Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mutant Mosquitos

Posted by michael on from the japanese-encephalitis dept.

guacamolefoo writes "Get me Stryker now! Mutant mosquitos are spreading West Nile Virus and malaria! And to think you thought that X-men 3 would be a rehash of the Dark Phoenix saga. Real life is much more interesting."

28 comments

  1. I'm not uber enough, apparently by L.+VeGas · · Score: 1

    I have no idea what any of this means.
    Stryker?
    Dark Phoenix saga?

    And to think I thought I was dorky.

    --
    Best Windows Freeware
    1. Re:I'm not uber enough, apparently by aldousd666 · · Score: 3, Informative
      This could be a direct side-effect of overuse of a pesticide.

      It means that the superbugs, which are harder to kill now, can still pass on the regular bugs to us. We just have to find a new way to kill them.

      This is the kind of thing that is feared will happen as doctors continue to over-prescribe anti-biotics. The anti-biotics will expose small numbers bacteria in people (though not necessarily enough to cause a disease) to a selective factor: either they die, or they don't. If they don't that means they are resistant by some sort of mutation, and will pass this resistence on to any sort of offspring they produce. Someday, when one of these resistant bacteria infect a receptive host, and someone does get sick, the normal anti-biotics we use to treat them won't work. And the deadly cycle continues.

      People didn't actually cause this problem, rather, they accelerate it by introducing the selective factor (the pesticide in this case) where it otherwise wouldn't have been.

      It's kind of a catch 22, you use pesticides to prevent disease by killing bugs. At the same time, you may be encouraging a superbug to emerge.

      Doctors give people pills to shut them up. For example, if you have a cold, you may wind up with a script for amoxil, even though it doesn't affect the virus causing your symptoms. You may have a small amount of strep lurking in your system that's not enough to get you sick, but can still be transmitted. Maybe one of those (or god forbid more than one) are resistant. The amoxil kills all the normal bacteria, and you're left with only a resistant strain. You can still pass them on and get someone else sick, even though you didn't get sick yourself. They will now go to the same doctor, and get a useless script for amoxil, etc... Sorry if I'm insulting your intelligence.

      Farmers spray their crops because they think they are being preventative. I don't think that people should stop using pesticides, but only in the event that bugs are a problem. Using deadly poison 'just in case' only invites trouble sooner than later.

      So the next time you're upset that the doctor doesn't give you anti-biotics for your cold symptoms, remember, the life they save may be your grandchild['s|rens'].

      --
      Speak for yourself.
    2. Re:I'm not uber enough, apparently by Indomitus · · Score: 1

      The poster is making references to the X-Men since it's about mutants, albeit very different types of mutants.

      Stryker is the villain in X-Men 2. Another version of the same character was the villain in the X-Men comic book storyline "God Loves, Man Kills" which the movie is aparently similar to.

      Dark Phoenix Saga refers to an X-Men comic storyline in which Jean Grey is taken over by the Phoenix force and tries to kill everybody. I haven't seen X2 but apparently it suggests that the next sequel will be based on the Dark Phoenix storyline.

    3. Re:I'm not uber enough, apparently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You hit the nail squarely on the head.

    4. Re:I'm not uber enough, apparently by badmike2 · · Score: 0

      While all this is true, keep in mind that what the root of the mutation is, is that the skeeters are increasingly resistant to the pesticide. The mutation does nothing to strengthen or weaken the diseases they pass on, so that is a whole different issue. Now, on a big-picture level, the increased resistence in the mutant skeeters could still easily contribute to a more wide-spread distribution of the disease they inflict. This in turn could result in the virus using a larger environment (i.e. more victims) for the virus to "discover" physiologies which are more hospitable to it than other, resulting in, over time, the virus evolving into it's own more powerful mutant strain, making current medicines used to treat it less affective. Same destination, different road, I s'pose, but the difference will be seen in the methodologies used to combat the situation (i.e. a different pesticide, a different medical treatment, or both).

  2. I know I saw this before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    ...specifically this version, but I can't recall whether I read about it on fark.com, news.google.com, or if it is a slashdot dupe.

  3. surprise? by rumpledstiltskin · · Score: 2, Funny
    does this surprise anyone? Darwin's natural selection at work maybe? the obvrious answer's in the article anyway:
    Developing new insecticides that can specifically inhibit the mutant form of the enzyme could be crucial in overcoming the spread of resistance, they added.
    of course, that doesn't necessarily protect against a different mutation. it's a never ending battle. Perhaps a better solution: mutating humans so our blood is poison to the mosquito?
    1. Re:surprise? by aldousd666 · · Score: 1

      Jesus man. That would only evolve resistant mosquitoes to human blood. We're probably more likely to be bitten than they are to get pesticided. You're right about the never ending battle part though.

      --
      Speak for yourself.
    2. Re:surprise? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Insightful
      does this surprise anyone? Darwin's natural selection at work maybe?
      Well, it may come as a surprise to the creationists. One of their standard canards is that "mutations are invariably harmful, so how could complex organisms evolve through a series of mutations?" Well, here ya go -- a simple and obviously useful mutation with far-reaching consequences.
      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:surprise? by VendingMenace · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It may come as a suprise to the creationists?

      It may come as a suprise to you that not all creationists deny that evolution happens. I believe that their main problem is how this whole deal got started. They claim that science has no good explination as to how the first life form came to be (let alone all the complex chemicals needed!). And as far as this claim goes, it is quite valid. Anyone that belives that science has explained this fundamental problem is just deluding themselves and (sadly) is just as religious as those whom he critizises for being religious.

      Anyways, i suppose you were trolling by lumping together all creationists into the same camp, but alas, you got one bite.

    4. Re:surprise? by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately "creationist" is one of those terms that often means 10 different things to 10 different people. But as it's typically used in the US (especially if it's used in a derogatory sense) it means someone who believes in a literal, recent creation event and who does deny that macroevolution has happened. According to polls, up to 50% of Americans may be in this category, although I suspect many of them are people who answer "Yes" to any question they don't really understand.

      "Theistic evolutionist" is the common term for the much more reasonable viewpoint that God created the universe through physical processes that we can see and study the effects of today, and that the evidence points to a very old universe and life developing through the process of evolution.

      An analogy I've heard and I think is apt is that just as being a conservative does not mean you are a conservationist, believing in God's creation does not necessarily make you a creationist. I do think we need a better term. "Creationist" is definitely interpreted too broadly. "Young-Earth Creationist" is more specific, and it acronymizes nicely. :-)

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    5. Re:surprise? by tmortn · · Score: 1

      Nicely put. And to the other guy that responded to your post as well... the creationist lable use is getting a bit broad these days.

      --
      I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
    6. Re:surprise? by Cackmobile · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the good old God by default argument. 'We can't explain it, therefore there must be a god.' Its that the same as traditional cultures such as Australian Aboriginals and their Rainbow serpent story. I believe there are many things we can't explain and never will but that doesn't mean there is a god.

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
    7. Re:surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's still a mosquito.

    8. Re:surprise? by pyrrho · · Score: 1

      the scientific answer is "we don't know yet" a reasonable answer if not a "good explanation" as of yet... there are a few hints as to how and why it's possible.

      The creationist's have a great explanation in comparison, "and it had a big bushy grey beard too!"

      The thing is, the the relativism of uncertainty, while you cannot prove any explanation 100% correct, you can identify things at 0% correct.

      e.g. the probability function for a particle. Nowhere can the probability be 100% (the 100% is spread out), but in most points in the univers the value of that probability function is 0 and even at certain points within the packet interval, the function can and will probably be 0.

      The probability that life was created by a lightning bolt in an acient sea may be near zero. The probablility of a metaphysical being that is somehow man-like, being omniscient, but judging people on their inevitable fate... is zero.

      --

      -pyrrho

    9. Re:surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in old soviet russia, the mosquito is YOU!

    10. Re:surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We can't explain it, but there still isn't a god" fails similarly.

  4. Big surprize? by Muhammar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just induced resistance like with pathogens. This mutation confers resistance to only one common insecticide (Malathion) - so they will use another one.

    In the end, they have to remove breeding ponds, like they have done when building Panama Canal.
    Moskyto swamp solution: Nuke and pave.

    --
    I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    1. Re:Big surprize? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moskyto swamp solution: Nuke and pave

      thot that was the CalTrans motto they had up on a sign near the Never Ending Freeway Improvement nearby.

      "Nuke and pave....again and again and again and again and ....."

  5. Speaking of mutants... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    How's this for redundancy? A woman with two wombs.

    The scary thing is that mutatations aren't just limited to animals and insects. The human body is a complex thing and one little alteration could mean a change in a subsystem, like this woman's reproductive system.

    It's scary.

    1. Re:Speaking of mutants... by MousePotato · · Score: 1

      My wife has a double womb... its not that uncommon.

      --
      Prospecting Stinks. Stop Wasting Time on Cold Calling.
    2. Re:Speaking of mutants... by SeanAhern · · Score: 1

      Makes me wonder whether such a "mutation" could be a beneficial or detrimental thing, from an evolutionary standpoint.

    3. Re:Speaking of mutants... by MousePotato · · Score: 1

      If we go by the examples of multiple offspring provided within the animal kingdom I would say that multiple uteri are indeed beneficial mutation. The doctor said it was an uncommon or little known variation until about 15 years ago when better scanning technologies came around. Many women have doubles and don't even know becuase theirs may not be complete, very small, or just a non functioning 'spare'.

      In my wifes case they are both active uteri. The only problem she has run into was them getting out of sink after she had a miscarriage(induced by trauma from an auto accident). The solution was pretty simple; they put her on the pill for a few months and all was back in sync.

      --
      Prospecting Stinks. Stop Wasting Time on Cold Calling.
  6. the main cause of drug resistant bugs... by ecalkin · · Score: 1

    you forgot a very important step (unfortuneatly very common) to drug resistant diseases: people not taking all their medicine! 10 days of amoxicillin and you only take 5 or six days of pills.... argh!

    i've met people like this!

    eric

  7. Another argument against insecticide. by Cackmobile · · Score: 0

    Once again another reason to get rid of them. Its better to use old style methods like mosquito nets. Did you know that growing Basil keeps mosquitos away. ITs better to use old methods and then when someone gets sick use, antibiotics or whatever. Remember we can't beat nature, only curtail it.

    --
    -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  8. Spoiler alert... by Red+Warrior · · Score: 1

    Near the end, Jean valiantly gives her life to save the team.
    There is much sadness.
    Camera cuts to a placid lake created when dam burst (killing Jean).
    Camera cuts to Prof X, who smiles & says that he thinks everything will be OK, or words to that effect.
    Odds are, he sensed Jean's mind.
    X-3 will be Dark Phoenix, or I'll be seduced by Natalie Portman.

    --
    "If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone."
    ~Epictetus