Koh Pha Ngan authorities issue box jellyfish warning

[wilcopops]

The research

"An in-vitro examination of the effect of vinegar on discharged nematocysts of Chironex fleckeri." - published March 1st, 2014

Links.......

http://www-public.jcu.edu.au/news/JCU_135736

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-08/vinegar-makes-box-jellyfish-stings-worse-aust-researchers/5374274

: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/vinegar-on-jellyfish-sting-can-be-deadly-researchers-20140408-zqs8b.html

Edited August 31, 2014 by wilcopops

[wilcopops]

Any results of this new research have not filtered through and changed the vinegar station systems and protocols. Among the specialists there's a lot of discussion going on about what the right treatment is. Currently, vinegar is still being advised. The new research seems to be controversial at the moment.

Do you have proof that protocols have changed in Queensland and other territories in Australia?

Just for you information, your link doesn't open at the current location I'm at.

Read my post - I didn't say protocols have changed.

you stated - "All the current evidence suggests that vinegar is the right thing to do." - this is not true in fact CURRENT research contradicts this.

Edited August 31, 2014 by wilcopops

[limbos]

There is no season in Thailand, encounters have been logged all year round.

Wilcopops, the only thing that I and many others now as well have been saying is that the current protocol is using vinegar. That is true! I don't know why you keep repeating that my statements are not true.

The new research has not been proven and has not been accepted. Until the new research has been accepted as being correct, no protocols will be adjusted. Up till now not many cases are known of people dying when vinegar was applied.

There's a Thai work group who has been active on the Gulf islands since a few years, nobody wants to listen to them and now with a fatal accident at hands, all of a sudden people with no clue (with all due respect) in the local governments start to shout things and want immediate action. Why didn't they listen when safety plans were handed to them?

[wilcopops]

There is no season in Thailand, encounters have been logged all year round.

Wilcopops, the only thing that I and many others now as well have been saying is that the current protocol is using vinegar. That is true! I don't know why you keep repeating that my statements are not true.

The new research has not been proven and has not been accepted. Until the new research has been accepted as being correct, no protocols will be adjusted. Up till now not many cases are known of people dying when vinegar was applied.

There's a Thai work group who has been active on the Gulf islands since a few years, nobody wants to listen to them and now with a fatal accident at hands, all of a sudden people with no clue (with all due respect) in the local governments start to shout things and want immediate action. Why didn't they listen when safety plans were handed to them?

There is now believed to be a season. the same as Australia has a season, connected with monsoon. The seasons are not the same either side of the peninsular

i've quoted you above and it is NOT TRUE!

I'm afraid your info is only partial....and apparently out of date.

i know of this work group...they have been singularly ineffective.

you should also read my comments on the new research.

Edited August 31, 2014 by wilcopops

[limbos]

Research only states that already triggered stingers are apparently intensified by 60%. All non active stingers are still being neutralized. The use of fresh water can be fatal since all stingers are actived at the same time and salt water has no effect at all.

Edited August 31, 2014 by limbos

[limbos]

If there would be a season in the Gulf of Thailand, it would be around October through January, indeed the monsoon period for the Gulf.

I stand corrected to the statement that you mentioned. Current evidence argues that vinegar may not be the correct way of action, but all current protocols still advise to use vinegar.

Edited August 31, 2014 by limbos

[wilcopops]

If there would be a season in the Gulf of Thailand, it would be around October through January, indeed the monsoon period for the Gulf.

I stand corrected to the statement that you mentioned. Current evidence argues that vinegar may not be the correct way of action, but still all current protocols still advise to use vinegar.

Wet season in the Gulf is from August to beginning of November....look out of your window if you are in doubt.....( the Box Jelly season is meant to end in October)

"Box jellyfish may be found in the following parts of Thailand during the wet season, until October: Ko Lanta; Haad Nopparatthara-Mu; Ko Phi Phi National Marine Park; Nam Bor bay in Phuket province; Cha-am beach; and some beaches on Tao, Samui and Phangan islands. They can also be found in Australia."

I have never argued that protocols have changed - I somewhere have published a quote from St Johns saying that they won't be changing yet.

the point is that there has been a lot of new research on B/Jfish including ID-ing of several new specimens pending, but Thailand has ALWAYS been in the B/Jelly distribution area and there is no reason to suspect any great differences in their natural history.

Edited August 31, 2014 by wilcopops

[samuijimmy]

I just got back from KP, and there is certainly discussion about the box jelly fish at the resorts near the water... Although I did not see any signs warning people

Two people said that the are red in colour, ??? Then some one else said they are blue... ??? Can any one clarify that... for certain?

A couple of days ago there were what was described as "government boats" trawling the seas around KP with nets... no one seem to know if they had caught any.

I believe this plant pictured is supposed to be one of the antidotes.... (I will stand corrected if not correct) ... fairly common around some beach areas... but not all!

[limbos]

Where do you live Wilcopops? Wet season start in November around the Gulf islands. I have been living on Samui for the last 15 years and August and September are not wet season here. October maybe, November definitely (with exceptions to the rule everywhere).

The statement that the box jelly fish is meant to end in October comes from whom? The local Phangan authorities?

We'll see if protocols will be changed, once the researchers all agree to the same, which is likely not to happen too soon. Jamie's research has not convinced all other researchers so unfortunately it could be a while before anything changes, if at all. It looks like more testing will be needed to convince other research teams.

Nobody commented in those threads as Wilcopops, so I have no idea what you commented.

Edited August 31, 2014 by limbos

[limbos]

Samuijimmy, these plants may work on some stings but I have seen the results if these plants being used on a person being stung by box jelly on Samui and the result was devastating.

Above is a carybdeid morbakka, just one of many different box jelly fish around in Thai waters. They are not red, if at all, blue-ish.

[samuijimmy]

carybdeid morbakka.jpg

Samuijimmy, these plants may work on some stings but I have seen the results if these plants being used on a person being stung by box jelly on Samui and the result was devastating.

Above is a carybdeid morbakka, just one of many different box jelly fish around in Thai waters. They are not red, if at all, blue-ish.

Thanks for clarifying Limbos.......

[wilcopops]

I've just got some more info.....will post it later.

However when it comes to precautions...you can see what I suggested in 2006.

What I still can't understand is why hotels etc don't use netting to protect their customers (well, I can think of some very cynical reasons).

It seems to have been Thai policy to maintain a low profile or even denial as regards to Box Jellies, quite to opposite to Australia, who have experienced 60 deaths in a century and a half.

[wilcopops]

I’ve just got ann update from Oz, to get an idea of how this research is being received.

And the answer is frankly BADLY.

They are talking about several shortcomings in the research...design and subject matter that reduce the significance of the conclusions.

Quoted from St Johns..........

“While we continue to welcome research such as this, like many studies, there are limitations in the study design not least of which is that this is a laboratory study and one that has not been tested in the field. St John Ambulance Australia has a number of experts on marine stingers and envenomation on our St John Medical Experts Panel and Medical Advisory Panel, who have identified a number of other weaknesses in the methodology and we have encouraged them to consider communicating these to the journal that published the research to help provide a balanced perspective on the research and a possible way forward..

It is currently concluded that there is insufficient evidence to start recommending that vinegar should not be used in box jellyfish stings.”

However the report does of course finish with the usual disclaimer “

This in-vitro research demonstrates that vinegar promotes further discharge of venom (approximately a further 69% of venom load released) from already electrically discharged nematocysts of C. fleckeri. This in turn raises concern that vinegar may have the potential to do harm by exacerbating envenomation from C. fleckeri.

Further investigations are required to elucidate the mechanism(s) of this secondary release of toxin and to identify first aid measures which will reduce both pain and the risk of cardiac arrest.”

This last sentence being the most important to the critics.

I’m waiting to hear if I can cut and paste their email on this.

[wilcopops]

Here is the email i received yesterday from Lisa Gershwin.

Lisa Gershwin is a world-renowned authority and writer on Jellyfish and related animals. She is author of the book “Stung” - about jellyfish blooms and the man-made effects on the sea that can cause blooms in jellyfish populations. Currently based in Australia she works amongst other things with Australian Stinger advisory services. She has several professional contacts with scientists here in Thailand.

she writes.....

"The reason that I did not mention the research from JCU is that it is highly contentious, and has been largely discredited. I realise that that must sound surprising, so let me attempt to explain it as clearly as possible so that you can make your own decision.

First, the JCU research tested electrocuted pieces of tentacle, and there is no evidence that electrocuted tentacles behave in a way that can be used to infer natural discharge. In particular, it may well be that the retention of venom that was subsequently discharged was actually an artifact of the electrocution process.

Second, there were multiple more or less equally plausible explanations for why venom was found in the post-treatment sample, however the authors chose only one and failed to even acknowledge the others; this smacks of bias toward a favored outcome. Experts in Australia and the US believe that it was actually more plausible that the venom was lodged in or above the membrane, rather than retained inside the stinging cells, and therefore the results are not only wrong, but actually further prove the efficacy of vinegar itself! An earlier draft of the manuscript was even more extreme in its views against vinegar and was rejected on this basis by three reviewers.

Third, even if the results are someday shown to be accurate, withholding vinegar still makes little sense. It has been shown repeatedly to neutralise undischarged stinging cells of boxies and Irukandjis. An initial sting only stimulates about 10-20% of the stinging cells to discharge. The other 80-90% are still armed and dangerous, so that's really the important portion to neutralise, and that's what the vinegar does. So let's say you forego the vinegar and discharge half or all of the remaining cells (400-900% increase in venom load) in order to prevent the other half of those already discharged (up to 100% more venom load). Obviously taking on five times or nine times more venom would be dangerous and minimizing any additional venom is a high priority!

Fourth, experts (other than those involved in the research) pretty much universally agree that the paper has failed to demonstrate efficacy. On this basis, it has been rejected by all of the peak safety bodies.

Ok, hope that helps a bit.

Cheers, Lisa"

*****

[limbos]

Wilcopops, time to start reviewing your previous statements. It's also through Lisa that I heard of serious skepticism of Jamie's finding. Thanks for clarifying.

So can we now agree that all current evidence suggests that vinegar is the way to go?

[evadgib]

[wilcopops]

Wilcopops, time to start reviewing your previous statements. It's also through Lisa that I heard of serious skepticism of Jamie's finding. Thanks for clarifying.

So can we now agree that all current evidence suggests that vinegar is the way to go?

I think you'll find that there isn't anything I need to review...read my posts - I think you have jumped to false conclusions about them....however you may want to keep up to date on matters. as with all matters scientific I am continually reviewing the situation, it's part of science and skepticism - but you should know this...

No we can't agree on that statement - you seem to be a bit careless in what you say - - there is a recent piece of research that suggests otherwise, it is from a well qualified team from the same area as Lisa; to ignore it would be to ignore the elephant in the room. As I said above, all research comes with a proviso - but you should know that.

It seems that the weight of fellow scientists' opinion is that there research will prove unsatisfactory and so the protocols will continue.

Edited September 1, 2014 by wilcopops

[Tropicalevo]

So - for us laymen out here I read it as this.

For years, vinegar has been the recommended tactic to save lives after being stung by a jellyfish.

People can definitely die if nothing is done.

Ergo - splashing vinegar onto a sting seems like a good idea to me.

New research states that vinegar MAY cause death. I could find no statistics saying that it does or has.

This research is regarded as significantly flawed by a large number of 'experts'.

So - if any of you out there see me flapping around on the sand like a fish out of water, screaming in pain from a jellyfish sting - please soak me in vinegar.

Statistically - I will have a better chance of survival.

Please note - this is my personal view and not a recommendation to the wider audience

[wilcopops]

So - for us laymen out here I read it as this.

For years, vinegar has been the recommended tactic to save lives after being stung by a jellyfish.

People can definitely die if nothing is done.

Ergo - splashing vinegar onto a sting seems like a good idea to me.

New research states that vinegar MAY cause death. I could find no statistics saying that it does or has.

This research is regarded as significantly flawed by a large number of 'experts'.

So - if any of you out there see me flapping around on the sand like a fish out of water, screaming in pain from a jellyfish sting - please soak me in vinegar.

Statistically - I will have a better chance of survival.

Please note - this is my personal view and not a recommendation to the wider audience

Yes - except for the "statistically" bit.

The main threat is that the animal that stung isn't correctly identified and people treat the sting in the wrong way.

The idea of vinegar is old and has always been known to paralyse the stinging mechanisms.

so for the time being that is seemingly what to do.

[ParadiseLost]

No mention of urine anywhere? Is peeing on the affected areas not supposed to be the next best thing to vinegar?

Can someone confirm this - it may prevent extreme embarrassment one day as people generally don't like it when you pee on their kids!

[wilcopops]

No mention of urine anywhere? Is peeing on the affected areas not supposed to be the next best thing to vinegar?

Can someone confirm this - it may prevent extreme embarrassment one day as people generally don't like it when you pee on their kids!

Absolutely not.

[Tropicalevo]

No mention of urine anywhere? Is peeing on the affected areas not supposed to be the next best thing to vinegar?

Can someone confirm this - it may prevent extreme embarrassment one day as people generally don't like it when you pee on their kids!

OK - I'll go with the vinegar, but the thought of TV readers queueing up to urinate on me - not a chance!!

Wilcopops is spot on there. It's an old wive's tale. As useful as 'putting something cold down your back to stop bleeding!'

[masuk]

Well done on your work on this Wilcopops.

As a matter of interest, even at the height of the stinger season, it was safe to swim at Magnetic Island, a few km off shore from Townsville, as the stingers don't go out that far. They live in rivers and don't go far from home.

The aborigines have known about the Irukandji for a few thousand years, and the name means something like 'painful death'.

[wilcopops]

Well done on your work on this Wilcopops.

As a matter of interest, even at the height of the stinger season, it was safe to swim at Magnetic Island, a few km off shore from Townsville, as the stingers don't go out that far. They live in rivers and don't go far from home.

The aborigines have known about the Irukandji for a few thousand years, and the name means something like 'painful death'.

Well weather permitting they HAVE got out there before.......and they have signs....and nets! may be Thailand should learn from this?

http://www.virtualtourist.com/travel/Australia_and_Oceania/Australia/State_of_Queensland/Magnetic_Island-1873468/Warnings_or_Dangers-Magnetic_Island-TG-C-1.html

"Stinger Season: November to April (Wet season). Magnetic Island has the perfect temperature water for swimming throughout the year. Stinger nets are available at Picnic Bay and Horseshoe Bay. If you are swimming outside the nets during the season it is adviseable to wear a stinger suit which you can either buy or hire from outlets on the island. If you are venturing to remote beaches, it is also adviseable to take vinegar with you to treat any possible stings."

i bleive you'll find that "Irukandji" is the name of the original inhabitants of a section of the Cairns coastline, and that the "jellyfish" bearing that name is a very small but equally deadly species of box jelly. these are particularly worrisome as they can swim through nets..

Edited September 1, 2014 by wilcopops

[ParadiseLost]

A lot of interesting info on the Wikipedia site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jellyfish - in particular check out the Treatment section (which also dispels the urine theory).

Glad I asked the question, the amazing thing is I have had that in my head my entire life!

[Tropicalevo]

I do not want to rain on anybody's parade, but treat Wikipedia info with care. It is not gospel.

I try not to quote it, but because they pay a lot of money - they appear at the top of almost all searches. (Money donated by us?)

This does not mean that it is true. People like you and I can write their stuff. Over the years I have found quite a few inconsistencies.

I have wondered again!

[wilcopops]

In defence of WIKI.

I have to take issue with those who knock wiki. OF COURSE it can be incomplete in its information, BUT you should KNOW that and it applies to EVERYTHING you read, watch, or listen to.

In reality wiki has been shown to have about the same level of accuracy as Encyclopedia Britannica. (Except of course EB isn't updated as easily or often as Wiki.) It usually doesn’t give great depth info on stuff, but it does serve as a quick reference and a getaway to further info. If you want some idea check out the Harvard University web site advice on wiki. If you’re going to use the net for your research, where else would like to make your start?

I get the feeling that people who issue warnings about wiki are really making up for a lack of knowledge on how to research.... or a lack of real argument against a topic (i.e. - shoot the messenger rather than counter with an argument)

The internet (via Google) is probably the most common source of information for people on forums - and it becomes patently clear that most people have absolutely no idea of how to conduct a search or research. Google is NOT the only way to get information, but it is the most convenient at short notice; finding out stuff requires skills such as the ability to be critical of the information in front of you, analyse and use critical thinking (scientific methodology) - when looking for information a quick Google can be HORRIBLY misleading if you approach is naive and wiki is by no means one of the most guilty of this.

The subject of Jellyfish is one that is only just beginning to get detailed research - science unlike mumbo-jumbo, is not static, it constantly changes and is certainly not a list of static "facts" - beware of anyone who says "it's a fact" - they usually wouldn't know a fact if it hit them in the face - science is a continuous debate and the debate on jellyfish is very much ongoing, if you decide to look in wiki, you are making a GOOD start...but learn to be critical, use references - they're all there at the bottom of the page and see where that takes you. If you want to get technical, there are many academic pages you can join for free and get access to the latest scientific/medical/historical documents - whatever you want. ...Or why not contact the people who wrote the stuff? They usually reply.

Of course at the end of the day you can't beat getting stuck in to primary. Secondary and tertiary sources - reading a book on the subject and then reading the latest papers. However in the real world most of us don't have the time to do this, so thanks to WIKI we can at least get a basic overview.

But don’t forget your pinch of salt!

Edited September 2, 2014 by Rooo
Font

[wilcopops]

I do not want to rain on anybody's parade, but treat Wikipedia info with care. It is not gospel.

I try not to quote it, but because they pay a lot of money - they appear at the top of almost all searches. (Money donated by us?)

This does not mean that it is true. People like you and I can write their stuff. Over the years I have found quite a few inconsistencies.

I have wondered again!

Have you ever contributed to WIKI? I do from time to time and I can tell you that the scrutiny is THOROUGH.....you can can't just post and be damned, it is governed by the strictest academic principles. Any rubbish, bias etc is soon picked up on and rectified according to the principles of the site.

[evadgib]

The subject of Jellyfish is one that is only just beginning to get detailed research - science unlike mumbo-jumbo, is not static, it constantly changes and is certainly not a list of static "facts" - beware of anyone who says "it's a fact" - they usually wouldn't know a fact if it hit them in the face

Isn't this how your 'facts' came undone?

Edited September 2, 2014 by Rooo
Font

[wilcopops]

The subject of Jellyfish is one that is only just beginning to get detailed research - science unlike mumbo-jumbo, is not static, it constantly changes and is certainly not a list of static "facts" - beware of anyone who says "it's a fact" - they usually wouldn't know a fact if it hit them in the face

Isn't this how your 'facts' came undone?

please explain.... what do you mean by "your'facts'"?

what came undone?