United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Pesticides and
Toxic Substances
Enforcement Division
Washington, DC 20460
EPA 340/t2-80-001
October 1980
r/EPA
Investigation of Efficacy
and Enforcement Activities
Relating to Electromagnetic
Pest Control Devices
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword [[[ 1
Program Participants [[[ 11
A. INTRODUCTION
Description of the Program ................................................. 111
Enforcement Actions [[[ vl
B. ELECTRONIC TESTS
Electromagnetic Pest Control Devices ....................................... 1
Charles C. Gordon, Kenneth W. Yee
National Bureau of Standards
C. RODENT TESTS
Report of Efficacy Studies of the NATURE-SHIELD
Rodent Control Device ................................................ 68
Report of Efficacy Studies of the MAGNA-PULSE
Rodent Control Device ................................................ 82
Report of Efficacy Studies of the AMIGO (Phase 2)
Rodent Control Device ................................................ 95
Rex E. Marsh, Walter E. Howard
University of California, Davis
Field Tests of Electromagnetic Devices to Control Pocket Gophers ........... 114
John O'Brien
Nevada State Department of Agriculture, Reno, NV
AMIGO ELECTRONIC REPELLER Efficacy Test .................................... 123
-------
Page
D. INSECT TESTS
Perfo,,nance of Electromagnetic Devices Against Termites, Cockroaches
and Flour Beetles .. 153
Michael K. Rust, Donald A. Reierson, G. K. Clark
University of California, Riverside
Will Electromagnetic Pest Control Devices Inhibit Termite and Wood-
destroying Beetle Activities? .................... . 195
Raymond H. Beal, Lonnie H. Williams
U. S. Forest Service, Southern Forest
Experiment Station, Gulfport, Mississippi
E. LITERATURE REVIEW .. 210
-------
FOREWORD
In an era of increasing environmental concern, humans sometimes
seek a panacea to solve various problems. In the area of pest control
one such proposed alternative to the use of chemicals for rodent and
insect control is a group of instruments known as Electromagnetic (EM)
Pest Control Devices. The manufacturers of these devices claim that the
units are effective against many common rodent and insect pest species,
yet they claim that beneficial animals are not harmed. The means by
which these devices supposedly attain this control is through a magnetic
field emitted by the device which acts as a shield and causes pests
within its zone of influence to stop eating, drinking, and mating.
Because no pre-niarket testing is required for pesticide devices, there
was no background data to decide whether these EM devices were actually
effective.
In 1977, the Pesticides and Toxic Substances Enforcement Division
(PTSED) undertook a cooperative testing program with three other govern-
ment agencies and two universities which was designed to determine if
the theory of low—level EM emission could be utilized in pest control.
Results of these studies indicated clearly that there were no
biological effects on the pest species tested. It was also found that
in many cases little or no electromagnetic radiation was actually
emitted from the devices.
At the outset of the investigation, the Environmental Protection
Agency was aware of only a few major manufacturers of EM devices. As
the program progressed, however, PTSED uncovered an industry constitut-
ing some thirty manufacturers/distributors, with an annual sales volume
of several million dollars. Since receiving the results of electronic
and biological testing, a total of thirty-six enforcement actions have
been taken against manufacturers or distributors. These actions were
taken on the basis that the devices were ineffective and therefore
misbranded according to the provisions of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended.
In addition, a court challenge of a Stop Sale, Use or Removal Order
(SStJRO) by one manufacturer led to the initial decision of Administrative
Law Judge Marvin E. Jones that the device was indeed misbranded, that
the SSURO was valid and that a civil penalty should be assessed against
the manufacturer.
The following report outlines PTSED’s approach to the problem, the
results of studies completed for the program, and the ensuing enforce-
ment actions. I wish to thank the participants in the program for their
research efforts and for their willingness and skill in presenting their
findings in the legal arena.
I’
A. E. Conroy_-T ’ctor
Pesticides an6 Toxic Substances
Enforce ii t.-Th viSiO n
-------
• PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS
Environmental Protection Agency
Deborah S. Dalton
Odessa R. Glenn
Marcie J. Kieban
Steve 0. Palmateer
Frank B. Russo
Gerald B. Stubbs
Michael F. Wood
National Bureau of Standards
Charles C. Gordon
Kenneth W. Yee
University of California, Davis
Rex C. Marsh
Walter E. Howard
University of California, Riverside
G. K. Clark
Michael K. Rust
Donald A. Reierson
Nevada Department of Agriculture
John O’Brien
U.S. Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station
Raymond H. Beal
Lonnie H. Williams
—ii—
-------
INTRODIJCTI ON
Description of the Program
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has responsibility for
the regulation of pesticides and pest control devices subject to the
provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) as amended. Section 3 of FIFRA requires that pesticides be
registered and that data be submitted to the Agency in support of
registration. FIFRA does not give EPA the authority to require the
same pre-market submission of data for pest control devices. Whether a
pest control agent is considered a pesticide or a device is resolved in
SectionS 2(h) and 2(u) under FIFRA. Briefly, if an agent uses physical
or mechanical means to trap, destroy, repel, or mitigate a pest, it is
considered to be a device. If the agent incorporates a substance or
mixture of substances intended to prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate a
pest, it is considered to be a (chemical) pesticide.
On July 3, 1975, the MrninistratOr of EPA promulgated regulations
which provide that all devices are subject to the requirements of FIFRA
section 2(q)(l) (misbranding), section 7 (establishment registration)
and section 12 (unlawful acts). FIFRA section 2(q)(l)(A) provides that
a product is misbranded if “its labeling bears any statements, designs
or graphic representation -—- which are false or misleading... u1
Regulations at 40 CFR 162.lO(a)( 5 ) expand upon what EPA may consider
false or misleading. These include statements which make false or
misleading claims regarding composition 1 effectiveness, safety, or
government endorsement of the product.
Electromagnetic devices initially came to the attention of the EPA
in 1976, when the AMIGO was first marketed by Mira Manufacturing Company,
Pine Valley, California. Market surveillance by Regional and Headquarters
staff and consumer inquiries regarding effectiveness of electromagnetic
devices led to scientific investigation of the claims that were being
made.
Manufacturers of the devices claimed that rodent and insect pest
species such as rats, mice, squirrels, moles, gophers, coyotes, roaches,
termites, aphids, ants, and thrips were either killed or prevented from
eating, drinking or mating by waves of electromagnetism or “contraclusive”
magnetism produced by the device. However, they assert, harmless or
domesticated animals such as dogs, cats, horses, earthworms, bees, fish
and birds would not be affected by the magnetism because of differences
in their physiology due to domestication. The manufacturers further
claimed that laboratory animals or caged wild animals, because of their
dependence on humans for survival, were not expected to be affected by
output from the devices.
—iii—
-------
Agency and other scientists could find no information In the
established scientific literature for any of these claims. The testing
program described In this publication arose as a result of a desire on
the part of EPA to determine whether electromagnetic pest control
devices were effective against species of public health related pests
and, If not, to take enforcement actions removing the devices from the
market.
Since 1976 the number of manufacturers has increased from one to
nearly thirty. Because of the proliferation of these devices and the
cost of acquiring and testing each device model, the Electromagnetic
Device Testing Program was established with the objectives of categoriz-
ing all available devices Into two or three types and testing biologically
only representatives of each type.
To this end, the National Bureau of Standards performed electronic
analyses of fifteen devices in 1978 and 1979. Their paper, Included In
section B of this publication, grouped the devices into two major
categories based on the characteristics of electronic output: (1) pulse
output devices and (2) 60 Hertz alternating current output (60 Hz AC)
devices.
Efficacy tests were performed by five organizations against the
major pest species claimed to be controlled by the devices. The
University of California, Davis, tested AMIGO (Phase 2), NATURE SHIELD,
and MAGNA PULSE against the house mouse and the Norway rat in both
laboratory and simulated field conditions. Field tests were employed by
the Nevada State Department of Agriculture to evaluate control of
pocket gophers by the MAGNA PULSE, NATURE SHIELD, and SIGMA devices.
The Chemical and Biological Investigations Branch, EPA, BeltsvllIe,
Maryland, performed efficacy tests on AMIGO ELECTRONIC REPELLER, AMIGO
PHASE II ELECTROMAGNETIC REPELLER, and NATURE SHIELD against house mice
and Norway rats.
The U.S. Forest Service, Southeastern Experiment Station at Gulfport,
Mississippi, ran several field studies to test the efficacy of the
NATURE SHIELD, MAGNA PULSE and SIGMA against subterranean termites and
woodborlng beetles. They also monitored nearby fire ant colonies.
Scientists at the University of California, Riverside, studied the
effects of the same three devices on the mortality, individual growth,
and population sizes of German and American cockroaches, drywood termites,
and confused flour beetles.
Results of all of these studies were presented to the EPA on
3anuary 16, 1979. The National Bureau of Standards was unable to detect
any electromagnetic fields surrounding the pulse output type devices.
For the 60 Hz AC units their results showed that the field strength
would be less than the earth’s magnetic field at three meters. Several
common household applicances were found to generate electromagnetic
fields similar to the 60 Hz AC units.
—iv —
-------
In more than twenty tests against ten species of pest rodents and
insects there was no demonstrated efficacy either in field, laboratory,
or simulated field tests.
Accordingly, the Pesticides and Toxic Substances Enforcement
Division directed the EPA Regional Offices to begin enforcement actions
against both those devices which had been tested biologically and those
which had been identified by the National Bureau of Standards as falling
into one of the two categories of electromagnetic devices.
—v —
-------
Enforcement Actions
Background
In conducting its market surveillance of pest control devices, EPA
is empowered by FIFR,A with several regulatory options for handling those
units which are determined to be misbranded. These are: enforcement
letters; civil warning letters; Stop Sale, Use or Removal Orders;
seizures; voluntary recalls; civil complaints; criminal penalties; and
injunctive relief.
An enforcement letter Is an informal method utilized by EPA to
inform persons or companies that they are in possible violation of EPA
statutes or regulations. It contains suggested voluntary remedies to
help solve the problem. A civil warning letter is an official warning
of possible violations of EPA statutes or regulations.
A Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Order (SSURO) may be issued on a
written list or printed form to any person who owns, controls, or has
custody of a misbranded device. Upon issuance of the order, any move-
ment of the specified device(sY In commerce is illegal. A court ordered
seizure of misbranded devices is rarely Invoked but is useful against
products already distributed in commerce and as a back-up for SSURO’s
when the provisions of such orders are not being complied with. Although
the Federal pesticide law contains no authority for a recall, the Agency
may make a request to the distributor for a voluntary recall of vio-
lative pesticides or devices.
In concert with, or independent of any of the above actions, the
Agency can also issue a civil complaint to any wholesaler, dealer,
retailer or other distributor who violates any provision of the Act and
may assess a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each offense. For this
same group 1 if It can be shown that they have knowingly violated any
provision of the Act, they may be subjected to criminal penalties. Upon
conviction, they can be fined up to $25,000 and/or Imprisoned for up to
one year.
Lastly, FIFR.A section 16 vests the U.S. District Courts with the
authority to specifically enforce, prevent, and restrain violations of
the Act. The EPA can request Injunctive relief within a U.S. District
Court when all of the above administrative remedies has been diligently
exercised, yet the violation has continued unabated.
Strategy
The results of the EPA sponsored tests proved to the Agency’s
satisfaction that the use of low-level electromagnetic emission for the
control of pests was ineffective. It was felt that the situation
warranted a swift, decisive, and well coordinated enforcement response.
-vi —
-------
For this reason, the EPA requested that inspectors from certain Regional
Offices visit the designated device manufacturers for purposes of
issuing a SSURO, requesting that they initiate a voluntary recall down
to and including the retail level and conduct a books and records search
for purposes of identifying distributors in the event that a manufacturer
was uncooperative in following through on the recall. These initial
enforcement actions were to be completed within a two-week period.
These Regions were also asked to issue civil complaints within a reason-
able time frame. For any other suspected EN device manufacturers found
in the future, samples are to be collected and tested electronically at
the National Bureau of Standards. If the Bureau’s tests show that any
of these devices are based on the electromagnetic principle, EPA head-
quarters will contact the appropriate Regional Office with instructions
to proceed in a manner similar to that described in the above paragraph.
Results
Table 1 is a status report on each of the known manufacturers!
distributors of EM devices and the actions that had been taken at the
time of printing of this publication.
From January 1979 — October 1980, a total of thirty-six enforcement
actions have been taken against manufacturers or distributors of electro-
magnetic devices. These include six civil complaints, twenty-one Stop
Sale Use or Removal Orders, eight recalls, and one criminal referral.
On December 5, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Marvin E. Jones
concluded that THE ELIMINATOR manufactured by Monty’s Environmental
Services, Inc. was ineffective and therefore misbranded. He ruled that
the SSURO issued in March, 1979, was valid and should not be disturbed
and that a civil penalty of $1,250 should be assessed against the
manufacturer. Because THE ELIMINATOR had been tested electronically and
assigned to the pulse output group of EM devices, it was not tested
biologically. The evidence presented at the hearing on the biological
effects of similar devices led to the implication that THE ELIMINATOR
would have no biological effects.
-vii —
-------
Table 1
STATUS REPORT — ELECTROMAGNETIC DEVICE PROGRAM
Manufacturer/Distributor Device Name(s) Action taken
Name and Address _______________ _____________
Mira Manufacturing Ca pany AMIGO ELECTRONIC SSURO.
Box 15 REPELLER
Pine Valley, CA 92005
N’IIGO ELECTRONIC SSURO.
REPELLER PHASE 2,
Model C-100
AMIGO, AMIGO PHASE SSURO.
2, AMIGO PHASE 2
RODENT CONTROL,
and AMIGO PHASE 2
RABBIT CONTROL
Key Milling Cai par AMIGO ELECTRONIC Fonnal recall.
Clay Center, KS REPELLER PHASE 2
Model C-100
Unity Systems Gulf, Inc. AMIGO ELECTRONIC SSURO.
3101 37th St. Suite 142 REPELLER PHASE 2
Metairie, LA 70001 Model C-lOO
AMIGO Model Device exaniln-
75-C ed by Bureau
of Standards;
referred
to Region for
action.
R. B. Amigo, Irc. AMIGO Believed to be
Downs, KS 67437 same device as
above.
Ecology Systems, lit. ECOLOGY MACHINE SSLJRO.
Oklahoma City, OK
—viii—
-------
Manufacturer/Distributor
Name and Address
Device Name(s)
Action Taken
Ron Wilson
654 N. Shephard
Houston, TX
PI 1IGO PHASE 2
SSURO.
Sentry Manufacturing, Inc.
3rd and E Streets Box 14
Fairbury, NB 68352
AVIS RODENT
CONTROL
SSURO;
voluntary recall;
civil complaint
issued.
LNL, Inc.
3513 Ryder St.
Santa Clara, CA
92626
CO U NTD OWN
B—100
SSURO;
voluntary recall.
Electronic Pest Controls, Inc.
4001 W. Devon
Chicago, IL 60646
EPC 4ARK V
SSURO;
voluntary recall;
referred to U.S.
Attorney f or
criminal action;
civil c iplaint
issued.
The VRP Corporation
P.O. Box 1134
10936 Portal Drive
Los Alaniitos, CA 90720
Solara Electronics, Inc. NATURE SHIELD
1591 Sunland Lane
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Civil ca iplaint
issued;
c pany testina
device and no
longer selling.
SSURO;
civil complaint
issued;
hearing conducted,
awaiting 1 ecision.
SSURO;
voluntary recall;
civil canplaint
issued;
company out of
business.
ERG ‘
EXTERMA PULSE
and
NOFLEEZ
Electronic Exterminators, Inc.
Box 2787
West Palm Beach, ft 33402
-ix-
-------
Manufacturer/Distributor
Name and Address
Device Name(s)
Action Taken
Area Sales Office
Solara Electronics, Inc.
Suite 300
National Press Bldg.
529 14th Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20045
NATURE SHIELD
SSURO.
Piper Products, Inc.
P.O. Box 7, W. Midland Drive
Norwich, NY 13815
PIED PIPER
Referred to
Region.
Orgol m l Manufacturing
Company, Inc.
260 Freeport Blvd.
Sparks, NV 13815
International Trade
Specialists, Inc.
711 W. 17th Street
P.O. Box 661
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
TE RRA—TROL
Enforcement
letter;
coirpany out
of business.
DAL Industries, Inc.
3954 NE 5th Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL
33334
ThE ELIMINATOR
and
MAGNA PULSE
Company out
of business.
RftM Magnetic Pest
Control Systems
5254 East Beverly Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90072
RN1
Enforcement
letter;
company out
of business.
Bell Products
696 Watson Way
Sparks, NV 89431
MAGNA PULSE
SSURO;
voluntary recall.
SIGMA
SSURO.
—
-------
Manufacturer/D i stri butor
Name and Address
Device Name(s)
Action Taken
A.M.I.
8020 West
Lyons, IL
47th Street
60634
MARK V ELEC-
TRONIC PEST
CONTROLLER
(similar to
PEST SHIELD)
SSURO;
voluntary recall.
American Products
5550 North Elston Avenue
Chicago, IL 60630
PEST SHIELD
(similar to
MARK V)
SSURO;
voluntary recall.
Moulton Company
Somerset, WI
54025
RODENT CONTROL
Company out
of business.
Monty’ s Environmental
Services, Inc.
315 W. Alabama
Houston, IX 77006
LaEsSCo, Inc.
Suite B-i
1703 Belle View
Alexandria, VA
HAPPY PET FLEA
CONTROL,
MAGNA PULSE, and
THE ELIMINATOR
THE EXECUTOR
II COMMERCIAL,
THE ELIMINATOR
RESIDENTIAL,
and 1AGNA PULSE
SSURO.
SSURO.
SSURO;
civil complaint
issued;
hearing conducted,
decision issued,
penalty collected.
Company out
of business.
S.P.S. Ecology Corporation
129-15 92nd Avenue
Richmond Hill , NY 11418
frlagna Wave, Inc.
8137 North Austin
Morton Grove, IL
SPS 100
Sample requested.
B 1 vd.
22307
PEST -X
SSURO.
—xi —
-------
Manufacturer/Distributor Device Name(s) Action Taken
Name and Address
Mr. Robert M. Larson PEST-X SSIJRO.
Tech-Trol System
13100 West Center Street
Brookfield, WI
X-Pel Company, Inc. X—PEL PEST S ple reouested
2455 University Ave. CONTROL
St. Paul , ?? 55114
-xii—
-------
ENFORCEMENT SUMMARY OF ACTIONS REGARDING ELECTROMAGNETIC DEVICES
Number of Known Manufacturers/Distributors 28
Criminal Referrals 1
Civil Cc iiplaints Issued 6
SSURO’s Issued 21
Recalls Issued 8
Total Actions Taken 36
Referrals to Region/Action Pendino 2
Enforcement Letters 2
Reported Out-of-Business 6
Samples Requested/Still Outstanding 2
Hearings Conducted 2
-xiii-
-------
3SIR 79-1726 (EPA)
ELECTROMAGNETIC PEST CONTROL
DEVICES
Charles C Gordon
Kenneth W Yee
National Engineering Laboratory
Center for Consumer Product Technology
Product Performance Engineering Division
National Bureau of Standards
Washington. DC 20234
February 1979
Final Report
Issued March 1979
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Enforcement, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances Enforcement Division
Washington, DC 20460
/
‘p
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Juanita M. Kreps. Secretary
Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretaiy for Science and Tedinology
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director
—1—
-------
Table of Contents
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
p
• .
• S
• .
• .
• S
• S
S •
. .
• S S S S
• . S • S S
• • . S S S
• S S • S
• S I S S
• . S S • S
• S • • • •
• . . S • •
• . . S • •
• S • S S •
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure- 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Sample Al
Sample B2
Sample Cl
Sample D.
Sample Fl
Sample Gi
Sample H.
• S S • • • S •
I • • • S S S S
• . S S S • S S
• S S S S S S •
S • • 5 I • S S
• . S S S I S S
• S S • •
• . . S S
• S S I S
• . . S S
S S S S •
• . S S S
Curve 1.
Curve 2.
Curve 3.
Curve 4.
Curve 5.
Unit 31 . . . . . . . . .
Unit 32 . . . . . . . . .
Unit Al . . . . . . . . . .
Unit A2 . . . . . . • . • .
Sketch of Output of Unit El
S • S S S
• . S • I
• S S • •
• S • S •
• S I S S
1.0 Executive Summary . • . . . . . . . . . .
2.0 Introduction . . . . . . . • . . . • . . .
3.0 Units Evaluated . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.0 Evaluation Procedure . . . . . . . • .
4.1 X—Ray and Visual Examination . . . .
4.2 Electromagnetic Measurements . . . .
5.0 Results of Evaluation . . . • . • . . • .
5.1 Results of X—Ray and Visual Examination
5.2 Results of Electromagnetic Measurements
. S
6.0 Fields From Other Electrical Equipment
7.0 Conclusions . . • . . . . . . . • .
8.0 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . .
1.0 Details of Evaluation by Unit
2.0 X—Ray Photographs . . . .
Electromagnetic Pest Controllers
E F.Versua Distance. • . .
Earth’s Magnetic Field . •
EMP. Prom Electrical.Equjpment,
Operating. Voltages and Currents.
S
S
S
.
.
.
S
S
Comparison of Electromagnetic Field Strength
with Distance From C2 Unit
Electromagnetic Fields of Pest Controllers
and Common 115 V 60 Hz Equipment
• I
• S
• S
• S
—2—
-------
page
Chart 1. Unit Bi.
Chart 2 Unit B2
Chart 3. Unit C l.
Chart 4. Unit C2
Chart 5. Unit C2
Chart 6. Unit D.
Chart 7. Unit El
Chart 8. Unit E2
Chart’ 9. Unit Fl
Chart 10 Unit Fl
Chart 11 Unit Cl
• . . . . . . . . I I • • • I • • I
• I I I I I I I I I • I I
• . I • • I I I I • •
• . • I I I I I I • I • • • I • I •
I I I I I • I I I I I • • I I I I I
I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I
I I I I I I
• I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I I •
—3—
-------
ELECTROMAGNETIC PEST CONTROL DEVICES
1.0 Executive Summary
At the request of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the National Bureau of Standards, Center for Consumer
Product Technology, evaluated eight models of
electromagnetic .est controllers provided by EPA. The units
were evaluated to characterize any detectable
electromagnetic output but no judgment of the effectiveness
of the devices as pest controllers was made.
Visual and X—ray inspection and electromagnetic
measurements showed the units can be grouped into two
categories based on characteristics of the output signal——
the principal characteristics being either a pulse output or
a 60 Hz AC output. For the pulse output devices, no
significant external electromagnetic field was found. The
60 Hz units were found to generate detectable magnetic
fields. For all units, the fields detected would be less
than the earth’s magnetic field at distances of three meters
or more. Some common electrical equipment was found to
generate electromagnetic fields of the same order of
magnitude as that produced by these pest controllers.
2.0 Introduction
The National Bureau of Standards (NBS) was requested by
the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances Enforceiaent Division, to
perform a limited evaluation of eight models of
electromagnetic pest controllers provided by EPA. Two
samples of some models were provided. These controllers are
electrical or electronic devices intended to riu an area uf
pests such as rodents, rabbits, roaches, termites, and fleas
depending on the particular unit. NBS was requested to 1)
characterize any measurable electromagnetic output, but was
to make no judgment of the effectiveness of the devices as
pest controllers; 2) determine if models have an
commonality of their outputs which would allow grouping or
classifying of similar units for biological testing; anu 3)
determine the feasibility of developing a standard test
method for measuring and classifying units based on the
nature of the output. Due to the time and resources
available, the work was primarily directed to characterize
and provide comparative measurements of the outputs, and to
-4-
-------
identify commonality between outputs. To the extent
practical, quantitative measurements were made and operating
principles or circuit components identified.
Nondestructive evaluation techniques were requested by
EPA since limited samples were obtained and several were
subsequently used by EPA for biological experiments to
determine the effects on animals or insects. The units were
to remain operable should further measurements be requested.
The measurements were to use readil available equipment,
where possible, so that further measurements could be made
by inoependent laboratories if necessary.
The EPA was responsible for obtaining test samples and
contacts with manufacturers. The EPA requestea technical
information and circuit diagrams but received only catalog
or advertising type literature. It was assumed that the
manufacturers did not choose to reveal this information.
Many units were either potted or assembled with rivets,
adhesive, or by other methods making nondestructive
disassembly difficult. This construction limited the
information obtained on circuits and components. Some units
are battery—operated and their cases were opened to perform
tests and inspect the battery supplies since batteries would
be replaced in the field.
A review of literature at the beginning of the
evaluation did not identify any publishea quantitative data
on the electromagnetic fields froi 1 hese devices. A
subsequent paper by Wagner (1978) reports data on several
units.
3.0 Units Evaluated
The EPA furnished to NBS eight different types of
electromagnetic pest controllers for evaluation. Two
samples each of six of the types were furnished. A list of
these electroma netic pest controllers with an N S assi ned
code for reference in data reporting and the EPA assigned
sample number is given in Table 1. The letter refers to
the type while the number desi nates the sample of that
type. The NBS code is also used to identify the X—ray
photographs in Appendix 2 and photographs of the outsiuc of
each unit in Figures 1 through 7. Units El and E2 here
returned to EPA before photographs were obtained.
—5—
-------
Tai. le 1
E ectroma netic Pest Controllers
NBS Code EPA No .
Al Sample 131918 (03213)
Sample 131918 (03199)
31 Sample 131978A
32 Sample 1319788
Cl Sample 168054
C2 Sample 168054
D Sample 131901
El Sample 131902
£2 Sample 131903
Fl Sample 13l905A
F2 Sample 13l905B
G1 Sample 131906A
G2 Sample 1319068
H Sample 123831
The units Al, A2, and 81, 32 are battery—operatea.
These units were received with batteries installed and the
units operating. They have no on—off switch and operation
is indicatea by the periodic flashing of a small red .i ht
emitting diode (LED) in the center of the top of each case.
Instructional material supplied with these units incaicates
that they should run for approximately six months at which
time the batteries are to be replaced.
The other six types all operate from a 115 volt, 60 Uz,
AC power supply. These likewise do not have an on—off
switch but start immediately when plugged in. Units C, D,
and E have a circuit fuse. Units F and G have both a
circuit tuse and a small light to indicate when they ar
connected to the power supply. Unit H has an LED which
periouically flashes to indicate when it is on.
4.0 Evaluation Procedure
Edch unit was visually examined to the extent possib1
without destruction. One sample of each type was X—rayed to
reveal hidden components, and each sample was subsequently
—6—
-------
F1’ URE 1 SAMPLE Al
FIGURE 2 SN1PLE B2
-7-
-------
FIGURE 3 SATIPLE
FIGURE 4
SAMPLE D
-8 -
I
/4 :*
C l
-------
FIGURE 5
SAMPLE Fl
FIGURE 6 SNIPLE
Gi
—9—
-------
FIGURE 7 SA 1PLE
H
-10-
-------
n 1 easureu to characterize arid, when possiLie, quantify any
theasurab .Le electronia nettc field emitted.
4•l h—Ray and Visual Exaruination
X—ray photographs (Appendix 2) were r . ace of one
sample of each of the types received. In most cases
a unit was X—rayed, three different photographs
5O’ apart were wade to reveal all possible internal
parts. The photo rdphs at aifferent angles (1) assist
in revealing niduen parts, (2) reveal internal
construction anu parts location, (3) expose enca sulatea
(potted) inte rdted circuits, etc., and (4) assist in
deterniining principles of operation. X—raying the units
was considered to be nondestructive. E.ach unit was
tested before ana after X—raying arid for six types, the
X—rayed unit was compared to the non—X—rayed unit to
verify that no change had occurred.
The visual examination was limited to outside
inspection of the sealed units except for unit C2.
Since Al, A2, bl, and 62 were battery—operated arid tne
batteries had a finite life expectancy, the case screws
were removed to inspect the battery packs and measure
the operating current. It was also determiriea that it
was necessary to open these units and make internal
eonnectioris to the metal case and the battery to detect
any signal. Unit C was opened for visual inspect.loii.
Its operation was found to be the same after opening as
before opening.
4.2 Electrooagnetic Mea urements
Electromagnetic measurements for DC fielas were
made using a Schonstedt Model rlSM—ll station
Magnetometer. This instrument can uetect a fielu of 0.5
nanotesla and ambient fields can be neutralized to
within 0.5 rianotesla (nT). The earth’s ield is
approximately 50,000 nT or 0.5 gauss (10 nanotesla = 1
gauss). AC magnetic field measurements were made using
a search coil as a detector. The coil consists of 250
turns of F o. 3 4 insulatea wire wound with close spacin
in a single layer on a nonmagnetic form (pheriolic) of 2—
inch diameter. The overai]. length is approxillLately 2
inches. For sinusoidal steady st 0 te ma rietic fielcis,
the magnitude of the field can be calculated from the
voltage output ox trie coil and the period of the
waveform. Two of these search coj.ls were used at times
—11—.
-------
to make simultaneous measurements at different. locations
around the AC operated units. A cual—trace oscilloscoçe
was usec to display, measure ami..lituae, and analfze the
AC or pulse type signals. With this equipment the
outputs from two search coils to the unit under test
could be exa nined and ana1 zed siwultaneously. A dual
channel DC amplifier—recorder was used in conjunction
with the oscilloscope to make permanent records ox the
i a nituie and frequency of the random or programmed on—
off operation of certain units. The recoruer input. was
frow a search coil.
For magnetic fields at 60 Hz, this equipment can
resolve less than 100 microtesla (1 gauss) peak—to—peak.
The sensitivity Increases in proportion to frequency.
This coil is useable up to about 100 kHz which is iii
excess of any frequency measured or anticipatec basec on
the size of the coils in the units which are visible in
the X—rays. For the search coil used, the peak—to—peak
magnetic field in microtesla is equal to 0.31 times the
peak—to—peak voltage CV) in millivolts times the period
(1) of the waveform in milliseconds, 16.7 ms for 6C Hz.
[ .agnettc field (uT) = 0.31 x V(mV) x T(uis)]
5.0 Rdsults of Evaluation
General results on each unit examined are given iii this
sect ion. More detailed results are given in Appenuix 1.
5.1 Results of X—Ray and Visual Examination
- Visual inspection and exazuination of the X—ray
photographs and the electromagnetic ieasur em rits show
similarities between different units. Units Al, A2, 1,
B2, and H are similar except that the A’s and B ’s are
each powered by fo r 12—volt lantern—type batteries in
parallel and U operates from 115 volts AC. The X—rays
show that each has three coils and nine integrated
circuits on a printed circuit boara. The electroi ios
all are encapsulated preventing further nondestruct. .v
circuit cetermination. In the A and B units, the coiLs
and electronics are contained within sheet metal cubes:
in the A units totally enclosed, in the U units with one
side open which faces the grounu when normally
installed. The metal cube in A appears to be aluuiinuni,
the metal in £3 is magnetic. The cube in the A units is
-12-
-------
cotitained alon with the batteries in a totally cl sea
alun inum case. The r et l in these units would act as an
electrostatic shield. OrJ.y low frequency magnetic
fields of ny magnitude woulu be expected to penetrate
the metal, particularly 1ro the A unit’s totall —c.Losed
case. Unit Ii aoes not have any r ietal shield.
The C, D, , F, aria G units appear similar. Each
has multiple coils, from 2 to 6, which appear to be
mounted on a magnetic core. The two coils in E are side
by side, the others are all axial. Unit Fl appears to
have three thryristor semiconductor switches which
control the coil currents and Unit G2 appears to nave a
thern.al switeri mounted against each coil. Fuses and
pilot li hts are the only other significant components
identifiable.
5.2 Results of Electromagnetic Measurements
DC Magnetic Field . The DC magnetic field
measurements mace using the magnetometer were confined
to units Bl and B2. At any position of the probe
relative to the unit, arid before any data was taken, the
ambient exterr al fielas were neutralized to about 1/?
nT. Then the uric was placeu next to the probe anu
lined up as indicated by the instructions with the 1
(nortn) mark pointing north. A continuous chart
recording was made of the change in the magnetic field
due to the operation of the unit. The magnetometer
probe was positioned in several locations around the
unit to obtain the distribution profile of the field
generated by the unit. Chart I shows a portion of
recording for unit bi and chart 2 shows a recording for
unit B2. The aetectable change in the magnetic field is
approximately 8—12 nT. During the testing, the opening
of a laboratory coor producea more fiela change than was
recorded due to unit El. There is a periodic shifting
of the magnetic field that most likely is caused by the
different internal digital type integrated circuits
operating to prouuce pulses. The higher frequency
components are discussed in a later para raph. The
hiagnituae of the detected changes of DC magnetic field
are about l/500u of the earth’s mabnetic field.
The ma netomei..er recordings of the output ci ’ units
61 and B2 shohed rio si 6 nificant differences between
these units. 6ince the X—ray and visual examination
snowed that units Al and A2 arid H were very similar in
—13-
-------
construction, in parts and layout tu Ui and b2, these
were not checked usi;i the iua netoiueter. Thei re
coverec in the fOllowinb section, where [ u.gher frequency
measurements are aescribed.
AC Mabnetic ieid . The A, b, and H units were
examined witu the search coil ana oscilloscope. No
detectable output was found fror any of these units.
Theref? 9 , other techniques were used to exacilne these
units.
The covers were rewovea from units B]. an L2. The
oscilloscope high input lead was connected to the cuetal
can and the ground lead connected to the negative
battery terminal. Curves 1 and 2 re photographs of the
oscilloscope patterns for units 61 and B2 respectively.
These outputs appear to be digitally generated uecau e
of the low frequency and exact pattern repetition.
Similar patterns were measured in units Al and A2
between the metal box and the battery negative terminal.
These are shown in curves 3 and ZI. respectively. o
metal can or box is used in unit H, as in A and B.
The oscilloscope was connected between one of tne coil
leads and tne ne ative side of the internal power
sup .ly. A si nilar pattern, shown in curve 5, was
measured. Any external fields resulting from these
internally n easureJ si nals was not deterruinea by
analysis and none were measurea.
The ot er five units, C, D, E, F, and G, all
produce 60 Hz magnetic fields rueasurable with the searc i
coil. All units switch the fields on and off in a
generally random pattern. The various coils may bc
energized at aifferent times resulting iii several levels
of field strength depending on the number of coils
energized. The coils are energized from several seconds
u . to several minutes depending on the particular unit.
The long intervals and random patterns indicate some
type of thermal sensor determines the switching. The
outputs from these units are shown in charts 3 throu h
11.
The maximum fields were measured at vurious
uistances from each unit. The search coil voltage arid
the calculated magnetic fields are given in Table 2 for
each unit. The largest fields were from unit C2 niountedi
on a 2.11 meter iron pipe.
-14-
-------
Ex 1 ination of the aata in Table 2 shows a very
rapiQ d’ rease in field stren6th as the search coil is
moved a . ay froia each .est controller under test. t
distances which dre larbe cowpared to the diameter f
the coil, the iaanetic field tram a current cdrryi i3
coil ueoreases as the third power of the distance.
That. is at 10 Leters the field will be 1/1000 of the
field at one meter. The mea suremeflts at the 0.15 a id
0., cieter aistance are not far enough from the coils to
follow tt is inverse cube relationship. boubling tue
distance of the search coil from 0.15 tt to 0.3 n fr .mi
the unit reduces this aet ctea field strength over a
range of 3 to l times. These units are c med to be
effective over n area ot 2 to 12 hectares (5 to JO
acres). From tne measurements at 0.3 m in Table 2, it
can be calculated that at 3 m the fields from various
units will i.e from 1/5 to 1/500 of the earth’s field.
The data in Table 3 shows the earth’s magnetic fiela
strength throughout the United States for a comparison.
Fi ,ure 8 is a plot of the decrease in the
e1ectrowa rietic fiela strength with distance from the C2
unit. The points at 0.3 m and 0.6 m (1 and 2 ft) are
labor4tory measurements. From 3 meters to 12 meters (10
to L Q feet) are calculations basea upon the fiela
decrecsin , as the third power the di tance. That s
at 12 m the field will be (1/14) tib:eS that at 3 i or
approximately 0.3 microtesla (0.003 gauss).
b.0 Fields From Other Electrical Equipment
As a comparison between the 60 Hz fields generated by
the 1 ..est controllers anu those encountered from everycay 11
volt 50 Hz equipment, the field from several cuz .mon iter. s
as measured and is shown in Table L • A comparison between
cata in Table 2 with that in Table L indicates some common
and household electrical equipment produce 60 Hz fleics
in the same orcer of magnitude as those enerateQ by the
pest controllers. The principal difference between those or’
the same magnituce is that the pest controllers are turueu
on arid off in a fixed pattern or in a random pattern whil€
the shop ana household units usually operate tor 1on er
periods. These motor units can be random in their cu—off
cration.. Some of tue 115 volt 60 Hz motors showed j.u1 es
with larger magnitudes. Figure 9 is a bar graph of Oãtc
from Table showing a comparison of the electromagnetic
zields of pest controllers and common 115 volt 60 hi
e4ulpment when examined at a distance of O.j in (1 ft) to tue
— 5—
-------
Table 2
Versus Distance
(1) Peak—to—peak
Coil Signal Period Constant Microtesl.a
Code Distance V (V) ma (T) .31 .31 VT Gauss Coen
C2 c1oaest 15 000 16.7 .31 77 700 777 top 3
0.15 (6 in) 500 16.7 .31 2 600 26
0.3 m (12 in) 60 16.7 .31 300 3
C2 closest 18 000 16.7 .31 93 000 930 nd 4
0.15 m (6 in) 6 800 16.7 .31 35 000 350 8 ft pipe
0.3 (12 in) 2 300 16.7 .31 12 000 120 on unit
0.6 m (24 in) 200 16.7 .31 1 000 10
D closest 150 16.7 .31 780 8
0.1.5 m (6 in) 30 16.7 .31 160 2
0.3 m (12 in) 10 16.7 .31 50 .5
£2 closest 2 750 16.7 .31 14 000 140
0 15 (6 in) 110 16.7 .31 600 6
0:3 m(12 in) 10 16.7 .31 50 .5
Fl closest 1 250 16.7 .31 6 000 60
0.15 m (6 in) 200 16.7 .31 1 000 10
0.3 (12 in) 60 16.7 .31 300 3
G2 closest 3 500 16.7 .31 18 000 180
0.15 m (6 in) 360 16.7 .31 1 900 19
0.3 m (1.2 in) 20 16.7 .31 100 1
(1) Search Coil; 250 turn, 34 insulated wire, 2—inch diameter, 2—inch lengtt
(2) Closest; search coil in contact with case of unit under test.
(3) Top; search coil located on top of unit.
(4) End; search coil located on end of unit
100 T • 1 gauss
-16-
-------
Table 3
Earth’s Magnetic Field
(Geomagnetic Information, NOAA, Boulder, CO)
Microtesla
(avg)
Microteala
(avg)
Microtesla
(avg)
Alabama
Alaska
Ar izona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connect icut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
I ilinola
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louis lana
Ha [ ne
Maryland
Ma s sac hu a e t t a
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
57
55
55
57
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wiscona in
Wyoming
56
54
59
55
52
54
57
56
57
57
59
57
State
State
State
56
56
59
60
54
57
58
57
53
57
56
53
57
53
57
52
55
51
55
56
56
51
53
36
57
57
57
58
56
56
52
57
55
U.S. Average
60
55 (.55 gauss)
100 microtesla 1 gauss
-------
-w
EMF From Electrical Equipment
Item
Soldering Gun
Soldering Iron
Lab Power
Supply
Nonvent ed
heater fan
Transformer
unloaded
Bandaav 1/4
HP motor
Shop grinder
Hand drill
1/4 HP
Coil Signal
Distance mV (p-p)
close for max. 40
close 10
for maximum 40
(close)
for maximum 20
(close)
for maximum 80
(close)
for maximum 30
(close)
for maximum 200
(close)
for maximum 1500
(close)
,3 meter (1 f.t) 20
for max, (close) 100
,3 meter (1 ft) 10
.3 mete.r (1 ft) 400
Gauss
Period
ma
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16 .7
16.7
Peak-to—Peak
Constant Microteala
.31 .3l VT
.31 207
.31 52
.31 207
.31 104
.31 414
.31 155
.31 1035
.31 7766
,31 103.5
.31 518
2.1
.5
2.1
1.0
4.0
1.6
10.4
1
1.04
5 • 18
.5
20.7
1/4” hand
(different brand)
Kitchen
Blender
Kitchen( 1 )
Blender
is 60 Hz envelope of higher frequency pulses,
be similar to the pulse generating units A, B, and Hi.
16,7
16 • 7
.31
.31
50 • 1
2070
probably brush noise, and would
-------
120
30.
(3000)
(3000) Search Coil FIGJRE 9
I 1 Ft. away Electromagnetic Fields
I of Peat Controllers and
Common 115 volt 60 Hz
I Equipment, Distance — 1 ft.
to Search Coil
FIGJRE 8
Comparison of
Electromagnetic
I Field Strength
20- With Distance 20.
(2000) From C2 Unit (2000)
a
0
‘I
-C
bO
12
a
‘ . 4
a’
U) Ii
U
U) a
W I
C2Unit •
10- Coil at 2 ft. ‘ 10’
(1000)
-u
- 0
o a e )
0 X V
C C
t 4 ) 4)
I U
C
(55jff) c
4) 4)
0.55 Gauss (0.3jiT) .5
(2( iT) Earth’s 0.003
auss
0.2 G Field at e0 ft.
____ Ave ) Gauss
(5o).5 — 0 —
0
10 20 30 40 C2 D E2 Fl G2
Distance in Feet from C2 Unit Unit Code
-------
•sear h coil aetector. •rhe kitchen blender shc ed a 60 Hz
envelope of high frequency pulses from the motur brushes and
cowiuutator in adaition to a 60 Hz sine wave field.
7.0 Conclusions
The eignt types of electromagnetic pest controllers
furnishea by EPA were examined. The NBS evaluation
Indicates these can be separated into two categories a ed
on characteristics of the output signa.L: group 1, pulse
output; group 2, 60 Hz sine wave output. Of the units
evaluated, three (A, B, ano H) are in group 1 and five (C
tnrough G) are in group 2.
roup 1 characteristics: 1) the units generate a low
level, repetitive pulse pattern which was measuraule Dy
direct connectj.on to the internal circuitry with an
oscilloscope; 2) low power drain; 3) aigital integratea
circuits used to generate pulse pattern output. Evaluation
of group 1 units resulted in no significant detectable
external electroma neti.c field with either a ulaanetometer or
a search coil used as a detector with an oscilloscope. The
only measurable signal from these units was found by direct
connection to the metal case of two of the units and to t1 e
coil lead of the ot er unit with an oscilloscope. The short
auration of both the positive and negative pulses for the
units would procuce very low average power radiated signals.
Group 2 characteristics: 1) output is a 60 Hz
electromagnetic field; 2) operates from 115 volt, 60 Hz AC
power; 3) have a rar aom or repetitive on—off pattern; 4)
appear to operate by driving various numbers of coils with
60 Hz AC.
The field generated by group 2 unIts was reaaily
detectable by the search coil and oscilloscope. The
electromagnetic fields from the 60 Hz units decrease very
apidly with distance from the unit as shown in Table 2.
hese fields will be less than the earth’s magnetic field at
hree meters from any of the units. Figure 8 illustrates
he rapid decrease of the electromagnetic field stren th
ith distance. For a circular area of 2 to 12 hectares (5
icres and 30 acres) for which various units are c1 i:iied to
e effective, the radius is approximately 76 meters aria 200
eters (250 and 650 feet) respectively. For all units, the
lagnetic field emitted will decrease with the third ,ower 01
he distance from the unit. For distances larger than 3 m,
-20-
-------
the earth’s Leld would significantly exceed these emitted
fields. These units transmit alternating fields which nay
vary in ain ..1ituae ano “on” time. Figure 9 shows that some
comn on 115 volt 60 Hz equipment generates electromagnetic
fields in the same order of magnitude as produced bj these
pest controllers.
The NBS evaluation of this group of e1ectroMa netic pest
controllers indicates a standard test procedure can be
ceveloped for the group 2 devices to characterize their
output. This would utilize standaru laboratory equipment
such as the volt—ohmmeter, oscilloscope, magnetometer, and
chart recorders. For group 1 devices, a standard test
proceoure can be aeveloped to determine if any significant
external electronia .gnetic field is emitted.
The biological effects of the electromagnetic fielos on
rodents, insects, and other anima’s were not evaluated by
N B S.
NOTES
wagner, R.E., “Outputs of Electromagnetic Devices, Their
Effects on Drywood Termites,” Pest Control , September 1978,
p. 20.
(2) The TEM cell at NBS, Boulder, CO, was considered for
auditional measurements but was unavailable at the required
t i ni e.
Robert Plonsey and Robert E. Collin, Principles and
Applications of Electro iagnetic Fields, p. 2L12, McGraw—Hill
i ook Co., 1961.
2 hectares are contained within a circle of 80 meters in
radius.
—21—
-------
8.0 Appè di
1. Details of Evaluation by Unit
At least one ty . .e of each unit was measured for xiauni
current consumption auring operation. These results are
summarizeo in Table 5.
Unit A : Visual inspection was i iade of units Al and At..
Since these were battery—operated, their cases were openeQ.
Four 12—volt lantern type batteries in .iaral1e1 supply power
to the electronics which is contained in a nietal cube in the
center of a spun aluminum case. The case separates into two
halves of upper and lower approximately equal sections. X—
ray photographs of Al show nine integrated circuits in the
potting compound (three lb pin and six lL pin), several
resistors and capacitors, and three coils mounted in a aelta
layout on top of the potting block. The coil’s axes are
parallel to the ground when the unit is installed as
recomn ended. Laboratory testing and these photographs
indicate that this unit uses digital circuitry to gener at a
pulse pactern output. The top portion of the case was
removea to attach the oscilloscoç,e probe to the metal i.ox
housing the electronics with the scope grouna probe be. ng
connectea to the negative terminal of the unit’s battery
p wer su p1y. The top of the metal box was placea back on
the unit, ut not screwed into place, being careful nor. to
snort out the oscilloscope connections to the case. This
proceaure reduced the 60 Hz pickuç present and produced
noise—free pdttern on the oscilloscope for analysis an the
photographs, curve 3 (unit Al) and curve L3 (unit A2). Botn
units show a definite pattern repetition rate of
ap roxiuiately 6. 4 seconds. This repetition rate coincides
with the flashing of the LED indicator on top of the metal
housln 6 cover. The units are obviously operated from
digital circuitry due to the exactly repeated outpuc
pattern. The units are supposed to be identical in output
but there is significant variation between units Al and A2
in the azLplltude of the positive pulses within a pdttern.
This could be uue to quality control problews or one unit
not operating within design specifications.
Unit 3 : The X—ray photog phs of unit S2 show that it
also contains integrated circuits (six l 4 pin and three 16
pin packages). Four 12—volt lantern batteries in p ara11tl
supply power for the unit. A metal cube with one sloe open
houses tue integrated circuits which are potted in an op c ue
material. Three coils in a delta form extend throu h z,he
-22-
-------
surface of this material. Tue coil’s axes are p ral1el to
the srouno wnen the unit in its installed position.
Likewise l boratory tests and tnese piioto raph indica.te
tnis unit uses ci ital circuitr ’ to generate a pulse pattern
output. This unit is housed in a plastic case with an LEu
uounted in tne top to indicate the unit is operating. This
L .D flashes about every nine seconds.
The covers were removed from units El and B2. The
oscillo coj e was c3ñnecte to the internal n etal box for the
high input lead ar.a ground lead was connc-cted to the
negative battery terminal. Curves 1 and 2 are photographs
of the oscilloscope pattern for units 1 l and B2
respectively. This type of output is obviously digitally—
generatea because of the low frequency ano exact pattern
repetition. Units k. 1 and B2 have an equal number of
positive pulses (24). Unit Bi has 26 negative pulses. Unit
52 shows two extra negative pulses of small amplitude
between the normal spacing for the other negative pulses.
These are probab.Ly due to a defective integrated circuit
(IC) and not due to variation in the design since accoruin 6
to the manufacturer both units are supposed to be the same.
The pulse pattern epeats approximately every 17.5 seconos.
The small LED light on the top to indicate the unit is
operating flashes approximately every nine seconds or twice
for each pattern of pulses.
The two batter:, operated units, A2 and 32, were tested
for output when installed in the ground. These were burie
to 1/2 of their hei. ;ht (thickness) in the earth as
recommended by th manufacturer. The oscilloscope was
connected to the nternal metal can and battery common
ter 4 inal as in ti e laboratory tests. Unit A2 showed
approximately a 4O aecrease in output signal when the unit
waS in the earth relative to wrien it was testea in the
u or a tory
For the other battery—operated unit, B2, installed in
the earth, there s no change in the output signal relative
to that measured the laboratory.
Unit C : The unit C2 was X—rayed in two pieces becduse
of its length. Brth the top and base ends were phocobraphlea
with approxiniatelj -i5° rotation to reveal hidden parts. Tne
photographs indi at six coils along a center rou w th
associated modul r type circuitry printed circuit boarus.
There are three printed circuit boards. This unit was
opened and inspection showed the six coils are connecoea as
p ralle1 pdirs. Each pair is driven by one of the potteu
tuouules. There is some end—play between the coil retaincr5
O(. the bottom ar. t. p of rod so the coils can slide along
the rod when dri ie’ Ly opposing magnetic fields. From the
chart recordings, aotographs, and visual inspection of this
unit, it is not pcs ible to identify the type of components
used to produce the output pattern shown in charts 3, 4, and
—23-
-------
Chart 3 is of unit C ]. with a search coil 1ocate .i
arouna the top rod and one located around the bottom roc
which was connected to a 2.4 meter iron pipe. From these
the top search coil indicates a large amplitude 60 lIz (max.
15 V peak—to—peak) magnetic field of about four seconds
duration that repeats every one minute and fifty seconds ana
a corresponding small field detected by the bottom searcn
coil. Within this pattern, but not at uniform times, the
top search coil indicated several reduced amplituce, four—
secona duration fields and the lower coil detected, at
corresponding times, a larger amplitude field of
approximately four seconds duration. Also in addition to
these maximum fields in the bottom search coil, reducec
fields were detected of approximately four seconds duration
corresponding to similar detections in the top coil.
Similar recordings of unit Cl were made of unit C2.
These are shown in charts 4 and 5. Chart 4 shows the
calculations of the relative amplitudes from each coil for
each approximately four second “o&’ time of the unit (max.
15.5 V peak—to—peak).
Chart 5 shows the output from the top search coil only
for the period between 1]. and 15 minutes after turn on. The
top pair of coils is designed No. 3, middle pair No. 2, ana
lower pair No. 1. The pattern repeats every one minute and
50 seconds, but the operation of pairs 1. and 2 are not
consistent in order of operation within the pattern. The
difference in amplitude between the 1, 2, and 3 pairs of
coils is due to the difference in each coil—pair distance
from the search coil on the stub. The coil is closest to
the No. 3 pair. The reason for the random on—off time of
coil pairs 1 and 2 within the time pattern cannot be
iciintifieCwithout more circuitry information or destructive
examination of the encapsulated modules.
(1) The search coil described was used to examine the
characteristics of each unit for oscilloscope analysis and
paper chart recording. Charts 3 through 11 are typical
records of the outputs from the 115 volt 60 Hz units when
detected by a-search coil or coils. The chart speed in all
recordings is 1 sec/mm with the smallest chart division
equal to 1 mm. The minute marks are indicated down the
center of the chart. The oscilloscope was used to Qeterüiine
that these units had 60 Hz outputs. The maximum amplituce
detected by the search coil was determined from the
oscilloscope caliL ration and indicated on each channel of
recoruing. This reduced the time and confusion of adjustin&
the pen recorder to a specific level. All charts are a
portion of a recording taken after each unit was turned on
and run for some time. Recoraings lasted froa 15 minutes to
nearly one hour to analyze the characteristics of each
output.
-24—
-------
hen the uiiit C2 is initially turned on, 11 three ccil3
are energized arid the upper No. 3 pairs separa e from the
No. ana Uo. 1 pairs by the amount of travel possible for
the coils alori 6 the rod, about 12 im. This is accompanied
by an audible vibration during the “on” time of about Icur
seconds. This audible vibration also occurs when the 1 anc
2 pairs are “on” simultaneously. Smaller auoible vibrations
were noticed when a single pair of coils was driven or for
other combinations of pairs.
Tue driving signal to each pair of coils from its
associateu eticapsulated module was measurea as 115 volts 60
E during the four seconds perioc . When a pair of coils is
Deiri driven, they induced 60 Iiz signal into the adjacent
uticiriven pairs.
Unit U : Two X—ray photographs were made of unit D
because of its length. This unit has a clear pldstic center
section. Visual inspection shows three coils mounted on a
metal rod with some space between the coils so they can
sliue on the rod. A retainer on each eno limits the travel.
Tue X—ray photographs of unit D reveal very little
additional identifiaole circuitry. The random output
p ttern could be controllec by a thermostatic type switch
wz.icri turns different coils on.
A paper chart recording was made of unit 0 (chart b).
TILe searcu coil was placed as near as possible along the
clear plastic side, parallel to the center coil of the three
coils mounted on the center rod. After initial startup,
the unit turns off, but then operates in a random mode as
shown iii the chart. The output is low (0.26 volts peak—to—
peak) as detected by the search coil. The duration of “on”
tiz ie is variable. This unit appears to be controlled by a
tnermostatic type switch that is sensitive to the
tetuperature of the unit which would also be affectec by the
amoient environment. This could procuce the variation in
time of operation and duration. The radiated field is
always c O Liz and can be less than one secoria in duration and
u to several seconds after the initial startup. The lower
amplituue signals are due to the random operation of the
other coils which are not coupled as closely to the searci
coil s the center coil. This type of variable operatlor. o
difterer t coils in a multi—coil unit was observed when
testin uuits Cl and C2.
Unit E : The X—rays of unit El show two coils mounted
a jacent to each other with their center axis spacec 75 ri w
-25—
-------
apart. The coil centers are such that two units oou1 be
bolted together to increase the output fields. Each unit
has a fuse. Other circuitry appears limited. The unit is
also possibly controlled by a thermostatic switch.
The units El and £2 are also 115 volts 60 Hz powered
pest controllers. Both are supposed to be identical and
they operated essentially the same after the initial
startup. Each was examined with two search coils placed on
top with their axes on line with the axes of the internal
coils as revealed by the X—rays. When unit 1 was turned on,
a 60 Hz field was present from one coil for 15 minutes and
then went off for 12 minutes. The other coil was on for 12
minutes and then off for 15 minutes. After the “off” time,
the unit El produced a 60 Hz, 2.6 volt peak—to—peak sine
wave. Duration of each transmission varied from less than
one second to several seconds. Both of the coils would
frequently be on simultaneously but would not necessarily
start or stop at the same time. Examination of chart 7
reveals the random nature of the operation after warm—up
between the time of 27 minutes and 31 minutes after turn—on.
A very sensitive heat element that detects the temperature
of each coil could produce this pattern. The ambient
temperature would be a factor affecting the operating
pattern.
Unit E2 exhibited imilar characteristics as unit El
except on startup each coil operated for approximately 3—1/2
and 2—1/2 minutes respectively, then both were off for 8—1/2
minutes. After this the random pattern shown in chart 8
began. All detected signals are 60 Hz sine waves and from
2.6 to 2.8 volts peak—to—peak at the search coils. This is
the same amplitude as unit El.
Unit F : The unit Fl consists of a metal box with an
attached pipe. The X—rays show the box most likely contains
three thyristor semiconductor switches and the pipe section
contains several coils. The pipe and unit heat up with
extended time of operation. Thermostats could be used to
activate the thyristors to produce the pattern recorded in
charts 9 and 10.
The output of units Fl and F2 were examined around the
case with a search coil and the oscilloscope. Both are 115
volts 60 Hz powered units and radiate 60 Hz sine waves of
varying amplitudes with time. Two search coils were used
for charts 9 and 10, one located at the end of the unit and
the other at the base of the case where the extension pipe
-26—
-------
exits. The coils were located for maximum output in these
positions. The unit operated for approximately seven
minutes at a constant amplitude, then the output droppea to
a lower but constant amplitude (see chart 9). After
approximately 11 minutes the unit went off. The detected
amplitude at the higher level was 1.3 volts peak—to—peak at
the base search coil and only 0.Le V p—p at the end search
coil. Chart 10 shows the pattern of detected output after
several minutes of operation (21 to 25 minutes). Other
portions of the recording show reversal of low and high
amplitudes but starting, stopping, and magnitude changes
occur simultaneously with the two search coils in these
positions. K—rays of the upper extension indicated
circuitry in the upper sections and coils in the pipe. Even
though the output is 60 Hz sine wave, this unit has a
different on—off characteristic than the previous units
which were on for much shorter times and more frequently.
Unit G : The Gi and 02 type units are designed to be
clamped to a water pipe. They also are 115 volt 60 Hz
powered. The unit 02 X—rays show two coils around a common
center rod. They are spaced about 30 mm apart. The K—rays
indicate a thermal activated switch is mounted against each
coil. After initial turn on the temperature reaches the
switching level of the heat sensor which turns off the
associated coi1 Thereafter, when the coil cools down, each
coil is activated when its switch closes and runs until the
switch opens.
Two search coils were also used to analyze unit Gi, one
located on top and the other on the side. Its output is a
60 Hz sine wave of LL3 volts peak—to—peak from the top
search coil and 2.5 volts peak—to—peak from the side search
coil. After initial turn on the unit operated for nearly 25
minutes at its maximum peak amplitude at the side coil.
After that the operation becomes random with various
amplitudes and off times. Each amplitude change or off time
was simultaneously reflected by the two search coils. Like
the unit Fl, all Gl “on” operations were longer than the
other 115 V 60 Hz units (see chart 11).
Unit H : The unit H is enclosed in a plastic cdse
consisting of a base section containing all of the
electronic circuitry either molded in place or bonued by
other means. A top plastic piece is bonded to the base
flange. On top of’ this cover is mounted an LED. The case
is open along one side permitting inspection of the unit.
The encapsulated electronics, transformer, and three coils
—27-
-------
are visible here. This opening was used to make electrical
connections for the lLiboratory testing and measurements.
The X—ray photographs of the H unit shows a power
supp1 , three coils coupled to the encapsulated iuodule, and
the module of ix lL pin and three 16—pin integrated
circuits ana other cora.iponents.
The H unit is 115 volt 60 Hz powered. It contains a
power supply to convert to 12 volts DC. The small light
eMit in diode on the case flashes about every six seconds
(similar to Type A units) to indicate the unit is operating.
The X—ray photographs revealed that the unit H contains
electronic components similar to those in the A and units
except for the DC power supply. Therefore, it was teste i
for pulse output. No output was detectable using tLIe se rch
coil. The oscilloscope common lead was connectea to the
negative of the 12 volt supply. No metal case or box i3
used in the H unit as in A or B units. The OSCIllOSCOpe
probe was connected to one of’ tne coil leads frov the
encapsulted electronic components to investigate any pulse
output. The output is shown in the sketch, curve 5. The
pulse pattern is repeated approximately every 12 seconds.
This type of output is also obviously digitally generatet
because of’ the low frequency, exact pulse pattern
repetition, and the integrated circuits used as shown by X—
ra , photographs. The maximum positive pulse output is over
twice t iat of the B units but the intermediate low amplitude
pulses are si nificantly less. The average power radiatea
is very low due to the short pulse duration and sruall
ar p1itudes which likewise is characteristic of the A and
pulse units.
-28-
-------
Table 5
Orcr ting Voltages and Currents
Operating Max.
Code Volts Current
A]. 12VDC 6.2 A
A2 12VDC 2.2 A
Bi 1 1VDC 2.3 A
B2 11.2 V DC 3.1 A
C2 115 V AC 3.]. A
D 115 V AC 9.4 A
El 115VAC 3.].A
Fl 115 V AC 2.6 A
G2 115 V AC 5.3 A
-29—
-------
UNIT B 1 : 6/8/78
MAXIMUM POSITIVE PULSE:
NEGATIVE PULSE
SWEEP RATE
PULSE RATE
PATTERN REP. RATE
GA I N
OJF IE1
2 ,3V
.675 V
5 SEC/CM
.35 SEC
17,5 SEC
.675 V/CM
-------
UNIT B 2 : 6/8/78
MAXIMUM PosITIvE PULSE:
NEGATIVE PULSE
SWEEP RATE
PULSE RATE
PATTERN REP. RATE :
GAIN
2.25 V
.825 V
5 SEC/CM
.35 SEC
17.5 SEC
.75 V/CM
-31—
-------
p .
UNIT A 1 :
MAXIMUM POSITIVE PULSE:
NEGATIVE PULSE
SWEEP RATE
PULSE RATE
PATTERN S RATE
GA I N
GJRVE3
.51 V
1 SEC/CM
: .18 SEC
: 6.4 SEC
.183 V/CM
6/7/78
n
-32-
-------
UNIT A 2: 6/8/78
MAXIMUM POSITIVE PULSE:
NEGATIVE PULSE
SWEEP RATE
PULSE RATE
PATTERN REP. RATE
GA! N
CURVE 4
.64V
,12V
2 SEC/CM
.18 SEC
6.4 SEC
.183 V/CM
-33...
-------
Curve 5: LO/Z3/78
S eteh of Output of Unit H 1
as shown on the Oscilloscope Display
5--.
4-..
3-..
o2
1-.-
0
—1. - — -
Max. of .2 volts
—2 — — -
0
:: :i
0I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9.10 11 12
I Tine, Seconds
Pattern aepeats : Every 12 Seconds
-34-
-------
I
4- -
1/ME
M4GN TDM TSR TESt
L/N,rBS: -‘,-‘1s
uAAr SPEED! 10 Sse/cM
Cwj*r s&ws,r,v,ry: S’My/CM
MAX. SIGM41 MPLlTL/os: i’
CHART 1
/v’ r t /\r I
; j 1 VL4I” VLM
Top
I
1 W
o’&I
o’ .
c3c
‘AT IJ
I ’
‘I
I
I
TESLR
-------
MAGNE T.ME1ER
TEsY
UN1T &Z
SPF4D IOsac/c#4
5 N$eTIvsT : SSMV/CM
AMpurvDat
v’LliWr 82
4— rnwE
CHARr
Csmkr
MAX.
SipE
#1
CHART 2
-------
CHPRT 3 1 . ? ±! ‘T C / ‘/1tI7I
-:
—
p-P !_ __
p—p
ROtroM 3 AP. I?C 1L
-------
CH T 11 -
I ‘
r
I
Ii
V.
/
I v
-------
!
I
.
I ’
_ :i
I I
I I
•1I
CHN T 7/1 .173
_________ 1 hIL
F
it;
-------
rTi
•U
1:1 I
HPRT6
I •
---- --r---
- - -- :-- -÷--— - -
:_t’ — -- - --- -_-- -- -_ -
-
_ — J :’ ‘
I ( ‘illi
‘‘I •IIIJiI.,.
-. 7 4 /ME ( 4 ’#k -fr
. • 1
-4-.
- .-± .
- 1
- -
r
—--S
-
—
: :
:
1 A
:
:
T
.
:L
.
:
.
‘
•
j
-
I -
- I -. -
-------
DM A?PRox$’*
OFF “)ZM’ac_ ,L 1 , PP
T A ’ EN TN y j, i
PA t I
QW :
: - .1 ili Fl-I
‘lab,
H
S(4Re- O/L N9./
I P I I I
I —. it • I I i I
I. I I I •• . 4 _TL44Et’M/N.)— ? I -
“ I1x -
DIV ‘9PPRP)C)1 P-P 5 QPau
— 4-I -I-I-+H--F-+Hi-t
PA TENST.4RT / -— -
CP/L WP..2.
Iii
‘
I
-------
WFR
OFF 4ppp g
____ f, .
- -; t1H
i- t- -: j-
TI/EN Tills
- I ITI i_-I
j 4 CR T 8 LIiwT ti. 4/4 /71 £E.4lcH O1L AIM, D$ 7A9
• •‘ M64 R 4 C. PL U
r I
- I ____
&
I
1 VD.2, DI V T F
DA4 ,W
-------
1
-
CHPKT 9 I
--
/ END 5E,4R tN eolj.
- -
of c
-4
ti
, -.‘--t
‘ - ‘I - I -
- : - I - - IIIJ
-
-
: .L ._; -— -- — --
‘ fi -; ii
I I -, ,L.
I cj l q - 4 :- •- - 1 ’ - - - - - -
i i -i. i I
AZ 8/151 OF 1 i9S 4 F SEARe.#I D1L -
I. 3 v p_p
- \ Dlli -
‘N THIS AfnPUTV DE 1 1 7&R ST/LtT 4 OR AFi’Rø 74t 4 w - ---— - - — -
-------
- 1.
tlgr s’ç
• P,qTIB,v !“F
p Erf J E 4 a ax/I 4 Pa/T
4FTh2 S VER4L
4i,w1/T DF
PPPR4TID4’
$‘0I
1I _
- 4 ’ ’i .OIL
“ SW
- •.I. -.• • — — .— • -
I
IoI
LIO1 1
GIMT 10
1
t
-------
- r - E PcM CoIL
1 Y’ :? OdV 1 Pp
[ i. 5v
- -I--- ;•-. -..-‘ ;- • - - . -r:;
1 _-. —-
‘-1 CHART II $ T1 1 rJ)u1n -
, J. ,( • — i- e.’ — •. .
t t.t 4 -’ - - - LT
: _____________________
. .
(jfl
.
r(
,
.
.j
4.I’! O”
I
Iy 3
4LIq,hl
---.--.-—--——--.-- -___-_J____ 1 _.__,...
-
- - , I
‘W
•
Ctha:TJPEED I
- -- - - - I- -
- -.-
-
.
-
- - -—
y
I
ii , - -
--
- -
-
—
1’
•
tkc ’ i
- -
SEAR.r2M -
tPNSID .-
-,- --. -
--
-
-
-------
8.0 APPENDIX
2. X—Ray Photographs
-46-
-------
1: T VIB4
- ‘47-
-------
‘“‘as’
I ’ ., 110
•‘ 4$ã
Al: SE VIEW
—‘S
“as’s.
t ‘
a. i.e •
S
lUllS, •$uia1i
oases•. •‘OoOsiI
• , . • I $
-------
Al: SflE VIEd
-49-
-------
0
B2: B SEVIB4
50..
-------
—I
-
— .—
— —
F’——
4
B2: ANGLE VIEW
—51 —
-------
U,
C,
C2: ASEEND
*
*
S
g
V
S
S
-52-.
-------
EASE END VIEW
(45° ROTATION)
C2:
a53e
-------
C2: TOP E JD
C I
4
-54-
-------
U,
L
TOP E ’1D
1 (Lt50 ROTATIOI)
41
-55—
-------
I ’
D:
d
-56-
-------
D: POWER INPUTEND
0
/
i
F
I
—57—
-------
El: SItE VIEW
I
-58...
-------
I
C I I
00
I
I
El: TOP VIEW
-59 . .
-------
. 1
EMJVJB I
I
S
-60 -
-------
“p
I
a
Fl: SIDEVIEW
4
St
‘C
1
a
I
-61 -
-------
- r
C
A
: SI IVIEW
-62—
-------
C’
C
w.
S..,,
Hi: TOP VIEW
(
-63-
-------
====
,.‘
Hi: EDGE VIEW
45 ANGLE
-64-.
-------
(
II
c
‘3
I
‘pg
Hi: END VIEW
(45° ANGLE)
• Il_flu tjiuit
11U441 Will
—65—
-------
. ! ,II4A I Iv. ‘.7 1 1
U.S. DC PT. OF COMM. 1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. Lfl cIp .est ’tAtos.sIo No.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA .,
SHEET ‘ ‘
4, TITLE AND SUBTITLE S. Publication Date
Electrnmagnettc Pest Control Devices .P O, i izad e s Code —
7. AUThOR(S) S. Performing Organ. Reocrt No.
Charles C. Cordon, Kenneth W. Tee _____________________
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS * pmRWTa B iMu .
N T 21
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS U. Conuact/Grant No
DEPARTMENT OP COMMERCE
WASHINGTON. DC 20234
12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Str..*. cu ,. Slit.. ZIP) 13. Type of Report & Period Covered
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforc ent,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances Enforc ent Division
401 M St., SW, Washington, D.C. 20460
t-1 • -
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
U Document describes a computer program; SF485, FIPS Software Suninaiy, is attoched . ____________
1$. ABSTRACT (A 20 or • —. • •• •ffi f I 4. S IE LflCAJd
At the request of the Environmental Protection A t.ricy
(EPA), the National Bureau of Standards evaluated eidht
models of electromagnetic pest controllers provided by EPA.
This evaluation was performed by the Center for Consumer
Froduct TechnoloGy. The units were evaluated to
characteri .e any detectable electromagnetic output but no
jud ent of the effectiveness of the devices as pest
controllers was rr ade.
Visual End X—ray inspection and electroI .ia fletiC
u.ca.sureI ent.S sho ..ed the units can be grouped into two
categories based on characteristics of the output signal——
the h..rincipal characteristics being either a pulse output or
a 60 Hz AC output. For the pulse output devices, no
si nificaflt external ectromagfleti0 field was founa. The
,0 Hz units were found to benerate detectaole magnetic
fields. For i.jll units, the fields aetected would be less
than the earth’s raa netiC field at distances of three meters
or Idore. Some com lhofl electrical e.quipnent was found to
nerate electrorsiagrietic fields of the same order of
r riituOe as that proc.auCeo by these pest controllers.
17. KEY WORDS (al l to w.Sv . .ntW..: .IpAlbilIC*S arder capi tails. only . hut I,u r it 1*. thu k y word .gnh..a a proper nm ..
..p.rot.d by a. icoho .ii)
Electromagnetic Pest Control Deivees
Electromagnetic Field Strength of Peat Control Devices
Pulse Type Pest Control Devices ___________________
1 5. AVAILAB 1UTY [ JUnhim i(ed
{ For Official DisOibution. Do Not Release to NTIS
Order From SUp. of D cc ., U.S. Government Printing Office, Waelungton,
20402, SO Stock No. SNOO3 .003-
Order From National Tectinical Information Service (NTIS). Springfield,
v*, nisi
DC
(THIS REPORT)
UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY CLASS
PRINTED PAGE
22. Price
(THIS PAGE)
UNCLASSIFiED
.
-66-
J$COMM.OC
-------
Subsequent to the February 1979 report entitled “Electromagnetic Pest
Control Devices”, the National Bureau of Standards examined other pest control
devices which were brought to the attention of the Agency, and suspected of
operating on the electromagnetic priniciple. A list of the names of these
devices and the Bureau’s classification as to group follows:
Name Group
EXTERMA-PULSE 1
NOFLEEZ 1
AMIGO Model 75—c 2
The ELIMINATOR 1
COUNT-DOWN B-lOU 2
PEST-X 2
PIED PIPER Neither
EPC MARK V 2
ERGON 2
-67-
-------
REPORT OF EFFICACY STUDIES OF THE
NATURE-SHIELD RODENT CONTROL DEVICE
Principal Investigators
Rex E. M 4 jrsh and Walter E. Howard
Division of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology
Universi ’ of California
Davis, California 95616
(September 1, 1978)
In Cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency and the California
Departhent of Food and Agriculture (Contract No. 7061)
-68-
-------
INTRODUCTION
Norway rats, Rattus norveqicus , and house mice, Mus musculus , are pests
because they are adaptable to such a variety of situaTTans. The ability of
rats to survive apparently unchanged on the Eniwetok Atoll of the Marshall
Islands following the detonation of the atomic bomb (Jackson, 1967) is a
good ex ple of their resiliency. House mice have been reported to be living
1,800 feet below ground in a coal mine in England (Elton, 1936). Sprock et al.
(1967) failed to produce any lasting effect on rats subjected to a variet T oT
high frequency sounds. What is normally viewed as a stressful situation in
the way of extreme physical changes seers to be tolerated by both rats and
house mice.
The tests reported herein were conducted with a Nature—Shield rodent
control device to determine if either wild Norway rats or wild house mice
would respond in a manner detrimental to their well-being when subjected to
a device which the manufacturer claims utilizes “contro—clusive magnetism.”
It is supposed to “weave patterns above and below ground by stirring the
existing magnetic field.” The manufacturers explanation of how the device
actually affects rodents is not supported by any logical scientific expla-
nation nor by any research data.
The following statement as to how the device supposedly works appears
in a brochure (Appendix I) circulated by the c pany: “How does NATURE-SHIELD
work? NATURE—SHIELD utilizes ‘Contro-clusive magnetism TM developed by Solara
Electronics, Inc. CcMl Mestab1ishes a circular perimeter of protection.
It weaves patterns above and below ground by stirring the existing magnetic
field (it does not add any electric or similar force into the environment).
These changes created in the environment provide a null effect in a pest’s
nervous systen eliminating the ability for normal response systems to register
a survival reaction to take place. Without the capacity for the survival
responses, the creature ‘shuts down’. It stops eating, drinking and reproducing.”
Concentrating on two of the statements-—”Without the capacity for survival
responses, the creature ‘shuts down’” and “It stops eating, drinking and
reproducing”-—tests were established to evaluate the validity of portions of
this statement in aco trclled experiment.
Laboratory tests and a simulated field study were established, with ade-
quate controls, to measure the food and water consumption and mortality of two
important rodent pests when exposed to the device. Both wild Norway rats and
wild house mice were used in the laboratory tests, but only Norway rats were
monitored under simulated field conditions.
Since the manufacturer claims that rats and mice are effectively controlled
in from 10 to 14 days, the duration of exposure to the device was arbitrarily
established at about twice that time, i.e., 4 weeks.
The food and water intake of rodents may fluctuate somewhat from day—
to—day and week-to-week depending on several factors such as age of rodent,
ambient temperature, humidity, changes in nutrient value of food, etc.
-69—
-------
However, for rodents to be controlled by some self-regulated starvation in
10 to 14 days would require a rather drastic decrease in food and water intake
over a short period of time (i.e., a few days). Comensal rats and house mice,
unlike some other rodent species such as ground sauIrrels, do not go into
hibernation and hence cannot live for extended periods on accumulated fat.
Decreases or increases in food or water consumption is a readily measurable
value which can be quantified over a period of time. Weight gain or loss over
time and mortality can also be measured to test the validity of the claims for
the device’s efficacy.
Test Device
The Nature—Shield rodent control device used in this study was obtained
from the manufacturer (Solara Electronics) by Judy Cook of the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX (215 Fremont Street, San Francisco) and shipped
to the investigators. The Nature—Shield device was marked Official Sa ple
#131918. The device was unsealed and installed (it is always turned on) on
June 19, 1978 and removed and resealed on July 17, 1978.
Laboratory Tests
Forty laboratory—reared wild house mice (Mus musculus ) and 40 wild
captured Norway rats ( Rattus norve ’icus ) were randomly divided into two
groups of 20 animals (sexes equal) to establish a treatment group and con-
trol group for each species. All animals were mature and ingood physical
condition. All of the rats were treated at time of capture in the wild with
carbaryl (Sevin) to control ectoparasites before bringing them into the
laboratory. The animals were weighed and individually housed in suspended
cages on steel racks. The animals were selected randomly so age and weight
differences occurred between groups.
The tests necessitated that the animals be maintained in two different
facilities. The control (untreated or unexposed) groups were placed at the
Institute of Ecology and the test groups at the Vertebrate Ecology Laboratory.
The straight-line distance between the two buildings is 1 ,14.8 feet. This is
well beyond the effective radius (650 ft) claimed for the device. Both build-
ings are air conditioned and have time-controlled lighting (12 hrs light — 12
hrs dark). All groups were acclimated to the laboratory at least 1 week prior
to the start of the study.
The individually caged rats and mice were fed a diet of finely Qround
Purina Laboratory Chow. The rats received the food In cups clipped in place
to prevent tipping and spillage and the mice were offered food in heavy glass
bowls. Each cage was equipped with a tray to catch all food spillage. Food
consumption was measured by weighing remaining food in containers and trays
and subtracting this weight from the amount of food offered the previous day.
Food was always offered in excess of maximum consumption. Food consumption
was measured to the nearest 0.1 g.
Water was provided in graduated drinking bottles and equipped with curved
-70-
-------
drinking tubes. Water consumption was recorded to the nearest 1 ml per day.
To establish an average daily consumption per animal, food and water con-
sumption was recorded for four consecutive days durino each test week.
Food and water consumption of the test groups was recorded for 1 week
pre—test (pre-installation of device), for each week of the 4 weeks the device
operated, and again for 1 week following the removal of the device. For the
control groups the consumption data were collected for the identical time
periods, although these animals were never under any possible influence of
the device.
Simulated Field Test
Forty wild captured Norway rats were divided into two groups of 20 each
(sexes eaual). Each animal was weighed. They were eartagqed on both ears for
positive future indentification. The test animals were then released as a
group into a relatively small rodentproof poultry house (16 x 16 ft) which is
located directly behind the Vertebrate Ecology Laboratory (Fig. 1). The
control animals were housed as a group in a cc*i tparable size enclosure (10 x 20
ft) at the Institute of Ecolooy. The rats in both locations were provided
with a multiple cai tpartmental nest box, and two pallets covered with a small
sheet of plywood were positioned on the floor near the center of the room
to offer additional cover.
The enclosures were not temperature or humidity controlled nd varied
with the weather which was recorded daily. Natural lighting existed in both
enclosures.
Each group of rats received eight large food bowls and four one—nuart
chick waterina fountains. All were spaced uniformly within the enclosures.
As with the laboratory tests, both food (ground Purina Laboratory Chow) and
water consumption were recorded to the nearest gram or ml for four consecutive
days each week. In order to make needed corrections for any change in the
moisture content of food and for evaporation of water, two food bowls and two
waterers were placed outside each enclosure and protected from rodents. These
were weighed each day and a correction factor arrived at for any water loss.
The chancie in weights of the food was so minor that no corrections were made
for any moisture uptake or loss fran the ground chow.
The two groups of animals, which were desianated to simulate rat infesta-
tions, were established one week prior to the start of the test, when the
amounts of food and water consumed were recorded. This allowed sufficient
time for the establishment of social hierarchies and group cci patability of
the rats prior to initiatinq the actual test.
The Nature—Shield rodent control device was placed on the ground eiaht
feet from the poultry house and, in accordance with the instructions, the
device was oriented to magnetic north. According to the manufacturer’s
claims the device will cover a radius of 650 ft, hence the active coverage
of a single unit encompassed both the Vertebrate Ecology Laboratory,
approximately 120 ft away, and the poultry house (Figure 1).
—71—
-------
The flashing Indicator light and compass orientation of the device were
checked daily to be assured all were In functioning order.
General observations were made daily of the groups of rats to check for
deaths and any possible abnormal behavior or other clues which might indicate
in the test group that the device was having some influence on the rats. At
the completion of the study all of the rats In the two enclosures were live-
trapped, weighed, then caged individually and kept In the laboratory for an
additional 3 weeks to determine whether any females had become pregnant.
RESULTS
Results of Laboratory Tests
The results of the laboratory tests are given in Table 1. The food con-
sumption and water intake over the 6 weeks of measurements showed some
fluctuations but in no instance did the intake of either food or water for
the treated animal groups vary greatly from the control animal groups. There
was no mortality in the test of control house mice or Norway rats. The test
group of house mice gained an average 2.0 g in weight over the test period
while the control group gained 1.0 g. The rats under test gained an average
of 27 g, not much different from the control group which averaged a 15 g
increase. The greater percentage increase (Table 2) in the test groups can
probably be attributed to the fact that both test groups were slightly smaller
(i.e., younger) at the start and thus would gain at a faster rate.
Brief observations of each rodent daily did not reveal any detectable
abnormal behavior.
These results of the laboratory tests indicate that the Nature-Shield as
tested was ineffective in producing mortality as a result of changes in feed—
Ing or drinking behavior or in any other behavioral trait.
Results of the Simulated Field Test
The results of the simulated field test are prov!’ied in Table 3. The
food consumption aiid water intake over the 6 weeks of measurements fluctuated
somewhat, but In no instance did the consumption of either the food or water
in the treated group of rats vary greatly from the control group.
A male rat (number 3665—3666) died in the test group on July 19, two
days following removal of the Nature—Shield. The rat did not show any signs
of being emaciated or injured. The animal’s weight at the start of test was
249 9 and at death it weighed 302 g. Cause of death could not be determined
from gross necropsy, but it is not unusual for an occasional wild laboratory
rat to die for unexplainable reasons.
The simulated field tests were primarily established for measuring
mortality and food and water consumption; however, some reproductive data
were also obtained. One unidentified female dropped a litter of at least
—72—
-------
9 young. She had been exposed to the device for 23 days so conceived after
the device had been on for a few days. The litter was cannibalized, a
relatively common occurrence in high—density rat populations. Following the
removal of the females at the end of the study, 5 females fran the control
group and 2 from the test group had litters (Table 5), and they could all
have conceived during the test period.
Rather substantial weight increases occurred in both groups of animals;
however, a portion of these gains must be attributed to the heavier pregnant
females.
The results of the simulated field test suggest that the Nature—Shield
as tested was ineffective in controlling the Norway rats in the simulated
field test.
AC K N OWL EDGME N IS
Our thanks to Staff Research Associate Dennis Stroud (t .S.) and Laboratory
Assistant Deborah Grobman (B.S.) for their dedicated assistance in carryinQ out
this study.
LITERATURE CITED
Elton, C. 1936. House mice (Mus musculus ) in a coal mine in Ayrshire. Ann.
Mag. Nat. Hist. lO(l7):553! 8.
Jackson, W. B. 1967. Rats, bombs, and paradise — the story of Eniwetok. Proc.
Third Vertebrate Pest Conference, March 7, 8 and 9, 1967. pp. 45—46.
Sprock, C. M., W. E. Howard and F. C. Jacob. 1967. Sound as a deterrent to rats
and mice. J. Wildl. MgTnt. 31(4):729-74l
-73—
-------
I
I
Nature—Shield installation
I
2.
1
S.
—f S I
I -
4
1
c.
7 . ?. io. 11 /2. /3. /1.
4 • •• —$5 II ti II
OUT D i OR ANIMAL PENS
t l f 4JW
4l
/06 “3- /01,4
/0/S
,,___1 , ,_11.__1
VIIRTIBPATE [ COLOGY 1i I1)PJ\TORY (11)-i)
FIgure 1.
A diagram of the Vertebrate Ecology Laboratory showing location of installed Nature—Shield.
The simulated field test was conducted iii the poultry house and the laboratory tests in
Room lit (8cale l/2”lO’).
0
L.
T
I
I
-------
TabLe 1. Food niid water consumption measurements taken in the laboratory tests given In averages per animal per day
when
measured over a 6—day pertoti of each
One week
First week
Second week
Third week
Fourth week
of teat
One week
post—device
pre—device
of teat
Food Water
— of teat
of teat
Food Water
Food Water
Food Water
Mortality
Animal group
Food* Water**
Food Water
house mouse
5.03 5.48
5.27 5.54
0
teat group
3.83 3.98
5.15 5.48
5.08 5.60
5.1
House mouse
control group
5.03 4.25
6.53 5.39
6.32 5.63
6.02 6.59
5.81 6.75
6.23 6.48
0
Norway rat
43.50
19.09 41.35
19.19 45.23
0
teat group
20.25 35.35
23.01 43.45
19.18 43.83
19.20
Norway rat
control group
20.98 35.89
23.79 61.63
21.93 60.53
20.76 39.16
20.32 40.00
21.21 43.21
0
*Food values given in grams
**Water values given in mis.
-------
Table 2. Average and range of weights at start and co p1etion of laboratory tests.
Ait1i Avg. weight
groups at start (g)
Range of weight
at start (g)
Avg. weight
at end (g)
Range of weight
at end (g)
Percent weigh
change
House souse
test group
16.4
9.8—23.8
18.4
11.8—26.2
12.2% increas
House nouse
control group
19.5
12.4—28.1
20.5
13.6—27.8
5.2% incre. s
Norway rat
test group
252
151—338
279
187—372
10.6 increase
Norway rat
control group
270
208—383
.285
229—376
5.5% increas
-76—
-------
fable 3. Food and water consumption measurements takeit in the simulated field tent given In averages per animal
per day when measured over a 4—day period of each week.
One week
pre—device
First
of
week
test
Second week
of teat
Third week
of test
Fourth week
of test
One week
post—device
Food
Water
Food
Water
Hortality
Food
Water
Food
Water
Food Water
rt,iimal group
Food*
Water**
Norway rat
test group
22.8
39.86
23.3
44.19
26.6
47.69
22.2 46.89
23.8
47.38
25.0
59.86
it
Norway rat
control group
19.5
37.24
20.8
38.06
21.5
38.48
21.8 41.20
26.6
43.78
24.2
47.06
0
*Food values given in grams.
**ALl water valuea corrected for evaporation and given in ml.
tone death (male #3665—6) occurred 7/19/78, two days following the removal of the device.
-------
1’ ble I. Average and range of weights at start and completion of s4”ulated field test.
An1
groups
Avg. weight
at start (g)
Range of weight
at start (g)
Avg. weight
at end (g)
Range weight
at end (g)
change
Norway rat
33.0* increase
test group
21.5
131—395
284
21.5—497
Norway rat
46.3% increase
control group
185
93—523
270
100—539
* 1cuj.ated on the basis of the 19 surviving rats.
-78-
-------
Table 5. Infor aciou at reproduction collected during and following the
simulated field study. Calculating gestation at 21—22 days a.].].
f 1es littering would have conceived during the period wtien the
Nature—Shield was in operation (June 19 to July 17, 1978).
Female n ber
Date littered
Group
young
Ntber
not
determ.ine.d
7/19
Test
9*
3618
7/31
Test
13
3629
8/3
Test
7
3639
7/25
Control
8
6052
8/1
Control
4
36147
7/28
Control
7
3635
7/31
Control
7
3649
7/28
Control
7
*Littered during the test.
—79—
-------
.Appendix I
How does NATURE•SHIELD work’
d NATURE .SHIELD unltzei “Cornio.clusivt
T.M.d eloped by Sousa Elec.
tronica, Inc. CC7 4Tw establishes a rcular
peruneter of protection. It weaves patterns
above and below pound by stirring the
caisting magnetic field (It does not add any
electric or milar force vito the environ-
merit). These changes created in the environ-
ment provide a null effect in a pest’s
i rvous system eliminating the ability for
normal response systems to register a sur-
vivai reaction to take place. Without the
pacity for the survival responses, the
creature “shuts doeii”. it stops eating.
drinking and reproducing.
What creatures are affected?
Rats, mice, pound squirrels, moles, voles,
gophers (rodents in ;eneral). plus ants (cc :-
tarn species), roaches. termites.
q How long does it take for the creature to be
controlled?
a The rate of effect Is dependent on the
creature The NATVRE .SHIELD is riot a
‘zap’ machine . . . is is not instantaneous.
It takes tune for the creature to succumb. in
effect, the creature starves to death. Rita
and mice are effectively controlled in front
ten to fourteen days. Gophers and moles In
three to four week.t. The time for Insects
varies by the ipecies .
q How do you know the creature Is being
aftected?
a Confused behavior inciudang the io of a
sense of direction is the pnmary observable
effect. The survival responses are affected,
and the creature no longer behaves with
nonnal attack or defennve mannerlarns. Ii
becomes lethsr c and “shuts down”
Are people and domestic animals affected?
No! Exposure to conr.ant magnetic flux is
pan of our daily lives. The more highly
evolved creatures that we consider psn of
our iife style (i.e — dogs, cars, livestock.
etc.). have found it easier to adapt to change
than those of a lower order ts.e. — rats,
in e. .and dents sri general) Observation
has shown that bees. earthworms, Is2yougs,
etc. are nut affected.
Aic the creatures driven from my area into
my neighbors”
No. Thu unit utilizes mapiet sst, not ultra-
sonies , to establish control. The field of
esfluence is uniform throughout the pro.
iceted area: therefore, there is no means (or
the c’ea’ure to detect tl’ direction out of
the area of influence. The flux factor is ever-
chanprig which acts as a houu-of-rr.i:rors
concept to increase disonentatiofl.
What am of protection does the NATURE.
SHIELD offer’
30 acres (12 hectares) minimum hut s
generally in a circular conriguration
650 ft. (200 meters) horl7on&aJ radius —
above and below ground.
q Is these interference with devices (i.e . TV.
Rad,ii, etI.)
a No. The NATURE.SH!EL.D unit
eered in such a way that there u no inter-
ference. rint e’efl with pacemakers.
Can a control be established In buildings’
a NATURE-SHIELD is effecuve over 30 acres
munmurri, with or without buildirigi, inside
and out.
Are there any instaliztion problems?
No. Being battery operated, it requires no
electrical power connection or extensive
insta l lation.
q How does the weather or enviibnment aiic:t
the operation of NATt7RE.SHIELD’
a hi temperatures from .30” to I gc F. per-
formance is setisfactory. Also. environmen-
ai conuition such as rain. wow or moss-
tine amplifies the unit’s effectivenees.
q Is the effect of contro-cluasve maueurt
permanent within the
No. It works only whije the NATUR&
SHIELD unit is in operation. If the unit is
removed, she magnetic effect dissipates with
vi days, and the pests would have access to
enter the ares.
q
a
9
a
a
-80-
-------
21 th. diarn.
hst Pand. 7 in. high
ippz. 25 lbs.
II 11
NATLIR -$IllELO
IMPORTANT
NOTICE TO PURCHASER
Solara .ctroni , Inc. will p1a or
repair at our option any units found to be
defective in woibnanshAp or n teriah
within a year from date of purchaz.
Oastomer thould contact nearest So1a
dealer so receive authorization to return
defective units. Proof of purchase date
and return authorization is required.
SOLARA
ELECTRONIcS. INC.
Products to bsneilt mwkind
3621 West MacArthur Blvd., Suite 119
S.nta Ma, CA 92704
Phone: (714)751-3620
VA ftqznauon No. 40574CAO1
BUILTA
BETTER
II U
NATIIRE SIIIftIIY*
WE’VE
-81 -
-------
REPORT OF EFFICACY STUDIES OF THE
MAGNA-PULSE RODENT CONTROL DEVICE
Principal Investigators
Rex E. Marsh and Walter E. Howard
Division of Wildlife an Fisheries Biology
University of California
Davis, California 95616
March 1, 1979
In cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency and the California
Department of Food and Agriculture (Contract No. 7061).
-82-
-------
INTRODUCTION
The tests reported herein were conducted with the Magna—Pulse rodent
control device. The objective was to determine whether the well—being of
either wild Norway rats or wild house mice uld be affected detrimentally
when subjected to this device. The distributor claims that “Magna—Pulse
controls ground inhabiting rodents and numerous insects,” and that the
evidence the creature is becoming affected is usually apparent due to its
erratic behavior, and that “the pest will show a loss of sense of direction”
(Appendix I). None of the many claims is supported by any logical scientific
explanation nor by research data.
Since Magna—Pulse is promoted to “control dangerous pests,” controlled
laboratory tests and a simulated field study with adequate controls were
established to evaluate the validity of this statement. Mortality rates
and food and water consuTnption were the criteria used to monitor the well-
being of the rodents that were exposed to the device. Both wild Norway rats
( Rattus norvegicus ) and wild house mice (Mus musculus ) were used in the
laboratory tests, but only Norway rats we monitored under simulated field
conditions.
The manufacturer does not make any claims as to how long it takes to
effectively control rats and mice with the Magna-Pulse device. In our
tests the exposure time was arbitrarily established at 28 days, whir’i seemed
much longer than necessary to detect behavioral effects the device might
cause, and it was more time than that suggested by other manufacturers of
similar devices.
Any variation from the normal in consumption of food or water is a
good indication of the animals’ health and is a readily measurable value
which can be ouantified over a period of time. Weight gains or losses over
time and abnormal mortality rates can be measured and used as a means of
testing the validity of the maufacturer’s claims about the device’s efficacy.
PROCEDURES AND METHODS
Test Device
Two Magana—Pulse rodent control devices (Model MPC 1000) were used in
this study. They were obtained fran the distributor (Bell Products Corp.,
696 Watson Way, Sparks, Nevada 89431) by Judy Cook of the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX (215 Fremont Street, San Francisco) and were
shipped to the investigators. The devices were marked Official Sample
#131919.
The Magna-Pulse device is a rectangular plastic box approximately
17 3/4” x 10 3/4” x 6 1/2” with a contained battery power supply. There
is no switch on the unit and it thus operates continuously as long as the
power supply lasts. A small red indicator light comes on briefly every few
seconds to indicate that the unit is operational
-83-
-------
The house mice and Norway rats were tested at different times in the
laboratory. Both devices were unsealed and put into operation October 23,
1978 and removed on November 20, 1978; one of the units was put into opera-
tion again on January 15, 1979 and removed on February 12, 1979.
Laboratory Tests
Forty laboratory-reared wild house mice (Mus musculus ) and 40 wild
captured Norway rats ( Rattus norvegicus ) were Fàiidomly divided into two
groups of 20 animals (sexes eQual) to establish a treatment group and
control group for each species. All animals were mature and in good physical
condition. All of the rats were treated at time of capture in the wild with
5% carbaryl (Sevin) dust to control ectoparasites before bringinc them into
the laboratory. The animals were weighed and individually housed in suspended
cages on metal racks. The animals were selected randomly, hence some age and
weight differences occurred between the groups, although the total biomass
was reasonably similar between test and control groups.
The test reauirewents necessitated that the animals be maintained in two
different facilities. The control (untreated or unexposed) groups were placed
at the Institute of Ecology and the test groups at the Vertebrate Ecology
Laboratory, 15 to 25 feet from the test animals. Both buildings are air
conditioned and have time—controlled liahting (12 hrs light - 12 hrs dark).
All groups were acclimated to the laboratory at least one week prior to the
start of the study.
The individually caged rats and mice were fed a diet of finely ground
Purina laboratory chow. The rats received the food in cups clipped in place
to prevent tipping and spillage and the mice were offered food in heavy glass
bowls. Each cage was eguipped with a tray to catch all food spillace. Food
consumption was measured by weighing remaining food in containers anti trays
and subtracting this weight from the amount of food offered the previous day.
Food was always offered in excess of maximum consumption. Food consumption
was measured to the nearest 0.1 g.
Water was provided in graduated drinking bottles and eauipped with
curved drinking tubes. Water consumption was recorded to the nearest 1 ml
per day. To establish an average daily consumption per animal, food and
water consumption was recorded for four consecutive days during each test
week.
Food and water consumption of the test groups was recorded for one
week pre—test (pre—installation of device), for each week of the four weeks
(28 days) the device operated, and again for one week following the removal
of the device. For the control groups the consumption data were collected
for the identical time period, although these animals were never under any
possible influence of the device.
Simulated Field Test
Forty wild captured Norway rats were divided into two groups of 20 each
-84-
-------
(sexes eaual). Each animal was weighed. They were eartagged on both ears
for positive future indentification. The test aniamls were then released as
a group into a relatively small rodentproof poultry house (16 x 16 ft) which
is located directly behind the Vertebrate Ecology Laboratory (Fig. 1). The
control animals were housed as a group in a comparable size enclosure (10 x
20 ft) at the Institute of Ecology. The rats in both locations were provided
with a large nest box containing nest compartments. Also, in both situations
two pallets on the floor near the center of the room were covered with a small
sheet of plywood to offer additional cover.
Both the poultry house and the enclosure were not taliperature or humidity
controlled. These conditions depended on weather conditions, which were
recorded daily. Natural lighting existed in both enclosures.
Each group of rats received eight large food bowls and four one-cuart
chick watering fountains. All were spaced uniformly within the enclosures.
As with the laboratory tests, both food (ground Purina laboratory chow) and
water consumption were recorded to the nearest gram or ml for four consecutive
days each week. In order to make needed corrections for any change in the
moisture content of food and for evaporation of water, two food bowls and
two waterers were placed outside each enclosure and protected from rodents.
These were weighed each day and a correction factor arrived at for any water
loss. The change in weights of the food turned out to he so minor that no
corrections were necessary for any moisture uptake or loss from the around
chow.
The two groups of animals, which were designated to simulate rat
infestations, were established two weeks prior to the installation of the
control device. This allowed sufficient time for the establishment of
social hierarchies amongst the groups of rats prior to initiatina the
actual test. The amount of food and water consumed was also recorded for
the week just prior to installing the device.
The two Magna—Pulse (Model MPC 1000) rodent control devices were installed
in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. The unit installed for
the simulated field test was placed in a dug 3” recess in the ground at a
distance of eight feet from the poultry house. The unit was oriented to
magnetic north with the use of a compass. According to the claims the devices
will cover a radius of 650 feet, hence the active coverage of a single unit
should encompass both the Vertebrate Ecology Laboratory, approximately 120 feet
away, and the poultry house (Fig. 1) where the test animals were housed. A
second unit, however, was also installed in the Vertebrate Ecology Laboratory
in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. The indicator lights on
the devices were checked daily to assure they were functioning.
General observations were made daily of the groups of rats to check for
deaths and any possible abnormal behavior or other clues which might indicate
in the test group that the device was having some influence on the rats. At
the completion of the study all of the rats in the two enclosures were live-
trapped, weighed, then caged individually and kept in the laboratory for an
additional 3 weeks to determine whether any females had become pregnant.
-85-
-------
RESULTS
Results of Laboratory Tests
The results of the laboratory tests are given in Table 1. The food
consumption and water intake over the 6 weeks of measurements showed some
fluctuations but in no instance did the intake of either food or water for
the treated animal groups vary greatly from the control animal groups. There
was no mortality in the test groups of house mice or Norway rats; however,
one mouse and one rat of each control group died of undetermined cause.
These presumably re natural deaths and not related to the study itself.
The test group of house mice gained an average 0.6 g in weight over the
test period while the control group lost 1.2 g on an average. The rats
under test lost an average of 2 g, not a great difference from the control
group which averaged a 7 g increase (Table 2).
Brief daily observations of each rodent did not reveal any detectable
abnormal behavior.
These results of the laboratory tests indicate that the Magna—Pulse as
tested is ineffective in producing mortality or in adversely alterina feeding
or other behavior.
Results of the Simulated Field Test
The results of the simulated field test are provided in Table 3. The
food consumption and water intake over the 6 weeks of measurements fluctuated
somewhat, but in no instance did the consumption of either the food or water
in the treated group of rats vary greatly from the control group.
One male rat (#6851—52) was found dead on 10/23/78 in the control group.
The carcass was decomposed indicating death had possibly occurred a week
earlier. In the test group a total of 5 animals died. A male (#6834-35) died
10/13/78, the week prior to the installation of the device; and durina the
device exposure female #6821—22 died 11/1/78, and females #6849-50 and #6A25-26
died on 11/8/78. All three carcasses had been heavily cannibalized with only
the skin and a few bones remaining. The fourth day following the termination
of the post—device’period, 12/1/78, an additional female (#6837-38) was found
dead and was also heavily cannibalized.
Deaths resulting from fighting are not uncommon when confined groups
of breeding—age rats are established. With wild captured rats deaths may
also result from physical conditions related to old age or from various
diseases. The causes of death of the rats were not possible to determine;
and whether or not the Magna—Pulse device was in any way responsible for
deaths of the four animals which died during or after exposure to the device
is unknown.
The simulated field tests were primarily established for measuring
mortality and food and water consumption; however, some reproductive data
were also obtained. While some litters may have been produced and immediately
-86-
-------
cannibalized in the group situation, two separate litters of 9 and 11 younq
were observed on 11/3/78 in the test group of rats. Since the Magna-Pulse
device was in operation from October 23 to November 20, 1978, these females
would have had to conceive prior to the installation of the device. Four days
following completion of the post-test period (December 1), 5 young rats (1 female
and 4 males) were retrieved from the building. On this same day all females
from the simulated field study (test group and controls) were placed in
individual holding cages for a 3-week observation to determine the number of
gravid females. Female #6835-36 of the control group gave birth to 5 young on
12/10/78, and females #3691-92 and #3643-44 of the same group produced litters
of 8 and 4 young, respectively, on 12/13/78. All 3 of these females from
the control group conceived on or just following the date the devices were
turned off for the test group.
The groups of wild rats were together for such a short duration,
hardly time for the reproduction to get well under way before the test was
terminated. The reproductive data can at best only serve as an indication
of the general well—being of the group of rats.
The results of the simulated field test indicate that the Magna—Pulse
as tested is ineffective in adversely altering feeding or drinking behavior.
While 5 deaths occurred in the simulated field test group and only 1 in the
control group, none occurred in the test groups of the laboratory studies.
If all deaths in the simulated test group were attributed to the device,
recruitment of young would appear to offset such mortality. The overall
results suggest the device does not in any way live up to the distributor’s
claims.
-87-
-------
I
Magna—Pulse Installation .—PO
Figure 1.
V [ RTEBPATE ECOLOGY LA?nP 1 ATOI j (TB-i)
A diagram of the Vertebrate Ecology Laboratory showing location of two installed Magna—Pulse
devices. The simulated field Lest was conducted in the poultry house and Ihe laboratory
teats in Room 111 (scale l/2”=lO’).
I
Driveway
It
‘2.
‘3.
/1.
/094
Driveway
/0?8
Ii . I
‘ TI
-------
Table L Average amount of food and water consumed per animal per day in ihe laboratory tests when measured for
4 days (Tuesday—Friday) of each week.
Species
One week
pre—device
Food* Water**
First
of
week
test -
Second week
of test
Third
of
Food
week
test
Water
Fourth week
— of test
Food Water
One week
post—device
Food Water
Mortality
Food
Water
Food
Water
20 test mice
4.96
5.21
5.13
5.41
5.55
5.84
5.48
5.74
5.92
5.95
5.81
6.13
0
20 control mice
6.04
6.18
5.81
6.46
5.29
5.93
5.43
5.89
5.20
6.50
5.34
6.79
l
20 test Norway
24.07
52.81
22.99
51.69
22.92
47.35
0
rats
22.42
47.29
22.72
48.84
24.37
20 control
Norway rats 23.99 49.98 21.57 43.25 21.30 46.91 23.94 56.38 23.27 49.63 23.46 50.34
*Food values given in grams
* .Water values given in mis.
IMale (Il-H) died of an undetermined cause 10 days following start of test.
I1 Iale (1—9) dIed of an undetermined cause 11 clays following start of Lest.
-------
Table 2. Average and range of weights of the animals at start and completion of
laboratory tests.
Species
Avg. weight (range)
at start (g)
Avg. weight (range)
at end (g)
change
20
test house
19.3
19.9
3.6% increase
mice
(13.8—24.4)
(13.2—26.5)
20
control
19.9
21.1
7.0% increase
house mice
(15.8—24.6)
(15.2—27.0)
20
test Norway
333
331
.5% decrease
rats
(233—520)
(247—525)
20
control
308
315
2% increase*
Norway rats
(217—455)
(224—489)
*Calculated on the basis of 19 surviving animals.
-90-
-------
iiI u 3. Average amount of food and water consumed per animal per day in the simulated field test when measured for
4 days (Tuesday—Friday) of each week.
ulmal Group
One week
pr _deviceb
Food Water
First week
of test
Second week
of test
Food Water
Third
of test
of test
t—dev1ce
Food Waler
Food Water
Food Water
Food Water
Mortality
orway rat
test group
25.05
48.76
26.S& 49 . 2 o
2758 d
5 122 d
2500 e 4341 e
2678 e 4842 e
2811 e 4893 e
5 1
lorway rat con-
trol group
26.29
49.41
26.76 55.08
30.83
59.91
29.94 58.39
3 l. 33 6279 C
3636 C 5 o 29 C
1 g
Food values given in grams.
All water values corrected for evaporation and given in ml.
n 19 rats.
In 16 rats.
a 18 rats.
male (06834—35) died 10/13/78, the week prior to the installation of the device. During the device exposure
female (06821—22) died 11/1/18, and females (116849—50 and 176825—26) died on 11/8/78; all three carcasses
• been heavily cannibalized. Four days following the termination of the post—device period (12/1/78), one
additional female (06837—38) was found dead and was heavily cannibalized.
1’Iale (116851—52) was found dead on 10/23/78 and was in a decomposed condition, indicating death had occurred possibly
one week previously.
-------
Table 4. Average and range of weights of the animals at start and completion of
simulated field test.
An( l
Groups
Avg. weight
at start
(range)
(g)
Avg.
at
weight (range)
end (g)
Percent weight
change
Norway
rat
284
315
test
group
(191—471)
(201—543)
9.7% increase
Norway rat 290 344 20.2% increase**
control group (210—432) (244—548)
*Calculated on the basis of the surviving rats only.
**C culatad on the basis of the 19 suriiving rats.
—92—
-------
L- L - 1L - 4I jJ! 4L lj:IL 1L 1L !M !I1”U!
;W.w n w w
NOTICE TO PUIICIIASER t1
MAGNA PULSE will eplace or repair at
our OlitiUli. ally unit fuuiid to be tie lective
iii wwki ijnship or mati.rial within L
years of slate ol purchase, aMciud.flg bat
tend, with ,,ool of purchase date and : :
return auultoniz tiun With e cepIion UI,
flulSule abuse, and acts 01 God Enclose
$30 00 fun postage and handling :
Neither seller nor manufacturer shall be
liable for any iiilury, loss or damage, direct : :
or co’iset 1 uential, arising Out of the use of
our pioducts User assumes ll risks, liability
whatsoever in use of our products u :
representative or agent has the authority 1t
•iis
to waive ut alter tl’i, iioi ice II : :
-l
(flZ
m
o h
cc
N
m
‘H
MAGNA \ ,PIJLSE
Distributed fly
696 WATSON WAY
SPARKS, NEVADA 89431
(702) 358-0686
(800) 648-1155 TOLL FREE
“NATURES EQUALIZER”
RODENTS & INSECTS
• Controls Dangerous Pests
• Safe. E lectrontc, Non-PollutIng
• Wsde Coverage
• MaIntenance Free, SlnsfIe Inslallatlon
Dlstrlb..Ied By
INFOI MAFIOPI COnTACT VOult LOCAL DISIRIUtJIGIt
Guaranteed
-------
iWlMtJi JL t
NATURES EOUILIZEA
CONTROLS ROOEN1 S. & INSECTS
MAGNA-PULSE is absolutely sale. WILL NOT IIAFIM
ENVIRONMENT
The evidence the creature is becoming affected it
illy apparent due basically to She erratic behavior. The
will show a loss of sense of direction. -
M ,sgna-Pulse WILL NOT in any way effect our water
nod suppliet There is no introduction of harmful toxins
)Oisoris to our environment No chance of pollution or
lamination The reason remains simply in that we are
introducing anything to the environment which is not
idy there We are merely stirring the existing magnetism
un our world
Magna Pulse in no way will effect electronic equip-
t The unii is designed to work in a magnetic field and
a is no effect on sensitive and delicate computers, iele
ri, radios, C 8 ‘s, eic Nor will it magnetize household
iancas or watches
Because of the design of Magna-Pulsa, and because the
netic field is dissipated, removal of the unit means that
s and rodeiuis will have access to the area and (hay will
iter after a Short period of time.
Because control stimulants vary throughout the world,
lo not guarantee the percentage of control or the time
ired to control However, we have a record of 80% to
control and do provide a 60 day performance warranty
ft no results
Magna Pulse controls ground inhabiting rodents and
erous insects. These dangerous pests carry many deadly
uses and do billions of dollars in damage annually to
s, buildings and people. Magna-Pulie employs the most
riced electromegnetics technology lot control of these
Ma.jna Pulse Is a sophisticated, totally solid state, elect-
ignetic device It introduces no poisons, sprays, or other
into tile environment, Magna Pulse generates a unique
letuC field which combines with Earth’s natural mag-
field. Ilunsans arid other high., animal forms, i.e
ehufd pets, livuitock, etc.. adapt easily to changes in
magnetic environment end are in no way affected
Magna-Pulte’s magnetic field Once Magna Pulta has
ilulied It, perimete, of protucison, this electrorna.j
- field Ii sensed by pests which are thsn reluctant to
the area
COMMERCIAL
MODEL MPC 1000
I MAGNA PULSE
Li
I
‘NATURES £OUAI.fZER ’
RODENTS & INSECTS
8) Magna-Pulse provides a wide area of coverage around
the unit
.1 The commercial model, with its 4 self contaiuicd
1?V battery power supply, provides coverage of tip to
approximately a 650 foot radius This urns it designed
for outdoor use and is contained in a semi-weatherproof
plastic housing
b) The Institutional or industrial model operates on
I 12 V battery and controls on area of up to alipiour
imately a 300 foot radius of the unit It is designusit br
indoor use arid is packagu.’d in a durable “lwnuicj’
case
INDUSTRIAL
MODEL MP 419
manufactured for
BELL PRODUCTS
Toll Free
1 8006401155
9) Magna-Pulse is a totally maintenance free electroniag-
netic device it is fully warranted against defects in moteii,,ls
(excluding batteries) and workmanship for a period of 5
years Magna Pulse installation is very simple (Sure unit for
installation instructions). The battery powered commercial
model may be buried In the ground fur optimum opu ’ration
in certain ouldoor applications A red LEO located on the
top of She Magna-Puls lighti briefly every few teconds to
indicate that the unit’ is operational
10) The applications for Magna’PiuIse are ci widespread
as the pests it controlsi Any operation involving food handling
is a natural application for Magna .Pulse It is a money saving
device for such users as restaurants, food storts, produce
packeri, bakeries, school or company cafeterias, and private
hornet to name lust a few Other primary users include
those seeking protection of plant life such as mliuseries,
farms, groves, orchards and gardens in general in ,iul ititioii ,
storage of edible raw materials and fiiiislied produLis hausdirit
are obvious henelicial users of Masjuia-Puisui E xanipliis inuiude
grain elevators, fond distribution warehoutes, ceru’al packagers,
and organic fiber operations,
M ,udsi Numb., %W(. tOUU
thm.m.o.,.iii.W.t.i .11 .iU
iv
Op,..i... V.,ii.r I iJ vu ti
— Pus., tjni . t 5M.US - 5 “a
inn, ” ”,—
iiea.oi,. ii
SIY I ii
• ii ) . • i ii
,d
i i: si
ii — , ,
Suiii ir iii.It,%iitJp 1 * , .& I ‘uuuiii I, ‘I )iSliuuuitii-iit
•I/:. _ -
-
-
0 i
-------
REPORT OF EFFICACY STUDIES OF THE
AMIGO (Phase 2) RODENT CONTROL DEVICE
Principal Investi9ators
Rex E. Marsh and Walter E. Howard
Division of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology
University of California
Davis, California 95616
December 1, 1978
In Cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency and the California
Department of Food and Agricul ture (Contract No. 7061).
-95—
-------
INTRODUCTION
The tests reported herein were conducted with Amigo (Phase 2) rodent
control device to determine if either wild Norway rats or wild house mice
would respond in a manner detrimental to their well-being when subjected
to a device which the manufacturer claims “sends out a protective frequency
Sound” (Appendix I). In another Amigo (Phase 2) advertisement it states
that the ‘Amigo generates an electromagnetic energy made up of high and low
magnetic frequencies, harmonic and sonics” (Appendix II). The manufacturer’s
claim that “all creatures that are controlled by Amigo will stop eatino and
breedina right away” Is not supported by any logical scientific explanation
nor by any research data.
Since Amigo (Phase 2) advertisements claim that the rodents stop eat-
ing, tests were established to evaluate the validity of this statement in
a controlled experiment.
Laboratory tests and a simulated field study were established, with
adequate controls, to measure the food and water consumption and mortality
of two important rodent pests when exposed to the device. Both wild Norway
rats ( Rattus norveolcus ) and wild house mice (Mus musculus ) were used in
the laboratory tests, but only Norway rats weriiknitored under simulated
field conditions.
Since the manufacturer claims that rats and mice are effectively
controlled in from 1 to 10 days, to avoid any doubt the duration of
exposure to the device in our tests was arbitrarily established at 25
days, or 2-1/2 times that period.
The food and water Intake of rodents may fluctuate somewhat from day
to day and week to week depending on several factors such as age of rodent,
temperature, humidity, changes in nutrient value of food, etc. However, for
rodents to be controlled by some self-regulated starvation in 1 to 10 days
would reauire a rather drastic decrease in food intake over a short period
of time (I.e., a few days). Cormnensal rats and house mice, unlike sane
other rodent species, such as ground squirrels, do not naturally go into
hibernation and hence cannot live for extended periods or accumulated fat.
Decreases or Increases in food or water consumption is a readily
measurable value which can be auantlfied over a period of time. Weight
gain or loss over time and mortality can also be measured to test the
validity of the claim for the device’s efficacy.
PROCEDURES AND METHODS
Test Device
The Amigo (Phase 2) rodent control device used in this study was
obtained fran the manufacturer (Mira Manufacturing Corp.) by Judy Swenson
of the Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX (215 Fremont Street, San
Francisco) and, following other studies, was shipped to the investigators
-96—
-------
by Charles Gordon, National Bureau of Standards, Rt. 270 and Quince Orchard
Road, Gaithersburq, MD 20760. The device was marked Official S iple #131903.
The device was unsealed and put into operation August 21, 1978 and removed
on September 15, 1978
The Amigo (Phase 2) appears to be marketed in at least three different
external cases. The unit used in this study was a rectangular box approxi-
mately 7—1/4” x 4—1/2° x 2—1/4” with the electric cord extending from the
end of the unit, and also at the same end alongside the cord is an externally
replaceable fuse component. This particular unit did not have a metal bar
or bolt extendinc from it, as do the other Phase 2 cases, nor did it have any
special points for attachment to any object or surface (i.e., brackets, ears,
holes, etc.). The unit is manufactured by Mira Manufacturing Corp., Pine
Valley, California 92062.
Laboratory Tests
Forty laboratory—reared wild house mice (Mus musculus ) and 40 wild
captured Norway rats ( Rattus norvegicus ) were F domly divided into two
groups of 20 animals (sexes equal) to establish a treatment group and con-
trol group for each species. All animals were mature and in good physical
condition. All of the rats were treated at time of capture in the wild
with carbaryl (Sevin) to control ectoparasites before bringing them into
the laboratory. The animals were weighed and individually housed in
suspended cages on metal racks. The animals were selected randomly, hence
some ace and weight differences occurred between the groups, aithouch the
total biomass was reasonably similar between test and control groups.
The test requirements necessitated that the animals be maintained in
two different facilities. The control (untreated or unexposed) groups were
placed at the Institute of Ecoloqy and the test groups at the Vertebrate
Ecology Laboratory. The straioht—line distance between the two buildings
is 1 ,148 feet. This is well beyond the effective radius (263 ft, eQuivalent
to 5 acres) claimed for the device. Both buildings are air conditioned and
have time controlled liahting (12 hrs light — 12 hrs dark). All groups were
acclimated to the laboratory at least 1 week prior to the state of the study.
The individually caged rats and mice were fed a diet of finely ground
Purina Laboratory Chow. The rats received the food in cups clipped in place
to prevent tipping and spillage and the mice were offered food spillage.
Food consumption was measured by weighing remaining food in containers and
trays and subtracting this weight from the amount of food offered the
previous day. Food was always offered in excess of maximum consumption.
Food consumption was measured to the nearest 0.1 g.
Water was provided in graduated drinking bottles and equipped with curved
drinking tubes. Water consumption was recorded to the nearest 1 ml per day.
To establish an average daily consumption per animal, food and water
consumption was recorded for four consecutive days during each test week.
Food and water consumption of the test groups was recorded for 1 week
—97—
-------
pre—test (pre—installation of device), for each week of the approximately 4
weeks (25 days) the device operated, and acain for 1 week following the
removal of the device. For the control groups the consumption data were
collected for the identical time period, although these animals were never
under any possible Influence of the device.
Simulated Field Test
Forty wild captured Norway rats were divided into two groups of 20 each
(sexes equal). Each animal was weighed. They were eartagged on both ears for
positive future identification. The test animals were then released as a group
into a relatively small rodentproof poultry house (16 x 16 ft) which Is located
directly behind the Vertebrate Ecology Laboratory (Fig. 1). The control animals
were housed as a group in a co iparable size enclosure (10 x 20 ft) at the
Institute of Ecology. The rats in both locations were provided with a large
nest box containing nest coi partments. Also, in both situations two pallets on
the floor near the center of the room were covered with a small sheet of
plywood to offer additional cover.
Both the poultry house and the enclosure were not temperature or humidity
controlled. These conditions depended on weather conditions, which were
recorded daily. Natural lighting existed in both enclosures.
Each group of rats received eight large food bowls and four one-quart
chick waterino fountains. All were spaced uniformly within the enclosures.
As with the laboratory tests, both food (ground Purina Laboratory Chow) and
water consumption were recorded to the nearest gram or ml for four consecutive
days each week. In order to make needed corrections for any change in the
moisture content of food and for evaporation of water, two food bowls and two
waterers were placed outside each enclosure and protected fran rodents. These
were weighed each day and a correction factor arrived at for any water loss.
The change in weights of the food turned out to be so minor that no corrections
were necessary for any moisture uptake or loss from the ground chow.
The two groups of animals, which were designated to simulate rat infesta-
tions, were established two weeks prior to the installation of the Amigo device.
This allowed sufficient time for the establishment of social hierarchies amongst
the groups of rats prior to initiating the actual test. The ainounts of food and
water consumed were also recorded for the week just prior to installing the device.
The Amigo (Phase 2) rodent control device was placed on the ground eight feet
fran the poultry house and plugged Into a 110—volt power supply. No specific
Instructions for Installation were provided with the unit. According to the
manufacturer’s claims the Amigo devices will cover 5 acres (a radius of
263 ft), hence the active coveraqe of a single unit should encompass both
the Vertebrate Ecology Laboratory, approximately 120 ft away, and the
poultry house (Figure 1) where the test animals were housed.
The device was checked daily to assure It was functioning. The device
vibrates slightly when operating and is warm or hot to the touch.
-98-
-------
General observations were made daily of the groups of rats to check for
deaths and any possible abnormal behavior or other clues which might indicate
in the test group that the device was having some influence on the rats. At
the completion of the study all of the rats in the two enclosures were live-
trapped, weighed, then caged individually and kept in the laboratory for an
additional 3 weeks to determine whether any females had become pregnant.
RESULTS
Results of Laboratory Tests
The results of the laboratory tests are given in Table 1. The food
consumption and water intake over the 6 weeks of measurements showed some
fluctuations but in no instance did the intake of either food or water for
the treated animal groups vary greatly from the control animal groups. There
was no mortality in the test or control house mice or Norway rats. The test
group of house mice gained an average 0.6 g in weight over the test period
while the control group lost 0.5 g on an average. No specific explanation
can be given for the slight loss in weight in the control group. The rats
under test gained an average of 36 g, not a great difference from the control
group which averaged a 13 g increase. The greater percentage increase (Table 2)
in the test group of rats can probably be attributed to the fact that the rats
in the test group were slightly smaller (i.e., younger) at the start and thus
could gain at a faster rate.
Brief daily observations of each rodent did not reveal any detectable
abnormal behavior.
These results of the laboratory tests indicate that the Miiao (Phase 2)
as tested was ineffective in producing mortality or in adversely altering
feeding or drinking behavior.
Results of the Simulated Field Test
The results of the simulated field test are provided in Table 3. The
food consumption and water intake over the 6 weeks of measurements fluctuated
somewhat, as is normal in changing weather, but in no instance did the con-
sumption of either the food or water in the treated group of rats vary greatly
from the control group.
A male rat (number 832-833) was found dead on September 7, 1978 in the
control group and was in a mummified condition, indicating death had occurred
possibly two weeks or more previously. Deaths resultina from fighting are not
uncommon when rat groups are established. With wild captured rats deaths may
also result from old age or various diseases. The condition of the rat when
found made it impossible to determine possible cause of death.
The simulated field tests were primarily established for measuring
mortality and food and water consumption; however, some reproductive data
were also obtained. While some litters may have been produced and cannibalized
in the group situation, no young were seen when recordina food and water
-99-
-------
consumption. Upon the completion of the week post-device consumption measure-
ments, all of the rats were removed from both the test and control group
situations and caged Individually. The females were held for at least 3 weeks
to determine if any of them were gravid. The number of littering females and
their litter size were recorded (Table 5).
The groups of wild rats were together for such a short duration, hardly
time for the reproduction to get well underway before the test was terminated,
that the reproductive data can best serve as an indication of the general
well—being of the group of rats.
The results of the simulated field test indicate that the Miigo (Phase 2)
as tested was ineffective in producing mortality or adversely alterinq feeding
or drinking behavior. The results, although limited, suggest that reproduction
will occur whether or not the rats are exposed to the Amigo (Phase 2) device.
-100-
-------
1 ’
I
Amigo (Phac& 2) installatIon
poultry house
0
5-.
C.
7
—.—, . I • - — , I — , •.
OUT DOOR A11’IAL PFNS
I
VIIRTFBP1 TE ECOLQ Y L1\POPATORY (113-1)
Figure 1. A diarran of the Vertebrate Eco]oc v laboratory showing location of insialled Amigo (PIi icc 2)
The simulated field test was coi ducted in the poultry house and the laboratory tests iii
Room Ill (scale 1f2’ lO’).
1.
2.
JO.
—4 —1 -
/1. 12. I /3. /4.
—i p —f -
.1
t I -•———f I
/1/
/ 09A
r
I
I
1
1o6
1•
/0/ A
-------
Table I. Food and water consumption measurements taken in the laboratory tests given in averages per animal per day
when measured over a 4-day period of each week.
Animal group
One week
pre-device
FoodA Water**
First
of
week
test
Second week
of test
Third week
of test
Fourth week
of test
One week
post—device
Food
Water
Food
Water
Food Water
Food
Water
Food
Water
Mortality
House mouse
test group
5.92
5.74
5.72
6.51
5.89
6.79
5.52 6.49
Norway rat
tost group
19.98
40.51
19.53
41.99
19.45
42.98
20.44
44.81
20.87
43.94
20.55
45.06
0
Norway rat
control group
17.94
32.71
19.97
38.13
19.65
39.34
19.09
39.98
20.87
44.75
20.72
45.25
0
*Food values given in grams
**Water values given in mis.
House mouse
• control group
6.51 3.93
5.48 5.06 5.1 . .55 58 5.26 5.3t 5. -‘ 5.46 5.76 0
-------
2. Average and range of weights at start and completion of laboratory tests.
Animal
groups
Avg. wcight Range of weight
at start (g) at start (g)
Avg. weight
at end (g)
Range of weight
at end (g)
Percent weight
change
House mouse
test group
21.8
14.8—30.1
22.4
15.7—30.6
2.8% increase
House mouse
control group
19.1
15.1—24.4
18.6
13.9—25.4
2.6% decrease
Norway rat
test group
229
98—357
265
146—390
15.7% increase
wav rat
control group
251
101—375
264
150—388
5.17% increas.
- 103-
-------
Table 3. Food and water consumption me,isurements taken in thc simulated field test given in averages per animal
per day when measured over a 4—day period of each week.
*Food values given in grams.
* A1l water values corrected for evaporation and given in nil..
= 19 rats
tale (! 832—833) was found dead
two weeks previously.
on 9/7/78 and was in a mummified condition, indicating death had occurred possibly
Animal group
One week
pre—device
Food* .Jater**
First week
of test
Food Water
Second week
Third week
of
Fourth week
of test
One
week
post—device
of test
Food Water
Food Water
Food Water
Norway
rat
24.88
48.39
23.95
50.03
27.40
58.93
0
test
group
24.14
49.64
23.94
49.91
24.80
Norway rat
control group
23.65
44.08
24.83
47.84
23.14
45.85
1
23.07
t
45.72
25.87k 53.2i
22.82 s3.i8
. .-—
1’
lortal ity
-------
Ta 1e 4. Average and r ige of weights at start and completion of simulated field test.
- Aninal
groups
Avg. weight
at start (g)
Range of weight
at start (g)
Avg. weight
at end (g)
Range of weight
at end (g)
Percent c h:
change
Norway
rat
test group
225
160—366
282
203—400
25.3% increase
Norway
rat
control group
238
127—464
293
188—528
23.1% increaSe
Calculated on the basis of the 19 surviving rats.
-105—
-------
Table 5. Reproductive information on the females removed (September 22, 1978)
from the test and control groups, following the simulated field study
and placed in individual holding cages for observation. Calculating
gestation at 21—22 days, all females littering, except one, would
have conceived during the period when the Amigo (Phase 2) was in
operation (August 21—September 15, 1978).
Female number
Date littered
Group
No. young
6052—53
10/1/78
Test
3
6090—91
10/2/78
Test
10
3649—50
10/4/78
Test
10
6071—72
10/10/78
Test
4*
3693—94
9/26178
Control
10
3639—40
9/27/78
Control
10
3633—34
9/28/78
Control
9
3645—46
9/28/78
Control
10
3637—38
10/1/78
Control
10
3643—44
10/1/78
Control
5
3691—92
10/6/78
Control
8
*Conceived the week after the Amigo device was turned off and before the groups
were separated.
-106—
-------
I,ei. i.is1!iId’/o’ , L .1(14 _ ‘i )
- b’Io-ELL’cTRo.vIc I)If ‘ic’i ’s
b’IO-.llL’L)K 1 L 4\’L’T1I&\7
GEORGE’S PIEDLER
pRL nac.vT
.‘- . B (7:4j 701-120) Rc ,‘2L
-
4. . -, -
-
.‘--.
L
- ‘ .•• .
- •• . r
- -
1” •1 .L . —
-
4—P..
Pg q j
-. - —
- . .
.: -
•. .t j
-:
: ‘
7
-..p )I’ .
, -.. -.
, 1.
-‘ . .. ... .
V.
.-. . -
-- -
•
• •• ••_•_••_ •__ •*•;••
r. .. 4 < ‘-
The/V R P/Corporation
P.O. B0 fl34
tO 7D Po * D ,vE FRAN)C H PARP(CR
LOS At.A S?O$. CA $0730 v .ca P g.’.g..y
Appendix I
‘
- ‘ —, -
— S J ., - .- ., . . _. . . .•1. .
• .. . .. . :i’ ‘4—
- i — — —
— .F : -” ‘
‘ .— • —;ç ’ . •.. 4 S
• .-.• ., ... J. . . ‘—. ..•-.-,..
-— -. .•. -.. .-
- ± •_ 4 - . t .:• -’ — ‘ - d
- -...- . . \ • . r. • -‘
- - -‘- - - I - r
b - -
:• .
. .t _,. , .., 7 - —
- ,J? . . — -
. -.
l f. .. -.j
‘
-- - -
• •
1
• . • -; . . - .
I --
a w - - • p. . —
i t. - ---
E &WL L1. < .. -
• -“ r V.. -
• ‘ • .. . - . ..-•;•
. d’ ;.i “rr 4. ..•
•11 . - ••
Ji i: Ca. SC72 . ...
•
• .
. . ( .•
_ ._,•.;_ ••‘ ..
. —• ‘ .‘
—4
4?
4 . ’
.. • ‘:
-------
p
THE FOLLOWING ARE PROTECTED BY AMIGO
BUILDINGS
FARMS & RANCHES
OPEN SPACES
Houses
Cor.do.rniniuxns
Townhouses
Resort Cabins
Warehouses
Fairs
Schools
Hospitals
Tenements
Boats & Ships
Processing Plants
Cafeterias
Commissaries
Stores
Orchards
Gardens
Crops
Nurseries
Pastures
Truck Farms
Tree Farms
Egg Ranches
Poultry Ranches
Barns
Dairies
Stables
Silos
Feeding Areas
Docks
Wharf Areas
Parks
Playgrounds
Golf Courses
Race Tracks
Meadows
Breakwaters
Freeway Landscapin
Water System Levee
Garbage Dumps
Sewers
Hillsides
Storage Areas
D l +. ups. Mt 1’,.. d’ ‘ “ Cr — — . .
a siC.aa.e.. .. — .eee p a... a S a c •
regarding consultation on special situations. A sketch and brief
description is usually sufficient in order to make ins-tallation
recommendations.
Please advise Miraco, Inc. of any research on special animals, insects,
etc. which you feel is of concern to you.
A ’fIGO
is
warranted
to function
properly
for
a period of
3
years. If
not, it will be rep
unexpired warranty
laced with a new unit, free
period.
of charge,
for
the
.
I
• • 4
.
-108-
.1
Z • — •
-------
IAMIGO / R
AMIGO is the new, natural, safe, and harmless way to again create a
balanced pest-rodent environment compatable with the laws of Nature.
Various kinds of ants: fire—ants, army, termites, wood—ants, and
their related insects such as thrips, red and black scale, and aphids.
These do not belong in man’s habitats. Various kinds of rats: from
field mice to pack—rats, kangaroo—rats, roof-rats, Norwegian rats,
wharf and warehouse rodents. These also do not belong in man’s habita
Other rodents such as gophers and moles are considered undesirable in
mar.’s habitats. AMIGO informs these pests and rodents that man’s
habitats are not for them !!
AMIGO is the only effective electronic repeller which sends out a
warning system for pests and rodents to KEEP OUT! It is an electronic
repeller which sends out a protective frequency sound to create a
natural, front—line shield to keep ANTS-MICE-GOPHERS from entering any
protected area. Effective prevention is established immediately. Un-
wanted pests and rodents can hear and feel that the protected erwiron-
ment is uninhabitable for them. They have no desire to enter. AMIGO’
range of frequency protection is any one building or warehouse; any
house or small garden; any farmland or open field spaces up to five
acres. Th range of protection is dependcnt upcn the typ2 cf i ll
tion made.
For control of existing problems in the protected area, AMIGO irtrriediat
enters existing below-ground burrows and nests. Unwanted ANTS-MICE-
GOPHERS will feel and hear the repelling frequency. Wherever they
start to turn, the electronic repeller has already made their environ-
ment uninhabitable. Finding no escape, they will stay where they are.
They will n breed new generations. Unable to tolerate the repelling
frequency they will go dormant, never to leave the area. Effective
control of identified kinds of ants is 1—5 days; effective control of
identified kinds of mice arid rats is 1—10 days; and effective control
of gophers and moles is about 20 days.
AMIGO is truly a friend! AMIGO will affect only the habitats of those
pests and rodents ide itified and Indicated. Any domestic fowl, birds,
pets such as dogs and cats, cattle, horses, sheep, goats, pigs,ducks,
pheasant, quail, deer, and plant or vegetable life is unaffected.
AMIGO sends out a frequency repelling shield for unwanted ANTS-MICE-
GOPHERS.
The technology of solid-state circuitry makes AMIGO able to operate
less than a penny per day. It .s designed for dependable long life,
All that needs to be done is tc. plug it into any electrical outlet.
AMIGO will do the rest.
—lnQ-
-------
INSTALLATION (continued)
1. Drive a 2—3 foot 3/4 inch (inside diameter) galvanized
pipe into the ground next to or adjacent to pluxnbir ; pipe.
Claxup firmly to plumbir pipe. Allow no more than inches
of ground pipe to extend above ground surface.
2. Insert ANICO electronic repeller bar into top of 3/4 inch
ground pipe. AMIGO should fit snugly.
3. Plug electrical cord into any electrical outlet. If
extension cord is used for power, be sure it is a 12 guage
heavy duty waterproof cord and use only enough wire to reach
the _MIGO.
-110-
-------
HOW TO INSTALL AMIGO:
B. FOR FARMS AND RANCHES:
Basic Installation: 1 num guaranteed range is 5 acres.
Things of importance are:
* Look for existing underground water line.
* Look for existing outside electrical outlet.
* Look for sides of paths or roads.
* Avoid securing to any kind of PVC pipes.
* Avoid running extension cord power across furrows.
* Installation will require 3/4 inch (inside diameter)
galvanized water pipe only.
1. If existing underground water line is also metal piping,
drive a five foot length of galvanized pipe 4 feet into the
ground and clamp or secure to underground water line; insert
AMIGO electronic repeller bar into five foot pipe and plug
electrical cord into electrical outlet.
2. If existing water line piping does no exist or is riot.
metal piping, drive a ten foot length of metal or steel pipe
at least nine feet into ground; insert AMIGO electronic repel-
ler bar into metal pipe and plug electrical cord .into electric
outlet.
Grounding:
AMIGO units are equipped with approved 3 conductor power cord
and 3 blade grounding type attachment plug to be used with the
proper grounding type receptacle, in accordance with the National
Electrical Code, Canadian Electrical Code, and Underwriters’
Laboratories specifications. The green colored conductor in the
cable is the grounding wire. If plug replacement becomes necessar
never connect the gkeen wire to “live” terminal. All necessary
electrical components used have been UL approved. Grounding must
be continuous from the tool plug to a grounded receptacle.
AMIGO must riot be turned off after placed in servtce. It is a
preventive unit and cannot be temporarily installed. Once it is
connected, leave it plugged in for most effective results.
_11 1_
-------
HOW TO INSTALL AMIGO;
C. FOR OPEN SPACES:
Basic Installation: Minic’urn guaranteed range is 5 acres.
Things of importance are:
* Look for existing underground or above ground metal
water pipes.
* Look for existing outside electrical outlet boxes.
* Installation will require 3/4 inch (inside diameter)
galvanized wate.r pipe only, 5 feet or 10 feet in length.
1. If water pipes are sprinkler systems and are made of metal
or steel, drive a five foot length of galvanized pipe into the
ground and clamp or secure to water pipe; insert AMIGO electronic
repeller bar into five foot pipe and plug electrical cord into
electrical outlet.
2. If there are no existing water pipes, but perimeter or
linear metal fencing is available or metal fence stakes are
present, drive a ten foot length of galvanized pipe L leasL
9 feet into the ground; clamp or secure to adjacent metal stake
or fence; insert AMIGO electronic repeller bar iri to ten foot
pipe and plug electrical cord into electrical outlet.
Grounding:
AMIGO units are equipped with approved 3 conductor power cor
and 3 blade grounding type attachment plug to be used with he
proper grounding type receptacle, in accordance with the National
Electrical Code, Canadian E]. ectrical Code, and Underwriters’
Laboratories specifications. The green colored conductor in the
cable is the grounding wire. If plug replacement becomes necessar
never connect the green w re to “live” terminal. All necessary
electrical cornpon nts used have been UL approved. Grounding must
be continuous from the tool plug to a grounded receptacle.
R f E t:
AMIGO must not be turned cff after placed in service.’ It is’
preventive unit and cannot be temporarily installed. Once it is
connected, leai it plugged in for most effective results.
—112—
-------
EPA Approv.d
EPA Registrant No.
39958.CA-O1
Components V.1.. Uited
rLKW T,S AN AMIGO?
It’s an electro-magnetic I
• de!iice designed to control
• pests and rodents.
• HOW DOES IT WORK?.
Amigo generates an electro-magnetic energy
made up of high and low magnetic frequencies.
harmonics and sonics. This energy is
• transferred to and’ through a building or the
• grodrid. A confusing and uncomfortcb e pattern
is presented to pasts causing disorientation and
lack of. direction and purpose. This, in turn.
causes reduction in activity, feeding. breeding’.
— and in some cases expiration through forced
hibernation.
“Just like In the moile,” he says, refer-
• ‘ ring to “WilIard,’ a fIlm in which thou.
undo of rats $cuULed about comznunicat-
ACCIDENTAL. INVENTION Ing on Uwh ’ own sound system. But, he
adds, domestic or pet rodents aren’t sus-
ceptible because they do ant possess the
Guitarist’s High Note..
xnsltivfly that the cUd poputauons do.
‘First, they start washing up and clean-
ing themselves like all rats and mice to
- a Low Blow to Vermin they go to sleep ,” soya Brown.
“Then they become dormant and move in
• HWASS CulL (15—A sound so Hounlng and Urban DefelopmcntDe. slow motion. They quit nesting and there is
shrill It dtlvcs rodents wnid kills parunent officials about placing 9,000 an reproduction. a. sooner or titer the
cockroaches and sends fleas f ylng is ¶‘ ‘ to - population is destroyed.”
a uaieiorboborown, “Weflewtoilawaiianddisco,erod. Brown says it was inrtially the poultry
a ay wb re- th. antennae fuld industry that became interested in his
•when they sear it —the re ass device after he received a patent and
Securisysheck. backs, out of to , ww t bc5Ifl marketing It In lflS. Now It Is being
In his g rage’cns day eli yeses ago, •. used to control rodent lndestatlons in
BZOWD WU putting together an else- Brown. anativeo(Falrmost,MInn,. supermarkets, peanut bihiar factories.
tric guitar when be taa led some the frequsney is “aver a bakerl.. and r ” 4nuranLs:
Wires. He i’ecalled ‘r’iesday that ) cycles a second.” The human U Cifl:
swraUscatte Himagss heart toabatt 00eycIes.SaId MonyPovorable Reports
wires and the rodents ran aio. Brown, who played with bands In Las
ii Vegas Miasidans know of the over.
rat repellent bo ,. tones. the harmonies, which is what
000 have been poodatod in . ernie rock musicians—the frequen-
ge1uanfl1 uana . . des that go.through your head and,
you don’t even know what’s doing It
to 70%L
We’re jamming the sensory sys-
tems of rate, tl.Ckr cheS and even
ants. We’ve got a vibration high
enough to jam ‘em’ like a foreign
broadcaster taint our radio.”
• Brown said the net profits of his
Amigo Ecology Carp. were about
$800,000 last year and the gross
“about, million and, half.”
“A millionaire! I guess I am,”
Browissold.
______ ___ In an interview several ‘weeks ago.
Brown told of a stream of positive reports
from Georgia to the Fiji Islands.
• Brown first described his Invention as an
“erratlc•wound coil,” a description that
gives a clue as to how the AMIGO works.
The theory, Brown said, Is this: Rodents
and other pests use the earth’s electro.
magnetic field to orient themselves. The
coil amplifies this field. The cod also, as It
is heated by the passage of electricity
through It. switches its magnetic polarity
several times as it passes through various
hi-at ranges. Thus the magnetic field for as
much as a mile around the device Is
affected, and the rodents In that area are
completely disoriented.
Already the device, retailing for *2i0 to
$1, , has made re a mWionar . ut
lie continues to te l Ins the mechanIsm to
upotha’pests.
On March 11 the inventor of this amazing Amigo pest control system. Bob
Brown, wiH be at our booth it the California Midwinter Fair. Come out to the
Iau to learn more about this invention md meat its inventor.
A chicken farmer north of San Die-,
go. about 50 miles vest of Hipass.
bought the first one when “about 10.-
000 mice were bothering the chickens
every night It dived his place In’
four or live days,” Brown said.
The government of Venezuela re-
cony ordered 300 to kill meiuoaches
in food stores to Caracas, and 1,000
were sent to granaries In Barcelona,
Spain. Brown plans to fly to Brook.
lyn,TsaegTuesdaytoiaLkw US
•.: . , ,,.,,,,, •‘ . A IE U
DISTRIBUTED BY
V 1.éyT aiIer S p y & S s
—113—
I
(- I
I ”
1
)
z
as
‘ s
I.’
in
(
x
‘0
298 Main St.
El Centro
353-0331
-------
FIELD TESTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC DEVICES TO CONTROL
POCKET GOPHERS
John O’Brien
Nevada State Departn’ent of Agriculture Center
-114-
-------
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Study Area
Field tests were conducted on two circular 130—acre (about 50 hectares)
alfalfa fields approximately 10 miles (16 kilometers) northwest of Battle
Mountain, Nevada. The alfalfa was sprinkler irrigated.
Plant species present on surrounclina uncultivated lands included: big
sage ( Arte iiisia tridentata) ; rabbitbrush ( Chrysothamnus sp.); cheatgrass
( Bromus tectorum) ; wheatgrass ( Agropyron sp.); Great Basin wildrye ( Elymus
cinereus) ; and inconspicuous forbs.
Wildlife species observed in the test area included: coyote ( Canis
latrans) ; deerinice ( Peromyscus rnaniculatus) ; prairie falcon ( Falco nevadensis) ;
sparrow hawk (F. sparverius) ; golden eagle ( Aouila chrysaetos) ; red—tailed
hawk ( Buteo jai aicensis) ; marsh hawk ( Circus cyaneus) : raven ( Corvus corox) ;
black billed magpie ( Pica pica); and long billed curlew ( Numenius americanus) .
The townsend pocket gropher ( Thomomys townsendi ) was the gopher species
present in the study area.
Insects collected on the test area were: ground beetle ( Calosoma
obsoliturn) ; two lygus bug species ( Lygus spp.); one species of muscoid fly
( Muscidae) ; leaf beetle ( Chrysochus cobaltinus) ; thread waisted wasp
( Podalonia sp.); two species of parasitic wasps ( Ichneumonidae) ; giant water
beetle ( Hydrophilus trianaularis) ; and carrion beetle ( Nicrophorus marginatus).
Census Methods
In adjacent areas two methods were used to measure pre— and post-treatment
act i vi ty.
1. Each day for five days twenty burrows were opened and checked 24
hours later to deteniiine if they had been closed; closed burrows were then
reopened. Opened burrows were at least 25 feet (7.6 meters) apart to reduce
the likelihood of openino more than one burrow belonging to the same
gopher. Numbered stakes were used to mark each opened burrow. Generally
speaking, the higher the stake number the further the opened burrow was
from the device in test plots (See maps). A burrow, which remained opened
for a whole five day treatment period, was considered unoccupied. A burrow,
which was plugged at any time during the treatment period, was considered
occupied. If a plugged burrow could not be reopened due to the length or
compactness of the plug, another opening was made close to the original
opening.
2. The number of new mounds and plugs appearing in a 9,000 sauare foot
area in 24 hours was counted each day for five days. After counting, the
mounds and plugs were smoothed down so t)iey would not be recounted the
following day. Mound and plug fon iation has been shown to be positively
correlated to pocket gopher populations (Reid, et al ., 1966). Mounds are
piles of soil pushed to the surface of the ground which are closed by the
—115-
-------
gopher. Plot dimensions were 15 x 600 feet for Nature Shield and Magna
Pulse areas and 60 x 150 feet for Sigma areas. Plots were divided into
ten 15 x 60 foot subplots to facilitate counting.
The regression equation of Reid, et al., 1966, was used to estimate
gopher populations from mean number of mounds and plugs appearing on test
and control plots (Table 1). To enable their use in the regression eauation,
means were adjusted from one day — 9,000 square foot values to two day - one
acre values by multiplying them by 9.68. Though not precise, these popu-
lation figures provide a rough approximation of what gopher populations
were on the plots.
These methods were used to determine whether claims made by electro-
magnetic device manufacturers have a basis In fact. If gophers do “go
dormant, stop eating and reproducina, become inactive, etcetera” as claimed,
there should be a sharp drop In mound and plug formation on the test plots.
Similiarly, there should be a sharp increase in the number of burrows
remaining open.
Weather Parameters
Minimum and maximum temperature (F°) and wind speed (knots) durina
census periods were obtained from the Battle Mountain weather station
located approximately 12 miles (19 kilometers) from the test area (field
sheets). Weather parameters on the test site probably did not coincide
with those at the recording station; however, changes in parameters would
be similar. Because pocket gophers spend most of their time underground,
day to day changes in above ground weather parameters (excluding precipita-
tion) probably have little Influence on burrowing activity. There was no
precipitation at the test site during census periods. Changes in soil
moisture were influenced by the sprinkler Irrigation of the alfalfa. The
sprinkler passes over the test and control plots once every five days.
Device Installation and Functioning
Devices were checked daily to determine if they were working. A glowing
or blinking light present on each device Indicated it was working. Devices
were installed according to accompanying manufacturers’ Instructions.
A 1,000 VA—440/llO transformer and ‘ 1 Ralntite” bell boxes were installed
in the sprinkler pump panel In the Sigma devices. Twelve—two weather resistant
Ronex cable supplied power to the Sigma devices. Unlike the Sigma devices,
which operated on AC current, the Nature Shield and Magna Pulse units were
powered by internal batteries.
Devices were received with their official sample seals intact. Seals
were broken when the devices were installed. At the end of the tests the
devices were resealed and placed in a locked storage area.
Devices were Installed on June 16, 1978. The Nature Shield continued
to operate until sometime between 1:30 P.M. August 13 and 3:05 P.M. August 14,
-116-
-------
1978. Magna Pulse continued to operate until sometime between 12:15 P.M.
August 1 and 12:00 Noon August 2, 1978. On August 2 condensation was observed
on the inside of the red indicator light. In both of these instances the
devices were considered to be non-operational because the red indicator lights
no longer flashed. Power to the Sigma I and II devices was inadvertently cut
off on two occasions: between 12:45 P.M. July 2 and 12:59 P.M. July 3, 1978
and also between 1:00 P.M. July 18 and 12:30 P.M. July 19, 1978. Devices
were restarted at the latter time in each case. Except for these two
occasions the Sigma I and II devices functioned throuahout the test.
The devices were in operation, as follows, prior to post-treatment
censusi ng:
Nature Shield — 58 days (8 weeks 2 days)
Magna Pulse — 47 days (6 weeks 5 days)
Sigma I & II — 16 days (then off for 24 hours max.),
15 days (then off for 24 hours max.), and
34 days (4 weeks 6 days uninterrupted,
9 weeks 2 days total)
Magn Pulse and Nature Shield were in operation longer than the three
to four week time period the manufacturers indicated was necessary to
control gophers. No time period was indicated for the Sigma units.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Device Efficacy
Nature Shield
Both Nature Shield test and control areas showed a decrease in mound
and plug formation from pre—treatment census to post-treatment census
(Table 1). The control area reduction approached the P .05 level of
statistical significance (T = 2.26, 8 df) while the test area reduction
was not significant (P(.2, T = 1.85, 8 df). Practically speaking, these
reductions do not indicate a significant degree of control either. In terms
of approximate numbers of gophers per acre the changes in mound plug for-
mation indicated reductions from 87 to 75 gophers per acre on the test area
and 63 to 51 gophers per acre on the control area. These population density
estimates were derived utilizing the formula of Reid, et al ., 1966. There
was no change in burrow plugging behavior between pre- and post—treatment
censuses. In both test and control areas all twenty opened burrows were
closed within the five day census period for both pre- and post—treatment
censuses (Table 2).
—117-
-------
Magna Pulse
There were increases in mound and plug activity from the pre-treatment
census to the post-treatment census in both test and control areas (Table 1).
The Magna Pulse test area showed a statistically significant increase in
mound and plug formation (P (.0l, 1 -4.74, 8 df). The control area
increase was not statistically significant (P< .3, T= 1.20, 8 df). These
changes in mound and plug formation would be comparable to population
increases from 20 to 29 gophers per acre on the test area and 24 to 30
gophers per acre on the control area (Reid, et al., 1966). These increases
Illustrate the fact that animal populations undergo natural fluctuations
(Vaughn, 1972). The Magna Pulse test and control areas, which had the
lowest levels of mound and plug production iiong the test and control plots,
experienced increases.
There was no reduction in burrow plugging activity in the test and
control areas. All twenty opened burrows were closed in both pre- and post-
treatment censusfng in the Magna Pulse test area. In the control area 19
were closed in the pre—treatnient census while 20 were closed in the post-
treatment census.
Sigma I and II
There were decreases in mound and plug formations in Sigma I, Sigma
II and Siama control areas from the pre—treatment census to the post—treatment
census (Table 1). Sigma I and Sigma II reductions were small and not
significant practically or statistically (Sigma I: P (.5, T = .26, 7 df;
Sigma II; P<.5, I = .76, 7 df). In terms of approximate numbers of gophers
per acre (Reid, et al ., 1966) the Sigma I area dropped from 59 to 58, Sigma II
area from 60 to 58, essentially no chanqe. Sigma control area reduction was
statistically significant (P<.05, I = 2.48, 7 df). The approximate number of
gophers per acre dropped from 72 to 54.
Burrow plugaina activity remained high in all cases. Sigma II and control
areas had all 20 opened burrows plugged In both pre -treatment and post-treatment
censuses. Sigma I had 19 of 20 plugged in the pre—treabnent census and 20 of
20 in the post-treatment census (Table 2).
Summary
There were no indications of device efficacy with either activity index
method. Burrow plugging behavior remained high (which is normal) in all areas
In both pre— and post—treatment censuses.
Mound and plug formation changed, as follows, from pre—treatment to post-
treatment censusing: test and control areas with high levels of activity
experienced decreases; low activity areas experienced Increases; and medium
activity areas remained essentially unchanged. Reductions In all cases were
not of a practical nature; economically damaging populations of gophers existed
in all areas during both censuses.
-118-
-------
Miscellaneous Observations
Two pocket gophers were observed above ground durina the test. One,
observed July 15 in the Sigma II test plot appeared sick and moved sluggishly;
the second, observed July 22 in the Magna Pulse test area appeared normal (i.e.,
aggressive, not sluggish)
Canine prints (probably coyote) were observed in test and control areas
throughout the test. Similarly, coyotes were observed periodically and a
young coyote was killed by the farmer’s dog on July 1.
Prairie falcons were the most freauently observed raptor in the area.
It was not uncommon to see a dozen or so birds perched on telephone poles
and fence posts.
Similarly, ravens were always observed in the area. They usually
followed the sprinklers and preyed on gophers flooded out of their burrow
systems. The number of ravens ranged from perhaps fifty to three or four
hundred. It was not uncommon to see a raven carrying off a gopher.
Generally speaking, predator populations were extremely high indicat-
ing the density of prey species in the area. It is apparent that predators
(like the devices) were not able to effectively reduce gopher populations.
—119—
-------
TABLE 1. NUMBER OF POCKET GOPHER MOUNDS AND PLUGS P DUCED IN 24 HOURS IN 9,000 SQ. FT. PLOT
Pretreatment Posttreatment
Day Day Day Day Day Mean ± S.E. Day Day Day Day Day Mean ± S.E
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Nature Shield +
Test 182 186 138 157 216 175.8 — 13.3 151 154 153 74 155 137.4 ± 15.
Nature Shield + +
Control 94 116 91 102 131 106.8 — 7.4 114 43 72 70 81 76.0 — 11.
tagna Pulse + +
Test 22 14 22 21 13 18.4 — 2.0 26 38 34 35 29 32.4 — 2.
Magna Pulse + +
Control 30 16 23 30 26 25.0 — 2.6 49 30 14 51 26 34.0 — 7.
Sigma I * 99 78 101 101 94.8 ± 5.6 76 86 107 104 90 92.6 5.
Sigma II * 94 83 107 103 96.8 ± 5.3 83 84 106 99 85 91.4 ± 4.
Sigma Control * 99 150 137 130 129.0 ± 10.8 60 45 106 77 123 82.2 ± 14.
*Sprinkler passed over census area invalidating counts.
TABLE 2. NUMBER OF POCKET GOPHER BURROWS CLOSED IN FIVE DAYS (20 OPENED).
Nature Nature Magna Magna
Shield Shield Pulse Pulse Sigma Sigma Sigma
Test Control Test Control I II Control
Pretreatment 20 20 20 20 19 20 20
Posttreatment 20 20 20 19 20 20 20
Literature Cited
Reid, W. H., I L M. Hanson and A. L. Ward, 1966. Counting mounds and earth plugs to
census pocket gophers. J. Wildi. Mgmt. 30:327-334.
Vaughn, T. A., 1972. Mairimalogy. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia. 463 pp.
John p’Brien , Vertebrate Specialist
Neva 4a State Department of Agriculture
JO/lb Div,lsiori of Plant Industry
1/79 —120- /
-------
:SIGMAI San ONNJL
MA& JET C
NT S
‘t / - - ‘ op€n d (en creo. -
I --
/ I
I - - - o S bpI6t nr t t t c eJ 1 .(x) -_ - — =
-
S(G MAIt - -
-. COROL - .
- - ----•---- -121- ------
-------
- — -— - . - - — —. —. — -- — - .. ---- —- -.- -—-
—r -
— —r - —
- -- - —— -- — — - - -
- — - --— —- - - - I- - - _ - - - - -
MAGNA PULSE nd NATURE SHIELD
N
- - L - -
- $HIELbJI
- - —I Cc tITROL -
• —
-- -
- : - - t_
-
. -_ --— —-.
• SHt L.D •
- T
— I
p1 ruLSET.:::_:::11J _ : _i
•
-._ --— -±H-rf --
i Tz :
= optrieA pluct Cenvsc re ••• - - -•- • - -- - ,: -;
:•.;. .LIr1cI. LVte : -:.
I • —---—.4-—-,-’-
_Io=
-
- —- —____
-------
AMIGO ELECTRONIC REPELLER
EFFICACY TEST
Steve 0. Palniateer, Biologist
Environmental Protection Agency
Beltsville, M D
-123—
-------
S
ANIGO ELECTRONIC REPELLER EFFICACY TEST
Animal Biology Laboratory
The Animal Biology Laboratory has conducted efficacy tests on the Amigo
Electronic Repeller at the request of Enforcement personnel in Region IX and
in the main office in Waterside Mall. The efficacy tests were composed of
feeding and breeding experiments. The brochure that accanpanied the sample
jacket (sample number 131211) claImed that rats will cease to eat, drink, or
reproduce when within the 5-acre coverage of the device.
Test and Control Sites
In accordance with good scientific procedure and reading the claims made
by Miraco Inc. for the Amigo Electronic Repeller, both test and control sites
were set up. The manufacturer claims a 5-acre field of Influence but Infers it
could be up to 12 acres. Therefore, it was considered necessary to separate the
two sites by at least one mile. After considerable searching, an adequate location
was found for the test site in Building 412-A about 2 miles fran the control site
at the Animal Biology Laboratory (Building 289).
The test site consisted of a one rotr 12 by 16—foot building with an average
temperature of 60°F. The rats were Individually caged In 9 by 11 by 8—inch metal
cages. The Amigo device was installed one foot outside the building. A 10-foot,
3/4-inch inside diameter water pipe (galvanized steel) was driven into the ground
9 feet 6 inches. A 2—inch hacksaw cut was made In the top of the pipe in 4 places
and the repeller bolt was set inside the pipe. The top of the pipe was tightened
with an auto hose clamp and the device was plugged into a 115 volt AC outlet.
No extension cord was necessary.
The control site consisted of a 24 by 24-foot room In a 24 by 60-foot
building. The average temperature in the building was about 60°F. Cage sizes
were Identical with the units used with the test rats.
Feeding Test Procedur e and Results
Two separate feeding trials were conducted with laboratory rats. The first
test consisted of an 11-day feeding trial at both sites on ten rats each. The
device was plugged in on the first day of this test. Daily all rats were offered
50 grams of Waynes Laboratory Chow (meal form) in a metal cup. The gross weight
of each container and Its contained food were determined daily and returned to
starting weight by addition of the laboratory chow. If the food was fouled by
urine or feces it was replaced. The quantity of food consumed by each rat was
recorded each day.
When it became obvious that an 11-day test (no pre-test data) would not
effectively reveal the efficacious nature of the repellent device, a second
series of tests were commenced. The tests were similar to those above with
the following exceptions: there were 25 rats used at both test and control
sites, the rats were given a 2-week pre-test feeding trial at a third
location before being transported to test and control sites, and the test
-124-
-------
period was for 5 weeks followed by a 2-week post-test feeding trial.
Results of Feeding Trials
Trial 1
Rats offered laboratory chow at the test site consumed 19.3 grams per
day per rat. Consumption the first day was 16.5 gr ns per rat and on day
11 it was 22.0 grams per rat. Rats at the control site consumed 25.6 grams
per day per rat. One rat died at the test site on the last day of the 11—day
test. The averaoe weight of test rats was 207 grams and control rats 233 grams.
In short, test rats did not stop eating when tested at almost “ground zero”
of the M iigo’s claimed effective range, but the control rats ate slightly more
per day. This difference is not statistically or practically significant.
Trial 2
Test rats consumed an average of 25.1 grams per day during the pre—test
period and 31.7 granis during the test period (Table 1). Control rats consumed
23.8 grams per day during the pre—test period and 31 .7 grams during the testing
period. Again, the test rats did not stop eating when exposed to the repeller
device. Control rats consumed laboratory chow at the same rate as the test
rats (Table 1)
No test or control rats died during this second feeding trial
Reproduction Test Procedure and Results
Ten cages (26 by 10 by 7) were set up at both test and control sites
with 1 male and 1 female rat per cage for 98 days. All breeding pairs
received water and laboratory chow ad libitun’ . A nest box was provided in
each cage. The rats were monitored aily for possible deaths and breeding
success. All rat pups were wieghed at 7 days and sacrificed.
Results of Breedino Tests
Breeding success was relatively poor for both test and control rats.
The most probable reason is the lack of artificially controlled lightina.
Day length was only about 8 to 9 hours while 18 hours is the optimal for
reproductive success. However, the 10 pairs of breeding rats at the test
site managed to produce 20 litters for a total of 236 pups (Table 2).
Control rats begat 23 litters with a total of 206 pups. This is very little
difference in success and Is not statistically (p<.O.O5) or practically
significant.
While more control rat pups survived the 7-day period from birth until
sacrificed at 1 week of age than the test rats (144 controls, 110 test) the
test rats were bigger (16.3 grams compared to 159 for control). There was no
difference in reproductive success in botti test and control animals.
—125—
-------
S
Conclusion and Discussion
It can be concluded from the results of this test that rats do not fail
to eat or reproduce when within the claimed zone of influence. The rat, either
wild Norway or laboratory bred, would respond in the same manner to the device.
There is no maninal, including dogs or cats, that lives in closer association
with man than the rat. Therefore, domesticated rats re used instead of wild
Norway rats.
In conclusion, the claims made by the manufacturer for the electronic
repeller are unfounded and are extremely exaggerated.
-126-
-------
TABLE 1
Amigo Electronic Repeller Feeding Trials
Values shown are mean daily consumption (in grams) per rat, per day
of a comercial laboratory chow. Test rats (13 males, 12 females) were
within 10 feet of the repeller device. Control rats (13 males, 12 females)
were located 2 miles from the test site.
Pre-test Period
Amigo Switched Off
Con trol
Rats
Test
Rats
Week 1
Week 2
Pre-test mean
22.3
25.0
23.8
23 . 6
26.4
25 . 1
Test Period
Amigo Exposed to
Test Rats
29.6
29.9
31.8
33.0
34.0
31.4
31.0
32.1
31.2
32.9
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Mean for Test Period
31.7
31.7
Post—test Period
Amigo Switched Off
34.5
31.9
31.5
30.0
Week 1
Week 2
Mean for Post-test Period
33.2
30.7
-127-
-------
TABLE 2
a
Amigo Electronic Repeller Breeding Trials
Number of litters born and sacrificed (7 days old) at Amigo test site
(IS) and control site (CS). Test rats were stationed within 10 feet of the
Amigo Electronic Repeller.
Number of
litters born
IS CS
Total
number
Number
of
weight
in
of
TS
pups
CS
litters sacrificed
IS CS
TS
pups
CS
IS
CS
Week #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Sum
0
0
0
0
3
3
1
2
1
4
2
2
1
4
0 0
0 0
0 0
o 0
2 17
3 24
2 14
0 18
6 3
2 54
1 23
2 25
1 14
2 44
23 236
0
0
0
0
14
28
22
0
42
26
4
26
33
11
206
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
0
3
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
5
2
1
2
2
iT
32
4
6
28
7
20
13
1W
17
21
43
18
3
23
19
21 .4
15.4
15.3
14.8
22.6
17.1
14.2
15.9
17.0
9.7
19.6
17.0
17.61
17.3
15.5
16.3
Post- test
Amigo
Off
1
3
1
38
7
3
2
36
16
8
15.0
10.8
16.6
16.8
2
2
2
22
16
1
4
1
3
8
44
24
14.2
16.7
Sum
5
3
60
23
-128-
-------
AIviIGO PHASE II ELECTRONIC REPELLER
EFFICACY REPORT
Steve D. Palmateer, Biologist
Environmental Protection Agency
Beltsville, MD
-129—
-------
October 26, 1977
AMIGO PHASE II ELECTRONIC REPELLER EFFICACY REPORT (SAMPLE NUMBER 148834 )
The purpose of this report is to document the results of testing the Amigo
Phase II Electronic Repeller for efficacy. This device has claims for both
above and below ground pest animals control. A brochure accompanying the device
claims pest species will stop eating, breeding, and drinking when within the zone
of influence. The size of the zone of influence is not clearly stated but ranges
from 5 to 30 acres and up.
Equipment and Procedure
Testing was conducted at two locations. One site was designated the test
site and consisted of a one roan 12 by 16—foot building. The Amigo Phase II
device was installed about 1 foot outside the building. A 10-foot, 3/4-inch
inside diameter water pipe (galvanized steel) was driven into the gound 9 1/2
feet. A 2—inch hacksaw cut was made in the top of the pipe in four places and
the repeller bolt was set inside the pipe. The top of the pipe was tightened
with an auto hose clamp.
All feeding tests ware conducted in 9 by 11 by 8—inch wire mesh metal cages.
All rats were individually caged and laboratory chow consumption was recorded
daily. There ware 30 rats each at the test and control sites. The rats received
50 grams of food per day.
All drinking tests ware conducted in 3 by 6—foot stock watering tanks. The
bottom of each tank was covered to a depth of approximately 1 inch with clean
wood shavings. The wood shavings ware changed weekly. Each tank also contained
two 14 by 14 by 4-inch metal nest boxes. There were 20 rats (10 males, 10 females)
used at both the test and control areas. There ware twelve 100 mIlliliter
gradt ated no—drip waterers used per tank. All waterers were filled with
fresh tap water after daily intake was recorded.
Breeding
A control
building. The
site was also set up in a 24 by 24-foot room in a 24 by 60-foot
control site was located 2 miles from the test site.
The tests ware
12 pairs (1 male, 1
were inspected for
nearest tenth of a
conducted in 20 by 20 by 9—Inch metal cages. There ware
female) each at both test and control sites. All pairs
birth daily. All rat pups ware counted, weighed to the
gram and sacrificed at 7 days.
Before the device was
were monitored for 3 weeks
device was unplugged. All
plugged in, all rats (eating, drinking and breeding)
(pre—test period). After 14 weeks, the repeller
rats were monitored for 3 weeks (post test period).
-130-
-------
Results
Feeding Trials
Test rats consumed 24.5 grams of laboratory chow daily during the test
and control rats 25.4 (Table 1, Figure 1). There is no statistical difference
(P>.05). Consumption fell off steadily during the 14 week test period for rats
at both sites. Ca puting the 14 week trend by the method of least squares
indicates a slight but steady decline, using the formula Y=A+Bx, B=—0.6900, and
A=25.4079 for the controls and B= — 0.4793 and A=24.4657 for the test rats.
See the calculated trends in Figure la.
Drinking Trials
Test rats consumed water at twice the rate of control rats during the
3 week pre—test period (40.18 to 23.13 ml respectively). The explanation for
this low water consumption in the controls is not available. The test rats’
water intake was at levels published in the literature. However, by the
first week of the test period, control rat water intake had increased ten
milliliters. (Table 2, Figure 2). Test rat water consumption remained
fairly constant during the 14 week trial (Figure 2a) using the method of
least squaress B= — 0.6820 and A=42.3736. Controls rats drank an average of 37.36
milliliters during the 14 week period as compared to the test rats (42.37 ml) but
the trend was slightly upward (Figure 2a). The least square solutions are
B= +0.2879 and A= +37.3579.
Breeding Trials
Test rats begat 23 litters of pups and control rats 32 during the 14 week
test period (Table 3). There were two pairs in the test rats that never
produced a litter during the entire 20 week period they were monitored. However,
test rats averaged 12.65 pups per litter and controls 10.94. Eiahty—five percent
of the control rats survived this same period. The difference is not statistically
significant (P 0.05).
Test rat pups averaced 15.0 grams at 7 days and control pups 16.1 crams.
Again, the difference is not significant.
Conclusion :
Rats stationed within the claimed zone of influence of the Miigo Phase II
repeller consumed food, drank water and bred with vigor over the entire 14 week
test period. The literature indicates some effects of electromagnetism upon
animals but only at a much higher output than is radiating from the Amigo Phase
II. There is also some controversy as to whether the 760 kilovolt transmission
lines affect people adversely. The Amigo Phase II operates on 110 volts. The
test data shows the device did not stop the rats from drinking, eating, or
breeding.
—131-
-------
TABLE 1
Amigo Phase II feeding test. Sanple no. 148834. Values shown are mean daily
consumption (in grams) per rat, per day of a comriercial laboratory chow. Test
rats (15 males, 15 fenales) were located within 10 feet of the electromagnetic
repeller device. Control rats (15 males, 15 females) were located 2 miles from
the test site.
Pre-test Period
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Pre-test mean
Week
Week
Week
Week
Week
Week
Week
Week
Week
Week
Week
Week
Week
Week
Test
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
mean
Control rats
23.63
25.93
28.87
26.14
Test rats
Th.07
27 . 13
27.08
26 .43
28.18
26.53
25.86
26.88
25.70
24.10
n.54
24.05
25.77
26.09
23 .56
23.48
20 .43
19.35
24.47
Week
1
Post—test Period
.
19.09
18.28
Week
2
18.97
18.26
Week
3
20.46
22.59
Post
-test mean
19.23
19.98
Test Period (device turned on)
30.00
28.11
27.84
28.90
28.12
26.57
24.00
25.67
24. 76
24.76
23.21
22. 77
20.87
20 .13
25.41
—132-
-------
TABLE 2
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Pre-test mean
20.91
24 .63
25.55
23.73
Test Period (device turned on )
Test rat
34.92
37. 11
48 .51
40.18
Week
1
Post—test Period
41.07
42.74
Week
2
‘
42.94
41.75
Week
3
38.10
46.03
Post-
test mean
41.26
42.95
Amigo Phase II drinking test. Saiiple no. 148834. Values shown are mean
daily ter consumption (in milliliters per rat, per day). Test rats (10
males, 10 females) were located within 10 feet of the repeller device. Control
rats (10 males, 10 females) were located two miles from the test site.
Pre—test Period
Control rats _________
Week
1
33.52
40.81
Week
2
38.54
39.49
Week
3
38.79
42.14
Week
4
34.51
45.41
Week
5
33.78
45.77
Week
6
39.39
41.96
Week
7
37.00
47.20
Week
8
37.40
41.59
Week
9
38.44
40.23
Week
10
35.74
43.09
Week
11
36.82
43.26
Week
12
38.86
40.28
Week
13
38.07
38.06
Week
14
42.14
43.94
Test
ii an
37.36
42.37
-------
TABLE 3
Number of litters born and sacrifIced (7 days old) at Amigo test site (TS)
and control site (CS). Test rats re stationed withIn 10 feet of the
Amigo Phase II Electronic Repeller (Sanpie r . 148834).
Number of Total number Number of Total number of pups Mean pup
litters born of pups litters sacrificed at sacrifice weight in grans
Pre-test TS CS IS CS IS CS IS Cs T5 CS
Weekl
Week 2
Week 3
0
2
5
0
1
5
0
30
55
0
15
42
0
2
5
0
1
3
0
30
52
0
11
28
0
14.2
17.1
0
11.8
15.0
Sum
7
6
85
57
7
4
82
39
16.0
14.1
Test
Weeki
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Week 2
2
3
36
27
2
3
31
23
12.2
14.9
Week 3
1
2
8
20
1
2
7
15
19.3
15.6
Week 4
3
4
36
45
3
4
32
41
14.9
17.6
Week 5
1
3
14
32
0
3
0
29
—
17.2
Week 6
2
2
22
20
2
2
17
20
12.3
15.1
Week 7
2
2
24
13
2
2
23
11
16.0
18.6
Week 8
3
1
43
9
3
1
40
9
16.4
18.8
Week 9
2
3
22
30
2
3
20
30
14.8
15.0
Week 10
0
3
0
42
0
3
0
39
-
16.0
Week 11
3
2
35
28
3
2
30
28
16.0
13.6
Week 12
2
1
24
9
2
1
21
9
17.1
21.6
Week 13
1
3
14
40
1
3
14
31
12.5
17.5
Week 14
1
3
13
35
1
3
13
31
13.8
14.9
Sum
23
32
291
350
22
32
248
316
15.0
16.1
Post— test
Amiao off
Week 1
1
1
16
10
1
1
13
10
13.8
-
16.0
Week 2
2
2
16
22
2
2
16
21
16.6
14.1
Week 3
0
2
0
25
0
2
0
24
—
10.7
Sum
3
5
32
57
3
5
29
55
15.3
13.0
-134-
-------
I1E 20120 TO INCH
H1*ftH
f,
IlIlIltIllil lilt
I i
II
4’
ii 1 iii
FHTffH
FFFHIi
1r u
11
I I - 14-1-44- 14- 1-4 -hUH-I
iIIl4IIIIIIIIHHI)
I-l-H+H-I-I H-H+H-H ‘+1-1+1-H-’
IIIIII
-iflftIfflh1 II I Hf RFFfflffl 1 H ffl1
—-I I I
13 fr’1 I
II
wwM;th ff f t uu
1 ____ __
iiqmi-n
{‘EEDI,11 YR LS
‘IIllTh f ¶ fl ff llll Eftillifil_ftNllftIUrF
1U 1 tU IHIll+
ft fflUFi
“H
III
ii 1111111111 1111111
H - fi
I’ll
II
111 WIffiHITh H 1THIIFFFHTHTh{HEFft
II
tIl II
‘III
r”
+Ulli
IIIlIIIIIIllIIIllIIIIlI iIJII IIIlIIlIlI I
I I I ]
‘III
441-1-4-4-1-1-4-4 IIFF-44 1-I-14 414-HH
iii
I’ll’
I U
II
titiitiiiiiii
liii III
II
I II 1-I
II
II
illi
I-H-I-t I-I
“l’tjtll Iiiiiii Ii ,
•IhI
LIiIllillIIIIUillIiIIIIIIiIi ill111lIlIiil
II
I’ll
III
III
Illillili ilillilIllit lIilIliili IliiILiiil Itiiiiilil!i
RI
liii Iii
-30
ii.
liii IlIllIllIll
iftil’H fflffl U-
1111 1 11
ii ‘tir
II!
II
ill
III I
fl Ili it rt-t-t-t-ii I
JH W1tiftftffl
24
t
111111
I i ii1 I-hi
11111111
lhfliffi H-fU+!+I-P+HH-FFI -I 1W -H+ + -
Ui I’’ ffli 1 ’’’’’’
III
It
11
Ni ii - ii II
1111111
Lkf I
II
iii
iiIIIIi 1111111
liii till ir i 4
iii 11111
I I
II
‘ill
ill
a 44
1111 ‘lilIllil ‘‘111111 ilillIlili
111111 I
ilillIlilt II
Ii
111 l - t1’
ii ilIl 11111111 111111
liii Ill
H1
Iii
‘I
III tilt
II]
li ii liI 1.1I1 illlIl1IlIh1II Il1 11 il Lli liluIltIlIl ilIlI11l11
lfl
fH- I-tff
II IIIIII II ll
4-1-4- 1-
liii
II I1I
I I-Il
lli1 1 iitl IlillIlili 1lUl1liI -Ii L1iJ I 1l1ll1tllllllllI
Ill
iii ]
L1 l1iI tutu 11111111 ii
Ii
I’
‘ urii111i ,i
I-444-d
U”
II ‘lli
liii Ii
U4-l4 fl
II
25
I I ’’
III’’’ IIII,IlIIIt -1lIltIIllliIlIi
4-f-I
1- 4
liii !
F I-I-I-f-I-f I
11 - 111 -HIJ-fl1tHii-f1T1 1Ifl1’ 1111
F 4 -
I I
liii I-IlIIlllIt l lII I1IIlliIlI
UI+14
lIIulti:u’i”II llliliIltlIlliiIIll’llii ’1 1IlI
lii , l’-IIIl-i-IIl -l ‘‘liii
- ‘--4I-K1- Il
I I
II]
I_Ill I III
1
liii
I1
liii 1111
III-
fliRt
1 II
I I ! III II
‘Sit
UIIHIL
..
II I
II I
I
I
I
I
I I
i I
- L
‘9
•sS
ii
I
L
,IlIIIIIIlIlI l iii
(
L
F
ii ft HRHht HHUH
i-Hi
I H
H
U
HF
-UHU
‘HI
[ -FU hUh-
H ii
I I I P I I I P I F’! I
‘I I 4 “ 7 q lO If
U1 I H U
fill
Ith iH1Ut-
-------
I’
I
U
P MIifl
III
III
FUF
HLH+f’
1I!IIIIIII [ ITIII1I [ II
II
B 20120 TO hUh
F,LURE i A
4 EPniA/1; TRIALS ‘ C # iLr”/ M-Efl
I IliJTIIl I I I I I I I I I I I I I
9rUU
IF
II 111111 IIlI1IIIlIIIIII’IIIl
LW Ut
IIIIIII1T 14 IiIIIIIIIII•III
IIIIIIIIIIII
I I I Ill IIII
III 111111 liii
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILIIIII liii
IIIIIIIIIIII
IllIllIllIll liii
III IltIllilIll
•EIIE1ti L1II1III1IiI1IIItIlIIIIIEIlitIIIIIIIIIIIIIIItIII
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ill
‘‘‘I’ll
III
YPE 1iIfl (ic r £w cs’J
iiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiii IllIllIllIll
III..
IIIIIIIIIIIItIIIIIIII1IIIIII.IIIIIIIIIIJIIIIIUIIIIIIIIILIIIIIIIIIIIIII It!I1IIIt1IIIIIIj
IIIIIIlIIIIIIItIIIIIItIIIIIIIIt,1 IIJIlLflhIlIIIIlIIIII!IIIIIIIIIIUUIIBIIIIIIIIlJ
IIIIIIIIBIIIIIII
IIuhIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111111111 UlIllIllIlIll 11111111111fl9111
“H
U1111 11i 1 111
IIuIIIIIIIIIII1IIJ1IIIIIIII
-
-
-
•;i :
I
.
Ii
I
I
.
I
-
• 2
-
- ;I
I
I ‘I
,. -7
I
I
. a • a
I •
,..I 9—)
I •• I 1
I’
‘ U
, I
a—, SI
I
‘.4
-------
KkE 20i20 TO IPICH
p%MI O
(DRINKING
TRIF LS
Fi &O,CE
7-.
45-
4
3
iii .
I
.
I
I
—
I
I
Ii
I
IIt
1llI I 1111111
“. —J
‘it Ilirtul
ii
4L.
L II
II t
It
11
Ii
“IRI IIL
ll 1l i!lIiIIt :IIl’iI
FWH
f
‘ii •t ii t.ai.iii I
1+4 I I 1-4-1 $ 1-1-I
II
lIlt( I1
- -$1-tt-t-t”
‘4-
.L4
—
-4
-
-4
‘ ‘1-
El’
.kl I
‘I’ll’
Iii,
I I’
‘Ill
..—,.
444
Ill’
4
3
40
C
7
Ill
I I
m 1It1U 1 l 1 llhI1i
‘ l ii]
:ti
II ’
IiI 1 l I —I Ill L iii
It’
It’
L lllli1.l —tIIiI1III1I -1I
..tIlI
‘Ill
!t -III -11II
‘I hull
UI I
‘I
. 11111
I rt I
It
‘I
I III
lIt
•I
I I
I
“ iiiiinmiiiiItt
t
1
; ufllfflll
-
L4
3
.1 1 1 1 1
jail ]
itU+H UiH HUH U’ UUU
HI iffiRUhiHi It
H h
M l MI U
Thil
lLl•IlIllhiIIl’l
FF1 Fit ii
i Fi
I I I I
II
tIl
-J
S
.7
p44)
I E
I
11
1l1 1 1j [ [ {Jt11I1i1!1 ( IliIIllI IlIIIlll ’’llIt
llIIIll..IJllIll lllIlII lILilIIIiIllJ Ii
Rilififit
II
III
HW9WI I H t fttntinut
IllIllIli Ill
‘‘I’ll’
Ililill
WF
Fl-Ill III
lIliIl
iITj j1I1jIF11lI IlIIIIllhiI1iiIIt11JIIIii lL1IilIll1llhI1IulE
riiiiiiuiiituiit tii
ftIItII
‘III’
II
/0 IF 1.3
-------
——— - iiii
c7 R•IIfHHBIIIRIIViII
tII;;IllIfII t IlIlLHlpI
IIIIII’II
E
t
I I LII.
III
H1
jul11
III’’’’
.....
IILIII.
‘I
.rrIfLff
11i’I1It1+RH•Illh1+iiiiiiiii
IIIIIlI
‘5
4
a
40
9 ( 1
‘:35
I
so
, ; tItlIIIIIIIIiiiiiIItt1t1IIIIIIIltI I1IIIII
4
.7
_llllhI’’•’I’I’’
ill IIIIIIiiiiii ’
0 .!jilIu. •
I •
. I I I- f-I- I
-...
1I1t1
iiF*r
‘It
II
II
‘lII’LI lIIflhi
11i
‘.
II
I.
II
IIIII
,
II
rrrri
L
i
14 1- 4 -I
I ‘III II’ 1I11IIII1IIIIiititi,i
lilt
1-I-& 4
I.
np i A
-------
NATURE SHIELD ELECTROMAGNETIC REPELLER
EFFICACY TEST
Steve D. Palmateer, Biologist
Environmental Protection Agency
Beltsville, MD
-139—
-------
Nature Shield Electromagnetic Repeller Efficacy Test——Sample Number 1319Q4
Animal Biology Laboratory
The Animal Biology Laboratory has conducted efficacy tests on the ‘Nature
Shield” electromagnetic repeller at the request of A. E. Conroy II, Director
PTSED.
Testing of the Nature Shield and earlier electromagnetic devices (Miigo)
has resulted In considerable publicity by the media. For exai ple, NBC film
crews filmed the Animal Biology Laboratory testing facilities and interviewed
Barbara Bltnn, EPA’s Deputy Administrator. Many magazine and newspaper articles
appeared, some of which were inaccurate. Also, laboratory personnel have
received an enormous number of phone calls concerning electromagnetic devices
requiring a large expense of time.
In order to design a laboratory efficacy test that will simulate an actual
use situation as much as possible, laboratory personnel studied the written
claims made by Solara Electronics for the Nature Shield device. Also, Steve
Palmateer visited several sites in Sacramento and San Francisco, California
(March 11, 1978) where Nature Shield devices had been installed by Solara’s
Herb Wilson. The inspection tour was given personally by Solara Electronic’s
Michael H. Elley and Herb Wilson. Mr. Elley had many ideas on how to test his
company’s device and these were carefully recorded. Mr. Elley has also visited
the Animal Biology Laboratory twice.
Solara Electronics Inc., claims a 650—foot radius field of Influence for
Nature Shield. Their brochures claim the device will eliminate termites,
gophers, ants, moles, roaches, mice, aphids, squirrels, voles and rats. In fact,
one brochure makes a claim on uroden in general
The manufacturer claims the Nature Shield utilizes “contro-clusive magnetism”
(a trademark) to stir the existing magnetic field. These changes in the environ-
ment will ultimately provide a null effect in a pest species’ nervous system and
eliminate its normal survival reactions. “it stops eating, drinking and
reproducino.”
Eauipment and Procedure
Efficacy testing was conducted at two locations In Beltsville, Maryland.
Buildina 412—A was designated the test site. It is a single room 12 by 16—foot
wood frame building. The Nature Shield was installed about 10 feet outside the
building. The device was mounted in the soil according to Solara instruction
(I.e., half in soil and half in air). Also, the “N” on decal of unit was pointed
toward magnetic north. The light at the top of the device was difficult to see
in full daylight; therefore, a 6-inch piece of 1/2—inch inside dlamter PVC
pipe was used to determine if the unit was functioning. The observer would
place one end of the pipe on the light and look through the other end to see
the light flash (about every 7 seconds). The light continued to flash during
the entire test period of 14 weeks.
—140—
-------
A control site was set up In Building 288, about 2 miles from the check
site.
Feeding tests
All feeding tests were conducted In 9 by 11 by 8-inch wire mesh galvanized
metal cages. All rats were individually caged and Wayne 4% protein laboratory
rodent food consumption was recorded to at least the nearest gram. There were
30 rats each used at both the test and control site. Ten of the 30 rats at
both sites were wild Norway rats and the remaining 20 were Wistar Norway rats.
Rats received laboratory rodent food in excess of the daily food reauireiTtent.
Drinking tests
All drinking tests were conducted in 3 by 6—foot stock watering tanks.
The bottc i of each tank was covered to a depth of approximately 1 inch with
clean wood shavings. The wood shavings were changed weekly. Each tank
contained two 14 by 14 by 4-inch metal nest boxes. There were 20 rats
(10 males, 10 females) used at both the test and control areas. Two water
founts attached to 2,000 milliliter graduate water bottles were used at
both test and control areas. Siper tubes were not used in the drinking tests.
Breeding tests
The breeding tests employed the use of Swiss—Webster house mice and
Wistar Norway rats.
The rat breeding tests were conducted in 20 by 20 by 9—inch metal cages.
There were 12 pairs (1 male, 1 female) each at both test and control sites.
All pairs of breeding rats were inspected for births daily. All rat pups
were counted, weighed to the nearest tenth of a gram and sacrificed at 7 days.
The house mouse breeding tests were conducted in 9 by 18 by 5—inch
plastic cages. All cages had a wire mesh top. There were 3 mice (1 male,
2 females) used in each breeding cage. Ten breeding cages each were used
at the test and control sites. All mice breeding cages were inspected
daily, new litters weighed and recorded and all pups sacrificed.
Before the Nature Shield device was installed at Building 412—A, all
rodents were monitored for a 3—week pre-test period. After 14 weeks
exposure to the device, the device was removed from Building 412—A, the
test site. All rodents were monitored for an additional 3 weeks (post-
test period).
During the test and post-test periods food consumption of unconfined
wild rodents at the test site was monitored at several locations within the
650-foot zone of influence. At the end of the test period 48 snap trays
were set to give an indication of the types of rodents consuming the food
at the census bait locations.
-141-
-------
Results
Feeding tests
Test site rats consumed an average of 23.9 grams of laboratory chow per
day and control rats 21.6 grans (Table 1A and Figure 1). Control wild Norway
rats consumed less laboratory chow than test wild Norway rats (20.4 versus
21.30 grains). Test Wistar Norway rats consumed an average of 25.1 gra s of
laboratory chow per day and controls 23.2 grams.
Food consumption was steady over the entire 14-week test period (Tables
1A and 1B). There is a very slight downward trend in food consumption for
both test site and control site Norway rats. However, there is a small
insignificant upward trend in food intake for control wild Norway rats (Table
1B). Notice that the standard error of the sauiple is 1.268 for the control
rats and 0.840 for test rats. This very slight difference in variability has
no statistical or practical significance.
Drinking tests
Test rats consumed a mean of 32.88 milliliters of water per day and
control rats 25.43 (Table 2A and Figure 2). Water consumption was more
erratic from one week to the next for both test and control rats as
canpared to food consumption. The standard error of estimate for control
rats is 3.57 and test r?ts 3.37 (Table 2B). The important point to notice
here is that although water consumption varied fran week to week for both
control and test Wistar rats, the average deviation from the computed
regression line Is very close to being the same. The overall water
consumption trend for control rats is very slightly downward (B= -0.17684).
However, for test rats the canputed trend Is moderately upward (8= +0.64446).
Breedino tests
Test Wistar Norway-rats begat 23 litters during the 14-week test and
the control rats 22 litters. There were 273 rat pups born at the test site
and 238 pups at the control site (Table 3). Eighty—seven percent of the
control rat pups survived the 7 days fran irth to sacrifice and test rat
pups recorded a very close eighty—five percent. At sacrifice, control rat
pups weighed 14.8 grans and test rats 14.5 grains. Test rats averaged 11.87
pups per litter and control rats 10.82.
Test &‘ iss-Webster mice begat 40 litters during the 14-week test period
and the control mice 22. Test mice averaged 12.9 pups per litter and controls
9.0 pups per litter.
Wild free—ranging mice food consumption
A total of 388.5 grams of laboratory chow and ISO laboratory diet were
consumed over the 14-week test period. All food cups were unavailable to
birds but some consumption could have been made by cockroaches. Food Intake
was erratic and dwindled toward the end of the test (Table 5). However, by
-------
the end of the 14—week test, the weather had warmed up (June) and many of
the unconfined rodents had moved outside.
Snap trap results
A total of 6 mice were caught at the end of the test within the 650-foot
claimed zone of influence. All mice were caught at either Building 412 or
412—A. There were 3 deer mice ( Peromyscus leucopus) : male 8.5 grams, male
9.4 grams and female 24.5 grams. The others were house mice (Mus musculus )
(male 8.0 grams, female 12.3 grams and female 20.6 grams). None of the
females were pregnant but the deer mice males were just weaned and were in
the typical charcoal grey color of very young Peromyscus.
Conclusion
Norway rats stationed within the 650-foot claimed zone of influence of
the Nature Shield electromagnetic repeller consumed food, drank water and
bred in quantities comparable to controls located 2 miles away. There was
no practical difference in the results tabulated at both the control site
and test site for Norway rats and therefore the device is not effective as
claimed for rats.
House mice bred with a large amount of success at the test site and
therefore the Nature Shield device failed to substantiate the clair that
it will stop mice from breedina.
Also, the 6 wild mice trapped within the 650-foot zone of influence
will dispel any pseudoscientific explanation that the Nature Shield does
not affect caged animals but only those running arounc 1 free.
-143-
-------
TABLE 1A
Nature Shield feeding test, S nple Number 131904. Values shown are mean
daily consumption (in gr is) per rat, per day of a commercial laboratory
chow. Test rats (sexes equal) were located within 26 feet of the electro-
magnetic repeller device. Control rats (sexes equal) were located 2 miles
from the test site.
Pre—test Period
Wild
Control rats
All
Wistar
Norway
Norway
control
rats
rats
rats
n=l0
n220
n=30
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
P re—test
mean
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
Week 9
Week 10
Week 11
Week 12
Week 13
Week 14
T [
18.11
18. 97
19.53
18. 76
19.61
19.26
17. 70
22.88
21 . 05
17. 33
21.42
21 .71
19. 74
20.62
20.22
19.23
21.49
23.25
20.39
Wild
Norway
rats
n= 10
14.30
22.77
21 .44
19.27
21.53
20.16
20.53
23.14
21.18
21 .73
22.90
22.04
20.69
22. 49
20.17
20.50
19.74
21 .44
21.30
21 .98
21.35
24.36
22. 34
23.23
24. 27
21 .89
23 .83
23.65
22.23
22.64
22 .84
19.56
20.68
21 .15
19. 26
?2.77
23.27
23.23
Test rats
Wistar
Norway
rats
n=20
23.20
24.38
26 .47
24.76
25.41
25.70
26.43
26. 53
25.77
26. 22
26.64
25.40
24.50
25. 15
22.94
23. 50
22.93
24.71
25.13
20.69
20. 56
22.75
21.15
Test period
22.03
22.60
20.49
23.51
22.58
20. 59
22.23
22.47
19. 62
20. 66
20.84
19.25
22. 35
23.26
21 .61
All
test
rats
n 30
20.23
23.84
24.80
22.93
24.11
23 .85
24.46
25 . 40
24.24
24.72
25.40
24.28
23.23
24.26
22.01
22.50
21.87
23.61
23.85
me an
Week 1
23.15
23.28
Post Test Mean
23.23 19.77
22.03
21.28
Week 2
18.86
22.46
21.26
18.63
21.71
20.69
Week 3
21.12
22.40
21.98
21.22
22.64
22.17
Post-test
21.
22.72
21.79
19.88
22.13
21.38
mean
-144-
-------
TABLE lB
Nature Shield feeding test calculated trends according to the method of
least squares (y = A+Bx). A and B are the least scuare estimates, r is the
sanpie correlation coefficient and Sy .x is the standard error of estimate.
Trends are calculated from Table 1A data.
Control rats Test rats
Wild Wistar All Wild Wistar All
Norway Norway control Noway Norway test
rats rats rats rats rats rats
n=10 n=20 n=30 n=l0 n=20 n=30
B = +.1591 -.1782 —.0635 -.0534 -.2296 —.1651
A 19.2007 23.5699 22.0818 21.7031 26.874 25.0914
r = +.3833 -.4805 —.1978 —.2092 —.754 —.6212
Sy. x = 1.5447 1.311 1.268 1.005 0.807 0.840
Cal cul ated
y when
x = 1 19.36 23.39 22.02 21.65 26.64 24.93
x = 2 19.52 23.21 21.95 21.60 26.41 24.76
x = 3 19.68 23.04 21.89 21.54 26.19 24.60
x = 4 19.84 22.86 21.83 21.49 25.96 24.43
x 5 20.00 22.68 21.76 21 .44 25.73 24.27
x = 6 20.15 22.50 21.70 21.38 25.50 24.10
x = 7 20.31 22.32 21.64 21.33 25.27 23.94
x = 8 20.47 22.14 21.58 21.28 25.04 23.77
x = 9 20.63 21.97 21.51 21.22 24.81 23.61
x = 10 20.79 21.79 21.45 21.17 24.58 23.44
x = 11 20.95 21.61 21.38 21.12 24.35 23.27
x = 12 21.11 21.43 21.32 21.06 24.12 23.11
x = 13 21.27 21 .25 21.26 21.01 23.89 22.94
x = 14 21.43 21.08 21.19 20.96 23.66 22.78
-145-
-------
TABLE 2A
Nature Shield drinking test, Sanpie number 131904. Values shown are
mean daily , ter consumption (in milliliters per rat, per day)*. Test rats
(10 males, 10 females) were located within 26 feet of the repeller device,
control rats (10 males, 10 females) were located o rnfles from the test
site.
Control rats
Pre- test Period
Test rat
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Pre—test mean
33.11
25.83
27.50
26.67
26.56
32.50
27.86
29.58
Week
1
P
25.71
ost-Test Period
38.57
Week
2
17.32
25.54
Week
3
22.32
38.75
Post—test mean
21.79
34.29
* All rats are Wistar Norway rats.
Test Period
Week
1
26.43
20.00
Week
2
26.79
31.96
Week
3
25.71
33.21
Week
4
29.29
31.96
Week
5
25.89
35.00
Week
6
26.71
31.96
Week
7
26.07
35.76
Week
8
23.21
34.46
Week
9
25.00
31.61
Week
10
15.00
34.29
Week
11
29.46
33.39
Week
12
25.71
32.68
Week
13
25.25
33.93
Week
14
26.64
40.94
TestI an
25.43
32.88
-146-
-------
TABLE 2B
Nature Shield drinking test calculated trends according to the method
of least squares (y = A+B). A and B are the least square estimates, r is the
correlation coefficient and Sy. x is the standard error of estimate. Trends
are calculated from Table 2A data.
B=
A=
r=
Sy. x =
Control Wistar
rats
n=2 0
- 0.17684
+26.76626
- 0.19583
+ 3.56957
Test Wistar
rats
n=20
+0.64446
+28.10582
+0.6 1022
+3.37277
Calculated
y tien
x=l
x= 2
x=3
x=4
x =5
x=6
x= 7
x=8
x=9
x = 10
x = 11
x = 12
x = 13
x = 14
26. 59
26.41
26 . 24
26.06
25 .88
25.71
25. 53
25. 35
25 . 17
25.00
24 .82
24.64
24 .47
24.
28.75
29.39
30.04
30.68
31 .33
31.97
32.61
33.26
33. 91
34.55
35. 19
35.84
36.48
37.13
-147-
-------
TABLE 3
Number of Wistar Norway rat litters born and sacrif led (7 clays old) at the
Nature Shield test site (TS) and and control site (CS). There *re 12 pairs
of breeders at each site. Test rats were stationed within 26 feet of the
Nature Shield electromagnetic repeller. Sanple number 131904.
Number of litters Total number Number litters Total number pups Mean pup
born pups at birth sacrificed at sacrifice ight (gms)
Week CS TS CS IS CS TS CS TS CS TS
Pre— 1 2 1 16 13 1 1 14 3 17.8 15.4
test 2 2 3 17 32 2 3 7 30 14.0 13.2
3 2 3 27 29 2 3 26 29 14.3 15.1
Sum 6 7 60 14 5 7 47 72 l5.0 14.4
Test 1 2 1 18 12 2 1 18 12 19.0 15.4
2 3 2 35 18 3 1 34 14 15.6 17.4
3 0 1 — 14 0 1 — 13 - 17.9
4 2 5 26 57 2 5 22 46 15.4 14.6
5 5 1 52 9 4 1 41 9 12.5 15.9
6 0 1 — 8 0 1 - 8 - 17.3
7 0 5 - 64 0 5 - 56 - 14.0
8 1 0 8 — 1 0 7 - 16.2 —
9 4 1 46 13 4 1 43 13 15.9 15.1
10 1 1 8 11 0 1 0 10 - 14.7
11 1 2 9 24 1 2 9 24 10.6 13.4
12 0 0 - - 0 0 - - - -
13 2 2 23 31 2 1 16 13.9 9.7
14 1 1 13 12 1 1 11 11 12.6 14.0
Sum 22 23 238 273 20 21 207. 232 14.8 14.5
Post— 1 1 1 16 13 1 16 10 14.2 9.7
test 2 1 1 10 5 1 0 10 0 16.8 -
3 1 0 10 — 1 0 9 — 8.3 —
Sum 3 2 36 18 3 1 35 10 1L4
-148-
-------
TABLE 4
Number of Swiss-Webster house mouse litters born at the Naure Shield test site
(TS) and control site (CS). There were 10 breedinq cages at each site with 1 male
and 2 females per cage. Test mice re stationed within 26 feet of the Nature Shield
electromagnetic repeller. Saiiple number 131904.
Number of litters Total number of Mean pup weight
born pups (grai s)
Period IS CS TS CS IS CS
Pre— test
Week 1 4 3 55 17 1.6 1.1
Week2 2 0 23 - 1.6 -
Week3 5 0 61 — 1.5 —
Sum 11 3 139 17 1.5 1.1
Test
Week 1 3 2 50 14 1 .5 1 .7
Week2 0 0 - - - -
Week 3 4 2 56 18 1.4 2.3
Week4 2 2 30 8 1.7 1.5
Week5 2 0 24 — 1.7 -
Week 6 5 2 61 20 1.6 1.5
Week 7 2 4 30 27 1 .7 1 .6
Week8 4 0 47 — 1.5 -
Week 9 4 1 53 10 1 .8 1 .5
Week 10 2 2 21 24 1.8 1.4
Week 11 3 1 45 10 1 .5 1 .2
Week 12 5 3 5 24 1 .6 1 .6
Week 13 2 2 24 30 1 .9 1 .4
Week 14 2 1 25 12 1.6 1.4
Sum 40 22 515 197 1.7 1.7
Post— test
Week 1 2 2 29 31 1 .5 1 .7
Week 2 0 2 - 21 - 1.6
Week 3 4 1 43 15 1.9 1.6
Sum 6 5 72 67 1.7 1.7
-149-
-------
TABLE 5
Food consumption (grins) by free ranging wild mice at BuildIng 412 and
Building 412—A. Both buildings vere within 100 feet of the Nature Shield
electromagnetic repell er.
Building ailding
Week 412 412-A Total
Pre-test 89 89
Test period
1 91 91
2 56 56
3 31 31
4 55 55
5 20 20
6 - 7 7
7 - 10 10
8 32 8 40
9 10 2 12
10 16 5 21
11 10 1.5 11.5
12 3 0 3
13 25 3 28
14 3 0 3
Sum 99 289.5 388.5
-150-
-------
&SUA Sli
I I-I I I I I -
III
4Ø . IiiitILiiii
:: R U 1
i_ -Il I’IIIIi.IiI
!Illh
LH
I HTIIH H1+iIllU 1 1llIII I R H H11 Ht 1ffltftHMll1H*ft111 llfflftH
IRU1 [ UI UI 1111 UFIIUR IUB1IHt ii ii
-U H Hi H HflH1 huB WI1RHIfflU+1B+Hffl+H+RH1 H tftIHflTHTh+RII1 U UtThh ITI UIUIIIIHURI 1111 FUllIfl111111i1111fl
:4u’ j 4
u
‘
:
r
.
-
I
..
III I I-tI t11
11(11111
1—
I II
2—
H -
1—
I
III 11111 ‘‘II 11 Ii ’
II
9—
8-
7—
___ ______________ ____________ _______________ _____________ U ii
6— ____ __________________ _______________ __________________ ________________ _________________________
25—
4-.
3—
2—
I -I I JI III
II
Iii UI HI-H 111111 III
— — --- -4HIH+---- -- - --I
r
I’
liii I L II -
-- iiui -I_Il-IIIIittiijiiiii i
.—.IIIIII, FHI_U III III-I
- H+l -’--
II{I111IIIIIII I ’’’’ ‘I’’’’
IIIIIIIII-
H—
1 -LflTI
11111
45— IJ-III
_ 11111
0555555 PAPIU NO. $050. SO
ISACIN. PAPIS NO. Ss*PSIj
CUOSS SICTI )NISSIO 10 6 55CM
Figure 2
Nature Shield Drinhing Trials
MASS SM USA
3— 11111111 III
III
1111 1 1 11 II
‘‘‘ti-i i-it I 111111111
IUII1 IlIIItIBIIIlIEt -UIBTIIIIIIIII’’ iiflflj U
_________________________________ tUtU 1 4:1-WIt L I I I WAIM{llMllht1 LU H11IH11U
uituUIIUiRHIItIU UhI-11 thUi1II1Uiiiiuhti tiIiHiLiHhii11IIRU1I11IllllhilIIRIl1fflhI
‘— HIIBLWffl
:1)_.$
lU-Hill FillFdIff)Wi
I I I I I S
7 3 1 2 1 5 6 7
I ,
WVI
111111111111111 [ 111.11 NI I
llIlIlwRUirnIlnflflfflmlJ
LllhIIjfjl
III
I1#11tI t1IIIIIl
U,
I - .
ii 12 13 1
-------
.
•. .... ,uI. S.. I$S•-SS,
,apu. u. ‘ISP - ‘SI
dual sac iio.-ISIIS II 4 •.c.
Figure 1
Nature Shield Feeding ‘ ia1B
: HMII ____ - ____ ____
27—
26—
25—
1111
2
2
____________ ____________ ______________ _______________ 2
________ 2
20-
2
19—
I
[ 8- ____
I
S I I I I S
2 3 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
II’III’IIIIIIIIllIIIIIIIIIII
sass IN •S 5
24—
2
—I
n1
a
13 14 1. 2 3
-------
PERFORMANCE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC DEVICES AGAINST TERMITES,
a!
COCKROACHES AND FLOUR BEETLES
b/
M. K. Rust, D. A. Reierson and G. K. Clark —
Department of Entomology
Division of Economic Entomology
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521
a! Supported by California Department of Food and Agriculture/Environmental
— Protection Agency Grant #7165.
b/ Assistant Professor, Staff Research Associate, and Laboratory Helper,
respectively.
-153—
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pace
Table of Contents ..... 154
List of Figures and Tables ...... 155
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Methods •••••••• •• ........ 156
Devicesandtheirinstallatjonfortests ... .......... 156
Termi tes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Small wooden block tests ....... 159
Laminated wood block tests 161
Results of small wooden block tests .... 163
Resuitsof lamlnatedblock tests ...... 165
Cockroaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Tests in laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Repellency and movement in choice boxes .. . 166
Avoidance behavior in choice arenas 167
Reproduction, fecundity and life—span 169
Tests under actual field conditions 171
Results •.... ........................ .. .. 171
Repellency,movementandavoidance 171
Reproduction and hatch of egg capsules .. .. 174
Tests in apar nents 175
Flow Beetles ...... ... 176
Results ••• 177
Conclusions concerning electromagnetic devices 177
References cited 179
Tables 180
-154-
-------
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Pace
Fig. 1 Douglas-fir block [ 2X2X1-cni) on which drywood termites
were allowed to feed while exposed to electromagnetic
devices 160
Fig. 2 Laminated Douglas—fir block used to house drywood
termites while being exposed to electromagnetic devices 162
Fig. 3 Cai ponents of Douglas—fir laminated block used to house
drywood termites while being exposed to electromagnetic
devices 164
Fig. 4 Wooden choice box used to monitor behavioral changes
during exposure of cockroaches to output from test de-
vices 168
Fig. 5 Top view of chemometer showing central staging area and
peripheral chambers in which toxicants had been applied 170
Fig. 6 Installation of Sigma electromagnetic pest control device
in an apartment kitchen 172
Fig. 7 Wattmeter used to measure power consumption of Sigma
electroniagneticdevice 173
Table 1 Identification of electromagnetic devices used in labora-
tory and field tests against various household insect
pests 180
Table 2 Mortality of drywood termites exposed to electromagnetic
devices 181
Table 3 Change in the total blomass of drywood termites feedinç’
on Douglas-fir blocks while exposed to electromagnetic
devices 182
Table 4 Total amount of Douglas-fir consumed by drywood termites
exposed to electromagnetic devices 183
Table 5 Effects of electromagnetic devices on wood consumption of
20 nymphal drywood termites in Douglas—fir laminated
blocks 184
Table 6 Effects of electromagnetic devices on nymphal drywood ter-
mites in Douglas—fir laminated blocks 185
Table 7 Performance of standard toxicants against German cockroaches
in choice boxes while exposed to electromaonetic devices 186
Table 8 Mortality of German cockroaches in individual test chemo—
meters partially treated with representative insecticides
while exposed to electromagnetic devices 187
Table 9 Mortality of German cockroaches in chemoriieter choice tests
while exposed to electromagnetic devices 188
Table 10 Fecundity of 20 adult German cockroaches and offspring
continuously exposed to electromagnetic devices 189
Table 11 Fecundity of 20 nymphal German cockroaches and offspring
continously exposed to electromagnetic devices 190
Table 12 Emergence of Mierican cockroach nymphs from oothecae ex-
posed to electromagnetic devices 191
Table 13 Relative effectiveness of electromagnetic devices against
infestations of German cockroaches in low-income apart-
ments 192
Table 14 Trap ccunts of German cockroaches from individual apart-
ments within the purported range of effectiveness of
electromagnetic devices 193
Table 15 Effect of electromagnetic devices on groups of adult con-
fused flour beetles and their progeny 194
—155—
-------
INTRODUCTION
Representative electromagnetic devices were included in a series of
laboratory and field control experiments to determine the utility of the
devices against structural and household insect pests. These devices
reportedly generate electromaanetic waves or radiations that interact
with geomagnetic fields surrounding insects. Interference patterns from
the devices purportedly affect the pest to such a degree as to grossly
alter normal feeding, mating, or development. Although lone exposure to
exceptionally high levels of electromagnetism near 240,000 times that of
the geomagnetic field has been reported to cause some observable stress
in insects, no significant effects have been recorded with lower levels
(Kaufman and Michaelson 1974). The purpose of these tests was to deter-
mine differences in behavior, mating, feeding or survival of important
representative household insects atributable to the output of electro-
magnetic devices. Laboratory studies simulating field conditions were
done with each kind of insect to minimize variables often encountered
under natural conditions. Measurements of various parameters for drywood
termites, cockroaches, and flour beetles were taken after relatively
short, as well as prolonged exposure to the devices. The same kinds of
insects unexposeci, to the devices were also studied. Additionally, a
field control study with the devices was done in apartments infested
with German cockroaches. The following report is divided into sections
according to the kind of insect exposed to the various devices tested.
Most laboratory tests were begun in September 1978 and were terminated
at different times, depending on the length of exposure desired. Some
tests continued for 6 months. Field control trials against cockroaches
in apartments were started in August and November 1978 and were con-
tinued for up to 12 weeks, except in instances where tests had to be
discontinued because of complaints from tenants and the management of
poor performance and alarmingly large numbers of cockroaches in some
apartments.
I ’ETHODS
Devices and their installation for tests.——A1l laboratory tests
were done on the campus of the University of California, Riverside.
Field tests were done at an apartment house complex in Gardena, Cali-
fornia. The devices were supplied by the Environmental Protection
Agency and were kept under our control and security at all times.
Particulars concerning the six devices tested are shown in Table 1.
An attempt was made to evaluate the devices under conditions as
similar as possible to one another. Since it was desirable to conduct
the tests simultaneously, the test sites had to be situated in different
buildings. The closest direct, straight-line distance between units was
about 200 feet, but the Nature Shield was more than 275 feet from any of
the other devices. Each area where a device was tested was outside the
purported range of the next closest unit being tested.
The Magna—Pulse device was Installed on the bottom shelf of a 3.3—
cubic—foot metal environmental chamber. The temperature outside the
—156—
-------
chamber was kept at about 74°F and the internal temperature was 82°F
(27.7°C). The relative humidity in the chamber was not controlled and
usually ranged between 50 and 60%, as measured and recorded on a cali-
brated Bristol rotary hygrotherniograph. The only light impinging on
experiments in the chamber was from fluorescent fixtures when the door
of the chamber was opened.
The Nature Shield device was oriented to magnetic north with the
aid of a precision, liquid—filled aircraft compass. The device was set
in position on a concrete floor of a 6X9—foot room across a hallway from
a 12X15X7.5—foot room in which the actual testing was done. The Nature
Shield was situated about 27 feet from the experiments, but information
from the maufacturer claims effects up to about 263 feet. The inside
walls of the test room were stucco and the experiments exposed to the
output of the device were kept on wooden shelves. The thermostatically
regulated temperature in the test room was maintained at an average of
about 82°F and the relative humidity usually fluctuated between SO and
60%. The temperature was kept between 80.6 and 84.2°F by an air condi-
tioning system that attained the minimum temperature approximately every
45 minutes. Overhead incandescent liahts ware left on for about 7
hours each working day in the chamber where the Nature Shield was tested.
A walk—in chamber room measuring 7.25X9.25X7.25 feet was used as
the test room for the Sigma electromagnetic device. This room was lined
with painted galvanized metal and is ordinarily used as a stored—product
insect fumigation chamber. The regulated temperature in the room was
maintained between 73.4 and 80.6°F on a 24 hour cycle, but temperature
the majority of the time was near 80°F. Relative humidity in the room
ranged from about 45 to 60%. Fluorescent lights in the test room ware
programmed with a timing device for 12 hours light: 12 hours dark.
A room in a building about 300 feet from the nearest electromag-
netic device was used to house another metal , 33 ft 3 environmental
chamber in which experiments left unexposed to the devices were kept.
Air conditioning external to the chamber kept temperatures low so that
thermostated internal heating could maintain a nearly constant 80°F.
Relative humidity inside the chamber measured between 50 and 60%. The
chamber was kept dark except for brief periods almost daily when the
door of the chamber was opened for inspection or counting of the experi-
ments.
Besides considerations of distance effects, conditions at each
location where an electrornaonetic device was tested were carefully
monitored and stabilized for more than a month. An attempt was made to
establish similar environmental conditions among the test locations.
Minor variations In average temperature, temperature pattern, and humidity
over long periods of time could contribute to variations in biological
test data, but patterns of biological activity remain constant. Gross
effects or differences in activity attributable to the devices should be
evident and statistically separable, especially if environmental condi-
tions during testing are similar. Conditions during these tests were
maintained with much less variation than would be expected under actual
field conditions. Standard statistical tests were performed in all
-157—
-------
cases where comparisons were appropriate. In most instances significance
was measured to the 5% level of probability. Observations and records
were kept in order to facilitate interpretation of data and to compli-
ment statistical conclusions.
1ERMITES
Termites constitute one of the most important groups of structural
insect pests. Subterranean or drywood termites may be found throughout
most of the world and represent substantial pests of field crops, trees
and pastures as well as buildings. Although termites readily attack
buildings, stored foods and household commodities, items left In storage
may also be disfigured or destroyed by termites. Snyder (1948) docu-
mented 120 items co posed of foods, wood, fabrics, leather, wool, or
insulation materials that were attacked by termites. Besides a great
deal of the customar7 kinds of damage attributable to termites, we have
observed damage to library books, computer cards, and stored clothing.
Not considering increased costs or inflation, Snyder (1961) estimated
the damage to buildings in the U. S. nearly 20 years ago was about $250
million and Ebeling (1968) believed that termites cost U. S. taxpayers
about half a billion dollars a year ten years ago. In California alone,
the cost of termite inspections and structural repair in 1978 was in
excess of $200 million (Wilcox 1979).
The kinds of control measures used for most similar groups of
termites are extremely uniform throughout the world. Where possible,
good construction practices are recommended to provide barriers between
structures and termites. Termiticidal chemical sprays or dusts are
sometimes used to prevent or control soil-nesting infestations. Fumi-
gants such as methyl bromide or sulfuryl fluoride are often utilized to
eliminate existing infestations of termites that do not usually require
constant contact with soil. Most termite infestations are spotty and
localized and are relatively difficult to detect before damage occurs.
The tendency of the two common subterranean species ( Reticulitennes
flavipes [ Kollar] in the east and R. hesperus [ Banksi in the western
U. S.) to colonize under buildings makes them particularly difficult to
detect before damage occurs. Drywood termites, especially Incisitermes
and Cryptotennes , are also often difficult to detect because they may
initiate colonies in apparently sound, undecayed wood that contains
little moisture. Colonies developing in hidden or covered ceiling or
floor joists may go unnoticed for several years and, besides removing
infested wood, fumigation is about the only satisfactory method of
controlling drywood termites.
Colonies of drywood termites normally have very little direct
contact with the exterior surfaces of wood they are attacking. Although
male and female reproductive pairs of termites may walk around on the
surface of wood they eventually tunnel into, their offspring remain
encased in wood in which cavities are excavated. na1l outlet holes
about 0.059 to 0.079 inches across (1.5 to 2mm) bored by the termites
are somethimes used to clear the cavities of accumulating fecal pellets.
-158-
-------
Piles of the dry pellets are often the only external sign that wood was
been infested by drywood termites. External holes are not always present,
however, and pellets may be shifted to totally enclosed internal galleries.
Small exit holes are also used when adult termites swarm from a maturing
colony.
A series of tests were undertaken to determine the possible effects
of representative electromagnetic devices on termites. Since the zone
of influence and effect of each of the units we wanted to examine re-
portedly ranged from several feet up to nearly 263 feet, we believed
optimal biological activity attributable to the devices should be discern-
ible with constant exposures within 5 to .25 feet of the units. We used
only healthy drywood termites, Incisitermes minor (Hagen) for the tests.
The termites were collected from walnut or sycamore logs that had evidence
of termite activity. The logs were gathered in the southern California
area. Each infested log was kept for up to several months before the
termites were removed for these tests. The termites were carefully
removed from the infested log and were housed 7 to 14 days before the
tests on stacks of paper toweling (CrowTi Contract) in covered 9-cm
diameter glass petri dishes or closed plastic food dishes.
Tests exposing termites to the devices were performed concurrently
with control groups kept outside the reported range of the devices. In
one kind of test termites were allowed to feed upon small blocks (2X2X1—crn)
of Douglas—fir construction arade lumber. In the other test, termites
were allowed to feed inside larger laminated blocks (10X3.9X3.9-cm).
The amount of wood consumed, the mortality within the group of termites,
and changes in termite weight were exposed. Measurements with the
small blocks were taken weekly for up to 8 weeks. ‘easurements with the
larger blocks were taken at 1 , 3 and 6 months to determine possible
acute or chronic (i.e., long—term) effects that the devices rniaht have
on termites exposed to their outputs.
Termites exposed to electron’aç’netic devices while allowed to feed
on small wooden blocks.--Blocks of Douglas—fir were cut on a bai’ saw
IFom lumber purchased at a local buildina supply center. A template was
used to facilitate obtaining blocks of very nearly the same size. Each
block measured about 2X2X1-cm. The blocks were weighed to the nearest
0.1 milligram before they were allowed to be fed upon and were reweighed
periodically for up to 8 weeks. Ten middle-instar nymphal drywood
termites that also were preweighed were placed on individual blocks in
lightweight aluminum weighing pans (Fig. 1).
During exposure to the devices, all the rep1icates were kept inside
large glass desiccation chambers in which the relative humidity was
maintained at about 52% with a saturated solution of sodium dlchromate.
The humidity kept the Insects from dehydrating rapidly at RH levels
frequently encountered In the natural environment. Ten replicates, each
containing ten termites, were used for exposure to each device. In
order to leave some of the termites undisturbed for as long as possible,
5 replicates were examined at week 1, 2 and 3 (5 were left undisturbed),
-159—
-------
FIg. 1 — Douglas—fir block (2X2X1—cm) on which drywooa termites re allowed
to feed while exposed to electromagnetic devices. This block has
been split for examination and is held togetner in reassembled
position with a rubber band. Block is In aluminum weighing pan.
-160-
-------
8 replicates were examined at week 4, and all replicates were examined
weekly frau week 5 through week 8.
Records were kept of the number of dead termites on each block, the
weight of the live termites on each block, and the reduction in the
weight of each block. A camel—hair brush was used to brush off termites,
frass and fecal pellets from each block before the block was weighed.
In some cases where termites tunneled into the blocks, a wood chisel was
used to gently split the block so termites and frass could be removed.
After measurements were taken, the blocks were put back together in a
configuration close to original (i.e., with split surfaces put back to-
gether) and were held in place with a small rubber band. Termites
removed from the blocks were replaced on the same blocks from which they
had been removed. It was assumed that the differences in the weight of
each block would be due primarily to the feeding of termites. It was
also assumed that sianificant differences between the number of termites
dying on blocks exposed to electromagnetic devices and termites dying on
unexposed blocks would be due to the devices themselves. It was theor-
ized at the start of the test that it is possible that there would be no
detectable differneces in the mortality produced among groups of exposed
or unexposed termites, but that surviving termites would weiah much more
or less than their counterparts. Calculations were therefore made of
the average chanae in the total live bion’ass (i.e., total weiaht) of
termites in each group to determine any overt effect of the devices on
the groups of termites.
Termites inside laminated wood blocks while exposed to electro-
magnetic devices.—-Tennites in the small block test were R pt exposed on
the surface of the blocks or could construct only rudimentary tunnels
because of the small size of the blocks. A test was therefore designed
to complement the small block test described previously. Termites were
placed in special laminated blocks so they were entirely enclosed by
wood while belna exposed to the various electromagnetic devices being
evaluated. This condition more closely simulated actual conditions
where the termite would be found. Blocks for this test were cut from
clean Douglas-fir nominal 2X2-in. construction grade lumber purchased
from a building supply company in Riverside, CA. Sections of wood about
4 inches long were cut longitudinally on a band saw so that 7 layers,
each about 3/16-inch thick, provided multilayered blocks about 1-5/8
inches square (Fig. 2). The layers (i.e., laminas) were fitted together
with cut surfaces facing one another so that the general pattern of
growth rings remained similar to the pattern of the uncut wood. The
blocks were held together by o 3/16-inch diam. countersunk metal
machine bolts inserted through holes drilled throughout the blocks. The
holes were perpendicular to the wide surface of each lamina. The bolts
were centered about 9/16—inch from the ends of each block and were held
in place by hexagonal nuts tightened onto flat washers. A 3/8-in. diam.
chamber about 1 in. long to house termites was drilled into each block.
The chamber was drilled equidistant and perpendicular to each bolt and
was centered on the middle lamina section. The outer portion of the
-161-
-------
rig. — aminatea uougias-nr DIOCK usec to nouse (Irywooc? termites while
being exposed to electromagnetic devices. Block is about 4 inches
long and about 1-5/8 in. square. Machine bolts re used to hold
laminas together.
-
-162—
-------
chamber was sealed with a no. 000 rubber stopper trimmed to just fit
into the hole. The desion of the block allowed examination of the
interior portions of the wood after termites had been allowed to feed on
it. Figure 3 shows the components of one of the laminated blocks (except
for the rubber stopper) to show position of bolt holes and termite chamber.
Twenty preweighed nymphal I. minor from the same wood sources as
were used in the small block teit were placed in the central chamber of
each laminated block. Five replicates were used for exposure for 4, 12,
and 24 weeks to each device we evaluated. Five replicates were also
left unexposed, receiving only the usual amount of background magnetism.
Therefore, there were 5 different blocks and groups of termites evalu-
ated at each of the three specific time periods.
Parameters measured at 4, 12, and 24 weeks included a) the number
of dead termites, b) the average weight of the termites that were still
alive in each group of blocks, c) the change in the overall biomass of
the termites in each group, and d) the amount of feeding on the wood in
which the termites were housed. It was assumed that significant differ-
ences in mortality, weight, or feeding of exposed or unexposed termites
over a period of up to 6 months may be attributable to the devices. Data
were transformed and analyzed with an analysis of variance.
The average biomass was determined gravimetrically on a ? iettler
balance. The change in biomass at each test interval was determined
fr differences in the weight of the groups of termites cmpared to
their initial weiaht. Consumption was measured volumetrically by fill-
ing all feeding scars, pits, and tunnels found in each lamina with
modeling clay. Excess clay was scraped away and the weight of clay used
to fill the cavities was determined. Based on the density of the clay
(l.695g/ml), the volume of wood consumed was calculated.
Results
Termites on small blocks.——There was no measureable effect on the
pattern of morT 1ity, the amount of feedinq, or on the rate of change in
biomass of the termites over the 8-week period of the test during which
the insects were exposed to the various electromaanetic devices. At 4
weeks there was 11% mortality among unexposed termites and Ca. 15%
mortality among exposed insects (Table 2). There was nearly ecual
overlap in the number of termites dying in each group of replicates.
For instance, among replicates of unexposed termites at 4 weeks, there
was 30% mortality in 1 replicate, 20% in 2, 10% in 2, and no mortality
in 3. Among replicates exposed to the Nature Shield device for the same
length of time, there was also 30% mortality in 1 replicate and 20% in
3, 10% in 3 and none In 1 replicate. The total difference in mortality
at 4 weeks, therefore, between unexposed termites and ones exposed to
the Nature Shield device was 3 termites. Similarly, the difference
between unexposed termites and ones exposed to the Magna—Pulse or Sigma
device was only 2 termites and 4 termites, respectively.
—163-
-------
Fig. 3 - Components of Douglas-fir laminated block used to house drywood
termites while being exposed to electromagnetic devices.
-164-
-------
The range of total initial biomass of the termites used In each
series of exposure tests was 1253.3 to 1350.5 milligrams for 100 termites.
Slight differences among the weights of groups of termites from the same
colony is normal and is due to various factors such as age and size, fat
content, and amount of recent feeding. Attempts were made at the time
the insects were selected for testing to use about equal numbers of
similar sized nymphal insects for each replicate series. Additional
variation was avoided by not utilizing mature insects (i.e., ones with
wings or wing pads) or soldiers.
No statistical differences of biomass reduction were found between
exposed and unexposed termites. The percent reduction (R) in termite
biomass was calculated as follows:
wt - wt
R= i w
x 100
wt
1
where Wt = the initial average biomass (mg) and Wt = the average
measured biomass (ma) at the week being considered.
The average ° change in biomass among the termites is shown in
Table 3. It can be seen in the table that, at any given week, the
cumulative reductions of biomass were exceedingly similar. No signi-
ficant differences in the pattern of loss or in the actual biomass lost
could be determined statistically with an analysis of variance. Based
on these calculations, termites exposed to the devices 4 weeks had
reductions that ranged fr only 3.6% more than unexposed termites
(Nature Shield) to 0.7% less loss (Magna—Pulse). At 8 weeks the range
was from 5% greater loss to 2.1% less.
The amount of wood consumed during the test was also measured. The
average initial weight of each small wood block on which the termites
were allowed to feed ranged from 2104.60 to 2173.9 mg. An average of
only 6.4 to 8.0% of each block was eaten within 8 weeks and similar
amounts of feeding were observed among exposed and unexposed replicates.
Table 4 summarizes the total amount of wood consumed at various
periods of time during the test. The only statistically significant
difference in consumption occurred at week 2 where there was actually
more wood eaten from blocks while exposed to the Nature Shield device
than to the others. There were no significant differences at any other
point in the test.
Termites In laminated blocks.-—Blocks constructed for this test
were assigned Findomly to the various exposure treatments to circumvent
differences in effects that might result form variations in the composition
of the wood fran which the blocks were cut. The initial weights of
termites used In these tests were within 5.7% of one another, the average
weight per termite being 0.203 mg. This similarity in weight between
-165-
-------
groups was generally maintained during measurements of exposed or unexposed
termites at 4, 12, and 24 weeks (Table 6).
The average number of laminas fed upon and volume of wood consumed
by the termites at 1, 3, and 6 months are shown in Table 6. In blocks
either exposed or unexposed to the electromagnetic devices, the termites
tunneled Into about 5 to 6 of the laniinas within one month and into
almost all the laninas by 6 months. They consumed an average of 0.64 to
0.96 ml of wood during the first month and 1.44 to 1.92 ml by six months.
There was no significant difference between the amount of wood consumed
fran any of the blocks at any given period of examination.
The numbers of termites dying in the blocks at specific times were
also similar. Unexposed termites lost an additional 31% of their original
biomass between 4 and 24 weeks, so that the final weight of the unexposed
termites was 72.8% less than the original group. The exposed groups
lost an additional 32.1-38.9% biomass between 4 and 24 weeks and ended
with biomass reductions between 69.5 and 75.9%. No statistically
significant differences could be determined between the rates of mortality
or the changes in the weights of the groups of termites during exposure
to the electromagnetic devices.
COCKROACHES
Cockroaches are Industrial and household pests associated with man
in nearly every part of the world. They tend to prefer warm and rela-
tively humid places and they can survive and multiply under the fairly
uniform environmental conditions found Inside many homes, aparthents,
warehouses, etc. There are only about 7 major pestiferous species of
domiciliary cockroaches, the German cockroach, Blattella gennanica ,
(L.), being the most widespread and troublesome. This cockroach is
extremely common in kitchens and is often associated with materials used
for food preparation. It is also found in bathrooms and places that are
often dirty or contaminated. The German cockroach has been directly and
indirectly implicated as an allergen and as transmitting several kinds
of disease (Ebeling 1975) and has been listed by the pest control industry
as being the household insect most often encountered and most difficult
to control (NPCA 1966).
Claims by some manufacturers of electromagnetic devices Indicate
that disruption of the magnetic field near or surrounding cockroaches
will cause disorientations that will result In gross changes of their
reproduction, feeding and harborage selection. Since there are no known
chemicals or devices that are presently available to consistently cause
the changes claimed for electromagnetic devices, we devised laboratory
and field experiments to monitor the performance of some devices against
German cockroaches.
Tests In the Laboratory
Repellency and alteration of movements in choice boxes.-—German
-166 -
-------
cockroaches tend to avoid light and to congregate in darkened protected
places. A series of new wooden choice boxes (1 ftz), similar to those
used by Ebeling, Wagner and Reierson (1966) and Reierson and Rust (1977a),
was used to monitor behavioral changes during exposure of cockroaches to
output from the test devices (Fig. 4). The boxes consist of 2 compart-
ments separated by a vertical panel and joined by a central 1/2—inch
hole. Each compartment was covered with transparent sheet plastic and
one c Tipartnient was also covered with an opaque panel to keep it dark.
Cockroaches in the undarkened side of untreated choice boxes usually
move to the dark canpartinent within 48 hours. By using various insecti-
cides or treatments in the dark side, we could ascertain the amount of
increased or decreased movement cockroaches would exhibit when exposed
to the output from electromagnetic devices. Additive effects of cock-
roach control substances in conjunction with the devices could also be
determined with choice boxes.
A relative performance of each treatment was determined by the
Performance Index (P1) that takes into account the number dead and alive
and their position in the boxes. The P1 for cockroaches in the choice
boxes on any given day was calculated fran the following formula:
1 no. alive + no. alive in licht sidl
P1 = 1— no. dead + initial number x 100
Electromagnetic devices having any effect on the cockroaches should
influence their behavior so that the insects either succumb more auickly
or survive longer when allowed access to representative repellent and
nonrepellent toxicants. A lack of difference among cockroaches in treated
choice boxes exposed to electromagnetic devices, compared to ones in
unexposed boxes, would indicate a lack of additive effect of magnetism and
to xl cant.
Adult male German cockroaches selected from 30-gallon containers
housing several thousand Individuals were used for each test. These
cockroaches have no detectable degree of insecticidal resistance and
offspring of this strain (11CR) have been used for several years for
various evaluatiur s of insecticidal efficacy and repellency. Twenty
cockroaches (n=3) were used for each choice box evaluation test.
Representative repellent or non-repellent insecticidal powder (10 cc)
was spread evenly over the floor of the dark ccmpartment and coackroaches
were released in the untreated compartment. They were allowed access to
the treated side 2 hours later. Finely divided silica aerooel (On—Die 67)
was used as a repellent material and technical boric acid powder was used as
the nonrepellent insecticide. The number of live and dead cockroaches in
each side of each box was recorded daily for up to 21 days so that the P1
could be calculated.
Alteration of avoidance behavior in choice arenas.——Transparent lucite
olfactometers câTled chemometers (Rust & Reierson, l977a, b) were used to
study the short-term effects of the electromaonetic devices on cockroach
—167-
-------
Fig. 4 - Wooden choice box used to monitor behavioral changes during
exposure of cockroaches to output from test devices.
-------
avoidance behavior. The chemometers consist of 12 covered chambers about
1 X 2 1/2 inches evenly spaced around a central staging arena in which
cockroaches are initially released (Fig. 5). The arena and chambers are
connected by clear plastic tubes. Depending on toxicity and repellency,
various insecticidal materials placed in only 3 of the outer chambers
usually result in varying degrees of mortality in the unit and within an
additional 6 days in clean holding jars. Using known repellent and
nonrepellent chemicals, the activity of electromagnetic devices was studied
by observing differences in the effects on cockroaches in cheniometers tested
near the electromagnetic devices compared to effects in chemometers tested
in unexposed locations. Changes in the apparent insecticide detection
capability of cockroaches was determined by using materials or dosages of
repellent material which would normally be avoided and dosages of nonrepellent
material that are usually effective.
As in the choice box test described previously, Dri—Die 67 and boric acid
powder were used as representative repellent and nonrepellent insecticides,
respectively. Three randomly selected peripheral chambers of a chemometer
were treated with 0.1 cc of a given powder and cockroaches were allowed to
encounter or avoid the deposits. Twenty-five adult male cockroaches were
allowed to make their choice during the night (dark phase) and the number
dead the following morning was recorded. All the live cockroaches were
transferred to holding jars that were subsequently kept in an unexposed
location and the number dead 6 days later (i.e., latent mortality) was also
recorded. Each test was replicated 3 times. The significance of the various
treatments was determined to the 5% level with an analysis of variance.
Effects on reproduction, fecundity and life span.--Some manufacturers
of e1ectromag iitic devices claim that thIT devices produce relatively
long-term effects on insect populations. For these tests, replicated
series (n=3) of ten opposite sex pairs of German cockroaches and groups
of 20 nymphal cockroaches in another test were maintained in containers
exposed and unexposed to electromagnetic radiation from the test devices.
The insects were allowed to develop with adeauate shelter, food and water.
Counts of the number of their progeny in each container were made at 4, 12
and 24 weeks to determine effects on maturation, mating, hatching and
emergence, oogenesis, or life—span and on the eventual resultant number of
cockroaches among exposed or unexposed cockroaches.
In a related test, the number of nymphal American cockroaches,
Periplaneta americana (L.), emerging from groups of 10 egg capsules exposed
to the electromagnetic devices was determined. Unemerged young in capsules
fran the German cockroach will usually succunt if separated from the female,
but those of the American cockroach are usually deposited for prolonged
incubation. To eliminate Influence of the female on the capsule and Its
embryos and to study effects of electromagnetic radiations on cockroach
embryonic development, individual egg capsules from American cockroaches
were placed in corked glass shell vials near the devices. Observations of
hatch were made daily to determine if the devices inhibited, enhanced or
had any detectable effect on the hatch or emergence of cockroaches from
the egg capsules. The number of capsules that hatched and the average
-169—
-------
Fig. 5 - Top view of chemometer showing central staging arena and
peripheral chambers In which toxicants had been applied
(Rust and Relerson 1977a).
-170-
-------
number of nymphs that e erged from each hatched capsule was determined
over a period of about three months.
Tests Under Actual Field Conditions
Tests in apartnents.——Efficacy trials in apartments consisted of
cockroach p ulation counts in conjunction with the installation of
electromagnetic units in apartment buildings known to be infested with
German cockroaches. The tests were conducted in 2—story buildinqs that
contain 7 to 10 individual apartments, each about 800 ft . The complex
of aparbilents is located in Gardena, California (about 20 miles west of
Los Angeles Civic Center).
Devices evaluated in the field experiment were installed as close as
possible to the recommendations made by each manufacturer and the devices
were left operating continuously throughout the test period. A small red
lanp on each device indicated the unit was operational. The Macma—Pulse
unit was placed on the bottom oden shelf of the cabinet just to the
right of the kitchen sink in one apartment. The Nature Shield unit was
positioned on the floor of an attached garage of an apartment and it was
oriented to magnetic north with an aircraft caiipass. The Sigma device was
set on the floor behind the stove in an infested apartment and a wattrneter
was used with it to measure the power being consumed by the device (Fia. 6A).
The position of the stove relative to the kitchen countertop is shown in
Fig. 6B and a wattrneter used to measure power consumption of the Siania device
is shown in Ha. 7.
Cockroach population counts before and after installation of electro-
magnetic devices were made with two 1—at. wide—mouth glass jar traps placed in
specific sites in the kitchen of each apartment of a treated building as well
as in apartments of an adjacent building. The traps were baited with a piece
of fresh white bread. Cockroaches attracted to the bread are caught in a
layer of dry clay in each trap and are counted after the traps are left in place
in kitchen cabinets 7 days. Fresh traps were positioned in the same places for
each period of evaluation. Trapping was done 4, 8, and 12 weeks after the
devices were installed. Counts were also made of trap catches in apartments
treated with 0.5 Dursban 2E (chlorpyrifos) insecticide or boric acid
technical powder. We have used trappino to monitor effectiveness for
several years and it provides the least disruptive method currently
known for evaluating populations indoors (Reierson & Rust, 1977b).
The statistical siçnificance of changes in the number of cockroaches
caught per apartment was determined by Wilcoxon’s signed—ranks test. This
type of analysis allows for variations of levels of infestation among
apartments and is capable of detectina consistent effects.
Results
Repellency, alteration of movement , and alteration of avoidance
behavior.-—No measurable dif1 rence in the pattern of av Tdance activity
—171—
-------
- w
Fig. 6 — Installation of Sigma electromagnetic pest control device in
an apartment kitchen. A, gas stove behind which device was placed;
B, device and wattmeter in position with stove moved away from wall
for photograph.
A
I
-172-
-------
Fig. 7 - Wattmeter used to measure power
magnetic device.
-173-
consur ptIon of Sigma electro-
-------
of cockroaches was produced when the insects were exposed to any of the
devices. Cockroaches avoided repellent insecticides and did not avoid
nonrepellent ones, independent of the presence of an electromagnetic
device.
In choice box tests, a performance index (P1) of +100 is produced
by a very effective treathient, whIle -100 is produced by ones less
effective. Table 8 shows that regardless of the toxicant used, the
electromagnetic devices produced no signficant differences among the
various treatments. The repellent powder was consistently ineffectual.
This suggested that the devices did not increase movement to such an
extent that the cockroaches would scurry into deposits of repellent
powder. Similarly, very good effects were obtained with the nonrepellent
powder. Tests with untreated boxes showed nearly neutral effects with
or without devices being present. These choice tests indicated, therefore,
that the electromagnetic device did not overtly alter cockroach behavior
or have any measurable additive effect on repellent or nonrepellent chemicals
used to control cockroaches.
Choice tests with chemometers provided the same kind of information as
obtained with choice boxes. Table 8 shows the acute (18—hour) and latent
(7-day) effects on cockroaches produced by each kind of powder when tested
three times during exposure to the electromagnetic devices. Although there
was some variation iono replicates of the same treatment, distinct patterns
of performance were evident. On-Die was not effective under any condition
and screened boric acid was always relatively effective. As shown in Table 9,
the average % mortality of cockroaches in these tests illustrate patterns of
activity in which the nonrepellent powder worked best, with or without an
electromagnetic device. The latent mortality produced by boric acic compared
to the effects at 18 hours is due to the slow action of the powder. The high
mortality 7 days after initial contact with boric acid is common since complete
mortality anong groups of cockroaches even continuously confined to the powder
may not be achieved for 18 or more hours. The devices apparently did not have
any measurable effect on cockroach movement or on their ability to discern and
avoid insecticidal deposits.
Effects on reproduction and hatch of capsules.——In tests started with
either adult F nyniphal cockr6 hes, tr eii us Increases in the total nur’ber
of live cockroaches at 4, 12 and 24 weeks were observed, independent of exposure
to electromagnetic devices. Increases were less pronounced amonc replicates
begun as nymphs because of the time lao factor involved In the maturation of the
initial group of nymphs. Table 10 (starting with adults) and Table 11 (starting
with nymphs) show that, at any given period of exposure, the increases in numbers
of cockroaches per replicate were similar and that the overall population in-
creases were independent of electromagnetic devices. The resultant proportion of
nymphs of each population also remained unaffected by the elecromagnetic devices.
Generally, each group of cockroaches was between about 80 to 93% nymphal.
This coincides with the proportion of nymphs we usually encounter under field
conditions or In the laboratory where populations of cockroaches have been
allowed to eouilibrate. Increases of 148— to 190—fold (2900 to 3800 cockroaches)
were obtained In groups of exposed or unexposed cockroaches within 6 months from
groups that initially contained only 10 adult females.
-174-
-------
Ten fully formed egg capsules from American cockroaches were exposed to each
electromagnetic device (or left unexposed) for more than 6 months, but all of the
hatching took place within the first 3 months. Unhatched capsules were held an
additional 3 months for latent hatch. Four unexposed capsules hatched and 4 to 6
of the exposed capsules hatched. Table 12 shows the number of capsules that
hatched and the average number of young produced per capsule were exceedingly
similar. These data indicated that expsoure to electromagnetic devices had no
effect on the maturation of cockroach embryos nor on the ability of cockroaches
to emerge from capsules.
Scrutiny of these data leads us to the conclusion that none of the electro-
magnetic devices evaluated against cockroaches had any discernible effect on
behavior, reproduction, maturation, or emergence of young cockroaches. None of
our observations or statistical analyses indicated effects that could be
attributable to the devices. Variations that did occur were probably due to
minor differences in temperature, humidity, or other environmental factors that
could not be maintained identical at all times.
Tests in apartments.-—Although no effects were observed with the electro—
magenetic d Vices under laboratory conditions, the results did not preclude
possible effects under field conditions. Most residual insecticidal sprays are
effective for less than 8 weeks, but some powders applied in locations kept dry
may remain active for many months. As mentioned previously, ca parions in this
test series were made between the effectiveness of electromagnetic de”ices and
some conventional sprays and a powder against cockroaches.
Each of the devices used in the laboratory and in the field were
operational and in apparent good working condition for the duration of the
test. The indicator lamp on each device flashed at the beginning of the
test and was flashing when the tests were terminated. The Sigma (AC) device
consumed an average of about 66.7 watts per hour (11.2 kilowatt hours per week).
Initial cockroach trap catches in buildings where the Nature Shield, Sigma
and Magna—Pulse devices were to be Installed were 79, 14, and 48, respectively.
In immediately adjacent buildings, counts before installation of the Nature
Shield were 107 and for the Sigma they were 317. No adjacent buildings were
monitored in the test with the Magna-Pulse. The number of cockroaches trapped
before and after installation of the devices are shown in Table 13. No
significant effects were produced by any electromagnetic device tested. Good
reductions, however, were accomplished with 0.5% Dursban spray and with boric
acid dust. Examination of specific apartments showed that reductions occurring
in a few instances in buildings near where the devices were installed were due
to spot spraying of cockroaches by the tenants or to drastic changes In
sanitation. Significant reductions were never observed throughout series of
apartments exposed to electromagnetic devices.
Trap counts from individual apartments within the purported range of
effectiveness for each of the devices are shown in Table 14. The two
apartments closest to the Nature Shield (i.e., apartments 1 and 4) had a
combined incredse in cockroach trap catch from SO before installation to
190 at 4 weeks, 130 at 8 weeks, and 97 after 12 weeks of exposure. Very
high levels of cockroach infestation were evident within 4 weeks of
—175—
-------
installation (average = 49.6 cockroaches per apartment) and the average
number of cockroaches trapped per apartment increased from about 11 before
installation of the Nature Shield to more than 77 (a 600% Increase) by week 12.
Similar patterns of increase were observed after installation of the Sigma
and Magna-Pulse devices. In the buildings left untreated, the average
number of cockroaches per apartment at the beginning of the test was 6.4.
Within 4 weeks the average number of cockroaches increased to 15.3 and by
week 8 and 12 the average numbers were 35.6 and 27.3, respectively. Compared
to the initial number, the number of cockroaches trapped in untreated apart-
ments increased 324% by week 12.
Data from the field control trials with the electromagnetic devices
indicated that none of the devices contributed to cockroach control. The
devices had no apparent effect in the apartments in which they were
installed or in adjacent apartments or buildings. Populations of cockroaches
where the devices were installed generally doubled or tripled within 4 to 12
weeks and had the same pattern of increase as populations In apartments where
no electromagnetic devices were used. Single applications of either of two
standard Insecticides provIded >90% reductions within 4 weeks and 87.4 to
95.6% reductIons monitored 3 months after application.
FLOUR BEETLES
Various stored product insect pests represent an extremely important
group of damaging Insects. These insects invade grains, cereals, and flour
while they are being harvested, stored, processed, or shipped. Since some
of the pests are capable of going through their entire life cycle in a
stored product, very large numbers of all stages of the insect are eventually
present in the commodity and render it unsuitable for sale or consumption.
Besides rendering the product unsightly, stored product Insects may carry
diseases and pathogens and may significantly reduce the nutritive value of
the food they have infested (Scott 1962-63).
According to Strong (1970), one of the most common beetles associated
with processed food is the confused flour beetle, Tribolium confusum du Val
We utilized this beetle in a series of tests with the eleLtromagnetic devices
to determine if exposure to the devices would have any measurable effect on
the eventual number of beetles developing In a standard rearing mixture.
Compared to unexposed beetles, reductions In feeding or mating activity or
actual lethal effects of beetles exposed to the devices should become evident
as a resultant total lower number of live Individuals.
Exposure of beetles to electromagnetic devices.--Confused flour beetles
from laboratory colonies i intained continuously at UCR for more than 25 years
were used In these tests. Pupae removed from rearing media composed of corn
meal, refined flour, and yeast were segregated into groups of males and females.
Ten days later, 10 male and 10 female adult beetles that had emerged in the segre-
gated containers were placed in 4—oz glass jars with 2 tablespoonsful fresh media
and were positioned near each electromagnetic device. The number of live
adults, larvae, and pupae that developed in each jar (n=3) was determined
28 and 40 days later by counting the number of beetles in the media that
—176-
-------
were retained by a 16-mesh sieve screen.
Results.-—The number of beetles developing in the media after 28 and 40
days is shown in Table 15. Under optimum conditions female flour beetles lay
only about 3 to 5 eggs per day and egg laying is drastically curtailed when
the teTiperature falls below 78 F. Exposure to the devices had no measurable
effect on adults, 99.4% of the original number of adults being alive for the
duration of the test. The total number of live stages of beetles (i.e. adults,
larvae and pupae) in unexposed media increased from 20, at the beginninc of the
test, to 240 (1100% increase) at 40 days. Corresponding increases among beetles
constantly exposed to the Magna-Pulse, Nature Shield, and Sigma devices were
1175%, 1270%, and 1360%, respectively. There was an average of 133 larvae in
unexposed media, compared to 109—113 larvae in media exposed to the devices.
By 40 days the number of larvae in each replicate nearly doubled fran the
number present at 28 days. No pupae were formed by day 28 because development
fran egg to pupa takes 35 to 120 days (Ebeling 1975).
Similar results with flour beetles were obtained in an earlier test in
which environmental conditions in each location where the devices were
installed were beina monitored and stabilized. The test was begun 26 July
1978 with each replicate containing 10 male and 10 female pupae placed on fresh
media and left constantly exposed to the devices. At 28 days, there was an average
of 16 live adults and 81 larvae in the unexposed groups. With the Maana—Pulse
there was an averaae total of 60 alive (18 adults) and with the Nature Shield
there were 106 (18 adults). In the chamber with the Sigma device there was an
average of only 28 live stages (18 adults). Close examination of conc itions at
each test location showed that the chamber where the Sigma unit was being
tested was initially being maintained a high proportion of the time below
78 F even though the average temperature (based on maximum and nlininlur’
values) was about 80°F. Similarly, the average temperature with the
Magna-Pulse was initially only about 78°F.
These tests indicated that the devices had no measurable effect on
adult flour beetles and that emergence from pupation and subseauent mating
and oviposition would proceed normally while the insects were exposed to
electromagnetic devices.
CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING ELECTROMAGNETIC DEVICES
No biological effects under laboratory or field conditions were found with
any of the electromagnetic devices tested. Acute and relatively long—term tests
were performed and, compared to insects left unexposed, electromagnetic devices
had no observable or statistically discernible effect on the following aspects:
1. Drywood termite mortality, weight loss, or consumption of wood.
2. German cockroach behavior, mortality, or sensitivity to insecticides.
3. Development and population size of German cockroaches.
4. Mierican cockroach embryo development and emergence from eag capsules.
—177-
-------
5. Cockroach control in apartments infested with German cockroaches.
6. Development and population size of confused flour beetle.
We conclude that these electromagnetic devices (Magna—Pulse, Nature Shield,
and Sigma) had no measurable biological effect on any of the insects tested
and w believe they uld, therefore, probably also have no effect on other
structural and household insect pests.
—178-
-------
REFERENCES CITED
Ebeling, W. 1968. Termites: Identification, biology, and control of termites
attacking buildings. Calif. Agr. Expt. Sta. Ext. Serv. Manual 38. 74 pp.
1975. Urban Entomology. Univ. Calif. Div. Agric. Sciences, Berkeley, CA. 695 pp.
Ebeling, W., R. E. Wagner and D. A. Reierson. 1966. Influence of repellency on
the efficacy of blatticides. 1. Learned modification of behavior of the
German cockroach. J. Econ. Entomol . 59: 1374—88.
Kaufman, G. E. and S. M. Michaelson. 1974. Critical Review of the Biological
Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields. In “Biological and Clinical
Effects of Low—Frequency Magnetic and Electrical Fields”. Llaurodo,
J. G., A. Sances, Jr., and J. H. Battocletti, Eds. Charles C. Thomas,
Publisher.
NPCA (National Pest Control Association). 1966. Cockroaches and their control.
NPCA Tech. Release 9—66. 26 pp.
Reierson, D. A. and M. K. Rust. l977a. Utilization of insecticidal laminated
tapes to control German cockroaches. Ibid. 70: 357—60.
1977b. Trapping, flushing and counting German roaches. Pest Control 45: 40, 42—44.
Rust, M. K. and 0. A. Reierson. l977a. Using pheromone extract to reduce
repellency of blatticides. J. Econ. Entomol . 70: 34-38.
1977b. Increasing blatticidal efficacy with aggregation pheromone. Ibid. 79:
693—96.
Scott, H. G. 1962-63. How to control insects in stored foods. Pest Control
Part I, 30(12): 18-28; Part II, 31(1): 24-34.
Snyder, 1. E. 1948. Our Enemy the Termite. Ccinstock Publ. Co., Ithaca, N.Y.
257 pp.
1961. Are termites giving your house the ‘munch—over’? News Release, July 27.
Smithsonian Institution.
Strong, R. G. 1970. Distribution and relative abundance of stored-product
insects in California: A method of obtaining sanple population.
J. Econ. Entomol . 63: 591—596.
Wilcox, W. W. 1979. Decay of od In stuctures. Calif. Agrlc. 33(6):
32—33.
—179-
-------
Table 1.—Identification of electromagnetic devices used in laboratory and
field tests against various household insect pests.
Device 1
Model
Manufacturer
IPX
numbers
Test
Serial
EPA sample
site
Magna—Pulse
MPC—l000
Bell Products
1698
131919
Lab
1729
1.31919
Field
Mature Shield
—
Solara, Inc.
3126
131916—sub
6
Lab
3215
131918—sub
5
Field
Sigma
RH—27
Orgolini Mfg.
1750
131920—sub
4
Lab
1749
131920—sub
5
Field
1” Electromagnetic devices listed by brand name, as supplied by EPA.
—180—
-------
Table 2.--Mortality of drywood termites exposed to electromagnetic
devices.
Device
Initial no.
termites
%
mortality at indicated
week ’
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Magma-Pulse
100
2
4
10
14
19
25
29
37
Nature Shield
100
2
2
12
15
14
20
21
28
Sigma
100
0
0
12
16
15
18
22
25
None
100
2
6
7
11
13
16
21
29
Ten replicates on 2x2x1-cm Douglas-fir blocks for each device. Each
replicate with 10 nyniphal Incisiternies minor (1-Lagen). Examined 5 to 8
replicates at weeks 1-4; all 10 were examined subsequently. Tested at
ca. 80° ± 1° F, 52% RH. Test begun 5 September 1978.
-181-
-------
Table 3.—Change in the total biomass of drywood termites ’ feeding
on Douglas—fir blocks while exposed to electromagnetic devices.
Device
Initia
biomass
1.
(mg)
Termi
1
te bi
2
amass r
3
educti
4
on (Z)
5
by in
6
dicated
7
wee
8
k
Magna—Pulse
1253.3
9.9
23.3
34.0
39.5
45.8
51.8
57.3
63.9
Nature Shield
1299.7
12.4
24.3
36.8
42.7
44.7
50.1
54.3
59.0
Sigma
1446.7
11.3
21.6
35.9
35.2
43.4
48.6
52.7
56.8
None
1350.5
9.3
23.9
31.6
39.1
41.8
47.7
53.5
58.9
Used 10 replicates, each with 10 nymphal Incisitermes minor (Ragen), for each
electromagnetic device. Each block measured ca. 2x2x1—cm. Test begun
5 September 1978.
Electromagnetic devices, listed by brand name. Tested at ca. 800 ± 10 F,
52% relative humidity.
-182-
-------
Table 4. --Total amount of Douglas-fir constnnea D drywood termites ! ”
exposed to electromagnetic devices.
Device
1
Amount of wood consumed(g) at week 1
2
4
6
8
Magna—Pulse
0.42
1.01
ab
1.09
1.33
1.45
Nature Shield
0.44
1.21
b
1.11
1.30
1.41
Sigma
0.25
0.85
a
0.96
1.33
1.51
None
0.43
1.08
ab
1.24
1.56
1.69
‘Test started 5 September 1978 with 10 nymphal Incisitermes minor in each
of 10 replicates with a 2x2x1-cn block with each device. Figures based
on average difference of weight lost by indicated week. Tested at ca.
80° ± 1° F, 52% RH.
.‘HSD Test, 5% level. Values in a coltnnn followed by different letters
are significantly different; in coli mis with no letters, differences
are not significant.
-183-
-------
Table S.--Effects of e1ectromagT etic devices on wood consumption of 20
nymphal western drywood termites, Incisitermes minor (Hagen), in Douglas-fir
laminated blocks
i
no.
laminas fed
upon /
Avg. volume
wood eaten
(i.&l) /
4 weeks
12 weeks
24
weeks
4 weeks 12
weeks
24
weeks
Magna-Pulse 4.6 5.2 6.2 706.5 933.9 1915.9
Nature Shield 4.8 6.0 6.4 817.4 937.4 1598.4
Sigma 5.4 5.6 6.6 964.4 910.6 1435.3
None 4.2 5.0 6.2 641.2 989.9 1462.5
Each block ca. 1.5 inches square, about 4 inches long, and with 7 horizontal
laminas of nearly equal size that were held together tightly with bolts.
Insects, introduced into block in ho1 . 3/8-in. diam. x 1-in, centered in middl
lamina, retained by rubber stopper. Test begun 1 September 1978.
Wwjthin columns, no significant differences of any values at 5% level (Xruskai.-
Wallis Test).
-184-
-------
rable 6. ——Effects of electromagnetic devices on nympFial 1rywood termites in
Douglas—f ir laminated blocks- ’.
Initial
4 weeks
12 weeks
24 weeks
Biomass
%
Biomass
%
Biomass
Z
Device
biomass (nig)
decline (%)
dead
decline (%)
dead
decline (%)
dead
Magna—Pulse
359.1
35.2
17.0
68.7
48.0
69.5
42.0
Nature Shield
357.4
40.5
21.0
53.8
24.0
72.6
45.0
Sig na
377.7
37 ,O
2.3.0
5l.9 ’
33.0
75.9. ’
55.0
None
364.0
41.8
21.7
63.2
41.0
72.8
48.0
1 Each block (n 5) initially with 20 I. minor for each device and age.
— ii3.
C,
— n’4.
-185-
-------
Table 7.--Performance of standard toxicants against German cockroaches,
!• germanica , in choice boxes while exposed to electromagne ic devices.
Toxicant ’
Device
Performance Index
(P1) at
day /
3
7
14
21
Repellent
(SG-67)
Magna-Pulse
Nature Shield
-33.3
—93.4
-33.8
-58.2
-47.8
-28.8
1.3
15.5
Sigma
— 0.9
20.8
26.8
35.5
None
-27.9
-19.2
0.0
9.9
Non-repellent
(boric acid)
Magna-Pu]se
Nature Shield
96.6
75.0
100.0
98.3
100.0
Sigma
83.2
100.0
None
92.1
100.0
Untreated
Magna—Pulse
3.2
-15.6
-11.4
0.0
Nature Shield
-25.0
-25.0
-23.2
22.9
Sigma
- 1.0
- 9.4
- 8.7
7.5
None
3.0
-23.9
-20.9
- 3.9
Repellent = 10 cc SG—67 silica aerogel/0.5 ft 2 on floor of dark side of
choice box; Non-repellent = 10 cc freshly screened boric acid technical
powder on floor of dark side.
Pt (maximum = +100, minimum -1001 takes into account both mortality
and repellency and is calculated as follows:
1 alive + No. alive in light j1 X 100
No. dead + Initial no. alive
- 186-
-------
Table 8.—4lortality of German cockroaches in individual test chemometers
partially treated with representative insecticides while exposed to electromagnetic
devices.
% dead
after
ch
oice exposure to
treatment ’
Repellent
Nonrepellent
Device
(Dri—Die 67)
(Boric Acid)
Untreated
18
hours 7 days
18
hours 7 days
18
hours 7 days
Magna—Pulse
12 50
12 48
4 4
18 72
0 12 k/
4 100
0 7
0 0
0 8
Nature Shield
0 36
o 20
8 16
-
0 48 -’
12 100
0 100
0 24
0 0
0 4
Sigma
20 56
0 0
0 8
0 100
0 96
0 96
0 8
4 8
0 16
None
8 32
9 13
8 16
0 4O ’
0 100
0 96
0 12
0 4
0 24
‘Allowed 25d B. germanica to encounter or avoid 0.1 cc powder in 3 randomn.ly
selected chambers of 12 in a clear plastic choice device. Tested Nov. 13—Dec. 16,
1978. Within columns, no significant differences at 5% level between mortality
with no device and with any test dev±ce (analysis of variance).
jPowder not screened before the test. In all other instances with boric acid,
technical powder was passed through a No. 22 screen just before it was used in
choice tests.
-187-
-------
Table 9. Mortality of German cockroaches in cheinometer choice tests
while exposed to electromagnetic devices
Device
Average % dead after exposure to treatinent ’
Repellent
— Non-repellent
Untreated
18
hours 7 days
18 hours 7 days
18
hours 7 days
Magna-Pulse
9.3 34.0
7.3 86.0
0.0 S.l
Nature Shield
2.7 24.0
4.0 82.7
0.0 9.3
Sigma
7.0 6.7
0.0 97.3
1.3 10.7
None
8.3 20.3
0.0 78.7
0.0 13.3
!fUsed 23 adult d B. for each choice test (n=3 in transparent lucite
cheinometers. For each test, trea ents were in 3 randomly selected chambers of
12. Repellent = 0.1 cc silica aerogel; non-repellent 0.1 cc technical boric
acid powder. Tested 13 November to 16 December 1978.
‘Within columns, no significant differences at 5% level Canalysis of variance).
-188-
-------
Table 10. ——Fecundity of 20 adult German cockroaches ’ 1 and offspring
continuously exposed to electromagnetic devices.
posure Avg. no. cockroaches/replic.
Device (weeks) Nymphs Adults•
Increase
factor ’
}tagna—Pulse 4 218.3 15.7 10.7
Nature Shield 4 179.3 15.3 8.7
Sigma 4 196.0 17.0 9.7
None 4 163.7 16.0 8.0
Magna—Pulse 12 758.7 160.3 45.0
Nature Shield 12 747.3 197.3 46.2
Sigma 12 623.0 173.7 45.0
None 12 771.7 192.7 47.2
Magna—Pulse 24 2668.0 465.3 155.7
Nature Shield 24 3256.4 567.9 190.2
Sigma 24 2539.4 442.9 148.1
None 24 2657.8 463.5 156.1
‘ 1Jsed 10 d + 10 9 B. germanica without visible oothecae (p3) for each
device and exposure period. Test begim 31 August 1978.
‘Factor based on total number of cockroaches, compared to initial
final total number—Initial number
number. Calculated as
ititial number
-189-
-------
Table ll.--Pecundity of 20 nyTnphal German cockroaches and offspring
continuously exposed to electromagnetic devices.
Device
Exposure Av
(weeks)
g. cockroaches/
replic.
Increase
factor
Total
nymphs
Magna-Pulse
4
20.0
33.3
0.0
Nature Shield
4
18.0
1.9
0.0
Sigma
4
19.3
34.5
0.0
None
4
19.0
15.8
0.0
Magna-Pulse
12
387.3
95.4
18.4
Nature Shield
12
374.3
93.2
17.7
Sigma
12
311.3
94.3
14.6
None
12
308.3
94.4
14.4
Magna-Pulse
Nature Shield
24
24
2478.7
2476.0
85.2&’
85.2 ! ”
122.9
122.8
Sigma
24
2155.0
85.2!”
106.8
None
24
1546.0
87.4
76.3
nymphs determined from avg co mts of ten 15-cc samples of cockroaches
from one replicate exposed to Sigma device.
-190-
-------
Table 12.——Emergence of American cockroach nymphs, Periplatteta americana ,
from oothecae (twlO) exposed to electromagnetic devices. a’
Hatched
Emerged nymphs
Total
Avg. no.
Device
capsules
number
per capsule
Magna—Pulse
6
83
13.8
Nature Shield
4
51
12.8
Sigma
6
82
13.7
None
4
51
12.8
Test begun 7 September 1978 with 10 fully formed oothecae. Capsules kept
in corked glass shell vials at 81° F. Test discontinued 15 December 1978.
-191 —
-------
Table 13.—Relative effectiveness of electromagnetic devices against infestations
of German cockroaches in low—income apartments.
Test Series
P1acement ’
No.
Apts.
No.
cockr
at
oaches
week
trapped
% control ’
Before
4
8
12
4 wks
12 wks
Nature Shield
Ga age
7
79
347
385
543
0.0
0.0
Nature Shield
Next bldg.
7
107
77
64
29
28.0
72.9
Nature Shield
(combined)
1.4
193
431
449
472
0.0
0.0
Sigma
Sigma
Apt. 1
Next bldg.
8
10
14
317
34
815
46
476
126
48
0.0
0.0
0.0
84.9 ’
Sigma
(combined)
18
331
849
522
174
0.0
47.4
Nagna—Pui.se
Apt. 3
10
48
201
144
disc.
0.0
Dursban, 0.5
Aerosol
12
199
20
19
25
90.0*
87.4*
Boric acid, 99
Dust
9
432
39
2
19
91.0*
95.6*
Untreated
Bldg. A
10
23
66
48
27
0.0
0.0
Bldg. B
8
22
41
201
164
0.0
0.0
(combined)
18
45
107
249
191
0.0
0.0
11 Test series begun as follows: Nature Shield, Sigma and untreated 2 August 1978;
boric acid, 31 August 1978; Dursban, 16 November 1977; Magna—Pulse, 8 November 1978.
Each device installed on ground floor, as per instructions provided by manufacturer.
Term “next bldg.” refers to closest possible infested building, within 45 feet of
building in which device was actually installed.
* = significant reduction at 5% Levef (Wilcoxon signed—ranks test). No mark
indicates no significant change. Disc. discontinued test.
£1 Most of reduction occurred in one apartment where count declined from’ 232 to 14.
—192-
-------
Table 14.—Trap counts of German cockroaches from individual apartments within
he purported range of effectiveness of electromagnetic ‘devices.
Nature Shield Before
(garage)
4 weeks
8 weeks
12 weeks
Nature Shield Before
(next bldg.) 4 weeks
8 weeks
12 weeks
Before
4 weeks
8 weeks
12 weeks
Before
- 4 weeks
8 weeks
12 weeks
Magna—Pulse Before
(Apt. 3)
4 weeks
8 weeks
Thitreated -” Before
4 weeks
8 weeks
12 weeks
o 4 13 50
77 2 801.13
84 0 181 46
52 68 158 45
5 0 2 97
2 0 4 70
0 0 0 58
19 1. 0 3
20 4 5
2 0 0 8
0 0 0 16
0 0 0 67
6 0 232 15
56 0 130 13
4 1 23 9
3 0 14 12
3 0 14 12
63 0 0 29
88 0 0 9
13 0 1 7
4 7 0 54
0 4 0 42
0 3 0 24
3 3
7 60
44 15 8
28 182 10
1 1 1
0 0 1
0 0 6
0 1 5
0• 0 0 3
0 0 0 24
1 0 29
0 0 59
0 0 2 50
3 3 147 461
9 8 49 357
3 0 2 5
3 0 2 5
9 0 6 11
1 0 2 7
0 II 0 10
20 18 2 0
185 9 5 2
79
340
378
543
107
77
64
29
14
34
46
126
317
815
476
48
48
201
144
45
106
247
1 Apartments from2 buildings.
N ber of cockroaches
Device Exposure 1 2 3 4
trapped in indicated
apartment
5 6
7
8
9
10 Total
6
1
Sigma
(Apt. 1)
Sigma
(next bldg.)
0
0
0
0
3
4
4
30
1
2
0
0
0 90 18 2 30 34 191
12
2
13
5
5
53
36
1
1
0
-193-
-------
Table 15. --Effect of electromagnetic devices on groups (n=3) of
20 adult confused flour beetles. ’ and their progeny.
Device
Exposure
(days)
No. live
beetles/replicate
%
increase
Adults
Pupae
Larvae
Magna-Pu lse
28
20
0
113
565
Nature Shield
28
20
0
134
670
Sigma
28
20
0
109
545
None
28
20
0
133
665
Magna-Pulse
40
20
19
216
1175
Nature Shield
40
20
37
217
1270
Sigma
40
19
1].
262
1360
None
40
20
33
187
1100
Began test 20 September 1978 with each replicate containing lO • 109
Tribolium confusi.mi ten days old.
-194-
-------
WILL ELECTROMAGNETIC PEST CONTROL DEVICES INHIBIT
ACTIVITIES OF TERMITES AND WOW—DESTROYING BEETLES?
Raymond H. Beal
and 1
Lonnie H. Williams
1
The authors are Research Entomoloqists at the Forestry Sciences
Laboratory, Southern Forest Experiment Station, P. 0. Box 2008 GMF,
Gulfport, Miss. 39503.
-195—
-------
SUMMARY
Electromagnetic devices placed In field conditions where subterranean
termites ( Reticulitennes sp.) were plentiful did not deter termites from
attacking and damaging wooden stakes placed in the ground near the units.
Wood—destroying beetles, Xyletinus peltatus , also were not affected by the
electromagnetic devices.
INTRODIJCT ION
During the past 2 years, manufacturers of electromagnetic devices have
claimed in trade journals that their electromagnetic devices will control
rodents and insects. Some advertisements state that electromagnetic devices
in or on the soil cause termites to stop feeding or in some way eliminate
then from around the unit (up to 12 hectares).
If electromagnetic devices are effective, their use could better control
wood-destroying insects. But further investigations into the usefulness of
these devices are needed because no data from soundly conducted research are
available to confirm these claims.
Becker (1976, 1977) has reported on the only bona fide research that
suggests that magnetic fields may affect termites. From laboratory studies,
he suggests that termite gallery building was affected and that termites could
perceive differences in alternating inaonetic fields (50 Hz) within their
containers.
OBJECTIVES
The overall objective of this cooperative study between the Southern
Forest Experiment Station and the Environmental Protection Agency was to gain
data either supporting or refuting manufacturers’ claims of termite control
with electromagnetic devices. Specific objectives were to determine effects
of three magnetic devices on: (1) gallery building of subterranean termites
( Reticulitennes ) under field conditions, (2) feeding of subterranean termites
under field conditions, (3) egg—laying by Xyletinus peltatus (Harris) adults,
and (4) feeding by X. peltatus larvae.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Test Units
For termites, three units were evaluated:
1. Nature Shield, Solara Electronics, Costa Mesa, Calif.
2. Sigma, Orgolini Manufacturing Company, Inc., Sparks, Nev.
3. Magna Pulse, Bell Products, Sparks, Nev.
For beetles, only the Nature—Shield unit was used.
-196-
-------
Test Procedures
Effects on gallery building of subterranean termites
(Reticulitermes).—-About 3,000 termites (workers, soldiers, and other castes that
were present) were placed in liter—size containers filled with moist pine
sawdust. After the termites had become well established in the sawdust, we
removed all termite tubes from inside the container. Five containers (with
all tubes freshly removed) were placed near one of the operating electro-
magnetic units. As controls, five containers were placed out of range of the
units. The containers were examined weekly for 4 weeks. The length and size
of tubes found on the exposed and unexposed containers were compared.
Effects on feeding of termites under field conditions.—-Plots were set
up in forested areas known to be infested with subterranean termites
( Reticulitermes sp.). Each plot contained twenty 2.54- x 5.08— x 46—cm pine
stakes driven about 8 cm into the ground. Stakes were placed 1.5 m apart
in each of four lines (five stakes per line) radiating outward 7.5 m (N—W—S—E)
from the center point (Fig. 1). The plot centers were at least 200 ni apart.
Two separate tests were conducted.
The first test was to determine if the machine would prevent initial
attack to wood by subterranean termites under field conditions. This test
used the battery—powered electromagnetic units (Nature Shield [ Fig.2] and
Magma Pulse [ Fig. 3)). At the time that the stakes were driven into the
ground, units were installed (according to the manufacturer’s instructions)
at the intersection of the four lines of stakes. The three plots used were
a control plot (no unit) and a separate plot for each unit. Every 10 days
for 60 days we examined the stakes within each plot and recorded the number
of stakes attached and the intensity of attack to each stake. Intensity of
attack was based on the following scale:
0 = No termite attack (0% damage)
1 = Surface nibbling by termites (1—5% damage; average 2.5%)
2 Light penetration into wood (6—10% damage; average 8.5%)
3 = Medium penetration into wood (11-40% damage; average 25%)
4 = Heavy penetration and feeding of wood (41-80% damage;
average 60%)
5 = Major belowground portion of stake completely destroyed
(81-100%; average 90%)
The second test was to determine if the machine would slow or stop exist-
ing infestations. Plots were set up as above but we allowed at least 60 days
before installation of the units to allow stakes to become infested with termites.
Fran many plots installed, three plots were selected that had equal attacks in
terms of number of stakes and intensity of attack on the stakes. Plots were
-197-
-------
assigned randomly to one of the three treabnents (Nature Shield, Magna Pulse,
and untreated control).
Every week for 6 weeks we recorded the number of stakes attacked and
the intensity of termite attack. The units were then moved to new plots and
the Inspection procedure repeated for 6 weeks. We repeated this rotation
four times so we had four replicates. Differences were determined by Analysis
of Variance (ANOV) at 0.05 significance.
Analysis of variance for randomized complete block with four blocks in
time and three treatments was conducted with nine response variables considered:
% stakes attacked - beginning (A)
end of 6 weeks (B)
differences (B minus A)
Mean % termite damage — beginning (A)
end of 6 weeks (B)
differences (B minus A)
Mean termite rating — beginning (A)
end of 6 weeks (B)
differences (B minus A)
The electrical powered unit (Sigma) was placed in an area known to be
infested with termites. Each week for 6 weeks we checked the wooden stakes
near the units to determine if the termite feeding or activity had declined.
Effects of the Nature Shield on beetles.--A properly operating unit was
centrilly placed on the ground in a roofed crawl space-—an area 30.2 rn 3
enclosed by a concrete chain wall but ventilated by openings on two opposing
sides between the pitched roof and chain wall.
Adult beetles were collected from infested buildings at the U.S. Naval
Construction Battalion Center, Gulfport, Mississippi. Five beetles of
undetermined sex were confined in small oviposition cages on each of 30
blocks (2.54 x 5.08 x 7.62 cm) of air-dried yellow-poplar sapwood that had
been prepared for beetle egg-laying as described by Willi ns and Mauldin
(1974). Within 24 hours after beetle collection, we placed oviposition cages
in the following locations:
1. Three cages directly on the unit.
2. Three cages in each corner of the crawl space with the unit.
3. Three each in a corner of four other crawl spaces that were
7.6 m away from the crawl space with the unit (cages were placed in the
corner nearest the crawl space with the unit).
4. As controls, three oviposition cages were exposed about 3 km away
in a crawl space of a Harrison Experimental Forest headquarters building.
-198-
-------
The beetles were removed after 2 weeks; sexes and mortality were recorded.
Development of larvae was determined by radiographs taken 9—12 months later.
The number of eggs laid on each block and number of female beetles per cage
at each location were used for calculating the mean number of eggs laid per
female per location. Differences in the number of eggs laid per female at
each of the nine locations near the unit and in the control cages were tested
for significance by ANOV (P = 0.05).
In a second experiment, we tested how the Nature Shield affected feeding
and movement of X. peltatus larvae within wood. To select blocks with only a
few isolated large larvae, we radiographed blocks of yellow-poplar sapwood that
contained larvae of unknown age. Blocks varied in size. Then we stapled
1.32 cm mesh hardware cloth to each of 26 blocks and radiographed them again.
Concurrently with a field test of the Nature Shield unit for termites, three
blocks were exposed adjacent to each pine stake (Fig. 1). As controls, three
blocks were exposed outdoors more than 200 in away frciii the unit and three
more blocks were kept in a heated building. Each week for 10 consecutive
weeks from October 27, 1978, to January 5, 1979, all blocks were radiographed.
Because the hardware cloth caused a distinct gridlike overlay, changes in the
position of an individual larva could be followed by comparing successive
radiographs with those taken the previous week.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The effects on gallery building of subterranean termites
(Reticulitermes).-—The termites in the jars placed near the units exhibited
no unusual behavior when compared to the termites in the jars placed in an
unexposed area. In all cases, termites tubed vigorously to the top of the
containers, and the total activity was comrarable in all containers. This
test was discontinued after 4 weeks when it became apparent that termites were
not being affected by the electromagnetic device.
Effects on subterranean termites (ReticulitermeS) feeding under field
conditions.—-Neither Magna Pulse nor Nature Shield prevented termites from
attacking pine stakes during the 10—week period (Table 1). The number of
stakes attacked and the damage ratings were similar for both test units and
the control. Also, termites were found tubing on one of the machines tested
in the forested area (Fig. 4).
When termites were allowed to attack the stakes before installation of
the test units, similar results were obtained with no differences (Table 2)
between the number of stakes attacked or the intensity of attack on stakes
placed in different plots.
The only significant difference was in percentage of stakes attacked
at the end of 6 weeks. More stakes were attacked in the plots in which the
Nature Shield was operating than in the other plots. The most important test
responses are the differences between initial attack and attack at test closure,
and these differences were not significant.
-199-
-------
Effects on wood-destroYing beetles.--ExPOSUre for 2 weeks to the Nature
Shield unit apparently did not harm X. peltatus beetles. Radiographs showed
that larvae were developing normallyin each block, but were still too small
for accurate counts. Although the movement of larvae could only be roughly
estimated by the technique we used, no effect on larval activity was detected.
As expected, most of these short-lived beetles died, but a few were alive
after being near the unit and a few survived in the control cages outside the
claimed effective range of the unit. Because the number of eggs laid per
female did not differ significantly by location (Table 3), we can assun’e the
unit did not affect adult beetle activity.
CONCLUSION
Under the conditions of our study, which consisted of evaluation of
electromagnetic devices under the native habitat of subterranean termites,
we found no evidence that a properly operating Nature Shield, Magna Pulse, or
Sigma had any adverse effect on termites ( ReticuliteflhleS sp.). One species
of wood—destroying bettle, X. peltatus , was not affected by Nature Shield.
-200—
-------
REFERENCES CITED
Becker, G. 1976. What leads a termite through a magnetic field?
New Scientist 71 (1014):391.
Becker, G. 1977. Conmunication between termites by biofields.
Bio. Cybernetics 26:41-44.
Williams, Lonnie H., and Joe K. Mauldin. 1974. Anobiid beetle,
Xyletinus peltatus (Coleoptera: Anobiidae), oviposition on
various woods. Can. Entomol . 106:949—955.
-201-
-------
Table 1 .-—Number of stakes attacked by termites and percentage of damage
to pine stakes at the end of 10 weeks.
Av. percentage
No. stakes
Av. attack
Treatment
attacked
of damage
attacked
on
stake
1
1
rating
Nature Shield
8
12
2.2
Magna Pulse
1
15
2.4
Control - no unit 6
30
3.1
1
Based on the following scale:
0 No termite attack (0 percent)
1 = Surface nibbling by termites (1—5% dan’age; average 2.5%)
2 = Light penetration into wood (6-10% damage; average 8.5%)
3 = Medi .zm penetration into wood (11-40% damage; average 25%)
4 = Heavy penetration and feediing of wood (41—80% damage; average 60%)
5 Major belowground portion of stake completely destroyed (81-100%
damage; average 90%)
-202-
-------
Table 2.——Nuniber of stakes attacked by subterranean termites and percentage of damage to
pine stakes at 6-week intervals.
No. and percentage of Av. percentage of dam—
Av. attack rating
stakes attacked age on attacked stakes
Treat ment _______________________ _________________________ ____________________
Beginning Ending Beginning Ending Beginning Ending
No. No. %
Test period — 9/9-10/26, 1978
Nature Shield 10 50 12 60 9 16 2.1 2.4
Control - no unit 9 45 11 55 16 16 2.4 2.4
Magna Pulse 7 35 9 45 12 18 2.3 2.6
Test period — 10/26—12/8, 1978
Nature Shield 16 80 17 85 49 60 3.7 3.9
Control — no unit 12 60 14 70 19 25 2.6 3.1
Magna Pulse 12 60 13 65 25 46 3.1 3.6
Test period — 12/8/78—1/18/79
Nature Shield 12 60 12 60 17 18 2.5 2.6
Control — no unit 11 55 11 55 25 28 3.0 3.1
Magna Pulse 6 30 6 30 13 17 2.3 2.5
-203-
-------
Table 2.——Continued.
No. and percentage of Av. percentage of dam-
Av. attack rating
stakes attacked aae on attacked stakes
Treatment _____________________ ________________________ ____________________
Beginning Ending Beginning Ending Beginning Ending
No. % No. %
Test period — 1/18—4/27, 1979
Nature Shield 12 60 15 75 18 25 2.6 2.4
Control — no unit 7 35 9 45 25 42 3.1 3.4
Magna Pulse 10 50 12 60 17 22 2.5 2.8
1
Based on the following scale:
0 = No tennite attack (0 percent)
1 = Surface nibbling by termites (1—5% damage; average 2.5%)
2 = Light penetration into wood (6—10% damage; average 8.5%)
3 = Medium penetration into wood (11—40% damage; average 25%)
4 = Heavy penetration and feeding of wood (41—80% damage; average 60%)
5 = Major belowground portion of stake completely destroyed (81-100%
damage; average 90%)
-204-
-------
Table 3.—-Egg—laying activity by Xyletinus peltatus beetles during
2 weeks exposure to the Nature Shield unit.
Block exposure
location
Mear Number
eggs laid/block
Mean number
eggs laid/female
1
NE
39.0
11.7
NW
29.7
8.1
SE
53.2
16.8
&!
29.7
8.1
On unit
16.3
7.0
Control
13.0
4.3
Data in first four rows are means for six replicates and last two rows are
means for three replicates.
-205-
-------
Figure l.-—Plot for evaluating electromagnetic units
(X = a pine wooden stake)
x
1 .5 meters
x-J
x
x
x
Test unit
x x x x x x x x
x
x
x
x
x
-206-
-------
Figure 2.——tlature Shield in place between pine stakes In field study.
-207-
-------
Figure 3.——Magna Pulse in field study.
.208-
-------
Figure 4.-.-Subterranean termite shelter tubes on operating Nature
Shield.
-209-
-------
LITERATURE REVIEW
Aceto, H., C. A. Toblas and I. L. Silver. 1970. Some studies on the
biological effects of magnetic fields. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics
MAG6:368-373.
Barlow, H. B., Kohn and E. G. Walsh. 1947. Visual sensations aroused
by magnetic fields. Journal of Physiology 148:372.
Barnothy, M. F. (Ed.) 1964. Biological effects of magnetic fields.
Volume I. Plenum Press, New York. 324 pp.
Barnothy, M. F. (Ed.) 1969. BiologIcal effects of magnetic fields.
Volume 2. Plenum Press, New York. 313 pp.
Baum, J. J. et al . 1976. Biological measurements in rodents exposed
continuously throughout their adult life to pulsed electromagnetic
radiation. Health Physics. 30(2): 161—166.
* Beal, R. H. and 1. H. Willi ns. 1979. Will electromagnetic pest control
devices inhibit termite and wood-destroying beetle activities?
U.S. Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Gulfport,
Mississippi.
Beischer, 0. E., J. D. Grissett and R. E. Mitchell. 1973. Exposure
of man to magnetic fields alternating at extremely low frequency.
Naval Aerospace Medical esearch Laboratory, Pensacola, Florida.
Report NPJIPL-l180.
Blanchi, 0. et al . 1973. Exposure of mammalians to strong Hz electric
fields:
2) effects on heart’s and brain’s electrical activity. Archivio di
Fisiologia 70:33.
* Byers, R. E. 1978. Field evaluation of a commercial magnetic device for
pine vole control. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Winchester, Virginia.
Case, R. M., W. F. Andelt, and D. G. Luce. 1977. Field evaluation of an
electromagentic device for pocket gopher control. Department of
Forestry, Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Nebraska. 2 pp. mimeo.
Caslick, J. W., C. E. Ostrander and 1. D. Baker. 1977. Effectiveness
of an electromagnetic device controlling house mice ( Mus musculus) .
Natural Resources Research and Extension, Series No. 9. Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York. 4 pp.
Davis, A. E. and W. C. Rawis, Jr. 1974. Magnetism and its effects on
the living system. Exposition Press, Inc., Hicksville, New York.
-210-
-------
DeLorge, J. 1973. Operant behavior of rhesus monkeys in the presence
of extremely low frequency-low intensity magnetic and electric fields.
Experiment 1. NAMRL-1155, Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory,
Pensacola, Florida. (AD 754 058).
DeLorge, J. 1973. Operant behavior of rhesus monkeys in the presence
of extremely low frequency-low intensity magnetic and electric fields.
Experiment 2. NAMRL-1l79, Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory,
Pensacola, Florida. (AD 764 532).
DeLorge, J. 0. and J. D. Grissett. 1977. Behavioral effects in monkeys
exposed to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. International
Journal of Biometeorology 21(4):357-365.
Dodge, C. H. 1969. Clinical and hycenic aspects of exposure to elec-
tromagnetic Fields. Biological Effects and Health Implications of
Microwave Radiation, Proceedings, Richmond, Virginia.
Dodge, C. H. and Z. R. Glazer. 1977. Trends in nonionizing electro-
magnetic radiation bloeffects research and related occupational health
aspects. Symposium of the International Microwave Power Institute,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Dodge, C. H. and G. R. Zorach. 1977. International trends in electro-
magnetic radiation bioeffects research. Journal of Microwave Power.
12(1) :41.
Durfee, W. K. et al . 1975. Extremely low freatiency electric and magnetic
fields in domestic birds. University of Rhode Island, Kingston,
Rhode Island.
Durfee, W. K., P. J. Martin and S. Muthukrishnan. 1975. The influence
of a S gauss, 60 Hz magnetic field upon growth and development of the
chick embryo. Department of Animal Sciences, University of Rhode Island,
Kingston, Rhode Island.
* Dutson, V. 1977. Untitled test on Amigo. California State Health and
Welfare Agency, Department of Health, Berkeley, California.
Elton, C. 1936. House mice ( Mus musculus ) in a coal mine in Ayrshire.
Ann. Nag. Nat. Hist. 10(17):5 53—558.
Emlen, S. 1. 1967. Can birds obtain directional information from the
earth’s magnetic field? American Zoologist 7:806.
Fitzwater, W. 0. 1978. Electromagnetic repellers-—fact or fiction?
In: Proceedings of the Eighth Vertebrate Pest Conference (W. E. Howard,
!1), March 7—9, 1978. Sacramento, California. University of California,
Davis (in press).
—211-
-------
Friedman, H., R. 0. Becker and C. H. Bachman. 1967. Effect of magnetic
fields on reaction time performance. Nature (Lond.):213-949—956.
Friedman, H. and R. J. Cary. 1969. The effects of magnetic fields upon
rabbit brains. Physiology and Behavior 4:539—541.
Friedman, H. and R. J. Carey. 1972. Biomagnetic stressor effects in
primates. Physiology and Behavior 9:171-173.
Giarola, A. J. and W. F. Kruegar. 1974. Continuous exposure of chicks and
rats to electroniaonetic fields. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory
and Techniques MTT 22:432-437.
* Glahn, J. F. 1977. Letter, untitled summary of field study conducted to
determine effect of Nature Shield on the California ground souirrel.
U.S. Departh ent of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver,
Colorado.
* Ghahn, J. F. 1977. Letter, untitled summary of field study conducted to
determine effect of Mature Shield on the valley pocket gopher.
U.S. Depar nent of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver,
Colorado.
* Gordon, C. C. and K. W. Vee. 1979. Electromagnetic pest control devices.
National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.
Hanneman, G. 0. 1969. Change In sodium and potassium content of urine from
mice subjected to Intense magnetic fields. In: M. F. Barnothy (Ed.).
Biological effects of magnetic fields. Vol .7. Plenum Press, New York.
pp. 127—135.
Hauf, R. 1976. Influence of 50 Hz alternating electric and magnetic fields
on human beings. Revue Generale de l’Electricite (Numev’o Special) 85-31-49.
Hauf, R. and J. Wiesenger. 1973. Biological effects of technical electric
and electromagnetic VLF fields. International Journal of Biometeorology
17:213—215.
Holzer, R. E. and 0. E. Deal. 1956. Low audio—freouency electromagnetic
signals of natural origin. Nature 177:536—537.
Jackson, W. B. 1967. Rats, bombs, and paradise——the story at Eniwetok.
In: Proceedings of the Third Vertebrte Pest Conference (M. W. Cumings,
1 a1rman), March 7-9, 1967, San Francisco, California. University of
California, Davis. pp. 45—46.
Johnson, C. C. and II. L. Shore. 1976. Biological effects of electro-
magnetic waves. Annual meeting of U.S.N.C./U.R.S.I., Boulder, Colorado.
HEW Publication (FDA) 77-8010.
—212-
-------
Kolin, A. 1968. Magnetic fields In biology. Physics Today. 21:39.
Krueger, W. F. et al . 1972. Influence of low—level electric and magnetic
fields on the growth of young chickens. Biomedical Sciences Instrumen-
tation. 9:183.
Lindauer, M. and H. Martin. 1968. The earth’s magnetic field affects the
orientation of honeybees in the gravity field. Zeitschrift fur Physioiogie
60:219.
Llaurado, J. G., A. Sances, Jr. and J. H. Battocletti. 1974. Biologic and
clinical effects of low—frequency magnetic and electric fields.
Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois. 345 pp.
Marion, A. A, 1. J. Berger, B. P. Austin, R. 0. Becker and F. X. Hart.
1976. Evaluation of electrochemjcal information transfer systems. 1.
Effects of electric fields on living organisms. Journal of the
Electrochemical Society 123(8):1l99—1200.
Marr, J. J., W. K. Rivers and C. P. Burns. 1973. The effect of low energy,
extrenely low freQuency (ELF) electronaonetic radiation on operant
behavior in the pigeon and the rat. Georgia Institute of Technolooy.
Contract No. N00014-67-0159-0009, Office of Naval Research.
* Marsh, R. E. and W. E. Howard. 1978. Report of efficacy studies of the
Amigo (Phase 2) rodent control device. University of California,
Davis, California.
* Marsh, R. E. and W. E. Howard. 1978. Report of efficacy studies of the
Magna-Pulse rodent control device. University of California,
Davis, California.
* Marsh, R. E. and W. E. Howard. 1978. Report of efficacy studies of the
Nature—Shield rodent control device. University of California,
Davis, California.
Matsushita, S. and W. H. Campbell (Eds.) 1976. Physics of geomagnetic
phenomena. Academic Press, New York.
Meyer, M. E. and D. R. Lamb. 1966. Sensitivity of the pigeon to change in
the magnetic field. Psychon. Sci. 5:349-350.
Moos, W. S. 1964. A preliminary report on the effects of electric fields
on mice. Aerospace Medicine 35:374.
* O’Brien, J. 1978. Field tests of electromagnetic devices to control pocket
gophers. Nevada State Department of Agriculture, Reno, Nevada.
-213—
-------
Odintsov, Y. N. 1965. The effect of a magnetic field on the natural
resistance of white mice to listeria infection. Voprosy Epidemiologii
Mlkrobiologii I Immu ologit. Available from NTIS as .JPRS 62865 (1974).
Orgel, A. R. and J. C. Smith. 1954. Test of the magnetic theory of homing.
Science. 120:891-992.
Ossenkopp, K. p. 1972. Maturation and open—field behavior in rats exposed
prenatally to an ELF low-intensity rotating magnetic field.
Psychological Reports 30:371—374.
Ossenkopp, K. P., W. T. Koltek and M. A. Persinger. 1972. Prenatal
exposure to an extremely low frequency-low intensity rotating magnetic
field and increase in thyroid and testicle weights in rats. Develop-
mental Psychobiology 5:275—285.
Ossenkopp, K. P. and J. Shapiro. 1972. Effects of prenatal exposure to a
0.5—Hz., low—intensity rotating magnetic field on White Peking ducklings.
M erican Zoologist 12:650.
* Palmateer, S. D. 1977. Amigo Electronic Repeller efficacy test (sample
number 131211). Environmental Protection Agency, Beltsville, Maryland.
* Palmateer, S. D. 1977. Amigo Phase II Electronic Repeller Efficacy Report
(sanple number 148834). Environmental Protection Agency, Beltsville,
Maryland.
* Palniateer, S. D. 1978. LIve trapping deer mice and voles In a field and
forest within the zone of influence on the “Nature Shield” - sa iple
number 131904.
* Palmateer, S. D. 1978. Nature Shield Electromagnetic Repeller efficacy
test - sauple number 131904. Environmental Protection Agency,
Beltsville, Maryland.
Persinger, M. A. 1969. Open field behavior in rats exposed prenatally to
a low intensity-low frequency, rotating magnetic field. Developmental
Psychobiology 2:168—171.
Presinger, M. A. 1971. Pre— and neonatal exposure to 10 and 0.5—Hz
electromagnetic fields and delayed conditioned approach behavior.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.
Persinger, M. A. 1971. Prenatal exposure to an ELF rotating magnetic
field, aubulatory behavior and lunar distance at birth: a correlation.
Psychological Reports 28:435—438.
-214-
-------
Persinger, M. A., (Ed.) 1974. ELF and VLF electromagnetic field effects.
Plenum Press, New York. 316 pp.
Persinger, M. A. 1967. The effects of pulsating magnetic fields upon the
behavior and gross physiological changes of the albino rat. Unpublished
undergraduate thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
(Reg. No. A976151).
Persinger, N. A. and W. S. Foster. 1970. ELF rotating magnetic fields:
prenatal exposure and adult behavior. Archiv fur Meteorologie,
Geophysik und Bioklimatologie 18:363—369.
Persinoer, N. A., H. W. Ludwig and K. P. Ossenkopp. 1973. Psychophysio-
logical effects of extremely low frequency electromagnetic field:
a review. Perceptual and Motor Skills 36:1131—1159.
Persinger, M. A., K. P. Ossenkopp and G. B. Glavin. 1972. Behavioral chances
in adult rats exposed to ELF magnetic fields. Intenational Journal of
Biometeorology 16:155—162.
Persincer, N. A. and J. J. Pear. 1972. Prenatal exposure to an ELF—rotatina
magnetic field and subsequent increase in conditional suppression. Develop-
mental Psychobiology 5:269-274.
Popa, N. M. 1969. Response of guinea—pig adrenals to continuous and
arhythniically interrupted low electromagnetic fields. In: S. W. Traiip
& W. H. Weihe (Eds). Proceedings of the Fifth Internatf6i al Congress.
Vol. 4. Amsterdam: Springer-Verlag. p. 129.
Presman, A. S. 1970. Electromaanetic fields and life. Plenum Press, New
York. 336 pp.
Rommel , S. A. and J. 0. McCleave. 1972. Oceanic electric fields: perception
by American eels? Science 176:1233.
Rommel , S. A. and J. 0. McCleave. 1973. Sensitivity of American eels
( Anguilla rostata ) and Atlantic salmon ( Salmon sala ) to weak electric
and magnetic fields. Journal of Fisheries Research of Canada 30:657.
Rooney W. F. and W. D. McKeen. 1977. A study of rodent repellers for house
mouse control. Progress in Poultry (UC-Coop. Ext.) No. 10. 6 pp.
* Rust, M. K., 0. A. Reierson and G. K. Clark. 1979. Performance of Electro-
magnetic devices against termites, cockroaches and flour beetles. University
of California, Riverside, California.
-215—
-------
Sheppard, A. R. and M. Etsenbud. 1977. Biological effects of electric and
magnetic field of extremely low frequency. New York University Press,
New York, New York.
Skidmore, W. D. and S. J. Baum. 1974. Biological effects in rodents exposed
lO pulses of electromagnetic radiation. Health Physics 26(j):391-398.
Sprock, C. M., W. E. Howard and F. C. Jacob. 1967. Sound as a deterrant to
rats and nice. Journal of Wildlife Management 31(a):729—741.
* Tiet.jen, H. P. 1977. Letter, untitled summary of field study conducted to
determine effect of Nature Shield on the Richardson’s ground scuirrel.
U.S. Depart iient of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver,
Col orado.
Wagner, R. E. 1978. Outputs of elecrtromagnetic devices, their effects on
drywood termites. Pest Control 46(9):20—23, 39-40.
Walcott, C. 1974. The horning of pigeons. Mierican Scientist 62:E42.
Werber, M., R. H. Sparks and A. C. Goetz. 1972. The behavior of weakly
electric fish ( Sternarchus albifrons ) in magnetic fields. Journal of
General Psychology 86:3-13.
* Wriohtman, R. 1978. Untitled test on Magna Pulse. County of Los Angeles,
Agricultural Commissioner, Los Angeles, California.
* Unpublished Studies.
------- |