So you are now saying that you agree that the well established toxo transmission route from rodents to cats to humans is a significant public health issue? Then why did you bring up the concerns about the less than one percent possibility of transmission from pigs, sheep, other animals, or (very unlikely!) picking it up by walking a path that some cat had taken recently?

Is there some hidden need that is driving your arguments?

No, I do not think I have missed your point.

AND it is NOT that I am ignoring any biological realities. I AM recognizing that the length of time an infected cat can be contagious is unimportant to risk evaluation. Unless of course you have some foolproof method of determining when, exactly, the three week period of being contagious starts and ends.

Toxo is a serious parasitic disease that has left its mark on one in every five persons you come across on the street. That is clear proof that its mode of transmission is very effective, no matter whether any individual cat might be only contagious for a short time. It causes very serious complications of pregnancy, but it also appears to cause long term abberations in adult behavior that affect psychosocial norms and risk-taking behavior.

The CDC thinks it is a serious threat that requires more study, and perhaps they will get around to it when ebola and killer flu is under control. They do have a lot on their plate right now.

If you live with a woman who has lots of cats and some of the indicators of toxo, then-- because she is likely to be a risk taker-- you are at risk of becoming infected. This is true whether you are husband, lover, child, or room mate. This is because she is a risk taker, and will take risks with how she handles food, kitchen implements, etc that will increase your risk.

The risk of getting toxo cannot be controlled by you exercising good hygeinic practices. It also depends on everyone around you who handles cats to also exercise good hygeine. But those with toxo are the ones who will stretch the "5 second rule" to "less than a minute". And then comfortably serve you the canape that was just rescued from the floor next to the cat's litter box.

Not all cat owners are dangerous to your health. But those who have multiple cats and don't mind living in a house with a permanent faint odor of cat piss maybe should be regarded as dangerous.

BTW, I don't know for sure whether this is a gender-specific thing and I may be doing a bad in implying that this is a women's issue kind of thing. Anecdotally it seems that way, and the research seems to suggest that men are not as susceptible to toxo induced behavioral problems as are women. But I don't know that for sure.

There is not much in that area except sagebrush and antelopes. The geologic survey found nothing of economic interest: a lot of old basalt flows. There are some wildlife study areas. It is an 8 hour drive from San Francisco, the same from Portland OR, and hundreds of miles from any fracking activity.

I've been watching this swarm on the USGS World Earthquake Map. If it were not so inaccessible, I'd drive out there, but to do that safely would require carrying jerry cans of gas, and water and food for several days. This place is way back of beyond.

That doesn't explain the high prevalence of toxo antibodies in some human populations. CDC estimates about 20% of the USA population has been affected by toxo at some time in their life. Toxo is a very prevalent parasite, suggesting that its modes of transmission are a lot more effective than parent post implies.

There is anecdotal evidence that women who choose to live with multiple cats are often polyamorous or blatantly promiscuous, take risks with social norms that lead to frequent loss of jobs, and are exceptionally tolerant of the stench of cat piss. Rats that have been infected with toxo have been shown to become more daring than the average rat, and to be attracted to the odor of cat piss.

Ah! Good, you do know how to qualify your statements. I like the way you have backed off from declaring that parallel evolution is impossible, and now say it is extremely unlikely. Good for you. Now learn to say it the correct way the first time.

There are always alternative hypotheses that may be true. Any theory is never more than a best guess, that could be wrong. If you are totally sure about something, you are not doing science, you are doing belief.

Healthy belief systems are valuable and need at least as much pruning and nurturing as scientific theories. But do not conflate the two: they are different.

There is nothing so absurd as the phrase "science denier". So sorry my earlier post rattled your cage. Go back to sleep, comfortable in your belief in Science and that everything proposed as a theory must be true, because everybody-- except the real scientists-- say it is.

I'll grant that the Pope is stepping away from the old doctrine that the Creator was like some guy in a toy shop putting together the Universe like a kid with a giant set of Legos putting together something a little bit complex. That's a big step. It begins the process of healing the rift between the Catholic churches (and all the Protestant and evangelical spin-offs) and the Gnostics and other panentheists (with their understanding that Deity might reside within the Creation, rather than there being some kind of barrier between us lowly earthern creatures and the heavenly beings).

But the Big Bang of science is not understood as something that happened separately from some heavenly realm that exists independent of it. The Big Bang states that the Universe gave birth to itself, and by implication gave birth to any gods or other form of Deity that may be around today. It is going to take a great many more steps before the Roman Catholic Church will be able to accept that premise. And it will have to apologize for persecuting a lot of the heretics it has created, starting with the Gnostics, on its way to that acceptance. However there is nothing in the teachings of Jesus or in that covenant that conflicts with a Big Bang approach to spirituality. The understanding of Jesus would shift a little-- Big Bang Christianity would necessarily become more tolerant for one thing-- but it is not unreasonable to think that institutions, including religions, should evolve along with the rest of the Universe.

Except of course the book of Ezekiel and Erich von Daniken.

Not saying the Pope should begin the beatification process for von Daniken. But von Daniken was right in recognizing that the limitations of the language and mental maps of the bible's writers needs to be taken into account when trying to process biblical books within a contemporary frame of thought.

Plus, von Daniken was the first to describe a quadcopter. That's got to be worth something.

If only the Time Lords had imposed a ban against visiting the Middle East during the biblical period, there would be a lot fewer miracles for us to fret over. Blame all this Creationism hoohahrah on Doctor Who.

There is nothing quite like watching someone argue against a belief system with a piece of an opposing belief.

The success that MS attained in the server market was pretty much entirely due to their closed ecosystem and the need for any institution whose secretaries were using Windows to use MS servers as well. In short, MS was able to leverage its GUI interface in a way that limited any of its customers from using a non-MS server OS.

In contrast to this, in areas where the Windows interface had no influence (think web page servers and HTTP protocol), Linux distros emerged quickly as the front runners, and are clearly the dominate force by any measure other than sales dollars.

MS' revenues going from $25b to $60b under Ballmer was mostly due to the stranglehold monopolistic closed ecosystem that Gates built, before he gave Microsoft as a plaything to Ballmer, his buddy.

True enough, MS was profitable under Ballmer.

But more to the point, all that profit came from positive inertia of business decisions made before Ballmer became the Lord High Mukkimuck of the Evil Empire. It is hard to identify any strategy that the potty-mouthed, chair-throwing, murder-threatening monkey dancer initiated that was successful on its own merits. Very hard. The guy was given the reins of the most potent fire breathing profit-making dragon that ever stomped through the free marketplace and he rode it down until it was on its knees, out of steam, exuding only smoke and no more fire. He never fed the beast, nor did he steer it toward new lands to conquer. Nothing Ballmer initiated contributed a significant percentage to MS' profits.

Coming back to the point of this TFA, I don't see where a failed CEO's opinion of Amazon's business model has much value.

Really?

I thought he was the potty-mouthed, chair-throwing, murder-threatening monkey dancer.

Oh wait... I guess those two descriptions are not mutually exclusive...

.

.

The makeshift ebola suits currently in use are epic fail. Persons highly trained in their use have come down with ebola. Probably because the protocols for getting in and out of the suits are so difficult that the protocols themselves are broken, they simply do not work.

Paul Allen-- bless him!-- has just donated $100 million to the ebola effort. But more significantly, he is spearheading the development of a medevac system that will handle medical personnel in Africa who may have been exposed to ebola.

What we need is someone of Paul Allen's stature to design and deploy an effective ebola suit. This would probably be a spacesuit that would protect its occupant from an environment so hostile to life that any ebola on its surface would not survive. It would be used in conjunction with that hostile environment. For example, a suit that would allow a health worker to stand in a bonfire for 15 minutes, or walk through a deadly chemical fog chamber. It needs to be built and used in such a way that getting into and out of it can be done easily, while assuring that any ebola virus on its surface is 100% destroyed.

There is no government agency or institution that could take this on. This is on the scale of a Manhattan Project-- except much worse since we don't have years to do the work. We need something useable in months. So we need someone with the resources and know-how to develop this new technology on a fast track. Burt Rutan. Bill Gates. Maybe Warren Buffett. Someone of that caliber.

I hope someone is stepping up to take this on. Developing an effective ebola suit would be a magnificent legacy. It would put one in company with medical greats like Pasteur, Lister, Fleming, and Salk.

Very true. However places where beams might drop on you are also places where somebody's hammer, spanner, or bucket of bolts might drop on you. A hard hat makes a lot sense in those places.