Slashdot Mirror
Researchers: Rats Didn't Spread Black Death, Humans Did
concertina226 (2447056) writes "Scientists studying the human remains of plague victims found during excavations for London's new Crossrail train line have concluded that humans spread the Black Death rather than rats, a fact that could rewrite history books. University of Keele scientists, working together with Crossrail's lead archaeologist Jay Carver and osteologists from the Museum of London, analyzed the bones and teeth of 25 skeletons dug up by Crossrail. They found DNA of Yersinia pestis, which is responsible for the Black Death, on the teeth of some of the victims."
Obviously.
That black death was actually zombies. The teeth says it all.
Scientists discovered this at least 6 years ago when I watched a documentary about it, and most likely quite a bit before that.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Now I'm not sure they got even the disease right! How am I supposed to believe they got the minutiae of the actual new findings right?
Ezekiel 23:20
Pneumonic plague being transmitted by air isn't news. It's a form of the disease that gets into your lungs, after all. Also, the primary vector isn't rats at all, but fleas, which often go directly from person to person.
The article's credibility is not helped at all when it mentions the plague virus, when it is actually caused by a bacterium.
Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. (Isaac Asimov)
The plague can take 3 forms, at least one of which, pneumonic, infects the lungs and spreads through the air, much like the common cold does. Just because humans had a role in helping to spread it doesn't leave the rats and their fleas off the hook. It is still quite likely that there were multiple vectors combined that caused the rapid spread of the disease.
Not normally considered a delicacy, when it's rat or nothing, well, sorry Templeton.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
What a terribly written article. What did the later deaths in the early 1900s have to do with the medieval plague? Did they find DNA on the victims from the 1900s or from the actual plague outbreak? What does DNA on the teeth have to do with and what does it indicate? Totally worthless crap article, through and through.
Better known as 318230.
You have to re-read it at least twice to pick it up, as the connection with other points is very weak.
"As an explanation for the Black Death in its own right, [bubonic plague spread by rat fleas] simply isn't good enough. It cannot spread fast enough from one household to the next to cause the huge number of cases that we saw during the Black Death epidemics," said Public Health England's Dr Tim Brooks.
I.e. Flees are not a fast enough vector. It must have been something faster.
Enter airborne plague. And the 1906 case as an example of how fast it moves.
And the presence of "DNA of Yersinia pestis" on the teeth of the corpses of the people from the period, as a proof that they COULD HAVE been spreading it with their breath. Too.
The find actually does not exclude fleas, it only (maybe) provides proof for YET ANOTHER vector - that we already knew of.
Indeed a terrible article.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Sicne when does one exclude the other?
Onky SOME had the DNA. What about the others?
From what I remeber goint to school. The rats hellped spreading the plague, because they had access to the homes and the cities. This ment that even closing the doors and even city gates did not stop the spreading.
It might have slowed it down a little bit, but rats (or rather the fleas on the rats) still had access to the humans.
Then when it was inside a house or a city, contact between huimans helped spreading it further and faster.
I am sure if you look further, dogs might have had fleas as well and thus also spread it.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Of course the plague was spread by humans. Otherwise you would have to conclude that rats walked all over continental Europe over the course of a few years.
While I'm pretty certain that humans were a main vector in spreading the plague, your "otherwise" doesn't hold water.
It's enough that rats move enough to get in contact with other rats. And they do. They have overlapping and somewhat fluid territories, and young rats without a territory needs to go find one.
There are many historic examples of the black plague apparently spreading by ship. Nothing proven, but strong circumstantial evidence. City 1 has plague. Ship arrives from city1 at city2. Shortly thereafter the first case of plague happens in city2.
Most likely rats on the ship.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Maybe now the prejudice will end and rats can finally get some respect!
Specifically: Brits did. Worse than rats.
Yeah, just like Iraq. We sure showed 'em.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
If they vomited, and the vomitus contained the bacteria, would that account for these findings?
Futurist Traditionalism
Can't help but laugh at the heated comments in this thread over a non-Article that is little more than an Advert for a History Channel-esque show for Channel 4 in the UK next Sunday.
His Magnificence, the Generallissimo Norvegicus, says you can go right on believing that if you like.
New Scientist magazine had an article in it about this very subject years ago!
Aliens. Its always aliens.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
From the article (which is really a veiled advertisement for an upcoming tv show), researchers found the bacteria on the teeth of the skeletons and use this as proof that the plague spread by humans and not rats (the article actually calls it a virus, but that the black plague was bacterial, not viral).
It is reasonable that if people died from a bacterial infection y.pesis, that said bacteria would remain on their dead bodies and be burried with them. The fact that they found DNA of the bacteria on the teeth and bones doesn't tell us anything as only the teeth and bones remain.
There is also no doubt that if the plague spread by infect fleas from rats, that those fleas would also go from other mamnalian hosts including humans.
Ultimately what probably did in so many back then were complications (most likely pneumonia) to a population already weakened by difficult living conditions made worse by the famine. People today are more succeptable to infection if they are already in a compromised state, there is no reason to suspect people back then weren't.
While interesting, the article, in making the bold claim that it spread because of humans, leaves out how it got to Europe in the first place. People couldn't just hop on a plane and get from point a to b in a matter of hours. The length of journey, if spread by humans, would have meant they carriers would have died off, prior to ever making it to Europe. That wouldn't be the case for a host animal with immunity to the bacteria, say like, rats.
Again, while interesting, it seems dangerous to rewrite all of history related to the plague, ignoring first hand reports, because some skeletons, but not all, from plague victims had y.pestis on their teeth and bones. But, it does make for good publicity for an upcoming tv show.
The pneumonic form of plague is faster. Even flea-mediated transmission between people would likely produce obviously sick or dead crew before a ship reached its destination.
The plague was so insidious because the bacteria could live in an animal reservoir (rats carried on ships) and ALSO spread quickly between people. The rats carried it long distances, such as on sea voyages, then infected people, who then infected other people.
Who would have thought it possible that the Brits might succumb to any disease related to dental hygiene.
Nullius in verba
We would be more doomed by the medical establishment than helped.
Not only were such facts known to researchers, but most SF fans had a pretty good idea by reading the Doomsday Book by Connie Willis. It might be fiction, but it does get quite a few facts right, and overall is a great read.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Even if the only reason is that they carry Baylisascaris procyonis. They live around here and will get in the large, lidded garbage cans if given half a chance.
My neighbor will throw old bread out for them to eat and it's a major temptation to use that as an opportunity to shoot them. Popular opinion and that of law enforcement prevents me from doing this.
Having just done something very un-slashdot-like (well, it *used* to be what a lot of us did, but not the last few years), i noted that it was hitting in the midst of a famine... which is when a) many, many people would have weakened immune systems, and b) did you unbelievably rich folks, who can eat three meals a day (or more)(or supersized) without thinking about it think that the concept of stewed rat was only in, say, Monty Python?
And if the fleas hit the folks catching them, and then it mutated, or there were both strains.....
mark
There is some argument missing here. The usual story is that rats infected humans by spreading fleas that spread the microbe through bite.. I am not sure what the finding says about humans. Was mankind a vector of the flea? That might not be all that surprising as fleas and ticks often cam be spread by other mammals to humans. The novelty is that the flea could live on people without the rat host being necessary.