| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Iain
Moderator
United Kingdom
224 Posts |
 Posted - 08 Feb 2007 : 12:49:06
|
Here's one for you:
A pest controller has just treated a bed and divan base for bed bugs using Ficam W when the client indicates that they are going to get rid of it when he's finished.
He advises them to make it as unusable as possible - slash mattress etc, wrap in a cover and then take to the tip.
The question is - will this be 'contaminated waste' and have to be disposed of in a special way, or can it simply be chucked in the skip?
This one was thrown at me today and I gave an answer - but was I right?
Tell me what you think what I should have said and I'll tell you what I advised....  |
|
|
pestguard1
Junior Member
United Kingdom
35 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2007 : 14:26:58
|
My answer would be ..............just take it to the tip after slashing mattress to make it un-useable again.
BUT why treat in the first place if it`s going to the tip in pieces?
Treat bed room by all means , but not the mattressor base.
We get rid of far more dangerouse chemicals from our homes every day, and the empty chemical containers go to land fill and tips every day .......so I think a devan bed may not be classed as "special waste".
Another reason is .........a urine stained mattress can be more dangerouse waste than a sprayed matress
......but I could be wrong.
Brian |
Edited by - pestguard1 on 08 Feb 2007 14:32:57 |
 |
|
|
blatta
Senior Member
United Kingdom
134 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2007 : 22:35:05
|
| The insecticide would make up less than 0.1% (I think the level is 0.1%) of the total weight of the waste and therefore would not need any special classification. |
|
|
|
Iain
Moderator
United Kingdom
224 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2007 : 07:57:08
|
Thanks for your comments.
I have to admit that I took a 'flyer' on my response to my customer as he was with his client at the time and was looking for an immediate answer. I went with 'gut feel' and 'common sense' and I told him that it was probably OK to go ahead, but that I would check and phone him back if there was a problem.
There wasn't.
As I had never been asked the question before, I thought it might be useful to find out and let you know, for it is an issue that may surface again.
I asked BPCA Technical Adviser Bethany and she agreed that, as the items were to be covered prior to disposal, there was no risk to anyone coming into contact with it.
I looked up the Ficam W label on the Bayer website (full marks to Bayer for being one of the few companies who put there labels on-line) and saw that it was labelled as Toxic, and that at the concentration concerned (15g per 5 litres of water) the overall dose level was just 0.3%.
I then checked the Special Waste Regulations 1996 and saw that the Threshold Concentration Level for a product labelled as Toxic was 3%.
So we (Bethany, Pestguard, Blatta and myself) were all correct, in our different ways - but it's also nice to have the facts and figures to back us up!
When I finally got hold of Tony Hudson from Bayer, he too confirmed the advice.
So should my customer have sprayed the items knowing that they were going to be ditched?
Absolutely! Beds and mattresses are heavy and difficult to move and it would be so easy for live bugs to fall off on the way down - even if covered up - spreading the infestation further.
Bethany told me of one incident she had been involved with previously where a council tenant had asked their local Council for help in getting rid of their infested bed. The Council refused as it was infested.
So they got the bed treated and again asked for help. Once more, the Council refused - on the grounds that the bed was now 'contaminated'. "Catch 22" springs to mind.
I don't know how that one was resolved, but now we all know how to deal with this question in the future! |
|
|
|
NickA
Hyperactive Member
United Kingdom
805 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2007 : 08:44:41
|
FIcam in small doses is not Toxic only in bulk. Part of the CHIP regs etc.
Tony has explained that many times at seminars.
Pests are smart - We're smarter |
|
|
|
merlin
New Member
18 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2007 : 09:40:05
|
Absolute Rubbish. 
If a substance toxic the size of dose is irrelevant a small dose may not cause harm but the substance is still toxic. Take paracetamol as an example at low dose it has therapeutic effect however at high dose it will kill you, pharmacologically speaking paracetamol is toxic but it is taken all of the time for it's therapeutic qualities.
All pesticides are by definition Toxic. I am not saying that they are not safe, on the contrary we have a very good safety record in this country. I just get very worried when people confuse "toxic" for labelling and transport requirements with toxic by pharmacological activity.
Bendiocarb has effect on human nervous function at a an average dose 0f 0.2mg/Kg with children being more susceptible. Depending on who did the trial, Bendiocarb's LD50 has been recorded as low as 34 and as high as 160. Ld50's are used a lot and are very useful to demonstrate relative toxicity between chemicals. However they can be misleading due to the range of dose between the start of unwanted effect and the point where the active kills half the test population.
I am not saying the Ficam is not safe only that it is by definition Toxic and as with all actives should be treated with care and respect.
Merlin |
|
|
|
Dusty
Senior Member
Australia
439 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2007 : 10:42:41
|
Merlin, cant agree.
The LD50 you are quoting for for oral dosage. Sprayed upon a mattress the risk then is much lower
Dermal LD50 is 566 - 600
Incidentally, Oral LD50 in my books is 40 - 156
Should also be bourne in mind that some of the Synthetic Pyrethroids go down orally as low as 135 (Deltamethrin)
Hope you wash any apples that come from OZ as some still spray them with chlorpyrifos, another anti-cholinesterase chemical and with an oral LD50 of 135 -163
Don't feed them, get Rid of them |
|
|
|
Iain
Moderator
United Kingdom
224 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2007 : 11:18:54
|
Take care guys, Mr. Merlin was a pharmacologist before becoming a pestie, so has probably forgotten more about LD50s than most of us have ever learnt.
The main thing is that a bed treated with Ficam W is not contaminated waste under UK regulations. |
|
|
|
ABPest
Senior Member
United Kingdom
197 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2007 : 11:38:47
|
I'm with Merlin. A toxic pesticide is a hazardous substance that has the potential to cause harm. The hazard does not change, but the risk of the hazardous substance causing harm can be reduced by using engineering controls or as a last measure, using PPE.
Adrian. |
|
|
|
merlin
New Member
18 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2007 : 11:55:30
|
Dusty,
You seem to have missed the point.
My point referred to the misconception that because a substance does not carry a toxic label that it is not toxic. I was not commenting on the specifics of application in this situation and the specific risks of this case, merely on the confusion arising from labelling and LD50's.
I do not understand how you can not agree! A toxic is a toxic irrelevant of dose! We ingest small doses of toxic substance everyday, they do not cause us any harm but they are still Toxic!
I agree that dermal contact is a very unlikely route for a poisoning. although poisoning was not my point, my point referred to the threshold at which the actives we use have adverse effect on people without doing serious harm and the misconception that a toxic substance at low concentration is not toxic.
To put it in a different context strychnine is Toxic a little bit of strychnine is still toxic!
I only got on my soapbox because of Nicks comments that FIcam in small doses is not Toxic only in bulk. This is not true. A lorry load of Ficam is just as toxic as a single sachet. The dose and risk in the event of exposure would be considerably different but the substance is just as Toxic. By saying that in small doses Ficam is not toxic we risk encouraging complacency in application. If that happens our excellent safety record will be damaged.
Merlin |
|
|
|
nigel
Senior Member
358 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2007 : 11:55:52
|
So why is not Ficam D classed as toxic? Same AI. At 1.20% it falls below the level required to be classed as toxic.
Ficam W at 80% w/w is classed as toxic at those levels. As to why manufacturers need to produce it that strong in the first place?
Many fail to realise that when mixed correctly you are in fact using a product that has a lower level of AI then most ameteur products, are these labeled as toxic? |
|
|
|
NickA
Hyperactive Member
United Kingdom
805 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2007 : 14:27:33
|
Typical reply.
Water is one of the most dangerous substances around,in small doses beneficial large doses lethal.
So being able to deal with the uses, effects and modes of action of drugs now crosses over to pest control.
Noticed on news mistakes made by the Drugs Industry in the UK.
Pests are smart - We're smarter |
|
|
|
ABPest
Senior Member
United Kingdom
197 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2007 : 14:53:14
|
Nick, the answer to that is a resounding YES IT DOES
I sat in on a very important prosecution of a neighbouring LA a few years ago where anticoagulant rodenticide had been used on a job. One of the main prosecution witnesses was a doctor who was able to go into great detail about the effects of anticoagulants as a medicine.
The LA lost the case ....heavily!
Adrian. |
Edited by - ABPest on 09 Feb 2007 14:55:26 |
|
|
|
NickA
Hyperactive Member
United Kingdom
805 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2007 : 16:10:36
|
Adrian there are always expert witnesses for and against.
But notice I have not used terms like Absolute rubbish to defend my actions. Lets let Bayer give us the answer.
I do not worry too much about the products I use, as long as it is per label and is legal to use.
When I notice pesticides killing people used by the pest control industry, then I'll take notice.
But then I rarely have any medicinal drugs prescribed because I've noticed how those trained experts get it wrong.
Pests are smart - We're smarter |
|
|
|
merlin
New Member
18 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2007 : 21:40:01
|
I bow to NickA's superior knowledge.
It is much better not to treat our AI's with care and respect just as long as we do as the label says. We should also only start thinking about what we do when people start to die and not a day before.
I didn't think about how dangerous water is. It really scares me thinking about it, just think we dilute our water with FICAM before applying it just to make it safe enough to handle.
I am not going to address some of the other issues raised because his comment attack my profession and background. I would however point out that not all Pharmacologists work on P.O.M.'s many on the development of new ai's for the pest control industry. I therefore believe my previous experience to be pertinent in this instance.
Merlin
|
Edited by - merlin on 10 Feb 2007 08:21:19 |
|
|
|
Dusty
Senior Member
Australia
439 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2007 : 08:51:08
|
Merlin, no point missed. Correct me if I am wrong, but the thread was on the dangers of poisoning when handling bedding that had been treated with a pesticide.
Unless the "victims" ate the fabric of the mattress, I would wonder what relevance any oral LD50 rating would have to the thread.
Don't feed them, get Rid of them |
|
|
|
NickA
Hyperactive Member
United Kingdom
805 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2007 : 10:09:55
|
Adam, with the testing that goes on today I believe I am using safe products. Afterall those people testing,trialling would be well qualified! But of course your knowledge might be greater.
Still you obviously have more letters after your name than most, but heres mine courtesy of Lloyd Smigel
L.A.N, M.B.I, M.A*
* Letters after name, might be important, mine aren't.
Pests are smart - We're smarter |
|
|
|
merlin
New Member
18 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2007 : 12:44:40
|
Dusty,
You are quite right, the thread relates to a treated bed. However my comments related to the toxicity of bendiocarb and the misconception that the toxicity of a compound can be altered simply by increasing the quantity. Ficam W has an oral LD50 of 179mg/kg as per the MSDS. Contrary to Nicks opinion This figure applies for a single sachet, a tub or a lorry load. The toxicity of the compound does not alter the associated risk does. As I have said many times The pesticides we use are safe but we need to be aware of what we are doing and treat our actives with care and respect. I did not think that in a forum of pest control professionals that this would be a controversial comment.
Merlin |
|
|
|
merlin
New Member
18 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2007 : 13:10:43
|
Nick,
I think I need to address your points in order.
1) I agree and have said many times that the chemicals we use are safe, at no stage have I said that they are not.
2) At no stage have I professed to know more than the R&D; scientists.
3) I notice you quote Lloyd Smigel, according to his web site he aims to help PCO's avoid problems before they occur. however you stated " When I notice pesticides killing people used by the pest control industry, then I'll take notice" This seems to fly in the face of his teachings.
I will not be posting further on this topic because it has deteriorated from a constructive discussion into a playground argument.
Merlin |
|
|
|
Dusty
Senior Member
Australia
439 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2007 : 21:38:41
|
http://www.alpharubicon.com/med/watertox.html
Oh, bugger!!! Could this be what Nick was suggesting.
No, couldnt be!! He isnt allowed an opinion and besides, he isnt a pharmacologist
Don't feed them, get Rid of them |
|
|
|
splatman
Junior Member
United Kingdom
26 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2007 : 09:38:43
|
Hey Merlin, If your not going to post any more of this subject, have you put this thread to.......... wait for it.......... BED!!
Boom Boom! ;) |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Contaminated waste - or not?
