Talk:Electronic pest control

Physics: Acoustics Start‑class Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Acoustics Taskforce.

Agriculture Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 extrapolotion 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 preceeding comments and changes to article 4/1/2009 & 4/2/2009 signed by user mikearion

Thanks, Mike

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 edit this page 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 proof 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 edit this page 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Completed merger Jean15paul (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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: Ultrasonic Pest Control Devices? Save Your Money. - 162.138.1.3 (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]