I am not a fan of bug bites (though, to be honest, I don’t know anyone who is), but if they were randomly jumping out of trees on me at a rate of nearly 300,000 per tree daily, I might be tempted to move.
This story covered some good points, but I feel it went on a little too long. The facts were well covered and I was not left with any questions about the story, but there did come a point where I felt the information was becoming redundant. The people were bitten, the bites itched, they came from the trees, I got it.
The article also came off as a bit contradictory.
“Bug repellents aren’t very effective, either, because the itch mites aren’t seeking out humans—they just bite what they land on, he said.”
This statement is quickly followed by one that completely goes against it.
“Mark Tobin, who runs a lawn-care service in the Kansas City area, soaks his exposed skin in a lemon-scented oil repellent called “Whup-A-Bug.” “I’m feeling like this is the bomb,” said Mr. Tobin, 58, his arms glistening as he operated a weed whacker recently.”
It may sound petty, but it (bug spray) either works or doesn’t work. Did Tobin receive any bites while using the spray? This would have been a good tidbit to include, since the article implies that bug repellent wasn’t effective against the parasite.
The article was well written and clearly communicated the point, and it was the title that initially pulled me in, but if it hadn’t been for an assignment requiring me to read the entire article, I would have stopped halfway through, after it became redundant. It is obvious that residents of Kansas are being bitten, and the article made it clear that until the first freeze there won’t be a remedy, but clearing up the confusing points about the repellent and limiting the repeating aspects would have improved this article. However, it still held quite a bit of interesting information to me.