Talk:Red rain in Kerala/Archive 1

PG Tips
What a shame there's no way to get a mention of the Peter Gabriel song in this article (But I'll link from that one back to here). Daniel Case 16:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * == Red rain in popular culture == ...?  (I'm joking, of course!) Worldtraveller 22:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Fungal spores?
Contrary to the article various press releases say that the red material in the rain was identified as fungal spores.
 * Those links say 'tentatively' identified. Sheffield University are conducting tests at the moment.  Worldtraveller 17:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. And we all know that the explanation that includes Santa Claus visiting life from outerspace should be given at least equal treatment to that which relies most heavily on known entities (such as fungal spores). Gamahucheur 18:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to seeing how the analysis turns out. As the releases note, even if they are something as common as earthly fungus, there are loads of questions to be answered here.168.224.1.14 11:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Various press releases" posted on a website called "UFO India" do not inspire much confidence in me as to their accuracy. Are there any other references available?  PPF2006
 * You betcha: Indian Express. Gamahucheur 19:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you guys mean actually Red Rain happening in Kerela, how is it possible?? Can somebody describe this term Red Rain to me. I know I might sound dumb but I need to go deep down the roots:)

Science?
If the "Did you know" teaser is going to invoke a scientific explanation, then would someone please cite a peer-reviewed scientific article of the findings? Lindenb 17:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)lindenb
 * We have done - in the references, you'll find a paper by Louis & Kumar which is accepted for publication in Astrophysics and Space Science. Worldtraveller 17:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Graffitipedia
Yes, the inevitable, inexorable failure of Wikipedia continues. Gamahucheur 17:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate? And don't be calling people 'dorks' in edit summaries - it's incredibly rude.  Worldtraveller 17:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The elaboration is that Wikipedia cannot effectively shield itself from incompetent posters; as its popularity grows, it attracts articles such as this, written by someone who cannot recognize and organize theories according to underlying plausibility. And what was truly rude was blowing-off the rules of English punctuation in your posting here.  In future, run your work past someone who knows the differences amongst the marks of punctuation. Gamahucheur 18:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I like this one better. — Omegatron 19:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So did I, for that matter. Gamahucheur 19:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * :-) The thing about this article is that it wouldn't even exist if not for the crazy outer space theories.  It's pretty unbiased considering its cause of notability. — Omegatron 19:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the article is entitled “Red rain in Kerala”, not “Extraterrestrial theory of the red rain in Kerala”. Hence, its relative treatment of theories is quite inappropriate. Gamahucheur 20:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Gamahucheur - read WP:CIVIL. Worldtraveller 20:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Worldtraveller– No article in Wikipedia is going to trump the basic facts of what is civility. You don't understand the function of civility, and this makes you unable to recognize what is and isn't civil.  BTW, it is uncivil for you to put your note in the wrong sub-thread. Gamahucheur 20:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Gamahucheur– Please cease your violations of Wikipedia's official civility policy. It is undermining to the serious discussion of a very interesting subject.  Thank you. PPF2006
 * If you don't want this argument (long ago reduced to a tangent about civility) to continue, then don't continue it. The ostensible incivility about which you are complaining is continuing exactly and only because Worldtraveller and you insist on making untenable claims about civility.  Your pursuit of some sort of pile-on victory in it is just one more act of true incivility.  Gamahucheur 16:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

But until further tests show DNA, or some other plausible explanation, this explanation is plausible. We know that bacteria from Earth are floating in the rest of the solar system, if only because they hitched a ride on our equipment. What's implausible about them already being there? Personally, I think they sound like red blood cells, but don't think a cloud of red blood cells surviving that long, leaving no other traces of animal, is more plausible than bacteria hitching a ride.

Incidentally, this article seems to be largely based on the New Scientist article last week, not going as far as plagiarising obviously, but the fact-base seems to be the same. The NS article had more pictures and diagrams, of course. 57.66.51.165 19:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I expect the fact base is the same - there's a limited number of articles and news stories about this incident! But I haven't actually read the NS article.  As for images, I've made some requests and hope to get some suitably licensed images here soon.  Worldtraveller 20:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Plausibility is subject, at the very least, to a partial ordering. No one here has claimed that the extraterrestrial explanation is impossible; so, yes, you could say that it has some plausibility.  The fact that there is some chance that the red rain was caused by extra-terrestrial life shouldn't place that theory on an equal footing with every other theory; nor, in the course of an article about the red rain per se, should it be the principal theory.  (If, on the other hand, the article were entitled “Extraterrestrial theory of the red rain in Kerala”, it would make perfect sense to focus on the extraterrestrial theory.) My earlier reference to Santa Claus was advisedly made; there remains some tiny chance that there is a Santa Claus (granted that it is far smaller than the chance of extraterrestrial microbes making their way to Earth) and that he was responsible for the red rain; but we don't give such explanation equal or superior footing. Gamahucheur 20:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Panspermia is a theory considered reasonable by many in the scientific community. Santa Claus is a fictional character.  Please limit your discussion points to those of a serious and well-reasoned nature.  Thank you. PPF2006
 * It would be a fine exercise for you to attempt to prove that Santa Claus does not exist. The existence of Santa Claus is an empirical proposition, and presentation of new evidence could compell reasonable people to accept that existence.  Presently reasonable people do not exactly and only because more parsimonious explanations are available for all observables.  Likewise, more parsimonious explanations are available for the red rain in Kerala.  And that much would remain true even if, more generally, the case for panspermia were placed on firmer ground.  Please learn to recognize discussion of a serious and well-reasoned nature. Gamahucheur 16:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, okay. Youst just plain need to get your argument straight before contributing. "Santa Clause?" Come on.

"Burning" leaves?
Surely you mean staining or darkening or something, not fire. — Omegatron 19:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There are also chemical burns. Gamahucheur 20:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * ??? Never heard that.  If the rain caused chemical burns, that sentence needs a reference. — Omegatron 05:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep. Gamahucheur 16:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Pics plz
This is a great article. What would really improve it is if someone could get a picture of the red rain, or stained clothes! Ernestleonard 01:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Working on that at the moment. Hope to be able to put some images up in the next few days!  Worldtraveller 01:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've got some collected already. I can upload them if they count as fair use. — Omegatron 05:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Images!

(gallery removed --02:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

— Omegatron 02:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Have to say I am not sure that fair use can really be claimed for these, especially not for all four simultaneously. I sent an e-mail to Godfrey Louis a few days ago asking for permission to use these images but haven't heard yet unfortunately. They really make the article look good though! Worldtraveller 20:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I put them through fair use review and everyone thinks they're fine. — Omegatron 23:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's good. I'm still a bit concerned that Dr Louis might yet read my request for permission to use the images, look at the article and find they're already in use... could look a bit bad... Worldtraveller 00:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are some more images:

V. Sasi Kumar 07:43, 09 June 2006 (UT)

Possible cometary origin
Sorry, a sonic boom WOULD NOT OCCUR FROM A COMET, they only happen when entering the speed of sound- like an airplane does. Sonic booms do not happen when slowing down from above the speed of sound, and then falling below it. This is extrememly suspect, and flawed. If these red particles were alien life (made up from proteins), they would be completely destroyed by the heat caused when the comet enters the Earth's atmosphere. Chickenofbristol 19:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually anything which causes shockwaves in the atmosphere can cause a sonic boom, and temperatures deep inside impacting objects doesn't necessarily rise very high. Worldtraveller 20:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

A comet cannot cause a sonic boom, perhaps a loud noise but this should be cleaned up. Sonic boom is a very specific thing. Also, you forget that for this red rain to happen for 10 days, it has to explode in mid-air. Would these particles survive that? The article should be less POV, and more objective.


 * Sorry but you're wrong - things moving at supersonic speeds in the atmosphere generate shock waves which are audible as sonic booms. This is not the place to discuss what may or may not have happened to any particles which may or may not have been in a hypothetical impacting body.  The article doesn't express a POV, I don't believe, it just reports what is claimed by various parties about the dust.  Worldtraveller 00:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A sonic boom was reported in Western Australia recently when a comet exploded in mid-air, it was captured on home video and is probably available online somewhere.... SeanMack 12:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

More explanations here
I think this article could use more material taken from this paper by the Indian researchers: Basically, these researchers make a really good case that these new extremophiles are the common demoniator underlying the three domains of life. These cells also have a distinct reproductive life cycle. This material needs to be independently assessed but unless these researchers are looking to destroy their career, I expect it will be confirmed. It is likely that these organisms fill the universe like bacteria filled out world. --64.230.127.189 20:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (Ben Houston)
 * New biology of red rain extremophiles prove cometary panspermia


 * I think it would be best not to make any more than a tangential reference to the contents of that paper as it hasn't been peer reviewed. I will be very interested to hear what comes out of Sheffield University who are currently carrying out tests.  Worldtraveller 00:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What I'd be very interested in understanding is the table of elemental composition in the article. It seems (to my untrained eye) to suggest that these particles contain no hydrogen. If this is true, they would certainly be unlike anything that we have called "life" in the past, and the suggestion that they are some sort of universal anscestor of life on Earth would be rather questionable at best. -Harmil 22:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Shape
Just to point out, the shapes of RBC are an optimization for maximizing surface area(diffusion of oxygen and carbon dioxide). The same could be true here(assuming they are not RBC of course). Can anyone validate/back up my statements? Dude 05:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikefadock (talk • contribs) 05:54, 13 March 2006


 * I'm not sure what you're looking for validation on, but certainly a sphere which has been deformed into a concave shape will have a higher surface area-to-volume ratio than a perfect sphere. That much is a rather basic element of geometry which can be easily proven by the fact that a sphere can contain the deformed sphere with additional space left. For further reading, see red blood cell. -Harmil 22:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Article stamp of approval

 * What makes a good article?
 * A good article shares many characteristics with featured articles, and like featured content it must:


 * be well written

Yes
 * be factually accurate

Seems so.
 * use a neutral point of view

Yes
 * be stable

Yes
 * be referenced

Well referenced
 * wherever possible, contain images to illustrate it. The images should all be appropriately tagged.

''' Looks good - slight concern about the fair use but benefit of doubt given for now. '''
 * Good articles may not be as thorough and detailed as our featured articles, but should not omit any major facets of the topic.

SeanMack 14:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The above comment is structured to appear analytical, but its actual content is little more than that of a bald stamp of support. This article has been challenged for its lack of neutrality, and saying “Yes” to whether it's neutral doesn't amount to a meaningful response.  This article is not neutral, because it accords disproportionate space to an unconventional explanation.  It is as if an article entitled “Ice ages” were in discussing causation to give over, say, 70% of its space to pole shift theory. Gamahucheur 02:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not neutral. The very nature of the "red rain" has even been fully explained yet. What we have to do is go off the information of what we do know and present that in as neutral a position as possible. Quit obfuscating things.

Proof of exogenesis?
To quote from the article: "The researchers theorise that the dust is in fact composed of organic matter of extraterrestrial origin. If this were to be proven, it would be the first direct evidence in favour of the theory of exogenesis, which posits that life on Earth arrived here from outer space." That isn't really true. It simply says that life can get to earth from space. Might it not be more accurate to say, "If this were to be proven, it would be a major boost to the credibility of the theory of exogenesis," or something similar? I admit that isn't very good language, but something along those lines might be more accurate. 129.44.216.105 00:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that I see the difference between the two. The statement as it stands says "If this were to be proven, it would be the first direct evidence in favour of the theory of exogenesis." Which is really only arguable on the basis that it's not really the first. I think you're reading "direct evidence in favor" as "proof". Those are very, very different things. For example, human body hair is direct evidence in favor of common descent, but it's hardly "proof" of common descent. -Harmil 01:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. That makes a lot of sense.  Thanks.  129.44.216.105 02:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hydrogen
Can someone who understands the science involved please either make a notation as to why hydrogen isn't included in the composition breakdown or make a note here to the effect that we're really saying that this thing wasn't composed of hydrocarbons? It's kind of wigging me out that a) people are suggesting that this is a life form b) there is no hydrogen in it and c) there hasn't been a huge uproar over a) and b)

Thanks. -Harmil 01:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would imagine the machine doesn't test for it. They did find it with another machine, as it says in the paper:

The elemental composition of the red cells was further checked using a CHN analyzer (Model Elementar Vario EL III). The presence of carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen can be analyzed using this analyzer. About 30 ml of red rainwater when dried gave a solid residue of about 3mg. This under CHN analysis showed 43.03% carbon, 4.43% hydrogen and 1.84% nitrogen. — Omegatron 01:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you -Harmil 02:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

'Outlandish'
In the articles intro there is the following sentence: "The event became much more notable when scientists at the Mahatma Gandhi University in Kottayam proposed a far more outlandish theory". How is using the word 'outlandish' NPOV? That word comes across as negative or pejorative. Something more neutral should be used, like 'non-conventional' or something. FistOfFury 06:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Official Findings
I've added links to the official findings about Kerala's red rains. They're defined as "official" due to being commissioned and reported by the Government of India. The oversight of these findings in public discourse on the Keralan red rains is in need of the remedy of such inclusion. I have also uploaded the abstract page of the official study itself,. I will seek permission to post the full study, but believe quoting the abstract to be fair use. I have been given permission from one of its authors to use the photos from the full study, which I have posted here. Ian Goddard 09:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ian, thanks very much for adding these references. They caused me to do a little poking around, and I'd like to call into question this assertions in the article:


 * Another possibility was that the rain contained pollen, fungal spores or algae, which can be carried high into the atmosphere; but the appearance of the red particles did not correspond to any known microbe. Microbes would be degraded with long storage periods in non-sterile conditions, but this did not occur with the red particles.


 * I searched on "fungal spores" in Google images and I found a lot of images like this and this  that look like the Kerala images.  I also see that there is a wide variation in the size, shape, and color of fungal spores.


 * While the above assertion mentions fungal spores, it discounts only microbes, which are not the same thing. Therefore dismissing fungal spores and moving on to less conventional explanations is a non sequitur.


 * Apparently the reason DNA was not found in the sample is that it was heated to 370C before it was tested for DNA. DNA begins to degrade at 100C, so this explains why no DNA was found.  This test needs to be run again on a fresh sample.  It should have been replicated by another lab anyway. Canon 13:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Right Canon, the statement you point to, "the red particles did not correspond to any known microbe," misses the game altogether since the red particles did correspond to known spores, which are not microbes. I corrected the passage that statement was in (see) to accurately reflect the official findings.


 * Hay, I just got permission from V. Sasi Kumar of the Center for Earth Science Studies to post the full official report on the Keralan red rains. This is the first time the official report commissioned by the Government of India has been available to the public! It took me an enormous amount of research to track it down. The fact that the only clue to its existence is in this (see pages 31-2) Government of India document is apparently why it's been overlooked by media sources. Ian Goddard 02:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting that - it's definitely a huge asset to the article. The fungal spore theory definitely seems to explain it well, and perhaps better. (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all that.) But there's still one major problem with the "official" findings - DNA. What possible reason would lead Louis and Kumar to heating to 370C the sample that they were going to test for DNA? Obviously they know that such high temperatures denature and degrade DNA. But even if the sample was heated to 370C before testing - DNA contains large amounts of phosphorus, and no matter how high the temperature is, I don't think you're going to destroy phosphorus atoms, no matter how degraded the DNA is. But the Louis and Kumar peer-reviewed report analyzed the elemental composition, and didn't report any phosphorus. zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Zafiroblue05, I sent an inquiry to Milton Wainwright mentioned in The Observer as having received a sample of the red rain for DNA testing. He replied saying his team is finding DNA using fluorescent probes, but another team at Cardiff cannot find DNA using PCR. In light of Sampath et al who actually grew the spore-like "particles" into Trentepohlia algae, that any tests find DNA satisfies me. I see no reason to doubt the competence of the scientists at the Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute who grew the spores right after the colored rains and who are experts in the identification, growth, and preservation of botanical species of Kerala. Ian Goddard 02:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, but at the same time, I don't see reason to doubt the competence of Louis, either. Particularly when the spores growing into algae could be conceivably explained by outside contamination, but the lack of phosphorus cannot. The Sampeth paper (or at least the abstract) seems to be making a key mistake: the fact that local lichen grew into algae similar to that of the red rain sample does not reinforce the idea that that the red spores are of local origin - it throws it deeper in doubt. Lots of stuff floats around in water, and Trentepohlia may very well be included along with the spores. Just because the red rain sample grew into a type of algae doesn't mean the red rain cells are of that type of algae - it just means that something in the sample, which includes everything in water, grew into the algae.
 * I'm not an expert on this, so I don't see how you can find DNA with "fluorescent probes" (what does that mean, exactly - what's a fluorescent probe, and how does it illuminate just DNA?). PCR should work - but still, keep it simple! If there's no phosphorus (which is what the Louis paper claims), then there's no DNA, period, the end. Right?
 * As it happens, I think it's more likely than not the the ultimate explanation for the red rain will be terrestrial. But I do think it's up in the air still - and very mysterious altogether. :) zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Zafiroblue05, your argument in essence is that Sampath et al is not trustworthy because, while some rainwater particles may have been algae spores, others may be extraterrestrials (ETs). Sampath et al even report that only "90% of the spores were of algal origin." So, indeed, there might be ETs lurking in the other 10%. To falsify that hypothesis we'd have to prove that each and every of billions of particles is not an ET. Note that we should then also have to falsify the hypothesis, "Some apparent humans may be ETs" by a careful examination of billions of people before we can trust the conclusion that "All apparent humans are humans." However, the burden of proof is not for Sampath et al to prove that no ETs exist in the rain. The burden of proof is on Louis & Kumar to prove that even one ET exists.

Moreover, note too that even if any "cells" lack DNA, one must still prove that having no DNA is a property of ET cells. The inference from unique cells to ETs is unfounded since there are no known ET-cell properties. Suppose we just discovered the first anaerobic organism on Earth, we would not reasonably infer that because all previously known terrestrial organisms are aerobic, this one is therefore an invasive ET. So too, a finding of cells without DNA on Earth does not by any reason entail a discovery of ETs. Thus the purported "ET evidence" is an empty mental projection onto physical objects that presents no reason to doubt Sampath et al. Ian Goddard 07:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Official report" is not a paper which appeared in any scientific journal. Which means it was not peer reviwed by any experts in the area. Zafiroblue05 has a valid point. (unsigned comment by 202.88.224.52)


 * Incorrect. The findings of Sampath et al appear in Kumar et al:


 * Kumar, V.S., Sampath, S., Mohanan, C.N., & Abraham, T. K. (2002). Colored rain falls in Kerala, India. Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 83(31), 335.


 * But official government-commissioned studies rarely appear in peer-reviewed journals. And I've never seen such stipulated as a criterion for acceptance of an official study. For example, I've never even seen its critics argue that the official findings on the Kennedy assassination are suspect because the report of the Garrison Commission was not published in a peer-review journal. Ian Goddard 01:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy the articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles about scientific experiments, including medical studies. The best scientific journals are peer-reviewed, which means that independent experts in the field are asked to (usually anonymously) review articles before they are published. This usually results in corrections and improvement, sometimes substantial. Many articles are excluded from peer-reviewed journals because they report questionable (or perhaps merely unimportant, in the opinion of the editors) results. There is sometimes no one prevailing view because the available evidence does not yet point to a single answer. Because Wikipedia not only aims to be accurate, but also useful, it generally tries to explain the theories and empirical justification for each school of thought, with reference to published sources. Editors should not, however, create arguments themselves in favor of, or against, any particular theory or position.

The private researchers theory based on official findings is not from a reputable source and hence removed. --Rainsman 18:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Rainsman raises some generally fair points. However, this is a unique case given that as a matter of fact the media had overlooked the official study, which was not available online until I tracked it down and posted it, with permission. I also sent it to scientists being quoted in the media to ensure that they were properly informed. The responses I received confirmed the appearance that they'd not known about it. I also posted the official findings to wikipedia. So the editing here seems excessive.


 * It should also be noted that the Storm Circulation and Cyclonic theories I included here suggesting how so many spores may have been drawn into the clouds are published in the journal of the Mega Society Noesis: Goddard, I.W. (2006). The Colored Rains of Kerala: An Exploration of Possible Causal Mechanisms. Noesis, 180, March, 10-18. Ian Goddard 22:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)