A Concerned Scientist @BE@qoto.org

@noyes

I like it. With a lot more words I think they're working in the same ballpark for airborne potential. Pollen grains average between two and three hundred micrometers if what I read is to be believed, and the COVID document from the WHO said:

"Emitted particles range in diameter from 0.01 and 1000 μm depending on the generation mechanism, respiratory and vocalization activity, age and site of origin [52], [74]–[76]. The
size distribution is further affected by the quasi- instantaneous evaporation process particles have undergone after leaving the body. Particles of diameter smaller than 100 μm are likely to become airborne and remain suspended in the air from seconds to hours, because of their reduced size and settling velocity compared to larger ones [77]."

Infectious dose is something that I've been interested in with respects to COVID. The WHO also attempted to discuss that in a numbers-based way for the risk calculator, which was always going to make some assumptions. In the end they went with 55 FFU as the TCID50 from:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01780-9

It's not an exact science, but, I respect the WHO for putting together a version 1 of a risk calculator that includes masking, ventilation and filtration.

@mfennvt

Converting it to a 2 pound loaf now

My wife - "Could you send me the whole wheat bread recipe that uses sourdough starter for the bread machine?"

Me - *texts it*

My wife - "That's for a 2.5 pound loaf. The new bread machine only does 1, 1.5 and 2."

Me - "Huh. That explains some things."

@lavenderlens

Ooh boy. That's a whole can of worms, and in the era of CRISPR and similar advances, there's not really anything stopping it, that I know of.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mail-order-crispr-kits-allow-absolutely-anyone-to-hack-dna/

Just something I noticed that I think speaks to people's current pandemic psychology.

There's, to my mind, two similar studies out this week, both published in Nature, about COVID vaccination and imprinting.

One's all sunshine and roses, at least to the extent that it's being covered(I'm only able to see the abstract).

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07539-1

I've seen this come across my timeline dozens of times, with tons of people commenting on it.

The other brings up some really good points, and some limitations(waning antibody responses, not all mRNA-based booster vaccines are equally immunogenic, etc.), of COVID vaccinations.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48414-x

I saw this come across my timeline once, and no one has commented on it that I've seen.

Just something that may only interest me.

There's a new paper out today discussing airborne transmission of H5N1 among ferrets. The paper itself is quite good, on a first read, however, the press release states that this is the first time H5N1 has been shown to do so, yet above you can find another paper showing exactly this in 2020.

Regardless, it's worth a read if you're trying to keep up on the science.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48475-y

@Smalltofeds

I didn't know all about that. Thank you for sharing! I forget the exact details, but at one point along the way DuPont very slightly changed their name and claimed that they were a new company and didn't know anything about PFAs, too.

@MarvClowder

Thank you! I think I was working on posting about it as you were sending it. Much appreciated!

Fantastic article today from ProPublica on 3M and PFAs in everyone's blood. I know I've mostly focused on DuPont here, but they're not the only ones with blame. I once briefly partnered with 3M on a project and I found them to be the most objectionable company I ever worked with. Much like DuPont, they knew how toxic it was, going back to at least the 70's. They knew what they were doing, and they chose profits.

"Rats that had more fish meal in their diets, she discovered, tended to have higher levels of PFOS, suggesting that the chemical had spread through the food chain and perhaps through water. In male lab rats, PFOS levels rose with age, indicating that the chemical accumulated in the body. But, curiously, in female rats the levels sometimes fell. Hansen was unsettled when toxicology reports indicated why: Mother rats seemed to be offloading the chemical to their pups. Exposure to PFOS could begin before birth.

Another study confirmed that Scotchban and Scotchgard were sources of the chemical. PFOS wasn’t an official ingredient in either product, but both ­contained other fluorochemicals that, the study showed, broke down into PFOS in the bodies of lab rats. Hansen and her team ultimately found PFOS in eagles, chickens, rabbits, cows, pigs and other animals. They also found 14 ­additional fluorochemicals in human blood, including several produced by 3M. Some were present in wastewater from a 3M factory."

https://www.propublica.org/article/3m-forever-chemicals-pfas-pfos-inside-story

I haven't said anything in this thread for a while, because I just don't think there's been a whole lot to say. People really seem to have dug themselves into "Pandemic Incoming" and "Slurp All That Raw Milk" camps pretty quickly. I guess we did learn something from COVID!

Anyway, I thought AJ Leonardi had a pretty spot on short article on the subject today.

https://www.easychair.info/p/let-them-eat-viruses

@maggiejk

It's illegal nationwide as far as I know. The FTC's been cracking down on it.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2021/10/ftc-ramp-enforcement-against-illegal-dark-patterns-trick-or-trap-consumers-subscriptions

I had a newspaper subscription that I wanted to cancel after they were bought by some crap private investors who wrecked it. I couldn't do it online and their chat agent just sent me to a phone number that rang forever and no one ever answered. I sent them an e-mail and made a quick report to ReportFraud.ftc.gov and the next day I had an e-mail from the newspaper confirming my cancellation and saying that their "cancel page was just temporarily offline." Sure it was.

@nicod

Exactly. The thick, overly smoothed lines and no scale on the y-axis force you to download the whole damn .csv if you want to actually see the finer points of the data. I'm glad the data exists and that I'm able to download the csv file and all, but, whoever put together the visualizations needs to step back and rethink the whole thing.