Ghost of BiB Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 BTW, when did ebola go airborne? Did I just flat miss that one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 BTW, when did ebola go airborne? Did I just flat miss that one? 650530[/snapback] Ebola Reston. Wile E. Lizardman specifically mentions Ebola Reston is 1) airborne, and 2) 90% lethal. He just neglects to mention that it's only lethal to monkeys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Ebola Reston. Wile E. Lizardman specifically mentions Ebola Reston is 1) airborne, and 2) 90% lethal. He just neglects to mention that it's only lethal to monkeys. 650591[/snapback] Guess you're f**ked. Can I have your piano? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Guess you're f**ked. Can I have your piano? 650594[/snapback] The wife wants me to sell it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 The wife wants me to sell it anyway. 650610[/snapback] Shame. I've always liked the way the cats team up on Joplin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 (edited) BTW, when did ebola go airborne? Did I just flat miss that one? 650530[/snapback] It didn't, as far as I know. As we've often discussed regarding avian flu, the ebola virus would have to recombine in a host infected with a second virus that can be transmtted via an aerosol route. After some digging, I found this report on the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. It describes what turned out to be a co-infection of Simian hemorrhagic fever (SHF) virus and Ebola in cynomolgus monkeys imported into the US from the Philippines in 1989. In late November 1989, Ebola virus was isolated from cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca fascicularis) imported into the United States from the Philippines via Amsterdam and New York. During quarantine in a primate facility in Virginia, numerous macaques died, some with findings consistent with simian hemorrhagic fever (SHF). The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases tested 10 animals and, from three, isolated SHF from tissues and serum; however, five other animals of the 10 tested were positive for Ebola virus. Monkeys from a later shipment quarantined in a second room also had unusually high mortality and were tested by a rapid antigen detection enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Ebola viral antigen was detected in serum and/or tissues from seven of these monkeys. Primary liver material from animals in both rooms exhibited particles with typical filovirus morphology by electron microscopy and Ebola virus antigen by immunohistochemistry. This PubMed abstract (Combined simian hemorrhagic fever and Ebola virus infection in cynomolgus monkeys) refers to the follow up (could only get an abstract): (emphasis mine) Simian hemorrhagic fever (SHF) virus and a new strain of Ebola virus were isolated concurrently in recently imported cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca fascicularis) being maintained in a quarantine facility. Ebola virus had never been isolated in the U.S. previously and was presumed to be highly pathogenic for humans. A chronology of events including measures taken to address the public health concerns is presented. [snip] The disease spread within rooms despite discontinuation of all direct contact with animals, and droplet or aerosol transmission was suspected. Antibody to Ebola virus developed in animal handlers but no clinical disease was noted, suggesting a less virulent strain of virus. This web page (Ebola Reston Outbreaks) has a pretty good description of the above-mentioned outbreak, and a few others in the US. As for my take on Dr. Pianka, without an actual transcript of his comments, it's hard to say whether what he said was really as crazy as it was portrayed by Forrest Mims, or if Mims took the comment out of context. I'm not familiar with Pianka's work or reputation, but if he did say that then that is unfortunate and does a disservice to other ecologists and conservation biologists. The scientific community is already under attack from the Right and this administration, and these types of comments (if he actually made them) only add to the problem. But, like I stated, until more information on the talk comes to light it's hard to comment on it directly. It should be noted that Forrest Mims is not without controversy either, as he was fired from Scientific American for espousing Creationism. There were a lot of people at that talk, apparently, and Mims is the only one who reported it in that manner. EDIT: Update... Well, it's hit the blogosphere here and here. Edited April 3, 2006 by Johnny Coli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 BTW, when did ebola go airborne? Did I just flat miss that one? 650530[/snapback] In the movie "Outbreak." Thank god Cuba Gooding could fly the helicopter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 In the movie "Outbreak." Thank god Cuba Gooding could fly the helicopter. 650673[/snapback] The one with the bottomless fuel tank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Yes. 650232[/snapback] You crack me up, Tossy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted April 3, 2006 Author Share Posted April 3, 2006 I am not sure if the guy says that Ebola for humans is currently airborne. He believes that it will evolve that way. I am not familiar with the guy who wrote this article, just found the article--so don't assume that I agree with any of his other views. There are people who are worried about overpopulation because they are worried about the health of humanity and there are people who are worried about overpopulation because they are worried about the impact on the Earth. Then there are people who hate people and prefer animals and wish they were less people around so they could better enjoy their obsession with animals. That is what this guy is. Overpopulation has been one of the most overblown problems in the last century. The reality is that as a society becomes richer and more educated, the cost of children become increasingly onerous. (See Europe--and to some extent, America. Births have substantially decreased in the developed world. Developing nations explode in population growth when diseases-that held back child survival-vanishes. Still hewing to old rates of births that accounted for these diseases, the population explodes. Soon, though, birth rates adjust because the onerous cost of so many healthy children make people change their behavior. Betting on the downfall of humanity has been a sucker bet for a long time. See green revolution, for example... I can respect people who just think that we should dominate the Earth less than we do, but unless they want to help the problem themselves by killing themselves or having less children, they lack the moral high-ground to stand on. About 100 lizards could fit in just the physical space the guy occupies. That he has not ceded this space to them by shooting himself in the face, makes him seem very selfish. *** On a related note, I find it kind of funny when liberals complain about overpopulation when lower birth rates threaten the very survival of the social welfare state pyramid scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 As for my take on Dr. Pianka, without an actual transcript of his comments, it's hard to say whether what he said was really as crazy as it was portrayed by Forrest Mims, or if Mims took the comment out of context. I'm not familiar with Pianka's work or reputation, but if he did say that then that is unfortunate and does a disservice to other ecologists and conservation biologists. The scientific community is already under attack from the Right and this administration, and these types of comments (if he actually made them) only add to the problem. But, like I stated, until more information on the talk comes to light it's hard to comment on it directly. It should be noted that Forrest Mims is not without controversy either, as he was fired from Scientific American for espousing Creationism. There were a lot of people at that talk, apparently, and Mims is the only one who reported it in that manner. EDIT: Update... Well, it's hit the blogosphere here and here. 650635[/snapback] RE; the bolded statement above...I agree completely. This is all hearsay as far as I'm concerned. That's why I'm not all that agitated by it, right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted April 3, 2006 Author Share Posted April 3, 2006 RE; the bolded statement above...I agree completely. This is all hearsay as far as I'm concerned. That's why I'm not all that agitated by it, right now. 650701[/snapback] From his own web site's page on student evaluation: I don't root for ebola, but maybe a ban on having more than one child. I agree . . . too many people ruining this planet. Though I agree that convervation biology is of utmost importance to the world, I do not think that preaching that 90% of the human population should die of ebola is the most effective means of encouraging conservation awareness. I found Pianka to be knowledgable, but spent too much time focusing on his specific research and personal views. Student Evals of Pianka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 There are people who are worried about overpopulation because they are worried about the health of humanity and there are people who are worried about overpopulation because they are worried about the impact on the Earth. Then there are people who hate people and prefer animals and wish they were less people around so they could better enjoy their obsession with animals. That is what this guy is. 650691[/snapback] And you're basing this characterization on what bit of evidence? The fact that of the hundreds of people that attended his presentation, a single one is claiming he made those statements? I read the article you posted to, but unlike you I decided to look into Pianka's credentials. Pianka's got a long list of research papers, book chapters, awards and has an evolutionary ecology textbook now in it's sixth edition. He's been a noted scientist since the mid-60s, and the Texas Academy of Scientists gave him an awared at the very symposium in question. Having sat through many ecology lectures, they almost all state at some point that the planet as a whole would be better for not having as many humans on it. But, that would in no way excuse him for "advocating" the extermination of 90% of the world's human population via a plague. However, until someone other than a guy who's claim to fame is being the author of an electronics guide for Radio Shack shows us exactly what was said and in what context, it is premature to assume Pianka was pounding his fist saying he believed we should all die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 But, that would in no way excuse him for "advocating" the extermination of 90% of the world's human population via a plague.650743[/snapback] You say that as though it's a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 From his own web site's page on student evaluation: Student Evals of Pianka 650722[/snapback] You highlighted the only two questionable evaluations of his class, out of the scores of evaluations that state he's the best professor they've ever had. That link doesn't lend weight to your characterization of Pianka as a human-hating loner. And for the last time, before this thread degenerates, I am in no way condoning what Pianka said because I have no idea what he said. If he's "advocating" (Carlson and Mims' words, not mine) for the extermination of 90% of the human population through an ebola pandemic, then that's just nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted April 3, 2006 Author Share Posted April 3, 2006 And you're basing this characterization on what bit of evidence? The fact that of the hundreds of people that attended his presentation, a single one is claiming he made those statements? I read the article you posted to, but unlike you I decided to look into Pianka's credentials. However, until someone other than a guy who's claim to fame is being the author of an electronics guide for Radio Shack shows us exactly what was said and in what context, it is premature to assume Pianka was pounding his fist saying he believed we should all die. 650743[/snapback] 1. I looked into his credentials to see whether this guy was just some crank or serious scientist. I have no doubts that Dr. Pianka is a serious scientist. 2. Credentials are irrelevant in evaluating an opinion such as this one. I know nothing about the guy who was there writing about this. However, his accounts seem likely by another who was there (and supports what he said) and two evaluations from a recent class he taught. And see above, these were posted on his own web site. 3. You assume that I am sort of country rube that is anti-science or something. I assume that fits your world-view and makes it easier to dismiss this. (I suppose that might explain while I have such a good relationship and respect for my sister-finishing up a PhD in animal behavior-and my physics-professor father.) 4. Basically you and these blogs are using this to create the normal strawman about academic freedom and the anti-science religious types. It is so peripheral to this issue, it's not even funny. Listen, I wanted to give this guy to the benefit of the doubt and I hope to be proven otherwise. However, there is too much out there not to take this seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted April 3, 2006 Author Share Posted April 3, 2006 You highlighted the only two questionable evaluations of his class, out of the scores of evaluations that state he's the best professor they've ever had. That link doesn't lend weight to your characterization of Pianka as a human-hating loner. 650758[/snapback] Perhaps my generalization about people like this was uncalled for, but I think your dismissal of this evaluations is rather extreme. It seems like this is a recent opinion of his. These comments are grouped to the more recent versions of his class. You act like the article can be dismissed as some sort of hack-job done by a psuedo-scientist, yet the things he says seem to match up with these evaluations. He could indeed be considered the best professor that these students had, but that has little to do with what he does or does not advocate. Rather, that he is so convincing and popular worries me more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 3. You assume that I am sort of country rube that is anti-science or something. I assume that fits your world-view and makes it easier to dismiss this. (I suppose that might explain while I have such a good relationship and respect for my sister-finishing up a PhD in animal behavior-and my physics-professor father.) 4. Basically you and these blogs are using this to create the normal strawman about academic freedom and the anti-science religious types. It is so peripheral to this issue, it's not even funny. Listen, I wanted to give this guy to the benefit of the doubt and I hope to be proven otherwise. However, there is too much out there not to take this seriously. 650762[/snapback] I never called you a country rube. I was criticizing the jump to characterize him the way you did. If a transcript from the speech surfaces and he turns out to be a nut then I will be the first to denounce him as such because science doesn't need a poster child for the Right to hold up to the light as representative of us all. That being said, saying that the world is overpopulated and a pandemic is coming is not such a radical progostication. Yet there is a huge difference between stating that you believe it is coming, or "advocating" it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted April 3, 2006 Author Share Posted April 3, 2006 That being said, saying that the world is overpopulated and a pandemic is coming is not such a radical progostication. Yet there is a huge difference between stating that you believe it is coming, or "advocating" it. 650771[/snapback] I agree with you there on both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 I agree with you there on both. 650773[/snapback] Which is why Mims' use of the following "review" is inflammatory: (emphasis mine) But there was a gravely disturbing side to that otherwise scientifically significant meeting, for I watched in amazement as a few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts