ForumGarden

Can a stone carry a disease? This is a serious question. I was just wondering if anyone knew the answer to this....

To help clarify I'm not talking about stones made by the Human body I'm only speaking of those of the geologic variety that are commonly found in nature.

Asbestosis springs to mind, it's a cause of disease due to its physical structure, it's not a poison as such.

If you mean disease in a biologically infectious sense, you must have replicating DNA or perhaps one of its mirrors present. That implies an earthy origin for the stone - no DNA has ever been detected off the planet, for it to happen you'd need reason to believe that earth's life started elsewhere than on Earth. I can well imagine you believing that, mind.

Anthrax spores, for example, remain infectious for hundreds of years. A stone contaminated with anthrax might be infectious.

spot;1337689 wrote: Asbestosis springs to mind, it's a cause of disease due to its physical structure, it's not a poison as such.

If you mean disease in a biologically infectious sense, you must have replicating DNA or perhaps one of its mirrors present. That implies an earthy origin for the stone - no DNA has ever been detected off the planet, for it to happen you'd need reason to believe that earth's life started elsewhere than on Earth. I can well imagine you believing that, mind.

Anthrax spores, for example, remain infectious for hundreds of years. A stone contaminated with anthrax might be infectious.


Ok so to narrow it down, besides anthrax, is there anything that the Human body can catch and die from that a stone can hold for any given amount of time? Something that would come from a Human to another Human or from one body to another?

The reason I am asking is because I find the structure of a stone fascinating in that to my knowledge no one in history has ever caught something from holding a stone or eating off of stoneware or died from any disease that was spread from picking up a stone, etc.

To my knowledge no animal has ever died from similar circumstances either.

Or what about bacteria? Can bacteria survive on a stone? Can it live for days on a stone? And if so, what types?

Stones can be naturally radioactive. There's stoneware from the Southwest of England, for example, that's fired with a Uranium glaze and which sends Geiger counters into a frenzy of clicking. Of the tens of thousands of people who've lived with those plates in their houses you can be sure statistically that a small number have died from induced radiation cancers. Demonstrating which they are out of all the cancer deaths has never been possible though. It needn't involve long-term exposure, just picking one up once is enough. Some stones give off Radon as a gas too and the same applies. As a way of killing someone it's a non-starter, the individual risk is minimal, but if you're asking has it ever happened then yes, undoubtedly it has. Unpredictably and rarely.

That's fission radiation which gives off high-energy alpha particles and gamma rays. I don't know of any stones which emit lethal electromagnetic radiation for any other reason. The only other natural lethal radiation I'm aware of is high-energy electron radiation and that would fall into the same category of very rare but statistically inevitable deaths. It's a background phenomenon, not a concentrated lethal burst which could be a predictable killer.

There was, I remember, a reasonably seriously proposed suggestion that life *was* brought to Earth from space but I'm not sure it gained many supporters over the last forty years or so.

Where did we come from?

The radical answer proposed by Fred Hoyle and myself in the late 1970s was that we came from space!1 Our genes and those of all living forms on Earth were brought here by comets, neatly packaged within cosmic microorganisms.


Life from Space: An Emerging Paradigm (ActionBioscience)

That's not, however, from stones.

Stones can be poisonous or carry poison or disease on their surface from external sources but I know of no cases of stone causing disease of itself.

Thanks for those answers guys. Bryn, can you give an example of what types of diseases stones can carry on their surfaces? And would it be for the same amount of time that we can carry them in our bodies?

TruthBringer;1337695 wrote: Or what about bacteria? Can bacteria survive on a stone? Can it live for days on a stone? And if so, what types?


Yes, any stone with a less than smooth surface can carry biologically active material that would survive for some time. The types of bacteria carried would depend on the source and the carrying medium.

Bryn Mawr;1337699 wrote: Yes, any stone with a less than smooth surface can carry biologically active material that would survive for some time. The types of bacteria carried would depend on the source and the carrying medium.


So the smoother the stone the more resistant to disease?

I'd not be surprised if there were stones in plague pits which, if removed, would be capable of infecting someone despite having been contaminated four hundred years ago. I used to work in London next to a plague pit which is reckoned to have over ten thousand bodies in it and the plot has never been built on, it's just grassed over.

TruthBringer;1337700 wrote: So the smoother the stone the more resistant to disease?


The less likely to carry significant amounts of any biologically active medium, yes.

On the other hand, even a glazed stoneware plate, if not washed, can carry enough germs to kill you should you be unlucky.

spot;1337702 wrote: I'd not be surprised if there were stones in plague pits which, if removed, would be capable of infecting someone despite having been contaminated four hundred years ago. I used to work in London next to a plague pit which is reckoned to have over ten thousand bodies in it and the plot has never been built on, it's just grassed over.


What about stones that have been tumbled to a glassy finish in a rock tumbler? Smooth on all edges and surfaces. Could tumbled rocks that are completely polished carry diseases in the same way as a normal stone would? Including plague?

Bryn Mawr;1337703 wrote: The less likely to carry significant amounts of any biologically active medium, yes.

On the other hand, even a glazed stoneware plate, if not washed, can carry enough germs to kill you should you be unlucky.


You sort of answered my last question with that one. Although I'm not sure if non stoneware plate but stones uncut and unchanged other than having been tumbled/polished could carry the same type of deadly disease regarding the germs that could be fatal. Perhaps you know the answer to this final question?

I don't think a tumbler would remove any infectious agent, just mix it up all over what is inside the chamber.

TruthBringer;1337705 wrote: You sort of answered my last question with that one. Although I'm not sure if non stoneware plate but stones uncut and unchanged other than having been tumbled/polished could carry the same type of deadly disease regarding the germs that could be fatal. Perhaps you know the answer to this final question?


Not know, no, but I'd be very surprised if a stone recently out of a tumbler could carry disease - short of being radioactive as Spot suggested, or poisonous through, for example, heavy metal components, they should be safe enough.

chonsigirl;1337707 wrote: I don't think a tumbler would remove any infectious agent, just mix it up all over what is inside the chamber.


Right but I'm speaking in terms of pre-exposure to the bacteria/disease/germs. So basically if the rock had been tumbled before it came into contact with the bacteria, would it be nearly impossible for any living organism to survive on that kind of surface for an extended period of time?

Bryn Mawr;1337709 wrote: Not know, no, but I'd be very surprised if a stone recently out of a tumbler could carry disease - short of being radioactive as Spot suggested, or poisonous through, for example, heavy metal components, they should be safe enough.


Thank you very much. So what we would have then is a nearly immune piece of material then. Glad to hear that. That is, immune to any disease, virus, or germ short of radio-active components or poisons. Or...if it had somehow carried compressed infectious air beneath it's surface, which would be extremely unlikely unless someone had injected the air inside of it somehow. Or if it had cracks in it's surface that could trap the air inside of it.

chonsigirl;1337707 wrote: I don't think a tumbler would remove any infectious agent, just mix it up all over what is inside the chamber.


As soon as you take the stones out of the tumbler you wash them to remove the carborundem paste added at the start of the tumble. That should remove any infectious agents.

I've polished materials professionally in my time. The finest paste I've used was quarter micron which is about the same size as a small bacterium. I've looked with microscopes at the resulting surface of what I've polished and it's possible you could carry bacteria in very small numbers on it.

To cause illness is again a statistical proposition. The bacteria has to successfully penetrate into living tissue somehow and most won't. It has to win the race to replicate against the body's flare of defence which is why single bacteria rarely cause disease. To get a foothold needs a small localized hotbed which can outpace the defence reaction.

A single virus can be more likely to succeed in infecting a body but it has the disadvantage of not surviving long outside of a host. A stone might be able to carry a virus for a day but that, I'd say, was the limit of survivability, they're fragile when isolated from a biological environment.

spot;1337713 wrote: I've polished materials professionally in my time. The finest paste I've used was quarter micron which is about the same size as a small bacterium. I've looked with microscopes at the resulting surface of what I've polished and it's possible you could carry bacteria in very small numbers on it.

To cause illness is again a statistical proposition. The bacteria has to successfully penetrate into living tissue somehow and most won't. It has to win the race to replicate against the body's flare of defence which is why single bacteria rarely cause disease. To get a foothold needs a small localized hotbed which can outpace the defence reaction.

A single virus can be more likely to succeed in infecting a body but it has the disadvantage of not surviving long outside of a host. A stone might be able to carry a virus for a day but that, I'd say, was the limit of survivability, they're fragile when isolated from a biological environment.


Very cool. I would say, of all the materials that a virus or bacteria could live on the easiest, a stone would be considered one of the hardest for it to survive on then. That is, even harder on a polished or smooth stone surface. For more than a day. Plastic, paper, glass, all of those materials would be alot easier for the bacteria/disease to survive on than would be the case with a stone if what I am reading is correct. Especially with the paper because perhaps that would make it easier for certain bacteria to survive on if they could eat the paper to prolong their survival. Eating a rock be it smooth or non smooth seems like it would kill any infectious bacteria which attempted to do so. Although I could be wrong on that assumption.

TruthBringer;1337687 wrote: Can a stone carry a disease? This is a serious question. I was just wondering if anyone knew the answer to this.... I have heard Kieth Richards once had an STD.

Not to mention that with a stone you have many different options for cleaning it. You can rub it thoroughly, you can burn it with fire, you can wash it with water, and you can even probably use the Sun and even the Wind to kill off any living organism if done properly. Very few materials that we use on a daily basis can take every one of those types of abuse and remain in their natural/unchanged form.

Where is this question coming from and what are you trying to get out of it?

Bryn Mawr;1337723 wrote: Where is this question coming from and what are you trying to get out of it?


Well, you guys might not like the origin of the question. lol. For one, I read that Native Americans used to use stones to wipe their bottoms after a bowel movement, due to the fact that they didn't have toilet paper available. And I was considering the ramifications of doing so in a survival type of situation being which material (leaves, sticks, etc.) would be the most resistant to the types of bacteria that could be spread from doing so. The easiest to clean, etc. Smooth stones would obviously be the best, as they wouldn't cut your body, but if there was no more toilet paper available, stones do appear to be the better option even than leaves because I would presume that leaves would carry much more bacteria including other living organisms than any stone would ever carry.

TruthBringer;1337727 wrote: Well, you guys might not like the origin of the question. lol. For one, I read that Native Americans used to use stones to wipe their bottoms after a bowel movement, due to the fact that they didn't have toilet paper available. And I was considering the ramifications of doing so in a survival type of situation being which material (leaves, sticks, etc.) would be the most resistant to the types of bacteria that could be spread from doing so. The easiest to clean, etc. Smooth stones would obviously be the best, as they wouldn't cut your body, but if there was no more toilet paper available, stones do appear to be the better option even than leaves because I would presume that leaves would carry much more bacteria including other living organisms than any stone would ever carry.


:wah: In an arid landscape I can think of nothing better - over here we'd use dock leaves :wah:

Bryn Mawr;1337729 wrote: :wah: In an arid landscape I can think of nothing better - over here we'd use dock leaves :wah:


lol. I live in a desert type of environment so it's much harder to find leaves. Although, with a stone as gross as it might sound, it could be used over and over after cleaning it whereas I am guessing even the same dock leaves wouldn't be able to do so.

TruthBringer;1337730 wrote: lol. I live in a desert type of environment so it's much harder to find leaves. Although, with a stone as gross as it might sound, it could be used over and over after cleaning it whereas I am guessing even the same dock leaves wouldn't be able to do so.


Plenty of dock leaves around and more grow quite quickly so no need to re-use.

Bryn Mawr;1337732 wrote: Plenty of dock leaves around and more grow quite quickly so no need to re-use. lol. Not bad. Both would seem to suffice. And that is a load off my mind in that area trust me. I don't need to go into the reasons why as I'm sure you understand but it had been stumping me for awhile as I even considered stocking up on hundreds of dollars worth of toilet paper. That is until I was outside smoking a cigarette and looked down at the ground. Then some research, including your guys's knowledge, and now I am certain that the toilet paper would be a complete waste of money for that type of a situation.

Both because of the disease/bacteria factor as well as for the disposal factor.

Stock up on Sodium hypochlorite. A pound weight of that will disinfect around ten thousand gallons of bacterially infected water for a couple of dollars, it lasts for decades and it's ideal at low dilution for killing bacteria on any surface.

spot;1337743 wrote: Stock up on Sodium hypochlorite. A pound weight of that will disinfect around ten thousand gallons of bacterially infected water for a couple of dollars, it lasts for decades and it's ideal at low dilution for killing bacteria on any surface.How about fleas? My dogs have them and Frontline does not seem to be working.

Ahso!;1337758 wrote: How about fleas? My dogs have them and Frontline does not seem to be working.


At the first sign of civil breakdown, kill all domesticated animals. It's in the rule book. In which, I might add, the UK government trained me at great expense at the height of the Cold War. As a member of the fallback local government corps which - you'll find this hard to believe, being American - was the emergency power in charge of the local army regiments, we had plans drawn up for various levels of disaster. Practically all of them which involved mass civilian casualties included the destruction of domesticated animals, with dogs as the top priority.

TruthBringer;1337704 wrote: What about stones that have been tumbled to a glassy finish in a rock tumbler? Smooth on all edges and surfaces. Could tumbled rocks that are completely polished carry diseases in the same way as a normal stone would? Including plague?The liquid in a stone tumbler is usually a mixture of water and washing up liquid TruthBringer. The liquid can become contaminated rather quickly if the stones intended for tumbling are not rinsed with clean water prior to the tumbling process and, when the polishing is complete. A responsible stone polisher would wash the stones in clean water for a final rinse.

Porous stones in their natural condition are more likely to pick up any contamination than natural smooth stones, though even then, looked at through a strong magnifying glass, many natural smooth stones are likely show slight porous pinpoints, and or, inclusions. The pinpoints/inclusions could absorb slight traces of contamination if not cleaned appropriately. I haven't heard of anyone dying from contamination picked up by the use of the stone tumbling process.

Good post.

bb

Edit. I've just spotted Bryn Mawr's post, he is perfectly correct with his reply.

spot;1337775 wrote: At the first sign of civil breakdown, kill all domesticated animals. It's in the rule book. In which, I might add, the UK government trained me at great expense at the height of the Cold War. As a member of the fallback local government corps which - you'll find this hard to believe, being American - was the emergency power in charge of the local army regiments, we had plans drawn up for various levels of disaster. Practically all of them which involved mass civilian casualties included the destruction of domesticated animals, with dogs as the top priority.I'm requesting we begin with fleas.

But why destroy domesticated animals, have these people not seen Lassie, Rin-Tin-Tin and Tomasina?