Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Forget the tea tree conditioner.


We have used Full Marks solution - its not an insecticide. It kills the lice by dehydrating them instead. Easy to use - apply it once for a short time and then comb to remove lice and eggs. The combing is easy on short hair but time consuming on long hair. Treat everyone in the family.


Repeat a week later to ensure they are all gone. (I have never had to use it a second time.)


Inform the school so that they can get other parents to check and clear their childrens hair.


Don't stress as it will happen regularly throughout your childs school career.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/8156-nits/#findComment-252158
Share on other sites

You can also try lots of any conditioner and use the comb with the conditioner in the hair. The eggs and the lice just slide off the hair into the comb. Wipe the comb on a piece of kitchen paper. I did my children's hair regularly like this and it kept us all nit free during their school years.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/8156-nits/#findComment-252256
Share on other sites

Conditioner combing works really well but you do need to repeat after 3/4 days (3 combing sessions in all) to be completely rid of them. This ensures you catch any little ones that may have slipped through. I believe the lice lay eggs when they are 12 days old so you need to catch them before then. After that (as jollyrogers said) it is wise to check hair regularly from thereon to prevent re-infestation. I have also used tea-tree oil in the past but it is very strong and do worry about the affect it has on the little ones. The smell is quite overpowering too.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/8156-nits/#findComment-252363
Share on other sites

Yes, Tea Tee is a strong oil - I wouldn't use on a child under 3, and I wouldn't use more than 5 or 6 drops max, but it does seem to work really well (as long as you use the pure oil).


With girls, if you can keep their hair plaited (if long) rather than loose I think this helps to prevent them catching the nits to a certain extent.


Also, leaving conditioner in the hair can help as it makes it hard for the nits to get a grip in the first place!


Some people do seem much more prone to it than others, and I don't think there is any logic to it - my daughter has only had them once in 5 years, yet others I know seem to get them all the time. I think it is very much down to good luck (I've probably jinxed us now you watch!).


Nits are nothing, wait until you get the thread worms, now that really does make your skin crawl...eughh....and having to go in and check their bottoms with a torch in the night is pretty grim too. Ah the joy of parenthood. I remember being really freaked the first time I heard about them, but sadly, rather like nits it is very common in children in their first years at school.


Molly.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/8156-nits/#findComment-252387
Share on other sites

Nitty gritty comb with conditioner. This comb is priced at about ?10 but is available on prescription for children. If you have more than one child they recommend one comb per child.


There are treatments available without insecticide but still contain chemicals. Sadly it's a case of conditioning and combing on a regular basis


I have tried lots of different treatments apart from the chemical based variety neem oil,combinations of tea tree rosemary etc I've even tried the thing you attach to a hoover. It works for some but not for my family.


Good luck

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/8156-nits/#findComment-252452
Share on other sites

Lice Attack is very good. It is basically a coconut shampoo which you leave on and then wash out. You have to do it 3 times, each time 7 days apart. It is not a pesticide and basically works by suffocating the lice. You can get it in Boots but it is quite pricey. It is the only thing I have found to work reliably after trying all sorts. (I am a primary school teacher!)
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/8156-nits/#findComment-252463
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error. 
    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...