Re: [Killietalk] Flies in my culture :(

[Wright Huntley <jwwiii at pacbell_net>]

Thin-skinned Californio strikes back! ;-)

My "old technology" has worked for years, and it does not introduce 
gene-altering chlorinated hydrocarbons into foods that may be fed to 
young fish.

I'm not a great fan of the "Organic Food" silliness, but I have also 
started to learn that many of the "cures" we put into our fishrooms have 
widely unexpected (usually totally overlooked) side effects. I used to 
use formaldehyde and relatives like "Amquel," "Prime," etc. rather 
carelessly, until I found that they kill infusoria and starve what 
otherwise would have been very healthy babies.

The combination of halides and carbon (organics) has a long history of 
toxicity and carcinogenic tendency, not to mention the Ozone-Hole 
problems they may cause. It took us many years to discover how nasty the 
carbon tetrachloride in fire extinguishers was. It was widely used as a 
dry-cleaning solvent and degreaser. It was wonderfully non-flammable and 
probably saved thousands from serious burns.

We who worked in electrical engineering probably have a variety of 
health problems relating back to exposure, many years ago, to poly 
chlorinated biphenols (PCBs) used as coolant and lubricant in electrical 
transformers. They were thought to be as inert as "Freon" (now banned in 
refrigerators and air conditioners).

Chlorinated cleansers were widely used for years in medical practice. 
Try to buy a bottle of PhisoHex, today. Methylene chloride was abandoned 
as a general anaesthetic, despite working very well for that purpose. So 
was chloroform.

The bird protectors may actually be quite safe around fish, but I would 
be unwilling to bet any serious money on that. If one has a 
non-carcinogenic treatment that works (excess H20 depriving the mites of 
oxygen), why not go with it? At least the chemical involved is one most 
fish are well adapted to. :-)

I'm often an early adopter of new technology, but I hope I can be 
forgiven for urging that this old technology may be safer in the long 
run? I, at least, plan to keep using it. It is simple. It works, and the 
price is right.

[Grumbling that recent immigrants have the nerve to make disparaging 
remarks about the very people who are busy californicating their state 
by moving there in droves! :-) You too can have utterly nutso elections 
-- wait and see.]

Wright

Barry Cooper wrote:

> Mothballs are naphthalene. The bird protectors (they are used to avoid 
> mites on caged birds) are paradichlorbenzene. Californians have thin 
> skins, in answer to your question (that's a joke, my CA friends).
>
> Barry
>
> At 08:12 PM 9/15/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 9/15/03 8:06:46 PM, bjc3 at cornell_edu writes:
> >
> > <<  agree that the bird protectors are much more effective than 
> > mothballs for
> > keeping little flies out of the grindal worm culture. The chemical is
> > paradichlorbenzene. >>
> >
> > I thought mothballs were either para-dichlorobenzene, naphthalene or 
> > camphor.
> > Para-dichlorobenzene is considered a potential carcinogen in 
> > California. Why
> > only in California - who knows?
> >
> > Lee Harper
> > Media, PA
>
>
>
> Barry J. Cooper, Prof. Emeritus, Dept. Biomedical Sciences, Cornell 
> University
> Adjunct faculty, College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon State University
> Home address: 27505 Riggs Hill Rd., Sweet Home, OR 97386 (bjc3 at cornell_edu)

--
Wright Huntley -- 760 872-3995 -- Rt. 001 Box K36, Bishop CA 93514

               "nulla lege sine poena"