Printable View
5 second rule? Hell, I live by the find-food-in-your-couch-cushions-after-a-helluva-long-time rule. I haven't inherited salmonella or AIDs or cancer yet, either, but then again I haven't been to a doctor in a long time so maybe I'm dormant.
Fuck the germaphobes - pussies.
No it isn't. Most bacteria and viruses are international, so immunity here is near immunity there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Source please?Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
Allright, your right, the air is just as bad in china as it is everywhere else.
I know bacteria is everywhere, but not all bacteria is dangerous. I don't ingest Salmonella everyday, I don't ingest E.coli O157:H7 everyday, I don't ingest C. jejuni, and I don't ingest C. perfringens ever day. If I did I'd obviously be in the hospital/dead. I've already stated I see no problem in eating a chip that falls on the floor in your own house, as long as it's clean and there are no pets roaming around, but would you eat a chip that fell onto the ground outside? I mean, if you want to eat something that fell where an animal's fecal matter was recently there or something, be my guest. Would you eat your chicken strips you accidentally dropped in a restaurant? There's no telling what else has been on that restaurant floor, not to mention all the shoes that have recently touched it, would you lick the bottom of your shoes, what about 100+ other people's shoes? I'm sure you would since you'd eat something that possibly fell where they just touched. Would you drink water from a pond outside, or from a flowing stream? I heard Cholera is a fun thing to get. If I have a dry food item fall on the floor in my own house, sure I'll eat it because the floors are cleaned all the time and we don't wear shoes, and we have no pets. I'll blow it off first though. But if I'm somewhere besides my own house where I have no idea what's been on the floors or anything else and I drop food, I'm throwing it away. I'd rather be safe than sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
I avoid contact with germs. I wash my hands after coming into contact with anything I see as unhealthy. I refuse to drink after people or finish eating something someone didn't finish. I wash my hands after I use the bathroom, after I come from outside, touch an animal/pet, after I do anything I find to be dirty. I wash my hands before/after I touch food. I can hang around people with strep throat, the flu, a cold, and no telling what else and never (except for a cold every now and then) catch it. Even when I get a cold it never lasts long and it isn't even bad, all it usually does to me is give me a runny nose. I can stick around my house/around my family when they have stomach viruses, etc. etc., and never get anything. I haven't been to the doctor's office since I was in the 6th grade due to sickness, and I haven't had a cold in about 2 years. Since I avoid germs, my immune system must be horrendously weak. Therefore, I've came to the conclusion I must be superhuman since I've went so long without being sick and being around so many sick people.Quote:
Originally Posted by stonedape
Why would he need to state a source? It's common sense to know the common cold, the flu, etc. etc., is world wide, let alone knowing that Salmonella, E.coli, etc. etc. is also world wide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
I've dropped a $13 T-Bone steak on my patio deck - given it a brush-off - and enjoyed every bite of it. Amazingly enough, here I am, today. Cholera-free.Quote:
Originally Posted by nitsuJ
Would you have thrown it away?
Yeah...and that would be three named viruses...out of how many on this planet? Would that be the 99% drewmandan was talking about? :wtf:Quote:
Originally Posted by nitsuJ
Name a virus that isn't present on every continent in some form.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
I have absolutely no idea. Furthermore, why would I have to do that? He made the assertion that they are, and you said it was common sense. I happen to've never heard that. So, if it's such common sense, how hard it is to provide a source that backs what you're implying is common knowledge?Quote:
Originally Posted by nitsuJ
Educate me.
[Edit: On second thought, I don't have to know of specific cases to respond to that point.
What do viruses do? They spread. Where was the SARS virus before it went world-wide (not that many years ago, as a matter of fact)? China. It was localized and it spread. By that logic alone (to say nothing of HIV, which allegedly started in Africa), viruses aren't "just everywhere[/i]." Some are, some are not. So, if opposite of that idea is so well-known, according to you, please provide a reference.]
What's on your patio deck? Are there animals/pets on it that relieve themselves all over it? Is it disgustingly dirty? If animals/pets piss and shit on it, or if it was disgustingly dirty, I would have thrown it away. Since you said you're Cholera free then I suppose you did eat animal feces. That's just disgusting on your part. :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Drewmandan said "most" viruses and bacteria, "most" doesn't cover 99%. "Most" can cover 50.0000000000000000000001%.
Common sense is usually something obvious, why do you need a source to prove the obvious?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
It's common sense/obvious to know that if I'm struck by an atomic bomb point blank and it explodes I'll die, do I need to state a source for that?
It's common sense/obvious that the common cold among other viruses and bacteria are international, do I need to state a source for that?
You shouldn't need sources for obvious statements. :?
Read the thread. No one here is talking about eating off of a floor that is disgustingly dirty. No one. In fact, it's been stated more than once.Quote:
Originally Posted by nitsuJ
...What? :wtf:Quote:
Originally Posted by nitsuJ
"Cholera-free" means "free of Cholera"...meaning "without Cholera."
Quote:
Originally Posted by nitsuJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
You shouldn't reject someone asking for information.Quote:
Originally Posted by nitsuJ
You can assert that it's common sense until you pass out. It doesn't make it so, just because you say it is. Do you have something against providing someone with information? What is obvious is relative. To a doctor, the reason for the pain in your side is obvious. You, on the other hand, have no fucking clue. Should you not ask him for some reference into exactly what's going on inside your body, just because he knows your physiology infinitely better than you do?
Yes, you said you're cholera free. You really need to ingest animal feces to get cholera, so why would you say you're cholera free if you have no pets or animals that would poop on your deck? Cholera-free would be irrelevant to the argument about picking up your steak and eating it unless you have pets to poo on your deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
I just see no need in giving sources to obvious things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Ok, why would a person believe the common cold is only in the United States? Also, the immune system isn't viruses and bacteria, when drewmandan said 99% of the immune system's potential, what made you think he means 99% of viruses and bacteria?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
I was being facetious. I was playing off of your bringing up Cholera in the first place. That's the only reason I mentioned it. I thought that would have been obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by nitsuJ
Because someone wants to know? You're too good to direct someone toward information that you say is supposed to be such common knowledge? How self-centered is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by nitsuJ
Why would you believe a person believes the common cold is only in the United States? Did anyone here say that?Quote:
Originally Posted by nintsuJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by nitsuJ
Did the "germs" he was talking not consist of viruses and bacteria? Am I missing the obvious again?Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
While it's probubly not the best idea to eat food off your deck, doing it every once in a while is not going to kill you. Have you ever shaken someone's hand? How do you know they weren't just beating off 5 min ago. Make your deciscions in life based off what you do know, not what you don't know. If the food looks nasty as hell, don't eat it. But if I paid $13 for something, I'm gonna eat it most likely. I probubly would have rinsed it off first, but it's not a big deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by nitsuJ
But your immune system isn't working at 99% of its potential all the time. Drewmandan just made up bullshit and thats why Oneironaut was asking for a source.Quote:
Originally Posted by nitsuJ
Uh...E coli is in China? I'm not sure what you mean. Of course there are isolated pathogens, like Malaria in Africa, but then there are a million pathogens that aren't isolated. If not living in China made you truly vulnerable to most, or even a tenth, of all the pathogens in China, you would instantly die when you stepped off the plane from a dozen different diseases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Clearly, this depends on two factors; How dirty the floor is, and how sticky the food is.
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
You said "most viruses and bacteria are international." I asked for a source where I could verify that information. As of now, the consensus seems to be that "it's just common knowledge," and I'm just supposed to know it - so common, in fact, that I can't find a single article that confirms it. So I'm asking you for one.
Or was "E. Coli is in China" your answer, posed with a question mark at the end (implying that, because E. Coli is in China, most viruses and bacteria are therefore international)?
You won't find an article confirming that most species of virus and bacteria are international because it is common knowledge. I really think you're either over thinking this or you don't understand what I'm saying. When you step off a plane in China, your first breath probably contains a thousand different species of bacteria. Understand? And I'm not saying China is not clean, because the same is true anywhere. Every one of those species of bacteria would become some sort of disease if your immune system didn't kill it. The fact that people don't drop dead when they leave the country proves that pathogens are international.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
...Read that statement again.Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
Does that make sense to you?
Seriously. Read it again.
A thousand.Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
Out of how many?
You said "most." You are implying that there are a greater number of bacteria and viruses than are international than there are that are not international.
If there are a thousand that are international, per your example, what if there are 4 thousand that are not? In such a case, "most" bacteria would not be international. I'm asking you where you got your figures from.
Understand?
My point is, if even a few of those bacteria being breathed in were completely foreign, you would die.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Most Cholera cases come from drinking poopy water.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
There's no need to help those that can't help themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
You're just as able to look up information as I am.
Why would anyone believe most viruses and bacteria aren't on all continents?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
I'm pretty sure he doesn't think someone is immune to all forms of bacteria and viruses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Take this statement, what he says is true. Remember when Europeans came to North America? They brought smallpox among other things and killed a lot of Native Americans, the Europeans had immunities to them. Now if some form of a virus/bacteria wasn't on all continents, we'd get deathly sick when we traveled out of our country, or city, or state, or providence, or whatever you want to choose.Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
I see a bunch of assertions, and nothing to back it up. I'm guessing you'll have to just forgive my ignorance. But if I was to encounter a type of bacteria that's completely foreign to me, I would die? That's news.Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
...yes...and what does that have to do with what you quoted me on? Did I say it didn't? :wtf:Quote:
Originally Posted by nitsuJ
Oh, I see. So the way this game works is, you declare something...anything...to promote your stance on an issue, and the burden is on me to look it up and verify it for you. I see. I've been in plenty of discussions with plenty of intelligent people, and the overwhelming majority of them had absolutely no problem with presenting evidence to back their claims. If you expect me to look up every single thing you say is true, just because you say it's true, we're pretty much done here.Quote:
Originally Posted by nitsuJ
I can tell you that Unicorns exist, that it's common knowledge and that your disagreeing showcases your ignorance. I could tell you that the truth has been uncovered, and that everyone knows it but you. Then, when there doesn't seem to be any documentation about it, I can talk about how you're unable to help yourself - effectively getting you to jump through hoops to look up something that I made up right there on the spot.
It's called backing your claims, and even the most novice conversationalists understand the concept. If it's too much to ask, I'm not about to entertain a debate with you.
Why would anyone believe most plants and animals aren't on all continents? Why would anyone believe there aren't pots of gold at the end of every rainbow?Quote:
Originally Posted by nitsuJ
Did I say he did? Must have missed that, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by nitsuJ
But anyway, just to humor you...
Quote:
In finishing up details on our new version of “Principles of Virology”, I came across this outdated statement in the introduction of volume 19 of “Comprehensive Virology”, written in 1984:
“Virology, as a science, having passed only recently through its descriptive phase of naming and numbering, has probably reached that stage at which relatively few new - truly new - viruses will be discovered.”
Today this statement is incorrect. Sensitive methods of genome amplification and detection have lead to the discovery of many ‘truly new’ viruses. It’s quite clear that the oceans are full of new viruses, yet to be discovered; and if we would only systematically look in wild animals, we are likely to find many more.
It would probably be accurate to say that we will be discovering new viruses for quite some time. However, the point of this post is that such predictive statements about virology are likely to be proved wrong in the future - so I will refrain from predicting.
http://www.virology.ws/?p=58
Quote:
Bacterial wilt of tomatoes caused by R. solanacearum race 1 is a serious disease in many tropical and sub-tropical regions including southern regions of the United States, and does not survive in cool temperate climates such as Canada.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/.../12hrt03a3.htm
Wow. "New species?" "Spread of pathogens based on interactions with the infected?" "Not likely to happen in small populations?" All of this is indicative of the idea that there may be plenty of viruses that aren't global yet. Plenty are localized among the flora and wildlife that harbor them.Quote:
So, for example, when farming was first developed thousands of years ago, we lived near animals for the first time. That allowed us to acquire the antigens.4 Further on in our history, when people started to congregate in cities, disease could spread rapidly for the first time. And in more recent years, things like global air travel, deforestation, wars, changes in agricultural practices, and so on, have changed our relationship with flora and fauna. So new diseases emerged. HIV is a great example. It looks very likely that the change in land use in West Africa—when logging in proximity to monkey habitats—people acquired their viruses.
=====================
Why do some pathogens infect millions while others do not?
Disease is related to population size and density.
Holmes: There are a number of very critical evolutionary parameters. One of the most important—and why I mentioned previously that human evolutionary ecology has changed—is population size and density. From a human ecology standpoint, the more hosts you have, and the denser they are, the more likely the pathogen can get through and spread. So put in another way, when you are infected by a pathogen, the virus needs a new host to infect to keep itself going. If you have a small population, that is not that likely to happen. If you have a bigger population, you have more chances of transmitting the disease.
Measles can’t survive in some locations.
There have been some amazing studies of measles in populations. Some years ago scientists looked at islands and discovered an amazing statistic. They showed that measles can sustain itself on islands with a population size of something like 300,000 people. Below that number, measles dies out because there are not enough hosts for the virus to maintain itself. Above 300,000, it can keep itself going. So ecology plays a big role in disease.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newf...rs/holmes.html
At least, this is what I gather. If I'm wrong, provide me with information to the contrary. If you refuse to do that then this is simply a waste of time...however enlightening. :chuckle:
Yeah, see this proves to me that you don't understand what we're saying. There are always new species being created, and those are the ones that make people sick. But those are small in number compared to the millions of species of bacteria (and viruses) in existence. And no, I don't have sources to back that up. Maybe you should check a high school biology textbook if you really want to see it in print.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Ah, yes. Because we all know how hard all that information in high school biology books is to find on the internet. Interesting that you "don't have the sources" when it's something so academically important as to be put in a high school biology book.Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
There's another word you might have seen in a high school biology book. "Antibody." Amazingly enough, there's information about it on the internet.
Surprisingly enough, this goes against your claim that:Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan