Dinosaurs From Space!

Cardinal Carminative said:
I think it is a safer generalization given what we saw transpire during COVID. But by the same token there are plenty of Lefties who are bad with science as well. A lot of the anti-vaxers seem to skew left it seems.
Click to expand...

I don't think being anti-vax can be categorized into political parties.

I'm extreme right and I am one.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
I don't think being anti-vax can be categorized into political parties.

I'm extreme right and I am one.
Click to expand...

I am speaking in generalities. Yes I understand there are anti-science folks on both sides.

So why do you distrust one of the most effective armaments against the kinds of diseases that commonly killed our grandparents but have almost no impact on us today?
 
Cardinal Carminative said:
I am speaking in generalities. Yes I understand there are anti-science folks on both sides.

So why do you distrust one of the most effective armaments against the kinds of diseases that commonly killed our grandparents but have almost no impact on us today?
Click to expand...

Vaccines ultimately lower your immune system to the disease which means you end up relying on the vaccine to fight off the disease instead of your own body.

It's ironic that vaccines actually contain the disease they are there to prevent in order to boost your immune system to it.

It's the same thing your body does naturally without the risk of side effects.

However, it is a personal choice, I have no issue with others who wish to get them.

I can tell you though that I've never been sick a single day in my life, never got Covid, nothing.

I worked in hospitality for a long time meaning I was exposed to probably every sort of disease out there and my body became resistant to it all.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Vaccines ultimately lower your immune system to the disease which means you end up relying on the vaccine to fight off the disease instead of your own body.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that from?

It's ironic that vaccines actually contain the disease they are there to prevent in order to boost your immune system to it.
Click to expand...

Not really. It's kind of basic biology. The body creates antibodies for certain stressors which it needs to base those antibodies on.

It's the same thing your body does naturally without the risk of side effects.
Click to expand...

Your body doesn't do it naturally for many things. And in many cases the way your body does it is by contracting a mild version of the disease. That isn't usually a statistical option for particularly aggressive high mortality diseases. That's why humans didn't develop a significant degree of natural immunity to smallpox.

However, it is a personal choice, I have no issue with others who wish to get them.
Click to expand...

Well, it's kind of not a personal choice. Communicable diseases need a population with enough people who are unprotected to continue to exist. If you decide you don't want to get a vaccine for a communicable disease but you want to remain part of society then have a bit of a pickle. You are free to leave society but you are not free to put society at risk because of your personal distrust of science.

I can tell you though that I've never been sick a single day in my life, never got Covid, nothing.
Click to expand...

I will withhold my skepticism of this claim and just say "So what?" YOU are not the only person on earth. You are part of society and as such you can be asked to help maintain the security of that society.

Look, I'm not going to say that vaccines have never harmed anyone, that's absurd. But the risks are greatly outweighed by the benefits and the benefits don't just devolve to you. They sometimes devolve to people around you whom you may be able to infect.

I worked in hospitality for a long time meaning I was exposed to probably every sort of disease out there and my body became resistant to it all.
Click to expand...

Guess you can always hope!
 
Cardinal Carminative said:
Where did you get that from?



Not really. It's kind of basic biology. The body creates antibodies for certain stressors which it needs to base those antibodies on.



Your body doesn't do it naturally for many things. And in many cases the way your body does it is by contracting a mild version of the disease. That isn't usually a statistical option for particularly aggressive high mortality diseases. That's why humans didn't develop a significant degree of natural immunity to smallpox.



Well, it's kind of not a personal choice. Communicable diseases need a population with enough people who are unprotected to continue to exist. If you decide you don't want to get a vaccine for a communicable disease but you want to remain part of society then have a bit of a pickle. You are free to leave society but you are not free to put society at risk because of your personal distrust of science.



I will withhold my skepticism of this claim and just say "So what?" YOU are not the only person on earth. You are part of society and as such you can be asked to help maintain the security of that society.

Look, I'm not going to say that vaccines have never harmed anyone, that's absurd. But the risks are greatly outweighed by the benefits and the benefits don't just devolve to you. They sometimes devolve to people around you whom you may be able to infect.



Guess you can always hope!
Click to expand...

The Europeans developed a significant immunity to smallpox.

As they developed their immunity they passed it on to further generations, this is the most effective way to control a disease.


Sure, the death toll may be higher to start with but the results in the end can end up saving more lives.

You lower that natural immunity and then realize you don't have a vaccine to rely on your basically screwed.

If we become a society based on vaccines that means that eventually even a little germ could wipe us out.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
The Europeans developed a significant immunity to smallpox.
Click to expand...

Is that why it wasn't eradicated in the wild until the 1970's with the use of vaccines?

As they developed their immunity they passed it on to further generations, this is the most effective way to control a disease.
Click to expand...

Is that why we still had to invent the vaccine?


If we become a society based on vaccines that means that eventually even a little germ could wipe us out.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you are not 200 years old so you are just like me and the product of a society VERY MUCH made better with vaccines.
 
Cardinal Carminative said:
Is that why it wasn't eradicated in the wild until the 1970's with the use of vaccines?



Is that why we still had to invent the vaccine?




I'm assuming you are not 200 years old so you are just like me and the product of a society VERY MUCH made better with vaccines.
Click to expand...



No, it means that's why the entire population wasn't wiped out from it.

Same with the black plague.

People develop immunity to it from exposure, some better than others.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
No, it means that's why the entire population wasn't wiped out from it.

Same with the black plague.

People develop immunity to it from exposure, some better than others.
Click to expand...
Some people develop immunity. About 30-60% of the Euro population died from the plague.

Related to this, here is Dutch's solution to global warming: develop a virus that is 98% fatal to the unvaccinated. It would kill off all the world's stupid people within a few months. :thup:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death
The Black Death was the second great natural disaster to strike Europe during the Late Middle Ages (the first one being the Great Famine of 1315–1317) and is estimated to have killed 30 percent to 60 percent of the European population, as well as about one-third of the population of the Middle East.[
Click to expand...
 
Doc Dutch said:
Close but not quite.

Yes, a nova would smoke a planet both by heat and radiation. A nova within 25 light years of Earth will kill everything in our planet with gamma radiation. Another way to knock a planet free is a passing star or other large body that disrupts planetary orbits. Regardless, if the atmosphere of a planet is blasted off or simply frozen, the dinosaurs wouldn't survive it.

If you'd understood my post, you would have seen I said that. LOL
Click to expand...

Sigh.

A nova within 25 light years of Earth will kill everything in our planet with gamma radiation
Click to expand...

False. You obviously don't know what a light year is.
 
America said:
Sigh.

False. You obviously don't know what a light year is.
Click to expand...
You're free to fill me in on your vast knowledge of astronomy, America.

Meanwhile, for the sane and sober, a more accurate figure may be 50 light years: https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.04365 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30034016/
A supernova at 50 pc: Effects on the Earth's atmosphere and biota
Recent 60Fe results have suggested that the estimated distances of supernovae in the last few million years should be reduced from 100 pc to 50 pc. Two events or series of events are suggested, one about 2.7 million years to 1.7 million years ago, and another may at 6.5 to 8.7 million years ago. We ask what effects such supernovae are expected to have on the terrestrial atmosphere and biota. Assuming that the Local Bubble was formed before the event being considered, and that the supernova and the Earth were both inside a weak, disordered magnetic field at that time, TeV-PeV cosmic rays at Earth will increase by a factor of a few hundred. Tropospheric ionization will increase proportionately, and the overall muon radiation load on terrestrial organisms will increase by a factor of 150. All return to pre-burst levels within 10kyr. In the case of an ordered magnetic field, effects depend strongly on the field orientation. The upper bound in this case is with a largely coherent field aligned along the line of sight to the supernova, in which case TeV-PeV cosmic ray flux increases are 10^4; in the case of a transverse field they are below current levels. We suggest a substantial increase in the extended effects of supernovae on Earth and in the lethal distance estimate; more work is needed.This paper is an explicit followup to Thomas et al. (2016). We also here provide more detail on the computational procedures used in both works
Click to expand...
 
For those interested: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30034016/

The 20 page paper: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1702/1702.04365.pdf

Another, older article: https://www.astronomy.com/science/what-will-happen-on-earth-when-betelgeuse-goes-supernova/
What will happen on Earth when Betelgeuse goes supernova?
supernova within about 25 light-years would probably cause a major mass extinction, which has likely happened one or more times in the past 500 million years.

The biggest current threat is probably a solar proton event, which occurs when the Sun releases high numbers of energetic protons that can disrupt communications and affect power grids. These events could be devastating for our technological civilization.
Click to expand...

ASYSK0719_02.jpg

Betelgeuse, shown here in a Hubble Space Telescope image, is a red supergiant about 500 light-years away in the constellation Orion the Hunter. Although astronomers predict this massive star will end its life as a supernova soon — at least in cosmic terms — the effects of such an explosion won’t pose a problem for life on Earth.
Andrea Dupree (Harvard-Smithsonian CfA), Ronald Gilliland (STScI), NASA and ESA
Click to expand...
 
Doc Dutch said:
Agreed on pc: https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/en-US/length/22-21/light-year-parsec/

It amazes me that a supernova could be that far away and still cause a mass extinction event. The good news is that there are no candidates for a supernova within 25 light years. I'm not so sure about 50 to 100 light years much less 300+.
Click to expand...

Seemingly another of the perfect storm conditions which have allowed life to evolve and thrive on Earth for billions of years: our star is supposedly in a very sparsely populated, minor tributary outer arm of the Milky Way disk. As one gets closer to the galactic center the stars tend to be packed together, closely and densely.
 
Cypress said:
Seemingly another of the perfect storm conditions which have allowed life to evolve and thrive on Earth for billions of years: our star is supposedly in a very sparsely populated, minor tributary outer arm of the Milky Way disk. As one gets closer to the galactic center the stars tend to be packed together, closely and densely.
Click to expand...

An excellent point and agreed. It would explain why life may only exist in the sparsely populated areas of the galaxy.
 
signalmankenneth said:
Might there be advanced, hyper-intelligent dinosaurs on other planets?
Click to expand...

An old sci fi favorite.

West of Eden

The seeding theory makes no sense. Conditions would have to be such that any alien life hitching a ride would 1) have to be able to survive in the conditions found in interstellar space, and 2) hospitable once the life forms arrived here.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
An old sci fi favorite.

West of Eden

The seeding theory makes no sense. Conditions would have to be such that any alien life hitching a ride would 1) have to be able to survive in the conditions found in interstellar space, and 2) hospitable once the life forms arrived here.
Click to expand...

My understanding of the Panspermia hypothesis is not that cellular life was hitching rides on asteroids. But amino acids and other organic compounds were. This has been scientifically verified.

But that still leaves a big hole in the hypothesis: how did amino acids and inert organic compounds delivered from space organize themselves into complex self sustaining cellular life?
 
Cardinal Carminative said:
Is that why it wasn't eradicated in the wild until the 1970's with the use of vaccines?



Is that why we still had to invent the vaccine?




I'm assuming you are not 200 years old so you are just like me and the product of a society VERY MUCH made better with vaccines.
Click to expand...

We eradicated the black plague by developing immunity to it without relying on a vaccine.

There is one today although it's not available in many nations such as the US.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
We eradicated the black plague by developing immunity to it without relying on a vaccine.

There is one today although it's not available in many nations such as the US.
Click to expand...

Up to 2/3s died of the Black Death. What history books are you reading?

https://www.britannica.com/event/Black-Death
Black Death, pandemic that ravaged Europe between 1347 and 1351, taking a proportionately greater toll of life than any other known epidemic or war up to that time....

...Anti-Semitism greatly intensified throughout Europe as Jews were blamed for the spread of the Black Death. A wave of violent pogroms ensued, and entire Jewish communities were killed by mobs or burned at the stake en masse....

...The study of contemporary archives suggests a mortality varying in the different regions between one-eighth and two-thirds of the population, and the French chronicler Jean Froissart’s statement that about one-third of Europe’s population died in the epidemic may be fairly accurate. The population in England in 1400 was perhaps half what it had been 100 years earlier; in that country alone, the Black Death certainly caused the depopulation or total disappearance of about 1,000 villages. A rough estimate is that 25 million people in Europe died from plague during the Black Death. The population of western Europe did not again reach its pre-1348 level until the beginning of the 16th century.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top