Moderators: amaddox, Moderators
lookingaround wrote:There is limited (and somewhat debated) evidence that aerosol transmission of the rabies virus may be possible. Perhaps by breathing small droplets of aerosol fluids containing the rabies virus. This may have occurred in the 1950s in people working in a cave that containined many millions of bats (Frio Cave, Texas).
Cheryl Jones wrote:Looks good!
One suggestion, to use "avoid" only once in this sentence.
"This risk can be avoided by avoiding any bats (or other mammals) found in the cave."
You could change it to:
"This risk can be avoided by staying away from bats (or other mammals) found in the cave."
Thanks Lookingaround -- you're doing a great job on this project!
Cheryl
NZcaver wrote:lookingaround wrote:There is limited (and somewhat debated) evidence that aerosol transmission of the rabies virus may be possible. Perhaps by breathing small droplets of aerosol fluids containing the rabies virus. This may have occurred in the 1950s in people working in a cave that containined many millions of bats (Frio Cave, Texas).
I would suggest joining the first two sentences (add a comma between them), and deleting the last sentence (too much information).
lookingaround wrote:It might be possible to contract rabies while in a cave, but the chances are extremely remote. In order to catch rabies, you would need to get the saliva, brain matter, or other nervous system tissue from an infected mammal into an open wound or mucous membrane. This risk can be avoided by staying away from bats (or other mammals) found in the cave. It is healthier for you and the bat if you stay away from them. There is limited (and somewhat debated) evidence that aerosol transmission of the rabies virus may be possible, perhaps by breathing small droplets of aerosol fluids containing the rabies virus.
NZcaver wrote:lookingaround wrote:It might be possible to contract rabies while in a cave, but the chances are extremely remote. In order to catch rabies, you would need to get the saliva, brain matter, or other nervous system tissue from an infected mammal into an open wound or mucous membrane. This risk can be avoided by staying away from bats (or other mammals) found in the cave. It is healthier for you and the bat if you stay away from them. There is limited (and somewhat debated) evidence that aerosol transmission of the rabies virus may be possible, perhaps by breathing small droplets of aerosol fluids containing the rabies virus.
Now I'm wondering if it's even worth putting that last sentence in at all.
The rest of the paragraph is nicely descriptive, and to-the-point. By contrast, the "somewhat debated evidence of aerosol transmission" sentence sounds a little vague and may cause more concern than it warrants. I guess it all comes down to striking a balance between providing relevant information, and going all the way towards full disclosure.
(FYI - I'm not a medical professional, or a bat specialist. Just a caver.)
The chances of aerosol exposure while caving are extremely small, and perhaps non-existent, but I think the information should be included.
The chances of getting rabies this way are unconfirmed and somewhat debated
theoretically possible under extraordinary conditions, the risk is otherwise negligible
This may have occurred in two people in the 1950s that were working in a cave that contained many millions of bats. However, both victims had other possible sources of infection.
Cheryl Jones wrote:The chances of aerosol exposure while caving are extremely small, and perhaps non-existent, but I think the information should be included.
I disagree. We need to should stick to facts in the info we distribute. We shouldn't disburse information that has barely a shred of evidence, if any, and which remains a theory, and a debatable one at that. Two possible cases 50 years ago does not warrant creating concern among parents and cavers around the country.
"Extremely small"? That exaggerates the chance.
Better chance of winning a lottery jackpot, given the number of caver-hours underground in the last 50 years.
It would seem to me a caver has a significantly higher risk of requiring medical attention from any number of incidents in a cave, and even other disease-causing microbes carried in by fauna and water.
lookingaround wrote:Cheryl Jones wrote:It would seem to me a caver has a significantly higher risk of requiring medical attention from any number of incidents in a cave, and even other disease-causing microbes carried in by fauna and water.
Agreed.
How do we proceed? What do other people think? Are there any medical professionals that could provide some guidance?
I'm not a medical professional. With all due respect to Cheryl, a significantly higher risk than what?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users