ps
Can I go to top posting when there is a long thread?

:-))))))))))))))

Mike

--

....................................
Today, is the tomorrow, you were worrying about, yesterday.
....................................




"'Mike'" wrote in message
...

"aquachimp" wrote in message
...
On Dec 14, 12:18 am, Janet wrote:
In article 3194635f-9bae-4ddc-a7ab-
,
says...





On Dec 12, 11:51 pm, Janet wrote:
In article 8f6561fa-2ac1-4e4b-bdf0-8d1900a3c3e6
@k11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com,
says...

On Dec 11, 9:21 pm, Janet wrote:
In article 91510494-4ca0-46b7-9d74-9bffed89f634
@m11g2000vbs.googlegroups.com,

says...

On Dec 9, 10:22 pm, "Mike Lyle"

wrote:
URG only.

aquachimp wrote:
On Dec 7, 5:55 pm, Derek Turner
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 02:26:04 -0800, Dutch wrote:
"VolksVegan" spewed snip

Be gone spammer

Well, having KF'd the moron I wouldn't have seen anything
had you
not fed the troll.

I have to admit not reading all that stuff, actually, none
of it
really;

that said, there's an interesting article within a very
recent New
Scientist edition. It's just a very small snippet about how
lack of
biodiversity and increased illnesses have been link. Not a
conclusive
report, but it seems that weeds are probably the harbingers
of disease
because they have evolved to grow to reproductive maturity
in a very
short time.. at the cost of investing in greater immunity.
Mind you, I thought they might be included in biodiversity;
Darn it, I
all confused now.

Well, you've confused me, too! But "weeds" /are/ included in
biodiversity: wild plants are essential links in the
ecological chain,
and I didn't think anybody doubted it. I don't think wild
plants have
sacrificed much immunity to pests and diseases, have they?
They
certainly seem a lot less vulnerable than most cultivars; but
of course
that must be because they don't usually grow in large
monocultures in
places they might not have chosen, perhaps as much as because
of
constitutional factors and greater variety within a
population...and of
course the pests and diseases are part of biodiversity.

How much effect that could have on mammalian immune systems,
I've no
idea. Have you got the NS ref handy?

--
Mike.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ies-makes-ecos...

page 6 of Dec. 4th '10, right hand side, but heading is
different "
Weeds of disease."

What that article does NOT say, is that weeds are harbingers of
plant
diseases that infect other non-plant species. It just says, that
where
you have a lot of one species in close proximity, any infections
are
likely to affect the rest of the colony.

Janet

"Instead Keesing's team found that resilient "weed" species that
survive where other species might not, such as mice and ryegrass,
also
happen to be the best reservoirs for infection. She believes this
is
because weed species tend to live fast and die young, putting their
energy into rapid growth and reproduction instead of immunity.

There are too many examples of both plants and animals for this to
be
just coincidence, she says.

Diseases of wildlife can jump to people. We need to find landscapes
that maintain enough biodiversity to keep a lid on them, Keesing
says."

So, certain "weed species" (plant and animal) happen to be the best
reservoirs for infection

Animal to animal, plant to plant. Not, animal to plant, plant to
animal.

and disease from "wildlife" can jump to
people.

Some diseases/infections/parasites of animals (wild or not) can
infect people; that's hardly a new discovery.

It does not imply, that diseases of plants ( weeds or cultivated) are
also infectious to people or can jump to people.

Janet

"Wildlife" does not include plants?

Not in the context of diseases jumping from plants to people. It's
just sloppy English.

Janet

Sloppy English?

It plainly states that certain "weed" species are reservoirs for
infection.
A theory for that is given. It's in plain English.
Two example of these "weed" species are offered?
These are plant and animal.
So far, the English seems fine to me.

A very straight forward statement follows: "Diseases of wildlife can
jump to people."

In the context of the two examples of disease reservoirs given, this
"wildlife" is both plant and animal.
It's in plain English.
At the very least, it implies what I have already said it implies.

You offer a context that is actually contrary to what is given, in
plain English.

You clearly disagree with what is said, and you might be right, but
that doesn't change what was written.

.................................................. .........................................

I love the way that on this newsgroup there is no 'pruning' ;-))

Mike



--

...................................
Today, is the tomorrow, you were worrying about, yesterday.
...................................