Bears are big and dangerous. Certainly, they don’t typically go out looking for people, but people continue to go further into bear habitats, increasing the chances of injury.
This paper in the journal Injury describes bear attack patients who presented to a tertiary center in Kashmir and injury patterns they sustained. They made sure to exclude injuries received from fleeing, and only those caused directly by bears. Importantly, the attacks were from the Asiatic black bear, which is known for its aggression. All patients were alone when they were attacked, reportedly collecting firewood or reaping corncobs. They do not comment if they were campers or simply villagers. Rabies prophylaxis was given to all patients, the rationale was “none of them had been able to kill the attacking bear and hence the rabies status of the animal was unknown.”
They do comment on the attacks themselves, and the pertinent information included:
- 28 of the attacks were in people trying to scare the bear away
- 4 recalled a bear with cubs
- Most attacks (26) occurred June-October (attributed to pre-hibernation foraging)
- Significant transportation delays occurred, with only 2 patients presenting within 6 hours
The injury patterns described were varied, but included:
- Majority upper extremity injuries
- 18 open fractures of various grades
- 1 lower extremity injury
- 4 eye injuries
- 2 mandibular fractures, and 2 skull fractures
- Finger amputations and muscle avulsions were common
- Head and neck injuries were from teeth, but arm injuries were from claws
- Eleven patients developed infections of their wounds, all were mixed flora.
The authors close by recommending routine rabies and tetanus prophylaxis, and careful exploration of “even apparently minor wounds” as they can hide tendon, vessel, and bone injuries. They recommend against closing cutaneous wounds secondary to infection risk. The only caveats to this study I can see are that there is likely sampling bias, as minor injuries either did not present to the tertiary center or were not identified by the authors.
Pattern of orthopaedic injuries in bear attacks: Report from a tertiary care centre in Kashmir
Many people don’t like to use DEET-based mosquito repellents due to reports of toxicity, the fact that DEET can dissolve plastic, or just a desire to be more natural. However, DEET is still the gold standard for insect repellents. So how would botanical mosquito repellents work compared to that? Unfortunately, the authors of this paper did not compare the botanicals to DEET, but did compare citronella, geraniol, and linalool to each other.
To do this they took 4 people (the authors themselves!) and used their exposed legs as a test patch for mosquito bites. Then for 9 tests, they were exposed for 3 hours to indoor environments with mosquitoes using either candles or diffusers as their only defense. The second leg of the experiment involved pasture next to a canal in Puerto Rico during the dry season, using a trap to collect mosquitoes in the middle of 4 mounted diffusers.
The results are interesting. Indoors, all of the diffusers were better at repelling than control, but geraniol was better than the others. Candles were not as effective as diffusers indoors, but the results were the same, with geraniol beating the others, and all being better than nothing. Citronella had the least repellent effect for both.
Outdoor results were similar, except they didn’t test candles. Geraniol diffusers reduced mosquito counts by 95.5% over control. Linalool and citronella lagged behind again. Placing the diffusers closer to the trap resulted in better repelling.
The results show that those citronella candles available for purchase really aren’t useful for repelling mosquitoes. If you can source a geraniol diffuser (Fasst Products in the paper), you’ve got a pretty good botanical repellent though.
Efficacy of the botanical repellents geraniol, linalool, and citronella against mosquitoes.