Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Is there a better way to remove a poison oak plant than with a chainsaw?
11 views
Skip to first unread message
Danny D.
Jan 10, 2013, 2:36:49 AM1/10/13
to
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 01:43:07 -0500, Wes Groleau wrote:
> I and others have noted becoming
> less sensitive to poison oak over time and have attributed
> it to drinking the milk of goats that eat the stuff.
I suspect that very well could be the case. Allergies are clearly complex
things, and they clearly have competing actions.
For example, we all know that to be exposed to allergens as a child when
our immune systems are developing is a way for the body to learn to
ignore harmless things such as almost invisible pollen or mold or dust.
Yet, there's the conflicting statement in this UC Davis site:
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7431.html
Which says (verbatim):
"Once a reaction occurs, repeated exposures further increase
sensitivity. Conversely, long periods with no exposure will
reduce an individual’s susceptibility."
That sentence makes sense based on how cell mediated immune responses
work in the body.
Yet, on the contrary side, as you noted, you can be exposed to the
allergen via other methods (in your case, via goat's milk).
For example, this site says some people were sensitized to urushiol via
mangoes:
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+7485
And this Wikipedia article says the same thing about cashew nuts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urushiol-induced_contact_dermatitis
Of course, people with AIDS or other immune disorders are said to have
vastly less of a response to poison oak.
http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0802.htm
And, just as our eyes and muscle mass deteriorate as we age, I suspect
our immune systems go downhill also as we age, which would potentially
affect the effect of urushiol on our bodies.
So, my only point is that the immune system is so complex, and so variant
by individual and age, that I don't doubt that goat's milk might help
confer greater immunity to the urushiol.
As for me, if the rash on my neck, ears, cheek, wrists and ankle is of
any evidence, I'm clearly not immune. Of course, this site says that a
single drop the size of a pinhead can infect 500 people:
http://poisonivy.aesir.com/view/fastfacts.html
So, I would be shocked if I did not get a rash, after all the globs of
sap that I was exposed to this week.
> I and others have noted becoming
> less sensitive to poison oak over time and have attributed
> it to drinking the milk of goats that eat the stuff.
I suspect that very well could be the case. Allergies are clearly complex
things, and they clearly have competing actions.
For example, we all know that to be exposed to allergens as a child when
our immune systems are developing is a way for the body to learn to
ignore harmless things such as almost invisible pollen or mold or dust.
Yet, there's the conflicting statement in this UC Davis site:
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7431.html
Which says (verbatim):
"Once a reaction occurs, repeated exposures further increase
sensitivity. Conversely, long periods with no exposure will
reduce an individual’s susceptibility."
That sentence makes sense based on how cell mediated immune responses
work in the body.
Yet, on the contrary side, as you noted, you can be exposed to the
allergen via other methods (in your case, via goat's milk).
For example, this site says some people were sensitized to urushiol via
mangoes:
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+7485
And this Wikipedia article says the same thing about cashew nuts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urushiol-induced_contact_dermatitis
Of course, people with AIDS or other immune disorders are said to have
vastly less of a response to poison oak.
http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0802.htm
And, just as our eyes and muscle mass deteriorate as we age, I suspect
our immune systems go downhill also as we age, which would potentially
affect the effect of urushiol on our bodies.
So, my only point is that the immune system is so complex, and so variant
by individual and age, that I don't doubt that goat's milk might help
confer greater immunity to the urushiol.
As for me, if the rash on my neck, ears, cheek, wrists and ankle is of
any evidence, I'm clearly not immune. Of course, this site says that a
single drop the size of a pinhead can infect 500 people:
http://poisonivy.aesir.com/view/fastfacts.html
So, I would be shocked if I did not get a rash, after all the globs of
sap that I was exposed to this week.
Danny D.
Jan 10, 2013, 2:58:31 AM1/10/13
to
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 02:21:57 -0500, Wes Groleau wrote:
> > The other thing to remember is that the oil is NOT on the outside of
> > the plant. Not outside the leaves, stem, berries, or root. But it's
> > inside all of them, so, you (and I) can pick it up (gingerly)
> > and nothing bad will happen.
>
> Ah, I would question that as well.
> Before my resistance developed, the slightest contact
> had severe effects.
Botanically, a pristine plant has cell walls, and these cell walls keep
the urushiol-laced sap from being on the outside of the roots, vines,
stems, leaves, flowers, and berries of Toxicodendron diversilobum.
However, in nature, a pristine plant would be hard to find, so, I don't
doubt one bit that there may be oils on the OUTSIDE of the plant!
For a graphic example, look at this picture of me holding a Pacific
Poison Oak plant that I just cut with a chain saw.
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/11917694/img/11917694.jpg
Clearly the oils are on the outside of this (brutally damaged) plant!
http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/11925505/img/11925505.jpg
It turns out it doesn't take all that much to damage a cell wall, so, I
don't doubt that urushiol sap would be on the OUTSIDE of a (damaged)
plant. Here, for example, is a shot from yesterday where I circled all
the obvious areas where the urushiol-laced sap bled from the vine:
http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/11925520/img/11925520.jpg
Given that a pin head worth of urushiol can infect 500 people, and that a
quarter ounce of the stuff can infect every human on earth
(REF: http://poisonivy.aesir.com/view/fastfacts.html)
I wonder what the CONCENTRATION of urushiol is in the dripping sap in my
photos (because I clearly was exposed yesterday to a thousand times what
it takes to infect everyone on earth).
> > The other thing to remember is that the oil is NOT on the outside of
> > the plant. Not outside the leaves, stem, berries, or root. But it's
> > inside all of them, so, you (and I) can pick it up (gingerly)
> > and nothing bad will happen.
>
> Ah, I would question that as well.
> Before my resistance developed, the slightest contact
> had severe effects.
Botanically, a pristine plant has cell walls, and these cell walls keep
the urushiol-laced sap from being on the outside of the roots, vines,
stems, leaves, flowers, and berries of Toxicodendron diversilobum.
However, in nature, a pristine plant would be hard to find, so, I don't
doubt one bit that there may be oils on the OUTSIDE of the plant!
For a graphic example, look at this picture of me holding a Pacific
Poison Oak plant that I just cut with a chain saw.
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/11917694/img/11917694.jpg
Clearly the oils are on the outside of this (brutally damaged) plant!
http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/11925505/img/11925505.jpg
It turns out it doesn't take all that much to damage a cell wall, so, I
don't doubt that urushiol sap would be on the OUTSIDE of a (damaged)
plant. Here, for example, is a shot from yesterday where I circled all
the obvious areas where the urushiol-laced sap bled from the vine:
http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/11925520/img/11925520.jpg
Given that a pin head worth of urushiol can infect 500 people, and that a
quarter ounce of the stuff can infect every human on earth
(REF: http://poisonivy.aesir.com/view/fastfacts.html)
I wonder what the CONCENTRATION of urushiol is in the dripping sap in my
photos (because I clearly was exposed yesterday to a thousand times what
it takes to infect everyone on earth).
Danny D.
Jan 10, 2013, 3:23:57 AM1/10/13
to
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 02:28:48 -0500, Wes Groleau wrote:
>> If they chew on the bark, there's no way they're not exposed to the
>> urushiol in huge amounts!
>
> Well, remember your posts about changing the chemical structure.
> Hydrochloric acid and whatever else is in goats' stomachs would probably
> do that.
Yes, I remember.
Here's basically what we said:
"Urushiol causes dermatitis by changing the surface proteins
in the skin so the body no longer recognizes the skin as human,
and then attacks it (cytokine storm). That effect should be fairly
easy to interfere with because any change to the urushiol molecule
would probably prevent the class IV delayed sensitivity dermatitis.
Chlorine bleach is a strong oxidizing agent which should easily
do the trick. Getting the oxidizer into the oil would be aided by
adding alcohol or acetone as a wetting agent, but a strong surfactant
should also work. Spermicides help to get under the layers of skin.
And polyethylene granules act as an abrasive to remove the horny
barrier."
I assume your hypothesis is that the goat's stomach acids change the
urushiol allergen ever so slightly, such that our body no longer
recognizes the quinone as an allergan in our bodies.
Maybe that is the case, because humans have been known to die from
ingesting urushiol and Lord knows, there is tons of sap in a single vine
as shown in this short 20 second video I took yesterday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYcJslc6ymE
Since, after being covered in urushiol from chainsawing the stuff for
hours, I don't have time for the goat's milk remedy, I am applying the
following five-ingredient poor-man's zanfel/technu as follows:
a. oxidizer (common household sodium hypochlorite or non-chlorine bleach)
b. wetting agent (household rubbing alcohol or acetone)
c. surfactant (common household dish detergent)
To a 1:1:1 solution of those three ingredients, I will dab a paste of
d. non-oily spermicide cream
plus a squirt of
e. abrasive toothpaste
And, then, I will rub all five ingredients into the rash on my neck,
ears, cheek, wrists, and ankle, and call you in the morning! :)
PS: Here's a picture of the poor-man's Ivy Block which is bentonite clay
that I get for free from the well drilling rigs common here in the hills:
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/11917988/img/11917988.jpg
Hint: It's the active ingredient in the expensive Ivy Block creme!
>> If they chew on the bark, there's no way they're not exposed to the
>> urushiol in huge amounts!
>
> Well, remember your posts about changing the chemical structure.
> Hydrochloric acid and whatever else is in goats' stomachs would probably
> do that.
Yes, I remember.
Here's basically what we said:
"Urushiol causes dermatitis by changing the surface proteins
in the skin so the body no longer recognizes the skin as human,
and then attacks it (cytokine storm). That effect should be fairly
easy to interfere with because any change to the urushiol molecule
would probably prevent the class IV delayed sensitivity dermatitis.
Chlorine bleach is a strong oxidizing agent which should easily
do the trick. Getting the oxidizer into the oil would be aided by
adding alcohol or acetone as a wetting agent, but a strong surfactant
should also work. Spermicides help to get under the layers of skin.
And polyethylene granules act as an abrasive to remove the horny
barrier."
I assume your hypothesis is that the goat's stomach acids change the
urushiol allergen ever so slightly, such that our body no longer
recognizes the quinone as an allergan in our bodies.
Maybe that is the case, because humans have been known to die from
ingesting urushiol and Lord knows, there is tons of sap in a single vine
as shown in this short 20 second video I took yesterday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYcJslc6ymE
Since, after being covered in urushiol from chainsawing the stuff for
hours, I don't have time for the goat's milk remedy, I am applying the
following five-ingredient poor-man's zanfel/technu as follows:
a. oxidizer (common household sodium hypochlorite or non-chlorine bleach)
b. wetting agent (household rubbing alcohol or acetone)
c. surfactant (common household dish detergent)
To a 1:1:1 solution of those three ingredients, I will dab a paste of
d. non-oily spermicide cream
plus a squirt of
e. abrasive toothpaste
And, then, I will rub all five ingredients into the rash on my neck,
ears, cheek, wrists, and ankle, and call you in the morning! :)
PS: Here's a picture of the poor-man's Ivy Block which is bentonite clay
that I get for free from the well drilling rigs common here in the hills:
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/11917988/img/11917988.jpg
Hint: It's the active ingredient in the expensive Ivy Block creme!
Danny D.
Jan 10, 2013, 5:24:35 AM1/10/13
to
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:23:57 +0000, Danny D. wrote:
> I am applying the following five-ingredient poor-man's
> zanfel/technu as follows:
> a. oxidizer (common household sodium hypochlorite or non-chlorine
> bleach)
> b. wetting agent (household rubbing alcohol or acetone)
> c. surfactant (common household dish detergent)
>
> To a 1:1:1 solution of those three ingredients, I will dab a paste of d.
> non-oily spermicide cream plus a squirt of e. abrasive toothpaste
>
> And, then, I will rub all five ingredients into the rash on my neck,
> ears, cheek, wrists, and ankle, and call you in the morning!
Here is the detoxifying 'kit', sans the oil-free spermicide:
> I am applying the following five-ingredient poor-man's
> zanfel/technu as follows:
> a. oxidizer (common household sodium hypochlorite or non-chlorine
> bleach)
> b. wetting agent (household rubbing alcohol or acetone)
> c. surfactant (common household dish detergent)
>
> To a 1:1:1 solution of those three ingredients, I will dab a paste of d.
> non-oily spermicide cream plus a squirt of e. abrasive toothpaste
>
> And, then, I will rub all five ingredients into the rash on my neck,
> ears, cheek, wrists, and ankle, and call you in the morning!
http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/11926557/img/11926557.jpg
Wes Groleau
Jan 11, 2013, 2:07:03 AM1/11/13
to
On 01-10-2013 02:36, Danny D. wrote:
> Yet, on the contrary side, as you noted, you can be exposed to the
> allergen via other methods (in your case, via goat's milk).
Well, that's the hypothesis. I don't KNOW that it's in the milk.
> Yet, on the contrary side, as you noted, you can be exposed to the
> allergen via other methods (in your case, via goat's milk).
In fact, it probably isn't. But something derived from it may be.
--
Wes Groleau
In any formula, constants (especially those obtained
from handbooks) are to be treated as variables.
Danny D.
Jan 12, 2013, 2:00:36 AM1/12/13
to
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 10:24:35 +0000, Danny D. wrote:
> Here is the detoxifying 'kit', sans the oil-free spermicide:
> http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/11926557/img/11926557.jpg
I'm reading the patents, one by one, and I'm finding out shocking information.
> Here is the detoxifying 'kit', sans the oil-free spermicide:
> http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/11926557/img/11926557.jpg
For example, I had no idea the sap we saw literally oozing out of the cut vines is nearly pure urushiol.
It's from 10 to 100 times as potent as anything in the leaves!
And, that toxic sap stays potent in the wild for 5 (wet) to 10 years (dry climate)!
(REF: http://tinyurl.com/5b78ua).
0 new messages