Maybe a new treatment – maybe snake oil

by bugzinthehood on December 4, 2007 · 13 comments

in bed bugs

Haven’t posted in a long time, but I ran across this. Don’t know how well it works or even if it works. They claim it is effective against ticks and fleas, so maybe it will work with bed bugs – can’t find a phone number to call company – so caveat emptor.

Zero Bug Zone® is scientifically engineered to give off a static frequency that drives insects crazy. After just a few days of use Zero Bug Zone® will drive mosquitoes, flies, hornets, wasps and many other insects out of the protected area.

Zero Bug Zone®
can be used to protect homes, backyards, schools, universities, hospitals, animal shelters, veterinarian clinics or and specific area you want protected. If insects are interfering with the productivity and safety of your business and products, Zero Bug Zone® will drive the pests away from anywhere the units are placed.

Zero Bug Zone® is packaged in with two 22 oz containers that are to be hung no more than 15ft above ground level, and not more than 70ft apart. Placing the units in this manner will create a Zone of protection that will drive insects out within 3 – 5 days. The liquid contents are light activated and it takes 3-5 days of light exposure to “charge”.

A pack of two Zero Bug Zone® will protect a 3500 square foot area and will work up to 6 months without needing replacement. It is completely non-toxic, organic, and biodegradable.

It can be used indoors and outdoors, but best used in pairs within site of each other to create a Zero Bug Zone®. When disposing it is perfectly safe to throw in your normal trash collection. Even if the seal is broken, the product will not be harmful to the environment.

Results will vary, depending on the environment in which the product is used. A patent is pending.

1 nomorebugs December 4, 2007 at 3:58 pm

I would not take this seriously for bed bugs.

2 itchyincharmcity December 4, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Not sure if I am logged in properly, this is itchyincharmcity.

There’s a number, you just need to poke around a bit. I called and taked to a sales guy, I won’t share his name and num,ber, but he was very nice and helpful. He directed me to a different website that has some more info. Sales Guy asked where I heard about the product and I mentioned He said his feeling is that it would be effective on bedbugs. I haven’t read through the info yet so I am not sure how I feel about the science.

(Editor’s note: unless someone can provide test data showing it works specifically on bed bugs, I would not purchase this product. Sorry folks, it just is not that easy.)

3 Bugologist December 4, 2007 at 5:00 pm

Coming from an entomologist, stay away from this product. This sounds ridiculous and I would need to see some independent research (meaning research not done by the company selling the product) to even think about this without laughing.

4 bug_girl December 4, 2007 at 9:33 pm

This sounds like total BS. I don’t see how this could possibly generate static, let alone repel insects.

5 nobugsonme December 4, 2007 at 11:01 pm

Hey Anonymous users,

The problem of your names not showing up _should_ be fixed. If you are logged in and allowing cookies, your names should show up. Drop me an email if that does not work. (nobugs a t bedbugger d o t com.)

Login is top right under “meta” in the sidebar. If you are logged in try logging out and in again.

6 nobugsonme December 4, 2007 at 11:03 pm

I note that they’re not even claiming it works on bed bugs.

Really glad to hear from you though, Buzinthehood, and I hope all is really well and bug-free chez vous! 🙂

7 Winston O. Buggy December 5, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Want to help fight against bed bugs in a universal, macro sense just send me the money but don’t waste it here.
PLEEEASEEE, you just can’t believe what you see and hear.
Just beam me up!

8 Winston O. Buggy December 5, 2007 at 2:18 pm

Actually in regard to things that would work
In a recent article in Pest Control Technology (Nov 2007) by Richard Kramer in his column, Technically Speaking, called for PCO’s to petition the EPA to
reconsider the registration of products that have previously worked on
bedbugs. In particular he cites organophosphates and carbamates.
These materials have only been off the market for a few years and were
replaced with synthetic pyrethroids.
You might consider talking with your US government representatives
(Senators & Congressmen) and asking them to petition the EPA as well.
I think Mr. Kramer has a good point and it would be wise for the EPA
to take such action. Please note: these materials are not DDT. They
are however proven effective on bedbugs.
He is not suggesting they be brought back on the market as general use
pesticides but as restricted use materials labelled for bedbug control.

9 hopelessnomo December 5, 2007 at 5:56 pm

Winston, the article you cite is this one: [Technically Speaking] EPA Emergency Exemption — the Time Is Now!

I confess I am a bit floored by it’s frankness, and it’s bleak view of IPM in relation to bedbugs:

At this writing, our industry is faced with a pandemic — bed bugs. Despite what you hear at conferences and read in trade journals, we do not have the tools (products) to effectively and economically manage these blood-feeding insects, much less eradicate them. What we must do to reduce their numbers smacks in the face of IPM.

In addition, there is this in reference to the author’s own methods:

While it is not what I prefer to do I have had the greatest success in soaking all potential harborage sites with residual insecticides that appear from the research to kill the most bugs.

Soaking. What some would call, especially if you frown upon it — and we’ve been taught that we all ought to frown upon it — an over-application. I’ve heard this before, despite what we’re told about why it’s wrong. So, why this technique that smacks of desperation? Well, this is how Kramer puts it:

[W]e have products (mostly pyrethroids) that kill some but not all bed bugs if you spray it on them; residual insecticides are relatively ineffective after they dry; dusts don’t work unless you have weeks or months to wait; there is documented resistance to registered insecticides; there are no new products on the horizon; and no one appears to re-examining those products we lost during the past 10 to 15 years. Perhaps the most successful technique is what I see in many apartments: crushed bugs and blood smears across the walls.

So, the pesticides mostly work if directly sprayed on the bugs. Is Kramer saying that the pesticides that are available are effectively little more than contact killers?

This is the bleakest assessment I’ve seen in print to date. I’ve heard all of it before, but this sounds a particular note of defeat that is unsettling.

Your thoughts, Winston?

10 Winston O. Buggy December 6, 2007 at 10:58 am

As far as Dr. Kramer’s frankness you have to know that he is among other positive
things a retired army officer, which tends to leave one with a frank kind of attitude.
Also his version of “soaking” and yours (not personally) is quite different.
But truth be told the over zealous have left us with a depleted arsenal for pest control.
While some materials especially concentrated ones should not be in the hands of
untrained persons, professionally trained and certified pest control technicians and applicators who have passed state written and administered exams and are continually monitored and regulated should have more options. Especially as we are
experiencing increasing numbers, types and impact of a number of pests and vectors.

As far as zero bug zone is concened I must say the several folks I shared it with all
had a good laugh. I wonder if that scientific explanation originated with Aldous Huxley as he was cleansing the doors of perception or by Jules Verne with an alternative power source for the Nautilus.

11 hopelessnomo December 6, 2007 at 12:41 pm

I appreciate the reply, Winston.

I should have made clear that what I interpreted about what Kramer said about “soaking” is what I thought he previously said on the subject, in his notes from the 2006 NPMA convention presentations, an article which has been linked here before and has been very useful to us:

We make voluminous applications (hose it down — at least 1 to 2 gallons/unit).

Anecdotally, there are other PCOs who also make voluminous applications. As you know, we take care to discourage people from “doing their own pest control” so that is not at all what was on my mind. I’m just concerned about the specter of widescale treatment failures. I just want to know what works in practice and whether PCOs who don’t share this view are likely to have less success.

12 Winston O. Buggy December 6, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Certainly the environment you are treating effects application. But I think
repeated crack and crevice applications after the initial service are a good way
to go in most situations. The problem is the applications that fall between the two points. Neither macro or micro but just an application. Keep in mind again that
labels and other factors limit applications. But I feel if you can carry the battle to the
insurgents quarter and hit repeatedly and relentlessly disrupting avenues of retreat
that the day or in this case the night will be won and is won in many of the bed bug battles.

13 Winston O. Buggy December 13, 2007 at 10:44 am

Reference: Zero Bug Zone
The more one looks into this product the more it seems conceived by Jules Verne.
Please don’t waste your money in general and certainly in regard to bed bugs.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: