Slashdot Mirror
Trained Rats for Mine Detection
rikomatic writes "The dangerous profession of anti-personnel mine detection is getting a surprising new tool: giant Gambian rats (NY Times reg). Some resourceful Belgians have figured out how to train these 30-inch rodents to hunt out landmines. They are cheaper and work harder than dogs and are more reliable than metal detectors. Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?"
reg free version
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
NY Times
The Age
Seattle Post
Slashdot Moderation: From positive to terrible in 2 "insightful" posts.
You'll see that since they only weigh three pounds they don't trigger the mines.
If you can read this sig - the bitch fell off.
I know you're kidding but it's actually smart from the rat's perspective. They get bananas from it, and no explosion.
Rats are:
*Effective
*Cheap
*Relentless
*Not attractive
*Not heavy enough to detonate mines
Therefore, the ultimate mine-detecting device.
from the article:
Rats are abundant, cheap and easily transported. At three pounds, they are too light to detonate mines accidentally. They can sift the bouquet of land-mine aromas far better than any machine. Unlike even the best mine-detecting dog or human, they are relentlessly single-minded.
"Throw a stick for a dog to fetch, and after 10 times the dog will say, `Get it yourself, buddy,' " Mr. Weetjens said. "Rats will keep working as long as they want food."
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
Sarcasm aside:
Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?"
Is answered in the NYT article:
Rats are abundant, cheap and easily transported. At three pounds, they are too light to detonate mines accidentally.
So, now PETA can stop worrying. The rats are not in harms' way.
Too many non-native rocks are bad for the environment, you fool!
Besides, aren't rocks people, too?
Ever heard of a *land* mine?
In order to survive on this world we must eat living creatures - be they plant or animal. For a balanced diet we must have animal flesh; plant food just doesn't hack it alone. To get animal flesh we must kill the animal.
Actually, this isn't true. It's perfectly possible to have a balanced diet with all the human nutritional requirement simply by eating plants. The problem is that it's not easy: you have to know which foods have what nutrients, and be sure to eat enough of them. Protein is a big problem too; there are non-animal foods with a lot of protein (like nuts), but just eating salads isn't going to be enough. That's why there's so many college kids that have nutritional problems. They decide to become vegetarians because it's "cool" or whatever, but they don't actually do their homework and learn how to do it properly, so they end up with insufficient protein, low iron, etc. Eating meat makes it much easier to have a balanced diet.
For the record, I'm a happy carnivore.
Now, if you were talking about cats, you'd be correct: cats require certain amino acids that can only be found in meat. Dogs and humans are omnivorous, and can survive without meat if necessary, but not cats.
Liberty in your lifetime
a balanced diet we must have animal flesh; plant food just doesn't hack it alone
Wow. I must tell that to all my vegetarian friends. All of whom are way healthier than me (who loves a good steak) and some of whom do athletic things like run marathons. Which would kill me dead.
I mean - I support the freedom of choice in what to eat, and I have no problems at all with killing animals for food (provided those animals aren't in short supply and are treated humanley) but many years of experience from many millions of people demonstrates that humans can survive perfectly well without meat. Anything else you read is plain FUD.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Q: "Would you support an experiment that would sacrifice 10 animals to save 10,000 people?"
A: No. Look at it another way: Suppose that the only way to save 10,000 people was to experiment on one mentally challenged orphan. If saving people is the goal, wouldn't that be worth it? Most people would agree that it would be wrong to sacrifice one human for the "greater good" of others because it would violate that individual's rights, but when it comes to sacrificing animals, the assumption is that human beings have rights and animals do not. Yet there is no logical reason to deny animals the same rights that protect individual humans from being sacrificed for the common good.
While it's true you need to eat a well varied diet to make sure you're getting enough of everything, and you must be conscious of protein, if what you're eating is fairly widely varied, even protein isn't difficult to get.
Your body will get all it needs to build its proteins or assemble what is present in what you eat.
It is no longer the thinking you need to eat rice+beans (for example) to have a complete protein. You're more likely to have to worry about iron and a few other things than protein.
Here's a few links:
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/proteinexplain.ht
http://veggietable.allinfo-about.com/articles/
http://www.ivillage.com/food/hlth
(And, yes, I am an herbivore.)
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
A Happy Omnivore