University lecturer lays it down.

Jan 25, 2017 1:35 AM

GeoTeacher

Views

98714

Likes

2495

Dislikes

153

Tl;dr: Science

When propaganda is in play there are alternative facts. In short that's what propaganda is.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I most definitely have an allergy to the media

9 years ago | Likes 46 Dislikes 4

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 4

the alternate spelling of outweigh made me really uncomfortable

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

God, I love when smart people talk. It can almost make me teary eye...

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

In a good way, I mean :)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Are bees going to be ok?

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

"Lecturer"? What exactly is his field of expertise that he gives lectures on? Looks like it's "everything". Just like mine.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Science

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Clean coal does exist. It's the coal we leave in the ground and don't burn. Where it should stay except for emergencies.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

v

9 years ago | Likes 50 Dislikes 3

Name checks out.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Out way? Miss Pell needs to have a talk with you

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Scrolled all the way down looking for this comment. What professor would get this wrong?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

A community college professor...

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The post-fact culture will frustrate many scientists both new and old.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Who ever wrote this: I like you.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Would need 100,000 words to comment. Have a zoidberg (\/) (°,,,°) (\/)

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

*more widely-spread.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Climate change is a natural process, sped up by the burning of fossil fuels. Not caused by it.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

How on earth could windmills make you sick?

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

because idiot people don't want them hurting their views. Several senators and the *shudder* pres believe this bs

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

They don't. Unfortunately people hear anti-wind propaganda and believe it without doing their own research.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The nocebo effect, people read that they make "infrasound" and then start believing it and make themselves sick.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

If they are built to close and their shadows pass over your house... Light, dark, light, dark, light...

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

If it weren't for the word kickstarter, this wall of text could be from the 80's.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

1. "Mainly" is debated but probably. 2. Sure. 3. Duh. 4. Duh. 5. Pharma influences to profit. 6. Ya. 7. Nope. 8. Ok. 9. Probably...we'll see

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

Yeah they should have done a bit more research before writing about fracking.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

Whereas I think oil companies should have done a bit more research before beginning fracking :P

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

I think that fracking explanation was pretty wrong...

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 5

In retrospect I wrote too hastily. Each individual component is not wrong, but the implications of the text suggest it's worse than it is.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'm not particularly averse to fracking in comparison to other methods, but carbon extraction is almost always damaging.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You would be pretty incorrect...

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 6

they like to argue it is the water pumping but that is like arguing that it's not falling that kills you but the impact with the ground

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

I would actually also agree with the argument that the impact, over falling, is what kills you, but maybe that's sorta not relevant

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It's the doing something damaging and saying that it isn't want killed you but the fall out from it.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Haha, well that aside, I'm not really trying to argue the harm of fracking, but rather I take issue with how the process was explained.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I don't think it "wears away" anything. I think lubrication does take some part, but the main thing with it is that fluid pressure is (1/2)

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

increased which lowers the side forces on the rocks which causes them to break and the gas/oil is released.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The entire process of well formation (in fracking) "wears away" interstitial materials to actually produce the well...that's the 1/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

The well can be created with a conventional drilling process, but the fracturing comes from the high pressure fluids affecting outwards

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

"Fracturing" part of "hydrofracruring" aka "fracking"...... 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Mostly seems good to me, except for the fracking bit. There are way cleaner ways to frack, and most of the ecological damage is due to (1/2)

9 years ago | Likes 37 Dislikes 12

That was the one thing I didn't actually agree on.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Also aromatherapy is used in hospitals to help with nausea and headaches. I get migraines and peppermint oil helps a bit for me.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Also aromatherapy is used in hospitals to help with nausea and headaches. I get migraines and peppermint oil helps a bit for me.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Yup. The fracking point is largely BS. So few fracking associated quakes. And improper disposal is problem.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

So few fracking quakes? Not from Oklahoma are you....

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

No. I'm not. But those are not from Fracking. Anyone who says they are doesn't understand. Simples.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Enlighten me, since you know so much and have 100% confidence in your positions.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

They're from disposal of wastewater/produced water. Could happen with any poorly regulated drilling. Not specifically Fracking.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Brine disposal (usually improper disposal), especially earthquakes. Those are usually from using old wells for disposal

9 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 7

Yes thank you. This article was pretty good but not perfect. Good to know people around here still use their brains

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Im glad, im not the only one to know this.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

The quakes are not even detectable at the surface. The bit about damage is pure fiction.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 8

Detectable by a person, I mean. Seismographs are way more sensitive than your feet.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 4

In 2015, there were 907 earthquakes with a magnitude of 3 or greater, the level people can feel them. https://earthquakes.ok.gov/faqs/

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You're right. My original post was answering a barrage of simple questions like "Can fracking cause earthquakes and, if so, how?".

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You're right. The question I was asked was "Can fracking cause earthquakes?", which is what I answered. Your response gives more information

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Thanks. Hydraulic fracturing has been done in the states for decades and I don't know of any aquifers contaminated by it. Regulation is 1/

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

definitely necessary, though, because of the risk of shitty casing maintenance, proppant disposal, etc. 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Cleaner maybe, but the "fracturing" part of the fracking can have unintended side effects. Accidental fissures into aquifers are not good.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

The main problem is not when it's done right, but that IF it is being done, then it will inevitably be done improperly at times.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

about 1. Drugs aren't screened with IR, and IR is barely used in their identification either. Pointless and wrong simili.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

This is probably from difference in background. I identify drugs in a research setting with IR when I'm just screening. Otherwise mass spec.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yeah, I'm more used to using nmr to identify molecules in samples. I didn't think of screening as for example sercurity check points.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy is commonly used in drug and material identification.....

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Not compared to MS or NMR. IR is okay because it's super cheap, but you don't really obtain much information from it if you do organic.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Bull. FTIR is not only cheap it's also fast and reliable. GC-MS is rarely used for simple ID unless it's in a forensic context. IR 1/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

2/2 not much information about overall structure. NMR is more powerful and H-NMR takes less than 2 minutes to run.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I didn't say GC-MS, I just said MS because getting the molecular weight is incredibly useful. And FTIR only gives functional groups, 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

GC-MS is the most wide spread MS method for drug ID by far. With the exception of very rare instances ICP-MS, IRMS, And other MS methods 1/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Are simply not used for drug ID in any substantial volume. 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Is used almost universally for first order drug and material ID's because mass spectrometers and resonance imagers are expensive as shit 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The OP only says drugs, and if you can't afford MS/NMR then you can't afford to develop drugs.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

OP was talking about "identifying" drugs not drug development. Almost every security checkpoint at every US airport has an IR system to 1/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Rapidly screen for drug and explosive materials... Let alone virtually every analytical chemistry lab of note 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Where did this "alternative facts" thing start? Is it satire or is it more dipshit "everyone is right" anti-intellectualism?

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Kellyanne Conway v Chuck Todd interview regarding Spicer flat out lying. She said something like "you have facts, we have alternative facts"

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

"Kellyanne Conway, a senior White House aide, told NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday Spicer had merely been offering 'alternative facts'"

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I like essential oils. I add it to my laundry or use it to steam when I have a cold. Using it to replace medicine is ridiculous.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They're actually used in hospitals to help with nausea and headaches. It's not a cure all but they have been proven to help with some things

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They help with minor things & have a role in medicine but it shouldn't be used to replace a medical professional. Like it did with this kid.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

They help with minor things & have a role in medicine but it shouldn't be used to replace a medical professional. Like it did with this kid.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Like people who believe Vaccines cause autism are gonna read that

9 years ago | Likes 282 Dislikes 1

People on the fence might read it, and it might help them not buy into the anti-vaxx rhetoric.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

No one on imgur is anti vax anyway.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Oh you'd be surprised. They just get downvoted to hell and back so they're never seen. I've met flat earthers on here

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

My immediate family is anti-vax. So ignorant it hurts.

9 years ago | Likes 56 Dislikes 1

Ooh sorry to hear that a girl I very briefly dated is as also rabidly anti-vax. I almost hope her kids get measles something. Almost.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

is it the ignorance that hurts, or is it the measles? (sorry, i saw my shot and i took it)

9 years ago | Likes 37 Dislikes 1

But they didn't get their shot

9 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 1

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Oct 21, 2024 11:32 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Alternative Facts: Fracking is not the cause of earthquakes http://news.stanford.edu/2015/06/18/okla-quake-drilling-061815/

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 7

Alternative Fact #2: Fracking doesn't harm water http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/4/epa-fracking-doesnt-harm-drinking-water/

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

Actually, the biggest risks associated with fracking are above ground. If a wastewater truck gets in a wreck or a reservoir built for 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Storing water before/after use breaks, then it runs off into local fields and watersheds, and the high salt concentrations are what do 2/3

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The damage. And that is prevented by proper regulation and enforcement. 3/3

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

regulation they don't want

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Also, clean coal can be achieved, especially if you use fuel cells. With that process you can isolate the CO2 and sulfur from the 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

produced water in very high concentrations that are perfect as chemical feedstock for other companies. The only problems are that it 2/3

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

can oversaturate feedstock markets and cause prices (and profitability) to drop if you implement too many plants. Research is also 3/4

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

ongoing to make the entire process more efficient so that profits aren't as dependent on the price of the byproducts. 4/4

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

There is currently no technology that reduces the carbon footprint to zero, or even near zero. Coal plants also release a ton of radiation

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Did... did you read this? It directly says that the byproducts of fracking cause earthquakes

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 8

Yes, I did, did you read what your professer said was the fact?

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

P.s. Not my professor. A friend of mine. We have an equal education level.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 7

I have actually specifically gone to school to learn about all of this. Also, the fact that your source proves the above point?

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 8

I'm calling bullshit on that, because your bio says you're a behavioral specialist; absolutely no overlap with any of this.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

I have a geology degree with some crossover in biology. You were saying?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Except it doesn't accurately reflect upon the fracking process itself, as there are methods to clean up the water in use and being researche

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Once again, it is a stupid and dangerous waste of energy when there are better alternatives available anyway

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

Fracking does not cause the earthquakes, re-injecting the wastewater/saltwater into unsaturated earth does. Now they know, easy fix.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 7

Regardless if they eliminate that practice, the existing damage is done. Also, that polluted water will need to go somewhere.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

You can clean it up. There are already processes in use and even better ones being researched

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Brine injection is an integral part of the fracking process.... You can't just "stop the practice"....

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Why else would water get re-injected into the ground?

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

Ive heard alot of birds get killed by windmills. But I still think they're a better alternative. Any facts regarding this?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

48,800 windmills. 214,000 and 368,000 bird deaths from windmills. 74-96 million cats. Birds killed by cats. 3.7 billion.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Yup and guess how many by fossil fuel plants (hint, 36 times that of wind farms)

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Birds being killed by turbines is a myth. There is some evidence that they have a negative effect on bats though.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They do kill a lot of bats

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If you'd like a full in-depth conversation about wind turbines, I'm a turbine tech. Message me.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Thanks bananaranch, like I said, i think the good outways the bad.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Who do you work for? And are you a blades or electric or gearbox tech or combo thereof?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I work for a 3rd party company right now that does blade inspections and composite work. I've done service work for Siemens 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

2/2 and that's what I want to get back into

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Ah if you worked for SWP, you know my employer, Winergy. If you've done any work on gbxs and want a desk job let me know. We have an opening

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Where? I'm currently in Ontario.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Several orders of magnitude more birds are killed by domestic cats each year than windmills.....

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

For sure. But it might still be worth talking about because it's the type of thing deniers cling to when opposing alternate energy

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Meanwhile coal plants kill over 100 times more birds each year than wind and solar plants combined.... It's a red herring

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not to mention sky scrapers.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

48,800 windmills. 214,000 and 368,000 bird deaths from windmills. 74-96 million cats. Birds killed by cats. 3.7 billion.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

billions of birds are killed by cats because idiots refuse to get cat trees and keep their cats entertained inside. don't get a cat if 1/

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

you are going to let it outside to commit genocide

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I built a catio for my felines and am saving for a little novelty windmill to do experiments with. Maybe run some LED lights at night.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Well that and, you know, cats literally evolved to hunt birds and rodents....

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

correct. and they are from a different area (northern africa) so nothing hear has evolved to combat their honestly great hunting skills.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Fully agree, but some source would be nice. To 2: The worst part about windmills is driving behind a transporter. Sooooooo slow.

9 years ago | Likes 116 Dislikes 6

WRONG. The worst part about windmills is they steal all our air! /s

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Super cool to see them on trains tho. There's a rail between Denver and Colorado springs. I've seen them being transported a few times there

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That's cuz one of the major wind turbine manufacturers is outside Denver. Vestas is located in Brighton CO

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I am surprised I didn't know that. Thanks!

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I don't know what science prof would be unaware CO2 heating is logarithmic. 1,2 and 7 are politics, not science.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 8

Probably one who actually understand band saturation, radiative transfer, and and thermodynamics (you're incorrect)

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Ad. 2: I heard that the non-joking worst part is noise pollution. I'm no expert though.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

And the noise

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Also clarifying that only 1/10,000 people have a reaction to vaccines. Not just 'a minority,' but an exceedingly small one.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

As someone who lives in an area that depends on its unaltered landscape for tourist $, the service roads can really fuck with the view. >

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

< It sounds very NIMBY, I know, but it's important for us. I'm all for solar panels though.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Sep 7, 2021 5:24 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Radio towers screw birds up way more. Walk around the base of one and you'll see dead birds

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Bats too

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Lol. So does my house. Geese used to land in a field here. Now they shit on my sidewalk.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Sep 7, 2021 5:24 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Well, they used to feed in the field where my house now is, so yeah.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yea, windmills have the same impact as any built structure... They aren't magical bird fucking devices...

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Sep 7, 2021 5:24 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

The source is Reddit. Or, the source is a university science prof. He/she is a source.

9 years ago | Likes 37 Dislikes 2

Reminds of an argument I overheard with a .phd who was accused of arguing from authority, to which they responded "I AM the authority."

9 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 0

They are a memory bank of information. They are a source of information. They are not, a source of evidence, of which there is plenty for 1/

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

to support the arguments made above. 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You know what I meant. Don't be pedantic.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I'm not being pedantic. The professor is not an accurate source of evidence.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Professor Nevar Naymd to be exact. He's well known for not being credited for his research which is always posted on the internet. Poor guy.

9 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 0

Upvote because I actually typed it into Google.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Ooooooohhhhh.....you tricky little....i almost looled him up

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Animal scientist here. Over-prescribing drugs to humans has increased antimicrobial resistance more than use in food animals.

9 years ago | Likes 115 Dislikes 3

I agree completely. I was just asked repeatedly about whether or not animal feed contributed.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Clinical nutrition student here. Over prescribing these as well as people not taking them their prescribed length has contributed wildly.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

There's a controversy about length, some say short courses = less selection pressure = fewer resistant strains.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I doubt that, strongly. a person may get and use over-perscribed antibiotics a couple, maybe 3 or even 4 times a YEAR whereas they

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

This is apples and oranges. Food is tested HEAVILY and is antibiotic free. I can't stress that enough.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

are likely to consume flesh from 20 to 30 different animals per week

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

1 I'm skeptical, but understand that I'm ignorant on the topic. Could you explain? Wouldn't the scale of industrial animal agriculture

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

2 mean the opportunity to develop resistance would be orders of magnitude greater than with over-prescribed antibiotics for human use?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

3 Feel free to msg directly if typing in comments is annoying.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

No, the problem with people is once they feel better they stop talking the drugs, but there's a reason you're prescribed 30 days worth

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Veterinarian here, same same. There IS an effect, but the overuse in humans and even PETS has more effect than CURRENT livestock procedures

9 years ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 2

I doubt that, strongly. a person may get and use over-perscribed antibiotics a couple, maybe 3 or even 4 times a YEAR whereas they

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 4

are likely to consume flesh from 20 to 30 different animals per week

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 4

1) There are virtually NO antibiotic residues in meat. 2) antibiotic resistance from food animals originates from changes to "ambient"--

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

populations. It makes the run-off E.coli from a dairy farm resistant, which may contaminate someone's poorly handled spinach.3) re-read #2-

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Collistin resistance was entirely due to its use in animals in China because it was cheap.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I looked into this and no one has mentioned the clinical significance of this change. Polymixin is a last-resort drug in t he first place-

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

and NOT due to it's power/importance in the way Vancomycin is, but because it can fry kidneys. I've also, in the US or AUS, never seen--

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

a college use Polymixin in livestock. It seems thus far they have isolated resistant bacteria in many places, but not in any clinical cases-

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I think i'd rather listen to microbiologists and virologists about antibiotics as that is their life study

9 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 3

I work in immunology and micro within animal species. This is my life's work.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

As a vet student, the animal science/veterinary science community learns so much about this. We don't jus learn about animal health, (1)

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

We also learn about human health including Antimicrobial resistance in animals AND humans. Our profession knows and learns just as much. (2)

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0