Ryugu asteroid sample colonized by terrestrial life despite strict control(phys.org)
phys.org
Ryugu asteroid sample colonized by terrestrial life despite strict control
https://phys.org/news/2024-11-ryugu-asteroid-sample-rapidly-colonized.html
63 comments
The 10.000 was a misquote from the original paper they referenced:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-021-01550-6
Here you can read that, in fact, a class 1.000 cleanroom was used.
This is also consistent with the description of the facility:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_Sample_Curati...
According to the paper, five different chambers were used. You can read the entire procedure down to materials of cleaning spatulas.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-021-01550-6
Here you can read that, in fact, a class 1.000 cleanroom was used.
This is also consistent with the description of the facility:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_Sample_Curati...
According to the paper, five different chambers were used. You can read the entire procedure down to materials of cleaning spatulas.
I have been in one. Its just a room with an air flow rating and slight positive pressure vs ambient. There's no entry control, no special clothing, no hair nets. There was visible dust on top of the equipment and no one seemed to care, not even the people who you think should. I honestly think its there for a check mark on the paperwork.
Honestly that might be ok for class 10000 (ISO class 7). HEPA filters do good work! At my work we use gowns, hair nets, booties, the works. However, we also changed cleaning companies once and didn't realize they were no longer sweeping the floor for a few months until visible dust bunnies started appearing in corners. Addressed that quick but not before we ran a few tests, still in spec! We also have local controls (flow hoods) over particularly sensitive operations.
We have class 100 (ISO class 5) space that's a lot more stringent, but even that is less sensitive than you might expect. Our semicon customers have a bad habit of taking our carefully bagged product out in their uncontrolled warehouse to check the serial numbers, but I'm not aware of any issues that arose from this.
Things get a lot more interesting when you start working with DUV and EUV wavelengths, as now you care about more than dust. We're adding an advanced molecular contamination cleanroom (AMC) where we'll need to start restricting perfume, deodorant, and cigarette use.
We have class 100 (ISO class 5) space that's a lot more stringent, but even that is less sensitive than you might expect. Our semicon customers have a bad habit of taking our carefully bagged product out in their uncontrolled warehouse to check the serial numbers, but I'm not aware of any issues that arose from this.
Things get a lot more interesting when you start working with DUV and EUV wavelengths, as now you care about more than dust. We're adding an advanced molecular contamination cleanroom (AMC) where we'll need to start restricting perfume, deodorant, and cigarette use.
I've been in higher than 10,000 cleanrooms and it's not the dust on the desks they care about.
There are entry protocols around what you can take in, how you swab it, and so on. Also, specific instructions around how often to go from sitting to standing, clothing materials under your smocks, and everything else.
There are entry protocols around what you can take in, how you swab it, and so on. Also, specific instructions around how often to go from sitting to standing, clothing materials under your smocks, and everything else.
Gotta open it in a semiconductor fab I guess, best inside a tool where you get clean-room inside clean-room.
It makes sense when you look at that the number as a count of “junk” floating around. Higher number, more junk. More junk==less clean.
The fun backwards measurement is always AWG. Smaller number means thicker wire. Larger number means thinner wire.
The fun backwards measurement is always AWG. Smaller number means thicker wire. Larger number means thinner wire.
I absolutely love how once things get down to 1 AWG they realized they had a problem and just started adding zeros. Then that got a bit silly, so when they reached 4/0 AWG they switched to KCMIL measurements and the numbers start going up.
>Clean-ish room
Previous discussion: "Rapid colonization of a space-returned Ryugu sample by terrestrial microorganism" <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/maps.14288>
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42238603>
3 days ago, 59 comments.
It's not clear to me that the phys.org restatement of that article (which is what it's discussing) adds anything new to the story, which would be HN's criterion for non-dupe status.
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42238603>
3 days ago, 59 comments.
It's not clear to me that the phys.org restatement of that article (which is what it's discussing) adds anything new to the story, which would be HN's criterion for non-dupe status.
This argument from the article meshes with my own thinking:
The reason there have not been new forms of life originating on Earth, evolving alongside our microbial cousins, could be that there is simply no room for a newcomer. In a system where every niche is filled with more advanced life looking for a next meal, even if a new form of life got started, it would not last long.
There are a number of related issues regarding life, including LUCA and the emergence of mitochondria in eukaryotic cells, which suggest to me less that a single ancestor existed at that time than that that ancestor's descendents out-competed (or out-lucked) all other comers, and that once established other contenders for life simply couldn't find an available niche.
Oh, and bad news for the fans of LGM / panspermia, at least in the "absence of evidence" sense:
Population statistics indicate that the microorganisms originated from terrestrial contamination during the sample preparation stage rather than being indigenous to the asteroid.
The reason there have not been new forms of life originating on Earth, evolving alongside our microbial cousins, could be that there is simply no room for a newcomer. In a system where every niche is filled with more advanced life looking for a next meal, even if a new form of life got started, it would not last long.
There are a number of related issues regarding life, including LUCA and the emergence of mitochondria in eukaryotic cells, which suggest to me less that a single ancestor existed at that time than that that ancestor's descendents out-competed (or out-lucked) all other comers, and that once established other contenders for life simply couldn't find an available niche.
Oh, and bad news for the fans of LGM / panspermia, at least in the "absence of evidence" sense:
Population statistics indicate that the microorganisms originated from terrestrial contamination during the sample preparation stage rather than being indigenous to the asteroid.
> which suggest to me less that a single ancestor existed at that time than that that ancestor's descendents out-competed
I’m not smart enough to get this. Why would it decrease the emphasis on a single ancestor? The suggestion of competition among descendants isn’t contrary to that, neither does one take from or add to the other.
I’m not smart enough to get this. Why would it decrease the emphasis on a single ancestor? The suggestion of competition among descendants isn’t contrary to that, neither does one take from or add to the other.
The distinction: there's a frequent understanding or expression that a single common ancestor means that that was the only individual alive at a time, or that its ultimate dominance was evident immediately or very shortly afterwards.
Neither of these is the case.
Nor, strictly, is the notion that the individual (or its descendants) were necessarily evolutionarily fitter than others.
In the first instance, a common ancestor may have come long before some evolutionary chokepoint or contest in which their gene line ultimately survived whilst others died out. And in some cases (mitochondria), the alternative gene lines didnt' die out. Non-mitochondrial organisms are the prokaryotes, and they have continued (for many hundreds of millions of years) to live alongside their mitochondrial-bearing eukaryotic cousins. Bacteria are AFAIU largely prokaryotic. Even some eukaryotes have lost their mitochondria, though it seems that all eukaryotes had mitochondria at some point in their evolution. But where it comes to complex organisms, overwhelmingly mitochndria-bearing cell forms out-compete those which lack same.
As for evolution, that which is expressed in genomes requires a threefold process: variation, selection, and inheritance. That is, whatever leads to the eventual survival of a particular line of descendants must be based on an inheritable characteristic: stronger muscles, lower metabolism, superior coordination, robustness to environmental variance, faster development within a given niche, mate-selection advantage, etc., etc. (And note that what works in one selective environment may well not be suited to another.)
Other selection events are not directly heritable, or are far less heritable. Getting smacked by an asteroid is an example, though there are features (e.g., being an aquatic life-form, small body size) which may increase survival odds after a major impact. Other natural disasters (earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, wildfires) etc., are to an extent random and arbitrary in what they kill, though there may be specific adaptations which increase survival odds after such events. Even given this, many species will see a fairly arbitrary selection of extinction and survival, often with little prediction for a future repeat of such an event. Which individuals survive, or don't, is pretty much a wash. Those are still selection events, but don't convey any heritable advantage.
The possibility that some common ancestor or LUCA is at least in part arbitrarily determined seems high to me.
Neither of these is the case.
Nor, strictly, is the notion that the individual (or its descendants) were necessarily evolutionarily fitter than others.
In the first instance, a common ancestor may have come long before some evolutionary chokepoint or contest in which their gene line ultimately survived whilst others died out. And in some cases (mitochondria), the alternative gene lines didnt' die out. Non-mitochondrial organisms are the prokaryotes, and they have continued (for many hundreds of millions of years) to live alongside their mitochondrial-bearing eukaryotic cousins. Bacteria are AFAIU largely prokaryotic. Even some eukaryotes have lost their mitochondria, though it seems that all eukaryotes had mitochondria at some point in their evolution. But where it comes to complex organisms, overwhelmingly mitochndria-bearing cell forms out-compete those which lack same.
As for evolution, that which is expressed in genomes requires a threefold process: variation, selection, and inheritance. That is, whatever leads to the eventual survival of a particular line of descendants must be based on an inheritable characteristic: stronger muscles, lower metabolism, superior coordination, robustness to environmental variance, faster development within a given niche, mate-selection advantage, etc., etc. (And note that what works in one selective environment may well not be suited to another.)
Other selection events are not directly heritable, or are far less heritable. Getting smacked by an asteroid is an example, though there are features (e.g., being an aquatic life-form, small body size) which may increase survival odds after a major impact. Other natural disasters (earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, wildfires) etc., are to an extent random and arbitrary in what they kill, though there may be specific adaptations which increase survival odds after such events. Even given this, many species will see a fairly arbitrary selection of extinction and survival, often with little prediction for a future repeat of such an event. Which individuals survive, or don't, is pretty much a wash. Those are still selection events, but don't convey any heritable advantage.
The possibility that some common ancestor or LUCA is at least in part arbitrarily determined seems high to me.
This creates a new doomsday scenario for alien bacteria. Not that it could infect us, but that it could be much more efficient than existing life in some fundamental way that can’t be stopped.
[deleted]
this argument is one of the many lesser known incredible insights from Darwin's diaries!
So it's all the more amazing than we can't find life anywhere.
We grab a sample of asteroid "soil", try to keep it in conditions as hostile to life as possible, and yet within days it's teeming with (terrestrial) life.
So where is everyone?
We grab a sample of asteroid "soil", try to keep it in conditions as hostile to life as possible, and yet within days it's teeming with (terrestrial) life.
So where is everyone?
Life formed quickly on earth, but earth has so much special going on: iron core, habitable zone, lots of water, three phases of water, good distribution of elements and minerals, oxygenated atmosphere, magnetosphere, lunar shield, lunar tides, Jupiter to clear out junk, etc. etc. We hit the lottery.
And intelligence is an even harder step given how much absurdly longer it took to evolve than basic life.
And technology is probably also a hard step where we had tailwinds like massive oil deposits, smallish gravity well, etc.
But it's also kind of crazy to assume that we should be able to detect the techno signatures of advanced aliens or AIs given our small and limited understanding of the universe.
And intelligence is an even harder step given how much absurdly longer it took to evolve than basic life.
And technology is probably also a hard step where we had tailwinds like massive oil deposits, smallish gravity well, etc.
But it's also kind of crazy to assume that we should be able to detect the techno signatures of advanced aliens or AIs given our small and limited understanding of the universe.
Have you heard of the anthropic principle?
The only thing I find truly special about our place is the moon.
The moon is really weird. Same geological material as earth, huge size for a natural satellite, appears the same size as the sun.
It's an unusual set of coincidences that (as far as I know) our solar system formation models, so far, can only explain using an extraordinary event (Theia collision, etc).
The only thing I find truly special about our place is the moon.
The moon is really weird. Same geological material as earth, huge size for a natural satellite, appears the same size as the sun.
It's an unusual set of coincidences that (as far as I know) our solar system formation models, so far, can only explain using an extraordinary event (Theia collision, etc).
The oxygenated atmosphere is created by life, not a cause of it.
It happened 2.4 billion years ago, and wiped out most of the existing life: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event
It happened 2.4 billion years ago, and wiped out most of the existing life: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event
> oxygenated atmosphere
Of course, the oxygenated atmosphere only exists due to life. Otherwise, it would just rapidly oxidize everything else.
Of course, the oxygenated atmosphere only exists due to life. Otherwise, it would just rapidly oxidize everything else.
Right, though the evolution of photosynthesis in early anaerobic microorganisms and then their ability to adapt to the oxygen they produced is quite amazing. Oxygen itself is also really fascinating when talking about life because its oxidizing power accelerates the life that makes use of it.
As many experienced gardeners with compost piles know, anaerobic decomposition is much slower and messier than aerobic. Regularly turning the compost pile helps aerate it and makes the aerobic decomposers thrive.
As many experienced gardeners with compost piles know, anaerobic decomposition is much slower and messier than aerobic. Regularly turning the compost pile helps aerate it and makes the aerobic decomposers thrive.
Because molecular oxygen is a highly reactive species, it would also rapidly deplete.
And its reactivity is what makes it so useful for powering advanced life. It's an abundant and highly energetic fuel.
The fossil fuels that gave rise to our industry and innovation are also something we lucked into. The right decomposition environment, eg. in the Carboniferous, made these massive deposits possible. This has greatly accelerated our innovation as a species.
And its reactivity is what makes it so useful for powering advanced life. It's an abundant and highly energetic fuel.
The fossil fuels that gave rise to our industry and innovation are also something we lucked into. The right decomposition environment, eg. in the Carboniferous, made these massive deposits possible. This has greatly accelerated our innovation as a species.
>So it's all the more amazing than we can't find life anywhere.
Maybe because it destroys itself, then gets blasted out into such far reaches the two races are never within a distance (in terms of space or time) they could communicate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
Doesn't solve the origin of life question, but it would explain the emptiness -- life is rare, and reseeds itself every few very long stretches.
Maybe because it destroys itself, then gets blasted out into such far reaches the two races are never within a distance (in terms of space or time) they could communicate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
Doesn't solve the origin of life question, but it would explain the emptiness -- life is rare, and reseeds itself every few very long stretches.
> gets blasted out into such far reaches the two races are never within a distance (in terms of space or time) they could communicate?
I know this is not directly related to what you say, but we do have right here and now whales to talk to. And elephants too! There is this idea that to find alien minds to communicate with one has to reach out to the far cosmos. But we can't even talk to the alien minds right on our doorsteps. Maybe we should try that before we theorise that communication between two races is impossible due to distance.
I know this is not directly related to what you say, but we do have right here and now whales to talk to. And elephants too! There is this idea that to find alien minds to communicate with one has to reach out to the far cosmos. But we can't even talk to the alien minds right on our doorsteps. Maybe we should try that before we theorise that communication between two races is impossible due to distance.
we have tried communicating with dolphins. maybe the issue was that we didn't give them enough LSD
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Howe_Lovatt
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Howe_Lovatt
Too much gap
Relatedly: "Soils from Antarctica seem to contain no life—something that's never been found" [0]
[0] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/soils...
Evidently, there are places (mountain ranges in Antarctica) on Earth that cannot sustain life at all.
[0] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/soils...
Evidently, there are places (mountain ranges in Antarctica) on Earth that cannot sustain life at all.
A non-clickbait title. Science communication still hold some hope after all.
> something that has likely already introduced extraterrestrial Earth microbes to the moon and Mars
So, life is possibly already multiplanetary?
So, life is possibly already multiplanetary?
Atmospheric pressure of Mount Everest is about 1/3 of that of average at sea level on earth.
The Martian average is 2% of Earth's atmospheric density, or about 0.6% pressure- very nearly hard vacuum, especially considering how little oxygen is present.
Any earth life left behind is almost certainly dead or in hibernation type stasis. There's not much noteworthy about it unless Mars somehow develops a thicker atmosphere, better radiation shielding and warms up a fair bit... And if that miracle occurs, it's probably because far future humans have terraformed Mars to be habitable by humans, and we'll have already brought a whole bunch of algae and fungus and plants with us.
The Martian average is 2% of Earth's atmospheric density, or about 0.6% pressure- very nearly hard vacuum, especially considering how little oxygen is present.
Any earth life left behind is almost certainly dead or in hibernation type stasis. There's not much noteworthy about it unless Mars somehow develops a thicker atmosphere, better radiation shielding and warms up a fair bit... And if that miracle occurs, it's probably because far future humans have terraformed Mars to be habitable by humans, and we'll have already brought a whole bunch of algae and fungus and plants with us.
While yes, conditions are incredibly harsh, we've found life in such a variety of places on Earth I can't imagine there's absolutely nothing here that couldn't survive there - it's just it probably didn't hitch the ride to Mars. We've found bacteria(alive!) deep in polar ice, miles under the ground, on radioactive waste and in geothermal vents with no oxygen and in hundreds degrees celcius.
Dont you need a 3T type MRI machine strength magnetic generator in.the right place to give Mars its shield. Thats what I remember
Only 1 or 2 Tesla field from a station at an L1 stationary orbit point, according to https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmo...
Of course, actually getting that much material there, powering it, maintaining it, keeping it at the L1 point, whether it ends up being effective are all open questions.
Of course, actually getting that much material there, powering it, maintaining it, keeping it at the L1 point, whether it ends up being effective are all open questions.
I imagined that the space stations have the equipment to take all measurements and record evidence so you aren't having to return samples to earth except for a neat souvenir.
Maybe we are also result of such contamination crashing into earth few million years ago?
A few million? Absolutely not. We can trace continuous lineages connecting all living things on earth to each other, and to ancestors hundreds of millions of years ago.
Could early single celled organisms have come from an asteroid? Perhaps, but almost certainly not. It is strictly less likely than Earth-bound abiogenesis. Life still had to spring from nothing somewhere - all panspermia does is layer on an additional series of long-shot coincidences.
Could early single celled organisms have come from an asteroid? Perhaps, but almost certainly not. It is strictly less likely than Earth-bound abiogenesis. Life still had to spring from nothing somewhere - all panspermia does is layer on an additional series of long-shot coincidences.
> It is strictly less likely than Earth-bound abiogenesis
> all panspermia does is layer on an additional series of long-shot coincidences
Disagree. There is a lot more of not-Earth than Earth. I agree that the probability density (per unit volume of the universe) of life originating on Earth is much higher than anywhere else, but there's just so much more room out there for life to originate that the probabilistic cost of traveling to Earth is tiny in comparison.
All you need is a proto-life that's stable in an inert environment with sufficient radiation shielding. It could've originated billions of light years away and still have had enough time to arrive on Earth 4.2 billion years ago. That's a mind-boggling number of Earth-like environments.
In fact, proto-life doesn't even need to look like Earth life, so even environments that are hostile to current Earth life today could've been the cradle of origin (as a wise man once said, "life, uh, finds a way"). Additionally, environments that used to be Earth-like but eroded away are candidates too since all we need is for life to have escaped before the erosion.
In my opinion, panspermia is strictly more likely than Earth-bound abiogenesis.
> all panspermia does is layer on an additional series of long-shot coincidences
Disagree. There is a lot more of not-Earth than Earth. I agree that the probability density (per unit volume of the universe) of life originating on Earth is much higher than anywhere else, but there's just so much more room out there for life to originate that the probabilistic cost of traveling to Earth is tiny in comparison.
All you need is a proto-life that's stable in an inert environment with sufficient radiation shielding. It could've originated billions of light years away and still have had enough time to arrive on Earth 4.2 billion years ago. That's a mind-boggling number of Earth-like environments.
In fact, proto-life doesn't even need to look like Earth life, so even environments that are hostile to current Earth life today could've been the cradle of origin (as a wise man once said, "life, uh, finds a way"). Additionally, environments that used to be Earth-like but eroded away are candidates too since all we need is for life to have escaped before the erosion.
In my opinion, panspermia is strictly more likely than Earth-bound abiogenesis.
Kurzgesagt teached me that at some point between Big Bang and now, the universe had an average temperature equalling comfortable room temperature. Having realized that, it feels likely life could have formed basically anywhere.
I don't understand panspermia enjoyers. The Earth was just sitting there for a couple billion years; what sensibility of yours does it offend to accept abiogenesis occurred on it that you have to imagine weird impact ejecta delivery systems.
We are not such a simple thing that we should be the result of a simple random collision.
Like your body -everything is cut out according to its innate abilities with perfect measure and order, and put together with the finest art, in the shortest way, the best form, the lightest manner, and most practicable shape. Look at the clothes of birds, for example, and the easy way they ruffle up their feathers and continuously use them. Also, things are given bodies and dressed in forms in a wise manner with no waste and nothing in vain
Look also at my ingrown toenail, which for some reason grows about three millimeters wider than the nailbed.
Omnipotence, indeed!
Omnipotence, indeed!
The complexity of current life could have still formed from incredibly simple means over time.
> and put together with the finest art, in the shortest way, the best form, the lightest manner, and most practicable shape
Yeah nah. Ask any doctor or biologist. Humans and most other organisms are definitely not put together like that. It's pretty cool and it works very well, but many things are just... why? There's lots and lots of hacks, questionable cable management, backwards design, dead code, and leftovers from previous iterations.
Just because we're a pretty successful organism does not mean we are anywhere near the pinnacle of what can be achieved.
Yeah nah. Ask any doctor or biologist. Humans and most other organisms are definitely not put together like that. It's pretty cool and it works very well, but many things are just... why? There's lots and lots of hacks, questionable cable management, backwards design, dead code, and leftovers from previous iterations.
Just because we're a pretty successful organism does not mean we are anywhere near the pinnacle of what can be achieved.
Tell that to the laryngeal nerve which loops around your aortic arch, for no good reason. And to our inferior eye compared to the octopus. Amongst other things.
Check out the giraffe's cardiovascular system. It seems you're alluding to intelligent design and there's a lot of very unintelligent "design" everywhere.
I'd like to speak to life's manager. The human body is full of dumb shit. Who designed these shit ass joints!
We demand right to repair. User servicible parts
Perhaps that's true of your body, but my body was manufactured in the Soviet Union, and it shows.
maybe they were already there?
Population statistics indicate that the microorganisms originated from terrestrial contamination during the sample preparation stage rather than being indigenous to the asteroid.
From TFA.
From TFA.
unlikely
anything that could survive a billion years of hard radiation,hard vacume, zero humidity, and wild temperature swings.....
and then spring back to life is going to be instantly recognisable as "not from here".And as the sample return capsule was leaking asteroid dust everywhere when it landed, if it is alien, we are so fucked.
There is a vanishingly small chance that life could endure space as a spore of some kind,but it would require bio mechanisms that are unknown, and as of yet, inconceavable.
What it does point to, is just how tennatious life is here on earth and how easily it gets around,inside of our biosphere, and to the general problem of
building truely hermetic capsules and seals,and handling protocalls.
A related problem is the study of the element iron(fe), which in its purest form
us the most expensive substance on earth.
This is because iron will combine with almost anything, from any source, under any conditions, to the piont that, introducing any instrument or probe to actualy test the sample...contaminates it.
So the study of pure iron, is exceptionaly
challenging.
Likely that the asteroid sample has been compromised just by the closing mechanism
bieng jammed with asteroid dust, and it never realy sealed.
The moon missions were plagued with dust
and dust has disrupted operations on mars
,this would make 3 for 3.
Lab and semiconductor grade iron isn't notably expensive or difficult compared to other materials. It's just that there are few reasons to purify it beyond what's commonly available from supply houses, unlike more interesting materials like silicon or cesium.
Article talks about it. Known Earth microbes.
If it was already there it would have been something novel
If it was already there it would have been something novel
Unless panspermia is much more common than usually imagined.
If much of the thousands of tons of extraterrestrial debris that falls to earth every year was teeming with microbes we might not easily tell the difference.
But I very strongly suspect this is not the case.
If much of the thousands of tons of extraterrestrial debris that falls to earth every year was teeming with microbes we might not easily tell the difference.
But I very strongly suspect this is not the case.
They dismissed it as being from earth based on "Population statistics", not determining them to be known earth microbes.
From clicking through to the study, that was counting the microbes over time, measuring the growth rate, and noticing that there would have been a lot more if they'd been there since the beginning.
Not sure why this was downvoted. First, it could have been written tongue in cheek. Second, this is a perfectly legitimate and admissible explanation, that must be ruled out. Maybe it is very easy or trivial to rule out, as attempted in another comment, but it is important to keep all options open for scientific rigor. I believe the fact that the first scan did not reveal such life is a strong indicator that these organisms were introduced later.
I think maybe the first step in this scientific rigor is to read the article. On the other hand, maybe scientific rigor is primarily in the amount of repetition of ideas already dismissed. Perhaps the most rigorous scientists simply repeat the same hypothesis unchanged when another of them finds evidence to dismiss it.
I have heard tales of a truly scientific rigorous civilization. Every human there replicates every study. They’re currently confirming that using cutting rocks to tear flesh is advantageous to survival.
I have heard tales of a truly scientific rigorous civilization. Every human there replicates every study. They’re currently confirming that using cutting rocks to tear flesh is advantageous to survival.
I could not tell by the comment whether the article was read or not. I try to give the benefit of the doubt. Your sarcasm is hilarious, but you are attacking an argument I never made (i.e., strawman).
Then I decided to look it up.
Turns out, the larger that number is, the LESS clean it is!
https://www.mecart-cleanrooms.com/learning-center/cleanroom-...
From above site: "Class 10,000 cleanrooms are one of the most common, if not the most common, level of cleanliness across the industry."
The bulk of the article's message is still valid, but less astonishing.