Why some science is stupid

Hm, you made a post basically saying "scientists dumb, me smart". Care to elaborate?
 
Ha-ha! They made something that you think could be potentially dangerous! Obviously they are quite stupid!

Then I take it you are of the opinion that Large Hadron Collider should not be brought online in 2007, because of it's potential for creating black holes?
 
Since it could just pop up somewhere again, knowing more about it can be considered a good thing.

Unless someone "accidentally" loses a supply of it and causes an epidemic, the sole existence of this virus shouldn't pose much of a threat.

I would worry more about the samples of various biological agents disappearing regularily from military facilities not being investigated (unless that story was a hoax -- since it was brought up around the time those anthrax letters popped up all over the US, it might just as well be another piece of conspiracy theorist pseudo-facts).

Eh. Either way we already have much more dangerous virusses around.
 
:shock:

Did you just base your assumption that some science is dumb off of what happened in The Stand? A work of fiction? A work that seems to think that a fast-spreading virus is the most lethal kind of virus?

Since I wouldn't presume to think you'd gather anything from real research, take a gander at The Hot Zone. Assuming it doesn't make your miniscule intellect implode under the weight of your ignorance and arrogance, come back and we'll talk.

Otherwise don't presume to think you understand the logic (or as you appear to believe, assuming you understand the concept of logic at all) behind epidemiology and infectious disease research. I do, and I can tell you know a dozen good reasons why recontructing the original 1918 flu can be beneficial:

By understanding the 1. transmission rate 2. environmental persistance 3. resevoir number 4. exact biochemistry and 5. relationship to current flu strains (both 6. historically and 7. genotypically), scientists (not Steven King) can predict future patterns of 8. influenza evolution 9. inter-species jumps, 10. regions of greatest outbreak risk, 11. pattern of spread using historical precendents and 12. vaccine strategies that may be most effective.

And that's just shit I thought of off the top of my head. Now think what researchers who do this for a living know, and consider how their reasoning and tactics are even better than mine.
 
I'm glad the four people to respond to him easily canned his assumption...and offered alternatives.

Ya the flu virus could potentially be as bad as the flu outbreak at the turn of the century.

As for The Stand, its a great book, but how did you draw a scientific conclusion from it?

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top