Weapons of Mosquito Destruction

wouldn't be the first time science fiction came up with an idea that was later brought to life by science

Mark my words, jinga: retrovation will be the next big thing. Expanding old tech - noone has the money for R&D except DARPA, so I would not be surprised if they start putting new twists on old tech.

Plus, all those laid-off engineers have to eat, and won't sit still. I predict an growing number of 'The Amazing Return Of The .....' in the coming year. It will probably also mean a new round of miniaturization, on top of the trend.

ORIGINAL: Guitarhacker

They used to have a very effective mosquito weapon of destruction..... it is called DDT...and it worked. We had almost eradicated Malaria.... just like we did to Polio.... but the powers to be decided that DDT was bad....based on junk science (like so many other things (theories) today) and now...over 1,000,000 people a year are dying from a disease that was almost wiped out three decades ago, and is totally preventable.

I remember the trucks that used to come around spraying during the summer time, especially in the Pine Barrens here in NJ where the state bird is the mosquito. Coming up on that season soon.

a favorite book:



http://www.johnmcphee.com/pinebarrens.htm

Notice there is a turtle on the cover? ;-)

ORIGINAL: Guitarhacker

They used to have a very effective mosquito weapon of destruction..... it is called DDT...and it worked. We had almost eradicated Malaria.... just like we did to Polio.... but the powers to be decided that DDT was bad....based on junk science (like so many other things (theories) today) and now...over 1,000,000 people a year are dying from a disease that was almost wiped out three decades ago, and is totally preventable.

You mean like Global Warming? I am amiss as to how we SUV drivers are affecting weather on some of the other planets.

Personally, I enjoy zapping misquitoes with electricity. I have a handheld thing that looks sort of like this, but with an orange top.



I think that if I make it to heaven, I am going to say "God. Good job on so many things, like the Grand Tetons, Yellowstone, Marisa Miller.... But what was the deal with mosquitoes? I mean, don't birds and bats have enough to eat without them?"

ORIGINAL: Roflcopter

Yeah DDT may not be as bad as it was made out to be, but it's still poison, while there's many less omnicidal alternatives.

Actually part of the environmental mess is people just going for the quick spray, for fast money. Your grandchildren will urinate on your grave, trust me.

We can all talk about our crimes against the environment, but no one is forcing regulations on the 40% of the world's population that lives in India and China - two of the worst violators on the planet. People need to stop buying their crap if they really care.

But do not be sold on the Al Gore infomercial - an inconceivable truth. There are too many other facts that he ignores, like global warming on Mars and a few of the outer planets. That argues it is a solar event. IN fact I have read many times that there is unusually high solar activity going on - much hotter (though this winter would not prove it).

Oh and never forget that Al Gore is the president of a company that makes money trading carbon offsets. Obama's bill for cap and trade would make tons of money for Gore.

He is not a green crusader in the definition of green=environment. He is green=cash. Anyone who thinks different is being fooled.

I care about the environment. However, there are countless people being duped by powerful people who profit from the ability of the public to be up in arms over very shallow knowledge of a sensitive issue. These powerful people that are taking advantage of the public trust need a dose of DDT too.

ORIGINAL: space_cowboy

ORIGINAL: Roflcopter

Yeah DDT may not be as bad as it was made out to be, but it's still poison, while there's many less omnicidal alternatives.

Actually part of the environmental mess is people just going for the quick spray, for fast money. Your grandchildren will urinate on your grave, trust me.

We can all talk about our crimes against the environment, but no one is forcing regulations on the 40% of the world's population that lives in India and China - two of the worst violators on the planet. People need to stop buying their crap if they really care.

But do not be sold on the Al Gore infomercial - an inconceivable truth. There are too many other facts that he ignores, like global warming on Mars and a few of the outer planets. That argues it is a solar event. IN fact I have read many times that there is unusually high solar activity going on - much hotter (though this winter would not prove it).

Oh and never forget that Al Gore is the president of a company that makes money trading carbon offsets. Obama's bill for cap and trade would make tons of money for Gore.

He is not a green crusader in the definition of green=environment. He is green=cash. Anyone who thinks different is being fooled.

I care about the environment. However, there are countless people being duped by powerful people who profit from the ability of the public to be up in arms over very shallow knowledge of a sensitive issue. These powerful people that are taking advantage of the public trust need a dose of DDT too.

This is something I fail to understand. We live in a capitalist society. Why then would anybody be upset that Al Gore is making money doing something he believes in? Do I have to refuse making money from my music or art too?

I am sorry, but I find that a ridiculous argument. Just because somebody is making money (which is what our society encourages) does not invalidate their message (he is not claiming to be messianic, so I do not think he needs to take a vow of poverty now does he?).

I would also caution against the use of the word "fact". In science there is no fact, there is only evidence that supports the currently accepted theory. Many such theories are tenuous at best as there is so little evidence to support, or provide for falsifiability, that claiming a theory to be valid is misleading and inaccurate.

Cheers
Shad

Yes, the memories .... running behind the spraying trucks while the guys on it cussed us kids, tho we couldn't hear them cause of the blower.

Like anything, there is a time and place for it. I can't see spraying suburbia with it, but I'd rather take a dousing rather than have malaria if I was in the 3rd world.

Another personal note. When I was a kid we had lots o' snakes but few birds of prey. After 10 years in NYC, I started going back to the country with my Dad in N. Texas, and there were plenty of birds but few snakes. Really had to hunt for them.

@

ORIGINAL: Guitarhacker

DDT... yes it's a poison... yes it was one of the most effective bug killers we're ever had..... banning it was not based on hard scientific evidence but mostly on hysteria based on a book that was poorly researched, but did appeal to the hearts of people.

Global warming (of the man made variety)...another myth....based on more junk (sham) science* ( *word used loosely) Scientific evidence now says we've been in a cooling stage for the last 10 years. Saw something last night about the cooling.... they say it should easily last 20 years or more.... the earth goes through cycles....it heats up and cools down based on mostly the sun's cycles... go figure...!

But for those who really believe that MAN is creating global warming I have but one question. We all pretty much accept, believe, and know that at one time, thousands of years ago, there were massive glaciers covering most of the northern hemisphere. Alaska had glaciers 5000 feet thick, they covered present day New York City with thousands of feet of ice. There was not a single factory, automobile, truck, SUV, no man made chemical like freon, or anything like it back then to cause the warming that ended the ICE AGE.... so....

What caused the global warming back then?

At the risk of this topic going south and getting locked.... you need to educate yourself a bit more.

You need to understand chemistry (of the atmospheric type), you need to understand the process of scientific modeling, you need to understand the scientific method and peer review.

Natural warming and cooling trends happen. But they happen at a glacial pace... slowly. The only other times that the earth warmed or cooled so dramatically in such a short periods of time was after major geologic events, of which there have been none.

Atmospheric chemistry is also very slow. It takes upwards of 50 years for chemical reactions to occur in the atmosphere. Meaning the damage being done today, will not fully express itself in my lifetime, but my kids.

The evidence to support Climate Change is overwhelming (unlike the evidence to support any theory about Mars). Note that I said climate change... its not about warming or cooling (that is what the popular press called it and it is entirely inaccurate).

And if you think the atmosphere is not effected right now, then go the Arctic in the summer and look up at the grey yellow sky (it should be deep blue) and you will see with your very own eyes the damage that is occurring. And no, there has not been any sustained significant solar activity of late either.

Our planet and sun are both "maturing" and our solar system is settling down. This is why there are fewer and few large asteroids impacting the earth. This is why there are fewer and smaller solar eruptions than were likely to be occurring in the distant past... The Solar System is not the same today as it was 100,000 or 100,000,000 years ago.

When we look at the climactic and geological time line, we have to factor all variables into the equation. And when we do, the picture is not as rosy as some would like us to believe.

But even if "global warming" is false, there is still the pollution problem and addressing that will have nothing but beneficial effects for the health of my kids and grand kids, so its still critical to address as a culture. The damage is likely done for those of us who lived through the chemical age, but maybe we can reduce it for the next gens...

(FYI, One of the job titles I hold is Professor, and I have taught courses on energy and the environment at the college level, which may help explain why I have a low tolerance for ignorance or displays of a demonstrable lack of critical thinking)

The answer blows the theory of Man Made Global Warming out of the water...that man is causing this supposed warming of our planet......especially since now.... scientists are agreeing the earth is actually cooling.



EDIT: if we enter another ice age...which is what they're saying.... the water will freeze and mosquitos don't like ice.

Actually, there is no real evidence of an ice age (or a runaway greenhouse effect, for that matter). It's a bit of a toss-up ATM statistically. The La Nina effect is also throwing a spanner in the models, it makes things colder, but not predictably.

A bigger thing is the total absence of sunspots, the new cycle just doesn't want to seem to get on with it. That means less solar activity, which is nice for satellites etc, but the records seem to indicate that such periods *do* cause a global cooling, like a mini-ice age, that could last from decades to centuries. But maybe it's just unusually slow.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/13/where-have-all-the-sunspots-gone/

ORIGINAL: Guitarhacker

Actually, there is no real evidence of an ice age (or a runaway greenhouse effect, for that matter). It's a bit of a toss-up ATM statistically.

Considering that the earth is really old by anyone's standards.....and our actual records only go back a handful of decades..we are only looking at a snapshot of time.... and as Rolf...points out.... all assumptions are just guesses at best with no collaborating evidence to support either theory. Based on our current lifespans.... it's not gonna matter to us.... people will adapt no matter what direction it ultimately takes..... after all we already live all over the planet.

Utter nonsense. There are a myriad ways one can analyze the weather trends of the past... ice core samples, sedimentary fossil, and so on. There is sufficient corroborating evidence to convince virtually all of the worlds academic community (there are a few holdouts). The only ones not convinced seem unwilling to accept the evidence. But that does not make it less real.

I am not willing to add suffering to the world (nor even risk it) when instead I can do something about it. Even if global climate change is not man made, the unwillingness of people to consider the other consequences of their actions is mind boggling. Its even more mind boggling to me that anyone would suggest that the next generations should just simply adapt to that which was caused by my unmitigated over indulgence. And that is what it ultimately comes down to.

Bury my head... let somebody else deal with it, or stand up and say, "we are now smart enough as a species to regulate our actions so that we do as little damage to the gift we were given (this planet and its inhabitants) as we can".

Why would anybody disagree with that? The only answers I can come up with for that, all tend to involve "me" in the equation. I want to drive an SUV, I want to drive a power boat, I want a refrigerated automobile full of plastic, I want cheap disposable goods, I want, I want, I want...

I know God said "ask and ye shall receive", but come on. Where does it end? When there is nothing left for anybody?

Utter nonsense. There are a myriad ways one can analyze the weather trends of the past... ice core samples, sedimentary fossil, and so on.

BTW I am not ignoring or denying a rise in CO2. I know what ice-cores are, contain, and to how far back in time, currently.

I also know how relative that is, high as the numbers may be, or seem.

There is no question that the earth has been going through a warming phase. The question is what is causing it.

Now I know most people look at National Geograpic for those topless photos of tribal women with baskets on their heads. But here is this:
Global Warming On Mars?

It is documented tons of other places. Now either we Texans have too many big SUvs on Mars, or the sun is getting hotter.

I am all for controlling emissions. It is good for the earth. What I am not for is pop science by a politician who is basically a derivatives trader in carbon offset credits being the end-all answer to what is happening.

Yes we should stop releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
No we should not knock the world back 200 years because Environmental Al said so.

His movie An Inconceivable Truth is an infomercial. Al Gore makes lots of money from cap and trade. It is not done from the purity of his heart. In fact, I find his movie to be somewhat fraudulent by not disclosing this very important fact at the outset.

THe scientific method is great. But - like proving UFOs or the existence of God - it is not infallible. There are things - take gravity - where we know it exists - we know how to describe how two objects interact - but we cannot control it or even account for the missing "gravitons" or whatever is exerting the force. We cannot prove the why of gravity, but it is certainly there. Unlike electrons or protons or photons (an electron derivative) interacting in weak nuclear, strong nuclear or electromagnetic forces (3 of the 4 known forces) we cannot identify the mechanism that transmits gravity. We are 100% certain that gravity is there though since we don't fall off the planet every day. Gravitons are theoretical. They explain a lot. But we cannot prove it for the life of us. By the way, did you know that gravity travels at about the speed of light? Pretty cool, huh?

In fact, if you ever study cosmology (not the make up and hair do thing), you would know that we cannot account for about 80% of the matter in the universe (hence dark matter) or about 75% of the energy (dark energy). We can observe that there are forces holding galaxies together that are more than gravity would account for, given the mass of the galaxies - hence a need for dark matter. We can observe that, instead of the universe's expansion slowing, it is actually accelerating. This is in complete defiance of entropy. There is some force out there pushing galaxies apart at a faster rate than what we would calculate given what we know about expansion, the big bang....Hence the need for dark energy.

I bring these up only as illustrations. Science does not know everything. But a fundamental violation of the scientific method is to ignore data that contradicts your thesis. I know. I spent 10 years as an electronics engineer. I try to stay on top of the latest advances in physics (ok I am a nerd). I had the scientific method hammered into me.

For those of you who do not know - this is the process.

For a given problem
Ask a question "Why does this happen?"
Develop a hypothesis
Construct and run a test to prove or disprove the hypothesis
Evaluate the results of the tests
Adjust the hypothesis accordingly.
Continue looping.

Now, if Mars showing coincident signs of a warming trend is real (I urge people to look at it), then ignoring this would not remotely be scientific.

So number 1 - I argue that ignoring data violates the basic thesis of the scientific method.
But number 2 - Consider the case for UFOs
Numerous people have reported them - some of which are credible witnesses - airline pilots - cops - politicians (just joking on that last one)
But scientists cannot use the scientific method to prove they exist.
However just because they CANNOT PROVE IT does not mean that they have DISPROVED IT. That is a popularly held belief that is a fallacy.

Anyway, I am for saving the environment because it is right. I am totally against legislating things based on Al Gore's misleading movie.

What does this have to do with Mosquitoes? It is simple

We need to develop controllable micro black holes that we can launch into mosquito infested areas. They would all be sucked into the event horizon and ripped to shreds at the speed of light. And, we need to be able to shoot these micro black holes from a super soaker type squirt gun. But don't aim it at troublesome neighbors.

ORIGINAL: space_cowboy

There is no question that the earth has been going through a warming phase. The question is what is causing it.

Now I know most people look at National Geograpic for those topless photos of tribal women with baskets on their heads. But here is this:
Global Warming On Mars?

It is documented tons of other places. Now either we Texans have too many big SUvs on Mars, or the sun is getting hotter.

I am all for controlling emissions. It is good for the earth. What I am not for is pop science by a politician who is basically a derivatives trader in carbon offset credits being the end-all answer to what is happening.

Yes we should stop releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
No we should not knock the world back 200 years because Environmental Al said so.

His movie An Inconceivable Truth is an infomercial. Al Gore makes lots of money from cap and trade. It is not done from the purity of his heart. In fact, I find his movie to be somewhat fraudulent by not disclosing this very important fact at the outset.

THe scientific method is great. But - like proving UFOs or the existence of God - it is not infallible. There are things - take gravity - where we know it exists - we know how to describe how two objects interact - but we cannot control it or even account for the missing "gravitons" or whatever is exerting the force. We cannot prove the why of gravity, but it is certainly there. Unlike electrons or protons or photons (an electron derivative) interacting in weak nuclear, strong nuclear or electromagnetic forces (3 of the 4 known forces) we cannot identify the mechanism that transmits gravity. We are 100% certain that gravity is there though since we don't fall off the planet every day. Gravitons are theoretical. They explain a lot. But we cannot prove it for the life of us. By the way, did you know that gravity travels at about the speed of light? Pretty cool, huh?

In fact, if you ever study cosmology (not the make up and hair do thing), you would know that we cannot account for about 80% of the matter in the universe (hence dark matter) or about 75% of the energy (dark energy). We can observe that there are forces holding galaxies together that are more than gravity would account for, given the mass of the galaxies - hence a need for dark matter. We can observe that, instead of the universe's expansion slowing, it is actually accelerating. This is in complete defiance of entropy. There is some force out there pushing galaxies apart at a faster rate than what we would calculate given what we know about expansion, the big bang....Hence the need for dark energy.

I bring these up only as illustrations. Science does not know everything. But a fundamental violation of the scientific method is to ignore data that contradicts your thesis. I know. I spent 10 years as an electronics engineer. I try to stay on top of the latest advances in physics (ok I am a nerd). I had the scientific method hammered into me.

For those of you who do not know - this is the process.

For a given problem
Ask a question "Why does this happen?"
Develop a hypothesis
Construct and run a test to prove or disprove the hypothesis
Evaluate the results of the tests
Adjust the hypothesis accordingly.
Continue looping.

Now, if Mars showing coincident signs of a warming trend is real (I urge people to look at it), then ignoring this would not remotely be scientific.

So number 1 - I argue that ignoring data violates the basic thesis of the scientific method.
But number 2 - Consider the case for UFOs
Numerous people have reported them - some of which are credible witnesses - airline pilots - cops - politicians (just joking on that last one)
But scientists cannot use the scientific method to prove they exist.
However just because they CANNOT PROVE IT does not mean that they have DISPROVED IT. That is a popularly held belief that is a fallacy.

Anyway, I am for saving the environment because it is right. I am totally against legislating things based on Al Gore's misleading movie.

What does this have to do with Mosquitoes? It is simple

We need to develop controllable micro black holes that we can launch into mosquito infested areas. They would all be sucked into the event horizon and ripped to shreds at the speed of light. And, we need to be able to shoot these micro black holes from a super soaker type squirt gun. But don't aim it at troublesome neighbors.

(DISCLAIMER - THIS IS A DISCUSSION. There is no emotion, just the same kind of conversation that I would have with a person here.)

Wait a second here.... you are confusing me.

Critical thinking required...

Where did you hear that cleaning up our environment and addressing the real concerns that science has will kill millions of people in the third world?

What credible journal of science says that tackling the problems of carbon emissions and other climatic concerns will knock us back 200 years...

You are aware that the particular hypothesis of extra-planetary warming was originally put forth by the same crackpot that said there were faces on mars? It has been thoroughly debunked.

There is no "prove" or "disprove" in science, there is only support or not. You yourself point out that even that which we call "Law" may no longer be law (entropy is part of the Second Law of Thermodynamics).

Refusing to support something on the grounds that you do not like the promoter is called bias. Bias negates objectivity. Thus you are arguing your points with an agenda, which is counter to the fundamental principles of science. So, then...

How do I believe you more than Al Gore? You have the same agenda (the causes may be different, but the agenda is the same: personal gain. His - financial, yours - satisfaction).

Now, truth be told, while Al Gore made some assumptions and claims that were tenuous, the counter arguments are vastly more tenuous. I do not think Al gore helped the environmentalist cause any, but the reality is, the only people who disagree with the academic community are persons working for the industries that will be hurt the most by moving away from fossil fuels.

So the type of argument made against Al Gore seem to be conveniently overlooked when one looks at who is actually saying the problem is not real.

If I ran my course here (it would take a school year), by the end the student will have been taught how to research properly and will have pretty much convinced themselves (I wont need to) of the reality that faces us and the next generations... it is actually pretty much self evident once you start taking a look.

Just to be clear, I am not saying there are no problems with the models, there are... there are many problems, science is not perfect (nothing is), but neither is it necessarily wrong just because its imperfect (if that were the case, then we would all be wrong all of the time). And like anything made or invented by humans, it can be abused. This is why it is essential that all our kids are educated to the maximum, because only through education will we ever be able to prevent having the wool pulled over our eyes by any argument based on an agenda by any side.

big +1 to the integrity of all involved.

yeah... we might disagree... but kudo's to all for keeping it intelligent, well thought out, and honorable.