They are about 4-5mm long, black, and do not piggy back on bees, instead flying in to hives, landing on the same pad the bees do, which could reasonably be extended or shaped into multiple corridors, etc.
Implementation would be a fixed, straight-down affair - covering an area of perhaps 30-50 square centimetres, inherently human-safe, etc.
Perhaps counter-intuitively, the hobbyist market for something that could detect & fry these would probably be much greater than the commercial installations, but that obviously depends ultimately on cost per unit.
Or cost less than a few hundred thousand dollars after all the safety and liability costs.
There are nonetheless lots of shady ways to buy these types of lasers without the necessary safety controls, but there also lots of shady ways to buy even more dangerous things such as landmines, dynamite, etc.
I've never seen landmines or dynamite on AliExpress.
I can't see anyone other than the manufacturer doing so. So a $10 interlock in terms of hardware cost becomes a $10 000 interlock in terms of total costs.
Equating the cost of the interlock to the quality of its performance doesn't hold up. I suspect that your experience is from automation where things like laser light curtains and lidar sensors are common (and expensive). On things like a Haas milling machine the door switch interlock is $400-$1200 (https://parts.haascnc.com/haasparts/en/USD/search?q=*:*:allC...)
So in the case of a $400 laser etcher from China being sold on Amazon, they need to spend less money on their switch than Haas does. The nice thing is that the switches for Haas need to be waterproof, etc. as they get coolant and oil sprayed on them all day. In the laser cutter it's different, so they can use a less expensive more appropriate part.
The right part for the job it seems, more expensive isn't always better (or safer).
Folks obviously can't legally sell homemade alcohol, drugs, medical equipment, etc.
>Or cost less than a few hundred thousand dollars after all the safety and liability costs.
The linked video shows a laser more than powerful enough that can be bought off ebay by anyone for < $2000
So both of your statements were wrong.
Not sure at all what you are trying to say. These are obviously real products that "Consumers" can purchase and as per the video I posted are more than powerful enough for the purpose being discussed.
They lack warranties, and critically for our discussion, have not passed inspection authorities, such as those examining laser safety of potential products.
No need for absurd acrobatics, no need for wastefully detonating the drone, just a few seconds on each eyeball and onto the next human!
TIL that's a thing.
all sources there
It's been twelve years.
pure ethanol is flammable, particularly when aerosolized https://firefighterinsider.com/ethanol-flammable/
boric acid (an irritating white powder) is highly effective
Must not have been very obvious, otherwise we wouldn’t have any climate emergencies. /s
Works extremely well. Since we use it in our bedroom, we have no mosquitos. We often only switch it on if we hear one and soon its over. Never see them die but from what I see it makes them 'groggy' (I assume before dying).
I have a different brand, but I assume its always the same two ingredients. I looked them up and those really only work on insects, nothing dangerous for humans.
> It is not well established if chronic exposure to small amounts of pyrethroids is hazardous or not.
> here is an association of pyrethroids with poorer early social-emotional and language development.
> Pyrethroids are very toxic to cats
I don't feel fully comfortable with it.
From the research report provided in your link: 'Conclusions: Prenatal exposure to pyrethroids may be associated at 1 y of age with poorer social-emotional development. At 2 y of age, poorer language development was observed with higher prenatal pyrethroid levels'
Indeed not something that I would expose to children.
Months? Years? Decades?
(curves where optimal amount of potentially mutating cockroaches and selection pressure meet, or whatever the parameters are. You get the idea.)
Neutralisation means killing. Where I work it must pass by an ethic committee before experimentation. People may think of cockroaches as expendable garbage, but they deserve humane treatment like any other cobain. I remember a kit which was sold as a toy and allowed remote control of a cockroach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLTntnFeGE0 , sold as a toy this is pure animal cruelty.
After trying dozens of extermination strategies I cackled when the first generation of deformed roaches started being born when using gentrol. >:)
All I can find searching the word is of course about Kurt Cobain ... wondering if you somehow abstracted "all living beings" to "a bit like Kurt Cobain", or something, which would be quite an impressive jump and one I haven't seen before.
Or it's a typo I can't figure out, of course.
do you not believe in pest control?
> and where is the line for where it's considered cruel or not?
I don't know. I never needed ethical committee approval and was never part of it and never asked this particular question.
> tbh i have 0 issues killing bugs.
I'd bet the same about the ethical committee members.
> do you not believe in pest control?
Sure I do believe!
About pest control... well, I don't really care that much about roaches; but I'd do really care if they were, for example, dogs. So, the fact that I don't care that much doesn't means it is not ethically questionable.
If anyone has a good simple idea to develop pesticides which minimize suffering, I wouldn't be opposed to it.
It would be far more impressive and "feels good news" than just one more insect-killing technological tool.
Far away where? Assuming we could airlift roaches anywhere - the location they get dropped off will be significantly impacted. In the best case you've condemned the roaches to await starvation (they will canabalize each other too). Which is like killing them with extra steps and wasted energy. Most likely they will impact the other living beings around them negatively.
Just quickly kill them when they are in areas that negatively impact your quality of life and don't feel bad when you do. Nature doesn't let you be neutral.
They don't eat wheat or corn, so that would be a solution, also they don't eat trees, so the forest is safe.
They will always find what they need in a forest, and in a lesser extent in a field, as they can lunch on whatever decomposed food or smaller animals they find. Very unlikey that they starve to death, at worst they just don't have enough stamina to reproduce, which is the natural way to autoregulate.
And a starved insect will slow down its metabolism and then die peacefully, there is no need to "show mercy" by putting it to death lol.
And members of my family who do not like roaches also agree that it would be better to not kill them.
But I really do need that for mosquitoes, with a tiny vacuum mounted on a quadcopter with a high-precision camera and a GPU for edge AI.
If it disgusts you too much, why not let the drone do it for you.
Then again, if it disgusts you that much, you probably prefer killing the poor beasts.
I guess some of y'all don't remember highschool and that one teacher you couldn't stand
Picturing me as someone who "lacks the strength" "to exert his own will toward a spiritual value higher than that of mere vermin" is offensive.
Ok, I don't think commenting about "cockroach well being" on this thread was a good idea on my part. I want to make myself clearer: I have no problem with killing them, not even (actually specially) for scientific or pest control purposes. Summarily killing them is exactly what I do when they appear around me.
What I won't do (and find ethically or morally questionable besides cruel) is to play with them while inflicting pain. They have nerves and neurons and they surely feel pain. The kit I linked, sold as a toy, is pure animal cruelty. No matter if it tortures a cockroach or a dog.
Nobody here is saying it's ok to torture roaches for fun. The article doesn't say that either. The lasers are for pest control.
So you're kind of arguing with the air here.
Of all the problems and things to worry about in this world, the well being of roaches...
I am OK to kill a cockroach, but not to inflict unnecessary suffering on it, or any creature.
I don't see where our disagreement is then.
> inflict unnecessary suffering on it
I don't believe I've said anything to that effect. Perhaps you're insinuating that based on my dismissing of the well being of roaches. My statement is in the context of this thread, using lasers for pest control. I'm saying it's ridiculous to worry about the well being of roaches in the context of pest control. Besides, I would think lasers result in instant death which is more humane that most pesticides.
> Unkindness to creatures inevitably results in a devaluation of all life, including human life.
I would agree with that to an extent. If you think pest control falls under the category of unkindness, then I would disagree because if you think that, you're valuing roach life more than human life. If that is your value, you have a right to that belief, but I vehemently disagree.