(1) probability, including that you can't just rush a compound and press the big red button, it takes expertise/time to prepare and codes to launch the missile -- note this is not a scenario seriously pushed by the ABM proponents; and (2) we wouldn't be able to shoot down such a missile anyway, given the huge technological hurdles and that the Russian, Chinese, etc. will install cheap and easy countermeasures as we develop our system (without which their rockets would be useless).
It's nice to dream of a Star Wars shield, and it gives me the willies that we are unprotected from a bomb we know is coming, but that's how it is. There are much better ways to spend the money that will get results, like disarmament and gathering intelligence on groups that might attept such a thing. We'd save more lives curing cancer or AIDS with the money spent preparing for a long-shot threat. And to say we will achieve a meaningful 24/7 ABM anytime in the near future, one so precise that it could known out a single unexpected bomb, is a lie -- and we need protection now.
Well, to draw the analogy in the other direction, flogging it as I go:
I think the ABM program is worse than the Maginot line because it addresses a threat than does not exist. No one but the Russians has the technology to deliver ICBM nukes, and we wouldn't be able to stop them. Any lesser nation that has surmounted the technical problems in developing a nuke would be nuts to next throw itself into the numerous complexities of a major rocket problem, re-rentry vehicles, etc. They may be crazy, but they're not stupid. And for countries that can develop the technology (the Chinese or the Koreans?), massive retaliation and assured destruction should still be adequate. An ICBM would be exceedingly easy to trace back to its origin, hence suicidal for an entire government.
This doesn't even touch on the monumental technical hurdles of an ABM system. To say that "just one city" would cost more overlooks the nearly zero probability that even a brilliant trillion-dollar system would head off that feared one-nuke attack. I worry a great deal about someone trying to use a nuclear weapon to advance terrorism, but not for a second about them delivering their precious weapon via an unreliable rocket. I'd launch it from a submarine or boat or airplane or freight container or truck... well, you get the idea... not an 8,000-mile lob by a missile. ICBM's were intended for the Cold War, deterrence, and the fear of being unable to counterstrike, not first-strike (up until they started making lots of MIRV's, maybe).
I could go on, but... I don't feel there is much actual debate going on with this topic, which is unfortunate as it means breaking the ABM treaty, alienating allies, sparking an arms race, and spending a whole lot of money for nothing. These billions could be used to isolate or disarm the enemy more easily.
However Kafka was a "member of the German-speaking minority in the Czech city Prague" an is readily identified with German culture. It's no coindcidence he wrote in German. His work is routinely considered part of the German literature. He was definitely not "definitely not German" in a culture as opposed to citizenship. (And I studied him in German class, so there.)
Franz Kafka was born in Prague, now in the Czech Republic but then part of Austria. His father was Hermann Kafka, an owner of a large dry goods establishment, and mother Julie (Löwy) Kafka, who belonged to one of the leading families in the German-speaking, German-cultured Jewish circles of Prague. Hermann Kafka was a domestic tyrant, who directed his anger against his son. Kafka also had three sisters, all of whom perished in Nazi camps. Often Kafka's stories dealt with the struggle between father and son, or a scorned individuals pleading innocence in front of remote figures of authority. In Letter to His Father (1919) Kafka admitted: "My writing was all about you; all I did there, after all, was to bemoan what I could not bemoan upon your breast. It was an intentionally long-drawn-out leave-taking from you."
Kafka grew up in an atmosphere of familial tensions and social rejection that he experienced as a member of Prague's Jewish minority. His attitude to his Jewish heritage was ambivalent. In a diary he wrote: ''What have I in common with Jews? I have hardly anything in common with myself and should stand very quietly in a corner, content that I can breathe.'' Kafka was educated at the German National and Civic Elementary School and the German National Humanistic Gymnasium.
I'm one of those vexed at the Scott Adams sellout years ago. His work (if he even draws it -- many cartoonists have assistants) no longer feels fresh and subversive, and is going the route of "Garfield." Yes, it's nice he's gotten rich, but I don't have to respect him for that, or forgive (originally endearing) his stick figures. A polar opposite might be Bill Watterson, who is a talented artist, refused to use assistant cartoonists, and refused to merchandise Calvin and Hobbes to the point of nearly losing his job. (Perhaps this was too extreme; I'd love to have a Hobbes stuffed tiger for my kids.;-)
It may just be my romantic notion of art over profit. Or maybe I'm just bored with the stagnancy of Dilbert, where it used to be such a terrific strip.
Oh I agree; I'm not some brittle liberal. As I just explained in a parallel thread, "German race" is strongly evocative of the Nazi depredations and like the Confederate flag isn't easily redeemed even if the user intends something entirely different. Race used to denote biological traits is problematic enough; using it to mean culture and such can be confusing. How about calling them "Germans"? That conveys nationality and culture very clearly.
A more embarassing example was the girl I remember from high school who though "Jap" was accepted shorthand for Japanese, and used it throughout an oral history report... until the history teacher interrupted.:)
I know plenty of Germans. I think they tend to see their culture as far more cosmopolitan than in the 19th century, and reject teh loaded term "race." Among other things, more and more Germans are immigrants. The unifying and mythical "German race" concept was a central tenet of the nazis.
Try searching google for "German race." Aside from car races, almost all references will be to the eugenics and slaughter of the 30's and 40's, and to Hitler or war criminals.
Actually, some businesses are run by real, live human beings. I've known some of them. No need to be strangely cynical.
"Favor" suggests the merchant has discretion whether or not to act, versus having to do so a matter of right or legal obligation. Favor doesn't mean they don't expect something in return, much as often an individual does a favor with an implied expectation of repayment. Conversely, as with individuals, a store manager or friend will do a favor just out of decency. Imagine returning a stale candy bar to a lonely highway gas station that knows it's never, ever going to see you again.
My implied tip was that being an asshole is not usually your best strategy.
Geez, I wouldn't use it that way. The "German race" reminds me of you-know-what. And it really doesn't work in an age when people move across state boundaries so fluidly.
Point taken. But I don't like it and wouldn't use it. Rather, the "French people." And I don't like "impact" used to be "have an effect on" either. So there!
Merchants have no general obligation to accept returns unless they are at fault for damaging the merchandise, misrepresenting it, and so on. The manufacturer is the one liable for defective product. Most stores, however, accept returns as a courtesy, and the time period is up to them or their stated policy. Home Depot, for example, until recently accepted returns after any amount of time without a receipt. I miss that.
Some state laws may grant a right to return merchandise, but it is not a general rule. Just a pointer that the merchant is doing you a favor, and taking a loss, because that's typical retail practice. Also, you might be able to negotiate return beyond 30 days.
Buying locally does benefit your local economy, a non-trivial effect in some communities.
Germans can have a great sense of humor! It just tends to be a little... dark. I find Kafka a riot.:)
I don't condone stereotypes, but the French do have other surrenders. But in fairness these should at least be counted against the many French victories -- Napolean and all that. They also gave the fledgling U.S. one heck of a boost during its Revolutionary War. Finally, the (Nazi) Germans were the final surrender, and isn't THAT the one that counts?
Yep, I know we're surrounded by bacteria and viruses that would like to kill us. On the playground, there's the classic threat of that nasty tentanus-causing bacteria just waiting for its chance (at an unimmunized foot). Even our buddy E. coli (the "friendly" kind) is sitting there in the gut, just waiting for its chance.... But as you know, our skin is 99.9 % of our defense; that infection can result is scary, but where infection does result is what I worry about. Mostly, unless I'm out to sea, the infection by exotics has so far been among the immunocompromised (who have to fear even fungus) and hospitalized. This is of course the tip of the iceberg, and these people's lives are very important, but it is where we are right now, and I'm just uncomfortable with the frequent articles that describe these imminent threats and need for new drugs without touching on boring topics like how and where we get sick in first place. Wash your hands, folks!
A doctor I worked for said that his first autopsy in medical school was of a man who died of a ruptured boil! It's almost a miracle our bodies can stay more or less sterile. The immune system is quite something.
I'm not wild about giving antibiotics as a day-to-day thing to cattle -- as opposed to treating illness -- but I know what the ranchers would say. For me, it's primarily for the bleeding heart reason that I think such use encourages or masks maltreatment of the cattle. I buy "organic" milk mostly on humanitarian grounds. And then there are the possible antibiotic resistance problems. I don't think we could turn the whole system around and meet current production at reasonable prices, but do question the assumption that antibiotics are the correct way to do things. I think the science is there, but politically, well, look for my rant on the gov't's unwillingness to admit that E. coli in hamburger comes from manure in the meat.
To be honest, I stopped eating hamburgers once I understood the contamination problem, even though i doubt they would ever kill me. I do wonder if maybe I get sick less often now. It astonishes me that the gov't and press and ranchers had me believing that the problem was inadequate cooking. Well, sure, in the sense that the Maginot Line "caused" the invasion of France.
Cool career, I hope it gratifies you. Consider working on vaccines! Now, party with a bunch of microbiologists at an ASM meeting? Uh....:)
E. coli live in the gut. If they were to become "systemic" in the cow -- even a "friendly" strain --- the cow would likely die.
It takes careful reading of the USDA or FDA materials to find anything even close to an admission that the problem lies in spreading fecal matter (shit) around during slaughter -- understandable from a beef marketing standpoint, but not consistent with informing the public of the truth. The USDA emphasizes testing, irradition, recalls, cooking.... but not source reduction. Here's as direct as they seem to get:
"How is E. coli O157:H7 spread?
The organism can be found on a small number of cattle farms and can live in the intestines of healthy cattle. Meat can become contaminated during slaughter, and organisms can be thoroughly mixed into beef when it is ground."
Interesting about the selective disadvantages of selection.
It's also not super adaptive for a parasite to routinely murder its host. Exceptions are pathogens that are very contagious or have nice homes elsewhere, either in another species or in some durable form. Anthrax has the unusual strategy of killing its host as fast as possible, before it can mount a defense, and then multiplying its spores throughout the carcass. The spores are eventually released into the soil, get inhaled by the next unlucky ungulate, and off goes another generation.
I live next to DC, hence my personal interest in anthrax. And in any case, isn't disease fascinating?:)
I don't mean to over-hype my de-hype (to further abuse the language); just a grain of salt in the context of the article about staph, which I felt to be misleading. This misdirection doesn't imply there's nothing to fear, and infectious disease is certainly going to be a growth business for some time to come. (Of course, it is the job of specialists in the field to worry about what's to come.) But the antibitoic resistant bacteria problem is still largely in the future, a class different from the sort of infections most of us face.
Maybe that future is arriving faster than I thought... Be nice if we could do something about those "breeding grounds" in the meantime. It's depressing to see someone older go to the hospital with a broken hip to die of pneumonia. Also, the kids who have died because of the poor sanitation in meat packing are so betrayed by a system that responds not with rules but "cook the meat more."
On prescribing antibiotics, assuming the clinician is not ignorant or pandering, it must be difficult. There's always going to be a fear of injury and liability resulting from undertreatment. This comes up with the treatment of ear infections in infants and toddlers. Most such infection resolve themselves without treatment, but the 1 in 5 (or whatever -- there was a study) that don't can cause hearing loss, impaired learning of speech, and so on.
Lately I'm partial to irradiating my hands, but I understand there may be side-effects to that as well. Sigh. (actually, Roengten is said to have given his wife cancer doing this.)
Hey, some places in the Balkans and elsewhere, 1000 years is a reasonable grudge.:)
The Americans have pretty much forgiven the British for whatever it is that they did but we don't know because we either didn't study it in school or forgot it.
As the Oracle Homer Simpson has said:
"If I didn't have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here anytime he wants and start shoving you around."
Staph aureus is a common pathogen that infects about 400,000 U.S. hospital patients a year. About one-quarter of them die. For decades, scientists have been dreading -- but expecting -- a staph aureus strain to emerge that is resistant to vancomycin.
This means that "common pathogen" staph, not a super strain that the article is supposedly about, kills 100,000 people already weakened enough by something else (it is implied they're hospital patients when infected). This is nothing new, and it's certainly not the "dreaded" strain of antibiotic-resistant bacteria doing the damage. The current death rate certainly illustrates that infections and hospitals can be dangerous to vulnerable persons, but it doesn't belong in this story.
The presentation is confusing, out of carelessness or a desire to pump up the story.
Not to push you over the edge, but the antibacterial soaps are controversial; many studies show they are little more effective than regular soap. Some contend the antibacterial ingredients can cause problems all their own.
Most bacteriocides that you'd be willing to put on your skin take a while to work, more time than you'd have the soap on. The most effective treatment is a good scrub, which physically scrapes the bacteria away -- not glamorous but effective. Most of us do a lousy job at handwashing -- it needs to be thorough and repeated during the day, as the bacteria multiply on your skin -- myself included, and I have two of those little disease vectors called "children."
Only 40% of people wash their hands exiting public restrooms, one study showed (imagine being the data-taker); the problem there being the encouragement of the fecal-oral route of disease transmission from the non-handwasher to others. I'll let you visualize what fecal-oral involves. So be a good citizen and lather up.
Oh, and the next time the press reports someone getting sick from beef tainted with E. coli, note that "coli" means colon, where these bacteria were discovered. These E. coli come from careless slaughtering practices and, stated frankly, mean that "there's manure in the meat." (quoting the muckraking author of the excellent Fast Food Nation)
This spectre of super-bacteria (another writer correctly notes that antibiotics have nothing to do with viral infections) has been over-hyped by the press. There have been occasional examples of astonishingly resistant variations on common bacteria, but almost all have arisen in hospital settings with other complications present. They aren't whipping through the community, in other words. There are also special interests, such as the anti-antibiotics in animal feed people (a cause I tend to believe in), which have disingenuously used the problem to boost their cause, lacking any causal connection.
There is good evidence anitbiotics are overprescribed and, much worse, misused by the public (always always finish your course of antibiotic correctly, the last mile really is important even though you may feel fine -- it sounds preachy but it's true). But this is a different issue; the super-bacteria appear in hospital setting where doctors are doing their utmost to fight infection. Vancomycin is still pretty nuclear stuff.
I wish I had a good cite handy, but I can't dredge one up offhand; do take a look if you're interested, at NIH and CDC for starters. IMHO the superbacteria are kind of like the killer bees, long heralded but never quite arriving in force. I don't mean to make light of the potential trouble; it's just not here yet, and won't for a while, and it pales in contrast to staggering public health problems we have like HIV and smoking and unaffordable prescriptions and even West Nile virus. When you hear reports in terms of infections per 100,000 people, as opposed to isolated case studies, take heed. For now it merely makes for good copy, over and over.
"I'm not a doctor but I play one onlin.":) Actually, I minored in biology and immunology, FWIW.
I don't doubt they *could* pull off ABM, I just think it's oversold and its current state overhyped. They distorted extensively the performance of the Patriot's performance against an enhanced V-2 -- the Patriot was ill-matched, but it's the apparent need to mislead the public that bothers me. The press play given that recent test made it sound like a real-world experiment rather than a test of a component of the strategy. That radar they have to invent will be pretty incredible, and then we'll have to deal with the fast reaction time needed, ease of deploying decoys (a dozen balls, one with a warhead) etc. There's also an admitted faked test from the 80's where the miitary reported a "kill" ostensibly to mislead the USSR, which is OK, but they -also- used the faked result as a basis for further Congressional funding. The branches of gov't lying to each other is dangerous stuff.
But that's all off-point. The threat we're supposedly focused on killed 3,000 people with razor blades. Even if North Korea or China or Osama (wouldn't that be something?) had a trustworthy missile, they would be dumb not to put the bomb instead on a fishing boat to sail into S.F. Bay -- harder to trace and less likely to lose a precious warhead. Maybe fire the missile just to freak people out and distract them. And any nation-aggressor would have to worry about that massive retaliation thing we have.
Any nuclear attack will be for shock value, not to cripple the U.S., and any halfway success will doubtless succeed wonderfully. Nukes have an "aura" if you will. The body count would be impressive anyway -- NYC is a lot denser than Hiroshima, where as many as 200k eventually died -- and the economic impact staggering. If I were them I'd opt for a dirty bomb anyway. Some CNN reporters "smuggled" a bunch of U-238 into the country, designed to look suspicious but clearly marked. Customs didn't open it, but -says- they would known if there were U-235 or Pu in there... uh-huh, I trust them on that. Just dump the stuff in a dispersable form into NYC's water supplies, you'd paralyze the city and make the U.S. look pathetic. Or be less ambitious and set off a dirty bomb next to every U.S. Embassy. Nuke Israel. There are a thousand mundane ways to do it that wouldn't implicate exotic ABM in the slightest.
Well, you know all this already.:) Take a look at the RISKS stuff, you may like it -- they touch on everything from voting to terrorism. And what else is there?
Sad, but impressive research. 14% appeared to be the most widely-reported, but I see "forfty-five," too -- where's the official transcript (is your tape subtitled)?!? One-third of Simpsons fans might worry about this, but the other three-quarters wouldn't.
This proves the internet is just a giant game of telephone.
By Google happenstance, here's The National Review's take on the show -- and they're amused. Not a journal I normally associate with friendly mirth, but I guess The Simpsons brings us all together. Couldn't resist sharing.
Slashdot Mirror
(1) probability, including that you can't just rush a compound and press the big red button, it takes expertise/time to prepare and codes to launch the missile -- note this is not a scenario seriously pushed by the ABM proponents; and (2) we wouldn't be able to shoot down such a missile anyway, given the huge technological hurdles and that the Russian, Chinese, etc. will install cheap and easy countermeasures as we develop our system (without which their rockets would be useless).
It's nice to dream of a Star Wars shield, and it gives me the willies that we are unprotected from a bomb we know is coming, but that's how it is. There are much better ways to spend the money that will get results, like disarmament and gathering intelligence on groups that might attept such a thing. We'd save more lives curing cancer or AIDS with the money spent preparing for a long-shot threat. And to say we will achieve a meaningful 24/7 ABM anytime in the near future, one so precise that it could known out a single unexpected bomb, is a lie -- and we need protection now.
Well, to draw the analogy in the other direction, flogging it as I go:
... well, you get the idea ... not an 8,000-mile lob by a missile. ICBM's were intended for the Cold War, deterrence, and the fear of being unable to counterstrike, not first-strike (up until they started making lots of MIRV's, maybe).
... I don't feel there is much actual debate going on with this topic, which is unfortunate as it means breaking the ABM treaty, alienating allies, sparking an arms race, and spending a whole lot of money for nothing. These billions could be used to isolate or disarm the enemy more easily.
I think the ABM program is worse than the Maginot line because it addresses a threat than does not exist. No one but the Russians has the technology to deliver ICBM nukes, and we wouldn't be able to stop them. Any lesser nation that has surmounted the technical problems in developing a nuke would be nuts to next throw itself into the numerous complexities of a major rocket problem, re-rentry vehicles, etc. They may be crazy, but they're not stupid. And for countries that can develop the technology (the Chinese or the Koreans?), massive retaliation and assured destruction should still be adequate. An ICBM would be exceedingly easy to trace back to its origin, hence suicidal for an entire government.
This doesn't even touch on the monumental technical hurdles of an ABM system. To say that "just one city" would cost more overlooks the nearly zero probability that even a brilliant trillion-dollar system would head off that feared one-nuke attack. I worry a great deal about someone trying to use a nuclear weapon to advance terrorism, but not for a second about them delivering their precious weapon via an unreliable rocket. I'd launch it from a submarine or boat or airplane or freight container or truck
I could go on, but
However Kafka was a "member of the German-speaking
minority in the Czech city Prague" an is readily identified with German culture. It's no coindcidence he wrote in German. His work is routinely considered part of the German literature. He was definitely not "definitely not German" in a culture as opposed to citizenship. (And I studied him in German class, so there.)
More:
Self-respect?
;-)
I'm one of those vexed at the Scott Adams sellout years ago. His work (if he even draws it -- many cartoonists have assistants) no longer feels fresh and subversive, and is going the route of "Garfield." Yes, it's nice he's gotten rich, but I don't have to respect him for that, or forgive (originally endearing) his stick figures. A polar opposite might be Bill Watterson, who is a talented artist, refused to use assistant cartoonists, and refused to merchandise Calvin and Hobbes to the point of nearly losing his job. (Perhaps this was too extreme; I'd love to have a Hobbes stuffed tiger for my kids.
It may just be my romantic notion of art over profit. Or maybe I'm just bored with the stagnancy of Dilbert, where it used to be such a terrific strip.
Oh I agree; I'm not some brittle liberal. As I just explained in a parallel thread, "German race" is strongly evocative of the Nazi depredations and like the Confederate flag isn't easily redeemed even if the user intends something entirely different. Race used to denote biological traits is problematic enough; using it to mean culture and such can be confusing. How about calling them "Germans"? That conveys nationality and culture very clearly.
... until the history teacher interrupted. :)
A more embarassing example was the girl I remember from high school who though "Jap" was accepted shorthand for Japanese, and used it throughout an oral history report
Idiot? No.
I know plenty of Germans. I think they tend to see their culture as far more cosmopolitan than in the 19th century, and reject teh loaded term "race." Among other things, more and more Germans are immigrants. The unifying and mythical "German race" concept was a central tenet of the nazis.
Try searching google for "German race." Aside from car races, almost all references will be to the eugenics and slaughter of the 30's and 40's, and to Hitler or war criminals.
Speaking of words, there's no "deservant."
Study up. Advice from an educated liberal.
Actually, some businesses are run by real, live human beings. I've known some of them. No need to be strangely cynical.
"Favor" suggests the merchant has discretion whether or not to act, versus having to do so a matter of right or legal obligation. Favor doesn't mean they don't expect something in return, much as often an individual does a favor with an implied expectation of repayment. Conversely, as with individuals, a store manager or friend will do a favor just out of decency. Imagine returning a stale candy bar to a lonely highway gas station that knows it's never, ever going to see you again.
My implied tip was that being an asshole is not usually your best strategy.
Geez, I wouldn't use it that way. The "German race" reminds me of you-know-what. And it really doesn't work in an age when people move across state boundaries so fluidly.
Point taken. But I don't like it and wouldn't use it. Rather, the "French people." And I don't like "impact" used to be "have an effect on" either. So there!
Merchants have no general obligation to accept returns unless they are at fault for damaging the merchandise, misrepresenting it, and so on. The manufacturer is the one liable for defective product. Most stores, however, accept returns as a courtesy, and the time period is up to them or their stated policy. Home Depot, for example, until recently accepted returns after any amount of time without a receipt. I miss that.
Some state laws may grant a right to return merchandise, but it is not a general rule. Just a pointer that the merchant is doing you a favor, and taking a loss, because that's typical retail practice. Also, you might be able to negotiate return beyond 30 days.
Buying locally does benefit your local economy, a non-trivial effect in some communities.
Don't you think that after all this time, and all this profit, that Scott Adams would have figured out ... how to draw?
noooo
Germans can have a great sense of humor! It just tends to be a little ... dark. I find Kafka a riot. :)
I don't condone stereotypes, but the French do have other surrenders. But in fairness these should at least be counted against the many French victories -- Napolean and all that. They also gave the fledgling U.S. one heck of a boost during its Revolutionary War. Finally, the (Nazi) Germans were the final surrender, and isn't THAT the one that counts?
Yep, I know we're surrounded by bacteria and viruses that would like to kill us. On the playground, there's the classic threat of that nasty tentanus-causing bacteria just waiting for its chance (at an unimmunized foot). Even our buddy E. coli (the "friendly" kind) is sitting there in the gut, just waiting for its chance.... But as you know, our skin is 99.9 % of our defense; that infection can result is scary, but where infection does result is what I worry about. Mostly, unless I'm out to sea, the infection by exotics has so far been among the immunocompromised (who have to fear even fungus) and hospitalized. This is of course the tip of the iceberg, and these people's lives are very important, but it is where we are right now, and I'm just uncomfortable with the frequent articles that describe these imminent threats and need for new drugs without touching on boring topics like how and where we get sick in first place. Wash your hands, folks!
:)
A doctor I worked for said that his first autopsy in medical school was of a man who died of a ruptured boil! It's almost a miracle our bodies can stay more or less sterile. The immune system is quite something.
I'm not wild about giving antibiotics as a day-to-day thing to cattle -- as opposed to treating illness -- but I know what the ranchers would say. For me, it's primarily for the bleeding heart reason that I think such use encourages or masks maltreatment of the cattle. I buy "organic" milk mostly on humanitarian grounds. And then there are the possible antibiotic resistance problems. I don't think we could turn the whole system around and meet current production at reasonable prices, but do question the assumption that antibiotics are the correct way to do things. I think the science is there, but politically, well, look for my rant on the gov't's unwillingness to admit that E. coli in hamburger comes from manure in the meat.
To be honest, I stopped eating hamburgers once I understood the contamination problem, even though i doubt they would ever kill me. I do wonder if maybe I get sick less often now. It astonishes me that the gov't and press and ranchers had me believing that the problem was inadequate cooking. Well, sure, in the sense that the Maginot Line "caused" the invasion of France.
Cool career, I hope it gratifies you. Consider working on vaccines! Now, party with a bunch of microbiologists at an ASM meeting? Uh....
Completely false. What the Heck is an E. coli ?
.... but not source reduction. Here's as direct as they seem to get:
E. coli live in the gut. If they were to become "systemic" in the cow -- even a "friendly" strain --- the cow would likely die.
It takes careful reading of the USDA or FDA materials to find anything even close to an admission that the problem lies in spreading fecal matter (shit) around during slaughter -- understandable from a beef marketing standpoint, but not consistent with informing the public of the truth. The USDA emphasizes testing, irradition, recalls, cooking
"How is E. coli O157:H7 spread?
The organism can be found on a small number of cattle farms and can live in the intestines of healthy cattle. Meat can become contaminated during slaughter, and organisms can be thoroughly mixed into beef when it is ground."
CDC (E. Coli)
The truth shall set you free. But maybe not that cow.
Whichever it is, seems like an awful long time to wait before leaving the bathroom.
Interesting about the selective disadvantages of selection.
:)
It's also not super adaptive for a parasite to routinely murder its host. Exceptions are pathogens that are very contagious or have nice homes elsewhere, either in another species or in some durable form. Anthrax has the unusual strategy of killing its host as fast as possible, before it can mount a defense, and then multiplying its spores throughout the carcass. The spores are eventually released into the soil, get inhaled by the next unlucky ungulate, and off goes another generation.
I live next to DC, hence my personal interest in anthrax. And in any case, isn't disease fascinating?
I don't mean to over-hype my de-hype (to further abuse the language); just a grain of salt in the context of the article about staph, which I felt to be misleading. This misdirection doesn't imply there's nothing to fear, and infectious disease is certainly going to be a growth business for some time to come. (Of course, it is the job of specialists in the field to worry about what's to come.) But the antibitoic resistant bacteria problem is still largely in the future, a class different from the sort of infections most of us face.
Maybe that future is arriving faster than I thought... Be nice if we could do something about those "breeding grounds" in the meantime. It's depressing to see someone older go to the hospital with a broken hip to die of pneumonia. Also, the kids who have died because of the poor sanitation in meat packing are so betrayed by a system that responds not with rules but "cook the meat more."
On prescribing antibiotics, assuming the clinician is not ignorant or pandering, it must be difficult. There's always going to be a fear of injury and liability resulting from undertreatment. This comes up with the treatment of ear infections in infants and toddlers. Most such infection resolve themselves without treatment, but the 1 in 5 (or whatever -- there was a study) that don't can cause hearing loss, impaired learning of speech, and so on.
FWIW -- not too helpful -- here's the CDC page on antibiotic resistance with a quiz!
Hmm, cranberry juice cocktail might be used against infection. You never know what will help.
I'd expect that to dry the skin...
Lately I'm partial to irradiating my hands, but I understand there may be side-effects to that as well. Sigh. (actually, Roengten is said to have given his wife cancer doing this.)
Hey, some places in the Balkans and elsewhere, 1000 years is a reasonable grudge. :)
The Americans have pretty much forgiven the British for whatever it is that they did but we don't know because we either didn't study it in school or forgot it.
As the Oracle Homer Simpson has said:
"If I didn't have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here anytime he wants and start shoving you around."
Don't touch the handle. Either trail someone else or use your used paper towel to grab the handle.
:)
Sorry for any indigestion.
Read even more slowly. The article says:
Staph aureus is a common pathogen that infects about 400,000 U.S. hospital patients a year. About one-quarter of them die. For decades, scientists have been dreading -- but expecting -- a staph aureus strain to emerge that is resistant to vancomycin.
This means that "common pathogen" staph, not a super strain that the article is supposedly about, kills 100,000 people already weakened enough by something else (it is implied they're hospital patients when infected). This is nothing new, and it's certainly not the "dreaded" strain of antibiotic-resistant bacteria doing the damage. The current death rate certainly illustrates that infections and hospitals can be dangerous to vulnerable persons, but it doesn't belong in this story.
The presentation is confusing, out of carelessness or a desire to pump up the story.
Not to push you over the edge, but the antibacterial soaps are controversial; many studies show they are little more effective than regular soap. Some contend the antibacterial ingredients can cause problems all their own.
Most bacteriocides that you'd be willing to put on your skin take a while to work, more time than you'd have the soap on. The most effective treatment is a good scrub, which physically scrapes the bacteria away -- not glamorous but effective. Most of us do a lousy job at handwashing -- it needs to be thorough and repeated during the day, as the bacteria multiply on your skin -- myself included, and I have two of those little disease vectors called "children."
Only 40% of people wash their hands exiting public restrooms, one study showed (imagine being the data-taker); the problem there being the encouragement of the fecal-oral route of disease transmission from the non-handwasher to others. I'll let you visualize what fecal-oral involves. So be a good citizen and lather up.
Oh, and the next time the press reports someone getting sick from beef tainted with E. coli, note that "coli" means colon, where these bacteria were discovered. These E. coli come from careless slaughtering practices and, stated frankly, mean that "there's manure in the meat." (quoting the muckraking author of the excellent Fast Food Nation)
It's a microbe's world after all.
This spectre of super-bacteria (another writer correctly notes that antibiotics have nothing to do with viral infections) has been over-hyped by the press. There have been occasional examples of astonishingly resistant variations on common bacteria, but almost all have arisen in hospital settings with other complications present. They aren't whipping through the community, in other words. There are also special interests, such as the anti-antibiotics in animal feed people (a cause I tend to believe in), which have disingenuously used the problem to boost their cause, lacking any causal connection.
:) Actually, I minored in biology and immunology, FWIW.
There is good evidence anitbiotics are overprescribed and, much worse, misused by the public (always always finish your course of antibiotic correctly, the last mile really is important even though you may feel fine -- it sounds preachy but it's true). But this is a different issue; the super-bacteria appear in hospital setting where doctors are doing their utmost to fight infection. Vancomycin is still pretty nuclear stuff.
I wish I had a good cite handy, but I can't dredge one up offhand; do take a look if you're interested, at NIH and CDC for starters. IMHO the superbacteria are kind of like the killer bees, long heralded but never quite arriving in force. I don't mean to make light of the potential trouble; it's just not here yet, and won't for a while, and it pales in contrast to staggering public health problems we have like HIV and smoking and unaffordable prescriptions and even West Nile virus. When you hear reports in terms of infections per 100,000 people, as opposed to isolated case studies, take heed. For now it merely makes for good copy, over and over.
"I'm not a doctor but I play one onlin."
You'll like law school. ;-)
... uh-huh, I trust them on that. Just dump the stuff in a dispersable form into NYC's water supplies, you'd paralyze the city and make the U.S. look pathetic. Or be less ambitious and set off a dirty bomb next to every U.S. Embassy. Nuke Israel. There are a thousand mundane ways to do it that wouldn't implicate exotic ABM in the slightest.
:) Take a look at the RISKS stuff, you may like it -- they touch on everything from voting to terrorism. And what else is there?
I don't doubt they *could* pull off ABM, I just think it's oversold and its current state overhyped. They distorted extensively the performance of the Patriot's performance against an enhanced V-2 -- the Patriot was ill-matched, but it's the apparent need to mislead the public that bothers me. The press play given that recent test made it sound like a real-world experiment rather than a test of a component of the strategy. That radar they have to invent will be pretty incredible, and then we'll have to deal with the fast reaction time needed, ease of deploying decoys (a dozen balls, one with a warhead) etc. There's also an admitted faked test from the 80's where the miitary reported a "kill" ostensibly to mislead the USSR, which is OK, but they -also- used the faked result as a basis for further Congressional funding. The branches of gov't lying to each other is dangerous stuff.
But that's all off-point. The threat we're supposedly focused on killed 3,000 people with razor blades. Even if North Korea or China or Osama (wouldn't that be something?) had a trustworthy missile, they would be dumb not to put the bomb instead on a fishing boat to sail into S.F. Bay -- harder to trace and less likely to lose a precious warhead. Maybe fire the missile just to freak people out and distract them. And any nation-aggressor would have to worry about that massive retaliation thing we have.
Any nuclear attack will be for shock value, not to cripple the U.S., and any halfway success will doubtless succeed wonderfully. Nukes have an "aura" if you will. The body count would be impressive anyway -- NYC is a lot denser than Hiroshima, where as many as 200k eventually died -- and the economic impact staggering. If I were them I'd opt for a dirty bomb anyway. Some CNN reporters "smuggled" a bunch of U-238 into the country, designed to look suspicious but clearly marked. Customs didn't open it, but -says- they would known if there were U-235 or Pu in there
Well, you know all this already.
Sad, but impressive research. 14% appeared to be the most widely-reported, but I see "forfty-five," too -- where's the official transcript (is your tape subtitled)?!? One-third of Simpsons fans might worry about this, but the other three-quarters wouldn't.
This proves the internet is just a giant game of telephone.
By Google happenstance, here's The National Review's take on the show -- and they're amused. Not a journal I normally associate with friendly mirth, but I guess The Simpsons brings us all together. Couldn't resist sharing.