Talk:White-nose syndrome

Untitled

A thought: could an insecticide used to kill off mosquitoes be causing the issue? I know there has been some over-reaction to west nile virus, causing the dumping of insecticide. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.59.249 (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Pennsylvania

• White-Nose Sundrome Surfaces In Pennsylvania may be of some use in developing this article. WTucker (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• White Nose Syndrome; Could cave dwelling bat species become extinct in our lifetime? could also be of help. WTucker (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Bat-killing syndrome spreads in Northeast; Scientists are trying to keep the disorder from decimating bat populations AP story from MSNBC. WTucker (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Pendelton County

Is that in WV? Anyway, White-Nose Syndrome Confirmed in Pendleton Bats might be of use. WTucker (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

NPR report

NPR had a report on WNS that might be of use in fleshing out this article: [1]. WTucker (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

KUAR (NPR) in Arkansas today mentioned spread into Arkansas. THV TV news has it on their website already. http://www.thv11.com/news/article/273783/2/Deadly-bat-fungus-prompts-continued-precautions-at-Ark-caves 206.255.80.228 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Shawn newton

Amphibian Fungal Infections.

Since colony collapse disorder among bees is mentioned, one might also mention the fungal infections devestating frog populations. (See http://www.savethefrog.com) Joseph D. Rudmin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

> I think that would be a wise addition to the article, NoFlyingCars (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

White Nose in Europe

I cleaned up the bit about white nose "possibly not being the source of bat mortality" or that G. destructans isn't in Europe. The study cited clearly says that it has been definitely identified via sequencing as present in Europe, again, citing the article (which I've left the link to)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubiquitousnewt (talk • contribs) 16:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC) 

Humans role in spread of WNS

The problem with the sources stating humans play a role, is that they first declare bats are the likely agent (bat to bat). Then they suggest that humans are somehow playing an equal or more substantial role, which is contradictory. I think the way we should reference both possible causal agents is to list separate references for the bat to bat, and separate references for human to cave, or human to bat. To date there is no data that humans are a causal agent. Existing sources only speculate or suggest this possibility but give no evidence. The only study on human to bat or human to cave spreading, is the new reference I gave on the destructans found on gear and even then it is not a smoking gun. Even ground zero (Howe's Caverns) can be equally explained by bats from Europe traveling on cargo ships, being blown off shore, and hitching a ride on other vessels (floating debris, cruise ships, etc.) for which there is proof of this happening. Hawaii having its own bats species is proof that bats do travel LONG distances. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction. Sources currently say say bat-to-bat and/or bat-to-cave spread is likely, and that evidence indirectly indicates human activity may play a role. Nobody is saying it's all one or the other.

And remember that we're an encyclopedia, not a research journal. Extremely reliable sources (e.g., Bureau of Land Management) specifically say factors lead to suspicion that humans are one of the ways WNS is spreading, which is why they and others are trying to limit cave exposure. We should let readers know that. Here's what BLM said, in a reference that was removed:

How is White-Nose Syndrome Spread?

Bat to Bat - Bat to bat transmission of Geomyces destructans has been documented in lab conditions and the geographic pattern of spread appears to support lab findings. It is also possible that other unknown agents associated with WNS are spread bat to bat.

Cave to Humans to Bats - Aspects of the geographic spread suggest that humans may transmit WNS from infected sites to clean sites. This kind of spread is most likely occurring from clothing and equipment that are not properly cleaned and decontaminated between sites. Formal testing of human-spread WNS is ongoing. Because of the devastating effects of WNS, it is critical that people assume responsibility for the potential spread of WNS.

For us to argue that data doesn't support this argument, which means we should downplay it, is going beyond wikipedia. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I find it contradictory when both pieces say that evidence points to bat to bat transmittal being a primary vector, and then turnaround and imply that humans may play a role. May is the key word. May is not evidence. It's pure speculation. The only evidence of the possibility that man MAY possibly spread it, is in the source reference I supplied by Joseph O, not on the government sources you linked to. And even Joseph O's work doesn't show that humans are a viable vector or that there's proof they ever were. To be entirely neutral, we can say it's certainly possible, but such a statement is speculation and not neutral even if it is by the BLM. Wikipedia is not about personal theories or personal investigations, it's about being an encyclopedia as you said, and none of the sources you gave provide for any substance that humans play a role. They only hypothesize, which is pretty much useless as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

All the current data may look like humans have an impact, but it also looks just as equally, like nothing out of the ordinary according to bat migration routes of the east coast. The only thing out of the ordinary so far as I'm concerned is that it appeared in the states at all. Ground zero at Howe Caverns is the only thing abnormal about all of it. Even then, bats do travel across oceans without the help of humans (research Hawaii bats). They do hitch a ride aboard our vessels too. And so it is equally just as likely that bats are the main culprit in ALL cases. Everything else is just insult to injury and should not be exaggerated even if it is a government source being highly suggestive with the use of the word "may." May is neither here nor there. It means nothing and only merits caution.

I feel that until a scientific source directly implicates humans as playing a major or minor role, that humanity's role (if any) should be clearly stated only as conjecture. To say anything else would be manipulative and erroneous based on current scientific data.Leitmotiv (talk) 04:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been following these edits and it seems clear to me that Leitmotiv is attempting to slant this information to downplay the role that humans may play in the spread. Reading the references, there is clear evidence of this possibility, for instance this: The potential for the human-assisted spread of WNS is further supported by the fact that many of the recently affected sites are also popular destinations for recreational cavers, while many bat hibernacula in less-popular or inaccessible caves between the newly affected caves and those affected in 2008 remain unaffected. Records of caver movements also reveal a connection between sites in these affected regions, additionally suggestive of a link to human activity. While Leitmotiv states, "Wikipedia is not about personal theories or personal investigations", it appears to me that that is exactly what s/he is trying to do. Gandydancer (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I never want to guess at other people's motives - I have a hard enough time understanding my own motives! - but Leitmotiv, that your comment above is exactly wrong about wikipedia. There's a very good source saying something that is relevant to the article, we can't ignore it because some of us think it "just adds insult to injury" and have some quibbles with its wording. I'm going to return the BLM as a reference in place of the "citation needed" because it's quite appropriate. I'm sorry if you disagree with it, but it's legitimate and belongs. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Gandydancer, you couldn't be more wrong about my intentions. But it just so happens that I am a caver and I've read the literature. So far there is no evidence that cavers are related to the spread of WNS. The references sited only lay claim, and supply no evidence of their own. They are just banner websites (read: advertisements) by the government. Real, scientific sources, do not show any correlation (yet) to caver spread. I've supplied one scientific reference that shows a POSSIBLE correlation between caver and cave transmission (read: not caver to bat), and it doesn't show it's even a very viable method. I supplied the one scientific source showing a possible correlation between man and cave, not you DavidWBrooks and certainly not you Gandydancer. Call me biased if you want, but I call it more educated on my part. The sources provided by DavidWBrooks are biased themselves and do not reference any material for their accusations. They are very weak sources and try to lay blame on two things, which in my eyes is contradictory. It is very, very likely the syndrome is spread predominantly by the bats, and can do it far more effectively than cavers could ever hope to.

Give me that study showing humans visited those commercial bat caves and subsequently spread the syndrome. It doesn't exist or if it does, they haven't released it yet (what are they waiting for?). All you are reading is blanket statements full of conjecture and speculation that exercise caution. But let it also be noted, that just because cavers DO visit a cave that later shows WNS, doesn't mean it's directly related to cavers if you have not first ruled out the obvious factor of the bats first. I have a study done in Hellhole Cave, WV in which there was no human access the past several years. That cave is gated, locked, and even remotely monitored by surveillance cameras. The cave is a well known bat hibernacula, and after revisiting the caves for the first time in years they found upon inspection that the bats were infected with WNS. In that circumstance, humans were completely ruled out since they had not been to the caves post-WNS. It is strong evidence for primary bat to bat transmission.

Anecdotally, we had a caver from Virginia visit our Oregon caves a couple years ago. We still don't have WNS here. Now if there was a strong correlation between cavers and the fungus, you'd see random occurrences of the syndrome popping up all over the states (let alone the world! because cavers go everywhere). But you don't. You see the spread of the fungus along normal bat migration routes of the east coast. Started in Howe Caverns and moved south along the Appalachians and north into Canada.Leitmotiv (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You are falling into the "original research" trap. Wikipedia doesn't depend on individual editors being convinced that Fact X is true or false, it depends on presenting reliable sources that discuss the fact. Wikipedia doesn't care whether you are unconvinced - you're not a reliable source. (Nor am I, of course.) Wikipedia does care that, in this case, the BLM has a strong opinion.

Your latest edits seem fine to me. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not falling into anything. I understand what you say. The folks doing original research is the government sources you provide. Their "research" provides no sources. I have supplied sources stating my claims just recently. The only problem here, is that the government sources are weak and without sources themselves. Take note. Edit: I dare say, that portions of those government sources border on propaganda in the name of trying to find any sort of preventative measure against WNS. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) I hope you're right, because I like to enter caves, although I'm no spelunker.

But as an experienced wikipedian, you realize there are tons of articles that have an editor saying the government is lying/hiding-something/propagandizing and therefore we should ignore them and only give credence about sources that they agree with. We can't go that route, or imagine what wikipedia would be like. (Actually, we don't have to imagine; the Web is full of examples.) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh certainly, and I don't want to come off as one of those anti-government people because I'm not. That's why I "dared to say" in my last post. But seeing as how there are no studies on human transmission it is highly irresponsible of the government to post what they have without at least noting that it is just speculation. I think that increases our responsibility as wikipedians to make more neutral claims on the articles here. I certainly don't think we should ignore the government sites, but I think articles that discuss human transmission should note first that it's conjecture and then seek out articles that support the claim. Because there are none, I feel that the government articles are best suited in noting the bat to bat transmission only. I've tried to be balanced by showing the one article that notes gear contamination, but it doesn't help much. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Leitmotiv, incidentally I am one of "those anti-government people". Read for instance the criticisms of the EPA at their article. I have worked on several environmentally related articles and in my opinion governmental agencies support the goals of corporations rather than function to protect the interests of the public sector. I am presently involved in the pesticide articles where Wikipedia has allowed the EPA to edit to their heart's content (see the clothianidin talk page). If pesticides have weakened the bat's immune system I feel certain that the EPA will drag their feet in coming out and saying so as they have done with bee CCD. That said, I believe that David is correct in what he has pointed out. As he said, we have no choice but to go with our references whether we like them or not. Gandydancer (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok well I think I've said as much about my point as I can. I still think our responsibility has increased to have diverse sources thanks to biased and unsourced references from the gov't. Gandydancer, I'm sure we have plenty in common regarding our stances on who the government works for, let alone any other aspect of capitalistic driven society. But I don't make blanket statements. Because that's neither here, nor there. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Gandydancer, regarding pesticides, if you can track down a paper researching the possible role it could play is susceptibility to WNS, then by all means we should insert it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dopeytaylor (talk • contribs) 22:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the statement, "Aspects of the geographic spread suggest that humans can transmit WNS from infected sites to clean sites." from the BLM source cited as evidence for human transmission, this is (presumably, since they don't provide a source) based on the OK cases that were later found to be in error. As such, this portion of the BLM article is out-dated and should not continue to be used as evidence for human transmission. Additionally, the lack of any suspiciously long jumps after nearly a decade of WNS in the US is strong evidence that humans are not a viable vector for this disease. A further complication that confuses many about this issue is that humans transmitting fungal spores to an uninfected site (which research indicates is possible) is not the same thing as introducing the DISEASE. Just as with most diseases, exposure to a certain minimal level of the pathogen under the right circumstances is required for infection to occur. To the best of my knowledge, all evidence to date indicates that for a bat to become infected it must come into direct physical contact with an infected bat or with a surface that an infected bat was in direct physical contact with. I take issue with the statement "Humans entering bat caves may also transport this fungus from one location to another." because the average reader will almost certainly interpret it to mean that humans can transport WNS, which is not supported by the evidence at all. I am of the opinion that speculation, in the absence of evidence, should not be used to direct government policy (except perhaps for a limited time while the issue is studied and information is gathered). With WNS, this period of time has passed and the evidence is not present to support the speculation that government agencies are still using to guide cave visitation policies. TennesseeUser (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It may very well be the OK case, but it may also be in regards to the trans-Atlantic spread. Regardless, the article needs a source if it is making any claims. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

There are people who will always remember that Emily Davis Mobley and her club went to Europe to tour several small caves and then came home (with all their caving gear) to their Schoharie County homebase where they discovered White Nose a short time later.

Updating

...This needs updating, and I suck at it. They know what it is, and they know how it spreads: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21096-bat-killer-identified-but-deaths-continue.html - 184.217.247.72 (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Ubiquitousnewt

HEre's the Nature paper it reports on: [2] - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I love how the paper says the fungus is responsible for the disease and that bats spread it on contact, and then goes on to report we also need to stop humans from spreading it. I'd love to see their evidence that humans have spread it. To date, no evidence exists. It's all guesses with no evidence. Leitmotiv (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I gave the update a first shot, but the long "possible causes" section needs a chunk of work still. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Any update to possible causes should remain neutral, since no scientific studies have proven humans as a vector. Suggesting so is original research and biased. Leitmotiv (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have updated this section, and split it into a "causes" and "spread" section. I have tried to remain neutral in the lead in sentence attributing the disease to fungus. I think the reference to the human fungus can probably be removed.

Regarding the spread section, I hope the wording is agreeable. There were many redundant statements here that seemed to just be tacked onto the end of the possible causes section. I simplified the reference to the fungus being present in Europe. The fungus is known to occur in several bats now. If necessary we can list all the bats it is present in. I believe the wording regarding human cause of spread is neutral. If some (leitmotiv) think the wording is too strong, I suggest that the last paragraph be moved to the prevention section (where it probably belongs anyways). As stated in the below section I removed the reference to the Aeolus Cave because there is no citation.

Citations can be cleaned up. The new Nature article reference can be improved, and the style of many of the other citations makes it difficult to edit the document in many places. Several citations are questionable, and/or are newspaper articles that mention scholarly articles when the actual article itself should be referenced. Dopeytaylor (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Dopeytaylor (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Link to the first citation is broken, I think this link may work as a substitute http://www.batcon.org/pdfs/USFWS_WNS_Mortality_2012_NR_FINAL.pdf --professordad42

Aeolus Cave

I have removed the sentence on Aeolus Cave. There is no citation for the statement that the spread of the disease to this cave is evidence against human involvement in the spread of the disease. The disease is still spread bat-to-bat so, in my opinion, even with a citation, this statement is not correct; unless someone is arguing that the disease is spread solely by humans. Dopeytaylor (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

New Info from May 2015

• http://www.batcon.org/resources/media-education/news-room/press-releases/916-bats-successfully-treated-for-wns-released-back-into-the-wild
• http://www.batcon.org/files/May15MissouriWNSPressReleaseBCITNC.pdf
• http://cavingnews.com/20150518-bats-cured-of-white-nose-syndrome-scheduled-for-release

The above are possible expansion points and citations for this article and for Pseudogymnoascus destructans. --204.106.251.214 (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Range of white nose syndrome and causes of spread

The fungus that causes white nose syndrome can be spread from bat to bat. Is this fungus spread by humans going into caves? I read once that it came to the U.S. on contaminated caving gear from European cavers. The range of spread has increased. Did you know that it was recently discovered in Washington state? It is suspected that this movement was also facilitated by humans entering a cave or transport of an infected bat via truck or rail. Great article! Arhyne (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Number of affected species

The article mentions that there are eleven species (as of the writing) that are affected by WNS. How quickly is this number increasing (or is it increasing)? I also wonder if there are any positive signs. In other words, have an studies indicated that there may be some recovery happening? KeiranZ (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)KeiranZ

Wikipedia can be unreliable for up-to-date information in a changing situation; without rummaging through the article history, it's hard to know how recent an edit was. You should search elsewhere - Bat Conservation International, perhaps - if you want really recent news. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on White-nose syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6EenGC9wS?url=http://mdc.mo.gov/discover-nature/outdoor-recreation/caving/white-nose-syndrome-missouri to http://mdc.mo.gov/discover-nature/outdoor-recreation/caving/white-nose-syndrome-missouri

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)