This tiny, wearable patch makes you invisible to mosquitos

http://io9.com/this-tiny-wearable-patch-makes-you-invisible-to-mosqui-894656159

by aditya • 13 years ago

100 62 13 years ago

foofdawg• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

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.

pyoung• 13 years ago

I can see a few potential flaws that could have caused them to not get follow up funding (although I am in no way suggesting that they didn't get follow up funding)

1. Cost. People in Africa are poor, so unless these can be produced and sold for pennies a piece, it probably won't take off. Using the 'buy one, donate one' method probably doesn't scale enough to solve the malaria problem. 2. Behavior. Condoms are a fairly effective method to practice safe sex, and despite a massive amount of money and education, adoption has been slow, or non-existent in Africa. I can see similar issues with Kite. 3. Effectiveness - While they may work, they may not have been shown to be effective enough to warrant further funding. 4. For-profit? I can't seem to find anything on the companies website, but the gates foundation prefers to give their money to non-profits. If they are a for-profit company, I could see reluctance on the foundations part to continue providing funds.

On a personal note, this seems like a cool product that I would use when camping/hiking. But for some of the reasons mentioned above, I would be skeptical to declare this as the solution to malaria in third-world countries, not that I would mind to be proven wrong. I wish them the best of luck.

tinco• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

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

mistercow4• 13 years ago

How do you hide a CO2 footprint, when that same footprint could be smelled by a from musquito 100 meters away?

If the mosquito can find you from 100 meters away, that doesn't mean it can find you once it gets 1 meter from you and its CO₂ receptors are confused.

the_cat_kittles• 13 years ago

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.

nostromo• 13 years ago

Just use an oscillating fan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/science/a-low-tech-mosquit...

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...

ams6110• 13 years ago

Rather hard to carry an oscillating fan around with you at all times.

knowaveragejoe• 13 years ago

You could just make your own(very effective) trap with household ingredients: http://www.thriftyfun.com/tf22399231.tip.html

victorology2• 13 years ago

A fan. Seems totally logical and wondering why I didn't think of this myself. Also, why is this not more common knowledge?

eps• 13 years ago

Do you know that fans sold in many Asian countries have mandatory automatic shutoff timers? This is due to a deep-rooted and very resilient urban legend that a running fan causes hypothermia in people who sleep in the same room with it and that people die because of that.

blhack• 13 years ago

Because it doesn't actually work.

WestCoastJustin2• 13 years ago

This was discussed on HN last week [1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6051856

znowi• 13 years ago

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/02/opinion/la-oe-shah-2...

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• 13 years ago

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...

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

segmondy• 13 years ago

"the overwhelming majority of cases go away on their own" go away for most africans because they are more likely to carry the sickle cell trait which provides defence against malaria.

carlesfe2• 13 years ago

I tried the oscillating fan stuff, and got bitten three times in a couple of hours. Guess there are some mosquitoes which can actually fly over a fan's currents.

Local hint: in Spain, we are being invaded by the tiger mosquito[1], which is faster, stronger, and stealthier than regular mosquitoes. They don't care about oscillating fans. So don't trust the fan thingy. I would recommend DEET-based repellents or Autan, which contains Icaridin[2] and has never failed me. I've seen those fuckers hover my legs in rage, unable to land and bite me.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aedes_albopictus

[2] http://www.scjohnson.co.uk/nqcontent.cfm?a_name=Autan.uk-FAQ...

SiVal• 13 years ago

That same species is just now invading Silicon Valley:

http://belmont-ca.patch.com/groups/editors-picks/p/deadly-as...

ewams• 13 years ago

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 about 5 pages down.

Manufacture's website: http://olfactorlabs.com

falk4• 13 years ago

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.

mistercow4• 13 years ago

DDT is safe.

[citation needed]

qohen• 13 years ago

From the World Health Organization (WHO), in 2006:

WHO gives indoor use of DDT a clean bill of health for controlling malaria

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/

"Extensive research and testing has since demonstrated that well-managed indoor residual spraying programmes using DDT pose no harm to wildlife or to humans"

falk4• 13 years ago

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

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/science/earth/05tier.html?...

[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4264030/DDT-is-safe-just-...

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

merlincorey2• 13 years ago

For varying definitions of safe.

This is interesting and someone linked it last time DDT came up: http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_07_02_a_ddt.htm

Everlag• 13 years ago

You know, DDT was actually used in an Albertan Junior High textbook as an example of a horrid chemical that caused cancer and posed serious threat to the health of the world. They reference Carson's book as an example.

I saw it before in Social and English but damn, the liberal slant of the system has never been so obvious in the sciences.

For a conservative province this is very surprising. It is one thing to be pragmatic and use facts that are just there to be used but cherrypicking data for students to learn and then testing them on it in a subject where it is supposed to be unbiased?

Sickening yet fascinating.

falk4• 13 years ago

No, I didn't. Interesting. Thanks. Carson's book spurred the environmentalist movement, I'll give her that. I used to think poorly of DDT and GMOs, but then I did some research and changed my opinions. Should we be cautious about spraying chemicals like DDT? Absolutely. But the chemical has saved millions from dying. We don't have anything better yet. Are you from Canada? Because my experience here in the U.S. has been wildly different for the most part. Our textbooks originate from Texas mostly which is very conservative and evangelical. There's an interesting documentary called The Revisionaries which outlines essentially the battle behind textbooks. [1] [2] The chair of the Texas Board of Education believes that dinosaurs and humans coexisted and doesn't believe in evolution. Hell, I don't even remember learning about the Pentagon Papers in high school.

[1] http://www.npr.org/2012/06/20/155440679/revisionaries-tells-...

[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAeKXdLZhOg

gabemart• 13 years ago

My favorite part is when they say "food grade FDA compounds". That's a lot of words to say chemicals.

Food-grade FDA-approved chemicals make up a fairly small subset of chemicals.

jkarni• 13 years ago

Side note: Looks like the clip was lifted from "Tree of Life".

WestCoastJustin2• 13 years ago

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

Wingman4l7• 13 years ago

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

[2] http://www.npr.org/2011/04/18/135468567/repelling-bugs-with-...

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

teeja• 13 years ago

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.

czzarr2• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

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.

czzarr2• 13 years ago

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.

pakitan• 13 years ago

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/

luscious• 13 years ago

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!!!

jsemrau• 13 years ago

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

This tiny, wearable patch makes you invisible to mosquitos

Related Stories