Top 5 Worrisome Diseases

I have wondered the same thing.
What kind of impact would there be?
Is there any aspect of the ecosystem that relies upon them?
I don't see any "benefit" they offer.

Actually, they DO play a major role in the ecosystem. Their larvae are the primary food source for scores and scores of breeds of young, immature fish.

Not only their primary food source but they also provide practically all of the protein the small fish eat in many locations.
 
Actually, they DO play a major role in the ecosystem. Their larvae are the primary food source for scores and scores of breeds of young, immature fish.

Not only their primary food source but they also provide practically all of the protein the small fish eat in many locations.

Why is that?
Is there no other food that would suffice, or is it because they are so plentiful that the other potential cources can not take hold as well?
 
Why is that?
Is there no other food that would suffice, or is it because they are so plentiful that the other potential cources can not take hold as well?

I cannot say why, I don't know, it's just that that's the way it works. And although it's very true of saltwater species that develop in saltwater marsh flats and tidal pools, it's even more true of freshwater varieties where there are far fewer small animals/plants for them to feed on. And those little guys eat a LOT!
 
orleander i cant open the link, it comes up with a blank page

norsefire actually the risk of a pandemic from ebola is very low specifically BECAUSE of its fast mortality. An outbreak burns itself out in a couple of months
 
People would still get sick even if the world was rid of mosquitoes. They aren't the only one's out there that carry viruses and/or suck blood.
 
Read only is compleatly correct, mosqueto lava are there baby brine shrimp of the fresh water world. Introducing dragon flies is a better way to keep mosqueto levels down in water ways because there lave are natural preditors for mesqueto lave. As for residentual areas keeping fish in pools where they are likly to live and making sure there isnt water pooling is a better means of control
 
norsefire actually the risk of a pandemic from ebola is very low specifically BECAUSE of its fast mortality. An outbreak burns itself out in a couple of months

Unless it spreads all over the world

And what about the bubonic plague? Wiped out 1/3 of Europe
 
orleander maybe this will help you:
note: as sciforums doesnt alow tables i have colour coded the items and there heading
Worldwide mortality due to infectious diseases[9]

Rank, Cause of death, Deaths 2002, Percentage of all deaths, Deaths 1993, 1993 Rank

N/A All infectious diseases, 14.7 million, 25.9% 16.4 million, 32.2%
1 Lower respiratory infections, 3.9 million, 6.9% 4.1 million, 1
2 HIV/AIDS, 2.8 million, 4.9% 0.7 million, 7
3 Diarrheal diseases[11] 1.8 million, 3.2% 3.0 million, 2
4 Tuberculosis (TB), 1.6 million, 2.7% 2.7 million, 3
5 Malaria, 1.3 million, 2.2% 2.0 million, 4
6 Measles, 0.6 million, 1.1% 1.1 million, 5
7 Pertussis, 0.29 million, 0.5% 0.36 million, 7
8 Tetanus, 0.21 million, 0.4% 0.15 million, 12
9 Meningitis, 0.17 million, 0.3% 0.25 million, 8
10 Syphilis, 0.16 million, 0.3% 0.19 million, 11
11 Hepatitis B, 0.10 million, 0.2% 0.93 million, 6
12-17 Tropical diseases(6), 0.13 million, 0.2% 0.53 million, 9, 10, 16-18

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infectious_disease
9 The World Health Report - 2004 Annex Table 2 (pdf) and 1995 Table 5 (pdf-large!)
 
norsefire your forgetting something Plauge was a BACTERIA, NOT a VIRUS. that makes a HUGE difference
 
he following table lists the top infectious disease killers which caused more than 100,000 deaths in 2002 (estimated)

Asguard, do you have any data that isn't 6 yrs old?

And please re-read the title of the thread. It doesn't say the Top 5 most deadly.
 
at the moment not right now, im trying but i keep comming up with pandemic preparedness sites for various goverments.
 
Unless it spreads all over the world

The point is that is it highly unlikely to spread around the wprld because those that get it die before they can even get a chance to travel.
It is so highly effectuvely deadly, it burns itself out locally.
 
your missing the point orleander, a bacteria can spread without person to person contact, a virus CANT. A bacteria can live in the enviroment outside a host, a virus CANT

There for saying that because the plague killed 1/3 of the worlds population means that ebola could is faulty thinking. Ebola burns hot and burns itself out, it kills the hoast to rapidly for long term transmission. However plague could kill in a short time period (if what i was watching was correct 48 hours) and still travel around the world because a) it didnt kill the transmitters (the fleas living on rodents and the rodents themselves) as quickly as it did humans and b) it could survive on surfaces even if there were no humans around

as far as i know ebola kills EVERYTHING very rapidly including the monkeys which act as hoasts

this means its very hard for it to become pandemic
 
oh and the most worrying diseases on a world wide level (ie those most likly to kill large numbers of people over a wide area, not kill in a really bad way a small number of people) are:

Pandemic flu
Drug resistant TB
mutated AID's
maleria
Drug resistant plague

Im not sure which order they should go but those would be the top 5, the last one is a little uncertian. Its possable it could happen and i belive some labs are working on it as a bioterrioust threat but im not sure wether it could happen in the general population like MERSA and TB have.
 
The point is that is it highly unlikely to spread around the wprld because those that get it die before they can even get a chance to travel.
It is so highly effectuvely deadly, it burns itself out locally.

The disease doesn't die, the people die.
 
Back
Top