Chernobyl balance sheet, cost, maps and contamination (France)
About the good health / reproduction relationship. Certain trees hard hit by a fire and having "survived", throw their last strength into the battle by starting to multiply their pine trees, seeds etc in a last "standstill", then die. Certainly there must be "equivalent" examples in the animal world.
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79126
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 10974
Flytox wrote:throw their last strength into the battle by starting to multiply their pine trees, seeds etc. in a last "standstill", then die.
Can the Praying Mantis male be Flytox?
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
- Exnihiloest
- Econologue expert
- posts: 5365
- Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
- x 660
Obamot wrote:... Like what there was still progress
Obviously: nuclear tests in the atmosphere have brought much more radioactivity to the world than the accidents of power plants which followed.
The man at least understood the danger and was intelligent enough to stop the atmospheric nuclear tests.
So "progress", yes (there is no absolute progress). CQFD
Last edited by Exnihiloest the 14 / 10 / 15, 13: 52, 1 edited once.
0 x
- Exnihiloest
- Econologue expert
- posts: 5365
- Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
- x 660
Obamot wrote:...
You can totally have cancer at the last stage and procreate, good then! What would that prove? ....
At the "last stage", not sure, but let's admit, yes.
But there was talk of "proliferation". Your remark is only relevant after putting it back in context, which gives:
"A majority of men can quite possibly have late stage cancer and procreate, well then! That would prove what"
The terminal phase still putting an end to procreation which in the men in question could have taken place after their terminal phase if they had survived, there will be less "proliferation" in the case of sick procreators than in the case of good health.
Consequently, to say that proliferation is a sign of good health seems to me much less questionable than the fact of saying without proving it, that the animals would be sick in a significant proportion.
0 x
- Exnihiloest
- Econologue expert
- posts: 5365
- Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
- x 660
Flytox wrote:About the good health / reproduction relationship. Certain trees hard hit by a fire and having "survived", throw their last strength into the battle by starting to multiply their pine trees, seeds etc in a last "standstill", then die.
Same in humans: desire to procreate in a context of possible fatal danger, as I read.
Certainly there must be "equivalent" examples in the animal world.
The case is not proven in the fauna around Chernobyl (no behavioral click possible because the radioactivity is insidious, unlike a fire), and on the other hand there have been several generations of animals since the accident.
Your hypothesis is highly speculative.
0 x
- Obamot
- Econologue expert
- posts: 28725
- Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
- Location: regio genevesis
- x 5538
At all, the "ambiguity" comes from the fact that you do not answer the questions, or next to (usually not):
- We should define what "healthy enough", what are your criteria? (For the moment you do not give objective medical or scientific criteria, you suppose that because they proliferate they would be in "good health", I believe to have demonstrated with my example that it was not, and not necessary to develop more, thank you… Except to give something scientifically objective. Give links, etc) as I still specified "Can a litter produce more than one without degeneration (and so on)?"
At the very least, you need to produce a reliable source on which you base your assertions.
- Do you have sources to confirm this? (Always affirmations but no formal answer)
- Still no publication in "clear" of the source of your diagram showing the peaks. Nor who funded the study?
In short, for the moment consider that it is not possible to answer you as to conclude ...
- We should define what "healthy enough", what are your criteria? (For the moment you do not give objective medical or scientific criteria, you suppose that because they proliferate they would be in "good health", I believe to have demonstrated with my example that it was not, and not necessary to develop more, thank you… Except to give something scientifically objective. Give links, etc) as I still specified "Can a litter produce more than one without degeneration (and so on)?"
At the very least, you need to produce a reliable source on which you base your assertions.
Whatever the cause, awakened dormant genes or preferential survival of individuals with the genes allowing the best immunity [...] the natural selection reveals them.
- Do you have sources to confirm this? (Always affirmations but no formal answer)
- Still no publication in "clear" of the source of your diagram showing the peaks. Nor who funded the study?
In short, for the moment consider that it is not possible to answer you as to conclude ...
0 x
- Exnihiloest
- Econologue expert
- posts: 5365
- Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
- x 660
- Exnihiloest
- Econologue expert
- posts: 5365
- Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
- x 660
-
- Similar topics
- Replies
- views
- Last message
-
- 0 Replies
- 262 views
-
Last message by sicetaitsimple
View the latest post
14/03/24, 15:06A subject posted in the forum : Fossil fuels: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)
-
- 13 Replies
- 9070 views
-
Last message by Hydraxon
View the latest post
13/07/08, 18:14A subject posted in the forum : Fossil fuels: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)
Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 295 guests