Got Bed Bugs? Bedbugger Forums » General Topics

Bed Bug Wars: Episode I Of Active, Passive and Other Stuff . . .

(15 posts)
  1. P Bello

    oldtimer
    Joined: Nov '11
    Posts: 4,863

    offline

    Posted 4 years ago
    Wed Apr 29 2015 22:09:13
    #



    Login to Send PM

    (Note, for full videoaudioanomatronic effect, sing the following as the star wars theme)

    da da duh duh daa daa duh duh daa daa duh duh duh daaaa
    da da duh duh daa daa duh duh daa daa duh duh duh daaaa
    da da duh duh daa daa duh duh daa daa duh duh duh daaaa

    Long, long ago

    In a thread far, far away . . .

    There has been a bunch of misinformation posted on another thread regarding monitors.

    Please note that much of this arguing back and forth was likely a waste of time however, lest some unfortunate sole become mislead by the voluminous misinformation posted, as an experienced and competent professional I thought it best to post some clarification here as follows:

    What is a passive monitor?
    (On the other thread this one individual actually took the time and effort to argue this very question with Richard, who is a non-professional but earnest participant on this Forum. Unfortunately for "the pro", Richard's view and points raised were pretty much correct whilst those of "the pro" were, as we say; not so much.)

    The point here is really very simple and irrefutable so, one wonders why any pro would waste the time to argue such a minor detail.

    By definition:

    Passive monitors are those that do not offer or feature a lure or attractant.

    Active monitors are those which incorporate the use of a lure or attractant.

    Note that there are those monitors which may be viewed as being hybrids because they may incorporate or take advantage of some sort of lure intermittently and/or may not fall completely under the pure difinition of active and/or passive.

    Let's discuss:

    DIY cardboard monitors are passive type monitors and, at a cost of essentially FREE may be amongst the most cost effective monitors available.

    The new Sensci monitor is a hybrid in that it may be used both with or without the lure product.

    The passive monitor advertised on this website may be viewed as being hybrid because when it is placed upon a bed, the presence of a human serves to draw bed bugs near to the area where this monitor is placed such that bed bugs might be inadvertently intercepted by this device when they encounter it either moving toward or away from the sleeping human host.

    Climb Up Interceptor type monitors, which include the Climbups, Blackouts and other name brands, are also hybrids in that these devices may be used away from bed and furniture legs and still catch bed bugs. Additionally, when a human is sleeping/resting in a bed under which a climbup has been installed, the human serves as the attractant.

    The nuance to consider here is that the device itself does NOT emit any of the attractant so, in the strict sense of the definition, it could be considered as being passive.

    However, PLEASE note that the climbup and blackout devices may capture bed bugs even when the human is absent. In any case, the truth of the matter is that there is no source of attractant incorporated in these devices so, there are some within the industry that view these as being passive type monitors 100% the time.

    As a professional I'm aware of recently published studies and all such professionals make an effort to keep abreast of the latest industry information. Please note that research papers have been presented, by soon to be Dr. Rick Cooper, Ph.D. and others, which show that climb up type monitors may be placed away from furniture and bed legs and still capture bed bugs. When placed in this fashion, these devices are operating, by definition, as passive monitors.

    Now to be totally fair, look at all the effort our pal Richard put into that thread and argument.
    He posted several references and raised several legitimate points. However, none of Richard's counterpoints and pertinent references were successfully rebutted in that thread.

    The Earth id Flat:

    Numerous times we've seen the response referencing that the Earth is Flat as an all purpose rebuttal to address any point raised by any person who disagrees with the assertions of the lone voice. Note that this is an invalid point as indicated via a PM from a BBF participant who asked to remain nameless at this point in time just yesterday.

    In this PM the our co-participant astutely underscored that there was one huge difference between the assertion of the Earth is Flat gambit from way back then in the Magellan/Columbus time period and nowadays which is as follows:

    Our friend, let's call him Mr. X, stated: The big problem I have with that argument is that:

    a) We all already know that the Earth was proven to be round. However, the stuff that this person is saying has yet to be proven.

    b) Back in the 1400s institutions of higher learning were archaic and the people of that time period were ignorant compared to people of today. (You're right Mr. X, back then they burned people at the stake for being witches !)

    c) Today, the people that disagree with this one person are well educated, experienced professionals and university researchers.

    As such, this Earth is Flat argument is totally non-applicable !

    I agree with you Mr. X and I look forward to the day when you're comfortable enough to post your own points as they are well thought out and valid !

    And, now that I think of it, this very Earth Is Flat argument mentality reminds me of the video below. Please watch the video, is hosted by John Oliver of which I'm sure you'll all catch the humorous irony there, for a similar and proper perspective of this issue. Enjoy the video Folks !

    [+] Embed the videoGet the Flash Videos

    Have a great bug free day ! ! ! pjb

  2. Richard56

    oldtimer
    Joined: Jul '10
    Posts: 2,206

    offline

    Posted 4 years ago
    Thu Apr 30 2015 7:13:59
    #



    Login to Send PM

    Paul: Long, long ago ... In a thread far, far away . . .
    _______________________________________________
    Here is a link to the original thread. Subject in question starts
    around 20 posts down. May the force help you get through it.

    http://bedbugger.com/forum/topic/shopping-list-to-get-rid-of-bb

  3. ItsJustABug

    oldtimer
    Joined: Jan '15
    Posts: 863

    offline

    Posted 4 years ago
    Thu Apr 30 2015 9:26:25
    #



    Login to Send PM

    http://bedbugger.com/forum/topic/shopping-list-to-get-rid-of-bb#post-222691

    I thought I did a good laymen's term of summation on the proof is in the pudding.
    I guess not good enough huh PJB ?

  4. bed-bugscouk

    oldtimer
    Joined: Apr '07
    Posts: 18,188

    offline

    Posted 4 years ago
    Thu Apr 30 2015 11:04:17
    #



    Login to Send PM

    Paul,

    The subject of nomenclature and technical accuracy is a more serious discussion than what you have started here.

    If you are ever interested in having a serious discussion without the snide undertones you know where to find me.

    The statements you have made above are opinion based rather than fact based, but much of what occurred back then is information you were not privy to first hand having only decided to pursue an interest in bedbugs later than others.

    Regards,

    David Cain
    Bed Bugs Limited

    I am happy to answer questions in public but will not reply to message sent directly or via my company / social media. I am here to help everyone and not just one case at a time.

    In accordance with the AUP and FTC I openly disclose my vested interest in Passive Monitors as the inventor and patent holder. Since 2009 they have become an integral part in how we resolve bed bug infestations. I also have a professional relationship with PackTite in that they distribute my product under their own branding. I do not however receive any financial remuneration for any comments I make about pro
  5. Nobugsonme

    your host
    Joined: Mar '07
    Posts: 22,265

    offline

    Posted 4 years ago
    Thu Apr 30 2015 11:54:45
    #



    Login to Send PM

    Paul,
    I am sorry you decided to go with the mocking tone, because honestly, the question of whether certain devices fall into one or another category is worth discussing. (You must have thought so too, because you started a new thread to continue the discussion.)

    David, I hope you will proceed to respond.

    I started and run the site but am "not an expert."
  6. Richard56

    oldtimer
    Joined: Jul '10
    Posts: 2,206

    offline

    Posted 4 years ago
    Thu Apr 30 2015 12:12:55
    #



    Login to Send PM

    NB: The question of whether certain devices fall into one or another category is worth discussing.
    ----------------------------------
    Yes, it's an interesting intellectual discussion for some. But it still comes down to what is the industry accepted definition. I have supplied credible references to industry sources. David had not provided any references. So we have just his opinion against credible industry sources.

    Frankly, I think anyone into debate could make a case either way. Is a ClimbUp a passive monitor, an interceptor/pitfall trap, an active monitor, a hybrid, a tribrid...We have seen most of the arguments all ways, and I am sure there are more. But this isn't the same type of argument as for example before, regarding pesticides where there are studies both ways.

    This is about an industry DEFINITION. That's all. We are splitting hairs here, folks (to use Paul's phrase ) and I think that is part why Paul has chosen a mocking tone. He will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Paul thinks this is a serious enough discussion to be taken seriously.

    An industry definition is an industry definition. And until the industry changes that, it is what it is. So, by any sense of reason, ClimbUps are a PASSIVE monitor because by definition they
    do not offer or feature a lure or attractant. It's that simple.

    I admire Paul for going down David's worm hole to debate what ClimbUps SHOULD be called, but the fact is they ARE already called something by most in the industry. They're called
    passive monitors.

    So here are the references again. And "no" David, repeating something over and over doesn't make it right, but neither does repeating your opinion over and over without something to back it up.

    https://njaes.rutgers.edu/pubs/fs1117/

    http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/pesticides/pdffiles/bb-expect1.pdf

    http://www.pestboard.ca.gov/howdoi/research/monitors_bedbug.pdf

    http://uccemg.com/files/162701.pdf

    http://www.pctonline.com/pct0811-bed-bug-monitor-detection-tools-techniques.aspx

    http://www.pestboard.ca.gov/howdoi/research/monitors_bedbug.pdf

    Richard

  7. AbsolutelyFreaking

    oldtimer
    Joined: Sep '12
    Posts: 1,720

    offline

    Posted 4 years ago
    Thu Apr 30 2015 12:23:01
    #



    Login to Send PM

    Nice post Richard56 . . . because I truly thought (or think) that I must be missing something regarding this topic . . .

    as I keep wanting to say "seriously . . . we are seriously devoting major time to this topic" . . .

    but that is just merely/simply my opinion . . . a lot of needless discussion regarding a splitting of the hairs . . .

  8. Nobugsonme

    your host
    Joined: Mar '07
    Posts: 22,265

    offline

    Posted 4 years ago
    Thu Apr 30 2015 12:23:44
    #



    Login to Send PM

    Richard56 - 5 minutes ago  » 
    NB: The question of whether certain devices fall into one or another category is worth discussing.
    ----------------------------------
    Yes, it's an interesting intellectual discussion for some. But it still comes down to what is the industry accepted definition. I have supplied credible references to industry sources. David had not provided any references.

    And I was hoping he would respond by doing so, if possible.

    As I said, I don't think the mocking tone helps resolve this issue.

  9. AbsolutelyFreaking

    oldtimer
    Joined: Sep '12
    Posts: 1,720

    offline

    Posted 4 years ago
    Thu Apr 30 2015 12:33:20
    #



    Login to Send PM

    I have not read the links that Richard submitted previously (I'm really, really bad about that) . . .

    so therefore I have no idea what the industry definition is . . .

    but in a layman's way of thinking . . .

    I would think that a monitor would have to be labeled as either a passive monitor or active monitor based on the MONITOR ITSELF, meaning what is actually part of the monitor . . . does the monitor ITSELF have a lure . . . NO CHEATING WITH A HUMAN LURE . . . as that is not "part" of the monitor.

    But, again, I have no idea what I'm talking about and can only think of it from a simplistic layman's point of view . . .

    But as stated previously, apparently I must be missing something here as this topic has generated SUCH a hot topic discussion????

  10. Richard56

    oldtimer
    Joined: Jul '10
    Posts: 2,206

    offline

    Posted 4 years ago
    Thu Apr 30 2015 12:35:42
    #



    Login to Send PM

    NB: As I said, I don't think the mocking tone helps resolve this issue.
    --------------
    There are really two issues.

    Issue 1: This is the original issue I responded to. I called ClimbUps "passive monitors" because that is how the majority of the industry defines it. David said I was wrong. So again, one opinion against the industry. What needs to be resolved?

    Issue 2: SHOULD ClimbUp Interceptors be called "passive monitors". This is the worm hole I was talking about. Anyone can have an opinion about this. And some think it's really splitting hairs, and that's why I think Paul used a mocking tone because he also thinks it's splitting hairs. Will issue #2 be resolved? Very doubtful.

    BUT... even if someone were to convince us here that ClimbUps should NOT be called passive monitors -- as doubtful as that is given arguments to the contrary put forth mostly by Paul -- they are still passive monitors until the industry comes to that conclusion.

    Richard

  11. Richard56

    oldtimer
    Joined: Jul '10
    Posts: 2,206

    offline

    Posted 4 years ago
    Thu Apr 30 2015 12:45:12
    #



    Login to Send PM

    AF: I would think that a monitor would have to be labeled as either a passive monitor or active monitor based on the MONITOR ITSELF, meaning what is actually part of the monitor . . . does the monitor ITSELF have a lure . . . NO CHEATING WITH A HUMAN LURE . . . as that is not "part" of the monitor.
    ------------------
    Apparently, the industry agrees with you. Very well said, because this is exactly the criteria they
    use.

    Richard

  12. AbsolutelyFreaking

    oldtimer
    Joined: Sep '12
    Posts: 1,720

    offline

    Posted 4 years ago
    Thu Apr 30 2015 12:47:28
    #



    Login to Send PM

    Richard56 -  » 
    AF: I would think that a monitor would have to be labeled as either a passive monitor or active monitor based on the MONITOR ITSELF, meaning what is actually part of the monitor . . . does the monitor ITSELF have a lure . . . NO CHEATING WITH A HUMAN LURE . . . as that is not "part" of the monitor.
    ------------------
    Apparently, the industry agrees with you. Very well said, because this is exactly the criteria they
    use.
    Richard

    Whew Whoo! Yay Me! . . . so now I don't HAVE to read all this links! Yay and Whew!!!

  13. Richard56

    oldtimer
    Joined: Jul '10
    Posts: 2,206

    offline

    Posted 4 years ago
    Thu Apr 30 2015 12:49:39
    #



    Login to Send PM

    AF: Whew Whoo! Yay Me! . . . so now I don't HAVE to read all this links! Yay and Whew!!!
    ----------
    NOPE. It's required reading. And while you read the links, I must leave this wonderful thread that Paul re-started. I'm sure he can tie up any loose ends later.

    Richard

  14. bed-bugscouk

    oldtimer
    Joined: Apr '07
    Posts: 18,188

    offline

    Posted 4 years ago
    Thu Apr 30 2015 12:52:21
    #



    Login to Send PM

    Nobugsonme - 53 minutes ago  » 
    David, I hope you will proceed to respond.

    I had hoped to do so and would have loved to confirm the chronology with the key documents cited.

    My offer of a civil discussion still stands and I will contribute as it occurs and as I have time.

    David

  15. Nobugsonme

    your host
    Joined: Mar '07
    Posts: 22,265

    offline

    Posted 4 years ago
    Thu Apr 30 2015 13:35:44
    #



    Login to Send PM

    bed-bugscouk - 41 minutes ago  » 

    Nobugsonme - 53 minutes ago  » 
    David, I hope you will proceed to respond.

    I had hoped to do so and would have loved to confirm the chronology with the key documents cited.
    My offer of a civil discussion still stands and I will contribute as it occurs and as I have time.
    David

    Hi David,

    I am having a civil discussion with you.

    What is written above cannot be transformed. You can respond in yet another new thread, or below. I would urge the latter. If there is something above that you can correct with references to documentation, it's better to have it in this thread, so others will benefit.


RSS feed for this topic


Reply

You must log in to post.

297,187 posts in 50,134 topics over 155 months by 21,917 of 22,411 members. Latest: ij430jf, patbb, Peachyy92