On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 13:45:35 -0500, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Hi Stormin Mormon,
I like that sentiment. Duplicate others' success and not failures!
That's apropos because many people just dive in, and that duplicates the
failures, and few report back the successes so others can follow.
Yeah. One thing I learned by doing is that Nikon camera straps are STRONG!
Look at this picture:
That camera strap was just washed with the whites (socks, underwear,
towels, sheets, etc.) for a 90 minute hot wash with the bleach dispenser
filled with 12% pool chlorine (that's twice the strength of household
I had fullyy expected the camera strap to turn white (or brown), and for
the faux leather to peel off - but it all looks like it's brand new!
Who would have thought that the Nikon camera strap was that hardy!
The glycol ether is supposedly a biocide, so, it might be.
It's the most important component of the detox solution because
it will do two jobs deep in the dermis at the Langerhans layer.
1. It binds to the urushiol receptor
2. It swaps places with urushiol already bound to the receptor
So, it behooves me to find a good source for the glycol ether.
It matters which one I choose because the shorter chain glycol
ethers are known to cause testicular degeneration (whatever that
is - but it doesn't sound good).
I haven't chosen which glycol ether yet, as my choice is either
the nonyl phenyl ethoxylate commonly known as nonoxyl-9, or the
longer-chain butyl variant (111-76-2) known as 2-Butoxyethanol.
I'm still reading up on this so that's why I haven't chosen
which glycol ether to use yet.
I was thinking about ajax - but that seems too abrasive.
Pumice would obviously work.
As would the polyethylene granules.
An abrasive is important because we're assuming the urushiol
sap has been on the skin for a day or two, so we need to
get deep down to the Langerhans's dendritic cell layer
where the now-activated quinone is bound to the receptor.
We then need to pull that quinone OFF the receptor, and
replace it with the glycol ether, along with blocking
all the other receptors with glycol ether.
Then we need to wash it all away, so that it doesn't infect
Now that's a new idea!
I'll google to see what the heck a fruit-tree sprayer looks like!
I failed today to get my pressure washer to work because I couldn't
figure out how to get it to suck from the jug instead of from the hose.
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 07:56:54 -0800, DD_BobK wrote:
Those are quite nice!
I do agree that a sideswipe along the isocline line of the steep hill is
the way to go because the main roots are six inches thick, and then they
branch out in one and two inch thick trunks.
When I cut a trunk, it feels good because I know I've killed a lot but
the problem is that the plant really fortresses those thick roots.
They're wholly surrounded by the thinner finger-thick and pencil-thick
vines such that you can't get near the main supply line without getting
soaked in urushiol.
How sure are you of the identification?
I ask because a) I've not seen the plant look like that in my area of central Virginia or my old area of northern Wisconsin. There are lots of regional differences though, and b) because if it really was poison oak or ivy, I can't imagine removing that much without a massive reaction.
Oh yes. Very very very sure!
I have cut human-sized tunnels through poison oak, where the urushiol
literally drips like a faucet overhead from the wrist-sized hangers.
The leaves-of-three are distinctive, and are not wild raspberries (whose
leaves look similar but are furry & spiny). The white berries are also
distinctive, as are the tendrils all over the place.
Of course, the fact that the rash is starting to show up at my wrists,
ankles and neck from my weekend work is yet another clue - but - yes,
there is absolutely no doubt what it is.
The problem isn't identifying it - the problem is getting rid of it
without actually getting it!
I have a problem with multi-flora rose. Giant nasty rose bushes that
dont die from roundup or other herbicides. Although they are not
poisonous, so they could be cut with a chainsaw, but to do so would mean
getting under them, and becomeing all torn up from the thorns. I
designed a chain that has a loop in the end that I lay around the and
hook to my farm tractor. When the tractor moves, the chain tightens
around their base, and they will be ripped out of the ground. Then they
go to my burn pile. However any roots left over will sprout again. But
on the small young ones, roundup works.
I've had some huge ones that would stop my tractor. Either the tires
slip, or the engine kills. I found that the only way to get rid of
those is to burn them. Dump brush and some smaller logs around them,
then a gallon of diesel fuel, and ignite. They do not come back once
they are burned.
The OP said he can not burn the poison oak. How about soaking the base
of them around the roots with diesel fuel. That almost surely will kill
them. Then just let them rot. I dont know how long it takes for that
oil that causes the skin irritation to go away after the plant is dead.
You'd have to do research on that.
Maybe your local County Extension office can help too. They seem to
have info on most local problem plants.
I'm sure someone will state that diesel fuel is harmful to the
environment. Yes it is, but probably does less harm than many of the
commercial chemicals that are used to kill plants and insects.
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 12:42:29 -0600, email@example.com wrote:
A lot of farmers in this rural community kill poison ivy and poison
sumac by applying a goodly quantity of rock salt at their base. The
plant dies and within a year of rain and snow the salt washes away.
I've gotten rid of rugosa rose with water softener salt.
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:52:16 -0500, Brooklyn1 wrote:
I like the idea of rock salt as it must be cheaper than the $100
containers of weed killer that I'm buying today (2.5 gallons each).
This web site explains the NaCl concentration for weed killer:
While the NaCl appears to be effective, that page also outlines the
major problem when it's applied on a hillside where my plant resides.
Plus, I still need to manually remove the dead plants, which are
(almost) as toxic dead as they were alive - at least for the
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 03:32:55 -0600, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I buy water softener salt at Lowe's, 40 pounds/$4... rock salt costs
even less. The salt does no permanent damage and in fact the critters
use it for a salt lick. After about a year the salt dilutes from
precipitation as though you never placed it there.
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 12:42:29 -0600, homeowner wrote:
I have read that rock salt works, so that is an option which might be
less harmful to the environment than diesel fuel.
I've never used rock salt before, so I'd have to research how to use it
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 12:42:29 -0600, homeowner wrote:
I did do the research! :)
This scientific site says it lasts 100 years!
Here's the verbatim quote from that San Francisco State web site:
"What is amazing is specimens 100 years old have been known
to cause dermatitis in humans, because urushiol is a relatively
stable compound, and can remain potent for years in the absence
of oxidation (Armstrong & Epstein 1995)."
I would think that, outdoors, exposed to the elements, the urushiol
would only be allergenic to humans for something on the order of
perhaps only 5 or 10 years, but, the point is that the oil from
Toxicodendron diversilobum will last far longer than we'd like it to.
The verbatim statement from that web site below leads me to
conjure the thought that this single plant on my property can
infect every single person on earth, since it was literally
dripping drops of sap within a few minutes of cutting the plant!
"Urushiol is so incredibly toxic that it would take only one
ounce of it to affect everyone on the earth with a rash
There are other opinions. One source suggested that 15% are unaffected;
another said thirty.
I reacted severely from what was in the air when I got close to it when
we first moved to Oregon. But a few years later, I could pick it
without gloves and have little or no reaction. Other people who drank
goat's milk reported similar experiences. We believe the milk either
contains an antidote, or it contains traces of urushiol so small your
body has a chance to develop a defense.
But it might be something else entirely. I do think I have a strong
immune system, as I never react to a smallpox vaccine. Since I had no
scar, the Navy accused me of lying and vaccinated me again. And again,
even though the second one (the first Navy one) was documented in my
Unfortunately, my immune system is now attacking my thyroid glands.
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 23:58:18 -0500, Wes Groleau wrote:
We're talking different things, so let's clarify. :)
1. Nobody is immune to type IV CMI
2. But not everybody gets the rash under normal circumstances
3. Yet, almost everyone will get the rash if they get exposed to enough
It gets complicated to explain in a USENET post, but let's briefly take
these in turn - but this isn't the place for detailed discussions.
I. Nobody is immune.
Delayed contact dermititis is a type IV CMI (cell mediated immune
response), which nobody is immune to forever. Get exposed frequently
enough, and you WILL get it. It's the way your body works.
II. Not every gets the rash all the time
This is highly dependent on dosage! Remember the oil is NOT anywhere on
the outside of the plant! The oil is protectively ensconced INSIDE the
cells. Of course, chain sawing the plant in half tends to allow the oils
to leak out ... like this video I just took today of just that:
III. Give any human enough pure urushiol, and they ALL will get the rash!
(See #I and #II above.)
Anyway, while we're quoting figures, Wikipedia says the following on
"Approximately 80% to 90% of adults will get a rash if they are exposed
to 50 micrograms of purified urushiol. Some people are so sensitive, it
only takes a trace of urushiol (two micrograms or less than one ten-
millionth of an ounce) on the skin to initiate an allergic reaction
(Epstein et al., 1974)."
Now, if you're exposed to less urushiol, all bets are off - but - given
this picture below, I would safely say anyone exposed to this much
potential urushiol had better take some safety precautions (as I do). :)
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 23:58:18 -0500, Wes Groleau wrote:
That is an interesting story - but I would caution anyone from actually
touching the stuff because of the classic YMMV difference in every
The funny thing about invisible toxins is that we really don't know
exactly where the stuff is, and where it isn't.
For example, look at my red sweatshirt & TIG welding gloves today:
Notice I had no idea exactly WHERE the urushiol was, on Sunday, when I
last wore them, but today, two days later, the oil on the gloves was
sufficiently oxidized black to see it and the shirt oils were oxidized in
the washing machine.
The point is - you never know if you've been truly exposed or not, as
it's a statistical thing. So, a LOT of people conclude they were exposed
and didn't get the rash - when - in reality - they just weren't exposed
(or not exposed to enough to make black marks all over their clothes).
When I was in graduate school, I worked part time in a lab, and you'd be
amazed at the strangest places we found P32 with the geiger counter. You
can't see it - and when you find out where it got - you sit there and
ponder how the hell did it get there.
Now, maybe the goats milk matters - because the immune system DOES work
the way you said it does (i.e., when exposed at the right time in the
immune system development, the immune system learns what is body and what
is foreign) - so I am NOT saying you're wrong ... I'm just cautioning
anyone from actually touching the stuff with bare hands on purpose!
Urushiol is no different. You didn't get it from "the air". You touched
something that had a pinprick drop of oil on it. What you touched could
have been 'anything' (remember, the oil is known to remain infectious for
100 years ... in a laboratory drawer anyway).
The other thing to remember is that the oil is NOT on the outside of the
plant. Not outside the leaves, stem, berries, or root. But it's inside
all of them, so, you (and I) can pick it up (gingerly) and nothing bad
But, when you do this ... now you've gotten that damn plant mad! :)
TRUE--but many accidental exposures had appeared to confirm the goat's
milk hypothesis. So, being young and foolish, I assumed I was immune
and abandoned precautions. And got away with it.
When it was my son's turn to be young and foolish, he formed the
hypothesis that he could immunize himself by limited contact.
If you know where to look, you can still make out the scars.
> The other thing to remember is that the oil is NOT on the outside
> of the plant. Not outside the leaves, stem, berries, or root. But
> it's inside all of them, so, you (and I) can pick it up (gingerly)
> and nothing bad will happen.
Ah, I would question that as well. Before my resistance developed, the
slightest contact had severe effects.
By the way, some of that resistance has gone away over time.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.