
This tiny, wearable patch makes you invisible to mosquitos - aditya
http://io9.com/this-tiny-wearable-patch-makes-you-invisible-to-mosqui-894656159
======
nostromo
Just use an oscillating fan.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/science/a-low-tech-
mosquit...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/science/a-low-tech-mosquito-
deterrent.html)

It's also worth noting that previous attempts at preventing malaria in Africa
have failed not because of any technological limitation, but because they view
it completely differently than we do in the West.

> As medical anthropologists have consistently found, because malaria is so
> common in much of sub-Saharan Africa, and because the overwhelming majority
> of cases go away on their own, most rural Africans consider malaria a minor
> ailment, the way that Westerners might think of the cold or flu.

[http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/02/opinion/la-oe-
shah-2...](http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/02/opinion/la-oe-
shah-20100502)

~~~
znowi
> [http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/02/opinion/la-oe-
> shah-2...](http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/02/opinion/la-oe-
> shah-20100502)

This is a revealing article. I somehow didn't think about, now rather obvious,
cultural difference in perception of malaria. I also didn't know that "the
overwhelming majority of cases go away on their own". I thought of malaria as
a certain death without treatment.

The treated nets did, however, have technological issues, as pointed in the
article: "Among other design flaws, their tight mesh blocks ventilation, a
serious problem in the hot, humid places where malaria roosts".

Kite patch is simple enough to actually make it work. I just hope it is indeed
effective.

~~~
MarkMc
Wait a minute - maybe we are being too sensitive to cultural differences here.
Do we just accept the culture of sub-Sarahran Africa as equally valid to our
own in this case? Do we just accept that Africans don't like using bed nets
and so we must discount that approach and look for alternative ways to combat
malaria?

Let's not pussy-foot around the issue. The LA Times article mentions that some
African people think that mangoes cause malaria - in this case the African
view is wrong and the Western view is right. Perhaps it is also wrong to hold
the view that (a) malaria is no more harmful than the flu; and (b) having
ventilation is preferable to a bed net.

I realise that changing people's attitudes is difficult, particularly when the
message is delivered by white people who have such a poor historical record in
Africa. But malaria causes a quarter of childhood deaths in sub-Saharan Africa
[1] and insecticide-treated bed nets are 90-95+% effective, even when they
have small holes [2].

I'm not saying that Western culture is always right - or even right when it
comes to malaria. Lets just be careful to avoid automatically excluding other
cultural viewpoints from criticism.

[1]
[http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...](http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(12\)60169-X/fulltext)

[2]
[http://www.againstmalaria.com/faq_bednets.aspx](http://www.againstmalaria.com/faq_bednets.aspx)

~~~
mattlutze
The question here, I imagine, is not primarily one of the validity of the
various viewpoints. Rather, it is commentary that someone solving the problem
of malaria has to accept the reality of the sub-Saharan African viewpoint as a
starting point for their approach.

Foundationally, the local populations aren't clamouring for a solution, so
they are much less likely to accept inconvenience as a by-product of a
solution.

We know rhinovirus and flu kill scores of elderly people in nursing homes, but
continue to avoid the minor inconvenience of meticulous hygiene before
visiting our geriatric loved ones.

In risk communication, we might say "the audience will be hostile toward our
rhetoric". Put another way, the target population will require careful
encouragement to changing their viewpoint, while being presented with a
solution that does not operate from a confrontational approach.

Any solution that does not consider the local populations' viewpoints will
likely fail.

------
foofdawg
So the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation supported them with a grant, but not
enough of a grant to do product testing?

Something sounds fishy to me....They seem to be all about results-based
investing, and I just don't see the foundation providing funds without
providing enough to "see it through" the development and testing phase.

Am I wrong here?

~~~
th0br0
According to their text, they seem to have received those grants 3 years ago.
Still, given the rather low goal, I'd, too, assume that this is simply a
marketing strategy to increase visibility. After all, this is a kickstarter
and when you back it (even though not receiving any Kites for yourself on the
low tiers) you do something good for those poor people in Uganda!

Also, I'd guess that the $75k goal barely covers production, shipping & travel
costs... and their manufacturing pipeline seems to already be set up.

------
tinco
It sounds very good, but how can I invest in them, if they make such a great
effort in their video to avoid explaining what it does exactly?

How do you hide a CO2 footprint, when that same footprint could be smelled by
a from musquito 100 meters away? Why not just tell us?

~~~
zeteo
> how can I invest in them, if they make such a great effort in their video to
> avoid explaining what it does exactly?

Here you go, there's an article under the video:

>If we had to guess, we'd say the FAQ are referring to this study, published
by Ray and his team in a June 2011 issue of Nature, in which the researchers
identify three groups of chemicals that can which disrupt a mosquito's carbon
dioxide receptors

And also a helpful comment by "ciller" below the article:

>DEET works by blocking the CO2 receptors on mosquitos, this causes the
mosquito to be unable to figure out non food sources from usable ones. If this
kite patch blocks the CO2 receptors as well as DEET does, then it should be
effective.

>I work in a laboratory that deals with mosquito related problems quite a bit
and we are more then willing to test these things out in a small scale field
study. A viable alternative to DEET that you dont have to apply over your
entire skin surface area would be rather ideal.

~~~
eli
It's not a very comforting explanation if it comes from a Pop Science blogger
and starts with "If we had to guess..."

------
ewams
From the linked article it is unclear if the chemicals are absorbed into the
body or not. From the horse's mouth:

"Kite Patch is designed for clothing, not skin. A few news articles did get it
wrong – but our technology is designed to be placed on clothing, baby
carriers, backpacks, Camelbacks and other outdoor gear (for outdoor
enthusiasts), etc. Kite is NOT a skin patch."

Source: [http://www.kitepatch.com](http://www.kitepatch.com) about 5 pages
down.

Manufacture's website: [http://olfactorlabs.com](http://olfactorlabs.com)

------
falk
Did anyone else pick up on all the chemophobia in this video? Is a clip of
people spraying DDT supposed to scare us? Rachel Carson was wrong. DDT is
safe. My favorite part is when they say "food grade FDA compounds". That's a
lot of words to say chemicals.

~~~
mistercow
>DDT is safe.

[citation needed]

~~~
falk
Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring is credited with starting the anti-DDT
movement. It's been discredited and is full of junk science and needless
corporation-bashing. Read the paper Chemicals and Pests which tears apart
Carson's book. [1]

Checkout the New York Times article from 1962 titled "Fateful Voice of a
Generation Still Drowns Out Real Science" [2]

A choice quote:

"Ms. Carson used dubious statistics and anecdotes (like the improbable story
of a woman who instantly developed cancer after spraying her basement with
DDT) to warn of a cancer epidemic that never came to pass. She rightly noted
threats to some birds, like eagles and other raptors, but she wildly imagined
a mass “biocide.” She warned that one of the most common American birds, the
robin, was “on the verge of extinction” — an especially odd claim given the
large numbers of robins recorded in Audubon bird counts before her book."

You may also want to check out the story of Professor Kenneth Mellanby who ate
DDT for 40 years. [3]

Make sure to take a look at the scientific paper mentioned in this Times
article. It concludes "DDT is practically harmless to humans who get it on
their skins or breathe it into their lungs." [4]

[1]
[http://www1.umn.edu/ships/pesticides/library/baldwin1962.pdf](http://www1.umn.edu/ships/pesticides/library/baldwin1962.pdf)

[2]
[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/science/earth/05tier.html?...](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/science/earth/05tier.html?ei=5124&en=14a418afaa8af640&ex=1338782400&adxnnl=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&adxnnlx=1181487827-TjMEg9pHGxi9E4cK+bB4rQ&_r=0)

[3] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4264030/DDT-is-safe-
just-...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4264030/DDT-is-safe-just-ask-the-
professor-who-ate-it-for-40-years.html)

[4]
[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,812248,00.h...](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,812248,00.html)

~~~
mistercow
But the environmental effects regarding birds, as well as the impact of
indiscriminate spraying on mosquito resistance to DDT are a far cry from
"safe". Regardless of whether Carson was completely right about everything she
said, it's silly to claim that DDT is generally safe when it clearly is not.

~~~
falk
"DDT is generally safe when it clearly is not."

I'd love for you to cite your source on that. When used properly DDT is
generally safe and has saved millions of lives. There is no arguing that it
doesn't do a great job killing mosquitos. Resistance is mostly due to
agricultural use. The video claimed we are using chemicals toxic to humans and
flashed some footage of DDT being sprayed. That's simply a false assertion on
the part of the maker's of the video and the product. They're trying to use
junk science to push their product onto naive consumers.

~~~
mistercow
>I'd love for you to cite your source on that.

Do you actually need me to cite my source on the fact that it harms birds and
can lead to resistance? I can, if you need me to, but I didn't think those
facts were in dispute. The extent of the problem is arguable, but all I'm
asserting is that these are measurable effects. There is also evidence that
DDT is harmful to humans, but as far as I can tell, it doesn't seem to be
significantly more so than a ton of other things that we happily accept. It
seems unlikely, for example, that DDT usage at its peak killed more people per
year than air pollution from coal power.

Anyway, I think your general point is fair and that it was irresponsible to
try to scare people away from controlled DDT use on mosquitoes. But I also
think it's irresponsible to assert that DDT is safe. It's _OK_ to use
solutions that aren't safe if the benefits outweigh the risks.

------
WestCoastJustin
They have an indiegogo funding page where you can select your perks [1]. I am
wondering why they needed $75k in the first place, if they were funded through
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, wouldn't they just chip in the final chunk to
push this into production?

[1] [http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/kite-
patch](http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/kite-patch)

------
pakitan
From their own FAQ:

 _Does Kite provide 100% protection against mosquito bites? Kite provides a
steady stream of our patent-pending spatial (airborne) compounds that block
mosquitoes’ ability to track us for up to 48 hours, but it does not guarantee
mosquitoes will not bite us. It is being designed to be a replacement for
spray-on, fan-powered, or lotion applications, but does not take the place of
bed nets at night and /or appropriate clothing in mosquito-impacted areas_

So, they have put some compounds, that have been proven to repel mosquitoes in
laboratory conditions, on a patch. The "minor" problem is that this patch
can't possibly exude enough of those compounds to protect a human in real life
conditions. I'm only refraining from calling this a scam because it seems to
be a real company with scientists and all. But I won't be spending any money
on this patch, that's for sure. [http://xkcd.com/1217/](http://xkcd.com/1217/)

------
Wingman4l7
I remember in 2011 reading with great interest some research into
nootkatone[1] as a mosquito repellent[2] _(which has already been shown to be
effective against ticks)_. It is a non-toxic oil found in grapefruit and is
already approved by the FDA as a food additive.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything _(read: consumer-available products)_
come of it. Upon a bit of searching, I found a patent[3] for a nootkatone-
based insect repellent... filed in 1998!

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootkatone](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootkatone)

[2]: [http://www.npr.org/2011/04/18/135468567/repelling-bugs-
with-...](http://www.npr.org/2011/04/18/135468567/repelling-bugs-with-the-
essence-of-grapefruit)

[3]:
[http://www.google.com/patents/EP1033076A1?cl=en](http://www.google.com/patents/EP1033076A1?cl=en)

------
the_cat_kittles
I hope this comes to fruition, since it would be a huge boon for lots of
people, assuming its cost effective. On a slightly more cynical note, I am so
sick of the self aggrandizing sappy tone of these videos. I think the music is
the culprit in this particular case. Maybe its necessary, but it drives me
nuts.

------
czzarr
I don't understand what covering the CO2 in our breath could do to prevent
mosquitoes from biting you when they are around your arm like we can see in
the video when the guy puts his arm in the experience box. Does our skin emit
CO2?

~~~
Sharlin
I don't think the patch helps when you're already surrounded by mosquitoes -
the bugs use CO2 to find you in the first place, then find the bare skin using
some other means.

~~~
czzarr
In that case, what the hell is going on with their pictures of the arm in a
box full of mosquitoes not moving towards the skin? Looks really really shady
to me.

------
luscious
Who has told people to stick investor-repellent soundtracks IN EVERY DAMN
start-up-beggar campaign? That same bland optimistically beige stuff. This one
didn't have the plunky piano and/or guitar bits, but it's like someone ran out
and said...

The words aren't enough. We need sound reinforcement to lend emotion. Hmmmm...
Apple used quirky, plucky, minimal for their quirky, plucky, minimal
industrial design product launches... I KNOW! I want people to think I'm a
quirky, plucky, minimal start-up that puts stinky color stickers on people!!!

------
teeja
As anyone who's ever summered in Minnesota will tell you, (and as one who's
been chased out of the woods near a river one evening by a starving swarm of
thousands) this is akin to finding the holy grail.

------
jsemrau
Where I am living this is available for such a long time. What is suddenly so
new about it?

