificially sustain higher levels of ACh neurotransmitters that are needed for neuronal communication and ultimately for the accessing of memories.

      However, I think that's like putting a band aid on a cracking damn as the root cause of the degradation of neurons is still going untreated.

      I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think that the building up of the plaque is the cause of the neuronal degradation . . . but more of a side effect.

      There's a lot more to Alzheimer's than just the 3 elements I mentioned, but it's highly technical and I honestly am very fuzzy on the details . . . and ultimately, not even the medical community is in complete agreement over the root cause and factors. But please correct me if you find any of my interpretation to be incorrect.

      So, I'm not sure if that helps, lol. =)

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • continued:

      But experts say deet is "reversible," meaning its impact is short-lived.

      Corbel said further studies would seek to determine at what concentration it might become dangerous to people, especially small children and pregnant women.

      "These findings question the safety of deet, particularly in combination with other chemicals, and they highlight the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to the development of safer insect repellents for use in public health," he concluded.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • Image

    • Deet May Have Damaging Effects On Nervous System
      Posted on: Wednesday, 5 August 2009, 10:40 CDT

      A study released on Wednesday warned that one of the world's most common insect repellents acts on the central nervous system in the same way as some insecticides and nerve gases, AFP reported.

      Researchers say moderate use of the chemical compound deet is most likely safe, but experiments on insects, as well as on enzymes extracted from mice and human neurons, showed for the first time that it can interfere with the proper functioning of the nervous system.

      Many experts are urgently calling for further studies to assess deet's potential toxicity to humans, especially when combined with other chemical compounds.

      Some suggest the findings may also be linked to the so-called "Gulf War Syndrome," the name given to a complex and variable mix of neurological symptoms reported by tens of thousands of U.S. military veterans who served in the first Gulf War against Iraq in 1990-1991.

      Scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture developed deet just after World War II, and it has been available as a bug repellent for more than 50 years.

      The chemical compound has been used as a barrier against malaria, dengue fever and other mosquito-borne diseases and is sold as lotions, creams and sprays in concentrations from five to 100 percent.

      As a precaution, experts advise people to only use enough repellent to cover exposed skin or clothing and caution that repellent should not be applied to cuts, wounds or irritated skin.

      The study, published in the British-based open-access journal BMC Biology, said some 200 million people use deet-based products every year.

      While it has never exactly been proven how the compound works on blood-seeking insects, it likely blocks the sensory neurons of the flying bugs, or they’re simply repelled by the chemical’s smell. And there is relatively little research on the effects of deet in humans.

      Vincent Corbel, a researcher at the Institute for Development Research in Montpellier, France, and lead author of the study, said it has been used for many years, but there are recent studies now that show a potential toxicity.

      He told AFP his team has identified a neurological target for the compound.

      Deet interferes with the normal breaking down of acetylcholine (ACh), the most common neurotransmitter in the central nervous system, according to a series of experiments by Corbel and a team of scientists co-led by Bruno Lapied of the University of Angers.

      The study found that it does this by blocking the enzyme that normally degrades ACh, acetylcholinesterase, or AChE. The result is a toxic build-up of ACh that ultimately prevents the transmission of signals across the neuron synapse.

      Carbamates, a class of insecticides, and the nerve gas sarin, work in the same way, only the effects are stronger and last much longer, which lead the researchers to consider the symptoms noted in victims of Gulf War Syndrome.

      A U.S. government report issued last November concluded that many of the pesticides used in the Gulf War, as well as PB and nerve agents, exert toxic effects on the brain and nervous system by altering levels of ACh.

      PB, or pyridostigmine bromide, was widely used to protect against nerve gas exposure.

      The report, titled "Gulf War Illness and the Health of Gulf War Veterans," points to earlier evidence that overexposure to deet may be toxic for the nervous system.

      However, it fails to recognize its potential role as a booster for the more potent chemicals to which soldiers had been exposed.

      Corbel said U.S. soldiers wore a cocktail of high doses of PB and insect repellents to protect against mosquito bites, which may have caused symptoms, as both act on the central nervous system in the same way.

    • 2 years ago
  • MilchMann
    • 0
      MilchMann  
    • JanforGore:

      That article is a lot better than the sciencedaily one... of course I would not know that if I had not found the actual studies... they are still adding spin to it... but that I guess is inescapable.

    • 2 years ago
  • unclecharlie
    • 0
      unclecharlie  

    • So, what you're telling me, is that I have to quit huffing those cans of bug repellant? Thanks for raining on my parade- now it just looks like I'll have no other choice than to spend 12 hours a day watching Fox News, if I want to get my thrills. :)

    • 2 years ago
  • MilchMann
  • MilchMann
    • 0
      MilchMann  

    • Well, this is interesting, I am a little shocked, I would have believed DEET was a neuroagent the rest of my life if I had not looked into it to see what was actually said for myself.

      Link to provisional abstract, with link to actual study
      http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/7/47

      It turns out that this is hype BS. DEET is a neurotoxin only when mixed with cholinesterase inhibitors... which is a nerve agent... or at least this is all that this study has proven.... it is becoming increasingly crucial to fact check anything and everything, it is annoying... but true, it is being reported in several scientific journal/news places that DEET is in fact a neurotoxin when it is far from even having been looked into.

      I know most of you will not bother to read that study, so I copied and pasted the conclusion here... I give full credit to the researchers for the remainder of the this posting.

      "In vivo toxic interactions between deet and propoxur, irimiphos-methyl, or pyridostigmine bromide (PB) for cockroaches and mosquitoes have been reported previously [8, 30, 31]. In adult hens, Abou-Donia et al. [18] emonstrated that coexposure to sub-neurotoxic doses of B, deet and chlorpyrifos resulted in increased toxicity haracterized by neurological dysfunction and europathological lesions. In the central cholinergic system of rats, application of physiologically relevant doses of pyridostigmine and deet, in combination, led to eurobehavioural deficits and regionspecific alterations in ChE and nicotinic receptors [32]. More investigations are urgently needed to confirm or dismiss the potential eurotoxicity to humans arising from the combined use of deet with different cholinesterase inhibitors."

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • MilchMann:

      And how is that different from the article posted which basically claimed the same thing? And why are you and others trying so hard to discredit this post? Do you work so hard in every thread? I tell you what. I'll just take it down and not bother to post any information here anymore because I think it is important.

    • 2 years ago
  • MilchMann
    • 0
      MilchMann  
    • MilchMann:

      I was not blaming you for it being a bad report jan... and I look into almost everything I read that hard because I have learned not to trust anything in the news... If you recall the first few posts I made on this thread... I was pretty sure that it was true, DEET and similar chemicals are bad news, but that does not make false reporting about them any better.

      Please continue to post things on here, it is good to know, even when they do turn out to be false, it is not your fault that this is being spread, you did not write the original article or the several dozen others like it all across the internet.

      Also Jan, I like a lot of what you have to say most of the time, if you feel like I am giving you a hard time it is only because I am passionate about what ever it is that I am saying, I think you are a good person, I think you are a smart person, and I think if you leave this community will be at a great loss. So please, do not do that.

    • 2 years ago
  • manfreddrake
  • csmonut
  • MilchMann
    • 0
      MilchMann  
    • MilchMann:

      Yeah, it is not good... but it is not as bad as some of these articles are trying to make it out to be either. As some of pointed out, there are instances where a little loss of motor coordination for a while may be preferable to life altering diseases that can be contracted from mosquitoes, or ticks (you can use sulfur to keep ticks off instead of DEET). Really the moral to the story is avoid it if you can, if you need it, try spraying just on your clothes. It has not been proven to be a neural agent, but I would not suggest drinking it, and if you are going to be doing something like climbing a mountain face you might want all of your motor skills so why take the chance, the fly bite might just be worth it to err on the side of caution.

      What I really want to know is what the long term exposure causes. Really a better classification than neurotoxin would be barbiturate, at least medically speaking
      (not really toxic except under extremely large doses or potentially long or continuous exposure)... the effects remind me of Ketamine, but the structure is far different... I duno, this is all worth looking into more though, that is for sure.

      It all comes down to the problem of allowing for production of things we do not thoroughly understand the effects of.

    • 2 years ago
  • rachelmfd
    • 0
      rachelmfd  

    • obviously if something can kill and or repel insects that in small doses it will eventually harm you. is this really new news? didnt a woman scientist discover this fact in the 70's? i think i did a report on it in high school. hah

    • 2 years ago
  • Alex_French
  • Tyrannous
    • 0
      Tyrannous  

    • I read the reason deet is effective against pests is that it interferes with their odorant receptors on a neurological level. It is not a repellent but a trick of the molecules to make the bugs think you are not there. knowing this i would think its obvious it has side effects on any neurological system... yikes.
      Im glad i never use bug spray...

    • 2 years ago
  • Ares
  • xiola
  • MilchMann
  • wayman
    • 0
      wayman  

    • Maybe old news but I bet u can still buy deet in most places worldwide ' someone introduced me to citranella years ago if it can keep the mozzies in India at bay it gets my vote as for mosquito nets are they not treated with deet ? Still '

    • 2 years ago
  • crob80227
    • 0
      crob80227  

    • So they didn't really think it could damage the body, but now they think (oops!) it might be doing horrible damage.

      Just like the childhood vaccines and autism.

      "Deet is perfectly safe! Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand sceince and is giving into hysteria!'

      Followed decades later by....

      "Well, uh, ya see, uh, it might actually be doing serious damage to your body. Sorry about the cancer.

      "Anyone who thinks childhood vaccines contributes to autism doesn't understand science and is giving into hysteria!"

      Followed (no doubt) decades later by...

      'Well, uh, damndest thing! Turns out, uh, ya, turns out those shots did impact a very small segment of society that was genetically predisposed to have a bad reaction to that particular chemical cocktail. Sorry!"

    • 2 years ago
  • unimatrix0
  • crob80227
    • 0
      crob80227  
    • crob80227:

      Are you saying that suggesting a link between a complex chemical cocktail and autism is paranoid propaganda?

      Wouldn't the manufactuerers of DEET have said the exact same thing......all the way up until the moment the scientists finally DID discover a link between that product and harmful reactions in humans?

      I don't think believing there may be a small portion of the population that might have a rare and dangerous "reaction" to the complex chemical cocktail that is a childhood immunization shot is really all that far fetched.....is it?

    • 2 years ago
  • MilchMann
    • 0
      MilchMann  
    • crob80227:

      Yeah, it is propaganda in that case, I do not support vaccinations for a lot of things, but they do not cause autism, autism is a physical deformity of the brain that took place in the womb, it just so happens that people start noticing the symptoms about the same time and age they get them vaccinated. sorry, buy you are in fact wrong on this one.

    • 2 years ago
  • crob80227
    • 0
      crob80227  
    • crob80227:

      You make it sound like we've known the exact cause of autism for decades. Scientists STILL don't know exactly what causes autism or how to properly identify it in some cases. Sorry, but your facts are way, way off. Autism is not like the chicken pox! Eating lead paint chips (found in older homes) WILL cause autism in developing children....meaning they DIDN'T have it when born, but then developed it because of exposure to certain chemicals. This idea that it's a physical deformity in the brian present at birth is simply not true.

    • 2 years ago
  • MilchMann
    • 0
      MilchMann  
    • crob80227:

      I am not going to debate this with you on here because it is obviously something you are passionate beyond reason about, but I will state that science does not agree with anything you have said about autism.

    • 2 years ago
  • crob80227
    • 0
      crob80227  
    • crob80227:

      Fair enough. And I will end also by stating that science (and a quick Wikipedia search) will support my position and not ours. Autism is not a physical brain abnormality that occurs in the womb. It has many suspected causes and even the classification of certain symptomologies is debated within the scienfic community. So, yes, it is possible for outside chemical agents to impact developing brains both in the womb and AFTER the child is born. There is debate whether or not this actually occurs, but to say the science has "determined" the cause of autism is simply not true.

    • 2 years ago
  • sue4e3
    • 0
      sue4e3  
    • crob80227:

      since this reply seems to have morphed into what we think caused autism .my son is autistic and i thought it more than just happen stance that i unknowingly was living in a home that had the deadly black mold while i was pregnant with him .and since i do not believe that every autistic person was exposed to mold i believe that it is a multicause syndrome that becomes as personal as how one persons body reacts to the outside world ,chemicals, radicals, ect....

    • 2 years ago
  • jeffissleeping
    • 0
      jeffissleeping  

    • it may be older news but they're still seeping this crap into products to spray on children, the things you eat, the water you drink, etc.

      i just thought of something: 'foxnewsicide'

      teehee.

    • 2 years ago
  • MilchMann
  • MilchMann
  • fighttheNWO
  • Lrn_Willis
  • xiola
  • Tyrannous
    • 0
      Tyrannous  
    • fighttheNWO:

      your thinking of DDT, which was banned in the 70s, these findings are recent... i wish you had shared this info with the scientists earlier if you knew it 40 years ago. please share your info, dont use it to be repugnant.

    • 2 years ago
  • fighttheNWO
  • xiola
  • Lrn_Willis
    • 0
      Lrn_Willis  
    • fighttheNWO:

      Well, even if you weren't meaning to be rude the first time, you certainly were this time.

      It's not a matter of thick skin or having a backbone; it's about being a mature, respectful individual. We all get angry or irritated with certain things, but letting it show through rudeness and insults is a sign of weakness not strength.

      I do not mean for this to sound like an attack. I'm just giving you my take on what I feel to be an important issue: respecting other people. After all, think of how many tragic stories posted here on Current could have been avoided if people around the world gave each other the respect they deserved as individuals. We can always start small.

    • 2 years ago
  • fighttheNWO
    • 0
      fighttheNWO  
    • fighttheNWO:

      it might be this new icon of mine as i take on its persona. online communiques never are interpreted as they are intended a lot of times. just makin a point. and point well taken. i feel comments online often devolve in to arguments of "which color white should be used in the living room" so many opinions and angles to choose from. but i digress

    • 2 years ago
  • MilchMann
  • fighttheNWO
  • Lrn_Willis
    • 0
      Lrn_Willis  
    • fighttheNWO:

      I agree, sometimes it is hard to break through the internet/persona wall. When I was younger I used other icons because, like a lot of young people, I was worried what people would say or think when they saw the face behind the typing.

      These days I try to imagine internet communication as just like talking face to face: except you have more time to think over what you want to say. Oh, and sometimes the other person doesn't respond for a few days.

      But now I'm digressing...heh

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • fighttheNWO
    • 0
      fighttheNWO  
    • fighttheNWO:

      wow... so its OK for ppl to get a Lil touchy on here as long as its not me ... i see how this works. well in any case it was well known for decades that DEET is extremley bad for use in general. the fact that its still in use is not determined by its toxisity, aspertame is a know exitotoxin created from the fecal matter of ecol i and that stuff is pervasive thru out industrialized nations...it would be like me reporting a story that claims the world is round... really ?!? its round? ya don't say ...

    • 2 years ago
  • unimatrix0
  • Tyrannous
  • MilchMann
    • 0
      MilchMann  
    • unimatrix0:

      That was what I was thinking unimatrix... I remember hearing this 15-20 years ago. The best way to deal with it is to spray diluted repellents like cutter (I find it works bets) on your clothes not your skin, keeps most of them away if they are not to bad... if you are in a marsh where there are swarms even 100% DEET deep woods repellent does you no good.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • unimatrix0:

      Popular Insect Repellent Deet Is Neurotoxic
      ScienceDaily (Aug. 6, 2009) —
      Take it up with Science Daily. And there are many younger people who may not know this or how extensively tests have progressed on this. And I would dare say it is much more important than the same old arguments taking place on a daily basis about religion.

    • 2 years ago
  • xiola
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • Yes, seems logical to me. I never used it either, nor sprayed it on my child. Anything with the suffix CIDE is obviously meant to kill something. I wish common sense really ruled, but as you say people have been conditioned to believe anything a company tells them about a product. This blind trust without common sense however, is killing us.

    • 2 years ago
  • jakewhitcomb
    • 0
      jakewhitcomb  

    • deet is also a solvent for plastics, explaining the sticky shifter in your car on the drive home from the fishing trip...

      if it can liquify plastic, it can't be that good for your face

    • 2 years ago
  • diabolical44
    • 0
      diabolical44  

    • I never touch any of that shit. People don't realize, it is a poison. anything that is designed to be strong enough to kill bugs or weeds or anything like that, is poison. it isn't only poisonous to just bugs or just weeds or whatever it is designed for, it is poisonous to all organic lifeforms. all this shit is completely unregulated and people are conditioned to believe that it is perfectly ok. when common sense tells you that it obviously isn't

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • This is a list of some natural repellants. Lemon Eucalyptus and Citronella being the most effective. But as with any chemical repellent, test them on a patch of skin first and don't spray them on open cuts. Of course you can definitely decrease your chances of getting bitten by not spending as much time in places where there are mosquitoes, and keeping you property clear of puddles and standing water.

    • 2 years ago
  • MilchMann
    • 0
      MilchMann  
    • JanforGore:

      You should include sulfur in your arsenal, sulfur keeps off ticks, chiggers, and fleas... better than DEET does actually. Sometimes it keeps away biting flies as well. all you have to do is dust the bottom of your pants or around your socks and shoes and a little around the neck and hem lines of your shirt. Great stuff.

    • 2 years ago
  • GrizzlyVibbes
  • MildGhost
more from Community:
from the community

top videos