On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 20:54:53 +0200, martin wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:21:42 GMT, Tim Challenger
"timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" wrote:


The way recommended here by the doctors I've asked *is* to remove the tick
with tweezers or fingernails (if it's big enough) by pushing and twisting,
very much like a UK bayonet light-bulb fitting.

You can buy a tool for removing ticks.

Yes, I've seen them, but never actually had a good look, or used one. Sort
of biro-shaped thing with a spring-loaded builtin tweezer that grips the
tick right at skin level.

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 20:54:53 +0200, martin wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:21:42 GMT, Tim Challenger
"timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" wrote:


The way recommended here by the doctors I've asked *is* to remove the tick
with tweezers or fingernails (if it's big enough) by pushing and twisting,
very much like a UK bayonet light-bulb fitting.

You can buy a tool for removing ticks.

Yes, I've seen them, but never actually had a good look, or used one. Sort
of biro-shaped thing with a spring-loaded builtin tweezer that grips the
tick right at skin level.

In message , martin
writes
Whoops!
I should have read your post first.
Cheers Dave!

double brandy - even better

--
dave @ stejonda

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 21:54:24 +0100, "dave @ stejonda"
wrote:

In message , martin
writes
Whoops!
I should have read your post first.
Cheers Dave!

double brandy - even better

I'll have mine without the ticks please )

(Nick Maclaren) wrote in message ...
In article ,
"Franz Heymann" writes:
|
| As children, we were taught never to try that with a tick, as you may
| leave part of it embedded in your skin. We were instructed to let the
| tick be in peace until you have access to some paraffin. Liberally
| dousing the tick and its surroundings is said to suffocate it to the
| extent of pulling out, thus allowing you to shake it on to the floor.
| Never having been attacked by a tick, I cannot vouch for its efficacy.

I have, often, and I can vouch for its efficiency - negatively.

You will get part of the tick embedded, whatever you do, and
it will itch like hell and may swell up. But, in most places,
ticks are more common in grassland than anywhere else (and the
UK is no exception).

Back in Oz, when I was a child I got a tick in my eye. The parents
applied the kerosene treatment, and out it came intact. I take it the
thing hadn't dug in very thoroughly. I don't remember the kerosene
causing much discomfort.

Mike.

On 3/6/04 20:06, in article
, "Tim Challenger"
"tim(dot)challenger("@)tele2dotat wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 20:54:53 +0200, martin wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:21:42 GMT, Tim Challenger
"timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" wrote:


The way recommended here by the doctors I've asked *is* to remove the tick
with tweezers or fingernails (if it's big enough) by pushing and twisting,
very much like a UK bayonet light-bulb fitting.

You can buy a tool for removing ticks.

Yes, I've seen them, but never actually had a good look, or used one. Sort
of biro-shaped thing with a spring-loaded builtin tweezer that grips the
tick right at skin level.

Brushing e.g. Olive oil over them is supposed to smother them and achieve
the desired result.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds after garden to email me)

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 23:22:49 +0100, Sacha wrote:

On 3/6/04 20:06, in article
, "Tim Challenger"
"tim(dot)challenger("@)tele2dotat wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 20:54:53 +0200, martin wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:21:42 GMT, Tim Challenger
"timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" wrote:

The way recommended here by the doctors I've asked *is* to remove the tick
with tweezers or fingernails (if it's big enough) by pushing and twisting,
very much like a UK bayonet light-bulb fitting.

You can buy a tool for removing ticks.

Yes, I've seen them, but never actually had a good look, or used one. Sort
of biro-shaped thing with a spring-loaded builtin tweezer that grips the
tick right at skin level.

Brushing e.g. Olive oil over them is supposed to smother them and achieve
the desired result.

But as I said before, that's not generally recommended nowadays, except as
an old wives' tale. It's now generally not recommended to smother them as
1) they can die first before letting go and you still have the problem, and
even then they may not die, and 2) smothering them can often make them
regurgitate the contents of their guts, not what you really want.

For example:
http://www.lyme.org/ticks/removal.html
http://www.michigan.gov/emergingdise...6699--,00.html
and in German:
http://www.br-online.de/umwelt-gesun...cken/tipps.xml





--
Tim C.

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:

In article ,
"Franz Heymann" writes:
|
| As children, we were taught never to try that with a tick, as you may
| leave part of it embedded in your skin. We were instructed to let the
| tick be in peace until you have access to some paraffin. Liberally
| dousing the tick and its surroundings is said to suffocate it to the
| extent of pulling out, thus allowing you to shake it on to the floor.
| Never having been attacked by a tick, I cannot vouch for its efficacy.

I have, often, and I can vouch for its efficiency - negatively.

I can't think what you were doing wrongly, then. However, methylated
spirit is better.

You will get part of the tick embedded, whatever you do, and
it will itch like hell and may swell up. But, in most places,
ticks are more common in grassland than anywhere else (and the
UK is no exception).

If you burn the tick or kill it with meths, or even paraffin, (paraffin
is rather slow in its action, though) you do not get any tick parts left
in your skin - unless you try to 'help' it out. (And having kept animals
at most periods of my life, and/or been a deerstalking gillie and a
part-time keeper I've seen and been lunch for plenty of the ickle
hooters, too.)

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

martin wrote:

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 14:01:48 +0100, klara
wrote:

In message , Jaques
d'Alltrades writes
Depends where you are. If there are deer about, Lyme disease is not
rare. Very often it is not recognised though. (And near here we have
red, roe and muntjack, and I've seen fallow and sika not ten miles
away. Not a lot of bracken though.)

I lived in the Eastern US in the sixties, and there was very little Lyme
disease there then. In the years since then it has proliferated - I know
at least a half-dozen people who have had it and were incapacitated for
long periods, including two teenagers who spent a year each in
wheelchairs. So, yes, worth worrying about. (

There were about 250 cases reported in UK last year, it's often not
recognised by the professionals. Part of the increase reported is due
to increasing awareness of Lyme's disease.

As I said, why do people worry? Even if it is seriously under reported,
as a risk in the UK, Lyme disease hardly registers.

Even in parts of the US where it is more common, it still isn't worth
worrying about compared with a lot of other risks.
--
Larry Stoter

Tim Challenger "timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" wrote:

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 09:00:47 +0100, Tumbleweed wrote:

Lyme Disease is carried by ticks.
An infectious disease caused by a bacterium which is spread to humans
snips ...

Why do so many people worry about rare and uncommon diseases and
dangers, which they are very unlikely ever to encounter and studiously
ignore tobacco, alchohol, junk food, road traffic, etc?

Because those people may be healthy-eating, non-smoking careful pedestrian
tee-totallers, who enjoy a good walk in the hills?

And I would still expect even for such careful people, that the risk of
Lyme disease is very minor.

It might be uncommon in the UK (how common is it actually?) but it's very
common in parts of Europe. Germany and Austria in particular, as well as
"early Summer meningo-encephalitis" (FSME) caused by a virus, for which
nearly everyone who goes outside gets vaccinated against. They have major
advertising and vaccination campaigns every Spring. So, personally I'm more
likely to get FSME or Lyme disease than die of a smoking related illness.

It's still a minor risk, as are many of the risk that get the media
going.
--
Larry Stoter

martin wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 23:19:54 +0100, (Larry
Stoter) wrote:

martin wrote:

snips ...
Lyme Disease is carried by ticks.
An infectious disease caused by a bacterium which is spread to humans
snips ...

Why do so many people worry about rare and uncommon diseases and
dangers, which they are very unlikely ever to encounter and studiously
ignore tobacco, alchohol, junk food, road traffic, etc?

a) I don't ignore the dangers of any of your list
b) because people catch them, I know one person suffering from Lyme's
disease. I've never met anybody, who even knows anybody with nvCJD
although in UK this is a national obsession that has cost the country
billions.

Yes - nvCJD isn't worth worrying about either.
--
Larry Stoter

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 18:32:24 +0100, (Larry
Stoter) wrote:

Tim Challenger "timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" wrote:

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 09:00:47 +0100, Tumbleweed wrote:

Lyme Disease is carried by ticks.
An infectious disease caused by a bacterium which is spread to humans
snips ...

Why do so many people worry about rare and uncommon diseases and
dangers, which they are very unlikely ever to encounter and studiously
ignore tobacco, alchohol, junk food, road traffic, etc?

Because those people may be healthy-eating, non-smoking careful pedestrian
tee-totallers, who enjoy a good walk in the hills?

And I would still expect even for such careful people, that the risk of
Lyme disease is very minor.

It might be uncommon in the UK (how common is it actually?) but it's very
common in parts of Europe. Germany and Austria in particular, as well as
"early Summer meningo-encephalitis" (FSME) caused by a virus, for which
nearly everyone who goes outside gets vaccinated against. They have major
advertising and vaccination campaigns every Spring. So, personally I'm more
likely to get FSME or Lyme disease than die of a smoking related illness.

It's still a minor risk, as are many of the risk that get the media
going.

but no where near as minor as nv CJD

The message
from (Mike Lyle) contains these words:

(Nick Maclaren) wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Franz Heymann" writes:
|
| As children, we were taught never to try that with a tick, as you may
| leave part of it embedded in your skin. We were instructed to let the
| tick be in peace until you have access to some paraffin. Liberally
| dousing the tick and its surroundings is said to suffocate it to the
| extent of pulling out, thus allowing you to shake it on to the floor.
| Never having been attacked by a tick, I cannot vouch for its efficacy.

I have, often, and I can vouch for its efficiency - negatively.

You will get part of the tick embedded, whatever you do, and
it will itch like hell and may swell up. But, in most places,
ticks are more common in grassland than anywhere else (and the
UK is no exception).

Back in Oz, when I was a child I got a tick in my eye. The parents
applied the kerosene treatment, and out it came intact. I take it the
thing hadn't dug in very thoroughly. I don't remember the kerosene
causing much discomfort.

The area of Stilingshire we lived in was infested with ticks, and a
Lyme disease hotspot. All of us, and our dogs, regularly got ticks.(Even
on mown lawn grass; we had a lot of fieldmice as well as deer, and ticks
spend part of their lifecycle on mice.) As with mosquitoes, and midges,
some people attract more ticks than others.

IME, it's much better NOT to daub anything on the tick, for two
reasons. In a Lyme area, it's important to know if it was the tickbite
that made your skin turn red and irritable. If you mess the tick around
with hot match ends, paraffin or any of the other old wives tales, you
only persuade it to grip tighter, and end up leaving the head in. There
is an art to tweaking them off painlessly *without leaving the head
embedded*, and much of the art depends on surprise and speed.

Janet

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 19:43:14 +0100, Janet Baraclough.. wrote:

and much of the art depends on surprise and speed.

Right, if you don't get it right first time they dig in, like limpets. Then
you have to wait for them to relax and start again.
--
Tim

In message , martin
writes
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 21:54:24 +0100, "dave @ stejonda"
wrote:
In message , martin
writes
Whoops!
I should have read your post first.
Cheers Dave!

double brandy - even better

I'll have mine without the ticks please )

Coward! - see for more ideas...

http://www.edible.com/htmlsite/prod_list.asp?catID=1



--
dave @ stejonda

Bring Performance Channel back to NTL.
http://www.performance-channel.com/
Ring 0800 052 2000