Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTakepart: Did Deforestation Cause Ebola?
http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/10/22/did-deforestation-cause-ebola?cmpid=tpdaily-eml-2014-10-22Scientists debate whether exploiting resources in the rainforest helps diseases leap from animals to humans.
October 22, 2014 By Marc Herman
Marc Herman is the author of Searching for El Dorado and The Shores of Tripoli; a regular contributor to The Atlantic; and a cofounder of Deca Stories. He lives in Barcelona.
While Ebola continues to ravage Liberia and Sierra Leone, an old debate has returned over how best to discourage future transmissions in areas like the one from which the virus emerged.
A report by the National Institutes of Health last week confirmed that the outbreak began with a single case of transmission from an animal to a human. That likely raised the hackles of activists who've been insisting that human incursion into forests might increase the incidence of disease transmission. Mining and logging means roads and camps and workers who need food, often leading to increased consumption of, and new trade in, wild animals, known as bushmeat.
That's the thinking anyway. But its not clear that human activity in forests where diseases like Ebola are present increases the odds of outbreaks. The two positionsEbola creates itself in the forest, or Ebola moves with animal populations that industry decimatesare opposite sides of a long-running, arguably life-and-death debate among scientists studying the disease.
Ebola hasnt been associated with natural resource exploitation, said Peter Walsh, who studies primate ecology at Cambridge University. The original outbreak on the Ebola River wasnt, and the ones in southern [Democratic Republic of Congo] in 1995 and 1997 were also not. Its just not happening.
FULL story at link.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 631 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Takepart: Did Deforestation Cause Ebola? (Original Post)
Omaha Steve
Oct 2014
OP
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)1. It didn't help.
It's not nice to fool mother nature.
Coral reefs dying off, natural systems of checks and balances ruined forever.
There's a price to pay for all of this damage we seem to do at increasingly destructive rates.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)2. No, evolution did.
Combine that with increased travel and large cities in Africa, and this was bound to happen eventually.