I don't think you need to spin to load multiple bullets into a revolver. You can put all the bullets in the cylinder once you've opened it with any need readjusting/spinning.
> Elephants are highly sociable animals, and also were likely stressed due to the drought conditions at the time, which made such an outbreak more likely.
> Scientists believe the Pasteurella bacteria generally lives harmlessly in the tonsils of some, if not all, of the antelopes. An unusual temperature increase to 37C, however, caused the bacteria to pass into the bloodstream, where it caused septicaemia.
I think the parent comment is referring to this paragraph:
> Pasteurella bacteria has previously been linked to the sudden death of about 200,000 saiga antelopes in Kazakhstan – an incident that researchers believe could shed light on what happened to the elephant herds. Scientists believe the Pasteurella bacteria generally lives harmlessly in the tonsils of some, if not all, of the antelopes. An unusual temperature increase to 37C, however, caused the bacteria to pass into the bloodstream, where it caused septicaemia.
I read it as the effect of body temperature, but the parent has interpreted it as air temperature. I am not sure which interpretation is correct.
> They concluded that a rise in temperature to 37C and an increase in humidity above 80% in the previous few days had stimulated the bacteria to pass into the bloodstream where it caused haemorrhagic septicaemia, or blood poisoning.
Fair to point out the confusion, however not sure the distinction is needed for the core point that global warming may increase similar incidents -- I think it's safe to assert body temperature is correlated with air temperature
> I think it's safe to assert body temperature is correlated with air temperature
Not at all. The whole point of warm-blooded organisms is to maintain a constant temperature, to a really good level of accuracy.
A change in body temperature is not needed for this sort of things to happen, though. A warmer environment is enough. See for example the headlines about flesh eating bacteria creeping north in the US.
I don't think they are correlated in warm blooded animals.
Anyway, 37 degrees is a day at the beach in San Diego or Miami.
It should hardly be fatal to most any mammal.
You can blame drought, which is what the article did, but air temperature is not directly correlated with body temperature unless you're referring to an animal that's already dead.
> Scientists believe the Pasteurella bacteria generally lives harmlessly in the tonsils of some, if not all, of the antelopes. An unusual temperature increase to 37C, however, caused the bacteria to pass into the bloodstream, where it caused septicaemia
"... except because it will be efficiently removed by its immune system (that knows perfectly what is a Pasteurella)" is the part of the phrase that is missing here.
It this does not happen... the question is why this year is not happening.
It's also worth noting, one of the author's of the paper: "Transmission of the bacteria is possible, especially given the highly sociable nature of elephants and the link between this infection and the stress associated with extreme weather events such as drought, which may make outbreaks more likely."
This isn't an everything is fine mongering statement.
Everything is not fine, but without clear cut research linking two completely different problems is not a scientific way of understanding why what happened. Fear mongering is what the original commenter is doing.
> This isn't an everything is fine mongering statement.
Then my apologies. The hand-wavey 'climate change happened before and will happen again' sounded like you thought it wasn't a critically important challenge facing us, frequently being down-graded by people with vested interests in understating the problem via dismissive 'this has happened before and we're okay' style comments.
The 'we need more science' refrain is also often heard from that quarter, so I expect you'll continue to spark a certain reaction when you use that phrase.
The problem in TFA definitely seems to be related to small rises in temperature leading to a much more favourable environment for pathogens. That it happened in elephants is profoundly sad, but what's genuinely frightening is we probably have close to zero coverage on what pathogens we're susceptible to are about to reach a viability threshold with a 2 degree rise.
In another comment you ignored TFA findings and said:
> But I am probably going to point out increased commercial farming in Africa as a potential culprit. The use of fertilizers are an issue with algae and bacteria growth.
It would be convenient for climate change apologists if that were the case, but as per TFA the event seems to be pretty clearly attributable to Pasteurella bacteria.
WOW! I've never seen so many forms of psychosis in one post.
You quote, and say but you're an apologist. Please check your privelege. This isn't an apologist stance. One of the largest influencers of climate change is the growth of crops not deomestically supported by the environment. Agriculture in Africa has raised drastically over the last 5 years and the use of fertilizers in Africa is among the highest in the world.
I think we're done with this conversation because you don't understand someone who would rather take the scientific approach of analyzing a problem when you'll foot in mouth take the emotional route.
TFA asserted cause was a specific pathogen that benefited from a temperature rise, and correlated with a similar incident wiping out 200k antelopes in 2015.
You said you thought we should 'look into fertilisers' as the root cause.
Perhaps you could argue your well-reasoned case with the authors of the paper published in Nature:
TLDR fertalizers increase bacterium growth study done on bowvine. Fertalizer use in Africa as a content is up 300% and 33% higher than most developing countries. For example while USA uses a lot of fertilizer a small country like South Africa uses half. That is a lot in terms of land.
Indeed, climate change will continue to happen, but I would prefer if humanity also continued to happen for a little while. Ergo I prefer not to hasten its end by accelerating climate change beyond its natural rate.
So I'll preface this by saying that it's my belief climate change is real, that it's being accelerated this time by human behaviour etc.
However I would suggest that it is not an existential threat to humanity. It IS a threat to an enormous number of individuals (literally billions) but humans will continue to populate the earth long after the climate has changed.
Humans have proved to very adaptable, living sustainably in the deserts of the Sahara as well as the ice of Alaska. I don't think we'll see the decision of humanity here.
Life as we know it? Civilization? Sure I can see cataclysmic change there over the next 100 years. Then again life now is completely different to 100 years ago, so that's no surprise.
One of the many reasons we are doing a lot of ice age hole boring. Get a clear picture of the hot/cold and wet/dry periods. The problem is that it can only peer into that biom.
The planet has been hotter and there was still wildlife. I am not going to rule out climate change as a problem.
But I am probably going to point out increased commercial farming in Africa as a potential culprit. The use of fertilizers are an issue with algae and bacteria growth.
I think you are not understanding the comment. Much of the issues right now are a byproduct of agriculture less with temperature. Most of it is the use of fertilizers that wash out and go down stream.
Humans are the factor, but the planet has been warming up for a long time. I guarantee this bacterial growth is more connected to fertilizers uses in crops nearby.
Polluting is the problem. But it isn't the marginal bump in temp because climate change makes temperature swings drastic which is not great for bacterial growth. And equatorial locations are not as susceptible to the temperature swings as more polar points of the planet. The problem is more likely related to the heavy unregulated use of fertilizers. Eh em, pollution.
They don't even stream the NBA games in 4k because TV networks only support 1080p. I doubt they'd buy into such an expensive technology for such a niche audience.
I believe the recommended practice is to hover over the URL before clicking the link.
If you do so, in Outlook, there will be a pop that shows "Original URL: XXX". This allows users to make a determination for themselves whether the link is safe or not.
We got some security courses about that too. Unfortunately, outlook replaces all of them with some safelink url rewriting, so the only way left to find out if a link is scammy is clicking it.
It is in fact possible to extract a destination URL from a Safelink one without clicking it. For the full link this can be tedious, but identifying the domain can still be done quickly.
For normal URLs, I agree. But in this case you have adversarial urls. Suppose the scammer puts some http and www.google.com in the url parameters, after some randomly generated 8 characters dot someobscuretld site.
I don't trust myself enough to be 100% sure I can decode an URLencoded misleading mess perfectly all the time.
They already hid urls in the username of the url, like www.google.com.unholymessherethatscrollsoutoftheurlbar @ malignantdomainnotgoogle.blah
