Talk:Fipronil

Invalid Claim In Article

The current wiki article states "In animals and humans, fipronil poisoning is characterized by vomiting, agitation, and seizures, and can usually be managed through supportive care and early treatment of seizures.[4] [5] This risk may be associated with the withdrawal of the MaxForce tick management product.[6]"

The last sentence about withdrawal of the tick management product points to an article that makes no such claim. The article merely states that the product was withdrawn because squirrels were opening the boxes in which the product was stored, potentially exposing "non-target wildlife and children." The article makes no claim about specific symptoms or seizures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swerling (talk • contribs) 03:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Another Invalid Claim In Article

In contrast to the claim that "beneficial" insects like bees are unaffected by Fipronil, there is new evidence that bees are also affected; they are disoriented by the insecticide and are therefore less capable of finding food. This partly explains why bee populations around the world are in decline. See http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/01/bees-equiped-with-microchips-help-explain-hive-declines.php?campaign=th_rss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabiennegoosens (talk • contribs) 14:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the claim. The original claim (now in back issues due to people with greenie agendas) was to the effect that Fipronil tainted carnivorous bait (for Yellow Jackets) did not affect bees, as bees are not carnivorous. It did NOT claim that Fipronil was non-toxic to bees.Cloudswrest (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Symptoms of fipronil poisoning

"In humans, fipronil poisoning is characterized by vomiting, agitation, and seizures, and can usually be managed through supportive care and early treatment of seizures.[2] This risk may be associated with the withdrawal of the MaxForce tick management product."

I can't see how the risk of generalised symptoms of fipronil poisoning should be associated with withdrawal of a proprietary product, and have removed the second sentence. Please let me know if/where my logic is wrong. In any even the paragraph seems to need rewriting. Davy p 00:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The Maxforce tick management system (TMS) was removed from general use in 2005 because there were reports of grey squirrels chewing into some Maxforce TMS boxes in areas of the Northeastern United States which compromised the integrity of the child resistant box. Due to this problem, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has removed the plastic TMS boxes from distribution and has asked that those already in use be covered with a protective metal shroud capable of preventing squirrel damage. Bugguyak 15:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. But I still don't quite see how this aspect follows from a description of the symptoms of poisoning. Shouldn't the two points (symptoms of poisoning + problems with squirrels) go in separate paragraphs or sections? The symptoms of fipronil poisoning won't be changed (even if the incidence might possibly be reducced) by the withdrawal of plastic TMS boxes. Davy p 20:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

need expert to compact and clarify

at top of article: "blocking the passage of chloride ions through the GABA receptor and glutamate receptor (GluCl), components of the central nervous system. This causes hyperexcitation of contaminated insects' nerves and muscles. Insect specificity of fipronil may come from a better efficacy on GABA receptor but also on the fact that GluCl does not exist in mammals.[1]"

and later, different author wrote: It acts by binding to an allosteric site of GABAA receptors and GluCl receptor (of the insect), a form of non-competitive inhibition.

too many cooks on Wikipedia, as usual —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.68.234 (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, mammals have glutamate receptors. See this if you want proof: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=14561864 . 72.192.216.234 (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It is true the we have glutamate receptors but the article mentions GluCl, a chloride ion specific glutamate receptor only found in invertebrates (i.e. insects, not mammals) http://www.jbc.org/content/281/21/14875.full.pdf+html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikheaven (talk • contribs) 07:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Human Exposure

Without my knowledge my bathroom in my apartment was sprayed with Termidor which has Fipronil as its main ingrediance. I lived with this breathing the air and walking on the tiles of this bathroom in bare feet. I started to become suspicious when I found that I developed problems living within this atmosphire for two months. I asked the maintenance which product he used to spray my bathroom for the ants. He told me it was Termidor and the ratio he used was one cup of product to one gallon of water. I now have pesticide poisoning for which I can get no help. The doctors that I have gone to do not understand or work with this type of illness nor can they recommend any one to go to that could help me with my symptoms. This will only get worse and the end results will be a stress full life racked with medical problems. Is there anyone or organization out there that can help me with this illness. Thank you email address is Cheyennenightsc@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.31.162 (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I am going to revert this one time data dump by a user. It contains lots of info, but with no citations to the references to verify. Also, it makes the page look like a total mess. -Shootbamboo (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction

I flagged article this as contradicting itself due to two paragraphs:

"Unlike broadcast applications, this application does not expose beneficial insects such as honeybees to the pesticide."

"Fipronil is toxic to bees and should not be applied to vegetation when bees are foraging."

-70.233.148.177 (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The referenced research paper lists carnivorous baits

A bait choice experiment was conducted before poisoned baits were placed. Salmon favored canned catfood (Whiskas, Kal Kan Foods, Vernon, CA) and raw minced beef were tested in the field. Most of previous studies have successfully used fish baits (e.g., Spurr 1991a, 1991b, 1993;Beggs et al. 1998) but observations at our study site suggested that raw minced beef would be more palatable to wasps than fish bait. At the two sites were poisoned baits were later placed six stations containing cat food and six stations with raw minced beef were placed 30 m apart and left out for an hour.

I have yet to see bees going after cat food. Target specific baits are the best way to avoid harming non-target insects. This is completely different from crop dusting (carpet bombing?) fields.213.239.234.58 (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Bees have been tested in regards to Fipronil: http://www.springerlink.com/content/7fwkxvjcrhe40h7f/fulltext.pdf The concentrations in this paper were sublethal (about 2 microgram/Litre) which implies that there is a lethal dose been reported out there. Even at this "low" concentration the bees showed a disturbance in foraging which I take it would not be good for the colony.

i.e.: :"Unlike broadcast applications, this application does not expose beneficial insects such as honeybees to the pesticide." is obviously and has been scientifically been proven wrong for both lethal and sublethal doses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikheaven (talk • contribs) 07:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course Fipronil is toxic to bees. It's an insecticide. The argument is that targeted baiting with bait stations does not expose bees to the insecticide. This is different from crop dusting. People claiming a "contradiction" and/or false statements are being disengenuous.Cloudswrest (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Reads like it was edited by the Fipronil PR Department

The first paragraph of the Effects section needs citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdimhcs (talk • contribs) 21:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the unsourced claims; more than enough time has been allowed for sources to be found. Just Chilling (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fipronil/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Undid edit by 76.25.72.130 due to lack of quotable reference and slander against Wikipedia. Comment claimed article content was in error though article's content can easily be validated via cross-reference against multiple reputable sites covering the subject.

Last edited at 22:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

2017 Fipronil egg contamination

Hi, may The section about The 2017 Fipronil egg contamination be splitted, so as to fit with interwikis like fr:scandale des œufs contaminés au fipronil? Sincerely, ChoumX (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC).

Agreed. This has now been done. Just Chilling (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! ChoumX (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC).

Addition to "discovery" section

BASF aquired the patent for the active ingredient fipronil from Bayer in 2003. The patent for this active ingredient expired some years ago. Therefore, the active ingredient can be produced generically worldwide. Besides Fipronil-based products, several companies manufacture and sell the active ingredient fipronil, including BASF. More information on the expiration of patents in European countries can be found on the website of the European Patent Office at: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP88305306&lng=en&tab=legal and a global overview at https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=EP&NR=0295117B1&KC=B1&FT=D&ND=4&date=20000405&DB=&locale=en_EP# --Nah67056 (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC) Patrick Schmidt-Kühnle, Corporate Communications BASF

Other names

Other names
Fipronil

Why is Fipronil an "other" name? Jidanni (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fipronil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714175808/http://urbanentomology.tamu.edu/ants/exotic_tx.cfm to http://urbanentomology.tamu.edu/ants/exotic_tx.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170811130403/http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/danes-imported-20-tons-eggs-tainted-scandal-49152254 to http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/danes-imported-20-tons-eggs-tainted-scandal-49152254

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

GABA_A receptor

Hello @Waddie96: Can you give a more specific quote for the change to "GABA_A receptor" in this edit? I am unable to find where the source (Raymond-Delpech) says that. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

In literature, the GABA_A receptor is used to dictate that receptor's structure. And per WP:Consistency I implement this on all pages I copy-edit across the Wiki. I don't necessarily use a source to back that up. Since there are plentiful reliable other resources to rebuke its use in that way. Take GABAA receptor as one, or this article published in "Structure of a human synaptic GABAA receptor" in Nature or even "GABAA receptors" in Nature . Any further queries please respond on this page – waddie96 ★ (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

References