I struggled to find this story on any outlet that isn’t a tabloid, an official-sounding never-heard-before bumfucknowhere gazette or a repeater like msn.
The original article seems to be from the guardian (quoted as such by the university itself) in a far less sensationalist way. It was written so long ago that people still thought Russia was a superpower, unilad decided to sensationalise it and publish it as fresh news one and a half years later.
The story is worrying don’t get me wrong, but this is just doom porn.
“THEY’VE BEEN SAYING THE SKY IS FALLING SINCE THE 70’S AND NOTHING HAPPENED! IT’S ALL BOGUS”
Dumb fucking cunts, it’s BEEN happening. 50 years might as well be overnight on earth’s lifespan, but even if this shit happened literally overnight you’d have these stupid fucking mouthbreathers saying “NUH UH”
I don’t get it. When did republicans start hating science? What is their vested interest in denying climate change? It’s literally just the republican thing to do now so they do it, and then call the rest of brainwashed for good measure.
It makes me want to slam my fucking head into the wall I cannot wrap my mind around their fucking stupidity.
One, they've been heavily propagandized for decades by oil companies. The whole "in the 70s scientists warned of a coming ice age!" and "junk science HOAX!" bullshit. Part of their belief is the contrarian "if democrats believe this, I believe the opposite" stupidity that's become common. Also, since they're reactionaries, they loathe the idea of anything changing, so they fear "they're taking away my gas guzzling truck!" or "I don't WANT an electric chainsaw!".
Because we’ve been running over the goalposts like a goddamn freight train. First it was about avoiding mass extinctions. Oops, too late. Then it was about saving coral reefs. Oops, too late. Then it was about avoiding massive worsening chaotic weather systems. Oops, too late. Now it’s about reducing the severity of the droughts and floods. Now it’s about keeping the oncoming death toll in the hundreds of millions instead of billions.
When a rat lungworm finds itself in a human, it does what it usually does in rats—it heads to the central nervous system and brain. Sometimes the migration of the worms to the central nervous system is asymptomatic or only causes mild transient symptoms. But, sometimes, they cause severe neurological dysfunction. This can start with nonspecific symptoms like headache, light sensitivity, and insomnia and develop into neck stiffness and pain, tingling or burning of the skin, double vision, bowel or bladder difficulties, and seizures. In severe cases, it can cause nerve damage, paralysis, coma, and even death.
Advertisement
It's often thought that the worm can't complete its life cycle in humans and that it ends up idly wandering around the brain for a month or two before it's eventually killed off by immune responses. However, there has been some evidence of adult worms reaching the human lungs.
Nice maps and interactive tool. However it seems to me, this definition doesn’t sufficiently account for mountains, which have quite different ecosystems from their neighbouring plains. Also, will you recalculate this to show how these regions move over time, with climate change ?
Thanks for link (end with /intro to make it work). I’m contemplating such maps for the purpose of defining a ±1000 region set for an interactive integrated assessment type model running timescale ±1750-2250 - so it needs to span multiple dimensions - political, demographic, climatic, landuse/ecosystems, for multiple end-purposes - for example exploring climate -migration - socio feedbacks, including being able to represent both historical and future changes, (although not such long timescale as PAGES).
That’s an end goal of many organisations like PAGES, I believe. We’re still trying to figure out those bits. Trends are going that way. We have data, the problem is now, how do we link it all.
biodiversity
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.