Lol. Nee. E.» Scientists: Don' t freak out about Ebola. Everyone: 'Panic!' Scientists: Freak out about alienate change. Everyone: LOL! Pass me some coal.. But Ebola gives you superhuman powers lol
x
Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - evilhomer (08/21/2014) [-]
But Ebola gives you superhuman powers
#8 to #1 - kenshirokisame (08/21/2014) [-]
Ebola makes you swole. (pic related)
#40 to #1 - crazyolitis (08/22/2014) [-]
So ebola kills blacks and makes whites superhumans?
Perfect disease if you ask me.
#36 to #1 - blademontane (08/22/2014) [-]
He got too much ebola and turned into Sundowner
"I'M ******* INVINCIBLE"
#2 to #1 - remyfire ONLINE (08/21/2014) [-]
He's ready to fight ebola-chan now.
#41 to #2 - ThatsSoFunnyHeHe (08/22/2014) [-]
>Fighting her
But why?
User avatar #49 to #41 - remyfire ONLINE (08/22/2014) [-]
She will rape us.
And kill us.
And rape us, again.
#52 to #49 - baim (08/22/2014) [-]
then what are we waiting for
User avatar #18 to #1 - toosexyforyou (08/22/2014) [-]
Its got what plants crave. It has electrolytes.
User avatar #31 to #18 - feelythefeel (08/22/2014) [-]
"But what are electrolytes?"
"They're what plants crave"
#4 - lean ONLINE (08/21/2014) [-]
It is because of the endless rhetoric on climate change and how we are dooming the planet offers no plans, no real solutions, and no strategy to develop either of those things. The leaders of countries cite global warming and climate change when it suits their agenda, but do not offer solutions. The truth of the matter is advocate or climate deniers aside, climate change is used as a massive political manipulation tool, and people are sick of it.

There are many worldwide "environmental" groups that literally want governments to regulate and make fossil fuels so expensive that people can not afford to use them. These same groups protest nuclear energy, have raised petitions halting construction of 100's of hydroelectric and reservoir dams worldwide, and recently have begun attacking wind farms and solar clusters for their damage to birds. How are normal people supposed to live with their ideals? Why are groups like this so influential in governments and politics? Why not allow unrestricted use of what we have now in order to divert funds for alternative energy research and allow tax relief on companies that seek to do so? They think that penalizing the common people is a solution, when the reality is it just makes the common people suffer. People like the can bugger off to a mud hut in the woods. Good luck powering your iPad out there.
User avatar #20 to #4 - Indoknight ONLINE (08/22/2014) [-]
I honestly think that some of the users of this site would do a better job at caring for the world than the politicians
#42 to #4 - anon (08/22/2014) [-]
Climate change is natural.
#6 to #4 - bigmanblue (08/21/2014) [-]
its not that their are no solutions or plans its that the people who actualy have the power to put the solutions/plans in place dont because it might hurt their wallet slightly
and we all know money is more important then anything else
User avatar #44 to #6 - thelastamerican (08/22/2014) [-]
What plans are you a fan of? I mean, you could throw money at a kick starter if you wanted to.
User avatar #12 to #4 - citruslord ONLINE (08/22/2014) [-]
Not to mention one of these is far more immediately harmful. You get ebola and that's pretty much it, there's a much more proven, and definite consequence of that.
User avatar #10 to #4 - rainbowtacos (08/22/2014) [-]
It's funny because good nuclear power is the best sustainable power solution out there.
User avatar #23 to #10 - devilofscience (08/22/2014) [-]
Sustainable yes but when things go wrong they go very wrong, people are concerned because of cases like at worst chernobyl and at best the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant I had to look it up and used the whole name in case you missed it, but basically natural disaster hit japan and the place goes up... you know what just google it I'm terrible at explaining these cases were big scary and slightly mutating and have left a bad test in the general public's mouth, which is actually kinda sad because they offer no immediate threat to the environment or much risk in the long run... well except as to what is to be down with spent power rods.
#25 to #23 - kinginyellow (08/22/2014) [-]
www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/
You realize Chernobyl was also over-exaggerated right? It did massive physical damage, but the radioactivity is down by a lot now, and the WHO released a causality number 4000 predicted deaths. In fact, the original numbers and the papers published on the scale of Chernobyl have been contested by the WHO

And even with that in mind, Chernobyl failed because it was a mess. Yes things can go wrong in nuclear power, but you REALLY have to try to reach Chernobyl levels of ignorance for basic safety to replicate that.
#46 to #25 - anon (08/22/2014) [-]
It doesn't help that the way that Chernobyl's cooling plant worked promoted instability rather than halting it. It is such an obvious problem that NO other nuclear power plant uses, yet peole constantly use it for their point of view. You know how they measure how safe a power plant is....they make an estimate of how likely a meltdown is to occur...you know what the average number for it is? Once very 20,000 years....and that isn't a full meltdown they are talking about. That is just a partila meltdown likely to end up in less than 20 deaths, which likely won't be traceable back tothe nuclear power plant because of the shear number of things that would be able to do that same thing. Sorry forgrammar erros. Comp is going slow, and I don't wanna take the time it would to go back and fix them.
User avatar #43 to #25 - thelastamerican (08/22/2014) [-]
Yeah, I got an idea. Let's house our enrichment facilities in the same building as our reactor. That won't be a problem at all. Oh, and while we're at it, let's not worry about safety.

User avatar #53 to #23 - rainbowtacos (08/22/2014) [-]
If you research Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) they are very safe. Compared to Uranium nuclear power, they don't use compressed steam, instead using molten salts. So if things go wrong, everything gets dumped into a pit below the reactor instead of blowing up into the atmosphere. Besides that, it also operates at a lower temperature and can use weaponized uranium and nuclear by product from uranium plants as fuel, effectively reducing nuclear waste. And the small amount that is waste (about a tenth of what is waste from traditional nuclear facilities) has a half life of 30 years vs 300. The only reason that it isn't popular is because people are scared of cases like Chernobyl, and don't realize the advancements we've made.
User avatar #21 to #10 - Indoknight ONLINE (08/22/2014) [-]
Thorium ftw
#27 - mikasuh (08/22/2014) [-]
But Ebola is only contracted through bodily fluids you 			*******		 retards.   
   
MF With this comment section
But Ebola is only contracted through bodily fluids you ******* retards.

MF With this comment section
#14 - itumblr (08/22/2014) [-]
no one freaks about because no one cares lol fuk off
no one freaks about because no one cares lol fuk off
User avatar #51 to #14 - putindispencerhere (08/22/2014) [-]
I like how this is a troll account and everyone agrees with this. How we could be thumbing up to stop him, but I agree with it.
#5 - anon (08/21/2014) [-]
Why should i freak out about a thing that happened the last million of years? it's like freaking out about the sun rising.
(Also man made climate change is nothing but a joke)
ebola on the other hand is a deadly illness that is easily transmitted and could start a pandemy, if it wouldn't kill it's hosts so fast.
User avatar #39 to #5 - thecharliesheen (08/22/2014) [-]
OH NO, NOT A PANDEMY.
#9 to #7 - anon (08/22/2014) [-]
no, we're still "fresh" out of an ice age: heating phase.
1. it's not proven that our co2 emission has any effect on earth climate, at all.
2. though co2 does have heat saving capabilitys there are more than a few gases that have a huge effect on heat retention (speak: vapor and methane)
3. we produce 5% co2 of our atmosphere per year, math: 10% of our atmosphere is co2 and of THAT 10% we produce 5% = 0,0019% man made co2
4. if we keep raising our co2 production of 2ppm per year it will take 3000 years until we reach the co2 levels of the Ordovician. too bad that there was an ice age at this time
#16 to #9 - noschool (08/22/2014) [-]
1 it is generally accepted that co2 does affect the climate, disagreement mostly lies in whether human production of co2 is large enough to have an impact on the climate.
2 this is true but water vapor is fairly negligible because it cycles so fast and is reliant on temperature so it acts as an amplifier,
3 i don't know what you are actually referring too, plus our atmosphere is only 0.039% CO2. and the math doesn't make sense, you have a .05 and a .1 so where does the .0019% come from?
4 it should be noted that climate depends on many things, Ordovician started out extremely warm due to the high levels of co2 that helped trap more heat from the much weaker sun, eventually the co2 did drop, it dropped because at the time the Atlantic and NA plates collided and formed the Appalachian mountains these mountains faced were weathered from the CO2 reacting with the silicon rock to form calcium or magnesium carbonate, this in turn would become trapped at the bottom of the ocean. It was estimated that they were still high enough to prevent an ice age, however during the period the earths continents had formed together to make a super continent at the south pole, this messed with the ocean current causing the climate to shift into an ice age.
0
#15 to #9 - noschool has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #17 to #5 - citruslord ONLINE (08/22/2014) [-]
Ebola isn't quite "easily" transmitted. You could be in the same room as someone with it and get out without catching it. You have to be in pretty direct contact with bodily fluids to actually get it.
From what I know, the only reason it's such a big deal in Africa, is because many of their medical facilities lack basic necessities. Alot of these cases could be prevented with running water and some bleach.
#3 - anon (08/21/2014) [-]
**anonymous rolled image**
User avatar #26 - lightninghedgehog (08/22/2014) [-]
Something that will kill you within a month

vs.

Something that might kill you in a couple hundred years, assuming you're not dead yet
User avatar #28 to #26 - MegaAwesomeSauce (08/22/2014) [-]
> Something that will never likely travel outside the borders of it's home continent that cannot spread or operate in any locale that has running water and decent hygiene

vs.

> A near inescapable fate that will destroy thousands of different species of animals and plant life, destroy countless ecosystems, an repairable change in global climate, and it will affect everyone, you can't ******* vaccinate or cure against global warming my friend.
#29 to #28 - anon (08/22/2014) [-]
Global Warming has been a natural part of Earth's environmental cycle. We still don't know for sure if humans are the cause, and if you actually gave a **** about global warming you would know that Global Warming has been slowing down since 1999, even though more C02 and other "greenhouse" gasses are being released into the atmosphere than 10 years ago. Scientists also believe this hiatus is going to last awhile. Also, millions of species and ecosystems have been destroyed before humans even existed and it is going to continue that way. Mass extinction is a natural occurrence on our planet.
#30 to #29 - anon (08/22/2014) [-]
There's solid evidence to suggest that human's cause global warming. Do you actually think we don't have anything to do with it? Even if what you say is true, using non-renewable resources for all this **** is probably a bad idea anyway, because it contributes to Climate Change, and even then if you don't believe that, it's going to run out one day anyway
#35 to #30 - anon (08/22/2014) [-]
There isn't solid evidence to suggest that global warming actually exists, so there can't possibly be solid evidence to suggest that humans have done anything about it.

There has been no measurable change in temperature over the past 10 years.
User avatar #37 to #29 - deadmice (08/22/2014) [-]
its a natural cycle, sure. We know sure as **** that we have exacerbated it during this last hot cycle though,
User avatar #48 to #28 - hackmon (08/22/2014) [-]
protip: it is climate change not global warming

but yes great point
User avatar #32 to #28 - wheretheheartroams (08/22/2014) [-]
little side note about it probably not leaving its border, the u.s brought 2 scientists with ebola back and have them in i think florida a hospital or university to be studied on
User avatar #33 to #32 - MegaAwesomeSauce (08/22/2014) [-]
I understand that, but it wasn't the disease itself that got loose and crossed borders, It was the US flying their endangered citizens back in order to help them. Ebola isn't as virulent as the media makes it out to be. The only reason it's spread so far is because the hygiene and infrastructure there is so poor. In an area where toilets actually flush like in the US, Ebola wouldn't go very far
#47 - doctorniki (08/22/2014) [-]
**doctorniki rolled image** natural selection
#45 - legodude ONLINE (08/22/2014) [-]
Sorry can't hear you over the sound burning coal
User avatar #38 - mettih (08/22/2014) [-]
Atm we're freaking out about listeria (denmark)
#22 - anon (08/22/2014) [-]
well I don't trust scientists.

shifty little bastards.
#11 - moosepaw (08/22/2014) [-]
Who is she even talking about? The only people freaking out about Ebola are the Africans.
User avatar #13 to #11 - citruslord ONLINE (08/22/2014) [-]
There are alot of people, mainly because of a few figure heads like Donald Trump, who think the doctors should have been kept out of the country. There's a bit of fear mongering with it.
User avatar #19 to #13 - devilofscience (08/22/2014) [-]
Actually it's bothering me that they were sent home, it's not that I'm all that concerned about it spreading I was just unaware that the rules on quarantine were so lax. I mean it starts with all I know about Ebola is that there's an outbreak and no cure, then it goes to these two doctors have it now and they don't know how, then a short explanation about how we all should be safe because we'd need to exchange bodily fluids to spread it (which kid of begs the question of what those doctors were doing), then its okay because they came home where we keep a miracle cure, and amongst all of this I hear nothing of how they got home with this disease that is spreading like wild fire through the country they just came from or any reassurance about how they were ensuring these individuals will not infect another or for that matter why if we have this miracle cure with us why we didn't send it there to fix them and everyone else affected rather than bringing them here. Buuuut it was never a big deal for me because I live in the middle of nowhere and never socialize, it's just that from the layman's point of view it seems like they should've been doing a lot more containing then they actually did.
User avatar #24 to #19 - citruslord ONLINE (08/22/2014) [-]
From what I heard. This miracle cure is still very new and very expensive to manufacture. There has been a lack of research into this because no one cares about Africa, which kind of explains that.
The doctors likely contracted it for the same reason as everyone else has. Incredibly poor conditions. It's easy to not know that alot of these medical facilities lack simple things like running water, or basic sterilization materials.
In America, the people handling these infected individuals were in full hazmat, with state of the art sterilization procedures. And I think part of the reason the outlook for these people is so poor is because of the same lack of medical care.
 Friends (0)