Talk:Electronic pest control

Photo and Refs
This article needs updated references and a photo would be great. Also the effects on pests section could use some work to blance the admittedly non-NPOV. --Bugguyak 21:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This article was probably written by someone who works for the company that makes the useless Riddex scam. Certainly reads like it. 24.98.74.149 (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Check the original versions, it didn't start out that way. I have tried to restore it to an earlier versionBugguyak (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Studies
I added the link to the results from a Kansas State University study to this article. That appears to be a valid study even if not as extensive as I would like to have found. Based on the Kansas State study I'm am removing claims of “no scientific evidence” because that is clearly not true.

I also added a couple smaller studies. However, those studies were commissioned by the companies that produce the products. While they were independent studies the labs certainly might have had incentive to please the client. Thus while I doubt they are fraudulent they may be slightly skewed to favor the clients interests. If anyone can find more university studies that would be helpful.

I did leave some of the information without citation because it appears to valid from the studies. However, it's a bit of an extrapolation for me to link those to those studies. I think there there are other sources that can could be added. If the author of those comments can remember where they read that please ad the links. <- the preceding comments and changes to article 4/1/2009 & 4/2/2009 signed by user mikearion

Thanks, Mike

Did a bit of googling--

http://www.nachi.org/ultrasonic-pest-repellers.htm

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/403/do-ultrasonic-bug-repellers-work

seem to suggest no scientific basis for this technology. —-Wonmean (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of Effects on Humans?
I am able to hear these devices if in the 15kHZ to 20kHZ range. The piecing, high pitch whine is absolutely unbearable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefishy (talk • contribs) 11:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the exact range, but a lot of these decises are well within human hearing and are incredibly loud and incredibly obnoxious.96.231.17.131 (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added some recent review papers on the effects of in-air ultrasound on humans from a safety perspective. Difficult to find as there is not a lot out there, hence no regulation on output. So far only Canada seems to have put suitable legislation in place, but other countries like the UK seem to be catching up. Some of these in-air ultrasonic devices claim outputs of much more 130dB at 20kHz which is alarming if true. --80.176.155.103 (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Dubious: the idea that these devices are beyond the range of human hearing
Many of these are well within the range of some of our hearing. 96.231.17.131 (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It is outside the range of hearing for MOST people over 50, but any reasonable absolute cut off range will have a few exceptions. Most people under 25 probably can hear up to 22 khz. I can still hear the tones at the 22khz range, but would require better equipment to test higher frequencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.84.124 (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Why the citation needed bits?
After statements like "there has never been any scientific evidence proving them as effective." is the tag "[citation needed]". This is stupid as you can't have a a citation for evidence that doesn't exist. This sort of tag needs to be after claims, not after claims there is no evidence. Zytheran (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Be WP:bold and edit. Bugguyak (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't here when this discussion happened. However, I did find at least one valid scientific study that does show these devices do work in some situations on some pests with varied results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.40.244.228 (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A claim of a lack of evidence IS a claim, and it does require a citation. 71.162.99.60 (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Furthermore, to not hold claims of a lack of evidence to no standard of citation is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Just because the evidence has not been found by the author of that statement does NOT mean it does not exist. 71.162.99.60 (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

POV
I'm not good with Wiki, but this seems very PoV:

"One has to wonder whether insects and rodents can even detect these low level electromagnetic fields. Supposedly, it's the fluctuations in the current that drives out these pests but if they can't detect the low level electromagnetic field then they couldn't possibly detect the fluctuations, and even if they could, one needs to question whether or not they are repelled by them."

I agree with the idea, but it seems pretty poorly worded. "One" and "supposedly" just aren't words I see in Wiki much, and seem more like editorializing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.254.71 (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Bugguyak (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Federal Trade Commission Agreement Limit Claims
The FTC has a consent agreement with one of the more widely advertised device manufacturer limited their claims of effectiveness. That is until there is an creditable scientific evidence that any of their devices work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.29.76 (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Radio wave pest control be merged into Electronic pest control. I think that the content in the Radio wave pest control article can easily be explained in the context of Electronic pest control because Radio wave pest control is a form of Electronic pest control. Also Radio wave pest control is an extremely short article and could be merged into Electronic pest control, an article of a reasonable size; the merging of Radio wave pest control will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Jean15paul (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Completed merger Jean15paul (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Efficacy?
I'm surprised there's no section in this article debunking the entire premise that such devices work. I'll have to do some research, but Signs Point to No: [http://lancaster.unl.edu/pest/resources/ultrasonicdevices.shtml|Considering Ultrasonic Pest Control Devices? Save Your Money]. - 162.138.1.3 (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional Notes
I came upon this page after my neighbor recently installed one of these devices (yard sentinel, ultrasound) in his front yard and it goes off when anyone walks by. I think he is trying to keep dogs off his lawn, but whatever. I absolute hear the damn thing it's shrill as hell and piercing. My 15-year old deaf dog doesn't seem bothered.

Anyways other than my neighbor being an asshole, I'm writing on this talk page because the introduction section of this article seriously sounds like a marketing pitch on HSN. No references, weasel words, it's ridiculous.

The strange part is that all the subsequent sections making up the bulk of the article are referenced and at least attempted to be written in a neutral POV. I'm sure it needs editing still but it's on the right track. The intro on the other hand sounds like it was written by the spokesperson advertising group of YardSentinel or whatever company it is that sells these products. Clearly was not written by a neutral Pov or even someone familiar with what Wikipedia articles should look like. I am meek and don't have an account, so I don't want to jump in butchering it, but SOMEONE needs to rewrite the intro summary. -Paul


 * Thanks for pointing the blatant advertising; it has now been removed. Best of luck dealing with your neighbor, who probably can't hear the screech. Do your best to preserve your own hearing.  Reify-tech (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the name of the manufacturer(s) of the Pest-A-Cator/Riddex products
There seems to be a contradiction on the name of the manufacturer(s) of the Pest-A-Cator/Riddex series of electronic pest control products mentioned in the "Effects on pests" section: in the second paragraph, it is stated to be Genesis Laboratories, Inc.; however in the third paragraph, it is stated to be Global Instruments. I may be mistaken about the contradiction, as I have never heard of either of the manufacturers or the brand names - possibly because they may not be exported to my region (Australia) - but if the products have more than one manufacturer, or if the manufacturer has changed or was renamed, that fact should be clarified in the article to avoid confusion. An editor with more knowledge of the aforementioned products and their manufacturer(s) should either change the relevant passages in the section, or clarify it.

114.75.203.39 (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Ultrasound sham
The findings (outlined in the bbc source mentioned last in the paragraph) need to go at the top of the introduction to this line of products. Ultrasound devices are a glaringly blatant sham and there’s abundant sources which clearly debunk them. It appears from this article’s history that it has been recently dewhitewashed but it looks like quite a lot of cheap paint needs to be picked from the cracks. Their potential to contribute to malaria pandemic makes them unbelievably dangerous - not my words. It’s also in the source. Edaham (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I've made a large number of changes. Owing to the fact I was addressing tags citing referencing issues, and that I'm editing outside of my field of study and tend to have a bit of a knee-jerk reaction against articles which appear to be promoting woo, I'm mentioning some of the most recent editors of this article to review my changes.


 * Main stuff I did. Cleaned up section headings, removed primary sources, shuffled info a bit. Reworded a piece of info for the studies section. Removed some promotional crap.
 * Roxy, have you seen this article?
 * ping ping ping - sorry Many thanks! Edaham (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Main stuff I did. Cleaned up section headings, removed primary sources, shuffled info a bit. Reworded a piece of info for the studies section. Removed some promotional crap.
 * Roxy, have you seen this article?
 * ping ping ping - sorry Many thanks! Edaham (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)