muff528

Nice double entendre!

I vaguely remember that this was not an announcer per se. I think he was reporting progress of the launch and ascent while looking at telemetry data, etc. and was not actually watching it. Could be wrong, though ...been a long time.. ETA: Steve Nesbitt at Mission Control in Houston. http://spaceflightnow.com/challenger/timeline/

"Pizda" !? Holy crap! I must have pissed off the Russkies and I don't even know how. I suppose I should respond with something like "yo momma". ...we must not allow a PA gap!

I think it's "common liar".. what did you come up with? And here I thought I was defending him.

mesh

Hey, I'm only getting a post in here so the thread shows up in "My Stuff/Posts". (I do that a lot, BTW )

Maybe the "hierarchical collective command structure" which was/is/will have been observed by the Cytherians during an encounter with humans.

Just for tonight, my favorite team is Louisville.

Yep. Convenience stores around here have them. I bought "a pack" a while back. I needed a sugar fix and I think they are made of pure confectioners sugar. I did notice that they no longer have the red simulated ember at the end.

He's an astronomer/cosmologist. So I could get my palm read and a makeover. Cool! Yeah, but you better hurry.

I love online translates Russian to English crunchy.

Here's an interesting little snippet from the pdf file above: "We also demonstrated aerosol transmission of Ebola virus at lower temperature and humidity than that normally present in sub-Saharan Africa. Ebola virus sensitivity to the high temperatures and humidity in the thatched, mud, and wattel huts shared by infected family members in southern Sudan and northern Zaire may have been a factor limiting aerosol transmission of Ebola virus in the African epidemics. Both elevated temperature and relative humidity (RH) have been shown to reduce the aerosol stability of viruses (Songer 1967). Our experiments were conducted at 24°C and < 40% RH, conditions which are known to favour the aerosol stability of at least two other African haemorrhagic fever viruses, Rift Valley fever and Lassa (Stephenson et a/. 1984; Anderson et a/. 1991). If the same holds true for filoviruses, aerosol transmission is a greater threat in modern hospital or laboratory settings than it is in the natural climatic ranges of viruses."

Hmmm. ...that looks like a different experiment by the same guys - maybe this one?: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7547435 Here's a link to the pdf you referred to (I think): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1997182/pdf/ijexpath00004-0007.pdf But, I think this one describes the experiment I was referring to (re: rhesus to rhesus) The abstract seems to suggest that the monkeys (infected and non-infected) were simply placed together in the same room together: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8551825 Yes, it does also suggest that poop particles could have been the culprit rather than oral particles or droplets. I suppose either could be found on a NYC subway or bus.

Good deal! This agrees with that conclusion. But this does not completely agree. "...the only two routes of exposure that have been experimentally validated are parenteral inoculation and aerosol inhalation." Although it goes on to say that the "Epidemiologic evidence suggests that aerosol exposure is not an important means of virus transmission in natural outbreaks of human Ebola fever." (is an infection artificially introduced into a fresh population halfway around the world from the source considered to be a "natural outbreak"?) And this one does not necessarily agree. "Although they are not naturally transmitted by aerosol, they are highly infectious as respirable particles under laboratory conditions." So, experimental evidence for/against aerosol transmission under both natural and laboratory conditions: From Kobinger's 2012 study as reported by Science News --- * pig ---> macaque: YES * rhesus macaque ---> cynomulgus macaque: NO From the europepmc.org link above --- * rhesus ---> rhesus : YES So --- * human ---> human: JURY IS STILL OUT.

Why are you fixated on CFR as the measure of control? According to that measure the flu pandemic which spread across the entire globe and killed 5% of the world's population was under better control than the current ebola epidemic which is contained in 3 or 4 west african countries and has killed maybe 15,000 people. You're not making sense. Sure. But you are still far, far more likely to die of the flu than ebola. Was "contained in 3 - 4 West African countries". We seem to be trying our best to change that. If you were actually reading my post you'll see that I'm not using CFR as a "measure of control". I'm using it to point out the risk of death if a person gets an infection ...not the risk of getting infected. I only used the Spanish Flu pandemic to compare the risk of death if infected 100 years ago with today and to compare those with the risk of death if infected with Ebola and to illustrate the insanity of intentionally failing to decrease the chances of an Ebola outbreak here. Period. Yes, a person here is now more likely to die from the flu than Ebola ...right now. But that is my whole point. We understand the flu. We have proven vaccines, treatments, etc. and we know how to mitigate risk with it. That's why the CFR for influenza is now in the

Yeah, the booger-to-yawning-mouth scenario is a long shot, so I'll go with breathing in a few aerosol sneeze droplets carrying a couple hundred ebolites each from a non-symptomatic carrier. Common sense says that if only 1-10 virions are required to cause an infection, then there is some point between exposure and symptomatic where there are sufficient virions (as few as 1) to infect another person contained in sneeze droplets or hacked-up phlegm particles during a cough. So, I'm not buying the mantra that Ebola can be transmitted ONLY after symptoms appear. Common sense tells me that enough virus is present in a host's body to infect another person before the host gets sick. You can take my seat on that bus. I'd be good with being wrong about that if it can convincingly be shown that that can't happen and why. Not just some parrot saying "take my word for it". Just because it has not been observed to happen does not necessarily mean it can't. There just hasn't been enough real world experience with studying behavior of this virus outside of the hot spots.

Don't have time to listen to the radio and I'm not fearful of Ebola. That's some irony score there. Pretty sure I don't get what you mean there. Certainly no useful information. Any opinion I've written here in this thread is based on "facts" supported by sources I've provided (right or wrong, I got no problem with hearing or deferring to convincing, opposing, supported "facts"), and were responses to specific comments. None of those sources were from Limbaugh or any other "fearmonger" and none of my comments or opinions were intended to , uh, "monger" fear. I'm just stating my opinion that it takes a special kind of arrogance to risk exposing a major, high population density region to a lethal, poorly-understood, level 4 pathogen for which there is no known or readily available vaccine or cure (maybe a very low level risk but carrying high level consequences if there is miscalculation.) Doctors and caregivers who come from the affected regions should be the first to recognize how unwise it is to take such a cavalier attitude when returning to these population centers. "I got no fever so I think I'll just take the A-train down to the bowling alley and do up the town afterwards." These attitudes do not monger confidence in the "authorities" and they give the impression that the issue is not being taken seriously ....maybe even being politicized.

Don't have time to listen to the radio and I'm not fearful of Ebola. Just comparing numbers ...like you do with the gun thing. But, If I know an Ebola carrier is on a particular bus at a particular time (higher risk), I'm not getting on that bus. That doesn't mean I'm scared of riding buses in general (lower risk) even if it means there might, somewhere in the country, occasionally be an Ebola carrier on a bus somewhere. But, that also does not mean that some poor sucker somewhere is not going to be the one to pay for it.

If you read conflicting news reports on the same skydiving fatality you'd probably come to the conclusion that no-one knows how parachutes work, but it's not the case. The second sentence of that Flu article begins with the words "It infected 500 million people". What in god's name do you mean by 'control'? Ebola is incredibly easy to control compared to the flu. According to the fear mongers here everyone in the US from the local hospitals, PD, FD, CDC and border control has made a complete pigs ear of dealing with ebola... and nothing's happened. Everybody's fine. That's my point. A century ago, when the Spanish Flu pandemic was out of "control" (no vaccines, education or prevention), it only produced a

***... And The health care community (WHO & CDC in particular) have seen and studied Ebola Zaire for almost 40 years. But not its behavior as an infection spreads from host to host through several "generations" in larger population centers. This is looking at least a little doubtful since there are seemingly conflicting statements concerning things like "no airborne transmission" yet the virus can be present in aerosol droplets from coughs or sneezes; "you can't catch it on a bus" yet "infected persons should stay off the bus"; a person can become infected with the introduction of as few as 1 - 10 virions ; survivability of the virus outside the body on various objects at various temps; etc. The Spanish flu pandemic, (almost 100 years ago ...even before "vaccines, education and prevention") had a Case Fatality Rate of "only" 10-20% ....way more than today's CFR for the flu, and now fewer folks are becoming infected because of the vaccines, education, & prevention. The CFR for the current Zaire Ebola outbreak is more like 70% for victims with "confirmed outcomes". We can only hope we can get to the level of control we now have with the flu. I think containment is the answer for the near future.

The ones I can remember off hand: Casa 182 206 Beech 18 Twin Bo Navajo Twin Otter DC-3/C-47 Rans S-12 King Air 90 King Air 200 Porter Skyvan

That's just plain old common sense. The virus has never before been known or studied in the wild beyond small, isolated communities. I think only the recent outbreak in larger population centers like Monrovia, etc., has provided the "opportunity" for a clearer look at how it might spread or mutate ...or how to treat it. Proliferation through a larger population pool may allow it to mutate enough to do more (or less) damage before all of its victims are killed. Doesn't hurt to use a little more caution until it is better understood. It may ultimately turn out to be no more problem to control than the flu or tb. Then "protocols" can be relaxed. ...maybe not.

She must have been using Whitworth bolts and wrenches (spanners).

He is opposed for "political" reasons because he takes political positions on issues ...not just gun control issues. (BTW- he is supposed to do that.) That certainly doesn't mean he isn't "qualified" to be SG. I'm sure that there are many conservative-leaning physicians who are just as qualified to be SG as far as public health issues are concerned, but you don't see Pres. Obama nominating them for the position ....because it is a "political" office that promotes the President's political "public health" agenda. And, I wouldn't expect the opposition party to be too excited about confirming someone who co-founded "Doctors for Obama". However: 113th Congress (2013-2015) Majority Party: Democrat (53 seats) Minority Party: Republican (45 seats) Other Parties: 2 Independents (both caucus with the Democrats) Reid is running the show up there. If they want him, just confirm him. But I don't think we need a Surgeon General barking orders in response to the Ebola threat (real or perceived). Hospitals and doctors should just do the common, walking-around sense things that they should be doing with any dangerous virus. Try to keep it contained while pursuing a vaccine or cure, etc.

Here are a couple of interesting links for anyone who has an interest in the virus itself. Kinda fascinating (to me, at least.) http://www.msdsonline.com/resources/msds-resources/free-safety-data-sheet-index/ebola-virus.aspx This article has been out since 2010 so some info may be outdated. Also, it talks about several variations of the virus so maybe not all info relates to all types. Standouts: "INFECTIOUS DOSE: 1 – 10 aerosolized organisms are sufficient to cause infection in humans." "SURVIVAL OUTSIDE HOST: The virus can survive in liquid or dried material for a number of days. Infectivity is found to be stable at room temperature or at 4°C for several days, and indefinitely stable at -70°C. Infectivity can be preserved by lyophilisation (freeze-drying)." "PRIMARY HAZARDS: Accidental parenteral inoculation, respiratory exposure to infectious aerosols and droplets, and/or direct contact with broken skin or mucous membranes." http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2010/06/11494.html Looks like it's been around a while. ..maybe even since the advent of mammals, and may have played some role in mammalian evolution.