On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:05 AM, James Cameron <qu...@laptop.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 01:53:22AM -0400, Chris Leonard wrote: > > > > The article probably also fails to mention that peer-reviewed > > scientific tests of this concept prove it to be useless. > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2906666 > > I disagree. Those tests were of 20-70 kHz, not 45-67 Hz. I've found no > peer-reviewed tests of low frequency sound, but then I don't know where > to look. Got any ideas? > > (I do see another study on NIH showing high frequency sound induced > increased biting rates ... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20618651 ) > > James, You are quite right, I did not pay close enough attention to the units (Hz vs kHz) , but at least I provided the citation so I could be challenged :-) I was a GenBank Fellow at the NIH National Library of Medicine, so PubMed is my go-to database fo biomedical publications, there are others that might be checked (e.g. Agricola for agriculture) , but I suspect that PubMed would have the relevant literature if it existed. It has over 20 million citations from thousands (if not tens of thousands) of journals, including the J Am Mosq Control Assoc. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2906666#>where I found the citation I provided. As the mosquito is the unofficial state bird of New Jersey, (where I grew up), and NJ mosquitos have been know to carry off small children, I have a natural skepticism of any claims to be able to deter them that are not rigorously tested :-) cjl
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
