In the movie "The Happening" the trees start attacking people (more or 
less).  They released some sort of toxin.  Kind of a goofy concept in the 
way that it worked in the movie, but this article is quite troubling. 
Perhaps "The Environment" is fighting back.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36722426/ns/health-infectious_diseases/

Post a reply to this message

UncleHoot wrote:
> In the movie "The Happening" the trees start attacking people (more or 
> less).  They released some sort of toxin.  Kind of a goofy concept in the 
> way that it worked in the movie, but this article is quite troubling. 
> Perhaps "The Environment" is fighting back.

Nah, new diseases and pathogens have been comming into existence for 
millennia. (Otherwise we'd have all evolved total resistence to them 
long ago.) It's just that before now, we wouldn't have known about it. 
We'd just see people dying and not know why. (You might also argue that 
population density might make disease spread less dramatically...)

Post a reply to this message

UncleHoot wrote:
> Perhaps "The Environment" is fighting back.

Uh, yes. Obviously.  We call it "evolution."  You should read up on it. ;-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> (You might also argue that 
> population density might make disease spread less dramatically...)

Actually, slow transport made population density much *higher* for most 
people. Plus lack of understanding of sanitation rules.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> UncleHoot wrote:
>> In the movie "The Happening" the trees start attacking people (more or
>> less).  They released some sort of toxin.  Kind of a goofy concept in
>> the way that it worked in the movie, but this article is quite
>> troubling. Perhaps "The Environment" is fighting back.
> 
> Nah, new diseases and pathogens have been comming into existence for
> millennia. (Otherwise we'd have all evolved total resistence to them
> long ago.) It's just that before now, we wouldn't have known about it.
> We'd just see people dying and not know why. (You might also argue that
> population density might make disease spread less dramatically...)

This isn't even a new pathogen. It's the same old fungus that has killed
people in the tropics for decades, just showing up outside of the
expected area and acting a bit more dangerous. It may be a new species,
but right now it is still classed as just a new strain of the same old
spore.

Sounds like a beast of a spore to kill, though. Antifungal medications
are nasty, most of them will cause kidney, liver, bleeding problems,
along with all sorts of side effects. I think the saying goes "The
infection hasn't killed you yet. We have drugs that can fix that."

Post a reply to this message

UncleHoot wrote:
> In the movie "The Happening" the trees start attacking people (more or 
> less).  They released some sort of toxin.  Kind of a goofy concept in the 
> way that it worked in the movie, but this article is quite troubling. 
> Perhaps "The Environment" is fighting back.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36722426/ns/health-infectious_diseases/ 

"It has killed nearly one out of four known affected people..."

Wait...what?

Four known affected people, but only *nearly* one dead.  So either 
someone is mostly dead, or one person is dead and another is an 
itty-witty bit dead.

(In other news, there's a bunch of acacia trees in South Africa that got 
pissed off at the deer/elk eating them and *as a group* turned poisonous 
and killed a whole herd.)

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:

> (In other news, there's a bunch of acacia trees in South Africa that got 
> pissed off at the deer/elk eating them and *as a group* turned poisonous 
> and killed a whole herd.)

Plants actually do that.

Well OK, no they don't. But apparently (IIRC) Oak trees communicate with 
each other. When one gets attacked by insects, it makes more tannins in 
its leaves, making them taste bad. But it also emits a chemical with 
nearby Oak trees detect, and they then start to make tannins also, even 
though *they* haven't actually been attacked yet.

So don't go thinking plants don't talk to each other and gang up on 
predators. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:35:27 +0200, Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> "It has killed nearly one out of four known affected people..."
>
> Wait...what?
>
> Four known affected people, but only *nearly* one dead.  So either  
> someone is mostly dead, or one person is dead and another is an  
> itty-witty bit dead.

"So far it has killed five out of 21 patients analyzed in the United  
States, a nearly 25 percent mortality rate."

One out of four known, not one out of *the* four known.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> "It has killed nearly one out of four known affected people..."

> Wait...what?

  "One out of four" means 25%.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> "It has killed nearly one out of four known affected people..."
> 
>> Wait...what?
> 
>   "One out of four" means 25%.

Yeah, but the 'known affected' threw me a bit.  Implied (to me) that 
*only* four were known to be affected.  lol

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message