Home is where your creepy-crawlies are

You cannot begin to preserve any species of animal unless you preserve the habitat in which it dwells. Disturb or destroy that habitat and you will exterminate the species as surely as if you had shot it. –  Gerald Durrell

The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America reports that 78 to 98 percent of urban homes have cockroaches. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) note that there are 55 species of cockroaches in the United States, and while in general, they are tropical in origin and therefore prefer warm, moist environments, the reality is that most roaches have tolerances to heat, cold, moisture, and drought which far outstrip not only their mammalian neighbors (including, obviously, humans), but also a large percentage of their fellow arthropods.

Practically every home has roaches.  Houses are built for them
as much as for humans.  Maybe moreso.

The overwhelming majority of those homes with a roach infestation make use of some form of industrially produced chemical poison as a management strategy.
The most common poisons are pyrethrins, notably deltamethrin, a pyrethroid ester insecticide which has been popular with pest control experts for thousands of years – its original form, of course, was much more dilute, as it is derived from a compound found in crushed Chrysanthemum plants which Chinese herbalists have used since before written records began. The modern deltamethrin products such as Raid brand ant and roach sprays are typically classified as non-toxic to humans, given that the amount usually used per application does no more than insult (the medical term for irritate) on contact. 
It is worth noting, however, that measurable amounts of deltamethrin cross from a mother's bloodstream into the milk of nursing infants; it is also worth noting that deltamethrin toxicity has been observed in sometimes fatal amounts in cattle, making our unwillingness as consumers to at least pause and think about our basic approach to battling bugs somewhat problematic. 

Small wonder, then, that they love human habitations, areas designed to protect us against the vagaries of the elements, but which also provide them with not just shelter, but also food and water.  It's enough to give one the heebie-jeebies, thinking about the fact that their perfect home is right behind that wall, no matter which wall you happen to be looking at at any given time. 

Apart from simply making most people feel “icky” of course, roaches pose a significant health problem for humans.  Ironically, it is their very proximity to humans which makes them common carriers of pathogenic microbes -- in nature (that is, when not living in a human dwelling but rather in their more native habitat of leaf litter and rotting material), cockroaches (as with all members of the insect class Blattodea carry only a minimal bacterial load, most of which poses little to no immunological problem for humans.

In proximity to Homo sapiens, however, that bacterial and viral load increases dramatically, making roaches a significant vector of human diseases, ironically doing the most damage in this regard in hospitals and other health facilities. There is no better way to get sick than to hang out in a hospital or doctor's office.

Most insecticides are variations on
poisons discovered thousands of
years ago.  The "science" of insect
control is pretty much guesswork.

Even without the threat of spreading bacterial and viral diseases, roaches represent a significant threat in terms of the spread of allergens and endangering asthmatic patients, as well.
That particularly foul musk associated with cleaning out attic or basement spaces, which is so often attributed to mold or mildew? It is usually neither; it is more likely the smell of roach droppings and roach carcasses.

All of which explains our compulsion to eradicate the nasty little critters. It also explains our extraordinary frustration at being utterly incapable of doing so.

At this point in a Myrtle post, you are probably expecting us to talk about the virtues of roaches, or the evils of chemical control, or some such. 
We suppose you'd be partially right – we advocate a completely different approach from the norm when dealing with roaches, reducing the emphasis on killing them, and definitely reducing our reliance on chemical additives to our shared environment, but make no mistake, we hate the little buggers every bit as much as you do. We simply recognize that when one thing is not working, we should probably try something else. 

So, what are the most effective strategies for controlling pestilential cockroaches? The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommend a four-part integrated management strategy, focusing on:

Prevention – eliminating the food and refuse which nourish and hide roaches, as well as sealing off possible entry points from the outside environment
Sanitation – not only removing their food and shelter, but also sanitizing any areas they might cross (both to prevent them from picking up germs in the first place, and to prevent them from leaving any germs behind)
Trapping – making use of non-chemical trap devices ("Roach Motel" type traps), which have the dual advantage of being long lasting, and (owing to the communal nature of roaches) affecting multiple generations
Chemical Control – the aforementioned pesticidal solutions

The CDC, as far as a broad outline goes, has pretty much got it spot on. Where we would quibble with them is in some of the particulars of how these four points get implemented.  We'll take each item in turn:

Prevention: 

It is definitely true that a clean kitchen/bathroom/closet/garage, etc. will have fewer roaches than will a dirty one, but that is not quite enough. 

The very design of modern (particularly modern American) homes and other buildings is seemingly custom made for the spread of cockroaches.  Remember, they don't ask for much when it comes to a satisfactory little Blattodean existence. A dry place to lay their eggs – such as might be found underneath any built-in cabinets, or behind any walls; a little organic matter to munch on – of any kind at all, be it a breadcrumb, a Tootsie Roll wrapper that fell behind the couch, or a smidgen of toothpaste on the bathroom sink... and they are set up for luxury roach living. 

We recently tore out our kitchen countertops, owing to a niggling voice in the back of our heads that something was not quite right. We told ourselves that it was because a family of four, living in a 900 square foot house, needed to maximize space... but we knew that this was only part of the reason. 

Note the spaces in a typical built-in cabinet that
are invisible to the human eye.  Roaches can
(and almost definitely do) live there.

It wasn't until we found that our pristine, well-washed and often-mopped kitchen was home to a nest of roaches who found the impregnable seal around the baseboards of our built-in bar and countertops to be not-so-impregnable that we realized the simple truth:  built-ins are a bad idea.We have not yet completed our kitchen remodel, but we know for sure it will have a couple of tremendous advantages over those of practically everyone whose advice we have chosen to ignore:1) It will be much cheaper; rather than buying new counters and cabinets, we will be relying on smaller, mobile tables and rolling islands, which can always be counted on to not hide anything (or anyone), while still fulfilling all the functions of their more expensive built-in counterparts.2) It will be much easier to install and maintain, while maximizing the interior space of our home reserved for human use only. 

When we came to this epiphany, we naturally sought examples online of counterless kitchens. To date, we haven't found other examples of folk doing it this way, but that isn't about to stop us. If a kitchen as impeccably clean as that kept by the somewhat OCD Mrs. Myrtle Maintenance was home to hidden roaches, we can promise you that there are creepy-crawlies under your sink, too.  (Don't feel bad -- no matter how much she tells herself otherwise, Martha Stewart has roaches in her kitchen. Bet good money on it.) 

Sanitation: 

More than likely, what the CDC had in mind dovetails nicely with what Myrtle thinks about the question of sanitation. Not only should food items be stored where roaches and other pests cannot get at them, but all cooking and cleaning surfaces should be regularly cleaned and sterilized.  Naturally, we recommend alcohol, vinegar or similar less-toxic varieties of disinfecting cleansers, foregoing bleach as much as possible, though we certainly do not begrudge medical facilities going all-out in their war against microbes. 

The main thing to remember is, when sanitizing, the focus is not merely on cleaning up after bugs, but also on cleaning up after humans, because bugs only spread disease if they have come into contact with disease, and the place where they are likely to have encountered pathogenic microbes is any unsanitized surface we have used. 

Trapping: 

Much as "Kleenex" brand tissues have dominated the market so long that "kleenex" is now the generic term for all tissues, Black Flag brand "Roach Motels" have dominated the market for roach traps so strongly that everyone remembers "Roaches check in, but they don't check out."  The concept behind the trap is simple: pheromones attract roaches into a trap from which they cannot exit. 

No pesticide is necessary; after the roaches have been immobilized, they are typically cannibalized by other roaches, who are then, themselves immobilized, the roaches have been immobilized, they are typically cannibalized by other roaches, who are then, themselves immobilized, and so on, until the pheromone eventually wears out. 

The advantages to this form of control are innumerable, not least of which is that the traps are quite literally non-toxic to anyone (not even the roaches), relying as they do on roach behavior to isolate and control their population.

The least toxic of the commercial control products.

The disadvantages involve the need for changing out the traps every few months... along with the fact that they can begin to smell somewhat unpleasant if they are working well. On the bright side, that's only a problem if they are actually doing their job. 
Chemical Control: 
Here (as you might have predicted), CDC and Myrtle take divergent paths. The most common roach control method in America is to spray the snot out of our houses with a cocktail of chemicals in hopes that our foolhardy creation of their perfect breeding grounds can be overcome by our foolhardy addiction to pumping chemicals into the environment at ever increasing levels. 
The aforementioned pyrethroid pesticides may not cause immediate death, and their carcinogenicity is marginal, but the idea that in combination with other environmental stressors the addition to our homes of irritants which decrease the effectiveness of our immune systems even temporarily is anything other than a bad idea is preposterous.  

Furthermore, pyrethroids are extremely toxic to fish and amphibians. If you're naïve enough to believe that spraying under your counters isn't going to affect what goes into the graywater coming out of your house, and then into the creeks and rivers in the countryside, all I can say is, you need to turn off the TV and start reading some science journals. 

There are several other categories of chemical control which present their own problems, though even the "best" chemical solutions unquestionably ought to form a last line of defense, coming in solidly behind the first three concepts discussed above. Some of the alternatives include:

• Boric acid - use in low quantities only, and in very specific applications to areas such as behind new baseboard installations, or other places where there is little chance of direct ingestion by humans or pets. Fatal to insects in small doses, it is also carcinogenic to mammals in large doses, so treat it accordingly.
  
• Poisoned bait containing hydramethylnon or fipronil - use these at all, and Myrtle will personally hunt you down and peck you into next Tuesday. These substances, much like pyrethroids, are extremely toxic to aquatic life; in addition, however, they are also extremely toxic to bees, butterflies, birds, small mammals, and children. Fipronil, in particular, has come into more widespread use as the Texas Agriculture Commission has foolishly suggested it as an "emergency measure" to control the Raspberry Crazy Ant. The "solution" is more crazy than the ant, we assure you.
  

• Herbal repellents - here, you are back in familiar Myrtle territory. Several plant-based odors are repugnant to roaches, including bay leaves, catnip, mint, cucumber, and garlic. In Singapore and Malaysia, taxi drivers use pandan leaves (Pandanus amaryllifolius) to keep roaches out of their cabs. Since pandan is a common ingredient in Indian and Bangladeshi cooking, finding it ought not to be too difficult for most Myrtle readers.

It is a truth so universally acknowledged that virtually all of us can remember discussing it as children: long after humans have ceased to walk the Earth, cockroaches will remain. It seems to us at Myrtle's place that the best way to cope with this fact is to stop trying to win, and start finding some way to effect a tactical retreat.  

Rather than attempting to win an unwinnable war, perhaps we ought instead to seek a separate peace -- the roaches can own the forest floor. As for the floors of our houses? Well, at Myrtle's place, at least, we're going to make sure those floors are all visible and sweepable. Most houses are (if we are being honest with ourselves) perfect habitats for roaches as much as for people. 

We aim to change that equation. If the roaches want to hide, let 'em hide in the chicken coop. 

Happy farming!

Winter is coming... Let the thermometer wars begin!

“Hold somebody's hand and feel its warmth. Gram per gram, it converts 10,000 times more energy per second than the sun.  You find this hard to believe?  Here are the numbers: an average human weighs 70 kilograms and consumes about 12,600 kilojoules / day; that makes about 2 millijoules / gram.second, or 2 milliwatts / gram.  For the sun it's a miserable 0.2 microjoules / gram.second.  Some bacteria, such as the soil bacterium ‘Azotobacter’ convert as much as 10 joules / gram.second, outperforming the sun by a factor 50 million.  I am warm because inside each of my body cells there are dozens, hundreds or even thousands of mitochondria that burn the food I eat.”

Gottfried Schatz, in "Jeff's view on science and scientists", 2006

El Niño is in full swing, and most of the country is about to undergo the kinds of temperature extremes (not to mention precipitation events, many of which will be white and fluffy, or clear and slippery) which inevitably lead to discussions of weatherproofing one’s home, and finding ways to save on heating costs.

We at Myrtle’s place, of course, live in the sliver of Texas which is just north of subtropical, so we don’t actually have to deal with the white or slippery stuff very often (snow on average falls in the lower Brazos Valley about every four years, and hardly ever sticks for more than a few hours), but it does get cold enough that many of our neighbors flip their thermostats from “cool” to “heat” – we are not among them, as we throw open the windows and put the heating blankets on our beds.  (Few pleasures match that of sleeping warmly in cold air, but we digress.)

This seems an excellent opportunity to discuss the global effects of exceptionally local actions – most of the time, when winter heating costs are discussed, it is in the context of personal housekeeping, and this is appropriate.  The immediate impact of heating (and cooling, the summer equivalent of this discussion) on household budgets are not only in and of themselves important microeconomic considerations, but they also impact thousands of other decisions made by individual consumers which, in turn, have a great impact on the overall economy and (what we at Myrtle’s place consider more important) on the environment.

The usual suggestions involve things like weather-stripping around doors and windows, making sure attic and wall spaces are properly insulated, etc.  We do not disagree with any of these suggestions.  They are all good and proper (there are some ways to do each of those items which are more environmentally conscious than others, but that is another topic altogether).

What we are concerned with today is more of a theoretical understanding of how weatherizing one’s home works, and how that fits into the broader scheme of maximizing the philosophy of the 3 R’s (reduce, reuse, recycle).

There are two distinct concepts from the world of physics at play in heating or cooling one’s home which have a direct impact on how much energy we expend and how costly it is to do so.

Efficiency and effectiveness are sometimes compatible, and sometimes not.  The best practices in the home or business space involve that happy conjunction between these two ideas.

When discussing power transference for a particular use, efficiency is defined as the useful power output divided by the total power consumed.  Expression of this concept is very common in all branches of engineering; the formula is typically denoted by the Greek letter small Eta (η - ήτα).  Efficiency = Useful power output / Total power input.

Effectiveness, on the other hand, refers to the capacity to produce a desired result.  Since the desired result is a subjective concept, effectiveness may be represented in logical terms, but not mathematical terms.

This, of course, makes it impossible to objectively decide on the best possible system to use in pretty much any household application, whether weatherizing, cooking, cleaning, lighting or entertaining, just to name a few of the activities in which we all engage.

In terms of heating and cooling, this means that one must first decide what temperature range one wishes to maintain in one’s home (or office), and that frequently must be a consensus reached among many people with opposing desires.

Most often, the range in question will vary greatly.  Fortunately, the efficiency involved in strategies to keep within that range involve a large set of common tools (the aforementioned weather-stripping, insulation, etc.)  However, some clear variations exist in terms of personal aesthetic preferences, tastes, and the width of tolerable range. 

For example, one of the most effective strategies in heating and cooling very directly impacts the look of one’s home.  We have written before about the advantages of painting one’s roof white.  It drops the ambient temperature of one’s attic spaces by a huge percentage (in our case, the temperature of our roof dropped from 150° F to 108° F immediately after painting it in a Brazos Valley May several years ago).  Similarly, planting vines along one’s western or southern exposures can vastly reduce the amount of heat in summer reaching one’s home.

However… both of those strategies leave one susceptible to slightly more heat loss in winter.  That could, of course, be mitigated by use of extra insulation in those areas, but the point is that in isolation, one strategy or another might require some tweaking in order to maintain balance between efficiency and effectiveness.  And some home-owners associations might not look kindly on certain strategies, more’s the pity.

For our northern counterparts, winter is an especially good time to consider this balance, as the very choice of heating method involves a wide range of efficiencies, and not all engineers agree on the best choice of formulae to determine that efficiency anyway.  Just to give you an easy to understand anecdotal idea, the single most efficient form of heat transfer is that of simply burning any carbon-based fuel source with minimal water content (fossil fuel, wood, paper, mummies, you name it).  Typically 100% of the convertible material is consumed by flames.  So, theoretically, if you want heat, a fireplace is the best possible option.  Except… while it is extremely efficient, it is usually not very effective, because most of the heat goes straight up the chimney, or into the bricks and mortar right around the fireplace.  That’s usually not the desired outcome.

So, most people go with some kind of HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) system, utilizing either electricity or some kind of fossil fuel (typically gas, heating oil, or coal) for the wintertime heating functionality.

Calculating the efficiency of such a system is a nightmare, given the number of variables involved of which the manufacturers could not possibly be aware, so believe the BTU (or other) calculations at your own risk.  Typically, though, if they are claiming a higher efficiency than others, there’s a fair bet that they are correct.

The effectiveness, on the other hand?  That’s an entirely separate question.  The delivery method can directly affect bothefficiency and effectiveness, but then… the effectiveness being far more dependent on the delivery method, it can impact howefficient a system is required in order to achieve cost-effectiveness, measured only by how much one must spend compared to one’s budget.

To give you some idea, perhaps heat is only required at a certain time of day, in a certain part of the building.  In the frigid north, a lone radiator rattling away in one’s sitting room in relatively inefficient manner (but utilizing only a fraction of the fuel necessary to heat the whole house) would be much less expensive (and much less ecologically damaging) than an extremely efficient system which heats the whole house.

In our cozy home on the Gulf Coast, a small electric space heater might achieve the same result, at much less cost than running a full household heater that only has to be turned on three or four times a year.

The same principles, as we mentioned, may be applied to all other home activities – lights, in particular, have recently become a focal point for such concerns – one of the federal government’s greatest achievements of the 21^st century, actually, has gone relatively unheralded:  light bulb labeling has switched from emphasizing wattage (a measure of the total input) to lumens (a measure of the total output).  We may make a posting about that some time soon, actually, because in addition to the output quantity of light, there are vast differences in the output quality of light, which make the comparison of efficiency and effectiveness particularly interesting.

The bottom line for each activity, though, is to synthesize strategies which fit into the overall theme of reducing the amount of input necessary to meet particular goals (choosing not to heat or cool certain rooms in one’s house, for example), reusing any materials which might assist in meeting those goals (hanging old quilts on walls provides a surprising amount of extra insulation, and that’s just for starters – Google “decorative insulation” and see just how cool modern temperature control can be), and recycling whenever possible (using cellulose pulp insulation, for example, frequently means using recycled materials, though check with the manufacturer to be sure).

The calculations can be complicated to an inconceivable degree if one wants to get picky with absolute goals (zero carbon emissions, most efficient heat distribution, etc.) but if one keeps in mind just the broad concepts (efficient is different from effective; reduce, reuse, recycle when possible), the minefield of consumer angst when it comes to the seasons of extreme discomfort (“The hell with it, just turn on the bleepity-bleep heater!”) can be avoided.

Remember, just being alive is an exercise in temperature conversion and energy expenditure.  Being conscientious does not have to be a chore; it can be a game.

Plus, in winter, there’s hot cocoa.

Happy farming!