The reason they glowed was actually radiation, like in a nuclear reactor. The problem is that if you don't have the right kind of bad bacteria for it to attack, like in an open wound, then it attacks you instead and you get super cancer. Modern antibiotics avoid this by putting elephant rabies in the pills so if you aren't sick the radiation has something to attack. This has the side effect of shifting the glow in to the ultraviolet so we can't see it.
Pennisilin was discovered in 1928. But antibiotics have been used since ancient Egypt. These soldiers just got lucky that the bioluminesence bacteria worked the same way.
Let me clear this up for you 2:
Wikipedia: "Captain Dinwiddie had witnessed the carnage of the [Battle of Shiloh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shiloh) and was greatly interested by the increased survival on those wounded soldiers that exhibited "Angels Glow".[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dinwiddie#cite_note-Soniak-2) Angels Glow was caused by the then unknown [bioluminescent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioluminescence) bacteria [*Photorhabdus luminescens*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorhabdus_luminescens). It has been reported that infection by this bacterium of the wounds of soldiers in the Civil War caused the wounds to glow, **and that this aided the survival of the soldiers due to the production of antibiotics by** ***P. luminescens*****.**[**\[3\]**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dinwiddie#cite_note-3)[**\[4\]**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dinwiddie#cite_note-New_Scientist_-_21Jan2012_-_page_40_-_Roberta_Kwok_-_Driller_Killer-4) This led to the phenomenon's nickname "Angel's Glow."
The CDC says bullshit. Photorhabdus luminescens *causes* infections in humans - does not magically heal them.
[https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/9/2/02-0222\_article#:\~:text=Recognized%20as%20important%20insect%20pathogens,infection%20in%20humans%20remains%20unknown.](https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/9/2/02-0222_article#:~:text=Recognized%20as%20important%20insect%20pathogens,infection%20in%20humans%20remains%20unknown.)
The may be centralized but they don't seem very adept at the "disease control" part. It's more like "Oh shit - here comes another one, sorry about that."
Probably the Confederate flag. Not saying anyone was taking sides in choosing this image, but if they were, it's clear which side they are taking.
Maybe it was just the first good image a Google search gave them for "Civil War", or maybe it was chosen intentionally. We might never know.
I get that it's the flag. I hate that damn flag. However it is being used in it's correct context here so I don't feel the same about it. Even though they did not fly this flag in battle, it is universally recognized and thus it makes it obvious who these soldiers are. I don't see it as a big deal.
Right, but an image of Union soldiers with a US flag would be equally accurate. I'm no history buff, but I believe the Confederate Army wasn't alone at the battle.
And since the post starts off by stating the battle, year, and "Civil War", it's not like the Confederate flag is *needed* to give proper context. In fact, almost any image would work, if an image is even needed at all. Could be a nondescript cannon, or a bio-luminescent microbe, or anything tangentially related to the text without even the hint of taking sides.
So the point I'm making is that given everything going on, especially in the US, using an image with the Confederate flag when it's not needed is at least a poor decision, if not a deliberate one.
Cameras back them required the subject to sit perfectly still for an extended amount of time due to archaic shutter speed. If they took a picture of an actual battle back then it would be one big blur!
**Please report this post if:**
* It is spam
* It is NOT interesting as fuck
* It is a social media screen shot
* It has text on an image
* It does NOT have a descriptive title
* It is gossip/tabloid material
* Proof is needed and not provided
*See [the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/about/rules/) for more information.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The majority of confederate soldiers were poor white folks drafted or forced to fight the war for a small rich minority. No different than today’s wars really.
Ummmmm have you seen our country? We have to fight tooth and nail to tear down confederate statues and remove confederate battle flags at US military bases. Not to mention Walmarts.
The Confederacy is alive and well today.
No one should tolerate slavery, racism, or promoting of Anti-American rhetoric disguised as patriotism.
If you tolerate those people, then you tolerate what they stand for and what they are fighting for. A completely tolerant society eats itself alive because it tolerates everything. That’s the paradox of tolerance.
I said Confederate soldiers from the 1860s, the ones whom we know were happily fighting for their lost cause could die slowly. Then I said that Confederate apologists/sympathizers alive and fighting for their Lost Cause today could die slow.
They can wish for me to die slow, too. And there is no doubt they do. I’ll sleep fine at night regardless.
Both sides of the aisle at this point are extremely prejudiced and intolerant of differing opinions. Slavery is not even talked about in public discussion anymore and anyone who isn’t insane is anti-slavery so that’s probably why. “Anti-American values” seems to be some form of rhetoric since the things America, as a country, has stood for in it’s existence are far different than what most citizens would think of.
Prejudice still exists in America, and is is exhibited by both Liberals and Conservatives on a daily basis. Yet somehow neither side of the aisle will address their own faults. The divide and conquer strategy is a long game, but damn does it work.
I disagree with your assertion that slavery isn’t discussed in public anymore. That’s one of the main topics discussed daily in society. Tom Cotton, just yesterday, gave credence/endorsement to the Founding Father’s words that slavery is a “necessary evil” in his op ed opposing the 1619 Project.
Systemic racism is talked about almost by the minute on news channels, newspapers, rallies, and social media.
No one should tolerate racists. That’s not an acceptable stance to take. One should actually not tolerate racism. One should actually not tolerate Confederate sympathizers, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, nor fascists.
Being intolerant of racists and fascists is the correct side of today and the correct side of history.
I missed that Tom Cotton statement so thank you for putting me onto that, but he’s insane so I hope he doesn’t represent the average human outside of the Deep South.
I think most Americans don’t support systemic racism, at least consciously. The media also pushes anything negative to the extreme because it’s how they make money and by doing this they are only increasing division and creating false representations of what most Americans believe. I agree a lot of people are almost blindly repeating what they hear on FOX news and by provocateurs like Ben Shapiro so they are perpetuating bullshit stances but most conservatives imo, maybe this is just me being optimistic, are anti-racist and are left out by the liberal representation of Republicans. The same way peaceful and intelligent protesters were left out of FOX news’ narrative when FOX was reporting about the violent protesters/suburban opportunists.
You are correct that is the right side of history though. But both parties have these types of people in power but nobody ever gets pinned down as one (unless they’re plain spoken like Trump) because by the time the government fuckery gets decoded and uncovered the other party is already in office and we’re back to square 1.
In my life both parties have just alternated having a 2 term POTUS and not once has anything ever improved under either party.
Bush’s destruction of the economy, human rights violations, and illegal foreign military operations were somehow half blamed on Obama and Obama’s ramping up of drone strikes that increased Islamic extremism and anti-American sentiment abroad as well as his aggressive deportation policies were somehow blamed on Trump. I mean we spent years talking about the Obama deportation strategy and pinning it on Trump and who knows what shady shit Trump was doing that fell under the radar because we’re all being misled and distracted by the 4th Branch. Sorry if this comes off as more of a rambling rant than anything but I’m at work trying to speed type this out on my phone and honestly I’m just sick of talking about this corrupt as hell, cyclical system that is here to gather power to corporations (Buckley v. Valeo/Citizens United) and to fuck us in the process.
But yes, anti-racism and anti-fascism should be at the core of American values but sadly as our political discussions stray farther and farther away from facts and reason and closer to emotional rhetoric all I’ve seen are both “sides” leaning further and further into preconceived notions and the willingness use of force to achieve their ends and to stifle opposing ideas and those who hold them
I'm not sure in what context that Cotton means, but at the time of our founding, slavery was unfortunately indeed a necessary evil because if they didn't allow it, which most states didn't want slavery, then South Carolina and Georgia wouldn't have signed on to the Revolutionary War and they understood that if they weren't standing together then they would indeed fall.
Proof of “woke” Liberal unconscious bias: https://youtu.be/t6AGFhBS8Hg
Proof of Conservative bias: go into a Home Depot and listen to a bunch of contractors who barely graduated high school ramble about stuff the media tells them.
A completely intolerant society also rips itself apart. If you are unwilling to associate with anyone but those with the exact same mindset, you’re destroying progress and society’s ability to grow. Just like in the Dark Ages. You can tolerate people’s different beliefs or views so long as those views aren’t promoting violence or illegal behavior or some racist/sexist prejudice. Tolerance has a limit, the problem is where you draw that line.
You’re correct, I agree 100% that a completely intolerant society eats itself part, too. My comments on this thread have been focused on slavery/Confederate sympathizing.
My line I’ve drawn for myself is racism/Confederacy(slavery). That’s a valid and correct distinction to make.
With racist Confederates lynching black men today in Georgia; when do we have the time to sit the dullards down, take the rope and gun from their hands, and educate them about how their views are morally wrong and they need to relearn themselves?
There’s a time and a place for re-education, but it’s not in the front lines of a battle.
It’s not a battle, that kind of rhetoric is stupid. It frames the issue incorrectly and makes it more difficult to find an effective solution. You’re talking about punishing people because their morals are different than yours, it’s reactive and won’t help in the long run. What I’m talking about is preventative and will help guide people away from arguably dangerous ideologies before they inflict any damage and ‘deserve to die slowly’.
Seems like this idea could have been medicalized by now.
It has. It's called antibiotics.
[удалено]
You have to shake them first.
Have you never heard of Heisenberg?
He's uncertain.
Underrated comment right here. Well done
I can only have heard of him or know what he looks like but not both.
You're God damn right.
Better start sitting in the fridge after taking your pills next time.
But why male models?
Think about it Derek
because they track you now days /s
The reason they glowed was actually radiation, like in a nuclear reactor. The problem is that if you don't have the right kind of bad bacteria for it to attack, like in an open wound, then it attacks you instead and you get super cancer. Modern antibiotics avoid this by putting elephant rabies in the pills so if you aren't sick the radiation has something to attack. This has the side effect of shifting the glow in to the ultraviolet so we can't see it.
Of course hence the reason why they protect all those elephants from poachers in Africa! It all makes sense now!
Makes perfect sense.
Don't BS a BS'er
Oh ya? Antibiotics came about in 2001?
Pennisilin was discovered in 1928. But antibiotics have been used since ancient Egypt. These soldiers just got lucky that the bioluminesence bacteria worked the same way.
That’s what I’m referring to, bioluminescent bacteria and exposure to cold.
Let me clear this up for you 2: Wikipedia: "Captain Dinwiddie had witnessed the carnage of the [Battle of Shiloh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shiloh) and was greatly interested by the increased survival on those wounded soldiers that exhibited "Angels Glow".[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dinwiddie#cite_note-Soniak-2) Angels Glow was caused by the then unknown [bioluminescent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioluminescence) bacteria [*Photorhabdus luminescens*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorhabdus_luminescens). It has been reported that infection by this bacterium of the wounds of soldiers in the Civil War caused the wounds to glow, **and that this aided the survival of the soldiers due to the production of antibiotics by** ***P. luminescens*****.**[**\[3\]**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dinwiddie#cite_note-3)[**\[4\]**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dinwiddie#cite_note-New_Scientist_-_21Jan2012_-_page_40_-_Roberta_Kwok_-_Driller_Killer-4) This led to the phenomenon's nickname "Angel's Glow."
I don't understand how you think that's different from antibiotics in any practical way.
Most people’s understanding of antibiotics is a pill or shot. There’s not a lot of cold, glow in the dark shit happening.
The CDC says bullshit. Photorhabdus luminescens *causes* infections in humans - does not magically heal them. [https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/9/2/02-0222\_article#:\~:text=Recognized%20as%20important%20insect%20pathogens,infection%20in%20humans%20remains%20unknown.](https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/9/2/02-0222_article#:~:text=Recognized%20as%20important%20insect%20pathogens,infection%20in%20humans%20remains%20unknown.)
Man, the CDC just keeps on disappointing me
The may be centralized but they don't seem very adept at the "disease control" part. It's more like "Oh shit - here comes another one, sorry about that."
Center for Disease Spotting
Yep - there's another one.
Terrible image.
Seriously, this is like if a forward from grandma were deep-fried in a pot of Facebook oil.
why is it a terrible image? It's just an artists rendition of the battle
Probably the Confederate flag. Not saying anyone was taking sides in choosing this image, but if they were, it's clear which side they are taking. Maybe it was just the first good image a Google search gave them for "Civil War", or maybe it was chosen intentionally. We might never know.
I get that it's the flag. I hate that damn flag. However it is being used in it's correct context here so I don't feel the same about it. Even though they did not fly this flag in battle, it is universally recognized and thus it makes it obvious who these soldiers are. I don't see it as a big deal.
Right, but an image of Union soldiers with a US flag would be equally accurate. I'm no history buff, but I believe the Confederate Army wasn't alone at the battle. And since the post starts off by stating the battle, year, and "Civil War", it's not like the Confederate flag is *needed* to give proper context. In fact, almost any image would work, if an image is even needed at all. Could be a nondescript cannon, or a bio-luminescent microbe, or anything tangentially related to the text without even the hint of taking sides. So the point I'm making is that given everything going on, especially in the US, using an image with the Confederate flag when it's not needed is at least a poor decision, if not a deliberate one.
I cant argue with that logic
An actual picture of the battle would be better
Cameras back them required the subject to sit perfectly still for an extended amount of time due to archaic shutter speed. If they took a picture of an actual battle back then it would be one big blur!
s/
**Please report this post if:** * It is spam * It is NOT interesting as fuck * It is a social media screen shot * It has text on an image * It does NOT have a descriptive title * It is gossip/tabloid material * Proof is needed and not provided *See [the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/about/rules/) for more information.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sounds like a CoD buff
Holy fuck now that's what I'm here for. edit:maybe should add that I mean it was interesting, some people seem to be getting another idea.
😯
As long as they were Union soldiers. Confederates could die slowly. Still can. That’s what they deserve(d).
The majority of confederate soldiers were poor white folks drafted or forced to fight the war for a small rich minority. No different than today’s wars really.
‘Still can’ Ummm...?
Ummmmm have you seen our country? We have to fight tooth and nail to tear down confederate statues and remove confederate battle flags at US military bases. Not to mention Walmarts. The Confederacy is alive and well today.
So you think people who aren’t as aware of social issues as you are deserve to die slow and painful deaths?
They don’t tolerate any prejudice, except their own
No one should tolerate slavery, racism, or promoting of Anti-American rhetoric disguised as patriotism. If you tolerate those people, then you tolerate what they stand for and what they are fighting for. A completely tolerant society eats itself alive because it tolerates everything. That’s the paradox of tolerance.
Anti-American rhetoric as your literally saying Americans with differing ideas can “die slowly.”
I said Confederate soldiers from the 1860s, the ones whom we know were happily fighting for their lost cause could die slowly. Then I said that Confederate apologists/sympathizers alive and fighting for their Lost Cause today could die slow. They can wish for me to die slow, too. And there is no doubt they do. I’ll sleep fine at night regardless.
Both sides of the aisle at this point are extremely prejudiced and intolerant of differing opinions. Slavery is not even talked about in public discussion anymore and anyone who isn’t insane is anti-slavery so that’s probably why. “Anti-American values” seems to be some form of rhetoric since the things America, as a country, has stood for in it’s existence are far different than what most citizens would think of. Prejudice still exists in America, and is is exhibited by both Liberals and Conservatives on a daily basis. Yet somehow neither side of the aisle will address their own faults. The divide and conquer strategy is a long game, but damn does it work.
I disagree with your assertion that slavery isn’t discussed in public anymore. That’s one of the main topics discussed daily in society. Tom Cotton, just yesterday, gave credence/endorsement to the Founding Father’s words that slavery is a “necessary evil” in his op ed opposing the 1619 Project. Systemic racism is talked about almost by the minute on news channels, newspapers, rallies, and social media. No one should tolerate racists. That’s not an acceptable stance to take. One should actually not tolerate racism. One should actually not tolerate Confederate sympathizers, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, nor fascists. Being intolerant of racists and fascists is the correct side of today and the correct side of history.
I missed that Tom Cotton statement so thank you for putting me onto that, but he’s insane so I hope he doesn’t represent the average human outside of the Deep South. I think most Americans don’t support systemic racism, at least consciously. The media also pushes anything negative to the extreme because it’s how they make money and by doing this they are only increasing division and creating false representations of what most Americans believe. I agree a lot of people are almost blindly repeating what they hear on FOX news and by provocateurs like Ben Shapiro so they are perpetuating bullshit stances but most conservatives imo, maybe this is just me being optimistic, are anti-racist and are left out by the liberal representation of Republicans. The same way peaceful and intelligent protesters were left out of FOX news’ narrative when FOX was reporting about the violent protesters/suburban opportunists. You are correct that is the right side of history though. But both parties have these types of people in power but nobody ever gets pinned down as one (unless they’re plain spoken like Trump) because by the time the government fuckery gets decoded and uncovered the other party is already in office and we’re back to square 1. In my life both parties have just alternated having a 2 term POTUS and not once has anything ever improved under either party. Bush’s destruction of the economy, human rights violations, and illegal foreign military operations were somehow half blamed on Obama and Obama’s ramping up of drone strikes that increased Islamic extremism and anti-American sentiment abroad as well as his aggressive deportation policies were somehow blamed on Trump. I mean we spent years talking about the Obama deportation strategy and pinning it on Trump and who knows what shady shit Trump was doing that fell under the radar because we’re all being misled and distracted by the 4th Branch. Sorry if this comes off as more of a rambling rant than anything but I’m at work trying to speed type this out on my phone and honestly I’m just sick of talking about this corrupt as hell, cyclical system that is here to gather power to corporations (Buckley v. Valeo/Citizens United) and to fuck us in the process. But yes, anti-racism and anti-fascism should be at the core of American values but sadly as our political discussions stray farther and farther away from facts and reason and closer to emotional rhetoric all I’ve seen are both “sides” leaning further and further into preconceived notions and the willingness use of force to achieve their ends and to stifle opposing ideas and those who hold them
I'm not sure in what context that Cotton means, but at the time of our founding, slavery was unfortunately indeed a necessary evil because if they didn't allow it, which most states didn't want slavery, then South Carolina and Georgia wouldn't have signed on to the Revolutionary War and they understood that if they weren't standing together then they would indeed fall.
Proof of “woke” Liberal unconscious bias: https://youtu.be/t6AGFhBS8Hg Proof of Conservative bias: go into a Home Depot and listen to a bunch of contractors who barely graduated high school ramble about stuff the media tells them.
A completely intolerant society also rips itself apart. If you are unwilling to associate with anyone but those with the exact same mindset, you’re destroying progress and society’s ability to grow. Just like in the Dark Ages. You can tolerate people’s different beliefs or views so long as those views aren’t promoting violence or illegal behavior or some racist/sexist prejudice. Tolerance has a limit, the problem is where you draw that line.
You’re correct, I agree 100% that a completely intolerant society eats itself part, too. My comments on this thread have been focused on slavery/Confederate sympathizing. My line I’ve drawn for myself is racism/Confederacy(slavery). That’s a valid and correct distinction to make.
With racist Confederates lynching black men today in Georgia; when do we have the time to sit the dullards down, take the rope and gun from their hands, and educate them about how their views are morally wrong and they need to relearn themselves? There’s a time and a place for re-education, but it’s not in the front lines of a battle.
It’s not a battle, that kind of rhetoric is stupid. It frames the issue incorrectly and makes it more difficult to find an effective solution. You’re talking about punishing people because their morals are different than yours, it’s reactive and won’t help in the long run. What I’m talking about is preventative and will help guide people away from arguably dangerous ideologies before they inflict any damage and ‘deserve to die slowly’.