Talk:Bug zapper

message: Did what I could for this page if you can clean it up any better then remove the tags. Tzu7 04:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bug Zapper Discussion Page

message: I changed the form of this section to make it readable and give it a clear look.
I further recommend that someone cuts the content down to make this section a bit shorter.
It should be possible to cut the contect down to 2/3 of what it is now.
Things I have changed for now:
* fixed link number 2 in the "History"-section
Changes in the "Variation"-section:
* included more breaks to make the long text easier zu read.
* the term "Inside a Bug Zapper" looked as if it should have been a headline. I made it one and separated it from the text.
* I tidied the list of the construction parts up and made it a bulleted list.
* included commata to make the list grammatically correct
* changed the "ZZZZ" sound into a "zapping" sound
--79.196.117.22 (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Variations" section

message: "This could be unhealthy, as research has shown that viruses and bacteria are released when the insects are electrocuted."
Which research? (sorry if i put this comment in the wrong place)
:Article on NEW SCIENTIST once, saying that bug bits from zapped insects can be thrown up to 8m (24 feet) from the bug zapper, unfortunately i have long lost the article --58.106.166.223 (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Research

message: I don't know if pest zapper describes a specific brand of a bug zapper, but both pages describe similar devices and could be merged without much loss. —Tobias Bergemann 14:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes merge it, the little information that can be written about this device should earn it a place with bug zapper. As their function is basically the same.--Andeh 01:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from pest zipper

message: Note this article is categories under pest control.
There are a number of insect catchers/zapper/dehydrators/repellers on the market. Focus on the bug zapper as the Americans like to call it for mosquitoes is incorrect. Mosquitoes use mainly Co2 and infrared to target there victims. I say mainly because they may also be using smell, but I don't remember seeing any research on the topic. 
Anyone who come to this article is interest firstly in control methods and then the history IMHO.
For example the heading and sub heading could be something like this.
*Mosquito control methods
**citronella candles
**spaying aerosol
**spray repellents
**propane/co2 based catchers.
**Heat coil/led lights catchers
**Bladder technique (liquid poison filled balloons)  
*Fly control methods
**Liquid traps
**Sticky paper type
**Poisonous paper type
**Fly spays
**Fly swatters
**Fly guns (look a bit like a suction cap gun only with a large flat area)
*light attracting insects
**Florence light types
***Killed by high voltage
***Killed by fan drying
***Killed by drowning.
*Grasshopper/Locus control methods
**Aerial Spraying
**Ground Spraying
**Monitoring
*Barrier techniques
**Fly wire mesh/nets
**Air blankets
**Curtains (plastic/ropes/beads etc)
**Ultrasound techniques
**Protective Clothing
*Air/Insect separation
**Similar to dust separation where air is moves cyclonically.
*Natural methods
**predators
**Repelling plants
**Removal of habitats
*Scientific methods
**Introducing either sterile females or males.
**Research Projects
*Commercial methods
**Gassing (i.e. cabbage treatment)
*Methods that don't work/gimmicks
*A see also section
**Treatment of bits
**diseases transmitted by flying insects
*Collecting techniques
**Vacuum cleaner to collect flies (they use air pressure to detect your swips but don't move if vacuumed up)
**Nets
Flying insects are a significant dent on the world health and food population. They are a annoyance to most of us.
Our fellow man deserves to know about all the weapons at our disposal.
Anyway what do other think of the proposed outline of the article and move? --Joewski 06:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move this article to "Flying insect control methods"

message: I recently looked at bug zapper advertisements and noticed one that said their bug zapper was better than those who use a blue colored light bulb. I got one of these inventions today and noticed it has exactly a light bulb with blue colored glass. What I assume is the alternative to normal light bulb is one of those "bulbs" that have gas inside instead of a glowing wire (sorry, don't know the right word).
Perhaps this topic could be relevant to mention in the article -- the two types of possible light source. (Of course mostly I am interested for my own personal sake, since I wonder if my new bug zapper is not quite as good as those with gas light bulb instead of glowing wire bulb.) Anyway, I hope the bugs I exterminate remain in once piece... 62.16.177.8 22:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light source types 

message: Why do these work? why do bugs like the light? I mean, I like light too I geuss, But I'm not stickin my hands in these things. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 21:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good question that calls for a new section. It's a case of anthropomorphism doctor. Insects don't like the light and aren't attracted to it either. Meggar 04:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx u 4 ur insite. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 05:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  working 

message: Changed the broken link to the DIY bug trap to the latest wayback archive. 76.22.48.90 (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link 

message: I removed the section in drawbacks relating to how insect intestines are exploded upon a 'zap' and into the air and food of people nearby.  This is false.  Any insect killed by most zappers are too small to have that negative of an effect that they would become airbourne and perhaps fall into the food of people nearby.  Additionally, any 'intestines' of those insects that did fall would essentially be fried beyond any practical use as a toxin by virtue of the insect being electrocuted.  Not to mention, the section had no citation and sounded too mythical.65.215.94.13 (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: http://science.howstuffworks.com/question682.htm - Enjoy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.64.198 (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This was just a study, and was never published in any scientific journal.  I can set up a study of my own to prove anything that may or may not even be true; means nothing unless a real 'authority' acknowledges it.65.215.94.13 (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it appears it was published in the journal of "Current Microbiology". See  -- Bovineone (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drawbacks