
Bedbug bait and trap invented by Simon Fraser University scientists - Wyndsage
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bedbug-bait-and-trap-invented-by-simon-fraser-university-scientists-1.2881654
======
gojomo
I'm surprised blood alone (perhaps heated to body temperature) doesn't attract
them.

I expect in the next decade or so, sensors and microrobotics will become good
and cheap enough that mechanical pest control will outcompete chemical:
finding and squashing the bugs with inhuman reach, patience and thoroughness.
Of course the tiny exterma-drones may be pretty creepy-looking, themselves.

I could picture one implementation being a skirt/kill-zone around a bed, such
that any bug that feeds is definitively killed before it can return to
nesting/breeding spots. So the customer is still the bait... but they quickly
win a war of attrition against any local bug population, unless it's being
replenished from elsewhere.

~~~
personZ
I'm surprised there haven't been kickstarters for little robotic bug killers
yet. The processors and sensors are getting powerful enough, and within the
right power band, that the premise of having a stabby little anti-bug device
(a small roomba that kills) is within reach.

Of course, then we'll make them larger. And larger. And eventually it will
spell our doom.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _Of course, then we 'll make them larger. And larger. And eventually it will
> spell our doom._ //

I thought that we'd make them smaller and smaller ... and that will spell our
doom.

Perhaps the bug killing squads of nanobots mutate - either by a human
introduced [computer] virus or for a more ironic twist from a source that
would normally be a DNA mutator (cosmic ray radiation say). The bugs will then
hunt out not pathogens but something useful like human nerve cells or white
blood cells. Caught in an international crisis - war or famine, you choose -
humanity will have it's eyes off the ball until too late.

There must be Sci-Fi of this.

Aside: is there a rule akin to Rule 34, perhaps Rule 0100011, that says no
matter how outlandish a distopian future scenario is that it is nonetheless
already a feature in the plot of a Sci-Fi work?

------
temuze
We all but wiped out bedbugs in the 40's and 50's using DDT.

I find the short history of DDT fascinating - in two decades, we eliminated
Typhus in Europe, went from 2.5 million cases of malaria in Ceylon, Sri Lanka
in 1948 to 17 in 1963, we essentially eliminated bed bugs in the US and
Canada, wiped most of Dengue fever out out the South Pacific...

Then DDT started getting banned after Silent Spring was published and the
environmental movement kicked off. Malaria cases went back up to 2.8 million
in Sri Lanka in 1969 and a lot of its effects were reversed. It took longer
for bed bugs to come back because they don't spread as quickly as their flying
counterparts.

I'm not a scientist in this field and I don't feel like I can comment on the
validity of differing studies about the safety of DDT or its ecological
effects. However, I think it's undoubtedly true that in many countries,
malaria and dengue and typhus and all sorts of diseases were more of a concern
than cancer (and still are). DDT saved millions of lives in the short span of
time it was used.

To me, this makes the public health questions of the DDT ban incredibly
interesting - if you have something that might cause cancer and kill some
innocent people but at the same time use it to eliminate disease vectors and
probably save more people in the long run, do you keep using it?

~~~
rm999
You make some good points, but you're missing some keys facts about why it was
banned and why most people today don't really care that it's banned. This is a
good read on the topic:
[http://www.worldwatch.org/node/517](http://www.worldwatch.org/node/517)

tldr: DDT is _extremely_ dangerous because it is fat soluble, which means it
accumulates up the food chain. It has been linked to all sorts of potential
problems, both ecological and to human-health. The question of malaria is
moot, mosquitos quickly developed a resistance to it. You can mitigate malaria
with other means, such as bednets.

edit: specifically to your point, this is the relevant part (i.e. why it
wasn't that controversial):

> The campaign managers knew that in mosquitoes, regular exposure to DDT
> tended to produce widespread resistance in four to seven years. Since it
> took three years to clear malaria from a human population, that didn't leave
> a lot of leeway for the eradication effort. As it turned out, the logistics
> simply couldn't be made to work in large, heavily infested areas with high
> human populations, poor housing and roads, and generally minimal
> infrastructure. In 1969, the campaign was abandoned

~~~
maxerickson
The WHO continues to endorse the use of DDT in malaria control:

[http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/atoz/who_htm_gmp_201...](http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/atoz/who_htm_gmp_2011/en/)

 _2\. Why is DDT still recommended?

2.1 Efficacy and effectiveness of DDT

DDT has several characteristics that are of particular relevance in malaria
vector control. Among the 12 insecticides currently recommended for this
intervention, DDT is the one with the longest residual efficacy when sprayed
on walls and ceilings (6–12 months depending on dosage and nature of
substrate).

In similar conditions, other insecticides have a much shorter residual
efficacy (pyrethroids: 3–6 months; organophosphates and carbamates: 2–6
months). Depending on the duration of the transmission season, the use of DDT
alternatives might require more than two spray cycles per year, which would be
very difficult (if not impossible) to achieve and sustain in most settings.

DDT has a spatial repellency and an irritant effect on malaria vectors that
strongly limit human-vector contact. Vector mosquitoes that are not directly
killed by DDT are repelled and obliged to feed and rest outdoors, which
contributes to effective disease-transmission control._

~~~
rm999
But only for indoor spraying:

> WHO recommends DDT only for indoor residual spraying. Countries can use DDT
> for as long as necessary, in the quantity needed, provided that the
> guidelines and recommendations of WHO and the Stockholm Convention are all
> met...

The article I linked to discusses indoor spraying and supports it. They argue
though that the primary use of DDT in Africa has been agricultural spraying,
which is why the resistance formed (and which is what most people oppose).

~~~
maxerickson
You said _why it was banned_ , _The question of malaria is moot_ and _In 1969,
the campaign was abandoned_.

It was worth clarifying.

------
Houshalter
How long will it take for the bedbugs to mutate so they are no longer
attracted to the trap?

~~~
baby
Shouldn't it rather be (if I understand Darwin correclty):

How long will it take for the ones that are attracted to the trap to have
their population reduced enough so that the ones who are not attracted can
spread their genes more efficiently

~~~
ryandvm
Probably a distinction that is not conversationally useful.

~~~
jmreid
I feel like this statement could get used a lot on HN.

------
allendoerfer
These suckers bullied us for thousands of years, but now humankind has this
crazy lady on its team so they finally get what they asked for.

------
wglb
Such an act of dedication to science how they accomplished "feeding the
horde".

------
legulere
I wonder if they use the nanostructure of bean leafs [1] to entrap the bedbugs

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/science/earth/how-a-
leafy-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/science/earth/how-a-leafy-folk-
remedy-stopped-bedbugs-in-their-tracks.html?_r=0)

------
jschulenklopper
Relevant HN discussion on the 'itch that nobody can scratch' refered to in a
story on Medium:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8769925](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8769925).
That story is about Morgellons, for which _some_ explanations refer to the
presence of beg bugs or mites.

------
001sky
_" Unfortunately, this means Regine Gries is still feeding the bedbug colony
every week."_

\-- _Shudders_

~~~
krampian
Approximately 400 bugs in the colony if you do the math. 180k bites, 8 years,
fed weekly.

------
ommunist
No we cannot just simply erase bedbugs from existence. They are essential
evolutionary factor of humans. How shall developers scratch their own itch
with no bedbugs?

~~~
headShrinker
Similarly to mosquitoes, bedbugs serve no nessesary propose in the food chain
that couldn't be immediately fulfilled and replaced over-night. Bedbugs could
indeed be "erased".

~~~
ommunist
You are not a biologist and your mistake is obvious. Mosqitoes larvae are
extremely important part of the food chain, especially in lake and river
ecosystems. When it comes to bedbugs, the answer is not that obvious. I do not
understand people downvoting me. Had they read something about evolution?
Bedbugs and humans successfully co-existed for thousands of years. There may
be some important perk we shall all miss if we'll just erase them. We just do
not know it yet.

~~~
mikeyouse
> Mosqitoes larvae are extremely important part of the food chain, especially
> in lake and river ecosystems.

This is less certain that you're letting on;

[http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html](http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html)

> There may be some important perk we shall all miss if we'll just erase them.
> We just do not know it yet.

Probably true, but I'd argue whatever it is, it would be better to eliminate
mosquitoes and save millions of lives annually if we had the capability.

