24 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by slappy115Hmm. They keep promising us this pandemic, yet every time they welch on it. Ifeel short changed ðŸ˜
And really, why are you worried about global warming? When the next pandemic comes through and kills about 5/6 of the population, there will be no more fuel shortages nor food shortages, assuming people remember how to farm and not buy food at stores.
24 Oct 07
Originally posted by slappy115I was referring to naturally evolving viruses, not one's that had been inadvertently mutated in test tubes and injected into people.
HIV is a pandemic. Too bad it's avoidable, for the most part. There will be another pandemic. Don't worry and it will make the 1918 flu look like a mild cold.
24 Oct 07
Originally posted by slappy115AH but they mutate naturally, or was it scientists playing about with things that they did not understand, that crossed the species boundary: -
HIV and H1N1 both started out in nature and mutated so that they could jump the species bondary.
http://www.2000taletsvetenskap.nu/aids/Origin.htm
24 Oct 07
Originally posted by jimslyp69I didn't realize that they had time machines back in 1918 so that they could get the equipment to genetically manipulate H1N1 into a potent influenza.
AH but they mutate naturally, or was it scientists playing about with things that they did not understand, that crossed the species boundary: -
http://www.2000taletsvetenskap.nu/aids/Origin.htm
24 Oct 07
Originally posted by slappy115The article refers to HIV not H1N1. Use your inteligence. You know what I am talking about. Medical science has advanced a long way since then. Diagnosis, innoculation, incubation etc has come a long way. The last major pandemic we had was 90 years ago. Do you not think that we are equipped to preempt and prevent such an occurence?
I didn't realize that they had time machines back in 1918 so that they could get the equipment to genetically manipulate H1N1 into a potent influenza.
24 Oct 07
Originally posted by jimslyp69Honestly, no. We have advanced greatly since then. This should not, however, lull you into a false sense of security. Take for instance ebola. If it didn't kill people as fast as it did, it would probably have killed 90%+ of the population by now. Furthermore, there are still cases of the bubonic plague in the world and it's only a bacterium that can be treated with antibiotics. It's ubiquitous nature keeps around with us.
The article refers to HIV not H1N1. Use your inteligence. You know what I am talking about. Medical science has advanced a long way since then. Diagnosis, innoculation, incubation etc has come a long way. The last major pandemic we had was 90 years ago. Do you not think that we are equipped to preempt and prevent such an occurence?
In one of your earlier posts, you mention that it was man's manipulation that caused the jumping from animal to humans yet H1N1 made the jump unaided, possibly a freak mutation. Also, each year thousands of people die from the human-strain of influenza. This mutates each year and each year we have to create a new vaccine for it. How are we suppose to vaccinate every person every year? It's not like smallpox or chickenpox. Also, you can diagnosis a virus but you cannot treat it, only the symptoms. You can only hope that the body's natural defenses can combat it or, in the case of childhood diseases, an effective vaccine exists.
I will leave you with this thought. Over a 1000 year period, there were only three major outbreaks of the bubonic plague: the Justine plague, the Black Death, and the Outbreak of 1665-66. All three killed a lot of people, especially the Black Death outbreak with occurred in 1345-65 (or round abouts). Just because it is a rare event doesn't mean that it won't happen.
24 Oct 07
Originally posted by slappy115I agree with most of what you say. But I believe that in this day and age, that we can pre empt any pandemic and hopefully, counter it with vaccines and such like. You say that we can't cure viruses true, but vaccines can make our immune systems able to deal with it.
Honestly, no. We have advanced greatly since then. This should not, however, lull you into a false sense of security. Take for instance ebola. If it didn't kill people as fast as it did, it would probably have killed 90%+ of the population by now. Furthermore, there are still cases of the bubonic plague in the world and it's only a bacterium that can ...[text shortened]... 5 (or round abouts). Just because it is a rare event doesn't mean that it won't happen.
I'll leave you with this thought. I think that the fact that mankind has moved around the world so much, and such genetic cross breeding has occured, that we are a lot more diverse now.
24 Oct 07
Originally posted by slappy115We all learned about fire's role in nature in first grade - nothing new. But does that hold for any fire, no matter the size or how set? Including fires set by arson? So your argument about the CA fires is that they "are good for nature". You obviously dont live there.
Yes, some areas require natural disturbances for growth. In this case, the fires burn up the biotic and decaying matter which releases nutrients back into the soil so new plants can grow.
It has nothing to do with global warming. In fact, there are always fires out west. This process of burning and renewing has been around long than humans have. So get your head out of your ass and into a science book.
How big does the fire need to be in order for this not to be a 'natural cycle'. And how do you know it is not part of Global Warming. I dont know if it is or isnt - noone does. in 20 years we may now.
By your logic, any fire, not matter how big is a natural part of climate? And why did you assume I hadnt heard of the need for fires? Again - regardless of size?
And why do people who do not beleive in global warming get so mad about it? What is there to be that angry about? I understand having a view point, or agree or disagree -but many people are absolutely furious over this. "Pull my head out of my ass?" I didnt even say I beleived in Global Warming - in my head the jury is still out - data has not been collected long enough to see if this is a normal cycle. I do like an intelligent discussion - which ends with anger and comment like "Pull your head.....". I find that when people lack a rational or intelligent comment - they resort to anger and being vulgar. Unless you are just an angry person.
24 Oct 07
Originally posted by rubberjaw30So simple minded. Any fire, no matter the size, location or amount of destruction or #of lives lost is OK, because they are not new? So only new things are bad?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!
you're kidding me right?
dude, global warming is a myth!
the government invented it so the EPA could have a reason to crack down on factories! as for the forest fires, when was the last time there weren't forest fires?
I'll give you a hint: forest fires aren't a new thing we've been experiencing since the Industrial Revolution!
Again - no one knows if we are in global warming. 20 years from now we will know.
I would love to hear any actual evidence you have that the government invented it. Otherwise you are spouting off wild unfounded theories that reflect your victim mentality of goverment conspiracies. So easy to say: "Its a plot!"
24 Oct 07
Originally posted by impatientYou missed the point that forrest fires started occuring wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy before the industrial revolution. 😛
So simple minded. Any fire, no matter the size, location or amount of destruction or #of lives lost is OK, because they are not new? So only new things are bad?
Again - no one knows if we are in global warming. 20 years from now we will know.
I would love to hear any actual evidence you have that the government invented it. Otherwise y ...[text shortened]... that reflect your victim mentality of goverment conspiracies. So easy to say: "Its a plot!"
24 Oct 07
Originally posted by jimslyp69No I addressed that directly. my comment was "So only new things are bad?"
You missed the point that forrest fires started occuring wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy before the industrial revolution. 😛
Just because something occurred for any amount of time, does not mean any occurance is a natural cycle. i.e. since fires have always happened, any size fire, and number of them. So a fire that burns the entire West Coast, or if there are multiple fires of unprecented size and damage - you response is "there have always been fires".
So as long as there has always been something in nature it is ok, regardless of changing patterns, or size or severity? And you stand behind that?
There have always been floods too - so if half of a country , or multiple contries get flooded- your response would be "there have alwasy been floods!" Regardless of scale, frequency, severity - it is not significant because "they have always happened". Did you think that out before you said it? You certainly didnt read my post before you spouted off, considering I directly addressed that point, but you said I 'missed the point'.