They’re building another huge warehouse something-or-other next to the Home Depot, and today they poured the concrete.  As we drove by earlier today we saw these guys out there zipping across the concrete on these little smoothing machines, looking like swamp rats on fan boats.  I guess these things are the concrete equivalent to the Zamboni.  I didn’t have my camera with me when we first saw them, which is unfortunate because there were about three times as many of those machines on the slab at the time.  We had to come back a few hours later to pick up the dishwasher we’d picked out earlier, and I managed to remember my camera.

You see some of the guldurndest things on construction sites. 

It seems that my neighborhood isn’t the only place in the country that’s fighting a deer population gone wild.  According to this New York Times article (free registration required; try this link [Free Republic] for a mirror), it’s a nation-wide problem.  Deer populations have exploded in the last decade.  Estimates place the number of deer nationwide at around 20,000,000—about the same number as 200 years ago.  But today their predators (wolves, bears, and wild cats) are mostly gone, and their habitats have shrunk drastically.  Today’s deer thrive in heavily populated areas, where they feast on landscaping and bed down in small patches of undeveloped urban and suburban land.  According to the article, population densities of more than 15 to 20 deer per square mile cause noticeable degradation to the ecosystem.  In some places today, deer number in the hundreds per square mile.  I’ve counted well over 50 deer on a single walk from my house to the stop sign a half mile away.

Today’s deer have two predators: cars and hunters.  Estimates put the number of deer killed on the nations highways at about one million annually, along with about 100 people and $1 billion in property damage.  That makes deer deadlier than alligators, sharks, bears, and rattlesnakes combined.  Bambi has fangs.  Hunters take a few, but mostly bucks, which isn’t very effective as a population control measure.  Not when a single buck can impregnate 50 or more does in a season. 

How to control the populations?  That’s a tough problem.  Biologists have tried a number of methods, none of which has proven very effective.  Whatever, we certainly shouldn’t be feeding them like my idiot neighbors do.

Triclosan, according to the Oxford Dictionary of Medicines, is “an antiseptic that is active against a wide range of bacteria and fungi. As a soap or liquid it is used as a preoperative hand wash for surgeons and for cleansing and disinfecting the skin of patients before surgery, injections, or taking blood samples. It is also included in various skin preparations to prevent infection of minor wounds and for treating such conditions as eczema and acne.”  It’s a broad-spectrum antibiotic that’s used in (among other things) dish soap, hand soap, toothpaste, and as an additive to plastics to aid in bacterial resistance.  Chances are, if you’ve purchased any kind of “anti-bacterial” soap, its one active ingredient is triclosan.  But is it effective?  And is it safe?

There’s no doubt that triclosan is effective in killing bacteria and fungi.  But as an additive to soap, it’s almost irrelevant.  There is no evidence that using a triclosan-enhanced product will get your hands or your dishes any cleaner than plain old soap and water.  In a hospital environment where every little bit counts, its use is understandable.  In your kitchen or bathroom, though, you’re just wasting your money.

A few years ago, and again last year, there was some concern that widespread use of triclosan would result in resistant strains of bacteria.  There have been some studies to indicate the possibility, but I haven’t seen anything conclusive.  But the threat of antibiotic-resistant bacteria isn’t the only danger.  The manufacture of triclosan is known to create small quantities of  dioxins and dibenzofurans, both suspected carcinogens.  The EPA classifies triclosan as a pesticide and notes its risks to humans and to the environment.  The chemical shows up regularly these days in environmental surveys.

How much of a risk is it?  Probably not huge, but it seems irresponsible to me to employ such a strong antibiotic agent for everyday use, especially when its effectiveness is at best questionable.  It’s hard to convince people, though, that the “anti bacterial” bullet on the product label is just marketing hype.