What does it mean when a house is condemned?

I just wonder what's going to happen to Saudi Arabia when Arab Spring finally gets sprung on them. If OBL was to be believed, his big beef was all the military might we provided to the Saudi Royals. Of course we seem hypocritical to the rest of the Arab world when we demand democracy but have armed the Saudi royalty with enough weapons that they have an even higher per capita expenditure on military spending than the US (IIRC). Once upon a time Saddam was our ally in the war against Iran. We sold fighter jets to Quaddafi back then, too. For every country we help climb out of goatherding poverty we create rivals for the same limited resources on the planet. Not only are we not helping them. we're hurting ourselves.

Wait. this is a condemned house thread? How'd it get to the Middle East?

-- Bobby G.

Reply to
Robert Green
Loading thread data ...

According to the media reports I saw, they said a federal mortuary official told them that it would take 2 weeks to do DNA testing on all the bodies. If they had particular problems like that with a few, then it would be more understandable. Even then, the issue isn't the time, it's having the right DNA from surviving relatives.

What makes you think the local hospital ever did forensic DNA testing to begin with. And even if they did, so what? Totally irrelevant there are plenty of other labs.

=A0>There are no "flying DNA labs" on standby. =A0

We could fly the lab. Or we could just fly the DNA samples. Which do you think is easier?

Totally different situation. In the case of 911, for the most part, there were no bodies, just tiny body parts. But the fact that it was some "federal mortuary official" that was controlling things in Joplin did make me think that the real mission here is a dress rehersal for a bigger catastrophe and they are more concerned about the procedures for that than the victims.

What I get is that from googling it's obvious that DNA testing can be done in about 72 hours. I'd say govt has an obliation to do it for families in Joplin a lot faster than 2 weeks. Or else let them visually ID the bodies. Which is what was done until DNA testing became available, which is in the last couple decades. And that method seems to have worked reasonably well for hundreds of years without families left waiting 2 weeks with mom sitting in the mortuary.

Reply to
trader4

" snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net" wrote in news:91c6721b- snipped-for-privacy@n10g2000vby.googlegroups.com:

So, in summary,the problems of the DNA analyses are:

  1. Collecting samples from bodies/body parts
  2. Saving/storing them so the DNA does NOT degrade
  3. Deciding what controls and standards to use in each set of tests
  4. Running the actual gel, staining it and recording the results (~1 hr).
  5. Interpreting the results and making unambiguous identifications.

I'd pose that getting #3 correct is crucial and most difficult, followed by #5.

That's were 2 weeks is not a bad guess to get ALL (or most) samples analyzed.

Reply to
Han

And if the surviving relative is a husband or wife? (And we're not talking about the Arkansas hill country.)

While we're on the subject, can someone explain how DNA testing can exonerate a suspect? I understand how DNA can prove some dude did the deed, but my memory keeps echoing: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Reply to
HeyBub

Revolutions (not invasions) such as we see in Egypt, Syria, Libya, etc., do not occur because the government is too oppressive. The riff-raff revolt when the government is too weak to stop them.

Reply to
HeyBub

Depends on what you are trying to do. For a criminal case, yes. However for a body ID you most likely would only need a relative for the comparator. You can tell family linkings that way.

Samples also have to be

Wouldn't know why. To my understanding they can tell by the number of common loci if it was a brother, sister or cousin. The farther you are away from the decedent, the less commonality you will find. (Think of it as dilution) Aunt, for example would probably have some loci in common with the decedent since they share a lineage. But the Dad's contribution would contribute a different set of common loci for the dead person. So dead guy B could be established as the cousin of dead guy A, but the differences contributed by the two Dad's (assuming that the Dad wasn't sleeping with the sister) would be able to establish identity. Of course DNA isn't used that often in most situations. Identity is established using dental records, medical records, etc. It generally when the MEs rely solely on visual ID or something that can be tossed around (such as a driver's license like happened in Indiana a couple of years ago), that they get in trouble.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

Easy. They have DNA sample (say s**en from a rape). They run it. They get a sample from Person of Interest. They compare. It isn't his. He is exonerated. Same basic idea as the PoI being ruled out because someone else's fingerprints are on the gun.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

"HeyBub" wrote in news:yrSdnXLSdcoaUXXQnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

It's the other way around. Like fingerprints. If there is a matching fingerprint on the (whatever), it only proves that "whatever" was handled by the subject, not what he/she did with it. If the fingerprint is different then it means he didn't handle it (presuming that a. it wasn't wiped, and b. that he/she didn't wear gloves).

So if the DNA of the body (part) does not match, it isn't him/her. If it does, it's either him/her or an identical twin (has happened). With regard to matching with a relative, it has to be a blood relative, not a relative by marriage. Then (using your arkane hillbilly as example) it has to be a true blood relative. Best to use a birth mother, or real sister or brother. Of course, that would likely only match part of the genome ... Showing again how difficult definitive identification might be.

Best way to match - get a tissue sample of the real him/her. Hair sample, tooth brush, medical sample, or some such.

Reply to
Han

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:VaGdne-8S- KWUnXQnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

Indeed. However, if DNA is to be used, you might end up with difficulties on the paternal side. It seems that 15% of people were fathered by someone different than the husband of the mother (says my genealogist wife) ...

Reply to
Han

A common misconception. And rationalization. If true, why would Jesus declare "all foods clean"? They didn't have refrigeration in his day either.

The Hebrew scripture is quite specific on the concept of kosher foods, and I'm sure the Koran is also.

Leviticus 11:45, after listing the rules, sums it all up by saying: "For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy." The rabbinic sages all agree that the use of "holy" in this context means "separate." That is, the Jews were prohibited certain foods in an effort to discourage them from eating with gentiles. A similar provision prohibits a Jew from sharing wine with gentiles.

Aside:

The Bible lists seven kinds of fowl that a Jew may not eat. Swell, but what kinds of birds CAN a Jew eat. The rabbis studied on this issue. Some of the listed birds were scavengers, but not all. Some hunted at night, but not all. The rabbis gave up and finally declared that the birds fit for sacrifice in the Tabernacle were ritually fit to eat (chicken, dove, quail, etc.).

For a thousand years, every Jew on the planet knew what birds were okay and what were not.

Hold that thought.

Jews were early in the New World (some think that Columbus' navigator was Jewish seeing as how Columbus set sail the day after the Jews were expelled from Spain). When colonies started forming, what did these settlers discover?

The turkey!

Letters were sent to the sages of the generation back in Europe and North Africa: "Is a turkey kosher?"

"What's a turkey?" [The Hebrew word for "peacock" is "tuki"]

"Well, it looks like a really big chicken, but it has this red thing hanging over its nose like a vulture."

"Does it eat carrion?" the rabbis wanted to know, "Does it hunt at night? Does it have two toes forward and two toes back?"

"We don't know," said the New World settlers. "It does eat grain, though."

After much to-ing and fro-ing, the sages finally concluded that a turkey was more like a chicken than it was like an owl, so the turkey was officially added to the list of kosher birds.

The Jews of the world settled in to a revised food pyramid. For a few hundred years.

Then explorers ventured to the South Pole and found penguins.....

Reply to
HeyBub

As a small boy, I thought Catholics found penguins to be a holy bird that should be emulated by certain groups of women within the church.

TDD

Reply to
The Daring Dufas

That's a possibility, which is why you go on to siblings, etc. Again, outside of where you essentially have hamburger (WTC, etc), the ME should not rely on just ONE indicator.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

You whine and cry and rant and rave about personal freedoms and how this is YOUR choice.... until the tornado comes along, picks up your house, and drops it on you.

Who do you expect to come to your rescue in the immediate aftermath? The government. Who do you expect to pay your hospital bills when your insurance tells you that you've exceeded your coverage? The government.

The government certainly SHOULD be able to tell you to get out of town if hell is about to rain down from above. They're the ones paying to dig you out, and the ones paying to patch you back up afterward.

Reply to
mkirsch1

People, in general, are too stupid and ignorant to be let outside without adult supervision. Therefore, they must be protected from themselves.

It's people like you who insist on enforcing their "right" to enter into restricted zones after disasters, and then die in the process. Whole neighborhoods can be declared "off limits" for many reasons, some of which are initiated to protect them. Like when there has been a breach in the gas system, electric, or sewage.

No one has the "right" to go in there until it is determined if they are safe. Many people would go right back in there in conditions that could kill them, or start another conflagration.

You sound like the crowd that insists that they have the "right" to make additions and improvements willy nilly, regulations, permits and code be damned.

Ignorant is never having been told. Stupid is when you've been told, but insist on doing it "your" way anyway.

You are a danger to yourself and others, but don't have a clue. You're compound stupid. You don't know that you don't know.

Your group of people can be called criminal or mentally disturbed. Or maybe just plain immature.

Steve

Reply to
Steve B

Ah, but gun ownership is protected by the Constitution; being foolish isn't.

Reply to
HeyBub

Because there is a sample of DNA that was left at the crime scene or in/on the victim which will match to the real suspect...

If you match the sample -- you are the guilty party... If you don't match the sample present at the crime scene then you can not be the one who actually committed the crime... So DNA analysis can implicate you if your DNA matches the sample found at the crime OR it can exonerate you if your sample does not match and excludes you from being the mystery sample donor...

~~ Evan

Reply to
Evan

Oren wrote in news:1iiiu6hr74h35banpukf99dfkmajdhu7vo@

4ax.com:

I haven't heard of mosaicism that dramatically different. Mosaicism is like a calico cat, the gene for white is expressed in some portions of the skin, that for orange in others. It is a wide-spread phenomenon:

In females, there is a process during early development where either 1 or the other of the X-chromosomes is inactivated. That leads to differences in the genes expressed. This goes in the initial cells of each different tissue or portion of a tissue. So the initial cells that then develop into each fully grown tissue may differ in females more than in males. Hence the calico cat. Everyone gets 1 X-chromosome from their mom, girls get another X from Dad, while boys get the Y. If you got genes expressed from both x chromosomes, you'd run into trouble because the "gene dose" might be too great, at least for some genes.

So I guess that the analysis in the show was on the mother's X-linked genes,and perhaps RNA, rather than DNA. RNA comes from the active genes, not the inactivated ones. But while I know some of these things rather well, I'm not a real expert, and I don't know the details of this show. If you find out which show it was, please let me know!

Reply to
Han

Evan wrote in news:2fc36e94-0377-4c12-aec8- snipped-for-privacy@n10g2000vby.googlegroups.com:

You are a bit hard on trader4, but I fully agree with the gist and the facts of what you wrote.

Reply to
Han

What's the old saying- 'A woman knows her children- a man can never be absolutely sure'?

Reply to
aemeijers

The GOVERNMENT doesn't pay for a damn thing. Your fellow citizens do, minus what the government skims off the top. Just sayin'.

-- aem sends.,..

Reply to
aemeijers

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.