Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why flying insects gather at artificial light

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 183 posts

Re: Why flying insects gather at artificial light

#171

Post by TeMPOraL »

crossroadsguy wrote: post #158
TeMPOraL wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also depending on your area, there's a chance the bat may scratch you without you realizing it, and a few months or years later, you suddenly go mad and die in agony. At least I'm more scared of rabies than any government fine. By the time you know something is wrong, you're already a corpse that's about to remember to stop moving.

Rabies can lay that dormant? And there’s no test?

I've read somewhere about the case that took over a year, but can't find the link. Following citations on[0], this paper[1] says:

"The incubation period is typically 1–3 months, but can vary from a few days to more than 1 year [1,4]. Cases of up to 6 years incubation period have been discussed[5]."

And this is specifically in humans, not in animals in general.

There is no test that I know of, but vaccine is very effective even after you got it (but before actual symptoms show up), so if you suspect you're infected, you go and get the shots. Thing is, AFAIK those are quite painful, so it's not something you want to take as prophylaptic unless you're at high risk (e.g. working as a vet).

All this adds up to what I wrote earlier: you get random bat or squirrel bite, tiny enough that you forget about it in moments, and a few months later, you suddenly die.

--

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies

[1] - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1586/14760584.2015.1...

Re: Why flying insects gather at artificial light

#172

Post by dekhn »

LeonB wrote: post #113
dekhn wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read all your comments carefully, in detail, before responding. Can you give us some examples of what you mean? I'm struggling to see how somebody on their own could come up with a non-trivial scientific result that was meaningful in any way.

> I'm struggling to see how somebody on their own could come up with a non-trivial scientific result that was meaningful in any way. Richard Feynman at 67, partaking in an inquiry into the space shuttle challenger disaster, dunked some pieces of rubber, taken from a model of the challenger, in ice cold water and observed that they lacked springiness. The full story is fascinating. Other simple, non-rigorous experimen…

Um, feynman was a professional physicist who worked on billion dollar projects. For the o-ring, he (and NASA, and Morton Thiokol already knew the behavior of o-rings in cold weather, and it was engineering, not science.

He would call what wolverine above is describing as similar to cargo cult science.

Re: Why flying insects gather at artificial light

#173

Post by wolverine876 »

fuzzfactor wrote: post #133
wolverine876 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... I should try it myself. But I was hoping to maybe get some insights from somebody in the field. Yes, of course. Please don't mistake my enthusiasm for some imperative or criticism. I was just taking the opportunity to make a point in HN generally. I look up the existing literature all the time. What a waste of all that effort otherwise!

As we used to say, 6 months in the laboratory can sometimes save you hours in the library. The most ambitious did both at the same time.

> 6 months in the laboratory can sometimes save you hours in the library.

One of my favorites!

Re: Why flying insects gather at artificial light

#174

Post by wolverine876 »

RHSman2 wrote: post #102
wolverine876 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well I was hoping for something more scientific. What is more scientific than testing the hypothesis yourself? That's science; that's its essential joy and spirit and nature. Have you reckon'd a thousand acres much? have you reckon'd the earth much? Have you practis'd so long to learn to read? Have you felt so proud to get at the meaning of poems? Stop this day and night with me and you shall possess the origin of…

Who wrote that? 100% behind it. Thanks for sharing

Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself", in one of the most famous books of poetry ever (responding to the other commenter), Leaves of Grass. I don't know that Whitman meant to talk about science, but whether he was conscious of it or not, he is! I came across the poem (again) recently and immediately saw that section for what it is - to me. Much of the poem is about sex and a free spirit - so, science as sex? The sex of science? :)

Re: Why flying insects gather at artificial light

#175

Post by wolverine876 »

fuzzfactor wrote: post #134
RHSman2 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who wrote that? 100% behind it. Thanks for sharing

Nobody well-known any more. Probably have to dig through the "literature" ;)

Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself", in Leaves of Grass. Possibly the most famous book of poetry in the US, at least. Apparently you need to do some reading of that "literature", as you call it - the kind that doesn't come with an abstract! :)

Re: Why flying insects gather at artificial light

#176

Post by wolverine876 »

fuzzfactor wrote: post #136
taneq wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first step of any scientific study is a lit review, so reading is still science. :)

>reading is still science. :) Umm, no. Reading is still research . Time spent reading may lead directly to more science, but it's not always the most prominent path, plus you have to put down the books occasionally and get into action or the research will stagnate because of a thing called no progress whatsoever. Science is the part that may lead to future publications. Maybe, maybe not. Often best conducted with the…

> with gradual loss of technology developed during previous lifetimes.

What do you mean by that? Are you referring to something like the Middle Ages?

Re: Why flying insects gather at artificial light

#177

Post by fuzzfactor »

wolverine876 wrote: post #176
fuzzfactor wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>reading is still science. :) Umm, no. Reading is still research . Time spent reading may lead directly to more science, but it's not always the most prominent path, plus you have to put down the books occasionally and get into action or the research will stagnate because of a thing called no progress whatsoever. Science is the part that may lead to future publications. Maybe, maybe not. Often best conducted with the…

> with gradual loss of technology developed during previous lifetimes. What do you mean by that? Are you referring to something like the Middle Ages?

Not as gradual as that.

More like vacuum tube technology and those kinds of things where only a few decades ago there was orders of magnitude more widespread capabilities which are steadily declining now.

Re: Why flying insects gather at artificial light

#178

Post by fuzzfactor »

wolverine876 wrote: post #175
fuzzfactor wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody well-known any more. Probably have to dig through the "literature" ;)

Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself", in Leaves of Grass . Possibly the most famous book of poetry in the US, at least. Apparently you need to do some reading of that "literature", as you call it - the kind that doesn't come with an abstract! :)

>Possibly the most famous book of poetry in the US

That's why I was confident it wouldn't be a difficult search ;)

>Leaves of Grass

The exact literature I was talking about.

Seriously though, I appreciate your posting the abstract (and attribution) and I'm sure a lot of other visitors have enjoyed it.

Some concepts really stand the test of time a lot more than others.

Re: Why flying insects gather at artificial light

#179

Post by doubleg72 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #171
crossroadsguy wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rabies can lay that dormant? And there’s no test?

I've read somewhere about the case that took over a year, but can't find the link. Following citations on[0], this paper[1] says: "The incubation period is typically 1–3 months, but can vary from a few days to more than 1 year [1,4]. Cases of up to 6 years incubation period have been discussed[5]." And this is specifically in humans, not in animals in general. There is no test that I know of, but vaccine is very effe…

I got bit by a bat recently and the four rounds of shots weren’t painful. Uncomfortable, maybe so.

Re: Why flying insects gather at artificial light

#180

Post by throw_pm23 »

falserum wrote: post #108
throw_pm23 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you want to reduce further, a large fraction of insect-species are already getting extinct across most of the developed world.

May I inquire where do you live? Urban or rural?

In Europe most insect ecosystems are collapsing, in both rural and urban areas. The first likely due to agriculture chemicals, the second possibly due to other reasons.
Post reply on HN