Rattlesnake bites linked to weather, says Stanford research.
An analysis of 5,365 snakebites in California by Stanford University scientists found that the number of rattlesnake bites increases after periods of rainy weather – but decreases after a drought.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/24/rattlesnake-bites-linked-to-weather-says-stanford-research/
Comentários
I stopped reading when I reached the part that said the increase was only 4% after rains. This is junk "science" and a hype story by a media that likes to scare people into submission...
Not really. Rattlesnake bites are rare to begin with. 4 more bites for every 100 people is significant when dwaling with a rare event to begin with. The data analysis and method are sound.
I'm just not sure what this tells us, or what the point of the story really is. So, for the period after a rainier season we're all supposed to be afraid when going outside? After dry periods, we can rest easy now that there is a 4% less chance of getting bitten? It may technically be statistically significant, but I can't agree that it is relevant in actual terms. In the 20 years of their study, there were 5,365 snake bites (not all rattlesnakes or otherwise venomous, by the way), so that means that there are 268 bites on average per year statewide. 4% of that number is about 11, so some years there are 257 bites and others there are 279. I say, "So what?", especially when you consider that we're tlking about 268 bites out of a total CA population of 39.5 million (2017). Just my two cents...
First, I think it was just an epidemiologic report, published in the journal Toxicology. It could have just as easily have been printed in the Center for Disease Control & Prevention's Morbidity and Mortality. It was just a retrospective analysis on snakebite incidence as correlated with climate. Snake bites are rare, but the trend is interesting in noting between changes in weather. WIll climate change and an increase in drier year yield even less snake bites? What does this mean for snake populations? Will their populations decline with climate change? If so, how much? Stay tuned and keep using fossil fuels to find out.
LOL. All bunk, and that I certainly picked up on in the story. The climate is changing, as it has for millions of years, except there's no evidence that humans actually play any role in that. Only skewed modeling has shown that humans cause it, but that's some peoples' religion so it is difficult to change their opinions. Explain why Florida was underwater 1 million years ago, leaving only the narrow strip of land that is now known as the Lake Wales Ridge? I didn't know there were cars and factories back then.
Ah! There is the crux of the disgruntlement of the snake article. I was wondering where the disagreement with basic science was coming from! Too funny!
As I said, it is just another example of a "scientist" making a big deal out of nothing, while in the process politicizing a non-political issue and fear-mongering.
I think it may just be as simple as rain brings more plants, thus bugs, rodents, etc which leads to more snakes. Drought does the opposite, less snakes.
I agree, Finatic. It is easily observable for us in the field, but quantification using epidemiological techniques is validating. But bigger questions still remain. Theories are but a bunch of smaller, consistent evidences pointing to the same thing.
Adicionar um Comentário