Slashdot Mirror


Timely Book On Bird Flu

Lifelongactivist writes, "A new free book about bird flu has been published by Michael Greger, M.D., the US Humane Society's director of public health and animal agriculture. Bird Flu: a Virus of Our Own Hatching (the site contains the entire book text) tells why modern industrialized agricultural methods, including factory farming, antibiotics misuse, and the use of animal refuse as a food source (!) for chickens and other livestock, have led to a staggering increase in the number of 'zoonotic' diseases that can leap from animals to people, and make a bird flu pandemic likely. The book discusses in practical terms what you can do to prevent infection and what to do if you do catch the disease. The book is especially timely given yesterday's news that a new, vaccine-resistant variant of H5N1 has been detected in China."
Update: 10/31 19:44 GMT by KD : Corrected to read "vaccine-resistant."

174 comments

  1. On remedies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't suppose they recommend eating a bowl of chicken noodle soup, do they?

  2. Antibiotic resistant??? by the_humeister · · Score: 4, Informative
    The book is especially timely given yesterday's news that a new, antibiotics-resistant variant of H5N1 has been detected in China
    It's a virus! Antibiotics are for bacterial-type infections. A vaccine is not an antibiotic.
    1. Re:Antibiotic resistant??? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh for god sake, who asked you to inject facts into what is clearly an article targeted at fear mongering?

    2. Re:Antibiotic resistant??? by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Still...it is a true statement. Can't exactly dock him for being not factual.

    3. Re:Antibiotic resistant??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The linked-to article says vaccine not antibiotics. This is just Lifelongactivist's tofu poisoned and B12 deprived brain in action.

    4. Re:Antibiotic resistant??? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      It seems that the fault is entirely on the parts of the submitter and editor, as the linked article clearly says vaccine resistant.

      That idiocy dispensed with, the problem is less modern farming techniques (although these are bad and do contribute) so much as it is modern concentrated population centres and rapid world wide travel. Someone picks up something nasty in korea and the next day they're spreading round the dense population of New York.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    5. Re:Antibiotic resistant??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That idiocy dispensed with, the problem is less modern farming techniques (although these are bad and do contribute) so much as it is modern concentrated population centres and rapid world wide travel.


      Actually, its very specifically the practice of injecting chickens with anti-biotics and vaccines to help improve the survival rate in the poor conditions of 3rd world (& Chinese) factory farms. This gives the germs/viruses opportunity to develop resistance to these measures in the chicken, so that when they can make the leap to humans, they've already achieved resistance. US practice says we let a few chickens die so that when the virus leaps to humans we can slap it with medicines its never seen before, beating it down easily.

      Concentrated population centres and rapid world wide travel only help it spread, it has little to do with the genesis of these super-diseases. And while I don't mean to dismiss the risk, but compared to real baddies, like Polio, Malaria, or Black Death, these modern super diseases seem pretty tame. (Thankfully)

    6. Re:Antibiotic resistant??? by kdawson · · Score: 2

      I applied a correction: the article says "vaccine-resistant." It was wrong in the submission and I missed it.

    7. Re:Antibiotic resistant??? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Feel free to mod me down, I was reacting to the use of the word "antibiotic" (teach me to trust the frickin' article summary). Overuse of anti-virals could certainly contribute to an increased population of anti-viral resistant strains, which is definitely a concern when looking at the potential for pandemics.

  3. antibiotics resistant? by Albort · · Score: 0, Redundant

    As I recall, viruses aren't treated with antibiotics. The strain mentioned in the last link is resistant to the immune response generated by current vaccines. It may seem like a small distinction, but people demanding antibiotic treatment courses from their doctors regardless of the actual infecting agent is one of the reasons we have such a rapid spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

  4. Since antiboitics would never work on a virus... by kary4th · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I guess this isn't really news.

    --
    Don't trust anything that bleeds for a week and lives.
  5. All Flu strains are resitant to antibiotics! by tscheez · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Being that antibiotics are for bacterial infections and not viruses

    --
    Supplies!
  6. Captain Obvious breaks it down again by jmorris42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The book is especially timely given yesterday's news that a new, antibiotics-resistant variant of H5N1 has been detected in China."


    Slashdot folk should be bright enough to know better. ALL viri are 100% immune to antibiotics. Antibiotics only work against germ based diseases.



    Anyway.... Someday we will get another major pandemic, and yes our modern industrial livestock methods will contribute some to it. But they popped up before and will still pop up if we abandoned it. The question for debate is: are the potential savings from lowering the odds of a pandenic worth the certain loss of life from famine and all it's attendant problems that would result from losing the food production capacity gained from industrialization.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by kfg · · Score: 1

      The question for debate is: are the potential savings from lowering the odds of a pandenic worth the certain loss of life from famine and all it's attendant problems that would result from losing the food production capacity gained from industrialization.

      First demonstrate that there would actually be any such loss of food production.

      KFG

    2. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

      There wouldn't be certain loss of life from famine if we stopped mass-producing livestock, since you can grow much more grain than meat on a piece of land.

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    3. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by antarctican · · Score: 1

      There wouldn't be certain loss of life from famine if we stopped mass-producing livestock, since you can grow much more grain than meat on a piece of land.

      But which would you prefer, a big bowl of oats or a nice juicy burger? Meat is so much tastier then grain, let the cows eat it and we'll eat them. ;)

    4. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by mspohr · · Score: 1
      The conversion factor of grain to livestock varies from 14:1 for beef to 7:1 for chickens.

      If we stopped feeding animals this grain, there would be a lot more for people to eat (as well as ridding ourselves of the problems caused by industrial scale meat production). (doubleplusgood)

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    5. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > If we stopped feeding animals this grain, there would be a lot more for people to eat

      Plants are what food eats.

      Ok, old joke and I know we H. Sapiens are actuallu omnivores who need a balanced diet of both to thrive but the point is still valid. We aren't made to be vegetarians and I damned sure ain't giving up yummy meat. Besides, who wants to get vaginatitus. :)

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    6. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The conversion factor of grain to livestock varies from 14:1 for beef to 7:1 for chickens.

      So what? We're omnivores, and we require both plants and animals in our diet for optimum health.

      Turning all land to growing grain won't help anyone survive (except the livestock). There is NO lack of food in the world right now that could be fixed by growing more food. We could grow 10x the amount of food as we do now, and people would still be starving all over the world. If you want to stop famine, you have to do something about the political and economic situations in countries where famine exists. That means we have to build up big armies and invade these countries, destroy their armies, and execute everyone in their governments. Then we have to occupy these countries, set up puppet governments, oppress the people (to put down any insurrections or rebellions) and only then we can feed everyone. That's the only way. Or we can sit back and wait for these people do decide on their own that they want a better way of life, and do something about it. "You can bring a horse to water..."

    7. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      losing the food production capacity gained from industrialization.

      Yeah, uh, around these parts we don't call feeding animals their own shit "industrialization". I know you city folks like to breathe your own shit and call it progress, so the confusion is certainly understandable.

    8. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Moofie · · Score: 1

      If the nutritional output of a field of grain were identical to a herd of cattle, you might have a point. Since they're not, you don't.

      Humans have pointy teeth for a reason.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    9. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by ashley_moran · · Score: 0
      Anyway.... Someday we will get another major pandemic, and yes our modern industrial livestock methods will contribute some to it. But they popped up before and will still pop up if we abandoned it. The question for debate is: are the potential savings from lowering the odds of a pandenic worth the certain loss of life from famine and all it's attendant problems that would result from losing the food production capacity gained from industrialization.

      Industrialised food production is not the miracle it seems. I remember reading a good while ago about a country in Africa that suffered several years of running drought, and the only way for many people to survive was to revert to the diet of the local bushmen. The thirsty arable crops relied on more water than the environment could reliably supply, and when the rain stopped, people died. Those (few) still eating an indigenous diet were unaffected, because the plants and animals they ate were adapted to the local arid climate. I can't remember who the article described - I *think* it was the San, which would place this around Botswana.

      Natural systems have cycles of hunger and plenty, but humans invented famine. We take too much from the land, and keep taking until it has been depleted completely. This low cost of this food is an illusion - the land eventually gets back what we took when we die of starvation.

    10. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Mab_Mass · · Score: 1

      you can grow much more grain than meat on a piece of land.

      In most cases, you are correct, and if I put your quote back in context of your comment, you are correct. However, there are still some circumstances where meat wins, such as on very steep hillsides, etc. where the animals are able to feed themselves through grazing on land unsuitable for growing grain.

      I don't mean to be pedantic here. My point is really that there are alternatives to mass production that do make efficient use of the land, and if people made their buying choices based upon how the meat was raised, we could (potentially) have sustainable meat eating. Of course, this assumes that meat demand is reasonable and not influenced by any moronic fads like the Atkins diet.

      While I'm wandering off topic here, has anybody else noticed that the Atkins diet has a strange resonance with the fad of the Salisbury steak?

    11. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by ElectricRook · · Score: 1
      There wouldn't be certain loss of life from famine if we stopped mass-producing livestock, since you can grow much more grain than meat on a piece of land.

      Actually there would be a significant loss of life if we drastically changed our agriculture away from livestock.

      Only the loss of life would not happen in the wealthy countries.

      It is safe to say that we have evolved with livestock as a major part of our agricultire program.

      You might have a more intelligent design. But for me, I'll stick to the proven results of evolution.

      --
      - High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
    12. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should have been bright enough not to use the stupid word "viri" when you meant viruses.

      Virus is an English word (despite its latin etymological roots), which means it is pluralised following the rules of English. Thus, it is "viruses" not "viri".

    13. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by mspohr · · Score: 1
      Besides, who wants to get vaginatitus.

      ...and I damned sure ain't giving up yummy meat

      For "vaginatitus", Firefox spell check suggests:

      - unimaginative

      - imaginatively

      - paginations

      I don't know what you had in mind but it sure sounds bad.... (could it be some disease that takes over the vagina and tits?)... or perhaps you get if from "your yummy meat"... Anyway, I doubt you could get it from eating vegetables or we would have heard of it by now.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    14. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by mspohr · · Score: 1
      Perhaps this link could help you:

      Medscape Medical News "Vegetable Consumption Slows Rate of Cognitive Decline" http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/546472?src=mp

      It sounds like an easier path than the old fashioned imperialism thing which isn't working too well now.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    15. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      We're omnivores, and we require both plants and animals in our diet for optimum health.

      There is no nutritional requirement for flesh food, or indeed for animal foods of any sort, in the human diet, as the the existance of legions of healthy vegetarians and vegans proves. (Which is not to say that there are not healthful diets that contain flesh foods, and unhealthful vegan diets.)

      Turning all land to growing grain won't help anyone survive (except the livestock).

      Moving towards a plant-centered diet doen't just mean more food, it means less resources are consumed to make food. A meat-heavy diet requires farming practices that increase pollution and emissions of greenhouse gas; and reducing that will indeed help people survive.

      And avoiding killing sentient beings for our own pleasure is also a good idea.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    16. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by cesoid · · Score: 1

      The article linked talks about an anti-body (anti-viral) resistant strain, the name is just a typo. This is hopefully obvious to most readers. But they popped up before and will still pop up if we abandoned it. This is true, but the point is that if we continue as we are now, they will become much more frequent and deadly. Also, as Gregor discusses in the book, many of the diseases we had grown accustomed to (and in large part eradicated by the 70's) actually come not from industrializing meat, but by domesticating animals in the first place. He blames industrializing meat for an explosion of new viruses. And, as eluded to by the other replies, most of the food in the world is eaten by animals, if they didn't exist and we continued to grow the same amount, we would have more, not less food. Starvation is largely a social, economic, and political problem.

    17. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Humans have pointy teeth for a reason.

      Compared to carnivorous species, human teeth aren't pointy enough to be worth talking about.

      There's also a reason why carnivorous species don't get hyperlipidema, but humans who eat a diet high in animal flesh do.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    18. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by ashley_moran · · Score: 0
      In most cases, you are correct, and if I put your quote back in context of your comment, you are correct. However, there are still some circumstances where meat wins, such as on very steep hillsides, etc. where the animals are able to feed themselves through grazing on land unsuitable for growing grain.

      I'm glad someone raised this - I was about to make the point myself. The world has far more pastoral land than arable land. There is also the small issue that COW ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO EAT GRAINS! Cows are ruminants, designed to eat grass. Feeding them grains makes them sick and makes the quality of the meat worse, which renders the exercise at best pointless.

      Off-topic bit follows :)

      I'm not fond of the Atkins diet, despite eating a diet myself that often could pass as a valid Atkins (I don't specifically restrict my carbohydrate intake, but it often ends up low anyway as sugary/starchy foods don't agree with me). Atkins turns people into mindless carb-counters, with no concept of what or how much they should be eating, besides getting a single variable below a certain value. For an interesting look at the composition of a natural diet in line with my opinions above, look at this article on native Americans: Guts and Grease: The Diet of Native Americans

    19. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Your link is broken.

    20. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      And avoiding killing sentient beings for our own pleasure is also a good idea.

      What about all the plants that you kill? They're sentient too: they have senses. How else do plants turn towards the sun?

      By your own definition, you shouldn't be eating any type of living organism. Maybe you could eat some mud. Oh wait, that probably has living bacteria in it.

    21. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by ksheff · · Score: 1

      got any links that backup "grains make cattle sick"? Having grown up on a farm raising cattle and many relatives still in that profession, I'd say that's bullshit.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    22. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by dylan_- · · Score: 1
      There's also a reason why carnivorous species don't get hyperlipidema, but humans who eat a diet high in animal flesh do
      But carnivorous animals do get hyperlipidemia.
      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    23. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``The question for debate is: are the potential savings from lowering the odds of a pandenic worth the certain loss of life from famine and all it's attendant problems that would result from losing the food production capacity gained from industrialization.''

      A lot of food we produce is not eaten by us, but by the animals we raise for later consumption. We could produce a lot more food if we cut out the indirection and ate that food ourselves. Of course, we would need to take care that we produce something considered edible, not the junk we feed to the animals we eat. At any rate, it's not clear to me at all that there is "certain loss of life from famine" if we stop factory farming.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    24. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by GlassHeart · · Score: 1

      "First stop was a hopper filled with Rumensin, a powerful antibiotic that No. 534 will consume with his feed every day for the rest of his life. Calves have no need of regular medication while on grass, but as soon as they're placed in the backgrounding pen, they're apt to get sick. Why? The stress of weaning is a factor, but the main culprit is the feed. The shift to a 'hot ration' of grain can so disturb the cow's digestive process--its rumen, in particular--that it can kill the animal if not managed carefully and accompanied by antibiotics."

      - Power Steer, 2002

    25. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Specifically, its corn. The high starch content requires more time to digest, meanwhile it begins to ferment, making the stomach content even more acidic. A nasty strain of E. coli that thrives in highly acidic stomachs and unlike normal E. coli strains, this one laughs at the humans and their puny digestive system.

      Finding no-handwaving sources on this in cattle is hard (lots of people claiming that the recent spinach scare was due to using cow dung for "organic" production, though it turned out in the end that the spinach was chemically fertilized), but you can read about corn's effect in horses: http://www.cattletoday.com/archive/2003/May/CT272. shtml
      And research linking grain feeding, stomach acidity, and E. coli, which determined that serving hay for a week before slaughter reduces E. coli content of the stomach and therefore the chance of contamination of the meat: http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Sept98/acid.r elief.hrs.html

    26. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Um, humans also have flat teeth for a reason. It's almost like they're adapted to a diet of both meat and plant matter.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    27. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by boo+pixie · · Score: 1

      we use 7-20 times as much plant matter to get the same mass of meat. Sounds like we're already have forgone maximum food capacity.

      --
      -- http://uncannyvalley.org/
    28. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by mspohr · · Score: 1
      Sorry, aparently this requires registration. Here's the start of the article:
      Vegetable Consumption Slows Rate of Cognitive Decline

      News Author: Caroline Cassels

      October 24, 2006 -- A study has shown an association between slowed cognitive decline and vegetable consumption.

      Individuals who consumed at least 2.8 servings of vegetables per day slowed their rate of cognitive decline by roughly 40% compared with those who consumed less than 1 serving per day -- a decrease that is equivalent to about 5 years of younger age.

      "We found green leafy vegetables had the strongest association to slowed rate of cognitive decline and while we are not sure of the reason, some of our analyses suggest it may be due to dietary vitamin E in vegetables," principal investigator Martha Clare Morris, ScD, of Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, told Medscape.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    29. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      All this does is support the old-fashioned notion that a well-balanced diet is best for optimum health. That means both meat and vegetables, not one or the other.

    30. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Frymaster · · Score: 1
      What about all the plants that you kill? They're sentient too: they have senses. How else do plants turn towards the sun?

      well, assuming you're not just being a pedant, i would suggest that if you were truly concerned about the well-being of plants you would become a vegan. remember, cows eat plants. when you eat cows you kill the cow, and the plants the cow ate. add to this the dramatic inefficiency of turning plant calories into cow calories and that burger means the death of a dozen bread loaves worth of wheat.

      but, you're probably just being a pedant.

    31. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      There wouldn't be certain loss of life from famine if we stopped mass-producing livestock, since you can grow much more grain than meat on a piece of land.

      Unfortunately, that's only true for a tiny, tiny percentage of the Earth's surface. I produce hell of a lot of food from raising livestock. I challenge you to come round to mine and produce as much as a hundredweight of grain from the same piece of land.

    32. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      as the the existance of legions of healthy vegetarians and vegans proves

      I've never met a healthy vegan yet. Come to that, most of the vegetarians I know always seem to have *something* wrong with them, often to do with allergies. Maybe they have some kind of deficiency.

    33. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by mspohr · · Score: 1
      Actually, the article supports the value of vegetables and says nothing about meat.

      Many other studies have shown that meat isn't very good for you due to high fat (bad saturated fat) and other problems. Here's one example that came in my email today that shows the advantage of the "Mediterranean diet":

      Mediterranean Diet Linked to Lower Alzheimer's Risk

      News Author: Caroline Cassels

      October 20, 2006 -- Consuming a Mediterranean diet can significantly reduce Alzheimer's Disease (AD) risk, but not necessarily through vascular mediation, a study suggests.

      Researchers at Columbia University in New York found individuals who followed a Mediterranean diet reduced their AD risk by up to 68% compared with those who did not adhere to this diet, which is rich in fruits, vegetables, legumes, cereals, and fish and low in meat and dairy products.

      "This study confirms our previous research and has strengthened our confidence that adherence to the Mediterranean diet is associated with protective effect in Alzheimer's disease," the study's principal investigator Nikolaos Scarmeas, MD, told Medscape.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    34. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      What about all the plants that you kill? They're sentient too

      No, they're not. "Sentient" implies conscious, which implies a complex nervous system or analagous structure.

      How else do plants turn towards the sun?

      Are you suggesting that heliostatic photovoltaic panels are sentient?

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    35. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      I've never met a healthy vegan yet.

      Hi there! Name's Tom, nice to meet you.

      I've been vegan since 1990, and am, at the least, healthier than the average American. Made yondan in a fairly tough karate style just this spring (that's me punching through the stack of boards in that photo); do a 5k run about once a week in addition to my karate training; not at all a champion athlete or anything (though vegetarian champion athletes are numerous) but I'll wager my physical condition to be significantly superior to that of the average /. reader.

      Come to that, most of the vegetarians I know always seem to have *something* wrong with them, often to do with allergies.

      Unfortunately a lot of non-vegan vegetarians, convinced by the animal products that they need a lot of protein in their diet, go heavily for dairy products - which will worsen mucus problems. (And also are very low in iron.) My own allergies (which I've had all my life, since before I went vegetarian) have definitely improved since I went vegan.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    36. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Good to know it works for you. I suspect you're the exception rather than the rule.

    37. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Good to know it works for you. I suspect you're the exception rather than the rule.

      How about we look at the actual scientific consensus rather than anecdotes?

      "It is the position of The American Dietetic Association (ADA) that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, are nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases."

      ...

      "Studies indicate that vegetarians often have lower morbidity (1) and mortality (2) rates from several chronic degenerative diseases than do nonvegetarians.

      Now, if you're a younger fellow (as the /. readership trends), there is mentioned a possible reason why you may observe some unhealthy vegans: "Vegetarian diets are somewhat more common among adolescents with eating disorders than in the general adolescent population; therefore, dietetics professionals should be aware of young clients who greatly limit food choices and who exhibit symptoms of eating disorders. However, recent data suggest that adopting a vegetarian diet does not lead to eating disorders."

      I.e., if due to some mental health issue you don't want to eat, "I can't eat that because I'm vegan" makes a good excuse, at least if the people around you don't understand veganism.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    38. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, they're not. "Sentient" implies conscious, which implies a complex nervous system or analagous structure.

      No, it doesn't. You're thinking of "sapient". "Sentient" just means it has senses.

      Wikipedia article"

      Are you suggesting that heliostatic photovoltaic panels are sentient?

      No, because they're not alive. But Venus Fly-trap plants are certainly sentient.

    39. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Vornzog · · Score: 1
      Slashdot folk should be bright enough to know better. ALL viri are 100% immune to antibiotics. Antibiotics only work against germ based diseases.


      Before you criticize too harshly, figure out what your are really talking about. There are antiviral compounds, including some that work agains flu. Whether they should be called antibiotic has to do with whether you define a virus as alive.

      More importantly, the point has nothing to do with the article. The current vaccine for H5N1 has no effacicy against the newly discovered strain. Truth be told, it didn't even work very well aginst the older strains.

      The real problem is this. The H5N1 vaccine isn't even available to the public yet - people are scared to artificially introduce the new subtype into humans. If there is a pandemic, are first line of defense should be a class of drugs known as adamantadines. Unfortunatly, because the Chinese include these in chicken feed, the H5N1 strains are already resistant to it.

      The next line of defense is TamiFlu. It can't be produced fast enough at this point. In addition, some strains of flu have already developed resistance to it, too. Because of mismanagement of livestock in places like China (think chicken coops above pig pens) it is possible that we could see a pandemic that can't be vaccinated against, and can't be treated with antivirals.

      Hope that we don't have a high-mortality strain like 1918, or a lot of people could end up dead.
      --

      -V-

      Who can decide a priori? Nobody.
      -Sartre

    40. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The protein loss conversion from grain to beef is about 6 to 1. You use up 6 times the usable protein to produce the beef.

      There are valid and practical reasons to raise cattle. There are large areas of land mass that are grassland and not cultivated to grow grain crops. THAT is where cattle should be grazed. Cattle should NOT be crowded onto feedlots and grain shoveled at them.

    41. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I'm certainly no advocate of factory farming...I'm just an advocate of a healthy diet that includes dead animals. Other people have different diets, and that's fine. I just don't happen to think that vegetarianism is for me.

      You have to eat a whole lot of bread to get the protein from a four ounce serving of beef. I'm not sure that that kind of carbohydrate intake is healthy.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    42. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Correct. And it's advisable to consume servings of several ounces of meat protein as part of a meal. Several times a week, in fact. Gorging on meat turns your digestive tract into a rancid pit.

    43. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I have more of a problem with the birds who eat poision ivy berries and shit out the seeds along my fence rows and beneath the power lines. Spreading the poision ivy and necessitating that I go out and eradicate it because poision ivy just PISSES ME OFF these days.

      But now I've engaged in extreme topic drift.

    44. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      How can you be 'Mr. Slippery'??

      Since you're vegan, the grease content in your feces must be far, far below average.

      Or does your name have to to with bedroom slippers?

    45. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      "Sentient" just means it has senses.

      No, it doesn't:

      1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
      2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    46. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      "Sentient" just means it has senses.
      No, it doesn't:
      1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
        2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.


      YES, IT DOES.

      Your reference is wrong.

      "Sentience refers to possession of sensory organs, the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The possession of sapience is not a necessity. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connote knowledge, consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different usages in English. The two words can be distinguished by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know".
      Sentience is the ability to sense. It is separate from, and not dependent on, aspects of consciousness."

    47. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      YES, IT DOES. Your reference is wrong.

      Shouting doesn't make you right. Please use your "inside voice".

      The American Hertitage Dictionary beats a Wikipeida article (especially one flagged as not citing references) as a source, and it says: "Having sense perception; conscious...Experiencing sensation or feeling."

      To have an experience or perception (as opposed to a mechanical/chemical reflex) requires consciousness. You or I or my dogs can have an experience, our nervous systems can organize sense data into perceptions; a mechnical device (even one with sensors), an bacterium (even with sense organelles), or a plant (even with sense organs) cannot.

      Indeed, had you read the entire Wikipedia article you link to, you would see a mention of the sense of "sentient" that's exactly relevant here: "In the philosophy of animal rights, sentience is commonly seen as the ability to experience suffering."

      (Oh, and looking at Latin or Greek roots is a lousy way to understand English. "Tragedy", for example, does not mean "goat song".)

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    48. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Even so, you're not going to get as wide a variety of nutrients as someone on an omnivorous diet. I should point out that I think people eat way too much meat, particularly cheap, poor quality meat - but then most people (vegetarians included) eat poor quality vegetables as well. The consumer is being sold a dummy here, with supermarkets emphasising quantity over quality.

      Incidentally, I don't know where in the /. age range I fall, but I'm fairly sure it's not to the younger end.

    49. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Even so, you're not going to get as wide a variety of nutrients as someone on an omnivorous diet.

      That depends on the type of omnivorous diet - the Supersize Me diet is omnivorous, after all.

      And once you've gotten what your body needs, further "variety of nutrients" doesn't have any benefit.

      The consumer is being sold a dummy here, with supermarkets emphasising quantity over quality.

      On that, we can agree.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    50. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Or does your name have to to with bedroom slippers?

      Ok, if you don't know Vernor Vinge's story True Names, turn in your geek card...

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    51. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I could counter with 'if you don't know what a red tolerance band on a resistor means' I guess.

      But that's more of a nerd thing.

      Now I'm off to figure out something clever to do with tolerance bands on resistors to make my .signature for awhile.

      I discovered some parts drawers at work recently with standard carbon-comp (in appearnce, the construction may differ internally) resistors going up to 100 megohms. There is a drawer full of 'brown black violet' resistors, and the drawer is labeled 100M ohms. There are three other drawers, too, with 47 and 56M resistors, all values higher than the 22M ohms that I thought was the 'top of the family' value for carbon comp resistors.

      (I work for a very old electronics component company that you find advertisements for in early 1940's Ham Radio publications. I make daily use of a General Radio Variac that is probably at least three times older than the average age of participants on Slashdot)

    52. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      I could counter with 'if you don't know what a red tolerance band on a resistor means' I guess.

      Actually, while I remember "Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls Behind Various Garden Walls", you'd have got me on that until I saw your .sig. We only had gold, silver, and none back in the high school electronics lab where I learned that. :-) (When I did some circuits in college physics lab, we didn't use color-coded components but some big ol' power resistors with the values printed on 'em.)

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    53. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down again by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      It's the same numbers from the rhyme. Brown = 1 Red = 2

      The Boy Scout Merit Badge Pamphlet version is:

      "Better Be Right Or Your Great Big Venture Goes West."

      The goody two-shoes version, I guess. I would bet good money the Bad Boys version was a reaction to that. Or something from the Navy. The first resistors I ever encountered when I was a kid were 'USN Retired' resistors from an old metal chest my father had from when he was in the navy. 'None' 20% tolerance ones. And a Simpson Multimeter. Probably that meter is to blame for what I am now.

  7. I remember a couple of years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    on NPR an interview with poultry farmers in Europe. They would clean out the coups every day at least once. They didn't have to use antibiotics because they kept the cages clean - duh! And, they saved money.

    Here in the US, the poultry farmers don't clean the cages at all and to compensate, they pump up the birds up with antibiotics to keep them from getting sick.

    1. Re:I remember a couple of years ago by nido · · Score: 1

      Tyson Foods, inc is not a "poultry farmer". They are an industrial chicken producer. No self-respecting american would work in such an environment, thus Tyson has to import illegal immigrants to keep their operations profitable.

      Chickens with reasonable living accomodations and an environment free of dioxin contamination simply don't get bird flu.

      Arsenic in chicken feed also likely causes (subtle?) health problems... "But the lack of arsenic in organic chickens is suggestive: USDA standards do not allow arsenic in organic-chicken feed."

      --
      Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
      www.teslabox.com
    2. Re:I remember a couple of years ago by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      This is why I've come to try to only buy the "free range" chicken sold at organic stores. It's nice knowing the birds had a much more pleasant and happy life before their sudden beheading, and the meat is much better and healthier tasting too (and bigger--the muscles are much larger).

    3. Re:I remember a couple of years ago by ashley_moran · · Score: 0

      "...The [free range organic] birds had a much more pleasant and happy life" is an understatement. One of the most disturbing things about intensively-reared chicken is that it is killed while still technically an infant. The huge amount of growth hormones they are injected with causes them to reach near adult size before maturity. This is one reason why the ratio of organic cost : non-organic cost is so much higher for chicken than other meats.

    4. Re:I remember a couple of years ago by thule · · Score: 1

      By "free range" do you mean that the chickens can walk around and pick up all sorts of contaminates in the area including migratory bird droppings? Chickens raised in enclosed structures are less likely to be exposed to migratory bird contamination. It seems to me that is a much safer way to go.

    5. Re:I remember a couple of years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      keep telling yourself that while you're being ripped off. ag producers are aware of consumer market trends and will raise animals that consumers want. Hogs being sold to slaughterhouses today are much leaner, better fed animals than the fat laden animals of a few decades ago. modern farming practices have evolved to produce a better product at a reasonable cost to the consumer regardless of the BS being spread by PETA and their ilk.

    6. Re:I remember a couple of years ago by NerveGas · · Score: 1

      It's not just that Americans don't clean the cages, it's that their often packed in so tight that you can't even get in to clean the cages. It's pretty hard to find a way in which our raising of food animals is NOT screwed up entirely.

      The reason why these nasty flus come out of China is not just because they have dirty chickens, or that they have dirty chickens in such close proximity to humans. It's because they have dirty chicken farming AND dirty pig farming in such close proximity to each other and to humans. The swine, avian, and human flus all have lots of chances to "mingle", so to speak...

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    7. Re:I remember a couple of years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Free range' only means that the chicken has *access* to open space. Most of them are raised in giant chicken houses and never go outside. They are kept inside for the first few weeks of their life because it's too dangerous (to them) to let them out. After that, they open a gate to let the chickens outside if they choose to go, but having lived all of their short life in a barn, most don't go outside. A few weeks after that, they're slaughtered. They do probably live slightly happier lives than most broiler chickens, though, since they are free to roam around with a thousand other chickens instead of being crammed into cages. Free range also has nothing to do with what the chicken eats. You need to buy organic to be sure your chicken did not eat other chickens during its life.

      What you really want are *pastured* chickens, which are raised on grass. More specifically, they eat the bugs, seeds, etc. that occur naturally in open pastures. They aren't cheap, though.

      Try reading 'The Omnivores Dilemma', it's great for anyone interested in where their food comes from.

    8. Re:I remember a couple of years ago by NerveGas · · Score: 1

      Take a group of people, and let them live their lives normally - free to wander around and get sick if they want. Take another group of people (many thousands of people), and cram them into a filthy building where they're literally crawling on top of each other, pooping on each other, and walking around over their own dead.

      Which ones do you think will be healthier?

      It's not any different with chickens.

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    9. Re:I remember a couple of years ago by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Keep telling yourself all that while you eat animals that have been penned up in tiny cages their whole lives, unable to even turn around, and have been feed ground up brains from other animals. Ever heard of Mad Cow?

      Even without the ground-up brains bit, animals that haven't been able to move in their whole lives can't exactly be healthy to eat. Nor are they usually "lean".

    10. Re:I remember a couple of years ago by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Free range also has nothing to do with what the chicken eats. You need to buy organic to be sure your chicken did not eat other chickens during its life.

      I usually buy meat from the local organic grocery stores, so I'm pretty sure it's all "organic" and is labelled as such (though I don't have any at hand to check for sure).

      Watch out; there seem to be a bunch of people on here who think that cramming chickens into tiny cages somehow makes them healthier, judging by the other responses. Does the corporate meat industry employ shills just to troll Slashdot?

    11. Re:I remember a couple of years ago by NerveGas · · Score: 1

      Those pigs are still entirely screwed up from all of the irresponsible breeding done on them. Read "Animals in Translation", written by someone whose career has been helping the food-animal industry, and see just how bad they have it.

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    12. Re:I remember a couple of years ago by NerveGas · · Score: 1

      "animals that haven't been able to move in their whole lives can't exactly be healthy to eat. Nor are they usually "lean"."

      He didn't say "lean", he said "leaner" - meaning they're not as fat as pigs which were so obese that they couldn't even stand. Pigs of today have, indeed, been bred to be leaner than pigs of ten or fifteen years ago.

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  8. mother nature... by TrippTDF · · Score: 1

    ... has a way of "balancing things out". The current population of the planet is only possible thanks to technological advancements such as tech that allows for us to create more food and move it to where the people are. Now, as the population goes up, you need to increase the output of food. It seems that perhaps we are hitting a limit, where we can't product enough food (given current methods) without causing a huge human plague, and mother nature is going to tell us that here pretty soon.

    1. Re:mother nature... by foobsr · · Score: 1

      technological advancements such as tech that allows for us to create more food and move it to where the people are

      There must be a flaw in the system:

      Quote:
      Based on the Census Bureau survey, USDA estimates that in 2000, 10.5 million U.S. households were food insecure, meaning that they did not have access to enough food to meet their basic needs.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    2. Re:mother nature... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      ... has a way of "balancing things out". The current population of the planet is only possible thanks to technological advancements such as tech that allows for us to create more food and move it to where the people are. Now, as the population goes up, you need to increase the output of food. It seems that perhaps we are hitting a limit, where we can't product enough food (given current methods) without causing a huge human plague, and mother nature is going to tell us that here pretty soon.

      Another way we could balance things would be to reduce the human population. The way mother nature does it is normally with predators. I say we breed more mountain lions, tigers, and other large predators, and set them loose in inhabited areas. Furthermore, make a law banning people from using any weapons in defending themselves from predatorial attack by these creatures. Those who violate the law will be tied up in an area with lots of predators and have honey poured on them. And even better, in the interest of reducing one of our society's most overpopulated segments, law offices and courthouses will be required to have doors that open automatically whenever predators approach.

    3. Re:mother nature... by owlnation · · Score: 1
      ... has a way of "balancing things out"
      It's certainly true that changes in elements of an ecosystem due to for example, changes in food supply, can restore a degree of natural balance over a number of years.

      However, this is in no way guaranteed or necessarily a "natural" system. There is (I'm afraid) no evidence of a Mother Nature. Species die out. Species have been failing and dying out spectacularly since the beginning of life.

      While mankind has been spectacularly destructive and exploitative in the past few hundred years, we aren't to blame for most of the species exctinctions. Excluding Dicks-in-Timemachines we are wholly innocent of any dinosauricides.(McSoylent Really Big Mac anyone?)

      This being why this book is a useful reminder that we should take care, and do all we can to prevent systems where virii can thrive. A virus wiping out a sizeable chunk of Humanity is not implausible.
    4. Re:mother nature... by boo+pixie · · Score: 1

      ... has a way of balancing out, but that can also mean that many or all humans will be killed. The earth doesn't need us to have nature.

      Plus, if we want to produce more food, we'd scrap the inefficient feeding-plants-to-animals step and just eat the plants. We waste 7-20 times the mass of the plants to feed them to animals. Course we aren't eating feces either (not directly atleast).

      --
      -- http://uncannyvalley.org/
  9. Feh by gowen · · Score: 1

    Sounds like nothing we didn't learn from BSE (Mad Cow Disease), At least that stopped British farmers inserting brain matter back into the food chain.

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  10. An Antibiotic not an Antiviral by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

    I must get a vaccine so I don't get strep throat. Help. I have the flu, I demand Pennicillin. I'm just making fun of the post after post of the same subject. Its like a viral post where everyone posts the same thing in different words, Yay for technology.

    1. Re:An Antibiotic not an Antiviral by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      It's a mutating virus! That's why the words are different.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  11. Timely? by 0racle · · Score: 1

    I haven't heard about the Bird Flu for a while, the panic has past. I think the word you were looking for is Late.

    --
    "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    1. Re:Timely? by owlnation · · Score: 1
      I haven't heard about the Bird Flu for a while, the panic has past.
      Sorry, no. It's seasonal. Bird Migration for example being a factor. You hadn't heard much about it since last season. This is the new Bird flu season. Now's the time the reports will increase again.
  12. There are no antibiotic-resistant flu strains by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Informative

    Antibiotics work on bacteria, not on viruses. This new virus is not stopped by the current vaccine, although the reason for that is unclear.

    Flu has something somewhat like chromosomes: different strands of genetic material that can mix and recombine. As a result there are many, many subvarieties of influenza. The way vaccination works (currently and for the forseeable future) is it presents parts of the virus to your immune system so your immune system can subsequently recognize them and fight them off. We can't present every single possible viral coat in one shot (mostly because we haven't ever encountered most of them so we don't have any way of making them to put into the shot) so what we do is take the viruses that are currently active in China, put those in the shot, and give those to suseptible populations. It's a different mix every single year, and it sounds like now this one has changed enough it's time for another mix, just like every other year.

    A reason that flu is particularly worrisome is that it's shared between pigs, chickens, and humans, which is somewhat unusual; in many places in the world people, pigs, and chickens live in close contact, which makes cross-infection easy; and when a person, pig or chicken catches two different varieties of flu, they can recombine (because of the multiple strands of genetic material) and create a whole new variety that is unlike anything seen before. The new variety will suddenly have a whole world of unprepared immune systems to go attack, so it'll do very well indeed for a while.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    1. Re:There are no antibiotic-resistant flu strains by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      Antibiotics work on bacteria...

      Except when they stop working.

      Antibiotics-resistant bacteria are way scarier, IMO, especially since you're more likely to get infected by them where you go for treatment (ie hospitals).

    2. Re:There are no antibiotic-resistant flu strains by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Hospital infections, for your vocabulary experience of the day, are called nosocomial diseases. Impress people! Or just betray your geekiness.

      It's a hard call which are scarier. Multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis is likely to be this decade's AIDS: slowly but inescapably lethal. Some of the most horrible, quick diseases are also bacterial: necrotizing fasciitis, pneumonic plague. But there are also some seriously horrible viral diseases. In all honesty, we should still call AIDS 99% fatal, and hantavirus is pretty lethal. Ebolavirus is appallingly horrible, and lassa is pretty awful.

      However, I have to say that my own personal nightmares are mostly parasitic: river blindness, Chagas' disease, trypanosomiasis, stuff like that. Particularly river blindness: I've read that the mortality rate is something like 60% and it's almost entirely suicide. EEEEEEEEeeeeugh.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    3. Re:There are no antibiotic-resistant flu strains by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis is likely to be this decade's AIDS:

      The way that sentence rolled out reminds me of one of my pet peeves. People rant about 'The AIDS Epidemic: a plight humanity has never suffered before.' The truth is, in history there have been MANY examples of incurable contagious diseases, including significant sexually transmitted ones like syphilis. And yet people wring their hands and act like 'AIDS' is something totally new, that humanity has never faced.

    4. Re:There are no antibiotic-resistant flu strains by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      A more precise way of putting what they're thinking is "since 1950, in the First World, among people who have access to decent medical care, this is A PLIGHT HUMANITY HAS NEVER SUFFERED BEFORE! OMG!" It's just that because the people saying that are, invariably, limited in their memories to post-antibiotic good medical care, they think it's completely unprecedented. People are unbelievably parochial. There are still leper colonies. My grandparents, and, hell, my *mother*, remember before antibiotics, when stepping on a nail could be an unavoidable death sentence.
      And yeah, in the early 1500's, syphilis tore across Europe very like the plague, only more disgusting. But people only pay attention to the suffering that they, personally, are presently seeing.

      (there's evidence that the human brain, maybe to compress information, remembers only two things about an event: the best/worst and what it was like at the end. I suspect we do something similar with history: the major events and what's just happened in the last 20 years, and all the rest might as well not have happened.)

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  13. Re:On remedies...(chicken soup) by llib_xoc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, there is a very similar home treatment recommended here: http://www.fluwikie.com/uploads/Consequences/NewGu ideOct7b.pdf It's called Oral Rehydration Therapy, and I'm getting together the ingredients this week.

    Another preparation that's recommended is that you have a surgical face mask to avoid breathing in the virus, and to avoid spreading it if you're infected but not showing symtoms. Here's a reference: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/infectioncont rol/maskguidance.htm

    I've heard several speakers on this topic recently, including Dr. Michael Osterholm of Univ. of Minn., and it's just a matter of time before avian flu, specifically H5N1, comes to your town (and everybody's). Several city administrations that I'm familiar with (including Plymouth and Minneapolis, MN, and Alameda, CA) are making specific preparations, mainly around "how do we operate the city when 30-40% of our staff are out sick themselves or busy at home caring for their family members". Alameda is preparing centers to distribute vaccine, once one is available.

    Here's an interview with Dr. Osterholm: http://effectmeasure.blogspot.com/2005/06/osterhol m-were-screwed.html

  14. mmm by destroygbiv · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    but is it soybean oil resistant?

  15. Malthus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Malthus called. He says he wants his crap theories back.

  16. It's not antibiotic resistant by antarctican · · Score: 1

    Please let's be clear, it's not antibiotic resistant, because the flu is not a bacteria it's a virus. It's a vaccine resistant strain, which is very different.

    It means the chickens aren't protected from GETTING this strain of bird flu. However once they have it there's no drug that currently exists to treat it, it all comes down to one's own immune system (however in the case of chickens it simply means death since I can't see a hospital being set up to care for them and give them hot chicken soup... nevermind)

    It would be an anti-viral drug that would have to be developed to treat someone infected with any kind of flu/cold, not an antibiotic. And those are a lot harder to develop, it's much simpler to make a vaccine which causes an immune response preventing any infection from being able to set in to begin with.

    It's also why all these antibiotics given to animals in our food supply are nearly completely pointless to begin with, they don't help with viral infections and only make bacteria more resistant.

  17. So... by PieSquared · · Score: 1

    I've never understood the huge stress people put on the bird flu. Maybe it is 10 times as likely to mutate to kill millions as any other virus... but there are millions of different viruses. The billions we spend on defending against what might someday become a threat of unknown proportion... would be far better spent on general virus research. Otherwise chances are another virus will mutate and kill us all while we wait for the bird flu to do the same. It's just another excuse to waste all our money.

    --
    Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
    1. Re:So... by jandrese · · Score: 1

      The fear is because not only is it a relatively minor mutation to make the virus compatable with humans, but we have historical evidence that a very similar thing has happened in the past. The 1918 flu that killed between 20 to 40 million people worldwide is considered to be a reasonable preview to what would happen if H5N1 mutated into a human transmissable form. While it's true that virtually any virus could mutate into something deadly to humans and rapidly transmissable, the amount of mutation required for that to happen in most cases is far larger than what is required for H5N1 to do the same thing. Thus, we're protecting against the most likely threat, which is really all we can do.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:So... by Aqua_boy17 · · Score: 1

      Agreed, more FUD. Anyone remember West Nile? That was the panic du jour before bird flu, but it didn't really do much and is now off the media radar. It's a perfect example of another media generated crisis that's not really panning out.

      The article does make some good points about antibiotic misuse and this has been a pet peeve of mine for a while that I think is a cause for genuine concern. Diseases like MRSA can be devastating (I have a friend with it who has not been able to work since May, and is lucky to be alive) and are pretty much a direct result of the over/misuse of human antibiotics. Overuse of antibiotics in livestock where they're excreted back into the environment is a recipe for breeding lots more antibiotic resistant and much nastier bugs. It's basically using natural selection to breed bugs that are better equiped to harm us. Yet no one in the mass media really talks about this as it's not as sexy as a gloom and doom pandemic scenario.

      --
      What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
    3. Re:So... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Maybe it is 10 times as likely to mutate to kill millions as any other virus...

      Frankly, sometimes I feel like a lot of the panic relates to the fact that it will mostly likely kill off a lot of the older population. The Medical Care Industry can't allow that you know. If the old people die early, who will they bilk in nursing homes for the next several decades? There's a far smaller revenue stream in dealing with a crash-program pandemic that lasts 8 months than there is in long term medical care and treatment of all the maladies that accompany a slow decline into old age.

      But now I'm being cynical.

    4. Re:So... by arkhan_jg · · Score: 1

      There are lots of viruses, and we call a bunch of them 'flu'. Each year, there are different strains that spread around and kill people (mostly the young and the elderly) which is why there's a different vaccine every year. They already research many, many strains to try and predict which will be the annual or even the next 'big' one.

      There have been a number of flu pandemics. Millions died in 1918. Smaller pandemics happened in 1957 and 1968. Flu is one of the hardest viruses to prevent infection, because of the large number of variations and it's ability to mutate.
      A pandemic can start when three conditions have been met: 1)a new influenza virus subtype emerges; 2)it infects humans, causing serious illness; 3)and it spreads easily and sustainably among humans. The H5N1 virus meets the first two conditions and it is likely that nobody will have immunity should an H5N1-like pandemic virus emerge.

      H5N1 already spreads easily amongst birds, and can cross to humans where it is very deadly. If a variant emerges - which has happened before in asian close human & bird groups - that combines both, and becomes a H5N1 variant, the death-toll would likely be huge, given how quickly air-travel can spread diseases. Even if a vaccine is developed quickly and produced quickly, disruption would be large. Scientists are worried because it's happened repeatedly before, we know the reasons, and the circumstances are ripe for it to happen again. And yes, they're not just keep an eye on H5N1, that's just the one the media focus on.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
  18. ARTICLE LINK DOESN'T EVEN MENTION ANTIBIOTICS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The book is especially timely given yesterday's news that a new, antibiotics-resistant variant of H5N1 has been detected in China."

    The article linked to doesn't even mention antibiotics. I mean, come on. Typical fact-free hype.

    If you want a good book about influenza:

    "The Great Influenze: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History" by John M. Barry, 2005, is about the 1918 Pandemic and discusses everything you need to know about flu, pandemics etc.

  19. Say what? by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

    How does technology, population size and food production equate to a plague, much less an anthropomorphic deity telling us squat? It's just not that simple. If people would wash their hands more, wear masks, etc, the flu would be almost non-existent. Those are social norms, not technology or population dependent.

    And at no point does some woman in a billowy outfit ever come into the picture.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  20. The researchers... by chuck · · Score: 4, Funny

    The researchers collected 53,220 fecal samples from chickens, geese and ducks in poultry markets in six Chinese provinces between July 2005 and June 2006.

    I'm glad I'm a programmer.
    1. Re:The researchers... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Yeah. They get their viri from fecal matter. We get ours from Windows PCs.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    2. Re:The researchers... by Maximilio · · Score: 1

      Yeah, except if you have to work with MFC. Then you might as well lick feces for all the dignity you're going to end up with.

    3. Re:The researchers... by fbartho · · Score: 1

      tomatoe, tomato...

      --
      Gravity Sucks
  21. Nonsense. by FellowConspirator · · Score: 2, Informative

    Since several already beat me to the antibiotics being for bacteria and not viruses, I'll have to add:

    If the theory is that the industrial farming of livestock leads to cross-species infection, then there's not a lot to indicate that. Bird flu is a particularly good example, seeing as how the H5N1 strain mentioned originated in poultry from pre-industrial style farms in southeast Asia. All of the cases outside of that region have been detected in wild birds. Crossing species has only been reported among people in those areas where there's protracted contact with the birds.

    The referenced site overstates the virulence of the H5N1 flu as well.

    Antibiotics don't select for strains of the virus, and strictly speaking neither do vaccinations.

    Animal products being fed to the same species can be a problem for prion-based disorders, but that represents a very situation that produces a toxin, not a virulent disease.

    As far as treatment for it, that's easy. There's only two: vaccination, and transfusion of blood from someone that's already had it. Other than that, you just treat the symptoms and hope for the best.

    1. Re:Nonsense. by NerveGas · · Score: 1

      "Antibiotics don't select for strains of the virus, and strictly speaking neither do vaccinations."

      Sure, vaccinations do, at least in some cases - including the flu. That's why the flu shot you get each year only works against certain strains of the influenze virus, and why they don't work against H5N1.

      "Animal products being fed to the same species can be a problem for prion-based disorders, but that represents a very situation that produces a toxin, not a virulent disease."

      They also represent a problem with bacterial, viral, and parasitical infections if the food in question isn't handled properly - which, quite often, it isn't. Producers have shown that they are quite willing to go not just into the unethical side of feeding their animals as cheaply as possible, but even to the criminal side as well. Look at the whole mad-cow thing... the practices which were prevalent right up until the big deal was made had been outlawed for quite some time (for just that reason), but that didn't keep producers from doing it.

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  22. Tell me about it... by attemptedgoalie · · Score: 1

    What a shit job!

    Yep, I went there. :-)

    --
    My mom says I'm cool.
  23. Bird flu is a bird disease by SiliconEntity · · Score: 1

    Bird flu is a bird disease. Although there are cases where people have managed to catch it from birds, they are extremely rare, only a few hundred in the whole world. Worry more about shark attacks.

    1. Re:Bird flu is a bird disease by DigitalRaptor · · Score: 1

      Um, the 1918 flu pandemic that killed around 40 million people worldwide WAS the bird flu.

      Show me 40 million shark deaths anywhere in history and we'll talk.

      --
      Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
    2. Re:Bird flu is a bird disease by cantino · · Score: 0

      The difference is shark attacks are unlikely to suddenly evolve into a virulent form that jumps from person to person. Until we have air-born, rapidly mutating sharkes, that is.

    3. Re:Bird flu is a bird disease by Forseti · · Score: 1

      Uh, no! That was the Spanish flu, Influenza A virus strain H1N1. Bird flu is H5N1.

      --
      Delay is preferable to error. (Thomas Jefferson)
    4. Re:Bird flu is a bird disease by Xybot · · Score: 1

      ALL influenza strains were originally a bird disease, your comparison with shark attacks breaks down in the face of the millions killed by the Spanish flu epidemic alone.

      --
      God was my co-pilot, but then we crashed and I was forced to eat him.
    5. Re:Bird flu is a bird disease by DigitalRaptor · · Score: 1

      "Bird flu" is not synonymous H5N1.

      H5N1 is a strain of bird flu, not the bird flu itself.

      All H5N1 is the bird flu, but not all bird flu is not H5N1, like all Ford Focus's are cars, but not all cars are Ford Focus's.

      There are many strains of the bird flu (Hello, the article we are responding to is about another strain of the bird flu!).

      The 1918 pandemic WAS caused by a strain of the bird flu. See also NYTimes.

      --
      Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
  24. Vaccine != Antibiotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The book is especially timely given yesterday's news that a new, antibiotics-resistant variant of H5N1 has been detected in China.

    WRONG. Antibiotics do nothing against viruses. Good going, submitter.
  25. Re:On remedies...(chicken soup) by kfg · · Score: 1

    Another preparation that's recommended is that you have a surgical face mask to avoid breathing in the virus

    The flu virus is not airborne; it is contact spread. The most common sources of infection are doorknobs and money, but the most common source of infection by the Avian Flu is from handling birds. Wear gloves.

    Wearing a surgical mask is not to prevent you from catching the flu virus, it is to prevent you from spreading it when you sneeze on people/things, putting them into contact with your infected, precious bodily fluids.

    KFG

  26. A book? by BoberFett · · Score: 1

    Make it a movie. Preferably one starring Jean Claude van Damme and a suitably attractive love interest who save the world from a deadly strain of bird flu. I'd be all over that.

  27. Well, etymologically speaking... by patrixmyth · · Score: 1

    Anti (Against)- Biotic (Relating to Life)...
    Antibiotic- Anti-Life, so technically a viral immunization could be considered an antibiotic (as long as you consider a virus to be alive, which is an open scientific question). The the virus itself could also be considered antibiotic, as could anti-freeze and anti-personnel mines. It sounds nitpicky, but no more so than usual for slashdot. The editor should probably go back and insert antiviral resistant, and penicillin should probably be referred to as anti-bacteriological.

    --
    "Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey?"- Peter Gabriel
  28. Factory Farming Keeps Humans and Animals Apart by radtea · · Score: 2, Interesting

    modern industrialized agricultural methods, including factory farming, antibiotics misuse, and the use of animal refuse as a food source (!) for chickens and other livestock, have led to a staggering increase in the number of 'zoonotic' diseases that can leap from animals to people, and make a bird flu pandemic likely

    Which claim raises the question: why is it that flu pandemics always originate in the Far East, where none of these things are prevalent?

    The conventional wisdom is that in the Orient there is far more routine contact between human beings and food animals, and far less emphasis on maintaining a relatively hygenic environment in the places where such contact occurs. Part of this is cultural (some food animals in China are typically sold to consumerss while still alive) and part of it is economic (factory farming is capital intensive, and agriculture has tended to lag other industries in industrialization. The transfer of viruses between humans and animals made possible by this routine contact is what produces cross-species pandemics.

    On the other hand, factory farming keeps animals pretty much completely isolated from humans (and the outdoors, freedom to move, wild grasses, and everything else.)

    So while I'm no fan of all aspects of modern factory farming, I have very little doubt that it is at least partly responsible for the relative scarcity of flu pandemics that originate in the West.

    The article itself is just fud, and the person submitting it is not an environmentalist, but rather just another religious kook who has wandered into the wrong movement.

    --
    Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    1. Re:Factory Farming Keeps Humans and Animals Apart by ksheff · · Score: 1

      thank you for paying attention.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    2. Re:Factory Farming Keeps Humans and Animals Apart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The flus coming out of the Far East are treatment-resistant because the farmers treat sick animals with treatments intended for humans, because they can get the medicine cheaply from local manufacturers.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amantadine#Misuse

  29. Re:On remedies...(chicken soup) by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

    ..it is to prevent you from spreading it when you sneeze on people/things, putting them into contact with your infected, precious bodily fluids.

    I hear that restricting one's liquid intake to grain alcohol and rainwater works wonders for avian flu..

  30. one word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PARANOIA!

  31. Recycled Food by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    the use of animal refuse as a food source

    Eat recycled food, for a happier, healthier life. Be kind and peaceful to each other, eat recycled food. Recycled food - it's good for the environment, and ok for you.

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    1. Re:Recycled Food by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I hear there's going to be shortages of soylent green next Tuesday. I hope I can get near the front of the line.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  32. Um...hypothetically speaking.... by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

    is chicken copulation out of the question? You know, just out of curiosity....

    1. Re:Um...hypothetically speaking.... by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      is chicken copulation out of the question?
      No it's not out of the question, but no kissing afterwards, the fuckers'll peck your tongue to shit, ungrateful little sluts.

      Er, probably.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  33. A better book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A better book about bird flu is prolly 'The Great Influenza' by John Barry.

    You can bet my family has two weeks worth of food and more importantly loaded weapons. This is not scare mongering, this is being prepared.

    1. Re:A better book by dkoulomzin · · Score: 1

      Right, I get you... tempt the virus with food, and then shoot it.

      Good luck in the pandemic, man.

      --
      Thou shalt not begin a subject line or post with the word "Umm".
    2. Re:A better book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No the weapons are for to shoot the people who try to steal my food :) Btw, who are you calling a man?

  34. FUD or not? by lymond01 · · Score: 1

    I don't want to downplay this too much, even my place of work has a new phone tree in case we need to call people to tell them everyone's dead...

    But haven't more people died from spinach, indeed, from pretty much anything else that's deadly, than bird flu? I'm not saying it won't be eventually become more prevalent, but I think the likelihood of getting hit by a jet airliner's frozen poop is proba.....

  35. What's the logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I don't understand your use of the polemic "fear mongering", nor do I see why this book is "clearly" a case of it. Is the logic, "if I don't like the message it's fear mongerging, but if approve of the message it's a sober wake-up call?" Seems like the authors of the book did *a lot* more research than you have.

  36. Apparently Rumsfield is running low on cash.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More fear mongering to get us to buy Tamiflu.....

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/tamiflu.asp

  37. This kind of crap by baggins2001 · · Score: 1, Troll

    This is the kind of fear mongering which is used to divert peoples attention from real issues.
    Although the author may be exploiting the media hype for his own ego. There are other problems/viruses that are here now and are killing people. West Nile virus, deer tick virus, Lyme disease. But lets all concentrate only on something that hasn't even materialized yet. Why not worry about one of these mutating into something worse.
    This is tantamount to worrying about gay marriage instead of the 2800 US soldiers killed in Irag. Once we can get the focus on that then we can start focusing on how many people have been killed in Irag period.
    It seems that with the improvements in media for dispensing information, we find ourselves worrying without proper priorities.

    --
    He who said 1,000,000 monkeys on 1,000,000 typewriters would eventually type the great novel, never saw an AOL chat room
  38. Joke explained for the unhip by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

    I don't know what you had in mind but it sure sounds bad....


    See South Park, Episode 0605, Fun With Veal.
    --
    Democrat delenda est
  39. Re:On remedies...(chicken soup) by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
    Wearing a surgical mask is not to prevent you from catching the flu virus, it is to prevent you from spreading it when you sneeze on people/things

    Wearing such masks while sick is common behavior in Japan, and I think it's a darned good idea.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  40. some thoughts by zogger · · Score: 1

    I have 33 cows, they all eat grass.(yes, this is quite small compared to the huge operations, just what I have anecdotally to talk about) Switching to grain farming wouldn't be very productive here, just the equipment outlay would make it impractical and the way the land is here would make it impractical. It's only practical on the really huge and mostly flat terrain farms that can justify the potential ROI. Modern equipment is *not cheap*., and with few exceptions, local property taxes-and just land prices by the acre- are starting to kill off all the medium and small farming operations. The bulk of the farmers now are only able to keep farming because the land is in the family for generations, but without estate tax reform, that is vanishing rapidly. Until you can get the people(consumers) and the federal government to recognize that food-agriculture is of *critical* national importance and they change and alter the tax structure to reflect that, I mean radical changes including entire season floats on loan and operating costs expenses if there is a widespread drought, etc,, you will have the ag setup you see right now, which is the closest to even being marginally profitable for the bulk of the farmers out there.

    In essence, you need to walk a mile in the other guy's muddy boots to see what is right and wrong with "the system" as it stands now.

    1. Re:some thoughts by mspohr · · Score: 1
      I don't think that your 33 cows eating grass are the problem. If all cattle production was grass-fed on small, well-managed farms, we wouldn't have these problems. It's the large feedlots that breed disease (both for cattle and humans) and consume resources. "Corn fed" beef tastes much better than grass fed, however.

      I don't have much sympathy for farmers asking for more subsidies in the name of "security". As it is, farmers get $30 billion a year in direct subsidies plus much more in higher food prices, government services, subsidized crop insurance (paid by all of us non-farmers) and tax breaks. The reason farming is only "marginally profitable" is that US farms are not competitive and are propped up by government subsidies. It would be much more efficient to close down these farms and buy our food from places where they can grow it efficiently such as many developing countries... this also would help these poor countries out of poverty. As it is, we use our tax dollars to subsidize overproduction which we dump on world markets or give away in "food aid". This just ensures that poor countries can't export food (their comparative advantage) and therefore stay poor.

      As far as estate tax reform goes... the average family farm sells for less than a million dollars which is below estate tax limits so no tax. Large corporate farms don't deserve tax breaks.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  41. Deplorable by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

    This book sounds like it does a pretty good job of explaining many of the issues, often caused by the greed of the factory farming and agribusiness companies which seek to maximise profit, at the expense of everything else. The fact that chickens are fed shit (literally), and kept in inhumane and unhealthy conditions has been well known for years. We also see this in the cattle industry, where cows were fed parts of other animals, which may have led to mad cow disease. Cows are herbivorous, and should not eat meat.

    Not only are the health issues deplorable, but the way these animals are treated as well. Many of these farms are called concentration camp farms and are hell on earth. The animals are kept in small cages where they cannot move, crowded with many other birds. Some are kept in large warehouses and never see the outdoors, and are still crowded and often go insane, attacking other chickens. This often leads to cruel practices such as debeaking the chickens with hot blades. Like people, chickens need time away from others of their type.

    At slaughter, cows are supposed to be stunned with a bolt gun. But since the line moves so fast, many cows are not stunned properly and knocked out, and make it to the disassembly part of the line still conscious. Workers are not allowed to stop the line or if they do they may be fired.

    Chickens are not stunned, their necks are slit and they bleed to death, slow and painful, but hopefully before they get to the processing sections of the line. The floor in this facilities is basically a lake of blood.

    If most Americans knew what happens to animals in these plants, most would demand humane slaughter and living conditions for all animals, or at least, I would hope.

  42. Re:On remedies...(chicken soup) by NerveGas · · Score: 1

    "It's called Oral Rehydration Therapy, and I'm getting together the ingredients this week. "

        You're getting the ingredients together this week? Man, if you don't already have water, sugar, and salt, then you might be in trouble. :-)

        The sugar and salt method is used because almost EVERYONE has those ingredients available, not because it's the best. It is enough, though, that even with severe diarrhea, you can survive almost indefinitely - certainly long enough to get medical care. Sugar gives you a way to rapidly absorb some calories before it shoots out the other end, and salt provides soidum and chloride ions, two of the major (I should say THE two major) electrolites in the body. But, there are others, like potassium - and so a bottle of gatorade (you can buy large tubs of powdered gatorade) is much better than the salt-and-water. And there's still another major step up, pedialyte is much better than gatorade as well. Having been through some very serious illnesses in other countries, I can tell you that not only does pedialyte work MUCH better, it's also a bit more tasty than plain salt-and-sugar water.

        (In some countries, hospitals have cholera units where patients are put in hammocks with a hole cut for their butts, and 5-gallon buckets beneath them.)

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  43. Re:On remedies...(chicken soup) by NerveGas · · Score: 1

    "how do we operate the city when 30-40% of our staff are out sick themselves or busy at home caring for their family members"

    An even better approach would be "How can we send as many people as possible home, so we're not contributing to the problem by having them spread it around at the office?"

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  44. Re:On remedies...(chicken soup) by NerveGas · · Score: 1

    "The flu virus is not airborne; it is contact spread."



    Yes, but it's a respiratory virus. That means that the afflicted person needs to get the virus out through the mouth or nasal passages - like rubbing their noses, or sneezing. It also means that you have to get some on you, and then get it into your respiratory tract - like rubbing your eyes or nose, chewing your nails, etc.. Wearing a mask helps prevent the spread on both ends, even if it just keeps people from sneezing on you, and keeps you from picking your nose.

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  45. Mod Abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, not sure why this was modded as a Troll but I don't believe it's fair. I think the author expresses some valid concerns that also appear in other threads that are not modded unfavorably.

  46. hyped or not,Prevention is better than dying later by blackfog · · Score: 1

    Here is generic info for those who aren't much aware on the topic.
    Yes half the people on the face of earth would say bird flu is hyped...

    But for once imagine if the virus actually becomes capable of spreading from human to human, what then? infinite deaths in a very short while! It has happened in the past too.
    Theoretically speaking such genetic changes in virus' RNA are possible via antigenic drift, which also has happened in past!

    As the virus keeps changing genetically we are unable to have pre-made accurate vaccines against it. Immunization is out of question for the same reason. Hence the only surest hope today is to know the disease and prevent its infection.

    So whats the problem listening to them - to those who are coining such theories of a pandemic? especially when we have no unfailing measures which we can count on. All they are asking for are SOME precautions, some investment in reasearch, some bird-killings when infected on mass scale....

    Hygiene and disinfection using even casual methods like washing and following general cleanliness guidelines at home can reduce the chances of flu infection by 99%. And also the need of training, in better ways of poultry farming, especially to farmers from developing countries!

  47. Puh-leeze by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    Traditional farming where people are in close regular contact with their pigs and their birds is just the thing for mixing and incubating cross-species infections. Factory farming means the animals are overcrowded and disease-prone but doesn't create the evolutionary niche for cross-platform bugs.

  48. Re:On remedies...(chicken soup) by kfg · · Score: 1

    Wearing a mask . . . keeps you from picking your nose.

    The hell it does.

    KFG

  49. /. Tribute by umbrellasd · · Score: 1

    It is a tribute to us all that this article was tagged "FUD".

  50. Close Quarters by SpiritusGladius1517 · · Score: 0

    IAAPS (I am a Poultry Scientist - that's not a joke) and in the course of my studies I had to take a couple of classes about poultry diseases. The professor taught us long before anyone knew about AI (avian influenza or "bird flu" as the media likes to say) that it had great potential to cause a pandemic, and the key, according to him, was China. He said that diseases do not often pass easily from bird to human -- the physiology is simply too different. However, diseases pass quite readily from birds to pigs, and also readily from pigs to humans. In China, chickens, pigs, and humans all live in close proximity to one another, with a great amount of close contact -- especially in the rural areas. Thus, any new mutations (and viruses are quite prone to mutate) could move quite quickly from bird to human. As we all know, human population density in China is quite high; thus, it is a prime starting place for new epidemics. Once infected humans move about the world, as they are wont to do, the disease spreads, etc.

    His suggestion was an emphasis on biosecurity, much like in the US -- where visitors are kept at a minimum, shoes must be covered with clean covers, animals are kept away from the houses, rodent and pest control protocols are followed, etc. In this way, we have been largely successful (not perfect, mind you, but largely successful) in keeping AI out of American flocks.

    --
    If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.
  51. Spinach by boo+pixie · · Score: 1

    Well, lets think for a moment where the E. coli involved in the spinach-related deaths came from. It's not normally living on spinach. It came from cattle on a nearby farm.

    --
    -- http://uncannyvalley.org/
  52. Arsenic... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    ... crops up as a trace element in minerals. There is a thing that sheep get when they are deficient in arsenic (yes, really!) but I can't remember what it is. The dose needed is, AFAIR, in the microgramme range per animal per year. Very tiny amounts.

  53. I'll pass on most foreign production by zogger · · Score: 1

    killing off your own domestic food production is a pretty good way to get held up at some point. It is a national security issue because food is a necessity, we aren't talking about iPods and gameboys here. IMO, all nations need to be as self sufficient as possible, in widely diverse regions, because we can't control the weather. look at the grains markets this year, all three major wheat poducing areas got half borked from drought....which means you never know. It's also a fact that energy prices keep going up, making transportation more expensive. Nope, I'll have to pass, I think we need more farmers in more local areas. Plus, at least here we have some restrictions on farming practices and some oversight on how chemicals are used. A lot of these other places have no restrictions at all.

    And a million bucks isn't that much for even a small farm anymore, it isn't, and the estate tax is a tax on money that has already been taxed, again, a bad idea. And now we get into economic issues, and in a fiat currency system like we have, all income taxes are social engineering, they have nothng to do with funding government, nothing, zero. They are a command and control carrot and stick social engineering force used to make people do what a lot of rich people want,and that's it. Tariffs and use taxes are taxes, income taxes are a con game scam used by the elite. Again, this is precisely because we have a fiat currency. If we didn't, I wouldn't have this opinion, but we do, so I do.

    As to the big feedlots, I agree, I would prefer the laws adjusted so it is possible to sell easier and more locally as an independent. I like making sure the cows are happy and got some room to move, I don't like enclosed lots-but that's the system that has evolved. I would rather they didn't do the subsidies and just hired more inspectors, I would love to be able to sell directly to a market rather than the auction, but the hoop jumping for small amounts is way too high. And instead o subsidies then, farmers could make more in their pocket, eliminate one step of middlemen, and be able to bank for bad years. In *very* bbad years, all they need is a loan suspension for all their bills for that year, a delay rather than a bailout. that would be enough. You can't force nature, it is really hard to try and run a "this quarter" mentality dealing with living things and the weather, as much as they keep trying to do that.

    1. Re:I'll pass on most foreign production by mspohr · · Score: 1
      I think that most of us would agree that information technology is vital to our economy and security. However, you'd be hard pressed to buy any "made in USA" IT equipment. It's all made in a web of countries all over the world, each exercising it's comparative advantage... the US for CPUs, Japan and Korea for memory, Taiwan, China and a lot of other countries for assembly. There's no reason that food should be different. Why should I buy high priced sugar from the USA when a lot of countries can produce sugar more efficiently?

      On the estate tax, it is a myth that this is a double tax on money that has already been taxed. Most of the value of most estates comes from appreciation in real estate value or capital gains that have never been taxed.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    2. Re:I'll pass on most foreign production by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      At it's heart, the movement against the Estate Tax has most to do with people who don't believe the government has some inherent right to tax all income.

      Remember, there are other ways for governments to raise the money to fund themselves. Other forms of taxation, even. There was no US Income tax in the 19th century.

      The 'double tax' issue is just one facet of the issue.

    3. Re:I'll pass on most foreign production by zogger · · Score: 1

      We bought some equipment and stuff from an estate sale last year, an elderly farmer had passed away. Even though his son wanted to continue farming, they couldn't, it was impossible, from the estate taxes, they (the trustee) had to sell off a lot of the equipment and a lot of the acreage, and what as left over wasn't enough to keep a farm going that was established in the 1800s.

      Really, generalizations are hardly ever accurate. the income tax has nothing to do with governmental funding. We have a *fiat* currency system. With correct and open audits and productivity based monetized digits creation, we would not need income taxes at all, nor estate taxes. If you are saying you are in favor fo thte system as it stands, with a private bank issuing debt notes that they get to print up with zero oversight, then forcing us to pay interst on it, then the double insult of charging us taxes based on our labor which we are forced to use their debt notes for..I am flabbergasted. slashdot at least usually has a bit higher awaeness level to it with most of the olks here. We analyse and look at the facts. A fiat currency is fake, ersatz, it is based on nothing but a con and force of arms and a threat. The taxes that accompany that are just extensions of it. Little babies born today are born into a debt load that is already into 6 figures. that is the fruits of the fiat economy and globalism, just so you can have slightly cheaper stuff for a few years.

      And if you can't see the critical difference between food and cheap electronic junk I don't know what to say, other than you have a lot more faith in global stability than I do, or maybe never had to suffer a sudden shortage of something critical. I have so perhaps that is why I have a different take on it. I don't trust transnational cororations and the government to have my best interests at heart, they emphasize the bottom line for them. I believe in buy local as much as possible and support your neighbor, I am more nationalist than most people I guess. And I want people overseas to feel the same way about their places of living, I am not racist of xenophiobe, but when it comes to basic manufacturing, foodstuffs and energy all nations should strive to be as self suficient as possible, because they can then go forward with foreign political policies that they can't be held to ransom over. It is that easy to grok.

      It is *hard* today to shop that way inside the US, some things near impossible, but I have experienced globalism first hand with previous lost jobs and I don't believe it is viable long term solution, not the way it is practiced as opposed to their fairy tales of what it is supposed to be. I see no proof it works if you look at the current stats with regards to trade deficits, levels of savings, debt loads, etc. *Credit* is not the same as *accumulated real wealth*, and a temporary one generation long flood of cheap goods in exchange for selling off/killing your manufacturing and now the agricultural and soon to come most of the IT base is not worth it to me. The old expression was "don't eat your seed corn", and it still fits, but the lesson is lost on most people until it is too late to do anything about it. A tradesman may sell off his work tools and work truck on friday night and be very rich indeed for the weekend, but once the weekend is over and he needs to go back to work he is stuck. That is exactly what the elite are doing to the US right now. It is unsustainable and it is already starting to crack and crumble at the edges. They are pirates and plunderers and are stripping the middle class of the accumulated wealth inexchange for the fairy tale that in the future all these foreign places will keep working for cheap in exchange for pieces of paper. That only worked when we still had durable goods aplenty to export. That is changing radically, and this "IP" pseudo property and washing each others shirts or engaging in the dig a hole and fill it back up again government "jobs" deal is not going to replace real work making real s

  54. And more bad "facts" by Pedrito · · Score: 1

    tells why modern industrialized agricultural methods, including factory farming, antibiotics misuse, and the use of animal refuse as a food source (!) for chickens and other livestock, have led to a staggering increase in the number of 'zoonotic' diseases

    Staggering increase? Due to modern industrialized agricultural methods?

    The fact is, pandemics have increased in the past couple hundred years because people are able to travel further, faster. That's the only reason pandemic are relatively modern. Epidemics of diseases, including influenza epidemics have been happening since the first influenza viruses evolved into existence.

    Most of the deadlier influenza epidemics and pandemics both modern and going back, at least, hundreds of years in history, were the result of animal to human crossover. And the only reason this isn't confirmed further back is likely as lack of samples with which we can test with modern technology (we do have samples of some of the viruses from epidemics and pandemics of the past few hundred years, preserved in various ways, sometimes by accident.)

    This isn't a result of modern agricultural methods. It's the result of the ease with which say, an avian flu, can genetically mix with a human based flu, when a person contracts both at the same time, providing the deadlier avian version of the flu with a method to easily spread from human to human.

    I in no way want to downplay the danger that H5N1 or future flu viruses may pose. But the fact is, this is simply normal and has been normal for at least hundreds of years. Very deadly strains of flu rear their ugly heads every few decades. Ease of travel has simply made it more likely to turn them into pandemics instead of localized epidemics.

  55. Facts by wesborgmandvm · · Score: 1
    Basic facts

    1. Influenza is a respiratory disease caused by a virus that has affected both man and animals for centuries

    2. There are three types of Influenza-A, B and C, but the Type A viruses affect man and animals and have produced the widespread outbreaks of disease documented in the past

    3. Avian influenza or influenza in birds has been the source of the human pandemic (world wide spread of disease) in the past century.

    4. Wild birds (waterfowl) spread the avian influenza virus to commercial or domestic poultry.

    5. There are two forms of avian or "bird" flu. First is the low pathological form which produces a series of minor disease symptoms in birds. There is also a high pathological version, which is a very serious disease and will result in high death loss in birds.

    6. When avian influenza occurs in birds it can sometimes spread to other species especially pigs. It can also mutate or change and become infective to humans.

    7. Historically several outbreaks of the disease have occurred. When the virus spreads worldwide it is called a pandemic. Examples are the 1918 outbreak (sometimes called the "Spanish flu" because of its perceived origin), and others in 1957 and 1968 were a result of this "mixing" and mutation (or change) in a bird flu virus.

    8. In 1997, the bird flu that occurred in Hong Kong changed and spread to humans without "mixing" in another species. The major concern here is that this subtype of virus had never occurred in humans before, so there is no natural immunity or vaccine available.

    9. Avian or "bird" flu has continued to break out in various Southeast Asian countries and has recently spread to Russia.

    10. World health officials and epidemiologist (Doctors who track disease development and spread) are very concerned that as this virus spreads, there is no vaccine and people will be very susceptible to this disease.

    more scientific type facts:

    1. Avian influenza is a disease in birds that comes in two forms-low pathogenic and highly pathogenic. Low path AI can circulate through bird populations and mutate into high path AI

    2. Avian influenza is carried by waterfowl with little disease or consequence, but when passed to domestic poultry can cause devastating high morbidity and mortality.

    3. Previous pandemics (1918, 1957, 1968) in humans were sourced from avian influenza virus

    4. There are three types of Influenza virus-A, B and C. Type A viruses are the most deadly and are classified by proteins on the virus capsid H (hemagluttinin) and N (neuraminidase). There are 15 H subtypes and 9 N subtypes.

    5. The virus in 1918 (Spanish flu-because of its perceived origin) was H1N1 and recent outbreaks of H5N1 are occurring in birds in Southeast Asia. Human were infected during these outbreaks with a high (up to 30-50%) mortality rate.

    6. This H5 (Hong Kong, 1997) subtype was found to pass directly to humans for the first time in history. Previously, another species (swine) was needed to "mix" the virus before the infection in humans could occur.

    7. Mixing of the H5N1 virus with another common human influenza virus would produce an easily transmissible virus to which humans have no natural immunity.

    8. Vaccine is not available for H5N1 serotype and producing adequate quantities in advance does not guarantee that it will prevent the spread of the virus. Our current annual flu vaccine will not cover this potential disease.

    9. Some countries are instead stockpiling influenza treatment drugs (M2 inhibitors and neuraminidase inhibitors) such as Tamiflu to "treat" early signs and symptoms.

    10. Monitoring of avian influenza outbreaks by world health officials especially in Asia and countries with little infrastructure for animal disease surveillance is important in the detection and prevention of a human pandemic.

  56. I recommend: The Devil's Flu by Kris_J · · Score: 1

    by Pete Davies. It covers both the 1918 Spanish Flu that killed up to 40 million people as well as more recent outbreaks and current projects in the field.

  57. Check it out Neo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    www.themeatrix.com

  58. Re:hyped or not,Prevention is better than dying la by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    But for once imagine if the virus actually becomes capable of spreading from human to human, what then? infinite deaths in a very short while! It has happened in the past too.
    Theoretically speaking such genetic changes in virus' RNA are possible via antigenic drift, which also has happened in past!
    Holy shit! Infinite deaths in a very short while! That's BAD! In fact, considering how big infinity is, that's REALLY bad! I'm surprised we're here to even discuss it, not dead!
  59. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonosis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there are other disease, besides flu, that have come from 'strains' on animal populations caused by human activity. such as marburg virus, aids, etc. industrialized or not, it doesnt really matter.

  60. It's called 'Bird Flu' and not .... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    ...'Agribusiness-Caused Chicken Flu' or maybe even plain old 'Chicken Flu' because the chicken farmers of the world have a lot of clout. Colonel Sanders has a lot of clout.

  61. Brings new meaning to the phrase by lindseyp · · Score: 1

    ...and the use of animal refuse as a food source (!) for chickens and other livestock...

    "Eat shit and die!"

    --
    j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
  62. Agricultural Conglomerate of Thailand in China by DonZorro · · Score: 1

    Charoen Phokphand (CP) is an agricultural conglomerate of Thailand which has many questionable practices. They keep huge poultry farms, also they act as the wholesaler and reseller for small poultry farms.

    CP started out in the early 1990s and is now virtually a monopoly for poultry products on the thai market. They expanded into China a few years ago, I'm not sure if they are in Vietnam. The Thai govt, under Thaksin, was a big promoter for CP, they consistently denied the existence or danger of bird flu...when people started questioning their policy, Thaksin had chicken served at his cabinet luncheon, Thaksin even held a big free chicken buffett at a park in Bangkok.

  63. Yep, non-industrial farming is the bad type by r00t · · Score: 1

    Chickens in your backyard are exposed to both humans and wild birds.

    Industrial farming keeps the birds inside. They might never even see sunshine, never mind having contact with wild birds.

    The guy clearly ignores the facts to push his political agenda. He'd be demanding that all farms everywhere be factory-style if he were honest.